Unfair stifling of debate in the Political Theory forum

Usually claims like that (associating the minimum wage with the labor theory of value and Marxism, and other claims just generally associating something with Marxism) are just asserted and, as I explained in my previous post, people challenged to refute that, rather than the burden of proof being on the person making the claim.

If it can be shown that a particular policy, and all motivations in favour of it, are inextricably based on (not just linked historically or some such) to Marxism, then it's fair enough there to apply that label; however, it's far preferable when specific criticisms (like the flawed labor theory of value) are given, not just the link to Marxism (which btw, such labeling I don't recall from you as much as other posters).

I get the impression that, with the minimum wage, the link to the labor theory of value is based on historical or motivationally dependent arguments (i.e. whether or not it links to the labor theory depends on why you support the minimum wage); all of a persons motivations for the minimum wage need to be linked to Marxism, or LTV, in order to make that association, otherwise they are being shoehorned into a position of support of LTV/Marxism when they do not support it.

There are a few issues here.

First, from a moderation perspective, pegging theories to people who have explicitly said that they do not consider those theories applicable to their beliefs is inflammatory: other posters are rightly annoyed by this practice. So it needs to stop.

Second, and more specifically, reducing any vaguely left-wing political beliefs to Marxism is not only annoying, it is intellectually lazy. I can think of at least three other reasons why someone would support the minimum wage beyond Das Kapital: someone's Christian beliefs may lead them to support a more equitable society (which in the modern era, is institutionalized through the welfare state), a utilitarian may see it as socially optimal, and a Rawlsian may see it as socially just (ironically, Rawls is a classical liberal!). There is a whole body of theory which does not use rationality as a starting point or as the sole basis of human action - you even acknowledge this in the thread on ideology! - and instead is based on emotion and social norms. Whether one chooses to accept this starting assumption is an individual decision, and one that is perfectly legitimate; it only becomes a problem when those who do not share the 'rational' approach to politics are all cast into the same Marxist bucket.

Finally, I do not see where telling you not to put theory in other peoples' mouths in any way contravenes the charter. The thread in question, 'Ideology vs. Free Thought', started off as a discussion of the extent to which people use political ideology as a guide, and how claims in the negative might be a form of ideology in and of itself. You brought up Popper, and Black Swan quoted Weber - which were totally appropriate references, as the central question of the thread was essentially about the sociology of knowledge and the cognitive process. So I fail to see how the discussion of theory was stifled in any way by my requesting, again, that you not make assumptions about other people.

Frankly I find this whole exchange extremely frustrating - I don't see how the Political Theory forum can be a place for a more rational discussion of politics and ideas when an entire universe of ideas are all reduced to Marx, and then summarily dismissed. This both stifles discussion and inflames other posters. You can certainly bring up what Marx or Hegel or Rawls or whoever else had to say about a certain phenomena, but it is not up to you or any other poster to tell other posters what they are thinking - this is something that they can tease out for themselves, especially if people are willing to actually have a discussion about theory beyond the Libertarian-Marx axis. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but given that the whole ideology thread was pulled out of a longer thread on reading recommendations, I think that there are plenty of people in this forum who are open to being directed to different theorists - but that is a long cry from simply being told that the way they think about the distribution of wealth is society is reducible to Marxism. While the former can lead to further discussion, and perhaps even be an opportunity for learning, the latter is both wrong-headed from a theoretical perspective, and a headache from a moderation perspective.