Why has communism failed so far?

Yeah, they engaged in cultural revisionism, as I like to call it. USSR and China had economic revisionism, which matters more, obviously.

I agree with you any state that was ML failed because of it's policies, but DRPK is not ML since like 40 years ago, and Cuba has always been a revisionist country,
So if they still wonder around is not because they are not revisionist.
Cuba needs to find a new path to improve their economy., and provide a good expale of a socialist country.
And that revisionist were able to take hold in any ML country indicates there was a big flaw in their politic systems

Because it was forced on people so people thought it was evil by pure sophism.

I don't know, both Cuban "revisionism" and Juche idea isn't really affecting their economic policy. Officially Cuba is still Marxist-Leninist anyway. Ironically though, most countries which are still officially Marxist-Leninist (China, Vietnam, Laos) are revisionist to the point where they aren't even revising anything anymore, they are just capitalist. I don't really see how Cuba or the DPRK are revisionist in terms of their economy. DPRK has special trade zones but that isn't much. Cuba wants to transform into more direct worker ownership and worker participation in economic planning, which isn't revisionist at all.

Agree, this was a problem, and I believe result of the fact that both China and USSR didn't have a feedback system in the party which ensured that revisionism wouldn't be rampant after Stalins and Maos death. Mao is a little bit of a special case though, as some of his policies (not his theory, but his policy) was already revisionist anyway. A proposed solution from many contemporary Marxist-Leninists is to merge state and party better.

by that logic isn't anarchism the best ideology?

What makes you say that anarchism isn't forced on people?

No ,I don't think this would solve the problem, the thing is that burocratization even before revisionism was realy bad, so this provoked lot's of infighting and made the democratic election of a lider difficult.

wdhmbt?

...

Revisionists, revisionists, revisionists

Stop posting your waifu faggot.
Also she was objectively the worst girl in the game anyways.

this tbh. read "nihilist communism" by m dupont.

GDP is a capitalist measurement but can be applied to socialism as well. That doesn't mean GDP growth alone should be the main standard a socialist economy should be aspiring for. There should still be a form of socialist economic growth, but focused on production for use.

However, when you have socialist countries competing with capitalist countries you can't get arround calculating the GDP.

bolshevism

Capitalist measurements can only be applied to capitalist economies. There is no money, rent, debt, inflation, tax, mortgages or any of that shit under socialism.

Don't forget:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Laos

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_Peoples'_Democratic_Republic

Iirc 3% GDP growth is the baseline for a "healthy" economy, while 7% growth year over year is pretty spectacular.

But that's not true. Imagine you have the perfect socialist economy in a country (no value form, 100% production for use), a capitalist observer could still go ahead and measure the GDP in US-Dollars. People would still be producing things which have a value on the world market, even if the people partaking into the socialist economy have no concept of value themselves. Compare it to the American natives selling their land to the settlers: They had no concept of private land ownership, but that didn't stop the settlers from pricing it.

It's true the other way around as well: A socialist observer can analyze a capitalist economy with marxist measurements (LTV, etc.). Unless we have instant world revolution, capitalist systems and socialism will be competing with each other, wether you like it or not.

I honestly don't know much about Laos, I've only heard they are going a similar way than Vietnam with their Đổi mới reforms. Do you have any information on how liberalized their market currently is?

It hasn't, it's succeeded. That's precisely why it must be opposed.

Then whats your problem with applying it to the USSR?

bump

it hasn't

Because Leninism is a failure. State-Capitalism is not effective for transition.

Pizza hut tho

The main proponents of communism are the low-agency sort that would benefit the most from communism (sorry), that and artists who fade into the idpol whinging of their peers

Many factors.

USSR was flawed to begin with and as the largest beacon of "Socialism" in the world, everyone else copied this incredibly flawed model.

This is the largest one to understand why M-L states ate shit. They all turned into Stalinist, Bureaucratic authoritarian states that were more just "red nationalism" than giving a shit about Socialism. I've talked to plenty of people who grew up in these states, from Socialist Poland, to Russia to China, and none of them knew jack shit about Marx or Socialist theory or anything. These were people that grew up in the 70s, 80s in a Socialist country… they don't really know what Socialism is… what Karl Marx said…

These countries were not socially ready for transition to a Socialist state. Even the most "progressive" state of the early to mid 20th century would be considered hyper reactionary by modern standards. Until the 60s in the UK, they castrated gay people for fuck sake. People were ultra-nationalist, people were socially reactionary as fuck. even Holla Forums would be considered moderate centrist by 1950s, 1960s standards.

