• HardNut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communism would not have a state as a monopoly on violence. It would have a government as controlled by the people.

      State: “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” You’re making a painfully semantic argument. We’re talking about identical things, you’re just claiming I’m wrong and choosing different phrasing.

      Stalin was a Communist because he sought to achieve Communism.

      I agree, my point was that, in theory, it’s easy to argue otherwise and confuse the point. Communism includes anarchy, while Stalin, as a genuine socialist, increased the scope of the state. Increasing the state is anti-communist because Communism involves no state, but it’s pro socialist, which is a communist thing, so it’s also pro communist. I wasn’t trying to argue that Stalin wasn’t a communist, I was demonstrating the inconsistency in the theory itself. I have no interest in the semantic debate about what label fits him best

      The USSR wasn’t Communist because it was a State Capitalist economy

      “Capitalist” doesn’t mean “participates in the market”. It means the private ownership of the means of production. It means a person or private unit (family) owns and controls business. That’s what it means, by its definition and from all historical context around it. “State capitalist” is an oxymoron, what people mean when they say it is a market economy run by the state, but that’s distinctly not a capitalist thing. If the state is controlling the market, then it’s not privately controlled, and therefor isn’t capitalist.

      You have exactly no understanding of Marxism, or what MLs advocate for. I’m not even an ML, nor do I even like Stalin, but actually reading theory can help you to not make these horribly ignorant takes.

      Please engage more politely. I have genuinely read heaps on this topic and it’s getting really boring to only get replies telling me I haven’t read shit I’ve read. What a lazy way to argue

        • HardNut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • HardNut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.