I’m sure you’re definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you’d discount. …but not all.
in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there’d be enough to disprove “communism is incompatible with war”.
Rather, you could say “in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn’t a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war.”
Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.
In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.
I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand’s claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.
Indeed, there should be a distinction. But Communism isn’t exactly angelic in its tendencies, any more than capitalism is.
Ayn Rand was a bitter individual who turned her bitterness into a philosophy, helping many people all across the world turn their own pain into bitterness. I’m not a fan.
Neither capitalism nor communism are strangers to violent censorship, particularly where it concerns opposition to ideology.
There are things that capitalism does better, and there are things that communism does better. Clearly, the ideals and genuine attempt by some in communism to establish sound philosophical merit is there, and that’s a good first step. However, the infeasibility of implementation of an effective communism that can also compete with capitalism just isn’t there. Concessions are made, and capitalism (or authoritarianism) becomes more and more present, but in ways that aren’t acknowledged.
The reality is that capitalism is powerful, and that there is no way of ensuring ideal human behavior. Government and economic systems fail here, and tend to reflect the vices the people in general hold in esteem (whether they would acknowledge that or not).
The proper grounds for change isn’t government or economic system, but in the moral ideology of the people. It has to do with the values the people hold in esteem, and are willing to back with action. Any system of governance or economy will begin to reflect those underlying values, whether the starting point be communistic, capitalistic, monarchic, oligarchic, or any variant of governance or economic system.
Communism promises to be the next leap forward. It’s only natural to reach for it. But it does not provide what it promises. A dream is not enough. An evolutionary platform must incorporate what exists, not deny it.
That doesn’t mean we can’t find in communism (and other systems of life) what attracts us, and learn to build systems of love and power in our own lives that reflect those things we love so dearly. Once you’ve given up on the dream - truly, and without bitterness or apathy - it’s only natural to do so.
Are you counting defensive wars against capitalist colonizers, fascist invasions, and uprisings against oppressive puppet regimes and tyrants?
I’m sure you’re definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you’d discount. …but not all.
in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there’d be enough to disprove “communism is incompatible with war”.
Rather, you could say “in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn’t a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war.”
Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.
In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.
I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand’s claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.
…that difference is entirely which side of the battle line you’re on…
Who was the aggressor: Germany or Poland? Israel or Iran? Iraq or the US?
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a right or wrong, good or bad side to a violent conflict?
If so, prove it.
yeah, that’s why I sidestepped that one. It’s an easy pathway into “no, you!”
Who was the aggressor: Germany or Poland? Israel or Iran? Iraq or the US?
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a right or wrong, good or bad side to a violent conflict?
If so, prove it.
THE EMPIRE DID NOTHING WRONG!!
Indeed, there should be a distinction. But Communism isn’t exactly angelic in its tendencies, any more than capitalism is.
Ayn Rand was a bitter individual who turned her bitterness into a philosophy, helping many people all across the world turn their own pain into bitterness. I’m not a fan.
Neither capitalism nor communism are strangers to violent censorship, particularly where it concerns opposition to ideology.
There are things that capitalism does better, and there are things that communism does better. Clearly, the ideals and genuine attempt by some in communism to establish sound philosophical merit is there, and that’s a good first step. However, the infeasibility of implementation of an effective communism that can also compete with capitalism just isn’t there. Concessions are made, and capitalism (or authoritarianism) becomes more and more present, but in ways that aren’t acknowledged.
The reality is that capitalism is powerful, and that there is no way of ensuring ideal human behavior. Government and economic systems fail here, and tend to reflect the vices the people in general hold in esteem (whether they would acknowledge that or not).
The proper grounds for change isn’t government or economic system, but in the moral ideology of the people. It has to do with the values the people hold in esteem, and are willing to back with action. Any system of governance or economy will begin to reflect those underlying values, whether the starting point be communistic, capitalistic, monarchic, oligarchic, or any variant of governance or economic system.
Communism promises to be the next leap forward. It’s only natural to reach for it. But it does not provide what it promises. A dream is not enough. An evolutionary platform must incorporate what exists, not deny it.
That doesn’t mean we can’t find in communism (and other systems of life) what attracts us, and learn to build systems of love and power in our own lives that reflect those things we love so dearly. Once you’ve given up on the dream - truly, and without bitterness or apathy - it’s only natural to do so.