Lol just seize the means of production

oh look another strawman. I didn't claim it was never tried. All I did was say that you ignored the topic of whether or not the communist regimes were in fact communist in the sense that Marx meant. Even if my post indicated that I took a position in that debate, which it didn't, it is unrelated to the question of whether or not those communist regimes actually tried to be communist.

I agree with you that communism in the sense that Marx meant has been tried. So what can you add to this discussion that isn't just more empty words?

>b-but TRUE communism has never been tried
huh, it's almost like there's a pattern in which Marxist ideals are ALWAYS corrupted whenever communism is implemented

I'll tell you that marxism as a goal should be abandoned.

Marx himself proscribed his naive future as 'a natural progression'.

And so stop trying. Because actually trying Marxism, according to Marx, isn't real Marxism.

And don't ever try to take over another State. You crazies fucked that up too many times.

marx argued that natural progression is naive because the capital controls all the power structures (state military etc) so the parties needed to seize the power through revolutions.
not trying to defend communism, but that's not an argument

if the implementation of adam smith's ideas led invariably to mass starvation, misery, and millions of deaths literally every single time it was tried, then yes, that would be a perfectly good repudiation of his ideas

"The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain,
Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.
See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me. -
For me beats the time and gives the signs.
Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.[p.12]"

see: However, you bring up another topic of debate which would be worth discussing, which is whether or not implementing Marxist ideals will always be corrupted. I believe that through failures people have learned what not to do, what approaches not to take, and so on. For example, when a company is doing R&D on a product do they just say it's impossible to make it succeed if they fail many times in a row? No, they learn from their mistakes and go about different ways of achieving the desired results. However, this just highlights how the Marxists of the past were not entirely representative of Marx's views because their actions weren't entirely in line with what he advocated.

There are many Marxists who agree with you actually.

You missed the point of the post entirely. The post was meant to show how stating a claim means nothing if you don't back it up. The fact that you debunked the claim I made means nothing because I never intended it to have any support in the first place.

>Maybe call him like the "employer" and his subjects the "employees"

that would be a confusing naming scheme since an actual employer accumulates wealth instead of redistributing it

Can someone give me an instance where communism worked?

You think people don't starve under capitalism?

...

Marx didn't belive in States and therefore you have no business trying to forceably take one over. Thus you must wait until States themselves each an abundance where they themselves are no longer needed.

Then States will phase out and communism will occur naturally. Of course here will be generations of intermixing.

The point is attacking sovereign people with intent to force a communist State up in them is evil. And it's not Marxism. You maybe want anarcho-maoism.

That's just coup shit and coup shit is always bad for the people involved.

communism has never been tried

they keep trying to force it like horny teenagers

>maybe if I keep saying it, it will be true

20th century communism still had private ownership over the means of production and was therefore a form of capitalism, meaning that all the rightards mad about MUH GULAGS and MUH STALIN are actually mad about capitalism

Haha he's right you know

On a long enough timeline everyone will meld into one entity which equally shares all goods and productivity like a global Indian tribe.

But I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep

Yeah so maybe those faggots shouldn't have revolted like retards causing catastrophic systematic failures to their own societies!!!!

Can commies at least admit that capitalism (after a few socialist reforms) is doing pretty alright and that communism has a pretty bad track record. Why do you all act shocked when someone criticises you retarded ideology?

This is probably the best time to be a human (in the developed world anyway) and it's not because of communism

The best part about "capitalism" is that it used not to harass the bohemians too much.

>Can commies at least admit that capitalism (after a few socialist reforms) is doing pretty alright
most of us do
>and that communism has a pretty bad track record.
most of us do
>Why do you all act shocked when someone criticises you retarded ideology?
most of us don't
>This is probably the best time to be a human (in the developed world anyway)
most of us agree
>and it's not because of communism
most of us agree

I think you're forgetting that communists view capitalism as a stage of development superior to all that came before it.

>This is probably the best time to be a human (in the developed world anyway)

well, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? your relative comfort is inextricably linked to mass suffering and exploitation elsewhere. capitalist ideology means that when you say "human", you're thinking about a well-fed american playing his video games, and everyone else gets dismissed in a parenthetical afterthought. everyone is doing great under capitalism because if you're not doing great you don't count. what if one day you find yourself among those who don't count?

It's a slippery slope from cheeseburgers to heroin.

I'd say suffering miners in the congo has more to do with imperialism and consumerism than the actual system of capitalism.

