>Libertarian uses the Soviet Union as an example of the failures of Communism
>Communist tells them it wasn't real Communism
>They never accept this
>Someone uses the 2008 crisis of an example of the failures of Capitalism
>Libertarian just says it wasn't real Capitalism
How can you take these people seriously?
People who think that the USSR calling itself communist must also think that the People's Republic of North Korea is just like the USA. They're both republics after all.
>((/leftypol/)) uses /his/ as an example of successful infiltration
>/his/ tells them to fuck off
>They never accept this
How can you take these people seriously?
>its another butthurt commie retard episode
The number of posts redirecting people to Sup Forums I've seen on /his/ far outnumbers the amount of posts telling people to fuck off back to Leftypol.
fuck off back to Leftypol and don't let the door hit you on the way back.
U mad comrade?
Hardly an argument, since Sup Forums is a containment board that no one likes anywhere.
And we keep saying post-1934 Germany wasn't real National-Socialism, but I don't see any leftyfags accepting this.
How exactly it wasn't real?
Who likes Leftypol?
When my ex gf broke up with me because I was a loser with no job I tried to tell we that I was not my real me (TM) but she didn't accept it and still broke up with me... :~(
I didn't even know it existed before today.
Didn't achieve a 1000 year Reich, the domination or extermination of all untermenschen and plenty of lebensraum for the Aryan overlords.
I mean why are women so intellectually dishonest /his/? Don't they know that the real something is that which we imagine and not what it is in real life? Don't they understand dialectics??
Kek
> a 1000 year Reich
> domination or extermination
> lebensraum for the Aryan overlords
All of that was metaphorical.
Bad analogy. You were describing the loser as "not the real me" in an attempt to convince her to stay with you, when in reality she would be staying with a loser.
Communists point out the USSR is "not real communism" in an attempt to steer away from any state ever resembling the USSR again. In this scenario, the loser is disgraced as an absolutely horrendous boyfriend and the girl is encouraged to get as far away from him as possible.
so you're saying it failed :^)
...
>the soviet union wasn't communist
That is objectively correct.
>the 2008 crisis wasn't caused by capitalism
Would be true if the crisis was provoked by the state as austrians claim, so there's nothing wrong with the argument itself, but rather with the analysis that precedes it.
So to make it a personable example again, it's like when your parents say "I have no son" When you're right there.
Also the suppositions underlying it, that being that the state-non-state divide actually matters for capitalism.
No actually, I am aware of the fact that the USSR was an attempt to establish communism. It's more like kicking your 23 year old son, who's addicted to drugs and had to be bailed out of jail for theft, out of your house on to the streets, pointing at him and saying to your younger child, "See him? Don't be like him. Don't be like your brother."
That is, just because the older brother may have attempted to have a happy life, and he claims he does have one, doesn't change the fact that he'll probably commit suicide by overdosing next week. That doesn't mean the younger child can't make it.
>No actually, I am aware of the fact that the USSR was an attempt to establish communism. It's more like kicking your 23 year old son, who's addicted to drugs and had to be bailed out of jail for theft, out of your house on to the streets, pointing at him and saying to your younger child, "See him? Don't be like him. Don't be like your brother."
But that's exactly what I mean. In such a situation, parents will sometimes refused to acknowledge the child at all, for exactly that reason.
Yeah, but as I said, communists don't do that. The USSR was an attempt to establish communism. It failed. The fact that in other cases people refuse to acknowledge such facts is not relevant because in this case, we are acknowledging the facts.
>Yeah, but as I said, communists don't do that. The USSR was an attempt to establish communism. It failed.
Honestly, it seems like a pretty blatant attempt by the emergent middle class to accelerate the growth of capitalism in the Russian Empire, TBQH Famalam.
Sure, afterwards people took advantage of the chaotic political landscape to take power, leading to a totalitarian state with little regard for worker's ownership or control of the means of production. But the revolution was a communist one. And yes, the USSR went to great lengths to suppress any worker control of the means of production, shutting down various soviets, >Kronstadt and >Free Territory, decidedly anti-communist actions. But the revolution was communist. The seizing of power by bourgeois in the aftermath is evidence of it's failure.
Because it's a poor attempt at a false equivalence, the board is on a completely different website and isn't even as large as the site's Sup Forums board.
> NEVER BEEN TRIED
Did modern commies ever read the Communist Manifesto or Capital? All the key properties of communism (public owns means of producion, no classes, no private property, free education and healthcare) were achieved in soviet union, so why should not it be the real communism?
