To be a bit contrarian though... there is a useful aspect associated with using labels, even in political/economic discussions, in a way that is similar to ascribing names to things called "design patterns" so that one can communicate concepts more tersely.
If done in good faith, I think it's legitimate to start with approximate labels, like "libertarian", and the arguing parties can then proceed to make their position clearer if necessary. Hopefully, this saves time.
Also, I think it's fair to describe someone that believes in the importance of "workers should own the means of production" as a marxist (at least it's more accurate than socialist or communist).
If done in good faith is the key though. I'm complaining because I've seen too many discussions derailed by people assigning labels to each other and then calling it a day. The argument goes like this: "you said that, it sounds like what Marx would say, and Marx was wrong in something completely unrelated, so therefore you're wrong too". It's a trap people too often fall into.
If done in good faith, I think it's legitimate to start with approximate labels, like "libertarian", and the arguing parties can then proceed to make their position clearer if necessary. Hopefully, this saves time.
Also, I think it's fair to describe someone that believes in the importance of "workers should own the means of production" as a marxist (at least it's more accurate than socialist or communist).