Why does communist revolution always turn into State Capatilism every time?

because communist movements have traditionally allowed the vanguard party to become the ruling class following the overthrow of the capitalist ruling class.

communist movements need to stop doing that.

>if the warlords masquerading as utopian idealists were willing to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing free speech then it's not unthinkable that a shift to the right in these countries could have been avoided
Sounds pretty unbelievable to me, maybe you don't have a workable system.

>Had the USSR had something like the cultural revolution, or the one in China went further - if people were given more freedom to criticize their leaders then it's not unthinkable that a shift to the right in these countries could have been avoided.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

If it's that communist rebels are naturally evil and just out to trick people into giving power to them then your point is retarded.

because marxist-leninism advocated for the revolution to be led by a vanguard.
any dumbass would know that power corrupts, and so it goes by itself that concentrating all power to a handfull of elites would end in catastrophe.

>It's another "let's somehow blame communist regimes on capitalism" episode!

How would you organize production and distribution then. explain
Everyone does whatever he wants and takes whatever he wants, no private property, so noone owns anything? explain how "real" communism is supposed to work

>And they would all be living in a happy utopia like blissful Cambodia.

>only 2 times

What? It was all over asia, all over europe. What are you talking about. All over Africa and all over Middle East.

In socialism it's democratic.

Say you work at a factory making widgets. You and the rest of the crew decide on how many widgets ought to be made, then when those are sold, then you decide on on how to distribute the funds - i.e how much should be put forward to new raw materials, how much everyone should be paid and so forth.

"real" communism, as in the end goal of communism in theory society should be so automatized that basically the only point in going to work is to hang out with your mates and take 10 minutes to make sure everything's going alright with the robots.

Not arguing against your original point, but opinions on things like slavery are not human nature, they are shared values. I think the human nature argument is bullshit because it talks about human selfishness, while ignoring capacity for empathy, solidarty and comradery

Because central planning is completely untenable

Necessity compels you to adopt a more efficient, productive system, and that means some form of market economy.

>Case in point how slavery went from perfectly normal to totally absurd and reprehensible, just like private property eventually will.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAH

Sometimes Veeky Forums is even more absurd than /pol/

Socialist societies only caved to capitalist systems twice. Once when Stalin took over the USSR, and once when Deng Xiaoping took over China.

Basically every other communist country lifted their model straight from the USSR after Trotsky had already been beaten, they were simply state capitalist from the first day of creation.

>Cambodia
>Communist
The Khmer Rouge was quite possibly the first ever communist party to have no communists in it.

What if someone wants to have private property? Not too democratic in that case, is it?

Because everyone else is capitalist.

>there are rules against certain things
>therefore it's not democratic

>What if someone wants to have private property
What if someone wants to be a feudal lord?
What if someone wants to own slaves?
Why can't you do these in capitalism? Because society has progressed long past the point where there's any merit to either of them.

Socialism simply doesn't recognize the concept of private property, it's a memory of a bygone age as far as a socialist society would be concerned.

>You can't exercise basic rights but it's still democracy!!!

>bygone age

Top delusion

We don't have slaves anymore because they're obsolete. Machines handle all forms of drudge labor more efficiently than a gang of slaves ever could. Feudalism is obsolete as well, because having a private market for land and property is far more lucrative and efficient.

Private property is not going anywhere. Ever. There is no such thing as public property. The government owns that land with much the same authority and rights as I own my house. What you want would inevitably boil down to the government owning everything.

>Basic rights

Except that slavery infringes human rights, unlike private property. Nice fallacy tho.

human rights change with the era.

This is the thing, you even touched on it yourself when you mentioned machines replacing slaves.

Capitalism is going to dig it's own gravediggers, as automatization grows and grows so too does with it inequality. As the landed classes who own the means of production harvest value by virtue of the existence of private property more and more proles find themselves out of work. So the only place left to go from here to end the mounting inequality is to end private property once and for all.

Liberals try to stave this off with social-democratic compromises so being unemployed is basically like a big mildly depressing holiday but it's a temporary measure.

>dude human nature lmoa
No
It's the inefficiency of the system

>basic
>human
>rights

It is now because in the past few centuries public consciousness has changed.

It's not like our values, rights, and opinions are going to be just as they are now forever.

>The existence of private property implies bad working conditions.
Those oppressed people in Nordic countries must work in horrendous conditions because they have private property. Amirite?

>human rights
What is this spook

>Surplus extraction
That sure is a spook.

