That doesn’t answer my question unfortunately. In fact kinda muddies the water. Wikipedia says that it strives to be stateless, but how does that contend with the real life versions of communism that most certainly have a state?
real life versions of communisms
are in fact attempts to establish communism by communist parties within their respective nation states. communism has bever been reached - and none of these parties in power ever said that they had.
the way you use the word (associating USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea with communism) is the result of cold war propaganda. more accurate terminology for these (horrible!) dictatorships would be authoritarian regime with state-monopolized capitalist economy.
all summarized communism is an ideal economy where each gives what they can and gets what they nees, where necessity is at the core and not the accumulation of wealth.
This isn’t actually true. AES states are Socialist, the concept of “State Capitalism” refered more to the NEP period. Communism is always meant to be based on Public Ownership and Central Planning, because Marx observed Capitalism’s natural tendencies to centralize and develop intricate internal planning mechanisms.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Regardless of your opinions on the successes or failures of AES, they were and are very much in line with the Marxist notion of Socialism.
could you at least say what you are quoting when using citations for your argument?
that being said: collective ownership of the means of production (what socialism means) is a direct contradiction to nation-states as long as these are unable to reflect the collective will within their structures.
Kind of. Marx’s theory of the State was about Class Oppression, when you eliminate Class there isn’t really a State for Marx, ergo full Public Ownership and Central Planning is considered Communist. You are more referring to Anarchism.
I think the second paragraph talks a bit about this. It's not really about the exact form of government. But about society and classes. So you're both subject to exactly that. There is no agreement how communism can be achieved.
JustAnIdiotPlsIgnore@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That doesn’t answer my question unfortunately. In fact kinda muddies the water. Wikipedia says that it strives to be stateless, but how does that contend with the real life versions of communism that most certainly have a state?
frankenswine@lemmy.world 3 months ago
what you refer to as
the way you use the word (associating USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea with communism) is the result of cold war propaganda. more accurate terminology for these (horrible!) dictatorships would be authoritarian regime with state-monopolized capitalist economy.
all summarized communism is an ideal economy where each gives what they can and gets what they nees, where necessity is at the core and not the accumulation of wealth.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
This isn’t actually true. AES states are Socialist, the concept of “State Capitalism” refered more to the NEP period. Communism is always meant to be based on Public Ownership and Central Planning, because Marx observed Capitalism’s natural tendencies to centralize and develop intricate internal planning mechanisms.
Regardless of your opinions on the successes or failures of AES, they were and are very much in line with the Marxist notion of Socialism.
frankenswine@lemmy.world 3 months ago
could you at least say what you are quoting when using citations for your argument?
that being said: collective ownership of the means of production (what socialism means) is a direct contradiction to nation-states as long as these are unable to reflect the collective will within their structures.
tht@social.pwned.page 3 months ago
The correct answer
FireTower@lemmy.world 3 months ago
A stateless society is one with a power vacuum. Some one will claim the title of leader and often it’ll be someone of little virtue.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Kind of. Marx’s theory of the State was about Class Oppression, when you eliminate Class there isn’t really a State for Marx, ergo full Public Ownership and Central Planning is considered Communist. You are more referring to Anarchism.
TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Are these “cental planners” robots or humans?
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 months ago
I think the second paragraph talks a bit about this. It's not really about the exact form of government. But about society and classes. So you're both subject to exactly that. There is no agreement how communism can be achieved.