0
Core Elements of Capitalism, Socialism (Primary, Intermediate, and Advanced Stages), and Communism
(lemmy.ml)
This graph is important
It’s based on the writings of professor Cheng Enfu, President of the Academy of Marxism at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and Director of the Academic Division of Marxist Studies of CASS.
Socialism and communism are not one and done processes. They are gradual changes, both Marx and Lenin have addressed this extensively. We can’t just instantly press the big communism button unfortunately.
Here’s a paper that goes way more in depth on the professor’s definitions: https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/pdf/10.1521/siso.2022.86.2.159
Not every implementation. Maybe every state implementation (widely recognized states tend to be at least somewhat authoritarian, and the existence of a state isn't compatible with the ultimate goal of a state-less, class-less, & money-less society). But there are some not-as-recognized examples of somewhat successful, somewhat decentralized leftist organizations. (They tend to be in a constant state of war with surrounding right-wing death squads, though.)
To be clear, it makes sense that it's easier to handle disagreements within an army or party without resorting to outright authoritarianism; people who disagree enough to lead to real conflict are more likely to join a different army/front/party than create chaos inside of it. Still, there might be one last example of a pseudo-state or pseudo-country that seems consistent with anti-authoritarian leftist values:
There was a variety of leftist political activity in the region and no clear leader or authority, at least not in a definite singular sense. Unfortunately, the right-wing nationalist death squad got to them after only about a year. I wish that someone had intervened in nationalist Spain the way there'd been de-Nazi-fication in nationalist Germany.
I was careful with my word choices. I said communism not leftists theories generally. Communism is by definition a state managed/centrally planned economy.
I have no issue with left wing movements in general. My criticism is of centrally managed governments regardless of their origin.
And I do believe its possible to structure a society align left wing values. just not through communism, at least not in a way that is stable.
i guess that the point i'm trying to make is that communism doesn't mean central management. in fact, my personal definition of communism, in my mind, or at least to my understanding, contradicts highly authoritarian, centralized, or totalitarian government. you can't have a classless, stateless society and also a CEO/dictator/president supported by an upper-caste/class of first-class citizens/oligarchs. what i disagree with you on is your conflation of communism with authoritarianism, something i've seen both pro- and anti-communists do
don't let tankies re-define the real meaning of communism, which is worker control, not central control
You're making up a personal definition of communism just like you're accusing the tankies of, which is fine. But neither you or the tankies get to assert what communism is or is not.
And no, I'm not conflating communism with authoritarianism. I'm asserting that communism's centrally managed economy tends to collapse into authoritarianism by being highly susceptible to corruption. Again, I've been very careful in my word choice this entire time.
You disagree all you wish, you're disagreeing with ideas I have not asserted. And I dont particularly have a problem with anything you've said outside of terms and definitions. I've mostly been debunking what you've been thinking I've said.
To recap:
Public ownership doesn't have to mean central ownership. There is such a thing as local government.
Communism isn't a centrally managed economy. That's not the definition of communism. The USSR/CCCP never achieved communism, but were stuck at the transitional/intermediate state of socialism. Make of that what you will.