Stalinism is not communism.

[Harrgar]

It lasted longer than Soviet Russia...

Because Soviet Russia was run by the kind of totalitarian absolute morons at economics who make Reagan look like J.K. Galbraith.

Oh, I know that. I'm just saying that Stalinism is so bad that it manages to make Capitalism look decent. You're talking to an Anarcho-Communist/Democratic Socialist friend

[Zaras]

That can't be done one day,

Yes, which is why socialism exists.

which is why you need extreme control of government to fade all of that out.

Wrong. Socialism is about dismantling the state.

Slalin tried that and he failed because the ideology he loved so much was not in line with human nature and the power he gained ultimately led to him killing 20 million people.

No, Stalin was not communist. He was a paranoid, power-hungry mass murdering dictator. He never did anything, ANYTHING to try and move the USSR towards evolving into a communist society. Hell, he backstabbed the Catalonians during the Civil War, who actually WERE communists! He had no principles except LOLMASSMURDER.

If any ideology leads to killing people whether it is nazism or communism, then it is not worthy of any real debate for the "perfect" society.

Except communism DIDN'T lead to people being killed! Stalin was not communist!

Communism had it's chance and proved itself to be an inherent evil.

Wrong. The only examples of communist societies are as follows:
* 1871, Paris Commune
* 1918, Free Territory, Ukraine
* 1936, anarchist Catalonia
* 1956, Hungarian Revolution

None of those were evil, and all of them were crushed by outside forces.

Other. Examples. Are. Not. Acceptable.

Paris, Ukraine, Catalonia, Hungary. That's it. The Soviets, etc. weren't communist. Just those four.

Anyone who thinks otherwise probably failed every history class they took.

That's hilarious coming from somebody who can't tell the difference between communism and stalinism.

[Zaras]

Because Soviet Russia was run by the kind of totalitarian absolute morons at economics who make Reagan look like J.K. Galbraith.

Oh, I know that. I'm just saying that Stalinism is so bad that it manages to make Capitalism look decent. You're talking to an Anarcho-Communist/Democratic Socialist friend

Couldn't tell...

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I know you didn't, which is why I quoted him specifically. Back to your last post, though. I already know the fundamentals of communism. There is no money, state, or class, and everyone is happy.

Correct.

That can't be done one day, which is why you need extreme control of government to fade all of that out.

Numerous historical examples show you to be talking shit, but I'll persevere.

Stalin tried that and he failed because the ideology he loved so much was not in line with human nature and the power he gained ultimately led to him killing 20 million people.

If Stalin loved communism so much, why was he a virulent anti-communist fundamentally opposed to communist concepts such as common ownership of the means of production?

If any ideology leads to killing people whether it is nazism or communism, then it is not worthy of any real debate for the "perfect" society.

Democracy sometimes kill people. Should we ban that? No. Capitalism leads to killing people, sometimes, so let's ban that also.

I'll entertain liberals and socialism in debates because they actually have sound principles that could work.

That's nice.

Communism had its chance and proved itself to be an inherent evil.

For that to be true the Soviet Union would have had to be communist and/or taking definite steps towards communism. Both were clearly not the case.

Anyone who thinks otherwise probably failed every history class they took.

Wow! A real life ad hominem! Can we keep it?

If by "failed history class" you mean "has a better understanding of historical fact and how it relates to communism than you do", then yes, I'm a failure at history.

[East Klent]

Communism is great in theory, but it just has not and will not work in practicality.

[Bobbyland420]

However, attempts to implement communism often result in stalinist type systems.

[Antiliberalbis]

That can't be done one day,

Yes, which is why socialism exists.

which is why you need extreme control of government to fade all of that out.

Wrong. Socialism is about dismantling the state.

Slalin tried that and he failed because the ideology he loved so much was not in line with human nature and the power he gained ultimately led to him killing 20 million people.

No, Stalin was not communist. He was a paranoid, power-hungry mass murdering dictator. He never did anything, ANYTHING to try and move the USSR towards evolving into a communist society. Hell, he backstabbed the Catalonians during the Civil War, who actually WERE communists! He had no principles except LOLMASSMURDER.

If any ideology leads to killing people whether it is nazism or communism, then it is not worthy of any real debate for the "perfect" society.

Except communism DIDN'T lead to people being killed! Stalin was not communist!

Communism had it's chance and proved itself to be an inherent evil.

Wrong. The only examples of communist societies are as follows:
* 1871, Paris Commune
* 1918, Free Territory, Ukraine
* 1936, anarchist Catalonia
* 1956, Hungarian Revolution

None of those were evil, and all of them were crushed by outside forces.

Other. Examples. Are. Not. Acceptable.

Paris, Ukraine, Catalonia, Hungary. That's it. The Soviets, etc. weren't communist. Just those four.

