you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There have been communist states, thats obviously an incorrect definition, but so is his. He is referring to 'Cultural Marxism' which ironically isn't something Marx wrote about, but seems to mean any socially authoritarian left wing government.

To have Communism you just need some arrangement that lacks markets, and public ownership of the means of production, as opposed to capitalism having a market economy with privately owned means of production.

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

have there been states with purely public ownership of the means of production?

It seems as if that most countries are mixed, with a few things that are publicly owned, but controlled through the government. 10 Euro countries where public ownership is completely normal: https://weownit.org.uk/blog/top-10-countries-where-public-ownership-totally-normal

But I don't hear those countries being referred to as commie states.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

have there been states with purely public ownership of the means of production?

Yes, for instance the USSR

"Private ownership of enterprises and property had essentially remained illegal throughout the Soviet era, with Soviet communism emphasizing national control over all means of production but human labor"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia

Also communist China - under Mao, not the capitalists masquerading as communists in the CCP

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3024256

Also Communist Cuba

https://time.com/5937706/cuba-private-business/

If you don't have mostly complete public ownership of capital, it isn't really Communism. But anyways, these are your textbook Marxist states, and they all have this defining feature