How can anyone unironically be a communist despite century of failures?

>it wasn't real republicanism!!!!!!

>16,594
>a dozen
And they didn't have the time or ability to kill in such industrial numbers as communist leaders did.

Please read about Great Purge and things that followed it and preceded it and tell me if it was worth it. They literally had quotas of killings. Kill 12,000 in that region. Kill 20,000 in that one.
No progress is worth that, especially not material progress. Not to mention Stalin's incompetence and incompetence of his aides caused millions of deaths in WW2.

You're either a shitposter or you're dumb as fuck.
It wasn't republicanism, it was literally a dictatorship. You had many examples of normal republics, you have them even today, you had them in past.
Name me one normal and succesful Marxist socialist state. There are literally none.

>everything i dont like is stalinism
>not real republicanism

fuck you fucking classcuck piece of shit, you just swallow porky propaganda without even fucking questioning it there is no point in arguing with you cuck

im done fucking done, goodbye

If we are not talking about Robespierre exclusively, the war in the Vendée killed a shit ton of civilians.

wew lad, seems like you might be about to [COLLAPSE]

>not true Marxism

Yes, and the Weimar Republic ended up putting Hitler into power go he could gas over 900,000 Jews. American colonizers killed Injuns for the land and resources.

lol someones a bit mad :^)

>It wasn't republicanism, it was literally a dictatorship.
>It wasn't communism, it was literally a dictatorship.
It's like you don't even realize that you sound like a commie.

How can one unironcally be for democratic republics after the failures of russia, china and north korea?

Name me one succesful and normal Marxist state. By normal I mean respect of law, high living standards, absence of massive abuse of powers, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and so on.
There are literally none and there were none, unless you use peculiar cases like Yugoslavia which weren't even Marxist besides paying lip service to Marxism (I'm a Yugoslav so don't try to teach me).

I never said there were no unsuccesful republics, I just said most of republics were more succesful and lasted longer than any Marxist state.
It wasn't communism because communism is a stateless form of society, but every state calling itself Marxist was a shithole in every sense.

How can anyone unironically be a republican despite inevitable failure and theoretical impossibility?

Because even if they fail they last longer and provide more than any alternative.
Is anyone in this thread going to offer a serious argument or you'll just keep using tu quoque and grabbing straws hard?
Where are the succesful Marxist states?

>can't make a counter-argument
>changes subject

Name me one successful and normal Marxist state. By normal I mean they follow the actual definition of socialism where the proletariat control the means of production and were the result of a worker's revolution in a highly industrialized capitalist state, and so on. There are literally none and there were none, unless you claim autocratic centrally planned economy which weren't even socialist and were just paying lip service to Marxism (I read Das Kapital so don't try to teach me).

I dunno about you but I'd rather live in Cuba than haiti or Dominican Republican or whatever other liberal capitalist shithole the Caribbean has to over.

I get your point but people in industrialized capitalist states weren't so eager to rise in revolution. It seems Marx was wrong.
Your argument had nothing to do with my argument either. You just started attacking republics instead of defending communism.

And it took them millennia to get them right and the ancient republics devolved into monarchies with periods with no republics and monarchy being the dominant form of government. Marxism is what, a century and a half old, with the oldest attempts at a Marxist state being a century ago, and most of the separate "states" were really just part of a Russian empire?

You mean the rest of the world is doing better than ever in terms of standard of living than ever before in human history? Given, relative to the west the rest of the world is behind.

You's rather live in Cuba because you use worst examples.
I'd rather live in USSR during Stalin's reign than Haiti. But that's not the fucking point. Just because it wasn't pure shit in absolute terms doesn't mean it was good.
And Cuba isn't some peachy place you imagine it to be either. Not as bad as many other Marxist states, but far from good by any measure.

>I get your point but people in industrialized capitalist states weren't so eager to rise in revolution. It seems Marx was wrong.
That doesn't mean they won't in the future. Automation is putting increasing pressure on workers, as Marx predicted.

Except Athens and Rome which you could use as an example didn't fail as comically as USSR for example.
>but they were nuclear power!
Achieved at the cost of several million lives, not counting WW2 victims, which might've been far lower if communists weren't so incompetent.

>You's rather live in Cuba because you use worst examples.
It's because he used other examples in the same geographical area with similar history.

>Except Athens and Rome which you could use as an example didn't fail as comically as USSR for example.
They weren't nearly as big nor did they have to compete with another super power.

I'd rather live in the US than a communist shithole like Cuba.

Stuff like basic income easily solves that problem without the need for "proletarian dictatorship". Plus automation isn't proceeding as quickly as you imagine it.
Sorry it seems regulated capitalism beat Marx long ago.

Yes notice how I compared Cuba to other capitalist states in the Caribbean. What I was getting at it is that capitalism isn't some guaranteed path of wealth and development as Amerifats claim it is.

Furthermore compare the USSR to the hellish kleptocracy mafia state that is the Russian federation and tell me the average Russian is better off now because they can save two months of wages to buy a smartphone.

