The USSR and Mao's China wasn't real communism, that's why it failed

>the USSR and Mao's China wasn't real communism, that's why it failed

How are you supposed to respond to this Sup Forums?
They are technically right that it wasn't real communism.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xZ7YlgzW1jQ
youtube.com/watch?v=L9sV6peQgUk
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The Third Reich wasn't real National Socialism

If all attempts have ended in failure, mass starvation, and totalitarianism then communism doesn't work. There's a reason all communist countries have opened up their markets to private enterprise.

Thats like saying an Apple isnt an Apple until it taste good

The USSR did collectivize their agriculture, but not their industry. That's why their people starved while the tanks kept being produced.

Its ok to just punch commies now.

Communism is an emergent system not something you can create through revolution.

Proceed to destroy their theorical communism.
The USSR and all other failed communist states weren't real communist states, that's a fact. However, communism is still a dumb ideology, even on paper for multiple reasons that all boil down to one principle: it wants to apply a perfect system on not so perfect humans by bending their nature instead of using human nature to build up a political system.
If you're too retarded to find them yourselves, I'll waste my time debunking theorical communism.

>b-b-b-but REAL communism hasn't been done yet!!!!
that's because it will only work in fantasy land

What IS real communism then anons?

That's because the ideology is flawed and every time it has ever been attempted it turns the country into a hellish totalitarian shithole

How many times do you have to try Communism until you agree that it doesn't work?

How many people have to die before you are satisfied?

This answer is of course that they are never satisfied and there is never enough death because Communism is the political branch of satanism and they can never have enough massive human sacrifice rituals

The one thing that can be demonstrated and observed from Communism is that regardless of how accurate the end result is to the writings of Marx, every time it is even ATTEMPTED it leads to absolute horror on a scale that the right wing had never been able to come close to

It's utopian ideology that completely ignores that humans are predators, not cows.

Worse yet it's followers have killed 100 million...of their own countrymen...in it's name.

Face it, communism is a religion.

With memes of course

How many more people need to die before they realize that the best minds have already tried and failed?

>hurr durr communism is a perfect system

Why?

a shit is still a shit even if it was food once

Ask them what real communism is and why every country that tried anything close to that failed biggly.

>implying real communism exists

This.

Wait till automation takes over.

communism has never worked. it's never 'real communism' because it goes against human nature

I I say that pouring vinegar on an apple will make the apple sweeter, that is an hypothesis.

Testing the hypothesis, you pour the vinegar on the apple and take a bite only to discover it is not actually sweeter.

Do you then say the experiment wasn't a real test of the hypothesis? Or do you say the hypothesis is incorrect? The answer is the latter.

Marx's Communist Manifesto was a hypothesis. When tested, it failed. Real communism is not an idea but the reality of its practice which have always been bad. Marx's views were hypothetical communism. Marx's views were not real communism.

China didn't fail. Sure, their economy is market-based now, but they didn't suffer the dissolution of their state okay.

Aztecs human sacrifices weren't real human sacrifices because they failed to bring rain.

youtube.com/watch?v=xZ7YlgzW1jQ

you're welcome user

If every single time a society tries to implement communism it immediately devolves into tyranny, THEN THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS REAL COMMUNISM or THAT IS REAL COMMUNISM.

Watch JBP. The only correct response is ask them how many more tens of millions have to die before they give up on "real communism".

In the event that "automation takes over" and there was 99% unemployment, there would be some sort of massive catastrophic event or revolution or something and the "automation" would disappear

Sorry but your Brave New World run by robots will never be reality

This is actually correct

>the USSR and Mao's China wasn't real communism, that's why it failed
What that person is really telling you is that if their brand of communism with them at the helm were to be implemented then they would have succeeded.

also still waiting for a commie to explain to me why in the current capitalist system, a group of "workers" can't get together, put in their money and create and own their very own "means of production"?

Why does it have to be that someone else puts in the effort and capital to create the means of production and then the works just kill the owner and steal it? Why can't they create it themselves?

>all people so far have died, but they weren't real immortals.

fuck off, leaf.

/thread

Here's a "red"pill:

Marxism is infallible. If it fails, it's not Marxism.

Automation won't change shit. There's still be a minority elite that will hold power and wealth.
You can't achieve classless absolutely equal society, it's a fantasy.

