Socialism-communism falls

>Socialism-communism falls
>Gentlemen need more socialism to fix it.

t. Europe or Latin América.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=newRbaPkkao
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiyang_government
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Socialism-communism falls
>Gentlemen need more socialism to fix it.
t.feel the bern

>implying socialist/commies can evaluate

>Socialism-communism-SJW falls
>Gentlemen need more socialism and feminism to fix it.

does this video triggers commies?
youtube.com/watch?v=newRbaPkkao

Post in hispachan (Mexican Sup Forums) it, is full of commies if get angry it's true.

>socialism succeeds in nordic countries
>BUT THAT ISN'T SOCIALISM OK?!
t. you

Venezuela

>One of the biggest oil reserves in the world
>They can not wipe his ass because they have no toilet paper
>BUT THAT ISN'T SOCIALISM OK?!
t. you

Sorry but I like to wipe my ass Cibervoluntario also... >>/twitter/>>

Not really desu. USSR was pretty mismanaged. Only the Twin Master Races (ie Jews and Nordics) can successfully govern and all others will fail at communism and civil liberties.

>capitalism fails
>gentlemen we need more capitalism to fix this

t. your brainwashed minds

Spain, vote Podemos!

I thought Sup Forums was communist AF. WTF I hate Sup Forums now!

Because capitalism worked well with a downfall in 2008 and a soon to be another one because of mah bakers.

>>gentlemen we need more capitalism to fix this

Jamas escuche a nadie tener ese planteamiento, es más cuando el capitalismo falla los liberales siempre hablan de reinventar el sistema fiscal y bancario, cosa que siempre hacen (Cambio del valor horo).

...

>capitalism fails
stopped reading there

>implying it hasn't failed in many countries before

Greed is what makes any ideology fail. Communism fails because the state becomes greedy and never gives the power to hte people. Capitalism fails because both the goverment and companies become greedy, exploiting the poor and the workers to gain money.

When robots and machines eventually take over all jobs, do you guys think that a capitalistic system will still work, when over 50% of the population will stand without a job?

Name one.

LONG LIVE CHAIRMAN MAO

he's dead though

He didn't live so long then

People are a lot cheaper than robots so this wont happen

You fucking what

Then how come there's already a fuckton of robots in industries as we speak? Look at the car industry alone, or are those just people dressed as robots?

Long live the Emperor!

The Emperor is gay

>Socialism-communism falls

>that was a completely different type of communism
>it is completely unrelated to my version of socialism-communism

>oil prices collapse
>US sanctions
>drought
>corruption

That would bring down any country desu. They were deeper in the shitter before Chavez, and oil prices were high then.

They're not wrong desu. If laissez faire fails it doesn't mean that Keynsianism will fail. By the same token if centralized planned economy fails it doesn't mean that market socialism or syndicalism will fail.

Not to mention the heavy segregation between the classes

This. Things may be falling apart but in the 90s Venzuela was basically Somalia tier outside of the major urban centres. Infant mortality, poverty, illiteracy etc. all plummeted after Chavez started reforming.

I feel so bad for their people. They've been so heavily exploited through these past decades. They even have more food than the country needs yet they still have a fuck ton of starving people, food is basically just a rich commodity there.

That's the corruption kicking in, which has nothing to do with socialism, although it is fair to say that corruption has a lot more potential to do damage than with capitalism.

But communism is the reason why today's Russia is a superpower though

How exactly did socialism fail Europe?

The sad thing with socialism/communism is that in order to create such a system, a lot of power has to be taken from one small group and given to another, which then gives it to the majority. When the new group (the new government) doesn't give it away after the system is established, it becomes totalitarian and creates a state that isn't a lot better than what they previously had.
Of course it depends on the leaders as well, sometimes the power has to stay there for a longer period to fully convert the state and make it sufficient. But in Venezuela's case it's just all about greed, which is sad as fuck

Liberia

You mean the guy who was a Kuomintang member, who fabricated the 'Great' march, during which he didnt walk at all and which he dragged on for several months so that he woudnt have to link-up with Kuo-Tao, for opportunistic personal reasons destroyed several Red armies and endless amount of his 'fellow comrades' and caused the greatest famine of 20th century and literally destroyed massive amount of old Chinese history and arts?

I think that depends a lot on how socialism develops. If it develops gradually and peacefully through reforms or gradual collectivization by the workers I think that authoritarianism is less of a risk. Modern revolutionaries who literally want to emulate the actions of Lenin and Mao are pretty laughable desu, there was a nest of them at my uni. I went to one meeting then avoided them like the plague and now they won't stop emailing me.

And who was completely indifferent to his own children, let Nationalist's execute her second wife (who he could have saved without a problem) and thanked the Japanese for their invasion.

>europe
>socialism
que

Half as bad.

Sounds like typical Chinese founding emperor desu.

Liu Bang and Zhu Yuanzhang did worse shit to get power.

