Marxism and the workers

[gotlucky]

This is BS and anyone should know it. Half of these I have explicitly defined, and the other half should have been taken from context. For the good of the conversation, I will proceed to explictly define all of them, right now.

What is BS? I said that you defined some of them. I made a list of words that you are using differently than the rest of us. Context can be difficult because you do not use them all consistently.

Private property I define as the legal title to be monopoly executor over an item.
“Pure” private property I define as the ability for anyone to actually own anything, rather than be seen as the owner by the community.

This is actually far closer to the mainstream definition of private property than how it is defined on this site.

I would just like to point out that you have defined “private property” differently in the thread, hence the confusion. You had said to z1235:

Because legitimate possession and control is not private property. I mean if you want to call it property, fine. It’s just semantics at that point. Everyone believes there should be some kind of legitimate possession and control. I don’t support, in any way, the monopoly status, sole executor, of “private property,” ie capitalist property.

Part of the confusion is that “private property” does not have to have a “monopoly executor”. Most of the time (well, I think there is, but I could be wrong) there is a single person with the final say, but defining it with “monopoly executor” would leave out any jointly owned property. If I understand you correctly, you prefer jointly owned to monopoly executor. I’m just pointing out that you have not been consistent and do define “property” differently than us and most people.

To be honest, I’m still not really sure what you mean by “pure private property”, as for it to be considered “property”, it has to be in a social context. Maybe that’s your point, but I’m not sure.

Legitimate, as in respected by people or custom. The decisions of the courts are legitimate within their society. Me respecting your claim to property makes your property legitimate (at least between the two of us).
I use this word often in debate and have not had a problem with it until today so…

Okay. See, you don’t always use it this way. I will show you 2 of the other ways you have used it (that I am aware of):

As I say in the other thread, I am basically using to express “why should anyone respect the claim.” I may sometimes use it to say that the claim is already legitmized; as in nobles who claimed conquered land as their own, which was later legitimized, etc.

If you don’t see it, there’s not much I can do. The fact that social norms can clean up after property doesn’t address why it is in fact legitimate to claim property in the first place. I can’t spell it out any more than that.

So, this means that you have used “legitimate” to mean 3 different things (that I am aware of).

Legitimized (through court or custom) possession and control.

See above section about “pure private property”.

Having the capacity for a behavior that has been seen in other members of the same species (at least this is how I’ve used it every time in our discussion)

You said: “I really wouldn’t use it often, because it’s a tricky situation for individualists. Eating meat is supposedly inherent to humans, yet I have friends that don’t do it… so really how far does inherent get us?”
This would seem to imply that you did not use the word “inherent” consistently. Later you did accept the definition you have just provided, but it was not the only way you used the word.

wealth

Afre you serious?! I defined this when you asked it of me, something which you had already responded to before you made this post. Again:

their possessions are not wealth, but the enforced unequal access to those things (property) is wealth.

This is probably the only one I am using that is that far from the mainstream defintiion. But the mainstream defintiion of wealth sucks

The reason I listed the word “wealth” was because you do use it differently than the mainstream definitions. I did not list it because you did not define it.

I see. You actually are just trolling now… I’m going to respond to the rest of this post anyway for the audence’s sake.

Well, actually you do use the word “deny” differently than everyone else. I explained how the phrase “not really” means “not in fact” or “not in actuallity” in a previous post. You are saying that when you use this phrase that you are not “denying” something. But that would not be how people typically use the word “deny”.
This is not trolling. You really do use many words differently.

People more interested in “winning debates” and “looking cool” than actually establishing any truth. I was never asked to define this, nor accused anyone of it, so I don’t see what this has to do with me in the first place.

This list does not exist because of a lack of provided definitions. It exists because you are seeming to be using these words differently than most everyone else. The typical definition of “troll” taken from wikipedia is:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted.”

So even the definition you have just provided is against the common, mainstream definition. That is fine, but I just want to be clear that this is a word you do not use like most people.

The use of physical force or the threat thereof.

Okay. I understand what you mean by it, but it is not the mainstream definition of “Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.”

I defined this as well. Namely: Theives use economic power. They may use their gun they own, or some other tool. They may scam you. They may claim property over a mine in the area. All human acts are economic acts… well, maybe if no tools at all are used they don’t. But how often does nobody use a tool

ie, the use of goods, services, and resources to leverage against another person.

Okay. Just so you know, the part I bolded is the clearest part of your definition. However, the preceding part of your definition allows for violent power to be included in the definition, which is fine if you want it to be that way. I don’t believe that it is the mainstream understanding of “economic power”. It’s certainly not the understood definition here.

Again, I was never asked to provide a definition of this. And unlike “legitimacy” I thought this one apparent; “what is found to contain justice, or be 'good.”

I don’t remember asking you to provide a definition. I’m just pointing out when you admitted that you did seem to have a different definition than me. And I do have a different understanding of “justice” than you. Some of my thoughts on justice.

Again, I would just like to point out that the purpose of this list was to show the amount of words - words that have been important to our debate - that you have used differently, not only than me, but I believe also differently from the common use of the words. That you provided your definitions in a response (in one place!) is a bonus.