Set out to create a classless system

What did the commissars have to do forced serf labor on collective farms too?

Am I crazy for thinking Capitalism will lead to Communism-like or Socialist-like policies in most areas of society, through means unpredictable by Marx, particularly the proliferation of open-source software initiatives, crowdsourcing (our captchas for instance are a crowdsourcing initiative help teach AI how to recognize objects in photos, the first step to AI performing intuitive human white-collar labor...), nanotech and 3D printing, and prices of objects dropping so low due to overproduction that they simply become essentially free.

After a while, barring horrible abuses by multinational corporations stifling progress of their best and brightest competitors through puppeteering of governments, Capitalism and the efforts of the competitive market in general, regulated carefully and moving in the best interests of human quality of life, will BRING ABOUT CHANGES INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM COMMUNISM'S WILDEST DREAMS.

Or am I just crazy.

Also the totalitarianism because private citizens are selling their information to their governments with greedy corporations as the middle men, LOL

I don't think you're crazy. I think it's entirely plausible that at some point humans could reach a point of post-scarcity society, which would vritually eliminate the foundation of a free market capitalist system. The reason that attempts at communism have failed have not necessarily been because they are not 'true communism' (which is still accurate) but because they are fundamentally flawed in a world with scarcity.

>want to eliminate poverty and hunger
>cause the biggest famines in the history of man

For their defense I would say that it's difficult, from theory to practice, to make a proletarian dictatorship by revolution, when some idiots want to make a totalitarian dictatorship painted in red instead, thinking it would bring socialism eventually.

In my experience, communists aren't that retarded, the authoritarians are.

The only tangible example of successful communism would probably be the Paris commune, to bad it was smash, it would be interesting to see how things would have work.

>Paris commune

Literally the biggest chimpout in western history.

Good old lysenko

Because that's an oxymoron.

It was quite the contrary.

What kind of hipster even identifies with communism at this point, just say you are a european socialist. Its like people like chomsky get off by defending the crimes of dictators

No, it was indeed a chimpout. Look up how many buildings they destroyed or want to destroy. Veldrome column destroyed, churches burned, Les Invalides not burned down only because the government intervened, all because those buildings represented "old order" and "oppression" or some shit.

Paris commune was literally a BLM tier chimpout.

Wow, it's almost like you've never heard what Chomsky has to say regarding Leninism/Stalinism.
Hint. He doesn't like either. Perhaps he makes his points too slowly so you superimpose your own onto him.
youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

Firstly the commune was a patriotic movement, while the government surrendered to Prussia, Paris resisted. Then a socialist movement appeared and they established a direct democracy and organized the resistance against the combined forces of greedy french republicans interested by the power vacancy left by the fall of the empire, and Prussia, who didn't want a second people's spring. They destroyed the colonne vendôme like the 1792 revolutionaries did, because it was a symbol of royalty, which is despised by those who want a democracy.

Now if you find this "chimpout" you're a royalist or an idiot.

What about the areas of spain under CNT control ?

>bringing up the OG French revolutionaries

Also a chimpout.

>Communism
>Democratic
Pick one.
Militias would shoot those who didn't want their regime.

>Defending the Paris Commune

Absolutely disgusting. They were naught but robbers and killers who preyed on the defenceless while pissing on France.
Long live Napoleon the third!

>We gone get it right dis time

>NorCal flag
Every fucking time

It's crazy. Companies will continue to spend a disproportionate amount of money on FUD instead of progress.
It's more profitable to destroy competitors than to do progress.

Thus, progress occurs the most when money does not exist.

How can state owned capital be socially owned if society does not control the state through a democratic process?

Isn't this just a wolf in sheep's clothing?

The difference is if robots are the means of production, and robots are controlled by a few, and the few do not need you, or your labor, in order to benefit from improved production you have to cater to the few's whims. Socially owned capital is the theory of democratizing the means of production so the few don't have leverage over you. Not that is it practical.

Democracy and communism are mutually exclusive. Democracy is a statist regime. Communism is anarchist.

