• Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Okay, the disagreement on “originate” definition explains a lot of the misunderstanding. I still am convinced that ‘originates’ does not mean a clear and widely spread theory, but only a coherent one. And to my eyes, having people calling themselves or other with the name of the theory, referring to all forms of communism opposed to authoritarianism as it is still today and was in the 20th, is coherent and probably more coherent than the socialism was for example.

    Therefore I would claim that it was a coherent ideology contemporary to the second phase of communism (it did not exist at the very beginning of communism, before the communist manifesto and the communist ideas before, we can agree on that point. But it precisely emerged when tensions arised around the authoritarian part of first wide spread branch of communism which is marxism, this is what I called second phase, so starting around the first internationale).

    Thanks a lot for your clear and constructive discussion, it feels very good to be able to pinpoint where the tension point is rather than just listing arguments in vain.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree this was much more like a friendly conversation over a beer, which is how I usually discuss political ideology.