Marx was wrong because the Soviet Union failed

>Hitler wasn't a socialist because he argued Semantics

Marx was wrong because historical materialism is wrong and the LTV is wrong and blank-slate approaches to human psychology are wrong.
The rest is either no his idea or unfalsifiable.
Stop creating strawman, leftyfag and go protest side by side with banks and multinational corporations for tranny rights or something.

We had left-wing radicals in my country that had some semi-popular support
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army
And you never hear about them. Why? Because they didn't achieve shit. They blew up a bunch of bombs, robbed a few banks, killed some people, but they never came anywhere fucking close to launching a "revolution" because the General populace recognized them as being bugfucking nuts. This is the kind of people that go commie in America, this is why we don't tolerate that shit.

You stormtards can only parrot the same tired arguments over and over, it makes you really easy to identify.

Still hasn't been refuted.

Stay BTFO

>if you reject communism you're a stormtard

>If u disagree with gommunism u r a stormtard :^)
Spot the leftygagger.

Nice

>Soviet Union
>failed
I mean Stalin was a piece of shit but idk how could a backwater country suddenly posed such a huge threat to America by failing.

Maybe the SU's leaders didn't follow Marx's recipe properly? Or maybe Marx didn't foresee how things like technological change would impact his vision?

>Using New Left organization as evidence that they didnt do shit when USA had used COINTELPRO to circumvent and disoriented to make sure they couldn't do anything
>Not even mentioning about the IWW and SP that forced reforms to labor rights including 8 hour workday, and MayDay so much that the American government arrested their leaders on stupid charges and forced FDR to push New Deal to keep these radicals leftists out of power
New Left had some successes but by the First Red Scare, the left wing radicals were already broken or jailed

>communism totally works
>every single socialist state either ends up collapsing, becomes a shithole, or abandons communist economic system in favor of capitalist economy

Really gets those neurons firing.

No, Marx was wrong because every "Marxist" revolution treads down the same path of the USSR. The man fundamentally did not understand the proletariat who he rested the hope of revolution on.

>using socialism, proletarian dictatorship, and communism interchangeably
>thinking communism was ever tried in the history of the world

>Who will run the administration of the proletariat once they seize the means of production?
delegates elected by the workers themselves as is the case with all the spontaneous soviets that formed across the globe
>What prevents the administration from progressing their own agenda while the proletariat continues their work?
The ability to instantly recall and dismiss delegates.

>communism is a stage not a political party.

...

That's literally just a more wordy version of "not real communism"

> a plan is bad when it fails time upon time

Really activated my neurons.

It's not even fake communism because no one ever claimed it was.

>Marx wasnt wrong because every attempt to implement his meme ideology failed horribly

epic bro!

>venezuela is socialist
>socialism is when the government does things

>it magically stops being socialism when it fails

amazing

>Marx was right despite
>Cuba
>Soviet Union
>Mao
>Mugabe
>All failing
>Ignore genocides and famine pl0z

Venezuela isn't and wasn't socialist.

>implying marxist ever agreed with the liberal consensus that socialism=government programs.

Just like USSR, PRC, DDR, DPRK, PRoM, PRoA, Cuba, etc. weren't real socialist states, after all *real* communism has never been tried ;^)

I'm really not surprised that commies decided to go this route. Again.
At first they just pretended Venezuela ceased to exist. Kind of like Hollywood lefties. I think I prefer when they were doing that. It was funny now it's pathetic.
Socialism failed again like it always does. There's nothing to excuse it. Absolutely nothing and there's no way of changing it because socialism doesn't work. There's nothing else to it.

>Demsoc isn't real socialism
>Socdem isn't real socialism
>Anarcho Syndicalism isn't real socialism
>Anarcho communism isn't real socialism
>In fact socialism and communism aren't even the same thing, even though they both mean that the workers have seized the means of production and have become their own owners
>Marxism-Leninism isn't real communism
>Maoism isn't real communism
>The only true, infallible, Socialism is my specific views on socialism
>If s country strives to become socialist and fails, it doesn't have anything to do with the pursuit of socialism because socialism was never achieved, therefore socialism is not to blame

>Socialism failed again like it always does.
Define socialism then. If you're so sure it's unworkable you must be able to provide a definition.

>using socialism, proletarian dictatorship, and communism interchangeably

State controlled economy and central planning will never start working. But wherever you're from please continue doing that less competition for me later.

>Implying the very marx didn't do the same thing.

Pic unrelated?

>The pursuit of the workers becoming their own owners doesn't matter or affect the economy because real socialism and communism hasn't been tried
>Implying communism needs to dictatorship of the prols to happen
>Implying the debate between socialists, communists, and anarchists ever had a concrete concept of what each really was

socialism is a meaningless word desu

It's only fair to expect marxist to abolish their own property first.
Give it away or something.

>delegates elected by the workers themselves as is the case with all the spontaneous soviets that formed across the globe
So politicians?
>The ability to instantly recall and dismiss delegates.
And how many times did this ever happen in those spontaneous soviets you talk of?

