Message from @LustrousMandrill
Discord ID: 670800106886397982
after all, the state owned them, so they had to give them education to force them to work
I've heard that one as well
Ancom dude
should have just said anarchist my bad.
@⥌鬼気⥍ The state owning everyone is actually incompatible with communism, you're thinking of fascism
@LustrousMandrill Please tell me how Communism _isn't_ fascist 😂
...
Wtf
Are you trolling lol
I'm curious what definition you use wrongly, the communism or the fascism one
coz there's no version of communism that isn't fascist
from the USSR to current China
I don't know about you, but to me a classless and stateless society seems very different from a highly authoritarian and nationalistic state
The USSR and China have never been communist societies
It seems that it's you who has the wrong definition of communism
I'm surprised, your wrong definition is of communism and not of facism. I kinda expected you to go the nazi route and say that "it isn't true fascism" if there wasn't any flavor of racial superiority to it
"a classless and stateless society seems very different from a highly authoritarian and nationalistic state"
Genius, I would like to know what made you reach such conclusion
So then our disagreement here is just on the definition of communism
you can only keep a society classless by force, and you can't do it without a state
anarcho-communism has to assume that everyone agrees with you
Why don't you give me your definition of communism if you think I've got it wrong because I don't think you'll be able to provide me with a coherent definition if you think the USSR and China are communist societies
you can't have communism without a big state, also authoritarian, otherwise it wouldn't be communism for a long time
there also is close to no private ownership, and seizing of property is a thing if the state so decides
the only version of communism that isn't fascist is an anarcho-communism where everyone agrees to play with it. It's even more of an utopia than the typical communism
So to you, communism is just when an authoritarian state significantly limits private property rights?
I wouldn't define it just by that
but imo there can't be any communism without an authoritarian state
Anarcho-communism is technically the only kind of communism, and is generally the end goal for anyone who calls themself a communist
it would also have to be nationalistic, otherwise it wouldn't be communist for long
Even MLs will tell you that the USSR had not yet achieved communism and was in a transitional state
What you're saying is inherently contradictory
@LustrousMandrill I'm ok with that version of communism. It only works at small scale and small communities anyway
You're basically saying "you can't maintain a stateless society without an authoritarian state"
the only think contradictory is that you are calling Anarcho-communism, just communism
yep
exactly
If you don't think communism means a stateless, classless society, you haven't yet provided your alternative definition - you've listed characteristics that you consider to be associated with it, but you even said yourself that you wouldn't define communism based on those characteristics
I told you from the start. Communism was never stateless
and I explained exactly why it can never be
to have true redistribution, you are required to do it by force, otherwise you would never have redistribution
Anarchists and other communists like MLs share the same end goal of the classless, stateless society, they just disagree on how to get there - "communism was never stateless" is once again a contradiction, because a society that isn't stateless can't be communistic