Why does everyone reffer to the Soviet Union as "Communist", when Communism, by defenition, doesn't have a state?

Why does everyone reffer to the Soviet Union as "Communist", when Communism, by defenition, doesn't have a state?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why does everyone refer to Nazi Germany as "NatSoc", when they were expansive and weren't socialist?
People are retarded, it's easier to just get used to it than question them.

Because their aim was to achieve communism

But if you don't have a state then who puts the bourgeoisie into the gulags?

What about Stalin?

do the bourgeoisie then become the working class and have to overthrow the enforcing pigdogs?

Aim was, to achieve communism. People worked to achieve communism, not for themselves but for their kid she or grandkids.
Plus, to get to communism you first require socialism and other such shit, it's part of the process and if everyone fails at the first step of becoming communistic, no matter what conditions they are in, it's pretty obvious that communism is simply impossible to achieve.

Because Sup Forums is filled with retards that don't know what communism is, and confuse the term with state capitalism.

>to get to communism you first require socialism

Okay but what I don't undestand is

In Socialism there's still a [authoritarian?] state, therefore, why would that state dissolve itself and let control of the power, so that Communism can come in?

What does it matter if communism cannot be achieved and in the result you always have a date capitalist system that is referred to as communistic, refers to itself as communistic and falls apart eventually, unless it becomes actually capitalistic?

And that's why you can't achieve communism. It's one of the reasons, at least.

Because it lets them continue talking without being shut up eternally by reality.

Pretty much. It's honestly sad, they have no idea about the ruin the nineties have brought upon Russia.

No seriously guys, who runs the gulags?

I'm not a communist, so i don't know. I was simply pointing out that most ''communist'' countries people criticize for being communist, are usually state capitalist.

State Capitalism: A term used by Communist and Socialist when their economic system fails.

Simple answer: it was a socialist state, but the party was communist. The two terms were just used interchangably.

>implying Karl Marx was an anarchist

No, it's actual economic system. It's shit, but don't deny it's existence.

So give me an example of a communist/socialist society that is actually state capitalism.

Not with that attitude you can't.

>The USSR
>Cuba
>Venezuela
>Early China

Just a few.

Someone please think of the
G U L A G S
U
L
A
G
S

Venezuela before 2016: The best of example of socialism working, take that capitalists.

After 2016: Lol no it's state capitalism.

State capitalism is just a term communist/socialist use when they realise when their system doesn't work.

Also capitalism is characterised by economic freedom, these nations were the least economically free nations during their lifespan and currently.

If the means of production were not socially owned and the workers had almost zero control over their work, then how is the Soviet Union socialist?

Socialism can be characterised by both community or government control of the economy. Community control Socialist will continue to suck the dicks of Lenin and Trotsky even though they enforced a state controlled economy.

Marx had the impression that the government would naturally fade away as an unnecessary entity in a truly classless society. It's a point of his that I don't really understand. Governments are damn useful for coordinating economies, especially command economies involved in socialism. Maybe it's more like the government as a power broker entity loses all meaning in a classless society.

How would they lose meaning if they hold the means of production?

No, it's a real economic system. I don't know why you can't accept this. Venezuela is not socialist, it's state capitalist. And im not a socialist.

I said state capitalism, not capitalism.

So there was never /true/ socialism?

No, their has.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

because you need a state to get the point where you dont need the state, and somehow the state will just turn itself off at that point. it doesnt make sense btw

>government control of the economy

That's state capitalism. Hoooooly shit guys, this political science 101. I think I've gone over this like 5 times.

id even argue that there may not even be communism, just further centralization of capitalism, kinda like how theres no gun control, just gun centralization

...

>give me all the power guys I'll make a utopia
Landies actually fall for this.

Because communism was the official doctrine of the USSR. Whether you like it or not, USSR tried to achieve communism, but suprise suprise it got hijacked by ruthless psychopaths that used Marxisms appeal to low IQ masses to uphold power.

>every government that says it's trying to achieve communism ends up just grabbing all the power and massacring everyone
Hmm

"State capitalism" can be used in multiple ways, so it's naturally confusing. "Command economy" is a better description.

