Embed Notice

@freeschool

> Cool. So what words do you think I should use for my definition.

If you are looking for the name of a form of government that has authoritative central banks there really isnt one. However if you want a form of government that is anti-capitalist but represents a dynamic where money directly effects your influence in the government (basically what people misuse capitalism to mean) then the closest I can think of is plutocracy.

If you just want to highlight the authoritative nature then you can say authoritism, which is a major component in how many define conservatism.

> And then how to avoid this - I can see myself like a scratched record falling back into it... because I think many others are also not as educated or good with nuances? (kinda funny but if lots of people think it's the same then they can agree incorrectly)

The best way to avoid it is learn the concepts and the vocabulary better and try to use narrow and specific language like I described above.

> The use of this word is for me to know what I mean and then also for others to know - so it's kind of a vicious cycle! -
> Although I am using the word incorrectly / inaccurately, ironically others / we know what I . they mean and share similar dislike in the things I listed along the way in reply to you.

Well no apparently others dont know what you mean, because based on this one individuals responses he seemed to completely derail the conversation focusing on communism and capitalism and completely avoiding the important aspect of authoritarianism and even making recommendations that would increase authoritarianism suggesting the use of language may give the **illusion** of people understanding you when in fact their just mapping their own definitions. It is all smoke and mirrors from what I see.

> I can see how people might naturally never come out of these proper definitions because the feelings are almost right to them or others (oppression or cheating of some kind, lack of power or some meta way to see it) and even if the words they use are not great we can agree on 'wrong' or 'right' in some way.

Its much simpler than that, its purely about tribalism and non-cooperation principles which ironically was the main topic. Look how this guy @messaroundmarx responded to even light symantic criticism, his immediate response was to try to "exile" me from any discussion. **This** anti-cooperation toxic behavior is exactly why people intentionally keep using words incorrectly, because those errors allow you to make nonsensical arguments and allow you to construct bad logic that let you "fit in" with the community. Its the same reason you do it, everyone does it. People are so toxic you will be an outcast if you actually use logic and have nuanced opinion, so you ahve to talk their language, hate who they hate, and tow the line and youll fit in. You only do that if you use the same language as them, however wrong it is because that language is centrtal tot he idology. Hating capitalism, without having a clue what that word even means, is the cool thing to do.

> So thanks for this talk.

Happy to

> A few questions to wrap is the over question and mini points here so I can continue on a better trajectory and even 'teach' others on a better way to distinguish as a better reference or step by step way. Any ideas?

Just what I said above, be mindful of the nuance, be careful about your words, and stop thinking in black and white terms all or nothing. A government isnt capitalist or not, **every** government has some amount of capitalism in it, its a matter of degrees. Its also important to know capitalism on its own means nothing all that useful other than "free market" so if you find yourself using it to mean everything a government is and does, stop and rethink.