Misunderstandings

The matter at heart to me here should be one of the more simple, straighforward and practically comprehensive things I've written about in my first book. Mostly perhaps because it isn't presented as a theoretical something, but a practical conclusion based on a simple circumstance.
The more we however talk of it, the more information we add. That's also practically inevitable, as the matter itself requires some kind of adaptation to the factual complexity that reveals itself more and more as we go. That eventually produces a negative feedback, such as when the simplicity is effectively burried underneath the theory.

It's a paradox we find between individual perspectives, such as individual frames of reference, levels of education, comprehension and such.

So the famous phrase of "do your own research" for instance. Based on the conclusions that I see people arriving at in that regard, versus my own, I find it safe to say that "doing your own research" isn't guaranteed to lead you to the same results as me. That's a problem that would encourage "both of us" to tell the respective other where they went wrong. But because listening while telling is a hard challenge, that usually turns out toxic so that either side will wish to be surrounded by people that "get it". And I myself am curious to bridge those divides. To help people with different understandings come together, as opposed to drifting further and further apart.


The most important thing to this is the individual itself, and their "relationship" with the 'truth'. The more you personally value it, the more capable you are at embracing it. If you don't value it enough, you most likely won't be let into the ninedom; And I hope it's not a controversial ask ... to everyone to 'ponder' upon 'truth'. To learn and internalize the concept, to let it heal you from within - or however to phrase it out.

Now, obviously there are 'truths', or "truths", that happen to be 'complicated'. But that is 'advanced' stuff. We'll get to it shortly, but up front I want to say that it is easy to overthink it. In simplicity: What we can't know ... we can't accurately work with; And that's a truth.
Anyhow - to further dig into it, I have an example for you:


I would hazard a guess: If you don't understand this, you're probably a centrist. If you agree with it ... you'll usually find yourself at the wrong end of my verbal violence and if you think that person is crazy we're roughly on the same page.
However - I understand what that person is trying to say; And I think in essence we agree (giving them the benefit of the doubt). If you found yourself on roughly the same page as me and you get what I'm getting at here ... you can clap yourself on the shoulders.

Assuming that we'd agree - while we don't - the problem is words and what we individually associate with them. Like ... when conservatives say 'socialism', it's on my side pretty much common sense that overall they mean 'dictatorship' by it - although the exact definition can vary because conservatives tend to be extremely inconsistent with that type of stuff.
In other words: Truth can hide behind words that we, for various reasons, take for something else.

So, there are four sentences here. 1, 2, 3 and 4. And on that note: This commentary has punctuation, which is good. I'm probably not qualified to rate the quality of the punctuation, but it seems right to me.
Sentences 2 and 3 are the reason why I think we agree, which would mean that we disagree on what socialism - or the socialist way - is. Sentence 1 is a bit of a curveball in this context.
We could surmise that this is a bad attempt at a nuanced defence of socialism. Saying that greed is good in a capitalist society because it is a motivator, but that the government does a bad job at leveraging it - then maybe saying that this incompetence is the socialist way, or maybe that what he thinks there is the socialist way - which is good - versus what the government does. I don't know.

So, without knowing the person - I have a hard time parsing through this text as to understand what it is 'meant to' convey. On face value however, it seems as though I'm meant to disagree with every sentence here; That each sentence is part of a rebuttal to socialism. And respectively this example is here to be taken as a conservative/anti-socialist opinion.
That interpretation is certainly consistent with the overall clusterfuck that conservative rhetoric is, regarding socialism; Where the rule of thumb is that it's only socialism if it benefits people they don't like. Else it's cool and conservative actually.

To be totally fair, I have to acknowledge that we can also not safely say what this person means by Greed. Sometimes we, well - I certainly do - use "terms in metaphor". So is it one thing to imply greed in its broadest terms, aligned to a context or to merely use it as a function. Say, for the latter: Greed "is" Motivation - in the way it is good in a capitalist society. That would be an example of "Greed in Metaphor" - as its use isn't to encompess greed in its deepest and darkest form; Because that would be incongruous with the sentiment expressed in the following sentences.
To be extra fair then, we have to "death of the author" this - because "terms in metaphor" ultimately lessen the quality of a statement depending on a few factors. Given that we here read 'Greed is Motivation' as opposed to 'Motivation is Greed' - my focus shifts onto the term 'Greed', allowing me to 'maybe' accept the implied function statement. If I were to however exand from the term 'Greed' - I find ways to disagree with the proposal.
Namely: Sentences 2 and 3 - as 'providing equal opportunity' is about taking action 'against' Greed. Favoring the wealthy and stealing opportunity from others is so inherently a function of Greed that I got whiplash from having read that initially. At that point the post already contradicts itself - and "because Capitalism", the "bad thing" has to be socialism - which is apparently what that person thinks socialism is. Or how the term is to be used properly. Which is the second whiplash.

To put it more simply: I - that is me, the person that I am - understand Greed, I understand the sentiment expressed in sentences 2 and 3, I understand what socialism is - and when I put that together I don't understand what that person is trying to say. Or at least I don't agree with it.
And still - focusing on sentences 2 and 3 I do believe that there is some idea we have in common. We do however, as it seems, have different ideas of what words to use to express it.


