The so-called true "communism" will never work

[JohnMcCain2008]

Communism is like a fairy tale that can never be achieved in real life. It was solely used by totalitarian dictators to gain power over a populace. All crimes of totalitarian communist regimes were justified by "the strife towards communism". Forced collectivization leading to mass starvation was justified by "the strife towards communism". State terrorist activities of the Stasis were justified by the "strife towards communism". Perhaps Marx had in mind a different system, but in the real world -- communism just will NOT work. It is nothing more than a mere pipe dream. Communist policies of collectivization resulted in millions of deaths in the USSR and China. Communism is all about collectivizing, so you cannot claim that the collectivization attempts by Stalin and Mao-Zedong were not communist. What were they then, capitalist ? Liberal democracies (capitalist countries) do not collectivize agriculture. Fascist governments do not collectivize agriculture either. If you claim that the policies of Stalin and such were not communist, then what system were they ?

[danyboy27]

Communism is like a fairy tale that can never be achieved in real life. It was solely used by totalitarian dictators to gain power over a populace. All crimes of totalitarian communist regimes were justified by "the strife towards communism". Forced collectivization leading to mass starvation was justified by "the strife towards communism". State terrorist activities of the Stasis were justified by the "strife towards communism". Perhaps Marx had in mind a different system, but in the real world -- communism just will NOT work. It is nothing more than a mere pipe dream. Communist policies of collectivization resulted in millions of deaths in the USSR and China. Communism is all about collectivizing, so you cannot claim that the collectivization attempts by Stalin and Mao-Zedong were not communist. What were they then, capitalist ? Liberal democracies (capitalist countries) do not collectivize agriculture. Fascist governments do not collectivize agriculture either. If you claim that the policies of Stalin and such were not communist, then what system were they ?

you do know almost only restricted people read this tread and that 80% of the hardcore communist dont even bother to go in the restricted section right? beccause its a waste of time. I for myself is not a communist at all but i really want you folk that flame the board to be banned, really.

i think us IOer should have the right to decide to ban those motherfucker ourselves!

i dont care of someone dont like communist at all, but this son of a ***** is flaming for the 3nd time in a week, maybe its time to pull the plug.

[Dr Mindbender]

If you claim that the policies of Stalin and such were not communist, then what system were they ?

state capitalist. Had you bothered to read the FAQ sticky then you would already know that is the consensual term for the post leninist system in russia on this forum.

Can you please do so before you start any more trolling threads?

Thank you.

[Mindtoaster]

2-''If communism is so great, look what happened to places like the USSR, and China!''
Revleft says - The reasons behind this are many and complicated, none of which prove that communism per se doesn't work. The general consensus between most modern mainstream communists is that these countries are not, and in the case of countries like Cambodia and North Korea were never communist. A lot of the left argue that these were state capitalist states. State capitalism is entirely different to the society blueprinted by Marx, and later philosophers like Lenin and Trotsky. The difference between these two ideas are that under communism, each individual worker has equal say in the affairs in state activities. This did not happen under any of the systems held up as examples of "communism" , because in these the communist parties took away the workers democracy, in effect making the ruling party the new bourgeois . Stalin, for example, ejected the internationalists and trade unions and later began purging many of the original revolutionaries, including Trotsky.

From the FAQ

[Plagueround]

The posts of our three most recent trolls reveals one thing I think we can all agree on, no matter what else you believe:

The American school system needs serious help. :laugh:

[revolution inaction]

If you claim that the policies of Stalin and such were not communist, then what system were they ?

