Be honest would you live in communist russia

Communism has never existed.

At least, I'm unaware of any stateless, classless, moneyless societies organized around local autonomy.

my god the memes are true

Catalonia

...

i can keep posting this badly drawn meme till you realise your argument is retarded

Communism has never existed =/= noone who ever held power claimed to be communists

I wouldnt mind if i was a normie.

Cool meme, fam, but none of those countries ever claimed to have achieved communism.

communism isnt communism you heard it here first guys

Does someone claiming to do something mean that they're doing it? Liars don't exist? The Democratic Republic of Congo is democratic? The DPRK is democratic?

communism is the atheist political ideology what are you doing here

Do you believe that the US is a republic when a Republican is in office and a democracy when a Democratic is in office?

*Democrat

...

I lived in soviet union and it was great. A little shitty towards the end tho.

All these people claimed to achieve socialism. Not communism. I guess you are as smart as a 12 year old. Tell me what communism is in your point of view.

Christianity is fundamentally communistic. The church is the setback to real christian lifestyle.

No they didn't.

Lenin said he was implementing state-capitalism.
The rest were "building socialism".

They didn't even claim to actually have achieved socialism, even though that was supposedly the goal (which I am a little skeptical towards).

t.liar or part of ruling class i highly doubt you were part of the peasant class haha

hello you are new here, I suggest you read a book.

what these great political revolutionaries were working towards of course how could you deny the scope of their vision to be any other than glorious, it was such a perfect vision marred by the limitations of the starving people

haha my father was a worker and my mother was a worker and I went to a good school and I learned to play a lot of musical instuments and if ussr was still around I would now be a professor of music but now I am a night guard at some company's buildings. Yeah. woohoo capitalsms I can now buy coka cola

after stalin, the ussr leaders were saying they achieved "actually existing socialism"

I never starved. I almost starved in the years of the capitalist Yeltsin

I highly doubt that.
Even Yuri Bezmenov admits that they always claimed that "socialism was just beyond the horizon".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state

that tends to happen when your failed country collspses

it worked well for 80 years. It went to shit at the moment it went capitalist.

theres still time to go back and achieve your dream the wonders of capitalism, but you're a lazy communist so i wont expect too much off you

Oh so if the economy sucks much harder after capitalism has been implemented, it's the old system's fault?

It's not a flavor of communism, it's pretty much the definition of communism. It's literally in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article for communism you lazy fuck.

LOL

If the Communist party being in control means that it is communism, is America then only a democracy when a Democrat is in office?

democrat and republican are names for different democratic parties, communist being in power implementing communism is communism you troglodyte

Well, your proof of them implementing communism then them having "communist" in their name.
Thus, America is only a democracy when a Democrat is in office.

No there is no time. I am broke, my parents are broke, we are all broke. You cannot become rich if you are poor. That's how the capitalist system works in real life. In russia I could not even feed my family by working as a teacher of music.

tell me what you think communism is.

when did that ever happened?

parents lived in the soviet union, they say it was much better in the soviet time than in yeltsins time.

there's a joke I believe that goes "of all the things they said in the USSR, they were correct about capitalism."

kek you can though thats how the capitalist system actually works you can make money if you've got the motivation and imagination but communism doesn't tend to nurture those aspects in a person so its completely understandable have fun being dirt poor you nostalgic commie tard

this meme every time it rings so true because its the only way you can justify this destructive ideology

Muh bootstraps

stop arguing semantics

...

It's not semantics.
Your proof of them implementing communism is that they were the Communist Party.
This also means that Republicas suspend the democracy every time they get into office, and that Democrats implement constitutional monarchy every time they get in office.

The more unrestricted the capitalism, the less social mobility.

So you mean that Greece is now communist because Syriza is a partially communist party? So that means that communist Greece is better than capitalist greece?
XDDDDDDD

huh? I work hard 12 hours a day and I am piss poor

you defending capitalism so much, why is that? Who are you ?

and your proof of that not being communism is that it doesnt fit your very small goal posts of what communism should be

My proof that it wasn't communism isn't that it didn't even come close to live up to any definition of communism ever.

Much like how the DPRK and DRC don't come anywhere near being democracies even though its in the name.
That's because words have definitions and that the merits of these definitions are the ones you judge any praxis by.

yeah, deal with it.

alright so they were just working towards it and it wasnt steeping stones on the road to communism then it was just called communism every time it was implemented and called the road to communism every time it was implemented.

I guees nazis werent Not Socialists then and Not Socialism is a completely viable political ideology

national socialism*

get rekt newfag

No they didn't.
They said they were building socialism.
That doesn't mean it was actual socialism

I would agree that it's a shit way to build socialism because it never worked. Bur you can't judge the merits of communism on something that isn't actually communism.

Indeed, you could say, and quite justifiably, that Hitlerite Praxis didn't live very well up to the earlier doctrines of what nazism was supposed to be and so you shouldn't reject Nazism in totality *only* because of Hitlerite praxis.
But you can draw certain conclusions from it, and critique the platfrom of Nazism itself from the actual merits of Nazism rather than just look at Hitlerite praxis.

why don't you read some books about it instead of posting here? also read the faq
8ch.net/leftypol/res/518058.html

anything trying to justify another communist regime would have to ignore the past failures to delude yourself that your flawed ideology is so perfect that it deserves one more try

communism is scientifically the most perfect and advanced """"regime"""" that mankind at its stage in evolution can achieve.

I suppose you also think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy, since it's in their name?

oh shit nigga what are you doing?

...

In these two words alone you have just proven you don't know the definition of communism.

just another communist dictatorship trying to masqeurade as something its not

What part of "then it was just called communism every time it was implemented"

How fucking dense are you?

None of those countries even claimed to be structurally communist you fuckwit. You just keep spouting memes.

i dont try to keep up with the latest cognitive dissonance you guys can think up

Doublethink much

Lmao. This has been the definition of communism since the 1800's. Try harder please.

you should read a book

Yes.
It's pretending to be democratic and communist.

...

You do realize that Communists and Communist countries are born liars, right? They'll say anything to make themselves look better

it was communist when everybody was starving and when it became a good old fashioned dictatorship it started improving, coincidence?

Great argument there, completely based in logic and objective fact.
"They're mean liars!"

It's funny.
I live in Australia. Shit isn't great here, but I get by. I'm not a eurocuck or a third worlder before Holla Forumsyps start screeching.
But I would never live in the U.S. With all the anti-USSR propaganda you hear, Americans forget that most people living in the developed world would never want to live in the nightmare they call home.

Again, the words "Communist Country" are mutually exclusive. Try again.

That's literally their MO. You have to be literally retarded to believe their propaganda. Hell, the Russians even admitted that it was all lies after the fact.

again a communist resorts to semantics to argue because hes a petulant retard

And yet i would not trust a system that can't achieve itself.Of what good is the fact communist is the best thing ever if every time it was tried it ended up as something else?If i listen to you,then communism wasn't ever tried,and this in more than 100 years of its creation.It is a pretty fucking shit record if you ask me.
Which also begs the question: on what bases,a system never tried,is the best thing ever?
Seems to me that human,consciously or unconsciously,knows that they aren't made for it,if they sabotage it every time or if every time someone within profit from it for themselves.

