/pol/kiddies always get mad when they get told that Communism has never been tried because they have no counter argument to it. But they still refuse to accept it.
So in what way have any of the "Communist" states of the past 100 years been Communist?
It was tried, a lot of times, poorly.
t. socialist.
>>1315047
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
If the USSR wasn't actually communist why is it so jerked off over by all you edgy commie kids?
Seems like the same exact deal with neonazis who wank off to the holocaust then claim it never happened. Can't have it both ways.
>>1315047
>not realizing that communism encompasses a broad spectrum of beliefs and not all of them are marxist
>not realizing that they're all shit and haven't worked
>>1315066
What confuses me about neo-Nazis and general stormfags is they go out of their way to prove that the Third Reich did not have such a negative perception of other races by posting pics of blacks in German uniforms and things like that. But then they just turn around and call people niggers and spics anyway.
But yeah, same deal with both them and OP.
>>1315086
>OP
What makes you think I "jerk off over" the USSR?
>>1315087
Oh sorry I should have said "maybe" since I don't know for sure. My fuck up, OP.
>>1315086
Why is everything so black and white for you edgy kommie kids? Not everybody who disagrees with the deadliest ideology in human history is a fascist.
>>1315100
Uh did you reply to the wrong person? I'm not a communist. In fact I hate communism. I'm not calling anyone a fascist.
>>1315100
>the deadliest ideology in human history
Capitalism?
>>1315104
Shit, sorry. Guess i should've read all of it.
Still, commie kids are pretty black and white and call everything they disagree with fascism.
>>1315109
You can do better than that, man.
>>1315111
>The sheep thinks I'm joking
>>1315109
>genociding millions in the name of communism is the same as killing a few brown people for oil
>>1315110
Id describe myself as a libertarian and I actually was accused of being a national socialist by a Trotskyite not too long ago. Imagine how funny it was being accused of being a national socialist when Im hispanic.
>>1315047
>my utopia never became a reality
>therefore the people relentlessly trying to make my utopia a reality don't reflect on it at all
>>1315112
Still pretty bad desu.
>>1315047
>Lenin: let's try
>Mao: let's try
>etc. etc;
>"lol they didn't really try"
Why fucking lie?
>>1315118
They never tried to make it a reality. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship where the workers got shit from the very start. You don't have to be a communist to understand that.
>>1315137
Why do attempts at communism always result in the rise of a dictatorship, then?
>>1315134
Trying and achieving are the same thing?
>>1315100
It's a rally point for them.
They're all about nuance when it comes to themselves and the groups they consider objective allies, but everyone else is basically a (closet) fascist.
Not that the term fascist applies to anything anymore. It died in 1945. Stanley Payne has written extensively on it. Fascism as it emerged pre-war hasn't and cannot occur in the same fashion anymore. Authoritiarian is something else.. Fascism is its very own kind of thing. It was an actual revolutionary movement which gained power through paramilitary means. Trump isn't that. But these kids just wanna play on sentiments by using silly synecdoches like that.
We need new definitions, new terms and new categories to understand the current world.
I feel like loads of these kids still wanna have their 19th century Genesis chapter of their ideology to apply to today. It's an odd sort of Romanticism, but it is perhaps a human thing I guess... To idealize the early beginnings.
Well I mean it's never been tried in the case of destroying all notions of class and currency
>>1315143
Yes it has. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
>>1315113
Revolutions don't happen peacefully, the violence in China is simply to scale with its population, ethnic and cultural makeup
>>1315141
Holy fuck, you fucking leftist fuckhead. Don't twist this. The topic of this thread was "it was never tried" and NOT was it achieved. Get.the.fuckout.
>>1315147
Wohoah, calm down there kiddo! You're getting mad at people's opinions on an anonymous image board, might wanna check yourself there. ;^)
But back to the point at hand, tell me in what way did they even achieve in trying it?
>>1315109
Capitalism is more of a system than a set ideology.
It's a bit like how 'paganism' never really had a canon either, because it was a container term invented by Christians to denote everyone who wasn't them. They broke the mold. Roman pagans and Egyptian pagans are literal worlds apart, but to the Christian they're all under the same devillish deception.
Zizek is right. Commies are very Christian in form and content and I don't perceive that as a good thing, unlike him.
>>1315113
>When communists have a famine it's a genocide.
>When capitalists have a famine it's a natural disaster.
Classcuck logic.
>>1315153
>Zizek is right. Commies are very Christian in form and content and I don't perceive that as a good thing, unlike him.
This opinion, very ironically, reaks of pure ideology.
>>1315150
>in what way did they even achieve in trying it?
>achieve in trying it
What the fuck are you even saying?
