How can I rationalize being a commie with being a US nationalist?

How can I rationalize being a commie with being a US nationalist?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>commie
rationalize it with a bullet in your head

...

America is the land of the free so you're free of being a commie,I guess

You could pull it off if you wanted to be a Stalinist, but very few people are actually that dumb.

The idea being that humanity will be united soon, but not quite yet. Basically the excuse for everything Stalin did that was antithetical to Marx's retarded ideals.

You really can't, but if you want to downgrade from commie to demsoc and from nationalist to patriot then the two are no longer mutually exclusive.

>commie
kill yourself OP

>Nationalist Commie
You should kill yourself because you can't even use the arguement that "my communism hasn't been tried before" because that literally has been tried before and it horribly collapsed.

Why do people hate gommies? Do they really understand what they are criticizing? Most people are shit at actually understanding opposing ideologies, commies included.

Just do what this leaf says, being a demsoc that is also a patriot is a fine ideology as long as you don't get mired in political correctness and the culture surrounding it.

This is a pretty terrible argument tho. You're literally saying "let's not try new policies because these other policies have failed".

Peronism was a mistake

No because the policies OP suggests from the ideology he has stated have already been tried and failed horribly, only a fraction of an extreme minority in America even remotely wants them, he should just stop being an idiot and go more moderate.

a huge mistake

Nobody says that communism hasn't been tried, but that it hasn't been achieved

Some of them sure. Communist regimes failed for very specific reasons, many of them were more political than economic. Simply trying to avoid those specific problems wouldn't compromise the core principles of the ideology. Although centrally planning is pretty terrible I will admit.

commies want to make your country like cuba. would you like to live in cuba? i dont.

Cuba is pretty decent compared to the rest of Latin America m80, especially given the embargo.

Communism has been achieved, USSR, Mao's China, etc. were all communist. Marx never said in the manifesto how a communist society would actually function, all of these authoritarian versions of it are as legitimate and representative of how communism works in practices as any other special snowflake form of communism. Saying that true communism hasn't been achieved is just false, what a person arguing that is really saying is that my special little form of communism that will totally work unlike all these other guys who have tried communism despite no evidence that it will end any different.

every political or social idea revolves around stealing money from group a to group b

why even bother? every form of social or political "ideal" is a made up utopia by basement dwelling wankers a century ago.

just exterminate humanity and you will have your harmony

there is no need to fear communism or commies because they can see that what happened in china and ussr was establishment of a ruling class

commies had to be reinvented to try to rectify this historical trend because no matter how much you preach internationalism the only way to get things done is the efficiency of bureaucratic control if you outlaw/suppress enterprise

communism therefore must be by another means

>communism
>nationalism
sounds like this guy to me tbqhwy

>Marx never said in the manifesto how a communist society would actually function

He literally defined communism as a "stateless, classless society", something that no supposedly "communist" country has achieved.

a true communist society is the abolishment of currency and the end to material shortage

they had achieve neither

there is a definite state of post-scarcity, not just in name

cuba isnt really a decent country desu. would u like to live in an extremely poorer version of 60s usa? embargo or not russia wasnt the best either even though it had more tech compared to cuba.

also commies killed more people than hitler but somehow they are the best people on earth for some people!

Cuba was poor under capitalism.

Dont forget it has never been tried in a context without external war/conflict/embargo/etc. Never had the benefit of peace and international collaboration without that financial pressure of surviving.

cuba is poorer under socialism. riddle me that.

>millions of Communist individuals are responsible for more deaths than one man

Wow what a surprise

communist cuba was able to give to people what capitalism cuba could not

desu it was more of stalin's doing so still 1 man.

>also commies killed more people than hitler but somehow they are the best people on earth for some people!

And the British Empire killed even more than that. Ideologies don't kill people, people acting on behalf of those ideologies do. Notice how nobody blames capitalist liberalism for the Napoleonic Wars, or Manifest Destiny, or European Colonialism, even though they were all caused by liberal capitalist states.

Any source on that?

which is nothing? imo if i was head of cuba i would just abolish communism and try to lift embargo or something.

do you really want best for your people or are you just a stubborn old man? i would want best for my people.

