Tankies reaction to Beehaw removing itself from Lemmy -- "When you adopt an anti-communist stance, you pave the way for unhealthy social trends to takeover" also apparently Beehaw are fascists?
Tankies reaction to Beehaw removing itself from Lemmy -- "When you adopt an anti-communist stance, you pave the way for unhealthy social trends to takeover" also apparently Beehaw are fascists?
You're viewing part of a thread.
I just think it's convenient that communism gets to live in this little "no true scotsman/communism" bubble where if a state adopts communism and fails, it immedietly gets labeled as "not a real communist" state.
That way, instead of looking if there's something wrong with communism itself, it can get written off as the fault of the state attempting it.
It's not really convenient. It's that communism is an ideal that's literally impossible for large groups of humans to obtain.
There has never been a communist state because there can't be with people involved.
It's that communism is an ideal that's literally impossible for large groups of humans to obtain.
Bingo!
state adopts communism
But no state has actually adopted communism. Communism as a basis of an economy requires communal ownership of all goods; not state ownership, but communal. Which country has ever done that?
Okay, so when a country tries to adopt communism, if that makes you happy.
You're proving my point though.
None of them even tried to adopt communism, they all tried to adopt authoritarianism, using the word communism to garner support to get elected. Communism is a class-free society with communal ownership, no country has ever tried to be that.
Again, thanks for proving my point for me.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but you do you.
I'm not surprised.
Have a great day!
No, you're point is just shit.
The state can also control everything. In which case, China, Vietnam and Cuba.
That's authoritarianism, not communism.
Which can coincide with communism, see China.
No it cannot, that's not communism. China is as communist as North Korea is democratic. Just because a country calls itself something does not make it that thing.
Countries can have multiple different systems in place. China for example, is an authoritarian communist state.
Communism by definition cannot be authoritarian. So no, China is not an authoritarian communist state, it's just a an authoritarian state.
The only way for China to be communist is to give all people direct communal ownership of goods and services.
Communism can be authoritarian, though, as it has been in history.
What's your basis for this definition?
No it cannot because communism by definition must be a classless society. If there is a group above others that controls the state, it is no longer classless, and therefore not communist.
And you know, the name derives from communal, so no communal ownership = no communism.