how the fuck was it state capitalist if it was planned economy Imao

Damn, immediately outing yourself as having no knowledge of a topic out of the gate.

Since you don't understand how those things aren't mutually exclusive, I'll paste the Wikipedia summary and link it.

"State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, centralized management and wage labor). The definition can also include the state dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized using business-management practices) or of public companies (such as publicly listed corporations) in which the state has controlling shares.[1] The term has been used as a pejorative by Marxists, liberals and neoliberals. However, it has also served as a programmatic label for developmentalist and neomercantilist projects in reaction to imperialism.[2]

A state-capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts as a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist.[4] Some scholars argue that the economy of the Soviet Union and of the Eastern Bloc countries modeled after it, including Maoist China, were state capitalist systems, and Eastern and Western commentators alike assert that the current economies of China and Singapore also constitute a mixture of state-capitalism with private capitalism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism?wprov=sfla1

stuff takes time,

Too bad that isn't the critique. The critique, and accurate analysis of the Soviet Union isn't that it was too slow to achieve socialism or communism, but that it had fundamentally abandoned attempts to achieve it in favor of establishing and maintaining its state-capitalist autocracy.

The same has happened in China.

USSR was first attempt,

An attempt that failed and redirected to state-capitalism at damn near the inception of the USSR, if not earlier.

certainly not the last,

And all other attempts by revolution, most notably ones assisted by the USSR for imperial purposes (like China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc) also failed much for similar reasons.

Turns out the reality is, the closest societies to reach towards the main principles of communism:

1. Proletariat rule
2. Elimination of the system of capital
3. Proletariat ownership of the means of production

Are Scandinavian countries. Are they there yet? No. But they're the closest examples in history of getting there, and socialism and communism isn't even their primary ideologies.

Yet they embody why Marx preferred democracy as the means of achieving socialism and communism.

we learn from the mistakes and improve upon them but discrediting the whole revolution is not very communist.

Tankies and any self proclaimed Marxist-Leninist can never claim to have learned from history. Their entire world view is comprised of cognitive bias and straight up falsehoods.

And I'm not dismissing the entire revolutions. I'm dismissing the notion that the leadership of said revolutions, and of the subsequent Marxist-Leninists states, ever gave a shit to actually pursue any of the principles of communism during g or after the revolution.

The pigs and farmers always ended up indistinguishable.

No one has achieved communism ever and no one knows how long will it take,

And no self proclaimed communist nation, least of all any autocratic nation, has ever put in genuine effort I to achieving it. They abandon it because, just as with the bourgeoisie prior to the revolution, those in power consolidate their power and hold it tightly for life. They become the new bourgeoisie. Every. Single. Fucking. Time.

The only way to ensure proletariat rule, elimination of the system of capital, and proletariat ownership of the means of production, is to give those things to the proletariat. There's no need for delay.

What time the state does exist, it must exist solely as a tool for the proletariat to dictate. Not the other way around d as we've seen in the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, etc.

maybe we needed revolution through more european states to establish a stable order of socalist states so trade couldve been better?

Economic woes themselves weren't the only nail in the coffin for the USSR, its puppets or Yugoslavia. The core issue for all those countries was authoritarianism. Glaring problems that never got solved or were made worse because autocracy doesn't fucking work, and it sure as fuck doesn't hold interest in the good of the proletariat.

no one really knows, but some revolutionaries did try, bitching on them sitting in your home acheievs nothing

1. You could argue that for all internet activity. I don't see you going Rambo on the bourgeoisie
2. Its always good to have open discussions criticizing the failures of revolutions. Its how we learn. Its how we do better in the future.
3. The glairing problem of these revolutions aren't the actual revolutionaries. Its the leadership that betrayed them.

Literally no state deserve to exist but I dont get this selective outrage against marxist leninst states.

Curation is absolutely essential to all successful movements. We can't navigate a minefield if we don't remove the guy who keeps trying to push the group onto the mines.

Marxist-Leninista are a cancer to the communist movement. A colossal misdirection that has only succeeded in damaging the success of communism for what will likely turn into centuries.

We cannot allow M-Ls to misdirect the greater leftist population into fighting for a lost cause that doesn't even attempt to achieve their ideals, but rather leads to the opposite in many significant ways. 

We aren't the right wing. We don't just blindly accept anyone who even somewhat pretends to be on our side.

No one in their right mind claims that these states had acheived communism, even the soviet union called itself "socialist"

The USSR lied about that. They weren't even socialist. They were an autocratic state-capitalist society.

Socialism also requires the big 3:

1. Proletariat rule
2. Elimination of the system of capital
3. Proletariat ownership of the means of production

The USSR had none of these, and made no attempts to achieve either of them. Their state consolidated power and kept it until it collapsed.