I have a question.
So when people bring up the failed attempts at communism/marxism, and the marxists reply "that wasnt real communism" who is in the right?
I have zero knowledge on this debate. From my understanding communism/socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Why do they say its not true communism and are they right or wrong?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
marxists.org
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
twitter.com
>Sup Forums please do my homework!!!!
>Marxism works.
>but it has failed every time someone tried to implement it
>It just works. Trust me.
They say this because the "people" are supposed to be the government, but it always ends up being some Jew in power.
This is how its been appearing to me. The power vacuum seems to be filled by a government always instead of a collective.
Because Marxists believe that that wasn't real communism due to its fascist use of power therefore cementing itself as more of a corrupted, authoritarian socialist government. They can also shut down all debate by disregarding said regime as "not real communism". It also comes down to the fact for what they percieve as "true communism" will never be achieved due to a number of factors.
In any sort of heavily controlled economy, people will fudge numbers to meet quotas and will also gravitate to a black market where they can trade and barter.
This causes the government to need to crack down and enforce authoritarian measures through terror. If you're found the be subverting the state, your neighbour will rat you out because the penalties for knowing and not reporting are just as bad if not worse than the crime itself.
People like you are the fucking problem. The poor fucker wants to know something and you're acting like a FAGGOT.
Marxist ideologies, as loosely as they've been implemented in the past, have only been forced onto the population at gunpoint. A true Marxist revolution would have to be by the people, not a leader of people. A dictator is not Marxist at all. An authoritarian regime isn't Marxist. Oppression isn't Marxist. For these reasons and more, communism has NEVER BEEN TRIED. The only communism the world has ever seen outside of hippie communes has been authoritarian dictatorships that sieze the means of production "for the people". By any definition of communism ever created that is actually based upon Marxism, nothing that has ever existed has actually been communism, not for five minutes ever. A fact is a fact. Bring on the edgy faggots that want to argue about this extremely straightforward fact. Communism is a meme. It is unachievable and retarded to ponder. The fascist regimes that called themselves communist or marxist in the past were simply fascist governments posing as marxists.
Depends how you define socialism/communism. By Marxist, furthermore Marxist-Leninist definition, USSR was "real socialism". However communism and socialism are separated as different phases in the Marxist theory. Socialism is the post-Capitalistic state phase when the means of production are controlled by workers through a state apparatus. Communism in turn is the post-socialist phase when all roots of capitalism would be gone and the state would no longer be necessary to protect the Marxist ideology, therefore becoming unnecessary and "withering away". In communism, such things as state or money would not exist, but they would in socialism, as defined by Marxist-Leninists. Therefore Marxist-Leninist deny that USSR was communist, but accept that it was socialist. However the phase after Stalin died and Khrushchev came to power, is seen as revisionist and no longer properly socialist, as Khrushchev and his followers started the transition towards mixing socialism and capitalism, which eventually among other things caused the collapse of USSR. Therefore by Marxist definition the USSR did not fail in 1991 by collapsing, but in 1953 as the internal ideological coup happened inside the party after Stalin died. However by the same definition Mao's China was real socialism, therefore undermining the promotion of socialism as great. The great confusion on the subject comes from people mixing up the words socialism/communism and also by their definitions by various left-wing organizations. For example, Soc-Dems would call Nordic model "real socialism" and deny the socialist aspect of USSR, but Marxist would not see Nordic model as socialism, as the economy is still capitalist to a degree.
Source: Ex-Communist
I'll gladly ramble more about the subject if anyone is interested, ask your questions.
Styx does a great video about communism and how it will always fail and devolve to totalitarianism because the very idea of communism is antithetical to human nature. If it is such a self evident philosophy why is it so hard to implement and why does it always end in dictatorship and suffering?
All your questions are answered in this video:
youtu.be
There's never a power vacuum to begin with. It's always an authoritarian dictatorship right from the onset.
>So when people bring up the failed attempts at communism/marxism, and the marxists reply "that wasnt real communism" who is in the right?
They're committing the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, which means they're not making an argument.
Actual communism is an impossibility.
You can't actually get human beings to act that way.
