It’s it though. It’s a principle applied to Chinese communism. It’s not a required part of communism and it isn’t form of government on its own. It’s not even the most major part of a government system.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It's not required for communism per se, but it's certainly a form of government organization. It's how the People's Congress works?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It seems this person is just going to keep repeating that it isn’t a form of government no matter what.

At this point the onus is on @pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml to specify what criteria need be met for something to be considered “a form of government.”

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 11 points 7 months ago

I'm not holding my breath on a lib getting into specifics

[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It doesn’t define how leaders are chosen or how laws are enacted. It can’t be a system of government. Unless you have selected a specific implementation of government that uses it and are conflating the term with that government system. If that’s the case, then I agree that arguing over the definition is pointless. So what implementation or design do you think is better.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 months ago

The current government structures of Cuba, China, Laos, and Vietnam aren’t a secret, nor is the Soviet Union’s. From a declassified CIA document (PDF):

Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.