You're viewing part of a thread.
It's more like it's impossible to name how China could be communist. They'd need a revolution or something
I'd bet it's not the first on the list to have it's people take power
I'm saying that china + soviet union has defined and continue to define what communism is. It's a word that's tainted forever.
Just like, for example, Christianity is defined by modern Christians.
They define the cultural idea of communism
I hate being "that guy" tm but
The Soviet Union only briefly played with the idea of communism before committing to a single party socialist Republic. Modern day Russia is an autocratic dictatorship hiding in a Trenchcoat with "democracy" written on it.
China is again, a one party state which is, in truth, a Republic. China's historical dances with "communism" are rather similar to that of the USSR wherein an offshoot of marxist-leninism was implemented, modified and then used, ultimately landing closer... Again to a socialist Republic and now being effectively an autocratic dictatorship hiding in a Trenchcoat... Etc. Etc.
Neither country in my opinion ever reached the illusory "true communism". Maybe the west is right and it's a failed ideology, maybe "it just hasn't had the right leader yet" but ultimately, I believe most political ideologies have good bits that we can take notes on to improve the lives of others.
I apologize for any historical or political inaccuracies, wrote this with knowledge from the best of my memory while on the toilet at work
I agree with the majority of what you are saying, but stating either the USSR or China had a foundation as a republic I would say is a gross mischaracterization, as supreme power within these states were held by the "communist" party, and not the people. Authoritarian regiems may play at calling themselves republics or democracies, but this should never be given credence.
Thank you for the correction! I agree it's far more accurate to call them authoritatian/autocratic regimes both now and then which is what I was trying to indicate by saying they were single party republics, but I suppose one should say what they mean and mean what they say.
And thank you for accepting criticism on the internet! I think I might really like being on lemmy! I do see where your thinking was there, though.
Some good info in here.
From what you've said, it looks like communism has a historical tendency to become an authoritarian dictatorship, in turn redefining what 'communism' means to most people?
I think authoritarian states typically get mislabeled very easily within modern times, especially by themselves. Some precedent I believe should exist for what I would loosely call "Stalinist" Communism, as that is what has been the most historical application of the term. But the modern Chinese state I believe would make Mao, Lenin, and even Stalin roll around in their graves by being considered Communist, and we should call a spade a spade. China is a fascist country now.
I won't say you're wrong, after all, what do I know, I'm not a politician.
But the point of my comment is that the two countries which are most touted as examples of "communisms failings" were never really communist in the first place, regardless of what they labelled themselves as, they were single party socialist Republics. Both failed to eliminate class divides, neither had the workers control the means of production as they were still pawns of the government, failed to eliminate parties altogether, etc. Etc.
I'd trust communists more to define what it is. Even nazis used the word socialism, so it's understandable that Soviet Union and China would follow the practice. We wouldn't believe a used car salesperson selling a Lada as a Lamborghini