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?

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

People redefine capitalism every time it suits the rich folk, why can't we redefine communism too?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you ever play 'communism has never been tried,' based on a rigid definition, then no.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That seems somewhat tautological then, but okay. I'm not here to judge.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

More pointing out a sadly commonplace contradiction.