Why is this board so pro-communism?

They were only resisting and killing the authoritarians in the first place you retard.

What if a few workers decide they want to exclusively control the means of production in their limited sphere?

What if a worker acquires enough wealth through his hard work to buy or produce newer means op production?

You literally cannot enforce communism without a central authority that doesn't believe in property rights.

Whenever people talk about the USSR they only take examples from Lenin and Stalin. Life in the Soviet Union was quite nice from the 1950s-1991.
My family is from it.

A singular, cohesive "means of production" and the mid-19th century utopian definition of communism are irrelevant. To quote a historian friend and Labour Party activist of mine on another forum (thread discussing the functional differences between socialism and communism):

>Socialism is like Liberals or Conservatism in that it a very broad term that encompasses a very wide range of political tendencies and movements, many of which have almost nothing in common with each other. At its most basic it denotes support for the transfer of political and economic power from elite groups into the hands of the common people and the subsequent creation of a more egalitarian society. The term became more restrictively applied during the 20th century than had previously been the case and tended to denote support for the policies of various Socialist parties (much as had long been the case for Liberalism and Conservatism) many of which were explicitly Marxist or Marxist influenced and/or influenced by other forms of Utopian Modernism. In the West the Cold War led to the abandonment (gradual in some cases, very sudden in others) of the Marxist and/or Utopian legacy by the various Socialist parties and the subsequent diffusion of the term, a process hastened by the political and intellectual turmoil of the late 1960s and the emergence of the New Left. In the East the term was used to describe the society and system of government created by the various Communist regimes, while in the Third World it typically (though not entirely) denoted a form of enthusiastic Modernist folly. The collapse of the Soviet Union has ultimately meant (though it has taken a while) that we're back to where we began, almost.

>The term Communism has two principle uses, one of which was rendered entirely archaic by the other. In the 19th century it was often used to denote any society in which goods and property were held in common, and this is what Marx meant when he used it. After the October Revolution it came to denote exclusively the political and economic system established in the Soviet Union and support for that system or (in the West) support for a tragically idealised version of that system. I believe that these days it mostly denotes clinging to a failed future of the past.

>Property rights

Monarchist tolerating pseudo democracy, wishin the Frankists would go walk a green mile with thier Islamic finger puppets and stop brainwashing stupid overeducated french women from drownin G+ with tldr posts full of anti Orthodox disinfo

Right wing best wing
Moderate right best right

same here. I'm actually quite conservative compared to most of my liberal friends, but the occasional screaming college communist is few and far between compared to the daily inundation of /pol/ faggotry, and when I see it, I won't hesitate to smack them back down to reality using language which I know pisses them off and makes them feel not welcome.

It's not even about being right-wingers. Back when /pol/ was a bunch of Libertarians, they could at least keep things civil and respond to your arguments in a calm, rational manner, even if most of what they said was self-masturbatory rhetoric, they didn't have this problem where they go "gee sir, nice argument and sources you have there. Might I remind you that is the common behavior of unironic cuckolds, and instead of continuing the conversation, I shall now spam memes and ridicule you for disagreeing with me"

It has less to do with their politics and more to do with the fact that they act like even more autistic versions of bronies, injecting their bullshit into places it has no business being in, and then sperging out when people either point out that their arguments are horseshit or remind them that they're going off topic.

>classical liberal

Neoliberalism is superior

neoliberalism isn't liberal tho.

Even someone like my sister born in the 80's still barely qualifies as a Soviet and has no real grasp on these wide claims on what that country was like, or a right to do so. Just like Americans who think their Jewish controlled country won the world wars alone and think, "But there were lines you had to stand in," is the ultimate counter-point to Soviet apologetics, you're not qualified to say what you just said

It would be more accurate to say the 60's and 70's were the "golden age". I do agree this period was a historic peak that has not yet been reached for many parts of the USSR.

But saying life in the final year of the CCCP was "quite nice" in 1991 is like saying 1913, 1928, 1938, 2000, etc were going "quite nice". It really wasn't, and it was going to get a lot fucking worse really fucking quick.

I forget by which metric was measured, but the USSR never went past 40% of American economic strength. Considering that this replaced what was once the 7th best economy in the world in the second or third largest country to EVER exist, where multiculturalism actually WORKED, a new economic regime wasn't worth it at all.

Because anyone who is to the left of the far-right are called communists here, and on every board.

"hey comrade comander we captured some fascists on the andulucian on front" what should we do?"
>just shoot them
>put them in a prison camp
(maybe we can even have them perfom labor for time off their sentence)
>we can let them go (they might just go back, what if they are spies? do you want to let a spy relay valuable intell on you positions?

>military tribunals
in what context? was for trying fascist war crimes? or for stoping cnt militiamen from commiting war crimes?
>extracjudical killings
how many for these killing were people taking advantage of the chaos in the days after the coup, to kill people they had grudges on?

...

communism = state authority
anarcho = no state authority

it legitimately cannot work because humans are naturally self-interested

Cos it's filled with pseuds who cannot into realpolitik.

