What do you think of that statement? I think that if a state is ruled by one party or one person and not by the people, you can not call it "communist".
That's what my history teacher said and I agree. There's a lot of countries that CALLED themselves communist, since that was their goal, but they were more socialist. As far as I understand, socialism is the stepping stone to communism, but true communism might be impossible to reach, since there would not really be a government.
Pure communism is stateless, so that would tend to be true, yes. The so-called communist countries of the last century were (and are) state capitalist more than communist, in which the state controls all economic activity.
I agree, it bothers me when people refer to the Soviet union as an example of communism having failed, I want to hit them with a copy of Marx's Kapital, srs.
Yeah, I honestly believe that none of the communist countries where in line with communist ideals. My own ideals are closer to democratic socialism.
Communism was supposed to dissolve a government at the end. In the USSR, it was changed to more government interference. Communism has failed. Countries that were supposed to be communist became more capitalist at the end.
I think the problem with that statement is that it relies on the assumption that a state can be communist in the form that a state usually takes. There are plenty of examples of communist societies (usually who haven't engaged with Western communism), but very few who both identify as such and actually are communist.
Unfortunately true. But along the lines of the other posts, stateless communism wouldn't benefit a select few elites, so while they do have the power, they usually work to keep it. :/ So much for the good of the people.
Pol Pot would disagree. I like the idea of communism. But the problem is, while it looks fantastic on paper, it becomes a totally different thing when applied off that paper. Of course, no government type is exactly pure. Even a capitalist society is prone to abuse or neglect. Hell, even in Nazi Germany, which is cited as a totalitarian dictatorship, they had health care programs, akin to what you'd see in a socialist nation. Of course, the Nazi Party did call themselves National Socialists... but the point still stands. This may seem radical, but I tend to view government types as just a blanket over what really governs. It's just a fancy decoration that people take at face value. Well, most take at face value. China is probably the most successful of so-called communist nations, though one could argue they're a hybrid of a few elements. But one thing that cannot be argued is, the flag of the Soviet Union was a lot cooler-looking, than anything Russia has now.
i know that the statement in the title, is total BS. any country that ascribes to or models their system of governance on Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideals / philosophy or variations of them is communist by definition.
I've studied Marx's philosophies to a pretty great extent, and I have to say that I am in favour of it compared to other forms of governments- let's take Capitalism for example, in which the core belief is that for one person to be successful economically, one person must be suffering economically. The concept of all being equal, of all being in a single "community," has never truly been expressed due to human nature containing greed and corruption. As for the question above, it reminds me of a Shaker's community- far from a true organized government. What it would look like if there was a governmental communist country would be considering "Country Leader" as any other job, which was just as important in the delicate communistic machine. Said country leader would eat the same as everyone else and live in the same type of house as everyone else, yet they would do a different job similarly as a janitor would do his or a doctor. It would be interesting to see the ideals of Marx re-implemented into different countries, however I'm doubtful due to people, Americans especially, having such an awful concept of what Communism is after having the ideas that Communism is only left to countries that are poor. Not only that but there have never been any good "Communist role models," allowing me to elaborate: The Soviet Union v. America in the Cold War, China having millions poor and a select few rich with a very restrictive government- not to mention serving as a major competitor in international trade, North Korea... is North Korea, Vietnam war depicts Vietnam as another enemy, Cuba- Cuban Missile Crisis, Fidel Castro, Embargo between America makes Communism seem taboo. The examples are endless unfortunately. Thank you for introducing a topic which is intellectual and focusing on Communism ^^
*clears throat* *voice like someone is pinching my nose* well as a person that spends a lot of time on wikipedia what you ACTUALLY mean by communism is..................................