>the undeveloped world is suffering because we let people own private businesses
Oh that's right, I forgot, communists are retarded

Have you even read the Wealth of Nations?

Adam Smith wrote about market economies. He had bad things to say about (((landlords))) and (((those that live by profit)))

lel /leftypol/ is appropriating ironic antisemitism now, oh how low they will sink to proselytize the good word of prophet marx

Seriously: 'OK' Began as a Joke in a Newspaper in Boston in 1839

>hurr Marx is shit because he didn't lay out his plans for the future
>never mind that 99.9% of his works is the analysis of the political economy in the age of high industrialization
ITT: Memes and people that never read Marx.

Almost exactly 16 years ago, 'The Simpsons' joked Trump would become president, bankrupting the country

neat

>bankrupting the county

Hahahahah you stupid mong we're already nearly 20 TRILLION with a T in debt.

usdebtclock.org/

This is much more than our GDP.

If we were an LLC we would be bankrupt. We are insolvent and only our military spending (50% of the world budget on military) keeps us from utter collapse.

>ifonlytheyknewhowbaditreallywas.jpeg

...

That is a genuine argument, though.

>bankrupting the country
what did he mean by this

No, it wasn't ever implemented, because it is nigh impossible to do so. Even fucking United States of Soviet Russia never claimed to be communist state, but that communism was the end goal.

...

You won't get to communism by hijacking States.

>not being strasserist

>nepotism amongst those who are supposed to distribute the wealth? Lol why would that happen? You worry too much
Actually he was perfectly aware this was likely to happen which is why in Marxs theory Communism could only happen after the global uprising of the working class. Later theorists replaced that with "Socialism" as a in-between step to replace the global uprising of the working class which wasn't going to happen anyway.

yes, the privately-controlled exploitation of the congo was vastly more efficient at generating suffering than any state controlled system of enslavement

if you separate the terrible effects of capitalism into their own categories then of course "the actual system" is blameless. that's the ideological mystification at work.

So Communists can't be imperial? You mean the soviets chinese didn't swallow up all those states? They never caused suffering? There was never mass famine within there own borders?

The demonization of communism isn't just a meme started by US propaganda. Communism deserves all the hate it gets.

i don't know if you've noticed, but i'm not even advocating communism specifically, i'm simply criticizing capitalism. it's pretty revealing that you can't muster a defense of capitalism and have to resort to "but the soviet union". the soviet union was bad and is gone. what do we do about the staggering injustice that still exists?

>So Communists can't be imperial? You mean the soviets chinese didn't swallow up all those states? They never caused suffering?
Are you claiming there is any sort of state philosophy or economical theory that has never been used by any nation that caused suffering?
Are you really this brainwashed and deluded?

I could say the same thing about Capitalism, Democracy, Monarchism.. And the list goes on really.
Yet those don't get "demonized", so yes, it quite literally is a meme.

What i'm saying is that imperialism is the main problem and that imperialism isn't inheirent to any economic ideologies. But Castroboos love to imply that imperialism and capitalism come part and parcel

Because there are good examples of all this goverment types out there, a lot of them. Communism doesn't have that. That and the cold war are the cause of it's bad rep

Marxism
>The philosophies of Marx and Engels, mostly a criticism of contemporary systems of power and the flaws inherent to capitalism.
Socialism
>Worker ownership of the means of production, imagined as being the natural successor to capitalism
Communism
Communism
>A utopian ideal of a classless, stateless, and moneyless society.

Learn what words mean, /pol/.

The thing about capitalism is that it actively encourages imperialism because state sovereignty is always an obstacle to capital.

Obesity is rampant among the poorest in capitalist scoeities, that's how little starvation there is

Why are Americans so fat then?

you can't just divide shit up and judge everything in isolation. modern capitalism is global. the fat american is made possible by exploitation elsewhere.

it's absurd to talk about "capitalism in america" when everything in america says "made in china" on it.

>among the poorest

A lot of people straight-up starve in America. Also,

well thats because the market is skewed towards fast and junk food. thats all that poor people have consistent access to. obesity is not a sign of riches, its a sign of poverty. its the rich that have the time and money to stay in shape.

Yeah, mounds of fat resulting excess caloric intake is now a sign of poverty in a capitalist country. That's where we're at, and every year millions of people around the world are moving away from emaciated commie poverty to glorious gelatinous capitalist poverty

There's people in countries who have to create the commodities we use and consume, their living standards are incredibly low in comparison to us, this is an absurd level of fuckyougotmine