Has Communism ever worked? If not, who came the closest to success?
>>284725
The global market doesn't allow for a democratic communist nation to exist.
All attempts at communism so far have never tried to evolve into the end game:
Socialism.
So no, never. Don't know who came closest. China, I guess, but now they are backpaddling and going capitalist all the same so not even they.
>>284734
Yeah, industrialization and capitalism to the point of lazy people who like being offended seems like the easiest way to socialism
>>284742
I know you're joking, but if you think european style socio-liberalism is socialism then you're wrong.
>>284734
Can't a nation be internally Communist but externally capitalist? It seems to be a pretty good solution.
>>284758
Na, just bait
>>284792
That's called National Socialism anon.
>>284809
No it's not you idiot
>>284821
>internal fiat currency based on ability to conduct labor
>external quasi-bartering system
Yes it is. Plus some Racialism and what not.
>>284758
>european style socio-liberalism
Economically it is really just Interventionism under a different name before Communism/Socialism kids started popping up.
>>284725
Communism in the Marxist tradition has not, and does not work.
>who came closest?
Depends on what you think of communism. In the economic sense, China. In the social sense, Russia under Lenin. In terms of what 'works'? Cuba maybe.
>>284725
I remember reading Tito's Yugo had the highest rate of annual GDP growth in the world during the 1950s. Having said that the numbers may be fudged and GDP is a shitty indicator anyhow.
>>284809
IMO socialism with a national bent can be awesome as long as it doesn't involve racism or other social oppression
>>284947
If there is nobody to opress in the country, how can there be oppression?
>>284947
>IMO human society can be awesome as long as it doesn't involve racism or other social oppression
>>284947
>nationalism without racism
had a giggle
>>284947
Go back to reddit or revleft or whatever retarded site you came from and stay there
>>284725
Post WW2 Israel and Yugoslavia had a reasonably well working socialism.
Once the post-war enthusiasm dried up it went to shit or they switched away from it (Israel).
It can work, but you need exceptional circumstances and people in a specific state of mind.
>edgy teenage leftists and people who think they understand history because they've read Howard Zinn and Guns, Germs and Steel: the board
Seriously, you kids would fit in over on leftypol on 8ch. Now fuck off
I gotta say Thomas Sankara was well on his way to building a decent, working nation before Blazed Compadre had to kill him.
>>284725
No because socialism has no grounding in economics. Remember when Chile thought they could overcome the economic calculation problem by building a price rationing supercomputer?
It works in anime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA5IFJqjXiQ
>>285097
I fucking hate this meme.
If Mugabe had died young you would be saying the same thing about him.
>>285095
>Le cripplechan meme
You /pol/acks get so triggered by anything that isn't sucking off Trump 24/7.
Is GDP growth necessarily the best indicator of a country's success? The USSR stagnated during Brezhnev in terms of GDP growth, but the era is remembered as one of stability and prosperity.
>>285364
>but the era is remembered as one of stability and prosperity.
By who? lmfao
>>285042
I was thinking of protectionism, rather than internal hierarchy-building.
>>285368
Russians largely, keep in mind it was followed by a weird interregnum of old people who died after 1 year in office and then Gorbachev's disastrous reforms that caused economic collapse and the infamous breadlines everywhere.
>>284947
How can you simultaneously believe Nationalism is good and racism is bad? Nationalism and racism totally overlap. Why do you care about racism anyways? As long as you're decent to people, the only real accusation in being called racist is not conforming to an ideology.
>>285380
>Russians largely,
You mean working class illiterate russians, right?
>>284725
all the Kibbutz that exist are basically (more or less depending on the kibbutz) communist societies
>>285399
Mostly the old people who still remember Soviet times. The young seem to largely not give a fuck about politics.
>>284725
Ants have ideal communism
>>285290
Holy shit this.
>H-HOW COULD SUCH A CHARISMATIC IDEALIST FREEDOM FIGHTER TURN INTO A BLACK HITLER ???
Literally every article about Mugabe ever.
Communism works fine in small communities, but they're not sufficiently advanced enough to truly be communist. Communism needs a sufficiently developed economy with the workers in control of the means of production, which examples of are almost nonexistent.
Such i system could probably work but think economic progress would be slowed.
Nestor Makhno's Ukraine was an example of a working, truly communist society.
Aragon and Catalonia in the 30s probably worked even better, but that was anarcho-collectivism, which is close to anarcho-communism (the true and only form of communism, that doesn't assume there needs to be a transitional period of an authoritarian command economy before we're able to have a true classless, moneyless society.)
>>284725
The reason Tito's form of communism was more successful was because he granted a certain amount of privatization and gave workers more autonomy, thus avoiding some of the state capitalist characteristics of the Soviet model.
