-I’m specifically referring to Communism as laid out by Marx. You’re picking apart Marx’s usage of the term state to dismantle Communism semantically, rather than logically. The logical failure is on your end. Strike one.
-Increasing government or even state is not anti-Communist action. In fact, centralization is part of the Marxist process, before the state whithers away and government remains. Strike two.
-I did not say Capitalism means participation in a market. If you are against State Capitalism as a concept, you haven’t read Lenin. If you haven’t read Lenin, then you’re in no position to understand the Marxist-Leninist format as synthesized by Stalin. State Capitalism is a form of Socialist state. Strike three.
That’s three strikes buddy, guess you’re out. I suggest reading Lenin, or rereading if it’s been a while. Or, perhaps you’ve just been really bad at interpreting what I’ve said.
Here’s the thing: I assumed you haven’t read, because I assumed you wouldn’t make such an ignorant argument if you indeed had read. Either your comprehension is poor or you haven’t read, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Feel free to prove me wrong.
You’re picking apart Marx’s usage of the term state to dismantle Communism semantically, rather than logically.
Please direct me to where I used semantics instead of logic. You’re just going “no u” right now because I said you were being semantic.
Increasing government or even state is not anti-Communist action. In fact, centralization is part of the Marxist process, before the state whithers away and government remains.
You’re literally talking to the guy who described how Communism promotes totalitarianism by expanding the state. I’ve agreed with you in very explicit terms that increasing the state in actually very typical of communists. So we agreed that an expansion of the state is not anti-communist right? We agree here, so I can explain the point you missed?
Okay so the point I was making, is that Communism contradicts itself in theory. Communism is described as stateless. It’s an advertised feature of Communism. Communists frequently talk about anarchy as a communist thing. There’s anarcho communists in opposition to tankies because Communism says, over and over, through Marx and other literature, that Communism IS STATELESS. It’s embedded in the theory, despite the fact that in practice, and we both agree, it’s about an expansion of the state.
Here’s Marx saying it should be stateless: “The withering away of the state is the ultimate goal of a truly classless society. As the means of production become collectively owned and the class distinctions erode, the need for a separate governing body to enforce the interests of one class over another will diminish. The state, which originally emerged to protect the interests of the ruling class, will lose its significance and gradually fade into obscurity, allowing for a stateless society where individuals can govern themselves.”
I did not say Capitalism means participation in a market
You said Stalin’s government participated in state capitalism. Stalin’s government implemented Enterprises, which basically were companies working under the umbrella and direct influence of Stalin and his political party. He collectivized agriculture, and he had state level ownership over almost every factory and enterprise. Private ownership was effectively eliminated, it was all owned by the state. Stalin’s Russia had full control over the market. To call that state capitalism, means you think the participating in the market can be called capitalism. No, you didn’t say that’s what it meant, but you used it in a way that shows that’s what you think it means.
If you are against State Capitalism as a concept, you haven’t read Lenin.
Is it not pretty telling that you think reading Lenin means you agree with it? No wonder you assume I haven’t read it. Get that mentality out of your head, people can read your favorite writings and still disagree with them. I’m getting seriously bored of people jumping to that accusation when they have nothing else to say.
Sure. You said Communism can’t exist because it requires a state yet is Stateless. There’s the semantics, because Communism has a government and can require one, but doesn’t need a state.
As for the state, Marx never said it would happen immediately, or that it wouldn’t grow in the short term.
All in all you again show ignorance of State Capitalism and mald. Typical.
Communism has a government and can require one, but doesn’t need a state
State: a territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
We’re talking about the same thing, but you’re saying it’s different. That’s what arguing semantics is.
You can pull dictionary.com, or you can read what Marx means by a state, in which it’s an instrument by which one class oppresses the other via threat of violence. The state, for Marx, is separate from government.
Again, you can call whatever the fuck Marx was referring to a state as whatever the fuck you want. You can call it pizazz instead of a state if you wish, in which case the definition of Communism becomes a Pizazzless, Classless, Moneyless society. It still has your definition of a State, because Marx wasn’t referring to the entire apparatus with which a populace governs itself, just the part where one class oppressed the other.
