Why do westerners and edgy soyboy leftists like communism and Soviet aesthetics so much...

Why do westerners and edgy soyboy leftists like communism and Soviet aesthetics so much? They always try to defend the soviet union during discussion and idealise their leaders; all despite the evidence of them being evil, cruel, murderous leaders that caused the suffering of hundreds of millions of people for almost 100 years? No matter how many stories of food shortages, lack of resources, shitty infrastructure, incredibly low living standards, and general suffering these people just refuse to acknowledge them.

Are there any books that deal with this holocaust denial tier phenomenon?

By the way, i'm not one of those libertarian boomer Americans who chimps out at socialism; i am very liberal in my economic views. I'm basically a socialist.

They like it because all their super kewl celebrity idols are into it and they wanna be just like them.

>i am very liberal in my economic views. I'm basically a socialist.
What the fuck

Low effort seemingly b8 posts like this need to be mopped by the janitors. I'll give you your (You) just in case you're not shitposting though.

First and for most let's get things straight. The Soviet Union was a socialist state that was led by a communist party. Socialism is the state in the transition from capitalism to communism after the means of production are seized by the working class. Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society. It is debated by leftists whether the Soviet Union even achieved socialism. It should be clear that all communists are not the same and don't believe the same way to do things. They just believe in the same end result. Even with the many failings of the Soviet Union, it was the first real attempt at a socialist state. It became an industrialized superpower in less than 30 years. The "shitty infrastructure" and "incredibly low living standards" was mostly because Russia and China were undeveloped feudal shitholes before their civil wars. Socialism has never been truly implemented in a industrialized capitalist society.

As for the aesthetics it should be obvious. "Socialist realism" propagahnda posters are really powerful looking. The symbols are iconic, either in their fame or infamy. If you are of the working class you are uninformed if you can't see the appeal of socialism.

the argument that communism has caused the suffering of hundreds of millions falls quite flat as there are ALOT of diffrent factors to take into consideration such as wheater destroying crops, war, diseases and natural disasters which caused alot of suffering in both communist China and Soviet. Not saying the great leap forward or the gulag was great ofc, you would have to be a retarded tankie to think that. But its worth to be noted that gulag in many ways was a continuation of the prison camps of the Tzars empire. But this line of reasoning is just as dumb as tankies going ''yeah capitalism has killed alot more in africa, foreign wars and working class people starving''. Its flat and vague.

Now on the other hand ukranian anrchist, zapatists, and the CNT FAI to name a few are quite interesting and not a complete failure. Sure there are even aspects to Maos China and Soviet that was a sucsess such as education in China and industrialzation and rapid standard og living increasing in the time after Stalin. Wheter you dump every leftist ideology into the trashbin of tankie socialism is up to you though. Denial of the gulag is one thing sure. And cmon soviet aesthethics are cool even though soviet weren't all that cool.

read some marx and chomsky i guess

Why do people take solzhenitsyn? His books are fiction and he himself was a Nazi sympathizer, so why do people on the internet care so much about him? Wouldn't it be smarter to just pick more respectable sources?

Pic related: why people on Veeky Forums are so obsessed with specific authors like solzhenitsyn

Orwell's "Notes On Nationalism" cover this phenomenon pretty well.

Semantcs, by your reasoning fascism is ok because Germany was national socialist not fascist.

It is obvious "marxist-leninism" is inextricably linked with communism. Marx wrote the communist manifesto, it was widely distributed in the Soviet Union and was a distinguishing feature as a society.

You have never seen the mountains of evidence of communist atrocities? Do I really need to spoonfeed you facts that should be obvious to anyone who wastes any amount of time on this topic?

>It is obvious "marxist-leninism" is inextricably linked with communism.

It's obvious that revisionism is equal to non-revisionism? At this point I'm starting to think that you know literally nothing about Marxian, Marxist and Leninist theory.

not denying any attrocities. but your post seems like uninformed b8. btw soviet art is GOAT

>Semantcs, by your reasoning fascism is ok because Germany was national socialist not fascist.

Nazi Germany was only socialist in name after the Night of The Long Knives. The left wing faction of the Nazi party was purged. Industries were privatized instead of nationalized. Not sure what you are even trying to get at.

>It is obvious "marxist-leninism" is inextricably linked with communism. Marx wrote the communist manifesto, it was widely distributed in the Soviet Union and was a distinguishing feature as a society.

What are you even saying? I was giving educational elementary definitions of left wing ideology in reply to OP. I never denied Marxist-Leninism was a part of socialist theory. I clearly said that not all leftists are the same and they do not always agree on things.

The Soviet Union had a very unique aesthetic, an austere one but often deliberately so, as a matter of style rather than just cost cutting (though the latter probably occurred more). We tend to fetishise with the unique and exotic, and these days the Soviet aesthetic most certainly is. It's the last aesthetic in the west that can properly be called exotic.

>i am very liberal in my economic views
>I'm basically a socialist

It is the rebellious teen phase for people who don't grow up.

Look at all the stunted freaks in favour of communism in the west. No way they ever went through proper puberty.

I don't understand how anyone can take communism or socialism seriously.
I just don't.
The end goal is to rip apart all of the power structures of the modern society, yet commieboos never explain how exactly a communist society would function.
What do you do with criminals?
Do people form a sense of justice on their own? Who teaches people what is right or wrong? Or does anyone do that?
How do you make sure someone doesn't take what is someone elses. Or is the mere idea of ownership so foreign in a communist society that people will happily share EVERYTHING?
What happens when someone defies the communist society?
How would you not make a class structure, when every sibgle society in human history has had one?
People are always looking for leaders.
Would communism destroy the concept of parenthood as well? Every single child is the daughter or son of everyone in the society?
How would you manage to deprogram the base instincts of mammals?
What the fuck is a communist society?
>communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society
Ok? How exactly would this function?
How do you make sure the guy in Japan has everything as well as the guy in France if there is no central governemnt or a state to take care of these things?
Will everything just function through altruism?
What the fuck is this, how do you make sure some sociopath doesn't rise in an area and make it his little empire?
How would you make sure tribalistic societies won't form?
How would you manage to get rid of tribalism in general?
I could make a million questions like the ones before, but you wouldnt have an asnwer to a single one.
You'd just drone on about how it has never been tried properly.
Communism isn't capable of existing in the first place uneless you manage to destroy every single current society on earth.
It's a fucking pipedream, stop trying to destroy every single fucking thing humanity has built until now.

Just your basic level of knowledge on /pol/

Why are you getting so angry at something you clearly know nothing about?

>It is obvious "marxist-leninism" is inextricably linked with communism.
No one denied as such, but to conflate all leftists as "marxist-leninism", constantly derail as anti-captialists or socialist thread with whataboutism of Soviet Union is pure revisionism.

How have we answered any of those questions through the various permutations of governance and statehood we have experienced over the centuries?

Yeah this communist West Point graduate really looks like a stunted freak that never went through puberty.

I don't want to be that guy, but that is not a fucking argument.
>lol go read a book
This is what your post boils down to.
Just fucking explain to me how communism doesn't defy every single thing human history has shown us.

because their aesthetics were pretty cool, infinitely better than the nazi shit
doesn't meant they weren't a horrible state

Is history a flat object?

Not that guy but communism can only happen when economic scarcity is resolved. Think FALC. Not the endpoint of history but the endpoint of the struggle between capital and labor

I agree with you on this.
That's why I get angry when the current commie retards are advocating for something impossible.
Maybe in 500 years, maybe in a 1000.
I don't know.
They don't know either.
Shouldn't it make more sense to let communism come by itself then?
Shouldn't it form through capitalism anyway...

did the fundamental rights of man and citizen come about by themselves

Oh go fuck yourself you disingenious retard.
You people NEVER answer these types of questions.
Why? Because you don't have the answer or you know you are on thin ice.

>lol go read a book
The thing is that books on socialist and communist theory answer all these questions. In previous posts I've explained that socialism is the transition state from capitalism to prepare for communism. In the socialists states we've seen so far in history either haven't been able or willing to achieve full communism. That's why there's anarchist communists that wish to abolish the state completely and go straight into full communism.

>Shouldn't it form through capitalism anyway..
And that is why socialism is the bridge between capitalism and communism. Marx-Leninist wanted to bypass the capitalism stage of their countries to socialism.

You are asking that we solve every problem of the world in a single swoop, as if what we believe is only tenable if we perform such a feat. I can of course answer one by one if you like, and no doubt you'll be disappointed with the answers.

Ah yes, you'll just solve every problem of modern society by destroying the society itself. Genius.
You'll form an equal society by subjugating the 1%, who owns the tyrannical weapons that can obliterate you in a moment's notice.
Tell me, how do you make sure some other 1% doesn't just take these weapons for themselves and form a new fucking tyranny, if you even manage to succed?
Good luck anyway, retard.
No, you claim you have the answer to all the world's problems and when someone wants more in-depth answer than "Let's form a global communist state!", your brain stops functioning.
Your info-graph is non-applicable propagandist drivel.
You can't prove that any of those things would actually come to be. Or that they would stay that way everywhere on earth.
People can form an identity over the most retarded fucking things. And with identity, comes status.

>Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society
This has never and will never be achievable unless you can fabricate resources and goods at will.

*global communist society
My fuck up, truly sorry.

>Ah yes, you'll just solve every problem of modern society by destroying the society itself. Genius.
Is that what you suppose the french were doing when they penned the document in question?
>Tell me, how do you make sure some other 1% doesn't just take these weapons for themselves and form a new fucking tyranny, if you even manage to succed?
Perhaps we won't, and we will have to organize under a different sort of politics. Is this strange?
>you claim you have the answer to all the world's problems
Where have I done such?

And that is the whole point of communism you retard. To be able to reach that stage

Communists are delusional but at least they aren't as crazy as Anarchists.
As for the aesthetics it's simply a visual appeal. The concept of a worker revolting against an oppressive and cartoonishly evil society is still appealing to a lot of people regardless of the actual reality.

Bait.

That 'stage' is literally impossible. Candyfloss soft sci-fi bullshit that will /never/ happen. Basing your ideology on the idea of getting to an impossible stage is fucking insane.

The idea of "automated communism" is a very new one. It existed in primitive form around Marx's time, mostly around work-hour reduction. It emerged properly in 60's, before it was discovered that flesh could be cheaper than machinery, and faded back into obscurity until just a few years ago.

Doesn't matter if it's literally unreachable you dense cunt. Commies are deluded if they think a classless society is even a remote possibility.

Is it? On what grounds?

>commie comparing himself to the french revolutionaries
Funnily enough, there was a short phase of time when there was no central governemnt or any hierarchy after the revolution, and people were just beheading nobles and everyone else they didn't like.
What stopped that? Oh nothing, just a NEW FUCKING HIERARCHICAL SOCIETY.
A TYRANNY FORMED AGAIN OH WOW WHAT A SURPRISE. Even though the revolutiloaries wanted a free and equal society, lmao.
Wait, hold on...sounds oddly familiar.
But I won't say that the revolution itself wasn't justified. The results just were underwhelming for what they tried to succeed in, in my opinion.
>we might just cause more suffering and pain but fuck it lets try anyway
No, fuck off.

Things would be produced for use instead of for profits. Automation would make things much easier. It's possible now but hasn't happened yet because if you replaced everyone's jobs they wouldn't have money to buy anything. That's why universal basic income would have to happen for automation to happen under capitalism. Under socialism and communism it'd be a non-issue.

History has proven you wrong so far.

Where do you base the claim that it would be possible?
Do you have ANYTHING to actually back this claim up?

Literally Nirvana fallacy.

Yes, if anything people who worry about the creation of AI making humans obsolete don't seem to have the imagination to see the concept of work becoming obsolete

No thanks, I'd rather keep what I earn and be able to buy what I want rather than survive on rations decided by the government.

And? It mattered not, so long as that hierarchical society based itself on something fundamentally different than societies preceding it, redrawing the legal framework of europe and the fundamental values behind such. And of course today the declaration of the rights of man and citizen remain the foundational document of the french republic and its constitution, despite having spent over a century without recognition.
As for the matter of comparison, every european revolutionary, were they socialist or neo-jacobin, remained thoroughly within its shadow, within and without France. Perhaps the dead ought to bury their dead, but history makes man as much as man makes history.
>No, fuck off.
Come now, ought those of the past merely accepted their lot in life as the best of all possible worlds?

>Creating matter from nothing is totally a realistic goal!

It proved that a particular model was not tenable within the conditions that prevailed.
Sci-fi nonsense built on the grounds that we can reproduce consciousness before we actually know what exactly consciousness is.

If the conditions required for your dream society to work are unrealistic then your ideas are unrealistic.

>fabricate resources and goods at will

It is achievable. Automation, 3D printing, Universal Constructor. All of that powered by solar energy (no, not just solar panels - Dyson Swarm of solar panels). And no, resources are not scarce, provided high-efficiency recycling tech is available.

And then there is space travel, asteroid mining etc etc.

>strawmanning Post scarcity this hard

Are you pretending to be this ignorant of AI? It doesn't matter if the eventual creation of AGI is a weak or strong one as long as it can do work in our place.

Tut tut, a particular model within prevailing conditions of the time.
What, do you now wish to say that the romans of 400AD were more than capable of a written constitution and a parliament?

