Please don’t misunderstand. This is about the argument and nothing else.
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.
So if you want to count the death of those people as death due to communism, that is already a questionable decision for some people.
But then you want to compare the relatively short life of “communism” to capitalism and colonialism… that comparison is bad.
Is it like comparing covid with aids by total deaths, there is no way, you will come to any conclusion worthwhile.
I don’t think that is a winning argument for anything.
One problem with your argument here is that we actually do believe that there have been proper socialist countries governed by communist parties, it’s just that we understand that they exist under siege and aren’t “pure” like so many western leftists require. They are absolutely proper, but there is excess and mistakes made by administrative bodies meant to protect socialism that exist out of a genuine necessity to fight counter-revolution and imperialist aggression.
Further, we can compare peer countries by how well each system has worked at satisfying the needs of the people, where socialism absolutely has superiority. Capitalism’s death toll is higher both by rate and by magnitude as well.
thanks for making my point.
Socialist is not communist.
exist under siege […] mistakes […] meant to protect socialist that exist out of genuine necessity to fight
So they weren’t allowed to exist in the same comparable peace than capitalistic nations, and might have been forced to cause more harm due to it.
can compare peer countries
Yes but that is not what the comment proposed and is a different argument and please remember the previous points. And of course, the peer countries comparison doesn’t include the possible long term struggles and issues that the whole history of e.g. colonialism and capitalism can show. But communism (not socialism) doesn’t have that history. And socialism might have more of a history but on a much smaller scale than colonialism and capitalism and again in not the most fair environment. So the argument is very different and the original argument is flawed.
Socialism is pre-communism. Communism itself cannot fully exist until global socialism, but each individual country can begin the transition between capitalism and communism called “socialism.” Socialist states aren’t communist not because of imperialist aggression, but because communism itself is a higher, global mode of production.
Socialist countries exist under siege, but generally commit far less harm than capitalist countries.
Returning to the original comment, you just seem generally mixed up on terms and are drawing false conclusions from them.
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.
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.
So they weren’t allowed to exist in the same comparable peace than capitalistic nations
I think this logic is flawed. Capitalism isn’t allowed to exist in peace either, and this logic leads to constructs like “Pax Romana” getting credibility. Capitalist countries have also coexisted with the constant threat of other capitalist countries, and carried out repression accordingly.
I have 1 big problem with this argument.
Please don’t misunderstand. This is about the argument and nothing else.
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.
So if you want to count the death of those people as death due to communism, that is already a questionable decision for some people.
But then you want to compare the relatively short life of “communism” to capitalism and colonialism… that comparison is bad.
Is it like comparing covid with aids by total deaths, there is no way, you will come to any conclusion worthwhile.
I don’t think that is a winning argument for anything.
One problem with your argument here is that we actually do believe that there have been proper socialist countries governed by communist parties, it’s just that we understand that they exist under siege and aren’t “pure” like so many western leftists require. They are absolutely proper, but there is excess and mistakes made by administrative bodies meant to protect socialism that exist out of a genuine necessity to fight counter-revolution and imperialist aggression.
Further, we can compare peer countries by how well each system has worked at satisfying the needs of the people, where socialism absolutely has superiority. Capitalism’s death toll is higher both by rate and by magnitude as well.
thanks for making my point. Socialist is not communist.
So they weren’t allowed to exist in the same comparable peace than capitalistic nations, and might have been forced to cause more harm due to it.
Yes but that is not what the comment proposed and is a different argument and please remember the previous points. And of course, the peer countries comparison doesn’t include the possible long term struggles and issues that the whole history of e.g. colonialism and capitalism can show. But communism (not socialism) doesn’t have that history. And socialism might have more of a history but on a much smaller scale than colonialism and capitalism and again in not the most fair environment. So the argument is very different and the original argument is flawed.
Socialism is pre-communism. Communism itself cannot fully exist until global socialism, but each individual country can begin the transition between capitalism and communism called “socialism.” Socialist states aren’t communist not because of imperialist aggression, but because communism itself is a higher, global mode of production.
Socialist countries exist under siege, but generally commit far less harm than capitalist countries.
Returning to the original comment, you just seem generally mixed up on terms and are drawing false conclusions from them.
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.
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?
I think this logic is flawed. Capitalism isn’t allowed to exist in peace either, and this logic leads to constructs like “Pax Romana” getting credibility. Capitalist countries have also coexisted with the constant threat of other capitalist countries, and carried out repression accordingly.
Not in the same way or for the same reason.
You weren’t a target for being capitalist.