4 ms·

That's not communism, though. Communism requires the withering of the state, so a communistic government is a contradiction of terms.

noobermin 9y ago
S/he probably meant socialist. Most of the people commenting don't know the difference.
- iguy 9y ago
  This seems to come down to prescriptivist / descriptivist. The word communism is used to label the empire of Lenin & Stalin, and their friends and admirers. That's what it means. They didn't all call themselves communists. The germans also don't call themselves german. We do. It was invented long before, as a label for some imaginary perfect system which did not need to run gulags to keep the lights on. This perfect place played an important theological and rhetorical role in these kingdoms. If discussing such issues we use the word for this too. Words can have several meanings.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    I'm sort of agreeing with you? My point is leftists say communism and mean something different (some leftists don't even consider Stalin a proper communist, Trotskyists for example) but people outside use it as a blanket term for the left. Even some in the US call conservative democrats "communists". Regardless, it's just a word. My point is people commenting don't know the difference anyway, it's best to just read their comment as referring to "those authoritarian states that called themselves communist."
    - iguy 9y ago
      Sorry I guess I was replying also to GP "That's not communism, though", who seems to be insisting that "communism" means only the mythical utopia.
      - KozmoNau7 9y ago
        Communism in its real original meaning, yes. Not the perversions of later tyrannical dictatorships.
        iguy 9y ago
        Well, the real meaning of words in English is defined by usage. And the English-speaking world spent half a century locked in cold war with an evil empire. That's what the word means. This imaginary utopia which some 19th writer dreamed up, to which said evil empire payed lip service, is a topic for those with special interests in 19th century utopian dreaming.
        KozmoNau7 9y ago
        The English-speaking world spent most of a century deeply immersed in anti-socialism/communism propaganda, you mean. This historical revision of "The US and capitalism did nothing wrong" needs to die.
        iguy 9y ago
        I make no claim that the winning side of this long war were a bunch of saints. I'm just arguing that against confusing the name of the losing side with the name of a famous utopian vision. On propaganda, you may notice that one side's propaganda needed to be backed up at home with a gulag system, while vocal dissent on the other side was not a bar to ivy league tenure.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Then they don't understand what they mean, "benign" AKA elective communism can only exist in a free and pluralistic open market society where people have the personal freedom to choose how to live. Trotsky would've been just as bad as Stalin in the end not because he was evil but because an authoritative regime has no other means of asserting power other than force and violence. Which is why under any autocracy even the most "benevolent" ones any challenge to the authority, ideology and core philosophy of the rule must be squashed.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Even if we take the most theoretic and idealistic interpretations of Marxism you always have what is called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially the phase that all communist governments get stuck on because there is no way for it to evolve into anything but another dictatorship, free market democracy or pure anarchy. The idealistic state which is supposed to come after the dictatorship in which 7 billion people somehow live in harmony and prosperity with no laws to enforce how to live or to protect them isn't possible. And a dictatorship by definition does not have the mechanism to yield power or to evolve in a non-violent manner and a natural instinct to preserve it at all cost even if that state was achievable it could never get there.
    - iguy 9y ago
      I just don't know why we give these imagined phases any more credence than the coming of the Twelfth Imam. They simply aren't relevant for talking about the brutal 20th century system of organising human affairs called communism. (Or rather, perhaps, no more relevant than the details of the Imam are to understanding the Iranian regime. If you want to go deep and read between the lines in speeches etc, then of course you have to know the relevant theology.)
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        Which phases? The dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially 20th century communism.
dogma1138 9y ago
Now we're back to the "no true scotsman" argument, a communist government is not a contradiction unless you go by the most extreme anarchist interpretations of communist doctrine. But sure show me how you transition from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase to this stateless paradise and I'll concede my argument.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Read Marx, then come back.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    I had, so again please tell me how we switch to communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat or any mechanism through which we can evolve through it and I’ll concede my argument. By Marks himself the dictatorship is a critical phase in the process.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      That's a twisting of terms, in the correct context, it's a temporary switch from a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the opposite. The term dicatorship is only used because it retains the state, as it will not yet have withered away. Thus it does not meet the definition of communism. But it is not the same as the common defition of a dicatorship, with oppression and selfish tyranny, which seems to be the association you want to make. I loathe linking to Wikipedia, but the page in question does sum it up quite well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletar...
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        Again in practice how do we switch from A) to B), the truth is that you can’t and you won’t since any dictatorship will naturally always elect to preserve it’s power. The stateless version of your so called communism is essentially pure libertarianism the problem is that both are just as impossible and unlike the latter the former cannot coexist with the free market of ideas which is the natural state of a nationless/stateless society.

