What went wrong?

You cant try something that is impossible to set up in the first place

It was Gorbachev
Seriously fuck Gorbachev

People.

If only Rosa had succeeded

>communism is supposed to be an evolution of social democracy
>social democracies are relatively stable/happy so they don't want radical change
>undeveloped agrarian shitholes want radical change so they jump straight to communism

Communism HAS been tried, but only by retards.

Yes you can, you just can't succeed.

Socialism; not even once

>If only Rosa had succeeded
Germany would be a shithole

>>communism is supposed to be an evolution of social democracy
Social democracy is an off shot of Marxism

It was me
Seriously, fuck me

please.

>no scotsman puts bananas on his tacos
>phil puts bananas on his tacos
>phil is moroccan, not a scotsman
>NO TRUE SCOTSMAN LOL

that's retarded. without socialism lenin is nothing

Attempting to supplant the nonexistent proletariat with a vanguard party. Agrarian countries aren't ready for communism per Marx, as they must go through industrial capitalism first.

People often blame this on ideology but it's more likely that Slavs are simply incapable of maintaining a functional state.

Why?

As compared to post-nazi Germany, or where Germany is headed now.

> What is Imperial Russia

> What is Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

> What is Bulgar Khanate

> Implying the USSR wasn't a superpower

> TFW 75 years later and Gunther is still butthurt

Marxism-Leninism
Almost every "communist" state followed it.

Nah. It was Stalin.

And the few that didn't mostly got shut down by Marxist Leninists. People like like to blame Stalin because Stalin was a dictator, but it was Marxism Leninism that primed socialists revolutions to lead into dictatorship.

It existing.
FPBP

Thinking about the short term consequence of taking russia out of the war without considering the long term consequence of gifting the biggest country in the world to a retarded nonsense ideology

Anything but this is wrong

I'm not convinced it's Marxism Leninism in it's core. But the first Marxist Leninist experiment turned into a bureaucratic, undemocratic mess and that model was exported and followed in all the other revolutions.

I read The State and Revolution and Lenin's ideas are much more libertarian (not in the american right wing ancap sense) than I had thought

How in the ever loving fuck did you think this made enough coherent sense to post?

Repressions, censorship, despotism, cult of personality, shitty planned economy, bureaucracy, Stalin instead of Trotsky...
"People are leaving East Germany for better living conditions? Maybe that tells that something needs improvement in our system? Nah, just build a wall so they can't escape. Oh the people in Chechoslovakia want a more democratic and free society? Send half a million troops to shut em down."
Unironic defenders of marxism-leninism and the actions of the Soviet Union are retards.

not taking basic human nature into account

>the communist revolutionary that failed was the one who would be the real thing

It's always the same. People love the Sankaras of the world, and pretend the Mengistus never existed.

Had Hugo Chávez been deposed in 2002, we would be hearing how "if only Hugo Chávez wasn't deposed in a U.S. backed coup, socialism of the 21st century would have worked in Venezuela".

>Wow countries that are actually sabotaged by outside forces that engaged in everything from full bombardment and threat of nuclear winter to proxy wars failed lol

Is there a single country in the world who is not being continuously sabotaged by hostile, outside forces?

At least communist countries were mostly safe from internal sabotage. While communists were free to sabotage other countries.

This.

>successful commie takeover
>Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Mugabe, Gottwald, Honecker
IT WASN'T REAL SOCIALISM

>unsuccessful commie takeover
>Sankara, Lumumba, Rosa Luxemburg, Durruti, Allende
IT WOULD TOTALLY BE REAL SOCIALISM IF THE DIRTY CAPITALISTS DIDN'T KILL THEM

You mean like the US?

>sabotaged by outside forces
Communist infiltration in the press and the academia

>threat of nuclear winter
"We will bury you"

>proxy wars
Vietnam

>communism only works if it exists in a bubble where there are no opposing outside forces and everyone acts on the interest of the collective rather than the self

You're actually right, commie. This is what we've been trying to tell you for decades.

I have not seen an actual Luxemburgist socialist revolution.

It would end up like every other socialist revolution that ever happened.

Scarcity.

Maybe once we're readily mining Asteroids, we can have True Communism, but not now

Thinking that Communism would thrive in successful Capitalist Countries instead of shitholes like Russia and China where Peasants were looking for an excuse to chimp out

It would help to start in a democracy of some sort.

Socialism can deal with scarcity though.

>Socialism can deal with scarcity though
It just chooses not to?

>democracy
Most people don't want communism, so good luck with that.

The anti-cap anti-market ones, yes. Just use market socialism and you have the same mechanism for deal with scarcity as capitalism does. The only difference is capital is socially controlled instead of privately owned.

>Communist infiltration in the press and the academia
Are you implying that the US didn't have spies in the URSS? Because that would mean incompetence.

>"We will bury you"
A mistranslation.

>Vietnam
The US wasn't forced into any proxy war and never fought one on its own soil. It is as responsible for the proxy wars all around the world as the URSS, and has a similarly deplorable performance.

You're retarded.

Asking because of curiosity, is it really that much different than social democrat market system in practice though? I think there must be some positions which represents that ''ownership of society''. If there are, aren't they like capitalists in social democratic economies? And are there any practical examples for market socialism?

>Asking because of curiosity, is it really that much different than social democrat market system in practice though?
Huge difference. Social democracy you tax rich capitalists who privately own capital to pay for workers. In democratic socialism, you tax workers, or collect dividends from the surplus product created by the socially owned capital, and the revenue is spent towards the workers.

In one system, you have class conflict. The rich capitalists feel entitled to what they own. The workers want as much as they can take from the capitalists. Not to mention capitalists can flee the country with their capital.

In the other, you have the people paying from taxes also being the beneficiaries of the taxes, so they'll try to tax themselves at a reasonable level, and spend at a reasonable level, because they money isn't coming from someone else, and it's not going to someone else.

Everything. Communism is inherently cancerous.

Gee OP that's a pretty tough question. I suppose to answer your question I first need t-[COLLAPSE]

The communists believe that hierarchy exists because of capitlaism but any system where things are shared or collectively owned have the most brutal hierarchy because someone will always have more of a right to those things than other. In capitalism at least you know what you own and that the right to own it is protected.

>you have the people paying from taxes also being the beneficiaries of the taxes, so they'll try to tax themselves at a reasonable level

except that they will absolutely fight on what that money will be spent on and you will have new divisions.

>socialism
>not successful

i will agree it doesnt work 99% of the time but when you have a group of people that all have the same values and fight for each other it works damn well and creates the strongest nations we've ever seen. you just have to kick out all the degenerates and hope other countries dont get jealous.

>banks get mad at germany
>rally world against germany
>jews subvert germany for the next 60 years

really activates my almonds senpai.

A Georgian

>People's backgrounds determine their political preferences and their future policies
Maximum Ad Hominem

>national socialist
>socialist

Of course they will. The point of socialism is to reduce contradiction. Social democracy increases contradiction by not treating the cause, but rather the effect. It's not that socialism magically fixes everything and makes everything perfect. That's a retarded argument.

Rosa was atheist

>hand power to soviets
Here "soviets" means communes not Russia

Why do people call the Soviet Union a failure again?

The British Empire was well on a downward spiral by the beginning of the 20th century and the German Empire was a nonstarter. The Soviet Union was the only thing that remotely competed with the US economically and militarily.

Modern Russia now is worse off under Putin than it was under the politiburo. At least back then researchers saw money to do shit like the space race. Now there's nothing in Russian academia.

Back to /pol/ with you

>Why do people call the Soviet Union a failure again?
Because it was a generated worker's state

>socialism in one nation