Set out to create a classless system

>set out to create a classless system
>end up creating a tyrannical two class system literally every time

Is there any ideology that has failed harder than Communism? Every time it's been applied it's literally achieved the exact opposite of what was intended. Does anyone else just feel sorry for Communists at this point?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_of_elite).
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Probably not. At least its a lesson for us and seems to be dying out. In the first half of the 20th century Communism was all the rage and seemed like the solution to the problems of the world, mainly excessive work hours for little pay while rich people lived a life of luxury. It wasn't.

The solution turned out to be what, moderate regulations on work hours and minimum wages?

How about Anarchism, which is such a joke it can't even get off the ground?

> what Americans believe

It's what most ex- soviet people believe.

>"Aha, but user, if it gets off the ground is it anarchism?"

I'm speaking as a liberal nationalist here. Although you can see how Gommies and anarkiddies survived so long by holding true to pseudophilosophical hokum such as that line above

Most ex-soviet people provably believe otherwise.

The problem wasn't communism, the problem was russians.

Every political system engenders class divisions. Communism is simply an ideology which posits a classless system as a utopian ideal. The issue arrises when a society attempts to implement that ideal in its totality as the fundamental political system of a society, rather than incrementally working towards it. Its one of the primary differences between the traditional and progressive left - the former wants to dive straight in, while the latter is aware that such impatience can be counter-productive and devastating in its lack of concern for long-term security.

> The issue arrises when a society attempts to implement that ideal in its totality as the fundamental political system of a society, rather than incrementally working towards it.
Did you read this somewhere? Because if you didn't, I'd like you to explain what you meant.

there's a large difference between russians and other soviet/eastern bloc nationalities when it comes to evaluating the legacy of the soviet union.
many russians nowadays are romanticizing and glorifying "the good old days" of the soviet union, whereas other nationalities like ukrainians or baltic people often have a deep hatred for the soviet union and also for russians in particular and evaluate the history differently

is shfgk supposed to be read as "work" or does it have some sort of a meaning?

> there's a large difference between russians and other soviet/eastern bloc nationalities when it comes to evaluating the legacy of the soviet union.
Do you have anything to support this? Because my (however anecdotal) experience says otherwise.

> other nationalities like ukrainians or baltic people often have a deep hatred for the soviet union and also for russians in particular and evaluate the history differently
I see you are of the "politicans do not lie" school of thought.


Nope. And it takes a native English speaker to recognize ЩФГК as "work".

The Soviet Union murdered millions of its own citizens hiding behind an ideology to justify it all.
Revisionists like yourself pretend all those in gulags deserved it, but thats simply not the case. Most were sent to work as slave labor because they were "political dissidents".

That wasn't communism, that was state capitalism.

:^)

Think of it this way - how many societies which claimed to have subscribed only to communist ideals been successful?

And how many countries, which have been subject to social reform/progressive politics, have also been monopolised by or orientated towards neoliberal economics, and experienced greater success than any communist experiment before it?

I'm not saying true communism doesn't work in practise, just that no society has ever been in a secure enough position to implement it successfully.

It's not socialism unless it is collectively and democratically controlled.

>try to create a communist country
>create a state capitalist country

That's not the point, Redditor.

The point is every attempt to create Socialism has resulted in despotic 'state capitalism'. If every attempt to create your system fails , it's a bad system.

> Revisionists like yourself pretend all those in gulags deserved it
Is this what you actually believe? Or are you just shitposting now?


State capitalism meme might need to die in fire, but Venezuela is not truly socialist state.


> Think of it this way - how many societies which claimed to have subscribed only to communist ideals been successful?
Think of it this way - how many societies which claimed to have subscribed to pacifiism been successful at implementing world peace?

people here seem to confuse socialism and communism.
is not the same thing.

> The point is every attempt to create Socialism has resulted in despotic 'state capitalism'.
Except only Cold War propaganda supports this statement.

>The point is every attempt to create Socialism has resulted in despotic 'state capitalism'
or you could...you know...read

What do you understand by socialism?

I'm actually living under a so-called "Partido Socialista" right now. It's not despotic, it's just a very, very bloated social democracy that's doomed to fail because the national industry can't back our welfare system - the private sector needs room to grow. But it won't be a total collapse, nothing too radical has happened here since 1974. But I digress.

tl;dr: there are different approaches to socialism

...

