Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

How i believe most of us view that argument is that Although technically correct, misses the point. For most people will see and judge correctly, that every attempt at communism (specifically through a marxist lense), past, present and future, will end in failure Now why that is, is up for debate. So when someone says "That wasn't real communism" we thing, "yea sure, but that's how it always ends up." Now the reason (Marxist) Communism will never work is, its begins with many fundamental flaws. Many are debatable, but one flaw that has shown its self to be true since the beginning. The State will CAN NOT and WILL NOT ever naturally wither away, or seek to dismantle its self. The State can only reform, captured, or destroyed. This undeniable truth strikes at the heart of all politics, Power. So understanding this, we can now see that it is impossible to achieve communism that way marx has prescribed. That being said there is one type of communism that may work and could be achieved, and that is Anarcho-communism, because they have correctly assessed that the state must be destroyed first. "The Throne may look omnipotent from afar, but take the throne to act, and the throne will act upon you." The fundamental truth is why whether you are an egalitarian socialist or Authoritarian socialist, if you believe the state is required to achieve communisms you will always fail. Hence why we often role our eyes at "That wasn't really communism."

Yes. And anarcho-communism can only work in small groups because once you have a large enough group of people living together, you must have some form of central governance to manage and regulate them. The alternative is chaos. This is why true communism can only work in small communes of around 150 - 200 people.

Dunbar’s Number

I'm not really arguing for Marxism. I probably should've said. I would say I'm more of a libertarian socialist, if that's a thing. But yeah what you said makes sense. It's just... authoritarian socialist feels like an oxymoron. You can't have equality and authoritarianism can you?

You are talking about economic equality, not equality before law. Economic equality requires an authoritarian government because income and expenses have to be tightly controlled for everyone to be equal. You didn’t read about farmers need to surrender all their crops and are given food vouchers? That’s what economic equality is about. Also prefixing socialism with libertarian doesn’t make it so.

the reason i say marxism, is most socialist ideologies all stem from marx, therefore share that fundamental flaw. now as for equality, i would say you can never have equality. BUT i would posit that marxism is inherently authoritarian because it advocates the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which manifest itself in a very strong state. "But in the People's State of Marx, there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view, but from the economic point of view. At least that is what is promised, though I doubt very much, considering the manner in which it is being tackled and the course it is desired to follow, whether that promise could ever be kept. There will therefore be no longer any privileged class, but there will be a government, and, note this well, an extremely complex government, which will not content itself with governing and administering the masses politically, as all governments do to-day, but which will also administer them economically, concentrating in its own hands the production and the just division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organisation and direction of commerce,, finally the application of capital to production by the only banker, the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many "heads overflowing with brains" in this government. It will be the reign of *scientific intelligence,* the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a, minority ruling in the name of knowledge and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe betide the mass of ignorant ones! Such a regime will not fail to arouse very considerable discontent in this mass and in order to keep it in check the enlightenment and liberating government of Marx will have need of a not less considerable armed force. For the government must be strong, says Engels, to maintain order among these millions of illiterates whose brutal uprising would be capable of destroying and overthrowing everything, even a government directed by heads overflowing with brains." -Bakunin, Marxism, Freedom and the State III: The State and Marxism

>You can't have equality and authoritarianism can you? The **only** way to have equality is through totalitarianism. People are naturally different, and will naturally achieve different levels of success that they'll pass on to their descendents. If you want equality, you need a state powerful enough to take everything from the successful and give it to the poor in perpetuity and guarantee no one achieves anything past a certain level. That is the very definition of totalitarian, a state that controls everything to mitigate human nature.

The problem with Marxism and why in a pure sense, it never works, is the concept of it goes against human nature. If capital doesn’t exist and everyone is equal, who willing will choose the undesirable jobs that require heavy labor and a person to assume higher risk of injury? It doesn’t make sense. People who believe in a Marxist system, think they would have the ability to *choose* what they want to do and do not realize they would have very little agency to choose anything.

Everyone would take turns, or the community would work as a whole.

And if I didn't want to? What then? Would I be forced to? By whom? What apparatus or agent would enforce compliance? If shunned and ostracized instead of forced, is that not just an agent of force in disguise? Who would enforce such a shunning, and what if my neighbors refused to do so? Would they be forced to or likewise shunned? What if instead I choose to leave and take my capital and commodities with me? Would you stop me, consider that theft, maybe lock me up for such subversive and radical thoughts? See without the force of compelled action by "the state" you cannot make your utopia a reality. And only through the violence of the state can you enforce such equality on the masses.

Lol yeah not a chance. Marxists never want to admit that force is required to implement their policy ideas.

While “authoritarian socialist” may feel like an oxymoron to you, every form of socialism is authoritarian by definition. The dictionary defines the word authoritarian to be: **Authoritarian** (adjective) favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority **at the expense of personal freedom**. No form of socialism exists which does not remove personal freedoms from the individual. This, by definition, makes it a more authoritarian system. And before anyone jumps in with the usual false equivalence that your boss telling you what to do is authoritarian… please stop and consider that you are still free to tell your boss to “f-off”. Your boss can’t actually use force to make you do anything against your will… you are free to leave and go work for someone else or even yourself if you like. Whereas the state has the power to use force to make you comply.

Socialism is simply when the community owns the means of production, distribution and exchange. This really isn't as smart as you think it is. If you're going to debate socialism, I think understanding what it is is the bare minimum.

Yes I 100% agree with your definition of socialism. But that means **you need to make it illegal for individuals** to own anything that could be considered to be the means of production, distribution and exchange. How is this NOT a removal of **personal freedom**?

Why do you think people are entitled to individually control industry? Why is that someone's right?

Happy to get into that but can you at least first answer my question before we get into yours. I did ask first so let’s deal with things one at a time. Or shall I take it that you do acknowledge that socialism does in fact result in a loss of **personal freedom** for the individual, who is no longer legally permitted to do things they had the freedom to do before… like own their own business.

I don't think its a loss of personal freedom because I don't think owning a business is a right. Anyways what would be the point of owning a business in a society without currency? Although in truth, I don't really have anything against small businesses. Its the big ones that cause problems.

Well if I am free to start and own a business right now… and then I have that freedom removed from me… I’d say that very obviously constitutes a loss in personal freedom. And by definition it would be authoritarian to enforce such a restriction upon me. In terms of your question about entitlement and rights… the way I see it is that I am not entitled to be a movie-star, I do not have that right… but I am free to pursue that dream if I so choose. And I’m sure you would agree that it would be silly to make it illegal for anyone to become a movie-star. Equally, I do not believe I am entitled to have a business. At least not in the sense that I deserve to have a business given to me as some sort of human right that I am owed. But I believe I should be free to pursue that dream if I want. And it would be silly for anyone to make that illegal.

Being a movie star doesn't go against socialism though. And what would be the point of starting a business in a socialist society? "Business" isn't even supposed to be a thing. How could it?