So why didn't he use Barbados or Puerto Rico?
Plus Haiti is populated by blacks, Cuba was a white colony.
Dude they literally had killing quotas, if that doesn't sound insane to you I guess there's no point in talking with you.
Republics failed but very few failed in the same sense that most Marxist states did. Very few descended into such banality and brutality as most of Marxist states.
Very few states historically did, republics or not.

>Plus automation isn't proceeding as quickly as you imagine it.
Do you know what the word future is? It includes every point in time beyond now, including 1 year into the future, 1,000 years into the future and 1,000,000 years into the future. Basic income doesn't "solve" the fact that capitalists will resent having to give workers money for what they perceive to be no reason.

>Sorry it seems regulated capitalism beat Marx long ago.
Regulated capitalism only exists with the threat of socialism. After the Soviet Union [colapse] neoliberal policy aims for increasing globalization to exploit unregulated capitalist states, defeat labor unions and deregulate markets.

*ahem*

Modern Russia is a lot better than USSR in every sense. Only people who cry for USSR are old people, for other reasons. They aren't objective.
>kleptocratic
At least they don't have kill quotas. Oh and Khruschev killed some 50,000 before you go with "Stalin was denounced".

Because it's the most ethical and sustainable form of social organization.

The British Empire.

>Dude they literally had killing quotas
Romans had war, conquest and plunder quotas. But I'm so glad the Romans found a way to do that without killing anyone and managed to collapse without being threatened by another super power.

>but you dont need plunder for a republic
Then you don't need purge quotas for Marxism. That's just a quirk of Sovietism.

You're attacking people that don't exist, user. That picture assumes socialists support liberal candidates.

Literally did not nothing wrong

Pretty much every socialist state was massively better than what it supplanted

Russia is a complete shithole compared to the ussr in every possible metric ranging from crime rates to rates of homelessness among children to heroin use to hiv rate to quality of army and navy to infrastructure...well you get the point.

It isn't a coincidence communist party of Russian federation consistently places second in elections

Cuba!

That's true but as you can see unless you're blind neoliberalism has many non-Marxist opponents. Marxism is dead.
Never descended into such spasms of violence, even if you count Irish and Indian famines.
Compare Russian Empire and USSR for more honest comparison. 4000 executed in last 100 years of the Romanov dynasty. Fuck, that was a peaceful day during Stalin's purges.
Average Russian lived maybe slightly better than during Tsarist times, only under a far more opressive regime. Ask someone who visited USSR in early 90's to tell you how it looked like.
Even to Yugoslavs all those places, Poland, Romania, USSR looked like total shitholes.

Cuba is 1/4 white at most

Why is Stalin the be-all, end-all of Marxism?

Problem is you're comparing Rome from 2000+ years ago and Marxist states from 20th century that coexisted with Western democracies (or even more succesful non-democratic societies).
Massively better? Not really.
In Yugoslavia it was somewhat better, but only because Tito was Western-oriented.
You can't really use progress alone as an argument for because Russian Empire for example would improve too. They had fastest growing industry before WW1 for example.
>you get the point
No I don't because all of that is false and most of those problems stem from Soviet era.
And commies got 8% of votes just few days ago.

Marxism certainly failed, communism did not.

Communism put the first human and satellite into space

Capitalist murica is in trillions of dollars of debt to communist China.

Soacialism is the only thing keeping 'capitalist' nations alive at all. They would have all [colapsed] a century ago otherwise.

I'm sure those dark age monarchies thought republics were dead too. Sovietism isn't the only form of Marxism. Yes pretty much every socialist state was a form of Sovietism, because they were just satellites in a Soviet empire.

I thought it was 50-50, but irrelevant. And I never said republicanism or democracy are sure way to success, my point wad just that Marxism wasn't succesful anywhere, ignoring some early progress often achieved at terrible cost.
Stalin is the most extreme example, but even non-extreme examples aren't that great. Most of Marxist states ended up being murderous totalitarian hellholes.

>Sovietism isn't the only form of Marxism
What are the other forms?

>Problem is you're comparing Rome from 2000+ years ago and Marxist states from 20th century that coexisted with Western democracies (or even more succesful non-democratic societies).
So what about commies from space in the year 4016?

>still being capitalist
>its literally 4016

Because Stalinism was shit and is easy to attack. Both the USSR and the USA had come to the understanding that the USSR was the only true communism because it served both sides. It gave the USSR authority as the only real communism to prevent those satellites from getting uppity and getting rid of those pesky revisionists. It let the USA quell labor movements because it was so easy to attack the USSR, and it made socialists seem treasonous and subversive.

That's because every Marxist state except Yugoslavia has been a strict adherent or descendent of the Leninist. Stalin made sure you played by his rules.

I don't get your argument, my point was that when Rome acted how it did that was the standard behaviour. In fact Rome was relatively lenient in many ways.
When Stalin signed his death lists, you had advanced democracies coexisting with USSR.
Not just Stalin, there's Mao too as am extreme example. Pol Pot was even more extreme.
Such absurd violence rarely existed in republics or even monarchies, in Marxist states it was rather common.

