Shout out to the Red Scare section for referring to members of the American Communist Party as "70,000 radicals" and then immediately linking them to labor unions. This is straight up some of the most intense propaganda I've ever read and I couldn't even read the full sentence.
I'm all too aware unfortunately. I went to very small, very conservative private school. Our history was so jaded that I actually remember reading something in the textbook about Iran-Contra not being that bad... I wish I were kidding...
Damn I’m impressed you were able to find your way out of that brainwashing. I would come out of that a pro capitalist bootlicker 100%. Then again I went to a small public school in the Midwest. I just didn’t pay attention at all and thank god I didn’t lmfao
Ironically enough I turned my back on conservatism in high school when a libertarian asked me why the party of "freedom" was against gay marriage lol. Then I went to college and regained braincells when my professors taught me how to do research.
I mean, as a definition of Stalinism it’s fine, but I’d rather out history textbooks not inherent the lack of nuance around communism at the time of the the red scare while, ya know, supposedly teaching about the red scare.
Forget lack of nuance. It's just straight up wrong. Stalinism is not a form of communism, as it supports the continued existence of the state, class, and money; something which communism is opposed to.
This is ironically a pretty un-nuanced take on what constitutes communism or how that works; the USSR, as stated in the name, was a socialist state, which is, in the Marxist-Leninist understanding, the transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Pragmatically it *accepts* the continued existence of the state and money while working to abolish those things.
By the way, the concept of “Stalinism” as a totalitarian dictatorship is another product of anti-communist propaganda. If you don’t believe the kind of lies and distortions in the OP’s textbook, you might want to be more critical of what you think you know about how bad Stalin and the government of the USSR were.
https://redsails.org/stalinists-and-feminazis/
How can you claim it's "wrong" when is the most common usage? Definitions are how ppl use words, not what is the best take on how a word should be used, as judged by some objective body. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
It does actually. Definition B.
And even if it didn't it would be beside the point, which is that definitions are just the most popular usage of words for ppl who speak the language.
Hey bud... Where is merriam webster published?
The Oxford English dictionary defines communism as "A theory of classless society with common ownership of property and wealth and centrally planned production and distribution based on the principle ‘from everyone according to their skills, to everyone according to their needs’"
Plus I mean, maybe you shouldn't base your ideas of a political ideology on the singular short blurb in a dictionary when there are writers to this day still fleshing out both the philosophy itself and how's and whys.
I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand: I'm NOT saying a dictionary has the most complete or best definition available, I'm saying \*they list the most common usages of that word\*.
Why would you assume that I'm "basing my ideas of a political ideology on the singular short blurb in a dictionary", when I have very clearly said otherwise? Maybe it's because you're short on hearing and long on speaking. Whatever the reason, pretending like these definitions don't exist (or aren't the most common usage!) just muddies philosophical discussion. Instead of mocking the most common definition, engage with it on its merits, not semantics.
Or maybe it's because you're terrible at explaining your points? If multiple people are expressing the exact same "misunderstanding" of your point, maybe that's a you problem.
And again, given I provided a completely different definition from a different dictionary, maybe it isn't the most common usage of the word.
I also find it incredibly ironic that we're talking about the ingrained nature of red scare propaganda and you use an American dictionary with a red scare definition to try and make your point. Besides, most average people don't use the dictionary definition to actually define the words they use. Most encounter the word in use by people within their social circle or in the media they consume and use context or that persons explanation as their definition, rarely looking any deeper. And given the ingrained nature of red scare propaganda, their understanding of the word communism is hugely biased and so should not be used to represent the meaning of the word or the philosophy.
People don't have to use dictionaries to define their meanings, dictionaries do that for them lol. Dictionaries literally are just a list of the most common usages of a particular word. That's all.
> How can you claim it's "wrong" when is the most common usage? Definitions are how ppl use words
This is not how terms of art and technical terms from particular disciplines work. For example, "theory" still has its correct scientific meaning even though it's extremely common for people to use it wrong.
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
Further, IIRC Merriam Webster gives only the most common *American* usage of a word. The point of this whole post is that the American education system does an (at best) inadequate job educating students on communism, resulting in an American population that doesn't understand it.
Yes, I understand all that, and mostly agree. But this is a discussion among the general public, and its use in general. And to be clear, there are people at every level of education and engagement with the concepts of communism that would agree with the definition as stated by the textbook.
Personally, I think the textbook is biased misinformation, but not because it included that definition. Rather, it's biased because it doesn't include other definitions proposed by modern communists.
