They’re just undemocratic totalitarian states where the government has unrestrained control over basically every aspect of society. Overall, they’re in the same broad category as other dictatorships. There’s nothing particularly special about them other than good propaganda. Some of them did have stronger welfare states but I don’t think this makes them categorically different.
Well, not by the above definition, but that can’t apply to individuals since it describes qualities unique to groups of people and their relations.
So we get into a bit of a semantic dilemma here. Conventionally, communist can have two distinct meanings. One, describing an economic and political system, is the one I cited above. This is the most appropriate definition when speaking of nations or other large, autonomous societies. We could, in theory, assess whether these instances operate as communist societies in miniature, but it seems fairly clear they do not. And it’s not clear they really could, given their reliance on broader social systems. Indeed, many have argued that communism is only possible as a global system. If true, this could explain the failure of any existing or historical nation to reach this standard.
However, “communist” has also frequently been used as a term to describe people who advocate for or seek to build the above society—or at least claim to. So in that sense, users on those instances could be reasonably described this way. But this gets very messy. On the one hand, we could simply accept their statements on the matter. However, that would mean accepting that some dishonest people would be labeled communists despite not really matching the above definition at all. On the other hand, any standard to separate out such charlatans would require us to know their true intentions and perhaps even the reasonableness and effectiveness of their political actions and strategies.
Is an abolitionist who in every concrete action supports the institution of slavery really an abolitionist? Many so-called communists behave similarly with respect to the state. They claim their end goal is a stateless society, but at every opportunity they defend and expand state power, violence, and impunity. I don’t see how this will ever lead to a stateless society. So these questions are very difficult to answer, and some may even be fundamentally unknowable.
So TL;DR would be I don’t know, maybe, some probably yes, others probably no.
Yes, but only because they truly believe these places are building communism and that the evils they are committing are necessary evils towards that goal, and that in the long-term that goal is worker ownership over the means of production in a currencyless classless society.
Whether or not they’re actually supporting communist governments, whole different story…
There are obviously many necessary evils in the world. That’s just false. I don’t agree that authoritarian communism is one of them, but there are many.
It’s nice you have a special, ever-changing definition of communism that conveniently excludes authoritarians whenever you want and which you’re unable to properly define aside from vague handwaves with ‘watch this video’ or ‘read this book’ – As if a youtube video is credible to the likes of scholars, or that you expect people to read a book that has a certain point of view that is at odds with others.
You’re under the impression that this is an anti-communist community, it is not. You’re under the impression I don’t like communism, I don’t care about it, I think it’s wholly unrealistic and is entirely impossible to implement exactly as it’s written. As it stands, communism is dead and shows no signs of life anywhere in the world. If you want to hold onto dead ideology, feel free, I am a gnostic afterall.
Though, I would like to see you make these arguments against tankies instead of communities like this one. Unless you think that tankies are communist, in which case I’m concerned if you agree with them. Tell me also what you think of Stalin, Mao, North Korea, and how every country that has tried communism has ended up authoritarian. It appears to me that it’s impossible to implement communism without a dictatorship.
It’s nice you have a special, ever-changing definition of communism that conveniently excludes authoritarians whenever you want and which you’re unable to properly define aside from vague handwaves with ‘watch this video’ or ‘read this book’ – As if a youtube video is credible to the likes of scholars, or that you expect people to read a book that has a certain point of view that is at odds with others.
I defined it clearly, as all marxists do, as a classless, currencyless, stateless society in which the workers own the means of production at the “end of history” by the marxist materialist dialectic. I will not use any other definition because that’s the definition marx made…
impossible to implement exactly as it’s written.
Marx never gave a specific implementation or even wrote about how it would be implemented… he merely gave a critique of capital and explained some inevitabilities about future societies based on these observations.
Though, I would like to see you make these arguments against tankies instead of communities like this one.
I do. Furthermore I wasn’t even trying to argue with you, just inform you about communist belief. You were arguing against something no communist scholar would’ve said.
Unless you think that tankies are communist, in which case I’m concerned if you agree with them.
I think they are (sometimes) communist, but I disagree with their methods to such a degree that we are not similar at all. In the same way you don’t agree with hitler just because he was a capitalist.
Tell me also what you think of Stalin, Mao, North Korea, and how every country that has tried communism has ended up authoritarian.
Easy, I think they ended up authoritarian for a number of reasons, the first and foremost of which is that there is a great deal of power attempting to suppress communist thought, and a vanguard party was the easiest way to enact communist thought in the early history of communism, this combined with the fact that capitalists actively try to dismantle non-capitalist societies at every possible threat lead to a survival of the fittest scenario where authoritarian methods were the most survivable because ruthless authoritarianism is very good at surviving despite the world being against it.
I don’t want authoritarian communism, in my eyes the ends do not justify the means, I want something similar to the anarcho-syndicalists of revolutionary catalonia, or the zapatistas of mexico… which by the way are counter examples to the notion that all socialist projects end up authoritarian, they were both fundamentally democratic from the ground up to such an extent that everything was handled democratically, no politicians even in the case of the zapatistas.
It’s not at all impossible to implement communism without a dictatorship, anarchists have done it countless times and then been destroyed by large capitalist armies throughout history. The real question is can a communist or anarchist society survive being trampled by the bourgeois. I think it’s possible but the conditions must be right, and I think your stance would have said the american revolution would be impossible.
