Why did Russia adopt communism as their main political-economic ideology fallowing their revolution compared to Free...

Why did Russia adopt communism as their main political-economic ideology fallowing their revolution compared to Free market capitalism that fallowed the American, French, and some Latin American revolutions?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism
youtube.com/watch?v=PaFklTLNy8c&t=203s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Capitalism still has hierarchies
Lenin also saw the widespread exploitation of workers in other parts of Europe at the time, probably seemed to close to their old shitty feudalism

>Why did Russia adopt communism as their main political-economic ideology fallowing their revolution compared to Free market capitalism that fallowed the American, French, and some Latin American revolutions?
Civil war, the bad guys one. There could've been a transition to a superior system, but alas, they had tons of financial backing. Youtube. Antony Sutton.

Mainly, because competent revolutionaries flocked to radical Socail-Democrats in the end of the 19th century, and the 20th

Lenin was held prisoner by the Germans in WW1, he was intentionally set loose by them because they knew he would destabilize the Russian army.

>Lenin was held prisoner by the Germans in WW1, he was intentionally set loose by them because they knew he would destabilize the Russian army.
good post. Warburg's plan. Prikaz no 1 is the order that unionized and defeated the Imperial army.

Dumbest post of the week on /pol/ right here.
No matter what the German's motivation actually was (to allow transit of Russian exiles from further west), Russia became stronger compared to the first republic.

dont advertise your channel here shill

It's because of who was in charge of the Revolution. Read any Russian literature from the 1800s and you will see there is a clear communistic tendancy. Additionally Russia was very different historically from Western Europe. They has not the enlightenment of the 16 and 1700s serfdom reached its apex in Russia. Also the czars were more like gods sanctified by the Russian orthodox church.

I am reading a book that has a chapter dedicated to this very topic in fact. It's called "the uses of the past" by Herbert j. Muller.

Because Lenin instituted NEP which was close enough to free market capitalism, just with a government that intended to move to socialism once late capitalism was reached instead of trying to entrench late capitalism for perpetuity.

The first world war was actually a disaster for the democratic cause. None of the major defeated countries introduced functioning democracies, on the contrary fascism and communism became common place these days.

You mention the case of France for example, but that is really not a remotely good example. France never had a successful revolution like you suggest that established a democracy, on the country Napoleon took power. Later on it was taken over by fascism for a period leading to Vichy France. In truth there is nothing to guarantee a revolution will happen. In truth, only in the case of America do you have a good case. It was America that became the "Arsenal of democracy" and that from its secure geographic location, ensured the system had a future. So the whole way you phrased your question is wrong.

In the case of the Russian revolution, it cannot be separated from the case of the first world war. The Bolsheviks essentially promised an immediate end to the war, which distinguished them from all their opponents. After the overthrow of the tsar, the provisional government continued the war but it was a disaster. Bolsheviks succeeded by promising an end to the war, and land and bread to the incredibly desperate people.

Well I guess that backfired on them!

I'm not me Sutton lmao
>Bolsheviks succeeded by promising an end to the war, and land and bread to the incredibly desperate people.
They created famine in 21-22 that killed 5-7 million people,invaded the Baltic and poland, and stole people's land while losing national territory.

>They created famine in 21-22 that killed 5-7 million people,invaded the Baltic and poland, and stole people's land while losing national territory.
muh atrocities

>Blatantly lying to people then shrugging it off knowing you'll spout the same bullshit next thread

Because the liberals wanted to keep fighting a wildly unpopular war

The ebul Bolshevists rose on the promise to do evil also look at this youtube conspiracist who has the deep redpill on how they were secretly funded by the Americans too

Actually they didnt, in the beginning While still under Lenin, their initial implementation of Communism was unsurprisingly such a colossal fuck up and failure that they had to revert to a system they called NEP (New Economic Policy) or "Temporary Capitalism Until We Figure Out How This Retarded Communist Bullshit Works". It lasted until Lenin passed away and Stalin took control.

Lol the face of Communism and the retard Lenin never even actually ran a proper Communist policy once in his entire life.

Hey faggot, nothing wrong with state capitalism. Lenin even said it would be necessary before the Bolsheviks came to power.

>Lenin never even actually ran a proper Communist policy once in his entire life.
Which he probably never intended to do so. Do you even know what Leninism is?

