>The Soviet Union wasn't really communist

File: cant wake up.jpg (102KB, 532x655px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 532x655px

>communism isn't really communist

File: 1474971669685.png (107KB, 410x495px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 410x495px

>>1800969
>tfw you couldn't kill all the commies
We need a backup plan, Murad.

>communism = socialism
Meme

File: 3872325025741.png (502KB, 529x502px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 529x502px

>The Soviet Union was really communist

File: pinochet.jpg (25KB, 600x425px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x425px

>>1800957
>Communism will rise again

>>1800957
It was communIST because it wanted to create communISM

The USSR never achieved communism or ever claimed to. If there is still a government, it cannot be communism.

>>1801035
>I resist attempts to liberate the workers even though I myself am an exploited worker too cucked to pursue my own interests

>>1801046
Am i an olympic tier swimmer if i WANT to be an olympic tier swimmer?

>>1801051

H-hey, some of us like working 40 hours a week just to survive!

One day I'll be just like my manager, who has a salary but is obligated to work 60 hours a week.

>>1801053
But a communist is a person who wants communism

Because the Soviet Union was run by communists, it's government can be considered communist even if the society was not communism

>>1801084
Then it's people were communist,but it's system was not.

File: JTjoKgl.jpg (45KB, 760x570px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 760x570px

>>1800957
communism cant exist in a population larger than 200 people, hunter-gatherers had it figured

>>1801090
Absolutely

File: Stalin.gif (2MB, 293x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 293x240px

>>1801090

>A country ruled by communists isn't communist

>>1800957

I had no idea the Soviet Union was a stateless, classless, moneyless society in which the workers owned the means of production.

>>1801361
>Stateless
Where does this meme come from?

File: sunny_desert-wide[1].jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>1801361

>stateless, classless, moneyless society

Behold! A stateless, classless, moneyless society.

File: Angry-man-screaming-at-the-church.jpg (75KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x430px

>>1800957
>The mods won't delete all commie threads bar one

>>1801383
From the definition of communism.

>>1801394
Where are all the people

>>1801035
>y-you can't put war criminals on trial either

File: Strasserism.jpg (67KB, 581x434px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 581x434px

>>1800957
Reminder that REAL National Socialism has never been tried.
Hitler betrayed the ideology and allied himself with the capitalist elites and this led to the disaster of WWII. After 1934 the movement was National-Socialist in name only.
Anybody calling Hitler a "National-Socialist" is simply ignorant and brainwashed by the system.

>>1801417
They left along with the state, classes, and money.

>>1801383
That's always been a defining feature of communism

>>1801451

In theory yes, but in practice no.

>>1801436
Nazi ideology is defined by its practice, there is no previous theoretical work, the comparison is retarded.

>>1801383
Karl Marx, you dolt.

>>1801412
Who's definition?

>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.

>1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with STATE capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the STATE.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the STATE; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

>>1801462
Damn fucked that up because I'm on my phone

>>1801457

>Nazi ideology is defined by its practice

Any system is defined by its practice. Communism is unable to deliver on its theoretical promises so it must be judged by its practical effects rather than its utopia premise.

>>1801456
> a word means X
>a real world phenomenon does not fit the definition of X
>the deduction from these facts is not that the real world phenomenon isn't an example of X, but rather that X is different in definition than in practice
Do you faggots don't realize how retarded this is? It makes no fucking sense. It's like saying that a cat is a dog, even though dogs have characteristics that cats don't, because those characteristics are just theoretical. It's insane.

>>1801462
That is not the definition of communism, retard, it's part of a political pamphlet suggesting policies for a particular point in time.

>>1801467
I still don't understand what makes those systems that don't fit the definition of communism communist. Why isn't feudalism communism? Why not call anything else communist? My table is communist, it just doesn't deliver on the theoretical promises of communism of being a social system, and rather chose to be a table.

>>1801457
>Nazi ideology is defined by its practice
They went from being a revolutionary movement about protecting the workers against capitalists to being the exact opposite, a conservative and oppressive tool of the elites.

Yes, it certainly wasn't National-Socialism in practice.
Btw I'm actually dead serious when I say the Nazi movement of 1934-1945 is a perversion of the original one.

File: ayn-rand[1].jpg (148KB, 775x465px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 775x465px

>>1801474

>Do you faggots don't realize how retarded this is? It makes no fucking sense

Your stateless, moneyless, classless society is retarded. It has never existed and it will never exist. It's no different than if I used Ayn Rand's books to describe laissez faire capitalism as a utopia and then argue that any failures of capitalism aren't real capitalism because they don't match up with Ayn Rand's ideas.

>What's that? Pollution? Atlas Shrugged doesn't mention any pollution so that's not real capitalism.

>Market failures? Haven't you even read the Fountainhead bitch?

