Communism

[Conscentia]

Or indeed these definitions.

com·mu·nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.


2 and 3 are entirely in line with stalinism.
I see nothing in 1 which is against stalinism.

Stalinism does not fit Wikipedia's definition of communism or Marx's.

And Etymonline disagrees with thy dictionary:
communism (n.)
"social system based on collective ownership," 1843, from French communisme (c.1840) from commun (Old French comun; see common (adj.)) + -isme (see -ism). Originally a theory of society; as name of a political system, 1850, a translation of German Kommunismus (itself from French), in Marx and Engels' "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Cf. communist. In some cases in early and mid-20c., a term of abuse implying anti-social criminality without regard to political theory.

[Cameroi]

After 1835, yes. By then the modern definition existed.

So long as we're going by modern definitions:

Communism
Noun
A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and...

What about this ISN'T applicable to stalinism?

It seems to me it applies ENTIRELY and argues what I have been all along.
Derivation, advocation of the main principle, and acceptance of goals is all that is required. Nothing about method or practice.

i don't know what dictionary you're using, but clearly it is one that is premeditated biased and grossly inaccurate. marxISM itself does not "advocate" class, or any other kind, of "warfare", nor the nationalization of "all" property. only that the land belong to all people and creatures, as in reality and nature it does anyway, and that THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION not be held by the few at their complete and exclusive discretion.

[Ostroeuropa]

Or indeed these definitions.

com·mu·nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.


2 and 3 are entirely in line with stalinism.
I see nothing in 1 which is against stalinism.

Stalinism does not fit Wikipedia's definition of communism or Marx's.

And Etymonline disagrees with thy dictionary:
communism (n.)
"social system based on collective ownership," 1843, from French communisme (c.1840) from commun (Old French comun; see common (adj.)) + -isme (see -ism). Originally a theory of society; as name of a political system, 1850, a translation of German Kommunismus (itself from French), in Marx and Engels' "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Cf. communist. In some cases in early and mid-20c., a term of abuse implying anti-social criminality without regard to political theory.

Wikipedia does however consider stalinism a communist ideology. (Your additional points are also addressed below.)

i don't know what dictionary you're using, but clearly it is one that is premeditated biased and grossly inaccurate.

I used two results, google's dictionary and the top result on google.
Heres the 2nd result if you want to dismiss those.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Therefore, stalinism is communism.
It just isn't DEFINITIVE of communism, which is exactly what i've said.

Mirriam webbster likewise gives similar definitions.

[Zutendaal]

The only time communism has ever been implemented successfully, is under communes, any bigger than a commune and the whole system falls apart and become oppressive.

On a side note: I'm in favor of commune so long as the people within the commune are voluntarily helping out one another.

One word:CUBA
average lifspan higher then USA, very low child death rates, 99,8% alphabetisation grade and th only nation to be deemed durable enough by WWF. communism works

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The only time communism has ever been implemented successfully, is under communes, any bigger than a commune and the whole system falls apart and become oppressive.

On a side note: I'm in favor of commune so long as the people within the commune are voluntarily helping out one another.

One word:CUBA
average lifspan higher then USA, very low child death rates, 99,8% alphabetisation grade and th only nation to be deemed durable enough by WWF. communism works

It isn't communist.

[Conscentia]

Wikipedia does however consider stalinism a communist ideology.

It does?

[Duvniask]

Wikipedia does however consider stalinism a communist ideology. (Your additional points are also addressed below.)

In regards to the encyclopedia.

"Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."

[Dejanic]

You're twisting the definition of Communism to try make us all look like Ussr supporting Stalinists, most Communists now a days are staunchly opposed to Stalin, and I myself have 0 views in common with Stalin, but for future reference I'll be sure to take a leaf out of your book and equate all Capitalists with Francisco Franco.

By the way, as Marxists, we follow the Marxian definition of Communism, which has always been since conception, a theoretical classless stateless society of free producers, you can equate Communism with state ownership all you want, but it isn't going to work with you, because I and most Communists won't be here to defend state ownership.

[Mavorpen]

So the moral of this discussion is that dictionaries outside of Oxford are shit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Wikipedia does however consider stalinism a communist ideology. (Your additional points are also addressed below.)

In regards to the encyclopedia.

"Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."

Continued.
"This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations"

And in context of the stalinism page:
Stalinism is the ideology that Joseph Stalin conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union, and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist ideology


Though, I should add:
But considered by some historians to be a significant deviation from this philosophy

[Mavorpen]

Wikipedia does however consider stalinism a communist ideology.

It does?

Wikipedia can't consider anything. It states what OTHERS consider things as. It states that Stalinism is generally considered a form of Marxism-Leninism while at the same time noting that it deviates greatly from the ideology.

In other words, saying, "Wikipedia considers X to be true" isn't a good tactic.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're twisting the definition of Communism to try make us all look like Ussr supporting Stalinists, most Communists now a days are staunchly opposed to Stalin, and I myself have 0 views in common with Stalin, but for future reference I'll be sure to take a leaf out of your book and equate all Capitalists with Francisco Franco.

By the way, as Marxists, we follow the Marxian definition of Communism, which has always been since conception, a theoretical classless stateless society of free producers, you can equate Communism with state ownership all you want, but it isn't going to work with you, because I and most Communists won't be here to defend state ownership.

That's precisely what i'm not doing.
I'm saying stalinism is a type of communism but is not definitive of communism.
All stalinists are communists.
Not all communists are stalinists.

[Duvniask]

In regards to the encyclopedia.

"Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."

Continued.
"This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations"

And in context of the stalinism page:
Stalinism is the ideology that Joseph Stalin conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union, and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist ideology


Though, I should add:
But considered by some historians to be a significant deviation from this philosophy

Note. I did include:

as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

[Choronzon]

It isn't communist.

And I hear no true Scotsman would call it such.

[Ostroeuropa]

Continued.
"This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations"

And in context of the stalinism page:
Stalinism is the ideology that Joseph Stalin conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union, and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist ideology


Though, I should add:
But considered by some historians to be a significant deviation from this philosophy

Note. I did include:

as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

So you'd agree that Stalinism is a type of communism then.

[Mavorpen]

So you'd agree that Stalinism is a type of communism then.

See, this argument is always caused by poor word choice. It's a communist ideology. The Soviet Union however was not a communist society.

[Ostroeuropa]

So the moral of this discussion is that dictionaries outside of Oxford are shit.

Definition of communism
noun
[mass noun]
a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. See also Marxism.
The most familiar form of communism is that established by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution of 1917, and it has generally been understood in terms of the system practised by the former Soviet Union

Oxford dictionary online. I actually think this one is the worst definition.

[Mavorpen]

So the moral of this discussion is that dictionaries outside of Oxford are shit.

Definition of communism
noun
[mass noun]
a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. See also Marxism.
The most familiar form of communism is that established by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution of 1917, and it has generally been understood in terms of the system practised by the former Soviet Union

Oxford dictionary online.

Dude...learn what a joke is. Please.

[Dejanic]

You're twisting the definition of Communism to try make us all look like Ussr supporting Stalinists, most Communists now a days are staunchly opposed to Stalin, and I myself have 0 views in common with Stalin, but for future reference I'll be sure to take a leaf out of your book and equate all Capitalists with Francisco Franco.

By the way, as Marxists, we follow the Marxian definition of Communism, which has always been since conception, a theoretical classless stateless society of free producers, you can equate Communism with state ownership all you want, but it isn't going to work with you, because I and most Communists won't be here to defend state ownership.

That's precisely what i'm not doing.
I'm saying stalinism is a type of communism but is not definitive of communism.
All stalinists are communists.
Not all communists are stalinists.

Stalinism is a supposide method to achieve Communism, there is no such thing as a "type of Communism" as Communism is a stateless classless society of free producers, and Stalin is a supposide form of Marxism which attempted to achieve this end goal, Stalinism in itself is not Communism.

Yes, some Stalinists are Communists, but that is because of the end goal of a stateless classless society they wish to achieve, the methods they wish to use to achieve this end goal however, are not Communism, they are transitional methods in which Stalin described as "Socialism, (hence the name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

Stalinism is a method, not an end goal, it is a transitional ideology that wishes to achieve Communism, it is not Communism.

[Ostroeuropa]

So you'd agree that Stalinism is a type of communism then.

See, this argument is always caused by poor word choice. It's a communist ideology. The Soviet Union however was not a communist society.

I don't think i've ever stated that the USSR was communist in this thread. Only that stalinism is. So if that's the line your taking it's essentially a concession, since stalinism cannot be a society, but is in fact an ideology.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oxford dictionary online.

Dude...learn what a joke is. Please.

I know you were joking. This just made it funnier.

[Mavorpen]

See, this argument is always caused by poor word choice. It's a communist ideology. The Soviet Union however was not a communist society.

I don't think i've ever stated that the USSR was communist in this thread. Only that stalinism is. So if that's the line your taking it's essentially a concession, since stalinism cannot be a society, but is in fact an ideology.

A concession on what? I didn't state that you've said anything about the USSR. Jesus, use reading comprehension man.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's precisely what i'm not doing.
I'm saying stalinism is a type of communism but is not definitive of communism.
All stalinists are communists.
Not all communists are stalinists.

Stalinism is a supposide method to achieve Communism, there is no such thing as a "type of Communism" as Communism is a stateless classless society of free producers, and Stalin is a supposide form of Marxism which attempted to achieve this end goal, Stalinism in itself is not Communism.

Yes, some Stalinists are Communists, but that is because of the end goal of a stateless classless society they wish to achieve, the methods they wish to use to achieve this end goal however, are not Communism, they are transitional methods in which Stalin described as "Socialism, (hence the name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

Stalinism is a method, not an end goal, it is a transitional ideology that wishes to achieve Communism, it is not Communism.

1. No, that's a communist society. Communism is an ideology, of which stalinism is a kind of.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

It isn't communist.

And I hear no true Scotsman would call it such.

It has a state. It has classes. It has money. It's moving towards free capitalist markets.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't think i've ever stated that the USSR was communist in this thread. Only that stalinism is. So if that's the line your taking it's essentially a concession, since stalinism cannot be a society, but is in fact an ideology.

A concession on what? I didn't state that you've said anything about the USSR. Jesus, use reading comprehension man.

That you've chosen words poorly. "Stalinism is a type of communism." cannot be read in ANY way to mean "A stalinist society is a communist society." without brutalizing the language.
So you've accepted that:

"Stalinism is a communist ideology." (that stalinism is a type of communism.)
And admitted that the argument is started by poor word choice.
Then conviniently ignored that I chose my words very carefully and yet you still started the argument.
In what sense, now that you have admitted that stalinism is a communist ideology, have I said anything wrong?
And yet you've argued that I am in fact wrong, despite just now admitting that you agree with me. So you'll either need to point out where I was arguing about societies, or you just conceded.