Why has every implication of communism led to millions of deaths...

Why has every implication of communism led to millions of deaths? Is there just something wrong with the fundamental philosophy behind it?

Other urls found in this thread:

dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/comanar.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escambray_Rebellion
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You know the dimwitted chucklefuck who rings you up at walgreens?

Communists and anarchists want him and all of his friends to make decisions effecting the entirety of society via direct democracy.

>human beings abuse power
>concentrate absolute power in small cadre of human beings
>everyone outside of this small cadre gets mercilessly cornholed

Thus we have arrived at the following conclusions: Attempts at Communism have hitherto failed because:

[1] They were based on an impetus of a religious character instead of considering a community simply as a means of economic consumption and production,
[2] They isolated themselves from society,
[3] They were imbued with an authoritarian spirit,
[41 They were isolated instead of federated,
[5] They required of their members so much labour as to leave them no leisure time, and
[6] They were modelled on the form of the patriarchal family instead of having for an aim the fullest possible emancipation of the individual.

Communism, being an eminently economic institution, does not in any way prejudice the amount of liberty guaranteed to the individual, the initiator, the rebel against crystallising customs. It may be authoritarian, which necessarily leads to the death of the community, and it may be libertarian, which in the twelfth century even under the partial communism of the young cities of that age, led to the creation of a young civilisation full of vigour, a new springtide of Europe.

The only durable form of Communism, however, is one under which, seeing the close contact between fellow men it brings about, every effort would be made to extend the liberty of the individual in all directions.

Under such conditions, under the influence of this idea, the liberty of the individual, increased already by the amount of leisure secured to him, will be curtailed in no other way than occurs today by municipal gas, the house to house delivery of food by great stores, modern hotels, or by the fact that during working hours we work side by side with thousands of fellow labourers.

With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible. Without it, it necessarily becomes slavery and cannot exist.

Communism and Anarchy

by Peter Kropotkin

Freedom: July, p. 30. - August, p. 38, 1901.
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/comanar.html

This applies to all forms of association. Cohabitation of two individuals under the same roof may lead to the enslavement of one by the will of the other, as it may also lead to liberty for both. The same applies to the family or to the co-operation of two persons in gardening or in bringing out a paper. The same with regard to large or small associations, to each social institution. Thus, in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, we find communes of equals, men equally free - and four centuries later we see the same commune calling for the dictatorship of a priest. Judges and laws had remained; the idea of the Roman law, of the State had become dominant, whilst those of freedom, of settling disputes by arbitration and of applying federalism to its fullest extent had disappeared; hence arose slavery. Well, of all institutions or forms of social organisation that have been tried until this day, Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty - provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy.

Yeah man, Cuba for instance caused millions of deaths. Or Hungary. Poland polocausted the shit outta themselves!
>Why did the US cause 20-30 million deaths through war and sanctions since 1945 in the Name of Freedom?

Because the modern US and the Soviet Union were fundamentally of the same character?

That's false though. Millions died in famines in the Soviet Union and Red China, but millions died in famines in the Russian Empire and Imperial China.

Red terror only happened when paranoid opportunists like Stalin and Pol Pot decided to eliminate all potential threats to their power. The construction of socialism in Cuba, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, and Nicaragua didn't involve any mass slaughter because these states were not dominated by brutal dictators.

The only one of those that didn't involve mass slaughter was Nicaragua.

You've made this thread twice before, both times with the same image, both times people explained to you where you are wrong, and both times you abandoned the thread after that point.

Nah, that would be too easy. Maybe because power corrupts though. Or because capitalism is just a deadly ideology as communism is.

>Why has every implication of communism led to millions of deaths?
>implication
You're using that word wrong

Trying to plan an economy with 20th century means is a bad idea, especially in the kind of backwards states in which communist revolutions are most likely to succeed.

Good post

Ah yes the notorious holocaust of Fidel Castro... how can I forget that Che Guevara personally killed 8 billion people?

>Millions died in famines in the Soviet Union and Red China, but millions died in famines in the Russian Empire and Imperial China.

Well the difference is that famine seems like a feature of Marxist-Leninism, whereas famine in a capitalist market is an error.

>concentrate absolute power in small cadre of human beings
The vanguard party was Lenin's meme, Marx was against it.

Famines are a constant in huge underdeveloped states

nvr 4get

Yes, and that's usually because they are corrupt and have extremely low levels of public trust, not because they are capitalistic.

>vietnam not mass slaughter

>Well the difference is that famine seems like a feature of Marxist-Leninism, whereas famine in a capitalist market is an error.

Pls be bait

Absolutely not. If not for the capitalism in these societies, Indian and Congolese farmers would be forced to surrender their crops to foreign buyers or leave the farms for urban wage labor.

I hate Bolshevism

No it's usually because they're aren't producing extremely high levels of consumer surplus due to the fact that they're underdeveloped or developing.

Good to have something defining you as a person.

>due to the fact that they're underdeveloped or developing.

Yeah and the fact that they are underdeveloped is because there is insane levels of corruption and no public trust.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escambray_Rebellion

>what is the gilded age

A period of steady GDP growth and peace?

And an absolutely horrific time to live if you weren't a rich European/Jap

Most of history has been horrific to live in for most people. This isn't unique to capitalism. It's endemic to life.

It's so obvious that Marxism is about resentment when you talk like this.

Most of history has been horrific to live in for most people. This isn't unique to capitalism. It's endemic to life.

Yes, the history of the world is a history of class struggle. It's good to see that you agree with Marx.

>Yes, the history of the world is a history of class struggle. It's good to see that you agree with Marx.

That's not what I said.

It is, you just didn't use those exact words.

Resentment of brutal conditions is a good thing. Why shouldn't we move on to a more equitable form of society, just as we moved from feudalism to capitalism?

No, it's not. Stop putting words into my mouth.

The fact humans had to do backbreaking farm work for most of history doesn't make dialectical materialism correct.

>Resentment of brutal conditions is a good thing

No it's not. Resentment isn't a good thing at all. Because it can only produce negativity.

Do you honestly think that resentment will produce something positive? No it won't.

And this is just compounded by the fact that 90% of people who adhere to Marxist theory are themselves bourgeoisie who simply resent the fact that they themselves aren't upper class, and have no solidarity with workers.

Kerensky was right. Progressive reforms, slow and in a controlled way. Not killing and exiling everyone is a good thing.

>yfw Lenin took the Robespierre memes in a serious way

I remember he said something about the French Revolution, something about they didn't kill enough people.

What the fuck are you?

All social progress has happened because there was a problem somebody wanted to solve.

Yes, communism has a deeply flawed myopic view of the world that is useful to dictators and corrupt politicians.

>Why does an ideology that believes it is not only moral, but a moral imperative for those without property to steal from those with property result in millions of deaths whenever it's implemented?

It is a mystery.

>All social progress has happened because there was a problem somebody wanted to solve.

"Social progress" is a meme Rousseau. There is no such thing.