Communism is defined as stateless. Karl Marx said that while a vanguard party may be a path to achieve communism, it’s not communist until the state is dissolved. Until then, it’s socialist.
There is such a thing as anarcho-communism. There’s even Christo-communism. Communism doesn’t actually rely on authoritarianism conceptually, even if it has done so in practice for some big examples. Capitalism doesn’t require liberalism either, the UK is an example of that, and the Republican US tendency towards religious conservatism.
Correlation vs causation can be difficult to establish in politics, but i think it’s a good idea to separate out the definitions of words based on the theory behind them. Marx imagined communism to be a classless society, while authoritarianism requires hierarchy. This is one reason anarchist communism has been a concept since the late 19th century.
Nobody says that capitalism requires liberalism, and as you have mentioned yourself, there are plenty of examples of non-liberal capitalism. However, I am not aware about even single country with communist party in power, which was in any way “stateless”. Quite the opposite. And there were/are multiple examples.
And while there “is” such thing as anarcho-communism, it is “is” as any other utopian fantasy. But I think it is a pleasant fantasy for many people, thus, they are attracted to such things like fediverse. So, I see your point.
I think it’s a mixed bag. While anarchistic approaches do lean that way (and there’s a lot more I need to learn about it beyond the nonsense I was told in school), the communist ideology also gave a lot of power to workers, but on the flip side, taking the approach of a centrally planned economy requires a concentration of power. So, the world is full of contradictions, I guess
Strange. I thought decentralized power is anarchistic. Kind of opposite to historical communist regimes.
You’ll find no shortage of irony in the Lemmygrad scene, I assure you.
Communism is defined as stateless. Karl Marx said that while a vanguard party may be a path to achieve communism, it’s not communist until the state is dissolved. Until then, it’s socialist.
There is such a thing as anarcho-communism. There’s even Christo-communism. Communism doesn’t actually rely on authoritarianism conceptually, even if it has done so in practice for some big examples. Capitalism doesn’t require liberalism either, the UK is an example of that, and the Republican US tendency towards religious conservatism.
Correlation vs causation can be difficult to establish in politics, but i think it’s a good idea to separate out the definitions of words based on the theory behind them. Marx imagined communism to be a classless society, while authoritarianism requires hierarchy. This is one reason anarchist communism has been a concept since the late 19th century.
Nobody says that capitalism requires liberalism, and as you have mentioned yourself, there are plenty of examples of non-liberal capitalism. However, I am not aware about even single country with communist party in power, which was in any way “stateless”. Quite the opposite. And there were/are multiple examples.
And while there “is” such thing as anarcho-communism, it is “is” as any other utopian fantasy. But I think it is a pleasant fantasy for many people, thus, they are attracted to such things like fediverse. So, I see your point.
I think it’s a mixed bag. While anarchistic approaches do lean that way (and there’s a lot more I need to learn about it beyond the nonsense I was told in school), the communist ideology also gave a lot of power to workers, but on the flip side, taking the approach of a centrally planned economy requires a concentration of power. So, the world is full of contradictions, I guess