An utopian ideology.Probably will work with an AI,but every system works if you take out the human component.

So the DPRK is lying when it says that it isn't communist and they don't believe in communism anymore? To the point that they built a whole fucking monument to the new ideology that they apparently don't actually believe in? Okay, fam.

If you knew history, you'd know that they were actually doing considerably better when they were still masquerading as Maoists. The rise of Juche as their predominant ideology marked their "lost years" historically with widespread famines and economic decline.

you spend a lot of time here, why don't you read a book?

Yes. They're currently trying to appeal to Putin by pretending to reform themselves into something less left wing.

No it hasn't, if you were to tell Marx this stuff he'd probably just be puzzled. He never at any point used the term in that way at all.

"Communism" was appropriated by Marxists to describe themselves, after which many socialists described themselves as anti-communist. But the distinction is less relevant after Bakunin because anarchism-communism has pretty much totally replaced collectivism, syndicalism, and mutualism.

This isn't an excuse for the OP though because even if the USSR's inaccurate definition of communism was correct he would still refuse to believe it. This joker clearly gets all his information from Holla Forums.

^this communism so pathetically flawed it cannot even perpetuate itself before degenerating into a failed dictatorship every single time

communism doesn't work kids get over it

They actually put on a left-wing face for outsiders, but nice job proving that you have no clue what you're talking about.

^this capitalism so pathetically flawed it cannot even perpetuate itself before degenerating into a failed fascist dictatorship every single time
capitalism doesn't work kids get over it

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that every "Communist" country to date (As if a communist country isn't a complete oxymoron in and of itself, but let's skip that for now for the sake of indulging in your retardation) have all been Stalin's puppet states :^)

I find it ironic that Holla Forums always panders to the working class. yet; it has been rallied by the right wing with Trump.

inb4 illiterate nogs, illegal spics, and shit libs are the real proletariat

surely you could do better

Truly have fallen to the dark side

tell me one instance where capitalism worked
protip you can't

Maybe if you fucks read a book every now and then, especially one on the history of Marxist-Leninist countries, you'd realize that they all developed very differently, and not in ways that would point to any one cause, especially not "muh human nature" meme.

You might also realize that the Left is composed of a vast number of ideologies of which said "communist" nations typically only represented a very narrow scope of due to the Soviet Union's influence, and most of us, sans a small tankie minority, don't want to repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union.

only sith deal with absolutes

good for you chum.

(yeah lets skip it because its more useless semantics by more useless communists)

you communists seem to be the only ones who think that these communist (regime,countries, dictatorships) are not true communism and are actually some type of fake communist socialist puppet dictatorship

truely i have become retarded master of communism

Maybe that's because we've actually read leftist theory rather than just gobbled up the neoliberal propaganda?

The word is "state capitalist"

tell me one instance where capitalism worked
protip you can't

capitalism made the site you post, the home you sit in, the memes you spew the cuckold porn you jerk off to possible why are you biting the hand that feeds you

so capitalim made a lot of shitty things. Nice for you to helping me with arguements

you seem to think that leftist theory isnt neoliberalism's autistic shut in cousin

...

They put on a cheerful face for you idiots, but what goes on inside is exactly the goal of Marx and the Illuminati, a totalitarian dictatorship

You can say this about any political system tard.Not one country is similar.Even the most idiotic monarchy would be different in England or Prussia or Italy,etc.

And?What this matter with my point?If a political system can't achieve itself it's dead on the start,no matter how good it is.
So if communist,in more than 100 years,was never tried,how the fuck you know it's good? Or how the fuck do you want to implement since no one did it ever?How do you prevent the classic tumbling down?

They're almost the exact opposites of each other.

no, a community made it.
my working class father built it.
no, a community made them.
I do not support bootlicking capitalism so I am not a cuck
No one is feeding me but my own labour

Could you maybe agrue against the priciple of communism rather than calling its followers liars?
every single communist ever could have lied, it doesn't change the merits of the idea itself.

you better be a hobo living under someones house using their internet connection to justify calling these things shitty

I guess Christianity is baby-rape then.

ayy lmao

everything is made with labour or with a community effort. capitalists just hold the carrot and the stick

im doing just fine commie capitalism works

how?

Where would you put neoliberalism in the political spectrum then, if not left?

...

oh look another one of these cucks that try to defend the capitalist system.
What are you trying to prove here?

otherwise lazy communists like you would sit on your ass and not work all day capitalism provides a solution for lazy faggots like the people on this board

lmgtfy.com/?q=neoliberalism

How does collective ownership of the workplace mean laziness?

I'd put it on the alt right.

It's just an inverted version.

wew lad, what an oxymoron

was supported by the soviets despite ideological disagreements as with most revolutions supported by the SU
A bandit posing as a revolutionary, but let's assume he was really a revolutionary
>due to point 1. he would have been steamrolled by the brits or french Which people keep forgetting the soviets defeated next to the white army if not the Germans Though unlikely since the germans bit the gun

I don't need to say more, your illiteracy about markets is apparent.

I thought anarchists needed no great leader to succeed, only their collective? What happened?
kek

And people massively abused the system, with meme shit like from fascist strawmen happening: IE people calling in sick to work every day and living their life while receiving pay, since they are all buddy buddy with the people there. Yes it did happen, and I saw it at my workplace

kek

did nothing wrong tbh

Hail Sankara, hero of the proletariat.

...

learn to read spastic

cont'd

got to hand it to them, they are long lived by anarchist standards though.

pretty cool guy, I suspect he'll get co-opted by the americans however.

...

wait forgot a thing about Heng, this might trigger l.pol

just like in college you commies got brainwashed when you had a group project everyone had to work and there was one lazy guy who wouldnt do any work and made no one else want to that guy is everyone on this board in terms of our society

Toppest of keks
Just read here:

Completely disconnected from reality.

enjoy being a peasent in my surfdom where i treat you like dirt shit because i feel like it then

And so the collectively owned coop would vote that guy out.
Easy shit.

How so?

until you're told to work with him because its a communist society and everyone must work together then when you finally get fed up with him and people like him you start executing him just like every communist (regime) ends up doing

Never change tankies

alright whatever you say.
the burden of proof is on you.

And in what way is that bad?

That's a big dick

The goals of the Illuminati are identical to the ten points of communism and to the one world government laid out in the Protocols. But I guess it's just pure coincidence to you

it'll never happen unless in the case of homogenous white (non slavic) society and even then it breeds the problem of apathy as seen in that soon to be shithole sweden

Your arguments boil down to
None of which are arguments against the system they established (or were attempting to establish).

...