>confusing corporatism for capitalism
>2008 recession on the same level as the collapse of the CCCP
pls communism is retarded
>confusing state capitalism for communism
Fuck off it goes both ways. That's the point of what OP is saying.
>public owns means of production, no classes, no private property, free education and healthcare
>soviet union
>Libertarian uses the Soviet Union as an example of the failures of Communism
>Communist tells them it wasn't real Communism
>They never accept this
Do people not notice that the opposite of this proposition is and always has been logically invalid? You point to something you think is bad, call it Communism, and then through equivocation declare since X thing is bad and is labeled Communism all socialist theory ever is invalid. That's childish reasoning.
It's like me saying the Spanish Inquisition was bad, therefore Christianity or Catholicism is bad. Even as a militant atheist and I can acknowledge that this is not truly a real argument that works. It can point to something negative worth noting, but it can not ever be a complete refutation. To truly defeat Christianity you have to attack it on its own level by theologically debating the actual Christian doctrine in the bible point by point and win logically in saying it's wrong (actually really hard to do). You can't just smear it and pretend you won - unless you're an idiot that doesn't know how to seriously reason.
It's seems the reason people get so buttdevastated by socialists that actually know some of their shit correctly and logically pointing out that the USSR was in fact "not real Communism" is that that claim short-circuits the above negative association smear "reasoning". How can you dismiss scary complex thoughts through negative labeling if the commies won't even let you get away with your labels?
But it would never be a good argument even if the commies did say "you know what, the USSR was Communism". It's just propagandist rhetoric.
>public owns means of producion
>no classes
>no private property
Are you retarded?
>Metaphysic concentration camps
Grab them by the pussy
The camps and concentration were physical, the means to not die were more abstract.
neoliberalism is the furthest fucking thing from corporatism tho
corporatism has nothing to do with corporations
But it matters for communism as well.
It's the difference between owning the means of production and "owning" the means of production but you can only do with it what so bureaucrat hundreds of miles away tells you to do with it. Which isn't ownership at all.
What genuinely socialist action happened happened was all over by the time the USSR was formed, in 1922.
>But it matters for communism as well.
No it doesn't. Attempts to change around fundamental material relations by applying ideological labels doesn't change fundamental material relations. If you don't have functional control over something, you don't own something.
No one goes on leftypol, i haven't heard about it before /his/, and it's on a different website. Prior to that i've only seen the tumblr crowd.
>the tumblr crowd
Truly the worst among us all, can we agree on that?
>implying there's an appreciable difference between Sup Forums and tumblr
...
#triggered
>this is what leftypol SJWs actually believes
Lets see
>leftypol supports soros
>leftypol supports uncontrolled non white """immigration""" by """refugees"""
>leftypol worships black supremacism
>leftypol supports BLM
>leftypol members donated to BLM
>leftypol believes that white homogeneity is the supporting pillars of "traditional values" thus needs to be destroyed to bring about their "revolution"
>leftypol supports the """"migrants""""
Leftypol is SJW as they come
>only SJWs could find the histrionic idiocy of Sup Forums unlikeable
Yeah, how could anyone else hate a group of vociferous shitposters?
>implying Sup Forums aren't social justice warriors
>support group justice over individual justice
>support authoritarian social policies to ensure this group justice
>obsessed with identity politics
>insist that social norms should conform to what their hugbox thinks is normal
>rage out at any dissenting opinion
>never, ever shut up about their political beliefs
Do tankies count as leftypol?
They're both shit, however i'll take my holocaust denying brethren over people who tell me i'm white and therefor privileged despite living in a post commie country, any day.
Not an argument.
If not to mention that the whole "class struggle" is bullshit, USSR did have no classes. Proletariat lived in cities, kulaks and bourgeoisie were destroyed by collectivization and nationalization and nomenklatura was technically a part of proletariat.
All the production was owned and controlled by state, hence by public, since there is no other way the public can control anything on a large scale if not via the state.
And of course there was no private propertity in CCCP, if you exlude the brief period of Lenin's NEP. Man, you couldn't even own a house in soviet union.
Also, neither Marx and Engels nor any other left thinker afterwards didn't really say anything about how exactly communism would work. They basicly just went "dude muh expoitation, capitalism will fall bc it is inevitable all will be good in communism". So, there is no fine measurement what is "real" and what is "not real" communism.
