npub1zh…gdmh9 on Nostr: > which is defined by this I do not think we're using the same definitions. > people ...

> which is defined by this

I do not think we're using the same definitions.

> people can trade goods without private ownership of land.

I don't think anyone's philosophical outlook says that this is false. This is a pretty good indicator that "actually, what you mean by this term is something else" is incorrect, you know, like I've heard people that dislike capitalism give several different, contradictory definitions of the term and the word doesn't matter, the word just exists as a lossy method of transferring meaning. You define something, this is the meaning you have ascribed, and some things (large philosophical concepts) defy short meanings (For example (and dear god please no one interpret this in a way that causes them to think I want to engage in a religious debate), does monotheism include trinitarianism? Depends on if you are talking to a trinitarian or someone that dislikes trinitarians but that does like monotheism: you have to just take what the speaker is saying and gather the meaning.), so you're better off just figuring out what the person means and then addressing it, rather than addressing something else and trying to adjust the meaning the speaker intended to fit the objection you have.

> dictator communism is one form, the Trotskyist one would have an elected council that could be revoked or worse in case of treason

Trotsky suggested a highly stratified society, because he suspected that farm labor would always end up siding with landowners: so the farmers would be below the proletariat, the proletariat below the "vanguard of the proletariat", the vanguard subject to the Fourth International, and the Fourth International was run by him.