“Commie bastards” are what i grew up hearing soviets called (i was born just before the end of the Cold War).
My dad still has a knee jerk reaction to anything communist.
As for why socialism is preferred, it’s because communism is authoritarian- which yields too much power to the state. Either side getting authoritarian is bad.
Lol every state that you think is authoritarian communist is a socialist state. Socialism is the intermediate stage of socioeconomic development between capitalism and communism, where capitalism is a system where the economy (and thus politics) is owned and controlled by a few individual, and communism is a classless, stateless society where the economy is controlled by everyone equally. Socialism, as an intermediate stage, is a system where politics and the economy are controlled by a state composed of the working class - a so-called dictatorship of the proletariat.
Do you know about the Red Scare? It‘s the systematic negative propaganda towards anything questioning the capitalist system that underpins the US-American existence. And that‘s usually Communism, as that‘s the system in direct opposition to Capitalism.
The knee jerk reaction your dad (but you also, up there) showed is a result of that. One hardly can escape that, as it‘s part of the lived reality.
However, it‘s just that, propaganda. Once you start to realize that, you can take steps to see through it. Here Trump is invoking the same boogeyman to vilify his opposition, even tho it‘s likely not even communist or socialist, but just against the capitalist oligarchy.
(Simplified) Communism is a stateless society, where the economic basis of class differences has been overcome. Socialism is one step towards that, it‘s the situation after the means of production, but also stuff like housing have been socialized.
Class difference refers to the contradiction between the exploited working class (any wage laborer, not able to live off of their wealth alone) and the exploiting owning class, the Capitalists (owning the means if production and the land)
Communism is a stateless society, where the economic basis of class differences has been overcome.
True in an academic sense, but his clarification makes it pretty obvious he’s referring to the Marxism-Leninism of the USSR since he referenced that directly. Using “communism” as a shorthand for that has been common in both western and eastern media and news since the Cold War. I live in a former satellite state of the USSR, and adherents here would use the same language, it’s not just an outside polemic.
Not really looking to debate the merits of it, but I think pretending not to understand what someone means when they use a very wide and commonly accepted usage of a word and instead pedantically clinging to only an academic definition rather than addressing the actual point is a little obnoxious.
Sorry, what was the actual point you want me to address to not be as obnoxious as you, since you could address it yourself? Obviously I’m replying to a specific aspect of the user’s commentary, which was dehumanizing in nature.
You’re saying that Cuba, DPRK, China are not also recried as Commies? Wonder who’s being pedantic for whatever reason.
Also, Communism and Communists are real things, not solely academic concepts. Reducing it as such is a questionable approach. Why should we adhere to the propaganda of the US to redefine what words mean?
Addressing the point or not isn’t what’s obnoxious; pretending not to understand what is meant by a common, widely accepted usage of a word to shift a discussion towards semantics is. It’s similar to people correcting common use of “theory” to “hypothesis”; these also have distinct meanings, but the common use of “theory” doesn’t really get in the way of discussion… providing people don’t feign not knowing what’s meant when the person has made which they’re using clear. It’s the same here: you knew very well he’s not referring to a stateless, classless society, but rather the communist states of the world.
Again, using “communism” in this way is not purely a polemic and it’s dishonest to characterize it as such. Even here behind the old iron curtain, “communism” as shorthand for “aspirational communism under a vanguard socialist state” is and was extremely common use of the word. Members of the communist parties would refer to themselves and their states as communist all the time. It isn’t “adhering to US propaganda”… all sides used this. It’s really only young, contemporary communists causing a stink over this, honestly.
Interesting derailment yap. You started the crap-talk and mixed in some insults, now I’d kindly suggest you to fo.
Is Red Scare a thing or not?
Does Trump invoke an enemy stereotype or not?
