Convince me that the failure of communism in the 20th century(all heavily authoritarian states centralized on the USSR...

Convince me that the failure of communism in the 20th century(all heavily authoritarian states centralized on the USSR model) failed because they were communist and not because of centralization and autocracy. Go!

Attached: red something with a big hammer and a large spoon.png (1200x800, 11K)

It'd be easier convincing others that youre not a faggot.

No need, they obviously weren't real communism if they were centralized authoritarian governments.

Failure of communism happened for one and only reason: Collapse of the USSR, who had a lot of satellites and dependencies. Sovereign communist states do just fine.

USSR had collapsed due to it being first of a kind, and Lenin dying before he had a chance to set up a government, throwing it into disarray and scarring permanently.

Liberalism, too, collapsed with the fall of France. 40 years later it started eradicating absolutist regimes. Same is happening with Communism, and is happening right now. Neoliberalism is out and Marxism is in.

Attached: marx-was-right.jpg (700x700, 190K)

>thinks that killing your countries' people in order to silence the truth about communism and then it all comes out totalling to well over 100 millions deaths from starvation, suicide, drug overdoses and deaths from killing people who wish to reveal the truth is justified

Attached: 1510059284761.png (558x614, 24K)

Let me add the "but that wasn't real communism" bit while im at it

>communism is about subverting the hierarchy into a indirect dictatorship through an organized syndicate.
Prove me wrong.

>well over 100 millions
"""Victims""" of communism is around 1 million being executed/died from harsh labour condition. You fucking idiot don't even realize how much 100 million is, and that it is on a scale of people dying of natural causes during the whole duration of the USSR.

But that is how this propaganda works, you, basically, A priori claim that EVERYONE who died in communist state is a victim, and everyone who died in a capitalist state has only himself or "nature" to blame.

Noone is subverting anyone. It has dictatorship right there in the name, unlike corrupt and decadent financial oligarchies of the West.

Fuck off TRSodomites. After the episode today, its blatantly obvious why there have been so many pro-commie threads the last few months.

Well the USSR model clearly is. But we've proven that was pretty blatantly a Jewish scheme to centralize power to themselves in Russia.

If a Communist regime had for example, a decentralized or digitized politboro with a democratic system and balances of power in it's constitution to prevent an oligarch from rising - would that still occur in such a way and would the negatives associated with communism still happen?

>"it wasn't real communism tho"
classic

That's a valid argument when literally every model of Communist state has been a corrupt USSR style dictatorship when there dozens if not hundreds of variations of types of socialization and economic administration to replace conventional corporate capitalism.

Wash your pants, commyfag.

>only one million victims
>assuming poor living conditions for the majority of people and being forced to think in a singlular way or you'll get outcasted/murdered isn't a cause of communism so you can't add that to the tally

Propaganda appears to have hit you my friend.

Attached: 1525095630659.png (1440x1557, 738K)

Is there communism without authoritarianism and heavy centralization?

stop indulging this shit. they are trying to subvert you

Yes, in a variety of ways.

The central processing of the economy that was always done by hand in the days of mass famines can now be done digitally, plus syndicates and other such systems are also possible. A huge amount of leftist discussion since the collapse of the Soviet Union have been alternative models to prevent the mistakes of repeating themselves so there's been quite a bit of advancement and creativity on that front.

I'm primarily thinking on a purely mathematically perspective, would a socialist minanarchist syndicalist government fail economically like the Soviet Union did? Capitalists like to paint out that the math just didn't work for a command economy but the only evidence I see from that is 100% human error and hence doesn't disprove the validity of the possibility of socialism or command economies as a solution to the problems caused by corporatism.

There's literally no economy without basic trade. Auctioning goods through a market is literally the only sensible way of having "value" and thus being able to economize and invest. All communist professors that claim to be able to theorize an actual communist economy are charlatans.

Attached: 148642489540.png (886x1294, 90K)

>But that is how this propaganda works, you, basically, A priori claim that EVERYONE who died in communist state is a victim, and everyone who died in a capitalist state has only himself or "nature" to blame.

The deaths from capitalism are not limited to ones borders.

The structural violence from free market capitalism has caused more deaths than any communist country combined, but all these deaths are simply written off as being "externalities" and being completely ignored. Funny thing about socialism and communism in generally is that the ideologies have pretty much born from the FAILURES of capitalism to handle social issues, unfortunately neither capitalism or communism seem to care much about the environmental sustainability.

>Convince me that the failure of communism in the 20th century(all heavily authoritarian states centralized on the USSR model) failed because they were communist and not because of centralization and autocracy. Go!
They failed because of etnic and religious unrest. As the Russians weakened, so did their empire

>the failure of communism in the 20th century

10,000 years ago, the entire world was communist.

Even 2000 years ago, you wander a few dozen kilometers outside of where modern Stockholm is and people are living under communism. As in, at that time, northern Japan, the modern US, Australia, Argentina etc.

Capitalism has only predominated for a few centuries, if that. The newspapers are filled with the royal wedding, not exactly a sign of living in a completely post-feudal world.

Communism is taking socialism to it's logical extreme, just like taking libertarianism to it's logical extreme leads you to the polar opposite, but equally retarded and society collapsing fantasy ideology, Anarcho-Capitalism.

Yeah, they failed because they tried to implement the stalinist model. However, who knows what another method of socialism would look like? Perhaps Venezuela or Cuba or Yugoslavia? How great is that?