Why are communists incapable of building a functioning society?

In part because of this. See Paris Commune and Russian Civil War.

Isn't it funny how every time communism is attempted it doesn't work out and isn't real communism? It's almost as if it's fundamentally flawed.

>kurdistan
>communist

bitch where

>Switzerland
>communist

bitch where

Tell me what "real communism" is you turd.
Communism is based off of Marx's writing,

>Kurdistan exists
>Kurdistan is built on communism

Not to mention that a good half of it belongs to the Barzani kleptocracy.

Why do commies act like they're innocent? what do you expect? whenever you ''tried communism", you did it with bloody revolution, how do you expect people to react? its not like you're trying to peacefully create your own society, in which way nobody would even bothers you

I'm the greatest swimmer in the world. Sure every time I faint before I can even make it into the pool, let alone actually swim, but believe me :^)

If you consider mass murder and totalitarian rule functioning, sure.

All you've proven is real communism is impossible to implement and always results in cruel, authoritarian regimes that murder millions of people. Better to not try at all.

Communists want A. Capitalists want B. The result is C. Communism would work if the west didn't interfere every time
I never claimed communists were innocent but when capitalism is so entrenched in most societies only violence can bring about a greater good for everyone. I'm not arrogant but a lot of people just don't know any better and communism guides them in the same way a parent guides a child
That's a terribly analogy
No all that's proven is that the admittedly authoritarian regimes resulting from communist revolutions are simply an unfortunate but necessary evil in implementing equality and goodwill for all. Besides they wouldn't have to happen in the first place if the communist cause wasn't undermined at every turn by the capitalist system.

That's generally how societies function, just some effectively sweep all that sausage-making under the rug.

If your system is so vulnerable to outside influence it fails every time it's enacted then that is a fundamental flaw. Why is it that resource poor countries like Chile or Singapore can thrive but oil-rich Venezuela is collapsing?

i'm not saying it was good, but it obviously functioned in some way if it lasted for that many decades.

for you "function" seems to mean "functioning well", which a different question.

>Make violence and "necessary evil"
>Waaa why does these evil capitalist interfere

Only Euro cucks believe death is a bad thing, instilled from their reliance on welfare states when intra-European wars were still a thing and each polity relied on manpower. The death of your enemies i.e. those who threaten your way of life is not a bad thing. Wanting to save every life is bourgeois values at work.

Hey, I've finally found common ground with a communist!

If you actually believe this, you are delusional

What do you consider the purpose of a state to be if killing millions of its own people is fulfilling its purpose? cause it certainly isn't what I would call the function of a state.

Building and maintaining infrastructure. Enforcing law and order. Protecting its citizens. You could broadly say the responsibility of the state is it to keep order when people are living together.

However protecting its citizens can be laid out from different perspectives. Thats the point.

You cant say the ussr wasn't a functioning state. If you insist on this then the US is by your definition a failed state too.

Because centeraliztion resources/planning defacto creates a new governing class, defeating commies goal of equality

>However protecting its citizens can be laid out from different perspectives
It is some very extreme doublethink to hold killing millions of citizens as the same thing as protecting them.

Thousands are enough, you still have the death penalty.

The US didn't kill millions of it's own people.
You are fucking retarded if you are going to pretend the USSR was a state worthly of emulating, what with the gulags and starvtions and mass deprivations

Are you trolling or retarded? The US has Executed less than 2000 people sense the war, while in the same time the USSR killed millions of it's own.

>functioning society
learn to read greentext, fucking moron

>they needed a defense budget to stop capitalist interference
They still had a surplus on top of that. Postwar Russia had a gdp per capita double that of Britain in Marx's day. The entire country was indoctrinated into communist propaganda, they had plenty of resources to play with and decades to develop yet they did not achieve communism.

Wow it is almost as if a group of people with elevated status and power don't want to see that go away...

Huh, its not about the numbers, its about the concept of killing sovereign citizens of the state, by the state itself. The reason these people were imprisoned or killed was that they were a threat to the communist state or the other citizens residing inside the SU in the eyes of the persecutors.

If you execute a citizen, the concept is the same. Which makes the us a failed state by your definition.

This concept is probably new to you since you grew up in a country with a biased view. Might makes right, after all.
But trust me the apparatschiks in the SU and other socialist countries entirely believed that the things they were doing, were for the common good of the people.
Its about the intention they were following.

You never lived inside a repressive state and thus lack the understanding of the proceedings that take place inside one.

You had everything you needed, as long as you followed the laws, the state didnt persecute you. We had no luxuries, but it was definitely a working, functioning State.

