How did Russia differ from "real communism"? What

real communism = it hasn't been tried

>>1699793

>What made it's communism fake?

It was unsuccessful

>>1699793
>>1699800
There have been several attempts at communism, but none have succeeded. This is objective fact.

Communism refers to an anarchic society with no class division or private ownership of industry

File: quick history of human nature.png (545KB, 1000x1853px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 1000x1853px

>>1699793
>What made it's communism fake?
Greed.

>>1699800
if i just keep eating my own shit im trans-scarcity, right?

>>1699793
The fact that it didn't align with how I imagined it.

>>1699793

The workers didn't control the memes of production.

Lenin disbanded the worker's soviets pretty much immediately after he secured his power. He thought that communist revolution could only take place in industrialized central/western europe. He therefore created a society where the functions of capitalism were taken over by the state led by the vanguard party in order to bring about industrialization and communism in the far future.

He also started a repression of any other leftists who disagreed with these policies such as the kronstadt sailors or the Ukrainean free territories.

The reason why leninist intellectuals can so easily switch over to a sort of cynical right-wing intellectualism is because both ideologies place the power in the hand of a small elite who supposedly know what's better for the masses than the stupid plebs themselves.

>>1699793
It was "working toward communism" and not actually a communist society. Most of the criticism from other communists is that Lenin's vision of the vanguard party wasn't going to lead to communism.

It wasn't fully automated luxury gay space communism

File: 1472839977432.jpg (18KB, 480x335px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x335px

>>1699800

>>1699793
Let me put it this way.

How did Russia differ from "Moon landing"?

They made a rocket to go to the moon - the N1 - but it exploded. They did not put a man on the moon.

Similarly, they made an economy to advance TOWARDS communism, but it collapsed. They did not achieve communism.

This is bastardry of the English language, where they were "Communist" in the sense of trying to implement communism and believing it was desirable ideologically, but not "Communist" in the sense of "has actually achieved communism"

>>1699793
Failure

>>1699793

It was socialism. As are all the others. Communism has never been attempted. Literally, no state has ever attempted communism, or even claimed too.

>>1702253
Depends how you define an attempt.

>>1703440

No definition is required. Either you are communist or you aren't. There can be shades of capitalism, socialism and liberalism. Shades od communism is more difficult to imagine... But by all means, I'm listening. What state and when attempted communism?

The Soviet Union was state capitalist.

>>1699793
>sees 'dictator of the proletariat'
>i think that means i should be a dictator that rules over the proletariat

>>1699793
Bolsheviks

>>1703461
>What state and when attempted communism?
Not him, but you should define "attempt" like he asked you to before asking a question involving the word.

>real communism
More like imagined communism. Stupid platonist garbage; ideas are not more real than the real.

>>1703461
An attempt doesn't require success.

All communist parties by definition had the end goal of communism occurring and advancing that cause. They were thus making an attempt. Each one that lost power or collapsed before communism arrived (most obviously the USSR, who had only implemented a form of socialism) failed in their attempt.

You can say there are no shades of communism and make it a binary thing, but if you start off on the journey to communism, but trip and die on the privately owned kerb outside starbucks you made an attempt to get to communism and you failed. You were a communist in that you wanted it and made the attempt, but you were never a communist in the sense that you achieved it.

(Consider also a "revolutionary" - if you try to start an insurrection and fail, you were a revolutionary for trying but not a revolutionary in the sense that you never actually caused a revolution.)

>>1703465
Kek

>>1699793
There are no states or countries in real communism.
Just workers all over the world.

Honestly, it's hard to imagine a true communist society. As science has improved, so has the living standard.
Who would have thought that items that were a luxury merely 30 years ago, would become so widely used?
Do you remember cell phones from the early 90s?
And today, almost every child owns a phone that has the computing power of what was once a room wide computer.
What will be considered fair living in the future?

>>1702253

It wasn't socialism. Socialism implies worker control over the means of production in sone way. The soviet'a had the state fill in the functions of the capitalists with the workers having close to zero control

>>1703607
>Socialism implies worker control over the means of production in sone way
>but the way the soviets did it doesn't count
>because reasons

File: 15e.png (345KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 750x500px

>>1699793
Because they were trying to achieve Communism, and they never did. What they did have was socialism, and towards the end they fucked up trying to achieve that too.

>>1703660
>he thinks the soviet union had worker's control over production in *any* way.
Most of modern western europe is more socialist than Soviet union ever was.

real communism is same as real capitalism

Fake communism of Russia is same as fake capitalism of US.


tl;dr there are no "real communism". There is communism in its form mingling with real world politics, and you have that.

>>1699793
>>1699800
>>1699802
>>1699803
>>1700061
>>1700079
>>1700292
>>1702253
>>1703461
>>1703463
>>1703465
>>1703466
>>1703495
>>1703675
[COLAPSE]

>>1703791
[PROLAPSE]

>>1703791
I specifically talked about communism possibly being unachievable

State Capitalism

One of the key points Marx talked about is that the workers should control the means of production. The workers in the Soviet Union did not control the means of production. Ergo, they did not have a communist system in place.

>>1706723
That's socialism. Communism also necessitates the absence of the state and class distinctions.

>>1703788
>is same as real capitalism

Except literally everything about Capitalism is in place.

Private ownership over the means of production to produce commodities for sale in a market to achieve profit.

Literally everything about that is true in essentially every country on earth.

>>1709365
>implying capitalism has ever been tried

>>1706723
The workers did control the MOP, they weren't seen as commodities. There was no bourgeoisie in Stalin USSR and no private ownership of the MOP.

There are different types of ownership than the petty bourgeois style you're probably thinking of.

>>1709420
How did they control the MoP when the government controlled the MoP but the people didn't control the government?

>>1709427
What do you mean control the government? The government was made up of peasants and workers.
Trade unions worked with state party officials and managers who were obliged to serve the needs of the proletariat. I don't see how you could get closer to owning the MoP unless you build the factory and the machines yourself but then that becomes petty bourgeois ownership.

>>1709443
Maybe in theory. In practice, the bureaucrats had a certain amount of power, and like most every time in history when people have had power, some of them abused it.

It's not communism even their propaganda book that they gave to the employee working at their section of the universal exposition of 67 said that. Although it also says that they are aiming for communism.

File: ssoc_0.png (100KB, 810x1382px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 810x1382px

>>1703788

>>1711261
who ever said it's never been tried?
name a "classless society that has ever been half as great as capitalists/has ever even worked out.