Like Soviet Union, PRC, DPRK, Viet Nam? From my understanding these weren’t/aren’t really ruled by the people but by a wealth(ier) elite, they use systems of money, have (limited) private property, etc.

Which, imo, is capitalism or (its friendlier variant) socialism (which has some communist features like universal healthcare for example), but is not communism.

Isn’t the goal of communism supposed to be anarchist communism (no state [government], also no rich/poor divide)? Where nothing is owned, either by the state or by individuals?

I didn’t think statism is compatible with communism.

  • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    0·
    4 years ago

    By the way, Anarchists want states too - you special folks just like to call it by different names. I don’t care how libertarian and horizontal your democratic militia fighting force is, it’s still an appendage of whatever democratic system your running your commune under. Democracy is incompatible with Anarchism, Democracy requires a state. Those labor camps that the CNT-FAI used to imprison fascists were totally stateless and nonhierarchical, right? The political repression of the Bolsheviks under the bandit king Makhno was totally stateless and democratic, right? No. Wrong. The only difference is, in our state the hierarchy is official and accountable, yours is not.

    In conclusion, reject your Anarchistic idealism, read State and Rev by Lenin, embrace Marxism. Ask me questions if you want I’ll probably answer them. Bye.

    What a stupid pile of shit lol