>>1315160
You can find numerous dictionaries on the Web in case you have difficulties with the English language.
>>1315162
Achieve in trying?
That doesn't make any logical sense.
That's like someone tries to follow a blueprint to build something and it collapses and then going "well he didn't really try it ;)."
Plus we're talking multiple guys trying and failing.
Get the fuck out of here.
>>1315184
Well to achieve in trying means that you actually did try.
In what way did Lenin or Mao "try Communism"?
>>1315047
Far left or far right systems of governments/ ideologies are detrimental to society.
Hence I hate both fascism and communism equally.
>>1315047
>Public Ownership of the means of production
>Private Property abolished
>My specific totally special and foolproof version of communism has never been tried
That's correct, communism has never been 100 percent implemented. In order to do that you would need to spread world wide revolution and annihilate people sense of national community. As well as wipe out all religions and culture and un materialistic ways of life.
Fuck off my mayne
Why should we even give communism a try if every time a "communist" revolution is started it just ends up being hijacked and coopted by a vanguard and leads to a brutal dictatorship?
>>1315352
What if you give it try without a revolution? Like what if it doesn't need to be forced by meme guard party but instead Communism comes at its owns pace when time will come.
it's already been shown that very small countries with strict immigration policies that are socialist are the greatest countries in the world in terms of quality of life.
>>1315376
Example?
>>1315379
Sweden
>>1315383
26th most free economy in the world, where 90% of companies and resources are privately owned.
Not socialist.
Next?
>>1315376
>it's already been shown that homogeneous white countries with high IQ's and altruist psychology regardless of economic policy are the greatest countries in the world in terms of quality of life.
FTFY
>>1315386
Socialism isn't state capitalism anon
>>1315394
And it's not what the nordic countries are, despite what Bernie says, anon.
>>1315047
Communism has always been tried and it always fails
Commies on these threads always resort to provoking people and sophistry
The simple reason commies insist it was never tried is because all the means used to reach utopia don't match their utopia. They're trying to achieve something contrary to economic sense and human nature like all utopia, so dictatorship or anarchy is imposed to somehow force socialism in to existence and they end up with a dysfunctional, bureaucrat-feudalism whose sole purpose is to sustain the socialist faith and serve the intellectual-nomenklatura ruling class.
Communism and Marxism ares just another example of how faith in noble goals can carry forward the worst evil
The last hundred threads did this lead by the nose routine and the next hundred will
You can pretty much classify commies in to two types: trash intellectuals who want to thrive by the sweat of their babble and vengeful neets who want to punish the ruling class whilst imagining they're helping other people >>1315047
>>1315422
> contrary to economic sense and human nature
Communist is perfectly natural for the humans as you should know from primitive societies. Despite what Wall Street says, people were able to share with each other from the beginning of times.
>>1315434
>wild tribes used to share
>so they were communists
lel
and I doubt those people used to share if it meant being hungry.
>>1315444
You can't be hungry under communism.
>>1315444
It's what Marx called primitive communism, and it makes sense too. There were no classes, they shared resources and there was no private property. Our way of life now is more unnatural than how they lived then.
>>1315383
This and Norway.
Sweden but with nationalism and a heavy dose of Xenophobia would have been a neverending utopia.
Norwegians already wanna exchange all their cars with electrical ones in a decade, they are so far ahead its infuriating to see the rest of europe throwing itself into the shitter.
>>1315476
By class, I mean as in groups of people separated by owning the means of production or not. This differs from social hierarchies, which always have existed and will most likely continue to do so. Humans moved away from a classless society once agriculture became big and people started to claim private property. (Which is also different from personal property btw)
An example of primitive communist society would probably be Australian aboriginals and certain tribes of Indians. Marx also gives examples of Asiatic societies, but I don't know the specifics of those.
>>1315473
>Norwegians already wanna exchange all their cars with electrical ones in a decade, they are so far ahead its infuriating to see the rest of europe throwing itself into the shitter.
Norwegian here.
This is just symbolic politics. If you actually believe that will happen, you're as delusional as most people here.
>>1315534
Yet primitive societies are far from communist. Those who prove themselves exemplary are given privileges such as first choice of food, access to women, bigger tent etc. Tribal societies were far from classless as humans are able to discern between those who can perform and those who could not.
>>1315634
The key to this is
>Those who prove themselves
Social hierarchy is not a bad thing, as long as equal opportunity exists.
>>1315434
That primitive communism theory you guys talk about is a fiction. It's almost as if you people believe that by eliminating capital inequalities (which communists don't do anyway, you redistribute it to the nomenklatura) you somehow abolish hierarchy.
