/his/ - History

Communism is a failed ideology? seriously, it has never worked in anything other than small groups, it doesn't scale up well.

>>32718

Stalinism.

>>32719

SU never reached full gomizm though. It just became a capitalistic country where everything is nationalized.

>>32722

>The soviet union didn't count because they didn't implement TRUE communism!

Communism, while being a nice theory on the paper, does not work in reality as human nature inherently defies egalitarian system - we always want more, and more, be it goods, power, or both combined.

You can deny this all you want, but as history has shown us, Communism has failed to produce anything other than totalitarian states build around a singular leader, a "strong man" to lead the revolution. Which he of course will never do to its full ed, because that would mean he'd lose all of his power. Thus, as innocent and well-meaning as the theoretical groundwork Marx and Engels have propped up may be, there will always be a Stalin, a Mao, or Kim Jung-Un to abuse it as a means to secure his own power.

>What went wrong?

Slav can't count.

Communism being expected to work.

>>32728

He isnt wrong, just look at China today

>Mfw all of these responses are simplistic "gommynism dont work hurr" shit tier responses, without ever mentioning the grand scale of the Cold War that had everything to do with the rise and fall of the USSR

Has this board fallen so far?

Gorbachov being a gullible moron, that's what went wrong.

Also:

>Red Aristocracy

>Apparatus running on the Power of Friendship

>Goal-oriented reform impossible, cuz Muh Influence

>Party leadership made up by people from the time of Stalin

>Neocons wanting no rival

>Etc.

>>32740

Not him, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. China has become the second largest economy in the world by almost completely abandoning communism.

>>32722

This, people need to critizice actual actions and not the sopossed idology they took those actions for.

I can say i'm a pacifist then go and violently kill someone, does that mean that pacifism is violent or that i'm a hypocrite?

>>32736

>implying the USSR was actually marxist

>tfw no more Romanov Tsardom

A-At least Putin will enstablish a new dinasty

r-right?

The Bolsheviks taking over in the October Revolution rather than leaving the Provisional Government in power.

Stalin did a pretty good job of industrialising independently and quicker than any other country has ever done, so kudos to him. He also kept his cool during WW2 and created excellent propaganda throughout his life.

Anyone know why it actually collapsed?

>>32760

trying to lead the modern age sciences and technology while using Lolmunism, mega huge army, aiding a bunch of niggers across the world, and funding a huge ass Nuclear program will eventually cause the state to keel over, I actually in some ways respect the soviet union on how long they kept that shit up.

>>32748

>implying the soviet union is what any marxist state ever will evolve into that is somewhat successful and doesn't fall over immediately.

Topkek

also on a sidenote: I find it hilarious the people in the USA who are promoting Marxism are upper middle class 20 somethings who have their parents money to throw around.

I actually support Communism so that I can see their faces when they have twelve homeless people forced to live with them and when they have to be forced to work the shitty jobs. I would be more than willing to Burn the world so I can see those faggots Burn with it. but it will only be temporary and after six months it will go back to Normal but everyone will know how dumb communism is

>>32730

>human nature inherently defies egalitarian system

But then isn't Capitalism against human nature?

>That fucker drinks wine on his glass tower, while I work my ass off.

>>32718

Because Lenin was a mushroom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_was_a_mushroom

it's obvius OP USSR should follow Gorbaciov perestoijka instead it follow muh nationalism

>>32728

But it wasn't! If you look at Soviet economy structure, you can see that it was kinda like one giant company, rather then commune. It was far different then what Marx expected.

>>32770

Of course people who have never worked a day in their lives believe that giving everyone free stuff is a good idea.

>>32780

You do understand that a commune is a small group of people, people that often personally know each other? That shit doesn't work when you have to deal with hundreds of millions of people. You need someone to manage the flow of products to those need it, there needs to be a central power structure or the entire thing will fall apart.

Communism couldn't work any other-way unless you expect hundreds of thousands of different communes to coordinate together as equals.

