Has Communism ever actually been put into practice?

>hey guise have you heard about X?
>it's fucking awesome bruh, you should totes check it out
>here, let me lead you towards X
>years roll by
>wtf dude X is fucking shit, im starving and tired of getting shot/jailed this is nothing like what you described
>haha dude I was only leading you towards X
>It can't be X because X is unreachable yet
>so....should we try reaching X again?

is this a boy

Yes and thats a good thing.

FAT PUSSY

In the communist manifesto Marx stated that communism was the goal of a stateless, classless, moneyless society. so you answer that yourself.

many communists like me feel disgust at Mao or Stalin for what they did. they're fascists with communist symbols.

That sounds like capitalism and the R&D cycle of start ups and entrepreneurship that drive technological advancement. If you want to bring a product to market and at first you don't succeed, learn from your own and other's mistakes, change things up, and try again. First one to market is the winner.

>not being a socialist
>socialism is just a stepping stone
>designing your socialism to be a shortcut to communism instead of functioning socialism
kys

I thought the same thing, then realized it's probably a dick.

>In the communist manifesto Marx stated that communism was the goal of a stateless, classless, moneyless society. so you answer that yourself.
true
>many communists like me feel disgust at Mao or Stalin for what they did. they're fascists with communist symbols.
kys faggot

Yes but only in small communes

It works fine when every single member of the community is genuinely dedicated to the ideology

The CNT shouldn't have sided with the republicans. An anarchist society is the real Marxist prerogative, socialism is just bastardizing Marx's work so that oligarchs can gain control under a progressive facade. Just look at China and Venezuela.

It is

Its actually a guy

>real communism has never been tried
>communist revolutions by communist revolutionaries have ousted the capitalist or monarchist governments
>the communists installed their own government
>the result was invariably mass murder and terrible quality of life
>therefore, real communism is impossible to implement, and any attempt is ultimately concluded with mass murder and starvation

If you're looking for """communism"""", go to a 30~ person commune in Nor-Cal or the PNW. State communism is an oxymoron, by the "real communism-" camp's logic.

>"The problem with communism is greed/human nature!'

I hate people who say this. The problem with communism is that centrally planning the economy, even at the local level, is extremely inefficient, bad at predicting people's future wants and needs, and thus results in shortages and surpluses. Some goods rot on the shelves for overshooting demand, while others are so short the people wait in breadlines.

The reason communist states fail is because of that inherent inefficiency, not because people can't be made to be generous at the barrel of a gun. They most certainly can, it just doesn't help the system.

The debate between what we commonly call Communism [which is Marxist Socialist Dictatorship] and """True Communism""" which is a series of stateless communes is mostly just a debate on whether the economy will be managed at the national level or the local level, and thus does nothing for the fundamental flaw of Communist Ideology, which is Central Planning itself. Even a small town or a city-state would find itself in poverty trying to manage the entire economy through experts and bureaucrats. The so-called State Capitalist, Fake Communist states were socialistic in all but one respect, that they were managed [per Marx's instructions as a temporary transition phase] by a large state instead of by no-state.

Not that this makes any difference, a True Communist society would [in addition to falling into all the problems with Anarchism] still suffer from being managed at the local level.

>private companies competing is the same as a socialist state making you bogus promises
only commietards could make such leaps of logic

>Mao and Stalin were fascists haha

Wew left come on. You people have no responsibility for your own history. You simply play No True Scotsman with everyone from your history.

Damn...source? Age?

Well, not that user, but, you can look at their proclaimed ideologies, and you can look at what they actually implemented, and do the math.

The no true commie fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example

The No True Commie fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Mao, an communist, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Communist puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Commie’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Mao puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Commie puts sugar on his porridge.

Therefore:

(3) Mao is not a (true) Commie.
Therefore:

(4) Mao is not a counter-example to the claim that no Commie puts sugar on his porridge.

Yes, and hundreds of millions of human beings were murdered because of it.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

Real-World Examples

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Communist’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

>a startup fails again
>investors have to write off some money in the process

>an attempt at communism fails again
>millions starve and die in misery

I got bad news for ya.

