Comments on: A debate over definitions http://schweblog.com/2008/02/21/a-debate-over-definitions/ the weblog of Jesse Schwebach Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:44:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Jesse http://schweblog.com/2008/02/21/a-debate-over-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-464 Jesse Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:56:26 +0000 http://schweblog.com/2008/02/21/a-debate-over-definitions/#comment-464 I've <a href="http://schweblog.com/page/2/?s=universal+self" rel="nofollow">addressed the universal self-interest</a> argument before, but I think it's also worth noting that there are a number of instances where people coexisted without currency and, in some cases, without any sort of recognizable class-based system. I’ve addressed the universal self-interest argument before, but I think it’s also worth noting that there are a number of instances where people coexisted without currency and, in some cases, without any sort of recognizable class-based system.

]]> By: Jim http://schweblog.com/2008/02/21/a-debate-over-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-463 Jim Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:15:26 +0000 http://schweblog.com/2008/02/21/a-debate-over-definitions/#comment-463 The example may be about Socialism, but the lesson applies to Communism (in the denotative sense). Why won't everyone just give up their concept of currency and live in an egalitarian society? Because we all want to be on top. The example may be about Socialism, but the lesson applies to Communism (in the denotative sense).

Why won’t everyone just give up their concept of currency and live in an egalitarian society? Because we all want to be on top.

]]> By: Jesse http://schweblog.com/2008/02/21/a-debate-over-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-461 Jesse Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:28:59 +0000 http://schweblog.com/2008/02/21/a-debate-over-definitions/#comment-461 Ah, but what you're talking about there is socialism, Jim. Collectivizing and redistributing wealth was the socialist's raison d'etre. Within truly communist systems, capital does not exist. There is no currency to redistribute. This is what I was referring to in the original entry, you see. Socialism appropriated the communist term. Communism lost its meaning and, with its unorthodox association, the very concept of an economy absent of capital was effectively wiped from the vernacular and, subsequently, the cultural consciousness. Ah, but what you’re talking about there is socialism, Jim. Collectivizing and redistributing wealth was the socialist’s raison d’etre. Within truly communist systems, capital does not exist. There is no currency to redistribute.

This is what I was referring to in the original entry, you see. Socialism appropriated the communist term. Communism lost its meaning and, with its unorthodox association, the very concept of an economy absent of capital was effectively wiped from the vernacular and, subsequently, the cultural consciousness.

]]> By: Jim http://schweblog.com/2008/02/21/a-debate-over-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-459 Jim Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:27:34 +0000 http://schweblog.com/2008/02/21/a-debate-over-definitions/#comment-459 Actually enjoy debates over definition (and to an extent connotations) not for exploratory purposes (though I often debate for that reason), but just for the simple love of words. However, on the subject of socialism (and this is only tangentially related), I am reminded of the 1988 democratic primary. A man by the name of Jesse Jackson (or I believe it was him, I was 3 at the time) made a declaration that if elected president he would take the money away from the rich people and give each man and woman $1000. He was not greeted with the applause he had anticipated. Now according to legend, he asked one of his aids why no one clapped when he promised them $1000 each at the expense of the rich, to which his aid replied: "They all want to be rich one day." And that, in my opinion, is why communism failed. Actually enjoy debates over definition (and to an extent connotations) not for exploratory purposes (though I often debate for that reason), but just for the simple love of words.

However, on the subject of socialism (and this is only tangentially related), I am reminded of the 1988 democratic primary. A man by the name of Jesse Jackson (or I believe it was him, I was 3 at the time) made a declaration that if elected president he would take the money away from the rich people and give each man and woman $1000. He was not greeted with the applause he had anticipated. Now according to legend, he asked one of his aids why no one clapped when he promised them $1000 each at the expense of the rich, to which his aid replied: “They all want to be rich one day.”

And that, in my opinion, is why communism failed.

]]>