Real communists understand the very mixed history of “communist” countries of the past and present. There are virtually zero actually communist countries in the world. That is factually true. What you want to believe is tankie logic… You are a tankie if you disagree with the statement: There is no such thing as communism with a ruling class.
There are virtually zero actually communist countries in the world. That is factually true.
I’m not a marxist, but this point doesn’t make sense to me. “Communist countries” aren’t called that because they have somehow managed to achieve a communist society (which would be impossible to exist in a capitalist world), but because they are ruled by a governent that is ruled by a group/party which is (or at the very least claims to be) ideologically communist…
No, they are not ideologically communist. A ruling party is by definition not communist. They are diometrically opposed.
To clarify, ‘ideologically communist’ means being part of a movement aiming to build a ‘communist society’ (communist mode of production, classless, moneyless, etc.). It makes sense for someone to call themselves a communist despite owning money, being in a social class, living under a state. In fact, a member of the bourgeoisie can be a communist, so long as they are actually helping to build the communist movement - it just means they’re a class traitor. A communist who is part of the ruling class is a paradox, not a contradiction.
The communist movement does not imply prefiguration, where the movement has to immediately begin reflecting their ideal society - anarchist tendencies tend to prefer prefiguration as a transitional method, while Leninist tendencies tend to see overemphasis on it as utopian and reckless, favoring vanguardism, that ruling party you mentioned.
I see no reason why vanguardism contradicts the communist movement. The ideologically-driven ruling party aims to build a surrounding environment which will gradually abolish itself (‘withering away of the state’). This is a paradox, but not a contradiction. Their ruling party aims to be temporary, seen as a necessary step to make it possible to build that communist society.
No, they are not ideologically communist. A ruling party is by definition not communist. They are diometrically opposed.
Being ideologically communist simply means that you believe the ideal society is a communist society. Theoretically, you could be the king of britain and still be a communist.
I’m sure there are many people who are members of communist parties who are not actual communists, but there are some true believers who think they are working towards a communist society in the far future by building up state power in order to “compete” with capitalist/imperialist forces.
Again, I doubt their methods will work. I don’t think you can work towards a stateless society by strenghtening the state. But I’m not gonna deny their ideals because I don’t like their approach.
Real communists understand the very mixed history of “communist” countries of the past and present. There are virtually zero actually communist countries in the world. That is factually true. What you want to believe is tankie logic… You are a tankie if you disagree with the statement: There is no such thing as communism with a ruling class.
I’m not a marxist, but this point doesn’t make sense to me. “Communist countries” aren’t called that because they have somehow managed to achieve a communist society (which would be impossible to exist in a capitalist world), but because they are ruled by a governent that is ruled by a group/party which is (or at the very least claims to be) ideologically communist…
No, they are not ideologically communist. A ruling party is by definition not communist. They are diometrically opposed.
Even having an identifiable “owning class”, let alone anything close to a “ruling class” is also definitionally not communist.
To clarify, ‘ideologically communist’ means being part of a movement aiming to build a ‘communist society’ (communist mode of production, classless, moneyless, etc.). It makes sense for someone to call themselves a communist despite owning money, being in a social class, living under a state. In fact, a member of the bourgeoisie can be a communist, so long as they are actually helping to build the communist movement - it just means they’re a class traitor. A communist who is part of the ruling class is a paradox, not a contradiction.
The communist movement does not imply prefiguration, where the movement has to immediately begin reflecting their ideal society - anarchist tendencies tend to prefer prefiguration as a transitional method, while Leninist tendencies tend to see overemphasis on it as utopian and reckless, favoring vanguardism, that ruling party you mentioned.
I see no reason why vanguardism contradicts the communist movement. The ideologically-driven ruling party aims to build a surrounding environment which will gradually abolish itself (‘withering away of the state’). This is a paradox, but not a contradiction. Their ruling party aims to be temporary, seen as a necessary step to make it possible to build that communist society.
Being ideologically communist simply means that you believe the ideal society is a communist society. Theoretically, you could be the king of britain and still be a communist.
I’m sure there are many people who are members of communist parties who are not actual communists, but there are some true believers who think they are working towards a communist society in the far future by building up state power in order to “compete” with capitalist/imperialist forces.
Again, I doubt their methods will work. I don’t think you can work towards a stateless society by strenghtening the state. But I’m not gonna deny their ideals because I don’t like their approach.