Yes

have you even read marx? and I think you misunderstood what I was saying
I was ridiculing the trend on l.pol of Lenin and Stalin=Hitler and Soviet union=Hitler, while supporting movements that were very much aligned with the soviets, turning a blind eye to this or the fact the soviet union supported them, it just seems that it is too triggering for them to accept the soviet union had a part in building socialism despite their bias

Don't see where I shit on any movement for this. All I said was that Catalonia didn't advance in any way in it's three years of existence.

I never argued against the majority of these systems because I support them, it is just silly to use these movements as an exception to the rule, when most were very much aligned with the soviets.

Also, saying the anarchists had no industrial basis for a revolution is absolutely valid when they made no attempts to build industry. It is also an oxymoron to support 'market socialists' and then cry about state capitalism later, since it is one and the same but with a pretty name. Not one person on l.pol would support today's china yet they support Heng and Deng which built the basis of it.

And I already said where tito fucked up.

Have you?
No one says this.
No one's claiming that the Soviet Union didn't have a part to play in building socialism, just that their system wasn't socialist, and was far from ideal.
Because it was in the middle of a Civil War?
Then why the fuck are you shitposting about them in the middle of a Holla Forumsyp anti-communist thread?

No but only because I hate cold weather Cuba would be okay.

And the point of that image is to refute the meme that "Socialism = Stalinism in practice", not that they were all perfect revolutions.

you'd be surprised how many leftcoms and anarchists do.
Socialism means the common ownership of the means of production. The soviet union was socialist until 1991, and to say otherwise is to be politically illiterate. China, Yugoslavia, those states were socialist too, that doesn't make them good socialist states. None of these countries had capitalism on a large level, but only petit-bourgeois while the workers still owned and directly administrated the MoP. The beurocracy never held the MoP no matter how much you want them to. They did however, after Stalin's administration, profit off the worker's surplus labor. I know this because I was a part of the party back then and was an industrial worker, and because I read on this subject. Just because a country is socialist that doesn't make it good, (see the SU post Stalin) and just because it is corrupt does not make it capitalist (see the SU post Stalin)

Lenin built socialism even during the civil war and seized factories, with the exception of Catalonia most anarchist movements failed to organize around industry or to seize it from the bourgeois.

I don't really give a damn about this thread.

It isn't a meme friend, as I pointed out most of these states were aligned with the soviets, and the only thing separating most of these movements from being just as hated by l.pol as let's say Cuba or the USSR is the fact that their revolution failed.

So does Venezuela not exist to you people?
How many times must it be attempted before you realize it always has the same result
And socialism is a stepping stone to communism. And clearly no one has been able to make it past it yet on any scale.

actually, Venezuela was neither 'communist' nor socialist, rather it was a country with private ownership trying to implement socialism. They played their role of progressive bourgeois.

its like you want this image to be every post in this thread

*smacks lips* hol up
cato.org/publications/commentary/venezuelas-playbook-communist-manifesto
panampost.com/enrique-standish/2013/11/29/venezuela-communist-finally/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Venezuela
wnd.com/2016/04/venezuelas-socialist-utopia-ends-up-in-the-toilet/
catholic.org/news/international/americas/story.php?id=55315

Hey do you have the one where bernie is on the very bottom and its BLM doing the violence?

SO YOU BE SAYIN

I thought you said you read Marx. If you did, you'd know that socialism is primarily a relation of production, and the Soviet Union retained the capitalist relations of production, there was still an owning class that immediately appropriated the product of the labor of the proletariat and decided how it was distributed, all that changed was that the name of that owning class changed from "the bourgeoisie" to "the state"
Could they make legitimate decisions or was their "administrative" abilities limited largely to what side of the room the coffee machine sat on?
You gave enough of a damn to shitpost in it.
That doesn't mean they would have established a Soviet style system.

then what is this????
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–33

this just shows that you know nothing of how the soviet states worked, and I am too lazy to get into an argument. I might as well be talking with an anarchist.
We decided how much was produced by our factory and we set the quota on how much resources our factory needed to produce that much product. The more you produced the higher your pay was, according to the leninist principle of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.
In our factory labor was organized so you'd be getting payed during your break hours and wouldn't be payed during your work hours, we organized it that way. Why? Most of our time at work was labor-less, but we were engineers. This was good for motivation as everyone worked to fix the problem as fast and as efficiently as possible so they'd keep getting payed. Basically if the machines worked we were doing our job right. But you know, I guess you'd know more about that, having never put marxism into practice.

Holla Forums BTFO

It makes sense though people on here suck any cold war propaganda they see and know nothing whatsoever about the movements that are ordained for them to like or how the USSR fit into the world. The understanding of socialism is childish and people cling to even more incompetent failed experiments which achieved nothing, or worse hindered progressive movements such as the Spanish anarchists who back stabbed the republic then had the audacity to blame the Communists who paid in blood on every Battlegield while they sat in Aragon doing nothing but whine and ask for total control.

I am interested in your background and life comrade. You seem to be an ML who understands the progressive role of Stalin. Have you considered coming to /marx/ to get away from the anarchobabby illiterates here?

Wait a minute.

You're saying you worked in the Soviet Union as an engineer for Stalin and in the post-Stalin era?

Assuming you had four years of college before you started working, and the fact that Stalin died in 1953, that would make you at least 85 years old.

There's an 85+ year old Russian man posting on Holla Forums?

I'm on a phone right now but I'll be able to reply to his post in a bit. It shouldn't be hard, the red ruling class theory is so anti-Marxist in nature that no one here with any knowledge of the Soviet system can take it seriously.

Pls visit /marx/
Plz

...

So, you're an 85+ year old Russian man posting on Holla Forums from his smartphone…

He's probably 40 or 50 which isn't really pushing things. Enough time to have worked in soviet industry in the late 80s

He says that this knowledge came from personal experience.

Not about Stalin you illiterate just about policy and economic production of which he was a part

I would rather live in Soviet Russia than tsarist or post Soviet Russia of the 80s, just like I'd rather live in castro's Cuba than Batistas

I did not work under Stalin, I gave you an example of socialism in even a reformist state.

...

I am from /marx/, I just lurk these days since this place has gone to shit so badly. But I felt a pecant to shit on that specific image since it is so biased and an oxymoron

There was nothing unique about the Soviet party leadership compared to other bureaucrats. Every communist society will need administrative personal to manage the means of production, and that's the role the party served. Some of them may have received several times the pay of the average worker but they had no means to actually use the MoP in their own interest. If they did, pay gaps would obviously range into the hundreds. If anything the entire history of the USSR is a story of elements within the party (which had become a majority by the 60's) trying to break down the communist system to use it for their benefit, which they finally succeeded in doing in 1991.

You haven't made it clear where you think the ruling class was located so I can only assume you meant that would be members of the central committee and council of ministers as the highest economic decision-makers. If this is true, we would be faced with the remarkable situation of a country with only several hundred capitalists whose combined incomes could only hope to rival that of several capitalists in the West.