I misunderstood. No, I see what you mean. Sorry, AI in the context usually is about fearmongering about them deciding to purge the meatbags, so one tunes out everything after the mention.

>unrealistic

Oh, they are realistic enough. Problem is that ruskies/chinks have not reached the required stage at which to start the transition. And that stage is defined by availability of high-tech. Peasants are not high-tech.

>Sci-fi nonsense
>AI

Sure buddy, sure.

Y'know it saddens me that you work against your own interest. You are fine with the fruits your labor being stolen by the capitalist class? I assume you're of the same crowd that says taxation is theft. Labor creates all wealth. Your not only entitled to what you "earned" but to the full product of your labor. That's true socialism.

As of right now a true AI that is indistinguishable from a human being is scifi nonsense. It won't be forever.

Sure, but by the time we can understand consciousness to such a degree as to reproduce it, our current concerns will have long since been trivial. It's not particularly interesting to speak about in the present.

>You are fine with the fruits your labor being stolen by the capitalist class?
Yes I am okay with paying for material goods and services with money I have earned.
>I assume you're of the same crowd that says taxation is theft.
I have no idea how you got that from my post but it seems like you're projecting. Taxation is the cost of civilization.

I am glad you see things our way, comrade!

Decided who gets what is exactly what the USSR did, you don't have much evidence to back up this idealogy of yours.

The soviet man never persisted off rations, though he might have preferred it, insofar as scarce foodstuffs would have at least been guaranteed, rather than having to put out the effort of strolling through town looking for a mid-sized line and crossing his fingers.

The soviet citizen went to the grocery store, selected what he wanted, and payed in cash. He was of course at the mercy of what was in stock and occasional customer limits on amounts, but he was not rationed any more than wages do in the first place.

>Yes I am okay with paying for material goods and services with money I have earned

That isn't what I meant. You are entitled to the full product of your labor but you could also earn labor vouchers in exchange for your contributions. Vouchers can be used to buy things but are destroyed upon use as they don't accumulate.

>I have no idea how you got that from my post but it seems like you're projecting. Taxation is the cost of civilization.

Sorry about that, glad we're on the same page. However taxation is unnecessary under socialism seeing as people's needs guaranteed to be met through contributing to society.

IDK user maybe because he's actually a good writer?
You personally read anything in his work that makes him out to be a Nazi sympathizer? Only thing I've not read by him are his WW1 books but I highly doubt it'd be in there.
Maybe Everyday Stalinism would be a better source for you? Sheila Fitzpatrick is a professor who's written for decades about the Soviet Union and the everyday people within it.

Why is Solzhenitsyn considered to be relevant historical source? He was Ashkenazi Jew that somehow knew everything about the Soviet union GULAG system and its government while being 8 years in le ebil GULAG where they could talk or they would be killed or something.

Gulag archipelago goes into communism (in practice and debunks the "but that wasn't real communism, and those food shortages weren't intentional" nonsense. It gets into the nitty-gritty of a brutal communist society, not just life in a gulag-proper.

He was a Leninist and a Red Army officer until later in the war, when his comrades arrested him.

He even goes into detail about being disillusioned and approached by politicals, in the prisons. He goes to say "That's not true, that's a Bourgeois lie!" but he couldn't say it anymore, it was all true, happening to him.

It attacks a society they're losers in. It antagonizes every source of right authority and tradition to which they must, as weak men, submit.

If they got their wish, the losers would get exactly what the original Red flags got, starvation, persecution, arrest, death.

Iam not fan of sci-fi, so ive never read it, but how are countries "real communism" when they dont call themselved communist and dont fit in the definition of communism?

American socialists are simply retarded. They blindly support Mao and Stalin, while raging at Khrushchev for his reforms, calling him a revisionist who destroyed the USSR even though he took it into space and improved quality of life drastically. It's a fact life for the average person from after Stalin's death to the fall of the country was quite decent.

Then there can be no such thing as communism, and all communist movements are in-fact the bloodthirsty children of Stalinists and Bolsheviks, and should be dealt with as such, yes?

If you want to move the goalpost to protect your evil ideology, you also admit that every instance of communists initiating a communist revolution to create communism, without fail, leads to the mass starvation, cruelty and mass murder, invariably part of communist (not real communism!) society. This that you say "isn't real communism" is communism (in practice) every single time.

I'm not even going to humor your pol-tier gulag / purge denial nonsense.

>anyone who's not an unwavering Stalinist is a nazi

Try some actual arguments you nigger liberal, you dont have to be a communist to debunk your shitstorm.