>state that isn't a lot better than what they previously had.
There isnt a single instance when the new socialist goverment have been even slightly better than the previous power, but always worse. Chinese still suffer lower amount of personal freedom than during the last dynasty or the short-lived Peking government.

Revolution is pretty much only for countries that are gribbed hard by the balls, reformation is for the other countries which got a stable economy and a non-corrupt system. Venezuela for example need a revolution while countries like America or Britain need a reformation only in order to establish socialism.
Well, it might depend on if Trump's elected and how Americas economy changes afterwards. Not saying that he'll make the poor poorer and the rich richer, but at this point it's hard to say what will come if he wins. If sanders wins the outcome is pretty obvious.
But yeah, revolutionaries in countries that doesn't need a revolution are pretty silly. We in Sweden will never go away from our socialistic system, so bitching about a revolution is just dumb

You should read about what Russia was like during the tsar's rule before Lenin came and fucked them up, what happened afterwards and how it affected the working class

>reformist drivel
feelthebern amirite

Racial conflicts are not the fault of capitalism.

What is Orinoco? What is gold, silver, iron, copper, bauxite and the most fertile land in the world? Venezuela has many natural resources, more than oil and can not wipe his ass.

>China
>low personal freedom

Confirmed to know China only from the news.

If there's something China never lacks, it's personal freedom. All the street-shitting and square dancing old grannies that would have been arrested in democratic germany for illegaly using public places for personal enjoyment will tell you otherwise. China is very laizzes faire in regards to personal freedom.

You probably mean "political freedom", but that's completely unimportant to the Chinese masses except for those who want to be the rulers themselves.

>Peking government

kek.

Confirmed to know shit.

It was Nanjing government. Or even Chongqing government, after Nanjing was raped. But there was never a "Peking government" before the PRC or after the Qing.


t. someone who has lived 10 years in China

>We in Sweden will never go away from our socialistic system

That's the thing these armchair Maoists don't realize about reform. Once you provide people with a beneficial program or socialized service they get used to it, and they get very angry if it's taken away. So the socialist system becomes more and more entrenched because it's easy to implement new socialist reforms, but hard to take them away once people grow accustomed to them. It's like a train that can only either go forwards or stand still.

I know you are Jorge OP

DELET THIS!!! RACIST FASCIST SCUM!!!! THE CIBERVOLUNTARIADO NEVER WORNG!!!!

There isnt a one Chinese ruler who have been as ruthless as Mao to get into power or imposed as savage and brutal forms of terror and murder on population. Even Lenin (or Stalin) starts to look like a schoolboy. Were ever Mao went (when he had slight amount of power in his hands, in other words Red troops), bloodpath followed. The forms of torture and murder the Reds used is just amazingly brutal, of which burying people alive is just a iceberg. The amount of peasant uprisings against the Communists was just as high as the amount of bodies left by Reds.

Man you are butthurt because Russia took 10% of your territory

t. California.

I whole heartedly believe in the basic income system Finland plans to establish. The most important thing with running an economy is to keep money moving. when people consume the economy grows stronger and when the money sits still in a bank account it doesn't affect the economy.
the system will increase the standard of living by completely removing poverty reducing crime rates, improving health, increase consumption by making people who were previously unable to consume to consume and a ton more.
Really looking forward to see how it turns out

>socialism failed
>it takes the british empire, nazi empire, american empire to attack it for 90 years constantly just keep it down

Ugh huh...

>what happened afterwards and how it affected the working class
Slaves with slightly more freedom became slaves with no freedom at all. It sounds to me that you have read some bolshevik-ok'd history of Czarist rule and the Revolution.

Sorry fuckwit, but there was a non-Kuomintang, non-Commie government after the dynasty was stripped of power, which got into power after Xinhai revolution.

Jorge stop

t.Frank Dikötter

Nope.
You dont even know the right terms. I refuse to believe that you know anything about Chinese history.

For the matter of fact, Mao wasnt worse than any other Chinese ruler in history in his usage of brutality and wholesale slaughter to get his political rivals out of the picture.

He commanded a China that was 400 million strong at that time, while Qin Shihuang merely did a China that was 20 million strong. The difference is only there. And still, Qin killed more Chinese percentage wise by burying them alive inside the Great Wall than Mao did.

Still, without Mao, there's no Chinese superpower of today. Without Qin, there's no unified China of today.
Chinese strength is always built ontop of the violent unification of the country. We shouldnt look at their dictators and emperors in the simplicistic term of "hurrr dey murdered quadzillion of their own peoples!!!11"- because that's completely normal for Chinese dictators and emperors.

Rather one should look at what they have achieved by spending so many human lives at: For both Mao and Qin Shihuang, it actually looks pretty good. Unification for both, and industrialization/infrastructure groundwork for Mao, on which Deng could build.

It's always someone else's fault.