What’s straight up delusional and I’d therefore highly contest, is the idea, that everyday Americans (or Western Europeans for that matter) think of “aspirational communism under a vanguard socialist state”, when their responses are impulsive and dehumanizing, and write stuff like “communist rat bastards”. Which is a kneejerk, indoctrinated reaction by their own admission. Mixed with obviously wrong concepts on what Communism or Socialism even are. Which is also the reason it’s so easy to rile up people against opposition. You just bad mouth them as communist. I really don’t give a shit, how stuff is understood in your post-soviet country, as it has no bearing in regards to the US.
And as I don’t think you really are delusional, I’m certain you’re just bad faithing.
Get off my back with your fantasies.
You don’t even know the difference between left and right ideologies, so it doesn’t really matter who I bring up, you’re just going to screech “Fascist!”
Okay, so, I see that as an admission that you were just spewing bullshit and now can’t defend it.
Is there an example of a functioning properly communist state?
If anything, then it’s socialist states, as Communism is per definition a state-less society, which can’t develop as long as Capitalism is still a thing. Socialism is the phase between Capitalism and Communism, when the working class has seized power and starts to socialize every aspect of production, infrastructure and housing.
I’m not going to put down a lengthy answer, but I found a good one on reddit. There you can read about actual existing socialist states, if you’re actually interested.
And luckily for these “chosen” benevolent leaders who just happen to reside in palaces, these socialist states have no end in sight. In one of your linked examples, dprk has been trying to reach communism for over 70 years now. And their chosen leader happened to choose his son to benevolently lead their people. And that son happened to choose his son to continue his work to bring upon communism. Almost like a monarchy, but not quite because they’re socialist and they have “democratic” in name so they’re actually good and totally different.
Apparently, as far as Trump is concerned, only communists would think that protecting pedophiles is a bad thing.
If I had to choose between pedo’s and commie rat bastards… Well. I can live with the rat bastards.
though socialism is preffered over both.
What are commie rat bastards and why are socialists preferred, while communists are dehumanized?
“Commie bastards” are what i grew up hearing soviets called (i was born just before the end of the Cold War).
My dad still has a knee jerk reaction to anything communist.
As for why socialism is preferred, it’s because communism is authoritarian- which yields too much power to the state. Either side getting authoritarian is bad.
Lol every state that you think is authoritarian communist is a socialist state. Socialism is the intermediate stage of socioeconomic development between capitalism and communism, where capitalism is a system where the economy (and thus politics) is owned and controlled by a few individual, and communism is a classless, stateless society where the economy is controlled by everyone equally. Socialism, as an intermediate stage, is a system where politics and the economy are controlled by a state composed of the working class - a so-called dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes. Please. Tell me what I think and keep lecturing over a fucking sarcastic comment citing shit Trump is spewing.
Please, I’m just a dumb uninformed American who knows nothing l!
(That’s more sarcasm.)
No need to be all butthurt. It’s always an option to accept not to know everything.
Checks out.
Do you know about the Red Scare? It‘s the systematic negative propaganda towards anything questioning the capitalist system that underpins the US-American existence. And that‘s usually Communism, as that‘s the system in direct opposition to Capitalism.
The knee jerk reaction your dad (but you also, up there) showed is a result of that. One hardly can escape that, as it‘s part of the lived reality.
However, it‘s just that, propaganda. Once you start to realize that, you can take steps to see through it. Here Trump is invoking the same boogeyman to vilify his opposition, even tho it‘s likely not even communist or socialist, but just against the capitalist oligarchy.
(Simplified) Communism is a stateless society, where the economic basis of class differences has been overcome. Socialism is one step towards that, it‘s the situation after the means of production, but also stuff like housing have been socialized.
Class difference refers to the contradiction between the exploited working class (any wage laborer, not able to live off of their wealth alone) and the exploiting owning class, the Capitalists (owning the means if production and the land)
True in an academic sense, but his clarification makes it pretty obvious he’s referring to the Marxism-Leninism of the USSR since he referenced that directly. Using “communism” as a shorthand for that has been common in both western and eastern media and news since the Cold War. I live in a former satellite state of the USSR, and adherents here would use the same language, it’s not just an outside polemic.