>the SJW can't even greentext properly
fuck off back to your hugbox, leftypol
Who are you quoting?
Sorry, did I use the wrong pronouns?
He was right. Sup Forums are race justice warrior with the different flavor but the same core believes.
>the SJW is triggerd about pronouns
HAHAAHHAHA
well put
>being pro white is wrong
>being pro black is ok though
""""centrists""""
>samefagging
is that the message you get from such posts
He's a Sup Forumsack so he conflates anything that is against his own positions with being anti-white and pro-black.
>the only people who dislike me are racist/sexist/homophobic
>the only people who dislike me are tumblr/reddit/leftiepol
Weird, I can't see the difference either.
Arent most political systems names like communism just kinda false though? Like North Korea calls itself communist but whether you agree communism is a good idea or bad its obvious its just not communism. I think the people who exist to perpetuate the system of government call it something slightly fitting but that is exaggerated and positive, and people against it exaggerate its negativity with the use of names.
Communism can never work even when someone has 100% control to make it work which is what you need it has always been impossible. Where are these shining communist paradises? It has been tried a ton of times. There is a reason even pseudo communist countries are just capitalist lite.
You avoid both memes and become a radical centrist
>a radical centrist
No - is meme.
Where are shining capitalist paradises?
America isn't capitalist btw
>implying the discussion is about capitalism
This is about communism being undefendable not other systems having faults.
Capitalism never offers paradise lul, and if you are talking about anarcho-capitalism you can't be serious
jesus christ is this board being invaded by /his/ newfags
these petty argument threads that usually only stayed on that board are becoming more and more common here
oh thank god I'm actually still on /his/
you guys are all mongoloids
>Crysis caused by central banking, state interventionism and bailouts
>Fault of capitalism
State intervention and bailouts came about after the crisis had already started.
>implying Sup Forums isn't the one infiltrating Sup Forums
Or a democracy. Just because the DPRK calls itself Democratic doesn't mean it's democratic.
Admit it. You've never even been to Leftypol have you?
>9 hours 45 minutes
what the fuck dude
>All the production was owned and controlled by state, hence by public
>neither Marx and Engels nor any other left thinker afterwards didn't really say anything about how exactly communism would work
Yeah, you are retarded.
>There are people who don't watch the threads they post in
>he watches for 9 hours without saying anything
sage, just let it die
Do you think watching means I was actually sitting here physically watching it for 9 hours?
Nigga how new are you?
Yes i have, their everything I said they were
/leftypol/ doesn't even think race exists. You know the spook meme, right? That's /leftypol/
then why do they hate white people so much
Mhm
>leftypol ONLY attacking white supremacy
thanks for proving my point you SJW faggot
Man you're terrible at this
Why do you leftypol faggots hate white people so much?
They don't. You might see more threads hating on a person that is "white" than someone who is "black" because "whites" traditionally have far more power. Go look at a list of all the wealthiest nations in the world; the more wealthy they are, the more likely they are "white" by some strange, ambiguous definition of "race"
White supremacy is far more relevant, widespread, and more powerful.
We don't
>we don't hate white people
>but we do think "white privilege" exists and we must attack white people who are proud of being white
make up your mind SJW
I never said that. I said
>"whites" traditionally have far more power
Going by the commonly accepted definition of "white"
I didn't say that was bad either. The reason /leftypol/ criticizes these people is because they are powerful capitalists. It has nothing to do with their "race"; it just so happens that most of them are "white".
that is completely wrong, there's a reason why leftypol supports Bernie sanders, BLM, Soros, and the "refugees"
You know Sanders is [REDACTED] now because he supported Hillary, right? /leftypol/ hates his guts. Also, Soros is a capitalist and /leftypol/ is largely anti-Islamic
>Soros is a capitalist and /leftypol/ is largely anti-Islamic
keep telling yourself that
>leftypol supports soros
Shit like this boggles my mind. How the fuck could a self proclaimed socialist support neoliberal capitalist causes like Soros and the EU? Don't they understand how badly they are fucking over the workers?
>he's porky
>he just said something that was common sense
>still going to gulag
not seeing this support you're talking about. Also, supporting one thing a person said != supporting that person.
>>he's porky
Then why do you support him
>>he just said something that was common sense
mass non white immigration is "common sense" now?
>>still going to gulag
you SJWs support better treatment for colluders
FYI leftypol supports Hillary