Ask Lemmy

To do the quote thing, just put a '>' before every paragraph you want to quote.

Firstly, I disagree about communism needing to have only 1 political party

I mean, it's pretty integral to communism. This is how it's always been done. If you're going to have the means of production controlled by the state, you can't have multiple states vying for control of it. Again, point me to a communist state that doesn't do this.

I would also disagree about it requiring a government run economy

I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you refer to "communism" then. Communism is defined by the fact that the government runs the economy. In Capitalism, private entities control the means of production; in Communism, the government does. That's the whole point.

Really, I was more so using this as an example of the difference between an economic system and a government system, not saying they were the same.

I think you're falsely assuming there's a barrier between a governmental system and an economic system. These are always linked. Capitalism and Communism describe the relationship governments and economies should have with one another.

I do agree that this is a common perception in the west, it just isn’t true. I am a communist, I don’t like or support the USSR or the CCP, I have never met another communist in person that supports either. These people obviously do exist, they just aren’t nearly as common as most people assume.

Then can you point to an actual example of a stable Communist nation that you support? Again, I argue that those that exist have all become dictatorships. You have the burden of bridging theory to real-world example. Communism sounds great on paper; it just consistently fails in implementation.

the difference is that communism has no money or similar system, and socialism, like you said, has government funded systems such as health care, education, etc.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Communism absolutely has a monetary system. The difference is that Socialism is a transition system between Capitalism and a true "stateless" Communist country, which is a flat-out fantasy. Socialism is a mediation ground, in which the government funds certain public institutions that are deemed essential for everyone. Real Communist countries never move past this model; and the most they achieve is an authoritarian state that controls it in limbo. The end goal of Communism has never (and will never) be achieved.

I agree that the US hasen’t always fully succeeded in stopping communism, but it(or another government) has always succeeded in greatly harming communist countries.

So what? Communist countries have clearly overcome U.S. interference. The USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, etc, have all survived U.S. interference and achieved their aims as far as establishing a Communist state is concerned. And look at the results.

“a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.” I fully agree with you here.

Then it would seem our main point of disagreement is that Communism necessitates a single-party system. Again, I ask you to cite me an example wherein this has not occurred. To me, it seems inherent to the system. If you're going to have a state-run economy, you can't tolerate multiple political parties, because then who controls the means of production? Multiple political parties wound introduce a level of chaos into the economic system that would simply be intolerable. Suddenly, in a swing election, every industry in the country is controlled by a government that has an entirely different agenda than the last? There's no way any business could run under such ephemeral rules.