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.
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.
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.
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.