So the communists are wrong, because they're reaching for a goal that can't ever happen.
But actually the "communism doesn't work" crowd is somewhat wrong too, because the problem isn't that it "doesn't work"; the problem is that it isn't real or possible.
It's like talking about whether or not a purple horse that speaks Spanish could fly or not. Everyone is just arguing over whether or not an imaginary animal could fly.
What a bullshit statement.
>Why do they say its not true communism and are they right or wrong?
Commies have their brains taken over by this parasitic ideology which wants to spread and replicate at all costs regardless of reality, when this happens it leads to civilizational destruction and mass death. The mind virus meme does not care about this because it is like a bacteria or insect larvae and just simply wants to spread and will do and say whatever it thinks will help it spread. All the consequences of its destruction are ignored and sidelined in favour of memetic replication and spreading into as many fresh new brains as possible.
Sorry, commie.
How clever. I should have expected a statement like that from someone of your quality.
Because Communism works...
If your people are mindless drones doing nothing but quotas and being good to everyone else...
The problem is that people can't do that without brainwashing 3 generations so no one can temper how it is without Communism and not to know that they can make a revolution to take over other communes
My take is that capitalism that works up to full automation of workforce so people can live in peace with only engineers doing g some job and being extra rich while others live in an Utopia.
China did real communism and it was really terrible for several years, though China always is terrible when there is large scale political change. Since Mao's great fuckup China has not been a failure and I can't understand why communists don't just point to modern day China as an example of communism succeeding.
>but it always ends up being some Jew in power.
Well, it was their idea. Can't fault them for collecting royalties on their investment, can you?
thats what i mean. instead of dismantling a government marxism sprouts in countries where governments still have a lot of power so there was no hope for the idea even in the beginning. again this is just me speaking from my limited knowledge on the topic.
It is true when people say it wasn't real communism, but it has never truly been efficacious. When adding on with how many died under communism it becomes unappealing to some. What really chastens it in the long run is how many would try and topple such a ideology when in place because having it work; would be disastrous for all other systems.
>numerous self-identified communist/socialist leaders attempt to implement their ideology within their own countries
>fails every single time
>It wasn't REAL coummunism/socialism because of some stupid arbitrary reason
Oh and they always say it wasn't real communism/socialism AFTER the country is proven to be a complete failure. I can still recall numerous news articles praising Venezuela as a socialist paradise prior to their imminent collapse.
>Why do they say its not true communism and are they right or wrong?
Because it wasn't a utopia therefore it couldn't have possibly been real communism
But, I'd counter with:
>what is true communism?
>why weren't the examples in history not real communists?
>what needs to be done in order to make it real communism?
>how can you make that happen while avoiding the outcomes from previous attempts?
>what if the guy under ya doesn't believe in your version of communism and decides to pull a coup, how will his power be challenged?
And my personal fave rebuttal:
>that's not true capitalism
But yeah., ask questions, let them dig their own grave and bury themselves and the suffocate to death.
Ok, lets get one thing straight, Communism is a description of an economic state where the concept of money has no meaning because production is so high that it is a waste of time and effort to care about shit like "money and property" when you can just have robot materializer make you a new thing instead of whining about what happened to the old one. Humans weren't born with the concept of money, and we will eventually have no need for it, just like we've cast off plenty of other dumb concepts after we no longer had any beneficial use from them.
And this happens naturally because capitalism is incentivized to make production more efficient and decrease the cost of all goods to near zero. If my new tech can make 1 billion widgets, but only 1 million people need widgets, then the price of widgets is now practically zero unless you induce artificial scarcity to inflate the price to enable a market, because you can't have a market when the price is zero. This eventually happens with every fucking commodity, and you have to come up with silly busy work for most people, and use propaganda to make people want to buy shit like a new fucking iphone each year so you can play the latest free2play skinner box game that gets you addicted to buying microtransaction loot boxes of a digital fucking item as if it were a scarce commodity.
All this shit is just bullshit to keep us pretending like capitalism is still sustainable in its last day, so much bullshit to let us pretend like markets are still needed and good. But eventually we pass through this and then can't think up any more use for money, and when that happens we have to come up with some other way to organize society instead of comparing bank accounts.