Any cursory look at current 'tribal' societies shoots that theory in the neck. In even hunter-gatherer groups men often make executive decisions for the group, lower-status males are more likely to suffer abuse or depradation and the sense of shared property exists only within a constraint of close relatives or allies.
In fact the near-universal existence of gift economies in hunter-gatherer societiess is in complete contradiction to the supposed sharing of all property anyway.
The Gods Must Be Crazy is not a documentary and you need to square up with why humans have a natural idea of ownership
>>1315320
>Public Ownership of the means of production
>Private Property abolished
>In the USSR
Read a book kid.
>>1315383
>He thinks Social Democracy is Socialism
Bernie Sanders please.
>>1315452
Yet communists found a way
>>1315812
Not him, but what was the private property in the Soviet Union?
>>1315698
So now we're classical liberals
Communists would paint a pentagon and claim they squared the circle
>>1315826
The party's property. (The entire union and everything in it)
>>1315839
So, basically, your claim is that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was a corporation? And thus that the Soviet Union itself was also a corporation?
>>1315846
There's a reason it was called "State Capitalism".
>>1315853
Except it wasn't. Even Trotsky just called it a "degnerated workers' state".
>>1315865
Ya know there's this thing called the burden of proof......
>>1315835
In what way is entitlement to your labor power a liberal thing?
>>1315870
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers%27_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers%27_state
When I think of state capitalism, I think something more like China. For one thing, the Soviet Union lacked many things that make up capitalism (profit-driven production being one).
>>1315156
>Capitalists famines are caused by natural events
>Communist famines are caused by retarded planned economy bullshit
>Commies don't understand the difference because they can't into economics
>>1315047
"Communist" is a misnomer, all "communist" state swas and is socialist
You can't "try communism" but you can however try socialism
>>1315090
Literally the most mature response I've ever heard on 4chan.
>>1315238
>Fascism
>far right
It's Third Position.
>>1316038
They were communists because their goal was communism. By your logic, people in communist parties in capitalist countries aren't communist because they don't live in communism.
>>1316035
>>Capitalists famines are caused by natural events
>>Communist famines are caused by retarded planned economy bullshit
the Irish potato famine was caused by a combination of the British imposition of a clusterfuck of free trade policies which drove income inequality to massive levels and drove the entire population into dependency on the potato crop, and once the virus wiped out most of it absentee British landlords found it more profitable to sell the remaining potatoes on overseas markets rather than redistribute them to the starving Irish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
>>1316203
>implying the left/right dichotomy matters for anything but branding political bogeymen
>>1316239
Also, you know, fucking drought and potato blight. The market didn't cause the famine, it only exacerbated it. Meanwhile, Mao and Stalin quite literally caused famines through policy making rather than exacerbating their natural occurence. Now fuck off, commie shill.
>>1316236
>They were communists because their goal was communism
But that's exactly what I said, they are socialists that attempted to achieve, not "try out" communism
>>1315114
Why couldn't a Hispanic be a National Socialist?
>>1316263
Nazism is germanic nationalism, hispanics by definition are not germanic
>>1316258
You said that "communist" was a misnomer.
>>1316252
>Historian Mark B. Tauger of West Virginia University suggests that the famine was caused by a combination of factors, specifically low harvest due to natural disasters combined with increased demand for food caused by the collectivization, industrialization and urbanization, and grain exports by the Soviet Union at the same time.[8]
http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Natural%20Disaster%20and%20Human%20Actions.pdf
Fuck off back to /pol/. You're literally still doing the thing that the other guy said you were doing: up-playing the natural disasters when they affect capitalist countries and downplaying them when they affect communist ones.
The USSR, Khmer Rogue and the PROC are all Marxist-Leninst states, they were not 'Communist' in the most traditional Marxist sense.
>ruled by a communist party
>espouses derivatives of Marxist ideology
>recognized by other communist parties
>i-it's not communist, guys
>>1315112
>calls others sheep
>is a communist
>>1316517
How was the USSR stateless, moneyless and classless you fuckface?
>>1316610
I don't know. How can multiple denominations of Christianity exist?
>>1316610
>bourgeoisie commie-cuck incapable of arguing without impotent swearing and putting words into the mouths of his opponents
>>1316610
It was communist because it had the goal of communism. By your logic, communist parties in capitalistic countries wouldn't be such since they don't live in communist societies.
>>1316627
>>1316623
He said:
>I-it´s not communist guys
No, no it bloody wasn't.
>>1316632
>Communist parties in capitalistic countries wouldn't be such since they don't live in communist societies.
Well. Someone might want communism as an individual (or as an organization) but he doesn´t live in communism.
A society can be communist, or it cannot.
Someone that calls himself a communist might be a communist, but a society that calls itselft communist whilst it isn´t is obviously not communist.