>>1801498

>Why isn't feudalism communism?

Because feudalism wasn't run by communists. The USSR was run by an organization known as the communist party which actively promoted communism.

>>1801508
>Your stateless, moneyless, classless society is retarded. It has never existed and it will never exist.
Irrelevant to the discussion. This argument is debatable, but makes logical sense.

>>1800957
>it's part of a political pamphlet suggesting policies for a particular point in time.

Written by the idol of communists everywhere, in which he claimed to be stating the intentions of all communist revolutions

File: atlas_shrugged[1].jpg (439KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 750x500px

>>1801529

It is settled then. True capitalism has never been tried!

>>1801521
>The USSR was run by an organization known as the communist party which actively promoted communism.
If they carried out the exact same policies with another name would it suddenly not be communist? Are you some kind of postmodern that thinks that reality is defined by narrative?
And by this logic, you should accept that they were democratic and republican, since they also claimed to promote that.

File: 1472262034408.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>1801537

>All communists are purely Marxist

>Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, Trotskyism do not exist.

>>1801549
>implying any of those are stateless

>>1801574

>Implying that matters

>>1801537
Again, you're being retarded, marx wasn't explaining communism. This is not up to opinion.

Following, part 1 of a quote about communism:
"Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie."

(continues)

>>1801589
>"When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out."

This is the relevant part
>The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state.
>its last independent act as a state
In other words, once workers obtain the means of production (which never happened in the ussr), the use of force related to class struggles becomes unnecessary, and the state has no reason to exist.

>>1801582
Accidently quoted op instead of who i meant to, mattered in that context

>>1801051
yet you willingly put the power of redistribution to the state which will then dictate every facet of your life since resources are now allocated by a single vocal point that is detached from your individual need and does not proper information to even begin to effectively distribute goods.

hence why the grain basket of europe suddenly became famine capital.

>>1801603
once the worker's obtain the means of production, what prevents human nature from taking over that would create a reemergence of a class dichotomy.

you can never make a society equal for the sole basis of what makes up a society, the plurality of individuals with their skills, and talents prevents such an occurrence from happening unless you want to limit their abilities and forcibly make them equal. Which would need constant enforcement from a state.

>>1801642
>once the worker's obtain the means of production, what prevents human nature from taking over that would create a reemergence of a class dichotomy.
>you can never make a society equal for the sole basis of what makes up a society, the plurality of individuals with their skills, and talents prevents such an occurrence from happening unless you want to limit their abilities and forcibly make them equal. Which would need constant enforcement from a state.
The discussion is not if what marx and engels believed was correct, but rather what they believe, since you were incorrectly claiming that they didn't want a stateless society, which is patently wrong.

File: 1472697543265.png (1MB, 1440x1787px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x1787px

>>1801661

They may have wanted a stateless society but that's not what ended up happening.

>>1801456
But communism hasn't existed in practice

No communists have ever said "yes, our society is no communism"

Every communist project is ongoing or was aborted

>>1801675
I'm aware, anon.

>>1801692
so it was just a pipe dream? the unrealistic ramblings of two old fools?

>>1801762
It was the goal of the entire fucking government

>>1800957
Not your specific brand of it anyways....

>>1801826
yet their vision is impossible given their own standards, They were fighting against human nature itself.

>>1801931
Why?

>>1801931
That wasn't me.
Still >human nature.

>>1801951
>once workers obtain the means of production (which never happened in the ussr), the use of force related to class struggles becomes unnecessary, and the state has no reason to exist.

>you can never make a society equal for the sole basis of what makes up a society, the plurality of individuals with their skills, and talents prevents such an occurrence from happening unless you want to limit their abilities and forcibly make them equal. Which would need constant enforcement from a state.

you need a state to enforce equality when dealing with a population that has a plurality of skills and talent. if left to their own devices, they will naturally form into heirachies from which individuals who's talents and skills are valued more will be given more power than individuals who's talents and skills that are valued less will have.

not to mention how human nature is inherently self-incentivizing. everyone wants what is a better deal for them, I bet people who fight for communism believe that they will get a better deal out of it, same thing with capitalism, heck people who give out charity are just individuals who wish to either acquit themselves of some kind of guilt or try to satisfy their desire of moral aggrandizement, . Its not to say that charity is bad, but the incentives aren't purely "selfless".

which then begs the question, how can you, make a soceity filled with uniquely different individuals which all desire more for themselves and turn them all into individuals who will negate their individuality and also voluntarily prohibit their desires for self-improvement?

answer. its impossible to do it voluntarily.

>>1801982
>if left to their own devices, they will naturally form into heirachies from which individuals who's talents and skills are valued more will be given more power than individuals who's talents and skills that are valued less will have.
Anthropologically wrong, opinion discarded.

