Looking at Communism from different Engels

[Canaore]

Cringeworthy.

They weren't that bad.

You sound like a kid who's just discovered politics and is amazed by how fun it is.

[Unitaristic Regions]

They weren't that bad.

You sound like a kid who's just discovered politics and is amazed by how fun it is.

That's a dick thing to say.

[Threlizdun]

You, sir, are denying facts. Any society that is not a stateless, classless society where the MoP are collectively owned is not and will not be communist. So....take your Red Scare tactics and use them elsewhere.

"Red Scare tactics"? Is that just a term you're applying because you are unable to refute my argument with historical precedent and thus are attempting to pass it off as little other than the few actual facts that came out of an event of mass hysteria?

Communism's goal is to be stateless, but that has not worked once. Every single country that has exhibited authoritarian socialism has been a self-proclaimed communist country; self-identification is the key here. The only people who say otherwise are Marx (whose ideology is more properly purist Marxism, not its varied and diverse derivatives that all fall under the banner of communism) and modern-day communists seeking to disavow the tyrannical actions conducted by the ideologies they believe in.

1. Communism is the oldest form of social organization in existence. Throughout the vast majority of human existence it was one of the only forms of social organization possible given the number of people within tribal societies and the environments they found themselves in. There has never been a point in history that communism hasn't existed. Small communes are still relatively common phenomenon and large scale societies such as Anarchist Catalonia and the Ukrainian Free Territory are also examples of communism put into practice. To say communism never existed is to ignore both history and the present.
2. No, those societies never claimed to have reached communism. They claimed to have the goal of one day reaching communism, but never once did they claim it was already realized. Some accepted the fact that they weren't even socialist, but were rather state capitalist.
3. Every communist has said communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society where the means of production are socially owned and democratically administrated. Marx's views on communism are no more "pure" than other communist ideologies, as the man did not hold a monopoly on the society. He worked with and later competed with anarchists with the same or vastly similar end goal throughout much of his life. Communism has theoretical tenets before Marx.

[The Serbian Empire]

Yes, Communists tend to do that as they can't seem to figure out that the politicians who tend to be more akin to Fascists will pretend to be Communists to get the general public's support. As a result, I abhor Communism in all forms as the stateless society is merely a violent society for those who have the most weapons win.

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes, Communists tend to do that as they can't seem to figure out that the politicians who tend to be more akin to Fascists will pretend to be Communists to get the general public's support. As a result, I abhor Communism in all forms as the stateless society is merely a violent society for those who have the most weapons win.

You clearly misunderstand states. Statism is what you describe: a violent society where those who have the most weapons win.

[Murkwood]

They weren't that bad.

You sound like a kid who's just discovered politics and is amazed by how fun it is.

You sound like a jerk who gets off by being extremely rude to strangers on the internet.

[Murkwood]

No, because Hoxha was a insane fuck who:

• Banned beards.
• Made atheism mandatory
• Denied the population access to information other than that disseminated by the government-controlled media.
• Who had his secret police (the Sigurimi, who followed the repressive methods of the NKVD, MGB, KGB, and the East German Stasi) arrest every dissent in Albania. At one point, every third Albanian had either been incarcerated in labour camps or interrogated by the Sigurimi.
• Ran labor camps.
• Forbade travel to Western Countries
• Killed about 5,000-25,000 political prisoners
• Turned the justice system into a series of show trials
• Built 700,000 one-man bunkers – one for every four inhabitants.

Let's not forget that he also:
-eliminated illiteracy
-ended a medieval practice that made women property (in fact, murdering a woman was only punishable by a small fine before he banned the practice); in his government, 40% of congressional members were women
-More than doubled the life-expectancy
-Made Albania the first country in the world to be fully electrified

Also, I would like to find out that, in modern Albania, those bunkers have come in handy; several saved thousands lives during the Yugoslav Wars, and many are now used as shelter by the homeless (the latter wasn't there intended purpose, since Hoxha's Albania had full housing).

Does that justify his killing of 5,000-25,000 political prisoners, the crimes of the Sigurimi, or his statewide mandatory atheism?

[United Marxist Nations]

Let's not forget that he also:
-eliminated illiteracy
-ended a medieval practice that made women property (in fact, murdering a woman was only punishable by a small fine before he banned the practice); in his government, 40% of congressional members were women
-More than doubled the life-expectancy
-Made Albania the first country in the world to be fully electrified

Also, I would like to find out that, in modern Albania, those bunkers have come in handy; several saved thousands lives during the Yugoslav Wars, and many are now used as shelter by the homeless (the latter wasn't there intended purpose, since Hoxha's Albania had full housing).

