3 ms·

Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? How could you enforce communism under anarchy?

by dartos 2y ago

dragonwriter 2y ago
> Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? Communism implies anarchism. > How could you enforce communism under anarchy? Communism, as a state, is the hypothetical self-sustaining stateless end-state envisioned by Communism, the ideology. Socialism (an intermediate state in the theory), and State Capitalism (an intermediate state—and one most real regimes claiming Communist ideology get stuck in—in practice) may need enforcement, Communism, almost by definition, does not (whether it os attainable is, of course, a different question.)
- x-complexity 2y ago
  > > Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? > Communism implies anarchism. The economic system of communism in no way implies that it would be achieved via anarchic means; It only outlines that the participants in the system share resources towards achieving the common goals of everyone involved. How it should be done has been left as an unfortunate "left as an exercise to the reader". Anarchic forces may be one way of doing so, but it is in no way implied by communism.
- dartos 2y ago
  > Communism implies anarchism How so? Communism, as a state, requires rules. By that virtue, it’s not anarchy. Communism as the utopian ideal I suppose could be considered anarchy, but in reality that would never happen, so IMO not really worth discussing.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Communists (believers in communism) set up socialist states. A communist state would be decentralized and voluntary. The two are often conflated, but this fact is fundamental to communist philosophy, economics, and literature. The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not "Communist Republics" As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists, and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism — they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism and progressing toward a communist society.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
    - eru 2y ago
      Was the USSR 'not communist' because it's lacked electrification, or because it lacked Soviet Power?

Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? How could you enforce communism under anarchy?

by dartos 2y ago

Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? How could you enforce communism under anarchy?

> Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? Communism implies anarchism. > How could you enforce communism under anarchy? Communism, as a state, is the hypothetical self-sustaining stateless end-state envisioned by Communism, the ideology. Socialism (an intermediate state in the theory), and State Capitalism (an intermediate state—and one most real regimes claiming Communist ideology get stuck in—in practice) may need enforcement, Communism, almost by definition, does not (whether it os attainable is, of course, a different question.)

x-complexity 2y ago
> > Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? > Communism implies anarchism. The economic system of communism in no way implies that it would be achieved via anarchic means; It only outlines that the participants in the system share resources towards achieving the common goals of everyone involved. How it should be done has been left as an unfortunate "left as an exercise to the reader". Anarchic forces may be one way of doing so, but it is in no way implied by communism.
dartos 2y ago
> Communism implies anarchism How so? Communism, as a state, requires rules. By that virtue, it’s not anarchy. Communism as the utopian ideal I suppose could be considered anarchy, but in reality that would never happen, so IMO not really worth discussing.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Communists (believers in communism) set up socialist states. A communist state would be decentralized and voluntary. The two are often conflated, but this fact is fundamental to communist philosophy, economics, and literature. The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not "Communist Republics" As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists, and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism — they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism and progressing toward a communist society.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
  - eru 2y ago
    Was the USSR 'not communist' because it's lacked electrification, or because it lacked Soviet Power?