Prunebutt

Guess you exposed my european, millenial ass. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For people wondering:

On the left you see a format popular on tiktok, where a clip from a videogame, some ice cream video and a Family Guy clip share the screen, playing simultaneously.

On the right you see a news anchor with weather info, a ticker and stock data also sharing the same screen.

The tiktok format is supposedly for low attention span kids which (also supposedly) need three completely disconnected things happening on screen at once in order to not lose interest in the video. The other one is... the news as it is common in the US.

"They are the same": you could say that both of these formats serve the same purpose.

The state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people.

That is not a common definition. You claim that you have academic and historical precedence. If that definition is important to you, please back up your claim.

Please think this through. This hypothetical literally explicitly assumes a word already has an acting definition. According to you, if the definition causes problems with your worldview, it should be changed.

No, that is not what I meant. Let's take an example of the word "star". "Star" used to only refer to the bright dots on the night sky. So when someone asked "what is a star", you said "it's a bright dot". Then, astronomists and physicists made the discovery that these bright dots in the night sky are actually giant balls of plasma, like the sun. They made observations of reality and therefore, they changed the definition of both star and sun. This doesn't have anything to do with a worldview, but rather with observations.

It even goes further, because actually, the definition was extended. Because "star" still kind of means bright dot in the night sky. If I'm pointing at a bright dot in the sky, I will call it a star. Even if it actually is actually another planet. I also don't call all the bright dots in the night sky "suns", although the overwhelming majority of them actually are suns.

Context is very important to the usage of words. Therefore, different definitions of words can be correct and useful for different contexts. And since that means that definitions can diverge, I prefer to make the definitions clear from the start. If someone then says that they have the "correct" definition and the other person doesn't agree, the whole argument is moot, since both parties basically talk about different things without acknowledging it.

But if it has a definition, that means the generally population uses the word in that way. They didn’t uniformly make the same change to the definition that you did, and some may not see the same issue as you do, and you can’t expect every agree that what you see is an issue, because people have different perspective and opinions.

So, consensus is one important way of how definitions should be applied. But not every definition has consensus. Some people claim "socialism is when the government does stuff", others don't. Some people claim that "capitalism is when free trade", others factor in the property relations to the means of production. Some people say that the system European and American countries employ is democratic, others don't accept representative democracies not as properly democratic.

Most people actually didn't ever hear a "proper" definition of "politics", (political) "left" and "right", etc. They usually hear other people talk about those things and just infer the meaning. That's how the definitions of those words can diverge so much between person to person.

Consensus is not the only important feature of a good definition. This video (I highly suggest you watch that - it is really good) describes four important feature of good definitions: Consensus, clarity, convenience and consequences. The last one is about how the definitions form the understanding of the world of the people who use certain definitions, which is incredibly important (basically, what all the language stuff of 1984 was about). Seriously, I can't recommend that video and channel enough. I urge you to give it a watch and see for yourself.

Suggesting that you opinion has the authority to change the definitions of words is actually an extremely authoritarian mindset, and it’s the type of political thinking the books like 1984 warned us about.

Big oof. OK, I am not advocating that everybody has to follow my definitions. What I was trying to say is that definitions of words are to be used as tools. And since everybody has different perspectives and experiences, their definition of certain words will differ, depending on the abstraction a word contains. A chair, a tree, a bicycle are all not very abstract. The definitions are going to be very clear and it's very easy to talk about these things with everyone who knows these words. For more abstract things, like the concept of authority, a state, freedom, democracy, politics, etc., these definitions are less clear. And since there is no objective, "true" definition of these abstract terms (since all words are made up and they are just cultural constructs), the understanding of these words will diverge between people.

That is why I want to establish what you mean when you say x. Because I might mean a different thing by x. And I was trying to explain why I describe x in that or some other way in a logical fashion. You then claimed that I was wrong because of convention, without actually thinking about the reasoning how I came to the conclusion of the definition, dismissing it outright.

What happened in 1984 actually was the other way around: In 1984 the ministry (the "ministry of truth", I think? It's been a while) tried to reduce the vocabulary of the language so that people didn't have the tools necessary to accurately describe the world around them and to criticize the government. For example "all people are equal" didn't make any sense in the language they pruned, because the meaning of "equal" didn't cover the "worth" of a human anymore. In 1984, they actively reduced the possibilities of language to describe any real or imagined thing for the government to stay in power.

If you say something like "state capitalism is an oxymoron", you actually kind of do the same thing as the ministry in 1984. Because instead of thinking about what I could mean by that and instead of trying to understand my thought process, you deny me the right to express myself in ways that are logical to my point of view. And you flat out refuse to try understanding me by appealing to some authority (some definition, that in actuality has less consensus than you think).

I never insulted you directly or personally.

I consider the claim that I "[add] extra shit to make [incoherent definitions] fit" an insult.

I will, however, point out hypocrisy when I see it. Please be more civil.

I didn't want to insult you when I said: "Lack of creativity" It simply was something I observed. All examples of worker controlled cooperatives you gave at some point went into a direction that you claimed was the only natural course. You claimed that people can't democratically decide on "everything". This mindset to me shows a lack of creativity of how people can organize in a fair and equal way.

you have already explicitly stated that you operating definitions are malleable and subject to change when it suits you best.

