Is there any truth when someone says "real Communism hasnt been tried" or are they just being delusional...

Real Utopia hasn't been tried

Why did they call themselves communist then?

Because their claimed ultimate goal was to achieve 'true communism'.

Communism is when everyone gets paid the same thing weather you are a doctor or garbage man. It was tried in Russia but failed when millions died of famine.

Let the thread die now

Commies usually contradict themselves or change narrative at will
>Give me one example of good communist society
Well of course china, cuba,soviet union
Here is why they make it better
>ok but what about these awful crimes commited by the state to gain those goals
They Weren't real communist since its stateless and moneyless

Real communism has never been tried because it is impossible to do so. Millions have died in an attempt to reach it.

They arent known to be smart

...

This x1000. Communism causes mass murder

They didn't though. They called themselves socialist and were ruled by communist parties who claimed they would eventually achieve communism, hence union of soviet socialist republics. Only those outside called them communist.

Sounds like a scam
>see comrade we the party now handle the state but until we reach global revolution after that we sort of go away, you just need to keep waiting though someday you may live in a utupia keep working

Similar to calling the US a democracy. Keeps folks happy.

I think even if you wanted to achieve that truly it would ultimately end up like any other stratified, classed society.

Very sad. Really life is just suffering to matter what.

widespread automation might free up future generations to pursue virtue and eliminate at least some of the worst forms of suffering.

America is a republic. No one with any actual knowledge of government would claim that we are a democracy

>not a democratic republic
>implying the two are mutually exclusive

Capitalism isnt so bad, its compatable with human nature unlike communism which wants everyone to be equal with no individuality. Commies just need to stop being lazy and get jobs

This is only tangentially related, but I was reading Christopher Lasch's "The Culture of Narcissism" which was a social critique of America written in 1970 and the author is a putative 'neo-marxist' but so much of his criticism was aimed at things modern /pol/ users decry. The degradation of the family, the deterioration of honest work, the shrinking middle class, overgrown government bureaucracy and social 'experts' whose recommendations are counter-intuitive and self-perpetuating, a disconnect between political leaders and their constituents, an increasingly vapid and materialistic culture focused on material success at any cost etc...

I guess it surprised me how much "marxist" criticism coincided with "alt-right" bugbears.

Pretty much, I think the USSR set multiple dates where "true communism" would happen and (obviously) never achieved them. It seems highly likely that while some of the elites where genuine believers some were cynical power grabbers simply trying to maintain a system where they had achieved a high rank.

>They aren't known to be smart.
If I point out some Marxists intellectuals you'd just make a comment about Jews

The easy steps for solving the riddle:
1. defining communism
2. comparing the definition with the countries that proclaimed themselves as communist

nah man you don't understand

communism is the end stage of a process in marxism that is moving away from capitalism

when the communists come along, and it blows up in their faces leaving shrapnel everywhere in the former of injustices and deaths by the ton, they'll simply retreat into "well we didn't get to realize our dreams so we'll just do it again" and every socialist failure on their way to communism cannot be attributed to marxism because lmao dude that wasn't actually communism.

just ignore them till you can't and then shoot them.

Real communism hasn't been tried because real communism involves the whole world being communist
Communism is a flawed ideology because all of its revolutionary methods have not led to the promised land of communism

USSR had forced war communism and later state capitalism, but peasants being opposed to grain recquistion is still a failing of communism as it shows when shit hits the fan man will be selfish

explain state capitalism to me

if the state owns the capital, and the state is democratic because it is elected by the people, don't the people in common own the capital by at least an extended means?

then it's really not capitalism where the means of production is privately owned by a rich few elites, it's owned by an elected body.

Of course communism has been tried. The stated goal has just never been achieved. Like trying to make an omelette doesn't mean what you make is an omelette. You can fail and end up with scrambled egg.
Why communist movements stopped trying to implement communism and settled for governing the territories they took over is a more interesting question imo.

Why are you posting in Veeky Forums if you have such little knowledge about Veeky Forums related topics? Get some basic education first, then engage in discussion. Yours was really such a stupid question it just derails discussion.
The Soviets and the Chinese call themselves "Communists" because the people who came to power and formed the new governments were ideologically communists, and declared the establishment of communism as their primary goal, which obviously cannot happen over night, or at all for that matter, at least not at the time. Even after decades in power, they still weren't a communist society, but a statist socialist.