You’re trying to semantically beat Marx because you can’t actually argue with his logic.
-I’m specifically referring to Communism as laid out by Marx. You’re picking apart Marx’s usage of the term state to dismantle Communism semantically, rather than logically. The logical failure is on your end. Strike one.
-Increasing government or even state is not anti-Communist action. In fact, centralization is part of the Marxist process, before the state whithers away and government remains. Strike two.
-I did not say Capitalism means participation in a market. If you are against State Capitalism as a concept, you haven’t read Lenin. If you haven’t read Lenin, then you’re in no position to understand the Marxist-Leninist format as synthesized by Stalin. State Capitalism is a form of Socialist state. Strike three.
That’s three strikes buddy, guess you’re out. I suggest reading Lenin, or rereading if it’s been a while. Or, perhaps you’ve just been really bad at interpreting what I’ve said.
Here’s the thing: I assumed you haven’t read, because I assumed you wouldn’t make such an ignorant argument if you indeed had read. Either your comprehension is poor or you haven’t read, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Please direct me to where I used semantics instead of logic. You’re just going “no u” right now because I said you were being semantic.
You’re literally talking to the guy who described how Communism promotes totalitarianism by expanding the state. I’ve agreed with you in very explicit terms that increasing the state in actually very typical of communists. So we agreed that an expansion of the state is not anti-communist right? We agree here, so I can explain the point you missed?
Okay so the point I was making, is that Communism contradicts itself in theory. Communism is described as stateless. It’s an advertised feature of Communism. Communists frequently talk about anarchy as a communist thing. There’s anarcho communists in opposition to tankies because Communism says, over and over, through Marx and other literature, that Communism IS STATELESS. It’s embedded in the theory, despite the fact that in practice, and we both agree, it’s about an expansion of the state.
Here’s Marx saying it should be stateless: “The withering away of the state is the ultimate goal of a truly classless society. As the means of production become collectively owned and the class distinctions erode, the need for a separate governing body to enforce the interests of one class over another will diminish. The state, which originally emerged to protect the interests of the ruling class, will lose its significance and gradually fade into obscurity, allowing for a stateless society where individuals can govern themselves.”
You said Stalin’s government participated in state capitalism. Stalin’s government implemented Enterprises, which basically were companies working under the umbrella and direct influence of Stalin and his political party. He collectivized agriculture, and he had state level ownership over almost every factory and enterprise. Private ownership was effectively eliminated, it was all owned by the state. Stalin’s Russia had full control over the market. To call that state capitalism, means you think the participating in the market can be called capitalism. No, you didn’t say that’s what it meant, but you used it in a way that shows that’s what you think it means.
Is it not pretty telling that you think reading Lenin means you agree with it? No wonder you assume I haven’t read it. Get that mentality out of your head, people can read your favorite writings and still disagree with them. I’m getting seriously bored of people jumping to that accusation when they have nothing else to say.
Sure. You said Communism can’t exist because it requires a state yet is Stateless. There’s the semantics, because Communism has a government and can require one, but doesn’t need a state.
As for the state, Marx never said it would happen immediately, or that it wouldn’t grow in the short term.
All in all you again show ignorance of State Capitalism and mald. Typical.
State: a territory considered as an organized political community under one government. We’re talking about the same thing, but you’re saying it’s different. That’s what arguing semantics is.
You can pull dictionary.com, or you can read what Marx means by a state, in which it’s an instrument by which one class oppresses the other via threat of violence. The state, for Marx, is separate from government.
Again, you can call whatever the fuck Marx was referring to a state as whatever the fuck you want. You can call it pizazz instead of a state if you wish, in which case the definition of Communism becomes a Pizazzless, Classless, Moneyless society. It still has your definition of a State, because Marx wasn’t referring to the entire apparatus with which a populace governs itself, just the part where one class oppressed the other.
You’re trying to semantically beat Marx because you can’t actually argue with his logic.