https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

since the lemmy tankies love to quote fallacies so much

You could argue that most pre-agricultural societies were 'true communism.'

You either die to imperialism or live long enough to become one.

Well, Gaul was taken over by the Romans and Britania was invaded by, well, everybody, so I guess that's true.

This is an undereducated, reductionist take if I've ever seen one.

Was it a state?

Yes?

It was not communist

Communist state is an oxymoron

I feel like no true scotsman is one of the most misused fallacies

x is not y because it claims to be y

if I said that true scotsmen are from scotsland and/or their parent(s) are scottish, that is NOT a no true scotsman

You just made an enemy for life!

I mean it seriously was never done. Even those autocratic parties that named themselves communist parties never said that they reached communism. It was always the goal to work towards.

An easy to remember analogy is: communism is to socialism what the paradise is to Christianity.
A holy land promised by some bearded guy, where everybody lives perfectly and no bad things happen. And since it is so perfect, we are justified in killing and subjugating everyone in order to bring them also to this promised land, they will come around when they reach it.

Marx said that communism would evolve naturally with neighbour working with neighbour and community working with community. It also involved democracy by electing officials where necessary. He didn't mention state control, so no, we have not remotely experienced communism.

You might argue, even correctly, that communism is unworkable, but you can't argue that humans have tried it in modern history and it failed.

Except Marx laid out specific conditions for communism and none have been met by regimes who claim the title.

No person should use the name communism as a slur, and no person should claim to be a communist until they have at least read Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto.

Both sides might just leave it alone.

Says the person who posted this in an anti-ML/anti-stalinist/anti-tankie comm.

If you knew that communism means a stateless, classless society, why do you ask crap like if mwog is becoming anticommunist?

because in the post about "hating communism due to propaganda", I saw a LOT of anticommunism

https://lemmy.world/post/50386781

"I hate communism because communists are delusional psychopaths"

70+ upvotes

Vistix is wrong about their definition of communists and there is way more to that post than that comment.

Also one fucking post doesnt say that the comm is anticommunist when there are tons of comments in the comm where people say MLs arent communists and that a lot of frequenters view communism as a positive ideal if you dont equate communism with ML.

"This is gold"

77 upvotes while mwog only has 84 users a day

a HUGE portion of the daily users

You cant read for shit can you?

Also I have noticed with other groups that the users per day number is pretty broken.

Like I have had posts with nearly 100 votes in groups that had "users per day" in the single digits.

grabs popcorn

I just want a roof over everyone's head and food on everyone's plate and I dont give a fuck how we call it or how we get there as long as we get there.

Ah, so the only real communism is marxism?

also, I said BECOMING, not IS

Based on the fact that a lot of MLs call the comm anticommunist. It sure sounds like you wanted to make us look bad. Especially when it you made a post about it based on one post in the comm. Again. Leave us alone. I wont ask you again.

That was not my intention, and im not an ml.

Bye

I never said you were. But based on how many people hate the comm, the rhetoric makes it sound like bad intentions.

yeah, sorry if I came off that way

Once again, Marx did not describe Marxism. Other people did for their own ends.

All Marx did was examine capitalism and compare it to pre-capatalist societies. For instance, a shoemaker could once feed his family for a five day week on making two sets of boots. A factory owner sets up and employs him and he now makes parts of 22 pairs of boots - working 6 days a week for the same money. That is and observation and a critique. He said that all this did was exploit his labour and transfered his monetary value to the factory owner. Furthermore, this situation was unnecessary and society would EVOLVE away from capital-based labour to a social-based way of living. I'm not saying that he was right or wrong. Inherent in all this was seizing the means of production, but not necessary by or for state control.

Marx also got a lot wrong by his own admission. He never understood why England didn't fall to revolution in 1848 (for instance) because he thought that the time was ideal.

All I'm really saying is that throwing around these terms may not reflect the reality and that time must be spent coming to grips with them. It can be really rewarding, but that might be just me?

Taleya, I think, is alluding to the fact there are also non-Marxist forms of communism.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies#Anarchist_communism

Gotcha

Oh, so like the Native Americans?

Honestly a great example and like every other time ruined by North Americans.

I think you can.

I think what happened was exactly what will always happen when people try real communism.

Like any political system it will be brought down by the aspects of human nature it misunderstands or misrepresents.

You have to compare what went before it as well. China is a success compared to the utter slavery and poverty of the common folk before the communist revolution. It's not freedom exactly, but even the US isn't free either by many measures. China has guaranteed vacation days, at least. It has near universal health insurance, and while not free, is heavily subsidized by the government.