>>32781

right, you can also see that china has a mixed system but it still a fuckin hyper controlled cancer

>>32722

>SU never reached full gomizm though

That's even more proof that Communism sucks. It can never be implemented in the first place and does nothing but create totalitarian states that in the end just become state capitalism.

>muh world wide workers revolution

blow it out your ass

>>32783

Because they can't stop, they're sprinting hoping desperately they can outrun their down debt.

It's why they build massive useless, empty cities.

>>32785

>Because they can't stop, they're sprinting hoping desperately they can outrun their down debt

pretty sure that's the usa

>>32786

USA's debt problem is overstated to some degree, almost all of it isn't held by china or other countries but by american citizens. The problem is that politicians believe that America is too big to fail.

We however don't mass produce empty cities to prop up our GDP.

The people saying SU was not marxist or that Stalin ruined never read marx or lenin and are just asshurt leftliberals from /leftypol/, that cesspit is full of them.

If you want I can elaborate on this in a few hours, on phone right now.

Stalin was a good marxist, soviet union crumbled due to post stalin reformism that slowly privatized the soviet union.

>>32773

The contrary is the case. Capitalism, with some individuals amassing enormous amounts of wealth and power (whether deservedly or not) is quite akin to the primal human nature. Think of a horde of monkeys where the biggest one gets to mate with the most females, even if he only got that big due to sheer luck.

>>32774

This is…intriguing.

>>32790

you're dumb

>>32783

>>32787

> communist china destroyed by is own capitalisic greed

maximum kek

let's only hope they don't decide to start awar

>>32790

oh hi >>>/pol/

>>32794

nou

>>32784

It can be somewhat implemented, but not at that time and place, even today it would be difficult.

>>32781

So your idea of communism is basically africa-tier tribalism?

M`tumba the village chief, whose reign is supported by the majority occasionally decides how the goods are used, besides that everybody eats the food the community brought together, with the only personal possesions being the mudhuts that have been made trough voluntary communal effort and the cloth they wear along the spears everybody hunts with according to the communes needs?

Medicin man's magic is free for all too.

I admit, it works pretty well.

But it doesnt brings you anywhere beyond these conditions and at some point some authoritanian who has moved past the iron age will show up and make you his slave.

>>32801

Which is why communism, at least the idealized version is impossible. The sad fact is that humans weren't made to live in such massive groups.

>>32790

>mfw /pol/acks actually believe this

>>32817

This, albeit communism in itself is flawed because there have been some changes in the general idea behind it although it's not the core of the problem. The idea that every greedy savage human in a nation would be equal is fucking retarded, do you think Lenin or Stalin ever went without toilet paper or didn't have access to Vodka anytime they wanted?

Capitalism is really the only solution that works given how if you live in a "community" the community isn't a part of a "group" but rather it's own ecosystem with Niches and the like.

>>32817

When did I ever said "muh gomizm=Utopia"? I was just pointing out that SU was actually state capitalist and there are many different gomizm besides SU style.

>>32817

it's more like it is going great during testing and there appears to be quite a few problems that could probably never be fixed. instead of carrying on with the car or scrapping the car completely, a new CEO takes over the car company. this CEO says that the car will continue to go ahead, when in fact he creates a new car using the same name.

>>32718

trying to improve people's life trought intensive state intervention. It's a stupid idea, because of people's natural self interest, which generates corruption in the state and discouragement within the workers. Lenin didn't know this when the soviet union was built, he recognized he was wrong, and tried to correct it, then his health took him out of politics.

Stalin was much more stubborn on his ideology, and was quite an antipathic fellow. He used the powerful tools put in place by Lenin to their most disastrous potential.

Communism.

What went right?

>>32718

Many things

>vanguardism in general

>the entire noncommunist world was against it for its entire history, especially during its early years and after WWII

>Hitler showing up to trash the place and kill a bunch of people

>the soviet economy focused on heavy industry and continual growth instead of consumer goods

>various climatic and policy failures leading to the importation of grain from the West starting in the 1960s

>>32801

What makes you think collectivism will completely abandon techonology?

