So when are we gonna achieve communism?

>The USSR did anything wrong
Yeah, it did. I'm not talking about the killings and shit, either. The Soviets made mind-boggling decisions.

Yeah, most notably deciding to just give up.

What the fuck else could they have done to prevent the USSR from falling?

The exact same thing they were doing before hand.

Roll tanks in whenever Warsaw pact nations consider liberalizing.
Not institute either glasnost nore perestroika

>it's a massive tragedy that the USSR is gone
Fuck you.

Glad to help, mate.

>Roll tanks in whenever Warsaw pact nations consider liberalizing.
Yeah, that wouldn't piss off the rest of the world. Or other Soviet states, for that matter.
>Not institute either glasnost nore perestroika
So dictatorship is the way for Gommunism to prosper. No problem with that, right?

Fuck off you neo-communist trash.

I believe his point was that commies besides Stalin weren't so Machiavellian and ruthless as common meme goes.

You're welcome.

So for Communism to work, you have to force it on people who don't want it? Because that's the impression this thread has given me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

You too.

>Yeah, that wouldn't piss off the rest of the world. Or other Soviet states, for that matter.
Fuck em.
If they've suddenly mustered up the courage to say something that they didn't have when the USSR did it before then so be it.

>So dictatorship is the way for Gommunism to prosper. No problem with that, right?
No, not giving a platform to nationalist apes and not letting private industry step in to the economy is the way for it to prosper.

If you must liberalize the economy but for some reason want to keep the style of a communist state then it is vital that you also follow China's lead in shutting down dissent so the country doesn't automatically collapse afterwards. A step with Gorbachev forgot to do.

Some authoritarianism is needed obviously. Enlightened despot, or at least a competent team to lead the country.
I'm not a communist buddy, don't get wrong impression.

>If they've suddenly mustered up the courage to say something that they didn't have when the USSR did it before then so be it.
Have you perhaps considered that these were tired of an opressive system that treated the proletariat it was supposed to protect like human trash and cheap labor?
>it is vital that you also follow China's lead in shutting down dissent so the country doesn't automatically collapse afterwards.
If you have to fucking silence dissenters, then it's obvious you're system is going to fail at some point.
I never said you were.
If Gommunism was gonna work, yeah you'd need that enlightened despot and a competent team. Even if a dictator is benevolent, he's still a dictator, and doesn't sit right with me.

>some
communism will fail because innovations wont be created, tell me 1 innovative thing that got created during communist soviet...
The state/commune/gov cant do shieet

Just google "Soviet inventions" m8.
Soviet government was relatively okay speaking from purely technical perspective. It was second biggest economy in the world.

>Have you perhaps considered that these were tired of an opressive system that treated the proletariat it was supposed to protect like human trash and cheap labor?
No, as far as I can see the USSR was totally correct in what it was protecting them against and was justified in the means it used to do so.

>If you have to fucking silence dissenters, then it's obvious you're system is going to fail at some point.
I don't think acting like China is a good idea in general, I think they're an abberation to socialism in all terms. I'm just saying if Gorbachev really wants to follow their lead so bad he missed out on the vital step in successfully doing so. Not to mention capitalism also needs to do this whenever under threat of communist revolution just as it's necessary in a socialist state to do so when under siege by capitalist forces.

I'm simply advocating not giving nationalists a platform as Gorbachev did.

most of them were bullshit the government made up so the glorious people would believe the soviets were doing well. NK still believe they won the world soccer cup lol.
And those kvasi inventions made by government are stoopeed, theres nothing that can compare to the private entreprenurship of emerikan pipol

AK-47.

If you say so.

>No, as far as I can see the USSR was totally correct in what it was protecting them against and was justified in the means it used to do so.
Yes, because the best way to protect someone is to storm their country with an army. And what were protecting them from, anyways? Oh let me guess: capitalism, right?

As for the second part of your response....eh, you got me. I don't really have a rebuttal for that.

