Xreeching

So, just to let you know before I block you utter <bleep>, I was reading Marx when you were just a wet spot, and I actually do happen to „like“ him. But funny that you only now come quoting him, after I handed you half of the exact quote you’re giving. But I’m the one scouring Wikipedia 😂

That’s also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism.

But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

🥱

And the fact that you don’t consider communism partly an economic system is baffling

It’s rather baffling that you, considering orthodox Marxism „true communism“, would think that. What kind of „economic system“ did Marx promote? And where do I find that in the Manifest?

Are you referring to central planning? That’s a feature of Soviet style communism, it was invented at the beginning of the 20th century.

As a matter of fact, Marx actually had little to say about how a post-capitalist society should actually look like, besides some commonplace quotes like „production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production“, which is neither original nor chiefly communist.

describe a full featured system that covered it all

Yeah, and do you know what the system Marx wrote about was? It was capitalist society. Marx was an analyst.

If you knew what Marx actually wrote and thought, you’d find that he was heavily influenced by classic economists like Adam Smith and was rather fond of free trade (as were his peers).

Also you’re completely wrong about:

You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.

Again, you would need to specify what exactly you mean, but there’s not much that hasn‘t existed short of taking full control of the market. Pre-neoliberal Europe was quite heavily invested in state owned companies and production, France had for most of the post-war era what can be classified as centrally planned economy.

You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting.

Another mistake you make: I’m not infighting. I’m merely calling out the bullshit you hand out as „ELI5“, because quite frankly you haven’t got the faintest clue about what you call „base or true communism“ in the first place.

G‘day.

Nothing of that changes that calling Marxism „the one and only true/base communism“ is ridiculously wrong on several levels and absolutely not helpful for an „ELI5“ on communism.

And if you’re so concerned about leftist infighting you might just stop acting like there was an apodictic definition, that would certainly help. Someone already pointed out the irony to you hours ago, it seems you still haven’t realized that.

Lol, what utter bullshit.

Pfizer doesn’t have a monopoly on insulin, it’s primarily produced by Eli Lilly (who were the first), Novo Nordisk and Sanofi.

„The government“ also doesn’t „enforce“ patents, companies have found a way to make small changes to drugs to keep them perpetually patented. The recent price drops of insulin in the US are the *result of government intervention *.

Please do get lost with you Alex Jones r/conspiracy drivel, thx.

Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯\(ツ)/¯

But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

Aha, is that so?

I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well

Yeah, you could say that!

So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L’Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.

And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔

Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?

Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.

No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.

different approaches carry a different name

Yeah, well… So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …

So, which one of those is the true communism?

Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.

Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.

There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).

There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.

That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.

It’s… complicated.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, very likely eating meat is less bad than drinking e.g. Coca Cola (but FWIW I’m not a nutritionist), but your premise is wrong: just because we evolved doing something doesn’t mean it’s not bad. It’s a classical „appeal to nature“ fallacy.

Nature doesn’t care about your „health“, it just needs you to be able to reproduce. Now with regard to humans we’re able to reproduce at age ~11-14y, but we also do need to take care of our offspring (roughly) the same time, so that would put the needed lifespan of any given human being at ~25y. Give or take, just trying to make a point here.

But we are able to live much longer than that, in industrialised countries we’re clocking in at >80y, so being and staying healthy at that age is not something that evolution prepared us for.

Having evolved to eat meat doesn’t mean anything beyond the reproduction timeline.

(Also, the poster above was making a point about industrial animal husbandry being one major factor to climate change, so it goes beyond human evolution.)

Since the joke doesn’t translate to English, for those who haven’t already guessed:

Zeuchs (pronounced „Tsoishs“) is a pun on Zeus (pronounced „Tsois“ in German)…