You can have a system haseb on communities rather than capitalistic nation-states and still have technology and all the goods it brings.

>>32847

>>32847

Who get's to decide what your community needs? What are you going to trade to other communities?

'Collectivism' is just a fancy way of saying 'Serfdom'

>>32866

Anarchosocialists generally argue in favor of democracy. A factory would be run by the workers, who would vote on how to spend ressources.

>>32881

Who decides what the factory makes? Without capitalism, without money as a driving force to determine what people want and actually need, who decides? What if half of the factory wants to make cheese and the other shoes?

How will they get the resources for the products they need? Trade? What if the farmer doesn't want cheese or shoes for his milk or leather? What then?

If you don't have a currency trade devolves down into bartering. If you rely on democracy you get mob rule.

>>32885

Such a system would not rely on fiat money, but rather on the exchange of goods, which would probably end up with gold as currency.

The factory makes whatever the workers want to make. If they don't agree on what to make or how to make it, they can still farm and exchange surplus food for goods.

Now, I don't advocate for a stateless system, for a few reasons. But the anarchosocialist mode of organisation works, until the territory is invaded by an foreign army

>>32893

>Such a system would not rely on fiat money, but rather on the exchange of goods, which would probably end up with gold as currency.

Gold is fiat, especially in a communal society since the heavy industry would be impossible to build.

>The factory makes whatever the workers want to make. If they don't agree on what to make or how to make it, they can still farm and exchange surplus food for goods.

A factory needs a certain number of people to run efficiently you can't just have half of your workers fuck off, if the people that supply you with the raw materials don't want to barter with you or agree with the product your selling, you're fucked.

>But the anarchosocialist mode of organisation works

Anarchist never works, it's inherently unstable. A form of government will eventually appear because most people don't enjoy starving to death or scratching in the dirt for food.

>>32921

You just have to replace "anarchists " in that pic with "niggers" to understand how retarded it is. The fact that they could never do it doesn't make them better.

Also post historical anarchism or go discuss your political fantasies here: >>>/pol/ .

>>32921

>It does, it does indeed.

It happened one time in history and they lost.

>>32894

Actually, anarchism worked quite well during the spanish revolution, before it was taken over by fascists. This is, to me, the only real problem with anarchosocialist societies, democratic decision making is slow, and has a big military disadvantage compared to a tyrant's rule over his army.

>>32718

Their system relied on human goodness because, frankly, it is nothing but a benevolent dictatorship dressed up as a revolution.

Benevolent dictatorships always fail because, even if the original people stay true and work for the good of their state, the people that succeed them are inherently the most manipulative not the most qualified.

>>32956

>The fact that they could never do it doesn't make them better.

Of course it does, Or did you forget to read till the end?

>>33013

>It happened one time in history and they lost.

First, you're missing the point. Second, It happened more than once, the two most "succesful" ones were betrayed >>33014 also this i should mention though that winning a one on one war is not the point of "socialist" ideologies and their succes shouldn't be measured by how well they can wage war

>>33031

>winning a one on one war is not the point of "socialist" ideologies

Indeed, and I find it very sad that many socialists are very short-sighted in that regard. In order to make the world a better place, one has to think about the consequences of his actions. Many socialists and anarchists just lood at the ends, and decide that to go straight in that direction would be nice, which is retarded.

An example that I believe is relevant is the assasination of the Czar Alexander II. He was by no means a socialist or an anarchist, but he abolished serfdom in Russia and had pretty liberal projects, until he was assasinated by anarchists. The following Czar was marked by his father's horrible death, and stopped the ongoing liberal reforms.

Those anarchists who assasinated the Czars believed they were fighting the good cause, but the consequences of their actions was worse for the working class than anything one could imagine.

