Communism is the future

Prove me wrong Sup Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star
youtube.com/watch?v=XV1jgBdgwv0
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan_Ambassador
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

But, but, but, I like food.

Communism had its chance, socialism is a failure.

Pure Capitalism had its chance it wasn't pragmatic enough.

State enforced capitalism and Corporatism (think of a union of socialist syndicalism and mercantilist capitalism) are the future.

>future
Sure lad, sure...

Yeah in like 200 years though. I might have some similar elements but it wont exactly be 'comminism' as we know it.

*it

oh yeah, food is guaranteed under capitalism, i forgot about that... we totally don't have to rely on socialist principles to make sure people in the first world don't starve

Simply because English was the first line in that picture, you know it was made by a upper class white American living in some lavish exurb who is just going through his anti-establishment and anti-capitalist phase.

Makes me glad you're about to get btfo'd by Russia

They are the only realistic option at this point if we look at the systems currently in place and the current trends.

Charity is older than socialism.

Fuck off.

we tried that about 3 times

>the 1st,2nd 3rd internationales

Communism is the only ethically justifiable system of governance.

Communism is the only system of governance that allows for survival of ethnically homogeneous communities in the post-industrial age.

Communism is the only system under which increasing productivity does not paradoxically translate to pauperization of the masses.

corporate fascism is the future

Lol more like in the dust bin of history

At no point in history did communism exist. It was either socialism or state capitalism with "communist" party in power, which were or is communist only in name.

Communism is the only solution to technological unemployment.

Communism is designed to be perfect. That is why it fails.

Capitalism isn't designed to be perfect. That is why it works.

>Communism is the only system under which increasing productivity does not paradoxically translate to pauperization of the masses.

I thought that was only because of the outdated and abandoned marxist labor theory of value.

Literally every form of communism ever attempted by man has failed miserably and almost all of them (I'm referring to Venezuela who is still holding out [yes I realize they're socialist, not communist]) have ended up reverting to basically democracy and capitalism.

Capitalism: work ethic and financial responsibility affords you the opportunity to move upwards through the socioeconomic classes. Squander your chance and you reap what you sew.

Communism: lacking work ethic and responsibility is not an option, it's a jailable offense. The only way to move upward through the classes is to be handpicked by members of the government to receive state bestowed rewards.

What does the star signify? The state? The USSR which would control all the workers after a global revolution?

>Communism is the future
It might be. A very distant future, but it might be. Communism wouldn't work as long as intellect that rules the world is a spawn of natural evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star
Communism has no government, so nobody is controlling anyone.

State capitalism is the future.

Your dumb neoliberalism policies have destroyed your countries for a few extra GDP points.

Read a hustory book about all the little and big flaws communism showed in practise.
History has proven you wrong

>I thought that was only because of the outdated and abandoned marxist labor theory of value.
[CITATION NEEDED]

>State capitalism is the future.
>Dengism
>"Socialism" with Chinese caracteristics
Mao should be spinning in his grave.

History already has.

yes but only when robots are advanced enough to take over the entire economy and humanity can just leech off their work

Surely it is the absolute rate of profit that matters rather than the delta? It goes down in the 1950s and everything was great then.

Deng Xiaopeng was the greatest man of the 20th century.

Vietnan war saved the profit it for a while.
>Destroy every collective farm in the country and push people into the cities to work like slaves in the worst conditions for the profits of a small group o people.
K

Communism wasn't even the past. What makes you think it will be the future.

>is the slaves future
fixed for you.

Mao was shit, Socialism aka State "capitalism"/Socialism is the best.

...

This.

socialism with Chinese characteristics > marxist/leninism

Didn't communism kill like several million of your non-country's people a few decades ago?

>Capitalism
There was no profits, all the value produced was reinvested in the population, there was no person that got the profits, this is not state capitalism, state capitalism is what China is today.

During the Cold War they used to joke:
If you're an optimist learn English
If you're a pessimist learn Russian
If you're a realist learn Chinese

Little did they know that it was not a joke.

Because it was a major success when your governments tried it, right?

>usa and ussr were strong because of their production
>china has the production of 4x usa and 4x ussr
>china is a paper tiger

yeah ukraine was an industrial powerhouse, now it is a shithole

Physical goods dont matter any more user - the USAs Financial scam industry which makes nothing you can touch has more power than 1000 aircraft carriers made out of steel. :^)

China is their own tier now, their power has not been seen before in history.

Like magic our 1,000 steel will be more than their 8,000 steel, don't gotta explain shit.

They are returning to the beginning.

It was a success at least until Stalin fucked things up.

What are you fucking going on about?
Communism never gave more to the average man, it only enslaved everyone and got slave labor sold to their capitalist allies.

Throughout the 20th century we performed the communist experiment time and time again with disastrous results. In every instance it resulted in death camps, mass starvation, genocide, psychotic dictators, and ridiculous oppression. To this day the clueless masses call for socialism and the experiments continue with no less disastrous results than before. Fortunately it seems unlikely that socialism will ever spread like it did in the 20th century, but we must remain eternally vigilant.

