What is the appeal of communism?
It failed completely, got utterly debunked in theory, in practice, in every possible way, led to the biggest democides in history(250 million+), led to obscene tyranny, the biggest tyrannies in history probably.
Why isn't it in the trashcan of history? It's basically completely irredeemable even if you're poor as dirt.
>failed completely
no it didn't
>250 million+
lmao
>Blame an ideology for the actions of a few maniacs
wew
Purposeless NEET's trying to find purpose by larping as something edgy yet "revolutionary". Kind of helps that western media and education system actually do nothing to call out the USSR on all of it's crimes against humanity.
That special seat is reserved for Nazi's, mostly on account of being nationalistic or religious
Commie idiots let those maniacs get in power. Marx was a mistake.
Hitler killed upwards of 80 million
What? Are we baiting now?
>takes private property regardless whether it's means of production or not
>takes farmland
>famines kill millions at a time
>famines every other decade
>ban religious iconography and books by punishment of gulag
>2% of a certain ethnic group control about 80% of highest level political offices
>muh popular war
>no consumer goods in any great quantity
>most backwards logistics system for any industrialized nation
>rights are granted by the government. When it feels like it
Wash, rinse, repeat for other countries that attempt communism. The harder they try, the harder they fail.
"no it didn't fail"- kys
6 million? And the accounts don't actually match the estimates. Hell, the local estimates don't match the overall estimate.
>What is the appeal of communism?
None
>it failed completely
Indeed it did.
>led to the biggest democides in history(250 million+)
Yup
>number poor capitalist countries becoming average or rich over time: 0
>number of poor communist countries becoming average or rich over time: all of them
It's a utopian model constructed by intellectuals, supporting communism makes you feel better about yourself, commies think of themselves as champions of common people
You mean it turned a backwards failing empire full of uneducated peasants into a superpower capable of rivaling the whole Western world, which has never happened in history before and produced another emerging superpower out of a weak Asian country buttfucked by every power in the world? Seems pretty good to me.
>250 million+
It's amazing how you shills have no shame and keep inflating the numbers by the day now. Kill yourself.
...
>only Jews died in WW2
Good goy.
i know your 8fag board sucks but there's no reason to try and shit up this one anymore than it already is.
A country being rich means nothing when the citizens are all poor.
(OP) #
Yeah, to add to that, when your school system thinks that knockoff communism (socialism) is Gods gift to humanity bestowed to Europe; that kind of thing's going to happen.
"Communism is the very essence of the Jewish spirit, they are one and the same".
Why bring up a false equivalency? Who ever said the person you replied to was a Nazi? Why use a smaller number to prove your point?
Basically every capitalist country was becoming richer than the USSR, virtually all of them were getting richer with less tyranny and genocides than communist countries.
Also, china and the USSR were absolute shit before their economic liberalization and 1991.
Who declared ww2? Germany was just trying to fight Poland and your commie traitor ancestors. Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland-but didn't do the same thing when USSR simultaneously invaded Poland. IDK, feels like a setup F A M.
It is a very appealing Idea for people who either don't understand how the world works or who just want power.
For the idiots who buy into that ideology it provides an easy worldview and an obvious solution to every problem.
For the people who want power it grants them a nicely sounding cause do whatever they want to do.
What does Hitler have to do with your case? The only relevance National Socialism has here is that it is considered to be the greatest evil in history even though communism killed many times more people.
>Getting baited this hard
>led to the biggest democides in history(250 million+)
This is bullshit. Not just that, it is statistically, demographically impossible.
>It failed completely
Some communist countries failed - many were doing and are doing great - like with any practical ideology.
>Why isn't it in the trashcan of history? It's basically completely irredeemable even if you're poor as dirt.
Because your delusions aren't the real history and practice.
A question you should be asking: "Why is my perception is in such divorce with reality?"
fuck this is a good bait, heres your (you)
We've this thread everyday but I never get tired of it.
>Capable of rivaling the Western world
>Collapses on its own, with very little western intervention
>if you physically remove uneducated peasants, the literacy rates in your country skyrocket
I wasn't the first, pic related
The question is why Sup Forums doesn't like it. If we equate the USSR with communism, then we have a bunch of autocrats controlling everything, protecting people from degeneracy and homosexuality, supporting science much more than the West and making some of the biggest scientific strides in history, being anti-semitic etc.
So why the bashing?
...
>Imprison and execute people who don't like communism
>Everyone thinks the same = everyone is now educated!
Completely uneducated opinion you exhibit there.