If you scroll up literally one line from that quote in the manifesto you would see that Marx meant that private property is the embodiment of capital,wage labor etc and thus its abolition implies more than just "the government owning everything." He also covers this in his philosophical manuscripts.

Whatever it is and in what form and how far it is from achieving true stateless communism it still doesn't work. It's never worked starting with the first attempt by Robert Owen. This first failure is like a blueprint for all future socialist disasters and is a story everybody should know because it has a great moral.

>Socialism = communism!
>Communism and socialism don't work! Look at all the failures! Look at Venezuela!

Ok user, what about all the socdem states in Europe, and places like Canada and and Australia?

>T-those don't count!

>>The pursuit of the workers becoming their own owners doesn't matter or affect the economy because real socialism and communism hasn't been tried
No one says that.
>>Implying communism needs to dictatorship of the prols to happen
According to Marx.
>Implying the debate between socialists, communists, and anarchists ever had a concrete concept of what each really was
It had among people that knew what they were talking about.

You mean social fascism

>According to Marx.
Who not everyone agreed with?
>It had among people who knew what they were talking about
In other words
>I'm the only form of socialism, and what anyone else thinks is wrong because uhh its not my form of socialism so of course it's wrong

ITT: tankies get buttmad that not everyone thought garl margs was the prophet of socialism

Crappy mixed economy is how they waste their wealth but it's not how they got it in the first place.

>Give it away or something.
That would only be viable if it were possible for one to give away their own private property, without it becoming someone else's private property.

Australia, Canada and Western Europe are some of the most capitalistic countries in the world, ranking at the top of the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom.

The fact that socialist parties had to abandon the core tenets of socialism (planned economies, nationalization of industry, regulation of the economy, high taxation, etc.) and instead became social liberal parties limited to supporting free markets with welfare benefits added on top, proves that capitalism has completely defeated socialism on the economic and ideological sphere.

Is Canada socialist? Is Scandinavia socialist?

>"the government owning everything."

So the dictatorship of proletarian

Why did Communism work so well in the 1930s?

>Who not everyone agreed with?
Irrelevant because we're talking about Marxism.
>>I'm the only form of socialism, and what anyone else thinks is wrong because uhh its not my form of socialism so of course it's wrong
Socialism isn't whatever you want it to be. There's no socialistic capitalism or capitalistic socialism. It's an oxymoron.

No they are social liberal.
Canada is ranked as the 13th most free economy in the world.

They still make some mistakes but they can afford it for now.
This map is very encouraging. Even Botswana has its small economic miracle and I'm not surprised it's very economically liberal.

>Heritage Foundation
You mean the right wing garbage propaganda team? They just don't want to admit the successes of those state without attributing to the things we now call socialism, like public health care, more worker's rights, more government control of the banking industry utilities, and good welfare programs, to name a few.

Most people have and would call those things socialism and attribute them to communism, e.g. what has been happening with the health care debate in the US.

>So politicians?
yep
>And how many times did this ever happen in those spontaneous soviets you talk of?
idk if such a figure even exist but there are many instances of strike committees and Soviets operating on a instant recall delegate structure. For instance the Cylde's Worker's Committee in Glasgow during the 1915s enshrined the right to recall delegates. So did the Comitati Unitari di Base in 1969 Italy.

6th actually, just looked it up.
Canada is more capitalistic than America which ranks 11th.

socialism is a meaningless word. ppl (especially with different politics) never agree what it means.

These stats are made up anyway. You can't put a metric on "freedom." They made up their own index to justify their agenda.

Socialism.
Doesn't.
Work.

Ok, so what's the problem with things like universal health care, then? These "capitalist" countries all have it, why not the US?

Which is a temporary measure that's suppose to begin withering away on the morrow of the revolution. You can't conflate that with socialism.

The thing about those democratic soviets is they didn't last very long before they became either a dictatorship or a roving gang of murderers ala lord of the flies.

>There's no socialistic capitalism or capitalistic socialism.
>There is no continua of how much the workers are their own owners between total ownership, partial ownership, and no ownership

>Most people have and would call those things socialism and attribute them to communism, e.g. what has been happening with the health care debate in the US.
Most people are idiots, particularly Fox News watching trailer trash Americans. In academic parlance these things are not considered "socialism" but simply semi-essential government provisions of social welfare. I don't gice a fuck what Fox News calls it, I expect a higher level of academic discourse on Veeky Forums.

Would you consider Eisenhower a socialist?
>"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-- Dwight Eisenhower on a letter to his brother

You either own the means of production or you don't. An owner giving his workers more scraps doesn't make the workers any more in control over their lives. They're still subjected to his whims.

To annoy /leftypol/ I'm gonna dedicate this thread to the evolution of economic freedom that got us here and will continue in the future ensuring that more and more people have a chance at improving their living standards.

