Ron, I see you refer to small "c" communists, by which I suppose you to refer to believers in a communitarian social and economic system, wherein the primary means of production are jointly owned by the participants, labor is contributed on the basis of one's skills and capacities, and distribution of goods is based on the primary needs of the individual recipients. Many families operate on this model, and a few larger communities, such as the Shakers and the original Amana colonies, have organized such a system successfully. However, I know of no attempt to institute such as system within larger political units, and especially not in nation-states, nor am I aware of any political leader or political party that advocates such a system. Therefore, any such octogenarian Chinese communitarians are likely to be viewed as "out of it" in more ways than one.
On the other hand, I infer from your characterizations of political method that you may be thinking of large "C" Communists, who are adherents of organized political action groups generally characterized by the label "Communist Party." Such groups generally believe that the most efficient and effective form of putting principles into action lies within unitary, top-down management of the integrated political, economic, and social system, usually through managers with total executive authority. This model has been extremely popular throughout recorded history, have been adopted by monarchs, dictators, and a great many capitalist CEO's, in addition to the Communists.
Hence I perceive that large C Communists and small c communists are not really connected in any meaningful way. The communitarian societies can be managed by any political model, from anarchist to authoritarian, whereas the management model of the large C Communists, which you rightly describe as authoritarian, can be adopted within almost any social-economic structure.
=+=+=Norm |