How do famines happen in agrarian societies? Simple: peasants get money from growing food, which they (just like everyone else) also consume. If there is a drought or other cataclysm peasants suddenly have no food or money to buy it. Thus starvation.
Capitalists make profit out of hunger, rising prices for grain (previously bought from peasants who are hungry now) and generally enjoying a feast during the plague. Communists on the other hand started redistributing grain, reducing the hunger impact on the peasantry.
>look at all those skyscrapers being in private property and see how rich Murrica is
Kek, government owned hospital contributes much more to citizen's wealth than other citizen's (who is rich and collectively with other members of 1% own 99% of country's wealth) property.
For fuck's sake, no. You can't even compare poor people in capitalist and communist countries. Under communism you have to be consciently trying to be homeless to lose a place to live. Just google how much living costs, say, in Cuba and USA. You can rent housing in Cuba for a dollar a month when an average wage is 50 per month.
>richer than the USSR
>basically every
Skyscrapers =/= rich country. Stock market contributes nothing to a simple citizen's wealth.
Commuism is the ultimate result of gimdat culture. Envy of those who have more is a tool used by politicians to gather masses into forcibly redistributing the wealth of those who have created it.
For it to work, everyone would have to think and act the same. It is counter to being human.
Utopia does not, and cannot exist on a large scale. It can't even exist within the family unit.
Are you being threatened with the gulag if you don't shitpost for the most destructive ideology to ever exist?
I wasn't shitposting: Just stating my opinion in a logical and clear way and addressing the questions and claims in the post.
You are: you comment is nothing but ridiculous and useless attempts at empty insults.
i suppose if you're an oppressed peasant in tsarist russia, it would be pretty cool to see the establishment get btfo.
>l(((mao)))
Every capitalist country also had richer citizens than the USSR... in some cases, almost ten times more.
Nobody cares about skyscrapers
>A russian liking communism
I see what you're doing.
Reply with "kek" if you are defending Communism user threat.
Also you should read the gulag archipelago.
Your countrymen weren't exactly treated nicely by the Communists.
>city-village demographics
Poor innocent capitalists! It's not like they exploit the shit out of people to whom leftists redistribute wealth to.
It's just like the slavery in olden days America - slaveowners made a claim that any white man can own slaves and promoted this in the hopes that this will make everyone supportive of slavery ideals. Just like that nowadays capitalists brainwash people into believing that those people are in fact blood and flesh of the capitalist class. Indeed they are - proven by the need of capitalist society to be split into 1% of owners and 99% of indentured workers.
It's basically genocide, slavery, and tyranny apologists.
Communism is not sold by actions but by it's proposed results; hence people don't like communism, they like the idea of living in an Utopic world where there is no poverty, exploration, shit jobs and so on. Thus they can call every attempt at communism / socialism not true to the ideology without weight in their minds because they define communism by the ends, not by the process, which in fact achieve the opposite of what it proposes, like any state initiative.
So you're telling me collectivization improved peasant conditions in the early 30's? Where between 3-6 million at a time?
And why did USSR import food from the US during the cold war multiple times?
It's almost like a command economy structure with large stores and slow distribution isn't very good at feeding people, especially when the middle managers don't have creativity or incentive to improve those mechanics.
>Cuba and US have equal quality of housing
wew lad
>doesn't argue against the religious discrimination of the USSR
>doesn't argue against losing all personal property in the early stages of every revolution
>doesn't argue against purges that happen in every revolution
It's almost like you're trying to avoid all the nastiness that communism brings while making outrageous and empirically inaccurate promises.
This logic makes no sense. One of the richest countries in the world is Kuwait, a muslim theocratic monarchy.
Does this mean that all ideologies except Muslim divine right are ridiculous?
>Completely uneducated
>Doesn't understand basic capitalist economics
You're pretending that capitalism is just one man forcing other people to work for him and stealing what they produce for himself, which of course is inaccurate because the items produced are sold to people who want them and no one is forced to work for a capitalist. They are using his property to produce items, which gives their work value in the form of a paycheck, and in return he takes some of the profit. No theft is involved there.
On the other hand, Communism is the definition of theft. The possessions of hard-working people are stolen from them and distributed to lazy people who don't want to work, who eventually become the majority of the population because people realize that they will get the same amount of resources for working as for not working. Then the whole thing collapses because no one is producing anything.
>Every capitalist country also had richer citizens than the USSR...