Not many leftists think Stalin's purges or massacres were justified m8

The vast majority of lefties on Sup Forums are libertarian socialists

college education and medical services

the embargo was by the US literally for being sour about losing cuba

he's probably talking about GDP per capita, which is a shit way to examine development because it doesn't account for people who languish in poverty. in addition, Cuba's education and healthcare systems are some of the best in Latin America, incalculably better than what existed before

at least for nationalism it has a better ideal. why would i care for a cuban for example just because he is a commie? i dont. i only care for my people and i dont want to be involved with other cultures because of some ideology.

also if communism/socialism was that good why USSR collapsed at all?

i also just remembered, nazi's were socialists too. NAT-SOC, national "socialism". does it ring any bells? god damn.

>it's decent compared to the rest of latin america
lel

That's why to this day, people escape from there on rafts made out of rubber, wood, and rusted metal? I live in Miami, and trust me, I doubt any of them would want to go back and live there, though some occasioanlly go back to visit family members who are unable to come to the US.

Hunger and brainwashing? Friend told me that they had some turbulent times after collapse of USSR (which was coincidentally the same time period when rest of latin america was also going to shit due to political and economic crisis).

best in "Latin" america. still not comparable with europe/usa. yeah health care system is not good in usa you may say but it is due to economical reasons not because you guys dont have the tech for it.

Cuba isn't worse under socialism. While Cuba's government is pretty shit, so was every Cuban government in history.

You can point out small ways in which Cuba used to be better, but most problems in Cuba (lack of free speech, poverty, lack of democracy, homophobia) were substantially worse under Batista and his cronies.

and what is free speech really? go outside and talk about how phedophilia or rape is such a good thing and tell me no one touches you. there is no "free speech" on earth, we just delude ourselves.

there is "free" speech because in some places you will go to jail for it

You're the reason we can't progress anymore, faggot.

>also if communism/socialism was that good why USSR collapsed at all?

Because of a few things. Centrally planning is inherently flawed, I'm not denying that. It's messy and inneficient, a bureaucratic nightmare, and planners can't possibly keep up with the complexities of a modern economy. But central planning isn't the only model of socialism, take a look a t Yugoslavia if you want to see other models in practice.

There was also the matter of political repression, which was a result not of communism, but of the Bolsheviks just not relinquishing the autocratic power they achieved in the chaos of the revolution and civil war. The lack of democratic mechanisms made corruption a huge issue, since corrupt officials essentially weren't answerable to the people, so they could swindle them as much as they want with basically no consequences. This could have been solved with increased democratization.

There were also the more short term causes, specifically the fact that the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan, and from the arms race with the West in general. In addition there was the fallout from glasnost and perestroika. Increased transparency and freedom of the press essentially allowed the soviet people to see how corrupt their government was, and they demanded change. Gorbachev initially tried to gradually root out corruption and improve the economy, but he was stopped by a coup which took advantage of the anti-government sentiment that was strong at the time to toppled the Soviet regime and carve the country up among the oligarchs.

The whole thing was far more complicated than "lol commies r dumb"

>commie
>progress
why don't you ask to Russia, Poland, etc how much they progressed with that shitty ideology? you are the reason of why we can't progress.

shit, 30.000 deads (if such numbers are even real) weren't enough

The vast majority of Latin America is capitalist, but still well below the standards of the West or Northeast Asia.

Just compare your own country to Syria or Iraq. You guys are all capitalist, but instability, a history of autocracy, and widespread corruption prevent those two from approaching the comfortable living conditions of Turkey.

you don't understand what free speech is until you've read John Stuart Mill's essay on it, called the Aeropagitica.

Nazis weren't really socialist by the time Hitler took power. While the party was founded by anti-capitalists, Hitler actually murdered most socialist-leaning Nazis and adopted a nihilistic and pragmatic economic model, nationalizing when it was expedient and supporting corporations the rest of the time.

Honestly the more I look at economic history the more I'm convinced that prosperity has a lot less to with the economic system in place and more to do with political stability, having access to valuable economic and natural resources, commodity prices, having profitable trade relations, and the condition of the global economy in general.

I support free speech in that the government should not actively silence people for holding critical views.

>look at all the doctors xD
You mean the ones who emigrate to Florida to be cab drivers or the ones who oversee crumbling hospitals where patients die of simple infections?

Cuba is a fucking joke.

>I prefer Saudi Arabia instead

Russia progressed massively from 1917 to 1941.

Because nobody would invest in that shithole of a country, central planning was necessary to industrialize the former Russian Empire.

The Soviet failure was caused by poor economic planning, even poorer political priorities, and a resistance toward market dynamics.

>communism
>progress
A fucking Walmart is a Soviet citizen's wet dream. Capitalism is the only way to feed and clothe the world.