>>1316681
>No, no it bloody wasn't.
Then why were these states:
>ruled by a communist party
>espoused derivatives of Marxist ideology
>recognized by other communist parties
QED. They were Communists.
>>1316687
Communism: A classless, stateless and moneyless society.
The USSR was none of these things.
It might have been socialist, a dictatorship of the proletariat or a state-capitalist regime, but it had not yet achieved the communist stage.
>>1316687
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
>In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]
communism works as well as ancap
>>1316687
But that doesn't follow. The Qing Dynasty was not a modern, capitalist state despite
>being ruled by figures attempting to rule a modern, capitalist state
>espoused derivatives of liberal ideology
>Were recognized by other liberals.
You can't just change a society by putting up a new flag. The funny thing is, your position puts you in the same camp as the most retarded communists like Pol Pot.
>>1316333
Misnomer in the sense that any of those states were "communist" (i.e. a classless, stateless world order and not as a synonym for socialism)
Obviously there haven't been any communist states, but the slew of communes that arose during the 19th century all failed one way or another.
>>1316710
There you go, proving my point for me. Thanks.
>>1316729
You can't just change a society by putting up a new flag.
I never said you could.
>your position puts you
My position doesn't put me anywhere near communists.
>>1316706
It was run by a communist party which had a monopoly on legitimate political power. Further, it was recognized by other communist parties who wielded power in a similar manner. It was communist.
The fact that Communists immediately assume that we're talking about states like the USSR when topics like "communist countries" are broached says more than I can about this, frankly.
>>1316550
I don't think you understand just how knee deep you are in spooks there my friend.
>>1316840
>USSR was a state that aimed at implementing communism and therefore was a communist state
>The US is a state that aimed at implementing freedom and therefore is a free state
>>1316840
>USSR was a state that aimed at implementing communism and therefore was a communist state
>>1315047
The criticism isn't that they were anything near the utopian vision of communism.
It's that every time a group that claims to be communist gets in power, in invariably leads to mass murder and crimes against humanity, because the driving ideology dehumanizes any dissenters as "enemies of the people."
>>1315066
... We don't jerk them off? Anyone who is not a Marxist-Leninist or Stalinists recognizes USSR for the borderline fascist shithole it was under Stalin and for the State Capitalist shithole it was after him.
>>1316868
'Freedom' isn't a fucking ideology, champ. Let's not compare apples to oranges. 'Freedom' might be the end goal (like Communist Utopia) but just because a state hasn't reached the ultimate goal of its ideology (which, arguably no state has ever done) doesn't mean that it wasn't a valid participant in that ideology.
Here:
>the Third Reich was a state that aimed at implementing Nazism/fascism therefore it was a Nazi/fascist state
>South Vietnam was a state that aimed at implementing anti-communist policy and therefore was an anti-communist state
>the Islamic Republic of Iran is a state that aimed at implementing an Islamic government and therefore is an Islamic state
>Revolutionary Catalonia was a breakaway state that aimed at implementing syndicalism and therefore was a syndicalist (unrecognized) state
>Cuba is a state that aimed at implementing Communist and is therefore a communist state
>The US is a state that aimed at implementing liberal (in enlightenment/18th c sense) republicanism and therefore is a liberal republic
Make sense? The USSR was even quite clear that it considered itself moving on the long road of progress to the Communist Utopia. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it wasn't actually communist.
Fuck's sake.
Capitalism is over anyways, move along, it's time for libertarian socialists to collectivize every god damn industry we have.
>>1316927
>>1316938
Our point is that the USSR was not in favor of, nor attempting to bring about, communism. If they were, they would've collectivized far more. They wouldn't have adopted "Socialism in one country." These are not things communists (meaning those working towards communism) would do.
>>1316938
>I think Victoria 2 is a good tool to understand politics
>>1316840
And my point is that the adjective "communist" does not imply "communism", it implies socialism
When are we going to finally just try communism without that nasty human element mucking things up?
>>1316956
Ah. Trotsky fan then? Would you rather the USSR have completely shit its pants by forcing the collectivization issue non-stop without giving its people softline policies to catch their breath?
Collectivization is a deeply traumatic process for people. Communities are destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up. Quotas aren't met because they have to adapt to the new system (especially farms), which means famine. Something that the post-Stalin USSR still suffered from even with their more measured reproach.
Honestly I don't think you're being fair to the Soviets. Sure they were pragmatic, but I think it was a simple choice at that point:
>do you want to try to force end-stage communism all at once at the expense of your entire country?
>Or do you build yourself up as an inspiration/paragon of communism - trusting it to take root in other places once they see how cool you are?