Not really looking to debate the merits of it, but I think pretending not to understand what someone means when they use a very wide and commonly accepted usage of a word and instead pedantically clinging to only an academic definition rather than addressing the actual point is a little obnoxious.
Sorry, what was the actual point you want me to address to not be as obnoxious as you, since you could address it yourself? Obviously I’m replying to a specific aspect of the user’s commentary, which was dehumanizing in nature.
You’re saying that Cuba, DPRK, China are not also recried as Commies? Wonder who’s being pedantic for whatever reason.
Also, Communism and Communists are real things, not solely academic concepts. Reducing it as such is a questionable approach. Why should we adhere to the propaganda of the US to redefine what words mean?
Addressing the point or not isn’t what’s obnoxious; pretending not to understand what is meant by a common, widely accepted usage of a word to shift a discussion towards semantics is. It’s similar to people correcting common use of “theory” to “hypothesis”; these also have distinct meanings, but the common use of “theory” doesn’t really get in the way of discussion… providing people don’t feign not knowing what’s meant when the person has made which they’re using clear. It’s the same here: you knew very well he’s not referring to a stateless, classless society, but rather the communist states of the world.
Again, using “communism” in this way is not purely a polemic and it’s dishonest to characterize it as such. Even here behind the old iron curtain, “communism” as shorthand for “aspirational communism under a vanguard socialist state” is and was extremely common use of the word. Members of the communist parties would refer to themselves and their states as communist all the time. It isn’t “adhering to US propaganda”… all sides used this. It’s really only young, contemporary communists causing a stink over this, honestly.
Interesting derailment yap. You started the crap-talk and mixed in some insults, now I’d kindly suggest you to fo.
Is Red Scare a thing or not?
Does Trump invoke an enemy stereotype or not?
What’s straight up delusional and I’d therefore highly contest, is the idea, that everyday Americans (or Western Europeans for that matter) think of “aspirational communism under a vanguard socialist state”, when their responses are impulsive and dehumanizing, and write stuff like “communist rat bastards”. Which is a kneejerk, indoctrinated reaction by their own admission. Mixed with obviously wrong concepts on what Communism or Socialism even are. Which is also the reason it’s so easy to rile up people against opposition. You just bad mouth them as communist. I really don’t give a shit, how stuff is understood in your post-soviet country, as it has no bearing in regards to the US.
And as I don’t think you really are delusional, I’m certain you’re just bad faithing. Get off my back with your fantasies.
Communists kind of have a track record of putting fascist dictators in charge, kinda undermines the whole ideology.
Ah yes, the far left has this special secret strategy where they actually put far right dictators in charge.
When has the far left put anyone in power that wasn’t a fascist dictator?
You don’t even know the difference between left and right ideologies, so it doesn’t really matter who I bring up, you’re just going to screech “Fascist!”
Oh rly? Which communists put fascist dictators in charge? Please, enlighten me.
Is there an example of a functioning properly communist state?
Okay, so, I see that as an admission that you were just spewing bullshit and now can’t defend it.
If anything, then it’s socialist states, as Communism is per definition a state-less society, which can’t develop as long as Capitalism is still a thing. Socialism is the phase between Capitalism and Communism, when the working class has seized power and starts to socialize every aspect of production, infrastructure and housing.
I’m not going to put down a lengthy answer, but I found a good one on reddit. There you can read about actual existing socialist states, if you’re actually interested.
And luckily for these “chosen” benevolent leaders who just happen to reside in palaces, these socialist states have no end in sight. In one of your linked examples, dprk has been trying to reach communism for over 70 years now. And their chosen leader happened to choose his son to benevolently lead their people. And that son happened to choose his son to continue his work to bring upon communism. Almost like a monarchy, but not quite because they’re socialist and they have “democratic” in name so they’re actually good and totally different.