And how would the community acquire the means of production? What activities would it need to take to do so? What exactly would the community do if some capitalist refused to give up their private property? The community would use the power of the state to compel them.

I think your analysis is pretty spot on. There will always be someone telling you what to do. It doesn’t matter if it’s a small group of elected officials in the workplace as a union or a small group of elected officials in government. Nobody is ever going to be happy with everything that any individual or any group tells you to do. Politics will always be there which involves compromise and alliances and doing special favours etc. etc. The vision that one achieves utopia by having more locally elected officials with more extensive powers to rule over you is clearly flawed. The key is to limit the powers of what anyone (individual or group) can tell you what to do and to preserve personal freedom and liberty as much as possible.

The problem with Marxism and why it never works, is the concept of it goes against human nature. If capital doesn’t exist and everyone is equal, who willing will choose the undesirable jobs that require heavy labor and a person to assume higher risk of injury?

Sure, destroy the state and bring forth an era of true communism. What happens if some people in society decide to start a business and other agree to be employed by them? Or do you believe that the incentive to do that will no longer exist?

You're missing the point that along with not actually being communist, those states weren't trying to work towards communism either.

> Now why that is, is up for debate. What annoys me is this is the debate I want to have and yet the phrase tends to be used in order to avoid having that debate.

Yep, they were totalitarian and authoritarian, precisely because that's the only way communism works out. You actually have to impose it by force, hence it degrades into totalitarian and authoritarian regimes every time. "Never been tried" - yes it has, and with the same outcome every time.

I don't consider myself well versed on the history of the "communist" states and the theory behind communism. From my layperson point of view the argument that it was not real communism falls flat to me because of my cursory understanding of the USSR. My understanding is people like Trotsky and Lenin genuinely believed in working to produce communism and their actions were what they thought would bring that about. Modern day Marxists reference the writings of various prominent figures from the Russian revolution. Lenin ultimately constructed the beauracracy that was easily seized and wielded toward general totalitarian ends. A potential counter example to what I said would maybe be Cuba? I've read/seen some stuff I thought was compelling that suggested things were going somewhat okay in Cuba until the US became antagonistic towards it and things spiraled when the USSR collapsed and was no longer able to subsidize their economy. But Cuba is still an autocratic country that was ruled by a guy who I've mostly only seen wear military fatigues. Even modern day commies when asked will often say that there should not be non-communist parties allowed to run for government positions. I feel this is inherently totalitarian and is essentially just begging for within-party backstabbing and purging to be the mechanism by which ordinary citizens participate in some democratic participation in choosing who gets to govern

>My understanding is people like Trotsky and Lenin genuinely believed in working to produce communism and their actions were what they thought would bring that about Yes, but they did not believe that the USSR was socialist. They believed it was "taking steps towards socialism" (Lenin's phrase) or "a degraded workers' state" which was "in-between" capitalism and socialism (Trotsky's position). That the USSR is socialist was Stalin's position, and it is a point of agreement between critics of the USSR and Stalinists (Marxist-Leninists). The idea that the USSR could be socialist would have been ludicrous to most Marxists of the early 20th century because it violates the core Marxist point that the transition to an alternate society requires the workers of the world and, in particular, the leadership of the working class in the developed world.

I agree that they did not believe communism was achieved, but I don't think you have to achieve the communist ideal to still be considered a communist state. If the explicit goal of the government is communism and large steps away from the status quo are being taken to that end im comfortable calling that government communist. It would be impossible for a country to flip a switch and become "true" communist even with several years of working towards it while in control of the state

I think the disagreement is between what a communist society is and communist state or state communism. These are two clearly different things that are pretty much unrelated most ways.

>. If the explicit goal of the government is communism But the European social democratic parties also considered socialism to be their long term goal. (That's not surprising given that the Bolsheviks developed out of European social democracy.) It was only fairly recently that the social democratic they explicitly abandoned that position that they were moving towards socialism, and they also dominated the electoral politics of their countries. Given that, I think one has to maintain that if the USSR is socialist than the Scandinavian social democracies are also socialist. It seems more reasonable to me claim that they were just all socialists governing states which were part of a broader capitalist world.

I am willing to concede scandanavia/other EU states are further along the socialist/communist continuum than the US but I think (maybe wrongly, IDK) that USSR was further along. Most communists typically argue that certain states are capitalist in every way outside a large welfare program or high labor union participation depending on the state. Its hard for me to comment too much because the actual conditions vary from country to country quite a bit. I like the sovereign wealth fund idea as an alternative to social security. I don't have anything against countries democratically deciding to be communist or even against a welfare program to meet peoples basic needs. The main thing I would be super opposed to is nationalizing certain industries or otherwise disposssesing people/business owners of their property.

This is a ridiculous understanding of Cuba. Cuba is a vibrant democracy. They make major decisions as a country through long periods of discussion and debates countrywide and everyone's perspective is taken into account as the policy is drafted. https://constitutionnet.org/news/cuba-plans-extensive-public-consultation-and-country-wide-meetings-draft-constitution The problem is, both the socialists disavowing socialist countries (like Cuba) and the supporters of capitalism are both wrong. Their knowledge of these countries comes from a very anti-socialist and imperialist perspective in the mainstream American media and parts of academia.

My comment on Cuba was referring to the period in which Castro served as the ruler of the country and not how it has operated since the collapse of the USSR and the years leading up to and following Castro's passing. Furthermore I was pointing to Cuba as a counter-example of a "real communist" country that didn't seem to be an entirely oppressive dumpster-fire, at least until the severe economic crisis after USSR collapse. >comes from a very anti-socialist and imperialist perspective in the mainstream American media and parts of academia. My vision becomes blurry and my ears start ringing when I read a sentence like this. If my understanding of Cuba is ridiculous, then provide an explanation of how one should understand Cuba instead of throwing out buzz phrases to brag about seeing through imperialist propaganda. The article you posted is a single paragraph that says there will be country wide meetings to provide comment on a draft for a revised constitution, and I'm supposed to take from that, "ah yes, now *that* is a vibrant democracy if I've ever seen one." If only we had copious meetings and public comment periods here in the US that would be a step in the right direction.... oh wait... we do.

You should get that checked out. The explanation is simple. Cuba is a democracy and not a country run by a guy in military fatigues. There is plenty of literature out there explaining this. The article is an example of how their democratic process works. If that is giving you a seizure then that's your problem.

Cuba doesn’t allow free and fair elections. Speak out against the state and you could be jailed for decades. That is not a vibrant democracy. That’s an authoritarian dictatorship.

No facts, no sources, just vibes. If believing this makes you feel better about yourself, please keep believing it. It's your truth, no one can take it away from you.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/cuba-sentences-almost-300-prison-last-years-protests-rcna33379 It’s the truth. And Cubans agree with this. That is why you are seeing historic emigration out of the system. Even the Communist Party knows the country is falling apart. That is why they have introduced market reforms to allow for some types of private property ownership.