And now you demonstrate you're not actually analyzing relations of production, you're only analyzing how democratic the Soviet state was. It's not the same. All systems require representation of some sort, democracy just requires the least. Even if we assume the USSR was a democratic state it would still suffer from the same problems of corruption and mismanagement that are inherent to human social organization. In a democracy they merely occur on a smaller scale.

Pfft, no. I'm a different poster from that guy. He just said he didn't feel like replying to your above point.

I know your feelings. Please keep it up on /marx/ because holy shit that image triggers me. It makes no sense and its just like the anarchobabbies going le Stalin is evil Catalonia was literally heaven despite being a huge shithole that alienated the entire peasantry and didn't do anything but bleed the Republic of resources

...

No wtf are yall's problem.
Soviet Russia's "communism" was pretty sad.

Pls learn to read. From the socialist perspective these people were either a) regards or b) close Soviet allies (and thus according to leftypol evil)

Most if not all these "socialist" failed though.

Like holy shit, Rosa is there when you know full well her movement gets rekt.

If the old system was better then why did it collapse?

Also your graph shows the economy recovering.

Also she was a Soviet ally defended by Lenin and Stalin and her close associate Clara Zetkin actually died in the USSR. But hey lol Russia is evil

Is that supposed to mean something?
Was the party elected? Were the positions of party officials immediately revocable upon referendum of those they administered? Can the decisions of those officials be immediately reversed upon referendum of those they administered to?

I'm not talking about a capitalist system. It's obvious to anyone that the Soviet Union was not capitalism proper, but rather a new system where state dominated.

It's incredibly important. I don't see how you can have a system managed by workers if the workers don't actually make any decisions.

Because they tried to implement a free market system.

That's literally the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed and its economy went into the gutter

A good 16 years later.

Kind of like the Soviet Union.

Soviet Union worked for at least 80 years.

Some of these "socialists" don't even succeed in their revolution.

Shhhh it was perfect and democratic Nd hey man just because we all got murdered by reactionary thugs at least we taught those awful Bolsheviks a thing or two about muh perfect morality!

But it failed.

And unlike those movements, its failure occurred from within.

You tankies need to stop acting like this is the 20th century. Arguing for the "strength" of a failed state isn't going to convince anyone.

Like the people in charge of the current Russian government?

Arguing from the "strength" of failed revolutions are going to make people laugh even harder.

The ones that revitalize and surpass the Soviet's top economy mark in 16 years, yes.

It's a way of pointing out that there are alternatives to the Soviet system, since no one but a very small, fanatical minority (you) wants a redo of the Soviet system.

Which is pretty fucking awful, 16 years of setback.

Putin is a faggot and a meme

16 years ain't nothing compared to the fact it takes 80 years for the Soviet to get there.

Yes, that just being a state official doesn't make you a member of a ruling class. Most today are only representatives of class interests.

If that's true, it's a pretty weird mode that has no class distinctions. You haven't proven anything here. As I said, there were political elites in the USSR, but all that proves is that it was no a democracy.

If communism can be reduced to nothing more than worker management then I guess capitalist co-ops are our goal. You're not taking social property vs private property relations into account at all.

Nobody wants a redo of the USSR, we're just arguing it was a legitimate example of a communistic revolution and until we come to terms with this properly we can't move forward properly.

In fact, following that chart, a capitalist Russia from day one would actually land on the Moon by now.

You are showing mostly failed alternatives.

The only other successful "socialist" model was Tito's market socialism and they were indebted to the fucking IMF.

the Marxist Leninist parties are the largest and most influential communist parties in the world, are you really that delusional as to think internet fringe groups make up the majority?

Look up India's maoist party, tell me then we are a minority. You are irrelevant.

also
you are a fucking joke.

Russia is a gas-station filled with alcoholics now. Thanks, free market.
t. russian

its like you want this image to be every post in this thread

...

wew lad

All states have the potential to fail regardless of their ideological standing.

Literally nothing Venezuela was socialist by any objective metric: collective worker ownership of the means of production. A government that is not controlled by the working class is not socialist.

What you are seeing here is a problem with the left, but it's a practical, not an ideological one. People call themselves "socialist" because it makes them sound sympathetic and altruistic.

I'd live in Communist Russia.

Hell.. I'd even live in State Capitalist Russia! (AKA USSR)

Hold it right there asshole, that's the same as that platitude "look it's great on paper, but…"

What I am getting here is, "why even bother with revolution when it's gonna be co-opted by corrupt assholes and get turned into state capitalism"

Instead of [victims] you should put [opposition]

Keep deluding yourself, Trotsky.

Last I checked after Russia went red they industrialized ahead over 100 years, in the span of 10 or 15.

Holla Forums wishes it was as good as communist russia

Way to prove you don't know what you're talking about.

That's absurd, you think their economy would have gone to post-2006 levels because in 1917 if they were being lead by Putin?

But you appropriate the labor of the working class.
One side appropriated the labor of the other. That's a clear class distinction.
If there is not democratic control, the difference between "social property" and private property is meaningless, it's merely ideological.

How do you figure?

It's all failed alternatives. If they weren't, we'd have world communism by now.

So your only criteria for a "successful" socialist model is that it lasted a while? Even if most said "failed" socialist models were destroyed by outside forces instead of internal degeneration?

Top fucking kek
The Naxalites are all you have, and most statistics point to them being in decline since the deaths of a bunch of their leaders.

That's not the same thing as being M-L themselves
Nope, never said that.

name five countries where the marxist-leninist party is not the dominant communist party. Chances are they are all in europe, while you have either forgotten or written off asia and africa as irrelevant.
you don't know shit, they have started to build an industrial basis for their movement while they have withdrawn from direct conflict. The number of factories they own has risen from 15 to 25+ from what I remember.

also

Do they own the means of production? The answer is no. The red bourgeois existed after Stalin, but the difference was in value and not in ownership.
the biggest argument you could make is that the reformist states that came after Stalin is that another class arose which exploited the surplus value of workers, but since the means of production were still owned by the workers it was still a socialist country by marxist definition, and you can't refute that.
only there was democratic control but you skim over the facts you don't like, and when I pointed out what it was like to work as an engineer in the 80's you fumbled and called me 80 years old. Nice reading comprehension.

Reminder that Holla Forums is specifically targeting this thread with shitposts.

bullshit. My ex was Russian, and that's absolute fucking bullshit

I'm saying a capitalistic "bourgeois" Russia would be more successful than Soviet Russia provided they start in the same timeframe of 2017.

Easily proven by the fact that Putin and his capitalistic policies took only 16 years to surpass the mark of the Soviet.

What exactly your criteria for a "communist party"?
Proofs? Also, what's the point of building factories if they don't yet have any sovereign territory?

