Is communism actually better than capitalism minus the part where it makes your country poor?

Is communism actually better than capitalism minus the part where it makes your country poor?

Communism doesn't make your country poor.

No. The losers of your society get to be the dictators and abuse the states power to spite all the chads they had to deal with growing up.

>Communism doesn't make your country poor.

You wouldnt lie over the internet would you user?

Name an instance of successful capitalism.

It's true.

PIBperInhabitantIn Europe.jpg

Bitcoin after it became more than a dollar

You're supposed to post an actual image not a filename you retarded redditor.

Bitcoin will never work. Seven transactions a second globally is a failure of a currency.

explain how venezuela, the country with one of the biggest oil reserves in the world, has everything turned into shit.
>hard mode: you can't say it isn't real communism/socialism

>every society ever that bartered or used a token for trade
instances where communism have worked
>????

communism is good if you don't enjoy food

Name one.

Corruption is shit in any system.

What you might like it's resource based society.

You don't have to do a cultural imposition, just equally distribute resources.

>biggest oil reserves on the planet
>is running out of gasoline
You can’t make this shit up

Fuck it. Ya, sure. It does not matter one bit what anyone says.

So capitalism must be pretty great since it’s only detractors are corruption.

Other than the starvation and the authoritarian police state and the huge wait for medical treatment and the poverty and decline in the arts and the collapse of the economy and the imprisonment of political dissonance and the loss of freedom of speech communism is bretty gud

Every single European country has been more successful than any communist country ever.
yes, even the shitty ones.
why?
no democide and there is food

Capitalism is shit garbage because any situation where a large portion of the population has to suffer in a way they can't resolve for the sake of another part of the population experiencing opulence is a shitty system.

Name one.

communism makes corrupting the state so easy, a child could do it.

And one time conservative capitalists made a pedophile their primary spokesman. At least our corruption would be pro-child.

you just wrecked communism in your argument

It's a consequence of any socio economic system

>Pareto distribution

Though that’s not due by design but by ability of the opulent to gather resources. Their children almost always throw that opulence down the drain.

The fact that money experiences some kind of karmic effect (it doesn't, if you're born upper class you stay upper class) doesn't help any of the people starving and dying in the streets under capitalism.

Designing the system to induce class disparity is designing a bad system.

And communism allows people too...?

They starve because of their own ineptitude. If you don’t work hard or make the right descisions for yourself, you will suffer. This is not a flaw of the state but a flaw of the man.

best system balances socialism and capitalism in a way that socialists care for the weak while making capitalists pay for everything.
socialists know how to spend money and capitalists know how to make some.

It's not designed that way.

Neither is designed that way.

It's a power law

If you're born with a disability under capitalism, are abused or neglected as a child, or are otherwise denied forms of opportunity, that's claimed to be "your fault" and that you deserve to die for rolling dice in an unlucky way.
Capitalism is shit.

>Communism doesn't make your country poor, it make your people's

A UBI system, for example, is acceptable for me. Any system where you do not die as a result of lost opportunity covers any flaws I'd see in capitalism.

Capitalism is designed to create a class of miserable, dying poor people.

Isn’t nature the same way? It’s unfair, yes, but each is given the opportunity regardless of his ability.

Nature is wrong. Just because something is natural doesn't make it right.

is cancer actually better than not having cancer minus the part where you die of cancer?

...

It is impossible to feed all the starving, impossible to cure all the ill, impossible to remove all suffering. Thus it is better to teach people how to help themselves, though not everyone is willing.

The children of the rich demand a lifestyle of luxury for free.

More food is produced by modern agriculture than the needs of the entire world's population combined.

>Nature is wrong. Just because something is natural doesn't make it right.

This level of communism.

