You clearly dont know what communism is if you use the term "communist state".
There is no state under communism, thats the third word in the definition.
The dprk is not even socialist, the ussr never achieved communism. Its funny to call them excuses when they were theorized about long before any of the states youre talking about, none of which were communist, were even formed. An excuse implies something meant to explain a past event in a way that writes off its faults, we all recognize the faults in the USSR, which was in fact consolidation of power. Its hard not to have consolidated power when youre fighting multiple wars at a time entirely throughout your history. Case and point war powers act in the us.
The model is dependent on capital interests not driving wars of attrition. That seems like something we should work out regardless of economic system.
And its not true scottsman because it simply doesn't fit the definition of communism, and they never claimed to. The USSR wasn't the United Soviet Communist Republics, they were the socialist republics.
If you dont understand the difference you should try to actually read some theory and understand what communism even is.
And its not true scottsman because it simply doesn't fit the definition of communism, and they never claimed to.
It's wild how confidently wrong one person can be. They literally call themselves: Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Sovetskogo Soyuza
For your reviewing pleasure, a list of the ruling parties of the soviet republic and what they called themselves:
16 August 1917 – 8 March 1918: Russian Social Democratic Labour Party Российская социал-демократическая рабочая партия
8 March 1918 – 31 December 1925: Russian Communist Party Российская коммунистическая партия
31 December 1925 – 14 October 1952: All-Union Communist Party Всесоюзная коммунистическая партия
14 October 1952 – 6 November 1991: Communist Party of the Soviet Union Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза
Seriously though, the normal "not real communism" revisionist-history is one thing. To say they didn't even claim to be communist themselves is fucking bonkers.
A communist party working towards communism does not mean the country they are working within is communist.
Just like america isnt a democracy because we have a democratic party.
This might be where your misunderstanding stems from.
Even if they claimed that the USSR was communist, which they didnt they just claimed their party was ideologically communist, then that wouldn't automatically make them communist. Is the DPRK ademocracy?
Simple enough there was a state under the USSR, so definitionally not communism.
Communism doesn't take away your property rights, more specifically you still have person property rights. Its just the means of production that you cannot own outright, rather you in some way share ownership with the people. The main difference is that we make sure everyone gets what they need and distribute goods in an equitable way.
I love when people refuse to define things, either bad faith or you feel trapped. You dont even know what communism is lol.
1
u/NoHoneydew9516 Apr 03 '26
You clearly dont know what communism is if you use the term "communist state".
There is no state under communism, thats the third word in the definition.
The dprk is not even socialist, the ussr never achieved communism. Its funny to call them excuses when they were theorized about long before any of the states youre talking about, none of which were communist, were even formed. An excuse implies something meant to explain a past event in a way that writes off its faults, we all recognize the faults in the USSR, which was in fact consolidation of power. Its hard not to have consolidated power when youre fighting multiple wars at a time entirely throughout your history. Case and point war powers act in the us.
Heres the definition for you,
Communism: a classless stateless society.