The SU was a repressive State, but it was still a functioning one, it ultimately failed because of the repression itself. Ironically because glasnosk tried to undo these repressions to a certain extent, the citizens couldnt handle it, atleast not that fast. The fall of the SU was the reason for a global power struggle, which ultimately benefited the US.

>funny how it's never "real communism"
>guys, there never was a free market coz of commies, it's not funny

>built on islamic tribalism

>be ex commie country
>multiple nationalities live peacefully with eachother

>be capitalist
>UGAA BUGAAA NIGGERS WHITEY BANGBANG CHICANO GO HOME REMOVE WHITEY RACEWAR RAAR

The only reason the USSR even functioned for 90 years was because it wasn't even a Communist state.

It was a society where the state owned all private property, which could be called state socialism or state capitalism.

The fact that it was a flawed form of capitalism is what made it a hellhole. Capitalism cannot function properly when there is no competition and without decentralization of capital.

A currency-less economy.

...

>equating race with nationalities

Chile has enormous base metal deposits.

>murder millions of people
Only two leaders in two different countries killed millions.

Are we seriously going to ignore Yugoslavia and how as soon as commies fell, the oogabooga nationalism started happening?

what is this trash

This.

Marx isn't the end-all be-all, dude. Believe it or not, they are other commie thinkers.

If you don't think communism has been a complete failure, you're the one who's deluded.

Because their whole system is fundamentally flawed.

brain drain. the best and brightest flee or they get starved or purged-systematically.

Executing murders after a trial is not the same as starving Ukrainian peasants to death because you want them dead. If you can't see that then you are the problem.

Stalin
Mao
Pol pot

Oh shit you were totally wrong!

1) Because people who are out for equality aren't interested in being leaders and vice versa
2) Because violent destruction is an awful way of building anything
3) Because Russia's entire history is horrible and blood-drenched, always was and always will be

Three then. I forgot about Pol Pot. Then again, he was radically different from any other communist to the point where you might say he wasn't communist.

Switzerland only works because it's a small homogenized population so people trust and like each other.

Derg.

>dude communism doesn't work
>sends the gendarmies to murder and accost the free citizens in the paris commune

That's not what he'd say

Literally every communist project has been a different flavor of Marxist-Leninist poison.

Marx outlined, very clearly, that communism would be a society resulting from the abolition of private property and wage labor. Except for potentially Catalonia in the '30s, no such society has existed. Marxism-Leninism, created by Stalin through a clumsy and disingenuous piecing-together of the writings of Marx and Lenin, instead believes that an all-powerful state led by a vanguard of intellectuals (rather than the proletariat as a class) can assume the role of the capitalist industrialist. Lenin admitted that the Soviet economy in the short term would be state capitalism.

Marxist-Leninists insist that a communist government will abolish wage labor and private property, but none did. While Lenin laid out a potentially useful framework of workers' councils and labor unions to govern local communities, Stalin in his autocratic autism preferred a massive unitary state with no elements of worker control. He was openly skeptical of Marxist apprehensions about wage labor, while simultaneously decrying more committed Marxists as revisionists because they deviated from his confused and contradictory party line.

Other socialist states, including Yugoslavia and the Chinese Maoist sphere, similarly preserved wage labor. Rather than socializing property, the governments just took it all for themselves. Yugoslavia was from a Stalinist standpoint the "least communist" country behind the iron curtain, but they were just more honest. They put forward a system of "socialism" that preserved the useful trappings of bourgeois capitalism rather than pretending to make something new because the government was powerful.

Tito, unlike the Marxist-Leninists or their stepchildren the Maoists, understood that communism had to involve a global transformation of labor relations. In a communist society, production is geared directly to use and power is held directly by the working people.

Every single state run by a communist government has been based on the teachings of Marx, despite completely ignoring everything he said.

Marx wrote that proletarian revolution across the capitalist world would overthrow capitalism. Bolsheviks just constructed an authoritarian social democracy in one country and tried to survive in competition with the old capitalist order.

What's the fucntional difference between the state killing criminals because they are a risk to public order and the state killing (under their unjust laws) criminals because they are a risk to the public order? The soviet union is no state to emulate, as nay authoritarian state falls to the same underlying problems of monarchy, but to say that the soviet union wasn't functioning is totally false.

>homogenized
>literally a multiethnic country of Germans, French and Italians

These posts are the only ones itt that have some proper argumentation principles.

God damn I hate pol so fucking much, they are ruining nearly every board now.

