Does your understanding of communism stop at semantics? If you’re going to be strongly opposed to something you should at least know what it is. Otherwise your arguments are limited to being the slightest breeze.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, I’m merely pointing out that I would be wasting my time arguing with people who do not even care enough to make a semantically coherent argument.

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It would be difficult to make a semantically coherent argument for someone who doesn’t know the definitions of the words you’re saying.

You should read that other comment again. The democratization of production as opposed to private ownership is the communal part of communism you were looking for. It’s the profit goes to the workers instead of Jeff Bezos and his investors as in capitalism. If you demand that the root of the word mean something else then of course the argument makes no sense.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Okay, fair enough, I did miss that part apparently.

Is it fair to say, then, that according to your definition, communism is just capitalism but with democratized production?

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Those two concepts are incompatible. I’m assuming we’re both American so you’ve probably heard that capitalism means free market exchange of goods and services but that’s actually just commerce and is a feature of every economic system. The defining trait of capitalism is actually that one guy can own the means of production and is entitled to the capital produced. Whereas in socialism and communism there is no private ownership of production.