Capitalist country: man is afraid to miss work due to flu and is PROUD OF IT - like being unable to get his health properly treated is a good thing for an economy as a whole
Communist country: factory just deals with it and is forced to employ a substitute for a sick worker. Why would anyone want to live in that kind of country, really? Sick workers are core to a productive society!
Jonestown was a perfect example of what Communism stands for. Rest in peace, Jim.
The USSR would have gotten far richer if it sticked to Lenin's NEP just FYI.
Fuckin' Commie faggot
It means that Theocratic Monarchy's are in fact the best forms of government. Islam optional. I prefer Christianity.
Edgy teens who want free shit and power over others have and always will exist.
>it's not true cause I laffed xD
Capitalism is not a form of government.
Neither is a monarchy an economic system.
Communism is, like capitalism an economic system.
And Communism has proven itself to be inferior.
What you said is true, but can we try it one more time? It will work this time, promise.
It is still being memed as the edgy alternative to the status quouo by (((intellectuals))). And they are very comfortable with never having to really test their ideas.
Exploit? How can you be exploited into purchasing a pair of Nike Air Jordans? How can you be exploited into purchasing a vehicle? You cannot. Individual choice is what drives those purchases - that and targeted marketing.
From a US perspective, there are no slaves here other than those who sacrifice opportunity to get free shit. They then complain about those who have more, when they themselves do not attempt to go out and get it.
We have the fattest and most wealthy poor in the world. Those are who want communism.... do nothing pieces of shit who are a drain on society.
There are no slaves here unless it's by the individuals choice to become a slave to a system.
I believe that was state socialism
11 million*
They're also very comfortable when their idea's killed tens of millions, drove millions into poverty, caused internal wars, and suppress the cultural and economic rights of billions around the world, so there's that
Strawman. Not an argument.
Real communism has never been tried
>Capitalism is not a form of government.
>Neither is a monarchy an economic system.
I'm not sure who you are arguing with. I've never said anything of that.
>Communism is, like capitalism an economic system.
No.
>And Communism has proven itself to be inferior.
You are an idiot ideologue and nothing much else. If it was proven, nobody would argue otherwise.
>Sell things people want + pay people to produce things with your property = exploitation.
>Literally stealing from people to give to some lazy asshole who doesn't want to work = fairness
Capitalism: Let's make some $$$
Communism: REEEEEEEEEE
Persicely the kind of argument that you made.
>Every capitalist country also had richer citizens than the USSR
I reconstructed it to show you that you are wrong. It's nice that you agree.
If Communism didn't succeeded in soviet union with all the resources they had avaible from Siberia. it will never succeeded anywhere
Because it's "I'm gonna use the all encompassibg wisdom I've acquired in all of my 19 years to create perfect world", the theory. It's weirdly enduring, that shit is over 150 years old and liberals still treat it as cutting edge philosophy
>If it was proven, nobody would argue otherwise
People argue about things after they have been proven all the time. That's why there are flat earth nutjobs and feminists.
>why do you import food
How is importing food means anything but importing food? I mean it doesn't disprove anything about food production in a country. How about that USSR also exported food at the same time USSR imported it, and today's America imports more food than any other country in the world? Does that mean America is starving?
>Cuba and US have equal quality of housing
Cuba actually may have better quality of housing until proven otherwise.
>because the items produced are sold to people who want them
And this is precisely why capitalist countries have crises. Capitalist gets his profit from the difference in wage and cost of resources and selling price of goods. Those profits take form of elite goods like yachts and whatever. So, the more capitalist class gets richer, the bigger workforce is needed to maintain the high standards of life for capitalists. This means reduction in the amount of goods available to general populace, which in turn is the main source of profit for capitalists.
>The possessions of hard-working people are stolen from them and distributed to lazy people who don't want to work
Do you actually believe that this policy is the main and time withstanding one of a communist society? Like seriously, do you really think that communists just did that for 80 years in USSR? And not like for 1 year while reshaping the society?
>So China is functionally communist confirmed? autogestion and all?
>B-but wait communism has never really been tried
We'll just forget that they're basically capitalists now.
>I'm not sure who you are arguing with. I've never said anything of that.
You are making a false equivalence.
The government type and economic success aren't obviously related.
Your comparison just makes no sense.
>No.
It definitely is. It may be a lot more then that but Communism implies that a certain economic system is in place.
This isn't even debatable.
>ideologue
Of what Ideology?
Unfortunately it's a stepping stone in education of politics.
When you're young you're idealistic and naive. You want to believe in a utopian society and that everyone can work together and live in harmony. No poor, no classes, because if you can want that- everyone should!
