Has communism actually been tried without authoritarian currupt govs?

I mean the ideal of communism is actually nice, everyone gets equal shit and everyone lives good.
But the problem is, almost all the regimes in history were run by dictators and corrupt people.

>A heavily centralised government with a closed market
>No dictator

Pick one

communism is just capitalism in matching uniforms. both ultimately serve globalism / jew supremacism.

>communism
>good
>ever

No. Because this would require an absolute and universal change in human nature. You would need every single person on the planet, or at least and enforceable majority, to decide at the same time that money, possessions, competition, one-upping the neighbours were no longer worthwhile. Unlikely given the current material conditions in the third world. So before even this massive shift in attitude you would need to redistribute the worlds wealth equitably.

>inb4 spookposts

Like hippie communes and such maybe

The answer is in your own first sentence - from who do you take to give someone who works less, so they can be both equal? Why should they work more if you just take it away from them? Only way to make such system work is through authoritarian means.
Communism should have been next evolution of capitalism, but it never worked out anywhere, so the only thing communist are left with is to divide people into classes and then control those classes via guise of noble phrases like equality, societal justice etc. For that you once again need authoritarian control.

Yes, it was tried.
It failed.
Corrupt government is just the consequence of it.

However it's possible to get similar results through other, more democratic means.

Perfect communism will never work out, as "ideal" things don't exist in this world.

Essentially thisMarxist Leninism was the prevailing thought in the Socialist world because they quickly found out that people weren't going to accept mass socio-economic change without massive social cohesion through force and the rooting out of "reactionary elements"

So they enstated a temporary authoritarian organisation refered to as the "Vanguard party" to oversee the changes through five year plans and workers input would be transfered through Democratic centralism IE the ideas are made at the bottom and work their way up through committees to the Politburo.

These people never aim to relinquish power and after the first generation of the party there is always mass revisionism (Deng Xiaoping, Khruschev)

The main issue though is the economic model that HAS to give complete control to the state to oversee these changes, but a centrally planned economy can never match the fluidity of the market because it's literally a man, in a room, determining prices with a calculator and when they make mistakes the economy crashes, and as the economy grows the more variables get counted in, so the economy stagnates after roughly 40 years.

why do we need dictators anyways for communism?

We can sitll have democracy and equal rights
no authoritarian shit

put the people in charge

Marx fucked up his own theory but publishing his own works, what he believed would be the natural sihfts in material conditions, and what Socialists fought to bring about quicker are now actively avoided.

The USSR did literally nothing wrong and the reason it was authoritarian wasn't because they were communist but because they were Russians.

>Jew
This is just what the brainwashed call the bourgeoisie.

>put the people in charge

You can't have mass social cohesion without authoritarianism, hence even the Catalonians quickly realised this with the increasing power of the Trade Unions.

It more the fact it's built around Russian conditions and is hard to adapt; it requires a central figure to drive the vechile so to speak.

>wasn't because they were communist but because they were Russians.

This.

how about all the other communist countiries?

-

They didn't do anything wrong either.

>heavily centralised government with a closed market
That's not what communism is, that's socialism.

The USSR's end goal was communism, it believed that it was working towards it, but it never achieved it - it was socialism.

That doesn't mean we should try again.
Communism has been tried in small communes. It vaguely works although you're not getting any high-tech consumer goods unless you buy them from outside (Which would involve selling your goods to the outside market and comes closer to a co-operative than systematic communism.)

Communism creates the corruption, dumdum. If people aren't allowed to chase capital, they will chase political power. If they aren't allowed to trade material goods, they will trade favors. Ayn Rand called it the Aristocracy of Pull.

Out of curiosity, how would you define communism?

If not everyone is allowed in the party how can everyone chase political power?

Cuba

What the fuck does 'put people in the charge' means? Seriously explain this to me.
The guy who owns the company is 'people' he isn't some corporation entity. It is his company, his idea, his drive, his risktaking, he needs my skills to achieve his goals, I'm willing to provide them for a price. Fair trade.
Every now and then guys in my team start bitching how the owner just rides in his limouzine, doing nothing. When I tell them to open their own bussiness so that they can also just drive in the limouzine all day, they sudenly shut the fuck up.
The 'people' have no stake in well being of other people, best you can get is a nation that provides equal conditions, rules and security for all their citizens so they can realize themselves.