Soviets picked the second option for good reason. They were the first official communist state to establish itself - how would that 'global revolution' have gone if the first communist country immediately shit itself and starved to death? The people wouldn't have stood for it.
I think that's a problematic trend with advocates of communism/socialism. You tend to be so idealistic.
To a degree that's a beautiful thing - but you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit. No matter how much the recipe says you can.
>>1317040
> force end-stage communism all at once
You seem to have this idea that collectivization was going on at all. It wasn't. They collectivized agriculture and I think mines as well, and that was the extent of it. And actually, yeah, once the industry is in place, leaving the workers to manage it themselves is what the USSR should've done if it was actually communist. Sadly, it wasn't. They should've allowed the people to vote (!!!) on whether they wanted their factor, industry, or what have you to be collectivized. Prop up massive labor unions for each major industry, Encourage cooperation between these labor unions to take the place that the state had.
Instead, they went with the inefficient path of State Capitalism with Imperialism mixed in. The Soviet Union wouldn't have collapsed if it went Anarcho-Syndicalist.
>>1317061
>The Soviet Union wouldn't have collapsed if it went Anarcho-Syndicalist.
Delusion: The post.
>>1317040
>force end-stage communism all at once
Read the State and Revolution for fuck´s sake.
You can´t force it
The state has to extinct
For the state to extinct material conditions need to change
For material conditions to change a socialist state needs to exist for a while.
I know that this is a little off-topic, but fucking hell, this is basic marxism-leninism.
>>1317103
I'm saying exactly that. The elements in the USSR pushing (foreshadowing the approach of Maoists/communists in Afghanistan) to skip past the socialist stage was the problem. I really dislike when people say that the Soviets weren't communists just because they didn't succeed or make a utopia overnight.
I mean, for fuck's sake, the amount of time and effort that had to go into basic shit like education, literacy, defense, railroads, healthcare, utilities, etc. was IMMENSE. Real people were living and dying by the Party's choices. They knew (as Lenin did - IE NEP) that if they pushed the people too hard the revolution would collapse in on itself.
>>1317061
>>1317076
Yeah kinda. I'm actually quite partial to revolutionary Catalonia - I mean it wasn't perfect but it was easily one of the more successful leftist movements in memory, especially given that they ran an economy that didn't suck and actually exceeded expectations.
But the matter remains that the USSR outlived the Catalonian Syndicalists BECAUSE of the pragmatism they chose. I mean, it's not coincidental that at the end of the day the Syndicalists fell to the superior military of the Nationalists while the USSR beat the Nazis. All of the advances in the world don't mean a damn if you can't keep the barbarians next door from burning it all down.
How would a syndicalist Soviet Union have raised the Red Army? They could barely equip/feed it or organize it with a strong central state? How would Syndicalist Columns even come close to being enough to beat something like the Wehrmacht?
>>1316338
>"The blight was caused by potato blight"
>"Fug off /pol/"
Jesus
>>1315047
>/pol/ are communist apologists
Fucking summer
>>1315137
I know, but what were the "true communists" doing?
The Soviet Union was very zealous in its promotion of communist ideology, why would it do this if the all the communists it created would end up opposing the USSR's "state capitalism"?
The dictatorships don't damn communism, but neither is it excused. There are obviously some serious issues with it.
>>1317153
The performance of Catalonia was pathetic m8.Madrid and Valencia outperformed on every possible way, and Catalonia felt extremelly fast.The only people that call that mess succesfull are sick 13 year old antifas. Pic are people celebrating Franco's entrance in Barcelonia
>>1315846
All governments are inherently corporations
>>1317226
Hadn't heard that before desu. Forgive my ignorance, senpai.
Though I must admit I've only really red about the Nationalists in any depth - so my understanding of the Republicans is little beyond 'super leftist' 'bad at governing' 'super atheist' and 'thirsty for Stalin's dick'
>>1316248
>sjw
>not in the top left
>>1317153
>>while the USSR beat the Nazis
That happened because ww2 era germany was at war with the three strongest empires on earth at that time. Give the Republican Spaniards massive amounts of foreign support and odds are they would have beaten the nationalists.
>>1317349
How so
Most tankies still regard homosexuals as a symbol of decadence and bourgeoise deviancy.
>>1317397
Doubt it
>>1317226
I've read that production increased, but it might just be commie propaganda.
>>1315145
The Khmer was in charge, wasn't it?
>>1317476
Nah that's true, production doubled under Anarchist Barcelona. If anything the Commies would be the last people to admit that was true because they hated the Anarchists.
>>1315153
>. Commies are very Christian in form and content
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orderville,_Utah
United Order, a voluntary form of communalism defined by Joseph Smith. Orderville was settled primarily by destitute refugees from failed settlements on the Muddy River in Nevada. The extreme poverty of these settlers likely contributed significantly to their devotion to the principles of the United Order.
