Why does everyone say "real communism hasn't been tried?"

It's retarded, but I can explain.
Communism is an end stage. They need to reach it, and this is done through Socialism and Prolitariate Dictatorships and such.
But when they Marxist bullshit blows up in their face, they get to hide behind the idea that because they couldn't get from point A to B to C that actually everything's fine because C wasn't reached.
Even though never being able to reach C might be a huge fucking problem.

Also,
>she

“Communism” describes a means of arranging labor, particularly the point where worker control of the means of production and the absence of class distinction has persisted for so long that the state no longer becomes necessary.

Ideological Communism never achieved such a state: they in essence made everybody an employee of the government and created a capital owning class in the form of a totalitarian political party which horded all the political and economic capital and created class distinctions which were even more severe than they were in western cultures.

Socialism and communism, it turns out, is more a function of the material-technological conditions of society, and it’s not a state one can compel by enforced ideological rigidity. Just like powerful land owners no longer need to round up huge numbers of slaves to work in rock quarries and till their fields, eventually technology will make it so that people don’t need to sell their labor for profit to capital owners, but we’re not there yet, and we certainly weren’t there in post-feudal Russia in the 1910’s

Commies say that because they want to be the dictator of the communist utopia.

>Why does everyone say "real communism hasn't been tried?"
why does everyone use hyperbole?

>What was Russia and China and Cuba and North Korea then?
Respectively State Capitalism, Capitalism and Juche

Because the historical ‘communist’ states all functioned off an incorrect interpretation of the term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’ What Marx meant was a sort of radical direct democracy, what the Soviets/Mao/historical communist states did was take some party elite, make them dictator, and call it a dictatorship of the proletariat because the dictator was supposed to be working on behalf of the proletariat. The Soviets actually had something close to a true dictatorship of the proletariat initially, but the congress of workers councils ceded their power to the Communist Party during the Russian Civil War, and the party never gave it back, instead replacing them entirely with a figurehead council in ‘38 that was elected from a slate of party chosen candidates.

Can I get sauce on OP's pic

Command economy and state socialism =/= communism

Because there are so many different branches of communism, they all hate each other and claim that the other ones are wrong.

Like for example, left communists and Luxemburg akready criticized Leninism as "state capitalism". and Trotsky criticized Stalin's Soviet Union as "degenerated worker's state".

Further reading:
lacan.com/zizmaozedong.htm

There would be no dictators or any other type of rulers under communism

>she

Socialism and planned to became communist once they can afford it but commies hate each other anyway so socialist regimes get a lot of hate from commies. North Korea is just autism.

Nikita Khrushchev claimed that in 1980 the USSR would become communist but 1980 is pretty much were the USSR started to die.

Not real communism, obviously.

...

wtf?
that is a male

She's a she but she doesn't look good in any of her pictures besides these.

that is a dick between her legs

It's okay to be gay, user

state capitalism which is pretty ok if done like China

>What was Russia and China and Cuba and North Korea then?
Paradise.

Because communism as defined by Marx is the end game of a highly industrialized capitalist economy that has reached post scarcity and made competitive econmic theory obsolete.

The Communist regimes of the 20th century is a bit of a misnomer as they didn't accomplish that, nor did they believe they had, but were instead regimes established to accelerate and facilitate the transition to communism.

In some ways you can say they were actually a bit successful when you look at Russia and China going from agrarian societies to industrial power houses in less than 100 years but other than that, communism was never intended as an alternative to capitalism but rather an evolution of it. Marx had said his theory was actually quite specific to Western Europe.

The problem of course is that its completely unfalsifiable as long as the transition doesn't occur one can always say "it's coming lads" but there's no guarantee post scarcity can be reached. As far as economic theory is concerned Marx is kind of outdated. But he did correctly criticize capitalists of his day and predicted a lot of the turns capitalism would be take like globalization and automation.

>Why does everyone say "real communism hasn't been tried?"
Because if you actually look into it instead of swallowing the propaganda wholesale it's true. Communism is often defined by actual Communists as a stateless and classless society. Does that describe the USSR or North Korea? No. Then it's not Communism as defined by Communists.

>What was Russia and China and Cuba and North Korea then?
There own own countries and there own thing.

This is like someone saying a world of total or highest freedom would be great, but it hasn't been fully tried in practice. Then countering with, "But what about America and France and UK?" They are all their own countries that happen to favor the ideal of "freedom" in public propaganda. All those countries have their own strengths and weaknesses due to their history and culture, and the fact they don't live up to a totally free society doesn't mean freedom sucks or that authoritarian fascism is great.