To go back to the subject of war, I do not believe in an anarchosocialist society, even thought I think it'd work. The two historical experiences we have show that when a territory becomes anarchosocialist, it become an easy prey to authoritarian regimes, and ends up being annexed. Therefore, fighting for an anarchist revolution may very well end up benefiting the fascists, and I don't like that.

>>33271

It worked historically and if you think about it it's working right now, the internet in general and 8chan especially are pretty anarchistic.

In any case first we have to agree on what "it works" means.

>>33262

Yeah, i have mixed feeling for most of the left, like anti-fa and the like, they tend to be too short sighted.

>The two historical experiences we have show that when a territory becomes anarchosocialist, it become an easy prey to authoritarian regimes, and ends up being annexed.

True, i see it as an all or nothing in that regard.

>>33557

>comparing anarchism on internet image boards to theoretical anarchy in extremely complex civilisations.

can you get more retarded than this

>>33577

The principles are there.

>>33578

Okay, picture this as a society: There are a collection of communities, some large and some small, that are essentially federal states to a Government. Each community (or state) have a Community Leader who enforces rules and guidelines with temporary banishment from the community or permanent banishment from the community. Each one of these Community Leaders are answerable to one leader, Hotwheels Almighty. This leader has the power to dissolve any of the communities at will and to remove Community Leaders whenever he pleases, as well as having all of the powers of the Community Leaders. However, Hotwheels Almighty, whilst being almost autocratic, has to answer to International Law which means that his subjects inside their communities have to abide by these laws also, meaning that they are restricted in what they do.

As you might have guessed, this country is 8chan and each of the communities are boards, when putting it like that don't you realise how stupid it is to say that 8chan is an "anarchy"? I swear that's just what newfags think when they first see the shit posted on fucking /b/, it's not anarchy.

>>33543

Do you think the stagnation of the Soviets was unavoidable? It seems their progress was beginning to stall even within Stalin's lifetime.

>>33580

Actually, most anarchists propose a very organized society, just without the organized oppression of the state.

>>33583

>>33580

Never said that 8chan was anarchy, not outright anarchy at least, i said that it has some of its principles, so it can give you an idea of how anarchistic communitites may work, that's all.

I used 8chan as an example simply because we're both in it and you must be familiar with it.

>>33583

Sort of this, Anarchism doesn't equal chaos.

>this thread

>>>/leftypol/

>>32718

>What went wrong?

Assassination of Alexander, when the heir was beyond "terminally incompetent".

>>32772

>Not understanding Karl Marx's theory enough to understand that a socialist state is an intermediary between capitalist and true communistic means of production

I mean to be fair, it only makes you like most college-aged communists in that you haven't read any of the theory at all.

Communism just isn't fit for a modern society. Especially not one as huge as the Soviet Union. Unless you have a vault of unlimited resources people are going to get metaphorically kneecapped to keep everyone equal.

>>35014

>Not understanding Karl Marx's theory enough to understand that a socialist state is an intermediary between capitalist and true communistic means of production

>Karl Marx's theory

That was Lenin's idea

>>35018

Pretty much, it would work in a smaller community/society. When scaled up to a larger society where resources can and/or will become scarce it starts to fall apart.

>>35024

And I swear that was just a temporary theory to justify the NEP.

>>35033

capitalism would(and does) make that scarcity way worsesage of off-topic

>>35039

Then what would be the best solution for that situation?

>>35057

getting rid of the "lets have more stuff for no reason at all" mentality

>>32756

Putin's going to restore the Romanovs

>>35014

Marx's "theory" is a cloud of colorful ideological confetti. It's only valid use is to bullshit the illiterates.

You know how in Stalin's cabinet the phrase "educated Marxist" was used?

>discussion of politics and /pol/ memes about gommunism instead of actual historical discussion about the Soviet Union

is this the state of the board nowadays

>>35014

But unlike Charles Darwin's theory, where there are observed examples of this actually happening, Karl Marx's theory is based on nothing else but his head canon of mankind.