Did Russia ruin communism? There was once a time when "communist" simply meant "person who advocates for worker's rights." Then Russia came along and ruined everything.
>>298533
Communism ruined communism. A society based on equivalent distribution of wealth is doomed by design.
>>298551
> A society based on equivalent distribution of wealth is doomed by design.
Careful there, go back over history and have a look at what happened to societies where the patricians got so rich they lost touch with the conditions the plebs lived in
>>298551
>A society based on equivalent distribution of wealth is doomed by design.
Right. Which is why feudalism and aristocracy was abolished.
>>298551
Communists wish to abolish money, what you posted has nothing to do with Communism.
>>298599
>an extremely polar division of wealth is the same as a slight division
The people who create wealth are by all rights entitled to the fruit of their labor, in no conceivable universe does the burger flipper make the same as a CEO. Communism forced everyone to be beholden to the state who arbitrarily enforced views that go against human nature.
>>298634
>The people who create wealth are by all rights entitled to the fruit of their labor
Now you're getting it!
>>298634
No says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No says the man in Moscow, it belongs to the people. No says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to God.
>>298634
>The people who create wealth are by all rights entitled to the fruit of their labor,
Exactly.
>>298533
I think you meant socialism
No, but it's forever associated Communism primarily with Marxism-Leninism and its derivatives.
There's plenty of other ways to do Communism, but in the public mind Communism = USSR, and that's unfortunate.
>>301284
>There's plenty of other ways to do Communism
inb4 Catalunya
>>301253
Hello friend
>>301290
Not even just that.
Council Communism, many forms of Syndicalism, Titoism, even things like Christian Communism.
>>298533
that was socialism you chucklefuck, communists were always those who wanted classless society
Technically USSR was supposed to be a transition from socialism to full communism
>>301277
In one sense you're correct, in that the wealthiest persons do not labor, but you're very clearly wrong since all of their wealth is created by the labor of others.
>liberals actually think capital just magically appears
>>301294
What's up?
>>301321
>that "comeback"
>that chimp out at the end
perfect depiction
>>301321
>Not actually refuting any of the statements
Just chilling
>>301321
literally "no argument: the post"
>>301314
>liberals actually think capital just magically appears
it kinda does desu
>>301354
yes he does, he pays wages. A shitty single worker's sweat is worth dick.
>>298533
>Did Russia ruin communism?
No, communism ruined Russia.
>>301354
so how would the guy labouring would actually get the value of his labour if not for the capitalist?
A very simple and ingenious question.
Atheists ruined communism, tbqh
http://people.f3.htw-berlin.de/Professoren/Thomasberger/pdf/37_Christianity_and_Economic_Life.pdf
>>298533
All communist nations have failed but all fascist nations were only brought down by war and there has actually been true fascist nations whereas communists have never been able to accomplish their pipe dream.
>>301362
>A shitty single worker's sweat is worth dick.
Right because the commodity magically appears, ships itself to the market, sells itself, and voila profit for le hard earned capitalist :)
>>301379
>so how would the guy labouring would actually get the value of his labour if not for the capitalist?
You realize that there are worker owned businesses right?
>>301423
>Right because the commodity magically appears
out of material the owner pays for
>ships itself to the market
through services the owner pays for
>sells itself
by a service the owner pays for
The single worker has almost nothing to do with the overal process of bringing mass goods to mass customers and the mass expenditures and profits involved. He's a screw in the machine and he can either be a good screw or ponder why he didn't study more at school.
>>301423
>You realize that there are worker owned businesses right?
Of course I do.
But then the worker is at the same time a capitalist
>>301438
>out of material the owner pays for
Which were made/harvested/mined/whatever by workers
>through services the owner pays for
Services provided by workers
>by a service the owner pays for
Done by workers
>The single worker has almost nothing to do with the overal process
You can say it as many times as you want but it's never going to be true.
>>301294
>only a few cents per product
That's a lie, a straight up lie.
The division of profit between labour and capital nowadays is about 50/50, and it's trending toward more for capital.
Also this picture is mentioning a bunch of marketing/administration tasks which are done by high-skilled labourers, not capitalists. The capitalist doesn't have to work, that's why he's called a capitalist.
>>301450
>But then the worker is at the same time a capitalist
Exactly.
>>301458
>Which were made/harvested/mined/whatever by workers
paid for.
>Services provided by workers
paid for.
>Done by workers
paid for.
got a problem with money?
>>298533
To be fair alot of people still see "advocating for workers rights" as communism or socialism - both dirty words especially in the good old US of A.
>>301482
if you hate your job don't sign the contract
>>301476
>paid for
Labor performed by workers
>paid for
Labor performed by workers
>paid for
Labor performed by workers
>got a problem with money?
Yes, actually, but that's (sort of) besides the point.
>>301497
so you're saying they SHOULDN'T get paid then?
>>301314
>all their wealth is created by the labour of others
>be dad
>dad works his ass off
>uses money to pay for son's college
>son makes some cool piece of software
>dad invests some money
>son borrows some money to invest
>angel investor comes and helps
>they get rich
>son now can easily pay for his children's colleges
>meanwhile Bakur is being a retard and buying a new 14241" SUPERLEDPLASMADICK Tv, getting in debt to buy a bigger house than he needs (with a pool!) and fucking around with gambling
>Bakur then complains he earns too little with his cashier job and that his son is doomed to do a service job
Yeah no thanks, maybe I'm biased because my entire family is made of people like these except for my own father, but no fucking thanks.