This. North Korea isn't all that different from the ancient Joseon Kingdom and PRC is pretty similar to the varying oligarchies that formed during Qing and Ming eras.

USSR and Russian Empire were also very similar, and also died for the same reasons. Though I'm not sure whether Gorbachev or Yeltsin was the Nicholas II.

The idea that socialist states are this foreign evil force occupying the country is unreal and straight out of WW2 Nazi German or Cold War US propaganda. The socialist states in question were very much respectively Russian, Chinese, Korean, etc in culture.

That's a meaty material she got there. Would eat.

>North korea is not socialist/communist

Indeed, there is nothing more anti communist like central planning of the economy.

No one said any of those states weren't communist. All we said was that it's natural for anarcho-communists who consider a stateless society to be true communism to not recognise socialist states. And no I'm not anarcho-communist myself, so save the inevitable antifa memes, we're trying to talk things from a neutral historical perspective.

Do /pol/ instantly go braindead when the word 'communism' is brought up?

please stop making this thread

communism is the most beta ideology, this is about the hottest girl they can produce.
Like in everything else, the capitalist product is far superior, but communist betas are too afraid of that.

I love this, we have to walk an eggshells, consider some pointless branch of the same toxic left ideology as being seperate from the rest and thus not at fault for the miserable failings of the rest.
Right wing, though? All Nazism. Even commietards think capitalism is fascism, which shows how low IQ they are.
Also, this is literally politics. I have no idea why mods let cummunists try and shill their failed ideology here.

That's because left wing ideologies have an intellectual basis, whereas right wing "ideologies" are simply post-hoc justifications for white supremacy, bigotry, racism, etc, AKA nazism.

it's because the hard left tends to see ideologies that oppose leftist as being complicit with fascism- the hard right also tends to refer to liberals as commies or commie-sympathizers even when liberals wouldnt think of themselves that way
also politics and history are inextricably linked lol

>this is what cummunists actually believe
>hard right also tends to refer to liberals as commies or commie-sympathizers
Good point.
>also politics and history are inextricably linked lol
Then stop whining about /pol/ like a newfag.

>white supremacy
>bigotry
>racism

Oh yes, all this are what right wing is all about.

i wasn't friend that was my first post in this thread

*blocks your means of production*

I shit on people here that try to make your regular capitalism be literally Hitler too. I mean, I dislike the US neoliberal hypercapitalism a lot but it's stupid to justify it as DUDE ITS LITERALLY HITLER LMAO. They have two distinct evils about them, also the liberalism you conflate with communism actually has always ALWAYS been tied with capitalism, just like right now we have neoliberalism.

What they mean is that a purely state Socialist economy and the eventual total revolution (abolition of hierarchy) has never been tried.
This ignores Lenin's early economic policies in the Soviet Union (which disproved total Socialism as a credible economic system) and the fact that the march to total Communist Revolutionary Utopia has been attempted and it only ever ended in totalitarianism and failure.

The argument is bogus because there is no "real communism". 20th century regimes inspired by marxism were always state capitalism + informal capitalism.

>real communism hasn't been tried
>Marx claims it existed in ethnically homogeneous tribal societies
It's almost as if communism is just an opiate for the masses.
The only successful communism (according to Marx) was done in essentially /pol/larper heaven.
socialist "state" with no government and a single group rallying around a singular identity.

why did communists have to resort to capitalism?

The reason that those authoritarian statesmen always took power over a grand democratic worker's council, is that such an institution would be unsustainable, with radical conflicts of interest and mob rule due to the direct democratic elements probably eventually tearing it apart.
I believe the Maos, Stalins and Castros of the Communist world (or at least the people around them) recognised this.

the fuck is wrong with this guy?

because states don't exist in a vacuum and the existing international order is decidedly capitalist

There is no possibility of a class collective owning the means of production. The closest they could do was to suplant the existing elites with a bureaucratic one.

