• AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Communism involves, almost by definition, a centrally planned economy. That isn’t really possible without a state.

    • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Socialism can involve that (decentralised planning is possible)

      In communism - as there is no need for the suppression of reactionary classes anymore - the socialist state ceases to exist in terms of what we know as a “state”

      Administration of the economy can and will still exist in the post-“socialist world republic” (ie. communist) world

    • ssj2marx@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      A Leninist would tell you that the “state” is defined by class suppression, so in a truly classless society the “state” ceases to exist and becomes simply the bureaucracy by which the production of society is organized an allocated.

      An Anarchist would tell you that communism doesn’t require a centrally planned economy at all, and that small groups that own and control their own means of production are capable of spontaneously organizing at a mass scale and distributing their production without a central authority.

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        A Leninist would tell you that the “state” is defined by class suppression

        A Leninist should perhaps open a dictionary instead of trying to redefine words.

        small groups that own and control their own means of production are capable of spontaneously organizing at a mass scale

        An Anarchist has clearly never worked in any group setting I’m familiar with.