Why hasn't there ever been a communist society that allowed freedom of speech?

There's never been a communist society, because a communist society has no state and no market economy by definition.

However, there have been a lot of governments trying to create a communist society. The Leninist model is for a small group of educated and talented people to oversee the transition to communism. This means there's not much room for disagreement.

None of the 20th century governments actually established communism, so all that repression was for naught.

>Real Gommunism has neber Ben dried :DD

Benis

paris commune

b-but real c-communism hasn't been tried

>implying freedom of speech exists

Y-yes Schlomo Shekelstein I would be totally delighted if my daughter married a black man and all races are fundamentally equal, p-please don't fire me and ruin my career...

What about the Socialism with human face?

Freedom of speech in the territories compromising the historical russian and chinese empires have always been a bit missing. During the revolutionary periods folks had freedom of speech, but less because it was enshrined as a value but because no one was really around to enforce speech. Nobody except small liberal parties bothered to make mention of the concept.

>russia tries new thing
>remains a starving dictatorship
>let's blame the thing

>tfw can't get a swastika tattoo and yell "HEIL HITLER" in public without people getting mad at me

When will the jews stop oppressing me?

Because communism is one of those ideologies that you can use to justify any sort of atrocity or violation of human rights by simply stating "Its for the benefit of the Working class". It's the same way with Fascism and Neo-Liberalism in their attempts to justify suppressing opinions they don't like.

Because Communism is an ideology, and anything that goes against someone's ideology is perceived as a threat. Thus, they feel they need to suppress dissenting opinions that make them question the faith in their ideology.

Essentially, it's a religion.

>Freedom of speech in the territories compromising the historical russian and chinese empires.
Bruh Idk about you, but at least Russian and Chinese empires could take political satire.

In the Chink Empire alone you have poets making fun of government decisions all the time. So long as nobody was really shouting "overthrow the empra!" they just leave you alone.

Because capitalism wants to destroy communism.

How is this difficult to understand you ass clowns.

>One political system wants to destroy another political system
>Therefore shut up and think what I want you to think
What?

Maybe you should have a better political system than if you can't handle someone pointing out its flaws in comparison to another one?

Stalin was a dictator, dictatorships destroy free speech because barring taking up arms that is the only form of rebellion against the leader, most attempted transitions into communism have been dictatorships, do the math.

All true. Now you just have to apply this same logic to the prevailing liberal-democratic form of dictatorship for your stale, boring argument to be transformed into something of substance. Unfortunately, we both know you're too much of a slave for that.

>30 million Ukrainians

So the entire population of Ukraine in 1930? I'm just wondering, how is it that millions of Ukrainians fought and died in WW2 a couple of years later? Do people just respawn like in videogames?

You see any stateless, classless societies anywhere?

Yes, the USSR in the late 80s. Sadly they had a nasty allergic reaction.

>Freedom of speech was valued in Imperial China
During the Ming Dynasty scholars demanded that the emperor not criminalize speech and they succeeded.

This is probably the best answer

Because they're inevitably European, and Euros don't believe in freedom of speech.

>freeze peach
>>/tumblr/

Real fascism/anarchism/theocracy has never been tried because they didn't turn out exactly as advocates predicted.

Where do you think you are?

asians dont believe in freedom of speech either so this holds true

If people are allowed to criticize the government, they might point out that it's not working very well.
We can't have that in ideological dreamland.

>control the largest country in the world with an iron fist
>still can't supply food to everyone
>still can't implement your ideology fully even with unilateral control for over 60 years
Communism is a dead joke.

You seen an ideology such as communism that didn't require a dictatorship to kill off the opposing population that works without a state?

> mean words are worse than death
Leftists everyone

More accurately, speech is just a component of physical warfare, ideology perpetuates violence. Which is why free speech never has and never will exist anywhere.

> speech is just a component of physical warfare
[Citation needed]

I shouldn't really have to explain anything, this is very self-evident. By advocating a certain social order, you necessarily advocate violence, which all society is founded on. This is as true for nazis defending their statism as it is for proponents of "freedom of speech."

entertaining ideology =/= advocating ideology
advocating ideology =/= implementing ideology
This shit is why no one takes commies seriously.

I'm no communist, just someone who understands you're a braindead puppet of American statism. By preaching it's gospel you implement it's ideology. There can be no serious debate against this point. The mass killings that are a necessary consequence of all states don't just appear out of then air, they begin with simple conversation.

I have no love for the American state or it's founding ideals. In fact I don't even necessarily support freedom of speech, but my reasons for not supporting it don't include illogical crap like "advocating a certain social order, you necessarily advocate violence" you low IQ anarchist fool.