I'm phoneposting and it's inconvenient to copy/paste the little parts I'm replying to, but I'll go in order at least, kind of.
I agree that the word communism is a boogeyman buzzword. It's lazy to say it has no meaning at all imo tho. Each such word has its core buzzword meaning even stripped down to its bone. For instance in another comment I said that democracy implies "votes are cast". These words get raped, but rape is le real and the taint is forever a part of the lexicon. If "votes are cast" were all you knew whatsoever about democracy you could still understand and blend into a huge % of the overall discussion about it.
I like to take my best stab at what a person means when they misuse a word, rather than argue the word itself. I draw a hard line at tranny stuff and maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but generally I don't want to argue definitions, I want to defend or attack some established or proposed idea. If you had the purity of mind (which I doubt I have personally) you could give me a corrected list of appropriate words and we could just start over with the same argument dressed in all the smoothest trappings.
I think using comparison to old ways of life to try and gatekeep the definition of modern day communism is some form of fallacy, but I can't name it so I won't be cocksure about it. For the sake of giving you an actual counterargument I will say my core rationale in saying so is that it does not scale effectively. I don't have any high and might logical support to whip out for that though. It just seems apparent looking at where/when/why/how that rationale has flourished and w/w/w/h it has failed and caused untold starvation death, for instance.
The same could be said for liberal capitalism (more raped buzzwords) and I'm not exactly trying to offer those concepts as the "solution"or "answer" to the ebil boogeyman of communism. I wanted to bitch because you, or someone, said real democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money, I am simply defending my bitching and I've not lost sight on that.
I reject how you view "the populace" there is no depoliticalization of the populace, the populace itself fills the spaces in between with its own natural order, which is inherently political. You can have politics engaged in through a lens of religion, of resource management, of merit, or of poop... but you will have it, one way or another.
I agree with your sentiment, that you don't prefer any system, but I don't trust you worth a damn there lol. I have my preferences too but my cope is that these things are determined first and foremost by nature on an astounding scale and that my preferences for x or y grand scale idea mean jack diddly. I believe we would both eat dirt if we got just a little bit of dark wish fulfillment.
Thanks for reading my needlessly long comment and turning it into a justifiably long reply. My vocabulary is failing me a bit here but I really appreciate that.
I think you are wrongly offended by my throwing a boogeyman word into the buzzword folder. If anything, that usage in the exact way you describe is what clinches its spot in buzzword HoF.
These ideas suffer the same problem as high scientific theory in that they can be carefully defined and nitpicked in the process of their conception/design, but cannot be practiced or tested in a very feasible way. Every test fails and there is never a lack of factors to explore as to why, and so, we never abandon the core theory being tested, we just add, remove, and edit items from it to try and conform the theory to reality.
Like having a favorite kid and favoring them even though they fail x thing again and again. "Maybe if we get him lessons, maybe if he has the right equipment, maybe if he has better motive, etc etc my kid won't fail"
I don't have to prose bluster to say it proper but I agree with most of what you have said about debate and what I'll dub our "womb memory" of liberal ideas. In my personal oet system, liberalism is thrown out the window and debate is replaced largely with force, just like any le evil communist. I started out, and still here maintain, that it is the economic freedom of average people that has resulted in the world's most successful state entities. We malign that chaotic world-computer-tier freedom with the buzzword "capitalism" just as we malign attempts and theories that pursue perfect order as "communism". But I will defend "capitalism" as the free market and drop it the second it is paired with the word "jew" or words that have too much to do with behaviors associated with them. The reason I will even superficially defend that buzzword is because free trade is a basic law of the land, just like gravity, and to try and stopper the flow of trades for any grand purpose is as foolish as trying to hold up rain.
Thinkers all have attachments to ideas that get tied into a buzzword. It is why buzzwordery exists. Basically for the purpose of interfering with debate and weakening the traditions of the liberal order those debates take place in. Buzzwords exist to "get you" by the collar of your understanding of an associated concept.
You said I want to ignore power and talk ideas. I am talking about power and the source of it. The source is not attitude. The source is not the world's most perfect understanding of the definition of the word Communism. It is work. The physical laws of the world have resulted in a system in which work is most efficiently harnessed. States that stray too far from that physically determined framework fail. Communism implies interference with that framework, and given most circumstances, circumstances that apply to the vast majority of people in this world, it fails due to that.
Originally, days ago now, I was bitching to you over "democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money". I stated, essentially, that democracy can only exist in a state with a healthy economic engine. I think this is as close as we'll get to "circling back to that". Power is an economic engine. This is what fails a failed communist state. This is what enables any degree or quality of "democracy" to exist. Money is behind every bullet, every state murder, every censored word, every powerful group, behind every path to more power, to more money, to more order. "This particular democracy is fake and corrupt" would be a better statement imo.