Anarchism
Fascism
Free Market Capitalism (Adam Smith's version)
Monarchism in non Arab states

I read many things, some tell me Makhno and anarchist catalonia were utopias, others show me factual evidencee proving otherwise.

Please tell me why I should ignore factual evidence and believe your heavily biased sources instead. I want to witness this.

Go.

Yeah, fascism.
>Wherever I am, I must always go to war.
>Gets ass handed.

Deng pls [spoiler]come back[/spoiler]

The issue isn't marx-leninist ideology. The issue is the military. Let me explain my theory.

If you have a violent revolution to overthrow the previous system, you will often be left with the military being the strongest organization in your country at the start of things. If you don't dramatically reduce the power of the military so that it can be managed by the new government, the military will - quite literally - take over the government.

The term "Soviet" refers to a workers' council. Initially, post revolution, the country was ruled by these Soviets or workers' councils. However, in this brand new country, the military was stronger than the civilian government and it wasn't long before the civilian government was replaced by an entirely authoritarian government.

If you rely off of military forces to grant you freedom, you - in turn - will rely off of military forces to not annihilate any freedoms you gain.

Now, there is a different approach in establishing ultra-left "communist" ideology - by way of democratic-socialism. You see, state socialism (ideologically speaking) is the theoretical lead-in to stateless communism.

>first-world socialists

HOWEVER, I should note that there is a catastrophic problem that some countries have faced after democratically electing democratic-socialist leaders - being overthrown.

For example: the country of Chile. Not long after the country elected an extremely left leaning leader did a fascist coup-d'etat occur (I apologize for butchered formatting).

President Allende was a democratically elected leader and Generalisimo Pinochet overthrew him. The fact is, as long as the CIA exists, peaceful revolution will always be threatened by it - as demonstrated with Chile.

> If you have a violent revolution to overthrow the previous system, you will often be left with the military being the strongest organization in your country at the start of things.
You can't do Russian to check yourself the actual documents of Soviets? Fine. At least familiarize yourself with basic facts, not with conculsions that got pulled out of someone's ass.

Soviet military was run by Trotsky. And he got ousted in late 20s. His faction disbanded, his military budget cut, his militarized industrialization program scrapped, his followers purged (i.e. retired or demoted; not "shot in the head" purged - in case there is any doubt, you inbred fetishists).

Soviet government was not run by the army in any sense. Soviet government was run by the politicians. It was run by politicians during Civil War (when military was filled with political comissars), it was run by politicians after Civil War.

The only point when army had any say was during WWII (because Stalin became minister of defense in 41).

> Now, there is a different approach in establishing ultra-left "communist" ideology - by way of democratic-socialism.
There was. It was called Second International. And it failed abysmally before the Third (Bolshevik) International was formed.

Read some books, FFS.

So you weaken the military because no foreign power would want to force a regime change. Smart

That's the paradoxical issue, yeah. You can't reduce the military of a new state and yet the military itself is a threat to the new state

Well, I admit that I did abstractionate this a bit.

>There are gommies and anarchists who think that people will give up property out of goodwill without erasing all vestige of the concept of possession

So how many times are you going to copy&paste the same thread exactly?

No, we just gulag the minority of people who actually own property if they try to fuck with us.

>le free stuff

> will give up property out of goodwill
Out of enlightened self-interest.

>the government doing this is socialism

I wish people on this board would read a goddamn book for once.

Did you read the goddamn pasta? If read it - do you have problems with comprehension of written text?

>Is there any ideology that has failed harder than Communism?

Capitalism. Just give it a little extra time, we're not totally there yet. We will be post-scarcity.

>look at all these federal regulatory agencies
>they do things instead of private groups
>that's basically socialism, right???

I don't agree with Lenin on much, but reading him, you could see where so many people would be taken with what he was saying. It's great soothe saying, and a lot of it is peppered with truths.

The nomenklatura was a thing but people severely overrate its conditions
that lot were middle managers at lower management prices.

"soothe-saying"? Most of what lenin wrote was either A) stuffy party speeches and communication or B) stuffy books about empiricism or C) heads will fucking roll.