>From my understanding communism/socialism is when the workers own the means of production.
They're making two requirements:
1. It has to actually become full-on Communism rather than a typical government following certain Communist ideas.
2. It has to work as intended.
Part of the problem is selection bias: the people who establish/revolt against governments typically are not 100% of "the people" and are by definition governments and have power. Any attempts at installing Communism are usually codified in law somehow, otherwise becoming de facto military dictatorships. This means you can technically disqualify any of them as "true" Communes. One will never form in nature, and intervening to create one automatically disqualifies you. Go figure.
The second point is kind of hard to explain. Marxists treat their philosophy like it's fact, and that their ideal system is scientifically formulated to be a sustainable utopia. Even if it was created, any deviation from the hypothetical utopia is considered to be not true Communism by definition since Communism works and that example did not, so they did something wrong.
It is categorically correct to say there has never been an example of Communism put into practice. It is also fundamentally impossible, the same way that order emerges from anarchy the moment someone seizes power. It's their standard that's bonkers, so arguing what is or is not Communism is mostly meaningless. I think most people who believe in "capitalism" would agree that the problems we face with wages, debt, and the price of goods do not originate with the free market, but with regulation and big bank oligarchs. Does this mean "capitalism" does not occur in the United States? I don't know, who cares.
>China did real communism
Wow!
You mean China didn't have any leaders at all and production was owned and regulated only by the people for several years? No armies, either? Was there also no oppression?
No? OH! You mean that China had an authoritarian dictatorship where the means of production were seized and used kind of in a Marxist-type manner. So, in effect, you're saying that China wasn't communist at all, but fascism with a commie hat on, but you're too fucking stupid to tell the difference. Please state it as such next time.
BTW, China isn't communist, but by the title they gave themselves when they incorrectly interpreted the definition of such. Please try not to be a moron in the future.
There have been lots of Communist PARTIES that take control of a nation with the goal of massively increasing production and reorganizing society other than by bank accounts, but just because a Communist PARTY is in charge doesn't mean the country IS actually communist. Communism only exists when production is so big that markets make no more sense, where you literally have to pay people to not produce stuff just so things can have a price higher than zero.
Communist countries usually achieve their goal of massively increasing production over the prior state, turning agrarian peasant societies into industrial powerhouses, but tend to be pretty brutal in their methods and lose control before formally restructuring a society into a new model not measured by bank accounts.
If you read Communist Manifesto chapter 2, you can see that America itself has practically already implemented every policy Marx recommends to transform a capitalist society into a communist society, nearly 100 years we've had all these policies like "Central bank", progressive income tax, public education department, public utilities, etc - All things that seem like common sense tradition to people who were born into these programs already existing, but were radical when originally proposed. All these methods Marx proposes are meant to increase production to eventually achieve Communism. Communism is what happens after you maximize the productive power and efficiency of capitalism, because the contradictions of capitalism contains the seeds of its own transformation into communism. AMERICA ITSELF is the most advanced communist state, I shit you not. America, since Lincoln at least, is fucking Marxist. It just had different ideas on what lengths the state can go to to coerce the people.
marxists.org
Lots of American elite still believe that people have natural rights, consciousness granted by God. But a lot of Eastern Marxists believed that individual consciousness is like an aftereffect of state power. That the state is itself God.
>communism/socialism is when the workers own the means of production
You pretty much said it yourself ,the workers have never owned the means of production in any communist state.
it's memes of production and gookmoot owns it.. so technically all shitpost to the shogunemperor hiro san
>So when people bring up the failed attempts at communism/marxism, and the marxists reply "that wasnt real communism" who is in the right?
>Hitler was not real National Socialism.
kek
>that wasn't real Marxism
>No true Scotsman
Communism is anarchic which is unstable and so the system cant get beyond a strong centralized state which quickly devolves into bloody dictatorship.
The system requires that humans not cheat to advantage themselves when nobody is looking and we just don't do that very well as a species. Regulated market economies have produced the best benefit for the societies that adhere to them.
Try actually fucking learning about the subject. Read Marx and Engels and then if you want to read some critiques and theories based upon them, read Gramsci and Trotsky and Heyek for a good place to start.
