'I disagree with your definition.'
Posted by kit on 2023-November-14 06:37:56, TuesdayIn reply to Re: That's wrong posted by monkeyLostInHead on 2023-November-13 15:23:56, Monday
|
This is precisely the problem. You are defining 'capitalism,' 'communism' and 'the state ' - and perhaps also 'coercion' - in ways that are self-serving and that make your argument little more than circular. I don't really feel like going through all this all over again (the sole interesting aspect, I think, might be the question of the relationship of "coercion" to any form of human social life). But, for the record: "communism" can mean many different things, with or without a "state" (and with or without Marx). It is not limited by definition to the forms of state socialism familiar to the Cold Warriors of the twentieth century. And by narrowing the term down to that meaning, you are unfairly skewing the argument in your favour. "State socialism requires the state" is not an interesting claim. Nor is it likely to be one that left-wing anarchists would necessarily want to debate with you. (And I say this as someone who is mostly on the left, and generally more in favour of the state than of anarchists.) |
Follow ups: