Bulgaria was never a communist state, and categorizing it as such is a gross misrepresentation. It was ally to communist states, yes, but the socialism in Bulgaria was far communism.
Sorry, are you saying that the People's Republic of Bulgaria was not run by Bulgarian Communist Party? Or are you saying that there wasn't a People's Republic of Bulgaria or that the Bulgarian Communist Party wasn't communist? Or something else?
GP is probably noting that Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society in which the Law of Value has been abolished; "Communist state" is an oxymoron.
> and the means of production were owned by the state.
So it was not communist, as there was a state. And it was not communist because there were class differences (unless we are to believe that the party elite did not live differently to the rest).
But that did not distinguish them from the rest of Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union - none of these countries described themselves as communist, but as socialist, for a reason: They all used the lure of a future communist society as a carrot to get people to accept the many sticks being applied.
So he's half right, but for the wrong reasons.
EDIT: In any case, whether or not one agree on the above definition of communism, Bulgaria certainly was not different enough to the rest to set it apart. Either Bulgaria was communist too or none of them were.
It might not have been textbook communism - but if we go down that route, how many real communist countries have there been?
The whole soviet block self described as communist (bulgarian party was "communist", the russian party was "communist"). They have effectively redefined what communist means for 95% of the population.
