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.
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 community likes to remind everyone that no communist country was allowed to just be communists in peace. So there was no “proper” communist country.
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.
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.