• Don_alForno@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    to be a communist he would have to have been a dictator who seized power with force rather than democratically elected.

    Communism and dictatorship have nothing to do with each other.

    • 鳳凰院 凶真 (Hououin Kyouma)@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Communism is revolutionary, Socialism can be reformative.

      In the context of the United States, Democratic Socialism is perfectly compatible with the constitution and the ideals of freedom and democracy; Communism, on the other hand, requires overthrowing the existing institutions which make it incompatible.

      Most historical “Communist” movements are vanguardist, and vanguardism doesn’t end well, they end up being authoritarian.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      The one thing that communism and dictatorship have in common is that the one pretty much requires a revolution and the other often appears after a revolution.

      They have similar origin stories.

      The problem with revolutions is that revolutions need a strong man to rally around who can quickly make decisions without compromise and who is in close to complete power. A democratic revolution would not happen, since it’s not fast and decisive enough. But when the revolution is done and that same strongman is still in power, and he gets to decide how the new government is run, only very few of them are capable of handing the power over to a democratic government. And if you run a government like a revolution we tend to call that dictatorship.