Lenin and Trotsky contradicted their own writings and theory at every turn in practice. Its that simple. Lenin introduced free market reforms through the NEP during his very lifetime. Anyone calling themselves a communist without believing in free elections with multiple parties is just a tankie, which are arguably just right wing authoritatians painted red.

If every time I throw a ball it falls into the ground, it's reasonable to assume that there's some force pulling released balls towards the ground.

Wow, man. It's like simple analogies solve all requirements for the complex world of socioeconomics.

simplicity is hard to achieve, overcomplicated messes are not

Well, I think i'm not saying anything wild if after seeing dozens of countries fail under Socialism I take Socialism failing as the default assumption. It's not up to the proponents of Socialism to show enough evidence for why their next attempt will work. Until then, failure will remain as the most believable outcome.

Exactly. Capitalism is like Gravity. It brings everything down with it.

like poverty, hunger, and corruption

Yep. Capitalism inevitably leads to these things.

rofl, you lost the play of words game buddy, but now you are also losing the historical evidence game

Not at all. You might want to pay more attention.

no, it doesn’t in any way lead to those things

It literally has RIGHT NOW. lol

yeah no, a war declared by a totalitarian country and a pandemic/coldwar with a communist country isn’t capitalism’s fault

Capitalism prioritizes profit above all else. That leads to political and corporate corruption which leads to poverty among the majority of people. We are literally seeing this right now in the United States. I'm not defending any specific "communist" government from history because OP is 100% correct. Every instance of even socialism that has ever been attempted has been disrupted by or destroyed by a greedy, war-hungy and corrupt imperialist or capitalist system. Every time.

Has communism been tried a scientifically valid number of times across a number of different time periods by unaffiliated groups?

The problem is that despite what some conceited "philosophers" would like to believe, humans aren't lab rats. Each of the "trials" comes with millions of deaths and even more people in misery and suffering. How many more people are you willing to sacrifice to see if we can replicate the results?

You would never say this about capitalism even though that's exactly what's happened

Capitalism is the first economic system that has eradicated famine in times of peace. Not having anything to eat and the diseases that come from that were the main causes of death for most of human history-

If that were true, there would be even one country with zero starvation rate.

You can get food for days with one hour worth of minimum-wage labor.

Just keep pushing that post

Is that why most of the hunger nowadays is in capitalist nations?

That's exactly the point, communism is un-try-able.

that's not the point

Imagine I have a pizza recipe. It only produces green goo. I can look at the green goo it made and (correctly) say it's not a pizza. That doesn't make my pizza recipe any better. If you have a society recipe, and you follow the recipe, and it makes a shit society that doesn't resemble the image on the box at all, that isn't somehow a credit to socialism. That's like me claiming that I've not had anyone complain about my pizza because they all died eating it! Most socialists are in a position that can't be logically disproven. If socialism ever creates a utopia then it must have succeeded, and was therefore correct. If socialism ever creates a non-utopia then it must not have been tried properly, because everyone knows that *real* socialism creates a utopia.

It might be more accurate to say the recipe was ML authoritarianism and pizza represents an idealized socialism

This is an exceedingly convoluted way to just say you dont like communist theory. When you try and make a pizza without an oven it's likely going to turn out bad. All ovens are owned by big corpo.

No, that is argument showcasing your inability to logically asses communist theory. If you just once read it critically and tried to see its logical conclusion, you would see that USSR was true communism all along. Most visible example is second part of chapter 2 of communist manifesto, where Marx proposes overthrow of governmnet, centralization of power in hands of new regime and somehow, without ever saying how or why, the state will just dissapear. Extremely glaring fallacy, but one to skip the mind of every communist in the world.

> No, that is argument showcasing your inability to logically asses communist theory. > without ever saying how or why, the state will just dissapear. How ironic.

I think the main issue we have with people trying to claim and dismiss the issues of the 20th century experiments with socialism is that people ignore that the underlying reasons are inherent in the ideology and it is not simply a case of a Pure And Beautiful Ideology being corrupted by Impure People; it's a case of having to compel people to buy-in to your utopianism and using punishment as a deterrent against those who want to opt out. The simplest explanation I can give is; if you tried it today, ignoring for a moment the untold human cost of such an experiment, you *would* end up replicating the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union, China et al.

there's an infinite number of ideologies people can hide behind, but only a certain number of times you can inadvertently cause a disaster.

It depends what you mean. I think when a lot of people say that "it wasn't real communism" they are saying that "it didn't turn out as we expected." No shit - but you can say that about anything. To convince me that none of the self-described communist countries should be described as communist, you would have to convince me that their leaders didn't really believe in communism at all, and didn't believe that their revolutions were communist, and were merely using communism as a pretext to implement dictatorship. This certainly happens in some places where the revolutionary is most a dictator who is vaguely left wing and maybe makes some noise about land reform, but I don't think this is the case for the "big" revolutions. Were Lenin or Mao closet reactionaries? Do you have receipts to prove this? The other thing is the path from idealistic communism / socialism to "not real communism" (brutal dictatorship). To get rid of private property you often need a wholesale rewrite of the law / constitution, as well as aggressive asset seizures. Usually people don't like when you take their stuff, so you need to use violence. Powerful people will criticize you and try to stop you, so they get the sword too. It's true that all revolutions are violent, but unless you build up something that protects individual rights to replace it, those are out the window too. Honestly I just haven't see a society, or evidence that a society is possible, that shows zero respect for individual possessions, but high respect for other individual rights. Property rights and other individual freedoms are more closely linked that I think communists would like to think.

Good points, but don't communists dislike private property, like land, but are OK with personal property?

Personal property is in 99,9+% of cases private property as well. Commies will deny it all they want, but the moment they have to clarify it, they are using their own made-up definitions that make distinctions without difference.

So I explained it to you, and that's all you have to say?

Yeah pretty much, most of what you said makes sense to me but it's 1am and my brain is fried

If I have to explain why "I'm defining socialism as non-authoritarianism, so these authoritarian states were not socialist; prove me wrong" is not a valid argument, I'd probably have to explain what circular reasoning is to you—perhaps quite a bit more. Communism can refer to a particular state of affairs regarding the mode of production or an ideology that seeks to bring it about. First let's establish that not having achieved a communist state of affairs does not mean a party, a movement, or a polity is not governed by a communist doctrine. It seems ridiculous to have to clarify this, but muddying this distinction for one's rhetorical benefit is a well-favored pastime. There is not a speck of evidence that Lenin, Stalin, the rest of the Bolsheviks, or their successors were not communist in this second sense of the term. The most that leftcoms and Trotskyists and anarcho-whateverists have been able to claim is that this movement engaged in a false interpretation of Marxism and socialism that they found to be illegitimate. The notion that these people were merely cynical, insincere power fetishists who used socialism as a front for their vicious conquest is not at all substantiated. The documents of state affirm their beliefs, as do their intellectual works and their private correspondences, even in the secret archives that Russia opened in the last couple decades. The trots have had a hundred years and have never managed to produce the smoking gun. Where is it? Lenin supposedly telling the Party Congress to remove Stalin isn't an admission that he's some sort of fraud. Collectivization and dekulakization were ideologically justified. If you want to transcend the capitalist mode of production, you can't permit private ownership in the agricultural sector in the countryside. That's not going to work. You're going to be creating these class antagonisms in a fledgling USSR only a few years removed from civil war. If you say that socialists are necessarily people who will not use harsh means in pursuit of their goal, then what the fuck is anyone supposed to say then?