Ownership means nothing. It's just an ideological term. The question is if a different group appropriates and distributes the goods being produced than those who produced said goods.
Once again, "ownership" means nothing if that isn't reflected in the modes of production.
All you said was that you were able to organize your workplace. While that is certainly an advancement in the right direction, it isn't the same thing as socialism. Tell me, if Walmart allowed their workers to democratically organize themselves, but still undemocratically appropriated their labor and set quotas, would Walmart be socialist?

the problem with comparing socialist countries to capitalist countries by GDP is that socialist countries produced goods by necessity and not by profitability since most of the states didn't participate in markets. You had toilet paper factories, and they had to produce enough rolls for 100 million people for a year. You don't have competing factories under a planned economy so you produce enough for that many people, there is no excess and there is no amount created for profit.

You don't understand.

Recovering your economy after "only 16 years" is no achievement.

they want to achieve communism trough socialism. Don't give me socdems or anarchists.
They hold territory deep in Bengal, this is where they are producing factories.

goddamn, you literally have no understanding of practical marxism, and from what you wrote of theoretical marxism either. Why do you even use that flag? Everything you wrote has pointed to you being an anarchist.

We voted for our pays at the council of soviets and achieved our goals 9/10 times. We were also the ones to decide the quotas of our factory (well not us, we were engineers. The industrial workers did) and we dictated how much resources we needed to produce this quota. We had total local control of the MoP.
And your walmart comparison is just retarded, since it's nothing alike.

And you know what happened when workers got mostly unregulated control of the MoP, like in my case? Abuse, you had people call in sick for a year or two and get payed because he was buddy-buddy with the other workers there, basically forcing the other workers to fill in his labor, and you had discrepancies within the economy since with us deciding the production quotas not enough was being produced to fit everybody's needs, all of which could have actually been solved by a planned economy, a party asserted quota that covered the needs of the proletariat and the amount of production needed to defend the state from capitalists.

Recovering and surpassing the Soviet's 80 years economy is an achievement.

Russia now is richer than the SU.

The SU regularly performed arm trades with other countries.

It does participate in the global market so it's fair to rate them that way.

...

Proofs?

Not an answer. "Ownership" means nothing. It's just a way of describing certain relations of production.

Where can I read about this?

How so?

...

Rolled 1, 1 = 2 (2d1)BURN THE COMMIES IN OVENS

NATIONAL SOCIALISM WILL WIN SUPREME

"liar"

As opposed to the original meme ;)

lol you will be killed by your own stupidity once more. Nazis are useful idiot retards that can't into strategy at all.

ok

When the first shit post doesn't work, post another!

So totalitarian state capitalism?

"One side" being who or what? The Bolsheviks? Stalin? The nomenklatura after him?

You can't make this up.

by socialists you mean neoliberals implementing neoliberal washington consensus austerity programs?

The state. It would have been fine if the state were more intrinsically democratic, and thus the state could have been legitimately called an extension of the will of the working class, but it wasn't. The state appropriated the product of the labor of the working class and decided how to distribute it without any democratic organization.

Holy shit dude, way to miss the point of the image. Being supported by the USSR isn't a bad thing. The USSR was pretty shitty, but it wasn't wrong at everything. Imperialist countries are also shitty, but they can still make the right decision when it comes to some things.

No it didn't. It wasn't even really a revolution. The communists just filled the power gap after the end of WW1.

You shitting me? He was one of the few who stayed behind in Hungary and founded the underground communist movement. The ones who DID go to the USSR were purged by Stalin.

Except that never happened. He never got back into office.

Only because they really needed the German Revolution to succeed to be able to have any actual influence.

Toppest of keks. I'd love to hear what other examples you have.

Nice buying into Trotskyist propaganda.

You kidding me? Donbass has been the most industrialized area in Ukraine since the 19th century.

Literally no different from Russia.

You don't need a state to do that. The Free Territory held congresses and their leaders were elected.

Literally how? He was more left than the Comintern and refused to work with the Kuomintang when they told him to.

Maybe because he was the general of their army? Ever thought about that?

Same old Trotskyist tactics that you took with Makhno, eh? B-but muh bandits!

The fuck? Most private property was abolished, about 75% to be precise. Even money was abolished.

Maybe because if the fucking war going on?

And it's somehow the Republicans' fault that they had to face Germany, Italy, and Portugal with little outside support?

(cont.)

You mean the Stalinist ones? Gee, I wonder why.

Stop misunderstanding market socialism this badly.

What is that even supposed to mean?

That's only because it wasn't illegal to be unemployed in Yugoslavia. And besides, it's not like other socialist states didn't have debts to the IMF. *cough*Romania*cough*

You could make the same argument of your beloved USSR. But I'll tell you how it looked. It looked like the highest living standards in Eastern Europe, on par with some Western European nations.

It happened guise, trust me, I saw it.

You mean the nationalists sponsored by the USA? I fail to see how that was Yugoslavia's fault.

Literally how? You do realize NATO bombed them, right?

I'd say it was more like when Gorbachev got into power, but that's irrelevant. It's still not Yugoslavia's fault that USA decided to rape them.

And don't forget your beloved USSR. :^)

You mean how the Allies armed and supported Tito after he had mostly liberated Yugoslavia on his own?

Setting up Workers' Councils, so fascist.

I think you must be mistaken, Khruschchev was the guy who forced him out of power and executed him.

I didn't see him try to take back Carpathian Ruthenia from the Soviets like Sloba tried to take Serbian-populated areas from other Yugoslav states. In fact, I don't see how the two are in any way related.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You mean Brezhnev?

The difference is that Allende was actually elected, moron.

So Mao supported the PRK, a state which only came into being 5 years after his death? Interesting. I suppose you'd also like to explain Mao's support for the Khmer Rouge, then.

See my first point. Just because the Soviets did something right one time doesn't mean they were intrinsically good.

(cont.)

Again, just like SU.

Yeah, they've learned from everyone else on this list.

Chiapas is poor as fuck. What did you expect?

Oh damn, that's a shame that you "suspect" this will happen. That's, like, the second-worst thing next to actual evidence!

I also find it funny how you screencapped your own post and tried to pass it off as a "Holla Forums BTFO" image. Get over yourself, m8.

Holla Forums ebin logic

this board is literally the most hypocritical board on Holla Forums

also this too

holy shit you people are pathetic

...

it really just gets better

Also, you guys are ones to talk, literally defending Nazis.

...

Take a glance at the OP, chucklefuck, this is an anti-communist Holla Forums thread.

of course it is. im talking about the general attitude of Holla Forums as shown here
you cant deny there are snowflake socialists on Holla Forums completely denying the USSR's legitimacy and buying in to the bullshit they were taught at school about the soviet union. not to mention the dogmatic anarkiddies refusing to cooperate with anyone that dont have the exact same belief as they do, calling everyone "fascists" while pretending not to be liberals

Yes, because any criticism of the Soviet Union MUST be pure capitalist propaganda. There's NO POSSIBLE WAY that someone might have reason, from a leftist perspective, to disagree with the Soviet Union. Honestly, the MLs and Stalinsts are reaching Hoxaist-tier fetishism over their 20th century states.

