5 ms·
That's kind of the point though isn't it? Communism necessitates "seizing the means of production" and collectivizing it into the central bureaucracy. If you sq
by tengbretson 9y ago
That's kind of the point though isn't it? Communism necessitates "seizing the means of production" and collectivizing it into the central bureaucracy. If you squint your eyes a bit it would be difficult to even tell the difference between that and when a dictator is consolidating power.
So the results of a communist takeover and a dictator rising to power are almost indistinguishable aside from one glaring difference. Communism lacks the autocrat. Should it even be a shock to us at this point that one always seems to come along and fill those shoes?
- dragonwriter 9y ago> That's kind of the point though isn't it? Communism necessitates "seizing the means of production" and collectivizing it into the central bureaucracy. No, it doesn't. There are subsets of Communist thought that require centralism, but they aren't all of Communism.
- jeffreyrogers 9y agoMarx literally calls for centralization in his writings. And in practice there is always centralization in Communist regimes.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Marx literally calls for centralization in his writings. Marxism isn't all of Communism. > And in practice there is always centralization in Communist regimes. All actual Communist regimes have been based in Leninism and it's derivatives, which are a small subset (in terms of schools of theory) of derivatives of Marxism, which themselves, again, don't constitute all of Communism.