• dub@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m no too learned in the subject but what would “true” communism even look like on the large scale like a country? Would it even be feasible?

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Realistically, it would look something like how the Anarchists organized society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or how Rojava is organizing today with communal federations. Anarchism sidesteps the inevitable authoritarian regime that various Marxist theories have by not installing a ‘temporary’ vanguard state that quickly becomes autocratic and dictatorial, they just jump straight to decentralizing power immediately by giving it to the people.

    • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      True communism in a country is impossible.

      You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we’ve seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.

      A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.

      To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn’t do it, China didn’t do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.

      That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.

      • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.

        There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).

        There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.

        That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.

        It’s… complicated.

        • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.

          It is not an abstract “I don’t like capitalism so let’s try something different” approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name ‘anarchist communism’ in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.