I think these words specifically have a peculiar and related nature to each other. I feel I have studied them fairly intensively and with a special nuance derived from the works Ideal Money. I don't mean to shun anyone's specific definitions for these words. I welcome their presentation so we can compare the differing disambiguations.

I was at a stag recently and I mentioned I favor capitalism (ie as opposed to socialism whatever these words might mean to me) and I was immediately accosted for supporting Nazism. Such a statement obviously doesn't use the wiki definitions for these words (or do some think it would!?).

I think I understand now that for some 'socialism' means something like 'the forced but fair solution state needs to provide'. I don't know what capitalism means to people that favor this kind of socialism definition...the greedy rich wealthy people that exploit a non-socialist society maybe? Thats not what wiki says the word means.

And then, especially if we don't like socialism or take a pejorative use of the word Marxism, is Marxism, or a marxist revolution, comparable to the woke movement today which seems to be all about each of the rainbow minorities on the surface rather than class? (And is this what Jordan Peterson means to reference in regard to Marxism)

Pseudo Intellectual horseshit that still doesn't explain how using a person's preferred pronouns equates to Marxism despite your fairly intensive study of the term.

If that was actually the entirety of the exchange (supporting capitalism = supporting Nazism), that's pretty crazy.

Could you explain how "the woke movement today which seems to be all about each of the rainbow minorities on the surface" is comparable to Marxism? And why should we care what Peterson says about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita..._and_Democracy
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is a book on economics, sociology, and history by Joseph Schumpeter, arguably his most famous, controversial, and important work.[1][2][3][4] It's also one of the most famous, controversial, and important books on social theory, social sciences, and economics[5]—in which Schumpeter deals with capitalism, socialism, and creative destruction.

It is the third most cited book in the social sciences published before 1950, behind Marx's Capital and The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.

Excerpt from Part III: Can Socialism Work?:
The best argument in favor of socialism is because if we find ourselves shipwrecked, that's what we'll do. But that's under conditions of scarcity unlike modern humans in the West rarely encounter and only holds while the environment is +ev for cooperative behavior. But if resources get really scarce.... everyone for themselves or commercial society. We seem to react the same way when a little abundance comes our way as well, or the 'have's' prefer it anyway.

Seems obvious that a hybrid of sorts would be optimal.

During the Cold War, basically after WWII until the late 80s, the common paradigm used to justify and build support for various policies was that of a bipolar world. It was us against them, with the us being the democratic Western Countries and them being the communist countries. And it boiled down further to NATO vs the Warsaw Pact countries. And at the very core it was the US vs the Soviet Union.

"Them" were portrayed as evil, godless creatures bent on destroying our way of life. The terms communism, socialism, communist, socialist, social democrat, eurocommunist were all lumped in with terms like commie and pinko to use to describe the bad guy. Any distinction between those terms was lost early on except to political scientists. If one side wanted to denigrate the other, all you had to do was pick one of those words as an insult.

Today, the world is a very different place. But many on the right, and esp the far right, like MTG just throw out those words as insults without any idea at all if they actually describe the policy or person being discussed. These words are now used by a generation of politicians who are clueless as to their actual meaning. And they are targeting an audience who likewise has no idea what they mean, only that they are bad, because they remember their parents or grandparents using those terms as a slur.

The Cold War brought us slogans like "better dead than red", "America love it or leave it" and an act of Congress tha inserted the words "under god" into the pledge of Allegiance. But today, we end up with signs at rallies that say "keep government away from my medicare". At a time in history when people have the greatest access to information as ever, we seem to have become increasingly misinformed and uninformed.

Fairly typical conversation to take place at a stag party. I am hoping the next thread will be about how Marxism is involved when being asked "would you like to super size that?" because the person did not add the sir pronoun at the end of the question.

The other interesting aspect today with the fringy alt-right is they often times support the enemies of the past generations that were the target of these slurs. Putin in the 80s would have been the enemy, but he is someone many of them openly admire today, so not only has the meaning been lost - at times they completely reverse it. Interesting to see this take place in just 30-40 years, makes me wonder if similar changes took place from say the 1940s to the 1980s. I would expect not as much, with a lot due to the vast amount of information (especially bad information) available 24/7 these days.

A Southern Belle and snobby New York socialite meet at a swanky party.

The southern belle says, “How nice to meet you! Where are y’all from?”

The snob sniffs and says, “I am from a place where we do not end our sentences with a preposition.”

So the belle says, “Oh, I’m so sorry. Where are y’all from, bitch?”

Damn Marxists.

I'm here for the how definitions of words work in general discussion.

I don't have a fairly intensive study of Marxism, just a unique orientation of economics. Cutting to the chase for you...

I see the fragmentation of those that claim oppression/minority not EXACTLY as a 'class' versus 'oppressors', BUT...

I call it/out a pejorative view of Marxism, and call it neo- since it has to do a lot with anonymous identities on the internet or the rapid spread of (false) narratives.

