Every time I hear someone try to claim things are human nature (greed, cruelty, selfishness, etc) I just interpret it as a confession of that person having those traits and an attempt to project that unto the rest of society to feel better about it.
One thing I like to do to really leave the libs shooketh to deconstruct that argument of "But greed will always be a part of humanity!!" is by telling them that if we look over history, murder has always been a feature of humanity.
But do we award the murderers with the most money, political power, and prestige in society? (I know exactly where your mind goes to when I say this but stick with me for a minute and remember that this is when I'm talking on the role of Lib Whisperer.) Or as a society do we actively take steps to mitigate the murderous impulses of humanity by disincentivising it, condemning it, and punishing those who commit murder?
Why then would you do something different with a negative and destructive impulse like greed? Why would you reward it, encourage it, and give the most political power and the most prestige to the greediest people in society?
Who would want to live in that sort of world?
If they object to this notion because they are suffering from a deficit of imagination, you can point to the potlatch ceremony, in which certain societies would give the most prestige in their communities to the people who gave the most to the community in these ceremonies, where people would sometimes even effectively bankrupt themselves in the pursuit of prestige within their communities.
I usually tell a person like that they should stop making pronouncements about all of humanity because they've clearly never stepped outside their comfortable little bubble long enough to realise that, shockingly, different societies do things differently and whatever they say about humanity is just a reflection of their own narrow cultural biases.
I love all his books. Vimes were my initial favorite but I feel like the Mort ones were the most compelling. Wyrd sisters are absolutely hilarious, too.
He's a little young to really pick up on any of the jokes so I'll read a paragraph and talk through it with him. He's unconcious after like 3 pages. Planning to expand out as he gets older
i remember when i was studying my LLB my lecturer used the fucking tragedy of the commons in like the second semester to justify private property rights
By private property, do you mean like land, or your phone, with the data on it? I can understand sharing land, but I would want to keep my phone private.
Not really, private property is Capital and the means of production that reproduces society, by its very nature requiring labor its already a collective social phenomenon
Personnel property on the other hand is just that, 'personal', its stuff that doesn't require economic social relations with other human beings to use
I think the thing is that communists especially tend to cling to their names for specialised concepts dearly, although you see this with anarchists too—just mention the terms "libertarian" or "anarcho-capitalism" and they're likely to quote that Murray Rothbard passage about how "their side" had "captured the term [libertarian] from our enemies" and how "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical", but I digress—and that's because a whole lot of Marxist theory rests upon these words that are specialised terms to signify Marxist concepts, such as the term "imperialism" which means a lot more than just "an empire expanding itself".
It does make it difficult for an outsider to start engaging with Marxist theory because it requires a fair bit of reading up and there's a trap that some Marxists fall into when discussing these concepts where they use Marxist-specific terms to outsiders who aren't aware of the Marxist definitions and concepts yet they expect those outsiders to just know what they're talking about, which leads to people talking across one another.
I guess the other option would be to abandon those Marxist-specific terms which would mean that newer writing wouldn't align to the preceding Marxist theory and there would be a need to bring everyone up to speed on the new terms being used for the same concepts, but trying to get consensus on what new terms should be used would be an impossible task given the fact that it's not uncommon for different Marxist tendencies to be bitter enemies (for example, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists [i.e. "Stalinists"]) and there's the belief that it would be a capitulation and it would be ceding ground to liberalism by doing so.
I think that the prevailing notion is that Marxists need to do the reading and to get across these concepts in order to really consider themselves Marxist and while that has its own downsides it also makes it more difficult for infiltration from fascists and feds because when someone hasn't done the reading it stands out like a sore thumb to those who have.
I can't find the CIA documents off hand at the moment but there was a memo lamenting how difficult it is for CIA agents to infiltrate radical groups (I think anarchist ones) because it's like they're speaking a different language when they talk politics lol.
these terms were specifically recuperated. the confusion about private property was deliberately created to prevent class solidarity. the original meaning of the term was the Marxist one and there's no better term to replace it with. "means of production" is even more technical and prone to confusion.
prior to Marx, Locke and Smith used the term property without adjectives exclusively and the former argued that humans had a natural right to property. Marx distinguished personal and private property. liberal economists then picked it up and started using private property in the same sense that Locke and Smith had used property. it's a bit hard to cite this as search engines just turn up liberal economists. but that's the gist of it.
The problem with abandoning specific terms is that it gives into the liberal mentality of words needing to be more "vibe based" than having clear definitions. This is how we get meaningless buzzwords like "authoritarian" and "whataboutism"
And ultimately, if we did make a new set of terms to use and somehow managed to agree upon them, the liberal media would just water those terms down as they have done for most Marxists terms before that.
The important thing is to explain terms as you go through them. I usually explain the concept, then just use the word to describe that concept, so they know what I'm talking about.
I would say in educating people it is important to talk directly with them first before giving them any theory to read though, because as you've pointed out, a lot of people don't actually know the meaning of a lot of words and would just get confused and frustrated. It makes it a slow process, but there isn't really any other option right now. At least where I am in the west, anti-intellectualism is huge. You have to drag people kicking and screaming into learning things, or do so via presenting it in a format they will consume without thinking (like fiction).
Every time I hear someone try to claim things are human nature (greed, cruelty, selfishness, etc) I just interpret it as a confession of that person having those traits and an attempt to project that unto the rest of society to feel better about it.
One thing I like to do to really leave the libs shooketh to deconstruct that argument of "But greed will always be a part of humanity!!" is by telling them that if we look over history, murder has always been a feature of humanity.