read this

http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben1

then this

http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben2

then this

http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben3

and this

http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben4

you also need to read

http://anarchism.ws/faq/

particular this bit

http://anarchism.ws/faq/secA3.html

this wouldn't be bad either and it is shorter then the rest

http://libcom.org/library/communism-anarchy-1901-peterkropotkin

when you've read this then come and talk about it

regarding the fact that some government calmed to be socialist, do you also accept the claim of north Korea to be democratic?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Capitalism is like a fairy tale that can never be achieved in real life. It was solely used by totalitarian powers to gain power over a populace. All crimes of totalitarian capitalist regimes were justified by "the strife towards free markets." Forced privatization of commons land leading to mass starvation was justified by "my natural rights to property." State encroachment on native populations and the subsequent act of enslaving half the world were justified by "bringing commerce onto the barbarians." Perhaps Adam Smith had in mind a different system (wait - he did, and it was quite similar to socialism), but in the real world - capitalism just will NOT work. It is nothing more than a mere pipe dream. Capitalist policies resulted in billions of deaths on a global scale. Capitalism is all about competition, so you cannot claim that the Nazi regime or corporate-sponsored wars were not capitalist. What were they then, socialist? Free countries (socialism) do not protect property that coerces and forces others into servitude. Fascist governments do not support unabridged property exploitation either. If you claim that the policies of Nixon and Johnson and King George and Reagan and such were not capitalist, then what system were they?

[Bud Struggle]

If you claim that the policies of Nixon and Johnson and King George and Reagan and such were not capitalist, then what system were they?

Degenerate Borgeoise State. :huh::p

[JimmyJazz]

sometimes STJ is my fav poster

edit: also, you heard the man, communism can never work, everybody vote for Obama, that will surely please JohnMcCain2008

[CaptainCapitalist68]

State capitalism lol, thats a new one! Yeah China, North Korea and COmmunsit Russia weren't/aren't praticing communism! They were praticing state capitalism! HAHA ARE YOU FUCKING COMMIES SERIOUS!?!?!?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Capitalism is like a fairy tale that can never be achieved in real life. It was solely used by totalitarian powers to gain power over a populace. All crimes of totalitarian capitalist regimes were justified by "the strife towards free markets." Forced privatization of commons land leading to mass starvation was justified by "my natural rights to property." State encroachment on native populations and the subsequent act of enslaving half the world were justified by "bringing commerce onto the barbarians." Perhaps Adam Smith had in mind a different system (wait - he did, and it was quite similar to socialism), but in the real world - capitalism just will NOT work. It is nothing more than a mere pipe dream. Capitalist policies resulted in billions of deaths on a global scale. Capitalism is all about competition, so you cannot claim that the Nazi regime or corporate-sponsored wars were not capitalist. What were they then, socialist? Free countries (socialism) do not protect property that coerces and forces others into servitude. Fascist governments do not support unabridged property exploitation either. If you claim that the policies of Nixon and Johnson and King George and Reagan and such were not capitalist, then what system were they?

Communism is a fairy tale, it has been tried serval times and has failed serveral times.

Look at everything good that we have today. IE Cars, cell phones, internet, computers, TV all this things are made possible by capitalism you dim wit.

[Lost In Translation]

State capitalism lol, thats a new one! Yeah China, North Korea and COmmunsit Russia weren't/aren't praticing communism! They were praticing state capitalism! HAHA ARE YOU FUCKING COMMIES SERIOUS!?!?!?

Very serious. Communism is a classless, stateless, society. The fact that there are authoritarian governments in control defeats your argument. Do some research before you make dumbass sweeping statements.

[danyboy27]

Very serious. Communism is a classless, stateless, society..

in the books its a classeless society.

if to be a christian or a muslim you need to fallow every word of the book, there would have no christian or muslim on earth.

books are guidelines, nothing more nothing less.

[Bilan]

State capitalism lol, thats a new one! Yeah China, North Korea and COmmunsit Russia weren't/aren't praticing communism! They were praticing state capitalism! HAHA ARE YOU FUCKING COMMIES SERIOUS!?!?!?

It's not new? Don't you understand what economics are? They're not just names, they're productive relationships. The fact that Russia called itself "communist" doesn't change anything. If a cat thinks its a dog, is that cat, therefor, a dog?

Communism is international. No one country can be communist unless they all are.
Logically, your point has already become worthless, because communist is international, not within a state, and definitely does not have a state - which is a centralized organ of class rule - or class.

The thing you might want to be arguing is that these places - China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, etc - were socialist.

You would, however, again be wrong. Because as I said early, economics are names, they're relationships to production.

