3 ms·

> When left-wingers say "true communism has never been tried", which sounds and is outrageously stupid, this is what they mean. i can't say what other people m

> When left-wingers say "true communism has never been tried", which sounds and is outrageously stupid, this is what they mean. i can't say what other people mean, especially when it comes to me secondhand like this, but what left-wingers should mean to say, (and probably do say, but it got garbled in your head), is that a communist society has never existed. a communist society is a speculated state of social development that has never existed. refer to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society you could make the same argument that democracy has never existed, and any government calling itself a democracy really means--if you're using the most generous interpretation--they are self-consciously structured in a way that is more democratic than some earlier government. and you'd be right about that, btw.

stale2002 4y ago
You are not understanding the context of this very common "true communism has never been tried" statement. The context is that says "Communism is bad. Look at every single example of all of these people who call themselves communists. Their societies suck!" And then, in order to divert from this valid criticism, someone will say "true communism has never been tried", and they will do this for every single possible example, of criticism of actual real life attempts at communism. So, the context is that these statements are used to ignore criticism of communists. This is why such a statement is stupid. It is pretty silly to say that nobody can criticize communism, because apparently every example that people use of communism failing or having problems, doesn't count.
- jdgoesmarching 4y ago
  I think it’s a pointless argument all around because there is too much bias in both defining a state as failed and agreeing on that’s state’s political orientation. I could argue that there are far more examples of failed capitalist states, but it would just devolve into endless debates of those definitions above based on differences in ideology. Even if my goal is to address the many misconceptions of “communist” states, it’s just not a useful way to go about it. Just to slide a point in here, nearly every leftist of every tendency has a long list of criticisms of countries who have declared themselves communist. The points just tend to be more nuanced than the cartoonishly evil story we are taught in the US.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > I could argue that there are far more examples of failed capitalist states You might be able to yes. But the whole point is that it is disingenuous to dismiss literally all criticism, of any attempts at either capitalism or communism, by just saying "Well thats not real X!" Eventually, yes, you have to accept criticism of your ideology, by looking at the actual real life attempted examples of that ideology. I am not saying that literally every single bad thing, done by a group that calls themself communist is valid criticism of communism. But some actual examples of attempted communism can be used as criticism of communism. So no, you cannot just ignore literally every single example of attempted communism. Yes, eventually we have to look at those examples. Some of them, at least. > it’s just not a useful way to go about it. Of course it is a useful way to look at problems with a system. A good way to find problems with a system, is to look at actual attempts to enact that system. It does not answer every single possible benefit or criticism of a system. But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence.
    - pasquinelli 4y ago
      > But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence. yeah, but the studies have all been tampered with. so they don't tell you what you might want to know, which is the merits of communism. what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is, in the same way that failed slave rebellions don't tell you much about the merit of the rebelling slaves, they show the strength of the slave owners.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is This is a cope unfalsifiable argument and is exactly what I am criticizing. No matter what evidence someone shows, the defense is to ignore it and say it is fake. You are engaging in exactly the problematic behavior that I was attacking, because literally no matter what evidence someone shows you, you can just ignore it. It is an invincible, unfalsifiable defense that allows someone to believe literally almost anything, because any counter evidence can just be ignored because of excuses like what you bought up. Unfalsifiable beliefs, like yours, are, almost by definition, impossible to refute and bad faith almost by definition.
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  > So, the context is that these statements are used to ignore criticism of communists. look back, that's not the context in _this conversation_.
tough 4y ago
I kinda make this argument and think every time than the OG democracy's in ancient greece had also slaves on it's society. (which couldn't vote unless freed and given citizenship after serving their masters well)

stale2002 4y ago

You are not understanding the context of this very common "true communism has never been tried" statement. The context is that says "Communism is bad. Look at every single example of all of these people who call themselves communists. Their societies suck!" And then, in order to divert from this valid criticism, someone will say "true communism has never been tried", and they will do this for every single possible example, of criticism of actual real life attempts at communism. So, the context is that these statements are used to ignore criticism of communists. This is why such a statement is stupid. It is pretty silly to say that nobody can criticize communism, because apparently every example that people use of communism failing or having problems, doesn't count.

jdgoesmarching 4y ago
I think it’s a pointless argument all around because there is too much bias in both defining a state as failed and agreeing on that’s state’s political orientation. I could argue that there are far more examples of failed capitalist states, but it would just devolve into endless debates of those definitions above based on differences in ideology. Even if my goal is to address the many misconceptions of “communist” states, it’s just not a useful way to go about it. Just to slide a point in here, nearly every leftist of every tendency has a long list of criticisms of countries who have declared themselves communist. The points just tend to be more nuanced than the cartoonishly evil story we are taught in the US.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > I could argue that there are far more examples of failed capitalist states You might be able to yes. But the whole point is that it is disingenuous to dismiss literally all criticism, of any attempts at either capitalism or communism, by just saying "Well thats not real X!" Eventually, yes, you have to accept criticism of your ideology, by looking at the actual real life attempted examples of that ideology. I am not saying that literally every single bad thing, done by a group that calls themself communist is valid criticism of communism. But some actual examples of attempted communism can be used as criticism of communism. So no, you cannot just ignore literally every single example of attempted communism. Yes, eventually we have to look at those examples. Some of them, at least. > it’s just not a useful way to go about it. Of course it is a useful way to look at problems with a system. A good way to find problems with a system, is to look at actual attempts to enact that system. It does not answer every single possible benefit or criticism of a system. But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence.
  - pasquinelli 4y ago
    > But yes, it is useful to look at the actual examples of a system. Thats called empirical evidence. yeah, but the studies have all been tampered with. so they don't tell you what you might want to know, which is the merits of communism. what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is, in the same way that failed slave rebellions don't tell you much about the merit of the rebelling slaves, they show the strength of the slave owners.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > what it tells you is how powerful the established ruling class is This is a cope unfalsifiable argument and is exactly what I am criticizing. No matter what evidence someone shows, the defense is to ignore it and say it is fake. You are engaging in exactly the problematic behavior that I was attacking, because literally no matter what evidence someone shows you, you can just ignore it. It is an invincible, unfalsifiable defense that allows someone to believe literally almost anything, because any counter evidence can just be ignored because of excuses like what you bought up. Unfalsifiable beliefs, like yours, are, almost by definition, impossible to refute and bad faith almost by definition.
pasquinelli 4y ago
> So, the context is that these statements are used to ignore criticism of communists. look back, that's not the context in _this conversation_.

tough 4y ago

I kinda make this argument and think every time than the OG democracy's in ancient greece had also slaves on it's society. (which couldn't vote unless freed and given citizenship after serving their masters well)