You're both missing the point. Mao and Stalin were true commies and the apologists like to dismiss that by using the tired "MUH STATE CAPITALISM" meme. Problem with that is, state capitalism was defined and advocated by Lenin as a stepping stone to fastforwarding Russia from feudalism to capitalism asap, so he could then impose socialism upon it. That's the heart of policies like NEP where he enabled the kulaks some degree of economic autonomy and private landholding in order to get Russia out of its bankruptcy due to war communism (the economic policies of the bolshevik civil war). It was meant as a 5-year plan and ran all the way to 1928, well after Lenin's death. I have no doubt Lenin would have carried on with it if he didn't succumb to his sclerosis so early.

Pushing "state capitalism", overseen by the bolshevik vanguards, is literally the heart of Marxist-Leninism. That Stalin got into dispute with the rest of the politburo and purged his rivals in successive waves does nothing to change that. When it became clear the initial 5-year plan did quite work so well, they pushed through yet another 5-year plan. This time with the focus on industrialism rather than agriculture. And once that one was other, he pushed yet another through the door. The ultimate goal being the same everything : lifting russia from feudalism all the way through, and past capitalism, to reach the socialism stage as quickly as possible.

And Mao did just the same from 1949 onwards with his various land reforms and great leap forward (mass collectivization of farm lands and backyard furnaces to accelerate industrialism).

At the end of the day, if you want to reject Mao & Stalin's policies, then you must reject Leninism as well. And if you do so, then you essentially have nothing in the real world that matches a "true attempt" at communism.

No communism is the end of history dum dum

there's always a CIA coup ready to stop it when it might, for shitposting people like look up the makhnovchina and anarchist Catalonia

Technically no, put that's because communism is a utopian fantasy.

>Fascists

State capitalism is not fascism unless you're a literal sperg Anarcho commie fag/tankie, in which case everything is capitalism unless it's communism.

Pretty sure that is a guy..

It is, his name is Dmitri. I have his intragram.

Kekalonia meme wasn't halted by the CIA though.

Thats a dude

We know.

you're a dude

show instagram

>you

>implying
Lilienthal's gliders worked, you double nigger. If you're going to bring up a retarded unrelated point at least get the goddamn facts right.

...

>this is what commies actually believe

give sauce

False equivalence. Communism has been tried and failed and now we don't do that anymore.

Also Icarus was the one with the wax wings.

He got banned for showing his tesla coils

show said tesla coils

fucking anyone who spouts communist bullshit and whole heartedly believes it should be thrown into the woods with nothing but a leaf covering their ball sack. With no way to earn anything.

at least give name or username m8 pls

but it wasn't true communism.

It's inherently impossible because it requires a massively centralized dictatorship to implement. And what happens with absolute power? Absolute corruption.

Communism is a pipedream. It's one of those superheavy elements that can only exist in a lab for a few seconds.

It's not a guy.
Try google.

i did

>Marxism is utopian
Confirmed for never reading Marx or Angels

Then here you go friend but you must make an account first. It's basically European Facebook.
vk dot com slash blacktori

awww it's a girl...

I think the inversion of time we allow communist theory to operate is completely unjustified and unwarranted.

With every other ideology, we judge the political movement which defends it according to the history of its success or failure, to the policies it enacted, to its results in the real world.

With communism we invert this logic. We create an imaginary utopia and judge real world movements and regimes according to how they compare to it. If they fall short, they aren't real communism.

If we did that to other ideologies, we would never be able to consider the regimes of Louis XIV and James I to be based on the "divine rights of kings", since even they didn't have the absolute power (not to mention the lack of actual divine mandate) associated with the theory. Neither can we consider Ataturk's Turkey or the French Republic "secularist", since religion still manage to cling to political power.

The very fact that we grant this privilege to communism, and communism only, is proof of its hegemony.

Lewd as fuck. I guess we know her gender now though.

Damn..

That's a girl alright. You know this is a blue board right?

Sauce for the love of God.

My favourite thing about communism and comminists is how they demand the use of machinery that only capitalist societies provide.

Until they make their own?