And you should read Adam Smith and Hegel and Rousseau, for your own knowledge, and to better understand what Marx and Engels were critiquing and forming their theories from.
And the Marxists are correct, communism has never been approached. No nation attempting communism has even seriously approached post-currency let alone actual communism.
Because it's not fucking possible, and no communist has ever described a tangible plan to realistically abandon currency while transitioning towards a commons that genuinely owns all production.
Even that USSR at its height never even tried for real, not even in experiments through vassals. Because they knew it was not possible and what every supposed "communist" country has been and is really about is a handful of people larping their way to unchallenged privilege and power for their party.
>No nation attempting communism has even seriously approached post-currency let alone actual communism
The Khmer Rouge did. They exterminated their own people until there was no more need for currency.
Basically they think..
>Murder everyone who doesn't agree with you.
>Violently take over the government.
>Enforce people to obey your government to the point of death.
>Government takes control of the means of production so all wealth is distributed equally, changing from free market capitalism to state capitalism.
>??¡¿¿¡??
>Profi... Workers paradise.
What actually happens.
>Murder everyone who doesn't agree with you.
>Violently take over the government.
>Enforce people to obey your government to the point of death.
>Government takes control of the means of production, changing from free market capitalism to state capitalism.
>Party members live a ridiculous life style with unquestioning authority, while the wider economy fails completely.
>But next time it will work.
Cute
You have no idea what communism is, do you? You know what has been called "communism" in the past, but you're completely oblivious to the actual ideologies. Read up on it, then come back. Your example has been tried, but your example was not communism. Marxist communism has NEVER been tried, not ever. You can't have a government that is Marxist. You cannot have both. There's always been both. All past attempts have been authoritarian. Nothing has ever been communist.
Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis dodally nod the general for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of rebolutionary socialism and gommunism.
Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.
Wat exagtly is gommunism aggording to gommies:
>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD
>Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD
>To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you
all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable
from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people.
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
GL uses philosphy of gib and starve, see here:
gommies.gom
It is recommend you kill yourself so you can avoid starving.
Resources:
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
gommies.gom
Da sdages of gommunism.
>Sdage one
Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.
>Sdade two
Withering
All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as
beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.
>Sdage three
Gommunism.
No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis.
>Sdage four
Nod real gommunism. Move on to nexd goundry :DDDDDDD
>Marxism works.
>but it has failed every time someone tried to implement it
These sorts of statements are so remarkably ignorant it is sort of impressive how such beliefs ever got spread, it is a perfect demonstration of the power of propaganda that so many people could say things like this while being ignorant that they themselves already live in a Marxist system.
If you had actually read any Marxist writings at all then you'd understand this. Hell just read the Communist Manifesto, it shouldn't take you more than an hour or two to read, and then you wouldn't look like such an idiot to everyone who actually knows what they're talking about.
For the most part, Marxism doesn't even add anything new to Western societies, it just points out the ALREADY EXISTING conditions that society is in a deranged denial of. Things like
>Your relations are dominated by money, you organize your society by comparing bank accounts.
>Your families have already fallen apart and you've already surrendered your children to the state.
>You've already put business and profession and production over religion.
Marxism merely recognizes that you cling to these outdated social standards merely from sentiment; you don't REALLY want a society organized by merit or virtue, you don't really want a strong family life, you don't really want religion to be more important than career, you just need someone to give you permission to stop caring about all that old shit. You just need someone in charge of the state to tell you that it is ok to move on. But the people in charge of the state fool you into desiring a return to the old ways, even as they make it impossible for you to live if you returned to the old ways, and even as they themselves don't give a shit, cheating on their own wives, ignoring religion, etc.
Boy, you spent a lot of time on this.
Are you disappointed that it's so stupid?
its a joke dude
...still, though.
>You know what has been called "communism" in the past
>But it wasn't real Communism.
How many times has this not real Communism been tried now compared to 'real' communism?
So either your communism is so impossible to actually implement that it is fucking retarded.
Or these are the steps of 'real' communism but because it completely and utterly fails the moment it hits state capitalism, that you can't justify you evil despotic murder spree.