noobermin 9y ago

S/he probably meant socialist. Most of the people commenting don't know the difference.

iguy 9y ago
This seems to come down to prescriptivist / descriptivist. The word communism is used to label the empire of Lenin & Stalin, and their friends and admirers. That's what it means. They didn't all call themselves communists. The germans also don't call themselves german. We do. It was invented long before, as a label for some imaginary perfect system which did not need to run gulags to keep the lights on. This perfect place played an important theological and rhetorical role in these kingdoms. If discussing such issues we use the word for this too. Words can have several meanings.
- noobermin 9y ago
  I'm sort of agreeing with you? My point is leftists say communism and mean something different (some leftists don't even consider Stalin a proper communist, Trotskyists for example) but people outside use it as a blanket term for the left. Even some in the US call conservative democrats "communists". Regardless, it's just a word. My point is people commenting don't know the difference anyway, it's best to just read their comment as referring to "those authoritarian states that called themselves communist."
  - iguy 9y ago
    Sorry I guess I was replying also to GP "That's not communism, though", who seems to be insisting that "communism" means only the mythical utopia.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      Communism in its real original meaning, yes. Not the perversions of later tyrannical dictatorships.
      - iguy 9y ago
        Well, the real meaning of words in English is defined by usage. And the English-speaking world spent half a century locked in cold war with an evil empire. That's what the word means. This imaginary utopia which some 19th writer dreamed up, to which said evil empire payed lip service, is a topic for those with special interests in 19th century utopian dreaming.
        KozmoNau7 9y ago
        The English-speaking world spent most of a century deeply immersed in anti-socialism/communism propaganda, you mean. This historical revision of "The US and capitalism did nothing wrong" needs to die.
        iguy 9y ago
        I make no claim that the winning side of this long war were a bunch of saints. I'm just arguing that against confusing the name of the losing side with the name of a famous utopian vision. On propaganda, you may notice that one side's propaganda needed to be backed up at home with a gulag system, while vocal dissent on the other side was not a bar to ivy league tenure.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Then they don't understand what they mean, "benign" AKA elective communism can only exist in a free and pluralistic open market society where people have the personal freedom to choose how to live. Trotsky would've been just as bad as Stalin in the end not because he was evil but because an authoritative regime has no other means of asserting power other than force and violence. Which is why under any autocracy even the most "benevolent" ones any challenge to the authority, ideology and core philosophy of the rule must be squashed.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Even if we take the most theoretic and idealistic interpretations of Marxism you always have what is called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially the phase that all communist governments get stuck on because there is no way for it to evolve into anything but another dictatorship, free market democracy or pure anarchy. The idealistic state which is supposed to come after the dictatorship in which 7 billion people somehow live in harmony and prosperity with no laws to enforce how to live or to protect them isn't possible. And a dictatorship by definition does not have the mechanism to yield power or to evolve in a non-violent manner and a natural instinct to preserve it at all cost even if that state was achievable it could never get there.
  - iguy 9y ago
    I just don't know why we give these imagined phases any more credence than the coming of the Twelfth Imam. They simply aren't relevant for talking about the brutal 20th century system of organising human affairs called communism. (Or rather, perhaps, no more relevant than the details of the Imam are to understanding the Iranian regime. If you want to go deep and read between the lines in speeches etc, then of course you have to know the relevant theology.)
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Which phases? The dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially 20th century communism.

dogma1138 9y ago

Now we're back to the "no true scotsman" argument, a communist government is not a contradiction unless you go by the most extreme anarchist interpretations of communist doctrine. But sure show me how you transition from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase to this stateless paradise and I'll concede my argument.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
Read Marx, then come back.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  I had, so again please tell me how we switch to communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat or any mechanism through which we can evolve through it and I’ll concede my argument. By Marks himself the dictatorship is a critical phase in the process.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    That's a twisting of terms, in the correct context, it's a temporary switch from a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the opposite. The term dicatorship is only used because it retains the state, as it will not yet have withered away. Thus it does not meet the definition of communism. But it is not the same as the common defition of a dicatorship, with oppression and selfish tyranny, which seems to be the association you want to make. I loathe linking to Wikipedia, but the page in question does sum it up quite well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletar...
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Again in practice how do we switch from A) to B), the truth is that you can’t and you won’t since any dictatorship will naturally always elect to preserve it’s power. The stateless version of your so called communism is essentially pure libertarianism the problem is that both are just as impossible and unlike the latter the former cannot coexist with the free market of ideas which is the natural state of a nationless/stateless society.