Aight pol

aight pol

I'm debating a socialist, and he says that countries like the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba are totalitarian rather than communist, and that therefore real communism has never been tried before. I'm trying to find soviet propaganda that openly claims they're communist, but it's all in Russian and I can't find any translations.

Would appreciate help.

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
mises.org/library/fall-communism-virginia
youtube.com/watch?v=x72w_69yS1A
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

totalitarianism is communism.

hand him a copy of 1984

sage

They were all totalitarian. The problem with "communism" is that it always leads to totalitarianism.

writen by a socialist

> Socialism: political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

> Communism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

>Totalitarian:absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.

He is right about Russia only being partly- communist. Russia was only Marxist (The original Communism).

Commies like playing words games when they have no argument. Even when you're right your words are wrong.

they were totalitarian, state socialist nations.

artificially inducing communism doesn't work. wait for post scarcity society.

Basic no true Scotsman fallacy.

It's always "not true communism". It's never really real communism if it's bad which it inevitably does because it's a jew trick to steal and enslave entire countries.

Communism can not be put in place without force and mass murder :^)

Irony.

this

also explain to him that if communism is so hard to perfect and results in so many failed "not real communism" attempts then maybe it isnt worth doing in the first place

also ask him what he thinks he would be doing in a communist society, guarantee he wants it to be some unreal fantasy job because he cant find work in the real world

Just post him this

Once you point this hypocrisy out they get frustrated and leave you alone

it's not no true scotsman if you can clearly demonstrate how it's not a communist society in function.

at best, you can argue that it is impossible to force the transition into communism, using the many failed revolutions and decent into totalitarianism as evidence.

No "Communist" country; Soviet Union, China etc was ever able to fully 'grasp "Communism". Cuba was actually socialist not communist.

>hand him a copy of 1984
the book is write by a socialist you dumbfuck
if you bring it up it will be more proof of that totalitarianism=/=socialism/communism

descent*

Yeah, tell him he's never tried real breathing yet, to really breath he has to jump down from a very high place and breath deeply and wait for some awesome effects

Brave New World?

They have to be totalitarian.

Otherwise they get exploited by both the greedy and the lazy.

They were all run by a communist party.

That's actually true tho. Most of us don't know how to breathe. When you learn to breathe the whole world changes completely.

How does a state claiming to be communist mean they are communists? Is the dprk democratic?

Marx is the messiah of the Jews. Once all property is under (((communal ownership))) they don't even have to be merchants anymore. They can just jew the government into making the slaves do whatever they want

Here is what Jews really think of non-Jews in the Talmud:

When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves.

-- Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D

I know, I have followed yogic tradition.
And yet, for a communist, that is the best way to learn how to breath

That won't do anything.
As an anarcho-communist myself, you literally cannot win that argument.

You're essentially saying they are because they say they are.
That's like me saying I'm a red-nosed black-faced Zebra transsexual from Serbia and DEMANDING you accept who I am.
Well, shit sucks, but that's just ridiculous and proves nothing. You can claim you're whatever, but that doesn't make it true.

#Scorched
:^)

>Give the government all the power they need to become totalitarian
>They become totalitarian every time

Really makes you think huh

Lol but perhaps we should use skillful means to direct towards the truth rather than to antagonise

...

They're describing a state of society inherently at odds with human nature. People own stuff. Even chimpanzees have some kind of concept of ownership.

So to say the slaughter-famine-fest doesn't measure up to an impossible thing is technically true but not the root of the issue.

But Jews can't help but hate the natural order of the universe.

Also written by a socialist, but rather kropotkian.

Soviet Union never achieved communism, it was totalitarian socialist.
Thats why they always preached "building communism".
So no, SU was never communist

>totalitarian rather than communist,
Communism is a form of economics
Totalitarianism is a form of government

He is an idiot for saying that and you are an idiot for asking us to argue for you.

Fag.

"Communism is impossible" and "the soviet union was communist" are two completely different arguments. The second is retarded, the first isn't. They're even contradictory.