I'd say that a perfect form of government doesn't exist, but communism isn't necessarily the worst. At least in every regard.

and they would starve with the population density of today

Realistically, the world could have had Star Trek style post scarcity as early as 1950.

To paraphrase "A Canticle For Leibowitz"

Humans like to think they are a race of rational tool makers, actually we're a race of impassioned after dinner speakers.

Arguing about religion and politics is what we do best

That comparison is absolutely essential when looking at history and reality, I agree.

If you're looking at abstract theory, maybe less relevant.

But then, is there any meaningful discussion of political theory in the abstract? Maybe it should always be grounded in real history since that's the highest quality evidence.

The trouble with theories is they only work theoretically!

Absolutely agree.

Actual communism has never been achieved, I don't know why this is wrong

While this is true, the same can be said for capitalism and liberalism.

That's well and good, but knowing what compass heading points to "there" would be helpful.

Yes

achieved no, tried many times....with hilarious consequences unless you're living there

I'm not the brightest nor am I a leader. If someone comes up with something acceptable I follow them.

It likely would fit most of the requirements, but I would argue hunter-gathers recognize private property. An individual's tools might be called a means of production, and a tribe's territory might be called owned land if they restrict others from accessing it. Communism usually expects something approaching a post-scarcity society to avoid competition over resources.

Maybe fuck the compass and actually try to focus on the roofs and food, instead of getting wrapped up in dumb details like the name of it. We're so wrapped up in the names for systems and the systems themselves that we spend more time arguing about those details than sharing food and building roofs.

I mean...what? Marx didn't mention state control? Marx analysed state control in several contexts. He said that communist society was "stateless" so yes he did mention state control under communism in the manifesto. He analysed the "bourgeois" state, and how it compared with feudal kingdoms and states.

The Marxist formulation of the state is that it is a historical/social mechanism to manage class antagonisms. The state in a capitalist country is a capitalist state, which functions to keep the capitalists in power and divide/repress the workers, so the workers can be exploited by the capitalists. So, according to Marx, the state does in fact have to be seized by a mass worker party, smashed, and then replaced with a worker's state.

This would be a transitional stage before communism. Some people call it "socialism." This definitely had been tried, with different kinds of successes and failures in different places at different times.

This is all extremely abstract, and dependent on the time and place where it is "tried". If you "tried communism," as in creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society, according to Marx, it would definitely fail. That is not how theory of change works under Marxism, kind of how you describe "evolve naturally with neighbour working with neighbour and community working with community." Except according to Marx, this change doesn't come about only by people working together, although that will undoubtably be a huge part of it, and such an important part of it I can't fault you for it.

But what will bring about socialism, the transitional phase where the workers have control of a "state," and use it to suppress the capitalists ability to exploit workers for their own profits, will be working together to smash capitalism, liberate as many people as possible -- more people every day from oppressive conditions, institute new forms of real democracy and consent, and defend this revolution from anyone who tries to take power from the masses for themselves. That practical activity is communism. So communism can be tried in our society, in that Marxism isn't just a theory but a theory in practice.

But trying to force a capitalist society into a fully communist society will always fail. And any attempts to do so, even in the name of Marxism, are not Marxist. Marxism rejects prefigurative politics. In fact I don't really think of Marxism as a way of predicting the future, but rather, as a way of seeing what is actually happening in our society so we can take action to change it.

when people try real communism

human nature it misunderstands

"Real" communism understands "human nature" in that human nature is not essential but historically and socially contingent. When communism is thought of and implemented abstractly, which you are doing but also in cases where social movements have "tried" it, then it fails to understand that society is made of people and their activity, and can not be thought of abstractly in separating people from the society we create. This is a key insight of Marx.

Unfortunately, usually when people talk about "human nature" they are also being too abstract and can't define exactly what they mean, because in order for something to be essential to humanity it has to be found in virtually every culture in every time. Human nature is always cultural, and culture is shaped by who rules over society.

Well, I can see this is addressed to a general case but I'll try a reply anyway.

When I talk about human nature I'm talking about the essential nature of who and what it means to be human.

True, this is always tied to the context and environment. Part that human essentialism is our adaptability, our plasticity.

Had Marx access to the research and theory we have today, I imagine he could have produced a more accurate and refined theory!

As a thousand men can make a thousand shapes with clay their finished product will always be clay, though with a thousand uses.