Although the United Order was practiced in many Utah communities during the late 1870s, Orderville was unique in both the level of success it experienced under the communal living style, and in the duration of the experiment. In the course of a few years, Orderville grew into a thriving, self-sufficient community. The success and relative wealth of the community attracted more settlers and Orderville grew to about 700 people. Orderville not only provided for the needs of its population, but produced a significant surplus for sale to other communities, which was used to purchase additional land and equipment.
The Order continued in Orderville for approximately 10 years. During the early 1880s, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost interest in the experiment, but Orderville attempted to continue it. In 1885, the enforcement of the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 effectively ended the Order by jailing many of the Order's leaders and driving many of the others underground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taborites
Economically supported by Tábor's control of local gold mines, the citizens joined local peasants to develop a communal society. Taborites announced the Millennium of Christ and declared there would be no more servants and masters.
>Christian Communism
>the Essenes
>the Amish
>Puritans of Plymouth
Hutterites get pretty close to functioning communism so let's start from there
>>1319545
monks already have communism, so I suppose by living in a classless society they aren't really any class.
Christianity is one of the only things that sorta made communism work decently. From monasteries, to roman-era communes, to amish and mennonites.
There were even some soviet communes made by an ukrainean orthodox temperance preacher dude (surprise, surprise, kind words and inspiring people to work for the greater good works
The Plymouth Colony established communism
[I]n 1620. July 1. 1. The adventurers & planters doe agree, that every person that goeth being aged 16. years & upward, be rated at 10li., and ten pounds to be accounted a single share. 2. That he that goeth in person, and furnisheth him selfe out with 10li. either in money or other provissions, be accounted as haveing 20li. in stock, and in [th]e devission shall receive a double share. 3. The persons transported & [th]e adventurers shall continue their joynt stock & partnership togeather, [th]e space of 7. years, (excepte some unexpected impedimente doe cause [th]e whole company to agree otherwise,) during which time, all profits & benefits that are gott by trade, traffick, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remaine still in ye comone stock until [th]e division. 4. That at their coming ther, they chose out such a number of fitt persons, as may furnish their ships and boats for fishing upon [th]e sea; imploying the rest in their severall faculties upon ye land; as building houses, tilling, and planting ye ground, & making shuch comodities as shall be most use full for [th]e collonie.
>>1319552
Humanity has only been capitalist for a few centuries, and for most of humanity, only within the last century. With the twentieth century seeing a major worldwide rebellion against capitalism, which many are still nervous about (claiming Obama is secretly a communist etc.) It's quite a laugh to call a recent, unstable phenomena "human nature", and something humans lived under for tens of thousands of years not so.
OAS (Original affluent society)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society
It's called primitive communism, and it makes sense too. There were no classes, they shared resources and there was no private property. Our way of life now is more unnatural than how they lived then.
Britain and once most of Europe lived under the "Commons", which ended after the Kings took over Common lands and privatized
>>1319554
Implying Christianity isnt just communism in religious form
>In his final confession under torture of May 1525, Müntzer stated that one of the primary aims of himself and his comrades was ‘omnia sunt communia’ – “all things are to be held in common and distribution should be to each according to his need”.[37] This statement has often been cited as evidence of Müntzer’s ‘early communism’;[38] but it stands quite alone in all of his writings and letters. Thus, it is far more likely to have been a statement of what his captors feared than what Müntzer actually believed. Indeed, even at a very late stage, Müntzer still accepted some form of social hierarchy, based on functions bound up with the work of God, rather than inheritance.
>>1319557
family operates as a communist society
>you can't enforce socialism without authority
Consider your family as a nation.
Probably your dad works the most, but your mom spends the most.
Probably when you were young you didn't bring any money nor help much at all, but had food, shelter, clothes and so on given to you. You were educated from your parent's money.
You probably don't have your spoon, your chair, your TV. These are shared, they are used by whoever needs them at the time.
Your family is a communist structure, without anyone forcing you to be like that, there are no armed gunmen telling your dad that you should be able to use a fork, even if he paid for it.
>>1319545
>communal knowledge gathering
>/his/ claims communism doesn't work
>when in fact /his/ is one of the most communist places in the world
Just look at all the free idea producers around you. All the different ideas produced and shared freely. This alone proves communism is in fact a strength but for some reason you guys are all oblivious to this. If communism didn't work then you wouldn't be here.