I mean to point to people like (Yeol Roth that seemed to have a lot to do with twitters HARD left leaning moderation policies). I believe the intent is civil direst thru the fragmentation. And so you have a society, like in pictures of protests versus riot police, that is calling for a marxist style reform, but is truly rather tearing down its own freedoms.

This kind of a scene:



I reference a certain definition of Marxism, because proponents of Marxism might say its not supposed to look like that. But that the initially fragmented group of oppressed minorities is fragmented, making it not perfectly identifiable as a class based war I think is what the caution is. (And I mean to have a definition that fits with the Wikipedia one.)

Victor, one account is enough.

it wouldn't be using the normally found definitions of these words, for example wikipedia. But I couldn't get them to let me talk to point that out. They were too worried I would bring up trump so they wouldn't stop interrupting about biden.

Marxism is class war based. To over throw the state structure in order to gain the economics spoils that the wealthy class otherwise take.

Today we watch the unfolding of, and conditioning of, the mindset of what is owed to the greater good and why, based on the inequalities we naturally face.

Its a different direction and use of the state. Ideally, marx dreamt the state would be reformed and naturally fade away as equality is gained or fairness, in my definition of marixsm, the marxist begins to demand that state enforce that dream. on others and the result is different than the ideal.

There is a paradox in a sense there, but its relevant and warranted.

Me referencing Peterson simply allows me to reference a well defined definition for the word.

I'm going to read on this guys work. I haven't heard of it, happy to.

Cooperative behavior especially from a game theory context still assumes rational self interest. I think some people assume economics explains otherwise.

Where a hybrid would be optimal or not still depends on context and definition. For example we could call china hybrid. But of the government can unfairly take ie socialism or no private rights then it doesn't really 'partially' get the benefits of the opposite society where a government can't actually do this.

Well you have to give context to your intentions with them, and try to make sure that you are using other peoples intended definitions. Marxism, capitalism, socialism these are some of the most misused words when it comes to sincere discussion imo.

I often find that people that are most emotional especially anti capitalist and pro socialism or Marxism are usually the worst at being transparent and sincere with these words in this regard.

If I am wrong about Marxism, then what is Marxism to you and why does that make me wrong? Its not enough just to assert I am wrong.

Have you heard of reasons why communism is bad though? My friends that support whatever they define as socialism have never heard the reasons these things are bad so they think things like you said here.

wokeness, as practiced today, is antithetical to Marxist ideals. it is a bourgeoisie movement.

I don't know exactly what to make of your post in the context of your desire to not use a person's preferred pronouns. You cite political strife and economics which have nothing to do with personal pronoun usage.

I have heard Jordan Peterson speak about the slippery slope of criminalizing language usage which is akin to your statement is it slipping into Marxism. I certainly never found his arguments persuasive. Nor have you presented any compelling arguments other than labeling actions and events as anti-freedom.

I am not on board with many of Uke's positions but, regardless of current state of the law, I don't see a legitimate reason to accept discrimination based on sexual preferences or gender. So maybe he is just on the forefront of the next equality movement and the law will advance such protections to this "'class" of people.

It seems to me you are just couching your desire to disrespect people whose life choices you disapprove of with the collapse of the free world if we allow these people to change the rules of grammar.

I can understand what You mean I think. But there is an aspect of it, that the actual outcome of soviet/communist revolution tended towards, that is similar in its beginnings I think. So I think people would need to be careful with definitions to traverse the subject if they feel they have disagreements.

In regard to pronouns the Petersonian complaint was being against government compelled speech. And to the death of him. To not budge and inch to that regard. And that its a very clear distinction, he means us to know that there is a very important line to draw there.

I think then you can't just attack me or my views without saying whether or not you agree on that.

grunching but this is where 'definition of words' misses the point. Free speech laws target meanings not words. It's not banning or enforcing words, it's laws against hate or possibly forcing respect (if that ever happens).

Words do not define meanings. Plato and most philosophy would be very dull (or at least much shorter) if the books were just definitions of words. 'What is courage?', 'What is knowledge'?. The answers are not in the dictionary. Same with politcal philosophy. Definitions are more about what it meant in historical terms - very interesting and a good starting point but it doesn't encapsulate the fiuture. Even historical usage isn't limited to some precise definitions as people from the period will conceptualise differently with the same words.

Someone 'wrote X which means Y' it's a very poor approach. Meanings and concepts are way too complicated for that. Only maths is trivial.

We need to be careful with meanings. Communication is extremely hard unless we already have a good model of the other persons model of the world. That requires a dialogue and a serious effort to get in the others head. Probably the biggest mistake people make is being stuck on what others said would mean if we said it.

Would like more discussion of how definition of words work in general please

However they work, it definitely isn't whatever the dictionary says.

Words don't have fixed definitions-- they are fluid and change through time.

I have heard Peterson schtick about pronoun usage and how it is worthy of fighting to the death but I am unsure if you are parroting the same given your unclear explanations. I need to know this answer before I can respond to your Marxism question.

words don't have specific meanings or definitions but what we ascribe to them and further more and more importantly if we mean to be sincere what we share in dialogue

I have some specific examples from him I'll pull up later tonight.