For me though the big one is that we simply were not technologically ready and Capitalism was ready to explode again after WW1 and WW2 had destroyed so much capital and wealth.
Socialism should be attempted when the organic consumption of capitalism reaches a point where Capitalism is severely weakened.

I also think Socialism will rely on the TECHNOLOGICAL progress of society as well. It's far more easily to argue to socialise a society based on automation, than it is manual labour.

Why have people work when computers can do it?

commies won the last elections in the soviet union when they opened up to new parties. it was a military coup against the parliament. later the americans send millions of dollars to promote jelzin against the KPRF that was predicted to win yet again.

the majority of former soviet citizen still prefers socialism. even in the area of the GDR there's still majority favorability for socialism.
the only exceptions are US cucks. baltics, ukraine and poland.

hierarchy

Yeah and also ur m0m

I don't think we can afford to let capitalism grow to that point.

Elaborate.

20th century communism is over!

Hmmm… do you even history? I'm pretty sure the russian revolution was a worker revolution and thus not forced upon the workers.

Because anarchism is the absence of rulers and hierarchy and therefore as soon as anarchy is forced upon the people, it ceases to be anarchy

As we are on the brink of ecological collapse, don't you think that we are once more facing the possibility of a massive destruction which could re-energize Capitalism? I understand that the two situations are quite different as war is temporary whereas ecological collapse is permanent, but it could nonetheless provide the kind of void in which Capitalism could expand.

...

>as soon as it's forced like any other system

?

Because the US actively worked to sabotage Leftist countries. That and Capitalist reforms/revisionism.

Americans feeling threatened send the CIA in to take the countries down.

Because its only taken hold in peripheral countries and not the strongholds of capitalism like the US and UK

How. Fucking. Convenient.
This is pure fundamentalist ideology. You take your ideology to be truth and then blame every one of its faults on it being not pure enough. Since by definition your ideology is truth, it cannot possibly fail and its failures are thus necessarily deviations from orthodoxy. This is exactly the same logic as ancaps whining about how what we have today isn't REALLY capitalism but just """crony capitalism""". Shut the fuck up and admit that your beliefs are founded on a mountain of steaming horse shit. Your dragging us all backwards by trying to revive an ideology that would be best left dead.

It's not about purity, the dissolution of the eastern block and the revisionism of china happened for many historical reasons one of this is sure for the one who dismantled the system whitin the system itself.
You're here the one bitching about the soviet socialism and how it wasn't "muh real socialism".
nice argument.
ML is never actually dead and anarchists and other socialists never actually achieve what Marxist-Leninists did, so you're the one here advocating for useless dead utopian ideologies.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. On the contrary, I'm saying that it has always been Marxist-Leninism and that it ultimately degenerated. Not without its share of successes, granted, but it failed. As did every other M-L state.

So you admit its success in leading the revolution and in building socialism, but instead of investigate the historical reasons of its fall, you just uncritically proclaim its failure?

When you open markets and there is an influx of capital, its not growth. Its colonization. 100% of Laos became 80%, then 60, 40, and then Laosians lose control of their country, what they coowned gets bought out cheap, new is directly not theirs. Its like counting invading hordes as population boom. Its like counting your friends cars that came for a bbq as yours, because theyre on your driveway, and there is 5times more cars now than it was, what a growth.

Third Worldism.

Because of the fact that socialism is a threat to any capitalist state, and because it spreads when it succeeds at improving the lives of the impoverished, the first world stomps it out whenever it appears.

Thus, the socialist and communist states in the third world go down one of two paths. The ones that are participatory (as they should be) get a fuck ton of alphabet soup in them, and if that doesn't work the first world governments just assassinate the leaders, or if all else fails they drum up a reason to invade.

The only way to avoid that is to crack down on dissenters who may be all have soup, and to massively militarize and remove the people from the working of government. In which cause you end up with authoritarian state-capitalism like the USSR, Cuba, and DPRK.

Socialism must come from the first world. Full stop. If we're lucky, the US will balk at the idea of fucking up a Western European country like UK or France, and it'll be allowed to survive there. If the US decides to COINTELPRO them, then the only option is to make it happen in the US first.

Because the Bolsheviks, who were controlled opposition, killed all the good comrades.