>This thread
>Relevant to History & Humanities

>roll in tanks
They tried to. Check out 1991 01 13 in Lithuania. They tried taking Lithuania back but since the people resisted non-violently the russians feared opening fire first would result in pissing off the other nations too much. One of the only times in history singing and holding hands actually fixed something

>Yes, because the best way to protect someone is to storm their country with an army
Yes it is, what to you think Americans think they're doing when military intervention happens?

> And what were protecting them from, anyways? Oh let me guess: capitalism, right?
That's exactly what they're protecting them from.

It's related to Marxism.
>humanities
Exactly.

>believing communist lies
>no source for graph

fuck off

It's based on UN data.

Try it yourself
unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asp

what nation was that? I never knew a stateless society where the means of productions belonging to the workers ever existed

There's "communism" as in actual literal communism and there's "communism" as in the kind of state that's adopted socialism with the long term goal of achieving socialism. Obviously user is referring to the latter and more specifically the USSR.

Yeah, but only after they killed insurgents and civilians. Incidentally, they also killed a KGB guy by friendly fire.
>what to you think Americans think they're doing when military intervention happens?
Fighting terrorists and giving the populace freedom. Which is obviously not happening.

I get that they're 'protecting' them from capitalism, even though it's obvious the people are tired of Communism because they've lived with it for a very long time and seen just how shit of an economic system it is.

And for the record, I'm not a Capitalism or Nothing mongrel, I feel a compromise between the two systems is best. But at least when Capitalism fucks you over it isn't under the pretense of 'protecting you'.

>unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asp
there is no USSR on the country list you mong

and the one for Russia says $597,376,334 not ~1,500billion like your graph suggests

Lolbertarian spotted

> even though it's obvious the people are tired of Communism because they've lived with it for a very long time and seen just how shit of an economic system it is.
The thing about that is they assumed were it not for communism they would be just like western Europe and so with capitalism they would be better off.

This has clearly not happened, and as polls reflect in hindsight socialism was the better system.

>But at least when Capitalism fucks you over it isn't under the pretense of 'protecting you'.
It is. Pinochet was "protecting". Franco was "protecting" Spain. Suharto was "protecting" Indonesia.

Of course you could equally sardonically say Brezhnev was "protecting" Czechoslovakia. But obviously I'm operating on the premise that such a belief would be justified.

Those sorts of policies were the ones that *killed* communism, not preserved it, fucktard.

Yes there is, it's under F as
>Former USSR

>Communism would have survived without strict policies
>It totally wasn't under siege at all times by capitalist powers seeking to end it.

Your argument only makes sense if "strict policies" as you call them actually succeeded in maintaining communism. And we all know how well that worked out.

>AK-47.
The AK 47 was a improvement of the german stg-44 the soviets captured during ww2

>The thing about that is they assumed were it not for communism they would be just like western Europe and so with capitalism they would be better off.
Well of course. When you live under the USSR's jackboot, anything looks better.
>This has clearly not happened, and as polls reflect in hindsight socialism was the better system.
What polls?

They did.
It's when Gorbachev decided to reconsider them that things shit the bed.

Better dead than red, fuck all commies

Nuke em till they glow then shoot em in the dark

And you wouldn't consider that innovative? Taking the world's first mass-produced assault rifle, and improving it so much that variants of it are still in use today?

>$2,719 gdp/capita

What a utopia.

Genuine question - do you truly believe that the USSRB was actually on course to achieving anything like a communist society, external pressure notwithstanding?

>What polls?
pewresearch.org/daily-number/hungary-better-off-under-communism/
balkanalysis.com/romania/2011/12/27/in-romania-opinion-polls-show-nostalgia-for-communism/
spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html
balkaninsight.com/en/article/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country
gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx

>Well of course. When you live under the USSR's jackboot, anything looks better.
Not the true face of capitalism, the kind countries that aren't among a selected few get. Including modern Eastern Europe.

No.
You can play a cover song, but you didnt create it, so theres no real achievement behind it.
Innovative is creating something new, not improving something already created

No, as said in the original post I don't think global communism could be achieved until the most powerful country on the planet (in this case the USA) has a successful communist revolution.

Better than capitalist Russia tho.

Fair enough, I suppose.

