Why did it fail?

How is modern China communist?

Because of Stalinism

If we accept the communist party of the USSR as communist I can see no reason how the communist party of China is not communist.

Of course neither economy is communist as the workers don't control the means of production. And of course the state itself isn't communist as the very idea of a communist-state is an oxymoron. But this is not to say the ideology of the party is any less legit.

Like if you're going to say USSR style planned economies are communist and since they weren't that great then communism has failed it's absolutely retarded to say China's socialist market economy is not communism and therefore communism has still failed. They're both equally un-communist, but they're justified by the party on a similar basis except one achieved significantly better results.

Either there has never been ideologically correct communism outside of select quasi-anarchist communes, or communism is doing better than ever.

>The very idea of a communist state is an oxymoron
This fucking meme again

Marx very clearly lays out the necessity of a transitional state, including parameters for it to exist indefinitely towards the goal of final communism

Yes, it's a state guided by communist principles. But it's not a communist state as Marx equally lays out that communism is stateless.

The justification of both China and the USSR is that they are in fact such a state and their economic policies are designed towards guiding society towards communism.

You're fucking dense as hell. Transitional state towards communism is a part of the process towards communism. It is communism. Just because the process did not complete does not mean that it wasn't "real" communism.

This is one of the worst memes of the 21st century.

because stalin murdered bukharin when bukharin should have been leader instead of stalin or trotsky

Communism means two things. A) The ideology of communism, thus it would be correct to say a transitional state is "communist" in the same sense an individual can be a "communist" as they're subscribing to the ideology of communism just as the state is being guided by the ideology of communism. B) Communism as a state of a affairs, a stateless classless society where the workers control the means of production. For this reason it's not correct to call a transitional state "communism" because well it's clearly not stateless. So for instance

The USSR is communist.
The USSR is not communism.

Because it was demolished in WWII and other more open market states simply grew faster than it economically.

Communism implies a few things that weren't achieved in the USSR:

>no private property
>no inheritance
>no currency
>no marriage
>no police
>no declaring war on states

Especially the first, and from it following the later two, since you can't inherit or trade in a society where there is no private property.

I know, it was very clearly not communist in terms of how it actually ran. But I'm saying it was ideologically communist.

It was ideologically communist for like 2 years, before Poland invaded and took some disputed land.

They made abortions free and removed marriages (by making divorce as easy as saying it out loud, no court needed, you don;'t even need to tell your partner you are divorcing them), hoping to cause a sexual revolution. The birth rate plummeted, so the changes were reversed.
They removed police, hoping people would cooperate now that there is no need to steal anything, since you can't accumulate wealth. Crime skyrocketed, so the changes were reverted.
They removed inheritance laws, people bitched and complained, some protests, the changes were reverted.
They arrested all the intelligentsia to be tried, but since they couldn't get things going, they freed all the doctors, engineers, architects, etc. Basically most of the people they arrested, effectively reversing the process.
They greatly reduced/nearly removed the army, then had to hastily create it again to fend off Poland.
Money was never even removed as a test, and the USSR always had the ruble as a form of money.

After late 1920 the USSR stopped even trying to be communist. Everyone knew they can't do it, they stalled, we'll do the revolution later, with more technology.
The joke being that the USSR itself collapsed shortly before the popularization of the Internet, which would've maybe helped in that regard.

>They arrested all the intelligentsia
*shot down

Because it's essentially an aocalyptic religious cult with impossible goals

Those are practical applications of communism, I'm fully aware that it was not communist in any practical sense.

I'm saying it could be described as communist in the sense that the party was communist and their "we'll do it later" justification is pretty legit.

Seeing how many were released, and incorporated to educate the workers into being engineers, architects and scientists in particular, this is false.
Many were shot, most weren't. Not that it matters, shooting even 1% of them is crime enough.

And I'm saying that nobody actually believed they'll do it later.
Its like a D&D session where the nerds say they'll get girlfriends after college, no need to rush. They all know better.
They were putting up the show, the act that they are idealists, because this perceived idealism was keeping them in power.
Things quickly devolved into a ruling class that didn't believe the communist idea talking about communism to a working class that no longer believed in it either.

Kind of like democracy works in modern day USA.

>And I'm saying that nobody actually believed they'll do it later.
Well clearly we'll clearly we'll never find out because the USSR is gone. And their vision of constructing Russia to a state where it was fit to do it later was retarded anyway.

>They were putting up the show, the act that they are idealists, because this perceived idealism was keeping them in power.
The idealism wasn't keeping them in power, as the fall of the USSR proved if they really wanted power there was no need to bother justifying yourself with communism because you can get similar results in a regular democracy on pure nationalism.

I have no doubt the party of the USSR was legit ideologically.

JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP NIXON

600% inflation coming through

Ecanomic implosion and increased freedom of the people.

Conquered? They broke the bank and ran out money.

I was talking about Catalonia and the like.

Sometimes I wish Pinochet didn't overthrow Allende, just that Chile could have become another cautionary tale against socialism, like Venezuela is now.

