Communism never existed

Please provide a more "modern" definition of Communism that is accepted by political scientists as "Real communism".

Good thing my country the United States not a democracy then huh?

Killing rando people because you don't like them.

No. There are no elections.
The USSR, China, etc were laying the foundations for a communist future and tens of millions died as a result because, guess what? 'True' communism is a utopian pipe dream.
If it triggers your autism so much, I guess we could say every attempt at communism has been a failure.

>True' communism is a utopian pipe dream.
I agree with that, though.
>I guess we could say every attempt at communism has been a failure.
Well no shit because Communism is supposed to be a stateless entity without capital. A Communist State is as much of an oxymoron as is "Democratic North Korea".

Complete or partial state ownership in most economic affairs and the organization of production and the lives of citizens by the state. Most people cut off the frills about class and equality because they're either spooks or the ideas basically apriori make it so that it's only "real communism(!tm)" if it's already a perfect utopia. And therefore there will be nothing even reasonably communistic or socialistic if those things are added to the definition.

It wasn't Communism.

It was state socialism. We've been over this dozens of times.

Communism is a political and psychological myth, that cannot and will never exist.

Sage.

Most of the socialist nations of the 21st Century were genuinely trying to build some kind of successful Marxist system.

The Bolshevik party were strident Marxists all and there was significant debate during the first few decades of Soviet rule over how to appropriately implement Marxism. The means of production were seized by the state and run by local committee. Free floating capital was abolished and resources were distributed evenly through a ration system. No one was allowed -legally- to accrue massive amounts of wealth and the government was responsible for planning all industry.

The same goes for Mao and his regime. Mao was such a dirty retarded socialist he forces his farmers to spend precious time and resources smelting iron - that all turned out to be shit iron by the way because farmers don't know anything about smelting. This exacerbated their food situation and mass starvation followed. Labor de-specialization indeed.

Maybe if every time you try to implement a Utopian system the fact that it warps and changes, corrupting itself into some kind of dictatorship: perhaps that means that system was infeasible in the first place? Maybe the fact that 'no true' communist state existing is an admonishment of communism and not a case for it? Maybe repeated failure is a cause for at least some amount of introspection on the left?

Literally not an argument

So you are basically saying my "democracy is killing hamster" hypothesis is correct?

>Complete or partial state ownership in most economic affairs and the organization of production and the lives of citizens by the state.
Sounds like a Planned Economy, even though the state isn't supposed to exist according to the Communist Manifesto, and the means of production is to be owned by the workers.
Again, can you provide anything that this definition of communism is used by political scientists? I'm not fond of Communism as much as the next guy, but citing shit is nice.

A state by any other name is still a state family. Also

>The Communist Manifesto
>Not Das Capital

shiggy diggy doo

ITT: idiots arguing about meme """"ideologies""""

It wasn't failure in establishing communism. All of the cases underwent the first step, established the dictature, and got stuck on there. It provided no hindsight into actual communism, since it was never even close to establishing it.

The fault is in the fact, that you can't force people to love each other and work for common good. The fault is not in the ideology, it is in the way it was (allegedly) implemented.

>A state by any other name is still a state family.
And how will this "state" exist when there is supposed to be no political character among people? Who will be the "State"?
>When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another.

If you make that mainstream use, sure. But the semantic difference between hamster murder and democracy is FAR larger than between "real communism" and "fake communism", so good luck.

No the fault is the ideaology. It's unworkable.

If the ideology is literally infeasible due to known human nature, how can you claim thats not a fault in ideology?

Lie repeated long enough becomes the truth i guess. You provided actually convincing argument.

>i never seen it but it is wrong

Human nature is created by their surroundings. It seems utopian to us, since we live in permanently corrupt, selfish, individualist society.
If you raise a kid in separated environment though, it can be raised to work for the common good and always just take what it needs, not what it wants.

Lol nice quote but just because somebody says something doesn't make it true.

>When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared,
Class is amorphious and ambiguous. marxist class doesn't exist in the sense that he explained it in most modern western societies.

>and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation,
Nigga that's a state!

>the public power will lose its political character.
Why? This is entirely nonsequiter! This hasn't removed any of the motivations that drive political action at all?! Wtf Nigaa?!

>Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another.
When you so baked you just start makin' up new definitions for existing terms without providing any reasoning.

>a government actively attempting to create a communist state is nowhere close to a communist state

The final stages of Communism were meant to be post-state but the transitional stages (the ones the Soviet union found itself in) require the workers to use the state apparatus to build a revolutionary society where the states role would be phased out.

That final step never happens because no one gives up ultimate power when it's been given to them. Not even communists are that retarded. Anyone who expects this final stage of communism to come sweeping in, justifying all the decades of violence and oppression by 'the workers' has lost their mind.