"A stateless society in which every worker is entitled to the full product of his labour, without an exploitative class (i.e. factory owners) to take it away." academically.
"Fantastic idea that most people can't actually define properly and confuse with socialism which they also sometimes confuse with social democracy" personally.

>Fantastic idea
Should've phrased that better.
When I say "Fantastic" I mean "Like something out of a fantasy", not "Brilliant, we should do it."

Government by it's nature is corrupt and authoritarian

>That doesn't mean we should try again.
>Communism has been tried in small communes.

Yeah it kind of does, Marx himself said that the material conditions would have to cme about naturally for a transition to communism and it may work on a small scale, but you can't encourage mass national cohesion because even on a national scale you'd fail, it would have to be a similtaneous world revolution.

If you are a Marxist and believe this is inevitable then great, sit back and wait, if you're not and you don't then fine; but Marxist Leninism is only going to lead you down the path of revisionism and collapse once you've passed the neo-feudal stage

>I'm willing to provide them for a price
Supply and demand is almost always tipped towards the employer over the employee, especially for unskilled factory workers in Marx's time.
Don't want to work for poverty pay and risk being mangled in the machinery? Fine, there are plenty of other plebs out there who will.

But Communism (or even Socialism) wasn't the solution for that. Social-Democratic reforms to the capitalist system were far more effective at staving off revolution without radically changing the economy in short order or attempting large scale economic planning long before the computer age.

>Marxist Leninism
To be fair the Eastern Bloc didn't collapse per se, it just buckled to foreign pressure then capitalism destroyed the economy.

Hence why global revolution is important for a permanent revolution.

I thought that half the world lacked revolutionary potential? And the half who had said potential rejected it.

You can never really predict a revolution, for the past 100 years there's more or less been a revolution happening in some form somewhere out there consistently but where and when is always a surprise.

Marx wouldn't have anticipated that Russia, despite being the reactionary-Mecca of Europe and basically third-world in terms of industralization, would be the first country to have a successful communist revolution.

This is something that I don't understand that maybe someone could explain to me? Gommies say that it hasn't been really tried because it's been distorted by corrupt people. Yet somehow, it'll work in the US which 99% of people admit is already corrupt?

And Russia only kinda worked because it was so authoritarian. Like China. Both serve as reminders to Euroman and USicans that do not want.

...

When communists say
>Communist has never been tried
They don't mean there was never a real communist revolution (well maybe some do), they're generally referring to the fact that communism as the prevailing economic system is extreme distant future stateless society.

What we've been seeing during the 20th century among communist-party led states is socialism. And generally all but the most liberal anti-tankies support that over capitalism.

Why are so many Brits commies, anyway?

Most are socialists instead of communists, and that's down to a strong intellectual tradition of socialism and workers movements in the UK. (Possibly in itself down to the stratified nature of British society until relatively recently.)

Also, when you say "Socialist" in the USA it conjures up images of the USSR, while in Britain it's just as likely to give you Clement Attlee, so it's not such a toxic term although any bona-fide socialists are dead in the water in terms of electability. (Corbyn himself holds/held socialist positions, but his current policy proposals drift closer to Ed Miliband's social democracy every day. Likewise the Labour party calls itself democratic-socialist when it's been social democratic for decades.)

Plus when any socialist UK government lost an election, it did step down as normal. Indeed the closest to an anti-democratic occurrence was a possible coup plan against Harold Wilson in the 70s.

In Germany there are a lot of communes that live essential like ideal communists.
There were also a lot of experiments with outside funding in the US with thousands of participants.

Of course everything failed or dissolved the moment there is hard work to be done or they stay poor as shit supported by the welfare state because it cannot sustain itself.

i think the thing about possessions is a misunderstanding. when it says private property, it means things like corporate, as in non-public state property like huge multi hectar pieces of land, large factories and buildings, all owned by a small group of influential men, not personal property or possessions such as a tv or a small plot of arable land owned by a simple "proletariat" worker.

but since it's so badly defined, it is and will always be abused by greedy thieves who want to take everything away from the small men and chase them all into a single room.

>the ideal of communism is actually nice
>everyone gets equal shit and everyone lives good.
I want people who contribute more, to earn more. The idea is shit.
I want degenerates to rot in hell, not get equal pay.

...