>666

S P O O K

>We are pro anarcho-communism
This is even more retarded. How do you even plan to implement this fantasy?

humans are inherently collectivist

It's just a dozen or so /leftypol/ raiders from cripplechan desperately trying to turn Veeky Forums into a left-wing /pol/

Failing at it too, I might add.

/leftypol/ was driven out of regular /pol/ so they came here

No they're not. Humans are inherently hierarchical. Notice how hierarchies emerged in all major civilizations and can be observed among the few still uncontacted tribes?

>Tsarist Russia had better economy than USSR

Spot the retard

Fascism never failed. It was overthrown by military force. You might count that as a failure on Fascism's behalf, but it never failed on its own as a system, unlike communism.

That equals failure, especially when warfare is considered by fascism to be the ultimate measure of strength, and also necessary to prop up the economy
One of the only ideology worse than communism, only things worse are Juche and ISIS salafism

>Fascism never failed. It was overthrown by military force

Which fascism are you talking about?

Because fascism usually necessitates military expansion, and if you invade people for no reason you deserve to get bombed to hell.

Lol oh really? Which uncontacted tribes are hierarchical. I'll be waiting

no, it's just that hierarchies are more successful in developing complex societies

Since when? Whenever I see a communist/socialist thread its people shitting on it

It was basically Germany and Japan against the entire world. Fascism does necessitate military expansion, but it has nothing to do with being invincible. They could have won the war if not for some bad decisions on their part. Don't think that ideology has anything to do with the battlefield.

If Britain had become a Fascist nation and joined the side of Germany to help them win the war, would you still regard Fascism as a failure?

Those were failures on the part of Germany, not the ideology itself.

>Constantly post anti-communist threads
>get BTFO in arguments
>whines about Veeky Forums pro-communist
>Repeat and rinse
Dealing with anti-communists makes me approve of Gulags more and more

The board is not pro-communist, it just works with historical facts instead of right-wing propaganda.

Yes it did the nazi economy required military expansion don't delude yourself, fascism has accomplished nothing that other government systems can't but has only fallen far far lower
Also it's your own stupid mistake if your projects involve you warring the whole planet, a gross mistake on your part.

>If Fascism hadn't failed, would you still consider Fascism a failure?

Makes you thing

>/pol/acks keep coming to Veeky Forums shitposting
>Anons on Veeky Forums pretend to be communists to shoo /pol/fags away

I refuse to believe that there Is anyone who actually unironically supports communism

>current year
>Right wing propaganda

Leftist propaganda more like

>It was basically Soviet Union against the entire world. Communism does necessitate world revolution, but it has nothing to do with being invincible. They could have won the war if not for some bad decisions on their part. Don't think that ideology has anything to do with the intelligence and proxy warfare.

>If Germany had become a Communist nation and joined the side of USSR to help them win the war, would you still regard Communism as a failure?

>Those were failures on the part of Russia, not the ideology itself.

You do realize your arguments are shit and can be applied to communism?

I like trolling the communists and they trigger the stormlards so they can stay.

Keyboard communists are just about everywhere online though, I don't know how you avoided them up to thus point.

Large amount of "leftist" propaganda doesn't cancel out right wing propaganda. Both sides are using propaganda and distortion of history.

>implying that national socialism is purely an economic ideology
For one, it was one of the most significant reactions against radical materialism and social degeneracy the world has ever seen. If Germany had succeeded, we would have seen the largest spiritual shift for Europe since the Black Death.

Also, I never denied that the Nazi economy needed military expansion to grow. Many successful civilizations in the past used it for their benefit. It was just bad decisions during the war that lead to its downfall. There's a difference between military expansion and declaring war on the entire world.

True, but one of these sides controls most of the mainstream media and Is known for straight removing historical fact they don't like

Not that guy but i wish socialists and anarchists control the mainstream media instead of seeing liberals and some conservatives liberalizing the narrative and history. Unless you think liberals are leftists in which case top kek

Lotta socdem whiny babies unwilling to defend the USSR or any communist country that ever existed commenting itt

This board is in part a war history board. Marxist Leninism has produced some of the most incredible military upsets of the 20th century. Look at a map and find Vietnam and the USA. Based on that alone, you'd figure Vietnam never had a chance against the most powerful empire on the planet. But the USA got BTFO by a bunch of farmers with punji traps. Why? Because of the Immortal Science of Marxism Leninism

When I say ML works, I quite specifically don't mean "on paper", but IRL. It's sorta amazing, and strictly from a perspective of military history, you have to appreciate how ideas gave the advantage in a huge number of conflicts where the first world had shit tons of better guns.

Look into Castro resisting US rule as a place to start.

I'm pretty sure the Soviets won WWII and then proceeded to successfully impose their ideology on Eastern Europe and the Far East in the 45 years that followed. Communism failed because the system failed. Gorbachev realised this and ended the Soviet regime. Not because they were invaded by global coalition like Germany was and was forced to end it.

The Soviets succeeded, but their ideology failed. That's the difference.

>Is known for straight removing historical fact they don't like
Oh, like localhost denial threads? Just admit it, you're no better than commies.

The Soviets succeeded in spreading communism, I mean.

Wrong. Since Stalin announced "building socialism in one country", the "export of the revolution" no longer was a priority.

