Why I think the term "Far Right" should be redefined

[Gaelic Celtia]

This is exactly why it is hard to implement it in real life.

I'd ratheter take the word of world class professors and Wikipedia over some random bloke on the internet. Communism is state control over the economy.

In the idea of Pure Communism, there is no government.

[Sibirsky]

There is no state in communism.

How?

The very first sentence of the Wiki entry on communism says...

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterised by the absence of classes, money,[1][2] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.[3]

That's how. It's literally the definition.

[Sibirsky]

This is exactly why it is hard to implement it in real life.

I'd ratheter take the word of world class professors and Wikipedia over some random bloke on the internet. Communism is state control over the economy.

[Blekksprutia]

I'd ratheter take the word of world class professors and Wikipedia over some random bloke on the internet. Communism is state control over the economy.

oh my god it happened again

[Holochrome]

How?

The very first sentence of the Wiki entry on communism says...

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterised by the absence of classes, money,[1][2] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.[3]

That's how. It's literally the definition.

I guess it changed since I last torrented it. Oh well. The point still stands that its broken, even if I never pointed it out.

[Gaelic Celtia]

The very first sentence of the Wiki entry on communism says...



That's how. It's literally the definition.

I guess it changed since I last torrented it. Oh well. The point still stands that its broken, even if I never pointed it out.

No that has always been a tenant of true communism. It did not change overnight.

[Sibirsky]

The very first sentence of the Wiki entry on communism says...



That's how. It's literally the definition.

I guess it changed since I last torrented it. Oh well. The point still stands that its broken, even if I never pointed it out.

No, that has always been the definition. It has not changed.

[Alyakia]

not very good communists. hated by every other "communist" state, partially due to the fact they shit all over everyone else ideas of communism in a spectacular way. not the best example.

Is this the "they're not 'real' communists" argument?

yes. we have a few pretty concrete definitions of communism, and a few weird definitions of communism as coined by people like stalin or possibly even mao. and they fit neither of them. it's hard to understate how "not real communists" they were by every metric bar possibly one.

not very good communists. hated by every other "communist" state, partially due to the fact they shit all over everyone else ideas of communism in a spectacular way. not the best example.

Whether they were hated by other communists or not does little to change the fact that they were, or thought they were, practicing communism.

There is no such thing as a "good Communist", all attempts at Pure Communism have turned to corrupt dictatorships that completely skew the original ideas of the ideology.

and? they can think they're practicing communism while they do things that are pretty blatant not communist to the point that even the other communist states start looking at them weird but that won't make it true. do you remember when marx advocated murdering the ethnicites you don't like and rebuilding your ancient empire? no? what? that's completely contrary to the idea of everything communist? oh.

i want to say that's not true. but a capitalist dictatorship supported by foreign powers/foreign invasion is also a corrupt dictatorship and completely skews the ideas of communism. so it's probably true, but not for the reasons you think it is.

This is exactly why it is hard to implement it in real life.

I'd ratheter take the word of world class professors and Wikipedia over some random bloke on the internet. Communism is state control over the economy.

"Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterised by the absence of classes, money,[1][2] and the state"

did you actually look at wikipedia

[Holochrome]

I guess it changed since I last torrented it. Oh well. The point still stands that its broken, even if I never pointed it out.

No, that has always been the definition. It has not changed.

Then I guess the pages I've torrented were wrong. Fuck there goes 3gb of Wikipedia.

[Sanguinea]

How?

The very first sentence of the Wiki entry on communism says...

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterised by the absence of classes, money,[1][2] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.[3]

That's how. It's literally the definition.

A capitalist that understands what communism is? +0.5 pts!!!

[Duvniask]

No, communism is when the workers control the means of production. State capitalism, which the Soviets thought would be a transitional period, is when the state owns the means of production.

State capitalism is contradictory. Communism is intense state control.

Only to those who do not understand how the state, which acts as the universal employer, can propagate capitalist relations, like wage labour.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

The very first sentence of the Wiki entry on communism says...



That's how. It's literally the definition.