It doesn't, your retarded post just reminded me of that top quality meme.

But to answer you seriously private property isn't a basic right, at this present moment in this particular society we just believe it to be. In truth private property is an exemplary spook.

>empathy, solidarty and comradery
For your in-group. Which is always a small and fragile thing.

You dumb fuck. Inequality increases because prosperity increases. No one is born prosperous. Poverty and misery is the default state of existence for all humans.

Capitalism is an engine for creating social prosperity. It does so by unleashing the productive forces of separate self interest. You pursue your own interests and I pursue mine. In most cases, it will be in our mutual interest to cooperate. That's the cornerstone of capitalism: voluntary cooperation. The cornerstone of collectivism is fundamentally force. The government says you WILL do this and that, produce this, consume that. Do you have any idea what disastrous effects the Soviet policy of forced agriculture requisitions did to the productivity of peasant farms? What do you suppose was the cause of those horrendous famines?

It is simply folly to imagine that people will ever be as industrious working for the 'common good' as they will be working for themselves. Capitalism harnesses that productive power and enthusiasm by removing the barriers to trade, cooperation and innovation. The great capitalist fortunes have universally come about through someone offering a good or service to the public at a price or quality level which was previously impossible. Rockefeller with kerosene, Ford with automobiles, Carnegie with steel.

Study economics, for God's sake.

Not as retarded as using relativism to dismiss a basic right like property.
>Dude, it's not a right, it's just people believing it is. Dude, Communism, lmao.
What determines something as being a basic right or not to you?

And what does it all come down to? Where does the prosperity come from? Private property.

>Do you have any idea what disastrous effects the Soviet policy of forced agriculture requisitions did to the productivity of peasant farms? What do you suppose was the cause of those horrendous famines?
Because Stalin was so paranoid that he believed it was worth working farmers to the bone then letting them starve to death so he could sell all the grain and buy tanks, and because the Chinese made the grave mistake of letting people who weren't farmers dictate to farmers how they should work.

Thus is the problem, authoritarianism. If people were truly left alone to decide how to best work on their own occupations without state capitalist intervention these famines wouldn't have happened.

Likewise in the capitalist third world famines wouldn't have happened in the proletariat weren't stripped of their labour by the voodoo of private property so that their produce could be sold for a better price in the first world.

A great mistake that capitalists make is thinking that communism is diametirically opposed to capitalism. It isn't, it simply sees itself as the natural progression of capitalism just as capitalism developed from feudalism, Marx fully acknowledges the wonderous advances of capitalism and recognizes it as a step in the right direction. But it's not the final step.

This is the actual answer instead of meme battling over human rights and naturally occurring capitalism and other assorted shit. Communist states are technocratic and authoritarian, and for the most part they've genuinely believed in what they were doing, at least in the party leadership. However, the structure of the state as anti-democratic and anti-unionist led to state-oriented extensive development, which was unsustainable and ultimately what led to economic stagnation and collapse.

The Leninists would counter the assertion that they were restoring capitalism by stating that syndicalism and social-democracy sponsored a trade-union mentality which put worker vs. worker, ultimately never abolishing capitalism at all.

You don't even know what a spook is.

>What determines something as being a basic right or not to you?
tbqh m8 rights don't exist in any concrete way, they're just outgrowths of human consciousness and as such are subject to change. A basic right is simply whatever the majority of people believe is a basic right.

If the majority of people believe slavery is acceptable then it's very difficult to tell them why it isn't because you're arguing from different premises they simply don't see individual liberty as being unconditional. Likewise if everyone becomes an ancap and decides water isn't a basic right then it's hard for them to see why you might believe that any kind of property should be publically available.

So why shouldn't private property be a right? For the simple reason that we'd be better off without it.

>Trotzkists

Except Stirner did literally say that private property is a spook.

dunno about you but I'm not sure how sharing my computer, my house, and my porn collection with others would benefit me

That's not private property, that's personal property.

Private property is the means of production. Factories, farms, mines and so forth. I'm quite positive you don't have many of those lying around.

>Likewise in the capitalist third world famines wouldn't have happened in the proletariat weren't stripped of their labour by the voodoo of private property so that their produce could be sold for a better price in the first world.

No they starved because they could not produce food to match their demands and did not have resources to import food.

I have one though, and once shot some poor fucks trying to invade it.
Can't wait to do that again.

Private property is personal property, since I paid for it through currency earned through my own labor.

>No they starved because they could not produce food to match their demands and did not have resources to import food.
Generally they could, the problem once again is private property.

