What exactly is "true Communism" and why has it alledgedly never been tried?

What exactly is "true Communism" and why has it alledgedly never been tried?

Is there also a "true Fascism?"

its just a term marxist use to justify trying it again after it has failed so many times

It's a stateless moneyless and classless society, it comes forth out of automation and post-scarcity

It's a meme used by our most retarded comrades instead of analyzing our previous failed attempts.
It works the same way than the lolbertarians screeching "socialism" whenever the state do something.
>This is unironically what I think.

Ahh so basically it's the future of capitalism in a society that's birthrate doesn't exceed production! Good to know, comrade!

It's an abstract phenomenon that exists in a world where humans have a collective lack of sense of fairness and where everyone is rewarded the same for their effort yet is still motivated to try their hardest.

True Communism is a utopia. It can never exist and was never intended to exist.

Brainwashed retards
A commie that thinks for himself. Your commie friends must think you're a fucking genius.

>A commie that thinks for himself. Your commie friends must think you're a fucking Nazi.
Fixed

You are right, marx himself said it's inevitable. And we can see it right now as we get more automation and less jobs

>why has it alledgedly never been tried?
Because genetic engineering isn't so advanced yet to make ant-human hybrid, and "true communism" doesn't work with regular homo sapiens.

It has never been tried because it's something that doesn't exist outside of a Star Trek-esque world where there's such an abundance of resources that there is no need to fight for them.
The level of comfort of civilized countries is built on the inferiority of third world ones, just like the level of comfort within those first world countries is built on their own poor population.

People think that having an internet connection, stable income and security is a 6/10, but the reality is that on a global scale it's closer to a 8/10
If you wanted to equalize even a single country, everyone would have to live 3/10 lives under the poverty line

But wait. This means that maybe, in shit countries, communism might work, right? If everyone already has low expectations, the problem's not there.
Except it is, because Communism makes it worse.
Humans have no drive to improve, work or contribute to anything unless their survival is endangered. Having a nanny state that makes sure you'll never starve, go homeless or be without occupation means that you'll never put in any effort into it.

Communist Russians during the soviet reign had a saying: "You pretend to pay me, I pretend to work", and it encapsulates why 100 thousand communist workers couldn't match the productivity of 1000 capitalist ones.

But that's the definition, how is that brainwashing. OP didn't ask for opinions like what this whole thread is doing right now.

True fascism is experienced in many walks of life.
The working relationship between company owner and underling.
Family life between parent and (young) child
Choosing to follow the system of school.

All of these things are examples of fascism.
Political fascism is the same as tyranny.
True democracies are Fascism of the majority.

I like that picture of Crash, btw, he's always had a mug ripe for dentures.

Well, there's no way of answering OP without making a point about Communism in itself.
Almost every instance of large scale Communism in history was "true" Communism, but they demote it to "Not really Communism" because it pointed out the glaring flaws in the system, and it makes their ideology look bad.

>communism
>stateless

I feel like I don't understand anything anymore

You're somewhat both right, and wrong in the same time.
Each time i say this to some other commies, there's basically two groups:
>The retarded/dogmatic ones, sperging "muh revisionism", "social-traitor" and so on
>Those who stay quiet and, once the shitstorm is over, tell me that I'm right.
My favorite way to troll the retards is to remind them that, according to Marx himself, Russia was the less opportune european country to start a communist revolution. (Yep, that explains a lot)

Even though they had enough inovation, the problem lies in central planing not the system, stalin was a great example of the faults in central planing, stop roleplaying.

True national socialism has never been tried.

Aren't you talking about socialism(stalinism specificaly)

Communism- stateless
Socialism- worker state

This, fascism is the natural order of a healthy structure. Structuralism as a philosophy basically describes fascism, and was followed by (((deconstruction))) movements all helmed by kikes. Structuralism perfectly describes how humans create meaning using language, and that language is a requirement to be able to interpret any kind of "sign" or meaning inferred by humans or from a non-human object or thing to a human

What Marx called "communism" is two things:
>The endgame of the class struggle, aka the final stage of socialism, a stateless and classless society
>The political movement consciously aiming to that endgame, even at the earlier stages of socialism, when there's still a state.
That's why I prefer the term "marxism" for the political movement. It avoids some confusion.

>What exactly is "true Communism" and why has it alledgedly never been tried?
No communist society has worked. All of them have caused more harm than good. To combat the negative PR communists say that their communist society was not "true communism."