>something that has worked for thousands of years is wrong
>something that has never worked is right

Don't use the internet. It hasn't ever worked right and hasn't worked for thousands of years yet.

an intelligent and hard working person will survive under full capitalism, but that kind of person will only be able to come about if he/she has a stable family and a good upbringing, but even then if you make a bad enough mistake, you can easily drive your life into hell if you are not resilient enough.
You could argue that if you help people too much, they won't learn anything and will not be productive.
Capitalism is like a very hard videogame with no instructions.

It’s a thing we cannot change. It will never change. When you trust the government to act as arbiter, you are asking for a few thousand people to undertake monumental efforts to ensure the welfare of all, since everyone so vastly outnumbers them and the resources they are able to procure, the net result of communism is always greater suffering than allowing for charity and smaller systems that spring up through commerce and the ability of individuals to make their living themselves.

The government is just another business, and under communism it is the only business struggling to support the weight of the whole population.

which definition of capitalism?

do you mean the corporate-cronyism where wall street and big corporations get special privileges from the government? I agree with you. the growth of the state, specifically the MIC and Wall Street bailouts and regulation caused a huge growth in inequality between the politically connected and normal citizens

We lack the ability to travel to all those places. That is why there is hunger. Too few drivers, too many people. It’s too much for a single man to plan out for every inconsistency.

Global agriculture produces far more than the food required to feed every human. We have more houses empty than we have homeless people. You are championing false scarcity.

...

Coulda' fooled me.

A person does not deserve death or a life of suffering purely because they weren't optimized and some kind of genius in spite of things like child neglect.
I support systems that reward the hardworking while preserving the lives of those who weren't as lucky.

I’ve said, we cannot deliver the food across many miles of land, roads don’t stretch across the globe, and it’s no one’s responsibility to ensure that everyone is able to eat, or has easy access to food, only that the food is produced. We’re talking of hundreds of thousands of communities expected to be visited by a single truck.

We have more than enough capacity for travel and urban condensing of population to bring food to people or to at the very least shift agricultural bases enough to enable consistent access.

>a fucking ancap

>We lack the ability to travel to all those places.
TIL we still haven't invented air planes.

> Too few drivers, too many people.

Why do we need a large quantity of people to redistribute food? An airplane only requires a couple of people to operate and maybe a few more for support staff.

> It’s too much for a single man to plan out for every inconsistency.

Yeah, we have these things called computers and telecommunication networks that can figure things like this out really fast.

I like you Finnbros, the average Finnish poster is good.

>We’re talking of hundreds of thousands of communities expected to be visited by a single truck.

brainlet.jpg

Capitalism is an immoral system because 99% of the population is at the mercy of the other 1%. The economy is just the sum of all the negotiated material transactions throughout the country as a whole. When most people can't afford a good education, they have very few options of what they can do with their life, and all of the options that they do have require making a deal with someone who owns capital. The capitalists on the other hand, because everyone else is more desperate for resources than they are, have an easy time finding labor that they can pay hardly any wages and offer hardly any benefits. This continues from generation to generation and creates an immense power gap between the rich and the poor.

I am telling you we do not. It would be better if the starving produced their own food and that is sad.
They can’t be everywhere and also have a limited capacity to transport goods. It would be easier if we all lived at the source of food.

Sounds reasonable.
I am sorry to tell you that you wont find that from communism either.
the extremes wont give you other than the suffering of the innocent.

I don't have any opposition to the development of urban arcologies dedicated to the creation of food. I think that sort of engineering is good.

A fellow American that is anticapitalist? That's rare. To be honest I always cringe when I see anticommunist/socialist/unionist Americans. The labor movement in America was huge but got killed in the 60s and since then people have been indoctrinated as faithful slaves to the bourgeoisie.

There would still be hungry people.

>It would be easier if we all lived at the source of food.

I.e., it would be easier if all countries were able to feed themselves and not rely on charity. In other words, capitalism is unable to sustain a human population, in other words capitalism is a shitty system because it can't provide people with basic life necessities.

Communism is no different in that regard, in fact it is even less effective.

aw thanks commieposter :3

There was no hunger in USSR after ww2.

