/marx/ - Marxism

>>2180
Islamic Gommunism is coming to Europe and it cannot be stopped desu~

>>2180
>Why all comunist countries ended up as dictatorships with bloodshed?
Cause democracy a shit

>Why all comunist paradises ended up failing?
Revisionism

>Why Cuba and North korea are failing in human rights development and HDI?
Capitalist propaganda, I bet you believe in 6 million starved in holodohoax too

>Why Venezuela failed?
It's not communist, so none of our concern

>Why comunism didn't succeed but capitalism won? (I don't think capitalism including good socialism ideas means socialims won).
Jews

>Why is capitalism the one that ended up bringing scientific archievements to the common plebian thanks to companies desires to profit of them?
No, Russia was first in space and we won the space race

>Is there any comunist country today?
North Korea and Cuba, but revisionist after Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro

>Is china and Russia still comunist?
No, they're capitalist, albiet as national bourgeoisie prefered over atlantists

>Why all comunist countries ended up as dictatorships with bloodshed?
Because they were socialist, they didn't erase the power structures that caused the problems in the first place so the pary elite became corrupted and therefore just as tyrannical as before the revolution.

Also the capitalist/democratic west tried their best to contain and attack communist/socialist ideas and states.

>Why all comunist paradises ended up failing?
There has never been a communist paradise, according to its definition, "communism has never been tried" it's actually true, your pic only shows socialists, the problem comes from ignorant people the think the two are the same thing when they're not.

>Why Cuba and North korea are failing in human rights development and HDI?
Endemic corruption in all levels, socialism gives too much power to the state, power corrupts, Cuba and NK are not examples of "communism" failing, Cuba and NK are examples of too much power in the hands of a small elite, also being hated by most of the world doesn't help.

>Why Venezuela failed?
See above.

>Why comunism didn't succeed but capitalism won?
I guess you mean the cold war, well there are a lot of factors and it's quite hard to explain, it's certainly not as simple as "capitalism is better"

>Why is capitalism the one that ended up bringing scientific archievements to the common plebian thanks to companies desires to profit of them?
It isn't, what makes you think that scientific achievements wouldn't happen and be brought to the "common plebeian"? actually capitalism is the problem, those companies want profit not scientific achivement, that's why we are stuck making cheap electronics so the consummerist masses can have their fix, while real science is starving for funds, patents are also a huge problem.

Capitalism barely brings some tech to the masses, just to be able to profit from it as much as possible, communism would seek scientific achivement for their advantages, science for its own sake.

>Is there any comunist country today?
No, there has never been one.

>Is china and Russia still comunist?
China is the most savage of capitalisms in everything but name, today's russia has more to do with the white movement rather than the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

alsocolombia sucksFARC's not communist they're just another cartel all things considered

>>2192
>y du revisionists keep ruining muh communism
I mean no one bats an eye when Lenin pointed out the social basis of the betrayal of the chiefs of the Second International (which originated from their privileged positions in the labor aristocracy in the trade unions, as parliamentarians who worked with the bourgeoisie, etc.)

Revisionism, whether it be of the social-democratic variety back in the day (Bernstein, Kautsky, and so on) or in the form of the Khrushchevites and others, forms from those layers of society which are detached from the working-class.

>holodomor never happen muh precious stalin din du nuffin
A famine happened. When Stalin learned of it he demanded to know what was occurring and those who hid what was going on from the central government (such as Kosior) were later shot. This isn't some "fringe Stalinist" claim or whatever, as even Robert Conquest admitted that the famine wasn't an intentional policy of the government. "The Years of Hunger" by Davies and Wheatcroft is the best bourgeois account on this subject.

>implying first flag on moon was ussr flag
The Soviets got into space first.

>dprk is perfect communist utopia
That's not my view, FWIW.

>>2197
I'll quote from a 1952 Soviet booklet:
>99. - What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

>The dictatorship of the proletariat is the State power of the working class that is established in a country after the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie. It continues throughout the period of the transition of society from capitalism to communism. During this transition period the working class, which is at the helm of State power, performs the following tasks:

>1. It suppresses the overthrown exploiting classes in their attempts to re-establish their power, and it organises the country's defence so as to protect it from sudden attacks on the part of capitalist states.
>2. It establishes and consolidates the friendly alliance with the working peasantry and other masses exploited under capitalism, drawing these masses into the work of building socialist society, exercising State guidance of these masses, enlisting them to take an active part in administering the country and educating them in the spirit of socialism.
>3. It organises the planned development of the national economy, completely eliminates the exploiting classes and the capitalist elements in the national economy, works to carry through the complete victory of socialism in every sphere of life, and effects the transition to the classless communist society (see answer No. 100).

>The dictatorship of the proletariat continues to exist in communist society as long as, side by side with it, capitalist countries continue to exist. The dictatorship of the proletariat (State power) will disappear when the capitalist encirclement is completely replaced by a socialist encirclement.

>The State form of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not uniform. In the Soviet Union it takes the form of Soviet power (the power of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies). After the Second World War, States of proletarian dictatorship arose in Central and South-Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania and Czechoslovakia). In these countries the dictatorship of the proletariat takes the form of governments of people's democracy. In both the Soviet Union and the people's democracies, the leading role in the State belongs to the working class, as the foremost class in society. The highest principle of dictatorship of the proletariat is the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, with the working class in the leading role. The leading and directing force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the vanguard of the working class: the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R., and the communist and Marxist workers' parties in the people's democracies.

>The leading role of the communist and Marxist workers' parties has, by the will of the people, been given legislative embodiment and secured to them in the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. and the Constitutions of the people's democracies.

>>2202
To quote Lenin:
>The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.
>This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.
>The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs".

>>2207
Besides the bourgeoisie resorting to open terror and dictatorship when feeling particularly threatened, there's a Lenin quote I've always remembered:

>The British bourgeoisie have forgotten their 1649, the French bourgeoisie have forgotten their 1793. Terror was just and legitimate when the bourgeoisie resorted to it for their own benefit against feudalism. Terror became monstrous and criminal when the workers and poor peasants dared to use it against the bourgeoisie! Terror was just and legitimate when used for the purpose of substituting one exploiting minority for another exploiting minority. Terror became monstrous and criminal when it began to be used for the purpose of overthrowing every exploiting minority, to be used in the interests of the vast actual majority, in the interests of the proletariat and semi-proletariat, the working class and the poor peasants!
>The international imperialist bourgeoisie have slaughtered ten million men and maimed twenty million in “their” war, the war to decide whether the British or the German vultures are to rule the world.
>If our war, the war of the oppressed and exploited against the oppressors and the exploiters, results in half a million or a million casualties in all countries, the bourgeoisie will say that the former casualties are justified, while the latter are criminal.
>The proletariat will have something entirely different to say.

>>2219
I don't think it's particularly bad. As long as there's not like 5 active anti-communists at once going in each thread saying "COMMUNISM SUCKS" or "WHY DO YOU HATE SUCCESSFUL ECONOMIC POLICIES" it'll encourage some discussion. Actual willingness to ask questions like "what about the Ukrainian famine?" or "why do people have issues with Khrushchev and his successors?" are even better.

/marx/ itself could be a bit more active. As long as the admin places definite limits (so that the board's activity isn't taken over by anti-communists, Trots, left-coms, or what have you) then it'll be okay.