, you clearly need to study communism much more, because you are arguing false points.
|but conflating the merits of a theory with those of its various interpretations and implementations is fallacious|
Hmm, it seems that is exactly what I said, no?
|communism need not follow the believes or practices of any of its advocates so far|
I think the people who invented communism, and the communist manifesto, are probably the best source, and the stated goals of communism are a godless, anti-family, anti-self-deterministic society.
What is fallacious is to take a very strict, "black-and-white" system, and treat it as reasonable because of the grey areas created by people endeavoring to implement or enforce it on other people.
Read the source, dude, before you spout crap.
Communism seeks to abolish individual wealth
, not possessions. Whatever soviet communists did to their peasants as a matter of subjugation does not change the fact at the heart of communism.
a black-and-white answer to things. For that matter, all truth
is black and white. It is the nature of truth.
"The sky is blue"
--except when it is not
Okay, so that's not a black-and-white truth.
"The sky is usually blue during the day"
You can't argue against that. Black and white.
"The earth is round"
ah... so now we understand our weakness -- the words
we use are not black and white. This statement is true
. It would not be true to claim that the earth is a perfectly round sphere. But 'roundness' is often conflated with an idealized perfection in the minds of those who don't yet know how to generalize the ideal of 'roundness' over a non-ideal surface.
"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx
He didn't care about your favorite pen, or your shoes, or your car.
He cared about the distribution of wealth among classes, and the way that personal wealth comes by the exploitation of those without wealth.
So he would probably have an issue with your Lexus, or your nice two-story home with grass and trees and one and a half baths.
"Public property" is property that everyone has access to.
"Private property" is not.
And the difference between the two is the exploitation of those without power ('wealth') by those with power ('wealth').
Were we to all live in a perfect society, where everyone
was well-fed and safe and had access to Lexuses, Marx would be driving a Lexus.
By arguing that grey areas exist you are playing into the hands of people who seek to ameliorate the evils of communism with side issues. That a grey area exists means nothing. The not-grey area also exists, and the not-grey area is totalitarianism and depravity.
Not how someone with power thought it was best to implement upon the masses.
So watch it how you sling the word "fallacy".