The soviet union wasn't communist

Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society. These "socialist states" were always capitalist, in fact, "state capitalist" would be more accurate. Unfortunately, the term "state capitalism" has been used to mean a lot of different things by a lot of different people, so even that is a poor term since it always has to be defined when it's used.

State capitalism in this context simply means that the private nature of capitalism is replaced with the state through nationalization. The private boss is replaced with a state bureaucrat. Wage labor wasn't abolished; the workers are still forced to find employment to gain a living. The difference was that they were employed by the state, not some private capitalist. Everything else stays the same. The mode of production doesn't change a bit, it's only taken over by the state. Private property is replaced with state property, which doesn't change anything for the common worker. For the people, it's the same shit as before, only the bosses have changed. The workers are still wage slaves.

True communism, where the workers actually control the means of production, hasn't been tried, as the state constantly gets in the way.

Attached: istockphoto-515050701-612x612.jpg (612x612, 68.68K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/79ZjdcqAnLQ
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/04/19.htm
libcom.org/library/guillotine-work-volume-1-leninist-counter-revolution-gregori-maximoff
libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Real communism has never been tried.

Wow, great post. It's almost like any theoretical system of government/economy is invariably changed for practical reasons and no such thing as pure capitalism, democracy, planned economy, socialism, etc exists. Damn dude - amazing! Simply epic big brain take

The initial inception under Lenin was an attempt at Socialism, however after the revolution it was quickly turned into a (I believe) autocratic regime to maintain power for the people that backed the revolution.

After Lenin died and the powers that be put their weight behind Stalin it turned into a totalitarian state with an extractive economy that happened to have a few socialist based ideas that were (mostly) horribly executed.

I highly suggest Why Nations Fail for more info on why nations fail (heh) though I will caution that it plays heavy favor to Capitalism and paints Socialism and Communism as systems that cannot succeed. Which I personally disagree with.

>stateless
>moneyless
Citation needed, nigger.
Maybe you should read the fucking books before making outrageous claims.
>classless
Even this isn't universally true. At minimum it's an oversimplification.

Just call them Leninist or Stalinist and be done with it.

Another protip:
Nothing ever wa scommunist and neither did anybody with a brain claim it was.
Those "communist" states call themselves Socialist for a reason.
Communism is an as-yet unattainable ideal.

Defeatist attitude.

True communism has been tried and the Soviet way still works.

You extreme anarchos have never accomplished anything.

Socialism/communism must be built. It does not happen overnight.

Attached: 1524324547814.jpg (768x450, 138.45K)

>one philosopher with no executive experience writes a book in the 19th century based on a speculative view of human nature
>every time this philosophy is put into practice it invariably collapses into authoritarianism and paranoia

If an idea sounds good but continuously falls apart in execution, the idea itself is bad.

>Communism is a stateless...
Sounds like a jewish pile of shit

Attached: 1587078252906.png (660x495, 254.74K)

>trust me bro! some guy's novel political theory can TOTALLY be implemented on a massive scale without needing to change anything for practical purposes.
it's stupid to think this.

Why are you promoting Jewish, anti-White ideologies on pro-White imageboards like Yas Forums?

Yes it was
/thread

>True communism has been tried
It failed though.
Failed because it was crushed by authoritarian or capitalist governments.
The failure of the world communist revolution is precisely why the Soviets came up with the whole "communism in one country" deal,
but a system like that leaves itself open to destruction by foreign anti-communist forces like the USA and must waste a lot of ressources on military spending, repression, intelligence, et cetera.
It's precisely how they brought down the Soviets in the Cold War.

real communism has never been tried

Attached: main-qimg-04b23c14999bf72046884579d5334c21.jpg (602x339, 96.92K)

>a speculative view of human nature
Nigger maybe you should read a book before commenting on its contents.
Just a suggestion.

how are you going to force everyone to share in a stateless society

A stateless, classless and moneyless society was the original definition of communism BEFORE the bolsheviks took over.

From Chapter II of The Communist Manifesto,

>When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

>In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Engels writes on the stateless aspect in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,
>As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary.

1/2

2/2

>The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.

In Section 18 of Principles of Communism, Engels addresses the moneyless aspect,

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

Leninism and stalinism isn't the same thing, and neither of those were communism. Maybe you should read the fucking books before making outrageous claims.

youtu.be/79ZjdcqAnLQ
This is you.

Sources:
>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Again, why are you promoting a Jewish and anti-White ideology on Yas Forums?

It was and it was good.