>>1802006
explain? in a stateless society, this is what would have happen, unless the individuals who got into power in the first place starts to create a state that ensures the positions of their offspring in the hierarchy.

>>1802014
>explain?
What you see as "natural" is not what (necessarily) happens in primitive societies. therefore being hardly natural. What you call natural is just a generalization of your own experience.

>>1802014

Maybe if you have less than 200 people you can have "real" communism without coercion but once your population starts to grow you're eventually going to need a state to maintain order. It's simply the natural order of things. Notice how wolves and other predators tend to have "pack leaders" which are basically the same thing as a dictator (I'm in charge because I'm the biggest toughest male in this area) just on a much smaller scale. For purely herbivoral animals it might be different, but humans are predators who subsist by killing. It cannot be changed.

>>1802027

Why are you only looking at primitive societies and ignoring societies with larger populations?

>>1802044
Because you're speculating at what would "naturally" happen if people were "left to their own devices".

File: New-York-City-new-york-1020058_1024_768[1].jpg (600KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 1024x768px

>>1802050

New York City is just as natural as a primitive society, just with a much larger population and a more developed economy. Birds build themselves nests by harvesting the resources around them. Humans do the same thing, just on a greater scale.

>>1802069
Sure, anon, but general statements only need one counterexample.

>>1802073

Then perhaps you should provide one? :^)

>>1800957
It wasn't. People just overestimate the importance of idology when it's all about structures. The USSR was always the russian empire with an ideology that allowed it to spread its influence all over the world. The same way the USA are certainly not the country of free market. The USA built their empire and fucked over all the possible competitors.

If you read history with the prism of ideology, you won't understand much of it.

File: 1475340899850.jpg (114KB, 507x768px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 507x768px

>>1802098

So what you're saying is that ideology is a spook? Huh. Imagine that.

>>1801574
Stateless isn´t an inherent property of comunism you fucking faggot. That´s anarchism +communism which is as retarded as everything anarchist.

>>1802036
I would even bet that even in small populations there will be a heirachy to ensure maintenance.

remember, what we are arguing is the paradox of marx' view of communism, you can never have an equal society without any heirachy to enforce it.

the population of 200 would most notably need a village elder, seer, captain, or representative. It might happen if the we would lower the scope to individual interactions, yet even in couples, there is a power struggle.

>>1802027
are you another advocate of primitivism? Is this board really just a neanderthal circle jerk? news flash, even in those early communities, there was a hierarchy.

>>1801539
That's accurate too. I haven't read Ayn Rand, but does she even mention the state as an actor?

Anarcho-capitalism is only true capitalism.

>>1802138
It's also not a feasible system.

>>1801394
Fuck off Diogenes

>>1802138
not really, anarcho capitalism is the most extreme form of capitalism. where everything is bartered and traded for. which is itself stupid. because once you sell your property rights (ie you become a slave) and you don't have the protection of a contract which you can terminate, then you're not an independent actor anymore which means that you aren't part of the capitalists system anymore.

capitalism can only exists as long as there is inherent protection for property rights for all individuals.

File: quote-capitalism-is-a-social-system-based-on-the-recognition-of-individual-rights-including-property-ayn-rand-349734[1].jpg (59KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 850x400px

>>1802138

The easiest way to sum up Rand's beliefs quickly is just to say that individual rights are supreme, but especially private property rights which she talked about more than anything else.

>>1802138
>Anarcho
>capitalism

>>1801354
How many people died after this on that night? Id probably have just glassed the room for being too cheerful.

>>1802208
>get killed by retards because you have too much of something
>anarchism

File: assassination_mckinley.jpg (52KB, 540x417px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 540x417px

>>1802323

That's basically what anarchism is though.

>>1802108
>>1801582

This post
>>1801537
Was meant as a reply to
>>1801485
Which was a conversation I started with this comment
>>1801383

I'm still on my phone so i might have still fucked this post up

>>1802646
Yeah i fucked up the order of that, you guys can figure it out

File: 3206M.jpg (73KB, 320x245px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 320x245px

>>1801436
Reminder that national socialism isn't fascist.

File: sorel.png (409KB, 550x600px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 550x600px

>>1802323
>muh NAP

>>1802501
>The 25th President of the United States, William McKinley, was shot and fatally wounded on September 6, 1901, inside the Temple of Music on the grounds of the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. McKinley was shaking hands with the public when he was shot by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist. The President died on September 14 from gangrene caused by the bullet wounds. McKinley became the third American president to be assassinated, following Abraham Lincoln in 1865 and James A. Garfield in 1881.
Huh, that really happened.

Was he a relevant president? Same question for Garfield, never heard about both of them.

File: 1476039887269.jpg (406KB, 2193x2617px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 2193x2617px

>>1800957
>it's another "/his/ invents it's own definitions of words for the sake of shitposting" episode

>>1801508
>Your stateless, moneyless, classless society is retarded. It has never existed and it will never exist.