They’re just undemocratic totalitarian states where the government has unrestrained control over basically every aspect of society. Overall, they’re in the same broad category as other dictatorships. There’s nothing particularly special about them other than good propaganda. Some of them did have stronger welfare states but I don’t think this makes them categorically different.
Are Hexbear, Lemmygrad and lemmy.ml communist?
Well, not by the above definition, but that can’t apply to individuals since it describes qualities unique to groups of people and their relations.
So we get into a bit of a semantic dilemma here. Conventionally, communist can have two distinct meanings. One, describing an economic and political system, is the one I cited above. This is the most appropriate definition when speaking of nations or other large, autonomous societies. We could, in theory, assess whether these instances operate as communist societies in miniature, but it seems fairly clear they do not. And it’s not clear they really could, given their reliance on broader social systems. Indeed, many have argued that communism is only possible as a global system. If true, this could explain the failure of any existing or historical nation to reach this standard.
However, “communist” has also frequently been used as a term to describe people who advocate for or seek to build the above society—or at least claim to. So in that sense, users on those instances could be reasonably described this way. But this gets very messy. On the one hand, we could simply accept their statements on the matter. However, that would mean accepting that some dishonest people would be labeled communists despite not really matching the above definition at all. On the other hand, any standard to separate out such charlatans would require us to know their true intentions and perhaps even the reasonableness and effectiveness of their political actions and strategies.
Is an abolitionist who in every concrete action supports the institution of slavery really an abolitionist? Many so-called communists behave similarly with respect to the state. They claim their end goal is a stateless society, but at every opportunity they defend and expand state power, violence, and impunity. I don’t see how this will ever lead to a stateless society. So these questions are very difficult to answer, and some may even be fundamentally unknowable.
So TL;DR would be I don’t know, maybe, some probably yes, others probably no.
So if you know your argument is semantic, why are you even arguing it to begin with?
semantics /sĭ-măn′tĭks/
noun
The study or science of meaning in language.
It does not mean “pointless things that shouldn’t be argued”
Can you send this definition to the above user as well?
No need.
Oh, I’ll do it for you.
semantics /sĭ-măn′tĭks/
noun
The study or science of meaning in language.
There was no need because they used the word properly.
Because semantics are an important element of this discussion? I don’t understand the question.
Yes, but only because they truly believe these places are building communism and that the evils they are committing are necessary evils towards that goal, and that in the long-term that goal is worker ownership over the means of production in a currencyless classless society.
Whether or not they’re actually supporting communist governments, whole different story…
There is no such thing as a necessary evil. Don’t be revisionist.
Also I just want to say I have no idea why you think revisionism is relevant here
There are obviously many necessary evils in the world. That’s just false. I don’t agree that authoritarian communism is one of them, but there are many.
What do you think is a necessary evil?
And what do you mean? Is authoritarian communism evil?
All forms of authoritarianism are evil, but communist authoritarianism is an oxymoron.
self defense is a necessary evil, for example
It’s nice you have a special, ever-changing definition of communism that conveniently excludes authoritarians whenever you want and which you’re unable to properly define aside from vague handwaves with ‘watch this video’ or ‘read this book’ – As if a youtube video is credible to the likes of scholars, or that you expect people to read a book that has a certain point of view that is at odds with others.
You’re under the impression that this is an anti-communist community, it is not. You’re under the impression I don’t like communism, I don’t care about it, I think it’s wholly unrealistic and is entirely impossible to implement exactly as it’s written. As it stands, communism is dead and shows no signs of life anywhere in the world. If you want to hold onto dead ideology, feel free, I am a gnostic afterall.
Though, I would like to see you make these arguments against tankies instead of communities like this one. Unless you think that tankies are communist, in which case I’m concerned if you agree with them. Tell me also what you think of Stalin, Mao, North Korea, and how every country that has tried communism has ended up authoritarian. It appears to me that it’s impossible to implement communism without a dictatorship.
I defined it clearly, as all marxists do, as a classless, currencyless, stateless society in which the workers own the means of production at the “end of history” by the marxist materialist dialectic. I will not use any other definition because that’s the definition marx made…
Marx never gave a specific implementation or even wrote about how it would be implemented… he merely gave a critique of capital and explained some inevitabilities about future societies based on these observations.
I do. Furthermore I wasn’t even trying to argue with you, just inform you about communist belief. You were arguing against something no communist scholar would’ve said.
I think they are (sometimes) communist, but I disagree with their methods to such a degree that we are not similar at all. In the same way you don’t agree with hitler just because he was a capitalist.
Easy, I think they ended up authoritarian for a number of reasons, the first and foremost of which is that there is a great deal of power attempting to suppress communist thought, and a vanguard party was the easiest way to enact communist thought in the early history of communism, this combined with the fact that capitalists actively try to dismantle non-capitalist societies at every possible threat lead to a survival of the fittest scenario where authoritarian methods were the most survivable because ruthless authoritarianism is very good at surviving despite the world being against it.
I don’t want authoritarian communism, in my eyes the ends do not justify the means, I want something similar to the anarcho-syndicalists of revolutionary catalonia, or the zapatistas of mexico… which by the way are counter examples to the notion that all socialist projects end up authoritarian, they were both fundamentally democratic from the ground up to such an extent that everything was handled democratically, no politicians even in the case of the zapatistas.
It’s not at all impossible to implement communism without a dictatorship, anarchists have done it countless times and then been destroyed by large capitalist armies throughout history. The real question is can a communist or anarchist society survive being trampled by the bourgeois. I think it’s possible but the conditions must be right, and I think your stance would have said the american revolution would be impossible.