Tell me about the Commune of Paris and why it isn't more used by commies as a perfect example of Communism done right (i.e. proletariat ruling in prol of themselves)
Why so many few people, specially commies, talk about it? Because it was irrelevant? (barely 3 months of rule). Because it was small-scale?
Would it work on a grander scale?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
because stalin, maduro, and kim jong un are not real socialists
t. every underage communist in the west
so, we both know that the commune fell due to outside forces. you ask if the commune would've worked on a grander scale. assuming the grander scale means that the commune's ideology takes hold of all possible military threats to the commune, we can assume that yes, the commune would've succeeded, because the factor that led to its demise was removed.
I mean if the commune spread out to all of France, for example.
A Communist France, if you will. Since all that shit started by force (let's ignore the Franco-Prussian war), if the new system (the same used on Paris, but on a national scale) started to falter, wouldn't that lead to a counter-revolution to make things like they were before? Would the population, who was used to the capitalistic system, accept it? How long would this system be sustainable?
i think its reasonable to assume that should a national commune fail that yes the majority of people would try to revert conditions back to the system that seemed to benefit them more. though i do not believe that monarchy would be all that preferable to the newly liberated french majority, they would certainly accept it if it meant that food would be on the table, though i wonder how the monarchy would be able to provide that if the commune could not.
i do not know how long the system would be sustainable. france would probably not have access to luxuries that had been imported from other countries previously because neighboring countries would almost certainly place an embargo on the france commune. but assuming that other than that, working conditions improve, standards of living remain the same or raise over an extended period of time, and goods are not scarce (this aspect is affected by the likely embargo, you see this in places like venezuela), i have no reason to believe that the commune wouldn't last a while.
Commies do talk about it, but it was too short lived to make any relevant conclusion from it. Spain is more interesting.
That is objectively true though.
Though that do sound like a fallacy, and I shall try to explain why I think it is.
If you build a car which motor is a ticking bomb and the reason it explodes is that it hits a wall while driving that doesn't mean the car would work if the wall was removed. Just that it would explode later.
The same for the commune, which survived for a rather short time. You can't say it would have succeed just because it met its end at the hands of the military.
Stalin was a true commie according to many commies back in the day so why wouldn't he be a real one?
because they say stalin did not apply real communism and he was just a state capitalist fascist....also they always use catalonia as a great example of socialism LOK
>catalonia
>socialist
>be catalan in 1936~39
>get shot
yeah i agree. i'm aware there are other aspects regarding the possible success of a larger commune experiment, which i laid out in in the second paragraph. you're right that my initialargument wasn't enough to justify the sustainability of the larger commune.
its important to know the left is very stratified in regards to what is and is not communist. there are plenty who think stalin was a good commie, but i find they're in the minority. the typical anti-stalinist uses an argument related to how stalin's government failed to hand over the means of production to the working class entirely, and also to how his government hardly enacted policy that reflected the interests of the workers at large. communism is about the working class- if your state demonstrably does not serve the working class first, it doesn't seem like a match for communism.
Kim Jong Un is literally not a socialist in any way whatsoever
They stopped trying to be communist decades ago
DPRK is a classic absolutist monarchy. The meme of they being a communist state is ridiculous. I don't care what they call themselves. It's pure monarchy.
>...NOT REAL SOZIALIZM
>because its a common argument it is not valid
you know this doesn't make any sense right
>AMM YEAH WHAT ABOUT STALIN
>NAH NOT REAL COMMUNISM
youtube.com
you all sound like them
alright, explain why the ussr was communist.
They had a centrally planned economy...
planned by the state, which would've been fine had the state been a reasonable representation of the russian working class, but it certainly wasn't.
USSR was much of a communist state as USA is currently a real democracy.
Even ancient Athens was more close to democracy than currently the USA is. And they owned slaves.
>the real communism that would have worked is that from a revolution that didn't succeed!!!
Every time.
America is a republic pham
>le republic not a democracy meme
Democracy is the main component of your republic, you fucking queer
Wrong, Eurofag.
>can't own slaves in a democracy
literally no reason why not
>Stalinism, Maoism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Socialism aren't all different political ideologies
Wewwest of lads
What?
Every named ideology is shit, but they're obviously different.
A bunch of anti-christians leftists and psychopaths, hopefully our ancestors genocided them.