The relationship to production (of which I'll briefly address here, if you want a more indepth analysis, please feel free to ask and I'll hook you up) did not fundamentally change.
Industry was put under one man management by the Central Economic Committee. It was not self-managed from below, which is a principle of socialism. The Factory committees, the most revolutionary, and true expression of the working class, were absordbed into the Trade Unions (Which, in Russia, were relatively alien to the working class [and did not have large members] and new - as they had been illegal until 1905), which was later totally put under the control of the party.
Within production, there was still the relationship between "bosses and workers". A fundamental not changed.
And thats simply the beginning.

In Russia, elected officials were removed from above (by the party), and replaced from above.

Now, you may or may not agree with socialism or communism, but you can't argue that these nations were in anyway communist, let alone socialist, anymore than you can argue Picasso was a film director.

[Bilan]

Communism is like a fairy tale that can never be achieved in real life. It was solely used by totalitarian dictators to gain power over a populace. All crimes of totalitarian communist regimes were justified by "the strife towards communism". Forced collectivization leading to mass starvation was justified by "the strife towards communism". State terrorist activities of the Stasis were justified by the "strife towards communism".

Does that mean democracy can't work, because of all the terrors carried out to "strive toward a more democratic world"? Iraq? Nicaruaga? Vietnam? Korea? Australia (1788)? WWI? Afghanistan? Guatemala? Chile?
Or does it mean that the fact that nation states use popular ideologies to strengthen their state, that states are a major blockade to working class power?

I mean, seriously.

And any half wit with a brain knows that alot of these Terrors were used for "communism" only in name.



Perhaps Marx had in mind a different system, but in the real world -- communism just will NOT work. It is nothing more than a mere pipe dream. Communist policies of collectivization resulted in millions of deaths in the USSR and China.

Do you know anything about pre-revolution history in either of those countries? Anything about the actual economic conditions in either of those? Even the bourgeois history of Russia will tell you that Russia was, economically, extremely backwards.
Do you remember what the demands of the Russian people were which started the revolution? Land, bread and peace.
Starvation was not uncommon in Russia, because Russia's economic situation was terrible; backwards, primitive methods of agriculture, small industrial bass.
The fact that there were set backs in the revolution does not make communism a pipe dream, it just reaffirms that the success of communism is dictated by the material conditions and the spreading of the revolution - as communism will be achieved internationally, and can only be achieved internationally.



Communism is all about collectivizing, so you cannot claim that the collectivization attempts by Stalin and Mao-Zedong were not communist.

um...Yes, you can. Communism is not the only collectivist system. And further more, someone doing something that is "like" communism doesn't make it "communist". That's ludicrous!
Further, Stalin's Russia was entirely, in every bloody way, bourgeois.



What were they then, capitalist ?

State Capitalist, as said by Lenin himself. That was largely a product of Lenin's own bourgeois tendencies.



Liberal democracies (capitalist countries) do not collectivize agriculture.

Liberal democracies manage to put their economy's on the verge of collapse twice in less than 100 years.



Fascist governments do not collectivize agriculture either.

They put all land, industry, etc under the control of a tightly centralized state.


If you claim that the policies of Stalin and such were not communist, then what system were they ?

State capitalist.

And please, cut the sweeping statements, it gets tiring to respond to this drivel.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Communism is a fairy tale, it has been tried serval times and has failed serveral times.

Look at everything good that we have today. IE Cars, cell phones, internet, computers, TV all this things are made possible by capitalism you dim wit.

- The internet came about through government projects. Who are you trying to kid?
- AT&T claims it invented wireless phones back in 1915, but they didn't pursue the technology because it was too risky. Their claim is twofold: they 1.) didn't know if people were going to be interested and 2.) there was a good chance it would hurt their quasi-monopoly status. In socialism this is not a problem because 100% of the population determines production and such concerns are trivial.
- In the long line of television technology, Soviet inventors like Leon Theremin helped bring about the modern tele. Furthermore, to get television up large subsidies and land grants had to be provided to cable companies by the government.

1/4. Not bad.

[Lost In Translation]

in the books its a classeless society.

if to be a christian or a muslim you need to fallow every word of the book, there would have no christian or muslim on earth.

books are guidelines, nothing more nothing less.