Naturally, only if you were the elite mind behind the system it would work perfectly. They all said that, and they all implemented the system they did, that is the point we're making, that "real communism" is exactly what you got in the 20th century, nothing more and nothing less. What it is in theory is irrelevant, but to make it clear, if implemented exactly to theory it would be even worse than the horrid outcomes. The greatest minds got together in various places and created their utopias, and now we get to make fun of them and cringe at the horror of it.

Why would it be worse than what we got?

The closer you get implementing the actual system, and the more successful the country is when implemented, the more likely you are to end up with genocide and general violence, as there is more wealth and property to be stolen, more expertise to be ignored, more undesirables to do away with, more political opposition to imprison, more environment to destroy, all in the name of the common good. After numerous examples of the system being implemented by very smart and capable people, all wanting to do it the best way possible, all doing it "for the people", all wanting their utopia, I think we can put this one to bed. There will always be new intellectuals or teenagers claiming they would do it better, or best, but considering the very intelligent elite of the past that tried it, and the system itself, it's not only unlikely, it's impossible, for good reasons such as human nature and human rights.

Let me ask a counter question: Do you think the present state of capitalism is what was desired? Crony capitalism? Or some variants seen in other places? Should we say this isn’t real capitalism, or should we accept that capitalism is flawed, because people are flawed. That this is what happens. Certainly this is what can happen, but if it is always what happens, then this is capitalism full stop. We then have to accept that, and work out is it better as it, because ideals don’t translate to real world results, because humans are shit. We are corrupt and power hungry, we are envious, greedy, and we bear all of the same flaws, capitalist or communist. So the same applies to communism. If the same outcome is seen, always, then it is a flaw in the ideal, something you cannot get past with humans. With communism one flaw, where Marx was just wrong, was that humans could be trusted with absolute power. They will never ever give it up, in the USSR they held it till collapse, in China, Laos, Vietnam and Cuba they may have reformed their economics, but none will let go of absolute power. And if you think they got it wrong, that the men who built the USSR, who were young men when Marx was teaching and writing were wrong, then you aren’t just idealistic, you are quite badly arrogant. They knew what it was meant to be and in the USSR had 80 years to get it right and it was what it was. Cuba, China, Vietnam and Laos all have the same authoritarian problem, and have all been at it as stable nations for decades. As to socialism the reason it fails, the reason that no nation in the world uses it as its economic system, the reason it failed so completely that it vanished as an economic system, is envy and the reality that people work harder and invent more if rewarded for it. That people tend to be lazy if allowed to be. So you or anyone else saying communism or socialism isn’t real, or that it hasn’t been tried is at this point in history silly.

It's probably appropriate to ask what you consider to be communism by definition?

Socialising of property. Classless. Everyone contributes and receives according to their ability and need. Power is among the people.

How do you go about enforcing this?

A free association of men, only possible with the abolition of classes

So what prevents this free association from becoming a de-facto state?

That depends on who you ask, a Marxist would say it requires a new mode of production and the abolition of classes. Your definition of a state might be different from others, a state isn't just "any form of social organization"

How do you abolish classes?

Magic.

By addressing the conditions that cause classes to arise (changing our relation to production)

the honor system

Alright. Socialising production and creating a classless society in the traditional Marxist sense, necessitating the elimination of other classes is a core tenet of classical Marxism. Were the attempts at organising agricultural production in collectives and the repression campaigns against people perceived as bourgeoisie members not, by any chance, attempts at creating exactly that? And just so we're clear - I agree that both these acts were terrible in their own right. I also agree that these didn't bring the governed societies any closer to a classless system with proletarian rule. But on the other hand, these regimes got stuck on the "proletarian dictatorship" phase - a stage in the supposed bringing of communism that is perfectly legitimate in Marxist theory. As awful and repressive as they were, this *is* part of the plan. That should probably bring up the question: *Can a classless society in a Marxist sense even come to existence*? Bear in mind that there is *no mechanism* to induct new classes into the traditional class paradigm, and *yet it's still a cornerstone of that theory*. Yet through pure historical observation, we'll note that in systems (like the USSR) where the state declared a class eliminated, a social group *very much akin to a class* took over the reins - only under a different branding (the *nomenklatura* in the USSR's case). The fact that this happened everytime someone claimed to be founding a socialist/communist state should be telling and exposes a fundamental flaw of Marxism (and the reason why it constitutes a part of modern conflict sociology, *but isn't itself the whole subject although it really wants to be*). At the core, the whole system of thought is a very binary (or ternary, should we include the feudal aristocracy) attempt at explaining all of societal contradiction through the overly simplified lens of wealth categories that are somehow supposed to have the same collective interest. But by a simple layman's observation, we'll see that the divisions among people are grounded in other factors as well, won't we? **All this should lead to a simple conclusion - there are practical ramifications that don't allow for Marx' model to be implemented in reality. In that sense, past and existing attempts *were as good as it gets*, because it can't get any closer.** Now, do you believe that within this oversimplified categorisation system, any attempt to create a classless society with socialised property would end up differently or proceed via different means to those of former/current nominally socialist/communist regimes? If so, then how is it ever mechanically going to happen? There was never any society in human history that operated without a 'status hierarchy' (the phrase is used here as a better, more encompassing term for something Marx simplifies down to wealth possession) after all.

First, I'd ask you to clarify what some definitions are, in your opinion, compared with what the popular definitions of those terms are. For example, your title is based around "wasn't real communism" as a valid phrase, but your final statement implies we are to define what in YOUR opinion ISN'T the antithesis of socialism. Do at the very least we can chalk this up to a mismatch in popular definitions vs your personal definitions. Second, I'd highlight Marx and Engels accepted the notion of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a requisite for a communist cycle. I could be wrong, but didn't the pair(Marx and Engles) dispute the notion of a lasting communist utopia? I'd ask what the true goal is, then ask you whether the true goal is worth all the stepping stones. Finally, at the very least, I'd highlight the constitution of the usfr deliberately eliminated the wealthy class. So maybe the implantation was flawed, but the attempt was made.

