this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
453 points (84.8% liked)
Memes
53562 readers
850 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
This is just quibbling over semantics & context. When communists run a state, yes that state is technically socialist/pre-communist. That’s why those states have “Socialist” in their names and not “Communist.” There is never going to be a “communist state,” because definitionally communism’s long-term end-goal is a classless society. And since we define the state as a system which protects the interests of one economic class over others, such a society would definitionally be stateless.
So when someone—assuming they know what they’re talking about—says “communist state/country,” they mean a communist-led socialist state.
It is so interesting how you all focus on how it is a communist state (by your chosen definition in this context) but ignore that in my comment, I am making clear that I am willing to accept that one want to call that communist for the sake of the conversation regardless of if, how or why it might or might not be the same or different. So you are welcome to call that communist. My point is simply whether or not that is communist is up to debate as a simple disagreement in definition of what makes a state communist, would kill the argument. And by calling it pre-communist, they admit that there is a definition of "communist" that the state is "pre" of, while, of course, insisting that it is communist, which is obviously a different definition because if it would be the same, it wouldn't be "pre".
So there are multiple definitions that one could use for communist in the context, if one would chose a definition of communist state that means the state operates in communism, then you can't point at the victims of socialist state and call them victims of communism. If one would chose a definition that means the state aiming for communism, then of course, you could count them. And a person listen to the argument as presented in the original post could simply say "well there haven't been a communism state, of course, the number is lower." And the argument failed. Calling these states socialist, would avoid that, but of course then you couldn't quite argue that communism is less harmful than capitalism, if you compare socialism and capitalism. And the argument for communism would fail for that reason.
If you think that is just semantics, then think that but you are wrong. It is about the validity of an argument that someone is trying to use to get people to support the cause that you seem to want to support. If I were you, I would care about the quality of the argument.
Sophomoric is the word
It's a broken culture that makes people act like you; professorial on topics they objectively know less about than their 'audience'
At what age did you collapse entirely into your mind palace? When did you decide you knew enough to extrapolate what the outside world was like through pure platonic reasoning?
No arguing the points. I see.
You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts you're talking about. Your points are drivel. The response you deserve is to be told to shut up and learn. You're acting like you have something valuable to say and you do not. It's childish immaturity.
And your insults are very mature and are valuable.
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?
Yes, you do. You have agreed to all the relevant points for my argument.
In my argument, I made it very clear that I don't care whether or not you want to see these nation as communist or not, just wanted to note that the arguments would start there.
But instead, my argument is that total harm cause is a flawed method because as you stated yourself and I hope you agree with yourself, the socialist state were forced into more state power to protect themselves. That paranoia and that power together cause much of the harm. Both wouldn't have existed if they weren't under siege, which again is what you claim. So looking at the harm of socialism/communism and comparing it with capitalism, acts like the harm of socialism wasn't partly caused by capitalism as well. So that comparison sucks and the argument fails.
And I am fairly certain, you agree with all of this, while you might dislike the words that I used.
I was arguing against this point in particular.
What do you disagree with? Were they under siege? Or not? Were the communist countries in their "pure" state or heavily influenced by outside forces trying to destroy it? Is something in it's "proper" state when forced into extremes?
They were absolutely proper, "purity" in constructing socialism is something liberals obsess over.
I see, so your issue is that i talk about "purity" to highlight the corrupting force of foreign threats. So you are upset that i don't want to place the blame for the harm entirely on the system communism/socialism, okay, if you want me to entirely blame communism for the harm that the states cause, I will. I will act like harm was purely motivated by communism and the logical consequence of communism.
My point isn't "socialism in real life is bad, but was only forced that way because of imperialists." My point is that I support socialism, including the development of state power required to protect socialism from sabateurs and imperialists, knowing that no implementation of state power has ever been free of sin. I acknowledge the necessity of protecting socialism, and the immense gains made by these systems for their working classes.
The fact of the matter is that imperialist countries do exist, and any socialist country must therefore develop means to protect itself. This is an internally driven necessity from solving the contradiction between imperialist and subjugated countries. It isn't something imposed from the outside, but the inside reacting to conditions it is in.
I got it. You want me to blame communism for the harm that it caused and the harm is the entirely the fault of communism. I heard you. That is what you argued for, for so long. I heard you.
No? It seems like you're deliberately refusing to see the point. Socialism is good and defending itself is necessary. You're taking a mechanistic approach.
Well if you don't want me to blame communism for the harm, then why argue with me about the harm as a proper and necessary part of communism?
Your point was that socialist states that protect themselves aren't "proper," and are posturing as though they are terror regimes.
It wasn't.
My point was when comparing capitalism and communism, that it is unfair to act like these systems operated independent from each other and no action of either of them were influenced by the other; That the communist harm in that comparison is purely communist and wholly part of and consequence of communism.
Because if the harm isn't wholly part of and consequence of communism, the harm is not pure communism, or as i phrased it, "proper" communism.
Edit: and if you wonder why i didn't talk about the influence of communism on capitalism instead, well can you really point at the harm of capitalism and tell me how communism influenced it?
This was your claim. The harm is a result of building communism, the internal necessity of protecting socialism is an internal reaction to opposed forces. You're erasing dialectical materialism. We do not live in a world without imperialism, or reactionary forces. This doesn't mean building up socialism wouldn't be nicer if imperialist countries didn't exist to sabotage them, but at the same time we must recognize that these problems are universal to building socialism and not merely the products of external circumstance. This is "proper" socialism, warts and all, that gradually resolves its contradictions and works towards the development of communism.
You are mixing up the terms
Where? Give 1 example.
I don't take homework assignments from people who didn't do the reading
So making claims without backing them up. I see.
You're extremely tedious in a very specifically German way, and this limits the amount of time people want to spend talking to you
Well you are mad at me for looking at cause and effect, and consequently, being unwilling to blame the harm of communist countries on communism, while you complain about liberals not looking at cause and effect.
I don't know what that is called but at least for me, it is really entertaining to watch people argue against themselves. I am happy to know that you aren't enjoying your wasteful usage of your limited time.
I ain't reading all that, free Palestine
Ah, the projection