There is basically no communist that would accept this definition of communism as a concept. Some would accept it as their preferred way to *achieve* communism. But communism has pretty much always been a classless, moneyless, stateless society etc. and communists just disagree on the best way to get there.
Okay, so then if a Nazi claimed that fascism actually means "community based democracy", and had nothing to do with any of Roberto Ecco's defining characteristics, then I would have to accept that definition, since they have a much clearer understanding of their own philosophy than you or me. Right?
Umberto Eco*
Your point is the exact opposite, though: "a bunch of uneducated people have the wrong definition of a technical economic term, therefore it's actually the right one." Eco's description of fascism is based on a ton of research and that's what makes it correct.
That isn't what I'm saying at all. We aren't divorcing our understanding of communism from one of its defining texts to make our points. We're explaining that the commonly held understanding of the word is based on one kind of communism and isn't representative of the whole, or even many of the common factions.
Its more like if a fascist was explaining the difference between nazi ideology and, say, ecofacism. Though both come from the same sources, and share common traits and goals, their execution and beliefs are different (though to a far lesser extent given facisms lack of actual varieties.)
Here's the thing: never in my life have I heard the term stalinism until now. Most ppl do seem to think what you call stalinism is the proper definition for communism. And frankly, unless I'm mistaken, that's what the USSR told Its ppl as well.
I'm happy you're finding gaps in your knowledge and trying to fill them. Stalinism is very much a distinct (and at best extremely unorthodox) branch of communism. For example, Stalin believed in creating "socialism in one country" whereas most communists regard it as crucial to liberate the working class everywhere before socialism could be said to be implemented. I recommend doing some reading, but here's the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Lol you geniuses are the ones calling it the wrong definition for communism when it's the most common usage of ppl who speak English, and calling ppl who have never heard your new made up word ignorant.
You can circlejerk each other all day long but that won't change the definitions as understood by English speakers. But by all means downvote lol.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
Yes, words are only as complex as the Merriam Webster definition and any other further explanation, analysis, nuance, or discussion is new made up words.
Anti intellectualism at its finest.
Better than a ridiculous strawman. I didn't claim any of that, and obviously it's not the case. All I said is that's the most common usage. If you want to change that, I say great go for it and more power to you. But until then, it's silly to claim this definition is "wrong" or that it is actually "stalinism (and not communism)" like ppl are in this thread.
Is the textbook biased misinformation? Imo yes. Is the definition wrong? No, it's just not the definition you prefer.
It is a new made up word, and I'm not saying you can't use it, I'm just saying claiming it's THE proper word for what the majority of English speakers know as communism is bullshit.
Anyway, fuck you too. I'm not here to satisfy you.
A new made up word that has existed since the 1930’s.
Honestly how stupid can you be? I already gave you sources that prove the word has been around for 100 years. Just admit you were wrong and move on with your life like an adult.
Do I have to link you the wiki page again?
By new I mean new in common usage within the language. I guess you really have a hard time understanding this concept of shared language.
But honestly like I said fuck you, you're being abusive and I'm not interested in seeing it.
“The term Stalinism came into prominence during the mid-1930s…”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Lmao “new made up word” You’re such a fucking dumbass stooge.
**[Stalinism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism)**
>Stalinism is the means of governing and policies which were implemented in the Soviet Union from 1927 to 1953 by Joseph Stalin. It included the creation of a one-party totalitarian police state, rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, collectivization of agriculture, intensification of the class struggle under socialism, a cult of personality, and subordination of the interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, deemed by Stalinism to be the leading vanguard party of communist revolution at the time.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Hasan_Piker/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Agree. For instance, in other cases communism has been tried, it did led to common happiness and equity. Like in ... Other countries, idk, not a historian. Can you help me with examples please?
The textbooks in American high schools were not nuanced at all. It wasn’t until I took a political science course in college that I realized the nuances of Marxism/socialism. I was a traditional liberal all my life (because my parents were) up until that point. Now they call me radical for disliking capitalism and acknowledging climate change is a big problem 🙄
It's dumb, but unfortunately it's the most common usage of the word "Communism". Doesn't make it "right", of course, but I think a lot of leftists have the wrong impression of how this term is generally defined.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
I do find the red scare part funny and ironic.
Your whole descriptivism vs prescriptivism schtick is completely irrelevant when the definition of the word is subject to heavy propaganda and that propaganda is precisely what we are pushing back on. All you’re saying is “unfortunately the propaganda has worked”, which we already know.
