How many failures and suffering is it going to take before communists

>>585356
They never will.

>>585356
They will never admit it. Just now there was a guy saying the holomodor was capitalism's fault in some thread out there.
You have to understand that commies think they have a higher moral ground. Their entire personality is based on that. It's not easy to let this go.

>>585356
>How many… suffering

File: 1423496678701.jpg (208KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 600x750px

>>585356

It's never been tried though.

>>585369
My special brand of national socialism has never been tried either :)

How is this argument valid in any way? You can say it for literally every political system.

>>585369
It's never been "tried" because it's impractical. But it has been actually tried to put into motion and the results were devastating no matter how you slice it.

>>585372
Communism isn't an ideology imposed as policy by a party, it is a social way of being amongst people. Marx hypothesises that it arises as a negation of the total alienation the worker experiences in the process of the production when he is outside himself and socialised as a collective worker: that communist relations will be this experience repurposed by self-control.

So there's actually a pretty easy test to determine if communism exists:
1) Was the society previously capitalist?
2) Has wage labour been abolished
3) Has the expansion of the value form, and the value form been abolished?
4) Do the people in society democratically control their behaviour as a collective?

You can then run this test over various societies, and even over sections. The Petrograd factory councils were tending to communise in 1917 and 1918, but this process retreated under the civil war with the Bolshevik party acting as a dictatorial state effectively reintroducing wages through rationing, and was halted by the introduction of the NEP.

Whether such a society is possible as the natural result of the conscious activity of the working class through its own organs or not is a political argument. But many of the features of communisation come forward in working class controlled social activity in history, such as the organisation of the Hungarian workers councils during October through December 1956.

File: gramsci.gif (34KB, 214x235px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 214x235px

Communists will never admit their system is shit because communism works very well for the people who promote it: left-wing intellectuals. They always end up becoming the ruling class of communist countries.

Another reason they will never admit that having communists ruling a country is shit is because they always cling to irrelevant and transitory periods as representative of "TRUE COMMUNISM" the "THE MAN" didn't allowed to flourish, see >>585390

>many of the features of communisation come forward in working class controlled social activity in history, such as the organisation of the Hungarian workers councils during October through December 1956.

Sure. Just like Catalonia under the CNT and Ukraine under Makhno were TRUE ANARCHO-COMMUNISM.

>>585362
On the other hand, this board is full of alt-rights defending the Holocaust or the British Famines. To each their own biases I guess.

>>585390
So in all the cases you just specified communism is like a redistributive trade union.

The moment you need something outside of the communists' control you then have to trade for it.

And every single time, every single time an autocrat put themselves behind the wheel, ruining this communism that you blindly insist would exist.

The simple fact is communism is a dead letter. It is a confidence trick, much like organised religion, that puts power in to the hands of the snakes who push it. And they always forget their old alleigance to their ideals to rule over their flock with an iron fist, attacking every step of freedom as heresy, heterodoxy and so on.

Communism and the causes of communism must be annihilated.

>>585404
tu quoque 2: Electric boogaloo

>>585356
Looks like you need some dialetical materialism in your life senpai.

>>585417
>communism is like a redistributive trade union.
Trade unions rely on wage labour and "redistribution" of the value form requires capitalism.

>The moment you need something outside of the communists' control you then have to trade for it.
>And every single time, every single time an autocrat put themselves behind the wheel, ruining this communism that you blindly insist would exist.

How many arrows did you trade for each deer?

The history of the repression of working class organisations by nomenklatura works nothing like that. Tito and Mao ran armed bands. Lenin seized the Tzarist bureaucracy intact. The Czech party launched a coup. The Red Army installed Rakosi.

>And they always forget their old alleigance to their ideals to rule over their flock with an iron fist,
I'm pretty sure Durruti was shot through the heart. Nagy was arrested and executed.

File: 1453211153055.png (542KB, 640x490px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 640x490px

>labour union, laws against child labour, 8 hour 5 day a week worktime, worker bonuses, state controlled education and healthcare are all failure!

lel

>>585417
Communism is dead for all intents and purposes, various forms of social democracy have taken over its ideals.

>>585460
I've not seen any social democrats calling for the armed self-defence of the expropriation of the expropriators since 1914 when the maximalist tendencies were ejected.

>>585464
It's taken over *some* of its ideals, that's the whole point. Social democracy works with reforms through the system, communists work through overthrows and retarded philosophical movements.

>>585468
>Social democracy works
No it doesn't.

>*some* of its ideals
The fucking Social Democrats *STARTED* as an anti-communist party, see critique of the Gotha programme.

>>585453
>I'm pretty sure Durruti was shot through the heart. Nagy was arrested and executed.

