Typing it all in caps doesn't make it not true. Words have meanings, Russia and China both have private corporations run for profit. They do have some socialist policies, but they certainly do not have economic systems characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

If you keep having people tell you "those aren't real communists", then just maybe you should reevaluate your definition of Communism.

[–] ilovesatan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And if you need to incorporate market economics everytime you try to form a utopia, maybe you should reevaluate your definition of Communism.

Next you're gonna tell me Trump actually won the election. By your logic it must be true, people keep repeating it after all.

[–] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Saying "maybe you should reevaluate" =/= "must be true". People did reevaluate if Trump won the 2020 election (a bit too many times frankly), and every time it came up to be a false claim. As is the case with your definition of Communism.

Furthermore, I did not try to setup a Utopia, nor did I call Russia, China, or Communism in general a Utopia. So I'm kinda confused about why you even brought that up... Regardless, even if Russia and China did add market economies, that wouldn't change the definition of Communism, just the type of economies those countries have.

I think what you meant to say was "If countries that have tried to implement Communism consistently add Market Economics, then perhaps Communism is not a self-sufficient system, and as such it is not a comprehensive solution to the ills of Capitalism". Which again wouldn't change the definition of Communism, but would at least be a coherent argument.

Perhaps you need to change your definition of re-evaluate, and of... definition.

P.S. Just curious, do you ever get tired of misrepresenting the positions you are arguing against?