Since because of this spook the owners of the property were entitled to their labour, in exchange for some paltry compensation they were generally totally unable to feed themselves.

Case in point: in the Irish potato famine the country was producing huge amounts of food - it was just being exported to England. Had the run the means of production for themselves they would have had something to eat.

Right, prosperity derives from private property. And you want to get rid of private property. Ergo...

>This is the problem, authoritarianism. If people were truly left alone to decide how to best work on their own occupations without government intervention

That could just easily pass as a Milton Friedman quote. You're a capitalist and you don't even realize it.

Stirner contradicted his own definition thereof then.

It isn't personal at all though, there's many people who are involved in say mining and they all put their labour into it yet all but a few of the people involved actually come into possession of the harvested resources - the rest just get compensation for their labour.

Whereas only you use your toothbrush, and you get the sum total amount of value produced by your labour in return - clean teeth.

Therein lies the distinction, one is actually personal the other is not.

Yeah, people just march into other peoples houses and sleep in their beds, cuz what the fuck, theres no private property.

I own some stock Siemens, a company, the means of production are therefore my personal/private property. So yes, i have that laying around. And I paid for it with currency earned through my own labor.

Maybe if we change the meaning of private property we can fool people into following our movement so that we can rule over them when the revolution occurs! Private property is private property irregardless of whether it is a house or a factory comrade.

>Right, prosperity derives from private property. And you want to get rid of private property. Ergo...
The private property would continue to exist. The means of production just don't evaporate with the loss of an imaginary concept.

>That could just easily pass as a Milton Friedman quote. You're a capitalist and you don't even realize it.
Except here's the thing, not all communists are 100% Stalin loving tankies. I simply oppose both capitalism and the state.

Hence the pic of based Rosa Luxemburg.

You misunderstand Stirner's philosophy. As far as he was concerned everything on the planet was HIS property, not that he had any respect for the concept of private property in general.

1. Because Marxism. What a brilliant idea to say "Lets create an anarchist society of independent communes by going through a transition phase as a brutal dictatorship". Truly brilliant.

2. Because living in independent communes is contrary to most human nature. Not selfishness, this user is an assface. Its just that concepts like "territory" and "property" inherent to mankind, just as they are to many animals. The human concepts of "trade" and "commerce" are just developments out of that, and economic classes are just the inevitable result of some people being better at commerce than others.

3. Because defense. A society of independent communes is vulnerable as fuck all. There's a reason this type of society is reserved for the monastery and the summer camp, and its not because mankind is evil. Its because its a very weak, very economically inefficient form of organization.

There's a distinction between personal and private property. Private property is just a shorter way of saying the means of production.

>Private property is private property irregardless of whether it is a house or a factory comrade.
Not in communist terms, no.

The problem with communists is their economic theory is retarded. The line between private property and personal property is basically non-existence in an era dominated by small businesses and even one-man businesses providing a service.

What they don't realize is that because all personal property is potential capital, all personal property is potentially private property.

not everyone is a communist

Name one famine in a capitalist third world country with a free market?
Ethiopia? No that's communist
Cambodia? No that's communist
North Korea? No that's communist
China? No that's communist
Private property encourages people to develop land leading to greater harvests and more food.

Once again let's change the definition of a word

>Why does communist revolution always turn into State Capatilism every time?
People don't read enough Bordiga.

It's not changing the definition of a word, communists have been using private property in this sense for almost 200 years now.

The Irish potato famine.

As a matter of fact it happened precisely because of the free market.

Somalia and Darfur had famines due to capitalist free market policies although this was more to do with free-trade policies in particular.

They were largely self-sufficient agrarian/pastoral economies until IMF/WTO/World Bank loans came with conditions attached to them having to do with stopping gov. from the subsidizing of farmers, selling off the gov. grain stores and reducing tariffs of foreign grain. All that pretty much made farming unprofitable for the native farmers and caused widespread poverty and starvation because there was little food grown in the country and most of it was imported and most people could not afford it.

I agree that private property is conducive to food security and healthy agrarian economies but capitalism itself is not automatically better then communism in this particular case because one very prominent school of mainstream capitalist economics (free-trade/privatization/globalization) advocated policies that caused starvation.

Protectionist capitalist-countries that support native farmers and put tariffs on imported food do pretty well in food-security though.

