This thread is permanently archived
communism died because what?
| Did communism die?
| ПотомучтоГорбачёв пидарас
| Maybe because it just doesnt work, i dont know.
| because human can't be collectivly good
| because of communism
| >>536542 they can, but not without incentive enough, something that communism didn't offer
But you could argue they can't, because "incentive enough" would be virtually impossible
| ...communism was never alive. Only "socialism" which promised a transition to communism, but failed. In fact most socialist regimes were nothing but nationalistic estate capitalist with overextended surveillance and military budgets. This was not what former communists like Marx and Engels suggested. No wonder, since the socialist regimes mostly came up in backwarded agricultural and feudal societies and ex-colonies that initially had no industrial production means at all.
| >>536650 then do you think Trotsky was a cool guy? as far as i know, he was less autoritarian. i don't even speak about Marx 'cause he wasn't able to lead a country, he failed to come to power
| Communism doesnt work, its as simple as that.
Capitalism works because it succeeds at doing what it promises: Giving people a good incentive to work. Its either that, or being a slave. Thats a pretty damn good incentive if you're the hard working kind.
Communism, on the other hand, encourages you to rely on others. The government, your "comrades", the filthy bourgeoisie you want to overthrow... Its always someone else's turn, someone else's fault...
Basically, why work?
| It died because it lacked love, love is the only answer! ❤️
| >>536681
Trotzki would have been the better option than stalin, which doesn't mean he would have been the best option. Stalin did one very important and fundamental thing right: pushing industrialization. Everything else was stupid or just horrible wrong.
Nevertheless socialism/communism shouldn't be that much dependent on a certain leader or even a dictator. It has to be organized by democratically operating councils (guess what "sowjet" means).
| >>536710
>Capitalism works because it succeeds at doing what it promises
Not for me and billions of other people in the world
>Communism, on the other hand, encourages you to rely on others.
This is not special to communism. It's called "division of labour", which increased during industrial revolution.
| >>536710
>Its always someone else's turn, someone else's fault...
Well but it is true that bourgeoisie fought "communists" with all means. Also capitalists cry for public help if their business fails. And they get that help because the bourgeois estate says they're "too big to fail".
Capitalism as I know it is pretty much about shifting responsibility and issues arround, personally, institutionally and geographically.
>Basically, why work?
I could say that now in capitalism.
| >>536758
You are right, it failed because it lacked of love. But there also won't be any love without it. Communism is love! ❤️
| I want love
| >>536849
"Too big to fail" was actually not a concept that existed in American politics during Marx's lifetime. Back during the Guilded Age there were instances when the President vetoed famine relief because, to paraphrase Grover Cleveland, the economy & government both need to be products of the people's industry, not the other way around.
| >>536846 "not for me" when you are alive, have access to the internet and the technology to use it, have the education to read/write, and have the spare time to post here.
| Communism didn't die. It never even began.
| The same reason why capitalism is failing now - people in power fucked it over for their own interest, whether it's to gain something or protect themselves from losing something
| >>537391
Yeah, I'm only alive as long I play to their rules, no matter if I like it or not. It seems there is no way to break through. Having access to technology and education btw. was one of the few successes that many "socialist" dictatorships had in third world countries. If it was up to western capitalists people in those countries would have remain in backwardness, starvation and slavery.
| And in communism it would be even more important for me to follow "their rules", because if I dont it screws over everyone, so Id think that it would be even more strict for my survival depending on me following "their rules" under communism.
| >>537806
>I'm only alive as long I play to their rules
HMMMM I WONDER WHAT THE CHEKA WOULD THINK OF THIS
| >>538416
The tscheka was a tool of the leninist revolutionaries to fight the old tsarist regime with their own weapons. This kind of secret organization/police was not new to russia. Also the leninist revolutionaries may had written "socialism" and "communism" on their banners, but their economical-historical role was in fact to do the job of the bourgeoisie. Russia was not much industrialized, dominated by agriculture and led by a backwarded feudal regime.
| >>538416 give up, no matter what you say they will either spin around to blame the bourgeoisie or say it was actually a fake communism made by the bourgeoisie so it doesn't count
That's the level of their dogma, any argument will be deflected or distorted
| >>538474
I gave up, no matter what I say, your kind will either spin arround to blame communists/socialist conspiracy (powered by jews, feminists, liberals and recently muslims) or say it was actually fake capitalism made by communists/socialist conspiracy (powered by jews, feminists, liberals and recently muslims) so it doesn't count.
