Here are a few general responses I think might be possible depending on what brand of lefty you're talking to:

1) The states weren't actually failiures and/or weren't actually authoritarian. Western propaganda is to blame.

2) Some variety of "communism was not implemented properly"

3) Some variety of "communism is too extreme" (this would be touted by moderate leftists)

Are there any other general responses? And furthermore, can you help me hone these responses to be a bit more specific to what you might hear?

I assume you are aware that this thread is just begging to be hijacked by Putin.

"Guaranteed employment = people don't have to work hard = low production = low efficiency = economy suffers = government tension = oppression of the people = revolt = fall of government = anarchy"

My friend that is a criticism from the right. That's not what I'm asking for.

OOOHHHHH… see, you asked me to read… I gotcha… love ya Thucy

Of your list, none of which I'm fully on board with but no matter, I'd go with #1. Prestige can be a big part of a large government, and on that note, #2 is pretty well said as well. Russian Communism specifically was not properly implemented.

Also SHIT typo in my OP, I wanted to say "degenerating into authoritarianism" not into anarchy. Shit.

Also yes I know Putin will come in here. I hope he will help me take an analytical approach of what other people argue instead of arguing points himself.

You would hopefully be able to answer this question indepdently of what you think of communism. Try to pretend you're on a high school debate team and your positions are assigned at random. What will the leftist side use to defend communism's historical track record? Will they own up to the dictatorships? If so, how do they explain them away? Or do they disown communism entirely? This sums up my three points, but I want to explore further the arguments that might be at play.

I really like these:

4) Some variety of "communism never really got a chance"

5) Some variety of "communism started in countries that weren't ready for it yet."

Which communist states degenerated into anarchy?

Yeah I'm familiar with "it wasn't properly implemented" so what are the methodological considerations? Like what should have been done differently, according to the modern left?

authoritarianism? That's a completely different discussion.

In the former Yugoslavia, nationalism is the favorite scapegoat of the leftists. They see nationalists as Neanderthals who toppled the communist Wonderland by brute force.

"Which communist states degenerated into anarchy?"

None, sorry, it was a typo, see above post: "Also SHIT typo in my OP, I wanted to say "degenerating into authoritarianism" not into anarchy. Shit."

I know lol it was just a typo.

I MEANT AUTHORITARIANISM NOT ANARCHY IT WAS JUST A TYPO

I MEANT AUTHORITARIANISM NOT ANARCHY IT WAS JUST A TYPO

I MEANT AUTHORITARIANISM NOT ANARCHY IT WAS JUST A TYPO

lol okay proceed XD

Yes, authoritarianism is different. I'd still go with 1 or 2. I like what red said too.

so we're currently debating why communism degenerated into authoritarianism and not into anarchy is that correct?

So yeah to clarify, this is what I would like.

1) Pretend you are a modern leftist/communist sympathizer

2) Now please explain in this framework why the world's communist states became autocracies.

Yes redhouse that's correct. My apologies for the typo lol

Well I think the minute the Russian revolution started the US, the UK and France had troops ready to invade the country and sent them not long after.

That's usually the moment where people rally around a leader. :-)

And the main reason I ask this question is to find the answer of, well, if it failed before, what did they do wrong, and what should have been done?

Or, can it work at all or must the left abandon communism?

Or, did they actually fail at all? (I'm pretty sure Putin can explain this one well enough for himself lol)

I was just fucking with you.

For a variant of "2) Some variety of "communism was not implemented properly"", look at Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed and Tony Cliff's State Capitalism in Russia. Aside from left-communist criticisms of Lenin, they tend to be the two biggest criticisms of the USSR from a socialist perspective.

The former claimed the USSR was a degenerated worker's state, while the Eastern Bloc countries were deformed worker's states. The latter claims that the USSR was not a socialist state*, but capitalist, but that the state held a monopoly on production.

* Please get this right, no country has ever claimed to have the communist mode of production. They have called themselves socialist/worker's states.

"Well I think the minute the Russian revolution started the US, the UK and France had troops ready to invade the country and sent them not long after."

So would you say that a possible argument is that the West's antagonism of communist revolutions caused them to become dictatorships? That's what you mean right?

Yes. Unless you're still talking about anarchy instead of authoritarianism. Are you?

The whole question seems to be predicated on the idea that communism isn't inherently authoritarian. Unfortunately, it is. This is why the compass idea (with Authoritarian/Liberal axis as well as the classic left/right is much better)

I'd argue the failures of communism are failures of Authoritaranism - the same failures and deprivations are equally evident in authoritarian right regimes.

People like freedom - regardless of whether they are social democrats or libertarians.

Anarchy? Which Communist states degenerated into anarchy?

; )

Pete is absolutely right. But that's not what a communist sympathizer would ever say, so it's not useful to Thucydides.

Yeah I agree with Pete U, in other words, a communist may not at all feel impelled to defend your statement to begin with, finding it a compliment rather than a criticism.

Sorry to hijack with a meta-question, but I'm curious: isn't this question-begging? It seems to be that the correct attitude for an academic rational type who doesn't already know the answer is not "How do I respond to X criticism and defend Y ideology," but "Is X criticism correct or not, and therefore does it or does it not succeed in undermining Y ideology?"

I just ask because you frame your thread as an academic question, but your goal actually seems partisan, not academic.

Aha I see. So then some form of "no one has ever actually done communism" then largeham? I appreciate it.

Do you mind summarizing why those critics believed that process occurred and true communism failed to take hold?

And furthermore, why did other communist states (Cuba, China, DPRK etc) also become autocracies? Similar reasons?

IMO, there are two main reasons why Russia turned out the way it did:
A) the fact that Russia was an ass-backward nation
B) the country was completely isolated, the revolutions in Italy and Germany failed, no socialist state can survive isolated

PeteU, socialism is simply about the working class taking control of the means of production and running production and society in a democratic manner. Then the question is do you believe the USSR achieved this or not.