Because marxism is wrong, history doesn't follow a linear path from primitive communism to slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism.

Firstly, primitive communism does not describe most hunter gatherer societies as these contain hierarchies (hunters over gatherers, old over young, men over women, there is some variance across cultures) and have resource allocation structured around exchange value (you buy status with gifts, faith healing is a service that supplements income, etc).

Slavery as an institution is highly irregular across civilizations.

There is no cut off point between state capitalism and socialism, as described by Marx (he doesn't destinguish free market capitalism from state socialism, I specified state capitalism because I knew some people would contest me comparing capitalism to socialism in the way I do). The main difference seems to be who issues wages, with proletariat dictatorships using labour vouchers as currency, rather than marks, francs, silver, gold, cows, etc.

The socialists themselves advocated for a bourgeois state. See:
Though it isn't just Lenin, who was largely considered a radical by the party when he arrived, and ultimately got driven into exile for a while by suspicions that he was a spy. The Petersburg Soviet was largely in support of the Provisional Government because their ideology told them that Russia wasn't ready for communism. They just wanted to have vague oversight and involvement in the process, so that there was a kind of phantom worker's state standing behind the bourgeois liberal state. But there was also a large feeling that the Russian bourgeoisie were cowardly or incompetent, they weren't fulfilling their historical role by having a liberal revolution.

Because greedy pigs didn't want to get shot.

Because the actual Russian Revolution started before Lenin did anything in March of 1917 and formed the Provisional Government. Then in October, the Bolsheviks just overthrew this government and implemented their own and forced communism on Russia through the barrel of a gun. Lenin was pretty damn ruthless and created the Cheka (precursor to the NKVD and KGB) and the GULAG system.

Communism appeals to collectivist societies. Hence COMMUNE-ism. Capitalism appeals to individualistic societies. Fascism appeals to both.

I think a lot of communists are afraid to shit too much on daddy Lenin because he successfully took power and formed the first socialist state in the world, but nearly every other major socialist was a huge critic of his early policies. He built the foundations of a paranoid police state that Stalin took control of. They defend it as necessary because of internal enemies, and while there is some legitimacy to that the problem is that Lenin pulled too strongly on a society that was not ready for the upheaval which incited mayhem and unrest, which perpetuated the belief that there was a need for security and more terror. His model of revolution seems mostly cancerous for the intellectual culture of socialism since then. It's all about upheaval, which isn't even how capitalism eventually succeeded. There needs to be the seeds of a new order in the old, the bourgeoisie were already building power in the cities before they started to force the hands of nobles towards liberal republics that fostered markets.

The issue is that Communist tend to try and blame everything bad on Stalin and claim it was JUST him and not communist ideal in general that caused all of that slaughter. But even the darling of the new left, Trotsky, was a war mongering psychopathic cunt. Communism is a brutal and batshit crazy ideology that has been masked as some sort of hippie with a backbone bullshit when it isnt at all. Even Marx himself called the implementation of communism despotic in the Communist Manifesto

>kings peacefully gave way to capitalism
>I can justify capitalist atrocities because I have an iphone

>but alas, they had tons of financial backing

Unlike the Whites who definitely did not have several world powers invade Russia in their support

>whataboutism non sequitur
typical brainlet leftykiddy

Cuz "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."

Because unlike the meme, bochivicks went after soldiers and sailors, not workers...

But they were solidly supported by the industrial working class (i.e, the proletariat)

Only after they have to support of soldiers and sailors... it's not hard to make the workers leaders agree with you, when you point a gun on his head.

This was before they took state power, when the provisional government was still in control. It's true that the majority of Russia didn't like the Bolsheviks (peasants tended to go for the social revolutionaries, the middle classes liberal, and the aristocrats reactionaries), but the urban workers supported them pretty much from the beginning of the revolution.

Most of urban workers supported Menchevicks or soft socialists before the Bolsheviks became the only alternative

Russia didn't adopt communism, it was forced on them after Petrograd Soviet started their own revolution coup and sized power, manny were against it and so the whole Civil War happened and Bolsheviks created death squads like Cheka which massacred all ideological opposition.
Russia before bolshevism was very enthusiastic about socialism, because the nation was in a mess of extreme class warfare and people wanted better food rations, agrarian reforms and better work conditions instead of doing the whole war thingy...