TFW you directly refute a shitty meme literally 3 seconds after it's posted

Communist / Socialist is a category of economic organization.

Totalitarian / Authoritarian / etc... are measures of control which governments exercise over the political and social spheres.

States can be Totalitarian Communist, Authoritarian Communist, Totalitarian Capitalist, Authoritarian Capitalist, etc...

TLDR: your friend is a retard and you're just as bad because you had to ask us how to deal with this.

"The Soviet Union was communism in practice" is actually the argument I'm making. These things are not at all contradictory.

Try reading comprehension next time instead of weakass strawmen.

>implying there is no such thing as personal ownership in socialist theory

I don't know what "communism in practice" means. If by "communism in practice" you mean the soviet system then it's just a tautology.

Communism in practice leads to """""""transitional states"""""" that are even more oppressive and inefficient than the capitalism they claim to be fighting.

If you don't understand that it's another jew prophet's trick to enslave you then you're dumb as fuck.

"When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

-- Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D

Totalitarianism is absolutely guaranteed in a communist society. Read some Hayek or Mises and be better prepared next time.

For now you can cite this essay.

mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Pay particular attention to the section on price-fixing. This is the root cause of the relationship between socialism and totalitarianism. It demonstrates with a cogent example the manner in which state control of markets demands totalitarianism.

Again, you're either wrong or saying a tautology depending on your definition of communism.

I don't care about your retarded conspiracies.

No, but the means to production is owned by the state.

Marxism is infallible

If it fails, it's not Marxism

>realizing I'm stating a tautology
>not recognizing the logical validity of tautological statement

I do not think you understand what this word means.

"Communism is practice leads to brutal, oppressive and inefficient (((transitional states)))" is the argument once it's all spelled out for such a smart, white Argentinian.

But if the actions of the state don't reflect the will of the people, isn't it just another form of private ownership?

Stop asking questions goy, or you'll end up liberated in a gulag.

just argue how well communist communities like kiputzs in israel are doing

Even when I was on the left that argument seemed stupid to me. If even attempting socialism so frequently results in totalitarian dictatorship then there's a major problem with their thinking.

>I do not think you understand what this word means.
A tautologial statement is true by definition, but doesn't add any information. Saying "soviet are communists" doesn't add anything if your definition of communism is "communism=soviets". Surely you can see this. If you take the common definition of communism and see if the soviet experiment fits it, i'm sure we'll agree that it doesn't.

>"Communism is practice leads to brutal, oppressive and inefficient (((transitional states)))"
That is a different argument. I disagree though, bolsheviks took the power away from the workers as soon as they got into power, they didn't even try. The spanish experiment didn't have any totalitarian connotation for example, at least until soviets got involved. Vanguardism a shit.

He's talking about the Free Territory of Ukraine, and how it failed not because of Communism, but because of invasion by the Red Army.

Anything that can be found on that?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

>mfw no """"communist""" state has ever claimed to be communist
>mfw a classless, stateless state is something Sup Forumsyps believe can exist

I'm a leftie, but you'll have an easy time arguing that makhno was just a bandit that terrorized german cities. Look him up.

Your friend is ultimately right though.

Look up The first colony on North America, Jamestown from 1607-1616 it was a small colony where they did a Communal (Communist) System where people would do their jobs and put all their resources in one big stockpile to share among all the colonists.

They lasted like this for a total of 4 years before they starved out after the colonists did the whole "I'll just not do my job because I'm sure Jane or James will do it" and then none of them did. At the end of their days they were eating shoelaces and rats.

mises.org/library/fall-communism-virginia

The only reason some of them survived in the end is because they switched to a capitalist system.

>being this autistic

Opera singers are the best breathers on earth. Do you know how much air and force of breath it takes to breath in and out and sing over a 100 piece orchestra without a microphone like they do? And they don't think the world is any different. You yoga faggots are so stupid I swear, and this comes from someone who teaches hot yoga at 5am 5 mornings a week.