To get back to the topic.

Holodomor happend because of the repressive nature of the stalinist regime, it didnt happen because the SU was a communist country.

Ukrainians were considered enemys of the state back then, it isn't even proven that stalin did it to supress them, it could have been a famine, which isnt that unlikely, since the same situation unfolded in other soviet republics at that time.

Furthermore if it was an repressive manoeuvre, it happened because Stalin thought that he had to do something against a threat, Ukrainian nationalism in that case, which he might have thought to be endangering to the peace in the Union and therefore the well-being of every Soviet citizen.

The Soviet Union was a country without liberty's
It was a repressive country
It was a country that followed communist principles to a certain extent
and it was a functioning Country.

The holy roman empire was not functioning for example.

Okay then it functions like a shitty murder machine functions, granted.

>what the fuck is Rojava
>what the fuck is the PKK

First Post Best Post

If you are setting aside the achievements in Science, education, agriculture, infrastructure, housing and industrialization of the country.

No,
Not even then, your post is just that fucking FAT.

The Syrian Kurdish organization is now formally communAList, not communist, but they emerged out of a Marxist-Leninist structure and many high-profile members of the government are outspoken Marxists. An obvious example is Brace Belden, lefty-pinup and hardline tankie who spent a year in Syria fighting ISIS.

Essentially everybody in Rojava is a socialist to see extent. After the fall of the USSR, PKK leader Ocalan believed a new strategy of autonomous socialism was necessary, though he likely still supports the idea of communism.

Syrian Kurdistan has historically been one of the farthest-left corners of the world, because they've been pushed around by everyone and are pretty poor. They don't even benefit from oil reserved like their cousins in Iraq.

The PKK/PYD developed huge loyalty among the local people by relieving their poverty. Now they're seen as battlers of ISIS. While their radical feminist policies lead to a lot of grumbling, they've freed Kurdish women from horrific traditional restrictions and only increased their popularity long-term.

If only they could have done it without murdering all those millions of innocent people.

>people replying to this

1) because the state still exist

Interesting
Your posts are really good and informal.
I've read about rojavas system and heard they've managed to secure support from neighbouring arab settlements. Their system seems to be some sort of anarcho syndicalism. The arabs get to form local councils in their settlements, according to tribal traditions. The people there are able to send their representatives to rojavas greater councils.
I am well aware that this sounds like a normal democracy but the structures and govermental proceedings are more direct and they are doing pretty well, even in these harsh conditions

Obviously the biggest contributor to the authoritarian character of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Maoist China, and other "Second World" countries was Lenin. Lenin was the biggest promoter of the revolutionary vanguard theory and demanded that said vanguard have immense power over the proletariat—and the state—so as to save the proletariat from corrupt, or confused, leaders. Lenin was the source of many ills that Americans—and most other Liberals—mistakenly believe to be inherent within Marxism itself.

One ought to examine what caused Lenin to write such innovations into existence, I think the underlying cause of Lenin's innovation is more damning to the functionality of Marxist theory than sperging out with: "Stalin is meany. He send you to gulag if you no sugg his dik. MAGA".

Lenin was responding—in part—to the problematic experience of the socialist parties in the First World War; a war in which the socialist parties supported their own state/nation, even though it meant supporting the bourgeoisie-controlled government—thus there was no clear, unified interest of the proletariat. Lenin responded by awarding the earlier-theorized vanguard dictatorial power, so as to save the proles from themselves—he believed only the revolutionary vanguard could make the proles realize their own self-interest. Other theorists either blamed the German SPD for betraying the cause of world communism, or accused various party leaders of taking bribes from the capitalists. Any way you slice this issue, you’ve got a problem: how does one rectify the apparent inability of the international proletariat to unite. I don’t have an answer and I’m not well read enough to give other answers, perhaps someone could help with that. But to me, this appears to be pretty problematic—if man isn’t a primarily economic creature that undermines a pretty substantial portion of Marxist theory (Or so I think, if not please correct me).

Its not about the numbers, its about killing sovereign citizens.
So why did the americans kill the natives and treated black people as second class citizens?

Are you just to dumb to understand it or are you really that indoctrinated?

I think that your conclusions are pretty Spot on for the most part.

The german Spd was indeed belittled as a party of "lampenputzers" which is a slur for a socialist that fears for his job and status, but still likes to parade himself as a socialist. When the real socialists demonstrated or fought they were going to wash the lamps, since it was their job.