So why defend the USSR then? If by your own admission that it was doomed to failure simply by virtue of not being the most powerful country in the world, then why should the Soviet leadership artificially keep the country "communist" only through institutionalized oppression?

Thank you for actually providing sources, lends credence to your argument.

As for why so many people are saying being under Communism was better, it all sounds like a load of nostalgiafagging. The poll from Germany is an obvious exception, as Germany is going down the shitter in so many ways, so of course the past East Germany seems a lot better. And I'm inclined to agree with them, even though I don't like Communism.
>Not the true face of capitalism, the kind countries that aren't among a selected few get. Including modern Eastern Europe.
And what would the true face of Capitalism be?

Because I'm also saying that having a socialist super-power to rival the USSR is a positive force for communist revolution.

By having a state than can act as a nucleus for revolution and counter-balance capitalist power worldwide it leaves much more favourable conditions for successful revolution. Including in the USA. I don't believe we can depend on spontaneous revolution to begin without international help, since not only is it less likely that such a revolution would happen but it's exponentially less likely such a revolution would succeed. At present that is more or less all we have to depend on, we're going to have to make do. But in any case revolutions worldwide would be of massive benefit to the USSR's help.

Then when the entire world is communist-led and has been for some time I suppose it would be time to consider relaxing.

>And what would the true face of Capitalism be?
Just as in capitalism there are classes that benefit from it and classes that suffer under it worldwide there are countries that benefit from capitalism and countries that suffer because of capitalism.

As far as is relevant to eastern Europe suffice to say eastern Europe at this very second is an ample of example of capitalism gone wrong. More so in the 1990s when it was just non-stop full neoliberalism.

In Russia for instance it has a national homeless rate of 3.5%. It's not much more democratic than under the USSR but it's infinitely more unequal, and this is what happens outside of the first world. Capitalism comes with low-regulations for the rich, strong states for everyone else.

I have no doubt in my mind that communism will make a comeback. Wait until the world gets to shit (like 1917 russia teir shit) then communism will look glorious.

Key ingredients for communism:
Shit politics, ready for revolution
Secret police
Revolutionaries

Smack that shit together and you built yourself a communism. Until it all collapses on itself from a failed governing system and economic shit.

Well we'll just have to disagree then, on a number of things (typical of us socialists, huh?)

I understand your desire to violently purge the world of the capitalist threat, I truly do (trust me, I've been there) but ultimately I feel that no matter how well-intentioned, any sort of institutional suppression (read: ANY) will always lead to stagnation and division, no exceptions.

>any sort of institutional suppression (read: ANY) will always lead to stagnation and division, no exceptions.
I suppose that's understandable.

Centralized planning is inherently disasterous and self-destructive

You know, I've been trying to think of a good comeback for this, but I honestly can't. Any rebuttal I could muster would sound really uneducated.

So, while you haven't really changed my mind on anything, you've definitely outmaneuvered me in this debate. I respect that.

The same way capitalism developed from feudalism. Once capitalism develops into socialism, and then socialism develops into communism. Of course "developing" isn't simply a matter of time and evolution.

Except China is set to overtake the US

That's a very decent and un-Veeky Forums like way to respond.

So, I respect your response.

with robot revolution, duh

>most of them were bullshit the government made up so the glorious people would believe the soviets were doing well
Such as?

>NK still believe they won the world soccer cup lol.
Literally just lapping the CIA's asshole, well done.

Tomorrow, mark my words.

when post-scarcity economics become possible
Even then, I seriously, seriously doubt it, for various reasons related to human nature

>Any man who misses the days of the USSR has no heart
>Any man who wishes it back has no brain

>Paraphrasing this fat fuck who commited atrocities that put the USSR to shame.

That's a Putin quote...

When the average world IQ drops about 20 points.

weapons
lots and lots of innovative weaponry

The original quote was churchill and was as follows
>A man who's a conservative at 20 has no heart
>A man who's a liberal at 50 has no brain

welt.de/politik/ausland/article156011360/Das-ist-Europas-neuer-Masterplan-in-der-Fluechtlingskrise.html
bbc.com/news/world-europe-36469264

So, pretty soon then?