I just think it’s convenient that communism gets to live in this little “no true scotsman/communism” bubble where if a state adopts communism and fails, it immedietly gets labeled as “not a real communist” state.
That way, instead of looking if there’s something wrong with communism itself, it can get written off as the fault of the state attempting it.
But no state has actually adopted communism. Communism as a basis of an economy requires communal ownership of all goods; not state ownership, but communal. Which country has ever done that?
No it cannot, that’s not communism. China is as communist as North Korea is democratic. Just because a country calls itself something does not make it that thing.
None of them even tried to adopt communism, they all tried to adopt authoritarianism, using the word communism to garner support to get elected. Communism is a class-free society with communal ownership, no country has ever tried to be that.
I’m asking what your point is, or are you incapable of reading more than 6 words in a reply?
My point is:
"Shit like this is why I don’t get (some of) the LGBTQ community’s fascination with communism and tankies.
They have proven themselves just as anti-LGBTQ as the fascists."
Okay, and what does that have to do with fact China and the USSR aren’t/weren’t communist being convenient?
I just think it’s convenient that communism gets to live in this little “no true scotsman/communism” bubble where if a state adopts communism and fails, it immedietly gets labeled as “not a real communist” state.
That way, instead of looking if there’s something wrong with communism itself, it can get written off as the fault of the state attempting it.
It’s not really convenient. It’s that communism is an ideal that’s literally impossible for large groups of humans to obtain.
There has never been a communist state because there can’t be with people involved.
Bingo!
But no state has actually adopted communism. Communism as a basis of an economy requires communal ownership of all goods; not state ownership, but communal. Which country has ever done that?
The state can also control everything. In which case, China, Vietnam and Cuba.
That’s authoritarianism, not communism.
Which can coincide with communism, see China.
No it cannot, that’s not communism. China is as communist as North Korea is democratic. Just because a country calls itself something does not make it that thing.
Okay, so when a country tries to adopt communism, if that makes you happy.
You’re proving my point though.
None of them even tried to adopt communism, they all tried to adopt authoritarianism, using the word communism to garner support to get elected. Communism is a class-free society with communal ownership, no country has ever tried to be that.
Again, thanks for proving my point for me.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but you do you.