The previous comments were specifically talking about communist “regimes,” and I clarified what I thought they meant to say. You shifted the framing to be pedantic, unless you genuinely count hippy communes as communist regimes.
Well if that’s what you meant, then no shit a “regime” is authoritarian – that’s basically true by definition. But that just means your comment was tautological and vacuous, so what was your point?
Communism if done properly is Stateless insofar as it means there is no Class, and therefore no aparatus like the Police that uphold the dominance of one class over another.
Communism was always, in Marxist tradition, meant to have a democratically accountable world republic.
You may or may not be referring to Anarcho-Communism, which rejects both the transitional state of Socialism and prefers more decentralized networks of Mutual Aid.
It’s fine to be an Anarcho-Communist, but I think it’s silly to claim that Marxism isn’t also “Communism done properly.” Communism done better can be argued, but both should be seen as proper.
A truly communist “regime” is not something that should ever exist as communism is a stateless philosophy thus inherently not authoritarian by its very nature.
It’s the bit in between capitalism and communism that historically has been coopted by bad actors to create authoritarian regimes, these regimes tend to still call themselves communist because “lol fuck your revolution I’m in charge now” doesn’t have the same PR value.
All communist regimes are authoritarian by nature
Is this a comment on the inevitably of human nature, or a misunderstanding of communism (which if done properly is stateless)?
Probably just that every rendition of communism so far has been authoritarian.
Hippie communes are a counterexample.
Every large scale rendition, then.
Goal posts successfully moved
The previous comments were specifically talking about communist “regimes,” and I clarified what I thought they meant to say. You shifted the framing to be pedantic, unless you genuinely count hippy communes as communist regimes.
Well if that’s what you meant, then no shit a “regime” is authoritarian – that’s basically true by definition. But that just means your comment was tautological and vacuous, so what was your point?
Ok, swap out regime for a country. Show me a country where communism has run well (as in not an authoritarian state).
Answer: none
Goal post was successfully moved when hippie communities were brought up as a “regime”.
I would argue that an authoritarian state cannot be communist, though plenty have called themselves so.
Communism if done properly is Stateless insofar as it means there is no Class, and therefore no aparatus like the Police that uphold the dominance of one class over another.
Communism was always, in Marxist tradition, meant to have a democratically accountable world republic.
You may or may not be referring to Anarcho-Communism, which rejects both the transitional state of Socialism and prefers more decentralized networks of Mutual Aid.
Yeah it’s like I said, communism done properly.
It’s fine to be an Anarcho-Communist, but I think it’s silly to claim that Marxism isn’t also “Communism done properly.” Communism done better can be argued, but both should be seen as proper.
Yeah that’s fair.
Is it better if I rephrase it as “all regimes founded on communist ideas and visions are authoritarian by nature”?
A truly communist “regime” is not something that should ever exist as communism is a stateless philosophy thus inherently not authoritarian by its very nature.
It’s the bit in between capitalism and communism that historically has been coopted by bad actors to create authoritarian regimes, these regimes tend to still call themselves communist because “lol fuck your revolution I’m in charge now” doesn’t have the same PR value.