Genuinely answer me this: if someone says something wrong, and they adamantly stick to their position in the face of evidence, and you know that reading a few pamphlets and maybe a book or two would help with clearing up this confusion, what do you recommend they do?

And what on Earth is an “imaginary government?”

Anything at this point. Theory would be nice, but even some good fiction like Piranesi would do you well.

You should read sometime too, you might learn something.

“Read theory” means “learn what the words you are using actually mean so you can analyze historical events, movements, and structures accurately.”

Don’t be allergic to reading.

Genuinely, what on Earth are you trying to say here? The other user was trying to say that the Soviets weren’t “true Communists,” which is wrong. It displays an utter lack of understanding what Socialism and Communism even are in the first place. Why speak so confidently on something they don’t know about?

Are you trying to say that the Soviets didn’t exist or something?

First of all, they did not (facts), they signed a non-aggression pact to bide their time while the West refused to ally against the Nazis, hoping that the Nazis and USSR destroyed each other.

Second of all, the Soviets were true Communists and established a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as is in line with Marxism.

Please read theory before you cosplay as an expert in what is and isn’t “true” Communism, it’s painfully clear that the furthest you’ve gotten is Wikipedia.

Why would the Communists want to ally with the most rabid and violent anticommunists on the planet?

sidenote: if they didnt reach this point not due to time constraints but because they took a turn along the way, does it still count? ;)

There were a multitude of factors that led to collapse. Generally, WWII was fought with the blood of the Soviet people, it thoroughly destroyed them, and in the process of building back beaurocracy snuck in and allowed the USSR to be killed from the inside.

i think what annoyed me about the whole thread and got me on the path about “the real communism” (until it got decent, thanks again!) was this comment. i made something out of it that wasnt the point of the whole debate.

My problem with your point is that it’s a common misconception by leftists who haven’t usually studied theory much, they just know that Communism as a status is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. The issue with that outlook is that it entirely ignores the theory of development that is core to Marxism, Communism as a status is not the goal because it sounds good, but because it’s the natural progression beyond Capitalism and Socialism.

Put another way, Communism isn’t an idea that you build, that’s Utopianism. If you drop a bunch of future Communists off onto a planet with nothing else, they will still go through primitive communism, feudalism, Capitalism, and back to Socialism and then Communism! That’s the point I am trying to get across, you can’t skip stages because the next is born from the previous!

I think you need to do more research on the trends, structures, and systems in place in China. The idea of “oligarchs” running everything is ill-founded, the Chinese Democratic system requires politicians to work their way up from the very bottom and continue to be elected, as an example. Safety nets are expanding and large, public infrastructure projects are happening without being privitized.

a startup has an idea, tries to realize it into a product. gets money from investors but isnt profitable yet. the cant seem to finish the protoype and start to run into walls. i wouldnt listen to these people regarding the protoype or sound business advice just because they set out to change something for the better.

This is what I mean. Communism isn’t an “idea to be realized,” but a process of development along historical modes of production. Mao tried to create Communism now through fiat, something impossible. The characteristics of developed Capitalism allow Socialism to emerge from it, ie Lower-Stage Communism.

How familiar are you with Dialectical and Historical Materialism?

The clear distinction is hard, I accept that point. The phases at least how I learned it are clear. First state owned then truly society owned as a goal. They never got anywhere near that. Nor a classless society. It wasn’t the old classes from before 1900 but classes as in power structures were very much present.

This is a bit confused. The USSR did eventually form a Beaurocratic section over time, especially towards the 80s until its dissolution, but to call it a “class” is not quite accurate. In The State and Revolution, Lenin does a good job of explaining what even constitutes a State, in explaining the economic basis for the “withering away of the State.” The Soviet model functioned like this graphic:

Again, I am not arguing against or for communism, just making the argument that there was never a communist country as in the sense they reached something resembling the idea of the word. Keeping in mind that there is not a clear line of demarcation, this much is clear to me.

Again, though, this isn’t what people are saying. The doctrine of the USSR was Communist. They were working towards Communism. The fact that they did not reach that point does not mean their ideology was not Communist.