>communist is anarchist

Yeah we just need a "dictatorship of the proletariat" first, in order to institute this anarchic utopian pipe-dream, right?

A state is not the same as a government, although they are extremely related.

>thinking marxism is communism
wew lad
A communist society has no state, no money, and no classes. That's anarchism.

I do know this. Capitalism and religion are also forms of government other than statism.

>inventor of communism
>"i-its just marxism! not REAL communism!"
just how far are you pinkos gonna reach?

communism is a fairyland utopia included in marxist doctrine. It's just like a unicorn, invented in the minds of men but with 0 evidence of its existence. Why in the fuck would we build a political system that pursues a fantasy fiction version of reality?

Sounds like Republicanism to me

>inventor
>marx
Marx invented nothing. You'll have to go older to find the first anarchists.

>wanting the status quo to last forever.

Does republicanism have the concept of "republicaland" which they claim to attempt to institute, in which every citizen will live in perfect harmony, peace and prosperity?

The funny thing about it is that its not as difficult to test as people make it out to be.

Sure, the ideal experiment would be to randomize a homogeneous population into two towns, in a double blind setting, and make one community "communist" and the other "capitalist" and compare statistically various metrics to see how they perform. However, that's untenable, for obvious reasons.

What you can do is perform psychological experiments on the axioms that Marx used to derive his logic. Studies like that are carried out all the time in modern economics to ascertain the direction of causality in observational data. It seems however, that people who espouse Marx in the modern world would rather rely on conjecture on unproven foundations rather than test their views.

There are plenty of ways to change the status quo, Why immediately leap to hardcore Stalinism?

The difference is Republicanism does not base itself on the fiction of the perfect, rational man waiting to be liberated, but instead acknowledges we are animals whose civilisation is at odds with our own natures.

Yes, actually. Pretty much promised as the result of almost any popular revolution.

Communists see themselves as agents of a better future. This, according to their views, put them above all judgement by present or past humanity. They are accountable only to the "court of History", which, by definition, is the very society that communists claim to represent in the present.

So, as future society is only able to bear witness or to judge according to it's representative, the communist, it is clear that he becomes not only the sole sovereign judge of his own acts, but the judge of all past, present and future humanity. The communist see himself as able to accuse and to condemn all laws, institutions, beliefs, values, traditions, actions and works of all epochs without being subject, in his turn, to the judgment of any of them, because he lies above historical.

This refusal to hold themselves accountable to anything except a hypothetical future of their own invention is why communists are never held back, ashamed or even forced into self-criticism by the real-life failure of their ideology when put in practice. They either go into denialism, revisionism or the old "it wasn't true communism" farce, but never question their ideals, because to question it would be to question the belief in the capacity of remodeling the whole society, if not human nature, through political action in the name of a hypothetical and indefinable future, and that would be too much.

Total bullshit that has been hyper hyped.
Syndicalists became the new land lords,and forced people to do what they said. It was basically instauring a small dictatorship in every village

>It seems however, that people who espouse Marx in the modern world would rather rely on conjecture on unproven foundations rather than test their views.
Mises, please.

It's funny that you mention him, because he's one of the pioneers in espousing unscientism.

However, his arguments haven't held through time, especially given the vast advances in statistics, particularly in regards to dealing with observational data, and experimental design at the micro level.

I didn't (I don't know what my political views are) but aren't any changes to the staus quo viewed as a fictional version of reality as they don't currently exist?

Not subject to evidence faggot.

But you are subject to evidence.

Unless I'm mistaken, since >IDs, you're making a statement about reality: that a certain economic system is better for humanity. The only way to know if the axioms that you used to derive your system conform to reality is through science.

>double blind on towns
But anarchism only works on a global scale

>not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.
Nope.

>something that's never been tried on a global scale only works on a global scale

Top joj

Both communism and capitalism will work as long as all the participants agree with it.

I mean that's kind of the thing with communism. It functions in tiny communes and settlements where EVERYONE agrees to live by communist principles, but whenever it's tried on a mass scale, the majority of people won't have it, so the communists need to implement drastic measures and implement a great deal of coercion, which only leads to tyranny.

