A system where there is no central authority and everyone has an equal share of both responsibility and power? Somehow I don’t think they’d find that particularly enthralling.
To be fair 🤓 since it’s mostly theoretical, any definition of communism is going to be in flux as it has not achieved a shelf-stable real life application yet.
Ehhhhhh Communism is a stateless, moneyless society. Really a form of anarchism however states which aspire to move to this eventually often use central planning as a transitional step.
Someone working towards communism is a communist. A state that is working towards communism is a communist state.
Whether the state is actually trying to make itself obsolete is a different thing.
But that of course isn’t what they said even if might be what they meant. A communist society implies it has achieved communism because language is fun.
I would argue that a state can’t make that transition, as it is contrary to the structural organization and power dynamics of the state. So much so, that its effectively useless to label a state “moving towards communism” as communist. The closest a state ever got to actually doing that was Yugoslavia and that ended the minute Tito died. The term “communism” has been muddied by western propaganda and state capitalists co-opting the term. I think making the distinction is worthwhile and provides mutual understanding when people are communicating about something that has become so obfuscated
Since states aren’t real things with wills of their own and there are only people and their social constructs, you’re effectively arguing that it is impossible for anyone to act honestly or for altruistic purposes.
No system can withstand the people who make it up acting in bad faith. That does not mean that is impossible for systems to have integrity on the whole.
If you describe communism to these morons without ever saying “communism” then they salivate over what you have just described to them
A system where there is no central authority and everyone has an equal share of both responsibility and power? Somehow I don’t think they’d find that particularly enthralling.
That’s anarchism, communism can have a central authority, it’s just the resources are distributed equitably.
Anarchism, as a whole concept, doesn’t put equality first. It can divide power and resources equally, but it doesn’t have to.
With Communism there is a specific emphasis on power (and resources) and responsibility being equally shared amongst the populace.
These concepts often have overlap, they do not exist in vacuums unto themselves.
Thats socialism, which is meant to lead eventually to communism. The end goal is to have no state.
If my understanding is correct, that is.
To be fair 🤓 since it’s mostly theoretical, any definition of communism is going to be in flux as it has not achieved a shelf-stable real life application yet.
Ehhhhhh Communism is a stateless, moneyless society. Really a form of anarchism however states which aspire to move to this eventually often use central planning as a transitional step.
States don’t aspire to Communism, people do. States aspire to use a watered down form of Communism to trick populations into giving them power.
Communism describes a stateless, classless, moneyless society. A communist society with a central authority definitionally cannot exist
Someone working towards communism is a communist. A state that is working towards communism is a communist state.
Whether the state is actually trying to make itself obsolete is a different thing.
But that of course isn’t what they said even if might be what they meant. A communist society implies it has achieved communism because language is fun.
I would argue that a state can’t make that transition, as it is contrary to the structural organization and power dynamics of the state. So much so, that its effectively useless to label a state “moving towards communism” as communist. The closest a state ever got to actually doing that was Yugoslavia and that ended the minute Tito died. The term “communism” has been muddied by western propaganda and state capitalists co-opting the term. I think making the distinction is worthwhile and provides mutual understanding when people are communicating about something that has become so obfuscated
Since states aren’t real things with wills of their own and there are only people and their social constructs, you’re effectively arguing that it is impossible for anyone to act honestly or for altruistic purposes.
No system can withstand the people who make it up acting in bad faith. That does not mean that is impossible for systems to have integrity on the whole.
Not the actual republicans that are rich cunts, no, but their useful idiots who are dirt poor and fucking dumb, yes
Really? I doubt it. Calling them morons doesn’t really help your case either
You’re right, they’re pea-brained fuck stumps