In order to feed all the billions, every man woman and child must be delivering and producing food, leading to stagnation in human innovation.

None reported.

Lol what a retard


if you had been communist everything that is happening today would have happened 50 years ago like it did in Cuba

Want to know a model of what America under communism would have looked like? look at Cuba or Venezuela


fucking idiot

the people who actually have nostalgia over communists countries still vehemently hate the "bureaucracy" involved. they only like that their countries used to be feared and respected.

did you even read the OP?

I feel like the 2016 election shifted my economic views and those of many Americans left. One of the dominant issues was the erosion of American manufacturing and the harmful effects of NAFTA and TPP on workers and that alerted a lot of Americans to the problems of unbridled capitalism. Even on this site, almost everyone was a libertarian/ancap a few years ago and now I'm seeing a lot more people echoing the same reservations with capitalism that I've started having.

You weren’t here a few years ago

No. Capitalism isn't perfect. Nothing in life is perfect and that's something that all schools of left wing thought can't seem to accept (another example is neoliberalism) but the solution isn't to enforce a system that limits success and lifts up the inferior at the expense of the superior.
I'm sure most communists think that they're extremely capable and evil capitalists in top hats are conspiring to prevent them from succeding but the truth is that their own limits and lack of ability are what hinder them.

Triggered impoverished commie. Dumping

...

...

I definitely was. I started coming here occasionally in 2012 when everyone was supporting Ron Paul.

...

...

Why? Agriculture business doesn't involve that many people.

Besides, you don't need a large domestic agri sector in order to feed everybody in your home country. In fact, most country are not self sufficient when it comes to food.

The bottom line is this: we don't have a production problem, and we don't even have a distribution problem, we have a PROFIT problem.

Take the third option my friend. The one that affords man a soul.

Name a country that didn't have a food shortage problem during war time.
And not just any war, but a full scale military invasion from multiple fronts.

...except niggers, chinks, gooks, japs (oh wait nevermind, they're "honorary aryans"!), mexicans, jews, and so on...

>makes your country poor
>goal of communism is to provide for basic physiological needs to leave everyone truly free to pursue their craft and arts

the capitalist alternative is for only the 1% to enjoy true freedom and not have to grind wage slavery to get those basic needs the burguoise are born with

T. Trans rights activist

Nah. Transfreaks are bourgeois decadence to be stamped out.

This is a dumb meme. If you want to play that game communism has no ground to stand on. Exclusion of other races does not equal hatred or mistreatment of them. In fact I'd advocate that they make their own NatSoc states.

Well when this actually becomes a thing I may consider support. Until then your movement fights against the worker for bourgeoisie elite.

...

Communism is good if you're part of the ruling families. It's basically medieval serfdom. At first the ruling class will make it pretty where everyone gets free stuff. Then, after a generation you're living as a serf serving the noblility.
I guess it's appealing to some

I don't care for your revisionist version of National Socialism bullshit. The fact is that the Nazis were planning on ethnically cleansing 90% of Eastern Europe/Slavs, "Germanizing" 5%, and sending the rest off to live in Siberia. The Japs and Italians were imperialists and also had similar genocide/replacement plans in mind.

>Well when this actually becomes a thing I may consider support. Until then your movement fights against the worker for bourgeoisie elite.
Fuck off, you don't know a thing about leftist thought and theory. If you're interested however, I wouldn't mind helping you out.

Fuck off cunt. I am sure you don't even know the definition of socialism or communism.

This desu.

Communism works against man's nature and demonstratably fails on the foundational level. When basic needs are provided for men stagnate (see mouse utopia). Furthermore basic needs are not all that man needs and aren't really even what's most important to him. Communism not only lacks a meaning to provide him it sistimaticly puts a bullet through any meaning he had prior. This is how rape of Berlin happens.

Commies are dogs not men and you know it on the inside. Capitalism is only a little better but not much. Third option. (Also nobody's more genocidal than commies)

really gets grandmothers compot running

what a sad way to dance to your enemies tune