USSR was not communist!

That's like saying any Christian who commits a crime wasn't a 'real' Christian.

Replace the word Communism with Fascism or Naziism - you can easily make the same arguments.

It's all in the implementation...right?

It's all bullshit.

Actually no.
If you read what communism actually is, you'll notice there is specific criteria to describe communism. The USSR did not meet any of that criteria, neither did China, North Korea, etc.

The USSR wasn't communist regardless.
There's no argument here.

Here's a great definition for communism (not a modern right-wing propaganda definition)

Communism: a theory and system of social and political organization that seeks to overthrow capitalism through a workers’ revolution and establish a system in which property is owned by the community as a whole rather than by individuals. In ideal form, communism would create a classless & stateless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal social and economic status.

Pure Communism vs. A Capitalistic Democracy

To everyone who claims communism works only in theory… or will never work for one reason or another. The same can be said of democracy. It works great in theory, but eventually fails as well. I don’t believe what America lives in now is much of a democracy. I think it is a weak plutocracy under the guise of democracy.

The law of human nature that defeats communism is “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The law of human nature that turns democracy into plutocracy is simply selfishness and greed. When people are given the power to do what they think is in their best interest they will try to benefit themselves as much as possible. This creates competition and competition between parties is crushed in the name of a free capitalist market and majority rules. Thus resulting in the formation of classes and ultimately class struggle.

Communism has a hard time survivng in this world because nearly every national economy follows capitalist ideals. It is hard to survive in a competitive market when your philosophy and well being revolves around your ability to cooperate with your fellow man. A communist nation can not easily compete against multiple nations trying to do what is best for themselves.

Ever see the movie, A Beautiful Mind? A crazy mathematician at an Ivy League school writes a paper that his professors claim undoes the last couple hundred years of economic theory(Adam Smith’s laissez-faire economics). John Nash, the main character, is inspired by a hot blonde that all of his friends want a shot at. If they all try to woo her all of her girlfriends will be turned off when they come after them because they don’t want to be second choice. What he suggests to his friends is that they put personal ambitions aside and each go after a different girl because it is cooperation that will benefit them the most. If they compete, at best one guy gets one girl. If they cooperate, five guys get five girls. That which is best for the individual and has a positive or neutral effect on the community is best overall. Cooperation is the driving force behind the communist ideal.

It would be my preference to be under a socialist government(aiming for a communist society), because I feel it would be easier to deal with a a few corrupt leaders every so often than a nation of selfish and greedy people.

Capitalism mixed with democracy only encourages people to take advantage of each other getting more and more wealthy and as wealth grows so does power. The poor suffer and the rich prosper. You start with people like the founding fathers who believed the governement should have little control over society as evidenced by the Bill of Rights.

The founding fathers were libertarians(or at least I will assert so considering what I’ve been told about the originally profound affect Thomas Paine had on the people at that time). Because of the laissez-faire economic theory made so popular at the time by Adam Smith, our little peaceful country has slowly evolved into the money and power hungry superpower it is now. We were a libertarian people, but to protect our fortunes and the freedoms of those in control, the laws had to be made stricter and stricter. We have gradually advanced linearly up the compass towards the authoritarian end.

We will continue to follow this direction until the plutocracy gains too much power that people cannot reverse it. At this point the government will slowly evolve into an oligarchy and then into a tyranny as the political participants continue to compete themselves into the top spot. Between the plutocracy and the tyranny the people’s hope lies only in their ability to revolt and change our economic theory where competition is unnecessary. This is where the socialist step towards communism begins.

[link to stupidevilbastard.com]

Dear OP.

I live in one of those "western" countries that was literally surrounded by communist neighbours.

Now that the borders are open since years i can just use my car and after an 2 hour road trip i can enter the former "eastern block".

Trust me .. when you want to see desolate houses, streets, farms and gardens just leave the renovated (with western money) city centres and travel trough the country.

First, there are still no or few highways because the communists hated private transportation.