Not all of it. His speeches and correspondences was filled with idealistic visions of the future, or at least convincing words to Russians at the time. Charisma and promise.

As examples

>"We have never expected any political or social revolutions to come from “convincing” the powers that be, or from educated persons turning to the paths of “virtue”. We have always taught that it is the class struggle, the struggle of the exploited part of the people against the exploiters, that lies at the bottom of political transformations and in the final analysis determines the fate of all such transformations. "

>"Modern militarism is the result of capitalism. In both its forms it is the ‘vital expression’ of capitalism — as a military force used by the capitalist states in their external conflicts and as a weapon in the hands of the ruling classes for suppressing every kind of movement, economic and political, of the proletariat."

>"You cannot draw the masses into politics without drawing in the women as well. For under capitalism the female half of the human race is doubly oppressed "

>"To tell the workers in the handful of rich countries where life is easier, thanks to imperialist pillage, that they must be afraid of “too great” impoverishment, is counter-revolutionary. It is the reverse that they should be told. The labour aristocracy that is afraid of sacrifices, afraid of “too great” impover- ishment during the revolutionary struggle, cannot belong to the Party. Otherwise the dictatorship is impossible, especially in West-European countries."

He was a charismatic man who spoke for anyone and everyone. For post Tsar Russia, post World I Russia, what wasn't there to like?

Aight, that's fair, I misspoke then.

The solution has always been involving people more in finding the solution. It was for fascism, it's how whole countries were motivated to do war with autocratic juggernauts.

The solution has always been to educate and to communicate, in preparation for societal adaptions that need to be made in the face of a changing environment or changing technology.

Russians are very specific people, a Russians can be hungry, thirsty and live under the bridge and they still be happy if you tell them that they are "the true victors", this is what the USSR gave them in exchange for a peaceful and stable life, a feeling of being the "victors".
Find out if Russians are happy after Crimea occupation and War in Donbass and its consequences, that means economic sanctions and financial collapse - they are happy. There's even a term for that "homo sovieticus" - and Putin is exploiting it regularly to consolidate his power.

Not altruistic

maybe communism will be possible when robots do all the work?

Strawman is strong with this one.


> Most of what lenin wrote
Most of what Lenin wrote you've never read or even heard of.


> Charisma and promise.
No. Not really. Lenin didn't have much of a charisma (not compared to some of the more flamboyant personalities of the time), nor was he big on promises (again - compared to other politicians). Lenin was a visionary because he offered solutions AND followed through his solutions.

People assume that Lenin (and Bolsheviks) were regular political figures. That they somehow persuaded people. No such thing. IRL Bolsheviks sucked at propaganda. They were administrators through and through.

Until the July 1917 Bolsheviks were a faction of the marginal party. During July Bolsheviks became known to the general public, but known only as traitors of the Russia. Their diplomatic successes were limited to the Soviets of Moscow/St.Petersberg in September 1917 (and even that was mostly Trotsky). Bolsheviks did became indispensable as organizers and coordinators of the October Revolution, but they did not truly persuaded people to do it. It was only after October Revolution people started discussing Bolsheviks and their programs.

tl;dr: the most influential text of Lenin was the "Decree on Land", which was neither promise, nor attempt at persuasion. It was a law that people liked.


> Russians are very specific people
Don't be shy. Just use the word Untermensh.

>No. Not really. Lenin didn't have much of a charisma (not compared to some of the more flamboyant personalities of the time), nor was he big on promises (again - compared to other politicians). Lenin was a visionary because he offered solutions AND followed through his solutions.

What on Earth are you talking about? Whether in Europe or Russia, Lenin always generated a crowd and followers of his word and of his work. He was extremely charismatic

> re-reading my own post makes me want to go grammar nazii on myself
A sure sign that it's time to sleep.


> Whether in Europe or Russia, Lenin always generated a crowd and followers of his word and of his work. He was extremely charismatic
Yeah. Now give me the numbers. Having several thousand supporters doesn't make one a major political figure. Not in an empire with over a hundred million people.

>Yeah. Now give me the numbers. Having several thousand supporters doesn't make one a major political figure. Not in an empire with over a hundred million people.