It's just a bunch of raiding faggots.

>Anarcho-Capitalist Idealistic Liberitarian society

You post that like twice a week

>Fascism does necessitate military expansion, but it has nothing to do with being invincible
>Communism does necessitate the killing of the upper and middle class, but it has nothing to do with creating a stable society

I was being sarcastic regarding the term "revolution". It wasn't exactly clear that I was, so I reworded my post to avoid confusion.

yes I agree I am pro-non-society society

The only people as dumb as anarcho capitalists are communists.

Communists believe that eliminating the class system will create a stable society, implying that a stable society does not currently exist or did not exist prior.

The Nazis believed that military expansion could create an empire. Not only did their military expansion fail due to retaliation by the allies, but the occupied countries were only under occupation for a few years. Their desired empire never actually became a reality. Much like how it takes some time for a society to become totally stable, it takes some time for a strong empire to form.

The Nazis never believed they were literally invincible. It was merely rhetorical. They believed that strong will, good training, and careful planning will give you a shot at success, like literally every army ever in history. A stable society is realistic, becoming literally invincible is not.

It's not me, actually, but if it is a single guy doing that he is doing God's work.

Please point out where that post says Tsarist Russia had a better economy than USSR.

Careful there, /tv/ used to pretend to be Pedro's to shoo normies away and /n/ pretended to ne stormfags to shoo normies away. Look what happened.

>Anarchy! Anarchy! I don't know what it means but I like saying it!

pedos*

I sometimes post obvious pro-Commie replies in some related threads so I can get (You)s.

>Reads Homage to Catalonia once

While there are more commies here than on /pol/, i think we are still rightleaning for the most part

I pretend to be a communist to make /pol/fags rage. I'm a centrist IRL.

It's not it's anti nat soc, it is a progressive alliances of conservatives socialists anarchists monarchists republitards capitalists

>They could have won the war

No they couldn't. You're delusional.

>I'm a centrist
Pussy

>wanting to combine the best of both worlds is being a pussy

Ebin trolling

>economic ideology
what did he mean by this
it's obviously a government system, and a government can only be well run with a good economy. It is absolutely essential as the soviet union has demonstrated
Face it, your ideology is shit, fascism without the militarism quickly devolves into paternal autocracy like in Spain.

But Finland, a capitalist democracy with around 3 million in population, BTFO USSR twice?

>not real gommunism
It seems every real world example is never a real example to you folks is it.

just because parties called themselves communist doesn't mean they were communists in the sense of what marx or any other theorists meant. sure the parties claimed to want to achieve communism at certain points in their regimes but they never achieved communism.

A QUESTION TO ALL

Why didn't the Soviet Union manufacture and trade more to improve it's economy?

What are the empirical reasons their economy failed.

industry was geared toward defense and arms race rather than internal/external consumer markets

No one wanted to trade with it because that would piss off the US who was more powerful economically, and the factories were very poorly run. They also spent shittons on massive public structures that would take decades to recoup costs. Also they consistently struggled with foreign currency reserves

KIL KIL KI KIL KIL KI KILL YO MASTERS

>Improve its economy
But comrade, communism is perfect and therefore the only way to improve is by removing anticommunists.
-t. KGB

They obviously needed to trade with other nations, so how did they do that? Were they able to sell enough?

Again, that was a failure on Germany's part. Not the ideology itself. Military expansion can work. Germany just did it wrong.

Are you implying Fascism is shit simply because of militarism? Why do you think militarism is inherently a bad thing?

>a utopia was never achieved
WOW

It isn't, you're just imagining that it is because you have an agenda.

Really? Are you serious фaм?

America would have never joined the war in Europe if Germany had managed to take over the UK before 1943. The war had already made its way to London. The Germans weren't that far from actually landing troops in the city. With the UK defeated, they could have focused their energy on the Soviets (and perhaps not invade during the winter in the first place or at least adopt better measures to combat the cold), and then the Soviets would have fallen as well.

With no allies in Europe, America would have never risked a full-scale invasion.

>weren't that far
There ingenious plan was to transport troops across the channel with river barges. Half of the barges had no engines, and would have to be towed by the other half. And assuming the Nazis actually survive the RN and make it ashore, what then? They have no supply lines, and air-drops would not be nearly enough to fuel an invasion force.

It would have been a fucking massacre, and Germany would then have no troops with which to invade Russia. Operation Sealion is noteworthy only as a comedy.

Their, not there, sorry.

you changed the topic

Good luck with your communism :)

That's because Germany never managed to maintain air supremacy over London, therefore they wouldn't have been able to destroy British defenses beforehand and parachute troops into the country. That happened because of a series of bad calls by the Germans (mostly do to poor information they received) and as a result, they were outsmarted by the RAF. If the Germans did manage to achieve air supremacy, then it would have been a detriment to the Royal Navy.

The only reason the Allied invasion of Normandy succeeded was because the US and UK virtually grounded the Luftwaffe in France, bombed their defenses, and then sent paratroops before the full-scale invasion on D-Day. If Germany had done the same thing in Britain, the war in the western front would have been over.