Like Soviet Union, PRC, DPRK, Viet Nam? From my understanding these weren't/aren't really ruled by the people but by a wealth(ier) elite, they use systems of money, have (limited) private property, etc.

Which, imo, is capitalism or (its friendlier variant) socialism (which has some communist features like universal healthcare for example), but is not communism.

Isn't the goal of communism supposed to be anarchist communism (no state [government], also no rich/poor divide)? Where nothing is owned, either by the state or by individuals?

I didn't think statism is compatible with communism.

  • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
    7·
    4 years ago

    When the USSR was illegally dissolved in 1991, the nations that were supported by the USSR had 2 choices: market reforms, or death by sanction. To not open up and allow some level or private property would have resulted in the deaths of COUNTLESS in Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. This was the cause of a famine in the 90’s in the DPRK.

    And all that coming after this, lol.

    When anarchists take measures for their own survival = bad When communists take measures for their own survival = good

      • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
        12·
        4 years ago

        Anarchists imprisoning people who attacked them in the strongest sense of the word and communists imprisoning people who wrote mean pamphlets about Lenin is not the same measures at all.

    • dallasw
      1·
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        OP was just saying it’s an example that it wasn’t stateless.

        How it wasn't stateless? General assemblies decided who to send there and for how much time,