Has there been any documented historical case where socialism/comunism actually worked, didn't failed...

has there been any documented historical case where socialism/comunism actually worked, didn't failed, starved their population and killed millions and where people have freedom, liberty, rights and aren't living in dictatorships?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
spatialagency.net/database/how/appropriation/marinaleda
atlasobscura.com/places/marinaleda
imaginationforpeople.org/en/project/marinaleda-andalousie/
roarmag.org/essays/marinaleda-spain-communist-utopia/
theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/marinaleda-spanish-communist-village-utopia
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Try asking a non-loaded, historically ignorant question and i will see if i can answer/

why do commies use the is not real communism/socialism when someone mentions actual communists/socialists countries?

PURE IDEOLOGY

The USSR was socialist until 1955, Yugoslavia wasn't socialist, Albania was socialist, China was socialist but shit. The Commune of Paris was socialist, there were socialist communities in Spain during the civil war.

there are like 4 countries where that happen, and their main issue was that the upper class fucked with them.
so yeah, moral of the story is don't let the upper class continue to exist after the revolution.

Because words have meanings. If something isn't socialist then there is not much i can do about it. It's not my fault that you people don't know what socialism is.

Not one socialist country starve their people, Holodomor was caused by the Kulaks, they burned their grain because Stalin wanted to collectivize it since the people were starving everywhere. None of them were dictatorships, for example Stalin was the general secretary but the rest of the commitee held pretty much the same amount of power (which wasn't much) Lurk more or GTFO, don't make stupid liberal arguments here, we expect posters to know something about socialism. Go to reddit first and learn then come back here. Cheers!

why isn't socialism when they call themselves socialists?

Rojava

...

...

What in the holy fuck are you talking about right now? You can't establish socialism over night and destroy everything that was part of the burgouise state. Read Lenin retard, they were semi-socialist but the full goal was never achieved, which was a stateless classless moneyless society

Because socialism is about material relations. I seem to have forgot to read the passage from Marx that says "Socialism is when someone calls themselves a socialist"

Yes, but right-wing and/or Stalinist militaries destroyed them.

Rojava is a currently existing one, but I doubt it'll survive the Syrian Civil War.

Friendly reminder that Marxism-Leninism provided food security for all of its nations excluding Ethiopia after the Soviet and Chinese famines. It even has the benefit of raising starved shitholes like Cuba to humanly livable levels.
The gorillions argument is greatly exaggerated, too. Its sources are based on propaganda, misinformation and lies. Robert Conquest and other such historians revised their numbers drastically when the Soviet archives were released, as they were completely incorrect. The Black Book of Communism had its key writers leave and disassociate with it because their statistics were exaggerated for propaganda

why isn't real socialism if they were following socialism ideas and why not a single one still exists today as a sucess?

kek polyp btfo

Man you are totally retarded, there's two phases in socialism, lower stage and higher stage, look it up, im not going to teach a stupid motherfucker anything

...

"Real socialism" arguments are stupid I agree since the Marxist-Leninist were a type of awful socialism, but what you need to realize is that socialism is not a rigidly defined economic system, but rather a category of politico-economic thought that includes ideologies and models for government and economics that can differ wildly from eachother. As such the failure of the singular Marxist-Leninist (synonymous with Stalinist) system can't in good faith be used as an argument against, for example, lexumbergism or anarcho-sundicalism, or mutualism.

Thats where you're wrong fag, North korea is democratic

Luxemburgism doesnt exist, mutualism is liberal shit. Anarcho syndicalism had potential but they blow it because they dont want to create a dictatorship of the proletariat

Most people here would agree that socialism has two main characteristics.

1. Democratic social ownership of the means of production. This means that the engines of the economy (factories, farms, warehouses, mines, shipyards, etc) are owned by society as a whole, either through the state or other means like syndicates or soviets.

2. The abolition of production for exchange in favour of production for use. This means that goods are produced for the purpose of satisfying a human need, rather than as an object of exchange to produce a profit.

If it doesn't fit this description then it isn't socialist. Most countries that called themselves socialist often fell short in one way or another, either because the political model wasn't sufficiently democratic, or there were significant elements of profit production, or other factors.

Nobody is changing any definitions or moving any yardsticks, and typically arguments here about whether or not a country was socialist aren't about the meaning of socialism, but about the nature of that country's institutions. For example some people argue that the USSR before Kruschev was socialist, while others argue that it wasn't really democratic and as such wasn't socialist. The simple fact is, that most attempts at socialism didn't have these characteristics. I genuinely don't understand what is so hard to understand about this, but clearly Holla Forumsyps are incapable of grasping it.

why do you assume democracy is a desirable goal and that profit is bad?