Again: not what I said. I have my own internally consistent definitions of these abstract, political terms. I simply acknowledged that you didn't subscribe to the same definitions and thus, the definitions diverged. The definitions I employ are subject to change when I my understanding of something grows (like the "star" example above), or if I understand the world better. But I don't do it to justify my ideology by whatever means possible.

To make it clearer of what I mean, when I say things, here are my definitions. I didn't make them up myself, all of them are stolen. But they are internally consistent, and fulfill most of the quality traits I gave above. I also didn't "change" any of them in the course of this discussion, as you might notice:

• State: The institution to pacify societal class conflicts in favor of the class on top of the hierarchy. Employs a monopoly of violence, a monopoly of knowledge (bureaucracy) and a monopoly of "legitimacy", by framing its' rules as the only ones allowed to change any political system.
• Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production + markets
• Politics: Anything relating to decision making in groups
• Class: A category of people who share the same role in a political system. Like property owners and people who depend on the property that other people own.
• Ideology: A set of understandings how one thinks the world should work. Every human has one.
• Socialism: A system where the means of production are held in common property (everything belongs to "the commons")
• Communism: A moneyless, classless society, where everyone gets what they need and supplies what they are able to give
• Democracy: A strategy of determining how political decisions are made: Everybody affected by a decision has a proportional say in that decision.

You are also highly disagreeable and have actively ignored several attempts to find agreement in our opinions (you haven’t mentioned state monopolies on violence since I clarified that we agree).

I disagree (i.e. feel misunderstood) and don't follow what that stuff about monopolies on violence was supposed to say.

Beyond that, my operating definition doesn’t seem much different than yours.

From what I gathered, I don't think that our definitions overlap too much. What do you think, when comparing yours to the one I gave above?

You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question.

Apparently, you didn't really make it clear to me.

I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers

I begin to see where the misunderstanding is coming from. I don't think that some logistical management implies authority. By "authority" I mean a position of command and control. Just because someone is in charge of logistical planning, doesn't mean they get to fire me.

Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian?

When any questioning of an existing hierarchy is being punished by the authority.

This was in my definition.

No it wasn't. You said "without political institutions or hierarchical government". This leaves out other hierarchies, like economic, ethnic or gender hierarchies.

Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government.

Pardon my french: That is some grade-A bullshit. From the very beginning of the political movement we call "anarchism", it was at least also about the abolition of capital. Yes, the abolition of the state is always an important part. But anarchism is rooted in power analysis which is highly skeptical of any hierarchy. One of the most famous quotes by Proudhon was "Property is theft", after all.

We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society

That's not what I'd call an anarchist society. This would be an "anarcho-capitalist" society. In anarchist society, all means of productions would be held in common.

I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so I’ll type it out again. Humans eat food, it’s necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of “human” absolutely has to include “something that eats food”? No, it doesn’t. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I can’t stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.

You are really not talking sense. You said "eating food" is necessary for humans. That means that it's a necessary feature of a human. It is however not a sufficient feature of a human. Not everything that eats food is human. But if something doesn't eat food, you can rule out that it is a human, since it doesn't satisfy a necessary condition. Here's the Wikipedia page, since it's such an important point for you.

I never claimed that monopoly of violence is a sufficient feature of a state. It is necessary, though. If something doesn't have the sufficient property of a monopoly of violence, it is not a state. That is not a definition I made up for my world-view to function. There is consensus in political science that this is a necessary property of a state.

It just doesn't fit in the definition.

As stated in the other comment: You're missing the distinction between states and government.

and entity that enforces rule of law

But why is anything concerning the law outside of the governing body? Your definition doesn't seem complete.

Apart from details of the management body: I agree to your code of conduct for a democratically run. Cooperative. But didn't you imply that socialism automatically implies authoritarianism? Where does authoritarianism enter the picture, if the decisions are made bottom-up?

Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government.

Here we come to the definitions problem again. Anarchy is usually understood as the absence of any hierarchy. Economical hierarchy (I own something that you need to survive) is a form of hierarchy. Also, as "politics" describes anything concerning decision making in groups: Good luck having a society without political institutions. Even private corporations are political institutions. Why you exclude the economic sector from your exclusion of hierarchy, I also don't really know (well I'm guessing that it's convenient for your ideology, but that's just a guess).

If all means of production are completely privately controlled, then there is necessarily no state involvement, because as soon as it’s introduced, there would be some means that are not privately owned.

But without any state involement: How are the property relations maintained? Private armies? That would result in warlord-feudalism.

You can also view capitalism through class-relations: The owners of the MOP and the people they employ. The employed have to follow the orders of their private boss in order to survive. If you switch out the private property owning boss with a party bureaucrat and the class relations don't actually change, that's called state capitalism. That's how language works. Adding a word to another word can create a new term.

Two different statements, and you can’t derive one from the other.