The free exchange of ideas between different groups in a neutral and anonymous setting has time and again proven itself a spring of youth for human creativity
>>1319566
the natural order of cells in organisms is biocommunism, which turns out to be very efficient
human society would have developed into biocommunism naturally, like all advanced social entities (ants, bees, termites, bacterial culture, jellyfish, cells)
capitalism is an artificial human creation that breaks from the natural order of social entities
capitalism exists because the human mind is fallible into accepting exploitation, manipulation, and subjugation as a means to survive.
similar to the mental state of a farmed cow, which is docile into accepting its existence as prey.
humans are just as docile and domesticated as farm animals.
in capitalism, humans in a society are resources (farmed animals) that are exploited for the benefit of the dominant parasitical, sociopathic class.
>taking economic advice from someone who never worked a day in his life seriously
>>1319824
He worked as a journalist.
>>1315434
>a tribe of about a hundred members
>a planet of seven billion people (and rising)
No wonder you guys always failed.
>>1319569
>the natural order of cells in organisms is biocommunism, which turns out to be very efficient
>commies actually believe this
You mean the "natural order" of rigid stratification based on function, with a clear hierarchy of caloric need? When you starve to death, your fat, muscles, and skin wither up first, while major organs and brain cells are the last to go. Under "biocommunism", everything would be depleted of nutrients equally, because those dirty exploitative, manipulative, subjugating neurons are crushing the noble integument under under their myelinated tyranny.
Anyone who uses biology as a paragon of egalitarianism in any form is an absolute nonce.
>>1319569
>ants, bees, termites
...insect species with a hereditary monarchy and non-reproductive slave-castes?
>>1319957
>urge to fuck your sister's tight ass?
>nah, my dick went out of business
>>1319957
>stop jerking off, dick falls off
NOPE the fuck out
that appendix would like 2 have a word w/ u
actually if you do not use certain parts and keep eating you just get fatter, you do not disappear
>>1319969
>the queen bee's job is to lay eggs non stop
the queen is working just like all the rest of the community, she is not exploiting anyone or making a living speculating on the work of others
all members of their society contribute
no private ownership, no private wealth, no bourgeoisie
100% worker community
>>1320226
>cut calories
>libido dies but you're still able to think and perform labor
>cut calories more
>you're not able to perform labor but you can still think
>cut calories even more
>you're too weak to even think, you die
t. /fit/
>>1320252
>actually if you do not use certain parts and keep eating you just get fatter
Your fat stores gets fatter, because that's what fat does. It's biologically hard-coded to swell up. If "bio-communism" was anything but a ridiculous notion and not one of the worst analogies ever applied in defense of socialism, all the calories taken in would be evenly distributed and increase the organism's height until it looks like a Godzilla villain.
>>1320274
The queen effectively "exploits" the labor of the sexless drones by commanding them with pheremones. They are not all equal. Millions of small, black, non-reproductive ant drones can die in droves if it means the success of the colony, and their queen. And it is called a QUEEN, how do you not see this as genetic despotism and the absolute antithesis of socialist society?
>>1319957
this is either next-generation trolling or someone genuinely believes this is an argument worth having
think about that for a moment
>>1315383
jesus fuck, why is it so hard for you amerifats to understand that social democracy is not the same as socialism or even remotely close to communism?
>>1320508
the queen does her duties just like the rest in the colony.
no investment, no speculation, no exploitation.
no private ownership, no private wealth, no bourgeoisie
100% worker community
the queen has an assigned task to produce new ants. the drones have other assigned tasks, all working together. the queen also gets replaced, if it is necessary for the colony.
>you're not able to perform labor but you can still think
>cut calories even more
t. amerifat
your body works together in harmony, again no individual cells benefiting over the rest through exploitation
no investment, no speculation, no exploitation.
no private ownership, no private wealth, no bourgeoisie
>>1317040
I'm scared to involve myself in this argument because I don't know enough but that's a really cool picture.
>>1317320
The Republic didn't become a Stalinist puppet until the war was underway, and they were desperate for any outside help they could get. The Western democracies elected to by and large stay out of it, and the USSR was the only state to offer any non-negligible amount of aid, which gave the Bolsheviks a nice opening to basically transform the republic into another branch of the ComIntern.
>>1316863
why don't you fags go back to /leftypol/ you belong on your shit site
>>1321226
>no investment, no speculation, no exploitation.