Second, everything is still desolate, old, rusty .. as it always was.

Just imagine an desolate detroit suburb with less garbage on the streets and much more shitty cars and you get the idea how most of the former eastern block still looks like.

Yeah, former DDR is better, the rest is still depressing and it will still take them decades to reach our standard .. if the crisis doesn´t spread farer that is.

Note: People liked communism so much, the government had to build fences and walls along the borders to keep them in.....

USSR wasn't communist. Your neighbors were not communist by definition.

Pure communism has never been tried.

Yeah.
Because every mind with at least 5 possible brain functions can see that it will not work.

The communists problem is:

They have their fine and nobel construction of a future way to live together on this world but the people are not ripe enough to live that way.

That´s why communism in real life failed altough they tried to create the "communist men" like the nazis tried to create their version of people (and they failed to).

Thank god.

Not communist at all - parasites only claimm to be communist - in the US they claim to be democratic and free market.
it's a closed system at the top. it's a kleptocracy, a cloaked system system whole sole purpose is theft.

Although in the decades immediately before the Russian Revolution Jews had already made enormous advances in social and economic status, a major contribution of Slezkine’s book is to document that Communism was, indeed, “good for the Jews.” After the Revolution, there was active elimination of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. Anti-Semitism was outlawed. Jews benefited from “antibourgeois” quotas in educational institutions and other forms of discrimination against the middle class and aristocratic elements of the old regime, which could have competed with the Jews. While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution maintained an anti-majoritarian attitude. (Some might argue that the parallel with post ’65 Civil Rights Act America ironic!)

Beyond the issue of demonstrating that the Jews benefited from the Revolution lies the more important question of their role in implementing it. Having achieved power and elite status, did their traditional hostility to the leaders of the old regime, and to the peasantry, contribute to the peculiarly ghastly character of the early Soviet era?

On this question, Slezkine’s contribution is decisive.

Despite the important role of Jews among the Bolsheviks, most Jews were not Bolsheviks before the Revolution. However, Jews were prominent among the Bolsheviks, and once the Revolution was underway, the vast majority of Russian Jews became sympathizers and active participants.

Jews were particularly visible in the cities and as leaders in the army and in the revolutionary councils and committees. For example, there were 23 Jews among 62 Bolsheviks in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee elected at the Second Congress of Soviets in October, 1917. Jews were leaders of the movement and to a great extent they were its public face.

Their presence was particularly notable at the top levels of the Cheka and OGPU (two successive acronyms for the secret police). Here Slezkine provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in these organizations, especially in supervisory roles, and quotes historian Leonard Shapiro’s comment that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.”

During the 1930s, Slezkine reports, the secret police, now known as the NKVD, “was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions”, with 42 of the 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time 12 of the 20 NKVD directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of State Security, Police, Labor Camps, and Resettlement (deportation).

The Gulag was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning in 1930 until the end of 1938, a period that encompasses the worst excesses of the Great Terror.

They were, in Slezkine’s remarkable phrase, “Stalin’s willing executioners”.

Slezkine appears to take a certain pride in the drama of the role of the Jews in Russia during these years. Thus he says they were

“among the most exuberant crusaders against ‘bourgeois’ habits during the Great Transformation; the most disciplined advocates of socialist realism during the ‘Great Retreat’ (from revolutionary internationalism); and the most passionate prophets of faith, hope, and combat during the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis”.

Sometimes his juxtapositions between his descriptions of Jewish involvement in the horror of the early Soviet period and the life styles of the Jewish elite seem deliberately jarring. Lev Kopelev, a Jewish writer who witnessed and rationalized the Ukrainian famine in which millions died horrible deaths of starvation and disease as an “historical necessity” is quoted saying “You mustn’t give in to debilitating pity. We are the agents of historical necessity. We are fulfilling our revolutionary duty.”