Actually the idea is to let you all die

What were the corn laws? A feudal system in all but name is not a free market son. A free market society needs a minimum of opportunity to work. Aristocrats who didn't bother making land more profitable aren't capitalists

I've never seen anyone criticize Libertarianism without resorting to a misinterpretation of the agenda.

>What were the corn laws?
>Aristocrats who didn't bother making land more profitable aren't capitalists

You obviously don't know what the corn laws were, or what improvement is.

Do not forget that both had conflicts going on at the same time. Conflict is antithetical to all trade (bar weapons etc) why bother farming if the milita next door will burn it down?

Here's the thing, the corn laws were a protectionist policy that should in theory aid domestic production. And the thing is domestic production was perfectly fine, but because of the free market the bourgeosie simply had more incentive to sell Irish produce in England where they could charge more.

And as the other user mentioned free-trade countries in Africa get fucked by famines as well. There's simply no winning for undeveloped countries here, democratic communism is the only solution.

Who cares?

"The Corn Laws were measures enforced in the United Kingdom between 1815 and 1846, which imposed restrictions and tariffs on imported grain. They were designed to keep grain prices high to favour domestic producers."
Let's keep corn prices too high for the peasants to buy.
Perhaps I should have said "have larger yields leading to more profits" I.e improvement

Thanks for wasting my time by slab quoting wikipedia you useless fuckwit.

Where, in your specious dicdefs, are aristocrats mentioned? Your dicdefs don't mention farmers, by the way, or changes in the structure of agricultural labour.

Fucking moron.

And Stirner proposed that we had the individual power to defend his "own" property from all possible threats?

He genuinely believed the construct of private property limited him rather than defended him?

Protectionist measures are not free market. The point was that the domestic crop of potatoes failed, the tariffs prevented imports of foreign grain all local grain went to the English as the Irish could not afford it due to the "feudal" system. Aristocrats are not the bourgeosie.

Here's the thing though, if you accept the IMF standard of free trade that's why I referenced the other user's post. Both Somalia and Darfur experienced a famine under total free market conditions, yet it just made it worse.

There is no winning with capitalism here, if you have free-trade you're fucked, if you have protectionist policies you're fucked. Sooner or later capitalism is going to fail you in some way or another.

The only way you can fully prevent a famine is by having the workers control the fruits of their own labour. Not giving it to the state e.g holodomor and not giving it to your boss as witnessed here.

In a feudal system agricultural labourers cannot buy corn or fodder, because money doesn't circulate through consumption.

Stop throwing out terms you know nothing about.

Aristocrats were a bourgeois rentier class, making rent profits from selling leases to capitalist farmers: ie, they were financial capitalists in a free market in land rents.

Fuck off and read before opening your first year shit spout.

What was the Protestant ascendancy?

If you bothered reading his response, he mentioned that both countries had conflicts going on at the same time

I did read it, wars happen all the time and capitalism isn't going to give us world peace so it's largely irrelevant to how an economic solution can be created here.

>What was the Protestant ascendancy?
What was it, chap. Didn't result in manorial feudalism did it? Try this, for what a feudal economy looks like: Postan, MM The Medieval Economy & Society, Pelican.

Ireland had "free" labour and free land.

The peasants could not buy corn or fodder, only potatoes enabled them to feed their families and pay their rent.

So you are saying that war has no effect on trade and production?

Labourers working for money wages and subsisting off rented allotments aren't peasants.

…

No, I'm saying capitalism doesn't make less wars happen.

delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/03/a-few-notes-on-the-doux-commerce-thesis.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

>the US shouldn't have entered WW2
Grenada and Vietnam were unjustified however, although only one side was capitalist

Peasants in all but name.

They work for wages, and subsist off wages, and yet you call them peasants in all but name?

Fuck me mate, ask for a refund on your degree.

>Yes, I believe capitalist propaganda.

In both cases those were largely the result of the widespread poverty and starvation that preceded them which themselves were caused by adoption of free-trade policies. When there was no widespread starvation and the economy wasn't in tatters there was still ethnic and social strife but it was didn't cause serious issues on its own, it was only when it became hard for communities to survive that existing ethnic and sociopolitical conflicts spiraled out of control.

I agree that capitalism is best for food security and I also agree that free trade isn't always bad and protectionism isn't always best but in those particular sorts of situations its very clear that it was the adoption of free-trade policies attached to loans that caused the starvation/poverty and the ensuing conflicts. In 3rd world countries that are not very developed and remain largely agrarian/pastoral economies its simply better for them to have protectionist-capitalist economies rather then free-trade/neoliberal-capitalist ones until they are more developed.