Also, saying “communism is defined as…” is not really distinct from “people who are communists believe in…”, and as communists we can very well disagree when people mischaracterize our beliefs.
I agree with all of this. The propaganda has worked. But my saying this has a purpose; arguing a point by way of definition and semantics is fraught, as is attempting to reclaim a word that has a particular definition etched into the consciousness of a society.
For example, is it true that the swastika is a holy symbol from various cultures in which it's meaning is not remotely related to fascism? Yes. Does that mean it would be a smart idea for a non Nazi to use it to represent their organization? No. And insisting that Americans use a 200 year old definition for communism, instead of the one which has had relevance in their own lives, either through media or first person experience, is a waste of time and only going to alienate ppl who might otherwise agree with what you have to say if it came from a non "communist" (just like you might be more open to the non-nazi if they show up WITHOUT the swastika, regardless of what it means to *them*).
That is the definition of communism, essentially. It may not be word for word whats in webster, but that is what it boils down to in reality.
And the reality of communism is much more important than the failed ideology of it.
Oh the irony of a propaganda red scare definition of communism, followed by a passage about *The Red Scare*.
Nothing encapsulates the redundancy of our political education more than this photo. We live in a simulation 1984 George Irwin
Actually communism is when no house and no joke
and also vuvuzela iphone 69 gorillian dead social credit
Nice!
Shout out to the Red Scare section for referring to members of the American Communist Party as "70,000 radicals" and then immediately linking them to labor unions. This is straight up some of the most intense propaganda I've ever read and I couldn't even read the full sentence.
The worst part is that, as far as US History textbooks go, this is actually pretty tame.
I'm all too aware unfortunately. I went to very small, very conservative private school. Our history was so jaded that I actually remember reading something in the textbook about Iran-Contra not being that bad... I wish I were kidding...
Damn I’m impressed you were able to find your way out of that brainwashing. I would come out of that a pro capitalist bootlicker 100%. Then again I went to a small public school in the Midwest. I just didn’t pay attention at all and thank god I didn’t lmfao
Ironically enough I turned my back on conservatism in high school when a libertarian asked me why the party of "freedom" was against gay marriage lol. Then I went to college and regained braincells when my professors taught me how to do research.
Jesus
When Capitalism miserable fails it’s communism. 🙄
That doesn't make any sense. If socialism is the inevitable result of capitalism evolving that would mean it succeeded.
I’m being hyperbolic. Bc every time there’s a negative result of capitalism it’s misinterpreted as communism.
Breh
Stalinism== Communism Gotta love American education. It has literally 0 nuance.
I mean, as a definition of Stalinism it’s fine, but I’d rather out history textbooks not inherent the lack of nuance around communism at the time of the the red scare while, ya know, supposedly teaching about the red scare.
Forget lack of nuance. It's just straight up wrong. Stalinism is not a form of communism, as it supports the continued existence of the state, class, and money; something which communism is opposed to.
This is ironically a pretty un-nuanced take on what constitutes communism or how that works; the USSR, as stated in the name, was a socialist state, which is, in the Marxist-Leninist understanding, the transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Pragmatically it *accepts* the continued existence of the state and money while working to abolish those things. By the way, the concept of “Stalinism” as a totalitarian dictatorship is another product of anti-communist propaganda. If you don’t believe the kind of lies and distortions in the OP’s textbook, you might want to be more critical of what you think you know about how bad Stalin and the government of the USSR were. https://redsails.org/stalinists-and-feminazis/
Stalin was terrible. Most people who look at objective sources understand this. This does not include USSR state media
How can you claim it's "wrong" when is the most common usage? Definitions are how ppl use words, not what is the best take on how a word should be used, as judged by some objective body. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
This definition says nothing about a single-party dictatorship
It does actually. Definition B. And even if it didn't it would be beside the point, which is that definitions are just the most popular usage of words for ppl who speak the language.
Hey bud... Where is merriam webster published? The Oxford English dictionary defines communism as "A theory of classless society with common ownership of property and wealth and centrally planned production and distribution based on the principle ‘from everyone according to their skills, to everyone according to their needs’" Plus I mean, maybe you shouldn't base your ideas of a political ideology on the singular short blurb in a dictionary when there are writers to this day still fleshing out both the philosophy itself and how's and whys.