Because most MLs are stuck in the 20th century, and we as the collective left have been desperately trying to move into the 21th century. People don't like discussing ML as an active ideology on this board because it's regressive as fuck and confuses people one what socialism is capable of being, instead opting to remain complacent with the USSR's style of state capitalism as an indefinite goal because at no point will the party accept that the populace as a large is "ready for communism." If your threads got bumplocked, chances are it's because it had a low-quality OP or was getting consistently derailed. I've seen a fair bit of both recently.
Also namefags don't get banned for just being namefags. If they break the rules, they're going to get banned regardless of their standing: it doesn't matter if they are "well read."

How much of a fucking newfag are you? Literally every board does this: generalizing the larger community as being a singular entity. Especially when it comes to imageboards, you can't distinguish individual members due to anonymity; all you have to go off of is the collective consensus (or whatever your own biases will allow you to see) of the actual posts. Most of us are well aware that there are alright people in places like Reddit: we just tend not to like the format of the site itself and how that shapes the community.

That's a hell of a lot of projecting right there. This might shock you, but a lot of us do have political lives that extend beyond this board.

/marx/ ebin logic

Couldn't you guys have saved it for another thread?

The fact that you have no idea what you're talking about is apparent. It's a pretty common opinion in Russia that it's worse off now than it was in the USSR.

To be fair, you can win an argument with other communists because they aren't fucking retarded.

...

the Hungarian communists were purged by Lenin.
The history books say otherwise. Firstly he spent time in Vienna after both the Romanian and Hungarian program failed and then he moved to moscow in the 1930's.

He actually did, although I made a mistake and said it was under soviet leadership, it was under Imre Nagi. But he was rehabilitated after that by the soviets. Rather odd considering how purge-happy you paint them.

wew lad
the Polish people's republic had wholly different economic and social policies than the soviet union yet they were still supported when the soviets re-took Poland during WWII, they supported Castro, Sankara, Tito all up until he fully reformed to petty bourgeois ownership, Allende, Mao, the french socialists in 1936, the spanish republic, various african republics, and I am sure many more I cannot remember. But you know, one thing they did right :^)

there was really no need for trot's propaganda when ethnic russians in ukraine can tell you plainly well how they were robbed by makhnovites and how they did what they pleased, as individuals.

Yes, and they never managed to take 90% of the factories in Ukraine since the proletariat were pro-bolshevik by a massive margin and actually barricaded themselves inside factories and fought off the Makhnovites. It is also why Makhnovites were starved of real weaponry.

the difference is that there is a state apparatus serving the interest of the proletariat that suppresses and vilifies these things. There was no such thing under Makhno.

Read above. These leaders came from the peasantry themselves, there is no purpose to a party if you will put uneducated proletariat into it anyway.

his refusal to work with nationalists is irrelevant to his economic principals which encouraged privatization if industry.

seems too fragile for class conflict.

Nice rebuttal.
farmland was privately owned as well as most factories, despite being administrated by workers.
Ah yes, the irrelevant vouchers that alienated the peasantry from the rest of Spain.

How is this an excuse for anything? The soviet union and many other communist managed production during the revolution. Hell a big part of the soviet war effort was just to keep the industry going during the revolution.

not their fault, but it's pretty hilarious to uphold Catalonia as an example of socialism while denouncing the soviet union.

yes, and we are the sectarians, while you actively sabotage our movements. This is literally why we purge you.

Don't you tell me about market socialism, I grew up in Yugoslavia and was part of the party.
Hruschev also started massive privatization and economically it was very similar to Yugoslavia, but kept a planned economy (just like Yugoslavia) The private ownership of the MoP and agriculture caused production for profit instead of as needed while the economy still had a quota for production 'as needed', and the production quota couldn't be filled. It is what caused the bread lines, only Tito had the IMF to cover his ass.

It wasn't illegal because the discrepancies of market socialism cause unemployment, if it was both illegal and there was unemployment you'd have a situation like you had in the soviet union in the late 80's for workers, which is very bad.
I never said other socialist states didn't, it is still a big issue and an example of socialism done wrong.

You really couldn't in the pre-Hruschev years since you had a qutoa that was calculated to meet the needs of the whole country. IE the industry, the army, the workers and the intelligentsia.
Yes, selling your ass to the IMF sure has it's perks.
I am offering you insight as to why it is a bad system from personal experience I ozbiljan sam u vezi ovoga, ali vecina amerikanaca na ovom sajtu nema nikakvu perspektivu socijalizma van teorije and you block out what you don't like to hear.

The nationalists wouldn't have been able to enter the party, or would have had much more difficulty, if the party wasn't open to the general population. It is also the same blunder of the soviet union in later years.

They wouldn't have been borked by the USA if they:
1. were soviet aligned
2. didn't sell tanks to the afghanis can't blame them for that

NATO had a leash around Yugoslavia ever since 1948, I doubt they'd have as much influence if it was a soviet state until it's breaking up. It would have probably still been split since nationalists had infiltrated the party, but maybe less violently.

No, but setting up a multi-party government where he collaborated with nationalists and tried to revert to the free market is.

Before that he was put in his political position by Hruschev, hilariously enough.

I said economic policies, he both wanted to privatize the economy and, also like nagy, implement bourgeois democracy. And the soviet leadership at the time tried to negotiate with him but he kept pushing more right and liberalizing the country.

Do you honestly believe today's contemporary democracy is more free than the democracy people enjoyed under socialism?

yes, my mistake.

suddenly bourgeois elections matter? Was Castro or Lenin evil for not being elected under a bourgeois government, then?

I meant mao as in the maoists, I should have made the destinction.

refer to my last post, apparently these movements are too irrelevant to be considered by Holla Forums.

except you know, the mass industrialization in the 30's, let's just skim over that.

You need to understand something, I am not so much criticizing most of the people on this list as much as I am ridiculing Holla Forums for holding them up as successes of socialism while hiding the soviet union like a snake hides it's legs. The fact of the matter is you put a movement with no material conditions to build socialism above a country that successfully built socialism and managed to materially support revolutions internationally, advancing workers and human rights, and offering the best standard of living in human history. It is the worst sectarianism, and it just shows how childish you are.

just my speculations, no need to get triggered about it. They ARE being armed by the USA, last time I checked. And some individuals are being trained too.

You had to dig through this thread to find the image, fuckwad.

TOPKEK they finally admit it

How did you jump to that conclusion fam

That's not even remotely close to what he was saying you massive retard, can you even read?

I left l.pol open while I browsed other shit and the main page doesn't autoupdate. That pic was the first one I saw, only when I clicked to reply did I see it advanced.

So the CPSU, seeing as it's a one-party state? The state itself cannot be equated to a class. The bourgeoisie are not defined by simply saying they are "the market"; you cannot argue that in the USSR state = class, and expect it to be convincing.

Who expropriated the the product of the labor of the proletariat under the Soviet system? Was it the CPSU or the state as a whole?

