That one ended with me receiving a death threat mailed to my house. Russia is as far from communism right now as it is possible to be. Its just America with less of a mask over its corrupt capitalism.
That's the point, though. When "They weren't really Communist" comes up, they're saying "It's not the end-state of Communism" - which is true.
But what they imply is "It's not really the execution of ideological Communism", which is something they will often walk-back at the first opportunity, praising to high-heaven the exact bullshit the Soviets and CCP institutionalized.
It's an excuse they use to distance themselves from ML atrocities and failures while still praising the whole warped ML system.
It would be like I said "The US isn't REALLY capitalist" to any criticism of the US's atrocities or failures caused by capitalist ideology, but still praised the exact system the US runs on.
Anytime a single person tells others to do something with the threat of retribution as a penalty for not following orders, that's authoritarianism. Sheep hate to be told they're being herded but don't know what living outside the herd is because the shepherd keeps scaring them away from that kind of thinking. Tankies and fashies will never be free and will always be used or threatened by their leaders.
I'm inclined to let the definition of communism be what communist parties have almost always done, violently seize all political and economic power for the elite. Notably not to destroy class divisions and grant economic power to the public. So the USSR were communist. China is a pseudo-communist spinoff. Neither are or were socialist.
But if you prefer an originalist definition of communism a la Marx, I guess it's a matter of preference. I don't have any affection for the term, nor an interest in rehabilitating it.
Disagreement in definitions of terms will always lead to unproductive confusion and argument. Define them however you want but make sure you are clear about what you mean by the word if there is any chance that they may use another definition.
Reminds me of the classic cop phrase "show me respect, and I'll show you respect" where the define "respect" in two different ways in the same sentence, i.e. "show deference and full submission to my authority, and I will give you the most basic human dignity."
At least we'll always have socialism as a term to enjoy, thanks to the right painting socialism as "Whenever the government does anything non-reprehensible at all"
14 replies
Or that Russia and China today aren't communist.
That one ended with me receiving a death threat mailed to my house. Russia is as far from communism right now as it is possible to be. Its just America with less of a mask over its corrupt capitalism.
If the nation has a stock market that means the workers are not being paid the value of their labor. That makes socialism difficult.
It's almost like authoritarianism and despotism are still authoritarianism and despotism regardless of what ideological dress they wear.
That really do not like when you do this. I think I've been banned from ml multiple times for pointing it out.
wasn’t the ussr and china using the word to indicate the end goal not the current state?
Hence the title
yeah. but i meant like documented formally in that manner. i thought it was written in state and rev or something. hrm.
That's the point, though. When "They weren't really Communist" comes up, they're saying "It's not the end-state of Communism" - which is true.
But what they imply is "It's not really the execution of ideological Communism", which is something they will often walk-back at the first opportunity, praising to high-heaven the exact bullshit the Soviets and CCP institutionalized.
It's an excuse they use to distance themselves from ML atrocities and failures while still praising the whole warped ML system.
It would be like I said "The US isn't REALLY capitalist" to any criticism of the US's atrocities or failures caused by capitalist ideology, but still praised the exact system the US runs on.
oh for sure. i was just trying to remember the text in which i had read those concepts.
Anytime a single person tells others to do something with the threat of retribution as a penalty for not following orders, that's authoritarianism. Sheep hate to be told they're being herded but don't know what living outside the herd is because the shepherd keeps scaring them away from that kind of thinking. Tankies and fashies will never be free and will always be used or threatened by their leaders.
I'm inclined to let the definition of communism be what communist parties have almost always done, violently seize all political and economic power for the elite. Notably not to destroy class divisions and grant economic power to the public. So the USSR were communist. China is a pseudo-communist spinoff. Neither are or were socialist.
But if you prefer an originalist definition of communism a la Marx, I guess it's a matter of preference. I don't have any affection for the term, nor an interest in rehabilitating it.
Disagreement in definitions of terms will always lead to unproductive confusion and argument. Define them however you want but make sure you are clear about what you mean by the word if there is any chance that they may use another definition.
Reminds me of the classic cop phrase "show me respect, and I'll show you respect" where the define "respect" in two different ways in the same sentence, i.e. "show deference and full submission to my authority, and I will give you the most basic human dignity."
At least we'll always have socialism as a term to enjoy, thanks to the right painting socialism as "Whenever the government does anything non-reprehensible at all"