Hunter-gatherers.

>>1802755
>He thinks this is a smart responce

File: Roses_are_red_violets_are_blue.jpg (48KB, 720x528px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 720x528px

I'm late to the party, but I would really like if people stopped using the notion of "human nature" as an argument. "Human nature" as such is a concept absolutely tied to a specific cultural and historical backgrounds and cannot be determined as an absolute concept. It is basically a non-argument or at the very least, pure ideology.

It shouldn't be used in any serious discussion for or against capitalism/communism.

in b4 hurr durr relativism. It may be a relativist position, but every time I read someone saying X goes against "human nature" I can only interpret it as "X is good/bad because I say so".

>>1802006
Anthropologically right. Even hunter-gatherers have hierarchies, usually associated with hunting ability, crafting ability or knowledge of in-group tradition.

>>1802684

McKinley was pretty damn relevent. Spanish-American war happens during his presidency which is basically the opening act for Teddy to run a train for two terms. He also is responable for some nifty protectionism that helped the american commodity market and signed off on the Gold Standard Act.

Garfield is pretty irrelevent though.

>>1802792
It is an overused meme but also a powerful heuristic to use based on everyday experience. The reason it gets thrown around by every side of the argument is the idealistic nature of the argument as an absolute position. Marx understood that pure comunism cannot be properly acomplished the same way adam smith understood how powerfull capitalists could work against capitalism. If you read more into their works, you would understand how they answer to these problems and how to get to some sort of middle ground. That's a way to use human nature to limit their own ideals so it can benefit an argument.

File: CharlesJGuiteau.jpg (12KB, 258x335px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x335px

>>1802684

You don't here much about them because they were shot before they made much of an impact. However, Garfield's assassin was not an anarchist, but rather a delusional man who believed that he was responsible for Garfield winning the election.

The assassin, Charles Guiteau wrote a speech praising Ulysses S. Grant when he was running for the Republican nomination in 1880. However, after Grant lost to Garfield, the speech was hastily adapted to praise Garfield instead.

(The adaption was very sloppily done, it praises Garfield for things that would only be applicable to Grant.)

Guiteau submitted his speech to the Republican party but it was terrible so they never used it. Despite this, Guiteau was absolutely convinced that his (unused) speech was primarily responsible for Garfield winning the national election.

Charles Guiteau then began to accost prominent Republicans to demand compensation for his enormous contribution to Garfield's victory in the natural election. He was sternly rebuffed each time, and he came to believe that he was being cheated. And so, he killed Garfield as an act of "revenge" for something that Garfield had absolutely no knowledge of.

Before becoming an assassin Guiteau tried being a doctor, a lawyer, and a tax collector. He failed at all these pursuits and eventually ended up joining some kind of religious cult. He lived with the cult for around 5 years before they kicked him out for being such an annoying loser.

During his trial, Guiteau's lawyer defended him by claiming insanity. Several doctors testified that Guiteau was insane, but the judge decided that he was simply too dangerous and so he was executed anyway. By all accounts Charles Guiteau was very happy during the entire time. He loved being the center of attention! The fact that Charles was completely remorseless was doubtless a factor in his execution. He smiled and waved to the crowd right up until the moment he was hanged.

>>1801499

Nazism was never a revolutionary movement, it was always reactionary and like any such ideology it was incoherent and without any logical consistency.

>>1800957

These:
>>1801046
>>1801361
>>1802098

/thread

/pol/ IS BTFO

File: Gottfried_Feder_economic theoretician.jpg (46KB, 504x792px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 504x792px

>>1802889
>Nazism was never a revolutionary movement, it was always reactionary

From the National Socialist Program announced on 24 February 1920:

"10) The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.
Consequently, we demand:

>11) Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

>12) In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

>13) We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

>14) We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

>15) We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

>16) We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

>17) We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

>19) We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

(cont.)

>>1802889
>>1805052
>20) [...] We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

>21) The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

>25) For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. [...]

Sure sounds like ultra-conservative capitalist junkers who wanted to keep the old institutions, hate welfare and oppress the workers.

The real intention of the National socialists was Radical Social Reform, abolition of old institutions and protection of the working class.
Hitler betrayed all this when he allied himself with the junkers and the bankers.
It was their greed that led to WWII.
Giving the Prussians elites influence was one thing that caused the conflict with Poland.

>>1805005
>he thinks only the extreme right can be anticommunist

>Jim Jones didn't create a mystical paradise for his followers and Heaven's Gate didn't actually transfer their souls to an alien spacecraft following comet Hale-Bopp so they weren't REAL cultists, you stupid reactionary.

>>1805052
Sounds like social justice

>>1800957
You have ten seconds to name a single "ism" that was ever 100% faithfully implemented.

"Pure" ideologies were a mistake.