Lol, are you seriously trying to formal-logic me? A monopoly on violence is a necessary feature of a state (state -> monopoly on violence). If the means of production are privately owned, class tensions between the people with private ownership of the means of production. If these tensions are not resolved (which the owners have no incentive to in capitalism), they would lose their property through the violence of the employed class... or they'd "invent" something that pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. A state.

It’s also not even true, if we ignore the theoretical voluntary cooperation in the hypothetical, in the case of no statehood property would be protected by private militia. One person’s militia would have no reason to protect other property inherently, and no one else would be restricted by the state from doing the same.

That's what we had in the middle ages in Europe. It's called feudalism. Or warlord-ism. People with more economical power have more resources to fund a private army. And why would I refrain from overpowering my market rivals, if I have the means to do so?

Private ownership stems from the human intuition of personal property.

The jump from personal to private property is incredibly big. Native Americans didn't have any concept of absentee-ownership. Or of ownership of anything that other people need.

In reference to tribal people, it’s a little silly to lump them all as one type of culture, but even still, they tend to have a lot of respect for personal boundaries and property, and this includes the means of production. When a tribal hunter takes home a hunt, they use it to provide for their family first and foremost, and unused excess is given to neighbors.

Lol, you A) have no idea of antropology and B) are committing the same thing that you are claiming is silly. :D No, that's not how "a tribal hunter" generally behaves. Immediate return societies are overwhelmingly incredibly egalitarian (and don't really have the modern notion of one's family, which must come first). They share everything.

I was referring to private business owners, not the CEO of a corporation. Considering I think of corporations as an opt in state, I guess I would say not much difference at all. The CEO is beholden to the shareholders (like a state is to it's people), as well as the rules and regulations of the state that legitimizes it.

What you're describing as a "state", is more commonly referred to as a "goverment". (they aren't synonyms)

wilful changing of a word to fit a specific narrative

Yeah. That wasn't what I said, though. I said that if there's a disconnect between the definition and reality, you'd better change it. How are "real definitions" even formed? They aren't god-given! They are a maliable tool for communication.

You're claiming that there are strict definitions of terminologies, like "state", "socialism", "capitalism". And if another (coherent) definition that someone else uses, you claim that they're wrong and insult them ("adding extra shit to make them fit). At the same time, you simply ignore any valid definitions of "state" and use it, when you mean "government". Or you hide your own lack of creativity behind of what you see as rock solid definitions.

But people come into arguments with different perspectives. And there simply is no objective arbiter of definitions. That is why they have to be adjusted for reality. Or at least: be established beforehand.

So, tell me: What are your definitions of: state, capitalism, politics, ideology, socialism, communism, democracy? We clearly have different understandings of these terms and frankly: It's really hard to follow you if understanding of those terms clearly diverge in an argument.

The boss being a state bureaucrat as opposed to a business owner is a massive distinction. Government employee's primary obligation is to their employer: the government, not the business. This dynamic changes things, it's not the same system.

What's the functional difference between the CEO of a Corporation and some surpreme ruler of a state?

Suggesting that we adjust the definitions of words in order to believe your ideology is... an interesting tactic.

You have it the wrong way around. I simply think definitions should have the purpose of understanding the world better. If a definition doesn't correlate with the world that we perceive, they're no use and should be adjusted. That is literally how language works.

I came to the conclusions of my ideology by thinking about the political definitions I have in my model of the world. If the model/the definitions don't fit, I change it/them.

Name one state in history which doesn't have a monopoly on violence. You can use your less specific definition, if you want. But then arguing with other people will probably get nowhere and/or be very confusing.

And since I don't know what you mean by state, please tell me what you mean by "governing body".

The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.

I exclusively mean the workers ownership of the means of production. If there are no workers, because for example it's a patch of land (that doesn't require heavy farming), then the community who lives near that land and use it to feed themselves owns it. As soon as someone from the upper levels of some hierarchy latter (be it economic or bureaucratic) owns the means of production, I wouldn't call it socialism anymore.

The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).

You're always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?

I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of "actual anarchy". Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership. Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?

Also, private ownership of the means of production is actually a dictatorship over those means. Or rather: the workers who work in them. If I can tell everyone what to do, or they'll have to leave, then that's an opt-out dictatorship. That's clearly a hierarchy. How can you call that "actual anarchy"? Especially if people need the job or whatever is produced in that factory/workshop/farm to survive.

For further info, I suggest you to read this. It's very informative. If you prefer videos, there's this one.

It's straight from Marx himself, not Lenin.

Sure it is. /s

And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?

The workers? Why do you think that majority rule over something needs to be enforced?

Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn't even make it through one year.

Do you know, why it collapsed? Certainly not because they failed to implement socialism and rather went back to * checks notes * a fascist corporate regime.

This interpretation is not about following the definitions of a word to the teet, but rather to understand how systems of control work.

If you have the same property relations of the means of production like in capitalism, but you switch out the boss with a state bureaucrat, you functionally have the same system. But not with the private ownership, but rather with the state ownership: state capitalism.

If you would adjust your definitions of capitalism here, your political understanding would actually grow.

China is a state capitalist country. So was Lenin's and Stalin's USSR.