Comment

what you refer to as

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

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.

source
- frankenswine@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Ah, fair enough! This is Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, one of the best introductions to the philosophical aspects of Marxism in my opinion.
    
    As for your point, public ownership and central planning requires infrastructure to direct production and people/algorithms to fulfil those roles (not getting into Cybernetics at this point as that’s another can of worms). All Communists espouse democratic values, usually in the form of “units” that elect representatives from within themselves to a higher unit, in a ladder approach, with instant recall elections available as a countermeasure. Furthermore, the concepts of Democratic Centralism and the Mass Line are critical for Marxist organizational theory.
    
    source
tht@social.pwned.page ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
The correct answer

source