Hello, communist here, No. Those places are NOT communist.
In fact, even they admit that they have not achieved communism, and communism is (from a marxist perspective, although there’s much feuding about this) meant to be a gradual process after a revolution. These places haven’t even achieved socialism.
The general idea is that there have been modes of production throughout history, first hunter gatherer, then agricultural feudalism, then capitalism, what communists believe is that the next step will be socialism. The reason they believe socialism will be next is because capitalism is defined by a class struggle between those who sell their labour and those who use others sold labour to profit. The next step is therefore to not have a class struggle between these two, the various ideas for what that might be like are socialist and communist.
Socialism is specifically when the workers own the means of production, communism is to take it yet another step further and abolish the state, currency, all forms of class division, etc.
Those are states claiming to be BUILDING communism… whether or not you believe them is a whole different story. I personally don’t, I think it’s POSSIBLE china actually might someday although probably against their governments will, but that’s a story for another day.
As for why Communists support these countries?
They believe that these authoritarian policies are a necessary evil meant for building communism, they do not believe that the evil things these countries are doing are communism, they don’t support the evil things these countries are doing, they just believe that they have no alternative in a world that is trying to crush communism, from their perspective all of the people with power, the bourgeois, are trying to prevent communism from taking hold, and these are VERY powerful people.
I personally believe it’s incredibly silly to assume that a government has your best interests at heart just because they say so, which is why i’m not a tankie. I hope this helps your understanding of what they believe.
Sounds like your entire argument is based on nothing but semantic and personal opinion as to what true communism is.
Would you like me to cite marx…? These are not my opinions. These are the opinions of marxist scholars… who… defined marxism and communism in the first place?
these aren’t arguments they’re statements of fact about what communists believe…
also of course they’re semantic, all conversations about the meaning of words are semantic??
"semantic /sĭ-măn′tĭk/
adjective
Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language."
Good luck trying to change society if you claim ‘But that’s not real communism!’ every each time
What? No, the claim is that they’re trying to build it, never that they just magically will achieve it. This argument doesn’t make sense unless you don’t even understand the claim being made.
Communism is quite clearly defined as a stateless, currencyless society without class division… we aren’t denying that without reason? We’re denying it because it definitionally doesn’t match it, and can’t hope to… because of the natural progression of history.
Or learn about what “dialectical materialism” means so that you can actually understand what you’re arguing against well enough to actually make an argument against it.
Marxes fallibility has nothing to do with anything, we were discussing what communists and MARXISTS believe… are you actually suggesting that what marx said is irrelevant when trying to understand communist thought??
the argument is that it wasn’t communism because marx clearly and over the course of many books defined the term countless times as “the end of history” and a stateless classless currencyless society in which the workers own the means of production… my argument is based on a reading of marxist literature… your argument is based on what exactly?
I guess there’s no rule against trolling so you’re fine. But I thought you were trolling both me and the other guy talking to you. I genuinely believed this. There’d be no point reporting if I didn’t.
Hello, communist here, No. Those places are NOT communist.
In fact, even they admit that they have not achieved communism, and communism is (from a marxist perspective, although there’s much feuding about this) meant to be a gradual process after a revolution. These places haven’t even achieved socialism.
The general idea is that there have been modes of production throughout history, first hunter gatherer, then agricultural feudalism, then capitalism, what communists believe is that the next step will be socialism. The reason they believe socialism will be next is because capitalism is defined by a class struggle between those who sell their labour and those who use others sold labour to profit. The next step is therefore to not have a class struggle between these two, the various ideas for what that might be like are socialist and communist.
Socialism is specifically when the workers own the means of production, communism is to take it yet another step further and abolish the state, currency, all forms of class division, etc.
Those are states claiming to be BUILDING communism… whether or not you believe them is a whole different story. I personally don’t, I think it’s POSSIBLE china actually might someday although probably against their governments will, but that’s a story for another day.
As for why Communists support these countries?
They believe that these authoritarian policies are a necessary evil meant for building communism, they do not believe that the evil things these countries are doing are communism, they don’t support the evil things these countries are doing, they just believe that they have no alternative in a world that is trying to crush communism, from their perspective all of the people with power, the bourgeois, are trying to prevent communism from taking hold, and these are VERY powerful people.
I personally believe it’s incredibly silly to assume that a government has your best interests at heart just because they say so, which is why i’m not a tankie. I hope this helps your understanding of what they believe.
Sounds like your entire argument is based on nothing but semantic and personal opinion as to what true communism is.
Good luck trying to change society if you claim ‘But that’s not real communism!’ every each time
Would you like me to cite marx…? These are not my opinions. These are the opinions of marxist scholars… who… defined marxism and communism in the first place?
these aren’t arguments they’re statements of fact about what communists believe…
also of course they’re semantic, all conversations about the meaning of words are semantic??
"semantic /sĭ-măn′tĭk/
adjective
Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language."
What? No, the claim is that they’re trying to build it, never that they just magically will achieve it. This argument doesn’t make sense unless you don’t even understand the claim being made.
Communism is quite clearly defined as a stateless, currencyless society without class division… we aren’t denying that without reason? We’re denying it because it definitionally doesn’t match it, and can’t hope to… because of the natural progression of history.
Please watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBRV3WK2x4
Or learn about what “dialectical materialism” means so that you can actually understand what you’re arguing against well enough to actually make an argument against it.
Marx is not infallible. Surely you disagree with Marx on what he said about jews?
I know the topic, and I’ve seen this argument so many times that it’s generic. ‘Oh, that wasn’t communism because the bible says so.’
Marxes fallibility has nothing to do with anything, we were discussing what communists and MARXISTS believe… are you actually suggesting that what marx said is irrelevant when trying to understand communist thought??
the argument is that it wasn’t communism because marx clearly and over the course of many books defined the term countless times as “the end of history” and a stateless classless currencyless society in which the workers own the means of production… my argument is based on a reading of marxist literature… your argument is based on what exactly?
how do you define communism?
Why did you report me? I have doubts about whether you’re arguing in good faith.
Because I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith, and i didn’t realize you were a moderator.
So you were trying to silence me? What rules did I break?
I guess there’s no rule against trolling so you’re fine. But I thought you were trolling both me and the other guy talking to you. I genuinely believed this. There’d be no point reporting if I didn’t.