• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Did you still use money to buy goods and services? Was your father able to do speak up at work? Change jobs? Go on vacations?

    Just because something called itself communism didn’t make it communism. The state owning everything is the opposite of communism. In extreme communism, there isn’t even a damn state as we know it.

    The people in the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea do not live in a democracy nor a republic.

    • mutter9355@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The ussr may not have been communist, but it was definitely the initial goal. The idea of a revolution that leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently flawed. You just end up replacing a corrupt government with another corrupt government.

      • Album@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The idea of a revolution that leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently flawed.

        Not all Communists are Marxist-Lenninists or Stalinist… But obviously Lenin and Stalin were. Non-ML Communists would agree with you.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In many ways, yes. It is absolutely an ideal that is not compatible with current reality.

        That’s why anyone who’s remotely realistic about it understands it’s an end state of pushing for anarcho-socialistic policies, one that maybe cannot be achieved. Like saying, “Humanity will walk on the moon.” when it’s 1910. Conceivable? Kinda’. Possible? Hell no.