>don't worry comrade, communism will come some day and the state will fade with the time, trust me I'm expert in dialectics.

Indeed a eternal temporary stage

Can you cite any examples aside from the Soviet Union (which had to deal with war and extreme economic backwardness)?

>Its either total ownership or no ownership!
Nice all or nothing fallacy

>There's no socialistic capitalism or capitalistic socialism. It's an oxymoron.

Isn´t that a socdem?

Marx was right about some things.

Funny thing is that Marx began realizing that his initial theories were wrong near the end of his life. Engels noticed that workers are getting richer and less likely to start a revolution. Only people like Lenin clinged to old dogmas by the end of the 19th century. When he failed to conquer Europe in 1920 it was all over. Stalin managed to do more but with him the idea of worldwide revolution disappeared. It was obvious that socialists began losing the working class and capitalist countries were developing better.
Commies have no ammo left.
Social democracy is not the answer either though at least they're not genocidal.

Well that's the criticism Camus had against Stalin which is a fair one. It would be a mistake tho to say that any emergency measure has to last forever.

>Extreme poverty
I feel like this is semantical neo-liberal bullshit that states that people who don't live in industrialized """""""modern"""""" societies are somehow living horrible lives
>Ad infinitum growth is good
>Cutting down excess is bad
>Just live in densely populated cities, what the worst that can happen?

>like public health care
Is slow, the quality of the medical care you receive very heavily depends where you live and whether or whether not the workers in the public health care system feel like giving a shit (can't blame them considering that they're both poorly paid and work shit hours when compared to their counterparts on the private sector).
>more worker's rights
Usually come with high wages which inflate the cost of production in the country and thus drives more and more companies to move their productions into cheaper countries like Vietnam or China.
>good welfare programs
Create an entire caste of people who rely on welfare benefits and don't even try to get employed instead of opting to stay at home and rely on the government to pay their bills.

t. joku joka oikeasti asuu maassa jota te jenkkikommarit koitatte aina käyttää esimerkkinä siitä kuinka sosialismi muka toimii

>shilling for capitalism

In fact, even when fascist states killed organized labour, the public services and welfare were greatly expanded in those regimes. The modern welfare state was originally enacted by fascists against socialists.

>Historian Robert Paxton observes that on the European continent the provisions of the welfare state were originally enacted by conservatives in the late nineteenth century and by fascists in the twentieth in order to distract workers from unions and socialism, and were opposed by leftists and radicals. He recalls that the German welfare state was set up in the 1880s by Chancellor Bismarck, who had just closed 45 newspapers and passed laws banning the German Socialist Party and other meetings by trade unionists and socialists. A similar version was set up by Count Eduard von Taaffe in the Austro-Hungarian Empire a few years later. "All the modern twentieth-century European dictatorships of the right, both fascist and authoritarian, were welfare states", he writes. "They all provided medical care, pensions, affordable housing, and mass transport as a matter of course, in order to maintain productivity, national unity, and social peace."

>Continental European Marxists opposed piecemeal welfare measures as likely to dilute worker militancy without changing anything fundamental about the distribution of wealth and power. It was only after World War II, when they abandoned Marxism (in 1959 in West Germany, for example), that continental European socialist parties and unions fully accepted the welfare state as their ultimate goal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#History_of_welfare_states

Social democracy isn't socialism and doesn't purport itself to be.

He was good with the bants

Capitalism doesn't need shilling.
I just like how /leftypol/ is trying to argue for something without any merits and gets angry when people troll them back.

leftypol's strawmen are the most fun, there's so little effort put into them it's hilarious.

>Capitalism doesn't need shilling.
It was drilled into your head since elementary school, wtf are you talking about

Marx was wrong because there isn't a single human in existence who could be described as "right".
We just get so hung up on how wrong he is because people refuse to see it (and because most people don't know what constructive criticism is, but to be fair, almost nobody can constructively criticize popular works without some true believer larping coming about)

indeed

Don't forget his conception of the capitalist and proletariat was extremely flawed and narrow minded, resulting not in an accurate realisation of class divides when it comes to economics, but pleb tier class hatred.

What would you call the socialists in Spain other than roving murder gangs?

Can you name an example of worker collectives that remained democracies for more than a year?

...

>Chavez has been removed from this pic
Never fails to crack me up.

I don't have time to do this again so abridged version:

>Chavez was deleted from the pic this example of a failure of socialism is too recent and embarassing
>no example shows any successful
>some of them are in the pic because they were killed too early to do bigger harm: Luxemburg wanted the same type of dystopian bolshevism as Lenin and Allende wanted to introduce a police state
>the best people featured there are just socdems who were a preferable alternatives over communist dictators which still doesn't mean that their economic policy would be in any way successful

Marx wasn't wrong about Communism because its implementation failed, he was wrong about Communism because it's literally an impossible pipe dream that is not possible to implement in the first place. It doesn't make any fucking sense in any practical sense whatsoever.