"True communism" is imaginary. It's a way to blame something else for the failings of communism.

how does wealth get distributed equally without a state?

>stop roleplaying.
As what, a soviet communist? That's not what roleplaying means when you want to accuse someone of it
Even with perfect excution there is no way of making Communism work in the present world, not without making it a police state and just degenerating in more self destructive dictatorship

Regrettably it's almost impossible not to go there every time. I'm just saying that the world is just not ready for the core concepts of Communism, and that many of them go against human nature.
Social equality and the abolition of property, for example, are two caveats of the whole system that can't work in a world where people are not created equal.

It was invented by a homeless retard. It will never happen because nobody will be motivated to do anything at all

Funny that the world has automatically selected money and classes as a way of being then, whereas Communist nations always fall into disarray.

...

What I find most confusing about Communism being touted as desirable is the classless and stateless doctrines.
People will always be superior or inferior to one another, forcing them on the same plane is just going to create disdain from the inferiors and right out anger from the superiors.

Like forcing a grade schooler to face off with a full NFL team, forcing different "tiers" of humans into the same social bin seems counterproductive and naive

It's true. Ant-human hybrid would fix everything about communism, except it wouldn't teach economics.

the more fantasy tier ideoligy there is

it's the gommunism equivalent of "but what if hitler won ww2 and erected a white utopia"

If communism is stateless isn't that just libertarianism?

communism is a lie. it is the modern form of religion. it gives moral authority to the ruling elite. it will never be achieved as promised because it is a lie. the true believers are tools. look at the communist flag. tools. because that is what they are.

About the stateless part, there is something which is not enough clarified within our movements.
What Marx called a state was the institutions enforcing class domination. With this definition, it's obvious that a classless society will also be stateless.
But today, we're all using Max Weber's definition of the state : the monopoly of legitimate violence. And according to that definition, there will always be a state, unless we devolve to the tribe.

No, because that just ends up converting back into capitalism organically.
Communism works more in a utopic world in which people work for one another's good for no reason and never try to get ahead of eachother.

So, in a way, that would end up reverting to capitalism in time too, with a brief stop in ancap territory

tl;dr : When Marx said "state", it was about the cops protecting the capitalists, not about the cops protecting everyone from criminals.

There will never be a true "classless system". Some men are naturally more dominant and want more than others.

How would you even enforce a classless system? You'd need a-- OH I'UNNO -- central committee to enforce it.

Honestly the best system is a miminalist government and leaving people to do what they want. Obviously this system is too corrupt,but a communist system would be too.


Why should some fucktard/corrupt politican in DC 1,000 miles away tell me what to do?

We need a consensus government. So just leave people the fuck alone!!!!

Communism is not based on game theory, unlike more solid ideologies.

Communism is based on so called "dialectic materialism" which is basically yada-yada that goes against the scientific method and is not applicable anywhere in real life. Besides, Communism supposes that the human nature can somehow magically change and get rid of greed and gambling.

How is the state a monopoly on legitimate violence? Is self defense against niggers not legitimate?

But even then, it would revert to capitalism in time.
Even if you managed to create that system. the difference in power between class clusters (like the medical conglomerate being more powerful by nature than, say, the streetsweeps conglomerate) would just lead back to a layered society, which in turn would be exploited by the upper echelons to get privileges, which leads us back to capitalism.

I just don't see Communism working in a non-automated post-scarcity world, simply because humans, like every single living thing ever created from the beginning of time, exist to stomp on everything inferior to gain supremacy.

They are serious, look at Cuba's 'Constitution', it states that the Communist party is the vehicle through which we will reach this stateless society.

>Marx doesn't take into account people are greedy a holes
>power corrupts
>Communism won't work, it's literal anarchy

There is no wealth, there's no money. If you need food you go to the store and take what you need/want and leave. Everybody works for free, and in return they get whatever they need for free.

Obviously this would only work in a society where most things are automated and resources are abundant

It turns out creating a "proletariat dictatorship" isn't actually a good idea because the odds are stacked against the notion of it disbanding voluntarily. Therefore, there hasn't been a by-the-book Marxist revolution completed successfully. That's the argument.

This doesn't mean that we need to beat our heads against the wall until it works.
This doesn't mean the ideology is compatible with post-industrialism.

