Word play

[Time Warner]

I think word play is the biggest barrier of political and philosophical discussions. We get caught up on "terms" and "labels" and never understand the substance of one's argument. Pick a random label - 'left wing'. What does that even mean. There are countless groups claiming different things. Self proclaimed leftest do not agree on what it means nor do opponents of the left. Radically different some definitions can be. We all know this but we do not think about it enough. So what definition of the word should someone go by? Should we choose democratically - whatever the consensus defines it as? Historically - the first time the term was used, or what about the most notable usage? There is no right answer. This in my opinion is a Key to enlightenment.

Capitalism? Does it mean voluntary trade? Or does it mean putting profits over people? What if someone likes voluntary trade and doesn't like putting profits over people. Is that person a capitalist? What about the person (politician?) who likes putting profits over people but does not like voluntary trade? Is that person a capitalist? Now we have two completely opposite views unbrella'd under the same term. Now imagine mixing in 5, 10, 30 different views of what capitalism means. Or thirty views of socialism for that matter. It becomes convoluted wordplay non-sense and a huge waste of time. Of course, to the person using the words, they are being used in proper usage. And same goes for the foe responding. But there is no one correct meaning to these labels. So we begun having artificial dialog with people who think differently. Some people even make an effort to use these ill-defined words to trigger emotional responses in others. Instead of having substance we trigger people, pretty much on command, by bashing or praising vague and subjective terms like "feminism, or right wing, etc..."

What needs to make a come back is substance. These abstract terms are inconstantly defined and to me, it makes intelligible conversations impossible on most sites and campuses so I remain an outcast when asked about these subjects. Ideally, we would discuss details of subject rather than stumbling over and over again on nuances like a bunch of chickens running around with our heads chopped off.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Words have meaning. The meaning is determined by how the words are used - in most situations, this means the most common usage. In certain situations, another usage is intended, but this is usually clear from the context (in the cheese section of the supermarket, a quark is not a particle with fractional electric charge).

I don't think semantic disagreements are as common as some people imply. More often you just have people being sad/mad because people told them the ideal system they want is in fact an impossible variety of capitalism. Or people trying to weasel their way out of a tight spot in an argument.

And good grief, capitalism is not "putting profits over people". And we want to abolish all trade, including "voluntary" trade (nothing says "voluntary" like having to sell your labour-power to eat).

[Monkeyboy]

You seem to refer to the philsopher Wittgenstein but I think you actually mean generalisation in words.

[Subversive]

I think word play is the biggest barrier of political and philosophical discussions. We get caught up on "terms" and "labels" and never understand the substance of one's argument. Pick a random label - 'left wing'. What does that even mean. There are countless groups claiming different things. Self proclaimed leftest do not agree on what it means nor do opponents of the left. Radically different some definitions can be. We all know this but we do not think about it enough. So what definition of the word should someone go by? Should we choose democratically - whatever the consensus defines it as? Historically - the first time the term was used, or what about the most notable usage? There is no right answer. This in my opinion is a Key to enlightenment.

It is an interesting point, and there is an even more interesting perspective to this.

Capitalists actually traditionally use Word Play as one of their main means of preventing disruptive movements from gaining any ground. Most particularly this has become extremely prevalent in the US.
They use an excessive amount of jargon within their governments. Things like 'pork barrel spending', "gerrymandering", and 'earmark'.

Not only that, but they intentionally exploit pre-defined terminology, concepts they don't like, and twist them into meaningless words. They have twisted the concept of "Socialism" and "Socialist" to mean literally any form of non-far-right politics, not only that, but also associated to stupidity and ignorance in politics. Someone acts stupid, regardless of political ties? 'OH, he's a Socialist!'
The concept of "Communism" now means, to the people, an oppressive, totalitarian, evil dictatorship led by people who are corrupt, evil, and desire only power and world domination.

Those are pretty far off from their real definitions. But it's certainly more than enough for most people to stay away from them, since

How do they do this? Propaganda.
You use a term enough times over many many years in reference to something entirely different than its original meaning and people will learn this new meaning rather than the old one, especially when the propaganda is more prolific than the actual definition.

This is why the term 'Socialism' is now meaningless to most people, why the term 'Communism' is somehow thought to be synonymous with 'evil regime', and why the terms 'Socialist' and 'Communist' are now derogatory terms.
All because of politicians and their Word Play.