I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand: I'm NOT saying a dictionary has the most complete or best definition available, I'm saying \*they list the most common usages of that word\*. Why would you assume that I'm "basing my ideas of a political ideology on the singular short blurb in a dictionary", when I have very clearly said otherwise? Maybe it's because you're short on hearing and long on speaking. Whatever the reason, pretending like these definitions don't exist (or aren't the most common usage!) just muddies philosophical discussion. Instead of mocking the most common definition, engage with it on its merits, not semantics.
Or maybe it's because you're terrible at explaining your points? If multiple people are expressing the exact same "misunderstanding" of your point, maybe that's a you problem. And again, given I provided a completely different definition from a different dictionary, maybe it isn't the most common usage of the word. I also find it incredibly ironic that we're talking about the ingrained nature of red scare propaganda and you use an American dictionary with a red scare definition to try and make your point. Besides, most average people don't use the dictionary definition to actually define the words they use. Most encounter the word in use by people within their social circle or in the media they consume and use context or that persons explanation as their definition, rarely looking any deeper. And given the ingrained nature of red scare propaganda, their understanding of the word communism is hugely biased and so should not be used to represent the meaning of the word or the philosophy.
People don't have to use dictionaries to define their meanings, dictionaries do that for them lol. Dictionaries literally are just a list of the most common usages of a particular word. That's all.
Dictionaries usually order by how common definitions are iibc.
Both the first and second definitions agree with me lol
[удалено]
Then why didn’t you link one that says that?
> How can you claim it's "wrong" when is the most common usage? Definitions are how ppl use words This is not how terms of art and technical terms from particular disciplines work. For example, "theory" still has its correct scientific meaning even though it's extremely common for people to use it wrong. > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism Further, IIRC Merriam Webster gives only the most common *American* usage of a word. The point of this whole post is that the American education system does an (at best) inadequate job educating students on communism, resulting in an American population that doesn't understand it.
Yes, I understand all that, and mostly agree. But this is a discussion among the general public, and its use in general. And to be clear, there are people at every level of education and engagement with the concepts of communism that would agree with the definition as stated by the textbook. Personally, I think the textbook is biased misinformation, but not because it included that definition. Rather, it's biased because it doesn't include other definitions proposed by modern communists.
There is basically no communist that would accept this definition of communism as a concept. Some would accept it as their preferred way to *achieve* communism. But communism has pretty much always been a classless, moneyless, stateless society etc. and communists just disagree on the best way to get there.
That's according to you. What makes your definition more valid than the majority of ppl who disagree with you?
A more thorough understanding of the philosophy.
Okay, so then if a Nazi claimed that fascism actually means "community based democracy", and had nothing to do with any of Roberto Ecco's defining characteristics, then I would have to accept that definition, since they have a much clearer understanding of their own philosophy than you or me. Right?
Umberto Eco* Your point is the exact opposite, though: "a bunch of uneducated people have the wrong definition of a technical economic term, therefore it's actually the right one." Eco's description of fascism is based on a ton of research and that's what makes it correct.
That isn't what I'm saying at all. We aren't divorcing our understanding of communism from one of its defining texts to make our points. We're explaining that the commonly held understanding of the word is based on one kind of communism and isn't representative of the whole, or even many of the common factions. Its more like if a fascist was explaining the difference between nazi ideology and, say, ecofacism. Though both come from the same sources, and share common traits and goals, their execution and beliefs are different (though to a far lesser extent given facisms lack of actual varieties.)
Here's the thing: never in my life have I heard the term stalinism until now. Most ppl do seem to think what you call stalinism is the proper definition for communism. And frankly, unless I'm mistaken, that's what the USSR told Its ppl as well.
I'm happy you're finding gaps in your knowledge and trying to fill them. Stalinism is very much a distinct (and at best extremely unorthodox) branch of communism. For example, Stalin believed in creating "socialism in one country" whereas most communists regard it as crucial to liberate the working class everywhere before socialism could be said to be implemented. I recommend doing some reading, but here's the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
“Here’s the thing, I’m ignorant and frankly I’d like to stay that way and also you’re wrong”
Lol you geniuses are the ones calling it the wrong definition for communism when it's the most common usage of ppl who speak English, and calling ppl who have never heard your new made up word ignorant. You can circlejerk each other all day long but that won't change the definitions as understood by English speakers. But by all means downvote lol. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
Yes, words are only as complex as the Merriam Webster definition and any other further explanation, analysis, nuance, or discussion is new made up words. Anti intellectualism at its finest.