This, Lenin was a fucking retard and all forms of communism modeled after his example are shit.

wrong

t. anarchist with no grounding in reality of statecraft

why?
>states don't exist in a vaccum
Then how can communism function at all? Why couldnt they pursue isolationism like a global form of communism would necessarily have to?

communism in its final form only exists with a shift in the world order according to many theorists
that's why many marxists disagree with left anarachists, because they see the necessity of a state in a world dominated by capitalism

Communism isn't a mere economic system. By definition Communism is a totalitarian ideology that wishes to create a society without individual economic expectations and without hierarchy (literally impossible as society in of itself is little more than a set of hierarchies) by making everyone equal in agency by distributing wealth evenly between every single individual despite their productivity. This is an ideology of greed as it comes from the ultimate notion of greed that is equality of outcome. To be rewarded without having to fulfill any societal exceptions, to be exulted despite producing little of value for your fellow man. These are the core motivations of Marxist Communist and it basically boils down to the right to be an utter degenerate and yet be rewarded for it. Not only is it bad enough that this ideology boils down to degeneracy but it also inevitably leads to the very thing its advocates so often love to preach against; an authoritarian state. Because Communism is a totalitarian ideology it needs to be enforced strictly upon all individuals in society and the end result is a life of moral, cultural and economic slavery. Communist states will see freewill crushed and removed and the will of the Marxist revolutionaries raised above all. Everyone classified, labeled and ultimately trapped in the roles these Marxist has chosen for them and yet it is the opposition to this that is so often painted as evil. Marxist ideologues forge their own chains and shackle as all.

...

Nice paragraph, try actually reading Marx before you post next time. By definition, communism describes a society that is "post-capitalist" in that the relationship between classes and production has fundamentally shifted. Early critics of capitalism argued basically the opposite of what you're saying regarding productivity and "equality of outcome" (a meme phrase employed by the right to muddy the waters of what socialism entails). The underclasses tend to not be rewarded what is fair given their productivity in capitalism- and this because they do not own the means of production. Those who do tend to do little concrete labor yet receive the brunt of the reward. This unequal relationship is (according to Marx, though later leftists tend to be less historically deterministic) simply not sustainable beyond a certain point. Insofar as "communism" being an ideology predisposed to authoritarianism, it is true that many communist argue for a (vaguely temporary) DOTP- this is because they are realists. These theorists realize that uprisings against the bourgeois would not affect serious societal long term change without some short-term use of the state-mechanism by the previously oppressed. Theoretically, hierarchy will be minimized during this stage and with the advent of a communist order the mechanism of the "state" will fade away. This is not due to leftist magic but to an economically materialist understanding of history- because the state is the fundamental societal actor of the capitalist world order, it simply won't have utility once that order has shifted.

>because they see the necessity of a state in a world dominated by capitalism
Why?
If the globe were communist, what would be any different than a single nation being isolationist?
>inb4 resource scarcity
Suppose they had enough rivers and woodlands for basic needs like food and wate.

t. Jordan Peterson

>Right wing, though? All Nazism
Strawman much?

i'm not sure i understand your question
are you saying that the entire world would be considered a single nation in isolation?

>Not real communism

What your actually saying is "If I were in charge, communism would really work."

And if you think that, you are the type of person that should never have power. And on the office chance any of you faggots are a complete saint, whats to stop the next scheming son of a bitch from killing you and your friends while you sleep? Then what? What do you think that person will do?

Is capitalism perfect? nope. far from it. But its the best thing we have ever had. and none of you are some golden tool that's able to fix all the problems in the world.

and you can't devour the suffering of other people and take away the only thing that'll ever give their own lives meaning just so the lot of you can avoid the fact that you're not as good as you think you really are.

>That's because left wing ideologies have an intellectual basis, whereas right wing "ideologies" are simply post-hoc justifications for white supremacy, bigotry, racism, etc, AKA nazism.

you're conflating totalitarian dictatorship with "communism"
read Marx

haha
he's mostly right though. find me a decidedly right-wing ideology as fleshed out in its critique of the current order as marxism

Show me the dick, CNN. Show me the god damn dick between the legs.

People are not groups.

what do you mean by this, when did my post use either term
still read marx

and also the whole idea behind communism is "the individual is the state", which is why everyone seems to think "lol no totalitarian dictatorial ggwp."

when the principles themselves are predicated on the fact that the person is literally the 'state' but you can't be a group. Which is why its illogical to assume that communism would be anything other than a murderous dictatorship. I thought this board was for Veeky Forums didn't you read anything from the 20th century that contradicted your own beliefs?

and your also assuming that I haven't read Marx.

You haven't actually though have you

Sorry, I'm still a little confused. What do you mean by "the idea behind communism is 'the individual is the state'"? Where are you getting this idea?

Maybe read a book about what communism actually is and then you'll understand.

>as fleshed out in its critique of the current order as marxism

Wow, imagine the millions of hours hundreds of Marxist intellectuals have wasted on getting all that down on paper though

I've read Marx. But please do enlighten me, where am I wrong, and what is it from marx that supports your argument?

It's like /leftypol/'s argument on everything

>"you haven't read it"
>post the exact line you were referring to
>"well, now you're just interpreting it wrong - what he REALLY meant was..."