(checked)
state capitalism is a silly idea, it really deserves its own name but generally the analysis is that all the mechanisms identifiable within capitalism such as the extraction of surplus as profit, private property, etc are all still present its just that all the industries are held within one state corporation monopoly. Like a permanent war economy it involves the state taking over the machinery of capitalism for its goals. Still the structure remains the same.

Communism is not dead

>Really life is just suffering to matter what.
Yes sadly, worst thing is that this is the best thing we have at the same time since we don't know if afterlife is better or even if it exist

then it ain't fucking capitalism because private individuals do not own the means of production. the state does, and it's a state that has elected bodies to boot.

that's a dumb fucking term and sounds like marxshits trying to hide their failures behind terminology.

hence i said it deserves its own name

>leftists spend their time venting their frustrations over the fact that they keep going tits-up
>the right has to spend it's time occasionally justifying doing a harsh thing to keep themselves afloat
it makes me laugh how the right gets criticism for their success, and the left for their failure

My bad, meant for

>she
>her

Even better

For good reason

Why? The left in the USA are globalist puppets and the alt -right are globalist puppets.
One supports globalization because muh racism while the other supports capitalism because the commies hate it. They are both playing in the same team without knowing it

How did anything in that post bespeak a support of 'globalism' tacit or otherwise?

...

Bigotry is never a good reason, especially in the case where this pushing towards anti-academia. I get that you have fun shit posting but your actions, no matter how small, has a butterfly effect upon us all.
I know you probably don't give a shit but I'd feel like I didn't do enough if I didn't ask you to consider what your actions do on a larger scale and request you really consider if you're anti Jewish agenda pushes toward what you really want.
I've lived in the deep south my whole life and bigotry based on skin colour combined with the competitive nature of capitalism but with little reward and overwork has destroyed my towns community because the hatred has just seeped into every aspect of daily life. Out here, hell is other people might as well be the motto and I fear that what your doing will make this spread nationwide and destroy this once great country.

Real communism hasnt been tried, and it never will be because getting there is a flawed concept.

Communism has never been tried because it is a direct opposite of our intrinsic nature as a species. Mammals, birds, fish, insects all have a fundamental understanding of property and hierarchy. The concepts of housing, bedding, food, rivalry, mates, leaders, predators, territory, and tools all exist inside of the animal kingdom. If you attacked, stole from, or trespassed on an animal, they would respond to the perceived aggression by fleeing or fighting, because that is what they are genetically programmed to do. Either that, or they die off - which is natural selection. This is the same case with man, and every other species on Earth.

Jews hate nature and the natural order, because it's pure and beautiful, and also because it's bigger and stronger than they are, and they feel that they can not fully control it. Nature's beauty and harmony stands in stark contrast to their squalidness and ugliness, and that makes them hate it all the more. Jews are destroyers. They are anti-humans.

>your actions, no matter how small, has a butterfly effect upon us all
that's not what the butterfly effect is about you mong. Shitposting is just that, shitposting.

Truth is when phenomenon and definition correspond.
Let's pick the definition of Wikipedia on "communist society":
> communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of Communism. A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless,[3] implying the end of the exploitation of labor.
And then we take a look at one of the systems mentioned in the OPpost.
So, we conclude that communism wasn't tried, because neither of the mentioned system can be described as "communist" by the definition above.

Next question: Can communism be tried?
Answer is: no, it can be only achieved or reached and there should be specific premises. And I'm too lazy and have troubles with english to write an explaination right now

State capitalist systems. Which feature state as dominant kind of owner of the means of production (China is having a mixed economy with majority of private enterpreneurs since Xiaoping).

>Well of course china, cuba,soviet union
They're not communist, and whoever speaks so is either retard or has something on his mind.
>what about these awful crime
"Tu quoque" argument is pretty weak, but it works here. Politics is a dirty thing, and nobody can say that they are clean and have no shameful episodes in the past.

Small actions causing a larger effect is the butterfly effect. Shit posting is just shit posting between people that realise you're shit posting but to people that do not it can have a unintended effects. Look at what /pol/ became!
I say some of the foulest shit in jest to my friends but they know I'm joking, strangers would not and those that take you seriously and agree with your shit posts will now go out and repeat them seriously. Irony is a cancer without some sense of sincerity also behind it. Just think before you shit post, I really don't want to see society become trashier than it already is.

