As I understand it, "real communism" is supposed to be some kind of stateless society. As the GDR was, well, a state, it clearly did not achieve that. Nor would it ever have been likely to, as actually doing what was ideologically promised would have required those with power within that system to relinquish that power, which is incredibly rare as it conflicts with human nature.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

Real Communism, along Marxist lines, has a government. Marxism isn't anarchic, the "stateless" part is specifically referring to instruments of the government by which one class oppresses another. Marxism has always been about achieving a global Communist republic.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Communism is not anarchic. Stateless with respect to Communism refers to instruments of government by which one class suppresses another. Communism was always meant to have a world republic.

I suggest reading Marx.

[–] linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

i wonder what planet u came from; clearly u arent human cuz any human would understand the context here. actually u are human (probably) and u are just making a meaningless semantics argument in bad faith.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In what sense is this semantics or bad faith? I meant this sincerely.

[–] linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

fine ill humor ur bad faith argument.

when left leaning libs defend their ideals from right leaning libs by saying "it wasnt real communism" like in this case. they mean that the thing being talked about did not adhere to communist ideals.

when u say that "it wasnt real communism" u mean that there is a distinction between communism and socialism or lower stage communism as marx called it.

the gdr was a socialist country led by communist with the goal of establishing communism when they original lib said it wasnt real communism what he mean was that "the gdr was not a socialist country and it wasnt led by communist", then when i said it was real communism i meant to re state the fact that the gdr was a socialist country led by communist. so it is self evident that ur argument is irrelevant no one was actually talking about where the gdr was a stateless, money less, classless society, we were talking about whether the leadership of the gdr truly adhered to communist principles.

as to why ur argument looks to be in bad faith u would have to live under a fucking rock not understand this context or far more likely u are arguing in bad faith.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 2 points 6 months ago

I think you have an unrealistic estimation of how much most people understand the topic of communism, if you think not labelling different types of communism as the same ideology is living under a rock. More than half the country doesn't even realize that socialism and communism aren't complete synonyms, and a good fraction think paradoxically that center right liberalism is somehow communist.

Basically, I think you're doing this: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/average_familiarity_2x.png