Trudoviks and Social Revolutionaries were probably the closest thing Russia came to social democracy which was desperately needed.

>i watched the chekist so now i'm woke on the civil war
amazing

They didn’t create the first famine, the civil war did. The second famine was a combination of natural factors and bad reactions to those factors. What the Bolsheviks did do is establish food security in a region where there had been none for hundreds of years.

>Actually they didnt, in the beginning While still under Lenin, their initial implementation of Communism was unsurprisingly such a colossal fuck up and failure that they had to revert to a system they called NEP (New Economic Policy) or "Temporary Capitalism Until We Figure Out How This Retarded Communist Bullshit Works

That’s not why they did it. It was because in the wake of the Civil War the economy was it tatters, and they needed to re-organize it quickly. So they suspended workplace democracy and allowed limited free market policies because the government didn’t have the capacity to repair the economy on their own.

>whataboutism

That’s now what he’s saying, he’s simply pointing out that revolutions are never peaceful, and that there is always bloodshed. Capitalism was the same way when it was first established, thus making communism not any more inherently brutal than any other system. Advocates of capitalism can scoff and take the moral high ground because capitalism had its last revolutionary spasms 150 years ago.

>he’s simply pointing out that revolutions are never peaceful, and that there is always bloodshed.
You mean other than the initial revolution that led to the Czar abdicating the throne and created the provisional government? Or when the same thing happened in Germany a year later?
>Capitalism was the same way when it was first established, thus making communism not any more inherently brutal than any other system.
yeah, and thats whataboutism. And its not even true.

Youre also, just like he was, being purposefully ignorant of the fact that communism is an inherent violent and bloody ideology.

>Capitalism was the same way when it was first established, thus making communism not any more inherently brutal than any other system.
[citation fucking required]

I don't remember the American or British version of the Gulag , unless you're one of those leftists who thinks the Jacobins weren't proto-communists because we're going to ignore Babeuf

The civil war they started that killed 7-12 million people And yes, war communism fucked the Soviet/Russian economy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism
>A black market emerged in Russia, despite the threat of martial law against profiteering. The rouble collapsed and barter increasingly replaced money as a medium of exchange[9] and, by 1921, heavy industry output had fallen to 20% of 1913 levels. 90% of wages were paid with goods rather than money. 70% of locomotives were in need of repair, and food requisitioning, combined with the effects of seven years of war and a severe drought, contributed to a famine that caused between 3 and 10 million deaths.[10] Coal production decreased from 27.5 million tons (1913) to 7 million tons (1920), while overall factory production also declined from 10,000 million roubles to 1,000 million roubles. According to the noted historian David Christian, the grain harvest was also slashed from 80.1 million tons (1913) to 46.5 million tons (1920).

Then just a decade later the Holodomor kills 4-9 million more! Then the famine of 46-47. Then they imported food from the US at times during the cold war.

>Their economic policies were due to the war not their economic doctrine
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism

Jesus, how much of sovietbooism in Russia is just 'our boys didnt die for nothing!' memes?

>it's another slavery was better than gulags episode

I mean brother it's got to be hard. They lost everything, and they have a pile of corpses and over a half a dozen lost wars for it. All they have to show is some shitty architectural living blocs and two major inventions. The realization that Russia was on a better trajectory before has got to be hard to swallow. They have nearly a century of being a nation lost. It even killed the culture. It's a sad story.

>the American or British version of gulags

>what was genociding the natives
>what was backwards slave society and Jim Crow
>what was the British colonial empire that extracted resources from shitty countries.

All of those are good things though. And I like how you say backwards slavery, instead of you know, progressive slavery. The kind where every city has his freedom on speech,expression,religion, autonomy, right to his tools, home ownership, private property, etc banned. Now that is some forward looking slavery.

>All of those are good things though
And if it wasn't clear, I'm joking. Imperialism was a good thing though. Imperialism is a great thing.

>>what was genociding the natives
a giant meme

And once again, Communism is inherently violent and bloody as opposed to liberalism.