If I was a psycopath that wanted power, I would join a socialist party. It cant be that hard to be the most "tolerant" and promise the most shit to everyone. I can just go "muh inequality" and people will support me.

It's genius because no one can call you a fascist or nazi as long as your rhetoric is strictly communist and you can just seize power freely.

>no one can call you a fascist or nazi as long as your rhetoric is strictly communist

What do you mean?

For anyone that knows anything about ideologies, they would understand the huge difference between national-socialism and communism. For your average pleb that it is attracted to communism because of muh 1% and muh free college, they wouldnt give a shit as long as they gain from it.

He figured that after the state redistributed wealth and such, then people would all be content and reject hierarchical institutions. Once wealth and power was truly equally redistributed then no entity would be able to claim authority.

Some of his sociological conclusions were innovative and ground breaking, and others were...not so good.

> Capitalists dindu nuffin

All governments and political systems suck.

Oh, and look at that. It doesn't fucking exsist anymore. Didn't Orwell specifically remarm on the Spanish Anarchists in Homage to Catalonia, when he said they "couldn't organize a pissing contest"?

Also, pretending that "it was state capitalism" is totally a valid excuse when concerning socialist states, isn't the idea of workers democratically owning to the means of production retarded in of itself? I mean, how much actual management skill do you think the average Joe actually has? There's a reason business is structured the way it is. Furthermore, regarding democracy in the workplace, do you really think it's a good idea to devolve popular vote all the way down to that level? Isn't the most common criticism about democracy being that it turns everything into a popularity contest (mob rule)? Actually, nevermind, I think the thing that's most troubling is the fact that this will probably lead to an authoritarian government anyway, since the state (who will be enforcing the new property relations, let's be honest) will have a monopoly on not only violence, but effectively capital. There's no wealthy business owners or CEOs that can use their financial power to engage in any large scale endeavour, be it fund an infrastructure project or a nonprofit. While taking power away from corporations like this might be good in theory, keep in mind this means that in this scenario, no one really has any power to oppose government decisions. Believe it or not, this was part of the reasoning the supreme court had when the ruled in favor of "corporate personhood" during Citizens United, because federal overreach can actually be harmful.

Because anarchy can never be anything more than anarchy. Without a form of government wether it be gangs (tribes) dictators or democracies (representative or direct) there is no one to enforce communism as described by Marx. Hence the SU was intact real communism and as close as we can get to it on a national scale. It's also important to note that ancap, would end up the same way.

That's it, scapegoating the 1%, all you need to do to get political power in a liberal world. If you took any other approach you'd be called a fascist, just need to pick the right scapegoat.

America was pretty good before the marxist shit and hatred of nationalism. And in an anarchist society a guy is still going to start a business and sell shit.

because marx and lenin and stalin and all those guys were communists

Because it is the result.
Whenever communism is attepted you get THAT.

Let me put it to you this way:
>I have a theory that people can fly (like super man). We shall call it Fly-ism
>People attempt fly-ism for years and the result is alway a mess of gore on the pavement when they jump of buildings
>Whenever people try to point out that the result is death fly-ism ideologues shout: "well it wasn't real fly-ism since they didn't fly."

I never mentioned the one percent and I'm not scapegoating anything. When I say "all governments and political systems suck", I mean everyone. Anarchists, too. It's an all-you-can-suck suck buffet.

...

>everything sucks
Yeah but I think a government killing everyone and actually stealing your shit and not just through taxes is a bit worse than the others.

because communists don't think that the methods outlined by Marx are communism, and they don't think the end result described by Marx is communism. They believe that the methods outlined by Marx creating the society outlined by Marx is communism. This allows them to dismiss any failed socialist state as not communism, and any stateless, classless society that has not seized the means of production as not communist, ensuring that no matter how many times it catastrophically fails, communism will always be viable and ideologically pure

first part was a reply to

Fair point, and fuck those who see murder as the easy way to solve problems. Though corporations are people, so it would be kidnapping, not stealing.

>worker ownership of the means of production

The fuck does that even mean?

It means that instead of a few collecting the surplus profit of work for themselves, the surplus goes towards the workers and society as a whole.

Can you really blame them when the countries in question were trying to induce global communisim and called themselves communist?