That's the level of your kinds dogma, any argument will be deflected or distorted.
| >>538767 you may be onto something, maybe both systems and ideologies are just a big steaming pile of shit and people should focus on thinking up a completely new one unbound from these relics of the past
| >>538793
Yeah, scapegoating a communist/socialist conspiracy (powered by jews, feminists, liberals and recently muslims) is the same big steaming pile of shit like an analysis and criticism on the economic system, and pointing on the often mentioned "responsibility" of rich people, who btw. from time to time justify their wealth with the burden of this responsibility.
Honestly: Do you really believe that? Is killing ethnical/religious minorities equal to disowning rich ppl to you?
| >>538793
>>538833
>Do you really believe that? Is killing ethnical/religious minorities equal to disowning rich ppl to you?
And FIY: The one thing happens in reality, while the other thing only exists in the hopes and fears (depending on which side they stand) of people.
You are saying criticizing the rich and their their economical and political real existing and measurable power and express the intension to change things is the same as killing civilists based on racist lies?
| >>538793
>people should focus on thinking up a completely new one unbound from these relics of the past
Actually I did that. But when I uttered my first conclusions, unbound from these relics of the past, people started calling me "commie". Surprisingly in this case people from the far right, nationalists and racists, agreed all along with their "enemies": radical islamists and liberals. Because from time to time, if things comes to the worst they're nothing but united reactionism.
| >>538847 so you hate rich people, that sounds like someone who is just bitter with life and refuses to accept other people can have a good life
| >>538850
>so you hate rich people
Yeah, nice rhetorical trick to make me look like a misanthrope. The truth is that I don't hate any people. If I would hate people, I would give a fuck.
I just hate unfairness, which I think is the most normal and natural thing for a human being.
And I'm not "bitter with life". I'm a very humble person and don't expect much from it. It's just that I feel more and more pushed. I see that pressure and dvision increase economically and politically.
| >>538850
>>538871
>pressure and division increase economically and politically.
And as a slightly over the average educated person, I know this is not for the first time in history. And I'm very certain that it has rather something to do with economy (and technology) than with religion, ethnicity or conspiracies. And I'm also very certain and concerned that bad things will repeat over and over again (or escalate once) "communist" positions like mine are moreover ignored.
| >>538850
>refuses to accept other people can have a good life
I don't refuse to accept anyone to have a good life. I just refuse to accept making other peoples lifes bad by exploitation, injustice and self-righteousness. Because in reality ones luck can be another ones misery. I refuse to accept things as they are as "god given", "natural" or "unavoidable destiny", just because some people claim and maybe even believe this.
| >>538882 then fight for it
If you bow down and just obey of course you'll be exploited and abused, think for yourself defend yourself, stop expecting a magical government to solve all injustices
Yeah I'm a freaking ANARCHIST I don't believe in governments they make people a bunch of lazy conformists who don't try to solve their own problems, there's no shame in asking for help and helping others but don't expect it to always happen, stand up for yourself, have a bit of pride
| >>538883
>then fight for it
I do
>If you bow down and just obey of course you'll be exploited and abused
Well, unfortunately I'm, like many others, economically handicapped by birth. You may have heard of it, but we still live in a class society, that only opens it doors to the top if it is challenged by approaches to do it better.
>expecting a magical government to solve all injustices
I think it's legitime to vote for representatives of whom I think serving my interests.
| >>538883
>Yeah I'm a freaking ANARCHIST
I'm not that sure.
>I don't believe in governments
It's not a question of believe. Governments exist.
To be honest I suspect you to believe in invisible hands magically popping out from everyones egoistic actions, distributing all resources and wealth fairly.
| >>538883
>They make people a bunch of lazy conformists who don't try to solve their own problems
Not true. Without the government I would have no education at all and no healthcare too. In fact the government did economically more for me than anyone else. But I'm totally not conform with most their politics.
Also coming from ex-communist country I've got the impression that people here were much more self-confident and sceptical towards the government than in the west.
| >>538883
Also you did not mention once that fighting for something doesn't have to be done alone. I think very much from the ideas of distribution of work, organization and solidarity. In your speech everything sounds like "everyone is on his own", which will (and practically does) lead to a cold world determined by the rule of the jungle - a society not worth living in for most normal people without psychological issues.
| real national-socialism hasn't been tried yet
go woke go fascist
| >>538847 can I have your contact info?(discord, email, something). Id like to learn a bit more about "communism" but without so many... interruptions. Mainly Id just like to clear up my own misunderstandings about it and gain some insight.
| >>538896
Uhm, no. So far any "socialism" was pretty much "national". That was always part of the problem. And the so called "national socialists" from the so called "third reich" were in fact fascists that only called themselves "socialists" to attract workers for their retarded and antisemite cause. Because for some reason socialism was somehow quite popular for the working class.
This thread is permanently archived
| was it because of weak development of light industry?