/pol/kiddies always get mad when they get told that Communism has never been tried because they have no counter...

Uh did you reply to the wrong person? I'm not a communist. In fact I hate communism. I'm not calling anyone a fascist.

>the deadliest ideology in human history
Capitalism?

Shit, sorry. Guess i should've read all of it.

Still, commie kids are pretty black and white and call everything they disagree with fascism.

You can do better than that, man.

>The sheep thinks I'm joking

>genociding millions in the name of communism is the same as killing a few brown people for oil

Id describe myself as a libertarian and I actually was accused of being a national socialist by a Trotskyite not too long ago. Imagine how funny it was being accused of being a national socialist when Im hispanic.

>my utopia never became a reality
>therefore the people relentlessly trying to make my utopia a reality don't reflect on it at all

Still pretty bad desu.

>Lenin: let's try
>Mao: let's try
>etc. etc;
>"lol they didn't really try"

Why fucking lie?

They never tried to make it a reality. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship where the workers got shit from the very start. You don't have to be a communist to understand that.

Why do attempts at communism always result in the rise of a dictatorship, then?

Trying and achieving are the same thing?

It's a rally point for them.
They're all about nuance when it comes to themselves and the groups they consider objective allies, but everyone else is basically a (closet) fascist.

Not that the term fascist applies to anything anymore. It died in 1945. Stanley Payne has written extensively on it. Fascism as it emerged pre-war hasn't and cannot occur in the same fashion anymore. Authoritiarian is something else.. Fascism is its very own kind of thing. It was an actual revolutionary movement which gained power through paramilitary means. Trump isn't that. But these kids just wanna play on sentiments by using silly synecdoches like that.
We need new definitions, new terms and new categories to understand the current world.

I feel like loads of these kids still wanna have their 19th century Genesis chapter of their ideology to apply to today. It's an odd sort of Romanticism, but it is perhaps a human thing I guess... To idealize the early beginnings.

Well I mean it's never been tried in the case of destroying all notions of class and currency

Yes it has. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

Revolutions don't happen peacefully, the violence in China is simply to scale with its population, ethnic and cultural makeup

Holy fuck, you fucking leftist fuckhead. Don't twist this. The topic of this thread was "it was never tried" and NOT was it achieved. Get.the.fuckout.

Wohoah, calm down there kiddo! You're getting mad at people's opinions on an anonymous image board, might wanna check yourself there. ;^)
But back to the point at hand, tell me in what way did they even achieve in trying it?

Capitalism is more of a system than a set ideology.

It's a bit like how 'paganism' never really had a canon either, because it was a container term invented by Christians to denote everyone who wasn't them. They broke the mold. Roman pagans and Egyptian pagans are literal worlds apart, but to the Christian they're all under the same devillish deception.

Zizek is right. Commies are very Christian in form and content and I don't perceive that as a good thing, unlike him.

>When communists have a famine it's a genocide.
>When capitalists have a famine it's a natural disaster.

Classcuck logic.

>Zizek is right. Commies are very Christian in form and content and I don't perceive that as a good thing, unlike him.
This opinion, very ironically, reaks of pure ideology.

>in what way did they even achieve in trying it?
>achieve in trying it

What the fuck are you even saying?

You can find numerous dictionaries on the Web in case you have difficulties with the English language.

Achieve in trying?

That doesn't make any logical sense.

That's like someone tries to follow a blueprint to build something and it collapses and then going "well he didn't really try it ;)."
Plus we're talking multiple guys trying and failing.

Get the fuck out of here.

Well to achieve in trying means that you actually did try.
In what way did Lenin or Mao "try Communism"?

Far left or far right systems of governments/ ideologies are detrimental to society.

Hence I hate both fascism and communism equally.

>Public Ownership of the means of production
>Private Property abolished
>My specific totally special and foolproof version of communism has never been tried

That's correct, communism has never been 100 percent implemented. In order to do that you would need to spread world wide revolution and annihilate people sense of national community. As well as wipe out all religions and culture and un materialistic ways of life.

Fuck off my mayne

Why should we even give communism a try if every time a "communist" revolution is started it just ends up being hijacked and coopted by a vanguard and leads to a brutal dictatorship?

