4 ms·

Surely even the most simplistic definition of communism would include society-wide common ownership of the production and distribution of goods. A local governm

Surely even the most simplistic definition of communism would include society-wide common ownership of the production and distribution of goods. A local government owning one small commercial enterprise in a capitalist market economy is just not remotely close to even the crudest imaginable definition of communism.

deltasevennine 4y ago
Take a look at China. The word clearly lives on a gradient when you ask someone from China about it... (aka asking someone that actually lives in a communist country). Communism is therefore not strictly "society wide". Clearly. The parent prefixed his phrase with "emulated" as in "emulated communism" meaning that, obviously, the parent wasn't strictly reffering to "society wide" communism either. Communism has a definition and a connotation. The connotation is negative and is twisting YOUR personal definition of the word. To you, communism is evil, so you must twist the definition for it to function at the extreme. To you capitalism is good, so it's not at the extreme... it's more of a moderate concept to you. The reality is both communism and capitalism are SYMMETRIC concepts standing on opposite sides of a gradient. It's debate-able whether communism refers to extreme society wide ownership OR whether it refers to more moderate society wide ownership.... However, to strictly define communism to be extreme means that, symmetrically, capitalism must be defined in such a way too. If not then you're just being biased, because the consequence of defining things this way means that your in your personal vocabulary.... no word exists for "extreme capitalism," while such a word exists for "extreme communism." So stop being biased, open your mind a little.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > Communism has a definition and a connotation. The connotation is negative and is twisting YOUR personal definition of the word. To you, communism is evil, so you must twist the definition for it to function at the extreme. To you capitalism is good, so it's not at the extreme... it's more of a moderate concept to you. I’m very confused how you came to that interpretation from my comment.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    The interpretation is correct. Maybe the wording is a bit to over the top. Evil and good is not exactly right. Negative is the better word, but if I used it in my comment it would appear repetitive. The sentences wouldn't flow because I used the same word in the previous sentence. Either way, the overall logic is accurate. This is indeed an accurate depiction of your bias if we discount the the extremities associated with the words good and evil.
mxkopy 4y ago
No true Scotsman fallacy Are you saying that there's no distinction between local society and the entirety of the United States? That there's no concept of society at different levels?
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Huh? This definitely has nothing to do to with the No True Scotsman fallacy. It’s closer to the sorites paradox, except that I’m not claiming that there’s a clean line that can be drawn between systems of common ownership broad enough to be called communism and systems of common ownership that are not. There can undoubtedly be grey areas in the middle where reasonable people can disagree. But that doesn’t mean that there can’t be systems that clearly are communism and systems that clearly are not, and a small town that buys a grocery store is very clearly not communism by any remotely reasonable definition.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      > You're saying this isn't communism because it's not at sufficient scale or depth. No, communism simply isn’t an attribute that a small store has if it is owned by a local government. If 10,000 small town governments in the US start running their local grocery store that still has nothing to do with communism. Communism is an ideology and movement about establishing a society whose fundamental socioeconomic system is based on common ownership of production and distribution of goods and services.
      - mxkopy 4y ago
        You keep saying "this is not that, because this is not that" - which is fine and all, but it doesn't make it true. Please keep telling us what communism is and is not. With how certain you seem to be, these comments will surely end up being cited by a PhD in politics and history
mxkopy 4y ago
The people who work in the shop can exert influence in city council. Since the town is small, they can exert substantial influence. City council owns the shop. You could say, then, that the workers can exert substantial influence over the ownership of the shop. Note that this influence is much more entangled with working the shop than being a shareholder. Note that this influence is given as a matter of citizenship, not wealth. Is this communism? Maybe not. After all, the people working the shop aren't responsible for producing all the goods (after all, circles don't exist). Sociopolitical and economic theory is far from solved. You're assuming that there is a correct definition of communism. Speak quickly if you do, leading historians and sociologists all over the world are listening

deltasevennine 4y ago

Take a look at China. The word clearly lives on a gradient when you ask someone from China about it... (aka asking someone that actually lives in a communist country). Communism is therefore not strictly "society wide". Clearly. The parent prefixed his phrase with "emulated" as in "emulated communism" meaning that, obviously, the parent wasn't strictly reffering to "society wide" communism either. Communism has a definition and a connotation. The connotation is negative and is twisting YOUR personal definition of the word. To you, communism is evil, so you must twist the definition for it to function at the extreme. To you capitalism is good, so it's not at the extreme... it's more of a moderate concept to you. The reality is both communism and capitalism are SYMMETRIC concepts standing on opposite sides of a gradient. It's debate-able whether communism refers to extreme society wide ownership OR whether it refers to more moderate society wide ownership.... However, to strictly define communism to be extreme means that, symmetrically, capitalism must be defined in such a way too. If not then you're just being biased, because the consequence of defining things this way means that your in your personal vocabulary.... no word exists for "extreme capitalism," while such a word exists for "extreme communism." So stop being biased, open your mind a little.

tshaddox 4y ago
> Communism has a definition and a connotation. The connotation is negative and is twisting YOUR personal definition of the word. To you, communism is evil, so you must twist the definition for it to function at the extreme. To you capitalism is good, so it's not at the extreme... it's more of a moderate concept to you. I’m very confused how you came to that interpretation from my comment.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  The interpretation is correct. Maybe the wording is a bit to over the top. Evil and good is not exactly right. Negative is the better word, but if I used it in my comment it would appear repetitive. The sentences wouldn't flow because I used the same word in the previous sentence. Either way, the overall logic is accurate. This is indeed an accurate depiction of your bias if we discount the the extremities associated with the words good and evil.

mxkopy 4y ago

No true Scotsman fallacy Are you saying that there's no distinction between local society and the entirety of the United States? That there's no concept of society at different levels?

tshaddox 4y ago
Huh? This definitely has nothing to do to with the No True Scotsman fallacy. It’s closer to the sorites paradox, except that I’m not claiming that there’s a clean line that can be drawn between systems of common ownership broad enough to be called communism and systems of common ownership that are not. There can undoubtedly be grey areas in the middle where reasonable people can disagree. But that doesn’t mean that there can’t be systems that clearly are communism and systems that clearly are not, and a small town that buys a grocery store is very clearly not communism by any remotely reasonable definition.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > You're saying this isn't communism because it's not at sufficient scale or depth. No, communism simply isn’t an attribute that a small store has if it is owned by a local government. If 10,000 small town governments in the US start running their local grocery store that still has nothing to do with communism. Communism is an ideology and movement about establishing a society whose fundamental socioeconomic system is based on common ownership of production and distribution of goods and services.
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      You keep saying "this is not that, because this is not that" - which is fine and all, but it doesn't make it true. Please keep telling us what communism is and is not. With how certain you seem to be, these comments will surely end up being cited by a PhD in politics and history

mxkopy 4y ago

The people who work in the shop can exert influence in city council. Since the town is small, they can exert substantial influence. City council owns the shop. You could say, then, that the workers can exert substantial influence over the ownership of the shop. Note that this influence is much more entangled with working the shop than being a shareholder. Note that this influence is given as a matter of citizenship, not wealth. Is this communism? Maybe not. After all, the people working the shop aren't responsible for producing all the goods (after all, circles don't exist). Sociopolitical and economic theory is far from solved. You're assuming that there is a correct definition of communism. Speak quickly if you do, leading historians and sociologists all over the world are listening