The Tsarists were being discredited in the eyes of the public because of perceived failures in WWI (even though Germany was teetering on the edge of defeat in 1917 and Russia was poised to take a fuckton of land from the Turks)
Kerensky was able to bluff people into thinking he had a clue for most of a year before they realized he was an incompetent retard
With so many moderates and pussies paralyzed to take any kind of responsibility of government office, the fact that the bolsheviks had the balls to take action (and had fat stacks of cash from the German Empire) was able to lull most of the naturally subservient Russian populace into going along with what they were doing. And even though the communists were supposedly post-nationalists, the fact that the Whites were fighting alongside foreign powers occupying Russian soil painted the reds as being the protectors of Mother Russia in the mind of the average brainlet peasant.

>This entire post
How many memes from public education can one newfag poster fall for? There was no genocide of native Americans, there was a war between competing nation's for land , and everything you cited came post election.

We are talking in the context of during the revolution , which many native Americans helped the United States with. Why people teach that native Americans were a homogenous Bloc of people and not a massive amount of independent nation states competing with each other is beyond me
>He is going to complain about British colonialism and how the government of the British treated foreigners they conquered
Oh boy...

>"b-but the Europeans were committing mass murder with their germs! They knew germ theory all along!"

>You mean other than the initial revolution that led to the Czar abdicating the throne and created the provisional government?

That wasn’t much of a revolution. The power of the former ruling class (nobility, landlords, capitalists) was still largely intact. There was no revolution in the sense of a dramatic change in the mode of production.

>Youre also, just like he was, being purposefully ignorant of the fact that communism is an inherent violent and bloody ideology.

Why? Because it is revolutionary? Would you have said the same thing about the French Revolutionaries? Or the American Patriot militias? Or the English Republicans? They weren’t socialists but they were all revolutionaries.

>don't remember the American or British version of the Gulag

Do you remember the Napoleonic Wars? The terror? Colonialism? Manifest destiny? Do you remember the famines that tore through India under British rule? Do you remember the American Civil War? The failed revolutions of 1848?

>the Jacobins were proto communists

Lmao no they weren’t. The French Revolution was a liberal revolution against feudalism.

>The civil war they started that killed 7-12 million people

Capitalists started WW1. Does that make all of the people who died in it victims of capitalism?

>post election.
*Post revolution

>Ywn live in try days when miasma theory was popular , and sniffed laudanum to cure pain
Feels gud and bad man

Don't forget the British poor houses, the work camps they through people in for being poor.

They werent. And once again, you are ignoring the part where communism is inherently violent and bloody.

Or the fact that there is nothing particularly nefarious about gulags in the first place. They were prison camps where people did forced labour, something which was common practice around the world then.

Explain why this is the case though. If it is because it’s a revolutionary ideology then you can make the same accusation of literally every ideology that isn’t the status quo.

>Do you remember the Napoleonic Wars? The terror? Colonialism? Manifest destiny? Do you remember the famines that tore through India under British rule? Do you remember the American Civil War? The failed revolutions of 1848
>The amount of historical memes present in this post
Holy shit
>Manifest destiny is the fault of capitalism
>Napoleonic Wars are the same as gulag and Cheka
>French Revolution wasn't proto-socialistic where both nationalist and socialism stemmed from
>Revolutions of 1848 had genocides and mass famines in them
What the fuck are you smoking right now?

>That wasn’t much of a revolution. The power of the former ruling class (nobility, landlords, capitalists) was still largely intact.
Except the communist bloc managed to pass orders as early as 1917.Democracy was a mistake in Russia.
>Why? Because it is revolutionary? Would you have said the same thing about the French Revolutionaries? Or the American Patriot militias? Or the English Republicans? They weren’t socialists but they were all revolutionaries.
7-12 million died. They suspended human rights. They purged people, good people. They sent people to Gulags for owning holy books. Not only that but communism is predicated and built on violence at all levels from beginning to end, until people realize better.
>Do you remember the Napoleonic Wars? The terror? Colonialism? Manifest destiny? Do you remember the famines that tore through India under British rule? Do you remember the American Civil War? The failed revolutions of 1848?
None of that is hard wired into capitalism or democracy, or monarchy. Those were circumstantial, whereas communism requires converts, it requires to cessation of human rights and total compliance of those under it.
>Capitalists started WW1. Does that make all of the people who died in it victims of capitalism?
There's no tenet of capitalism that requires world wars. There are tenets in communism that require bloody revolution, subversion of every human activity as an extension of communist control,etc.
Your problem is that you fail to connect the ideological motives behind communist atrocities, and the fact it was all pointless.

