this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
1342 points (93.2% liked)
solarpunk memes
2783 readers
954 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Their 5 year growth plans.
Mainly high tech chips manufacturing, space technology, weapons technology (hypersonic weapons, nuclear weapons, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, ballistic missiles), high speed rail, and automotive and electric vehicle technology. To name the major ones.
But these goals aren't inherently or exclusively capitalistic in nature, are they? Capitalism and Communism are both described as a means to an end - that is to say they both make prescriptions on how the means of production should be owned and controlled, but they don't make much suggestion as to what production that refers to. So, in theory, there's no reason to believe any of these goals are capitalist or communist in nature, because people have reason to want these things regardless of their preference of economic structure.
It can be shown in practice that these are not capitalist inherently either. The "5 year plan" is actually a trope amongst Socialist/Communist leaders. Stalin had a 5 year plan that sounded very similar to Xi's, and Xi adopted this type of state planning from Mao himself.
China's weapons are manufactured by China North Industries Group Corporation, which is a state owned corporation, not a private company. China's tech chips are manufactured by SMIC, also a state controlled corporation. The high speed railway is being built by the China Railway Corporation, also state run.
I think people get confused by the idea of "exchanging capital" when referring to trade, because it leads them to believe that capitalism means something that profits from capital, but a state can profit from capital just like how a private unit can. Capitalism is NOT the exchange of capital, it's the private ownership of the means of production. If a state (ie: China) participates in trade, that is not an example of capitalism, because the means of trade are not owned by a private unit.
China is a state capitalist country. So was Lenin's and Stalin's USSR.
State capitalism is an oxymoron, if the state controls the means of trade, then it's not private.
That's an interesting point, however it is widely accepted that states can leverage capitalism by allowing quasi-private corporations to operate semi-independently from the government.
And in fact, many of the largest industrial amd infrastructure projects are only possible by state-funded corporations to undertake them.
For example, NASA, the Works Progress Administration, the Bonneville or Hoover Dam projects, and the development of most advanced American weapons platforms. None of these were possible without direct government funding and management.
There is a surprising amount of gray area between straight up socialism and pure capitalism, and in our world pure capitalism is less common than you think.
Perfect Wikipedia:
There are many state owned enterprises that have private investors as well.
those are arguably partially privately owned, especially if those investors have influence on decision-making.
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.
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.
Suggesting that we adjust the definitions of words in order to believe your ideology is... an interesting tactic.
What's the functional difference between the CEO of a Corporation and some surpreme ruler of a state?
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.
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.
This actually isn't how definitions work, wilful changing of a word to fit a specific narrative is simply dishonest and has no precedence in legitimate etymology at all. I can't stress this enough, you are outright wrong on this is a really bad way. If you are operating on real definitions and things still don't make sense, it tends to mean you're missing something. You can't perfect an ideology just from isolated thinking. What you've done is effectively tried to piece together an incomplete puzzle, then started trimming the pieces and adding extra shit to make them fit.
What you're describing as a "state", is more commonly referred to as a "goverment". (they aren't synonyms)
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 state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people. When I said state, I was referring to the organization.
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. 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. 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.
Words have meaning, and the meaning of words is important. To take a word to mean something the it already doesn't, you only serve to destroy means of communication.
I've been pretty honest about my thought's on the ideology you clearly align with, but I never insulted you directly or personally.
I will, however, point out hypocrisy when I see it. Please be more civil.
I've already given a few definitions very explicitly, and they have plenty of academic and historical precedence to back them up.
I don't think demanding 7 operating definitions will lead to good faith discussion from you, you have already explicitly stated that you operating definitions are malleable and subject to change when it suits you best. 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). Maybe we can focus on a more specific area of disagreement in our definitions?
We know where we disagree on the definition of a state, yes? I don't think it should include the piece about their monopoly on violence even though I agree with that assessment. Beyond that, my operating definition doesn't seem much different than yours. I don't there's much that can come from going over this one over and over.
It makes no sense to demand my definition of Socialism, you already know it! It's literally what we're discussing. If I provide a definition I already know you disagree with, you'll just say "see, that's the wrong definition!" As if we haven't been actively discussing that.
Would you like to focus on my definition of capitalism maybe? I've both implied and said outright that it refers to the private ownership of the means of production. It seems like you disagree with that too? Would you like to share why you think this isn't true?
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.
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.
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.
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 consider the claim that I "[add] extra shit to make [incoherent definitions] fit" an insult.
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.
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:
I disagree (i.e. feel misunderstood) and don't follow what that stuff about monopolies on violence was supposed to say.
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're actually wrong, has China does have official 5-year plans that it develops every 5 years, and they have done so since world War II. So, it is not a trope at all:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China
China is currently undergoing their 14th 5-year plan:
https://www.fujian.gov.cn/english/news/202108/t20210809_5665713.htm#:~:text=China%20will%20focus%20on%20the,innovation%20and%20application%20of%20core
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_five-year_plan_(China)
I didn't say they had no 5 year plan, I said the 5 year plan isn't inherently capitalist