> He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. No, he didn't. > Communism

> He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. No, he didn't. > Communism is a socio-political theory. No, it isn't. It's an economic system where the means of production is commonly owned. This has socio-political consequences, and socio-political requirements, but is not itself a socio-political system. Democracy is a socio-political system. Capitalism is not. Monarchy is a socio-political system. Communism is not. Meritocracy is a socio-political system. Distributism is not. > As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society. He never said otherwise. That was his entire point. > Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose. Or you could acknowledge his actual point, which is that communism and capitalism are able to, and do, coexist.