Socialist countries aren’t communist, you call them pre-communist which highlights my point.
In my original comment, I make clear that if you want to count these countries as communist countries, you can but then you have to acknowledge the siege (as you call it). In this comment, you agree that they (the socialist countries that you chose to count as communist countries to even get this far into the argument) are under siege and consequently don’t behave as they would otherwise. By agreeing to that, you agree to my second point. You keep repeating the “less than capitalist countries” as if i was arguing that at all. Nowhere i said anything about them doing more or less harm than any other entity.
You should really ask yourself what you are arguing with whom. I mean i could start arguing with you that the earth isn’t flat and act like you said that if that helps you to understand.
Socialist countries aren’t communist, you call them pre-communist which highlights my point.
This is just quibbling over semantics & context. When communists run a state, yes that state is technically socialist/pre-communist. That’s why those states have “Socialist” in their names and not “Communist.” There is never going to be a “communist state,” because definitionally communism’s long-term end-goal is a classless society. And since we define the state as a system which protects the interests of one economic class over others, such a society would definitionally be stateless.
So when someone—assuming they know what they’re talking about—says “communist state/country,” they mean a communist-led socialist state.
It is so interesting how you all focus on how it is a communist state (by your chosen definition in this context) but ignore that in my comment, I am making clear that I am willing to accept that one want to call that communist for the sake of the conversation regardless of if, how or why it might or might not be the same or different. So you are welcome to call that communist. My point is simply whether or not that is communist is up to debate as a simple disagreement in definition of what makes a state communist, would kill the argument. And by calling it pre-communist, they admit that there is a definition of “communist” that the state is “pre” of, while, of course, insisting that it is communist, which is obviously a different definition because if it would be the same, it wouldn’t be “pre”.
So there are multiple definitions that one could use for communist in the context, if one would chose a definition of communist state that means the state operates in communism, then you can’t point at the victims of socialist state and call them victims of communism. If one would chose a definition that means the state aiming for communism, then of course, you could count them. And a person listen to the argument as presented in the original post could simply say “well there haven’t been a communism state, of course, the number is lower.” And the argument failed. Calling these states socialist, would avoid that, but of course then you couldn’t quite argue that communism is less harmful than capitalism, if you compare socialism and capitalism. And the argument for communism would fail for that reason.
If you think that is just semantics, then think that but you are wrong. It is about the validity of an argument that someone is trying to use to get people to support the cause that you seem to want to support. If I were you, I would care about the quality of the argument.
Communism is both a mode of production, and a process. Socialist countries run by communist parties are properly communist in that they are building communism in the real world. This is why Marx states in The German Ideology that
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
The point isn’t that socialist countries would be in that higher mode of production if they weren’t under siege, or that they aren’t sufficiently communist, but that they must build up state power to resist this siege, and as a consequence this state power sometimes commits excesses and mistakes.
Yes, you do. You have agreed to all the relevant points for my argument.
In my argument, I made it very clear that I don’t care whether or not you want to see these nation as communist or not, just wanted to note that the arguments would start there.
But instead, my argument is that total harm cause is a flawed method because as you stated yourself and I hope you agree with yourself, the socialist state were forced into more state power to protect themselves. That paranoia and that power together cause much of the harm. Both wouldn’t have existed if they weren’t under siege, which again is what you claim. So looking at the harm of socialism/communism and comparing it with capitalism, acts like the harm of socialism wasn’t partly caused by capitalism as well. So that comparison sucks and the argument fails.
And I am fairly certain, you agree with all of this, while you might dislike the words that I used.
This community likes to remind everyone that no communist country was allowed to just be communists in peace. So there was no “proper” communist country.
I am not mixing up the terms.
Socialist countries aren’t communist, you call them pre-communist which highlights my point.
In my original comment, I make clear that if you want to count these countries as communist countries, you can but then you have to acknowledge the siege (as you call it). In this comment, you agree that they (the socialist countries that you chose to count as communist countries to even get this far into the argument) are under siege and consequently don’t behave as they would otherwise. By agreeing to that, you agree to my second point. You keep repeating the “less than capitalist countries” as if i was arguing that at all. Nowhere i said anything about them doing more or less harm than any other entity.
You should really ask yourself what you are arguing with whom. I mean i could start arguing with you that the earth isn’t flat and act like you said that if that helps you to understand.
This is just quibbling over semantics & context. When communists run a state, yes that state is technically socialist/pre-communist. That’s why those states have “Socialist” in their names and not “Communist.” There is never going to be a “communist state,” because definitionally communism’s long-term end-goal is a classless society. And since we define the state as a system which protects the interests of one economic class over others, such a society would definitionally be stateless.
So when someone—assuming they know what they’re talking about—says “communist state/country,” they mean a communist-led socialist state.
It is so interesting how you all focus on how it is a communist state (by your chosen definition in this context) but ignore that in my comment, I am making clear that I am willing to accept that one want to call that communist for the sake of the conversation regardless of if, how or why it might or might not be the same or different. So you are welcome to call that communist. My point is simply whether or not that is communist is up to debate as a simple disagreement in definition of what makes a state communist, would kill the argument. And by calling it pre-communist, they admit that there is a definition of “communist” that the state is “pre” of, while, of course, insisting that it is communist, which is obviously a different definition because if it would be the same, it wouldn’t be “pre”.
So there are multiple definitions that one could use for communist in the context, if one would chose a definition of communist state that means the state operates in communism, then you can’t point at the victims of socialist state and call them victims of communism. If one would chose a definition that means the state aiming for communism, then of course, you could count them. And a person listen to the argument as presented in the original post could simply say “well there haven’t been a communism state, of course, the number is lower.” And the argument failed. Calling these states socialist, would avoid that, but of course then you couldn’t quite argue that communism is less harmful than capitalism, if you compare socialism and capitalism. And the argument for communism would fail for that reason.
If you think that is just semantics, then think that but you are wrong. It is about the validity of an argument that someone is trying to use to get people to support the cause that you seem to want to support. If I were you, I would care about the quality of the argument.
You are mixing up the terms
Where? Give 1 example.
Communism is both a mode of production, and a process. Socialist countries run by communist parties are properly communist in that they are building communism in the real world. This is why Marx states in The German Ideology that
The point isn’t that socialist countries would be in that higher mode of production if they weren’t under siege, or that they aren’t sufficiently communist, but that they must build up state power to resist this siege, and as a consequence this state power sometimes commits excesses and mistakes.
So you agree with me. Great. Good conversation.
No?
Yes, you do. You have agreed to all the relevant points for my argument.
In my argument, I made it very clear that I don’t care whether or not you want to see these nation as communist or not, just wanted to note that the arguments would start there.
But instead, my argument is that total harm cause is a flawed method because as you stated yourself and I hope you agree with yourself, the socialist state were forced into more state power to protect themselves. That paranoia and that power together cause much of the harm. Both wouldn’t have existed if they weren’t under siege, which again is what you claim. So looking at the harm of socialism/communism and comparing it with capitalism, acts like the harm of socialism wasn’t partly caused by capitalism as well. So that comparison sucks and the argument fails.
And I am fairly certain, you agree with all of this, while you might dislike the words that I used.
I was arguing against this point in particular.