I think the argument hinges on the concept of Marxisms economic epochs.
The argument is that places like pre communist Russia weren't capitalist (the epoch that supposedly turns into communism) but rather feudal (hence why the under classes role up due to the poor conditions) which lacked the productivity of capitalism required to maintain a proper communist society. Because they skipped capitalism they aren't what marx envisioned as a productive state adopting communism and thus "not real communism."
Communists believe that if a communist revolution was to take place in a modern 21st century western country it would succeed due to the massive productivity that western nations have (marx was shocked at how efficient capitalism was even pleasantly surprised).
That's just my guess tho as not a communist but I respect marx's views.

Yes, but not like you think.

You see the state, social classes and money are core parts of our interactions. However in certain rare cases they can be reduced to trivially small amounts that functionally are zero.

There have been a number of small cases that pass a number of "real Communism" tests. However in every case the group was less then a 1000 people isolated for outside influences. This is likely because larger groups need the state, other structures and often deal with foreign interactions. So Communism totally works, but has proven useless for larger groups that makes it impracticable.

What is interesting is how government structures strongly collateral with group size. And how given how huge we have become we are frantically trying to find a better system to deal with the load.

It's not communism. It's supposed to be a transition state. It's a facade that a centralized power hid/hides behind to maintain that power.

Basically imagine an enzyme-substrate complex with an irreversiblely uncompetitive inhibitor bound to it so that it never lets go to achieve products. It just stays in biochemical limbo and waits to fail or be degraded.

Real communism hasn't been tried yet because it can't be implemented in the real world.

Yes it was communism and it failed

>absence of state, social classes and money
Absence of food usually follows shortly thereafter

A "transitional state"

okay OP: communism is literally defined as a stateless, classless society.

Common questions:

> Why were the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc called communist? What were they actually, then?

They were Marxist-Leninist states who were trying to bring socialism or were socialist, but not for long -- the USSR stopped being arguably socialist past 1930, the PRC never really even achieved socialism, Cuba kinda has had socialism, they are currently moving towards socialism that is accepted by typical socialists once more by democratizing the economy more and more.

Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, are both PRO-STATE socialists that believe in order to achieve socialism (and as a result of socialism, eventually communism) the working class must seize the state and push it to work for the working class rather than the capitalist class. Very obviously, many ways for this to go south.

DPRK runs under Juche, which... desu, I don't think the DPRK was ever arguably socialist since the probably the 50s or 60s. They stopped referring to themselves as socialists, legally, for a while now too.

/thread

What are you talking about? The food is the first thing to go

...

an-coms and an-caps trying to bullshit about muh state is too pathetic

Give me the direct quotes that outline communism as a stateless society

>Improvement of the soil
No need for that, just freeze your seeds to inspire the plant to embrace it's own proletarian revolution

>8. estabilishing of industrial armies - check
nice try nigger, but Soviet union wasnt ruled by Trotsky

The alt-right draws its direct rhetorical roots from intensely relativist forms of Marxism or things which have common familial roots with Marxist thought.

>i think we can assume following the communist manifesto is communism
this is how you know they didn't even bother to read a 14 page fucking pamphlet. the 'ten planks' or whatever were just a set of demands for the liberal revolutions of 1848 and not to do with communism.

>"In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State."
t. Nikolai Bukharin, level 71 Bolshevik

>Communism = a society characterized by absence of the state, social classes and money, where means of production have a common ownership.
It only kind of works in hive mind machine networks and hive insects. So unless humans can be totally selfless to a system than I think it can't work.

TL;DR Nope, communism just ain't for humans

>there will be no classes,... likewise be no State.
I seriously can not understand how anyone can believe this. Can you give more detail on what exactly he means by class and state?

in a marxist understanding class is a relation to the process of production within a society not an income bracket so it refers to the relation between the man who works in a steel mill but does not own it, selling his time/ability to work, and a man who owns a steel mill and the produce of the labour he buys, selling it for profit.
Bukharin being a leninist understood the state in the sense of an organisation through which a ruling class exercises its interests within a given society. Hence the state in a capitalist society acts in the interests of the capitalists.
In Bukharin's ABC of Communism he claims
>"We have previously seen that the State is a class organization of the rulers. The State is always directed by one class against the other. A bourgeois State is directed against the proletariat, whereas a proletarian State is directed against the bourgeoisie. In the communist social order there are neither landlords, nor capitalists, nor wage workers; there are simply people - comrades. If there are no classes, then there is no class war, and there are no class organizations. Consequently the State has ceased to exist. Since there is no class war, the State has become superfluous. There is no one to be held in restraint, and there is no one to impose restraint."