What if you give it try without a revolution? Like what if it doesn't need to be forced by meme guard party but instead Communism comes at its owns pace when time will come.

it's already been shown that very small countries with strict immigration policies that are socialist are the greatest countries in the world in terms of quality of life.

Example?

Sweden

26th most free economy in the world, where 90% of companies and resources are privately owned.
Not socialist.
Next?

>it's already been shown that homogeneous white countries with high IQ's and altruist psychology regardless of economic policy are the greatest countries in the world in terms of quality of life.
FTFY

Socialism isn't state capitalism user

And it's not what the nordic countries are, despite what Bernie says, user.

Communism has always been tried and it always fails

Commies on these threads always resort to provoking people and sophistry

The simple reason commies insist it was never tried is because all the means used to reach utopia don't match their utopia. They're trying to achieve something contrary to economic sense and human nature like all utopia, so dictatorship or anarchy is imposed to somehow force socialism in to existence and they end up with a dysfunctional, bureaucrat-feudalism whose sole purpose is to sustain the socialist faith and serve the intellectual-nomenklatura ruling class.

Communism and Marxism ares just another example of how faith in noble goals can carry forward the worst evil

The last hundred threads did this lead by the nose routine and the next hundred will

You can pretty much classify commies in to two types: trash intellectuals who want to thrive by the sweat of their babble and vengeful neets who want to punish the ruling class whilst imagining they're helping other people

> contrary to economic sense and human nature
Communist is perfectly natural for the humans as you should know from primitive societies. Despite what Wall Street says, people were able to share with each other from the beginning of times.

>wild tribes used to share
>so they were communists
lel
and I doubt those people used to share if it meant being hungry.

You can't be hungry under communism.

It's what Marx called primitive communism, and it makes sense too. There were no classes, they shared resources and there was no private property. Our way of life now is more unnatural than how they lived then.

This and Norway.
Sweden but with nationalism and a heavy dose of Xenophobia would have been a neverending utopia.

Norwegians already wanna exchange all their cars with electrical ones in a decade, they are so far ahead its infuriating to see the rest of europe throwing itself into the shitter.

and can yo bring to the table a society which lived like this? With no warriors, no priests, no leaders.

>Norwegians already wanna exchange all their cars with electrical ones in a decade
That's true socialism right here

By class, I mean as in groups of people separated by owning the means of production or not. This differs from social hierarchies, which always have existed and will most likely continue to do so. Humans moved away from a classless society once agriculture became big and people started to claim private property. (Which is also different from personal property btw)

An example of primitive communist society would probably be Australian aboriginals and certain tribes of Indians. Marx also gives examples of Asiatic societies, but I don't know the specifics of those.

>Norwegians already wanna exchange all their cars with electrical ones in a decade, they are so far ahead its infuriating to see the rest of europe throwing itself into the shitter.

Norwegian here.

This is just symbolic politics. If you actually believe that will happen, you're as delusional as most people here.

Yet primitive societies are far from communist. Those who prove themselves exemplary are given privileges such as first choice of food, access to women, bigger tent etc. Tribal societies were far from classless as humans are able to discern between those who can perform and those who could not.

The key to this is
>Those who prove themselves

Social hierarchy is not a bad thing, as long as equal opportunity exists.

That primitive communism theory you guys talk about is a fiction. It's almost as if you people believe that by eliminating capital inequalities (which communists don't do anyway, you redistribute it to the nomenklatura) you somehow abolish hierarchy.

Any cursory look at current 'tribal' societies shoots that theory in the neck. In even hunter-gatherer groups men often make executive decisions for the group, lower-status males are more likely to suffer abuse or depradation and the sense of shared property exists only within a constraint of close relatives or allies.

In fact the near-universal existence of gift economies in hunter-gatherer societiess is in complete contradiction to the supposed sharing of all property anyway.

The Gods Must Be Crazy is not a documentary and you need to square up with why humans have a natural idea of ownership

>Public Ownership of the means of production
>Private Property abolished
>In the USSR
Read a book kid.

>He thinks Social Democracy is Socialism
Bernie Sanders please.

Yet communists found a way

Not him, but what was the private property in the Soviet Union?

So now we're classical liberals

Communists would paint a pentagon and claim they squared the circle

The party's property. (The entire union and everything in it)

So, basically, your claim is that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was a corporation? And thus that the Soviet Union itself was also a corporation?

There's a reason it was called "State Capitalism".

