Can someone explain me, how is it possible to use the "it was not real communism!" argument with a straight face?

>Capitalism is built on those who fail
wrong

>get hijacked by totalitarians, mass murder starts
>ah, oh well, let's ride it out for a few decades, and start again! Surely we will pick correct methods this time!

You know what I'm talking about, don't play stupid

An Italian guy, good at warfare

It happened every single time, even in countries that aren't in the same team. Don't you think it's enough?

Yes. Allowing failure is a feature of capitalism. We don't just prop everyone up so everyone succeeds. We let them fail to pave the way for the successful.

To be perfectly honest he was better than the Tsar. Russians have very low standards.

We do the same with the USA though, saying it isn't a real democracy.

>The fact that the whole process was hijacked by authoritarians barely matters.

Marxist thinking inevitably will lead to this, since it's utopian, vague, and they don't make rules to avoid it. Marxism is trying to solve the problems of a capitalist developing nation, but they fail to incorporate the solutions to avoid authoritarianism and despotism. Though flawed, and dominated by elites, Democracy was a better alternative to Communism.

Can someone explain me, how is it possible to use the "it was not real white colour!" argument with a straight face while talking about the pink?

Marx wrote a book about the consequences of mass industrialisation.
Retards tried to apply it in agrarian economies. There, you have it.

Point to Belgian Congo, British mismanagement in Ireland, American treatment of natives, slavery, etc.

> "That wasn't real capitalism."

Point to Communist China's success.

> "The one party Communist state where all major companies are state owned and management answers to the CCP is actually capitalist!"

>tankie resorting to whataboutism
no surprise here

the problem with "real communism" isn't that it's impossible (which it is) but that even if it were actually realized, it still sees no purpose for man above mere economics. It, just like liberalism, sees all of mans problems being the result of poorly managed and distributed resources. They are modern ideologies which carry all of the false assumptions of the enlightenment with some small changes. All of humanities problems go deeper than that, which is why both communism and liberalism ultimately fail to create utopia.

Is that a genuine vatik I see?

this but unironically

>Kikes complying about someone using an argument, aka "Whataboutism"

It's basically all about Marx vs Bakunin. Marxism is not about building the communism, it's about getting power by using proletariat.

Because Leninism is a wildly heterodox form of Marxism.

Marx would never have thought that a revolution could have succeeded in Russia precisely because it was a PRE-capitalist country.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_Plant

Pretty sure Marx was mixed on the subject of Russia. He thought it might be possible for them to skip capitalism. So Marx is partially to blame for this Russian Soviet mess. But I don't believe he ever said it to the point where he was confident it could happen.

But yes, Leninism is pretty heterodox. There's a reason Lenin authored “'Left-Wing' Communism: an Infantile Disorder"

Because they assume marxists couldn't possibly be that retarded

>Am I missing something?
Historically i cannot say but logically I can.

See your argument presupposes that a goal is only attainable by a single route. If I were to say that becoming rich were impossible because i tried once and all it did was make me poorer, well that wouldn't make much sense right?

Same principle.

Just making a logical observation here, i don't have a dog in this fight.

>Is there a state? If yes, by definition it's not actually communism.
Why couldn't communists successfully abolish the state despite having full control over it?

They were dicks

You have to create the material conditions support a stable state of anarchy. Anarchy in itself does not create communism. Anarchy is a feature of communism. Just like capitalism didn't come out of feudalism because some guys said "let's create capitalism". Changes had to happen to prime the way for it.

Some communists want to create working socialism, because working socialism should naturally lead to the material conditions that support communism. Others want to create socialism whose only purpose is to accelerate the transition to full communism. Neither of these methodologies plunges straight into anarchy from capitalism.

Because it turned out really shitty, and in their minds it would be utopia, so obviously it couldn't have been real communism

Because they bought into the Vanguard meme, the Mensheviks supported the formation of a liberal democracy in Russia because they saw it as necessary to create the conditions for Communism but the Bolsheviks just said "Fuck that" and decided to force the issue by controlling the state to create the conditions

oh, so they just forgot to create the material conditions support a stable state of anarchy, they'll remember next time, right?

Because true communism would be the world being one united state with a dictatorship of the proletariat, thus these people's transitionary states don't matter
Anyway true communism has to start in a United Germany, Britain or France nowhere else or it isn't Marx's vision

>true communism would be the world being one united state
>true communism
>state

Yeah, just like modern democracies learned you can't elect an emperor and expect your republic to not turn into an empire.

>Louis XIV wasn't a real example of divine rights of kings, he lost wars, this means he wasn't actually blessed by god

This is the level commies argue on

But he wasn't actually blessed by god.