If two people get together and put all of their earnings into a pot together, then each take out what they need. That’s a type of communism. It’s also usually called a family.
Marxism/Leninism are specific type of communism as well, that reach well into the political space as well as the economic.
What you’re trying to do right now, imposing your own singular view of what communism can be, is the same as saying Catholicism is the only type of Christianity just because it’s the most well known.
There’s a whole wikipedia article detailing dozens of variations of Communism, from Marxism to variations on Marxism, to variations independent of Marxism. Just because he did a lot of thinking on the whole thing doesn’t mean he’s the only one who gets to define the word.
The fact of the matter is that Marxism-Leninism is what communism means for 99.9% of historical practice. Someone trying to describe sharing as “communism” when OP is talking about actual modes of production and distribution is missing the forest for the trees. Marx didn’t define communism, he created an ideology that better understands how to actually achieve it and why it is historically compelled, what gives him validity is that the only socialism that has actually existed at scale in real life has come from Marxism-Leninism.
You clearly didn’t read the links either. There are actively practiced forms of communism listed in there. You’re the ones just being so narrowminded about it’s definition.
For most of historical practice, gay meant happy. We decided to use it for something else only recently in terms of language. That’s how language works.
Not a single one of the ideologies listed on that page has successfully established socialism except for the derivatives of Marxism-Leninism, such as Juche. The closest is Zapatismo, but Zapatismo does not consider itself communist, nor socialist, nor anarchist, and instead is a primarily indigenous ideology related to the Chiapas region.
“Religious communism” is not a thing, and early communalism exists in micro-pockets. Neither is the same as what is understood as communism, the theoretical mode of production that predates Marxism.
The problem we’re arguing about here is “understood as communism”
I understand both of those to be Communism, because they are in fact types of Communism. That’s why they’re referred to as “Religious Communism” and “Primative Communism.”
You are trying to Pidgeon hole Communism as just Marxism, when the word frequently has far broader implications in common use.
Even the dictionaries have definitions that extend beyond Marxism.
I already said the concept of communism predates Marx. I am not redefining communism to Marxism. OP is asking about socialism and communism as they actually exist and are understood, and further “primitive communism” as described by Marx is misleading and instead is better described as “communalism.”
This is all incredibly hypocritical coming from you as well, considering you were adamant that China had abandoned communism over in this thread. Why are you now trying to say, essentially, that “communism is in the eye of the beholder?”
How is it hypocritical? China HAS abandoned communism. What part their current policies is moving towards collective ownership?
China’s State Owned Enterprises are at less than 60% of the total production of the country, down from well over 80% during the peak in the 50s and 60s.
Hell, Xi has opened up SoE to a hybrid mix of government and private ownership in 2013.
You seem like you’re suffering from a bad case of Dunning-Kruger. You’ve been explained very basic terms multiple times, but you keep repeating your completely wrong understanding undeterred, with brazen authority.
Literally the first sentence of your wikipedia article explains that these are different ideologies trying to achieve the same thing, a communist society.
There are variations in there that are not trying to “achieve” a communist society without classes. Religious communism for example often still has “classes” in the priesthood and worshippers, and they’re often far more about sharing resources or a lack of private ownership of land.
I’m not religious, but my views are very similar to that theory of communism, as well as sharing aspects of privative communism.
You seem to be set in your categorization of things, you realize that ideas are not an all or nothing type of situation most of the time?
You have a horrible understanding of reality.
If two people get together and put all of their earnings into a pot together, then each take out what they need. That’s a type of communism. It’s also usually called a family.
Marxism/Leninism are specific type of communism as well, that reach well into the political space as well as the economic.
What you’re trying to do right now, imposing your own singular view of what communism can be, is the same as saying Catholicism is the only type of Christianity just because it’s the most well known.
There’s a whole wikipedia article detailing dozens of variations of Communism, from Marxism to variations on Marxism, to variations independent of Marxism. Just because he did a lot of thinking on the whole thing doesn’t mean he’s the only one who gets to define the word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies
The fact of the matter is that Marxism-Leninism is what communism means for 99.9% of historical practice. Someone trying to describe sharing as “communism” when OP is talking about actual modes of production and distribution is missing the forest for the trees. Marx didn’t define communism, he created an ideology that better understands how to actually achieve it and why it is historically compelled, what gives him validity is that the only socialism that has actually existed at scale in real life has come from Marxism-Leninism.
You clearly didn’t read the links either. There are actively practiced forms of communism listed in there. You’re the ones just being so narrowminded about it’s definition.
For most of historical practice, gay meant happy. We decided to use it for something else only recently in terms of language. That’s how language works.
Not a single one of the ideologies listed on that page has successfully established socialism except for the derivatives of Marxism-Leninism, such as Juche. The closest is Zapatismo, but Zapatismo does not consider itself communist, nor socialist, nor anarchist, and instead is a primarily indigenous ideology related to the Chiapas region.
Both religious and primative communism both exist today, just not at a state level.
“Religious communism” is not a thing, and early communalism exists in micro-pockets. Neither is the same as what is understood as communism, the theoretical mode of production that predates Marxism.
The problem we’re arguing about here is “understood as communism”
I understand both of those to be Communism, because they are in fact types of Communism. That’s why they’re referred to as “Religious Communism” and “Primative Communism.”
You are trying to Pidgeon hole Communism as just Marxism, when the word frequently has far broader implications in common use.
Even the dictionaries have definitions that extend beyond Marxism.
I already said the concept of communism predates Marx. I am not redefining communism to Marxism. OP is asking about socialism and communism as they actually exist and are understood, and further “primitive communism” as described by Marx is misleading and instead is better described as “communalism.”
This is all incredibly hypocritical coming from you as well, considering you were adamant that China had abandoned communism over in this thread. Why are you now trying to say, essentially, that “communism is in the eye of the beholder?”
How is it hypocritical? China HAS abandoned communism. What part their current policies is moving towards collective ownership?
China’s State Owned Enterprises are at less than 60% of the total production of the country, down from well over 80% during the peak in the 50s and 60s.
Hell, Xi has opened up SoE to a hybrid mix of government and private ownership in 2013.
How is that Communism in any of it’s definitions?
You seem like you’re suffering from a bad case of Dunning-Kruger. You’ve been explained very basic terms multiple times, but you keep repeating your completely wrong understanding undeterred, with brazen authority.
Are you saying that I made up an entire Wikipedia article with dozens of variations of Communism?
That page has existed for 2 years, not sure I’m playing that long of a game to win an argument on Lemmy.
It’s like you’re intentionally just ignoring everything I show you because it doesn’t conform to your world view.
Literally the first sentence of your wikipedia article explains that these are different ideologies trying to achieve the same thing, a communist society.
You didn’t ready very far clearly.
There are variations in there that are not trying to “achieve” a communist society without classes. Religious communism for example often still has “classes” in the priesthood and worshippers, and they’re often far more about sharing resources or a lack of private ownership of land.
I’m not religious, but my views are very similar to that theory of communism, as well as sharing aspects of privative communism.
You seem to be set in your categorization of things, you realize that ideas are not an all or nothing type of situation most of the time?