It is a cruel irony that this great promise of democracy is rarely realized in practice. Most of the great political reforms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have been accompanied by massive episodes of civil disobedience, riot, lawbreaking, the disruption of public order, and, at the limit, civil war. Such tumult not only accompanied dramatic political changes but was often absolutely instrumental in bringing them about. Representative institutions and elections by themselves, sadly, seem rarely to bring about major changes in the absence of the force majeure afforded by, say, an economic depression or international war. Owing to the concentration of property and wealth in liberal democracies and the privileged access to media, culture, and political influence these positional advantages afford the richest stratum, it is little wonder that, as Gramsci noted, giving the working class the vote did not translate into radical political change. Ordinary parliamentary politics is noted more for its immobility than for facilitating major reforms.
We are obliged; if this assessment is broadly true, to confront the paradox of the contribution of lawbreaking and disruption to democratic political change. Taking the twentieth-century United States as a case in point, we can identify two major policy reform periods, the Great Depression of the 1930s and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. What is most striking about each, from this perspective, is the vital role massive disruption and threats to public order played in the process of reform.
The great policy shifts represented by the institution of unemployment compensation, massive public works projects, social security aid, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act were, to be sure, abetted by the emergency of the world depression. But the way in which the economic emergency made its political weight felt was not through statistics on income and unemployment but through rampant strikes, looting, rent boycotts, quasi-violent sieges of relief offices, and riots that put what my mother would have called “the fear of God” in business and political elites. They were thoroughly alarmed at what seemed at the time to be potentially revolutionary ferment. The ferment in question was, in the first instance, not institutionalized. That is to say, it was not initially shaped by political parties, trade unions, or recognizable social movements. It represented no coherent policy agenda. Instead it was genuinely unstructured, chaotic, and full of menace to the established order. For this very reason, there was no one to bargain with, no one to credibly offer peace in return for policy changes. The menace was directly proportional to its lack of institutionalization. One could bargain with a trade union or a progressive reform movement, institutions that were geared into the institutional machinery. A strike was one thing, a wildcat strike was another: even the union bosses couldn’t call off a wildcat strike. A demonstration, even a massive one, with leaders was one thing, a rioting mob was another. There were no coherent demands, no one to talk to.
James C Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchism
“Communism” is loosely defined but means communal control of the economy. How that is achieved is debated but it isn’t necessarily through a state. I suggest reading up on leninism (which is what I believe you mean when you say communism) and libertarian communism (which is an example of non-state communism).
As to “state control of the economy”, it is so oversimplified a worldview as to be useless. The state always exerts some control over the economy because at a minimum it collects taxes. There’s an extremely wide variety of ways the state can interact with the economy, and Western states in fact do a lot of it through monetary policy, tax incentives, subsidies, licenses, tariffs, government contracts, state enterprises, etc. Conversely, leninist states of the 20th century did experiment with various schemes of autonomy of economic agents (often termed “state capitalism”), through stuff like the soviet NEP or yugo “self-management”. Finally, some leftists view states like the USSR or mainland China as having simply recreated capitalism, with the nomenklatura owning the means of production as a ruling class separate from the workers.
I suggest you read up more on the things you wish to comment on. How can one make a meaningful contribution to a conversation without being willing to listen? Right now it seems as if you haven’t even read the Wikipedia page on “communism”.