Communism (infinite resources):
>I'm a much faster and more accurate brick layer than the other guy
>But we both earn the same, even though I complete 70% of the work
>I guess I should slow down to the other guy's pace since I won't get paid more

Natural order of value (scarcity):
>A life saving doctor will have his work valued higher, that is, more necessary, than a cook.
>Anyone can cook if they need to.
>Not many people can repair a brain hemorrhage.

This is a natural structure of society, and true communists would argue (badly) that it is oppressing the people who choose to be less skilled, or choose less valuable jobs, or are incapable of more valuable jobs.

exactly. but communist true believers insist on giving all power to the ruling elite no matter how many times it fails. because they are true believers of the communist religion.

The core philosophy of Communists and Fascists is Collectivism.

They both believe in the Forced or Coerced Altruistic Sacrifice of the Individual in the name of the greater good.

There's no true fascism

>we both earn the same
You don't earn anything, COMMUNISM IS MONEYLESS, so you don't lay bricks because there's robots to do that (look up 3D printed houses)

You sit back and share a beer with the other guy, and focus your time on hobbies or something

What is true capitalism?

You know thats where the Globalists are heading? Look at the news and how everyone in power shuns nationalism, they're on your side.

We'll have a global, cashless, classless, mono-cultured, transhumanist society soon when soros and co get their way.

You're part of the system you claim to hate.

>stateless
Can't exist
>classless
Also can't exist
>moneyless
Could exist but would be highly inefficient. Money isn't evil it's men who are evil. Money is just a medium of exchange.
>automation and post scarcity meme
Also will never happen

People are constantly shown people suffering in unskilled jobs which most people will do, to trick them into buying things and voting for parties that promise to get them out of this predicament, but obviously won't

It works better than a simple distraction, although both distractions and this tactic are used together to pacify and control the stupid unwashed masses while all the resources their ancestors fought for are stolen, and their nations are dismantled

Then I didn't understand you properly. I also don't think that it is ready right now, but I do think we can make it ready, capitalism is even evolving into it.

The biggest flaw in marxist-leninism was central planing which was corrected by maoism (eventhough Mao didn't even go through with his own plans), because he made the people's communes what should have been decentralised planing, but to no avail. So communist must make more effort to decentralised planing since that actually does work.

>leafposting
Your implication is that an automated utopia is necessary for the theory to work.
My point is that the theory has been tried, unsuccessfully, because the utopia does not exist.
Logically, because resources are not infinite, the utopia cannot exist.

I can argue that it already would exist, but you would not agree to the severe quality of life regression necessary to attain it.

Children should learn to ask before assuming someone's personal view.

Well human nature is not fixed, it can be changed when the basic needs of humans are met.

Bullshit, when needs are met and then normalized the human nature is to seek more, better, and/or different.

It is, but as far as I know, self defense has a legal definition: if you shoot a nigger threatening you, there will be a trial, where you'll have to proove it was self defense. tl;dr it's self defense if the state say so.
Indeed, it could lead to a technocracy (a la Howard Scott). Privileges and exploitation don't always mean capitalism, it can be technocracy, feudalism or whatever.
>humans, like every single living thing ever created from the beginning of time, exist to stomp on everything inferior to gain supremacy
About this, I think Theodore Kaczynski was right: the basic drive behind this is the need to struggle against something (that explains the behavioral sinkhole, I suppose). I think a socialist society can't exist without a way to satisfying this drive with something else than power onto other humans. Perhaps space colonization is the answer.

>Children should learn to ask before assuming someone's personal view.
That's rather ironic since you assumed I'm communist ;^)

Fascism isn't really collectivism, it's called a third way for a good reason. It can only sit centrally because it's both left and right wing. Don't claim it is the same as Communism because of a shared element

There is no such thing of either.

-Stateless
Marx definition of state can be abolished, which just boiler down to corporatism being abolished.
-Classless
You can come very close, if you only make two classes, all have guns and it being democratic.
-moneyless
Labour vauchers: money that can't circulate (although this idea isn't exactly waterproof)

Also the automation thing is happening stop denying reality, both right and left can see this.

The only evidence we have from this is in capitalist societies, where this is promoted, we don't have other systems to try this out on.

>communist true believers insist on giving all power to the ruling elite
They already have tjis all power.

I'd rather live in a world where people are taught to strive for bettering themselves than stagnating or going lower.