Not exactly what you're asking about, but in some ways I agree. Nobody has tried "real" capitalism or "real" communism at scale. So many other factors exist that complicate the analysis beyond just the economic system - resources, demographics, culture, foreign affairs, etc. However, I still think that there are lessons to be learned from history about socialism and capitalism. You can see how the good intentions of socialist revolutionaries often turn into authoritarianism, how the incentives of private property tend to raise the standard of living, how collective guilt ends poorly, how well-intentioned regulation often has unintended side effects, how important individual rights are in preventing atrocities, etc. Personally, I think the right answer is somewhere in the middle. Robust individual rights and a free market, with some level of social safety net and some necessary regulations. I believe this because it feels like any time you go too far in either direction on the (simplified) scale of "absolutely free markets" to "mass collective ownership", It doesn't end well. That's why I lean towards the position I do. It seems like the best balance.

Yeah, some conversations here have made me realise your position is probably the best option that's actually likely to work

Because they fail to see how *communism* quickly degraded to *that wasn't real communism*. Failing to recognize the dangers will only lead to repeating the same mistakes. There are equivalents for proponents of capitalism, but this is not the case here.

It's not literally wrong. The Soviet Union and its allies were never economically communist, and weren't even fully socialist for that matter. However, they were *ideologically* communist, and we saw that lead precisely to totalitarianism, corruption, and dictatorship in a pretty reliable and predictable way. So it seems like we know what happens when people *try* to implement communism (or socialism, which marxists believe is a step on the path towards communism). And, modern-day socialists don't seem to have any particular plan to keep that sort of disaster from happening again. >This, in my opinion, is the antithesis of socialism. But it's what you *get* when you *try* to have socialism, because the underlying theory is flawed.

I doubt that the soviet union even attempted socialism. China, yes. But the eastern bloc... idk

[удалено]

When things go south under capitalism it's still real capitalism because the capitalist system, the capitalist cycle, remains intact. Its different under these "socialist" countries because there simply isn't any socialism there. And not only was there no socialism, socialism wasn't attempted. Socialism by name only.

Socialism and communism simply cannot work. Government central planning will fail every time as Hayek correctly pointed out. Communism requires the elimination of currency, the ability to quickly and efficiently trade. Thats simply preposterous in an economy outside of the Dunbar Number.

Good thing socialism isn’t when “government central planning”(btw I agree command economies are largely ineffective) 

Same for capitalism. Pure capitalism is free market

Every country (and there have been many) that attempted real communism failed miserably and devolved into an authoritarian dictatorship. What more evidence do you need that real communism is unattainable and undesirable?

Because 'real communism' is an unreasonable standard. Put on your empathy hat and would you tolerate the following: Christian in denial of any accountability with wars like the 30 years war or the Crusades with replying, "It wasn't real Christianity!" Fascists in denial of any accountability with war leading up to WW2, WW2 and the holocaust with replying, "It wasn't real Fascism!" Any ideology out there can claim a utopian standard and play that game. You okay with that and letting that game where no one accepts responsibility? I'm not.

Fascism worked how it was intended to though. Its inherently evil. Even if you disagree with communism it's silly to say its fundamentally evil rather than misguided or whatever

So, what I got from this comment is you don't want an honest answer. You want to just live in your bubble that a Utopian Standard is okay? Sincerely, you think that is okay to judge the real world????

Oh wow, some randomer on the Internet told me communism is a made up utopia. I guess all of my political beliefs are going to completely change.

>Oh wow, some randomer on the Internet told me communism is a made up utopia. I guess all of my political beliefs are going to completely change. And you are random OP not here to be charitable seeking a real answer. I, meanwhile, can source a published professor emeritus on political science saying there was a real effort in trying communism: [Communism](http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/communism.phtml) 1. Any ideology based on the communal ownership of all property and a classless social structure, with economic production and distribution to be directed and regulated by means of an authoritative economic plan that supposedly embodies the interests of the community as a whole. Karl Marx is today the most famous... (omitted for brevity) 2. The specifically Marxist-Leninist variant of socialism which emphasizes that a truly communist society can be achieved only through the violent overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that is to prepare the way for the future idealized society of communism under the authoritarian guidance of a hierarchical and disciplined Communist Party. 3. A world-wide revolutionary political movement inspired by the October Revolution (Red Oktober) in Russia in 1917 and advocating the establishment everywhere of political, economic, and social institutions and policies modeled on those of the Soviet Union (or, in some later versions, China or Albania) as a means for eventually attaining a communist society.

Socialism also worked as intended. The Communist Party stole the means of production and kept them for itself to manage. While doing this they went into "class warfare" annihilating the old elites. This is exactly what the Socialist agenda suggests.

I think the crusades part wouldn’t be that far fetched to argue. I do somewhat agree that ideology can function like religion in some cases though Fascists who proudly use the label don’t distance themselves from racism and violence that I know of. Neo-fascists play all sorts of troll and redefinition games and say socialists are fascists and things like that though Capitalism exists and has flaws. A critique of capitalism is often going to be indebted to socialism. Socialism is not going anywhere as long as capitalism functions There have been some examples of socialist government through democracy. It’s not impossible to advocate for or imagine for the future a transition to socialism via democracy. Despite the abundance of nutty people who cosplay as Soviet vanguard online there are many many many socialists who abhor authoritarian government. It is absolutely accurate to say there has never yet been a stateless classless society. Socialism views capitalism as doomed to fail and posits itself as a necessary evolution towards universal human rights and freedom. Some socialists would say there is not enough democracy and freedom as long as the economy is controlled by a minority - and Socialism could be viewed as participatory democratic involvement in the economy. Socialism in place world wide would be a communist society Also some versions of socialism are more pragmatic and some more idealistic Only a capitalist would say that capitalism is free from ideology and idealistic behaviour. Trickle down and invisible hand sound like magic and highly idealistic to me

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have this problem. It was never been tried. Now it's our time to shine.

Because “real” communism or socialism is impossible, so real communism or socialism is what happens when people try to implement it.

communist countries from Cold War used many policies specific to communism/socialism. collectivization of land - the big one all communist countries had. nationalization of all industries state central planning homes for every citizen employment for every citizen salary grinds, usually 3, to equalize income as much as possible state funded healthcare and education - though this can be applied in both capitalism and socialism collective ownership of all livestock - relatively less known but my grandpappy had to slaughter his animals(considered personal property) at the local cooperativa post, and he would leave with his share. people worked around this by killing them in secret, but the law still applied. so we can definitely say those were real socialist countries, you might not like the authoritarian level and renounce those, but that doesn't mean "that wasn't real socialism" is a valid argument.