But if it's not remotely close to what books say, what's the point? If communism turns out to be nothing like what the books suggested it be, is it still communism?

[R_P_A_S]

State capitalism lol, thats a new one! Yeah China, North Korea and COmmunsit Russia weren't/aren't praticing communism! They were praticing state capitalism! HAHA ARE YOU FUCKING COMMIES SERIOUS!?!?!?

you my friend have a lot of reading to do. it takes time, and open mind and some what of a brain. its not as easy as getting on your little computer and typing away a bunch of mindless rhetoric.

[danyboy27]

But if it's not remotely close to what books say, what's the point? If communism turns out to be nothing like what the books suggested it be, is it still communism?

i dont consider soviet russia nothing like marx said, there is many thing they did that was in marx books, they where on a good track but at a certain point they could not pass a limit of what marx said, and they deformed some stuff marx said.

its all about interpretation anyway, take the koran for exemple, on a certain point of view, jihadist are going 100% against what was in the book, but beccause of their twisted interpretation of the koran, they end up defending their own twisted ideology.

[Bilan]

i dont consider soviet russia nothing like marx said, there is many thing they did that was in marx books, they where on a good track but at a certain point they could not pass a limit of what marx said, and they deformed some stuff marx said.

its all about interpretation anyway, take the koran for exemple, on a certain point of view, jihadist are going 100% against what was in the book, but beccause of their twisted interpretation of the koran, they end up defending their own twisted ideology.

This is not an argument. The Koran and Marx's essays and texts are only similar in that they're both texts. The former is full of moral stories, and poetry, the latter is not. The latter is not 'moralist', nor is it 'stories', it is scientific analysis.
They are nothing alike.
In the same way, what Marx argued for, and what happened in Russia, China, etc. are nothing alike. What communists struggle for is nothing even close to what you saw there.

[danyboy27]

well, marx text are somehow moral too, beccause it show capitalist has a bad thing, and communist has the way we should fallow for the greater good, sound like a moral or at least a philosophical principle, to show what good and bad.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I wouldn't substitute ethics for morality, but to each their own.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wouldn't substitute ethics for morality, but to each their own.

Why not? "Ethics" have been traditionally associated with secular traditions, while "morality" has the stink of the chapel about it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Why not? "Ethics" have been traditionally associated with secular traditions, while "morality" has the stink of the chapel about it.
Huh? What part of my post are you disputing? I said ethics and morality are different.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Huh? What part of my post are you disputing? I said ethics and morality are different.

And indeed they are, I was questioning your choice of morals over ethics.

[Hawk_]

Communism is a fairy tale, it has been tried serval times and has failed serveral times.

Look at everything good that we have today. IE Cars, cell phones, internet, computers, TV all this things are made possible by capitalism you dim wit.

Because there has not really been a Communist society. Look at the economy in the United States.. If we were under Socialist power we would be prospering.

[Dust Bunnies]

...

JohnMcCain2008 atleast makes me smile when he trolls. CaptainCapitalism just fails at trolling, please be more creative next time.

[spice756]

It was solely used by totalitarian dictators to gain power over a populace. All crimes of totalitarian communist regimes were justified by "the strife towards communism". Forced collectivization leading to mass starvation was justified by "the strife towards communism".


No the question is where those leaders communist or opportunities.That say Stalin he believe in communism.When he came leader was he a opportunities or did he believe in communism so much he killed or in prison people who are counter revolution.

Has for North Korea it is talitarian dictator that is all I can say about him.China is not any where remotely communism .

communism is the mode of economics and has nothing to do with democracy same for capitalism.

Both communism or capitalism can be totalitarian or not.The only economic with supports totalitarian is fascism.Has fascism believes freedom and liberty divides people and they hate than.

After Stalin it was clear it was some form or shape capitalism has high up communit ministers extracted surplus money from the working class :( living in a nice house and nice car.But even still the communit ministers where no where living high life like CEO or capitalists in a capitalism society.

And there was election and worker council at some point in the USSR.

[spice756]

Forced collectivization leading to mass starvation was justified by "the strife towards communism


You mean the rich Kulaks who killed animals and set crops on fire and will not work under Stalin? This lead to starvation .