They're theoretical forms, just like Marxism-Leninism was theoretical before the revolution. Strictly speaking Stalinism wasn't even socialist, it was just based on socialist thought, but heavily modified into Bolshevism, undermining the very premise of socialism. Bolshevism is just creating a new ruling class, but they claim to do it out of benevolence for the people.

One of Marx's own ideas of a Marxist state was a democratic state where capital was socially owned. You'd find it hard to claim the USSR was democratic, or that Russia had a real democratic revolution.

Not a republic, but democracies have committed horrific crimes.

What makes Nazi Germany, USSR so horrific is that thanks to "modern" technology, they were able to much more efficiently engage in ethnic cleansing and genocide over a much shorter period. Trains allowed for forced deportation, automatic guns, gas weapons allowed for easier mass executions etc.

You also had much larger, populations.

Say Mao killed 60 million people. massively inflated number, but lets just go with it. China has a population of 600 million people. A river in China flooding, seriously killed like 8 million people in China. China's death rates are astronomical because China's population is so dense and so high. Tiny mistakes, can result in devastating loss of life.

But anyway, back to crimes of "republics".

How about Slavery in the US? Australia's near 100% ethnic cleansing of Aboriginals (and Tasmanian Aboriginals were 100% genocided)? The tens of millions that died in India under democratic Britain?

But Lenin literally followed Marx to the letter, I don't get your point?
Maybe Stalin was a coincidence, but what about Mao?

>How can anyone unironically be a communist despite century of failures?

Any attempt at Socialism was doomed to fail in the 20th century, largely, because Capitalism was still only going through it's young adulthood, had insane room to expand and the material conditions, not yet, allowed for Socialism to take root.

When Lenin and others at the time identified Imperialism as "Late-stage Capitalism" they were 100% wrong, Imperialism, if anything, was a hold over from Mercantilism and the end of Imperialism, was far more a signifier of Capitalism coming out from it's feudal, imperial past, into it's own.

People say that Neoliberalism is "Late stage Capitalism" I say this is wrong as well, but we are almost there, I would think the next system that comes, from Neoliberalism, which I predict will be the era of Universal Basic Income, will be late stage capitalism. I can see with UBI, I think we will see massive social shifts as well, towards a more cooperative, Socialistic mixed economy and that is where the transition from ignorance to class consciousness will start to begin.

Honestly, even now, I think we have the ability to make Communism possible. We have fucking Quantum computers coming out in a few years ffs. It's just society needs to be nudged towards holding the ideals that labour should work for the worker, automation is a good thing and we should lower work hours to give everyone more free time.

>But Lenin literally followed Marx to the letter
No he didn't.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Leninism#Opposition_from_Marxists

He was just mostly successful in purging the Marxists that disagreed with him. Lenin explicitly attacked people who were even further left of him and called them babies.

If you were beeing honest you'd compare Cuba to the DR or PR. But then your little analogy wouldn't work because anyone would pick the DR over cuba

>If you were beeing honest you'd compare Cuba to the DR or PR.
but he does compare Cuba to dr in his post and says he would pick Cuba over it? Can you not read?

Also here's a cool link:

country-facts.findthedata.com/compare/18-50/Cuba-vs-Dominican-Republic

Because so far no communist government has ever been truly communist. They've just had a very large and exploited worker class placated with propaganda and isolationism.

The most practical criteria for Communism is whether or not the government self-identifies as Communist.

Yes, China is Communist.

That's bollocks, though. Communism can be defined, and anything that doesn't fit the definition is not communist.

How do you define Communism?

kek are we applying transgender logic when analyzing the predominant mode of production a state employeed now?

> rest of the world living in utter squalor

Asia & South America seem to do well when they embrace the markets, blessed be thy hands of guidance.

Got any resources on the Yugoslav red pill mate?

Revolutionary ideologies like communism are not based on past experiences, but on promises of a better future.

A communist is someone who literally thinks that the utopian future that only exists in his mind is more important than the reality of existing societies governed by people like him.

Then why people from Haiti prefer to migrate to capitalist countries like Brazil over Cuba, that is closer?

Haitians spawn anywhere.

They're like rats.

Except in Cuba.

Funny how that is.

and Brazil is barely capitalistic.

And is still better than Cuba or its northen neighbour, Venezuela

I'm sure Cuba being a totalitarian state with strict border controls and a secret police that keeps tabs on its citizens has nothing to do with the fact it has no illegal immigrants.

It's not so much a century of failure as two or three decades. Post war USSR was pretty great up until the 80s.

Ahh, the face of the true Commie.

When he doesn't have an argument, he turns to showing his hate of the lumpenproletariat, just like the Nazi turns to race-hatred.

You're the same trash.

...

>marxist state
>Lenin literally followed Marx to the letter
Why don't you try reading about a subject before discussing it? You're being retarded.