On the next page, Slezkine describes the life of the largely Jewish elite in Moscow and Leningrad where they attended the theater, sent their children to the best schools, had peasant women (whose families were often the victims of mass murder) for nannies, spent weekends at pleasant dachas and vacationed at the Black Sea.

Again, Slezkine discusses the heavily Jewish NKVD and the Jewish leadership of the Great Terror of the 1930s. Then, he writes that in 1937 the prototypical Jewish State official “probably would have been living in elite housing in downtown Moscow . . . with access to special stores, a house in the country (dacha), and a live-in peasant nanny or maid”. He writes long and lovingly detailed sketches of life at the dachas of the elite—the “open verandas overlooking small gardens enclosed by picket fences…”

The reader is left on his own to recall the horrors of the Ukrainian famine, the liquidation of the Kulaks, and the Gulag.

Slezkine attempts to dodge the issue of the degree to which the horrors perpetrated by the early Soviet state were rooted in the traditional attitudes of the Jews who in fact played such an extensive role in their orchestration. He argues that the Jewish Communists were Communists, not Jews.
[link to www.vdare.com]

He argues that the Jewish Communists were Communists, not Jews.


Which they clearly were!


Utopianism has a powerfull persuasive appeal upon the young, disenfranchised and naiive and allways ends in disaster, simply because human nature is torn between competing imperatives, namely biological, social, intellectual and spiritual. Endless coercion, brutality and repression is required to make human nature conform to the 'ideal'

Witness the fiascos of communism, nazism, Islamisism

They were and still are, Collectivist.

But that's really the OP's whole point. What you are talking about are symptoms of a totalitarian regime billed as Communism. But if it was totalitarian under fascism, or any ism, we might see the same.

I for one am beginning to see a lot of things manifest in capitalism, that we once poked fun at the Soviets for.

Communism is where the state controls the means of production. The USSR is communist.

But they do it in the name of the Collective, the "Workers".

This is the definition of Collectivism.

[link to www.thefreedictionary.com]

Communism is suppose to be democratic, in the sense that the workers are suppose to have a huge say in what goes on.

Pure communism in its final form would be entirely stateless.
There would be no government because the society would be incredibly efficient on its own and wouldn't need one.

Every system works, even if only for a small minority.


How do you figure that?


The reason why communism failed is because they didn't follow Marx's protocols. You have to start with capitalism, slowly transferring to Socialism, then to Communism. You can't skip any steps because if you do, the system will be screwed up or will collapse.

Russia went from a mostly feudal type economy and tried to switch to communism in an incredibly short time. No wonder why it didn't work out!
China tried to do the same and suffered similar results.

In order for communism to work, there has to be a sophisticated high-tech infrastructure already in place. That can only be achieved through capitalism first, then socialism second.

My ideal form of government would mix pure communism with a technocracy.

ahh so the US IS following marx protocal

All the Planks of the Communist Manifesto are applied in America.

Take the short communist test Thread: World Citizen = World Communisim

The U.S. is heading toward socialism, slowly. That started during FDR's presidency in the 1930's.
Marx's protocol is the natural progression of economies.
Capitalism can't last forever. The natural next step is socialism, then on to communism.

Throw your books away. They were written by the communist conspiracy. They will not tell you what their plans are.

Read what Karl Marx wrote-

Manifesto of the Communist Party

by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
1848

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.


Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

[link to www.anu.edu.au]


Marx was only enlisted as a writer for the Jesuits wh still run and teach Marxism, since the French Revolution and the Illuminati/Jacobins/Jesuits.


Winston Churchill, February 8, 1920, The Illustrated Sunday Herald:
"From the days of SPARTICUS (Adam Weishaupt) to Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela-Kuhn, Rose Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world-wide conspiracy has been STEADILY growing. This conspiracy has played A DEFINITELY RECOGNIZABLE ROLE IN THE TRAGEDY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. It has been the mainspring of EVERY SUBVERSIVE MOVEMENT DURING THE 19TH CENTURY; and now at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."


But really your two brain cells could care less.