Why are there still communists after

Bakunin critiques, and his predictions that ended up true?
So, if we know that any communist revolution will end up in state-capitalism (or state-socialism, if you're a fascist) and authoritarianism because of centralised authority and intolerance of any other view, how come the communists still represent most of the revolutionary prospect?

Other urls found in this thread:



Wishful thinking

Although I'd say the main problem lies with Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and the other 20th century dictators, rather than the original communist theory.

How so?
Could you explain why I am wrong?
Have you seen any major nation adopt communism according to it's theory?

That's why I am saying that any movement trying to adopt the theory is going to end up in an opposite state. To quote Benjamin "behind every fascist there's a revolution"

Bakunin called himself a communist.

psychology is a pseudo science though.

Benjamin said that behind every fascism is a FAILED revolution.


The Paris Commune?

No. There was no proletariat dictatorship on both those places.



There has been only one beginning of a communist revolution so far, and this is not what happened to it. So yeah, your premise is false.

Have you never read Marx or studied the history surrounding the failed Soviet project? The failure of revolution to spread across Europe and the lack of economic development that makes socialism possible is why it failed. They recognized this and focused on the industrialization of the SU in the hopes they could aid a future revolutionary wave. There is plenty of room to criticize the Bolshevik's shitty policies, but not for the failure of an ultimately doomed project. Marx certainly isn't to blame either. You're as bad as the tankies thinking you can build socialism in isolation.

Not saying you can't criticize Marx's writings, but you actually need to read it yourself first. Attributing shit he never wrote and conflating his ideas with Leninism(which itself is the product of a pragmatic/paranoid reaction to shitty circumstances) is pretty fucked. Also, this whole authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy is retarded. Revolution IS an authoritarian act. The DotP, the exertion of authority by one class over another, is just as present in Anarchist theory as it is in Marxism no matter what your preferred form of it is. The material conditions produced by socialism are what will define the organization of society post-revolution.

This is still an incoherent meme, you can tell that Engles was really grasping at straws when he came up with it.

it is tho, Bakunin hated the jews


Bakunin was a communist(or close enough) and some strains of Marxism reject the Marxist-Leninist theory. You should really read before posting dumb shit OP.

Claiming you're right by merit of somebody else's lived experience makes you look like a fucking retard. Remember how Bakunin went to jail for like 10 years and his teeth fell out? Remember all those insurrections he fought in personally?

that is actually a real quote.

Your argument is based on the same idea that people use with 'capitalism has always beaten communism/anarchy, therefore statelessness doesn't work'.

When has your idea of an anti centralised authority revolution worked, just for the sake of argument?

He still criticised Marx


And his criticism was shit and misrepresented him:

Nope, it quickly became a failed revolution once the PSUC got support from Stalin, and infighting with the POUM and the CNT.
Orwell's experience with the communist government, in Barcelona, during the fighting, inspired him to write 1984.
It wasn't communists.

All I am trying to ask is why are people still following the ideology that has failed at every turn the last century? I am a leftist myself, and tbh I didn't expect you guys to be so defensive about it.

My first instinct is to point to Rojava, but historical examples are limited due to them always having an authoritarian enemy lnocking at their doors.

Yeah, I've read Gareth Steadman Jones' 100000 page introduction, blah, blah, superstructure not developed, blah blah manifesto not translated etc etc
I'd argue this by quoting the leninist line of
(The Communist Manifesto, penguin books, 2002 edition, notes, p.264)

Thank you for actually posting some /lit/, and not just posting "HE WUZ A KUMMIE 2 LEL UR RETEDED"


I mean, I am really not trying to say I am an enlightened-tier-5-cyber-debating-shaman, I just want to learn something here from you guys :/

How exactly did it fail? Soviet model was abandoned first, only then did the USSR dissolve.

First and foremost, failure of post-WWI revolutions across Europe has nothing to do with Soviets. If anything, they prove failure of non-Soviet approach.

Secondly, economic development is necessary for Communism, not Socialism.

That's not what Engels meant.

What the fuck. Do we have any other circumstances?


Would you mind pointing to specific quote?

1984 is about Western Liberalism.

the failure of communism wasn't caused by the shortcomings of marxist / communist theory. If anything the degeneration of the revolution and the workers' movement led to the degeneration of communism into etatism.

No doubt, but it's jab at authoritarianism and the far-left governments of the cold war

George Orwell had never even visited the Soviet Union, nor read any Leninist theory, so his "jab" was nothing more than ill informed drivel used as propaganda.

So? Did that make him unable to criticise authoritarian governments?
I agree that a part of the book was an allegory of indifference [of good people] -type of mentality, but it was clearly about authoritarian governments based on his experience in "communist" Spain. The atmosphere there, the feeling he directly stated he wanted to convey, was what he focused on in 1984

"Authoritarianism" is literally just an anarkiddie meme for when they encounter working socialism. And if you want to talk actual oppression, look no further than the fascist faction, which George Orwell's Trotskyite faction supported against the Communists because they were "too authoritarian, maaaaaan". They were so butthurt about how their demigod Trotsky got outed as an idealist that they betrayed the revolution multiple times over, and Orwell was no exception.

Ok, now I know you're fucking with me, good one.

I'm not. There's a good article on the Stalin Society about this. I'm too busy to educate a middle schooler like yourself though, so do the research on your own time.

You should read Homage to Catalonia especially the appendix.
If you are for real then you're just as deluded as people on the alt-right

It's equally much about Stalinism, and that's blatantly obvious.

"communists were to authoritarian, so they supported fascists - this makes sense"
wew lad

Sadly, this bullshit literally what tankies believe.

No. Stop bargaining.

Fukken sweet bro. Sign me up.

Modern bourgeois society with it's relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up sucha gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the netherworld

Somehow that makes it even funnier