>>285384
How can you be prejudiced against one race and decent to everyone at once?
>>285290
Exactly. It's always Thomas Sankara and Patrice Lumumba who are remembered. No one remembers Julius Nyerere, Ahmed Sekou Toure, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Agostinho Neto ie the other African socialst leaders who had time to get shit done and failed.
Why do some people hate on Tito? From what I've read about him the guy was pretty much flawless and the only force that kept his country together.
>>285986
I don't believe everyone is entitled to the same things. You can be nice to, for example, an Arab, but not trust them with a "suitcase clock." That would fit the definition of racism, though, so it's one of a million reasons you shouldn't care if people call you racist.
>>285622
/r/ing quote about Mugabe's one flaw being "so damn incorruptable"
>>286003
People blinded by pure ideology or who's sole political identity is Nationalist
>>286004
Treating someone differently because of their skin pigmentation doesn't sound very kind.
>>286014
Then you're a fool. People of different races act differently. It is not saintly to disregard reality or safety. Basic human decency is all anyone is entitled to be granted.
>>286019
>People of different races act differently
Is it a result of their race or cultural background?
>>284893
What is the difference between interventionism and socialism?
>>286014
Or, if we're talking about politics and Nationalism, giving a non-citizen a job over a citizen helps no one. Devoting resources to helping another country when your country still has significant problems is literally throwing away money that could have a good use. Your ultimate loyalty should be people that are close to you, and that scales up to the national and international level.
>>286029
Both
Blacks are less intelligent than Whites, but there is a very different character between, say, Poles and Germans despite being almost the exact same ancestry. The latter is the effect of culture, being in the sphere of influence that created the Slavic culture on the edges of historical Germanic land.
>>286052
>Blacks are less intelligent than Whites
>>286009
www.herald.co.zw/a-walk-down-memory-lane-with-andrew-young/
>Ambassador Andrew Young described Robert Mugabe in an interview with the Times of London on May 22, 1978: “Does Mr Mugabe strike you as a violent man?” the Times reporter asked.
>“Not at all, he’s a very gentle man,” Young replied.
>“In fact, one of the ironies of the whole struggle is that I can’t imagine Joshua Nkomo, or Robert Mugabe, ever pulling the trigger on a gun to kill anyone. I doubt that they ever have.
>“I find that I am fascinated by his intelligence, by his dedication.
>“The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible. . . . The problem is he was educated by the Jesuits, and when you get the combination of a Jesuit and a Marxist kind of philosophy merging in one person, you’ve got a hell of a guy to deal with,” Young was further quoted in the interview.
I like this one too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/opinion/01iht-eddarnton.1.12490815.html
>I first heard mention of Mugabe in May 1976 in the Quill Club of the Ambassador Hotel, a watering hole where Prime Minister Ian Smith's police, guerrilla sympathizers, reporters and agents from various factions suspended normal antipathies for the sake of gossip. We foreign correspondents used to toss around names of the ultimate leader of the emergent new country like miners testing gold nuggets: Would it be Joshua Nkomo? Ndabaningi Sithole? Jason Moyo? A Guardian correspondent named James McManus, who looked particularly dashing in the safari suits we all wore, pulled me aside and said that he was putting his money on a new man called Robert Mugabe.
>No one knew much about him, he said, but he was a Shona, which meant that he belonged to the largest tribal group. He was said to be operating out of Mozambique, then notorious as Rhodesia's hard-line communist neighbor. And, most intriguing of all, he was an intellectual, a teacher who loved the poetry of T. S. Eliot.
>>286054
I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. If you're going to feign ignorance so you can claim a false moral high ground, you can go off to your ivory tower and suffocate on your hot air.
>>286060
I'm genuinely asking for proof of this. If you have proof, then I'm assuming you can provide it.
>>285424
>serving the Queen
>communism
Nah. Tribal society as it is.
On small scales, yes. Things like hippy communes and monasteries practice something close to communism on a small scale. On a national level it just doesn't seem to work.
>>286065
Muh Rushton studies
Muh sociology
>>286065
I'm not going to waste my time looking for several high-quality studies that prove what has been proven many times and would be supported by any testimony of someone who spends time intimately working with both Blacks and Whites. Anyway, it's mostly trivial in this discussion. Very few states have to seriously assess how Nationalism will approach Blacks and Whites in their society. What matters is arguments of the nation versus other nations and the nation versus the tribes. You help the nation because they have the same skin in the same game as you, and you think above the tribe because the tribe's power is petty in comparison to the nation.
Socialism will succeed Capitalism. Socialism's time hasn't come yet. Communism succeeds socialism.
All economic systems until the utopian ideal of communism are finite. The idea is that Socialism is a global thing and at the moment we live in a capitalist world.
