rationalskepticism.org

Paul Almond wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:"Communism" is a dissolution of government. The republican party have advocated the dissolution of government.

Pitifully simplistic.

First, Republicans do not want the the dissolution of the state. They tend to be conservatives. Conservatives tend to believe in small government - not no government. They don't think the government should be responsible for social justice - or at least not on anything like the scale that socialists do. However, conservatives do think that the state has a role in preserving social institutions, moral ideas and traditions which have stood the test of time. Conservatives think that the fact these things have survived so long is evidence of their usefulness, and any attempt, no matter how well meaning, to change them abruptly is likely to damage with society. While change may be acceptable, it needs to occur gradually. The state, as far as conservatives are concerned, has a role in protecting all this. So, you are wrong about what Republicans are.

Second, you are wrong about what communism is. In an amazingly display of ineptitude, you seem to think that if you can show that both Republicans and communists have a feature in common - wanting dissolution of the state - then your point is made. The fallacy here, apart from the fact that, as I just said, it misrepresents Republicans, is that it assumes that this is the main feature and that there are no other very important features.

Communism, as proposed by Marx, does indeed say that the state should whither away, and this may be where you have got your stupid idea that communism is dissolution of government. However, it is not the only feature of communism. Marx said that the state should whither away when a communist society had been created - and he thought that such a society should be self-sustaining in the absence of a state. To get to this stage, there had to be a revolution in which the proletariat seized control of the state, and then the state, under the control of the proletariat, had to seize the means of production. All this was intended to produce social justice in the short term, but in the long term to set up the conditions for the state to whither and die - leaving a communist society. Trying to dismantle the state before any of this had been achieved would not have been acceptable to Marx, because it would not have led to a communist society. Even if Republicans did want to get rid of the government (and they don't), it would be idiotic to think that this would make Marxists Republicans, as a Republican would never want the revolution preceding the dissolution of the state , would never want the period of state control of the economy, nationalization of practically everything and confiscation of wealth that follows it and would never want the society that Marx thinks will result after the state has died.

This is as idiotic as saying that the British government after World War II was just like the Nazis because they both wanted... motorways.