Anyone who thinks otherwise probably failed every history class they took.

That's hilarious coming from somebody who can't tell the difference between communism and stalinism.

So socialism is now the stepping stone to communism? Glad liberals are at least not trying to bs around that any more.

[Harrgar]

Ignore this entire thread, that way we can get somewhere.

Oh no maybe one day you people will understand that revolution isn't a walk in the park and decide to become true Marxist Leninists...

Of course the revolution won't be a walk in the park. But we don't need to make the streets flow with blood to get it done. Gahndi made an independent India through peaceful protest. Martin Luther King Junior improved civil rights for African americans through rallies and powerful speeches. It's easy to grab a gun and kill someone that disagrees with you, but it's hard to make them think that you have a point.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

However, attempts to implement communism often result in stalinist type systems.

The Soviet Union was not an attempt to implement communism; it crushed its neighbour, the Ukrainian Free Territory, when it actually did implement communism.

[New England and The Maritimes]

That can't be done one day,

Yes, which is why socialism exists.

Eh, the revolution until completion would probably be more in the form of syndicalism, with workers councils organizing locally and all that.

which is why you need extreme control of government to fade all of that out.

Wrong. Socialism is about dismantling the state.[/quote]
Sorta. First subordinating it, then allowing it to wither as it becomes unnecessary.

Communism had it's chance and proved itself to be an inherent evil.

Wrong. The only examples of communist societies are as follows:
* 1871, Paris Commune
* 1918, Free Territory, Ukraine
* 1936, anarchist Catalonia
* 1956, Hungarian Revolution

None of those were evil, and all of them were crushed by outside forces.

Other. Examples. Are. Not. Acceptable.

Paris, Ukraine, Catalonia, Hungary. That's it. The Soviets, etc. weren't communist. Just those four.

I'm not sure on that list. I think 1919 Hungary was somewhere in that region.

[Bobbyland420]

However, attempts to implement communism often result in stalinist type systems.

The Soviet Union was not an attempt to implement communism

lol...

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The Soviet Union was not an attempt to implement communism

lol...

Congratulations on refuting my argument.

Oh wait, you didn't, you posted an intellectually vapid reply that in no way combatted anything that I said.

[Harrgar]

Oh, I know that. I'm just saying that Stalinism is so bad that it manages to make Capitalism look decent. You're talking to an Anarcho-Communist/Democratic Socialist friend

Couldn't tell...

Ah, it's fine. A lot of people translate my hate for the Soviet Union for a love of Capitalism

[Divair]

However, attempts to implement communism often result in stalinist type systems.

Just like the Free Territory, or the Paris Commune, right?

Or do you mean the USSR and China, who had no intention to implement communism from the start?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Couldn't tell...

Ah, it's fine. A lot of people translate my hate for the Soviet Union for a love of Capitalism

We all get that a lot.

I do in RL, anyway.

[4years]

Communism is great in theory, but it just has not and will not work in practicality.

Paris Commune.

[East Klent]

Communism is great in theory, but it just has not and will not work in practicality.

Paris Commune.

On a grand scale in its purest form.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Paris Commune.

On a grand scale in its purest form.

The Ukrainian Free Territory.

[Divair]

On a grand scale in its purest form.

The Ukrainian Free Territory.

Catalonia for a while, too.

[Zaras]

Communism is great in theory, but it just has not and will not work in practicality.

Tell that to historical examples of communist societies.

However, attempts to implement communism often result in stalinist type systems.

Paris, Ukraine, Catalonia and Hungary call bullshit.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The Ukrainian Free Territory.

Catalonia for a while, too.

True, but the UFT was slightly bigger and more populous, IIRC.

[Zaras]

So socialism is now the stepping stone to communism?

It's what is defined in Marx's work as the transitional phase.

Glad liberals are at least not trying to bs around that any more.

I'm not a liberal, dude. I'm a democratic socialist/anarcho-communist.

[East Klent]

The Ukrainian Free Territory.

Catalonia for a while, too.

Yes, for a while. That's my point. Mixed systems and Capitalism have been relatively more successful on a much more permanent basis than Communism.

[Divair]

Catalonia for a while, too.

Yes, for a while. That's my point. Mixed systems and Capitalism have been relatively more successful on a much more permanent basis than Communism.

It's not like they got invaded or anything.


owait.

[Zaras]

Sorta. First subordinating it, then allowing it to wither as it becomes unnecessary.

Exactly what Lenin and Stalin didn't do.

I'm not sure on that list. I think 1919 Hungary was somewhere in that region.

I know more 'bout 1956. I got the vague impression Béla Kun was a Leninist.

Yes, for a while. That's my point. Mixed systems and Capitalism have been relatively more successful on a much more permanent basis than Communism.

Possibly because capitalism has used its armies to crush communism?