How else would the ruling class rule? This is how capitalism works.
You probably mean Marxist-Leninist "Communist" states. Those are centralised capitalist states, China, NK, etc. There a lot of explanations regarding why Marxist-Leninism only leads to a more centralised form of capitalism.
Communism is understood to be an ideal state (in the platonic sense of the word), it isn't meant to be achieved, more of a thought experiment or something to strive for.
>We can speculate about literally anything. What's realistic?
Socialism. Socialism is different from Communism, it isn't an utopia or an ideal.
Where do you aim to take this conversation?
> In a commune, there isn't a state which can secretly surveil in the first place, making the issue a moot point.
But I assume they had some point beyond snarky posturing, and they envision some version of the world where this is true. To try and understand their point, and to better understand how their vision of the world differs from what we currently have, I was trying to get them to anchor their abstract point in concrete examples. I also wonder if there is an inherent contradiction or at least cognitive blind-spot in their thinking because every time communism has actually been tried in the real world, it has led to the most highly surveilled states, not the least. Again, just empirically speaking. We can have the "no true Scotsman", "communism has never really been tried" all day, but again we're leaving reality for untested hypothesis.
In that context, your reply that a theoretical communist country would not have a government is a bit irrelevant to my purpose, because that is again an entirely hypothetical proposition with no precedent in reality. So what is real and worth discussing?
I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organized themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
Alternatively, in a system with more democracy, like Socialism. Where there isn't vast amounts of inequality, the surveillance state would have a hard time to exists.
My response was not irrelevant as your question contained a contradiction which I pointed out.
Another thing I would like to point out, is that you are committing the "no true Scotsman"-fallacy-fallacy. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy occurs, if and only if, the other person never defines what is a true Scotsman. I can give you concrete definitions with no logical contradictions, whether or not you accept them, that's on you.
>I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organised themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
It seems like you are going by the definition of Socialism that is common in the United States. The definition that says Socialism is when the government does stuff and you probably think Scandinavian countries are Socialists. Those countries are not Socialists, they are Capitalists. There are no currently existing Socialists countries. Here the definition so you don't accuse me of being Scottish, Socialism is when the workers (not the government) own the means of production. The so-called democracy of the workplace.
That Isa false dichotomy
Being opposed to capitalism does not make one a communist.
There are more than two things