But then you get older and realize that human beings are weak and stupid and mostly just fumbling along with life and that those who have, have earned their rewards and those who have not tend to have brought this life upon themselves and never subscribed to the philosophy of deferred gratification.
What happens is sometime people get stuck in the first level and are ingrained so much that it's impossible to get out without admitting that you've wasted the better part of your life on some nonsensical fairy tale you thought up when you were 6. It becomes their identity and there's no turning back. Hence China.
They know they're wrong, which is why they've been adopting capitalist policies to keep everything afloat. The trick is to allow them to continue to develop their political ideologies without hunkering down in one specific set. Not sure how I did it. Not sure how to make sure my kids do it. But I guess realization of the reality is the first step.
When everyone is a loser no one is really a loser because everyone is equal.
Your country is shit, filled with commie blocks and dispair, Look at Poland how much they grew once they got rid of your shitty communism. Look how rich average American was compared to soviet
>that western media and education system actually do nothing to call out the USSR on all of it's crimes against humanity.
Russia was literally the bad guy in every 80s and 90s movie.
The education system had pogroms against communism being evil and wrong.
We just stopped caring when they fell apart and became an oligarchical police-state like us.
>What is the appeal of communism?
Same appeal for anarcho-capitalism, pure libertarianism, and feminism. It has a very dry-cut, black and white outline for how the world should work.
unfortunately none of them work because people aren't perfect consumers or observers, which is why adaptable hybrid capitalist/socialist states like the US and European republics manage so well.
Oh are you talking about capitalism?
>killed millions
Gone bring up the famines caused by the British in India out of economic reasons for starters.
>Drove millions into poverty
For one man to become rich, hundreds had to become poor.
>Internal wars
Ok capitalism hasn't caused internal wars, but it did cause external wars.
>suppressed the cultural and economic rights of billions around the world
If you count the explotation of third and second world workers for their low wages and having them work for basically nothing, then yes. Also if capitalism is such a great system why isnt everyone (that isnt lazy) rich? Could it be that capitalism only makes the capitalists rich?
There is no way to represent or read from "capitalism is better than communism because citizens were wealthier" to "well kuwait has wealth therefore everything that isn't kuwait sucks!".
At all.
No. Literally noone argues about flat Earth. Noone argues about Einstein or Fermat's theorem.
There is no consensus about economical, political and philosophical relation of communism and other ideologies and philosophies.
Some organisations, circles and outstanding thinkers support it, others oppose, most are on the fence.
It means something when two countries are locked in a Cold war and one has to rely on the other for food-or it starves. See, we can feed ourselves no matter what. Imports or exports.
>still haven't made a case that refutes mass starvations in USSR throughout it's history
>cuba has better housing. I won't prove my claim so you have to disprove whatever made up thing I poop post
We've seen the hospitals after commies told us they had great healthcare. They even had great healthcare according to international ranking organizations. Then we saw what those hospitals were really like
informationisbeautiful.net
You're right, just 100m
"capitalism is better than communism because citizens were wealthier"
"gulf states sultanates are better than other systems of government because citizens were wealthier"
Please, pinpoint the difference.
>Egypt
>talks againat tyrany
listen pyrafag, sort your shitty country first.
you been and srill is rulled by tyrany. at the very least communism would provide you some food and shelter
I don't know how you equate production of goods for voluntary consumption by the masses with reduction in the amount of goods available to the general populace.
>Do you actually believe that this policy is the main and withstanding one?
It is the main one. Forced redistribution always becomes that. As for withstanding, no, but that's because the system doesn't last long enough for it to be considered "withstanding."
Suuuure. It's not like polish median household GDP is much lower than russian one. Again, skyscrapers are not everyone's wealth.
>or it starves
Needs proving.
>See, we can feed ourselves no matter what.
Well, you are having breadtickets today. And you import most of your food. You can't feed yourselves, lol.
>Then we saw what those hospitals were really like
And what those hospitals were really like? More people treated, more medical personnel, more medicines, disease prevention, mass vaccination, etc Meanwhile americunt had to borrow a loan from a bank to get his health even checked, not treated. How much human lives and money have communist healthcare saved? Capitalist one at the same time has only rich man's desires in mind.
>It definitely is. It may be a lot more then that but Communism implies that a certain economic system is in place. This isn't even debatable.
Let's see. The first case of communism ever, approved by more or less every other communists.
en.wikipedia.org
>Of what Ideology?
Of anticommunism at the very least.