>There's still be a minority elite
Doesn't matter what system is implemented this will always be. I laugh at people who exalt communism, but are naive enough to think that there would not be an elite class with any communist system implemented within any human society.
Faglords make the argument that human nature is a social construct, that it is taught, blah blah blah. Reality is that if you had a system where one generation was raised free from those concepts and you handed each of them a gold bar at least one will one complain his gold bar wasn't on a velvet pillow.

I have a better idea. How about we conscript everybody who can't find a job. That would achieve the same effects as basic income, except the people would actually have to do something productive and would have a strong incentive to stay employed. This would also ensure that people stay disciplined and healthy, rather than lazily sitting on their butt all day eating cheap garbage. That's not even taking into account how much more powerful our military will be.

Would you even listen to a bitch that said

>I'm a virgin, all those penises I had in my vagina, mouth and ass wasn't real sex

>the commies are desperately spamming this board with threads right before the 60 minutes piece, trying to turn the normies on to communism
Better luck next time Karl

>>also still waiting for a commie to explain to me why in the current capitalist system, a group of "workers" can't get together, put in their money and create and own their very own "means of production"?

Worker cooperatives like the Mondragon Corporation are widely known within leftists circles, but it's not seen by them as the entire replacement of capitalism. It is merely worker owned businesses that compete against each other in the market environment and are incentivized to produce to maximize profits. Overall it's still capitalism.
youtube.com/watch?v=L9sV6peQgUk

>Why does it have to be that someone else puts in the effort and capital to create the means of production and then the works just kill the owner and steal it? Why can't they create it themselves?

You'd be asking them a loaded question. Baring some garage tier start-up, the owners don't put in the labor to create all that stuff. They have the money to hire someone. From there, you could argue against the LTV claiming that the boss's labor is infinitely more important than the Mexican home depot dude's labor or you can argue about where the owner's money came from (completely self-made one man business or legacy inheritance wealth, etc)

isn't the first part of the communist process to reorder power and wealth? and i've heard communists say that "there needs to be some form of government in place for a little while in order to facilitate change". so i think a good rebuttal would be that "true" communism hasn't been tried simply because the notion is contrary to human nature, as proved by every communists country's failure to get past the first stage?

But all attempts haven't ended in failure, mass starvation, and totalitarianism. They had their own problems but to generalize like that is false.

You bet they weren't. If confronted to delusional socialist, don't ever try to argue against that.
Even Maoism is decent compared to "true" communism. Actual communism would be the complete obliteration of society, making the Cultural Revolution look sane.
Fortunately the soviets were not retarded enough to go for actual communism. They still had property and firms. Of course the market ran into all manners of hindrance but it survives, if only as a black market.
Reminder that, for starters, Mises was right about economic calculation, and that the soviet authorities used market prices from the west in their decisions. It is hard to compare that to what worldwide communism would have been. Let's not mention the mass brainwash and the destruction of family and all forms of intermediate powers.

Overall the country that was the purest communist trial was Cambodia and they managed to kill a third of the population in five years. And entirely destroying an already subsistence economy.

Name one attempt at communism which resulted in economic and societal prosperity.

>>isn't the first part of the communist process to reorder power and wealth? and i've heard communists say that "there needs to be some form of government in place for a little while in order to facilitate change".
That's Leninism and the vanguard party mixed with ancient Russian paranoia and international power politics led them to become a totalitarian statist society.

>But all attempts haven't ended in failure, mass starvation, and totalitarianism
Which ones didn't? Cuba is still totalitarian and Nk is a hellhole. China isnt even close to Communism now a days

>gregor "lenin did nothing wrong" strasser
He was a racist commie who took the "socialism" aspect the wrong way.

More like a log of shit isn't shit until it tastes good because even if by some chance you end up enjoying the taste, it is still shit.

He opens with a textbook strawman.

We can see specifically where they failed though. For example, the USSR had few problems producing massive numbers of tanks, or getting a space program going, but yet they had trouble feeding their own people. The reason for this is pretty clear, agriculture was one of the only things that the USSR actually collectivized.

Try this.

