I think that if we take the definition of Communism as "a system where the wealth of a nation is owned by each citizen equally", then I can trivially prove that Democratic countries are Communist, and dictatorships, including those who call themselves "Communist", aren't.

First, we should assume that "ownership" equals control. It's a well understood principle that you aren't really the owner of a thing if someone else controls how it's used, or can take it away.

Now no Communist system I've ever heard of envisions letting every person have an equal piece of land with their own little micro-factory and so on.

In every system, the means of production is always vested in a managerial class, people who are good at managing.

So while the communal farm may be owned by the people, whether it should plant corn or soybeans is always decided by someone.

Very small scale system may use consensus decision making, but at scale there's pretty much always a manager.

So do the people ACTUALLY own the farm? The answer to that question lies in whether or not they can fire the manager.

Now imagine the farm is Amazon and the manager is Bezos. Can the people fire Bezos? Well, yes. A few votes, a law, maybe a constitution amendment, but yes.

Now there is a well established principle that the people best not interfere with deciding WHO manages the wealth of the nation.

They merely establish the "rules of the game" and those who win at that game get to manage the wealth.

But there's nothing preventing it.

Now contrast that with a "Communist" dictatorship, in this case the manager of the wealth is decided by the central government, which is decided by the dictator. The people have no say in how the wealth is distributed or means of production used. Ergo they are not actual owners.

So to recap:
Ownership = control

In Democracy, the people CAN strip a rich person of their assets, therefore True Owners of assets are the people.

In "Communist" dictatorship, people cannot remove managers, True Owner is the dictator.

*Bows*
You're Welcome
Have a wonderful day

@cjd i agree that a roughly equal distribution of wealth would be a good thing, but neither democracy nor communism mean or imply that.

communism means no property, that _may_ lead to roughly equal distribution, but it also makes it hard to judge the de-facto wealth of anyone for sure.

democracy, is typically defined as majority rule, and thus that majority has control over the minority. it's inherently unegalitarian.

@sofia
This is an interesting line of thinking, I like it.

"communism means no property", so I gather there must be some system by which decisions regarding how the Means of Production should be used: Whether to make more hammers or to make more sickles, if you will.

I suppose one might say "to hell with management" and embrace anarcho-primitivism, but I doubt most people would want to live in that world. Barring that, is there a model you see for deciding how MoP is applied?

@cjd i think ancoms (that is _real_ communists* 😏) have a strong belief in spontaneous order, and would generally favour decentralized decision making. but it's all a bit vague and hard to predict. they are very welcome to try it within a larger anarchist society, but i'm not convinced.

*: i'm not an ancom yet i sometimes call myself "free market communist", using a less strict definition. make of that what you will 😅.

@cjd as for me, i think property is a useful social construct, but it's important to keep in mind that it's not more than that.

it should generally be built on mutual interest: i recognize your property because you recognize mine. that also means that wildly unequal arrangements would and should generally not be accepted. "theft is a market mechanism against bad property rules", to paraphrase @rechelon .

@cjd "means of production" just means "useful things" as far as i'm concerned. i don't think there's a hard line to tell "private" from "personal" property. i think it's a good rule of thumb that people should own the things they use, but there seem to be good reasons to exceptions. especially lending and renting for temporary use. i don't want to _buy_ a room just to stay in a hotel, and neither do i expect to co-own the headphones a friend may share with me.

@sofia
Regarding "means of production", I understand Marx lived in a dystopian reality where a few factory owners controlled the machines to make the things people needed, and workers' rights were non-existent so they could pay people practically nothing.

And not just COULD but effectively HAD TO, because they all bid the price of goods down so low.

Ironically this situation is most present today in countries who bill themselves as Communist.

@cjd that's a kinda nonsensical criticism. if the low wages are merely to have low prices, than that wouldn't really hurt workers, because the purchasing power of their wages would be about the same.

the real problem here are the bosses:
* they face a lack of competition, and therefore can claim a disproportionate amount of the profits for themselves.
* their businesses are centrally planned, which makes them less efficient.

and the marxist 'solution' is making both problems worse…

@sofia
I'm going on what Popper wrote in his critique of Marx. I believe he said that Marx did not actually blame the industrialists, he considered them to be trapped in a game theoretical quagmire just as much as anyone else... I have not read Marx's own book though so my understanding is obviously limited.

@cjd @sofia Marx claims that the capitalist cannot stop exploiting their workers, or they will be outcompeted by better capitalists. Marx's philosophy mostly takes individual humans out of the equation and looks at systemic problems, because individual humans are a lot more complicated (a rich man can be generous and kind).
However, Marx still considered the capitalist *class* at fault. The systemic problems explain their actions but do not excuse them.