Does that justify his killing of 5,000-25,000 political prisoners, the crimes of the Sigurimi, or his statewide mandatory atheism?

5000-25,000 political prisoners is pretty vague, and we can't make any assumptions on who those prisoners were, or what they were executed for without the opening of the Sigurimi files. And no, not necessarily, but let's not cherry-pick our things to make him out to be "an insane fuck" by specifically excluding large parts of his policies.

[Murkwood]

Does that justify his killing of 5,000-25,000 political prisoners, the crimes of the Sigurimi, or his statewide mandatory atheism?

5000-25,000 political prisoners is pretty vague, and we can't make any assumptions on who those prisoners were, or what they were executed for without the opening of the Sigurimi files. And no, not necessarily, but let's not cherry-pick our things to make him out to be "an insane fuck" by specifically excluding large parts of his policies.

Look, Mussolini made the trains run on time also, okay? That doesn't excuse his horrendous crimes.

[Blakk Metal]

5000-25,000 political prisoners is pretty vague, and we can't make any assumptions on who those prisoners were, or what they were executed for without the opening of the Sigurimi files. And no, not necessarily, but let's not cherry-pick our things to make him out to be "an insane fuck" by specifically excluding large parts of his policies.

Look, Mussolini made the trains run on time also

No he didn't.

[United Marxist Nations]

5000-25,000 political prisoners is pretty vague, and we can't make any assumptions on who those prisoners were, or what they were executed for without the opening of the Sigurimi files. And no, not necessarily, but let's not cherry-pick our things to make him out to be "an insane fuck" by specifically excluding large parts of his policies.

Look, Mussolini made the trains run on time also, okay? That doesn't excuse his horrendous crimes.

I never said those things excused all of the things Hoxha did, but the bad things he did also don't give an excuse to completely disregard the good things he did.

[Murkwood]

Look, Mussolini made the trains run on time also

No he didn't.

It's a phrase.

[Meryuma]

Leninism is an abject failure, but libertarian communism is hella cool. You can't criticize all forms of communism for the atrocities of Leninism, seeing as many of Leninism's staunchest critics have been communists.



He enforced atheism... Islam is not ethnically defined.



How do you expect the state to relinquish power once communism is achieved? Where will the line in the sand be drawn? In every historical Leninist state, party bureaucrats have become a ruling class, violently repressing further revolutionary action by workers on the ground (e.g. Kronstadt, Hungary 1956). The state is an obstacle to revolution, no matter how red its flags are.

The state is not abolished, it withers away. As its purpose becomes less and less obvious, its power will decrease. Eventually, there would come a point where it simply ceases to exist. Kind of like a color spectrum, you don't really know where one ends and the next begins.

What is the evidence that this would happen? Every historical Leninist state has either become progressively more authoritarian, degenerated into capitalism or both.

How can a monopoly of violence be voluntary?

I believe in Voluntaryism, which isn't technically anarchist, but a voluntary society would be anarchist.

State of nature creates protective associations and private defense firms, which is the basis of anarcho-capitalism. From here, the very nature of commercial justice plays its role in physically dividing consumers-- as a hypothetical subscriber to the Association Protectrice Parisienne, I have a considerable incentive to live closer to the headquarters of the agency, probably much closer to Paris. If I lived in, say, Botswana, is there a point to subscribe to the Parisian agency? Borders wouldn't exist coercively, but would arise naturally, either from practical, judicial, legal, economic, or cultural reasons. In their respective areas, the agency qualifies as a state in every, if not most, senses of the word. It's basically anarcho-capitalism fast-forwarded to the point where the state inevitably arises (albeit legitimately in this instance).

From modern statism to voluntary statism, we basically see the liberalisation of everything, and turning taxation into a voluntary payment. At this stage, we have the legitimate voluntary state.

"Voluntary" only from the starting point of a deeply coercive and involuntary property system.

As a result, I abhor Communism in all forms as the stateless society is merely a violent society for those who have the most weapons win.

The ones who have the most weapons are the state. Your argument is basically "statelessness is bad because the state is bad".

[Arkolon]

Err, property is coercive; voluntaryism is involuntary? Please, do go on. I'd like to know where you pulled those from.

[The New Sea Territory]

Err, property is coercive; voluntaryism is involuntary? Please, do go on. I'd like to know where you pulled those from.