>"They were campfire folklore" says the KGB employed resentful ex-wife.

Funny how no matter how hard Russians and Eastern Europeans try to tell you that the Soviet Union and communist life was literal hell, effeminate westerner teenagers who have never experienced suffering in their lives refuse to believe them and dismiss their accounts and eyewitness stories as fake.

>mfw commietards think its possible
>mfw commietards will always fail because of people like me

You're absolutely retarded if you think there won't be people who won't want more, do you really think you can just kill this drive?

>Its not real communism because I define it differently, so you're wrong. Nice try pal.

Also, how do you deal with niggers and their tendency towards violence, theft and the decay of cohesion in communities?

>wanting more when you already can have everything
Does not compute

How do you also deal with kikes and their tendency to subvert your movement and goals? Also how are you gonna deal with us beaners? We are a people of absolutes, if we're not hard left, pink communists we're ruthless, hardcore Fascists. To be fair, I'm seeing more beans move towards Libertarianism lately, given our need to take it a step further a Latino Libertarian movement would just turn into Minarchism eventually

>implying a communist can even give me anything

I'll probably die of natural causes before commietards figure out their shit, of course getting executed is dying of natural cause in a communist society

I don't think you understand the reply chain you responded. Your human desire for more becomes irrevelant when you have the technology to "fabricate resources and goods at will", which is the prerequisite of communism

Mao and Stalin actually improved their countries to an unimaginable degree, turning them into almost first world countries in 2 generations, starting with population of mostly peasants in under-instustrialized countries.
Khrushchev and Deng Xiaoping just took a system that was working (and it could work because of all the ethical compromises Stalin and Mao took) and the sold it all to the West. Now both countries are literal ultra-capitalist authoritarian closed oligarchies which have literally nothing to share with the original Marxist project and everything to share with the US.

>Funny how no matter how hard Russians and Eastern Europeans try to tell you that the Soviet Union and communist life was literal hell

Its not that complex. Its just middle class rubs who are drawn in by the theatrical nature (the uniforms, the cool symbols, the military parades, the general "russian"aspect which gives it a badass appeal) literally no different from stormfags. Its a power fantasy for really weak people.

Just accept it, the book is fiction. There's no need to get so emotional about it, like solzhenitsyn did after having been jailed for having praised invading forces during the war (remember that he was jailed on February 1945).

No wonder that his books are filled with so much resent and envy: I would hate to live under Stalin too, had I been an undercover Nazi the whole time!

I know it doesn't work as no respectable economist considers it viable, and that it must be opposed at every turn because every implementation of that "theory" has been an unmitigated disaster.

Cherry picked image, most communist looks like genetic failures and downies,you'd have to be to follow an ideology as moronic as communism.

Russians only like it because they were top dog, if you try and tell a Hungarian or a Pole how good communism was you'll righfully lose teeth.

>Mao and Stalin actually improved their countries to an unimaginable degree

>starving at the very least 15 million people to death, running a completely retarded failure of a "lol everyone make steel" program, having a great leap forward that fails miserably, and then being such a dumbass that you manage to ruin the circle of life which kills even more millions of people

wow, thank you Mao!

>mfw I generalize a global political identity because I have seen stupid people on tumblr

he was retarded enough to take that picture in uniform

>someone post a complete embarassment and basically some chischan looking autistic LARPer to mock you
>respond by posting just some regular look average dude wearing a MAGA hat

damn, you sure showed him. stupid cuck

Communism has always been the most bourgeoisie ideology, how much struggle do you think some middle class faggot, or some universiry cunt, has experienced in their life? The street brawls in Germany were basicallt jobless young men fighting against students who thought they knew for sure what was best for the former. Laughable, really.

>anyone that hates communism must be a Trump supporter
I'm not even an American lmao.

>before Mao
>land of retarded illiterate peasants, costant economic misery, tiranny, famines every 20 years, can't even defend themselves from Japan, servilism towards Western force

>after Mao
>nuclear superpower, produces most of the goods in the world, population is almost fully educated and twice as smart as their grandparents, not a single famine since the Great Leap Forward, is actually respected and feared by the International community, is actually on the avantgarde when it comes to big data and scientific progress

Wow, it's almost like context matters when talking about *gulp* history.

>Mao and Stalin actually improved their countries to an unimaginable degree,
Would've happened faster under capitalism, minus the massive famines,of course.

dude cuck lmao

Yeah, but anyone who is a leftist is a downie-looking fat sperg.

it's almost as if mocking stupid generalizations was the point of the post. So there we are, I had to explain it to, are you happy now?