You know that includes its people, right? Yes, the surplus was appropriated by the party. It could not be distributed outside of centrally managed plans through state enterprises. While Lenin was still alive, the NEP allowed for certain petty bourgeois elements – the notorious NEP-men for example – to appropriate elements of production and control their distribution, but that ended under Stalin. The workings of the party changed drastically from the Bolsheviks to the end of the USSR as well. You could argue that, after Stalin, the party became a class through its bureaucratization, which eventually created the Nomenklatura. Under Stalin, well, he was the party. He controlled everything, even down to the content of plays artists wanted to create. The sheer maniacal attention to detail the man had in that respect was nauseating.

Anyway, the point is, yes, eventually there was a new class, albeit one without the kind of power wielded by the bourgeoisie – GOSPLAN did not allow state enterprises to fail, for example, so it could redistribute personnel and material to other or new enterprises. And of course the nomenklatura, for all their power, could not enrich themselves or their families and consolidate power by intermarriage or inheritance – instead they relied on patronage to rejuvenate their ranks.

It doesn't really matter if they did or did not enrich themselves. The point is that they formed a sort of ruling class, or whatever you want to call the class that expropriates the product of the labor of the proletariat. If the bourgeoisie were forced to work for minimum wage and were barred from ever partaking of their capital, they'd still be the bourgeoisie, right?

How can you have common ownership without common decision making?

If the bourgeoisie are very popular in a country, does that make them an extension of the will of the working class?

I think it's more than just a detail. Once again, I fail to see how "social ownership" means anything if that isn't coupled with social control and decision making.

I went over this with you earlier, so allow me to try again. You are reducing the differences between production modes down to nothing more than how politics is organized which is outrageously anarchistic and anti-Marxist. Communism means common ownership. This economic base naturally lends itself towards democracy, but it's no more inevitable than liberal parliamentary systems are for capitalism.

I've gone over this point a million times this month but I'll go over it again. The Bolshevik party was an extension of proletarian will because of it's broad popularity in urban areas that later extended to the peasantry. It was not organized democratically, but that's just a detail because every political system requires representation of some sort. You wrongly treat democracy as a mechanism, but it's a social state that can be measured in a percent. Following the former method the USSR was "fine" because it had minor democratic voting rights. You could (accurately) point out the USSR could be measured primarily as an oligarchy with democracy playing only a modest role, but at what point do you cut off the line in a mixed government system and claim communism has been achieved?

The point is this. Yes, there was exploitation in the USSR. But mismanagement and corruption will always occur in any system where managers are needed. What makes communism remarkable is that it isn't inherently abusive and that no individual can adopt ownership relations over property no matter what kind of benefits corruption gives them. The political elites in the USSR were radically different from actual ruling classes, trying to associate them is a dead end.

Hello. was my response to this post before you decided to delete it and make a new post.

The point is it took a long time for a ruling class to form, thanks in no small part to Stalin.
No. Their actual relations to the means of production would have changed dramatically. Unable to appropriate a surplus, and instead forced to work for a living, they would then be proletarian.

Well, I live in northern brazil, in the middle of the amazon jungle, part of the working class, working 10 hours a day

living in the USSR wouldn't be so bad I guess

why did communism take the most amount of people ever on earth out of poverty, and send a poor shithole nation to space/become a superpower

...

But didn't Stalin act as a sort of one-man ruling class, like a sort of palace economy?
No, you misunderstand. I meant that they only take for themselves roughly the equivalent of minimum wage. They're limited to that. Not that they have to work for a living.

I suppose you could say that. Stalin was a rather unique case. But a class with only a single person in it? Doesn't wash, really. When we think of a class we think of a fairly heterogeneous group nonetheless united by their common relations to the means of production. It's not like Stalin acted alone, but he had literally all the authority thanks to the purges. People wonder how the Holocaust happened but the Great Terror is another one of those cases where you cannot help but wonder why people obeyed rather than shoot the dictator.

You could argue that those who survived Stalin and remained in control of certain aspects of the Soviet Union constituted a class, but that's really tenuous as well, seeing as they could not act without his approval. They certainly weren't on the same level as the later Nomenklatura. Perhaps the foundations were being laid, in a way, but until Stalin died and the bureaucracy emerged out from under him it was a dictatorship, not a ruling class, that oppressed the proletariat.

In that case, yes, they're still living off the appropriated surplus, regardless of how much they take. Take note I agree that the Nomenklatura were a class separate from the regular Soviet proletariat. It's the earlier years that are much more contentious.

This fucking thread m8

The USSR had no purchases or exchanges in property under the direction of socialist planning even if keeping rubles as a unit of account may have given that illusion. The claims of the state behaving as a big capitalist firm are heavily contradicted by it's industrial ministries' interactions with farming collectives and petty enterprises, which all behaved as separate custodians of social property. Until some deforms under Khrushchev you would not find any market relations there, the exchanges between them were no different than state-directed exchanges between firms.

Planning is not inherently communistic, but this was something different. The only commodification to be found was in consumer goods which, it should be noted, was the only major market on the planet totally devoid of competitive pressure. It was not a foundation for capitalism. The state only stopped protecting all of these property rights at the end of the 60's when firms become the primary decision-making economic agents.

It obviously isn't in their best interests, but it is their will. Every group needs a political body to represent them and this can take any form. For the late Roman slaver class it was an autocrat. The old oligarchy was more ideal, but an absolute ruler was what they got. For 20th century communists it was single-party despotism. Democracy would have been their ideal, but that isn't what they got either.

Democracy is important and without it political degeneration and bourgeois restoration are near-impossible to avoid. Nonetheless, as said above, it is not the distinguishing feature of a post-capitalist society.

They do if you have a mass of kulaks that burn the crops because muh social status

Yeah, the PCV is part of the GPP coalition, which is just PSUV + everything else that supports it (the current government).

It depends on what person actually means by state capitalism.
If he/she means that state capitalism is when state appropriates part of the surplus value that he/she produced, than in his/her eyes SU even before Khrushchev sold out MTS was state capitalist.
And you can't convince him/her otherwise.

It all comes down to should worker receive full value of his/her labour, or not.

If person believes that should, than he/she advocates for direct ownership of the means of production, which means that SU for him/her is even more frightening than old fashioned capitalism, because he can't possibly run from this new total capitalist, this leviathan.

If person accepts that part of the surplus value should be concentrated and invested in something (science projects, free education, free healthcare, military or whatever), than he/she can be convinced that SU was not capitalist, or at least not capitalist in a traditional sense.

As I see it, it was one big corporation (or cooperative, if you like) by the name "USSR" with CEO Stalin. This corporation employed people, but said people were also the only shareholders.

This corporation operated in market environment. Players in said market were corporation "USSR", agricultural cooperatives, artels, and self-employed individuals.
All possibly commodifiable means of production were owned by corporation "USSR", other players in the market rented means of production from corporation, or were given MOP for free use. Corporation also enforced the law by which one person can't employ another.
Corporation managed the only unit of exchange which was used in said market, as well.

So there was commodity production, and so there was law of value in operation. But only in the sphere of end consumer market, because it was the only market. There was no market of MOP, no labour market, no market of intermediate/semifinished products.

