>>18515566
>How the fuck do people still defend this shit?
Usually by starting with an immediate whataboutism.

File: hqdefault-3450515814.jpg (85.6 KB)

I really wish an anarchist country had managed to exist at any point in history as an actual entity with a governing body.

The only reason Communism is the default for left wing collectivist ideologies is because it is the only movement that managed to win and survive in some nations (at least for a while, depending on if you count modern China as still Communist or not).

But I agree, Communism has every single time devolved into red capitalism and authoritarianism with a brutal dictator that holds all the power. Unions in Communist countries aren't even real organizations for workers, the Union leaders are politicians living far away that don't fucking care if you as a peasant die, they don't care they just want money and political capital.

In every regard, Marx and Communism has failed.

Anarchism is a more noble ideology that actually comes from THE PEOPLE wanting a good future for the collective. I wish at least one anarchy movement won just to see how it would have managed.

>>18515616
Anarchism is too weak to ever hold power.

File: paris-commune-burning-of-the-tuileries-by-george-jules-victor-clairin-1871.jpg (124.3 KB)

>>18515616
There is more distance in time from 1917 to 2026 than there is from 1848 to 1917. I think one thing that shifted was the idea of the "vanguard" moving from the working class itself to "the party." But the original idea was more that the working-class picked up the "banner" of the democratic revolution (liberty, equality, fraternity) that the bourgeoisie had dropped, now colored red. This is why Lenin and co. called themselves revolutionary social democrats, like saying you're a "red Forty-Eighter." This movement built up steam in the 1800s with the idea that the working class needed its own party. It was also taken for granted in many countries that they'd also have militia (rifles + cannon). This is what armed conflict could look like when Marx was writing:
https://youtu.be/vBgjUMbDhI8

During the Russian revolution a lot of the workers just flat-out died in the fighting (also disease, starvation). Lenin was adamant that the revolution had to spread to Germany too or they were "doomed," and planned to move his HQ to Berlin as soon as possible. That didn't happen so the economic system they devised was basically an improvised quasi-socialist/quasi-capitalist (some call it state capitalism) system in the ruined hulk of the former Tsarist Empire that imploded during the war. Lenin died and then the leaders rewrote the ideology later and called it Marxism-Leninism which is a sort of political technology that basically existed to justify whatever they wanted to do in the moment. People today also don't comprehend how hated Stalin was in his time. The USSR was as ripe for revolution in 1941 as the Russian empire had been in 1917, which contributed to the early military disasters at the onset of the German invasion. Something like 1/4 of the 6th Army's strength at Stalingrad were Russian/Ukrainian. Some German units were higher. Hitler did Stalin a favor by aiming for conquest rather than setting up a political alternative.

File: 1590545494514.jpg (161.9 KB)

>>18515616
>Communism has every single time devolved into red capitalism and authoritarianism with a brutal dictator that holds all the power.
Its almost as if its a feature, and not a bug, of communism

>>18515566
>what if we banned all political parties except for ONE
It's necessary for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
>and what if this one political party controlled every aspect of government, and what if this government controlled all aspects of the economy
Who owns it? That's right, it's the proletariat.
>And what if the head of this political party was the dictator of the whole operations with no term limits or separations of powers or breaks on his power
The proletariat needs a leader, right?
>Oh, and theres zero input from the people at large as to who this dictator is going to be, its basically just back room dealings by the oligarchy of the party elites
Proof?
>But we have some sort of elections for local offices for the people
The proletariat did.
>they get one choice of a candidate that the all powerful party selects for them
DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT!
>this is "real democracy"
It's the proletariats' democracy.

>>18515566
>with no term limits or separations of powers or breaks on his power
this is not how any communist country worked in theory
in practice an occasional powerful politician could sometimes purge his way to power, but it happened a lot less than you might think. The Cultural Revolution happened because China tried to force Mao into retirement and he took the issue to the people, and Khruschev was actually voted out. Intra-party democracy was a norm Stalin broke, it was usually part of the Leninist system.

>>18515566
>what if we banned all political parties except for TWO
>and they agree on the big issues
>and politicians are usually rich people, and/or rich people fund their campaigns
>and if they betray their voters, the voters can't do shit about it except wait their turn and vote them out, at which point they aren't punished but get to move to a lucrative job working for the company that bought them
>this is "real democracy"
How the fuck do people still defend this shit?
Leninism isn't the only system masquerading as democracy that falls way short of democratic ideals

>>18516459
>muh theory!
>you cant judge my retarded ideology based on the real world implementations of it when it failed!
>you can only judge it based on hypothetical and purely theoretical scenarios in which it just works out perfectly!
This is retard logic.
>>18516463
who are you quoting?

>>18515616
>I really wish an anarchist country had managed to exist at any point in history as an actual entity with a governing body.
It never will because anarchism is a transient system which always be replaced because of the power vacuum.

>>18516965
Like napoleon said, he just saw the crown of France laying in the gutter and picked it up. Anarchy not even a system, just an impermanent chaotic state of being.

>>18515566
people don't, only commies do and they're not people

>>18516816
>yes, I hate communism
>no, I won't read about how it actually worked and what OP got wrong, I'll just sperg out when I hear the word "theory". I'm here for political shitflinging, not learning about the past!