Capitalism? Does it mean voluntary trade? Or does it mean putting profits over people?

To Marxists, 'Capitalism' is a society with a Capitalist mode of production.
A Capitalistic mode of production is one in which the means of production is privately owned by the ruling class. This means there is inherent exploitation in the system.

To everyone else, 'Capitalism' means "the greatest society ever", obviously. The hero 'Capitalism' defeats the big, old bully 'Communism' and always saves the day, remember?

It has nothing to do with "voluntary trade" to anyone. Trade is just trade, it always has been and always will be.

Now we have two completely opposite views unbrella'd under the same term.

Easy fix: Just shoot the person with the wrong definition. Problem resolved!

But there is no one correct meaning to these labels.

Yes, actually there is. You are incorrect.

Socialism is a specific type of society wherein the means of production is socially owned. It has nothing to do with left-leaning Capitalist politics or stupidity of any kind. Anyone who uses it otherwise is an outright moron, a liar, or a politician (all politicians are both morons and liars therefore they require a third category).

Communism has nothing to do with evil dictatorships, totalitarian rule, or whatever other nonsense that has been tacked on.
It is defined as a classless, Stateless, and moneyless society. Its prerequisite phase is Socialism, so it also requires that the means of production be socially owned.

These two words have 'correct' meanings that have been intentionally mutilated by stupidity over time.

Some people even make an effort to use these ill-defined words to trigger emotional responses in others.

The very nature of being a politician!

Instead of having substance we trigger people, pretty much on command, by bashing or praising vague and subjective terms like "feminism, or right wing, etc..."

Feminism is certainly not a "subjective" term, either. It has an explicit meaning, as well.
It is the advocacy of women's equality. It encompasses a large category and variety of things but in no way is it really 'subjective'. It has a pretty clear definition.

Right/Left wing is indeed vague nonsense, though. Always has been.

I
What needs to make a come back is substance.

You could help by not stating that words have no correct meanings and by learning the correct definitions of some of these words. It would help.

I
These abstract terms are inconstantly defined and to me, it makes intelligible conversations impossible on most sites and campuses so I remain an outcast when asked about these subjects.

Protip: Learn the 'true definitions' of these words and then ask these sorts of people what their definition is. When they give you the wrong one tell them the correct one and that their misuse of terminology is misleading, incorrect, and allows you no acceptable response.

That resolves all of those sorts of semantic discussions and gets to the "substance". Assuming the person has any substance behind their ignorance of terminology.

I
Ideally, we would discuss details of subject rather than stumbling over and over again on nuances like a bunch of chickens running around with our heads chopped off.

I don't know about you, but my head is just fine.

[Time Warner]

Feminism is certainly not a "subjective" term, either. It has an explicit meaning, as well.
It is the advocacy of women's equality. It encompasses a large category and variety of things but in no way is it really 'subjective'. It has a pretty clear definition.

Well wait one second. Feminism is not clear at all. Amoungst self-identified feminists, they have many different views from micro details to the big picture. Some are into embracing femininity and I know a few who even like masculinity, others actually want to remove gender roles entirely. If you ask 20 feminists what feminism is, you will get 20 different answers. Go on 20 websites and you will get the same. There are different branches and types of feminism, but those are not consistent either according to those who claim it.

We are back to the same old question, is feminism defined democratically? What our favorite site says? The oldest usage of the word? There is no answer. When someone says that they are a feminist, the only thing that they are saying is that they are into gender issues. Other than that, anything is really on the table. You may be a feminist, and to you, your view is the correct one, but feminism does not mean the same thing as it does to you, as it does to every other person who identifies themselves as one. This is simply the way it is.

[Time Warner]

Words have meaning. The meaning is determined by how the words are used - in most situations, this means the most common usage. In certain situations, another usage is intended, but this is usually clear from the context (in the cheese section of the supermarket, a quark is not a particle with fractional electric charge).

I don't think semantic disagreements are as common as some people imply. More often you just have people being sad/mad because people told them the ideal system they want is in fact an impossible variety of capitalism. Or people trying to weasel their way out of a tight spot in an argument.

And good grief, capitalism is not "putting profits over people". And we want to abolish all trade, including "voluntary" trade (nothing says "voluntary" like having to sell your labour-power to eat).

Well you have to labor in a communist society to eat as well. Food doesn't grow itself, nor does it ship itself or cook itself.