>1. The dark truth neither "Communists" nor Anti-Communists want to admit: the Bolshevik revolution was never actually a popular revolution.
An urban ideological elite couped the government during a period of severe unrest and won the subsequent civil war. The majority of the public wanted an end to WWI, democratic reforms, and less economic inequality. That's it. They were just willing to go along with the Bolsheviks after so many people died for the sake of peace and prosperity.

>2. Lenin, the ideological father and architect of the Bolshevik movement died within two years of the end of the civil war. He never lived long enough to direct anything.
Even today after everything people are still underestimating Stalin. He basically defined what you know as the USSR. Bolshevik "Communism" after 1925 is near synonymous with Stalinism since he was a megelomaniac that famously did tolerate dissent or abridgment of power/influence. Every "Communist"/socialist country that was derived or inspired by the USSR since (hint: all of them but especially the Eastern Bloc) inherited his mode of dong things.

My favorite example of this is Stalin, rather than climbing the formal ranks like a normal person, reoriented the entire Soviet Bureaucracy around his first lame job he ever got in the politburo to give him an effective promotion without actually doing it. He was "General Secretary", which was just as unimpressive as it sounds at first. By the end it was defacto king of everything position. To this day "Communist" government don't have a coherent executive position for their... dictators (?) because they all inherited this personal fuckup like a cancer mutation even after Stalin was rotting in the ground. Try to guess what Mao's position in the CPC was. Prime minister? President? Nope.

But true communists know that the Bolsheviks are shit.

>3. The "Communist" nations were always under attack.
The USSR was invaded by 12 nations before it was even the USSR for ideological reasons and suffered near constant military threat since. It's delusional to think think this kind of violent pressure doesn't have social consequence. It tends to breed asshole governments.

>4. None of these "Communist" nations were actually democratic historically.
With the exception of maybe Eastern Germany these nations did not have a history of Democracy and everyone conveniently forgets this. They are always compared to the highest ideal of "the West". Russia has NEVER been a real democracy. So this idea like there was some great deviation from wondrous freedom-land where top down rulers were unheard of and would never be tolerated is misplaced. China is probably more democratic now than it's ever been.

The success rate of truly democratizing non-western European countries has actually been pretty bad when you look into it. Usually what people call "democratic" is actually where corporations are effectively in control and the formal state is extremely corrupt but goes through the motions of voting and having a parliament.

...

Czechoslovakia was democratic.

Fuck it. I'll bite.

. The dark truth neither "Communists" nor Anti-Communists want to admit: the Bolshevik revolution was never actually a popular revolution.

This is common knowledge. One of the fatal flaws of communism really: it was always rejected by the working class. It's main proponents were always patrician elites or ethnic minorities who used it as a means of subjugating the lower classes, minus the cultural limits Christianity put on them. And they "went along with it" is because Trotsky had put so many of them in mass graves that they had no choice.

>2. Lenin, the ideological father and architect of the Bolshevik movement died within two years of the end of the civil war. He never lived long enough to direct anything...

He started the Gulag system and show trials that Stalin perfected. He and Trostsky led the mass extermination and subjugation of the Kulaks. "But user it was a Civil War!" Funny, I thought Communists were champions of the people. The Whites committed massacres too, but it was not ideological or premeditated, and was often a reaction to Bolshevik slaughter.

>3. The "Communist" nations were always under attack.

Bolshevism was a declaration of war on the entire world. Their main goal was the export of violent revolution to all corners of the world, so they could remake it. That wasn't a reaction. It was the Marxist ideology that guided their very way of thinking. Other nations could be forgiven for looking out for their own interests.

>4. None of these "Communist" nations were actually democratic historically.

Very few are. That wasn't the point. Stalin betrayed the Allies and conquered Eastern Europe in an attempt to destroy traditional European culture. Even then, the traditional elites who ruled those nations were far less authoritarian then those they were deposed by.