Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
@ Alassius: At this point, I think it's fairly clear where, why and how we disagree, and that neither of us stand to profit from a continued debate, so, if it's alright with you, I'll leave it be.
What is communism ?
- Thread starter carniflex
- Start date
GhostWriter16
Deity
I prefer:
Only C applies.
With regards for A, it is very hard for any sort of centralized economy to occur when there is no goverment to control it!
As for B, I think you really need to read Marx. He explicitly defines Communism as the 'triumph of democracy'. A one party state sort of defeats the point of democracy.
Yet China is presently a communist state.
Saudi Arabia isn't though, so B doesn't MAKE you communist, and B isn't REQUIRED for communism, but B and Communism CAN co-exist IMO.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
In the sense that it currently operates under a communist system, or in the sense that it is ideologically communist? The Chinese government certainly denies the former, and the latter no more marks communism as innately dictatorial than the Red Terror marked the same of Liberalism.
GhostWriter16
Deity
China is commonly considered a Communist state. Or is the US not capitalist either? (Capitalism, by definition, means the government is out of the market.) However, no. The US runs on a free market, so we call them capitalist. China has state run markets, so we call them communist.
Just for curiosity, are you a market socialist or an anarcho-communist, because I've seen you argue things that imply both?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
In an ideological sense, perhaps, but that has never indicated- at least, not to those with the loosest grasp of political theory- that the system under which they operated is intended to be communist. Besides, at this point, they've explicitly rejected Maosim, so even the ideological label of "communist" is iffy (and not one which I think they shall ever make any serious effort towards validating).
Honestly, it's hard to give myself a label; "transitional market syndicalist" probably describes my immediate ideology, as I see the passing of the economic sovereignty to the worker as the first step on whatever road we may take. After that, I have sympathies for anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-collectivism, perhaps undertaken in that order, and anarcho-communism a potential long-term goal, but, honestly, I am as yet uncommitted. One thing at a time, you might say.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Fair enough.
It's A for the reason I gave at the end of this post. It's B in the sense that it's explicitly given as the way to achieve C. You can argue that B is not necessary, but until you find an alternative, B is the only set of practical policies that can be associated with communism.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The essential nature of an ideology is not dictated by your personal scepticism, but by its nature as stated by its theorists and proponent (which, incidentally, is not properly expressed in any of the options). One can argue that A-Communism or B-Communism are the only feasible varieties, but that does not for a second imply that they are the only form that the ideology may take.
Your opponents may be wrong, but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily double-thinking hypocrites. That strikes me as an attempting to rationalise your own hostility.
You should read Popper. Is the fact that you cannot disprove God a proof that God exists? If you still uphold Marxism despite all the evidences against it, you have to reduce your argument to a theological one. That's what Popper was really against, not Marxism itself.
Double-thinking would be if you are consciously aware that Marxism leads to Stalinism, while at the same time debating that it does not. I suspect most socialists would rather think Marxism doesn't lead to Stalinism instead. That's where I disagree, but disagreeing with me doesn't by itself make one a hypocrite, if you think my analysis is flawed (which it certainly is). Agreeing with my logic, but disagreeing with my conclusion does.
Similar threads