>no private ownership, no private wealth, no bourgeoisie
Because they don't have brains you fucking dipshit, human social arrangements don't apply to animals with no concept of privacy or property to "exploit"
Holy shit this stupidity is giving me a migraine
>>1315047
a 'communist' society is the end goal
The USSR, Red China, Eastern Europe etc were all working toward achieving this through socialism, and therefore could be nominally described as 'communist'
actual 'communist' societies can never be achieved except through unbridled fanaticism (e.g. in the Cultural Revolution where genuine communism emerged on a small scale)
>>1321280
property ownership is a social construct not a physical one
private ownership is a fallacy that permits disproportionate power misallocation
can one person physically use an entire lake?
can one person drink an entire lake?
can one person eat all the fish of the baikal?
can one person physically use an entire oil pit?
but one person can use mental fallacies to claim ownership of resources that are physically not theirs.
thus enslaving others into supporting his power over others
they are capable of building entire complex cities (hives, mounds) with tempurature regulation (air condition)
no investment, no speculation, no exploitation.
no private ownership, no private wealth, no bourgeoisie
>>1317480
Yes, they outlawed currency and moved everyone from the cities that weren't intellectuals to the countryside to all be rice farmers, effectively bringing them all down to the same level and eliminating class.
>>1315459
>and there was no private property
Holy fuckin kek. Even in gommunism one's share of food is denoted as theirs. Note the possessive, which in communism, wouldn't exist altogether as a linguistic construct.
Plus, men were expected to make their own weaponry, had their own space if not holed up in a cave, etc. There was little to possess back then and currency was food and tools but denying the existence of private possession is delusional.
>>1324225
Private property is not the same as personal property anon.
>>1316239
The income inequality was there before free trade.
The point was that the land had been given to a few English people and not to the locals, not from buying on the market but from conquest. Don't blame capitalism for the dregs of a previous system.
Free trade is good 99.9 percent of the time. Even if they stopped free trade people in England would have starved as they were living on Irish exports.
>>1317476
I've heard that too, but no evidence at all.
>>1324225
>le tootbrush meme
It's my favourite one.
>>1321280
>no speculation, no exploitation. no private ownership, no private wealth, no bourgeoisie
what is parisitism. if they practiced capitalism in their community then it would be in form of cancer, virus, or parisitical tapeworm exploiting the community
Kill yourself.
>>1324452
>The income inequality was there before free trade.
some inequality is always going to be present in any society but unregulated free trade exacerbates it to unsustainable levels.
>Don't blame capitalism for the dregs of a previous system.
Capitalism and colonialism are two sides of the same coin. Colonialism was the act of forcing foreign governments to accept free trade and capitalism.
>Free trade is good 99.9 percent of the time. Even if they stopped free trade people in England would have starved as they were living on Irish exports.
On one hand you say free trade is overwhelmingly good, but on the other you give an example of how free trade made countries so dependent upon one another that an inevitable natural disaster produced conditions where one population was made to starve for the sake of a wealthier one.
>>1324562
a private company known as British East India Company conquered India
>capitalism is ruled by private enterprise
government is merely used to enforce capitalism
the fact is political leaders and captains of industry are one and the same. there is no separation of government and business. the businessmen are the politicians.
and remember the private British East India company went to conquer India (as a capitalist enterprise)
tl;dr corporations are a front for empire
>>1324568
>a private company known as British East India Company conquered India
But they didn't, they just kicked out all the Portuguese traders then supported Indian princes in exchange for exclusive trading rights
>>1324573
>and then the British conquered and colonized India
>>1324462
this
>>1321280
single cell entities exist that do not unionize and communalize, ie amoebas. they live as solitary single celled entities and do not form communities with other cells to create organism.
other single cell entities exist that voluntarily unionize and collectivize to form societies, ie jellyfish, bacterial culture. they live in a community and some form a symbiotic relationship with more complex entities, ie the bacterial culture in your gut that help you process food. this cellular collective is directed by the dictatorship of the cells with no bourgeois, parasitical class amongst themselves. this cellular society is biocommunist.
and yet other single cell entities exist that voluntarily unionize and collectivize to form even more complex societies called organs/organisms. these single cell entities form specialized communities to operate an organism. through collective harmonization and unionization, the single cell entities in an organism operate under biocommunism.
there exists a dictatorship of the cells in all cellular biocommunist societies. the single cell entities that create this society do not maintain bourgeois, parasitical class amongst themselves. if a greedy bourgois, parasitical cell arises amongst them, that would be cancer or a foreign entity invading and attacking their communist society.
tl;dr your body is a hive of communist cells
>>1324579
Not really conquered as the British still heavily relied on Indian rulers to keep everything going. The really just supported pro-British princes against their rivals, brought in troops and administrators to protect thier trade zone. India wasn't really conquered but was more "added" under the umbrella of British protection. The Princes were making so much money they didn't care for nationalism and the life of the average Indian continued as it always had.
The reason why non violent protest worked in India was due to the fact that Indians ran everything in their own country and all they had to do was simply not to show up to work and the whole country would shut down. This is the opposite of true colonies in Africa where whites literally ran everything and your average African had no idea how to maintain the infrastructure and bureaucracy of a nation state
