285
Freedom☭
(midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
285 points (100.0% liked)
196
16582 readers
1592 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean if you redefine communism, sure. But a communist society as described by Marx is moneyless, classless and with not central government. Because if all your needs are met and resources shared amongst the commune, what purpose would money serve?
People redefine capitalism every time it suits the rich folk, why can't we redefine communism too?
If you ever play 'communism has never been tried,' based on a rigid definition, then no.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your response, we can't redefine communism if you play the "communism has never been tried" card based on a rigid definition?
Is someone saying that? I don't think I am.
...are you?
I'm so confused.
It sounds like you've got it but don't want it.
Yes, linguistic descriptivism is fine... unless you engage in linguistic prescriptivism on the same subject.
Yes, you can redefine communism... so long as you're not one of those people whose defense of communism heavily involves a particular definition of communism.
If that's not you, personally - great. You know how a conditional statement works.
That seems somewhat tautological then, but okay. I'm not here to judge.
More pointing out a sadly commonplace contradiction.