If Lenin or Stalin were shot in 1917 they would dindu nuffin too.

File: 1423577568337.png (190KB, 793x4231px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 793x4231px

Country with a socialist economy fails: it's the economy's fault
Country with a capitalist economy fails: it's not the economy's fault

You can believe in capitalism without condoning anything bad that a capitalist nation has done, but if you don't, you're a cultist that needs to be forcefully reeducated and tried as an accessory to genocide

>>585484
Last time I saw that image it had Hugo Chavez on it, why did you exclude him?

>>585404
>there are no people on /his/ who condemn both examples listed
>omit that there were people in the Late Victorian Holocaust book thread doing precisely the above mentioned
>guys I am le totally just as biased as you all are xDDD
The greatest irony of all is that communists have approximately as workable and as intelligent a political theory as the anarcho-capitalists.

That about says it all.

>>585390
>Communism isn't an ideology imposed as policy by a party
wwwwwwwwwww

>>585356
>posts picture about a communist being proven right.
>'how much suffering is it going to take before communists admit they're not right?'

>>585488
Hugo Chavez is a corrupt dumbass who failed to industralize in the 80's

>>585488
He got the BOTD but he was such a dipshit that he barely even understood the difference between left and right economics.

He did, however, do what would easily sink a non-socialist nation: base the economy off of the oil industry. The resulting collapse of oil prices destroyed them.

>>585508
>He did, however, do what would easily sink a non-socialist nation: base the economy off of the oil industry. The resulting collapse of oil prices destroyed them.

I'm not sure you said exactly what you meant to say there. You mean that the fall of the international oil price is going to wreck an economy that is based on the sale of oil, right?

I hardly think the collapse of international oil prices was the result of Venezualan domestic policy.

>>585495
Not for lack of trying, it's just that socialism doesn't provide the best incentives for successful industrialization unless you enslave the workers.

>>585484
Huh. You have Tito on there. Don't you think it's funny how the country immediately fell upon itself and broke up the moment he died? Shouldn't that suggest something to you?

No. Of course you wouldn't.

>>585508
They were collapsing when oil hit it's peak prices a few years ago. This is not a new process.

>>585549
>Hugo Chavez
>Socialism

File: chomsky.gif (71KB, 479x422px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 479x422px

>>585572
It was considered the "socialism of the 21st century" when it was working. I remember it.

>>585554
>Huh. You have Tito on there. Don't you think it's funny how the country immediately fell upon itself and broke up the moment he died? Shouldn't that suggest something to you?
By cherry picking that one example, you implicitly admit the rest are valid.
>They were collapsing when oil hit it's peak prices a few years ago. This is not a new process.
Decline is not collapse, even if his incompetence made it inevitable.

File: 1441554564618.jpg (89KB, 645x851px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 645x851px

>>585586
>chavismo
>ever working
lel

Venezuela only experienced actual economic growth during the oil crisis in the 70's, and that was not the result of chavez

>>585586

It's not proper Socialism though. Socialism has never been tried.

>>585586
Ho wasn't AS bad as people say he was. He actually wanted to be best buds with the US, but his fight for independence against France (and subsequent aid he got from China and the USSR) soured it.

If it weren't for the Fucking French wanting to keep Indochina, the Vietnam war wouldn't have been a thing. And furthermore, due to Vietnams historical animosity against China, they would have been pro west.

Fucking French

>>585586
Mao: laid the foundation for the nation that now makes all of our cheap shit
Castro: later acknowledged his human rights violations, and Cuba now ranks high in HDI
Ho Chi Minh: Ameriboo that only went commie because the West ignored his calls for independence that the reds happily listened to
Pol Pot: covertly supported by the United States and was later toppled by another communist party that fared extremely better

Let's also just ignore how Chomsky is right about the US 99.9% of the time and made all of his predictions before Western involvement came to light

>>585356

You're implying that marxism/communism and so forth are falsifiable theories.
They aren't.

>>585593
>By cherry picking that one example, you implicitly admit the rest are valid.

Actually, I don't. I have no idea who most of those people were because they were fucking irrelevant. Tito is the only one that I can comment on and, well, look how that turned out.

>Decline is not collapse, even if his incompetence made it inevitable.

They were having a hard time keeping the lights on and getting food and even toilet paper when Oil hit it's all time high. This doesn't correlate at all with your assessment.

>>585628

Mao: Chinese economy only reformed after his death. GDP immediately skyrockets as they begin to ape capitalism.
Castro: HDI outside of Havanna GREATLY exaggerated.
Ho: Was already a commie.
Pol Pot: Khmer Rouge Brought to power by Mao's China, not the US.

