I will only add that when I use the term “neoliberal” to refer to Obama’s political program, I do not intend to make a moral judgment about him as a person, that is not my job. I mean that his politics are neoliberal.

However, Bill Gates is an entrepreneur. I mean, he’s also a college dropout and may possibly be a quite capable golfer. So when I talk about him is the ultimatum that I say “Bill Gates, you know the entrepreneur-college dropout-golfer?” or that I call him nothing at all? Just Bill Gates? Billy?

The point is that just because someone calls Bill Gates an “entrepreneur” doesn’t mean that people are necessarily only acknowledging that aspect of the person’s life and denying the others. Labels are strictly relative to the subject’s role in the labeler’s life. We are simply acknowledging this “label” as a part of the person (or course in relation to our standards of that particular role).

So, speaking historically (referencing the historical trend of political parties and stances), Obama is a neoliberal. But if I’m a radical leftist, maybe I’d call him “conservative” or “lightly liberal”.

What’s wrong with well-informed labeling if they help us to facilitate and have conversations like these in more clearly defined terms?

re: your second point, generally I agree with what you are saying about labels but how would you describe Obama’s political agenda?

re: your last point, I don’t think marxism as an abstract concept can get us out of the mess we are in either. However, I do think that a principled movement firmly grounded in the working class that can challenge capitalism, imperialism, and all forms of oppression can.

who’s history and society? certainly there were societies in other parts of the world for which marx and his offspring had no understanding or knowledge of. are we talking basically about western concepts/thoughts and history?

in terms of my first comment to your piece, i do understand quite well what labels correspond to, however, I believe they limit and dehumanize…if i call someone a terrorist i dehumanize them and make it easy for others to not see the whole of their life…while the person may take certain actions to strike terror and fear in others to advance a cause/belief, it does not mean they lack care and love for others…i’m sure the brits viewed the founding fathers as terrorists…i know many saw the kkk as a terrorist organization (which it no doubt was), but when those men went home after a night of terrorizing and took off their masks they saw themselves as advancing a righteous cause and went on about the business of loving their respective families and communities…so labels to me are relative and limiting…and i prefer not to use them…if it means i have to use a lanudry list to make my point then so be it.

finally i am quite familiar with marxism…can’t say that i see it getting us out of the mess we are in

For instance, I call Obama neoliberal because he embraces a generally neoliberal framework as indicated by what he has done in practice. Sure, Obama is more than a neoliberal – he is also half African, a Christian (ostensibly), a man, and probably a lot of other things. But for the sake of brevity in summarizing his political agenda I use the term neoliberal.

I am a marxist because I embrace a marxist understanding of history and society and have spent the last 3 years of my life doing political organizing along those lines.

When I use such labels, I assume that the reader understands generally what that label corresponds to more broadly without having to go down a long laundry list.