Kulaks (Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language): кула́к, kulak, "fist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fist)", by extension "tight-fisted") were a category of rich peasants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants) in later Russian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire), Soviet Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Russia) and early Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union). The word "kulak", originally referred to independent farmers in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) who owned larger farms and used hired labor or bondslaves, as a result of the Stolypin reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolypin_reform) introduced since 1906. Peter Stolypin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Stolypin)'s reforms resulted in the creation of a class of landowners who became independent farmers and supported the Tsar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar)'s government. In 1912, 16% (11% in 1903) of Russian farmers had over 8 acres (32,000 m²) per male family member (a threshold used to distinguish middle-class and prosperous farmers in statistics). At that time an average farmer's family had 6 to 10 children.

According to Marxism-Leninism, the kulaks were a class enemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_enemy) of the poorer peasants.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulaks#cite_note-Harvest-0) From the point of view of this theory, poor peasants and farm laborers had to be liberated by the revolution alongside the proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat) (urban workers). In addition, the planned economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) required the collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_USSR) of farms and land to develop industrialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization) of large-scale agricultural production. The "state of workers and farmers" desired to remove the kulaks as a class, which gave them the chance to integrate in the new classless system with equal rights. However, many resisted these changes, organized with the help of former tsarist military terror against the new collectives. Many farmers and communists were killed, fields were burned, and many machine tractor stations were destroyed. In many cases this caused hunger and large problems in agriculture and to the economy of the Soviet Union. The view of many kulaks was different, as told by Mikhail Gorbachev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev) whose family were "kulaks." They stated they had suffered from political repressions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression) under the rule of Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) in the 1930s.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulaks#cite_note-gorbachev-1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulaks

[PRC-UTE]

If you claim that the policies of Stalin and such were not communist, then what system were they ?

The system was post-capitalist. But it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. It was a dictatorship of the unaccountable bureaucracy of which Stalin was a leading spokesperson.

Some have described it as 'state capitalist' which describes the NEP period well, but not so much Stalinist Russia.

[Robespierre2.0]

North Korea is more democratic than the United States.

[Gleb]

North Korea is more democratic than the United States.

Yeah, and the world is run by a secret underground faery coalition.

It really makes me a rather sad panda when I see people actually buying all that Juche shit and thinking that North Korea is actually something else than petty feodal dictatorship without a single element that could be considered socialist.

[La Comédie Noire]

Communism is like a fairy tale that can never be achieved in real life. It was solely used by totalitarian dictators to gain power over a populace. All crimes of totalitarian communist regimes were justified by "the strife towards communism". Forced collectivization leading to mass starvation was justified by "the strife towards communism". State terrorist activities of the Stasis were justified by the "strife towards communism". Perhaps Marx had in mind a different system, but in the real world -- communism just will NOT work. It is nothing more than a mere pipe dream. Communist policies of collectivization resulted in millions of deaths in the USSR and China. Communism is all about collectivizing, so you cannot claim that the collectivization attempts by Stalin and Mao-Zedong were not communist. What were they then, capitalist ? Liberal democracies (capitalist countries) do not collectivize agriculture. Fascist governments do not collectivize agriculture either. If you claim that the policies of Stalin and such were not communist, then what system were they ?




You know paragraphs wouldn't kill you neither would a little bit of actual history.

The collectivization in China did not meet resistance nor did they kill "millions of people". It wasn't till the great leap forward that things got fucked up due to mismanagement, gross incompetence, and even a swarm of locusts. Most of the rural inhabitants starved due to high grain taxes which left little for them. The state basically forced farmers to sell their crop at a fixed price exclusively to them. (Something capitalist governments do.)


No matter what country's history you look at rural inhabitants never fare well when transitioning from pre capitalist society to capitalist society. In the end they fared much better than if they had stayed totally subject to Imperialism, just ask Africa about that one.

It’s an unfortunate accident of history these countries get labeled “communist”. It makes it so communism gets blamed for all the shit that usually comes along with all capitalist development. (Starvation, drought, violent repression ect.)

Oh yeah and by the way it’s “strive” not “strife”