And that by the way is part of my case against conservative(-leaning) influencers.
Like ... here in germany we have a phrase that goes a little something like "jemandem ins Hirn scheissen" (to shit into someone's brain) - generally used as passively associated with a third person akin to: "Who shat into your brain?" or "someone shat into their brain". And conservative influencers are almost quite literally people who take dumps into other people's brains. Just ... let it sink in for a moment, perhaps just based on how I disagree with them.


To be fair and honest on top of that, I have to admit that I find it difficult to properly determine and define what conservatives mean when they say 'socialism'. Now, when asked directly, they'd probably say something along the lines of: It's dicatorship, it's against personal property and that it's anti free-speech - unless perhaps we're talking about Putin because he's trying to own "the Libs" (a.k.a. Europe/the EU) a.k.a. "the "real" Nazis" or something like that. If you think I'm joking or deceitful ... just think of how much of a dictator Trump is and how strongly these Republicans are against free-speech when it comes to LGBTQ+ people being LGBTQ+. Sure could we say that this reaction is fair because they're only acting against what they perceive to be a threat - but that also destroys that part of their arguments of why socialism is bad because they're socialists themselves.
Except they're capitalists. Which seems to be their silver bullet. And like so what remains is that socialists are like against personal property. But they still do bring the topic of dictatorship and free-speech up rather often ... which adds to the impression that they're hypocrites. But ... regardless of this ... it's part of the reason why the terminally online (politically engaged) are so strongly polarized into the far left and the far right.
What I think is most likely at the core of 'their' definition of socialism is: "It has never worked!". That is a simple building block that can easily be set next to capitalism as the thing that works because we're all in it right now - and thus I take it that the ordinary capitalist anti-socialist has this simple idea that they have to explain to us why capitalism is good; Based on that premise. So, it has nothing to do with the core ideals of socialism - which they seem to more often than not believe in themselves - but this very simple understanding that "it has never worked". And based on that they try to construct their argument, clumsily trying to reach for words to express as much.

But ... that idea is challenged once we take it beyond the borders of any one given culture that is "part of" this phenomenon. So, things like Universal Health Care, Worker Unions, Government Regulations concerning all sorts of things (like safety concerns, first and foremost (like for food) or mandated hollidays) - all of those ideas would get labeled as "socialist" in the USA; While to most of the rest of the world that's just common sense. The UK, on a sidenote, seems to currently try to take the "conservative" route - a.k.a. removing access to Universal Health care from those that "they don't like". So, the normal person can still get most of the care they need - gender affirming care not being a part of it.
Here in Germany we have people that compare our current government to a dictatorship while talking of Russia as if it were this Perfect haven of Freedom. And what am I to make of that? Seriously!
To call it a matter of opinion or perspective ... well, that's kind of what I'm trying to write about here.


Conversely, the idea of what a 'socialist' is also changes depending on where you are. If I'm fairly alright with how things go here in germany - and tried to advocate for that in the USA, I'd be a socialist. A german socialist would however hardly agree with the idea that we're a socialist country. And in Russia or North Korea I'd probably be called a capitalist (as a negative).
Then maybe I'm a colonizer because I think that the colonizing campaigns of the past weren't all negative; Or a traitor because I think they weren't all good either.

Schroedinger's Vocabulary

Before I go on I feel like I must address something else. Something that's fresh on my mind because I witness it in school - but I certainly have witnessed as much all across the board. The thing is that the moment that people feel inconvenienced, they're getting stressed. And that stress rapidly flips into resentment of the thing that stresses them. The usual target among pupils would be a subject that they have difficulties with, then being called 'useless'.
Me being in my 40's and having for various reasons grown sympathetic towards education - I'd try to argue against that, but ... that feels like trying to chase waterfalls.

The same is true for politics, worsened by the various echo-chambers within which contrarian beliefs are getting re-enforced. That is why climate change is such a controversial topic, to the point where some people like to outright refuse its existence, or ... blame it on other things. My mum for instance argued that it's because there's so much concrete. That it gets heated up and radiates it throughout the day. Like ... 'obviously, duh'.

On another note have there been people pinning the recent inflation on [current government] - because somehow pinning it on Putin's ongoing douchebaggery or just (verifiable) corporate greed seems to be outlandish to them.

And I hate to say it, but I've grown somewhat afraid to speak in favor of 'climate conscious politics' because everyone seems to hate it. I mean, it is controversial - especially given that it doesn't seem to really help; Looking at how little of a fuck China or India seem to give about it - since it also requires us to deal with inconveniences. Voluntarily. And yea, Microplastics wouldn't bother you, probably, if you don't live in a densely populated area. But those of us who do - with the amount of cars passing through - SHOULD feel differently about it. Unless perhaps it requires you to pay more taxes, buy a new car or use public transportation ... I suppose.


In other words: We're at a stage now where bad actors don't need to do much Gish-Galloping anymore because the masses do it for them. Like, I clearly lack the official competence to argue against whatever they think justifies their view ... and doing the Picard Resignation is like all that's left.


