To say something equates to something else because it is inspired/manipulated/originates/whatever from an idea doesn't mean it is that idea.Treblaine said:Isn't that either quibbling over semantics of what a state is or a "no true scotsman" fallacy?Flimsii said:Ironic as you assume communist = state controlled.
True communism is stateless.
What is a state? A geographic area with definite borders may be rules by a central and highest (actual) authority... may CLAIM not to be a state but still is. And as to the no-true-scotsman fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman], it's the arbitrary exclusion of inconvenient examples when otherwise it would be relevant.
Stalin's USSR deviated hugely from communism but Lenin and Khrushchev-onward it certainly was following the communist ideals.
As to the state semantics, even under an ideal circumstance where the entire planet was under the same authority would that not be a single global super-state. The reason we have the terms state is to distinguish different geographical areas that have different and distinct authorities.
If you are saying communism is having no authority then that's not communism, that's anarchism. I highly idealistic view of anarchism where everyone has access to every other resource and service with no limitation yet no one abuses it.
Again its like i said, just like our system resembles free market capitalism does not make it a capitalist system. In the same way russia has similarities to communism but it isn't communist. The simple existance of private property in china and russia is testament to this.