I’m using anti-communist logic here, where every death and case of turmoil that occurred in communists states is a result of the ideology itself and not of turmoil in general. If manifest destiny is not the result of capitalism then why are gulags and the Cheka the result of communism? The classic ahistorical tactic of anti communists is to simplify all communist atrocities while having a million explanations about why deaths under capitalism are the fault of anything but the system itself.

>not real capitalism
>the actions in the name of liberal states are never actually the results of liberal states themselves!

>Explain why this is the case though.
Because Marx said himself in the communist manifesto that the implementation of communism would be despotic. And its all about complete government control, which will inevitably lead to bloodshed. And not only that, the revolution become permanent with an all powerful ruling class in the form of the state after to get rid of supposed counter revolutionaries. And this is evident in literally every single communist country ever to the point where even dissidents like Trotsky were blood thirsty warmongers.

Theres also the fact that all modern communist/socialist themselves are bitter and hatefilled maniacs who want to murder people. And of course you will just claim "they are just le jokes!" just like the alt-right does when they are totally just joking about killing all the jews.

Washington gave up command of his army after the revolution was won and then he gave up the presidency after two terms, even going so far as to reject the idea of the president having a pretentious title like "your majesty" and the entire US government was built around the idea of no one ever getting too much power. While the core idea of communism is to simply take the powerful goverment away from the king and use it for themselves like a kid with his dads gun going after the bullies at school

>They suspended human rights. They purged people, good people. They sent people to Gulags for owning holy books.

Are you suggesting that there is no totalitarianism or political repression in capitalist society? What about Pinochet? Suharto? Syngman Rhee? Chiang Kai Shek? What about the atrocities of European empires?

>None of that is hard wired into capitalism or democracy, or monarchy. Those were circumstantial, whereas communism requires converts, it requires to cessation of human rights and total compliance of those under it.

Lmao this is exactly what I’m talking about. Explain to me how gulags are inherent to communism but imperialism isn’t inherent to capitalism?

>There's no tenet of capitalism that requires world wars. There are tenets in communism that require bloody revolution, subversion of every human activity as an extension of communist control,etc.
Your problem is that you fail to connect the ideological motives behind communist atrocities, and the fact it was all pointless.

There’s no tenet of capitalism that calls for imperial conquest, but it happened. There are tenets of capitalism that are revolutionary in non-capitalist societies. Basically all of your criticisms are equally applicable to capitalism when taken with even a grain of intellectual honesty.

Because the Cheka was specifically to arrest and kill not only anti-communist, but those not communist enough. Same with the GULAGs.

>If manifest destiny is not the result of capitalism then why are gulags and the Cheka the result of communism?
Because one has to due with an issue with overpopulation and the other is a party lead repression of political dissent?

How many levels of pure cognitive dissonance can you be on rn? This is insanity. The wars in the American west were not the result of a secret band of internal police going westward to murder anti-capitalists

>not real capitalism
What are you talking about, manifest destiny had nothing to do with economic policies lmaoooo

>Because Marx said himself in the communist manifesto that the implementation of communism would be despotic. And its all about complete government control, which will inevitably lead to bloodshed. And not only that, the revolution become permanent with an all powerful ruling class in the form of the state after to get rid of supposed counter revolutionaries. And this is evident in literally every single communist country ever to the point where even dissidents like Trotsky were blood thirsty warmongers.

Lmao actually read some Marx. The despotism that he speaks of consists of the proletariat exercising political dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, that is to say overthrowing the previous oligarchy and replacing it with the self governance of the entire ruling class, ie proletarian democracy. Once again, in this sense all revolutions are despotic in that they overthrow a previous elite and replace it with a new set of rulers. This is independent of ideology. The state in this case is the worker’s state, governed by the class as a whole through democratic means, just as the bourgeois state operates through bourgeois liberal democracy. You’re talking as if the political situation of the Soviet Union, with the party dominated oligarchy, is inherent to communist ideology, when in reality it only emerges with Lenin, and was heavily criticized by his contemporaries. Even then it doesn’t emerge immediately, really only coming into being with the 1921 ban on party factions after the Kronstadt uprising and developing from there.