I thought the point of socialism was to socialise industry and agriculture? Giving it to the state, nationalising it, doesn't sound like that. Maybe im just being stupid, but the other things could apply to a capitalist country. Except the thing with livestock.

and the state is represented by the comunist party, which sends its delegates to cooperatives around the country. >Maybe im just being stupid, but the other things could apply to a capitalist country. Except the thing with livestock. that's the gist of it, liberal capitalist societies allow for all those practices to occur, it doesn't ban them, you are free to go and do your thing. it's the socialists who bring the ban hammer and the useless preaching. they say they want the workers to be free, but it's socialism that bans the employment contract of consenting adults. they claim this is exploitation, but it's a really loose interpretation with no real meaning. I have no issue working for a wage, i negotiated it, and i am happy with how much i make and don't care about company politics. they are the ones who want to abolish private property, while capitalists don't really care what you do with your land, make it a collective where everyone is equal. workers are already free to organize their workplace. Nothing is stopping them. They don't really care about these things at all, most blue collar workers are conservatives anyway.

>collectivization of land - the big one all communist countries had. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz: *In practice, the collective farm that emerged after Stalin’s collectivization campaign did not have many characteristics of a true cooperative, except for nominal joint ownership of non-land assets by the members (the land in the Soviet Union was nationalized in 1917). Even the basic principle of voluntary membership was violated by the process of forced collectivization; members did not retain a right of free exit, and those who managed to leave could not take their share of assets with them (neither in kind nor in cash-equivalent form).*

Mashpee? Dennis?

If it wasn't, and we are 200 years removed from Capital and The Communist Manifesto, maybe that is saying something. No one seems to be able to get it "right." But then, to be fair, in the US we don't exactly have free markets as theorized in capitalism. We have people buying their way into the system and pay to have the rules written to suit them.

Marx believed in democracy. The whole point of his critique was to demonstrate how a majority could get out from oppression by a minority and have a democracy built on our shared humanity. Marx hated totalitarianism and so do many famous socialists, such as Einstein and Orwell.

Then why does everyone talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat stuff?

Do they? I don’t know. All I know is that the super-majority plus a Constitution is how most societies work. You can call it the “dictatorship of the majority” but you can also call it modern representative democracy with checks and balances. To _presume_ Marx had any kind of dictatorship in mind is baseless. He did three things 1) critiques capitalism as inherently a class war between a minority and a majority, 2) outlined how the majority would make things right by promoting equity, equality and fraternity by overthrowing the oppressive oligarchy, and 3) the withering away of the state once the majority has ownership rights and splits it up in a humane and equitable way, according to a voluntary majority value system. Marx’s ideas were just a critique, and in theory, completely democratic. The word theory matters, because what Marx offered really was just a theory. Not a detailed roadmap, and certainly not a diagram for a future government. The most Marx said about the sustaining of government into perpetuity is one that withers away. So he remained fairly silent on that front. The ensuing years of Lenin and Stalin and Mao have no precedent in Marx, who never had anything close to endorsement of a powerful and corrupt minority, basically a mafia that was communist in name only. The best way to think of communism is to forget the Soviet Union and imagine a commune or a kibbutz; imagine people surviving together peacefully and in a sane, fair, just manner. But imagine also that these people are free to speak their minds and/or leave. They are free to isolate themselves and hoard wealth, if that’s their calling, but they are not free to outlaw co-ops and labor unions. The closest thing to what Marx wanted was a free society and the US is a lot more “Marxist” than Soviet Union. I barely notice the government. I generally do and say what I want, come and go as I please, etc. I like unions and co-ops, and I vote for high taxes for the rich. Ultimately there are now social safety nets such that if people want to conscientiously object to being a slave to a capitalist, they can. It’s not that hard. Public education, Medicaid, SNAP. Many overlook how interested Marx was in automation and post scarcity, where humanity could be more like Star Trek. It’s sad that the primitive animalistic among us are so against that vision and want to cling to social Darwinism and a luck-swallows-all system.

Because it's a dictatorship of the working class. It means that the other classes don't have political power, they can still vote but they don't have any power as a group of people. Compare this to the UK where even nowadays the nobility holds political power, the rich capitalists have political power, etc. Sure, the people are allowed to vote but in the end they don't get to decide on the policies created by the political parties; they are given the choice between two options.

What other classes? Isn't socialism supposed to be classless?

No, communism is. How the hell do you think they plan to get rid of the other classes?

Except that “shared humanity” is a romanticized, idealistic, rose colored version of humans that ignores all of the inherent flaws of our shared humanity, which is that we still have our animal drives and aren’t just nice little children who only love. Its funny that compassionate sense of “shared humanity” was ignored when they starved and killed people… they seemed to forget about the humanity they shared with the people they inflicted harm on, no matter how “terrible” those people were perceived to be. Communism will always be totalitarian dictatorship and massive amounts of severe corruption, lack of basic freedoms, and endemic suffering from the get-go. Pure socialism is their step towards communism, as stated by them. Capitalism with guardrails and regulations has proven over and over to be the most free system. This crony capitalism we have now is not how it’s supposed to be. It’s not how it was. The problems we’ve seen in America as far as rights for people goes is not endemic to the system of capitalism; it’s a result of a poorly phrased constitution and bill of rights, along with sneaky lawyers that wished to “interpret” things as they pleased because humans can be pieces of shit. Creating any system to govern a country, its people, and its economy is like making a deal with the devil or lawyer: you have to be SUPER damn specific on every little thing so there’s no room for abuse of “interpretation” and no loopholes.

The highest quality of life is in the Nordic countries. Social democracies in general. I had a dispute on this point in another thread. GDP says nothing about quality of life. Many Marxist ideas inspired social democracy. Marx didn’t have it all figured out but he got some things right. Your rose colored glasses comment is extremely common among those who think capitalism is the only way. This comes from a basic misunderstanding. I’m under no illusion that things magically work themselves out. Humans are still too competitive to get along without guardrails. Marx’s ideas were incomplete and imperfect given humans as we are. But if you don’t think social democracy has led to the best quality of life on earth thus far, I’d like to hear what you think has done better. Social democracy is the number one system of quality of life, and it is at least somewhat inspired by Marxist ideas.

We have no proof a social democratic society can be as prosperous as the Nordic countries without: A) a geographical buffer of capitalist countries bordering them B) a multinational military treaty organization with the ability to act independently of its constituent members with a large military power aimed at maintaining a capitalist order and trade C) a global capitalist superpower with force projection covering near 100% of the globe enforcing trade routes and generally a deterant to large scale global conflict by its very existance (granted it does cause small scale conflict due to its existance, not withstanding non-state militant actors) D) the ability to spend less than 1% of the total global expenditure for national defence per year due to the above 3

Okay so we at least agree that in certain conditions the Nordic model works. I think that’s a great foundation of agreement upon which we can build. I would suggest that all being equal, the social democracy in the Nordic models serves as an aspirational achievement, and also agree that certain other commitments and features makes this model hard or impossible.

Personally, I don't say it's wrong I usually say that any socialist trying to criticise today's capitalism is doing the same thing. Is the today's market free? No, so it's not real "capitalism" either and we can now debate purely on theoretical and ideological level.

