Give me the down low on Cambodia after WWII...

>imagine if he was fascist!

>political party: communist party

As a fascist I find this thread both humorous and typical.

He took Maoism to its conclusion. Remember this was a man who listened to Sartre and his nonsense in person, went home, and applied the ideas he had developed in Paris with raw brutality.

He wasn't a fascist, western-communists, that are really just adult babies that want to say "fuck you" to mommy and daddy, just don't like to think about how their nonsense meant death camps and genocide in the East.

>this pig I have behaves like a pig and eats like a pig but I call it a dog therefore it is a dog

An agrarian socialist.

Funny you should use the pig as an example, it's rather fitting.
>not true scotsman (communism)
loving every laugh

not defending communism just pointing out the fallacy of your argument.

is duterte a communist too? is trump really a Republican?

c'mon my man

>communism
Communism is distinct from the communist party. Pol Pot (and the USSR and China and Vietnam) were nowhere near Communism. Their goal was always to create conditions more favourable to it in the future (if you take the most charitable option and assume good faith on their parts.)

It's very inconvenient that we use the same word for both a system, and an ideology promoting that system. It allows people to conflate centrally planned state socialism, a weird sort of state capitalism and sheer insane burn-the-banks genocide-ism with Communism (system) on the basis that it was done under the auspices of parties that had their own special snowflake versions of "Communism" (ideology, though they'd refer to it as Marxism-Leninism, Mao-Say-Sum-Ting, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST IS THAT HOSPITAL ON FIRE, etc.)

How is it fallacious? He enforced collectivization, state atheism, destroyed decadent westernization, seized means production. If anything he was the truest communist in Asia's history.

>state atheism
>state
>communism
>state

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]
> absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]
> absence of ...the state.[5][6]

>its very inconvenient

So pull a Stalin, edit "communism"out of the image, replace it with "state capitalism" and voila! A clean slate.
>those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it

Epic meme, but Stalin was a self-described socialist.
He explicitly referred to "Socialism in one country" :^)

The state will never disappear as long as men exist simply because the recognition for the need of rule of law and allocation of resources for communal need.

This is why communism is fucking retarded.

This is also why communists are to be ignored, they just can't grasp that the system was created to entice and breed useful idiots.

>The state will never disappear as long as men exist
So I'm glad we agree communism has literally never been implemented and never will be.

Then why do tankies exist? You're just science fiction nerds who hate anything else.

>communism hasn't been tried
It has within the confines of a state thank god.

>Then why do tankies exist?
To defend the political machinations of a brutal dictator running a centrally planned socialist state and ensuring one of their vassal states remains loyal.

>communism hasn't been tried
Nobody said that. I said nobody has implemented it. "Implemented" and "Tried" are not in the slightest fungible words.

(Also, trying to establish communism within the confines of a state is like trying to land on the moon within Earth's atmosphere. Sure, it's an attempt, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist or dialectical materialist to tell you that's fucking stupid.)

Hey guise Hitler wasn't a true National Socialist because he didn't implement true socialism

>this is how dumb you sound

Let me rephrase that- "within the confines of a border".

Eventually you will need a state to enforce communism simply because someone from either the inside or outside will try to implement capitalism. The concept of a stateless society is impossible unless you had complete control over the world populace- but that itself would be a state.

>Eventually you will need a state to enforce communism simply because someone from either the inside or outside will try to implement capitalism
Why on earth would you need a state to stop them doing that?
>but that itself would be a state.
Why does that have to be a state?

This is a more broad defence of the idea of a stateless society: Society can tell you to fuck off because it doesn't like you without a state intervening to do so. If you try to re-establish capitalism, I can walk over and do all sorts of things to stop that (such as singing ABBA songs outside to deter possible customers.) until you desist.

>but what if everyone...
We can't get everyone to agree that murder is wrong even in a society where the state enforces penalties and tells you it's wrong. Why the fuck would people who're even freer than we are become more homogeneous?

The institutions of the state are not necessary to enforce the will of society.

You are retarded. How old are you?
>I can walk over and do all sorts of things to stop that (such as singing ABBA songs outside to deter possible customers.) until you desist
And once that failed what would you do to stop the evil capitalist? Especially if he's being successful because he has no competition (because everyone else is just fighting for the scraps of society left after the revolution)
To practically try socialism/communism you need to force people into it. I'm sure you'll deny this historical fact but whatever stay ignorant

>And once that failed what would you do to stop the evil capitalist?
Are you sure it'd fail? I mean, come on, ABBA?

>after the revolution
There wasn't a revolution. For the purposes of the example, the state just disappeared one day. Nobody knows where it went.

>you need to force people into it
1. The general example was for any stateless society, so the viability of communism/socialism is irrelevant
2. You can force people to do things without a state and without being the state.

>I'm sure you'll deny this historical fact but whatever stay ignorant
It's rich that you call me ignorant when if you'd actually read the thread you'd see that in I stated that communism isn't happening period, meaning you can't even make it happen if you force people into it. Dunning and Kruger would be proud.