A capitalist that understands what communism is? +0.5 pts!!!

Dude, NSG is like a crash course in leftist economics.

You could be the most white-bread milquetoast WASP john birch motherfucker in existence and we will still make goddamn sure you know the basic principles of socialism and communism before you leave.

That is literally one of the first things everybody learns here.

[The Britannic Isles]

--Deleted--

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, communism is when the workers control the means of production. State capitalism, which the Soviets thought would be a transitional period, is when the state owns the means of production.

State capitalism is contradictory. Communism is intense state control.

Contradictory or not, it's not communism.

Here's the definition of the first.

state capitalism
noun
a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

And the second.

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.
4.
communalism.

"A-ha!" I can hear you say. "Take a look at that second definition of communism!"

First, yes, you're quite perceptive. Congratulations.

However, I believe that it's important to note that this was not communism as described by Marx and Engels, but rather a transitionary period of the dictatorship of the proletariat that would eventually result in the workers being given the reins of the means of production. However, it cannot be called communism any more than a cocoon can be called a butterfly.

Now, as to whether or not this would ever happen, with the dictatorship freely handing over the means of production? I have some serious doubts, which is one of the many reasons that I'm not a communist. However, communism as it pertains to the workers having control of the means of production has little to nothing to do with nearly any self-proclaimed communist state that we've seen.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'd ratheter take the word of world class professors and Wikipedia over some random bloke on the internet. Communism is state control over the economy.

You know, in a socialist state, you could get free health care to cure that uncontrollable spasm. It must be murder on your forehead.

[Holochrome]

State capitalism is contradictory. Communism is intense state control.

Contradictory or not, it's not communism.

Here's the definition of the first.

state capitalism
noun
a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

And the second.

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.
4.
communalism.

"A-ha!" I can hear you say. "Take a look at that second definition of communism!"

First, yes, you're quite perceptive. Congratulations.

However, I believe that it's important to note that this was not communism as described by Marx and Engels, but rather a transitionary period of the dictatorship of the proletariat that would eventually result in the workers being given the reins of the means of production. However, it cannot be called communism any more than a cocoon can be called a butterfly.

Now, as to whether or not this would ever happen, with the dictatorship freely handing over the means of production? I have some serious doubts, which is one of the many reasons that I'm not a communist. However, communism as it pertains to the workers having control of the means of production has little to nothing to do with nearly any self-proclaimed communist state that we've seen.

I get it. We just established that what I said was wrong and the sources are wrong. There. Now I've got to go torrent a new fucking Wikipedia collection.

[Alyakia]

Contradictory or not, it's not communism.

Here's the definition of the first.


And the second.



"A-ha!" I can hear you say. "Take a look at that second definition of communism!"

First, yes, you're quite perceptive. Congratulations.

However, I believe that it's important to note that this was not communism as described by Marx and Engels, but rather a transitionary period of the dictatorship of the proletariat that would eventually result in the workers being given the reins of the means of production. However, it cannot be called communism any more than a cocoon can be called a butterfly.

Now, as to whether or not this would ever happen, with the dictatorship freely handing over the means of production? I have some serious doubts, which is one of the many reasons that I'm not a communist. However, communism as it pertains to the workers having control of the means of production has little to nothing to do with nearly any self-proclaimed communist state that we've seen.

I get it. We just established that what I said was wrong and the sources are wrong. There. Now I've got to go torrent a new fucking Wikipedia collection.

why are you torrenting wikipedia? like, seriously? why?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Contradictory or not, it's not communism.

Here's the definition of the first.


And the second.



"A-ha!" I can hear you say. "Take a look at that second definition of communism!"

First, yes, you're quite perceptive. Congratulations.

However, I believe that it's important to note that this was not communism as described by Marx and Engels, but rather a transitionary period of the dictatorship of the proletariat that would eventually result in the workers being given the reins of the means of production. However, it cannot be called communism any more than a cocoon can be called a butterfly.

Now, as to whether or not this would ever happen, with the dictatorship freely handing over the means of production? I have some serious doubts, which is one of the many reasons that I'm not a communist. However, communism as it pertains to the workers having control of the means of production has little to nothing to do with nearly any self-proclaimed communist state that we've seen.