You want me to find records on the crowds generated by Lenin in say, 1910?

No?

It was significant enough to eventually lead the October Revolution?

You might as well ask for how much of a crowd any American revolutionary thinker generated, probably not the majority of colonists who wanted more of the same, but they won anyways.

Communism was "advertised" before and after the WW2 as the only "cure" for nationalism. NatSoc's and commies are literally two religions fighting each other for over 100 years and each one is promising a paradise for their their followers if they win.

Communism is a utopian idoelogy, it requires perfect conditions to work, just like the far opposite ideology of communism - the anarchocapitalism. If the economy will be fully automated just like the every aspect of our personal life the politcal idologies will also change, communism and even democracy will probably become obsolete. There is no perfect idology, as the history showed us during the development of civilization the political ideology must be fluid, it must change over time and adapt the the current situation - for instance look at "exporting" democracy to the Middle East, it was absurd and it created chaos in this region, those people in the current timespan, that means during the aftershocks of the Islamic Revolution must be ruled by with iron hand, that means they need autocracy and dictators. You can clearly see what happened after removing Hussain and Gaddafi out of the picture.

> It was significant enough to eventually lead the October Revolution?
I thought I made my opinion clear: no, it wasn't.

How does this "charisma" even work, if Lenin was hiding in Finland, when Bolsheviks were taking over the Soviets?

> You might as well ask for how much of a crowd any American revolutionary thinker generated, probably not the majority of colonists who wanted more of the same, but they won anyways.
Are you telling me that it's charisma that wins the wars? And that means that every leader of the victorious side is extremely charismatic?

Why must we have this thread every single day?

> "cure" for nationalism
> Communism
I thought I saw it all...

Have you heard about Luddites? Or Spring of Nations? Or Paris Commune?

Why did Soviets had over a dozen national republics? Why "cosmopolitism" was considered a bad thing in USSR?

NatSoc didn't even exist when October Revolution happened. It was 19th century when Marx wrote his manifesto and the first Communist party was formed.

>How does this "charisma" even work, if Lenin was hiding in Finland, when Bolsheviks were taking over the Soviets?

Widely spread letter correspondence.

>Are you telling me that it's charisma that wins the wars?

It's charisma and strategy that wins revolutions. It's just strategy that wins wars, yet, charisma does play a part just as morale does, they work hand in hand.

>And that means that every leader of the victorious side is extremely charismatic?

No, not in wars alone. But in revolutions, a majority of the time, yes. They're spear headed by charismatic leaders.

Communism just like facism are populistic ideologies, those aren't real political ideologies, they were created as the tools to gain power (even Benito Mussolini in this work "Doctrine of Fascism" admits to it). Read about Vilfredo Pareto's circulation of elite (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_of_elite).

But the Lenin and his October Revolution made things even worse, they killed almost every intellectual and the pesants gained the power. We can see the consequences of that actions to this day.

> Why must we have this thread every single day?
Because many people consider this relevant to their intereses?
Or because Marxism is the basis of modern historiography?
Or because Socialism is "controversial" (i.e. there are too many people interested in drowning discussion in bullshit)?

I mean, look at this :> populistic ideologies, those aren't real political ideologies

This user doesn't even know what ideology means, but still gives his opinion.

So the 20th century despots are worthy of condemnation for their civil rights abuses but The West itself isn't guilty to any rights abuses within its colonies be it slavery as parallel to gulag or genocide as parallel to the death of native populations due to violence, disease, or famine as similar to communist genocides.

The West condemning others for national sovereignty experiments and encouraging their people to criticize them more than themselves, it's hypocritical in so many different ways that it'd take paragraphs to fully explain to what degree.

It might be an onomatopoeia.

The characters look like W, O, R, and K respectively.

It's probably only immediately apparent to a native English speaker.

It does when those several thousand form the only effective fighting force in the empire.

And so we went from Disraeli Bolsheviks to Rambo Bolsheviks...

Backbone of October Revolution (military troops) did not consist out of Bolshevik cyborg ninjas, trained in secret Himalayan camps. It was soldiers (and sailors) that joined Worker Soviets of St.Petersberg.

The first fascist state popped up after the first communist one, and yet communism lived longer than fascism.

You do the math, alt-right dipshit.