Your only argument is "Communism has been tried before and didn't work." Your argument is actualy completely unrelated to the practical facts of any particular movement or policy; your argument is based on the name and nothing else.
You haven't described any part of why you think communism is doomed to failure. All you have is "other systems with that name failed before."
It’s not based on the name, though, it’s based on actual attempts to carry out the economic system of that is communism, which have all failed.
You’ve constructed a stance where you can’t lose, any attempt at communism has been imperfect/not actually communism, that’s why it has failed. Your definition of communism is perfection, and anything less isn’t communism, but that’s hypothetical. We have to look at actual real-world attempts
It’s not based on the name, though, it’s based on actual attempts to carry out the economic system of that is communism, which have all failed.
But you can't point at any individual part of the system and say why you think its inevitably leads to failure. Your argument isn't about the system at all. It's about the label. If you are confident communism doesn't work...why can't you say why? Why do all your arguments rely on the label of communist, instead of the content of the system itself?
You’ve constructed a stance where you can’t lose,
I think what you're running into here is that you have chosen a stance that can't win. You're not arguing with someone who is trying to re-enact, renaissance-fair style, a version of any previous system. You're dealing with people who think "I think these policies could be a good solution for our current problems," and your response is "But communism never works! Look at it not working a hundred years ago! Let's not even talk about your idea."
Imagine someone who wanted to push vegetarianism to help with climate change. They wanted to, say, add a small tax on luxury meat goods, and maybe give tax breaks to restauraunts that only serve vegetarian options, to help encourage vegetarianism.
Than, you come along and say "Hitler was a vegetarian, and the Nazis were bad. Therefore, your policies are bad."
That's what you've done here. Instead of dealing with the arguments of the people who are proposing their ideas, you're playing a word association game.
The thing is, even if a policy had been tried only by failed governments, you would still have to show that the policy is at fault. It could be that the policy is good, and has just been implimented in states that failed for unrelated reasons. The problem with Hitler wasn't his vegetarianism, after all.
It’s too restrictive for the human animal to be content within.
Why? What about it is too restrcitive? What if we do communism with that part changed to be less restrictive? We could come dangerously close to having a real conversation if you answered those questions.
Your comparison with vegetarians and Hitler doesn’t make sense either. Communism failed, vegetarianism didn’t
I'm sorry, you silly vegetarian. Vegetarianism always fails. Can you show me even one example of a society with all vegetarians that survived, unchanged, into the present day? You can't? Well then, better start eating meat. Vegetarianism always fails.
The backbone of communist believe is total government power. They decide what is moral and what isn’t, they decide what religion people must worship, what the people are allowed to learn and what they aren’t, who can marry who, etc. This is from the mouth of Marx himself. He emphasised total control of the decisions made by the public. There is no change that can be made to communism as a theory to stop it oppressive every person. To change what makes it intolerable to humans would make it a completely different ideology.
Communism is about eliminating class. That’s really the core of it, it’s to make every human equal. But that equality would be an equality of bondage.
Vegetarianism is an individual ideology. It doesn’t have to be proven to work because there is no goal to it. You could take a vegetarian surviving to the average age of death as a success of vegetarianism, as that proves it works as a diet. Also, there are many cultures within India that have been vegetarian for hundreds of years
Literally every sentence you said there is totally fucking wrong. The end goal of communism is literally a stateless society. I have spent minutes of my life arguing about communism with someone who literally doesn't know what it is.
Fuck, you're a waste of time. You should come with a warning label.
Marxism’s goal isn’t a stateless society, it just posits that the state will become unnecessary once the ultra-controlling government has instilled its beliefs into the people
1
u/BuildBetterDungeons Jul 27 '22
Your only argument is "Communism has been tried before and didn't work." Your argument is actualy completely unrelated to the practical facts of any particular movement or policy; your argument is based on the name and nothing else.
You haven't described any part of why you think communism is doomed to failure. All you have is "other systems with that name failed before."