[mghackerlady]

Because communism isn't synonymous with marxist-leninism. And even as a leninist, the USSR had several problems that aren't inherent to leninism. The entire way they managed the economy completely ignored the material conditions of the country and attempted to brute force a jump to communism by bypassing both capitalism and socialism to different extents. That's why china started working after Deng, the party realised that the productive elements of capitalism can be useful in building socialism when there wasn't the creation of excess by capitalism as assumed by marx

[Scroll_Swe]

"Soviet was not real communism because bla bla"

The best is when you guys say you want to be like Scandinavia. None of us are communist, we are a market economy like you.

[mghackerlady]

The soviet union objectively wasn't communism though, they didn't claim they were either. They had the goal of developing communism, but failed

[mmcdermott]

Even if we accept that, the millions dead and incalculable human suffering incurred by the attempts is more than reason enough to stop trying.

There was no greater cause of human suffering in the 20th century than the worldwide attempts to build communist governments.

[mghackerlady]

Those are all either massively exaggerated, coincidental, or are painful side effects of revolution

If we stopped trying to build capitalism for the same reasons we'd all still be serfs

[glacier9147]

I don't know, trying to stop communism also accounts for a lot of human suffering

[dmos62]

Honestly, this forum expects you to differentiate between socialism, communism, and the Soviet Union. Whatever your views might be.

[Scroll_Swe]

Yes, that is what I mean.

The issue with communism is if it never happened for real you can imagine all sorts of good amazing things from it with 0 pushback. Look atleast at the states calming to be communist. Would you rather live in Soviet or Western Europe? Ask the balts and poles...

btw Sweden is not socialist

[dmos62]

Why is that an issue? Would you like discourse to be less grounded in ideals? Or is it that these particular ideals are a harm disguised as benefit?

[Scroll_Swe]

? Because then you can just make shit up to put it bluntly.

[mghackerlady]

any idea anyones ever had comes down to that. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, and sometimes they need to be refined

[lII1lIlI11ll]

> attempted to brute force a jump to communism by bypassing both capitalism

USSR had NEP for several years.

> and socialism

This is incorrect. USSR policy was to build socialism, and then, when it was declared to be successfully built, "developed socialism" in 1961.

> That's why china started working after Deng, the party realised that the productive elements of capitalism can be useful in building socialism

You mean they completely abandoned the whole idea? It it is 2026 and China still doesn't have some basic things like free healthcare or a state provided housing (things Soviet people enjoyed for most of USSR existence). In fact, looking at China objectively for a moment while ignoring how the ruling party calls itself it appears to me quite authoritarian capitalist state.

> wasn't the creation of excess by capitalism as assumed by marx

What? Owners of major enterprises in China enjoy exceptional luxury created as an "excess" from their businesses fueled by cheap 996 labor.

Overall, you might want to reconsider engaging in such discussion on this forum that is full of people born in actual Soviet Fucking Union.

[mghackerlady]

> USSR had NEP for several years

they did, and it was good for them. Stalin ended up gutting it and it would end up shooting the country in the foot

>You mean they completely abandoned the whole idea? It it is 2026 and China still doesn't have some basic things like free healthcare or a state provided housing (things Soviet people enjoyed for most of USSR existence). In fact, looking at China objectively for a moment while ignoring how the ruling party calls itself it appears to me quite authoritarian capitalist state.

I won't deny that they are authoritarian, I disagree with them on a lot of things regarding how they handle political freedom. They don't have free housing or healthcare, but the average person is doing fine. The healthcare isn't expensive and people can afford to "own" (they don't own it in the capitalist sense but own it in the "it's mine, I can do what I want, and don't have to worry about rent" way).

> What? Owners of major enterprises in China enjoy exceptional luxury created as an "excess" from their businesses fueled by cheap 996 labor.

I also won't deny that. It is a problem that the chinese government is currently trying to deal with. Meanwhile, the production of the goods they got rich on has built up chinas economy and created industrial capability that wouldn't exist otherwise. It's kinda hard to redistribute wealth when there isn't any to redistribute, which is ultimately (when combined with other factors) why the USSR failed

>Overall, you might want to reconsider engaging in such discussion on this forum that is full of people born in actual Soviet Fucking Union. Although it is kinda entertaining reading champagne socialist opinions of western hipsters fancying themselves left-wing (because they read couple of pages of wikipedia and voted for Bernie, who upon returning from his getting-drunk-in-a-sauna-with-party-aparatchiks trip to Soviet Union in 88 was telling you how good of a country it was when Soviet Union was actually completely falling apart by then).

again, I'm not denying your gripes with the soviet union. It was objectively falling apart and was managed very poorly. I dislike your categorization of me as a "champagne socialist" who "voted for bernie and read wikipedia" as those are both objectively incorrect (aside from the wikipedia bit, as it is where I started unraveling my misconceptions about marx and socialism before moving on to actual theory). I didn't vote for bernie and while his reforms are undoubtedly good for the working class, it's putting a bandaid on the gaping gunshot wound that is capitalism. I'm also not a champagne socialist, I don't have a lot of money and don't really like champagne anyway