Debate thread

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Yeah I know, and I know you guys probably know that I am in over my head with these debates and in drowning water. Why do I continue on? well its just seems... stupid to let them say all their crap.

Also lucky this is all on the internet:lol: I can learn allot through these debates :)


From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/):

"1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."



From Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism):

"1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably"

From two sources, Communism is defined as the state ruling everything, in addition to the people ruling everything. It can be either, by definition. This does no contradict in any way the ideals of the USSR or China. Or any other attempted Communist societies to date.

If you're going to throw around definitions, at least throw the whole thing.

this is a post I hope you guys will help me tackle first:) It seems I will be able to eliminate allot of their criticisms if I can get past this one road block.

Edit: On a quick side not I know you guys have things saying "this is Communism" which refutes their claims but they are more apt to accept these well known dictionaries rather than the latter so thats why its a kinda big problem.

[Tatarin]

From two sources, Communism is defined as the state ruling everything, in addition to the people ruling everything. It can be either, by definition. This does no contradict in any way the ideals of the USSR or China. Or any other attempted Communist societies to date.

As I understand it, no country ever claimed to have achieved communism, though their political parties were called communism. The "Communist East" block-thing was thrown around in Western media, along with Marx and Engels being the founders of "evil".

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Cool :) Also another note guys.... drum role please? lol for the big smack to the face this forum I'm on is a Christian forum lol they got quite the Christian world view.

[Demogorgon]

That's a pretty easy one to refute. The Merriam-Webster definition includes the words "the state has withered away". The guy you are debating has contradicted his own argument by posting that definition. How can the state rule everything if there is no state?

What you really need to do though is not allow them to pin their definitions on you. Simply say that your beliefs are your own and if they want to define Communism in such a way as to represent views you do not agree with then that simply makes you not a Communist according to their definition.

By letting them keep the debate on these lines you are allowing them to avoid addressing you based upon what you actually believe.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

The statement was made that Russia was not communist, that it was socialist.

The end result of communism is socialism, thus Communism in Russia made Russia into a Socialist State.



You got that backwards man. Socialism is suppose to have the End result of Communism.

No, i got it right.

Communist Thought was implemented through Marxist and Leninist and turned Russia into a socialist state.

Socialism did not turn into Communism. Communism is a belief system, that turned Russia from a Monarch government into a Socialist government/country.
Yes but you said that socialism was the end result of Communism, which is false. It's the other way around course I did not know you where talking about what made russia Socialist. Socialism is suppose to be a between point.

The end result of communism is socialism, thus Communism in Russia made Russia into a Socialist State.

No, I said the above statement. No matter how you apply communism it will always turn out socialist.

"Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism."

Capitalism is viewed to be an extreme on one side and Communism on the other. Similar to Conservative and Liberal.

The idea that Socialism is a middle ground is false, because Communism is an extreme theory, and no matter how you pull communism it will always be socialist. The only thing you can do is pull socialism toward capitalism (like China) or you can pull capitalism toward socialism (like Europe), but you can not pull Capitalism toward Communism. Nor can you pull Communism toward Capitalism.

You still seem to be fairly confused. This is the way almost all Communist would like to see how things Ideally go. Capitalism then go's to Socialism. then goes to Communism. Socialism is suppose to be the stage in which the country starts getting ready to make the transition to Communism.

Russia went straight for Communism, there was no middle ground for the State of Russia, thus my conclusion is true, Communism made Russia Socialist.

As one guy said, Communism is an extreme form of Socialism, but it is socialism nonetheless.

The argument that you propose for what Communist wants, falls when it comes to Russia and China and any other state. They did not go from Capitalism to Socialism to Communism. They went from either a monarch Government like Russia straight to Communism. Russia's economy was not Capitalist, but a structured economy to a totally controlled economy. It did not even stop at Socialism it went straight to the extreme.

Communism if you look at it is not strictly an economic theory, it is government theory as well. When you talk about communism the first thought is government, Chinese Communist Government or the USSR Communist Party which controlled the government.

The economy of Russia and China, et al is socialism but the government is communism. You can not have Communism without the government being "communist" and the economy being socialist/communist.

I think where everyone is having the problem with what i am saying is that I am tying the two together, government and economy. Communism today is more of a government theory and its outcome is a socialist economy.

I just dont know how to get through to him.

[Catbus]

Is the the same guy that posted the Merriam-Webster definition? Because Merriam-Webster defines socialism as


a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Maybe tell him to look it up himself.

[zimmerwald1915]

There may be no getting through to him. Tell him to cite a source from a Bolshevik in 1917 saying "we went straight for communism". He won't be able to find one. Tell him to cite a source by any communist claimimg that communist economics can be seperated from the theory of history or from the praxis of class struggle.

Why should you have to do all the work, eh?

[Demogorgon]

A lot of what he says is simply objectively wrong. Socialism is the stage preceding Communism, that should not be controversial. As for the claim that the Soviet Union went straight for Communism, well there was a sort of initial attempt at it, but by the time the New Economic Policy came in in 1921 that had been abandoned. Thereafter the Soviet Union was not even Communist in term of what it claimed to be.

In the Seventies it did start to claim that the transition was complete for propaganda reasons, but given they had privately abandoned ever reaching Communism by that stage, that is not relevant.