Or like civil forfeiture, the only difference is how rich the victims are.

That's quite a stretch. In civil forfeiture the victim isn't disappeared/re-educated.

The victim has little influence in the first place, there's no need to make sure they can't cause further trouble.

I would say it's plain communism: nothing is yours, the state owns everything (including your life).

But I guess the difference between crown and communism is best explained in Animal Farm.

It’s just authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is possible with most types of government, but is necessary for communism. Most communists are well aware of the fact that an economic system with strict objectives requires a very powerful mechanism in order to accomplish this, and most of those understand that this mechanism is an authoritarian state, but there are obviously the delusional few that refer to the state by any other name (syndicates, guilds).

China, however, is not communist. China is fascist.

> Fascism: authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy

I agree with everything you said, except for China not being communist.

The CCP's take is "Mao was 70% right" and officially identifies as communist. Its stated end goal is a communist society. It is in service of this goal that they are taking a capitalistic / globalization route to expanding their Lebensraum. Whether CCP = China I guess is another discussion, but I don't have a strong view there.

Many communists assert that "state capitalism" is a step on the pathway to communism. From an outsider's perspective, we watched a failing communist state open up markets under Deng Xiaoping, and become the fastest rising capitalist power in the world. First, the thing that took the country from being a failed state to the fastest elimination of poverty the world has ever seen was specifically its rejection of communism, which is primarily an economic model. Secondly, there still remains no evidence that the country could ever go back in a communist direction and not lose all of the benefits incurred by a market economy.

They can call themselves communist all they want, but all they have in common with it is the authoritarianism.

A market economy has nothing to do with capitalism. Market economies existed long before capitalism was in practice. Capitalism is an employment model.

As far as crediting their rise due to their economic opening, I’d say that is not reproducible. Not without the agreement of the wealthiest nation in the world to begin massive investment into it. If it were that easy every nation would do it for the same result.

Definitely agree on everything else, and I addressed this more completely elsewhere in this thread but it’s impossible to have a communist country. Communism is anarchy. Leninism is a vanguard state.

>Authoritarianism is possible with most types of government, but is necessary for communism.

Only if the people aren't onboard. The whole idea of communism is with people being onboard (and running soviets, worker councils, etc).

Some not being onboard is OK - communism is about majority rule, not what some person likes or dislikes. In that, it's like any other system. A modern democracy also doesn't care if somebody likes to sell heroin freely, or whether they'd rather have a King.

Even if the majority was initially on board, one could argue that communism inevitably leads to authoritarianism and is necessary for its continuation.

I strongly doubt that a communist system would be ok with everyone not being onboard. It is highly likely that any disagreeing individuals would be classified as bourgeoisie or enemy of the revolution.

Majority rule is authoritarianism...

If you're gay and can't marry who you want because the majority says so, it doesn't matter if the dictator or your peers told you so.

What makes communism necessarily authoritarian, as compared to capitalism (which can be, but is not necessarily authoritarian), is that communism is a prescriptive ideology. It stipulates outcomes regarding distribution of resources, how hierarchies are manifested or not manifested, economic relationships, etc. Capitalism is an ideology of systems, unconcerned with outcomes. This is why communes can exist in capitalist countries, but private enterprises cannot exist in communist countries.

There's always pragmatism though - it's possible to say that your end state involves no workers being alienated from their labour, but to allow it for some large number of years on the basis that it will help you get to a good version of the endstate quicker.

A state that governs with a communist endstate in mind might still be regarded as communist, even if they use capitalist policies to get there.

They always come together.

That's because people don't understand the words that they use. Even people that label their countries communist.

'Communist' and 'nation' are mutually exclusive terms. There's no such thing as a communist nation, it's not possible. Communism as originally defined by Marx is lack of a state.

You can start another 100 countries and call them communist but they're really only Leninist (or derivative ideological strains). Guys starting with Lenin took the rather popular idea of statelessness, which is required to completely eliminate the master-slave / lord-serf / employer-employee relationship of capitalist employment, and used that popular economic ideology to create a vanguard state to work towards communism. It was always an attempt, either sincere or not, as a jumpstart towards communism.

I'm not a communist, nor am I a sympathizer. I'm a wholehearted statist in favor of democracy. I do think there are lessons to be learned from Marx's examination of the capitalist economic model, and believe we could have a better hybrid system with workers' cooperatives to compete with capitalist enterprise. I'm just telling the truth on this one, there cannot be a communist nation. It's a complete contradiction. Lenin completely understood the USSR couldn't possibly be both a state and communist, but admitted this, and called it communist anyway. And all of this is why if you read about 1800s communists, they're all referred to as anarchists. Still are, if you're talking to someone that understands communism.

Authoritarianism comes in every flavor of Kool-Aid.

I don’t really see the inequality of representation and taxation in capitalism as any less authoritarian.

If everything I do is being validated for value by management and bosses, and my buying power is managed by bankers who have inflationary powers to dilute my earnings, we’ve just made managed economy ephemeral. We’ve socially normalized grift and protection rackets.

Some estimates suggest up to 30% of inmates are innocent. And when plenty are in there for marijuana, that’s a bit more petty than a billionaire disrupting an entire society.

Rather than real prisons we let people die on the streets from preventable disease so we can say we didn’t force anyone into anything as if letting them rot is glass half full.

It’s a shame the “I am educated and worldly” community hasn’t put much though into the depth to which relativity applies to human existence.

If we’re going to intentionally avoid lifting people up at the cost of putting agency into propping up the already rich, well, the poor can never experience the alternative to form meta opinions.

This bantering in traditional political memes is patronizing and ignorant af given our scientific understanding of reality.

If you don’t see a difference, but millions of others do, it might be worth steel manning the opposite of your conclusions. It’s a useful rhetorical exercise at least.

Millions see sky wizards, should I?

I get the difference. It doesn’t absolve our culture of ignoring it’s deficiencies. But look what happens at a university in 2008 when students simply sit on the ground.

Is there a difference? Or have we just accepted our fate?

I don’t think I’m the one that needs to take tour advice.

There might be a difference between belief in sky wizards and belief in taxation in capitalism being as authoritarian…

I was not speaking to taxation. I’m speaking to private influence on wages, regressive taxation, privilege for the financial elite, the real health issues and costs of extreme inequality as being authoritarian.

Relativity; being poor isn’t a character flaw. Lack of experience means not knowing what one should be fighting for.

Relativity is a scientific fact yet in the free world we enable class-based suffering. Do we throw them in a gulag?

No, we let them rot in the open in tents under bridges, and complain about it. We’re far more civilized.

Even for engineers buying power is incredibly diminished by inflation to prop up Bloomberg’s and grandpa’s property portfolio he was able to afford starting in 1970.

Normalized agency in deference to political nostalgia not what communities need isn’t constrained to China and has real consequences on lives. Is it jackboots with machine guns? No. But the effects are just as measurable.