An example of voluntary trade is if one person made a deal with another that he would fix his car if the other guy helps build his deck. That is a voluntary trade. No one is forcing either party to do anything, they mutually agree to work with each other for mutual benefit. That's is capitalism to many.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well wait one second. Feminism is not clear at all. Amoungst self-identified feminists, they have many different views from micro details to the big picture.

People self-identify as a lot of things. That doesn't mean they are what they self-identify at. Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, for example. People on tumblr who wear face paint and take photos of themselves eating fried chicken are not black.

And some of the self-proclaimed feminists, really, aren't. Which is not to say there is some sort unanimity within feminist circles. But feminism means something - it means locating the source of women's oppression outside the class society, theories about 'patriarchy' and so on. Dworkin is a feminist. Lenin wasn't. Feminism is more than "being interested in gender issues".

Well you have to labor in a communist society to eat as well. Food doesn't grow itself, nor does it ship itself or cook itself.

Which is besides the point. No one in the socialist society would be forced to work, for one thing, and second, no one would be forced to sell their labour-power because the market, selling and buying would not exist.

An example of voluntary trade is if one person made a deal with another that he would fix his car if the other guy helps build his deck. That is a voluntary trade. No one is forcing either party to do anything, they mutually agree to work with each other for mutual benefit. That's is capitalism to many.

Capitalism is generalised commodity production based on wage labour and private ownership of the means of production. Not every market system is capitalism; there is, for example, petty commodity production. But, again, that's besides the point. We want to abolish the market, period. That means every instance of buying or selling. If you think we're going to be converted to some sort of watered-down Randism because you stuck the vague word "voluntary" in there, you must think we're all mewling idiots. Again, socialists aim to abolish all market transactions, even if they are "voluntary".

[Time Warner]

People self-identify as a lot of things. That doesn't mean they are what they self-identify at. Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, for example. People on tumblr who wear face paint and take photos of themselves eating fried chicken are not black.

And some of the self-proclaimed feminists, really, aren't. Which is not to say there is some sort unanimity within feminist circles. But feminism means something - it means locating the source of women's oppression outside the class society, theories about 'patriarchy' and so on. Dworkin is a feminist. Lenin wasn't. Feminism is more than "being interested in gender issues".



Which is besides the point. No one in the socialist society would be forced to work, for one thing, and second, no one would be forced to sell their labour-power because the market, selling and buying would not exist.



Capitalism is generalised commodity production based on wage labour and private ownership of the means of production. Not every market system is capitalism; there is, for example, petty commodity production. But, again, that's besides the point. We want to abolish the market, period. That means every instance of buying or selling. If you think we're going to be converted to some sort of watered-down Randism because you stuck the vague word "voluntary" in there, you must think we're all mewling idiots. Again, socialists aim to abolish all market transactions, even if they are "voluntary".

What makes your definition of feminism more valid than anyone else's? You acknowledge that people who consider themselves feminist have different views of what it is.

And is this situation something that you are opposed to: A black belt martial artist trains a chiropractor in exchange his/her services? They are making a conscious trade, service for service. No material is involved. Is that something that you would want to eliminate?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What makes your definition of feminism more valid than anyone else's? You acknowledge that people who consider themselves feminist have different views of what it is.

It's not "my definition". I didn't invent feminism. It's how the term is used in serious political discussion. And again, people consider themselves to be all sorts of things. A lot of young women considered themselves to be the grand duchess Anastasia Romanov. That doesn't mean that the grand duchess wasn't a corpse at that point.

And is this situation something that you are opposed to: A black belt martial artist trains a chiropractor in exchange his/her services? They are making a conscious trade, service for service. No material is involved. Is that something that you would want to eliminate?

Yes, it is.

[Time Warner]

It's not "my definition". I didn't invent feminism. It's how the term is used in serious political discussion. And again, people consider themselves to be all sorts of things. A lot of young women considered themselves to be the grand duchess Anastasia Romanov. That doesn't mean that the grand duchess wasn't a corpse at that point.



Yes, it is.

But there are several definitions of feminism....

Anyhow, why would you try to stop a black belt from teaching a chiropractor and vicaversa? Is such a trade violent? Would you arrest or harm these people to stop them?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But there are several definitions of feminism....