I guess the next step then is to

(note: This is not a call to violence!)

...


I mean ... it's like ... I [take a deep breath to formulate something] but then I notice that I only want people to say, even just once, "hey, that makes sense" but usually what they do is to just continue with their nonsense

waiting for me to say "hey, that makes sense" instead.


And maybe the problem is that people have lost their ability to be honest; While at the same time they don't like to admit it because they're scared of the truth that it implies.

And that truth is ... essentially the reality we live in right now.


But back to the initial thing. One thing that then has the two sides stand apart is an agreement on what it means, needs or implies to "level the playing field to provide equal opportunity". And that disagreement may go back to the SJW vs Anti-SJW era; Where the Anti-SJWs where running the rhetoric that what SJWs want is 'equality of outcome', which has since been perverted into this abstract idea that trying to level the playing field is socialism, well ... except when its not, apparently.
One item in that discussion is, I think, the middle-class or 'small businesses'. So, when "socialists" say "tax the rich", conservatives always - I'm sure it's ALWAYS - bring up the middle-class and small businesses. While actual leftists always - it's close enough to ALWAYS - talk about the top 1% or even just the top 1% of the top 1%.

Why every modern day worker should despise Reagan and “Trickle down”
byu/MakeZulrahGr8Again inantiwork

especially this one:


Sure, this is specific to the USA - but, it's not like it doesn't concern us. I mean, if we are to get onto the same page, we have to do so across national boundaries.

But so, the sentiment that Conservatives share about this consistently jumps to the extremes of loss of personal property and death of small businesses; So that taxing the rich less becomes, in their minds, the answer to 'leveling the playing field'.
And since we're already on it, here's a video where someone else did some work on the matter:
The point being that I've heard some really wild stuff from US Conservatives about life in Europe, and some really wild stuff from US Lefties about life in the USA. And I'll leave it at that for the time being. What matters is that once again 'opinions' and 'perspectives' may differ - and that they do get better with facts. Facts may not care about your feelings, but if your feelings don't care about facts ... you're probably delusional.
And yet I can't help myself to voice my opinion as: For an economy to be healthy, it needs money to circulate. At the end of the day money is no good if you can't spend it.
Also: This discussion entirely leaves out stuff like properly regulating food. I mean, if the free market actually took care of things, US Americans should have easier access to healthy food compared to any other country in the world. "Let that sink in!".
I mean, for all the causality chains that theory crafters produce to defend capitalism; They yet tend to ignore the really simple and obvious stuff if it doesn't suit their agenda.


Anyway. Back to the real topic here.

Opinions, perspectives and such aside - if we want to improve our mutual understanding we have to improve our means of communication. And that, believe it or not, will ultimately revolve around some kind of common sense - which is ultimately about 'the most correct way' of saying certain things. Words are tools. And if you use a hammer to drive in a screw ... you're doing it wrong, in my honest opinion.

And maybe I'm guilty of that here if I left this as it is - to be taken as a defense of socialism. Well, it isn't. At best is this a big question mark, thrown into the public, reading "WTF are capitalists doing/thinking?" - akin to: If they can't get their basic facts straight, how am I to trust them with more complicated things?

Like yea, obviously: The truth is difficult sometimes. If you want to be completely honest, any assertion that can be expanded into multiple directions needs to be evaluated accordingly. And as a simple assumption may branch into multiple possibilities, each branch may further split up. Conversely the general vibe I'm getting from "Strong Conservative Men" is that they just don't care about that. And it works out for them because the capitalistic Utopia we live in makes it easy for grifters to be the shit floating on top.
They don't have to actually know what they do, outside of convincing people to give them money.

The best argument, to not let this be too one-sided, in favor of the Free Market is that somehow - speaking of the final conclusion to that video on taxes I shared here - things have yet leveled out. And still, we "socialists" have guarantees where "ConCaps" only have maybes.


So yea, since I've somehow maneuvered myself into this discussion - I guess a good spot to land this on is to acknowledge that these things can get complicated; And there's no ... safe and easy way to figure it all out properly.
To that end I also want to (re-)emphasize, that I'm not here to make any claims as to what is better. Judgments about that can also vary, I'm sure, dependent on what qualities you're concerned about. I have my own belief in what is better; And the main reason why I'm probably not going to diverge from that is because I also think that it 'has to be' better.

Whether that is my Christian self speaking or just me giving a damn about being an empathetic human being - I believe that it is 'necessary' that we learn to co-operate and all that; Trust and Love, peace and harmony, tolerance and good-will-hunting - and also pacifism - they all converge around some kind of idea of socialism. And that is what I call socialism. Or what socialism means to me. To ... stay clear of a headache regarding communists. This doesn't make me an anti-capitalist because I can deal with capitalism to an extent; But if it corrodes the fundamental good I believe in, that I want to support in this world, it's just bad. And no amount of excuses, causality-chaining, "it's complicated" and such can change that!

And while there was more I wanted to say about this, the original headline, I think I should call it a day for now.
Peace!