Why do you guys want communism if every attempt has been really shitty...

"Communism", just like any -ism, doesn't mean anything, it's a vague, distant ideal. The only existing things are specific, concrete situations.
It is possible to reflect on the flaws of what exists or has existed to conceive something better. These flaws have specific reasons, they don't just sprout of out nowhere because of the "essence" of something.
Also, you can reach vastly different results all the while claiming to be based on the same principles. I believe today we really are not individualistic : slaving away 12 hours a day at a manager or "executive" position and answering your phone at 11pm in order to make money, by making even more money for somebody else, at risk of your health, is not really individualism. I believe socialism is the condition of real individualism. Similarly Pinochet's regime has been the testing grounds of neoliberalism (meaning the free market/Reagan-Thatcher anti-state ideology, not SJWs), all the while being a dictatorship, even though today free market ideology is thought to be inseparable from "freedom and democracy".

Socialists rebuild Cambodia, defend Rojava, fight for Indegenous self determination in Chiapas and all of Mexico. These people where and are pretty happy about that. Also anarchist Spain and Ukraine werent perfect at all but far from horrible. There where many hopeful attempts, mostly shortlived or small scale. Only the Leninst types ever managed to have staying power(mostly because of luck imo) but judging the whole communist movement for the failures of a single strand is stupid, especially when even Lenin never claimed to have reached communism. Communism sees itself in a historical sense as the power that will abolish capitalism in a positive way and many see the necissity for democratic structures so we dont claim that "this time we will have better people in charge" but "next time material conditions will be more suitable and our structure more conductive". Also this:

Pure bullshit propaganda, but what can you expect from an American. Also communism needs to be democratic otherwise it cant be the movement of the proletariat.

There are a whole lot of socialists with a degree, you are just swallowing propaganda whole. Marxian philosophy and class analysis is still important and not "wholly descredited". Did you read him or any longer work by a socialist at all?

Jesus christ, step outside of the propaganda you've been fed. This is so obviously, painfully untrue. Just because nobody comes out and spells it out for you doesn't mean there aren't social hierarchies and that there's a wide "freedom to participate".

Central planning that involves an elite only happens in countries that haven't been through the capitalist stage and need a strong directing power to force them through it faster. Communism by definition is the stage AFTER capitalism where those hierarchies have become unnecessary. All the states you think are communist are not communist (though it is some of their goals), so no there will not be an "elite" under communism by definition

Because communism is not an ideology we choose from; it's a tendency that develops within the working class against the contradictions of the capitalist system, and communists exist to tail this immanent desire of the working class when it becomes aware of its subjected role in economy. Communists will exist as long as capitalism does.

Read this incredibly short and basic text and come back to us: prole.info/texts/hamburgervalue.html.

If you think there are no classes in capitalism you are drunk on propaganda. Just because it is possible to move from one class to the other does not mean it doesn't exist.
There is two clearly defined classes, those who live by selling the product of the labour of others, and those who has to sell their labour in order to live.

You don't even need to read a page of Marx to get a PhD in economics in the US, so if you think having a degree gives you any kind of authorithy on the matter you are stupid. Also, Marx never said what most people nowadays claims he meant.

Explains a lot.

What of Chomsky, Wolff, Zizek, Bookchin, and so on and so on? I mean the best critiques of socialism are socialists, Mises just argues about a planned economy and most rightists just say capitalism = freedom like 1980s Chile was some great Utopia.

Pure delusion

Yes thats a good worker. Communism = dictatorship. In capitalism you have all the freedom you want. Of course there are no other meaning communism could have than what Stalin did. Don't even think about opening a book by Marx, he has been discredited thousand times by people who have never read him.

yeah because under feudalism the lord had a responsibility to care for the peasants while under capitalism you're just another replaceable part

literally "i let other people do the thinking for me"

LIBERALS GTFO MY BOARD REEEEEE

But like 30 communist governments have existed and they've all been bad! Why will the leftypol communist country be any different?

kek

If you're not a troll you'll respond to people like who've addressed those questions. If you persist in ignoring them then you're obviously a troll not worth talking to

if communism needs to be democratic why did communists destroy democratic governments in China, Russia, Poland, Hungary? Why is every communist country a dictatorship?

Democracy=/=Parlamentarism

explained in

They failed to be communist because they weren't democratic. We must learn from those mistakes.
Try to look beyond the label and at the content

how do you mean?

Not him, but just because you can decide which corrupt representative official will manage the government does notmean it is democratic. I do however not think any of the nations you mentioned were democratic either.

You don't get it op, that wasn't REAL communism.

Until there is a working system of REAL communism you cannot for certain say that communism can't work.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Either way, a fat person who goes on a failed diet every other year to get thin still isn't thin. Just because some people try really hard at something doesn't mean they achieved it, especially when they don't even have the necessary prerequisites to make a proper attempt.

But the failing of a diet only disproves that spesific diet, not diets in general. Just because a fatty has gone on several diets that didn't work, doesn't mean he can't lose weight. And if society is a human body, it is one that have changed shape and size several times, so 100-200 years without change doesn't mean it won't change again. Mind you feudalism was present for around a thousand years, and slave societies for thousands before that.
Not to mention, the previous communist projects, while failures, were not failures in every regard. The standard of living increased massively in Russia compared to before the revolution, despite being plauged by a civil war, a famine and WW2.

Well I guess it's easier to feed your population if you kill off 20 million of them

Fake News

My parents and their parents lived in the soviet union, you piece of shit.

Who cares, take your crocodile tears somewhere else

Democracy is when you discuss what to do in your life face-to-face with relevant people. Choosing which member of the bourgeois ruling class gets to represent you is no more democracy than having a ML bureaucrat dictate all the details of your life.

And so did mine (one of them, anyways). That's irrelevant. On the topic of the USSR, I'd support its return if there were free elections to the soviet councils, if workers owned their own firms and planned the economy through a decentralized cybernetic network (which almost happened but for the bureaucracy shooting it down), and the army is republicanized (at a minimum, keep the hierarchical structure but also have soldier's councils to negotiate things, at a maximum reorganize it along the lines of the Black Army).