Were communist ideals ever implemented without a tyrannical regime?

>examples are strawmen
I feel I shouldn't have to spell this out to you, but there's no such thing as violence on its own. It must exist in a relation. The violence of the CNT militias and Nosotros and other groups was emancipatory.

This is true, but this is also a major fault in Communism as an ideology. It requires violence to further it's goals hence why it's so attractive to edgelords.

I'm not a communist but that's a shitty argument because their opponents were always willing to use extreme measures to stop them from getting power in the first place.
Action leads to reaction.

>The violence of the CNT militias and Nosotros and other groups was emancipatory.
Entirely subjective. Plenty of others would argue and say that the CNT's violence was anything but emacipatory.

Never fucking reply to me again unless you're contributing to the thread.

and literally all of those people would be property owners or have some investment in the bondage of the Spanish workers

Don't pretend to be me, m8.

Only a tyrannical regime is capable of fulfilling the ideals posed by communism.

Didn't the commie party got elected in Greece?

No, Syriza are a grab bag of leftist parties but mostly some variation of generic socialist. There more radical than most social-democratic European parties in theory, but the actual Greek Communists refused to work with them.

you're talking about pre-capitalist 'communism' which is different than what we actually call communism, which is post-capitalism.

when you want to get control of all those factories you're OBVIOUSLY going to meet resistance from the capitalists, it's almost impossible to not need violence.
only libshits have moralfag issues with violence, everything is fair in dialectical materialism

calling yourself communist or socialist doesn't mean shit, if you're revisionist/reformist scum then just call yourself a social democrat or democratic socialist and stop embarrassing us. history has proven there is no state between socialism and capitalism, you're either the dictatorship of the proletariat or you're not, and you can't subvert capitalism using capitalism.

How did communism get implemented in Russia in the first place? From what I've been told, they didn't have many followers. Then how did they get the means to win against the white russians?

Has a communist party ever risen to power without a coup?

Well,there is Yugoslavia,but she was socialist to the bone.

A tyranny isn't necessarily a bad thing, but yes, communist parties have taken power in parliamentary elections, but they have always been subject to foreign interference and when/if they take back power they tend to institute "tyranny" out of necessity.

>From what I've been told, they didn't have many followers.
That's wrong.

Communism IS tyranny, the question is inane

sure
look up bee colonies, termites, ants

look up biocommunism, your cells do it on a daily

look up traditional family units

this

>Communism IS tyranny

L M A O

...

Why is this board so intent on defending communism? This may be one of the most cringe worthy places on the internet.

Because pseudo-historians like to bullshit on communism for most far fetched reasons ever.

Because this is a nice board that likes being nice: the ideology.

What part of the dictatorship of proletariat didn't you get user. It comes with the theory. Marxism in theory is always in need of a violent regime.

They're Marxian social democrats, like Corbyn or Sanders on steroids. Not as left as Evo.

Dictatorship doesn't equal violent regime.

Bump

JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP NIXON

massive economic change tends to be violent comrade.

Communism really follows a similar playbook to most revolutionary governments.

Overtake power, silence opposition, consolidate political dominance through terror or power, then relative peace and stability follows afterward.

The French Revolution is probably a poster child for this, with the Stalinist Purges and the Reign of Terror having similarities that can't be overlooked.

Basically most communist governments go through 30 years of turmoil and tyranny before settling down, basically when political control is firmly in their favor.

Brezhnev's Soviet Union was a far cry from Stalin and Khrushchev's, when you were jailed in 1975, at least the convicted knew what rule they broke rather than being picked up off the street and forced to confess to some crime as would happen in 1938.

Of course there's still today's North Korea which has gone off the rocker into a pan-korean hypernationalist ideology, but you don't really think of Vietnam or Laos as some tyrannical regime where people are forced into slave labor.

People can make the tyrannical argument for China until the cows come home, but China today is a much safer place than it was in the 1960's but a fucking long shot as well.

tl;dr: the tyranny is a form of consolidating political control which is pretty standard in most violent uprisings, Communism isn't new to this standard except that more people died during these process.

True, but most times it's necessary.

Pic related, an example of a dictatorship that should've happened to prevent the dictatorship that did and ruined the country.
>in before helicopter fag and his forced meme plugs his fingers in his ears shitposting that pinoshit "saved chile" when he was literally all alone in fucking it up beyond repair

>It requires violence to further it's goals
Social change, for better or worse, is often predicated on violence, communism is hardly alone in its use.

I'm not sure how communist it actually was, or how repressive for that matter, but from what I've heard the anarchist Free State in Ukraine arguably achieved some form of actual anarchy (and not the "violent riots everywhere" kind of anarchy.)

Of course, the Bolsheviks couldn't allow this, and promptly crushed it after only a few years of existence. Lel.

...