The Age of Great Mistake enden in 1991 in our country. Those 74 years were really suffering. Its truly great we have surpassed it, but its a pity that usa is on a path to repeat it.

>capitalism is the only way to feed and clothe the first world at the expense of everybody else

Ftfy.

>yugoslavia as an example
well considering all the massacres etc. happening, i am pretty sure yugoslavia isnt a good example for anything just like USSR or nazi germany.

i also believe (not only believe but considering all the socialist/commie countries so far) socialism is inherently a repressive system thus democratization can not happen at all. democratization means birth of other political ideologies and this is bad for a repressive system.

there was immense corruption because country was poor. it was based on being poor this is the whole ideology. if you make everyone on the same level as worker as in worker class is the dominant class, then everyone becomes poor because there is a reason why these people are worker. they arent qualified for better jobs etc.

if commies couldnt solve these "complications" then they were dumb man i am sorry.

I definitely agree. Just compare Norway to Nigeria. Both are liberal democracies with fossil fuel export economies, but Norway's peaceful history has allowed them to prosper.

Norway's GDP per capita was actually lower than Nigeria's current one in 1945. It's entirely possible that continued stability could allow Nigeria to meet current Western in our lifetimes.

>Russia progressed massively from 1917 to 1941.
probably because they were a huge shithole before that
sorry, I can't agree with being a massively censored and repressed slave of the State just because some people want free things without working

and where on earth i said i want saudia arabia faglord? stop projecting.

Keked out loud

>poor economic planning
Here's a poor economic plan for you: let's deincentivize industry be taking away profits, focus on raw production without regard for quality or concept of demand, and force inept beaurocrats to lie about that very production by making natural market failures criminal offenses, all the while doggedly ignoring the fact that an illicit capitalist market is the only way to actually obtain what little goods actually get produced.

That's Sovietism. Make like a Soviet and fucking kill yourself.

>implying Saudi Arabia and all OPEC countries aren't richer versions of communist "utopias"
All of them have the same inate problems that Cuba has, but with more money to throw at said problems.

>muh zero sum fallacy
>babies are starving in Africa because people in the US are fat
>fucking Canadian
Every time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism

Considering their GDP, Cuban healthcare is amazing.

>well considering all the massacres etc. happening, i am pretty sure yugoslavia isnt a good example for anything just like USSR or nazi germany.

Those happened because Yugoslavia was a Frankenstein state that never should have existed. But while it lasted they had similar levels of prosperity to the West. The same system implemented in a country with less ethnic tensions would have worked just fine.

>i also believe (not only believe but considering all the socialist/commie countries so far) socialism is inherently a repressive system thus democratization can not happen at all. democratization means birth of other political ideologies and this is bad for a repressive system.

How is it inherently repressive though? What's important to remember is that no communist government ever rose out of peaceful political transition. Violent political upheaval breeds authoritarian control, simple as that.

>there was immense corruption because country was poor

Depends on what you mean by "poor". Post WW2 it wouldn't really be fair to call the USSR poor, employment was secure, education and healthcare were universal, starvation and homelessness were all but eliminated, etc. There was simply a lack of consumer goods, because these weren't considered important by economic planners, but god forbid there's a lack of silly putty and slap chops.

>if you make everyone on the same level as worker as in worker class is the dominant class,

The point isn't to "make everybody the same as a worker", the point is to end the exploitation of workers at the hands of the upper class, and distribute wealth evenly.

>if commies couldnt solve these "complications" then they were dumb man i am sorry.

It was less a matter of couldn't and more a matter of wouldn't. The corruption was the real issue, with a centralized authoritarian state party members had basically complete impunity when they cheated the people or enriched themselves at the expense of others.

kek

Nobody is supporting Stalinist repression ya dumb shit

>nobody would invest

France and UK invested massively in the Russian empire and they had the highest industrial growth on the planet between 1890 and 1914.

and corruption happens because your country is poor. and why is it poor? why didnt corruption happened massively in finland but happened in russia/USSR?

Tell that to the billions of people who aren't properly served by capitalism

Soviet food shortages occurred because no state can manage an economy as effectively as the collective action of millions of citizens, not because they rejected capitalism

Corruption happens when there is impunity for those who are corrupt. Like I said, Russia wasn't "poor", not in the way some third world countries were poor, but it had third world levels of corruption.

China has a similar GDP to the U.S. and EU, yet it's far more corrupt than either.

