That’s because north Korea is a monarchy and not a democracy.
So far pretty much every government calling itself communist has been a dictatorship with state capitalism. None of them have even tried giving power to the workers which is like the core point. Vanguard parties are just a means to power for yourself draped in communist aesthetics. Nazies did that too, doesn’t make them communist.
Libertarian means something else outside the US just FYI. True free market capitalism would exist just long enough for a corporation to seize enough power that it would be the defacto government so in that sense yea, pure capitalism hasn’t been tried and really shouldn’t.
True free market capitalism would exist just long enough for a corporation to seize enough power that it would be the defacto government so in that sense yea, pure capitalism hasn’t been tried and really shouldn’t.
Yeah, if an approach predictably leads to collapse, it doesn’t really matter what the goal is. Whether the goal has “been tried” doesn’t change what would happen if people tried to try.
And I have never wanted to put a dictator in charge who really likes the colour red. What I advocate is worker control over the means of production, think coop businesses.
Which is totally different from what prior revolutionaries advocated. Apparently. What they wanted was communism… and what they were attempting to get was communism… but none of that counts because it went wrong somehow.
Fascists adopt whatever labels sound good. That’s not the same thing as people honestly trying and things going wrong.
Are you saying every single communist movement that’s ever risen to national influence was a false flag operation? That not just once or twice, but every time a leftist movement successfully established power, they were either complete frauds like the god-damned Nazis, or so compromised from within that they might as well be?
Because that would still reflect terribly on any movement saying the same things as those efforts.
My guy. I’m the one saying efforts toward communism have a terrible track record of entering a failure mode, to the point it makes perfect sense for “communist countries” to be a label for the dictatorships resulting from let’s-do-a-communism-whoops revolutions. I get to say ‘if you want that goal don’t take that path.’ But what you’re describing sounds like condemning anyone with that goal, since it seems there are zero examples of anyone getting anywhere.
Every movement creating a vanguard party, yes. Those revolutions never even attempted to give power to workers so failing to even attempt the core principal of communism is quite telling. You can claim they were communist but if you look at the principals of communism then those countries allign more with fascism than communism.
That’s because north Korea is a monarchy and not a democracy.
So far pretty much every government calling itself communist has been a dictatorship with state capitalism. None of them have even tried giving power to the workers which is like the core point. Vanguard parties are just a means to power for yourself draped in communist aesthetics. Nazies did that too, doesn’t make them communist.
Libertarian means something else outside the US just FYI. True free market capitalism would exist just long enough for a corporation to seize enough power that it would be the defacto government so in that sense yea, pure capitalism hasn’t been tried and really shouldn’t.
Yeah, if an approach predictably leads to collapse, it doesn’t really matter what the goal is. Whether the goal has “been tried” doesn’t change what would happen if people tried to try.
And I have never wanted to put a dictator in charge who really likes the colour red. What I advocate is worker control over the means of production, think coop businesses.
Which is totally different from what prior revolutionaries advocated. Apparently. What they wanted was communism… and what they were attempting to get was communism… but none of that counts because it went wrong somehow.
Yet their actions never indicated giving workers power which is like the core principal of communism.
As I said: They called themselves a communist party for support just like the nazies were a national socialist party.
Fascists adopt whatever labels sound good. That’s not the same thing as people honestly trying and things going wrong.
Are you saying every single communist movement that’s ever risen to national influence was a false flag operation? That not just once or twice, but every time a leftist movement successfully established power, they were either complete frauds like the god-damned Nazis, or so compromised from within that they might as well be?
Because that would still reflect terribly on any movement saying the same things as those efforts.
My guy. I’m the one saying efforts toward communism have a terrible track record of entering a failure mode, to the point it makes perfect sense for “communist countries” to be a label for the dictatorships resulting from let’s-do-a-communism-whoops revolutions. I get to say ‘if you want that goal don’t take that path.’ But what you’re describing sounds like condemning anyone with that goal, since it seems there are zero examples of anyone getting anywhere.
Every movement creating a vanguard party, yes. Those revolutions never even attempted to give power to workers so failing to even attempt the core principal of communism is quite telling. You can claim they were communist but if you look at the principals of communism then those countries allign more with fascism than communism.