I'm phoneposting and it's inconvenient to copy/paste the little parts I'm replying to, but I'll go in order at least, kind of.
I agree that the word communism is a boogeyman buzzword. It's lazy to say it has no meaning at all imo tho. Each such word has its core buzzword meaning even stripped down to its bone. For instance in another comment I said that democracy implies "votes are cast". These words get raped, but rape is le real and the taint is forever a part of the lexicon. If "votes are cast" were all you knew whatsoever about democracy you could still understand and blend into a huge % of the overall discussion about it.
I like to take my best stab at what a person means when they misuse a word, rather than argue the word itself. I draw a hard line at tranny stuff and maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but generally I don't want to argue definitions, I want to defend or attack some established or proposed idea. If you had the purity of mind (which I doubt I have personally) you could give me a corrected list of appropriate words and we could just start over with the same argument dressed in all the smoothest trappings.
I think using comparison to old ways of life to try and gatekeep the definition of modern day communism is some form of fallacy, but I can't name it so I won't be cocksure about it. For the sake of giving you an actual counterargument I will say my core rationale in saying so is that it does not scale effectively. I don't have any high and might logical support to whip out for that though. It just seems apparent looking at where/when/why/how that rationale has flourished and w/w/w/h it has failed and caused untold starvation death, for instance.
The same could be said for liberal capitalism (more raped buzzwords) and I'm not exactly trying to offer those concepts as the "solution"or "answer" to the ebil boogeyman of communism. I wanted to bitch because you, or someone, said real democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money, I am simply defending my bitching and I've not lost sight on that.
I reject how you view "the populace" there is no depoliticalization of the populace, the populace itself fills the spaces in between with its own natural order, which is inherently political. You can have politics engaged in through a lens of religion, of resource management, of merit, or of poop... but you will have it, one way or another.
I agree with your sentiment, that you don't prefer any system, but I don't trust you worth a damn there lol. I have my preferences too but my cope is that these things are determined first and foremost by nature on an astounding scale and that my preferences for x or y grand scale idea mean jack diddly. I believe we would both eat dirt if we got just a little bit of dark wish fulfillment.
Thanks for reading my needlessly long comment and turning it into a justifiably long reply. My vocabulary is failing me a bit here but I really appreciate that.
I don't have it in me right now but I hen at you soon lol
I think you are wrongly offended by my throwing a boogeyman word into the buzzword folder. If anything, that usage in the exact way you describe is what clinches its spot in buzzword HoF.
These ideas suffer the same problem as high scientific theory in that they can be carefully defined and nitpicked in the process of their conception/design, but cannot be practiced or tested in a very feasible way. Every test fails and there is never a lack of factors to explore as to why, and so, we never abandon the core theory being tested, we just add, remove, and edit items from it to try and conform the theory to reality.
Like having a favorite kid and favoring them even though they fail x thing again and again. "Maybe if we get him lessons, maybe if he has the right equipment, maybe if he has better motive, etc etc my kid won't fail"
I don't have to prose bluster to say it proper but I agree with most of what you have said about debate and what I'll dub our "womb memory" of liberal ideas. In my personal oet system, liberalism is thrown out the window and debate is replaced largely with force, just like any le evil communist. I started out, and still here maintain, that it is the economic freedom of average people that has resulted in the world's most successful state entities. We malign that chaotic world-computer-tier freedom with the buzzword "capitalism" just as we malign attempts and theories that pursue perfect order as "communism". But I will defend "capitalism" as the free market and drop it the second it is paired with the word "jew" or words that have too much to do with behaviors associated with them. The reason I will even superficially defend that buzzword is because free trade is a basic law of the land, just like gravity, and to try and stopper the flow of trades for any grand purpose is as foolish as trying to hold up rain.
Thinkers all have attachments to ideas that get tied into a buzzword. It is why buzzwordery exists. Basically for the purpose of interfering with debate and weakening the traditions of the liberal order those debates take place in. Buzzwords exist to "get you" by the collar of your understanding of an associated concept.
You said I want to ignore power and talk ideas. I am talking about power and the source of it. The source is not attitude. The source is not the world's most perfect understanding of the definition of the word Communism. It is work. The physical laws of the world have resulted in a system in which work is most efficiently harnessed. States that stray too far from that physically determined framework fail. Communism implies interference with that framework, and given most circumstances, circumstances that apply to the vast majority of people in this world, it fails due to that.
Originally, days ago now, I was bitching to you over "democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money". I stated, essentially, that democracy can only exist in a state with a healthy economic engine. I think this is as close as we'll get to "circling back to that". Power is an economic engine. This is what fails a failed communist state. This is what enables any degree or quality of "democracy" to exist. Money is behind every bullet, every state murder, every censored word, every powerful group, behind every path to more power, to more money, to more order. "This particular democracy is fake and corrupt" would be a better statement imo.