5 ms·

It’s probably not possible if you also throw in internal actors seizing power. Communism suggests an absence of concentration of power. If an internal actor wa

It’s probably not possible if you also throw in internal actors seizing power. Communism suggests an absence of concentration of power. If an internal actor wants more power and starts making moves, you’d have to have consensus and collective action from the rest of the group to stop them. That is both very difficult and very expensive to achieve.

skirge 2y ago
Communism is based on concentration of power - one party (thus one leader), every deviation from main doctrine is punished, central planning etc.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  In theory, communism is the opposite - the stated goal of Lenin was a state that would wither away as people moved to voluntary self-government. In practice, it turns into authoritarianism very different from the idealized goal.
  - skirge 2y ago
    no state(s) means one state which you can't escape so you must obey
  - unicornporn 2y ago
    Yes. "A communist state" is an oxymoron. Communism is by definition stateless. Government/governance, sure, but without a state. Rojava would probably be a better example of communism (in practice) than Soviet.
    - skirge 2y ago
      "state" is area where government is able to collect taxes and respected by other governments. Thus "communist state" is not oxymoron.
      - unicornporn 2y ago
        I don't understand your point. > A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
        skirge 2y ago
        I was born in communist country. No money, only objective points to describe cost of production and egibility, no police but militia, one "united" workers party and tax in nature and goods. But no money ;D and no state ;D
  - raincom 2y ago
    Withering away of the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

skirge 2y ago

Communism is based on concentration of power - one party (thus one leader), every deviation from main doctrine is punished, central planning etc.

ceejayoz 2y ago
In theory, communism is the opposite - the stated goal of Lenin was a state that would wither away as people moved to voluntary self-government. In practice, it turns into authoritarianism very different from the idealized goal.
- skirge 2y ago
  no state(s) means one state which you can't escape so you must obey
- unicornporn 2y ago
  Yes. "A communist state" is an oxymoron. Communism is by definition stateless. Government/governance, sure, but without a state. Rojava would probably be a better example of communism (in practice) than Soviet.
  - skirge 2y ago
    "state" is area where government is able to collect taxes and respected by other governments. Thus "communist state" is not oxymoron.
    - unicornporn 2y ago
      I don't understand your point. > A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
      - skirge 2y ago
        I was born in communist country. No money, only objective points to describe cost of production and egibility, no police but militia, one "united" workers party and tax in nature and goods. But no money ;D and no state ;D
- raincom 2y ago
  Withering away of the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state