116
Communism is when there is justice for everyone (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/comics@lemmy.ml
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

Okay, so what I'm saying is that the definition I'm reading cites "injustice" and "cruelty" as prerequisites.

"prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

"the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

"mental pressure or distress" (oxford- but this is the third definition and seems like a much more general word that isn't really useful in these conversations when trying to define systems)

"unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power" (merriam-webster)

Merriam-webster then also has 2 more definitions similar to the oxford counterparts.

"a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom" (Cambridge)

I stopped looking after that, but I think that's fair, no? So then if we DO agree about these definitions, do you really consider it cruel or unjust towards the hoarders of capital?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't think it's "cruel" or "unjust," all it means is that freedom for the bourgeousie will be curtailed, speech will be restricted, and influence will be limited, rather than the proletariat which is oppressed by capitalist states. It's a flipping of the dictatorship of the bourgeousie to the dictatorship of the proletariat, ie the proletariat will have the political power, and the bourgeoisie will have little to none.

    I'm a communist, for clarity, I don't say this as a knock on socialism and communism. I think you're putting more of a moral spin on it than a materialist spin.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Okay, I want to dicuss this more later. It's interesting to me to think about something as taboo as limiting free speech, but I get what you mean. The power the bourgeoisie have to control the news and media and therefore public opinion is crazy. My first thought was limiting their twitter usage, which I do think would be wrong. But limiting their ability to manipulate twitter with money or other, similar tactics would fall under the same umbrella. (Hopefully Ninja edit: but should be prevented, I mean! They shouldn't be allowed to use their wealth to influence. But I don't think their literal speech should be restricted! Unless they break the rules or something and get banned or something ykwim)

    I know, I see the .ml 🀣

    I think the morals of it are important for the sake of optics in the least. If oppression implies a cruelty and injustice (at the very least in some minds, mine included, and probably most people given the dictionaries I read/bing search results) which is not associated with the movement, it might be better to not use those words. Fair?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    As far as optics are concerned, it's important to be honest. As Marx himself stated, when our times come we will not make excuses for the terror. That means not trying to "prettify" the task of revolution, revolution isn't a tea party. The tools the bourgeoisie uses to manipulate and control society in capitalism will be stripped from them and placed in the hands of the proletariat, and bourgeois property will be gradually taken from them. By rights, this is just, but it is also "authoritarian," or "oppressive." Nevertheless, this task must be done, and taken seriously, lest we fall to counter-revolution. At the same time, this will create genuine democracy for the proletariat.

    We can continue as much as you want!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent