Vague, Ill-Defined, or Loaded Terms in Discussions

[Revoltingest]

And no the truth or the science or all of those claims to some sort of in effect unity.

That post doesn't even exist.
Neither does this one.

So this isn't the post you're looking for.
It can go about its business.
Move along.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That post doesn't even exist.
Neither does this one.

Sure, if that helps you cope then what ever you have to do, you do that. As long as you don't try to deny the objective parts of the everyday world, then all the power to you. Go for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, if that helps you cope then what ever you have to do, you do that. As long as you don't try to deny the objective parts of the everyday world, then all the power to you. Go for it.

Objectively there is no objectivity.

 

[Stevicus]

You really like your feelings. So do I. We just do them differently.

Well, then, here ya go:

 

[Debater Slayer]

Now "communism" allows private ownership of personal
property & even the means of production.

Marx himself had no desire to abolish private property. He only wanted the means of production to be publicly owned.

Even the Communist Party USA has this on its website:

The phrase from Marx that you cite has been twisted and misinterpreted to serve the ends of the ruling class. The private property that Marx is talking about is private ownership of things like factories, banks, and railroads, which allow their owners to make money from the work of other people. He has (and we have) no problem with working people accumulating the sort of stuff needed for a comfortable life. In fact, making life better for working people is what we're all about. As Marx says, under capitalism, "private property has already been abolished for nine-tenths of the population." In other words, as long as the economy is run by a few wealthy people in their own interest, the working class won't be able to achieve prosperity.

Abolition of private property?

As long as the economy is run by a few wealthy people in their own interest, the working class won't be able to achieve prosperity. Abolition of private property means stripping billionaire investors of the ability to get rich from our labor (and taking away their political power, as well).

www.cpusa.org

 

[Revoltingest]

Marx himself had no desire to abolish private property. He only wanted the means of production to be publicly owned.

Marx would be rolling over in his grave
if he read a modern dictionary's entry
for "communism".

Even the Communist Party USA has this on its website:

Abolition of private property?

As long as the economy is run by a few wealthy people in their own interest, the working class won't be able to achieve prosperity. Abolition of private property means stripping billionaire investors of the ability to get rich from our labor (and taking away their political power, as well).

www.cpusa.org

You're reinforcing my post.
Was that intentional?

BTW, whatever Marx said or intended so long long ago,
he has no hold over the evolution of language. He might
be able to claim ownership of his eponymous term, but
not "socialism" or "communism". Language is a wild
beast, & cannot be fully tamed.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Marx would be rolling over in his grave
if he read a modern dictionary's entry
for "communism".

Considering that his own writings have diverged into numerous differing political and socioeconomic ideologies (and the fact that even Engels disagreed with him on some issues), I doubt one dictionary definition would be surprising.

You're reinforcing my post.
Was that intentional?

I'm pointing out that your post is based on a historical inaccuracy (i.e., the assumption that Marxist communism aimed to abolish private property). This doesn't reinforce it but rather demonstrates why it's based on an incorrect assumption.

 

[Stevicus]

Example...
Now "communism" allows private ownership of personal
property & even the means of production. It's no different
from "socialism" & "capitalism" except for connotations
& inferences, both of which vary with each speaker & each
listener.
To simplify the necessary qualifiers to describe what kind
of socialism & communism I usually address, I simply call
them "anti-capitalism". This handles the post dictionary
age....so far.
There are complexities that might rear their ugly heads,
but I'll try to avoid jumping that gun.

Generally, when terms are used as labels - not just when people label themselves, but also when labeled by others who tend to view certain terms as pejoratives, then the definitions of the labels can be perceived (or misperceived) due to observations of how and when they're applied.

And that's how dictionary definitions themselves are formulated and often updated, depending on real world observations of their usage.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm pointing out that your post is based on a historical inaccuracy (i.e., the assumption that Marxist communism aimed to abolish private property). This doesn't reinforce it but rather demonstrates why it's based on an incorrect assumption.

I now point out that your post is based upon a mistaken inference.
I've addressed "socialism" & "communism", not Marxism which is
an archaic & baggage laden can of worms I won't open because
its fans will digress into a morass of arcane quibbling.

I'm surprised that RF's censor allows "morass".

 

[Debater Slayer]

I now point out that your post is based upon a mistaken inference.
I've addressed "socialism" & "communism", not Marxism which is
an archaic & baggage laden can of worms I won't open.

Marx is the grandfather of communist thought within and beyond the 19th century, and as I said, he had no desire to abolish personal property.

How much have you studied communist thought? This is not a sarcastic question; I'm curious because you keep making generic statements about communism and socialism that a lot of people, especially non-Americans, can easily identify as either inaccurate or oversimplified.

 

[Revoltingest]

Generally, when terms are used as labels - not just when people label themselves, but also when labeled by others who tend to view certain terms as pejoratives, then the definitions of the labels can be perceived (or misperceived) due to observations of how and when they're applied.

And that's how dictionary definitions themselves are formulated and often updated, depending on real world observations of their usage.

I now identify as a "socialist", not just because most here
say that it includes capitalism, but because it stirs the pot,
ie, liberals wonder WTF I'm doing becoming one of them,
& conservatives will bristle, & want to converse about
economics with me (for a change).

 

[Revoltingest]

Marx is the grandfather of communist thought within and beyond the 19th century, and as I said, he had no desire to abolish personal property.