Imperialism is a reality of every government, the only reason capitalists get to do it more is because capitalism generates so much wealth that it makes imperialism easy.
If you can build a bronze sword while your opponents are still using rocks, it's not the fault of the forger, it's just war.
Also, for someone to get rich, other people do not have to be poor, because exchanges in capitalism are mutually beneficial. The rich get rich by making everyone else slightly richer.
Obviously it can't be judged by historical examples.
16-years old 100kg taekwondo boy have beaten 8-years girl 40kg judo girl => hence taekwondo is better.
System were never put under same conditions.
First world had access to resources of all new world plus middle eastern oil, access to better human capital, larger population, better lands and geographic location, better technologies and means of production in starting point, etc.
Nice strawman, bro.
>Literally no one
loc.gov
This list is from a while ago, and doesn't include the modern ones, but this was long after the theory was disproven.
Also, consensus doesn't have shit to do with truth. Lots of people being stupid doesn't mean they're all correct.
>Please, pinpoint the difference.
Are you this retarded?
Why should form of government and economic success be linked?
There is absolutely no evidence for that.
The "gulf state" part is obviously right.
Counties with oil are better of then countries without.
Capitalism is an economic system, Communism also implies a certain economic system.
And economic systems obviously have an effect on the economy.
Do you understand the difference?
>Russia is a police state
>Soviet police didn't give their citizens rights. Gulag for owning a bible was the standard right after the revolution. decades later, still gulags, and no free speech or personal property
>Russia somehow worse than NKVD/Cheka/KGB
Think this through, my dude.
>Gone bring up the famines caused by the British in India out of economic reasons for starters.
Ironically, the fascists like Mosely and Goebbels would bring this up all the time.
>For one man to become rich, hundreds had to become poor.
Are you describing communism, because the GDP and PPP in non-communist countries is amazing compared to them.
Get your first job and you'll start to take responsibility for it.
>Ok capitalism hasn't caused internal wars, but it did cause external wars.
Sure. Not all wars are bad. But communism only really crops up through revolutions, and then a series of purges, and then decades of repression until one of the following happens:
1)separation,decentralization, and balkanization(Yugoslavia, USSR)
2)regression,dependence, and dynasty(Cuba, North Korea)
3)transform into capitalism(Vietnam, China)
>low wages
vs
>private property being illegal
Yes, I'll take capitalism any day of the week.
>why isnt everyone (that isnt lazy) rich?
We are. You just don't realize how bad things can get until they do. Like in communism.
That is still noone in terms of having weight in society, its academic, scientific and educational institutions.
Communism is globalism, and it was created to deliver the entire world to (((them))), make everyone submit, remove Christ, and replace God with the (((state))). Under Communism, your rights don't come from a creator or higher power, they are given to you by (((elite men))), and that's why atheism is pushed in popular culture. Socialism is a hip lube marketed to youth, before the State rams a Red Cock up their weak asses.
Meanwhile, Zionism has taken hold in America, because Israel pretends to be our cousin, a defacto 51st state, and it exploits the empathy and beliefs of Christian Americans.
If Communism attacks from "above" like a dragon, a war machine of death with the entire globe as its directive, then Zionism attacks from below like a seductive serpent under the rock of Israel.
Both Communism/Socialism and Zionism have the same endgame: the entire world belongs to (((them))) and the goyim are to be the slaves.
Communism, of course, does backfire, with Stalin for instance. But (((they))) have wise tales about creating a monster to do their bidding that turns on them, destroys their house of cards, so they start over. Relentless.
Zionists (Jewish Supremacist Nationalists; Neocons) try to tell the Goyim that they are unlike their Bolshevik brethren (Jewish Globalists; Neolibs). And they do have their spats.
But when a people are greatly outnumbered, it is a cunning survival strategy to play two sides, each gathering and sharing intel, each storing and stealing wealth.
These ideologies are brothers. Racing like a fox, but patient like the tortoise, to claim the world first and please their father, the Devil.
because it's the dreamworld of r-selected idiots
But why wouldnt you want everyone to be rich? Only in communism is that possible (talking about the end goal. not revolution today, wealth tommorow).
You would support communism aswell if you weren't in the middle or upper class.
Saying "it has been proven" as an argument, however, appeals to consensus.
Otherwise that statement has no sense, and you should explain the proof itself, instead of claiming that it supposedly exists.
>Of anticommunism at the very least.
That is not an ideology.
And if you are saying that Communism and the economy in the USSR are unrelated, I may remember you of the existence of "collective farms".