>What about Pinochet? Suharto? Syngman Rhee? Chiang Kai Shek? What about the atrocities of European empires?
Heres the one thing you dont get. These are all outliners, while you cant point to ONE(1) communist country that is or wasnt a despotic shithole. And this is because communism is an inherently despotic system. Its basically the Islam of economics.

And the Chilean secret police were set up to kill non-capitalists and those not capitalist enough. The British army was sent out to kill those that didn’t want to be under British rule. Capitalism confirmed for ebil bloodthirsty ideology.

>The wars in the American west were not the result of a secret band of internal police going westward to murder anti-capitalists

No, but they were waged in pursuit of new lands and resources to exploit for profit.

Great post.
>Are you suggesting that there is no totalitarianism or political repression in capitalist society? What about Pinochet? Suharto? Syngman Rhee? Chiang Kai Shek? What about the atrocities of European empires?
Pinochet did nothing wrong. You can't call people reactionaries and be surprised that what they're reacting to is communist suspension of something as basic as private property or culture or banning of religion and persecuting people for thought crimes.

>Lmao this is exactly what I’m talking about. Explain to me how gulags are inherent to communism but imperialism isn’t inherent to capitalism?
Because I can make a list of countless capitalist systems that weren't and aren't empires, not a list of communists without gulags or suppression of rights.
>also, communists created empires
>imperialism predates capitalism as well
So the imperialist argument is really just dressed up polcorr, because obviously when the Soviets attacks it's neighbors(Poland, Baltic states, Afghanistan, etc) it's not true imperialism either lol

>totalitarianism is authoritarianism
No?
>Why are gulag inherent to an economic platform rested in murdering the bourgeoisie
Do I have to point it out to you?
>Violence occurs in x series of systems if I just ignore the systems that dont have en mass state sponsored violence in them
Yes violence occurs in capitalist societies as it does in any, but the point of a liberal capitalist society is to minimize whereas in a communist society you are having a war against human nature on the notion that human nature doesn't exist because of your hard stance on materialism

Which *always* rather than *sometimes* leads to violence. People are violent by nature, get over it

Point out a case where capitalism didn’t give rise to imperialism. Does that mean imperialism is inherent to capitalism.

>meaningless and boring justification of the despotic nature of communism with rhetoric.
Youre just doing the same shit as always where you think redefinging a word is some new creation (just like my post said) "its not a state, its just the workers soviet is all!"
You also just conveniently ignored the fact that all modern self professed communist are bitter and angry people who constantly "joke" about mass murder and torture of those they are jealous of.

can you define human nature

>cant answer the question
Again, name ONE(1) communist country that wasnt a despotic shithole.

>to exploit
Only if you're a communist idiot who believes in historical materialism. I call it human nature for the competition of resources between two rival populations

Yes, but it would take a book to write and examine

>Pinochet did nothing wrong.

So totalitarian repression is only bad when your ideological enemies do it, great argument.

>Because I can make a list of countless capitalist systems that weren't and aren't empires, not a list of communists without gulags or suppression of rights.

Not really, even a country as mundane as Canada has its fingers all over shit like Congolese child labour. You also would be hard pressed to find a communist experiment that wasn’t placed immediately under siege by outside forces.

>>imperialism predates capitalism as well

And famine and repression predate communism. What’s your point?

I can't because real communism has never been tried

>Point out a case where capitalism didn’t give rise to imperialism
Nationally? Western Europe is colonizing itself with foreigners right now. Individually? Me purchasing the taco bell I'm eating based on subjective value instead of Marx's "utility value" is an example of harmless micro capitalism. I think the first example where capitalist countries are colonizing themselves with outlanders should've been enough though. And again, communists were imperialists too, they just made sure not to give themselves the label.

You're telling me the Cheka were an "economic policy"? Were the crusades an "economic policy"? Were the gulags? Was the inquisition economic in nature?

Burkina Faso, Shinmin Autonomous Region, Revolutionary Catelonia, Zapatista Chiapas, Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Allende’s Chile, Sandinista Nicaragua.