>>286065
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiymOOQrqXJAhWFRCYKHSHcBjcQFggeMAA&usg=AFQjCNF38zkS42ZJdj9aa9ppYQWTKNwuMw
>>286140
>IQ is a definitive, objective measure of intelligence
I like this meme.
Also,
>literally just copying the first URL you found on Google
>>284809
Right on the money.
>>286099
>Rushton
>>286163
Actually no, it is a definitive, objective measure of intelligence.
Or so the best we have that Koko the gorilla can be well tested by it.
Also it's not the first link on google, I specifically searched for the Jensen 30 year trial on race and intelligence.
>>286199
>it's racist because southern poverty and law center says so
>can't refute it
>Fuck up anyway
Go home buttmad NAPA
>>286201
Rushton has come under some serious scrutiny from multiple persons and groups, and I wouldn't trust him even if I agreed with him.
>>286212
Proofs?
Everyone comes under scrutiny. There has been no legal or scientific findings to expell his study
>>286218
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Unfavorable
Take a look, people call it bullshit for numerous reasons.
>>286221
The best I see is
>Das rayxis
>>286225
The biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace criticized Rushton in his 1996 review of the book, Race, Evolution and Behavior (1996):
Virtually every kind of anthropologist may be put in the position of being asked to comment on what is contained in this book, so, whatever our individual specialty, we should all be prepared to discuss what it represents. Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy for the promotion of "racialism." Tzvetan Todorov explains "racialism," in contrast to "racism," as belief in the existence of typological essences called "races" whose characteristics can be rated in hierarchical fashion (On Human Diversity: Nationalism, Racism, and Exoticism in French Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 31). "Racism," then, is the use of racialist assumptions to promote social or political ends, a course that Todorov regards as leading to "particularly catastrophic results." Perpetuating catastrophe is not the stated aim of Rushton's book, but current promoters of racist agendas will almost certainly regard it as a welcome weapon to apply for their noxious purposes.[57]
>>286228
Literally
>Das rayycis
There is no actual critism
>>286234
>Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology
Does this not count as criticism?
>>286236
It doesn't prove bad biology, it's an opinion of someone saying his promotion of racial sciences leads to "bad biology"
>>286238
>In 2005, Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote an article noting that Rushton ignored evidence that failed to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy. He did not change his position on this matter for 30 years.[66] Rushton replied in the same issue of the journal.[67]
Different guy, but this seems like an actual criticism. Ignoring evidence to the contrary is pretty much textbook confirmation bias.
>>286197
IQ isn't an objective measure of intelligence. It mainly measures pattern recognition. It doesn't measure things such as emotional intelligence or creativity.
>>286257
Both things this mouth breathing Internet racist does not understand. One involves empathy, the other creating value, neither of which this guy is familiar with
>>286274
You go, girl!
>>284725
Is it worth mention that, as Marx believed, communism would first happen in industrialized societies like France, the USA, or Germany, but instead it happened in agricultural backwaters like Russia, China, and Cuba.
Would communism had turned out better if it had started in already industrialized nations? If you want an example, think of what might have happened had the Paris Commune been successful enough to gain and maintain control over all of France. Could it have been a more successful communist society than what we know?
>>286372
It was unlikely to start in the industrialized nations, I think.
>>286379
Great argument there. Compared to Marx's argument (Capital 1) regarding OCC, or Engels' argument about concrete movements for communisation in history (1844). So persuasive.
>>286257
Those aren't intelligence. They were only elevated to being a "type of intelligence" as an attempt to discredit IQ and make blacks and women look less stupid. It's the same reason the threshold for mental retardation was dropped from 85 to 70: at the proper definition half of blacks are retarded.
>>286257
When's the last time you've taken an IQ test? It's mostly about rapid, low-intensity analysis. It's about processing information quickly and correctly, about as unbiased a definition of intelligence can be. The actual problem with IQ tests is at the upper levels. Scores above ~120 are highly situational and inconsistent because, at that point, you're computing answers faster than you can verbalize or write them down, which slows you and, in turn, changes your score. Of course, your type aren't interested in the positive end of exceptional :^)
>>286420
Twin studies mostly drive home the point that environment is the absolutely largest contributor to I.Q., since heritability of I.Q. only appears in well-to-do environments. The influence of nutrient intake on early brain development is also a fact, and there's no reason to assume it only starts mattering post-birth. Poorer people eat more food that negatively affects development of pattern recognition, which would affect even children who've been adopted by richer families. I.Q. is absolutely not a science nearing completion.
>>286497
Proofs? The majority of twin studies conclude it's hereditary as a cap
>>284725
Communism has worked in the past in very small communities.
On a national scale it's pretty much completely untenable.
>>286505
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
>>286551
Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores,[8]however poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects
By that they mean like shit, literal shit, being ingested.