Yes, for some reason, capitalism can never ever ever ever fornever be voluntary. I've never seen an argument proving this, but all the dogmatic libertarian socialists tell me it so it must be true.

[Arumdaum]

5000-25,000 political prisoners is pretty vague, and we can't make any assumptions on who those prisoners were, or what they were executed for without the opening of the Sigurimi files. And no, not necessarily, but let's not cherry-pick our things to make him out to be "an insane fuck" by specifically excluding large parts of his policies.

Look, Mussolini made the trains run on time also, okay? That doesn't excuse his horrendous crimes.

Just saying, but that actually never happened, lol.

[The Serbian Empire]

Yes, Communists tend to do that as they can't seem to figure out that the politicians who tend to be more akin to Fascists will pretend to be Communists to get the general public's support. As a result, I abhor Communism in all forms as the stateless society is merely a violent society for those who have the most weapons win.

You clearly misunderstand states. Statism is what you describe: a violent society where those who have the most weapons win.

Statism is the only option as somewhere a person who wants power exists and will tear apart the stateless society.

[Unitaristic Regions]

You clearly misunderstand states. Statism is what you describe: a violent society where those who have the most weapons win.

Statism is the only option as somewhere a person who wants power exists and will tear apart the stateless society.

Bad logic, as if no one would defend themself in stateless society.

[Arkolon]

You clearly misunderstand states. Statism is what you describe: a violent society where those who have the most weapons win.

Statism is the only option as somewhere a person who wants power exists and will tear apart the stateless society.

People are bad so we need an all-pervasive state comprised of people are bad so we need an all-pervasive state comprised of people are bad...

[Arkolon]

Err, property is coercive; voluntaryism is involuntary? Please, do go on. I'd like to know where you pulled those from.

Yes, for some reason, capitalism can never ever ever ever fornever be voluntary. I've never seen an argument proving this, but all the dogmatic libertarian socialists tell me it so it must be true.

If you think that's bad, some ancoms still think capitalism and the state are inseperable.

[Liberaxia]

Yes, Communists tend to do that as they can't seem to figure out that the politicians who tend to be more akin to Fascists will pretend to be Communists to get the general public's support. As a result, I abhor Communism in all forms as the stateless society is merely a violent society for those who have the most weapons win.

So the communists who've come to power aren't really communists?

[Arumdaum]

You clearly misunderstand states. Statism is what you describe: a violent society where those who have the most weapons win.

Statism is the only option as somewhere a person who wants power exists and will tear apart the stateless society.

Yeah... that didn't happen in old stateless societies.

If someone got uppity, the rest of the community found ways to put them back in their place.

[The Scientific States]

Hehe, nice pun.

Anyways, to answer the OP, the dictators you mentioned weren't communist, as they believed in a strong state, totalitarianism etc. It's not using a "no true Scotsman" fallacy to say that self proclaimed Marxist dictators weren't communist, since their regimes, by definition, were not communist.

To answer the OP's second question, I do not believe true communism is possible, nor do I believe it's desirable.

[Liberaxia]

Leninism is an abject failure, but libertarian communism is hella cool. You can't criticize all forms of communism for the atrocities of Leninism, seeing as many of Leninism's staunchest critics have been communists.



He enforced atheism... Islam is not ethnically defined.



How do you expect the state to relinquish power once communism is achieved? Where will the line in the sand be drawn? In every historical Leninist state, party bureaucrats have become a ruling class, violently repressing further revolutionary action by workers on the ground (e.g. Kronstadt, Hungary 1956). The state is an obstacle to revolution, no matter how red its flags are.

The state is not abolished, it withers away. As its purpose becomes less and less obvious, its power will decrease. Eventually, there would come a point where it simply ceases to exist. Kind of like a color spectrum, you don't really know where one ends and the next begins.

And Paris Hilton will grow a brain, Charlie Sheen will stop being insane, the History Channel will start running actual television shows on history again, and the Loch Ness monster will be found alive.

[The New Sea Territory]

You clearly misunderstand states. Statism is what you describe: a violent society where those who have the most weapons win.

Statism is the only option as somewhere a person who wants power exists and will tear apart the stateless society.

Sure. In a statist society, the psychopath uses the state to oppress millions. In the stateless society, the psychopath has no real outlet and uses a gun to oppress a few.

What is more reasonable? Allowing power-hungry people to have access to the state, or have a stateless society with a militia to defend against tyrants?