Karelia is part of Russia and not yours

>Sorry fuckwit, but there was a non-Kuomintang, non-Commie government after the dynasty was stripped of power, which got into power after Xinhai revolution.

Kek. You mean the "100 Day Emperor"? He's a fucking joke and achieved nothing (while also having killed a lot of people).

Parrales stop.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiyang_government

Same with Lenin and Stalin in Russia. btw.

Without both of them, Russia would have remained an agricultural shithole/White Africa today. And still run by Aritocratic Oligarchs, who might have been a bit more cultured, but still as corrupt as those today.

But Scumbag Oligarchs got arrested by Putin

Hard to imagine if Russia would've survived without Stalin's iron grip

>I refuse to believe that you know anything about Chinese history.
That is not surprising coming from a sympathizer of savages.
Indifference to any suffering is also quite typical to leftists.

>Still, without Mao, there's no Chinese superpower of today. Without Qin, there's no unified China of today.
Why there should be? United States is a superpower, who can spread their culture to anywhere in the world. Soviet Union was a military superpower, nothing else and the current mainland China is not much more.

Kuomintang ruled Taiwan achieved higher standard of living and personal freedoms than commie ruled China almost without violence.

The end justifies the means seems to be very typical idea to leftists, even when same results have been achieved elsewhere without those means.

No Mexicans even lived in CA back then anyway. Mostly just an empty wilderness.

Russia wasn't even that backwards in 1914. It was exaggerated by commies to a large extent.

Fuck off, you do not have the right to defend the retarded tsar

> San Francismo
> Anglo-Saxon name.

He's american, exploiting the poor is pretty much the norm where he comes from

I said that, because they get rid of british shit in 1776

>Europe
>Socialist

Good one Juan

>agricultural shithole/White Africa today
So what exactly did they achieve? As far as agriculture is considered, Soviet Union became the largest importer of wheat, when during the Czarist rule they were one of the biggest exporters of it. Soviet Union was backwards country - where necessary products had to be qued for hours on end - all the way to early 80's and a small political freedoms brought in by Mikhael Sergevits in the republics and the whole shit became apart.
After the Union fell, all power falled to hands of Chekists, when previously there was at least a small buffer in the form of Communist party. So the experiment lead to nothing but disaster.

Fair point

His name is Jorge, not juan

Most countries outside of Europe and North America really

What's Serbia whoring itself for NATO??

Tbh socialism "failing" was basically Boris Yeltsin staging a coup while Gorbachev was trying to get the USSR's shit together. The Soviet Union would probably still exist if it weren't for that.

Social democracy is best democracy

*Why is

>it will work this time

>A polish faggot appear again

we are?

Yeah, and being more pro US

>tfw the government of Sweden wants to join NATO while the population is screaming "Fuck no!"
If they join it wouldn't be the first time our government didn't listen to its people

not an argument :^)

I have no knowledge of this

The original Spanish settlement was named Yerba Buena and US settlers renamed it San Francisco in 1846. Also if it had been Mexican, wouldn't it be named Tlecpucdxjxjxxipiac or something like that?

Fag polish

>Racial conflicts are not the fault of capitalism.

Sometimes they are. The Atlantic slave trade started because there was profit in it, the civil war happened because Southern plantation owners didn't want to give up slavery which was highly lucrative for them.

>What is Orinoco? What is gold, silver, iron, copper, bauxite and the most fertile land in the world? Venezuela has many natural resources, more than oil and can not wipe his ass.

Even if there are other resources in Venezuela their entire economy is based around oil. Crude accounts for like 92% of their exports. Alberta is literally the same way, every time oil goes to shit the entire province goes with it, then they all get mad at the government when it's pretty obvious that they had nothing to do with it.

>The Soviet Union would probably still exist if it weren't for that.
Yes, but with actions similar to those of what happened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Baltics got taste of freedom during Perestroika and Glasnost and they were not stopping.
Hell, China might have fell apart if the student protests were allowed to continue in 1989.

Nagorno-Karabah was pretty much outside of Soviet influence after the clashes started.

There is no getting shit together when you try to force different nationalities under same state, when those nationalities hates the ruling nationality of that state.


A state of which foundation relies on lies cannot survive the truth. For example, the nation of Unites States of America is not built on lies, so they dont explode when small or larger government fabrications come to light. Well, Texas plays the tough part, but it seems its just a play.

The Spaniards setup missions but to call that a substantial settlement is a stretch.

All I'm saying is that the countries with the most free market economics are generally the most livable ones.

Even if the individual republics broke away and the satellite states abandoned communism it's not much of a stretch for the RSFSR to have kept significant elements and the image of socialism in the same way Vietnam has.

That's because they also have the greatest political stability and have been industrialized for the longest.

And almost all Mexicans (meaning people with Aztec, Mixtec, etc) blood lived in the central part of Mexico in 1846. Most of Mexico was uninhabited wilderness back then.

Capitalism is like obesity, communism is like anorexia, the best system is moderation of both things. Like the German model