Corporation "USSR" sold it's goods for fixed prices, which were calculated as cost price + fixed surcharge around 5% to cover operational costs.
Profit came in the form of tax on circulation.

Does law of value ruled over corporation "USSR"? I think not, because profit never was an ultimate goal, nor was it regulator of production. Plan ruled supreme inside the corporation, and ruled only partially outside.

As to why there was end consumer market, there's two points of view.

One, that of the CEO of corporation, Stalin, is that there was market because there were different forms of property in the economy, namely cooperative form of property and property of corporation "USSR".

Another point of view, that of the Ernest Mandel, one of the leaders of the 4th international, is that there was market because there was scarcity of goods.

sums up /lefty so well

That's just the thing, there was no revolution. Venezuela blindly trusted a demagogue and suffered for it.

This is a nasty habit the "old" left needs to get out of. It knows direct action is the only way, but it still gets all hopeful when some reformist dickhead makes headlines.

...

Russia went from one of the most backwards, unindustrialized countries in Europe with vestiges of serfdom and a medieval, landed gentry to an industrial juggernaut in less than 30 years and the world's first space power in less than 50.

But yeah, nah, despite the fact that the soviet union was regularly wiping the US's eye technologically, most famously in the technology of cruise missiles, obviously the SU kept the US at bay with sticks and rocks because comuhnizm dumm.

Let me just preface this by saying that I'm glad we're having this conversation. I was a bit salty over you screencapping your own post and trying to pass it off as a refutation of Holla Forums, but this is much better. This is what I think Holla Forums is about, tbh. Leftist individuals of different flavours coming together to debate. But without further ado, lets get started.

Except they weren't. Bela Kun, Jozsef Pogany, Ferenc Bajaki, and Dezso Bokanyi were all purged by Stalin.

He was called to Moscow by Stalin, prevented from leaving, and sent to Siberia. Not really much of being "kept safe in the Kremlin by uncle joe".

And yet you just admitted that most of the other Hungarian communists were purged.

It's true. What did the Soviet Union hope to accomplish with its only allies being Mongolia and fucking Tuva? The answer is nothing. They didn't become a superpower until after they got some real allies, including a piece of Germany.

The PRL was nothing more than a Soviet Puppet state. They were almost invaded just like Hungary and Czechoslovakia. And the PRL wasn't formed pout of a revolution anyways, it was set up by the USSR.

Cuba is literally just a carbon copy of the USSR's system, which is why it baffles me that Holla Forums supports it and not the USSR.

I'll give you that one. Still not a revolution, though. He came to power through a coup.

So AKA until he decided not to be a Soviet puppet. And as much as I like Tito, he didn't come to power through revolution either.

Fair enough. Except, y'know he was elected. He never led a revolution.

Mao was just Stalin 2.0, except with somehow even less of a grasp on Marxist theory. There's a reason Stalin was pushing him to take over the party and oust Chen.

They only supported the parties that adhered to Stalinist principles. And again, not revolutions.

ohboy
Not something you should be proud of. Most "socialist" states in Africa merely called themselves such to get support from the USSR. In many cases, the parties that held power at the time are still in power and not much has changed. The only difference is now they no longer call themselves communists. The only exceptions to this I can think of are Burkina Faso under Sankara (which I don't think even called itself socialist), Ethiopia (which was pretty much just the Soviet system), and Seychelles (which I'll give you).

And Eastern Germans can tell you plainly well how they were raped by Soviets and how they did what they pleased, as individuals. That doesn't make the Soviets rapists.

The point is that they didn't need to industrialize. They already had the most industrialized part of the whole country in their territory. The fact that the Bolsheviks didn't want to work with them shows more about the Bolcheviks than it does of the Makhnovists.

What's the point when the proletariat can do it themselves?

The same could be said of most other socialist states. Most socialist states were not first world and did not have an educated proletariat. Hell, Russia's literacy rate before the revolution was less than 25%.

How so?

Yes, and Stalin made the same mistake by purging all his generals. Operation Barbarossa almost succeeded because of it.

The point is that the idea that anarchists are bandits came from Trotsky himself. Not Lenin or Stalin. Lenin liked the Makhnovists, and Stalin? Well, we all know how that went.

The point is they were working on it. What they managed to accomplish was pretty impressive, regardless of the fact that they were unable to complete their goals.

Your argument was that they never progressed past the initial stage in 3 years, not that they couldn't manage production, which they completely did. War Communism also took 3 years in the Soviet Union before they progressed to the NEP.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the USSR was state capitalism, because I don't think it was. I think both Catalonia and the Soviet Union were socialist. Just that the Soviet Union was a pretty shitty nation, whereas Catalonia was, well, okay. I mean, they were on the right path, but god damn the fascists wouldn't have it.

Why would Tito let Stalinist militants into his country when Stalin very clearly wanted him out of the picture?

Alright, I'll take your word for it.

I'm doubtful about this, but I don't even like Khrushchev, so go ahead and shit all over him all you want.

Agreed.

But I'm talking about Soviet-aligned states here. The point is that you didn't have to be an American puppet to have debts to the IMF.

What I meant was that the Soviet Union very rapidly went from a quasi-feudalistic state to an industrial superpower. How was this a bad thing when Yugoslavia did it?

The communist party is supposed to be the party of the people. Why prevent the people from joining it?

I'd say more along the lines of from 1948 to 1956. After that they were truly nonaligned. Let's not forget that they were getting support from the Soviets after Destalinization.

I fail to see how multi-party democracy means working with nationalists and how workers councils means reverting to capitalism.

And Khrushchev also kicked him out the first time too.

There was no negotiating to be done. He just wanted to make the country more democratic. He still wanted to stay in the Warsaw Pact and remain a Soviet ally.

They're both pretty shitty for different reasons. That's why several of these people tried to fix the democracies in their countries.

No, because they couldn't have been do to the pre-revolutionary states being dictatorships. The problem is that they maintained the dictatorships once they got in power.

You're aware that the Chinese and Vietnamese actually went to war over the Kampuchean Revolution, right?

The USSR was around before the mas industrialization, you know.

Many countries have built socialism, not just the USSR.

Some better than others. They pretty much just supported revolutions worldwide so long as they called themselves socialist. In more important areas like the Eastern Bloc, though, no revolutions allowed.

That's just blatantly not true. Even Yugoslavia and East Germany had better living standards on average.

I'll be the first to admit I got a bit salty. That's my bad.

Sounds a bit like the Soviet Union in World War II. What I've said about the Soviet Union is true about the USA. Both are pretty shitty. But that doesn't mean they can't do the right thing from time to time. (Even if they do it for the wrong reasons.)

Woah, huge slam on the proud nation of Tuva just out of nowhere.

Hate to break it to you, m8, but the Tuvan People's Republic was irrelevant as fuck.

What did he mean by this?

The Tuvan people are a proud race with a rich heritage you vile racist.