I'm not talking about definitions. Definitions are fairly useless things. I'm talking about how the word is used. Dworkin is a feminist. Redstockings were feminists. So was Clara Fraser. Lenin wasn't. Our dear comrade Jim Robertson isn't. Zetkin wasn't.

Anyhow, why would you try to stop a black belt from teaching a chiropractor and vicaversa? Is such a trade violent? Would you arrest or harm these people to stop them?

Who cares if it's violent? Again, you're projecting the right-"libertarian" obsession with open violence (that can't be subsumed into the ruling class idea of "justice") onto everyone else. You know what's violent? Capitalism. It's violent to us and we, in turn, are going to be violent to it.

Abolishing the market means constructing a society where no one would think about trading favours, as all services are freely accessible.

[Time Warner]

I'm not talking about definitions. Definitions are fairly useless things. I'm talking about how the word is used. Dworkin is a feminist. Redstockings were feminists. So was Clara Fraser. Lenin wasn't. Our dear comrade Jim Robertson isn't. Zetkin wasn't.



Who cares if it's violent? Again, you're projecting the right-"libertarian" obsession with open violence (that can't be subsumed into the ruling class idea of "justice") onto everyone else. You know what's violent? Capitalism. It's violent to us and we, in turn, are going to be violent to it.

Abolishing the market means constructing a society where no one would think about trading favours, as all services are freely accessible.

So you would be violent towards the blackbelt and the chiropractor? Interesting...

[Time Warner]

I have more questions Xhar-Xhar Binks.

If a black belt will only train people who he/she wants, who is going to force that person into training everybody?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I have more questions Xhar-Xhar Binks.

If a black belt will only train people who he/she wants, who is going to force that person into training everybody?

Again, you're missing the point. No one would care, as all services, including martial arts training, would be freely available to anyone. If "a black belt" doesn't want to train everyone who is interested, fine. They can get out of the gym, then.

[Time Warner]

Again, you're missing the point. No one would care, as all services, including martial arts training, would be freely available to anyone. If "a black belt" doesn't want to train everyone who is interested, fine. They can get out of the gym, then.

You don't need a gym to train someone. How do you stop the black belt from training people? Arrest?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You don't need a gym to train someone. How do you stop the black belt from training people? Arrest?

We send in the black helicopters to take them away to a FEMA death camp.

Once again, you're (likely deliberately) missing the point. No one would care about one weirdo with a black belt, although if he's not going to train everyone who wants to be trained, then he can probably expect no support from the society in terms of space etc.

Martial arts training would be freely accessible to anyone. Trying to trade martial arts training for anything would be like trying to trade air.

[#FF0000]

No one on earth is saying "nope you can't impart information you have to someone else".

EDIT:

Yes, it is.

Oh wait.

I see what Xhar-Xhar is saying -- there's no reason that anyone would need to trade service for service in a communist society. There are people who enjoy martial arts and enjoy training people who would do it if they could make a living out of it -- but don't because they can't. Since Communism aims to create material abundance and abolish actual human labor as far as necessary, there'd be no reason for someone to say "I'll only train you in exchange for...". Sure, two people might just say, off hand, "oh teach me this and I'll tell you about this" but that's hardly meaningful economic activity in a world where information and goods are available freely and in abundance.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I see what Xhar-Xhar is saying -- there's no reason that anyone would need to trade service for service in a communist society. There are people who enjoy martial arts and enjoy training people who would do it if they could make a living out of it -- but don't because they can't. Since Communism aims to create material abundance and abolish actual human labor as far as necessary, there'd be no reason for someone to say "I'll only train you in exchange for...". Sure, two people might just say, off hand, "oh teach me this and I'll tell you about this" but that's hardly meaningful economic activity in a world where information and goods are available freely and in abundance.

It's not just that there would be no reason, it wouldn't make sense. People don't trade favour for air, for example, because anyone can have all the air they need. The same would go for products and services in a communist society. Why would I trade for a banana when I can have all the bananas I want just by being a member of society?

But yes, that is a more detailed explanation of what I was saying, really. I have to admit "voluntary exchange" has me reaching for the Sten.

Also, I'm not sure communism aims to abolish human labour as far as is possible. Work, of course, that will be abolished. But I don't think communism = automation. Although automation will happen under communism, of course.

[#FF0000]

if robots aren't mixing my drinks for me on the People's Yacht then it isn't my revolution

[Time Warner]

Communism isn't going to abolish human labor. Technology will.