...

Anything to change?

The idea of a vanguard state to transition the people to communism is not something inherent to all forms of communism. It was a Leninist idea.

>No "Communist" country; Soviet Union, China etc was ever able to fully 'grasp "Communism". Cuba was actually socialist not communist.
because it doesn't fucking work.

"""""Communist""""" countries don't match a definition of an impossible society that defies human nature. Of course they don't. No society does or ever will.

And Vanguard revolutionary committee of bureaucrats seize control of the state with such hilarious regularity you'd almost think it was by design.

That's a terrible argument, user. The socialist will tear you a new one.

...

No Human being in their right minds will accept communism voluntarily, so you NEED a totalitarian state in the first place to implement and maintain communism, therefor defeating the entire premise of communism before it's even began.

Communism is a fantasy, nothing more. An ideological thought experiment that only functions as an exercise with set conditions with no room for deviation, it will NEVER work in the real world.

>"""""Communist""""" countries don't match a definition of an impossible society that defies human nature. Of course they don't. No society does or ever will.
Cool, then we're back at the "communism is impossible" argument, which is acceptable, and by definition you accept that the soviet system isn't communist.

Vanguard revolutionaries grab control because they follow the giant cancer on the left that was leninism. At least the soviet union isn't around to mess things up anymore.
Again, i don't care about your retarded conspiracies.

except that they never implemented the practices of an actual communist economy, they just promised to, fucked around, and then totalitarianism took place.

it's a terrible non-argument that reduces communism down to a buzzword.

Trying to adapt communism to meet the real world is like trying to adapt a perpetual motion device to the real world. Certain aspects of reality simply cannot function accordingly for these ideas to work.

>Ok, this won't work BUT WHAT IF Newtons laws didn't apply!! Lets just try it!

Its literally in the Soviet national anthem declaring "The Triumph of Communism leads us on".

youtube.com/watch?v=x72w_69yS1A

Quality anthem. Probably the best of all time.

Obviously this.

100,000,000 deaths in one fucking century is enough of an experiment to know it's utter garbage.

USSR was a direct result of the principles provided by Leninism, which were absolutely in line with Marxism. Tell him to read pic related.

if I sing a song about how I'm king of the world, does that make it true?

Your friend is technically correct, so-called "true communism" has never been tried-- because it can't.

Communism as envisioned by Marx/Lenin (aka Marxism/Leninism), necessitates a proletariat (working class) revolt against the bourgeois (owners of the means of production/capitalists), generally termed a "vanguard party". They then enact a "dictatorship of the proletariat"-- a military state run by the vanguard party to seize the means of production from the capitalists. This is a necessary step because a capitalist (someone who has capital to lose) is going to use whatever means they have to resist the political usurpers and prevent them from taking what is rightfully his own shit, his capital. Therefore, the only remedy is to force said capitalist to turn over his capital (i.e. military force).

The next step is supposed to be the dissemination of the means of production amongst all of the proles, and eventually the formation of a classless, governmentless, collective society. But here's where Marx and Lenin get caught in their own logic. Now that the select group of proles (the vanguard party) control the government/military and have seized all the capital, they, just like their capitalists predecessors, don't want to give it up. So instead, in order to placate the rest of the proles and not be deposed in a continuous cycle of buttfuckery, the vanguard party partially redistributes the capital, while keeping the majority of it.

It's simple human nature-- the capitalists, who earned their capital, are unwilling to relinquish it; likewise, the vanguards, who "earned" the capital through blood (the overthrow of the government and seizure from the capitalists), do not want to relinquish it. They are essentially the same: "I don't want someone taking the shit I worked to create" vs "I don't want to redistribute this shit that I and my comrades bled to take".

>almost all of them born in polish partition cities
really makes you think

You won't find soviet propaganda claiming they're communist because they didn't. USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics so at best they claimed to be socialist.

And I care just as much about the retarded Freemason-kike prophet named Marx.