Why shouldn't it fail?

If demonization by the ruling class is to be considered the proof of how much a theory is a threat to them, shouldn't fascism be considered a bigger threat?

People talk about communism being demonized, but some of the most powerful institutions in the Western world, like the universities and the media, are filled with people sympathetic to communism.

The only reason why this thread exists is because everyone considers communism "good on paper", a "nice ideal" or a "worthwile dream", even though it's real life results are abysmal. That doesn't fit with the idea of it being demonized.

Fascism is also a massive threat to the ruling class. Not in the sense that it actively seeks the annihilation of the ruling class in general (just some of them), but because it will massively fuck up their ambitions. You can't safely invest in markets when neighbouring fascist states are invading it for rightful clay. It's really hard to market to people totally absorbed into populist nationalist ideology. You can't even really make obedient workers out of people who run their lives on nationalist romanticism (you can make obedient citizens out of them tho).

Fascism is only ever useful to the ruling class whenever a) the ruling class can be accepted by the relevant fascist worldview and b) there is much bigger threat to their interests going on like communist revolutions. And even then the ruling class recognize they're playing with fire.

>people sympathetic to communism.
Communists have been overrepresented among artists and academics since forever. It's just not at all threatening to the ruling class until they start trying to actually apply their ideology rather than just writing about it. This is why the ruling class is chiefly concerned with busting up communist movements among the lower classes as they can't implement ideology without the largest portion of society on their side.

Fascists chiefly exist among the populist minded working class. It's a lot more common than you would think based on how the media makes it appear because just as it's near impossible to turn the intelligentsia off communism it's near impossible to totally cleanse the working class of nationalism and populism. However what fascism needs as well is a layer of intelligentsia to organize the working class and articulate their ideology, and since fascism is much weaker among the intelligentsia it's much easier to shove it out of universities and the media.

Thus in this way communism and fascism both get locked down by liberal-capitalist hegemony. Just in opposite ways.

It was against Christianity.

Maybe God would've found a way to make it tolerable if it included Him.

Now it is a cautionary tale against neo-liberalism tho
We cant progress because the country isnt ours anymore lol

if you pay everyone equally they don't become more motivated but less. Everyone starts to be equally lazy

simple economics

99% of economists agree that communism is retarded

there are mountains of literature on this if you actually care

>Implying china hasn't been capitalist since the late 80s

Gonna need a free helicopter ride for this goy

What makes you say that?
Neoliberalism has worked rather well in Scandinavia.

>le free helicopter rides LOL XDDDD

What are you so upset about?

It's not. The ideologists and "workers" were systematically purged from the party after Mao's death and replaced by technocrats.

>who were John of Leyden and John Humphrey Noyes

So was the USSR.

This does not preclude the ruling party from knowing what they're at.

Chile is a shithole and as we've noticed in recent years neoliberalism is extremely unsustainable.

Many reasons, but the simplest way to put it is the material process of history prevented an immediate overtaking of communism over liberalism and imperialism. Liberalism also failed, at first, but it didn't go away because it appropriately answered the internal contradictions of the imperial states reigning at the time. Go back in time and ask the same question to anyone regarding early liberal revolutions and they'd give similar meme answers as in this thread, that it was always going to fail because of the inherent superiority of monarchy, power of aristocracy over the peasantry and merchant class, blah blah. That said, even if they knew the bourgeois class was inevitably going to seize history from them, they wouldn't have been able to stop it. Being a revolutionary class, the most revolutionary class in history as Marx himself points out, they've been better at postponing their executioners, but looking at the ever declining conditions of the world they won't be able to keep it up for long. The difference, of course, is that the kings and gentry of old didn't have the mutually self-destructive capabilities of the capitalists today.

Ronald Regans hardcore, heavyduty weapons program "Strategic Defense Initiative" (or "Star Wars") and Space Race slaughtered USSR budget.

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher

Because of peak oil.

>"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher
That quote is always retarded.

Why are you so supportive of a mass murderer stooge of foreign power that ran a money laundering scheme to funnel millions of dollars into his private bank accounts?
>LE HELICOPTER
Worst forced meme desu.

Start reading books, kid.

>The trouble with capitalism is that you eventually run out of other people's labour
>The trouble with imperialism is that you eventually run out of other people's countries
You can basically apply this thinking to anything and it's retarded every time.

I'm not.

Glasnost and followed rise of nationalism

Why is Chile a shithole?
It seems better than Argentina

>LTV

Because Marx' work is incomplete (because he fucking died and even today people are very lazy about picking up where he left off) and Lenin was a fuck who half-assed his studies.

>Implying Marx was the only person who could get things right.

Commies can joke about Stalin, Mao and Hoxha, why can't anticommunists joke about Pinochet?

It has about triple the poverty of Uruguay, which actually seems to be an example of a good Latin American economy.

Not to mention it's economy has actual improved since Pinochet and his insane neoliberal economics left.