So retarded or unjustified murders?
Read the thread. Marxist communism is impossible. I has never been tried outside of a few hippie communes. The ONLY system of government that's ever been implemented has been authoritarian dictatorships with SLIGHT undertones of communism regarding how the state handle the means of production.
Communism:
People own the means of production
No government at all
No currency
Impossible
What you said:
Authoritarian dictatorships that call themselves "communism" incorrectly.
You cannot have a government and communism
You cannot have currency and communism
NOTHING EVER ATTEMPTED IN HISTORY HAS EVER BEEN COMMUNISM, NOT FOR FIVE MINUTES, NOT EVER.
Communism is a retarded theory that cannot work.
And like I said before, if you just read Communist Manifesto, even just the second chapter, you'd see that all the policies Marx recommends to transform a capitalist society into a communist society, i.e. Marxism AS SUCH, have all been implemented in America for 100 years, and most people these days think they are natural, intrinsic elements of capitalism, because they make capitalism run so much smoother. And it is true, things like state education, public utilities, progressive income taxes, central banks, public development, etc DO make capitalism run a lot smoother, and they are ALL Marxist policies, recommended by Marx himself.
Marx wanted Capitalism to achieve its maximum possible state, because he believed that when Capitalism reaches its apex it naturally transforms into Communism. When you try to say that "Marxism doesn't work" you are actually saying that CAPITALISM doesn't work.
If you support Capitalism, then the only real honest disagreement you can have with Marxism is if you think that the State can't do anything at all to make Capitalism develop faster and better, if you think the state simply shouldn't exist in any capacity other than defending natural rights, enforcing contracts, and sending an army after buttholes who don't play by the rules.
If you agree that the state can help Capitalism develop, then congratulations, you're a Marxist. And if you disagree then you have to explain how America, China, and Soviet Union all became the global super powers while having various degrees of Marxist policies. It can't seriously be denied that the state can make capitalism be more productive, all you can really argue is that the things the state does along those lines are immoral. But again, if you were being honest with yourself you'd admit that you don't really care about morality accept using it as a shield to defend your own personal interest. If you really cared about morality you'd be living a much different life.
>It would be different if I was in charge
- Every commie ever
Why do commies push for a revolution then? Appears to me that the fastest way to communism is more capitalism.
There are far fewer commies than you may think. You just see the word so much because these faggots think everyone's a jew or a commie or both if they get disagreed-with.
Real communism never existed.
Real Marxism has never been tried, nor will it ever be at a nation-state level. It works just fine in small collectives where everyone contributes and agrees on how to share responsibilities as well as resources.
Communism does not "share the wealth". Previous examples have seen a ruling class hoard resources "for the common good", while people do without basic needs. Mass starvation is often the end result. I only recommend communism for people in need of massive weight loss.
>Because it's not fucking possible, and no communist has ever described a tangible plan to realistically abandon currency while transitioning towards a commons that genuinely owns all production.
Well, what will happen when currency becomes meaningless - which will occur soon after cryptocurrencies take over, and every company and individual will be able to issue their own currency and act as their own central bank, with fast, automated programs for exchanging them all at various rates like foreign currencies - after mass cryptocurrencies take over and centralized currency becomes less important and powerful, we naturally transition into a 'popularity rating' based system of organizing our society, reminiscent of some episodes of Black Mirror and other sci fi shows.
We basically use currency and the size of our bank accounts to organize our society, to track who is a bigger deal than who. When we lose central currency and transition to massive decentralized cryptocurrency, we will develop alongside this various systems to democratically rate the trustworthyness and other attributes of individuals and organizations. And over time as this becomes more widespread, these ratings themselves will become so robust that we no longer need any currency system to organize society since we just use these popularity ratings.
And then we have massive widespread decentralized direct democracy organizing society and structuring our lives.
Over time, all people (who aren't sociopaths) will adjust their behavior to improve their ratings, and it will become a truly equal self-correcting society, where you can trust that the next guy you meet will basically behave like any other guy, since his rating and place in society depends on it. We'll just make the sociopaths disappear so they don't disrupt everything.