Well good luck with that comrade. I prefer reactionary LARPing.

Eusocial insects aren't collectivism.

no, lenin died in like 24 then stalin took over to do the nation building bit, but kind of made a bad example.

What is this boys name

Communism is non-falsifiable. There's no point to argue about it. You either think it's possible, or it isn't.

I don't believe he ever used either of those words

>capitalism isn't so bad
lol

Probably Dmitri or Vladimir

>Soviet Union
>elected

ebin pseudoscience

It's like saying that the divine right of kings has never been tried because monarchs who claimed to rule by divine right have lost wars, therefore proving they were not actually divinely favoured.

There is no reason why we should treat communism as a historical phenomenom by the standards of communist themselves instead of by objective analysis of how it existed in the real world, like we do with every single other ideology.

They did have elections and they weren't rigged you know.

>It's like saying that the divine right of kings has never been tried because monarchs who claimed to rule by divine right have lost wars, therefore proving they were not actually divinely favoured.

Not the same thing at all. Some monarchs who ruled by divine right were never deposed, died peacefully or gloriously, and established long dynasties. The divine right was effectively fulfilled, as far as the population were concerned. There has never been a lasting money-less, classless, stateless society, not even according to fabricated popular acclaim.

Unlike most other anti-communists, I believe a moneyless, classless and stateless society is entirely feasible, maybe even inevitable. But I think it's extremely undesirable.

I'm just too shy to function in any sort of gift economy or socialized commune. I love the anonymity that monetary exchanges give to resource acquisition, and I personally thrive in alienation.

It boggles the mind of someone coming from such a state that this is even an issue.

There are no "Communist Republics" of anything - the nomenclature was SOCIALIST or People's.

The people called themselves communist because they adhered to the ideas of communism.

The state was called socialist because Marxism-Lenisnism believed socialism to be a necessary stage towards achieving communism.

The Soviets were the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, as they were a socialist nation working towards communism.

This is truly frightening, how little Americans know about topics they're so passionate about. I told my Dad this was a thing and he was incredulous - "Did they ever look at the names of these countries to see what we called ourselves?" was his reply.

is pretty much on the money: Communism, as envisioned by pretty much anyone but specifically Marxist Communism, has never been achieved on a national level. This is a statement of fact. Never. Anywhere. You might get some individual communes and shit but no country ever reached the point of communism.

Communism has certainly been TRIED many times, usually ending poorly.

This is IMHO a fault of the Leninist obsession with the Vanguard party, the idea that a group of enlightened communists take over violently, establish a dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat, set up policies to achieve communism, and then resign. No leader of a socialist country ever did that because people, once given absolute rule, want to keep it. I think, even if communism were possible (and you can certainly argue it's not), that that particular way of reaching it is idiotic.

If it helps, substitute the word 'communism' with 'utopia', in the sense of something you work towards.

Were there classless, stateless, equitable states during the Cold War? No. Because no one reached communism. A dictatorship is by definition not communist, and Trotsky argued in the 30s the USSR was state capitalist.

wrong

>Is there any truth when someone says "real Communism hasnt been tried" or are they just being delusional?
Yes. Communism hasn't been tried indeed. The problem is that attempting to implement Communism always ends up in tragedy.
>What about Russia, China, North Korea?
None are Communist, but they all attempted to, and when they did, they failed miserably.

Communism is simply an achievable goal.

autism

peak discourse

>They did have elections and they weren't rigged you know
[bullshit]

State capitalism, Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, not when the government does.

it is
why else would anyone bother starting a revolution to benefit the masses. you have the power to put yourself on top. Why would you just start giving the spoils of war away if you dont have to? communism is delusional

Friendly reminder that state "capitalism" is an oxymoron. If the means or production are not privately owned, it can't be capitalism. State ownership is public ownership, not private ownership.