2 ms·
Kropotkin was equally as opposed to war communism as a centrally planned economy and as opposed as he would have been to the NEP. I don't think that, after thi
by sudosysgen 5y ago
Kropotkin was equally as opposed to war communism as a centrally planned economy and as opposed as he would have been to the NEP.
I don't think that, after thinking for a few seconds, the regular person would arrive to the conclusion that the USSR was only communist because of the name of the ruling party.
I also don't agree that, if people were introduced to society like the USSR with the only exception that they had decentralized planning, would conclude that it wasn't communist anymore.
Similarly a lot of people in the US have called the economic system of the AANES communist despite being neither centralized nor run by a communist party. All the people that called Bernie Sanders a communist despite him not being a member of the communist party also don't agree. Largely from, you know, collectivizing agriculture and seizing a third of the productive capital to then put it under the control of soviets.
In summary I don't think that people commonly understand communism as being dependent on the name of the ruling party.
- jltsiren 5y agoWords gain meaning from their usage. Instead of definitions, there are explanations and examples. In the widely understood meaning, communism refers to a centralized state ruled by the communist party. Not by something called a communist party but by something that is a communist party. The USSR was the canonical example of a communist state. States similar to it are generally seen as communist states, while states that are too different are not. Decentralized states otherwise similar to the USSR have never existed, so we don't know if people would consider them communist states.