>>585656
Didn't america support Khmer rouge to weaken the influence of Vietnam and the Soviet Union in Southeast Asia.

>>585710
Materially, no. The PRC was their main supplier and state sponsor. That was the origin of much of their trouble with Vietnam. The Vietnamese were backed by the USSR.

>>585475
It's working right now. It raised the quality of life of the masses much more than communism ever did, without calling for bloody feuds. And it's more democratic than any long-standing communist government ever was.

File: 0,,17695237_303,00.jpg (31KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 700x394px

I bet you people believe the late capitalist society we live in is the end of human development.

>>585721
No. Fukuyama basically apologizes for that idea every year and he's right to do it.

For collectivist ideologies such as Communism and National Socialism to work, every individual must be conscious of their goals, and work together to achieve them. This is difficult for the average person to do.

Capitalism is just too easy in the age of computers, though if the prosperity ends abruptly we will definitely see a return to both above ideological frameworks, as well as Anarchism. Everyone capable will have to work together to pull their weight.

>>585720
that's just the exploitation of the third world that does that. it's not unique to capitalism. if communism was at all imperialist it would probably be successful as well, but that would defeat the point.

>>585730

Exactly. A glorious Marxist utopia is just around the corner, comrade.

>>585721
No, I believe socioeconomic reforms will be made through democratic governments.

All the while they will have to juggle the economic sustainability of their reforms and their ideals of a fairer world. So it won't be a linear process.

And then, why would there be an "end" to human development, besides the extinction of humanity? This is the real world, not a narrative about the triumph of justice/freedom/goodthing over injustice/oppression/badthing.

>>585737
>Marx
>utopia

well memed

>>585737
Uh, no. Fukuyama was just wrong.

File: 1453238938105.gif (115KB, 1224x1137px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1224x1137px

>>585733
Yea I agree Communism can only work under islam

>>585740
>I believe socioeconomic reforms will be made through democratic governments.

Ayy. Liberal democracy is a farce m80, nothing meaningful will ever change. You don't seriously believe the ruling class will allow you to vote away their power?

>>585488
I've never seen one with Chavez on it. Have a copy of it?

>>585734
That's an oversimplification. The trade is far from equal, but even the developing nations have recently been seeing increases in some measures of "progress". They mostly lack the economic and political infrastructure to benefit more from their own natural resources and to invest their gains in the general population and industry.

I believe education and peace would do wonders in the long run, even if it meant our primary resources would be a bit more expensive.

>>585747
I hope you're not meming, because Islamic Economics is actually a synthesis of the Free Market and Marxism.

It's perfect, has none of the cons of either system.

>>585362
Can't that be said about any ideology, really?
Liberals, conservatives, fascists, monarchists and anarchists all think they hold the moral high ground.

>>585758
I was memeing but now i'm intrigued?
do you mean islamic countries?

>>585750
You believe the ruling class is an homogeneous group?

There are coalitions between groups that share interests, but from top to bottom, at each level, there are conflicts of interests, and your Marxist discourse, besides, falls in many of the pitfalls of so many economic models. Marx basically takes the perfectly rational, perfectly self-interested hypothetical man and merges it with it's group. Models that rely on this "homo economicus" have been demonstrated to hold little predictive and explanatory power.

>>585745
>>585745
Yeah, I can see capitalism changing profoundly into another system with automation, additive manufacturing and the digital era, but communism isn't going to replace it.

>>585750
>>585770
Classism is institutional racism for the far-left.

>>585758
>islamic economics
>markets mean capitalism
>marx advocated for central planning

we're reaching dangerously high levels of memery here

>>585773
Marx:
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
>National centralization of the means of production will become the natural basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers consciously acting upon a common and rational plan.
Sure sounds like central planning to me.

>>585758
>perfect

Except for non-payment, slow growth and abundant fraud

>>585775
>communist states and bourgeois states are identical.

>>585586
Socialism of the 21st century was always Keynesian economics with a huge dose of "Socialist" populism.

It also doesn't help that Venezuela has always been a country where 99% of the state is corrupt as shit and it's insanely class stratified and has a PROVEN economic war being waged against it. (almost directly after the last election the PSUV got their asskicked shelves were suddenly stacked with expired goods that had been horded)

>>585601
>chavismo
>ever working

In terms of severe poverty reduction and recognition of indigenous and poor, Chavismo has been very successful despite the huge amount of corruption, it also has a very, very powerful grassroots which is good for any movement. I honestly think Chavismo would have been a lot more successful if it took place in somewhere that actually had somewhat functioning institutions for a "radical" social democracy.

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-01-21 12:00:24 Post No.585811
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-01-21 12:00:24 Post No.585811 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/61629632