@sebgogola @hackersquirrel @RD4Anarchy @AlisonCreekside

One might call it authoritarian socialism. It definitely wasn't actual communism, no matter the aspirations behind the revolution or the naming of the party. It's also very different from the democratic liberal socialism being sought (and in some countries largely scrubbed) in much of the West.

@sebgogola @hackersquirrel @AlisonCreekside

This conversation has continued fine without me, but I can't get some thoughts off my mind, so I'm going to dump them here:

I don't see clarification of critical, fundamental distinctions as "splitting hairs". I came to "throw comments" because there are so many common misconceptions, false narratives, and outright lies circulating about communism, capitalism, democracy, and state, and I'm just trying to do what I can to resist the perpetuation of these errors that hinder people from really understanding what's going on and acting accordingly.

I'm glad to see that you recognize the error in what you initially posted about communism being a "proven failure".

On a tangent I'll note that pointing out that no state has implemented actual communism (indeed this is an impossibility since a core aspect of communism is being a stateless, classless society) cannot be both-sided with the false claim that "what we have now isn't Real Capitalism (TM)."

The word capitalism was in fact coined in criticism and description of an *existing system* that emerged in continuity from preexisting conditions (especially state and colonialism). And a system's purpose is what it does, not what the dictionary or some ancap says about it.

Communism on the other hand is more of a theoretical concept (though it has been applied in retrospect to preexisting stateless, classless societies) that some have supposedly attempted (whether sincerely or not) to realize in a state context but have not. Even the states in question recognize this as none of them even claimed to have attained actual communism, regardless of being run by a so-called communist party, or being referred to by others (inside or outside) as "communist".

But all claims and intents aside, the defining reality is that none of these countries eliminated capital, or wage slavery, or enclosure, and none of them extricated themselves from the global capitalist system.

I wouldn't call the US state capitalism. The distinction with state capitalism is that it is state that owns and controls capital, not private individuals or private corporations. The idea that private ownership is an essential element of capitalism is a red herring. Capital does not give a shit if it is owned by a private individual or a state, as long as it's demands are met. In the US, state certainly serves as a tool and defender of capital, of course. Contrary to popular lies about it, you can't have capitalism without state. They are not opposites, they go hand in hand.