>You've been fed dog food all your life. It's all you've ever known.
>You see a group of people eating chicken and vegetables.
>You see a group of people eating horse manure.
>The chicken eaters appear more clean, more happy, and you perceive them as more healthy and able than yourself
>The manure eaters appear dirty, you can smell the group from here, and they amble, slow, appearing weaker, with barely a smile to go around

Pick a group.

Dog food,
Chicken and vegetables,
Or horse manure.

Comrade. Please. The "work will disappear because technology" meme exists since the 1st International. It's like sperging "final crisis of capitalism" each time there's a krach.
Perhaps this time is the right time, I sincerely hope so. But we must stay cautious. A lot of our previous failures were direct consequences of this premature enthusiasm.
And I must go. It's the best thread about communism I ever saw on Sup Forums, thank you all.

How about stable job house and food, you don't always have to do thing through money, you can do things for fun. The thing with this system is is that for you to strife you need to put people under you.

We move closer too super AI which can replace so much as we have now, you can't deny this. It may not be every job, but a significant and undeniable portion.

Yes you do. Everything you own was created by someone below you, or you wouldn't be able to afford it

>literally starts the thread with "what exactly is a True Scotsman"

Do you guys ever read that image at the top of the page about how to identify logical fallacy or nah?

>What exactly is "true Communism"
Civil war, massacres, famine, genocide, brainwashing, bread queues and a deficit of toilet paper.

At one time just a thousand or so years ago everything on earth was done by hand or the simplest of tools.

Somehow computers, electricity, cars, refrigerators, and other marvelous inventions didn't make the need for labor go away.

The automation craze isn't what it's being cracked up to be.

everything i own, but not everything i can do. you said strife for better. if i excersice i dont get money but still i strifed for better

You won't be seeing large scale automation replace the majority workforce for 20-30 years at a minimum, and that is assuming politics does not interfere. "Super AI" won't happen until my hair is gray and even then it will only be achieved with hardware worth tens of millions of dollars.
I'm telling you, and this thread, that nothing short of a fantasy world come to life will remove the natural behavior of people valuing objects and work. Even in a utopia of free resources people will find other things to judge and value.

top kek comrade, now to the gulags!

see

And... giving a dictator an absolute power accomplishes this HOW exactly?

What people misunderstand is that no state has ever achieved communism, but that doesn't mean their ideology wasn't communism.

It is correct to say that USSR wasn't a communist state, but the atrocities they commited and the corpses that followed is the fault of communist ideology, it's the dead you get when you try to reach it.

Marxists was an economist. A shitty one, because he ignored Pareto principle. His views on how to run the state extend to trying to discourage private ownership and liberate people by trying to hammer them all into equal peg holes, even though we all know biology and psychology tell us time and time again that people aren't all equal.

Lenin began a trend in communism that repeats pretty much in instances of it. From Stalin, to China, to Cambodia to North Korea...
>strong leadership comes to power
>anyone with a connection to the bourgeoisie or even those who display competence at their work are punished and have their lands seized
>this leads to a huge loss in production and starvation as the idiots who couldn't find their ass from a hole in the ground are now expected to run society.
>the population getting desperate and unruly are satiated with a new source of goods and production, just enough to keep them on their feet. Political prisoners become a source of slave labour. Gulags and prison camps are now overcrowded manufacturing and agricultural hubs.
>the party threatens a life of misery in the camps to anyone who descents
>a huge portion of the population become political informers in order to get closer to the ruling party and avoid the camps themselves.
>suddenly the party becomes the new De facto bourgeois, who control a weak and uneducated working class of scared and ignorant Peasants, who are constantly informing on their neighbours.
>massive black markets emerge. Workers pretend to work, governors pretend to govern. The whole system is a terrible sham that people are trapped in because any kind of rebellious act lands you in a gulag, or prison Battalion during war time.

It is literally the worst system ever created. It's got the highest body count and the countries it leaves behind are starved and suicidal. And it all stems from the same concept that everyone on the planet is an equally skilled and equally composed human being with no differences

Italy was true fascism, it worked well until allies shit on it.

>What exactly is "true Communism"
A fantasy that will never exist.

>post-scarcity
You might as well make post-entropy a requirement while you're at it

A pure stateless place which has all the resourse one could ever want avaliable to them at all times.

It "hasn't been tried" because it is a literal impossibility as scarcity exists and it completely defies human nature.

Communes.

romania had true communism and is a shithole full of corruption now...