I'm often asked why rigid commitment to political language matters. If in saying “socialism” ppl mean “liberalism with high taxation” why not accept the new definition? But turn that question around. Why, given its deadly history, is the socialist not disenamored of the word?
-
-
But surely you see that this fight is much larger than language - it's about ideas that existed long before the English definitions were created and they will exist in the future in whatever lingua franca we evolve to. All your arguments still hold w/o rigid commitment to words
-
i agree language is not enough. in the piece i also make the logical and moral cases. cerberus has three heads :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.