There is no true communist state for the same reason there is no faster than light star drive or infinite energy machine: it is not possible to build one. Just accept that and move on. Your life will be a lot better.

Have you even read the whole post?

Nowadays Scandi countries are closer to communism than USSR ever was.

>That final step never happens because no one gives up ultimate power when it's been given to them
Thats because those steps are wrong

>nice quote but just because somebody says something doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying this is what Marx stated and believed.
>Class is amorphious and ambiguous.
Marx is pretty clear on what he means by "class" in the Manifesto, again:
>What working classes were there before the industrial revolution?
>In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.
>In the Middle Ages, they were the serfs of the land-owning nobility
>Nigga that's a state!
See >When you so baked you just start makin' up new definitions for existing terms without providing any reasoning.
You're not even citing anything. And Marx is very clear about what "class" is in his Manifesto.
At least cite something instead of pouting empty words and screaming "nigga", nigga.

>Human nature is created by their surroundings.
(donald trump wrong.jpg)

>It seems utopian to us, since we live in permanently corrupt, selfish, individualist society.
No it seems utopian because it is utopian. What you're describing is utopian. You are literally suggesting a perfect world where everyone acts differently and the basic fundamentals of existence are different. You are utopian. Why is that even hard to understand? At least own it.

>If you raise a kid in separated environment though, it can be raised to work for the common good and always just take what it needs, not what it wants.
I mean yes you can raise a person to not be a peice of shit but that isn't the problem here. The problem is in methods of production and allocation of resources. Even if you could magically make everyone perfect human beings (which you can't btw) communistic production makes economic calculation impossible and so even a society of perfect angels wouldn't be able to make it work unless they were also omniscient.

this

>Nowadays Scandi countries are closer to communism than USSR ever was

That's such bullshit. All you need to do is think about it for 10 seconds.

Scandi countries have:
>private corporations
>private ownership of land and goods
>free access to any goods any citizen can afford
>freedom of association and political organization

The USSR had:
>no private corporations
>no private ownership of land
>rationed and distributed industrial goods like cars and appliances
>limited political freedom beyond the Bolshevik party

Scandinavian countries have a robust capitalist economy with a welfare state apparatus on top of them. Having high tax rates and a bunch of welfare programs doesn't make you communist.

Fucking hell commies are dumb...

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept this fact. I'm a fascist, but even I know when a country has any semblance of a government or leader, it may be some form of socialism, but definitely not communism. True communism might even be a great thing. But maybe the practicality of its execution is what turns me off. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that an idea hasn't been fully transformed into reality and that we shouldn't try to, either. When anti-communists mock "communism hasn't been tried before" it makes them look retarded.

Pretty much. I consider myself sort of a Classic Liberal and even I find myself sometimes defending communism because people get their "feelings" in the dicussion.
When discussing political theory, one must be EXTREMELY careful and PRECISE with the definitions provided of the political theories. Otherwise it devolves into a shitstorm much like this thread (or board in general when communism is mentioned).

By the way: the welfare state no longer works in Scandinavia or Finland either, except in Norway, for as long as they have their oil money. In Finland, with the end of bilateral trade with the USSR - to which second class goods could be sold at good price - it became unfeasible and the welfare state has been kept up by massive national loans (which amount to more than 100 Billion yuroshekels today).

And I mean milliard.

But it is solely the definition of 'Communism' that you 'liberals' so violenty defend, but have no problem fascing Fascism and National Socialism together. Why is that?

Proper communism is Marxism. The Stalin made his own weird version to justify his bullshit. As this was the biggest "communist" nation the revolution they funded had to adhere to this version. There has never been a country that has said it's purely Marxist. USSR was Stalinist. DPRK calls it's idealology "Juche".

Please don't generalise all "liberals" into 1 box. You'd be amazed with how many liberals I disassociate myself with. Again, I'm a Classic Liberal, not the 20th century liberal or w/e.
> but have no problem fascing Fascism and National Socialism together.
I'd say it has to do more with ignorance rather than a person's political ideologies. I correct liberals myself often that Fascism and Nazism aren't interchangeable.
I'd say why liberals are perceived as moronic is because they were given this "liberal" title, even though they basically don't support the funadementals of liberty (or even classic liberty at this point) - little government interference in the market being the huge one.
I'm certain most people that you consider "liberals" are actually just socialists who want more taxes and regulations.

Mixing up fascism and NatSoc is pretty rare, dude. The difference is anti-fascists are scared of fascism and anti-communists don't know what communism is.
t. fascist

Well depends what you mean by "anti-fascists". Since some of them can be pretty dumb too and actually be "pro-fascists" without even realising it. A good example would be the Antifa movement.