"good" "bad", these are meaningless buzzwords. If you want to know a bit more on some of these topics however i recommend reading Wage Labor and Capital as well as Value Price and Profit for a bit more in depth understanding of our beliefs here. They are very short reads.

so you don't have logical arguments or scientific studies or evidence and want me to read propaganda.

wow

Im not an ml but come on, only mao was shit

Because democracy in the workplace is not equivalent to democracy in the government. Whereas democracy in the government involves uniformed laypeople with no political or economic exlerience being given a voice, workplace democracy involves being given a voice in a place where you clear direct experience with it's inner workings and your job within it.

Profit is bad (under a calitalist market anyway) because, it is taken by the owners of a business who either didn't do any work to make the business it's profit or otheriwse did not do enough work to justify the massively disproportionate difference in income they recieve comapared to the nitty-gritty workers.

Do your best to ignore the tankies, they can be easily identified by speaking positively about Stalin, Mao, and/or Hoxha, using Soviet iconography, and constantly criticizing other limited and no government forms of leftism.

Your life is a bunch of propaganda

I like democracy because it maximizes the decision making power and individual agency/freedom of the greatest number of people. If decision making power is concentrated in the hands of an elite, I am statistically guaranteed to be excluded from that elite, and am thus deprived of my liberty.

Profit as the main orientation of economic production is flawed because of the simple fact that what is profitable is not always what is best for society, in fact the opposite is often true. For example if there were a cure for cancer that couldn't be made profitable, it wouldn't be made under capitalism. Whereas under socialism it would be, because it had a social use. That's just one example, but there are countless ways in which profit and the freedom and prosperity of the population often find themselves at odds. Pollution, planned obsolescence, poor working conditions and wages, and the deliberate withholding of essential goods like food are all examples.

I can also argue that leadership under a single vission is more efficient than having to decide democratically every decision of the company, not matter what small.

I can also argue that profit can motivate the hard working elite individuals to work even harder and excell to innovate society.

I would request any scientific studies or evidence you got of your arguments, but most commies would rather kill millions than admit their propaganda is correct.

Most real economist don't even take seriously marx economicts beyond some random people like Wolff.

...

You can look up the numbers yourself. Even states whose status as socialist are in doubt were often highly successful. The USSR experienced continuous and uninterrupted growth during its entire peacetime existence, quickly becoming the 2nd largest economy with the 2nd highest GDP per capita. They also eliminated homelessness, illiteracy, and unemployment, as well as industrialized far more rapidly than any other country ever. Do you not see the obvious contradiction in your narrative? How could the USSR simultaneously be a totally dysfunctional shithole where everybody was starving and at the same time be a world leader in science and technology, a major economic power, and a military superpower?

Other gains are well known in other socialist countries, such as the massive increase in literacy in Cuba, as well as the drop in homelessness and treatable diseases. Cuba was the first country to completely eliminate mother to child transmission of AIDS and has more doctors per capita than any country in the world. Hell even North Korea was richer than South Korea until the US drove a dump truck of money up to their door in the 70s.

Marx writings aren't scientific evidence, darling.

at the cost of individual rights and individualism.

why do you think russians are extreme users of drug abuse if they're happy with their mediocre life?

Happiness in life is about overcoming a struggle.

Communism take the struggle of live for a mediocre boring existance.

Except it doesn't
m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

First, I have to point out, socialism does not begin or end with Marx. I would refer you to my previous post here .

People don't like money for money's sake ( most people anyway), hey like it because it allows them access to confortable living free of financial anxiety. Most of the innovation in the world is not the result of private investors and shareholders but proletariat engineers who never seem to be given the credit they deserve.

Making a singular vision for a company doesn't require a singular all powerful leader. Even if you think there should be a top dog in a business, it doesn't follow that they should be entitled to the profits made by all the workers for the company. The executives management skills is just that, another skill out of many that is sometimes useful (especially on large scale operations) that should not be viewed as either a hierarchical position nor a unique one warranting special treatment.

isnt that just a code word for dengist state-capitalism?

He didn't say they were.

Look up false dichotomy
USSR isn't modern day Russia now is it champ?
Cool opinions.

In terms of dictatorship I'm not concerned with efficiency, I am concerned with freedom. If you want to be a weak little cuck and let daddy fuhrer make all your decisions for you then be my guest. Just keep your cancer away from people with the balls to govern themselves.


You didn't listen to what i said. This point is only valid if we assume that the interests of profit and the interests of society are aligned, but this is clearly not the case. Just think of pollution. It's profitable to use cheap dirty methods of production and improperly dispose of waste product. You can make far greater profits by poisoning the environment than by researching expensive new technologies or paying to properly deal with waste. But it obviously isn't in society's best interest to destroy the environment. So no, profit does not motivate the elite to innovate or act in the best interests of society, it motivates them to seek profit at all costs, which much of the time is entirely antithetical to the interests of society.

There are plenty of examples of this.


The list goes on, there are countless examples of this shit happening, fucking use google.

fair point.


I'm trying to argue if socialists test their hypothesis in a scientific way rather than simply deciding if feels good.

1. Mind backing that up? 2. You assume that when people have more free time they won't go through with overcoming their own struggles
So either communism is a brutal, freedom restricting tyranny that has individuals struggling and working all the time, or a struggleless and mediocre existance. Pick one.

then you put economic incentives so companies don't pollute.