But do we award the murderers with the most money, political power, and prestige in society? (I know exactly where your mind goes to when I say this but stick with me for a minute and remember that this is when I'm talking on the role of Lib Whisperer.) Or as a society do we actively take steps to mitigate the murderous impulses of humanity by disincentivising it, condemning it, and punishing those who commit murder?
Why then would you do something different with a negative and destructive impulse like greed? Why would you reward it, encourage it, and give the most political power and the most prestige to the greediest people in society?
Who would want to live in that sort of world?
If they object to this notion because they are suffering from a deficit of imagination, you can point to the potlatch ceremony, in which certain societies would give the most prestige in their communities to the people who gave the most to the community in these ceremonies, where people would sometimes even effectively bankrupt themselves in the pursuit of prestige within their communities.
I usually tell a person like that they should stop making pronouncements about all of humanity because they've clearly never stepped outside their comfortable little bubble long enough to realise that, shockingly, different societies do things differently and whatever they say about humanity is just a reflection of their own narrow cultural biases.
But murder is bad, with greed I'm just exercising my natural right to private property
deleted by creator
I'm reading Making Money to my kid before bed time right now.
Moist probably killed more than 2.338 people though
deleted by creator
I love all his books. Vimes were my initial favorite but I feel like the Mort ones were the most compelling. Wyrd sisters are absolutely hilarious, too.
He's a little young to really pick up on any of the jokes so I'll read a paragraph and talk through it with him. He's unconcious after like 3 pages. Planning to expand out as he gets older
deleted by creator
Worth every second :)
Come to think of it, is Vetinari a socialist?
deleted by creator
2388
thousandmillioni remember when i was studying my LLB my lecturer used the fucking tragedy of the commons in like the second semester to justify private property rights
By private property, do you mean like land, or your phone, with the data on it? I can understand sharing land, but I would want to keep my phone private.
He's a communist so he's making the distinction between private property and personal property. In this context:
Personal property is your personal effects and your home and your car etc.
Private property is stuff like businesses, factories, companies - all the things which are used to produce goods and services.
That sounds like it would get confusing when trying to encourage people to be communist.
deleted by creator
Not really, private property is Capital and the means of production that reproduces society, by its very nature requiring labor its already a collective social phenomenon
Personnel property on the other hand is just that, 'personal', its stuff that doesn't require economic social relations with other human beings to use
The confusion comes from personal and private property being conceptually tangled after a lifetime of bourgeois conditioning.
I wouldn't deny that.
I think the thing is that communists especially tend to cling to their names for specialised concepts dearly, although you see this with anarchists too—just mention the terms "libertarian" or "anarcho-capitalism" and they're likely to quote that Murray Rothbard passage about how "their side" had "captured the term [libertarian] from our enemies" and how "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical", but I digress—and that's because a whole lot of Marxist theory rests upon these words that are specialised terms to signify Marxist concepts, such as the term "imperialism" which means a lot more than just "an empire expanding itself".
It does make it difficult for an outsider to start engaging with Marxist theory because it requires a fair bit of reading up and there's a trap that some Marxists fall into when discussing these concepts where they use Marxist-specific terms to outsiders who aren't aware of the Marxist definitions and concepts yet they expect those outsiders to just know what they're talking about, which leads to people talking across one another.
I guess the other option would be to abandon those Marxist-specific terms which would mean that newer writing wouldn't align to the preceding Marxist theory and there would be a need to bring everyone up to speed on the new terms being used for the same concepts, but trying to get consensus on what new terms should be used would be an impossible task given the fact that it's not uncommon for different Marxist tendencies to be bitter enemies (for example, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists [i.e. "Stalinists"]) and there's the belief that it would be a capitulation and it would be ceding ground to liberalism by doing so.
I think that the prevailing notion is that Marxists need to do the reading and to get across these concepts in order to really consider themselves Marxist and while that has its own downsides it also makes it more difficult for infiltration from fascists and feds because when someone hasn't done the reading it stands out like a sore thumb to those who have.
I can't find the CIA documents off hand at the moment but there was a memo lamenting how difficult it is for CIA agents to infiltrate radical groups (I think anarchist ones) because it's like they're speaking a different language when they talk politics lol.
these terms were specifically recuperated. the confusion about private property was deliberately created to prevent class solidarity. the original meaning of the term was the Marxist one and there's no better term to replace it with. "means of production" is even more technical and prone to confusion.
Do you have evidence for that claim?
prior to Marx, Locke and Smith used the term property without adjectives exclusively and the former argued that humans had a natural right to property. Marx distinguished personal and private property. liberal economists then picked it up and started using private property in the same sense that Locke and Smith had used property. it's a bit hard to cite this as search engines just turn up liberal economists. but that's the gist of it.
Thanks, that's enough to go on!
The problem with abandoning specific terms is that it gives into the liberal mentality of words needing to be more "vibe based" than having clear definitions. This is how we get meaningless buzzwords like "authoritarian" and "whataboutism"
And ultimately, if we did make a new set of terms to use and somehow managed to agree upon them, the liberal media would just water those terms down as they have done for most Marxists terms before that.
The important thing is to explain terms as you go through them. I usually explain the concept, then just use the word to describe that concept, so they know what I'm talking about.
I would say in educating people it is important to talk directly with them first before giving them any theory to read though, because as you've pointed out, a lot of people don't actually know the meaning of a lot of words and would just get confused and frustrated. It makes it a slow process, but there isn't really any other option right now. At least where I am in the west, anti-intellectualism is huge. You have to drag people kicking and screaming into learning things, or do so via presenting it in a format they will consume without thinking (like fiction).
Thanks for being cool