By anti-fascist, I mean the people who think of Mussolini and Hitler as scary dictators, not the current movement antifa. So, anyone who knows how strong fascist governments are but without appreciating their good qualities.

>Mixing up fascism and NatSoc is pretty rare, dude
For fucks sake, it was the general line produced by Socialists and liberals from early twenties to the end of WW2, after which US and European democracies were said to be 'fascist' too.

...

Ah, fair enough. I myself see some benefits of a Fascist state and what it can bring if done properly, but I feel more at home among Traditional Conservatives and Classic Liberals rather than something like Fascists. I should finish up reading on the "Doctrine of Fascism", recently started it, also heard Mussolini's speeches describe Fascist ideals pretty well, too.

I shouldn't have said rare, but it's a less common talking point than communism, for sure

Communism did exist in the Catalonian comunes at the Spanish Civil War, and it worked. Resisting 3 years agains 200000 italian soldiers proves it.

But you're doing just what wrote: mixing National Socialism and Fascism. There were very obvious differences between the systems, even if Mussolini was Hitler's idol - initially - he more followed Uljanov (who in full circle was idol of Mussolini - no wonder, since he was purebred socialist before he's interventionist policy - but whose violent policies of mass terror and repression he didn't follow).

Stalin's innovation was killing party members, everything else was already implemented and done by Lenin. And those party members he killed, because they were loyal to Lenin (who chose his fellow Bolsheviks on this criteria alone), not to the party or him.

So 'Stalinism' is useless term, when 'Marxist-Leninism' means the same thing.

Right, but I didn't say Hitler was fascist. Although many anti-fascists do say hitler was fascist, which is not entirely true, it's a far more accurate comparison than communism and the Stalin's Soviet Union, and wouldn't get offended if people mixed them up but anti-communists sometimes think a government...can be communist...Big difference don't you think?!

I wouldnt*

Capitalism never existed

There were only totalitarian corporate regimes using capitalism as an ideological excuse for their crimes.

And that is a fact.

I mean, there are literally no arguments to disprove this. Its not a thing of debate. Its a damn fact.

Then how come there are still so many people, even here, that keep blaming all the atrocities on "capitalism"?

>I'm certain most people that you consider "liberals" are actually just socialists who want more taxes and regulations.
That's why the quotes. I don't consider them liberal - in any sense - , but they call themselves that and that line is usually accepted in media and in political discussion, especially in Europe when 'liberals' defend mass humanitarian Muhammadan immigration and 'far-right' 'conservatives' don't or at least they don't accept is as wholly positive.

because communism is a chimera

it can't exist in the real world and in order to maintain the notion it could totalitarian regimes sprung up under the guise of building it thus rallying popular support

communism if the mirage in the desert that march nations to their desolation

>Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

Would you not describe most western nations this way?

> but they call themselves that and that line is usually accepted in media and in political discussion,
Guess I haven't been watching the news lately. I seldom hear "liberals", or it's just my country's news media not bothering.
>political discussion,
Yeah this is something I find dumb, too. I always try my best to stay in-line with the actual definitions of the political theories rather than associating myself as "liberal" for the heck of it, even if I wouldn't actually possess those ideals. These fucktards are giving actual people who followed the ideas of liberalism a bad name tbqh. Kind of sad how the word "liberal" is slowly becoming more of an insult in political discussions rather than a standing.
I'm a European and I can concur that their policies on immigration are dumb as hell in this continent. Not very liberal so to speak, and actual liberals get labeled as Fascists who simply want more of a meritocracy.
I also hate how "left and right" are now what defines a political theory rather than the economic standing of a person.

Not him, but the actual existence of public property immediately refutes the idea that we live in a capitalist society.

What we do live in is a corporatist oligopoly.

I'm European and I'm convinced "pretentious socialists calling themselves 'liberals' " is an American thing exclusively. I've never meet or heard of any left leaners or socialists describe themselves as liberals.

Not really, you can find some Europeans doing this too, stupidity is universal.

I guess it depends which specific country you're from.

Where I live, the right wing parties are considered "liberal".

Same here tbqh.

Reason being that left-wingers obviously consider the world "liberal" bourgeois middle-class speak.

But it's also state capitalism when it works, state capitalism is state capitalism.

Communism can't exist because the requirements for setting it up are impossible. That's why it starts and ends with authoritarian states run by dictators.

Your version of communism isn't real communism either. So kys.

The divine rights of kings never existed.

For a monarch to rule by divine right, for him to be approved by God, he must do no wrong, lose no war, experience no hardship.

All monarch who have ever ruled in the name of God have experienced hardships and/or lost wars.

This is fact.

What it means is that they were not divinely inspired, they were not under the Grace of God.

REAL divine right of kings have not been attempted yet. So why people blame the atrocities of absolute monarchs on it?