Respond by saying that even the marxist revolutionaries saw that "real communism" doesn't work, hence they had to adapt the system and create something which wasn't "real communism"... which also failed in the long run. If "real communism" would work, they would have tried to achieve it, but reality set in and they had to deal with actual problem in the countries. This can be especially seen in the USSR from 1920-1939 which was a clusterfuck of agenda where several bolshevik leaders held different opinions and started fearing each other as to who might be assassinated next.

Even the bolsheviks/marxists weren't sure what real communism even is.

>a perfect system
Yeah, having no freedom (and by taht I mean non-interference of other people) is surely a perfect system. Do you like helicopters?

Real communism doesn't exist

The USSR actually had substantial growth until the 1970s, though it wasn't without its own problems. Believe it or not, living standards in the Soviet Union were much, much better after Stalin than they were before him. If you're looking for examples that didn't have massive repression accompanying the growth, I'd say Tito's Yugoslavia post-1948, Kadar's Hungary, and Sankara's Burkina Faso.
See above. Cuba doesn't have mass starvation, and I've never read about a famine occurring there. Sure, they don't have regular access to certain goods like beef, but they're the only country in Latin America to have eliminated child malnutrition, according to international observers.
All large industries were property of the government in the Soviet Union.

bruh, most communism attempts up to now have been sunk. Socialists rebellions in the wealthy countries like France, Germany, or the US were suppressed and most socialists-wannabe governments around the world have mostly folded against hostile pressure. The only last attempt at socialism is Cuba, but they've paid in lost potential wealth because they refuse to deal with the current American liberal order.

>inb4 communists always blame capitalists for their failures
>inb4 Nazism would have worked if it weren't for Jews

And I say the same thing to people when they say capitalism in the US has failed.... we haven't had true capitalism

>But all attempts haven't ended in failure, mass starvation, and totalitarianism
>totalitarianism
>a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.
>Cuba is not totalitarian
Okay bruh, I guess you can shift the goal posts over a few yards

>All large industries were property of the government in the Soviet Union.
Yes, but they weren't collectivized. That was just them being state capitalist. The collectivization of the agriculture is what communism actually has in mind, so if we want to criticize real communism we can point to the part of the Soviet Union that got pretty close to what communism is actually about.

>Tito's Yugoslavia post-1948, Kadar's Hungary, and Sankara's Burkina Faso.
Pic related. Also
>any of those
>no mass repression
Sure.

Cuba was subsidized by the soviet union

Living standards after stalin weren't better for all those dead people

I said name those which resulted in prosperity, not those which had prosperity, therefore the USSR is an invalid response.

As for the rest, one could subjectively make the case that because those countries failed following the political retirement of their communist leaders, their prosperity was a result of the expertise of the political leaders rather than the result of the system of communism itself.

Bordiga, is that you?

How was collectivized agriculture different from government-owned industry?
It depended partially on which part of Yugoslavia you were looking at. There was a lot of variation between republics. Slovenia had living standards comparable to Austria IIRC. Macedonia was less developed. As for repression, there was some repression, but it wasn't mass-scale repression.

I don't support communism but the USSR wasn't a communist nation. Sure it was an authoritarian dungeon with some cursory social benefits, but it wasn't communist.

Only two entities ever tried to portray the USSR as communist. The first is the USSR, who exploited the altruistic image of communism for propaganda purposes to control their citizens and justify imperialist actions within their sphere of influence.

The other is the US, who exploited the authoritarian history of communism for propaganda purposes to control their citizens and justify imperialist actions within their sphere of influence.

You don't get to isolate a part of the country if you don't do it for Austria too. Also Slovenia was nowhere near Austria. It's still below even after 25 years of having a notably higher growth rate than Austria.
>wasn't mass-scale repression.
If you compare to the big commie players I guess, but non-commies have different standards.

>How was collectivized agriculture different from government-owned industry?
One is a hierarchy with different income for different jobs and little to no democracy, and the other is the opposite of all that. I'm not saying that the government owned industry wouldn't have been more efficient if it was privatized, nor am I saying that the farmers weren't under the oppression of the Soviet government. However, the method of production itself was quite different for the two systems, with the agricultural system following much closer to the communist ideal, and producing far less food as a result.

Well, you could say it's wasn't 'real' because it doesn't match what's in your head. That doesn't change the fact that the Communists tried to create in reality what was in their heads and the results were disastrous. To skirt over that is monstrous.

He didn't make up dialectics (Hegel used the idea before him) and he didn't believe in teleology