>>1925960where the shit did you get that definition? the whole goal of communisim is to be stateless, leaderless, and classless. like at it's whole fucking root. how it has played out in the attempts to achieve it ended up in a dictatorship of people who claimed they would be the last leader before they rid themselves of class. you can't just make up a boogeyman and say that's the definition.
go Wikipedia really quick just go type it in there and take a look, see what comes up, come back here and call me and wikipedia both retarded for not aligning with whichever justification you have to disregard the real world.
I am probably the furthest from commie. i dont live in a blue state, I am a huge fan of individual responsibility and individual consequences, and the lessening of government intervention in the lives of the individual, and countries abroad. not commie.
what you are describing is how commie countries turned out in their attempt to reach communism.
I agree that fascist italians had more freedoms than both maoist chinese, and probably the chinese of today. What i disagree with is the notion that their governance ever reached their communist goal. they were a dictatorship functioning to eventually achieve communism. The idea that they named themselves for, was written in a book by Karl Marx who outlines what the style of government entails. That means to say, if you are naming you governance after that styling, you probably are trying to achieve the notions provided therein (which i outlined above). the communist countries you listed were far closer to fascism than anything else (again, wikipedia yourself some fascism, remembering the notion of 'righ/left' in the wiki defenition is regarding the spread of power: right is singular, left is equally distributed. you know.. like communism)
