DEFINITION HIJACKING

Today in social studies class I managed to bring up communism in the discussion about ancient kingdoms. I commented how the criteria for an economy's "greatness" could change over time, and that communism is not necessarily inherently unable to achieve such "greatness". At that my bourgeois-liberal teacher commented how communism is a political system.

This brings me to a point I have been insinuating at through many of my previous posts. Communism is, by its original definition, a classless society. It is not a democratic and economically equal welfare state, nor is it a despotism with forced collectivization. COMMUNISM IS SIMPLY A CLASSLESS SOCIETY.

Yes, people are entitled to form their opinions of how communism could be reached or why it should not be (in fact I will post sometime in the future about the communist nature of Confucius). However, it seriously becomes a definition hijacking when one takes for granted his or her own views on something, as its basic definition. This is highly akin to the Newspeak of 1984 (I am selectively critical of the government of Oceania), where words are deleted en masse from the dictionaries, grabbing from the people the power to think. Words generate thought, and thought generates power. When bourgeois oppressors take away the true meaning of words, we have to be careful about when, perhaps, "freedom" has come to mean the number of cars you have or whether or not you are deluded enough to think communism is an inherently political system.

















Hijackers the Quran, hicjackers of definitions.

(terrorist image: http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/terrorist.jpg)