Oh shit, wrong chart.

communism failed in the USSR because command economies have a harder time adapting when the world changes around you and, ironically, have a harder time distributing materials because lacking a pricing mechanism means it's difficult to determine how to properly allocate capital. now, this could have been ameliorated if the USSR had something more like a heavily regulated social market system like China and gave control of the means of production over to the workers at some point instead of just maintaining bureaucratic control. but it didn't.

the USSR was always going to have a slog ahead of it since it wasn't advanced enough at the beginning to make a proper transition to socialism like France or the US or German would have been able to. socialism won't really succeed until it takes off in a country that's already highly advanced economically and doesnt need some sort of vanguard trying to build everything up in the first place.

It's not that Marx is the only one, but that his work never ceased to be relevant.

is no different than any 3rd world spic country

Chile actually increased its "economic freedom" after becoming a democracy. It's currently seventh in the world. Which is a pretty good index for neoliberalism.

heritage.org/index/country/chile

Wikipedia seems to say that chile has a marginally lower % of population below poverty line than Uruguay. More inequality though.

Pinochet fucked up with not floating the currency, which wasn't very neoliberal of him.

>Mass murderer
>Only 3000 kills

I'm not a fan of Pinochet, but he was pretty timid compared to some other dictators.

No trust in economists
The Soviet Union had economists, ones that were down with the socialism thing and working to theorize policy within that framework, but couldn't actually cuz they were the most hated academics in the country, and thus had to make due either with justifying policy or abandoning the political dimension of political economy entirely with highly mathematical abstractions.
Very few of the latter looked very kindly on fixing the ruble to price of gold (the joke being that the price of gold was a fixed in the first place, QED the ruble was fixed arbitrarily).

>why can't anticommunists joke about Pinochet?

...

>ifunny.co
Not surprised this is where helicopterposters get their memes.

>If we accept the communist party of the USSR as communist I can see no reason how the communist party of China is not communist.
No. USSR did not achieve real communism. Only broken form of socialism. And the only reason China is still calling itself socialist is becuase it would collapse under any other policy due to it's horrific demography.

Most of the laws China passed recenly resembles crude democracy much more than socialsm.

Marx thought that greed was a by product of capitalism. Greed is inherent in human nature.

Infiltration by capitalist forces from the inside. The Stalin constitution and party purges were important steps for preserving Soviet democracy but despite all their best efforts their imperfect political system was still open to corruption. Things were pretty OK for a while but after Stalin's death the ship started sinking fast. By the end of the 60's the transformation was already totally complete. Communism obviously isn't very profitable for political elites so they settled on market "reforms" and by the time Brezhnev was dead several thousand millionaires had popped up. The USSR had become oligarchic, imperialist, and capitalist.

By the time Gorbachev came around the USSR almost looked like a parody of what Western propaganda says communism is like. Minus the fact that half the CPSU were open liberals calling for the full restoration of private property and denouncing the work of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and other revolutionaries.

The idea that people will ever learn to just share everything as everyone has need is foolish. Selfishness runs to deep for that ever to be a reality.

It's the ultimate poison for the developer human societal progress
Namely, competition

>communist dictator murder millions to create their third world dictatorships, including other communist who arent communist enough

>"hey, it was necessary to preserve communism"

>pinochet kills 100 communist revolutionaries

>NEVAH FORGET THE 6 TRILLION PINOCHET KILLED LITERALLY WORST PERSON EVER HOW DARE YOU MAKE A HELICOPTER JOKE!

Are communist even human?

This is the level of political discourse on this board.

>no, YOU have a neckbeard and wear a fedora

Communism did not fail. It has never been achieved. The major, left-wing superpowers of the 20th century (being USSR and China) only got to State Capitalism and did not advance beyond to Socialism.

Because resources don't work that way
Because a government that is claiming to equalize all citizens while simultaneously giving them no choice in government say is retarded.
Because censorship, warfare and hiding came before aiding the public's needs, passive sciences and building quality infrastructure.

In short, because everyone in charge was a pompous idiot.

>Capitalism creates competition.
>Private competition is the main cause of societal progress.

They were crypto stalinists.

>muh domino theory

Never mind the moron. People like him are just pedantic about the precise definition of 'communism' and other words because they're too stupid to understand or argue anything of substance, but want to feel like they're not.

Or he's a troll. Poe's Law is in effect, after all.

a wild good post appears!

>Are communist even human?

How is "no private property" a little thing to be pedantic about?

In another thread some user got mad at me for "humanizing Stalin", arguing he isn't human.

Or maybe because both fascism and communism are plain retarded.

Good post but replace
>You can't safely invest in markets when neighbouring fascist states are invading it for rightful clay.
With something about protectionism or tariffs

>inb4 pinochet
He's a pretty shitty fascist if he lets international capital run the country.

>Muh evil foreigners

Not an argument

>Neoliberalism has worked rather well in Scandinavia.
Nice b8 :^)

...

>this is what capitalists believe

...