>>60810238>Hold on, is this just another form of "That wasn't true Communism"?
It's the academically accepted form of "listen here you little shit, everything should be examined for what it is, not for what it's been called at the time and later on". Bolshevism was certainly derived from Marxism, which is by any person's standards a form of Communism. So I would call it Communist, yes. I would also recognise that it's a tiny splinter of the huge ideological beast that is Communism.
For God's sake, anon, commies fighting commies used to be a huge meme. You know in Life of Brian, when the revolutionary Jews keep fighting each other? That's what it's riffing off of.
It's...really amazing how much you're assuming of me. It's like you WANT to fight some internet argument with a communist. Sorry, anon, but I'm not one of those.
Look: if a country had a communist regime, it's a pretty certain bet it was Bolshevik or derived from Bolshevism. This is for a few reasons:
1. Bolshevism used organised violence to reach power, which is generally an effective move.
2. When they took over Russia, a fucktonne of other Communists decided turning to Bolshevism would be the winning move. It worked, and they got into power. Although this was not least because of...
3. The Russian Bolsheviks funded the fuck out of other Bolshevik-like organisations, and actively opposed all other socialists, preventing them from reaching power.
Please note I'm using "Bolshevik" to really mean Leninist and Marxist-Leninist.
So, certainly, a form of Communism has been tried. Again and again and again. It's arguable that it's the only form of Communism that could be tried, given it uses violence so liberally, but that's a whole other argument.