I get it. We just established that what I said was wrong and the sources are wrong. There. Now I've got to go torrent a new fucking Wikipedia collection.

Yeah, didn't mean to come across as piling on. I simply saw that, responded, and discovered after I'd posted that your definitions had already been corrected by others. My apologies.

[Holochrome]

I get it. We just established that what I said was wrong and the sources are wrong. There. Now I've got to go torrent a new fucking Wikipedia collection.

why are you torrenting wikipedia? like, seriously? why?

Look at my post history. I'm not always on the internet because of shitty connection and intermittent power failures. I need something to look up info.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

why are you torrenting wikipedia? like, seriously? why?

Look at my post history. I'm not always on the internet because of shitty connection and intermittent power failures. I need something to look up info.

Why don't you try a book?

[Dejanic]

A capitalist that understands what communism is? +0.5 pts!!!

Dude, NSG is like a crash course in leftist economics.

You could be the most white-bread milquetoast WASP john birch motherfucker in existence and we will still make goddamn sure you know the basic principles of socialism and communism before you leave.

That is literally one of the first things everybody learns here.

This is so true, and obnoxious ideologues such as myself make sure of it.

[Holochrome]

Look at my post history. I'm not always on the internet because of shitty connection and intermittent power failures. I need something to look up info.

Why don't you try a book?

The local library is a shit-hole. I'm not living in the first world here.

[Duvniask]

(...)
However, I believe that it's important to note that this was not communism as described by Marx and Engels, but rather a transitionary period of the dictatorship of the proletariat that would eventually result in the workers being given the reins of the means of production. However, it cannot be called communism any more than a cocoon can be called a butterfly.

Now, as to whether or not this would ever happen, with the dictatorship freely handing over the means of production? I have some serious doubts, which is one of the many reasons that I'm not a communist. However, communism as it pertains to the workers having control of the means of production has little to nothing to do with nearly any self-proclaimed communist state that we've seen.

I don't want to come across as too condemning here, but I believe you're misunderstanding what's meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat". It's not a dictatorship in the same sense we understand it today (with autocratic connotations). Just as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie means a capitalist republic, dictatorship of the proletariat means the working class has secured control of the state and implemented socialism. The question of whether or not it would hand over the means of production "freely" is irrelevant, because the means of production would already be controlled by the workers, if it's to fit the description.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

(...)
However, I believe that it's important to note that this was not communism as described by Marx and Engels, but rather a transitionary period of the dictatorship of the proletariat that would eventually result in the workers being given the reins of the means of production. However, it cannot be called communism any more than a cocoon can be called a butterfly.

Now, as to whether or not this would ever happen, with the dictatorship freely handing over the means of production? I have some serious doubts, which is one of the many reasons that I'm not a communist. However, communism as it pertains to the workers having control of the means of production has little to nothing to do with nearly any self-proclaimed communist state that we've seen.

I don't want to come across as too condemning here, but I believe you're misunderstanding what's meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat". It's not a dictatorship in the same sense we understand it today (with autocratic connotations). Just as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie means a capitalist republic, dictatorship of the proletariat means the working class has secured control of the state and implemented socialism. The question of whether or not it would hand over the means of production "freely" is irrelevant, because the means of production would already be controlled by the workers, if it is to fit the description.

In which case it was a false dictatorship of the proles that took place in the Soviet Union.

[Duvniask]

I don't want to come across as too condemning here, but I believe you're misunderstanding what's meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat". It's not a dictatorship in the same sense we understand it today (with autocratic connotations). Just as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie means a capitalist republic, dictatorship of the proletariat means the working class has secured control of the state and implemented socialism. The question of whether or not it would hand over the means of production "freely" is irrelevant, because the means of production would already be controlled by the workers, if it is to fit the description.

In which case it was a false dictatorship of the proles that took place in the Soviet Union.

Indeed. Dictatorship of the proletariat or not, the second definition of your earlier quote is inaccurate.