2 ms·

> Communism necessarily implies authoritarian government What? Since when and in what way? The common definition of Communism is where all participants are sh

> Communism necessarily implies authoritarian government What? Since when and in what way? The common definition of Communism is where all participants are sharing the ownership of production and trying to remove things like money and financial class. Many ideas in Communism in fact assumes the absence of any kind of central government. Then that the states that have tried "Communism" in modern haven't actually aimed for any of the original goals is less important. But let's not change meaning of words willy nilly like you did here.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
The OP's claim that communism implies authoritarian government is likely based on the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Marxism, and this is a quite common view [0]: "In The Road to Serfdom (1944), the Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek wrote that the dictatorship of the proletariat likely would destroy personal freedom as completely as does an autocracy. The European Commission of Human Rights found pursuing the dictatorship of the proletariat incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in Communist Party of Germany v. the Federal Republic of Germany (1957)." Of course, Marxism is just one version of communism among several. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletaria...
- lucian1900 6y ago
  Even that is frequently (and often wilfully) misinterpreted. The dictatorship of the proletariat is contrasted to the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It just means that workers are collectively the ruling class in socialist countries, as opposed to owners (of capital) in capitalist countries.
- Tossitto 6y ago
  Seems to me like network effects and a command economy would fall well under the definition of authoritarian.
- MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
  No. To not understand why communism in any shape is at odds with the core principles of the classical liberal western values is to not understand why, right now, you're living in prosperity and freedom. This implies that don't understand the basics of the world you're living in and your own culture. As has become common.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

The OP's claim that communism implies authoritarian government is likely based on the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Marxism, and this is a quite common view [0]: "In The Road to Serfdom (1944), the Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek wrote that the dictatorship of the proletariat likely would destroy personal freedom as completely as does an autocracy. The European Commission of Human Rights found pursuing the dictatorship of the proletariat incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in Communist Party of Germany v. the Federal Republic of Germany (1957)." Of course, Marxism is just one version of communism among several. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletaria...

lucian1900 6y ago
Even that is frequently (and often wilfully) misinterpreted. The dictatorship of the proletariat is contrasted to the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It just means that workers are collectively the ruling class in socialist countries, as opposed to owners (of capital) in capitalist countries.
Tossitto 6y ago
Seems to me like network effects and a command economy would fall well under the definition of authoritarian.
MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
No. To not understand why communism in any shape is at odds with the core principles of the classical liberal western values is to not understand why, right now, you're living in prosperity and freedom. This implies that don't understand the basics of the world you're living in and your own culture. As has become common.