Speaking as a leftist, this is not a bad point

Then define communism.

You clearly haven't read him either

I was told that i'm confusing communism with a totalitarian dictatorship. I would supposedly understand what he was saying if I had just read marx, which I have.

Marx understood historical development (not unproblematically, but still) as a progress that entailed, with each major social shift, a change in economic relationships. So "communism" describes an economic relationship- one in which the laboring class (and over time people as a whole) directly and communally own the "means of production". Capitalism, as an economic relationship, describes a situation in which a middle/unlaboring class owns this means and exploitatively extracts value from the work of the laborers

...

...

I still think you are stuck on a crucial distinction that many anti-coms fail to make. If you've read Marx, then you would understand the importance of economic relationships to Marx when it comes to describing societies.

Commies tend to be autistic, historically illiterate morons in general so don't sweat it.

Excellent, now tell me how exactly where those "classes" exploited?

And what makes anyone entitled to anything other than their own production?

You failed to successfully refute any of the points I made in my comment and instead you regurgitate the same old tired talking points which amount to nothing more than ad hoc for attempting to justify your political beliefs. What matters is the end goal of Marxist ideology and the historical means used of attempting to obtain it. That is what is to be analyzed and that's exactly what my comment has reflected on.
First of all, anyone here can look up and read a pdf of the Communist Manifesto as well as look up the history of all past communist states and see how shit went for em to confirm whether what I say is true or not.
Second, your attempt to poison the well concerning the term equality of outcome is ineffective. Equality of outcome perfectly summarizes the end goal of Marxist ideologues. Also it's pretty ironic seeing a Marxist talk about muddying the waters when it comes to socialism since you people are the ones who hijacked it for the sake of your irrational fantasies.
Lastly you slander the relation between inventors, investors and laborers. Inventors are compensated because without them the product would not of been conceptualized and thus would not exist. Investors are compensated for without them the product could not be funded to be produced. And laborers are compensated for they are needed to actualize the product.
Socialism makes sense because it simply replaces the investor class with the government. Communism doesn't make sense because it strives to eliminate all 3 classes.

you're inadvertently supporting Marx lol

that's the crux of the argument: laborers in industrial society do not receive the fruits of their labor because they don't own the means of production. a factory owner would not make sufficient profits if he paid each worker the amount of value they produce- it simply wouldn't be a logical move in a capitalist system.

>labor theory of value

So the cost of the machinery, the factory, feeding all these workers, that's all just nothing right?

This is why communism always just devolves into state controlled oligarchies. Who else is supposed to invest in this shit if not from the surplus profit? The state. You can't think up a single organization capable that isn't the state. In a hundred and fifty years you couldn't.

Fuck the state and fuck your pie in the sky dreams about communism in twenty years too.

ok, yes, we are talking about the "end goals" of marxist ideology (which of course varies between theorists).
anyone here who does read the manifesto (and i really do recommend it!) should be advised that they aren't exactly learning all they need to know about marxism. the manifesto is short and sweet propaganda, meant for the everyman- if you really want to grapple with marxist analysis you should read capital.
I admit that I was a little pointed in how I referred to "equality of outcome"- but the point still stands. i'm curious as to how you see Marxists as hijackers of the term socialism- marx brought a degree of critical analysis to socialism that no theorist had brought before.
The thing is that investors don't need to exist as a class outside of capitalism. Even as a hard capitalist, this should be obvious to you. Yes, invention needs to occur and inventors do valuable work- most bourgeois who own production means simply are not inventors.
Yes, communism ideally does strive to end class distinctions to the point that it is possible, because these distinctions are inherently exploitative.

Sure, my response was primarily tired talking points, but you were unable to dispel them. You still haven't addressed the issue of Marx's economic materialism being crucial to understanding his conception of communism- I'm assuming this means you are accepting my interpretation of Marx's understanding and recognize that your original post defined the term insufficiently.

hey guy, i'm just explaining marx here, not opening that can of worms
well, where does the machinery owning class get the money to purchase the machinery? also, investment is a non-issue post-capitalism because profit is not important- but this is a little abstract and beyond today's lesson.

yes, the state has a crucial function so long as the globe is capitalist. assuming the world order shifts, state mechanism would no longer make sense.
never said communism in twenty years, just trying to clear up some common misconceptions re: what marx actually wrote

>not opening that can of worms

It's too late for that, faggot, the can is opened

Now I think I understand how you tards can call generic cuckservatives and canuckian christfag liberals Nazis without any sense of irony.