Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by design-material 1652 days ago
What are the varying/conflicting definitions of Communism here, and which one is the 'correct' one?
2 comments

Well, this is a dead thread but I thought I'd help out anyway.

What Russia did in the 20th century was called a workers dictatorship, and was meant to be a transition into communism, which is defined as a stateless and classless society. So, calling what Russia did 'communism' is a bit like calling what the fascists did 'capitalism', and then saying that because it didn't work, therefore capitalism doesn't work. Anarchists have generally stood against workers dictatorships because they seem to be an ineffective way of achieving communism, but they do want communism.

Soviet rule was at best state-capitalism, with the government creating market quotas, trading with other countries, annexing other countries for their resources, and ultimately still doing everything capitalist countries do, but with more state-intervention.

One is : a society that is not capitalist, ie, the means of production are owned by the workers.

The other is, apparently, a centralized society run by people that call themselves communist.

> One is : a society that is not capitalist, ie, the means of production are owned by the workers.

Among living socialists and communists, I'd argue that that is actually their definition of "socialism", while their definition of "communism" is a moneyless, classless and stateless society, the idea being that the former could lead to the later if implemented. All three words have changed their meanings over the last 200 years though. To most people today, "communism" just means an authoritarian state ruled by a communist party with a centralized economy and "socialism" means widely different things to different people depending on where you live and what media you read.