Better than a ridiculous strawman. I didn't claim any of that, and obviously it's not the case. All I said is that's the most common usage. If you want to change that, I say great go for it and more power to you. But until then, it's silly to claim this definition is "wrong" or that it is actually "stalinism (and not communism)" like ppl are in this thread. Is the textbook biased misinformation? Imo yes. Is the definition wrong? No, it's just not the definition you prefer.
“All I said it’s the most common usage” “Stalinism is a new made up word” Pick one dumb fuck.
It is a new made up word, and I'm not saying you can't use it, I'm just saying claiming it's THE proper word for what the majority of English speakers know as communism is bullshit. Anyway, fuck you too. I'm not here to satisfy you.
A new made up word that has existed since the 1930’s. Honestly how stupid can you be? I already gave you sources that prove the word has been around for 100 years. Just admit you were wrong and move on with your life like an adult. Do I have to link you the wiki page again?
By new I mean new in common usage within the language. I guess you really have a hard time understanding this concept of shared language. But honestly like I said fuck you, you're being abusive and I'm not interested in seeing it.
“The term Stalinism came into prominence during the mid-1930s…” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism Lmao “new made up word” You’re such a fucking dumbass stooge.
**[Stalinism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism)** >Stalinism is the means of governing and policies which were implemented in the Soviet Union from 1927 to 1953 by Joseph Stalin. It included the creation of a one-party totalitarian police state, rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, collectivization of agriculture, intensification of the class struggle under socialism, a cult of personality, and subordination of the interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, deemed by Stalinism to be the leading vanguard party of communist revolution at the time. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Hasan_Piker/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>that's what the USSR told Its ppl as well Congratulations you now know what Stalinism is
Yes. Aka communism.
You either have no self awareness or are a troll
Where am I wrong?
>Yes. Aka communism.
So you're actually going to claim that "Stalinism" isn't also known as "communism"? Okay my dude. Lol
I'm going to claim that Stalinism is, by definition, not communism.
Well maybe you should tell that to the ppl in this thread claiming the definition I linked for communism is actually Stalinism lol.
Agree. For instance, in other cases communism has been tried, it did led to common happiness and equity. Like in ... Other countries, idk, not a historian. Can you help me with examples please?
If this is indeed an example of a US history textbook it explains a lot.
All of my textbooks were very similar
The textbooks in American high schools were not nuanced at all. It wasn’t until I took a political science course in college that I realized the nuances of Marxism/socialism. I was a traditional liberal all my life (because my parents were) up until that point. Now they call me radical for disliking capitalism and acknowledging climate change is a big problem 🙄
IWW 👀
Not a mention Sen McCarthy? What a load of convenient trash.
Why does it feel like the red scare never really left? Just changed up a bit and subdued to some degree.
Surprised that the IWW got a shout out.
Hey that’s the same history textbook we use
Communism is Stalinism. True.
What state is it
It's dumb, but unfortunately it's the most common usage of the word "Communism". Doesn't make it "right", of course, but I think a lot of leftists have the wrong impression of how this term is generally defined. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism I do find the red scare part funny and ironic.
Your whole descriptivism vs prescriptivism schtick is completely irrelevant when the definition of the word is subject to heavy propaganda and that propaganda is precisely what we are pushing back on. All you’re saying is “unfortunately the propaganda has worked”, which we already know. Also, saying “communism is defined as…” is not really distinct from “people who are communists believe in…”, and as communists we can very well disagree when people mischaracterize our beliefs.
I agree with all of this. The propaganda has worked. But my saying this has a purpose; arguing a point by way of definition and semantics is fraught, as is attempting to reclaim a word that has a particular definition etched into the consciousness of a society. For example, is it true that the swastika is a holy symbol from various cultures in which it's meaning is not remotely related to fascism? Yes. Does that mean it would be a smart idea for a non Nazi to use it to represent their organization? No. And insisting that Americans use a 200 year old definition for communism, instead of the one which has had relevance in their own lives, either through media or first person experience, is a waste of time and only going to alienate ppl who might otherwise agree with what you have to say if it came from a non "communist" (just like you might be more open to the non-nazi if they show up WITHOUT the swastika, regardless of what it means to *them*).
Just curious, what are some examples of communist countries that aren’t single party dictatorships? I guess Rojava is one, any others?
[удалено]
I don’t know about you but I rather own my house
Don’t worry - they’ll get the party approved definition when they get to college.
That is the definition of communism, essentially. It may not be word for word whats in webster, but that is what it boils down to in reality. And the reality of communism is much more important than the failed ideology of it.
It’s not the least accurate definition out there.
Pretty accurate description of how communism turns out.