"le true communism" is impossible. Soviet style gulagfamine is what you get when you try to practice it. I'm calling these people communists because they try to practice communism and predictably fail.

Similar to how calling Christians Christians even though they inevitably fail in to follow the example of Christ.

And the revolutionary committee didn't just take over in the USSR. Literally every state that called itself communist had a similar group of turds take complete control.

Marx never said anything about a vanguard. It's an ok description of leninism though.

No. I'm just showing OP an example of where the Soviet Union declared itself to be communist.

I can like the anthem without being a communist. Its sounds great.

>someone went through the time to make this
Jesus Christ... I thought Sup Forums was autistic but /leftypol/ takes the cake.

And my point is that what they declare themselves is irrelevant. To provide an edgy alt right example, if a dude declares themselves to be a woman, are they now a woman?

I think you are confused about cause-consequence. It's not that certain communists get to power and by some magic process become a vanguard that establishes an oppressive revolutionary committee. It's that communists that follow leninism aim to do just that, and do so as soon as they get to power. Vanguardism isn't something that happens due to some unavoidable revolutionary side effect, those leaders were always vanguardists. As i said, such thing doesn't happen when the revolution in itself isn't vanguardist in nature, as in spain.

Obviously a dude is not a woman if he declares himself as one.

Are you saying you don't think the Soviet Union was a communist state?

Marxist-Leninism is an attempt to force through socialism/communism before the conditions are right for it, the conditions which were predicted by Marx. Marxism is not an ideology but an economic theory that exposes flaws in capitalism that will eventually lead to its collapse, namely - automation, unemployment, globalisation and a drastic reduction in the return on investment causing the economy to cease to function and spark global unrest. This is why the first world does not revolt under the current conditions and all Marxist-Leninist regimes eventually become totalitarian due to them not being formed under the right conditions, dooming themselves from the start.

it means when people try to do Communism that is the result

your fairy tale pipe dream always leads to the same thing, that is provably true.

Can you not see my post from the flabby folds in front of your eyes? Do you type on braille? I understand anything over a sentence is hard for the average melted cheese, estrogen and Ritalin addled American, but please, do try to keep up.

really shitty argument

you're goddamn right

Yes, that is what I'm saying. It was a Leninist state that quickly descended into totalitarianism.

The only difference is that the vanguard party seized power under the pretense of redistribiting the seized capital. So, as outlined previously, in order to not be deposed by other disgruntled proles, they must make good on their promise-- or good enough (aka socialism, aka Communism Lite).

The result is totalitarian socialism, which is what every so-called communist regime has actually been. Not because communism hasn't been tried, but because that is the natural arresting step in any attempt to produce communism.


The only way it COULD work is if every single member of the vanguard party is a die-hard idealist that wants pure equality in spite of their self-interest (lots of Commie-Kool-aid required). However, the problem with that scenario is that some non-vanguard party prole opportunist is going to join the movement once he sees it's going to succeed, then seize power for himself and whatever friendos he brought along with him when the time is right under the guise of "they don't want true communism, stick with me, I do!" This leads to internal conflict during the transition period, and self-interest inevitably wins out over idealism (due to the metric fuckton of commie-kool-aid it would take to convert a sizable portion of the population into committed idealists). This is exactly what happened during the lead up to the Russian revolution: party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Bolsheviks won, proceeded to purge the heretics

they were socialist not communist. But in common parlance they are considered communist, it's just a matter of definition.

Totalitarism is necessary for socialism, this is because you need near-total control over people's lives to truly enforce something as crazy as preventing the private ownership of the means of production.

In the most extreme case, intelligence and your hands are means of production, I can take flour and turn it into cupcakes and exchange it for goods, voila, capitalism is born. Cracking down on literally every possible way to manufacture goods is virtually impossible, any attempt invariably will lead to a totalitarian state.