The point is that Lenin sought a repressive state as a tool to establish a socialist state, collectivation wouldnt have been possible as long as the bourgeoisie land owner class had means to fight it. Therfore he sought the transition after the establishment of the communist structures, as we all knew he died before that and wasnt able to finish the transition.
Nearly every other communist country established itself with the help of a stalinist Soviet Union. Even the republicans in the spanish civil war were supported by stalin and thus he divided the republicans and aided only the marxist faction, the infighting was the reason for the rebulican defeat.

The world might have been different if lenin would have lived a few more years

ideologists don't build them. they just herd a mob and meme all over them.

>it's another americans can't separate descriptive from normative statements episode

Arguably hundreds of thousands, and they had help from natural disasters.

Who all share same values and swiss identity.

>muh own people

There are enemies and then there are non-enemies. Everything else is spook.

I get that it was a means to an end: the end being the establishment of socialism as organized at the nation-state level, and, eventually, the post-state system; and the means being violent repression of dissidents, re-education system, purges, &c, all things we are familiar with from the USSR, China, and Nazi Germany.

[I would add that most totalitarian regimes imagine themselves as being a means to an end—not all mind you—so that defense of Lenin isn't exactly convincing. Hitler was only dictator because the nation needed it à la Roman dictators.]

But what is interesting/troubling about Lenin's theory is that it can be directed AT the proletariat class. Following WW1, one could reasonably think that the proletariat is less united than Marxist theory would require—perhaps people love their nation more than their own economic well-being. Lenin seems to say that this is NOT the case—that Marx was right—there is only one interest of the international proletariat, but the people can become easily divided, distracted, and confused. Therefore both party and ideological discipline must be rigorously enforced, or else we become divided against each other as during WW1.

Maybe I'm misreading it, but it sounds like forcibly saving man from himself.

This. Communism is concerned with the "new humanity" that is supposed to emerge out the socialist revolutions.

it could work if you educate the child early on, if they show any signs of individualist behavior, they get a beating

children show an aversion to pain in the early stages of its life

Marx said that the german proles should back the franco german war of 1870 though

>Half-ass capitalism gives poor people flat-screens and fast cars
>half-ass communism starves everyone aside from a few government bigwigs

Almost sounds like increased economic freedom offers increased standards of living. Might want to try something other than a tu quoque argument. It really doesn't help your case.

That's bullshit and you know it.

Back then I could rent my flat for 80 Ostmark and I could travel everywhere in the city for a dime. Sure we had no aubergines or other tropic fruits for example, but you and I know that its just a luxury that doesnt matter anyway.

Because humans aren't developed enough for something like a planned economy. It might be possible with more advanced computers and artificial intelligence, but the market is still too complex of a system for it to be manipulated by a couple of dozen politicians, especially when the other half of the world wants to see thm fail. We still need to rely on the invisible hand. People underestimate the complexity of economics.

Another issues is that material possessions are linked to power which create a social hierarchy and that's the way we've evolved to function.

>Lenin was the source of many ills that Americans—and most other Liberals—mistakenly believe to be inherent within Marxism itself.

Well if Marxism quite consistently produces totalitarian dictatorships, there's no reason to trust another Marxist in the levers of power ever again.

Even if all of the shit you say is true, there's no reason to believe it can't degenerate in to the same shit show once again.

Hardly. Western European countries (Capitalist with welfare states) are all doing well thanks to the support of strong markets and liberal policy, whereas communist countries haven't come close to western standards of living. Try grocery shopping in Venezuela.

Rather than struggling to take care of basic survival needs, mixed capitalist economies have surpluses not only of essentials, but of outright luxury goods. Capitalism is a blatantly clear winner here.

Venezuelas economy is based on crude oil, the main problem is corruption and isolation from the international markets

The main problem is that leftists got a hold of the economic policy instead of being chucked out of flying helicopters like they should've been.

Imagine if there were an authoritarian branch of liberal capitalism—there is, his name is The Donald, all praise kek—that killed tons of people, had gulags, racial cleansing, et cetera. Would you damn every democracy for the behavior of a degenerated form? Perhaps you would. I’m no Marxist, but most Liberal capitalists are so fucking lazy about this shit; you can critique Marxism in-itself without making recourse to how Leninist and Leninist-derived regimes have operated.

Considering the state ran the oil industry into the ground through neglect, it's not a good argument for economic planning. The fact that every other commie state failed in similar fashion doesn't help any pro-communist argument, either. Keep in mind capitalist economies have been far more robust against minor economic shocks.

It's pretty telling of the superority of mixed economies that a somewhat regulated market is considered the default of capitalism.