Except it wasn't. Even Trotsky just called it a "degnerated workers' state".

Ya know there's this thing called the burden of proof......

In what way is entitlement to your labor power a liberal thing?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers'_state
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers'_state

When I think of state capitalism, I think something more like China. For one thing, the Soviet Union lacked many things that make up capitalism (profit-driven production being one).

>Capitalists famines are caused by natural events
>Communist famines are caused by retarded planned economy bullshit
>Commies don't understand the difference because they can't into economics

"Communist" is a misnomer, all "communist" state swas and is socialist
You can't "try communism" but you can however try socialism

Literally the most mature response I've ever heard on Veeky Forums.

>Fascism
>far right
It's Third Position.

They were communists because their goal was communism. By your logic, people in communist parties in capitalist countries aren't communist because they don't live in communism.

>>Capitalists famines are caused by natural events
>>Communist famines are caused by retarded planned economy bullshit
the Irish potato famine was caused by a combination of the British imposition of a clusterfuck of free trade policies which drove income inequality to massive levels and drove the entire population into dependency on the potato crop, and once the virus wiped out most of it absentee British landlords found it more profitable to sell the remaining potatoes on overseas markets rather than redistribute them to the starving Irish.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

>implying the left/right dichotomy matters for anything but branding political bogeymen

Also, you know, fucking drought and potato blight. The market didn't cause the famine, it only exacerbated it. Meanwhile, Mao and Stalin quite literally caused famines through policy making rather than exacerbating their natural occurence. Now fuck off, commie shill.

>They were communists because their goal was communism
But that's exactly what I said, they are socialists that attempted to achieve, not "try out" communism

Why couldn't a Hispanic be a National Socialist?

Nazism is germanic nationalism, hispanics by definition are not germanic

You said that "communist" was a misnomer.

>Historian Mark B. Tauger of West Virginia University suggests that the famine was caused by a combination of factors, specifically low harvest due to natural disasters combined with increased demand for food caused by the collectivization, industrialization and urbanization, and grain exports by the Soviet Union at the same time.[8]
as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger, Natural Disaster and Human Actions.pdf
Fuck off back to /pol/. You're literally still doing the thing that the other guy said you were doing: up-playing the natural disasters when they affect capitalist countries and downplaying them when they affect communist ones.

The USSR, Khmer Rogue and the PROC are all Marxist-Leninst states, they were not 'Communist' in the most traditional Marxist sense.

>ruled by a communist party
>espouses derivatives of Marxist ideology
>recognized by other communist parties
>i-it's not communist, guys

>calls others sheep
>is a communist

How was the USSR stateless, moneyless and classless you fuckface?

I don't know. How can multiple denominations of Christianity exist?

>bourgeoisie commie-cuck incapable of arguing without impotent swearing and putting words into the mouths of his opponents

It was communist because it had the goal of communism. By your logic, communist parties in capitalistic countries wouldn't be such since they don't live in communist societies.

He said:

>I-it´s not communist guys

No, no it bloody wasn't.

>Communist parties in capitalistic countries wouldn't be such since they don't live in communist societies.

Well. Someone might want communism as an individual (or as an organization) but he doesn´t live in communism.

A society can be communist, or it cannot.
Someone that calls himself a communist might be a communist, but a society that calls itselft communist whilst it isn´t is obviously not communist.

>No, no it bloody wasn't.

Then why were these states:
>ruled by a communist party
>espoused derivatives of Marxist ideology
>recognized by other communist parties

QED. They were Communists.

Communism: A classless, stateless and moneyless society.

The USSR was none of these things.

It might have been socialist, a dictatorship of the proletariat or a state-capitalist regime, but it had not yet achieved the communist stage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

>In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

communism works as well as ancap

But that doesn't follow. The Qing Dynasty was not a modern, capitalist state despite
>being ruled by figures attempting to rule a modern, capitalist state
>espoused derivatives of liberal ideology
>Were recognized by other liberals.

You can't just change a society by putting up a new flag. The funny thing is, your position puts you in the same camp as the most retarded communists like Pol Pot.

Misnomer in the sense that any of those states were "communist" (i.e. a classless, stateless world order and not as a synonym for socialism)

Obviously there haven't been any communist states, but the slew of communes that arose during the 19th century all failed one way or another.