So forgive me if I don't buy into your lunacy, the future is not stone age ideologies like communism, the future is free association.

lol...steel production. what a meme. what an unstable market esp to boycott or world/country recession

>le socialism is communism
Now that's Communism.

USA has no economy, its goods are imported and given worth through the oil that is paid solely in dollars.

Socialism means giving more to the people not taking away, in fact I believe not a single dime should be taken from anyone, instead I propose for policies to lift up everyone other than the rich to be richer than them.

> ukraine
> commie
Hilarious

OP is either from crimea or from the east

The unification of all classes and serving the interests of all, true socialism doesn't make anyone unhappy or lower their standard of living.

mah nigga

Communism is a brand of socialism. I'm criticising socialism as a whole.
Literally nonsense.

...

That pic needs an update senpai.

He turned his country from a 3rd world shithole to the 2nd greatest country in the world.

>the wealthy retain their wealth
>the poor are paid via the states resources
>the poor get rich
>the rich stay what they have earned
>socialist state has not gone against anyone's interest

Where does the state get its resources from?

youtube.com/watch?v=XV1jgBdgwv0

Oil/minerals/agriculture

The economic model for communism is inferior to the capitalistic model. They don't take into account basic human nature - but cherry picks human nature and base an economic model on non existing behavioral patterns

Socialism and communism in extend, will breed lower living standards compared to a capitalistic based society. (it's true)

Socialism does not lower any standard of living.

Karl Marx was not a Socialism and he was Anti-Socialism, he believed Socialism was just a stepping stone to inferior Communism, a true Socialist believes only in Socialism everything else is trash.

So by depriving people of resources. As I said, nonsense.

what i have to do to get this resources, you know, implying i live in a communist state.

It could be the future because we are morons that vote for commies but that does not imply that the future is bright.

The resources of the nation belongs to the nation, the money the rich have are not touched.

The state sells the resources and distributes the profits to the lower classes and or uses them to give means of productions to the poor.

youre spot on man. the quality of life is just better. inb4 it was just implemented wrong!

it does..

Wealth distribution, distort peoples idea of where wealth comes from. Instead of working as an employee, they work the system (to some extend).

People will work harder for themselves, than for their neighbor.
Wealth distribution diminish this effect and people will tend to work less hard overall.

Back to your containment board

sage

How exactly was stripping people of land Socialist?
It is equalitist and thus anti-socialist, a Socialist believes in improvement not in equality.

Jewish Planet?

Nothing of what I said had to do with wealth redistribution, as I said I don't give a damn about rich peoples wealth, Socialists /=/ Equalitists.

Who says those resources are the nation's resources? By dictating that those resources cannot be owned by individuals every individual is being deprived of those resources. Also, it's unsustainable, those resources dry up, so eventually the state has to grab resources from people.

How socialism maintain standards of living in the first place?
The only way that any red ideal can work is with help of the capitalist way to deal with things.

Every nation under socialist ideas will slowly slip to totalitarianism and fascism.

The state sells the resources that workers have to work for. How that state is supposed to work if their resources depend on workers that much but the only incentive that they give is literally, free stuff?

Who says those resources belongs to individuals?
The land and resources of the state belong to the state.

Yes it does. If greed is the great sin of capitalism, lack of efficiency and stagnation are those of socialism.


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan_Ambassador

T. Socialist innovation

I could make the poor richer than any rich person without ever touching anything from the rich, simply create more means of production and the profits of the state factory goes to pay the workers.

Where does the state derive legitimacy for its claim that it owns those resources?

Socialism does not touch any of your money.

By being a socialist state.

the chinese streets are full of food and pretty tasty food at that(much better tasting than plain old burgers)

>ignores everything posted

Money is an artificial construct. Economics is concerned with the best uses of scarce resources with multiple uses, and socialism fails greatly at this, because the lack of competition allows inefficieny to breed where a free market stomps it out.

True Socialism does not stand for lowering anyone's standard of living or taking their money, it is for increasing standard of living.

So circular reasoning. As usual with socialism, the average man has his life completely ruined while the elites live at the expense of everyone else.

The irony of socialism is that socialism does exactly what socialists complain that capitalism does, while capitalism does exactly what socialists hope socialism will do.

There is no lack of "competition", Socialism does not take away competition.

>Socialism does not touch any of your money.
zero taxes?
how will the state function? is your idea of socialism an ancap society?

>150 year old pseudo-religion
>future
Nah nigga you wrong.

How is socialism supposed to have a state? Shouldn't people be equal?

Do social states have money?

Of course there is, and the worst kind. Makes people think that they deserve without offer.

Could be 0 taxes although it might not be ideal, the Socialist State would nationalize all the resources of the nation such as oil/minerals and from those resources which belong to the people create means of production for the workers where they are paid completely from their profit created.