>0 successful revolutions

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm

In answer to your inquiry :

National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

J. Stalin
January 12, 1931

First published in the newspaper Pravda, No. 329, November 30, 1936

Meh, the soviets came the closest to contesting capitalist supremacy and their model didn't fail but decayed because of several tangential reasons, most of which could be addressed by technology.
I've yet to see any anarcuck "state"
>Inb4 naah it's a society of shared political power autism
last more than 5 seconds and resist any outside pressure AT ALL.

The whole Marxist program is stupid. Okay, fine the goal is this anarcho-primitivist utopia where everybody hunts and fishes and discusses film over dinner at their leisure. But to get there they form a technocratic police state where all production and distribution is controlled by the bureaucracy. What does building this technocratic police state have to do with creating a stateless, egalitarian society? It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the only reason you'd go about creating that police state is to have it exist in perpetuity with yourself on top. Socialism was never meant to transition into utopian communism, the communist state was always nothing but a carrot to lead on dumbfuck "intellectuals" and proles.

Www.holodomorinfo.com

He was right about anti-semitism being a false path. I cum every time I read old soviet articles about anti-semites getting put up against the wall and shot.

defeated ideology

eat a dick "comrade"

It wasn't communist but it was socialist.

>He was right about anti-semitism being a false path. I cum every time I read old soviet articles about anti-semites getting put up against the wall and shot.
That's because Communism is Jewish.
Everything that is Jewish is non-white and anti-White.

Therefore, Communism, like the Jews, doesn't belong in White nations.

>It wasn't communist but it was socialist.
The goal of Socialism is Communism - Lenin (Jew)

The main difference between anarchists and marxists is that all anarchists reject state and see hierarchy as a root of problems in society, while most marxists have no problem with transitionary state/hierarchy and are focused on marxist dialectics.

Most anarchists embrace some parts of marxism (At least some critique of capitalism) but anarchism is focused on creating communist/anarchist society now, that freedom has to be taken and cannot be given, rather than creating hierarchical organisation and then let socialism go into upper stages and dissolve or whatever.

Anarchist way - creating non-hierarchical society now, means shape the ends. Hierarchy is to be abolished, not to be used even if it takes time. Represtntative democracy or state ensuring dictatorshiop of the proletariat (DotP) are not accepted at all as inherently opressive and counter-productive in the long run.

Marxist communist way - transitionary state is ok, hierarchy is not viewed as negatively and socialism is even though classless society is the final destination. Some marxists aren't very libertarian at all (MLs which I'm not really fond of) while some are kinda close. DotP is accepted, althotugh there are various ideas of how exactly that might look.

But some ideologies are so similar that it's hard to place them in either one group or another. Are council communism and autonomism still marxist, are they anarchist because of their libertarian ideas, or are they a mixture? Marxism may be well defined, but anarchists often describe anarchism as a dynamic idelogy that's meant to evolve instead of clinging to words of this or that bread santa claus. Marxism doesn't work, it was tried and failed. Anarchist communism hasn't been tried.

It failed because it couldn't produce enough food to feed itself and the only states productive enough to feed it were rival superpowers. Collective farming was a disaster everywhere.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/04/19.htm

...Furthermore, we are far too deeply indebted to the Jews. Leaving aside Heine and Börne, Marx was a full-blooded Jew; Lassalle was a Jew. Many of our best people are Jews. My friend Victor Adler, who is now atoning in a Viennese prison for his devotion to the cause of the proletariat, Eduard Bernstein, editor of the London Sozialdemokrat, Paul Singer, one of our best men in the Reichstag – people whom I am proud to call my friends, and all of them Jewish! After all, I myself was dubbed a Jew by the Gartenlaube and, indeed, if given the choice, I'd as lief be a Jew as a ‘Herr von'!

London, April 19, 1890
Frederick Engels

No, it was a version of state-capitalism where the state people just take the capitalists' place, and they become the new exploiters. Let me quote big piece shit dictator Lenin:

Lenin wrote:

>The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.

Read this:
The guillotine at work, part 1: the Leninist counter-revolution by Gregori Maximov: >libcom.org/library/guillotine-work-volume-1-leninist-counter-revolution-gregori-maximoff

The Bolsheviks and workers' control: the state and counter-revolution - Maurice Brinton: >libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

And what's wrong with jews?

>Lenin
Why is it that you're fine with Jews residing in, having power in and having a voice in White nations?

What is it about the Jew that you prefer it to the existence and survival of the White race?

>class distinctions have disappeared
>class distinctions
Precisely. That's not the same as classless.
There will always be a distinction between workers, soldiers, academics and politicians.
It's explained in detail if you keep reading that section:
The idea is bringing equality to the classes, not abolishing them, and by doing so render them ultimately meaningless.

>a State is no longer necessary
In endgame utopian communism, sure, because the whole world will be united under one system: it renders a system of nation states unnecessary; everything is one "state".
This is not a goal of communism but a consequence.