Grandfathers don't get to dictate what their progeny will do.
What he once said is merely an historical footnote. Things
have moved beyond his original rocking of the boat.

How much have you studied communist thought? This is not a sarcastic question; I'm curious because you keep making generic statements about communism and socialism that a lot of people, especially non-Americans, can easily identify as either inaccurate or oversimplified.

I've been conversing with communists since before you
were even a gleam in your pappy's eye. I treat communism
the same as I treat the various religions, ie, I don't read
their origin scripture...I listen to what they say, & observe
what they do. That is what defines groups in the most
useful way.
I'm sure you agree that talking the talk usually differs
from walking the walk.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Grandfathers don't get to dictate what their progeny will do.
What he once said is merely a historical footnote. Things
have moved beyond his original rocking of the boat.

So you acknowledge that there's diversity within communist thought. That's good to know.

... and one aspect of that diversity is the fact that many communists don't believe in abolition of personal property, an authoritarian state, or forcible imposition of communism on the state.

I've been conversing with communists since before you
were even a gleam in your pappy's eye. I treat communism
the same as I treat the various religions, ie, I don't read
their origin scripture...I listen to what they say, & observe
what they do. That is what defines groups.
I'm sure you agree that talking the talk usually differs
from walking the walk.

I didn't ask whether you conversed with communists; I asked how much of communist thought you had studied—such as delineated in books and academic essays.

What communists say and do is bound to be as diverse as the group themselves are. They're not a hive mind or a monolith.

 

[Revoltingest]

Generally, when terms are used as labels - not just when people label themselves, but also when labeled by others who tend to view certain terms as pejoratives, then the definitions of the labels can be perceived (or misperceived) due to observations of how and when they're applied.

And that's how dictionary definitions themselves are formulated and often updated, depending on real world observations of their usage.

I still trust the extensive work of lexicographers over internet gadflies.

 

[Stevicus]

I now identify as a "socialist", not just because most here
say that it includes capitalism, but because it stirs the pot,
ie, liberals wonder WTF I'm doing becoming one of them,
& conservatives will bristle, & want to converse about
economics with me (for a change).

I don't think the labels really matter that much, at least as far as defining the whole person. I think it largely comes from a desire to categorize and organize people into tight little boxes - "right/left," "liberal/conservative," "socialist/capitalist," etc.

Of course, from the standpoint of those whose political views align more with the flag-waving, Bible-thumping, Trump-loving, evangelistic far-right crowd, they might see some libertarian atheist capitalists as just as bad as the socialists.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you acknowledge that there's diversity within communist thought. That's good to know.

I recognize that the label is so broadly used as to have little meaning.

... and one aspect of that diversity is the fact that many communists don't believe in abolition of personal property, an authoritarian state, or forcible imposition of communism on the state.

Of course, they're essentially capitalists who favor constitutional democracy....like me.
But don't worry, I won't start identifying as a commie.
Too soon.

I didn't ask whether you conversed with communists; I asked how much of communist thought you had studied—such as delineated in books and academic essays.

And I answered you fully.
I don't study origin scripture, eg, Marx.

What communists say and do is bound to be as diverse as the group themselves are. They're not a hive mind or a monolith.

The broad usage raises the question....
Just who is not a communist these days?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I still trust the extensive work of lexicographers over internet gadflies.

Internet gadflies such as the founder of modern communism himself and the Communist Party of the US!

I suspect this kind of oversimplification is part of why Cold War-era mantras about "evil commies" and "evil socialists" may be increasingly getting left behind except among older generations.

 

[Stevicus]

I still trust the extensive work of lexicographers over internet gadflies.

I think the internet makes the work of lexicographers easier. Soon, we'll be having dictionaries written by AI. Doubleplusgood.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I recognize that the label is so broadly used as to have little meaning.

It works just fine for most who use it. On the other hand, trying to limit it to a brief definition that's easier to attack is bound to produce little meaning and a lot of loaded arguments.

Of course, they're essentially capitalists who favor constitutional democracy....like me.
But don't worry, I won't start identifying as a commie.
Too soon.

Hey, if calling them "capitalists who favor constitutional democracy" results in fewer overgeneralizations about them, I don't mind it much.

And I answered you fully.
I don't study origin scripture, eg, Marx.

That leaves dozens of other communist thinkers whose works are spread out over more than a century. Did you study any?

The broad usage raises the question....
Just who is not a communist these days?

Most people aren't. You can easily answer this if you look into the details of at least a few different communist schools of thought beyond a surface-level statement like "they all want to abolish private property."

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think the labels really matter that much....

....Not to you, but for those of us who discuss
things more, it would be useful if the labels
had more specific meanings. That would serve
efficiency of communication.

I think it largely comes from a desire to categorize and organize people into tight little boxes - "right/left," "liberal/conservative," "socialist/capitalist," etc.

Boxes needn't be "tight".
Most people know that boxes are leaky, ie, they're an approximate
description of a tribe that allows some diversity. Labels describe
a preponderance rather than total agreement.

Of course, from the standpoint of those whose political views align more with the flag-waving, Bible-thumping, Trump-loving, evangelistic far-right crowd, they might see some libertarian atheist capitalists as just as bad as the socialists.

This libertarian atheist capitalist actually sees more hostility
from liberals than conservatives. But that's cuz I deal with
liberals more. Libertarianism & capitalism really raise their
hackles, especially the "L" word, which makes makes teeth
gnash. Religious conservatives generally give me no grief
about being atheistic.