in my youth, I have spent a lot of time getting into political debates about different ideologies. And over the years, I have learned a few things which, had I only known them years ago, would have saved me a lot of time. I now wish to impart my wisdom onto you in the hopes that you can also redeem some of your time which would otherwise be spent squabbling about politics. And that wisdom is:
1) Most political debates are actual semantic debates. (e.g. calling Obama's tax plan socialist or calling Trump's immigration policy fascist will quickly lead into a discussion about what "socialism" or "fascism" really means.)
2) Political labels have no agreed upon definition.
3) Therefore, most political debates are a waste of time.
Remember this the next time you are tempted to get into a political debate on Twitter or Facebook. It will save you a lot of time and energy.
I actually realized a long time ago that most political debates were actually semantic debates.
For example, I remember once, over 20 years ago, when I was at a party and I got to a long political debate with someone about whether capitalism or socialism was the worse system, and we both attempted to use China to illustrate our point. I cited China as an example of the problems with capitalism, and he cited China as an example of the problems with communism, and then we realized we were having this big long debate, and we didn't even agree on our terms.
"China has privately controlled corporations," I said. "Of course it's capitalist."
"China is ruled by a one-party system," he countered. "Of course it's communist."
That's just one example that sticks out in my mind, but I've had countless experiences like this over the years--experiences where halfway through a big long political debate, I realized my opponent and I were simply talking past each other, because we had completely different ideas of what "capitalism" and "socialism" actually meant. I'm sure you've had countless experiences like this as well.
I should have learned a lesson from this, but I didn't. Like a lot of arrogant people, I just assumed that I knew exactly what these words meant, and everyone else was wrong. (I was a political science minor back in college, so I had the illusion that I knew this stuff.)
* "capitalism" refers to a recent economic development in human history, emerging in the 19th century, in which the economy is dominated by corporations, and the corporations are privately owned by stockholders. Anyone who used the term to simply refer to buying and selling was wrong.
* "socialism" refers to the workers controlling the factories (as opposed to the stockholders). Anyone who used the term to refer to high taxes or welfare programs was wrong. That's welfare capitalism, not socialism.
* "anarchism" refers to the anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement. (Of course that's not the literal definition of anarchism--the word literally means "no government"--but the literal meaning doesn't matter, because it's the historical use of the word that's more important). Anyone who attempted to use the literal definition of anarchism was wrong.
* "fascism" was authoritarianism from the right. Anyone who attempted to use it to describe the left (like Jonah Goldberg) was historically ignorant.
* "Nazism" was fascism plus racism. Anyone who used the terms interchangeably was being imprecise.
* "democracy" referred to a system of government in which the people voted on the laws directly, a la ancient Athens. Anyone who used the term "democracy" to refer to the United States was being imprecise. The United States is a republic.
So, you see, I thought I knew what I was talking about. But I was wrong, wrong wrong! The truth is that none of these words have any agreed upon meaning.
First of all, even among political scientists, there is widespread disagreement about what these words actually mean. But even if the experts could all agree, it still wouldn't matter. As any linguist can tell you, words don't actually mean what the dictionary says they mean. Words get their meaning from the way that they're used in real life. If enough ordinary people think that socialism means higher tax rates, then that is what the word means now--at least in one sense.
************************************************************
I have a memory or reading a linguistic textbook about 10 years ago, and coming across the section where the authors were discussing how words are paired with their meanings. And the authors said that most people don't really understand how unstable the nature of meaning often is. As an example, they mentioned how many people passionately talk about terms like "democracy" and "socialism" without ever realizing that there are no agreed upon definitions for these words.
And I remember looking up from the book and thinking to myself: "This linguistic textbook has just taught me more about politics than all the political science courses I ever took."
I really wish I still had that linguistic textbook with me now, because I would love to quote that passage out exactly. I think it was from An Introduction to Language by Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, Peter Collins, and David Blair*, but I've been searching the Internet for it, and I can't find that passage associated with that book anywhere.
What does turn up when I do a Google search for "linguistic textbook people talk about terms like democracy as if everyone agrees on the meaning" is Politics and the English Language by George Orwell. And I read Orwell's essays at about the same time (both books I read in 2014). So now I'm wondering if my memory has just gotten the two books mixed up? Or maybe both books touched on the same topic?
At any rate, Orwell says it eloquently, so I'm just going to quote him:
Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. (full essay here)
I Was Wrong
Let's get some mea culpas out of the way. Here are my apologies for every time I've tried to insist upon an exact definition for a political label
(...and no doubt I've made other posts over the past 20 years which I'm just not remembering.)
In each of these posts I was wrong for trying to insist that there was some sort of correct definition of the word which the general public was just not getting. Apologies to everyone.
Also, while recently listening to Revolutions Season 7: The Revolutions of 1848 by Mike Duncan, I've been learning about the history of socialism, and I've learned that historically the word had a very broad meaning. Historically, a "socialist" was just anyone who was concerned with "the social question"--that is, the question about what to do about the problems of poverty accompanying the industrial revolution. The means, methods and solutions that the early socialist thinkers advocated differed tremendously from each other, but if they were at all engaged in trying to solve the social question, then they were socialists.
For years I've been telling people: "Socialism means the workers control the means of production, and if you use that term to refer to anything else, you're wrong." But it turns out I was wrong. The term has a very broad history.
Note to Self: Always Remember This
Having achieved middle-age, I think I've largely lost the urge to endlessly debate politics. (Having long political discussions that stretch into the night is something you only do in your 20s, right?)
But, as the above list of links show, I can still get sucked into the temptation to try to define political terms. So I'm writing this post for myself as much as for anyone else.
But, as the above list of links show, I can still get sucked into the temptation to try to define political terms. So I'm writing this post for myself as much as for anyone else.
Always remember--political labels are meaningless. Don't get sucked into the trap of trying to define them. Don't try to debate them.
If you have to debate politics, talk about the effects of individual policies instead. Don't say "Obama's tax policies are socialist". Pretend the word "socialist" doesn't exist and then talk about why you don't like Obama's tax policies.
Similarly, don't talk about Trump's fascist policies. Just talk about why you believe Trump's policies will have bad effects.
And for god's sake, I'm begging you, don't get sucked into an argument about whether or not China or North Korea or anywhere else represents a genuine communist state.
Notes:
* In this 2016 post on Fascism, I attributed that quote to An Introduction to Language.
** In my mind at the time, I thought "mercantilism" meant an economy of exchanging goods for money--i.e. the system that pre-dated capitalism. But a trip over to Wikipedia indicates that I myself was misusing the term mercantilism.
No comments:
Post a Comment