So maybe this been asked a 100000 times but I really want to

>>130977706
It never was real Communism.

>>130977706

All you'll get are categorical strawmen:

"the soviet union still had currency, therefore it wasn't real communism!"

>>130977706
It was never actual communism.
>inb4 commie sympathiser

Communism is the idea that the "means of production" become so hyperactive, hyperavailable and hyperproducing that the need for human intervention becomes fully obsolete and every single human's needs can be satisfied in an instant.

This will never fucking happen.

Instead, anyone attempting communism will fail from the outset. The means of production must become ridiculously efficient to achieve it so that humans become useless in the process. The fact that they have to actively try means they haven't achieved that stage yet.

I consider it akin to evolution. The result is ultimately desirable. Humans not having to work and the optimisation of life are both positive things. However, when people try to enforce these things you end up with tyrannic state socialism and eugenics.

TL:DR Communists will never have communism simply because they're trying.

Communism HAS worked - sometimes - in small communities of adults. They never lasted because any children born to the community said "Fuck This!" and took off.
But communism has never worked for a nation state and never will. For humans. It might work someday for true AI robots.

>>130977706
THE REAL REASON COMMUNISM FAILED WAS NOT BECAUSE IT WAS A FAULTY IDEOLOGY THAT COULDN'T HOLD ITS OWN.

THE REAL REASON IS THAT COMMUNISM CAME ABOUT AT A TIME WHEN MORE POWERFUL FORCES (DEMOCRACY) SOUGHT TO DESTROY IT ON A WORLDWIDE SCALE.

WESTERN POWERS DELIBERATELY ERADICATED COMMUNISM AND STUCK THEIR DICK NEARLY EVERYWHERE COMMUNISM EXISTED AND THEN SAYS "COMMUNISM FAILED BECAUSE IT WAS INHERENTLY FAULTY"

IF WESTERN SOCIETY HAD LOST THE COLD WAR IT WOULD BE THE SAME ARGUMENT FLIPPED ON ITS HEAD.

>>130979303
This, communism didn't fail, converting to it failed.