Oh I forgot a couple good ones…

We do, all the time

What we're trying to is show you that your view of socialism is a strawman forged from intentionally disseminated misconceptions and showing the direction towards a proper nuanced view of the subject.

Then we'll start citing the evidence (which strongly favors market-socialism/coop-economy btw).

ebin

It goes far beyond all that, there are countless ways that profit and the good of society can find themselves opposed. The easiest thing to do is just to remove the profit motive and reward people based on the utility of their contributions. I have no issue with providing material incentive to innovate, but that can't be based on a market profit system because then the incentive isn't to improve society, it's to make profit.

good, I used to think marxism was basically propaganda.
nice to see commies are willing to use science rather than blind faith in utopia.


fine, point taken.

what's cultural marxism?
is even real?


actually I mean taxation.


how do you overcome the fact that markets send economic signals way much faster than any central commitee?

Propaganda for whom?
Marxism is heavily materialist, there is nothing utopian about it
A boogeyman
No

Right-wing fever dream with traces back to nazi propaganda. Its feels>reals tier tho so it mostly exists because people feel like it does.

then where do SJW and identity politics come from?

do marxists agree with them?

They come from people who put identity over anything else. And no, marxists do not agree with them. We are staunchly anti-idpol.

The conspiracy theory stems from Hitler's "cultural bolshevism" repackaged and ridden from "JEWS! JEWS!" for a mainstream audience. Actual cultural marxism refers to theories of the Frankfurt School, and is used most commonly to refer to its works on how capitalism had corrupted traditional culture by commodifying it. AKA, the very opposite of what people claim it is. Adorno was so conservative when it came to culture that he viewed even Jazz as an insult to it.

Product of liberals and capitalism. Marxists are firmly against identity politics.

...

Cultural Marxism is an oxymoron. Marxism by definition is a materialist analysis of capitalism that looked at the world through economic class conflict.
What the right calls cultural marxism is just "progressive" idenetity politics. Also related is he Frankfurt school which was also not sone insidious anti-western group, but rather sought to oppose the erosion of tradititonal western culture and intellectual traditions by the hand of capital.

Further denting the cultural marxism meme is he fact that many influential 19th century leftists were had some borderline Holla Forums tier opinions on women and minorities. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon for example though women belonged in the kitchen and that jews should be expelled from Europe.
Marx wrote a book on the "jewish question" where he criticisdd them for being tribalistic.

Yugoslavia

Profit has nothing to do whatsoever with hard work. Profit is simply (amount of money you sell the product for) - (amount of money you had to pay to make it), and if you control capital you'll get profit regardless of whether or not you work hard at all.

Now, that said, capitalists do put in some work in gaining profit, on both sides of the equation. Let's take a look at what can be done:
Increasing amount sold for:
Decrease cost of production:

As you can see, the vast majority of mechanisms by which firms can improve profit aren't really behaviors which should be encouraged. Moreover, people who engage in the behaviors that ought to be encourage are very often found outside of the bourgeoisie. Communists either assert that people will engage in these behaviors because of personal pride, republican virtue, or simply loving science or that structures can be designed to incentivize those behaviors without incentivizing the negative ones.

The way the bourgeois have convinced culture that they're somehow these great innovators instead of just blokes who own the MoP is pretty dumb, to be honest.

...

A.K.A. America

spatialagency.net/database/how/appropriation/marinaleda
atlasobscura.com/places/marinaleda
imaginationforpeople.org/en/project/marinaleda-andalousie/
roarmag.org/essays/marinaleda-spain-communist-utopia/
theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/marinaleda-spanish-communist-village-utopia


Fuck off faggot. It's always dipshits like you that ask for examples and then when they're given say they're not "real communism." Eat shit and die.

i like how he just ignored this devastating rebuttal and went straight to the next delusional nonargument

i can't wait to kill people like this. it'll actually be fun

No, we've yet to see a socialist/communist society.

It's simple, you don't use a central committee. Planning can be done locally, and can be used in combination with market esque models of consumer research, and continuous production (simply producing a good until production outstrips consumption). Computers can handle the rest, like calculating the most efficient use of available resources.

You realize that corporations use central planning right? Large companies like GM or Wal Mart effectively centrally plan economies the size of mid sized countries.

NO.

Because they are failures.

...

lmao

I could ask the same of capitalism.

See pic related.

Non revisionist Soviet Union, Eastern Germany, Albania, DPRK, Cuba…

that's a new one. Why 1955?
Usually Maoists and Hoxhaists have in common to be so retarded as to equate revisionist socialism with imperialism and capitalism, despite the MoP still being collectivized, the socialist character not changed. Both pin point it to 1956 because supposedly a speech and revisionist policies undo socialism from one day to another.
MLs reject this notion. As shit as revisionism is and its path to the restauration of capitalism clear, it remains socialism.
It wasn't Marxist socialism.

...