There is a slight double standard at play, although maybe the double standard is fair:

Countries that were communist have to answer for every failure and atrocity that happened within the historical period, and countries that were capitalist don't - because capitalism is more laissez-faire (or was, generally). This lets people say "slavery isn't capitalism but GULAGs are communism"

Yes, the cheka are unique just like all the other communist death squads in that they are economically driven , as their ideology requires them to exist for their ideal system to come about. In which case they are trying to actively overturn a system which already exist.
>Crusaders/soldiers are the same thing as internal police systems trying to take over every other system
No, that isn't remotely an accurate comparison

If the people of North Korea rose up and massacred the entire Kim family would you chastise them as violent and bloodthirsty?

>its not a state, its just the workers soviet is all!

I’m not an anarchist. It is a state, but it’s a democratic state operating by the workers for the workers. The dictatorship of the party elite is not socialism by Marx’s definition simply because it isn’t the democratic self governance of the working class.

Americans are especially ignorant to this because we fought the cushiest most-easy-mode revolution in human history, and we think it's because we're highly evolved and not because England is all the way across the Atlantic. We didn't have to murder our whole aristocracy like the French did.

>Yes, the cheka are unique just like all the other communist death squads in that they are economically driven , as their ideology requires them to exist for their ideal system to come about.

Nobody can give a good answer about why this is the case beyond “communists want to kill the bourgeoisie!” Which again, applies in some form to every ideology that isn’t the status quo. Early liberals wanted to kill the feudal lords, and they did in 1789. Patriot militias wanted to kill the British governing elite, and they did in 1776. Revolutions are bloody, regardless of the ideology behind them.

>countries that were capitalist don't
>This what neo-communists actually believe

>respecting property rights
>human nature

>one party dictatorship
>"democracy"
lol. I also like how the example you used was a communist regime, thus proving my point.

>So totalitarian repression is only bad when your ideological enemies do it, great argument.
It is actually. Stopping evil isn't evil. Pinochet didn't steal private property, cause horrible famines, stagnate the industry, he didn't ban religion, he didn't systematically takeover the entire media using government, etc. He did take measures to stop people from implementing that.
>Not really, even a country as mundane as Canada has its fingers all over shit like Congolese child labour.
It reminds me of that book "Where am I wearing", where the author goes overseas to figure out how people feel about that and he finds western leftists protesting in America to end underage labor, yet overseas the people are protesting against the Americans because they don't want to lose their jobs. Maybe you don't know what's best for everyone even if you feel you do.
>And famine and repression predate communism. What’s your point?
So you admit that communism is often imperialist as well. Good. Communism creates the worst famines some of those nations who implemented they have ever seen. Communism always begins with a war, followed by purges, with famines. It did that in China. It did that in the USSR. It did that Cuba. It did that in Vietnam. The list goes on.
>You also would be hard pressed to find a communist experiment that wasn’t placed immediately under siege by outside forces.
First, communism isn't independent is what you're saying. Second, it was actually supported by outside forces at times. What your comrades didn't tell you is that when western forces came, they brought relief that fell into the hands of communists.
youtube.com/watch?v=PaFklTLNy8c&t=203s
Third, Finkelstein, Bronstein, Sverdlov etc had banker connections. Two of those came from banking dynasties. They gave money up for sheer power.

This.

>a power grab by colonial elites against an empire based across the ocean during the age of sail helped by the second most powerful country in the world (France) followed by the British (mostly) fucking off after

Vs

>a complete upheaval of the political and economic system met immediately with an invasion of several world powers and a state of siege that persisted for decades

It's somewhat understandable because as Marx said, communism was to be the unveiling of the truly social nature of production. In a socialist country, if the body of workers is represented through the state (as they always have been thus far) then any failure such as a famine is considered the result of socialism, because its single face (the socialist state) has taken the responsibility of production for the sake of the people onto itself.

In capitalism, the responsibility for production is diffuse. If a company does this or that, or the state does something bad, everybody else can say they didn't know, it wasn't their responsibility, they had no part in the decision. It was Bezos fault, or Andrew Jackson's, or the overzealous settlers, or whatever. When something bad happens in the socialist state, it is capital "S" Socialism's fault. This is just naive ideology based in believing that familiar state of things is so natural it is not "at fault" for anything, they are all particularities of largely unforeseeable, unique events.

>all irrelevant meme unrecognized separatist movements.
kek.

>y-your examples don't count
ebin