[DavidHm]

Why do you think that?

As far as I know, it was ruled for 40+ years by the self called communist party, and the means of production were owned by the state.

They might not have been part of the USSR, but they were pretty communist as far as I can see.

[vidarh]

> and the means of production were owned by the state.

So it was not communist, as there was a state. And it was not communist because there were class differences (unless we are to believe that the party elite did not live differently to the rest).

But that did not distinguish them from the rest of Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union - none of these countries described themselves as communist, but as socialist, for a reason: They all used the lure of a future communist society as a carrot to get people to accept the many sticks being applied.

So he's half right, but for the wrong reasons.

EDIT: In any case, whether or not one agree on the above definition of communism, Bulgaria certainly was not different enough to the rest to set it apart. Either Bulgaria was communist too or none of them were.

[DavidHm]

Ok, I see what you mean.

It might not have been textbook communism - but if we go down that route, how many real communist countries have there been?

The whole soviet block self described as communist (bulgarian party was "communist", the russian party was "communist"). They have effectively redefined what communist means for 95% of the population.