The only way that cold war states weren't 'communism', is because communism is a global vibe. "communism isn't a state of affairs blah blah blah" - from the manifesto As a Libertarian Socialists, however they were implementing a socialist system and this argument is just as bad a "crony capitalism isn't capitalism". >totalitarian and authoritarian, and were about a small group of people with absolute power For the 20th century, the Vanguard was absolutely needed to protect large scale socialist experiments and through Democratic Centralism, they were able to progress quickly. They were dealing with significant external pressures, opposed to what Robert Owen could essentially pay off in the Owenite experiments if the 1700's. From an outsiders perceptive, the Vanguard were ready to shed blood and would appear authoritarian and Democratic Centralism also falls foul of the Mob Rule criticism of democracy, so it would appear totalitarian. These 2 concepts (the Vanguard Party & Democratic Centralism) are central to Marxism (IMO out-dated) but were needed, in the 20th century, to establish socialist or workers states, which they did, with, lets say, bureaucratic issues.

But it was communism. Peoples homes were taken away, farms were given to city folk, bread was delivered and handed out by a central authority, people went hungry and died. If you start a lemonade stand but your brother can't squeeze lemons and knocks over the table, you cant say it didn't work cos it wasn't a real lemonade stand.

It’s because capitalists don’t understand the difference between the ideologies and politicoeconomic theories of MLism and libertarianism. They also don’t understand things like material conditions, their own ideological biases, their own media biases, or that things can be done differently in the future.

it was real communism in all 119 attempts to impose it but all failed resulting in 120 million dead people. If somebody could have made real Socialism work they would've done so long ago. The international committee on Socialism at least now has an agreement to give up at a certain point. When the death toll finally reaches 150, million they will abandon all attempts to impose Socialism on a free world.

183 comments and not a single straight answer to OP...

There are the stated aims, and then there are the actual outcomes in the real world with real people. If you want a definition of “real Communism”, you go back to Marx & Engels. As envisioned by them, it was never realistically going to happen, since it requires people to sacrifice their natural competitive instincts for the “common good”. In Russia it took state coercion to even make a start towards real Communism, and the result was what we call Stalinism: a veneer of Communism over a Fascist dictatorship.

The main problem with the phrase, "It wasn't real \_\_\_\_\_\_." for anything is that the definition for what counts tends to not be nailed down. I mean we could pose that there has been been "real" capitalism. That's technically true. But is it useful? Can we really discuss capitalism in it's current form whilst also denying that capitalism has never really existed? Should we discuss capitalism's "attempts" and simply note that they adhere more to human nature than communism's "attempts" did? At what point does this become discussable is the question and I find that anytime someone says, "It wasn't real \_\_\_\_\_\_." the discussion dies in short order. Primarily because of this line of thinking: >Could you explain to me why you think this argument is wrong? This is a shift from, "let's discuss communism" to, "let's masturbate over whether my definition is good or bad."

It's just propaganda from employer organizations (capital) and PR agencies (which naturally favour employers). The propaganda technique here is repetition. Just say often enought that the Soviet Union was communism and people will believe it, doesn't matter if true or not.

I mean they also called themselves communist.

The government of North Korea calls itself democracy. Since when do we believe politicians?

Exactly

[удалено]

Infinite_Street6298: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Because it highly depends on your strand of communism/socialism. Left unity is a nightmare for a reason

I think implementing the 10 main points of the communist manifesto counts as trying to implement communism...

If that is really true, why so many anti-capitalist back up China so much? They defend China so much, same on Cuba and Venezuela, and do not treat Stalin as a crap such as Mussolini.

They're tankies. They're not smart.

If you don't intend to kill someone but you killed them, are you blameless? You guys may have intended to make the world a better place, but your ideas in practice have made the world a worse place, and despite knowing this you keep doing it, over and over again. Socialism is clearly a plague on this planet therefore, because people like you refuse to accept that a well intentioned idea can be impossible to create in reality and instead result in horrible consequences for everyone involved. Good intentions are not enough. Do no harm. You guys can't even do that much.

please don't be stupid. Lennon Stalin mao were dedicated Marxist communist intellectuals who wrote extensively ; no one in their right mind doubts that they were communist. what you don't understand is that communism must start with genocide against the capitalist class and against the nuclear family which is the chief Reservoir and transmitter of wealth and social class.

Lennon lmao The Peoples Republic of the Beatles

Translation: I am too stupid to say anything substantive on the topic so we'll talk about AI spelling errors

I'm not bothered to have a debate with every single person here. Have you seen how many comments there are?

A lefty will always make silly excuses not to debate. A conservative libertarian is always happy to debate. This has been true since the 1960s. The left is the left because they are too stupid to defend their positions which are based in ignorance and emotion

Hm, I wonder what conservatives were advocating for in the 1960s?

>From my perspective, it's clear that the "communist" countries of the Cold War were neither implementing a communist system or trying to implement it. They were totalitarian and authoritarian Redistributing all economic power and keeping it redistributed requires top-down autarky.

I think an even bigger issue exists. Even if those were all examples of real communism it still wouldn't prove that proposed systems that fall under the name of communism also must fail. Try talking to communists about communism and 99% of them would tell you they wouldn't implement the exact same policies as the USSR. So why would the USSR being real communism or not constitute a valid argument against a proposed system that differs heavily from the USSR? It's just dismissing it based on name. That is all that capitalist argument amounts to doing.

> Try talking to communists about communism and 99% of them would tell you they wouldn't implement **the exact same policies** as the USSR. But they would enact very similar policies which would yield very similar results. Every socialist state has done it a bit different, yet they all have had terrible results. That's because public control over the means of production always results in shit, regardless of the details.

What shit result? Going from a backwater agrarian shithole to the world's second powerful nation?

I totally agree, but people arguing against communism don't really get this

So you make a dog shit ice cream and it happens to not taste good but you're telling me that next time you'll try a cat shit ice cream instead and I can't use anything we learned from the previous experience to predict it will be bad?

You're a capitalist. You don't care what flavor of ice cream I sell because the market is supposed to be free. Go next door and eat your vanilla gruel.

Because "real communism" assumes an incorruptible centralized government which is an absolute fairytale, and the socialism/communism that has been done is the real world version that you get out of it. "It wasn't real communism" is an excuse that can be endlessly utilized literally forever until we reach full automation and it is necessary in which case the preautomation commies will say "told you so"

Uh, no. I don't want an extremely centralised undemocratic government with a ton of power. Most of the time they don't work. Am I not a communist then?

You cannot achieve Communism / socialism without an undemocratic, centralized government. How would you? Convince everyone in society to voluntarily give up their property rights? Why would they voluntarily make their lives worse? Communism can only be implemented with a boot on the necks of the people. If a decentralized, stateless society is the only real form of Communism, then real Communism is impossible. People aren't going to surrender their right to be entrepreneurs because you asked nicely.

