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.
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.