Communism is impossible, it requires the dissolution of the state, which will never happen since people in power will always fight to keep their power, and socialism gave them near-infinite power. Even if you could do it, communism is hadly more than anarchy, in fact much of what people claim would make a communist system work is the same make-believe systems as anarchism. Just like anarchism it would fall apart the moment a bunch of guys with ak47 decide they want to play by their own rules.

Communism is totalitarian.

You can read what Marx said. There is supposed to be a socialist state with great power in order to bring about communist utopia.

Gulag archipelago is a good book that traces communist countries back to the Marxist idea that spawned the evil policies.
Another interest thing to think about just because I feel like mentioning it. Is that the drive to reach utopia and paradise will only bring endless suffering and tyranny. Nietzche said God is Dead and we have killed him. And went on to say that now others are going to fight over God's empty throne. This happened in socialist countries. Those who contend for the throne of God aren't likely to be looking out for your good.

Another thought is that Communists are often antihuman, in that they see the suffering in life as unbearable and therefore their killing is really just mercy.

Jordan Peterson has alot on totalitarianism and the psychological aspects behind it. He has Vids on YouTube and I think it'll resonate with you and help you express how communism is genuinely an evil ideology


Also read the name of the USSR. Soviet socialist Republic

He'll even nazis are socialist, just another contender for God's throne. Fighting international socialism with national socialism

You're right, we shouldn't joke about that, the world would be a totally different place if people would just breathe properly

He's a fucking retard. Communism is totalitarianism. The retards have to hand over all of their rights in the pursuit of that bullshit. It's cognitative dissonance. The retards will tell you all the bullshit in the world about their concern for the workers and how it's truly of the people but the system requires somebody to police every facet. That's total control. They're retarded

>Also read the name of the USSR. Soviet socialist Republic
>DPRK
>democratic peoples republic
Democracy BTFO

>Not a single Russian flag ITT
USSR propaganda never claimed it is a communist state. But always proclaimed "with socialist to the bright future of communism".

If you want to debunk communism for good - strike in the very heart of it. Hegelian philosophy.

Yeah, my bad, I should've clarified that. I fold Marxism into Leninism because Marx didn't really outline a viable method of transitioning from a capitalist state to a communist one. So I consider them essentially inseparable. Marx laid the idealistic framework of communism, Lenin attempted to provide a viable means of transitioning to it. As a parable, Lenin was the engineer to Marx's theoretical science

>and that therefore real communism has never been tried before

kek. classic.

Communists are by definition totalitarian. Non totalitarian socialists (Libertarian socialists/Anarcho-syndicalists) were kicked out after the first international. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International

>and that therefore real communism has never been tried before.

if only i was in charge, i'd make everyone equal...

2
>░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▄███▄
>░░░░░▄▀▀░░░░░░░▐░▀██▌
>░░░▄▀░░░░▄▄███░▌▀▀░▀█
>░░▄█░░▄▀▀▒▒▒▒▒▄▐░░░░█▌
>░▐█▀▄▀▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▌░░░░░▐█▄
>░▌▄▄▀▀░░░░░░░░▌░░░░▄███████▄
>░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐░░░░▐███████████▄
>░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐░░░░▐█████████████▄
>░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄░░░▐██████████████▄
>░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄▄████████████████▄
>░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▀██████▀▀▀▀█▄
>░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▀▄▀░▀██▀▀▀▄▄▄▀█
>░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▀▀▀▀▀░░░░██▌
>░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▀▄▀░░░

>Communism is totalitarianism.
xD nice one bro!!

>I'm debating a socialist, and he says that countries like the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba are totalitarian rather than communist, and that therefore real communism has never been tried before.
He's not wrong; nations have never gotten to the "communism" phase as defined by Marx, but rather than a talking point for communists, this underscores the major FLAW with communism in that communism disregards human nature. Communism has never been tried because it CANNOT be tried. We cannot get past the socialism stage because we are humans, not the ideal beings Marxists wish we are. There will always be lazy assholes who do as little work as possible. There will always be violent assholes who want to be kings. Unless humanities basic instincts change in a fundamental way, communism is doomed to fail.