>There wasn't a revolution. For the purposes of the example, the state just disappeared one day. Nobody knows where it went.
Ok but that's a stupid hypothetical because it's literally impossible. Hypotheticals are only useful if they are realistic.
>can force people to do things without a state and without being the state.
how? If someone refuses to comply wouldn't you need to use force? In a world of states (real world) only the state is legally allowed to use violence. So in a stateless society anyone using force would be in effect reinstituting a state of some sort.

>Hypotheticals are only useful if they are realistic.
The purpose of the hypothetical is to provide a broad-base example of how individuals can interfere with one another's activities without getting bogged down in how a specific complex system would be maintained.

>If someone refuses to comply wouldn't you need to use force?
You don't need to be the state to use force.
>In a world of states (real world) only the state is legally allowed to use violence
Not strictly true, but even if it was: Laws can be altered or broken. Furthermore the laws of a society-of-states are irrelevant to a stateless society.
>So in a stateless society anyone using force would be in effect reinstituting a state of some sort
That's an utterly ridiculous notion, although if you want a world where everyone is a state unto themselves than so be it. You've denigrated "state" to a synonym for "Person", and we'll have to coin a new word for the institution that no longer exists. (Which we can do without state intervention, like we did with most words.)

He's Maoism taken to its logical conclusion, that modern society and cityfolk are innately corrupted by capitalist influences and that communism can only be obtained with a return to primitivism, under any circumstances.

>The purpose of the hypothetical is to provide a broad-base example of how individuals can interfere with one another's activities without getting bogged down in how a specific complex system would be maintained.
Yes but it's only useful if it's based in reality. The idea of a totally stateless society is not. The closest you would get is a place right after a government collapse/revolution and power vacuum that appears. You know what happens in those situations? Individuals form a new state and start enforcing it. You won't change that unless you change human nature. So hypotheticals about stateless and classless society's are stupid because they are not based at all in reality.
>That's an utterly ridiculous notion, although if you want a world where everyone is a state unto themselves than so be it. You've denigrated "state" to a synonym for "Person", and we'll have to coin a new word for the institution that no longer exists. (Which we can do without state intervention, like we did with most words.)
Ive designed "state" as the entity in society that is legally allowed to use force. So in a stateless society individuals would in effect become their own state. See hunter gathers.

>You know what happens in those situations? Individuals form a new state and start enforcing it.
That still leaves a period before a state existed (protip: your example of hunter-gathers indicates this has happened before, except they didn't know what a "state" was in advance and thus couldn't educate a populace to avoid re-creating one.)
>Ive designed "state" as the entity in society that is legally allowed to use force.
This assumes the institution of law, which isn't something that has always existed.
>So in a stateless society individuals would in effect become their own state
Or we'd have no law, and by your own definition no state.

>That still leaves a period before a state existed (protip: your example of hunter-gathers indicates this has happened before, except they didn't know what a "state" was in advance and thus couldn't educate a populace to avoid re-creating one.)
Has there ever been a power vacuum that was never filled by someone? Seriously?
>This assumes the institution of law, which isn't something that has always existed.
Social customs have always existed with consequences for disobeying then. That's animal nature (see what happens when a low ranking chimp tries to challenge the dominant male. (He gets a beat down like human societies do to dissidents)
>we'd have no law, and by your own definition no state.
No we'd have the laws of nature (might makes right, to the victory goes the spoils)
Sorry this is how the world works
Nothing personal kido

>Has there ever been a power vacuum that was never filled by someone?
They get filled eventually. That doesn't negate the intervening period.
>Social customs have always existed with consequences for disobeying then.
Indeed. They've even existed...get this... before the state did! And that's... how you stop bad things happening... without a state!
>we'd have the laws of nature
You're aware those aren't actually laws, right? We call them laws in analogy to the thing we invented.
Furthermore "Only the state may legitimately engage in violence" isn't actually part of the laws of nature (Otherwise that low ranking chimp would call the cops.)

>They get filled eventually. That doesn't negate the intervening period.
Ya but it shows a stateless society is impossible, rendering your hypothetical argument useless.
>>Social customs have always existed with consequences for disobeying then.
>Indeed. They've even existed...get this... before the state did! And that's... how you stop bad things happening... without a state!
They served as the proto-state. Where do you think laws came from originally? People just came up with them out of nowhere? Does a state require written laws to exist? If so most ancient empires wouldn't have actually existed besides in the natural law sense.
>You're aware those aren't actually laws, right? We call them laws in analogy to the thing we invented.
Furthermore "Only the state may legitimately engage in violence" isn't actually part of the laws of nature (Otherwise that low ranking chimp would call the cops.)
They describe what the rules of the real world are and that is if you can use force for something then you have every right to take it. Our civil laws prevent these natural laws from dominating society like they have/do in many parts of the world.

I'm going to bed.
In the meantime, have fun vandalizing this article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society

Not an argument

It's not intended to be an argument, it's a suggestion of a way to keep yourself occupied while I'm gone. I'll reply to your inanities in the morning.

Ok

Pol Pot was a nationalist. Most of his victims were leftists.

All communist movements were implicitly nationalist back then though.

That's the asian communism, of which none were communist either but rather some form of totalitarian socialism.

Pol Pot was anti-Soviet, more closely aligned to China and the US

Pol Pot's society looked very similar to your ideal. It was rigidly hierarchical, with an emphasis on enforcing tradition and purging propose incompatible with this societal ideal.