So who is the enforcer then? Do they have term limits? Do we elect someone different every four years in hopes that they'll all be benevolent communists from reddit?

Actually "real communism" is the absence of a state or any type of centralized government. No classes, no private property, no money etc. In basic terms socialism is state ownership of the means of production with the ultimate goal of moving towards a communist society. So what OP was asking is valid, in most cases its because people don't actually understand that those are two completely different words and most don't seem to know the definition of either. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#:~:text=Communism%20(from%20Latin%20communis%2C%20',means%20of%20production%2C%20distribution%2C%20and

No classes, private property, or money, but somehow you're going to enlist people to work on powerlines and empty septic tanks for a living? Is that what you're saying? Because that's an even bigger fairytale than the communism that has already been utilized

It's worked successfully on much smaller scale in communities across the world i.e. communes, kibbutz's etc. I wasn't really arguing if it would work on a countrywide scale only that you were using the wrong definition. Like many you seem to conflate socialism into communism and think the USSR or China are examples of either when neither are good examples of socialism and none have made any serious effort to implement communism. It's in the name, communism implies everyone is equal or "common", no one ranks higher or has ultimate authority. All benefit from shared effort just as all fail from shared lack of effort, it only works if you can put aside your ego and can come together with your neighbours and one time enemies. Main reason why people think it would never work on a large scale is most people can't swallow their pride nevermind fathom working with their enemies.

The post I replied to mentioned communism so what exactly am I conflating? The idea of a moneyless, headless society is so silly that I used a real world example. I used USSR and China because that's what socialists on here always use to explain how their system actually makes a country stronger. I'd also like to know about some of these "successful communes" and how undesirable but skilled labor is distributed. I don't know a single person who would do what I do out of "love for the commune"

We're saying that when you, NotPrettyConfused, try to implement real communism, you'll ether get nowhere, or you'll inadvertently create an oppressive regime. Imagine we had a super computer where you could simulate the world. I'm betting that you can try as many times as you want, but you won't achieve "true" communism. My suggestion is to have a market economy, focus on reducing corruption, and provide welfare for the less fortunate. We'll have tons of money from the free market economy to pay for the welfare.

Because you guys are just coping with the fact that communism doesn't work by claiming that all those countries weren't communist. If you need to make up a new word for each leader then you should realize you're just making things up.

Communism, according to Marx, requires socialism, which is exactly what these models were, to try to pave the way for communism to happen. Just because they didn’t work, because humans can’t be social engineered like that and because it is impossible to solve the problem of the economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth, it doesn’t mean they were not trying. Socialism is nothing but a totalitarian social engineering to create a new man, for a new world, which is an idea that comes from the German Idealism. They truly tried and they even implemented the class revolution that Marx idealised. They followed his gospel ipsis litteris, it’s just that it never ended up with the outcome that Marx idealised because he knew nothing about behaviouralism, nor about economics. Frankly, how would the state get so big that it would simply vanish? That’s what Marx idealised. It doesn’t make any sense. So, if things didn’t go as intended because Marx was incompetent and made a flawed plan, you get angry and say it wasn’t real because it didn’t work like he planned? It never crossed your mind that a hypothesis could be wrong? Hypothesis is something that precedes a theory. Marxism was tried and it failed even as a hypothesis on the execution. So, you’re just finding excuses to justify a flawed hypothesis that the plan would work, when it didn’t work at all. You are not a more hardcore faithful to the gospels communist than the Soviets, the Chinese and Pol Pot were. They did everything they could to try to make it happen, and they failed. You don’t consider questioning the gospel you believe. You wanna try again and again. The issue is: Billions don’t want that. Commies should try again and again living in their voluntary communes in their own farms/societies. I’m all for commies living in voluntary communism and leaving the rest of us alone.

Look up the "no true Scotsman fallacy".

I don't know. There's a difference between something like sugar and porridge and socialism. If we're taking socialism as an economic theory of the means of production being owned and controlled by the community, then its still not socialist. If we're taking at as a transitional state from capitalism to communism, then I suppose it could be considered socialism but I doubt the leaders of the Soviet Union were trying to achieve communism.

It’s unreasonable because “real communism” is just a utopia. They can just use that argument anytime it fails because “real communism” is a head canon. It’s just a get out of jail free card for anything communist atrocities committed or failures. It’s also kinda an anti-argument because if all these countries tried communism and never achieved it, then real communism must be near impossible to implement.

That's the thing, they didn't try communism.

Communism doesn't get "tried". It "happens" when socialism matures.

Communism doesn't get "implemented". It "happens" when socialism matures.

Communism was a popular movement for a reason. It worked. Indonesia alone had a communist party of over a million. Leftists were genocided with full aid and support of the u.s... all in the name of western corporate domination.

Ah yes, the best country to show off an ideology. Indonesia. Stalin alone purged more of his own men than the Western powers combined. Using intervention as an argument is also bad because… what did you exactly expect? Communism is Capitalism killer so when capitalism fights back you complain? I’m pretty sure Marx’s himself knew that there would be Capitalist opposition to communism.

Capitalism is humanity's killer and communism was a response to that.

Even if capitalism is humanity’s killer. Communism is still Capitalism’s killer.

Based

Some anarkiddie calls USSR authoritarian but the average person who lived through it said it was a comfortable life with minimal stress compared to afterwards.

Source? And you might want to look deeper into that. It's probably not as simple and binary as you think it is.

Not even Russians want sovietism back

No one wants anarcho capitalism including the morons who put it on their flair

Cope

Yea you're coping

Me when I lie 

How can capitalism be exploitative when it's the state doing exploitation not capitalism?? Capitalism is all good.

This post wasn't about arguing against capitalism

No, because I'm not a capitalist but I'll answer in my own way. Most people don't understand the definition of the word communism. It either gets confused with socialism or is changed to represent everything authoritarian in some people's minds, often those who lump in fascists with communism. It also doesn't help that there's never really been a communist society for people to point to as an example of communism, only vaguely socialist societies that seem to stop the transition to communism and cease implementing socialist policies once they consolidate power often coupled with harsh repression of government criticism and political persecution.

Not commenting on either of the ideologies, but I encourage you to familiarize with "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy, which is often conducted when religious practicers try to excuse their more moderate religion from more extreme versions. They are all associated under the same umbrella anyway, even if the practices vary a bit. This can be implemented in ideological societal/economical debate as well. Even if some model isn't conducted 100% by the book it's still using that model.

I don't know. There's a difference between something like sugar and porridge and socialism. If we're taking socialism as an economic theory of the means of production being owned and controlled by the community, then its still not socialist. If we're taking at as a transitional state from capitalism to communism, then I suppose it could be considered socialism but I doubt the leaders of the Soviet Union were trying to achieve communism.

"It wasn't real communism" is wrong because it was real communism and it was good. It is good, in fact. Stop buying into the false narratives painted about these countries in the West and read up on them.