Try to guess what they invested in.

Protip: oil

>people starved because centralized planned economies don't work
Did you not read what the fuck you wrote? These aren't just mistakes, improper applications of a noble and well thought out theorhetical system, these issues are inherent in a planned economy, a system whose failures breed a culture which then exacerbates those failures because it can't admit to them without losing legitimacy. A centralized economy is repressive and hugely harmful by its very nature.

Market failures, mismanagement a, and busts in a capitalist system get people fired or at their very worst make everyone poor for a while. Market failures in a planned economy causes literal millions to starve, often with very little or nothing changing to the system as a result. There is no ability for citizens to change those outcomes.

china has corruption because the division of money is absolutely shit compared to majority of western countries. gdp alone doesnt mean anything.

and lets be honest, russia was really poor. i remember the times when USSR finally disolved, russian prostitutes were all over turkey. those women had engineering / medicine degrees for gods sake.

This is why I believe elections are necessary in a socialist system. It's pretty vital to give the proletariat a mechanism to hold their surrogates accountable.

>people being commies in western countries
WHY

>commie with being a US nationalist?

Well, we had something like this... What was it called again..?

Right, but if investment isn't directed properly it will only benefit the investors.

I think public development is generally more efficient than private investment because a democratized state allows money to benefit constituents directly. Private investment only benefits the local population if it's in the interests of the investor.

>implying a system the controls all wealth and means is conducive to impartiality and accountability
Don't be naive.

That's because everything was going to shit in the 80s, mainly due to the war in Afghanistan, collapsing commodity prices, and the economy literally growing faster than planners could keep up. After the USSR collapsed in the 90s the social programs that had once kept the majority of the population fed, educated, and housed, all went with it, so it's no wonder there were tons of prostitutes all over Turkey.

Not even Strasser was a real commie. The Nazis were, at their most progressive, a racist and militant version of Bernie Sanders

>not being able to separate political systems from economic systems

With a powerful legislature and upper house, free and open elections, freedom of the press, responsible courts, and constitution that enshrines all of these, there is literally no reason why a socialist society can't also be democratic.

>I don't understand why people don't like being exploited

Gee I wonder.

Shoot him with your gun.
If you let them breed they will take over.
t.Partisans

But the government shouldn't control all that. Lenin's biggest mistake was destroying the Soviets (workers' councils) and giving too much power to the central government

What I am saying is that you should kill yourself

>I think public development is generally more efficient than private investment because a democratized state allows money to benefit constituents directly.
Because public institutions don't allocate resources based on market forces or aren't forced to make profitable decisions they're by definition less efficient than private enterprise. It's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said.

That being said, public works certainly have a place, but it's by its very nature when a project is wanted or necessary but ISN'T profitable for private business without harming the public good.

DESU it makes more sense to be a commie in the West, because Marx's communism was meant to supplant the most advanced and prosperous types of capitalism, after workers lose their livelihood to automation.

In addition, Marxism derives entirely from the Western philosophical tradition.

>People in the west are this delusional

Because it would revert back to capitalism. The first time there was a planning failure that led to people starving or not having shoes or whatever someone on the bottom would say "fuck it guys, this isn't working out". This happened multiple times in Soviet history. Those people are the ones who got cropped out of pictures.

The system is INHERENTLY oppressive because if it isn't it turns back into private enterprise. The only ones that end up lasting for a long time end up suppressing dissent.

Psst

I know the Soviets fucked you guys. They were imperialists who were especially bad at serving people in provinces like yours.

But the USSR, and Marxism-Leninism, are not the only models for socialist liberation.

This.

But it's not like he has to call himself a Stalinist. People that are obsessed with ideological purity are fucking retards.

>communism was never tried

>exploited
In your beautiful socialist utopia you'll soon find that you can't eat or wear your human dignity.
>those guys have stuff and I don't
>they must have taken it from me
Classic zero sum fallacy. Literally Econ 101.

The big thing that confuses me is that even people that complain about not having enough still live a life of overflowing bounty compared to those in centralized economies. They are biting the hand of the system that feeds.

Your theory relies on the assumption that there would be planning failures, which in turn relies on the idea that central planning is the only model of socialism.

Look up a few others, like market socialism. There can't be planning errors if there is no central planning m8.

You could also enshrine socialism in the constitution, meaning that changing the system would be a far more difficult task.

>it makes more sense to listen to an angry Siberian Luddite in a technically advanced country
I have no words.