I want to agree with the last bit but if it’s coming from thinking that the CCP is communist because it’s in the name then I wonder what your opinion on the DPRK is.
This is not universally agreed upon I will say. Many libertarian socialists contend that the most accurate term for the various Leninist governments is state capitalism. Though this gets pretty deep into semantics to the extent that I’m not sure how important this distinction is.
Left libertarian/anarchist here. Having markets And being capitalists are not the same thing. It’s possible to have markets without being capitalist.
There was no sharp transition. Russia and China have never been communist nor will they ever be communist. But their transition from oppressive states ruled by the bloody hands of the vanguard party. To oppressive States ruled by state capitalist oligarchs either enabled by the former Vanguard party. Or serving at the blessing of the current Vanguard party. Generally took place from roughly mid 1970 to 2000. Over that 30-year span China opened up, and the Iron Curtain fell. And that’s when their ruling classes started to incorporate capitalism to serve and enrich themselves. While placating the masses for a short while.
However you want to describe their oppressive authoritarian governing structures. Leninism (ironic because it never resembled Lenin’s misguided vision) or Maoism, they weren’t capitalist initially. But that’s the thing with authoritarians. They aren’t committed left or right in any meaningful sense. But ultimately whatever they think will secure their power. Which succinctly describes Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Mao, and many of the wealthy in Western nations too. They’re enemies of consent. It’s also why power should NEVER be concentrated like that. You get people committing atrocities in your name. And very little power to stop it.
I want to agree with the last bit but if it’s coming from thinking that the CCP is communist because it’s in the name then I wonder what your opinion on the DPRK is.
Whatever horrific thing the CCP in the late 1950s and early 1960s was, I think everyone agrees it wasn’t capitalism, is the point.
Whatever it was, it was certainly not an investor-driven market-economy controlled primarily by owners of private property.
This is not universally agreed upon I will say. Many libertarian socialists contend that the most accurate term for the various Leninist governments is state capitalism. Though this gets pretty deep into semantics to the extent that I’m not sure how important this distinction is.
Left libertarian/anarchist here. Having markets And being capitalists are not the same thing. It’s possible to have markets without being capitalist.
There was no sharp transition. Russia and China have never been communist nor will they ever be communist. But their transition from oppressive states ruled by the bloody hands of the vanguard party. To oppressive States ruled by state capitalist oligarchs either enabled by the former Vanguard party. Or serving at the blessing of the current Vanguard party. Generally took place from roughly mid 1970 to 2000. Over that 30-year span China opened up, and the Iron Curtain fell. And that’s when their ruling classes started to incorporate capitalism to serve and enrich themselves. While placating the masses for a short while.
However you want to describe their oppressive authoritarian governing structures. Leninism (ironic because it never resembled Lenin’s misguided vision) or Maoism, they weren’t capitalist initially. But that’s the thing with authoritarians. They aren’t committed left or right in any meaningful sense. But ultimately whatever they think will secure their power. Which succinctly describes Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Mao, and many of the wealthy in Western nations too. They’re enemies of consent. It’s also why power should NEVER be concentrated like that. You get people committing atrocities in your name. And very little power to stop it.