Then why does EVERYONE call it communism?
Because enough of communist ideology was implemented to be classed as such.
Just because it didn't hit your personal levels of what classes for communism doesn't mean that it didn't meet enough of a criteria for everyone else.
But yeah it's fucking retarded..
Everyone is stupid.
Everyone thought the world was flat once, too.
>Why do commies push for a revolution then? Appears to me that the fastest way to communism is more capitalism.
There are plenty of idiots who don't understand communism at all and just want to rebel to get back at their dads and be counterculture or whatever. There are more sophisticated groups, often backed by hedge funds, who try to take over countries and institute what is basically a monarchy while using the communism brand to get support of "working class people", then basically funneling all the wealth of the country for their own bank account and the hedge fund's profits.
The Actual Communist parties that took over like Russia and China did so for a few reasons:
>1. Revolution to destroy the imperial establishment that was NOT interested in developing production because it would be a threat to the status quo, the tsars, etc wanted to keep production limited so that the "wrong people" couldn't get wealthier and more powerful than the nobility, they wanted to keep the people divided fighting themselves (a lot like identity politics in America).
>2. The Communist parties in Asia thought that only Europeans really needed to progress through Capitalism, that Asian countries were cool and could just skip it. They were just going to have the State control ALL aspects of society and economy, totally totalitarian, to get everyone to communism faster to save a lot of long term suffering by doing a lot of short term pain. They realized after a few decades this wasn't so great an idea, and then implemented reforms and actually created their own class of capitalists to help with development, and these capitalists will be purged and all their assets nationalized when they are no longer needed.
Revolutionaries usually have their heart in the right place, wanting to take power from people who use it only to maintain the status quo instead of helping people develop and better themselves, but there are also plenty of dickheads who just want to be new dictators.
Real communism is the communism that happened in reality. They're thinking of "ideal communism", which hasn't happened yet and hopefully never will.
>hello fellow polyps :^) im you daily dumb polyp thread poster who just doesnt understand real gommunism because its soo like theoretical and intellectual and only smart and well read guys truelly get it just like illiterate pseudointellectual leftyfaggots unironically believe, leds dig up my edgy unrelevant dead cult again :^) please edugade me on this dodally relevant theory and what that lol I think his name was Marx said :^)
>exactly fellow polyps gommunism just had no hope to succeed because of le oppressing state grips, not because its inherently retarded bullshit construed by thiefs and ignorant jealous losers as an selfdeluding excuse to rob others that has been turned into a cult to control their stupid masses by warlords who never actually believed in this shit, only edgy faggots would take serious in this century :^)
>durr everyone is just ignorant about REAL communism including you joo screeching polyps :^) read more about gommunism! its was nod real gommunism! look im not saying it works because you will disregard me as another retard, but you totally should spend a lot of time reading more about muh edgy unrelevant dead cult! did know now how gommunism really works? let me tell you! :^) you need to read my favorite edgy gommunism books! just one bit! come on polyps muh revolutionary ingenious pol subversion triggery!
>lol stupid Sup Forums will never realize its us xDDDDDDDD
Back to
>>>/leftyfaggots/
I have no personal expectations. is a banana an airplane? Read the definitions. The definition of an airplane sounds nothing like a banana. A banana isn't an airplane any more than past authoritarian dictatorships have been communism. One simply isn't the other. It has nothing to do wit feels. It's more like a math problem than a loose interpretation. 2+2 does not equal communism. It's far simpler than anyone registers.
>Everyone thought the world was flat once, too.
No they didn't.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
And no they're not... Mostly..
>and the marxists reply "that wasnt real communism"
Actually, I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard lots of conservatives and anti-communists give their reply, though. I think it's a straw man.
Really sounds like your have your own expectations and are judging according to it.
Sorry the world calls it communism, your views not withstanding.
Whatever. It doesn't affect me at all if you're stupid.
KEK!
Really.
Just find a communist.
Ask them about the 100 million murders.
Profit.
OP.
Leftists tend to confuse theoretical socialism/communism with practical socialism/communism.
When debating them, don't let them confuse you. Argue in either theoretical terms or practical terms.
...