>>301502
I'm saying
>>298634
>The people who create wealth are by all rights entitled to the fruit of their labor
In the system of capitalism, capitalists can't create wealth by definition because only material action creates commodities that can be sold. In capitalism, by definition, those that create wealth aren't the ones that receive it.
>so you're saying they SHOULDN'T get paid then?
I'm saying the long term need is for the wage system to be abolished along with classes.
>>298551
>equivalent distribution of wealth
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
>according to his need
So not equally. Those that need more (pregnant women for example) will get more.
>>301520
the wealth is the money. The money is the acquisition power.
the workers get paid exactly what they give. The profit of the enterpreneur comes from the ability to make more with that than the single worker himself could.
>>301321
>they repair the machines
With pieces I paid for, and the service they're providing is also being paid for.
>ores
That I bought, with my money.
>with tools
That I bought.
>you oversee them
I also know how to manage a company, do you? What is the most scarce skill, hitting a rock with pickaxe or managing a fortune 500 company?
If you want to complain about anything complain that education isn't accessible to level the playing field.
>>301460
the goal of socialism isn't just worker owned businesses but the end of capitalism itself, i.e. the market exchange system, to create a world where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the slogan
>>301515
So the hypothetical son made all of the microchips and all the materials used to make the microchips and sold all the microchips and moved all the microchips and built the machines that produce the microchips and maintained the machines that produced the microchips et cetera ad infinitum? :^)
>>301529
Who manufactured the parts and the tools? Who mined the ores? We can do this all day.
>>301525
>the workers get paid exactly what they give.
Since the labor of the worker necessarily creates the commodity that necessarily creates the profit but the worker doesn't receive the profit that's created, the workers are not in fact getting exactly what they give.
>>301529
>I
kek
>What is the most scarce skill, hitting a rock with pickaxe or managing a fortune 500 company?
So the fortune 500 company just comes about from a capitalist that doesn't labor?
I'm sorry but the world is in fact materialist.
>>301533
Socialism doesn't want to end market exchange, that doesn't make sense. Socialism seeks to move to communism, in which people are workers that organize themselves and own entirely the means of production. It's the absolute dissolution of private property, class distinctions, exploitation, and alienation.
>>301554
Not the faggot using them, for sure.
Why is ownership so hard to understand for you thieving commies?
>>301554
Would they build it without the money and resources provided by the capitalist? Would they have the specific knowhow to do it if someone (the capitalist) hadn't provided specific tutoring for his employees? Would they just go and build the mine without the money to buy it?
Admit that you want to replace the capitalist with the state and enslave everyone to a singular centralized power, increasing dependency a thousand fold.
The best socialist alternative are cooperatives to be frank.
>>301554
Who paid for all that? Whose land are they mining on? Who hired the engineers and geologists who made the plans for the mine/found it? Would they have done anything at all without some centralizing figure? Probably not.
>>301580
>Not the faggot using them, for sure.
Often, yes. But they belong to the exact same class as the people that use them and they belong in the same system of exploitation that draws profit from their action.
>getting as rustled as you clearly are
Exposed
>>301590
>Often, yes. But they belong to the exact same class as the people that use them and they belong in the same system of exploitation that draws profit from their action.
Which still makes them different, independent people entitled each to trade their labor and goods for whatever they want. The capitalist has the tools because the guy who made them willingly traded them for money, the worker should have bought them himself if he wanted the profits of it.
>>301590
The sum of all the parts is the final value.
Research, development, design, facilities and tools, resource gathering, production, advertisement, transportation and sales.
People receive a fragment of the end value they "produce" because they're only making a fragment of the final product. The profit is the capitalists' share for managing that entire endeavour and financing it.
>>301569
>Since the labor of the worker necessarily creates the commodity that necessarily creates the profit but the worker doesn't receive the profit that's created,
They receive an agreed upon share of the profit, because someone else had to come along and make it possible for the worker's labor to go towards the commodity in the first place.
Factories didn't just spring up out of the ground.
> It's the absolute dissolution of private property, class distinctions, exploitation, and alienation.
It's the creation of a brutal dictatorship who's goal is to usher in a utopia. Exploitation and alienation is abound, class distinctions are essential, and the state will have loads of property you're not allowed to touch.
Time to wake up.
>>301673
From his own pre-existing patrimony, capital, lends or investments.
Investment creates profit and profit accumulates into wealth.
>>301673
>But where does the capitalist's wealth coming from with witch to finance the factories and the creation of products?
More possible sources than anyone has time to list here.
But, one example could be a worker who saves his money and amasses the necessary capital.
>>301689
How many workers have the financial stability to invest in a business that isn't likely to turn a profit for years? Do you have any idea how many people have to live paycheck to paycheck?
>>301673
I don't know anon, my father saved cash for 30 years to open up a company but that's anecdotal.
It mainly has three sources: Some comes from inheritance (which needs to be mantained somehow), some comes from hard work and dilligence (which can then be inherited), some comes from being a crook.
>>301694
>How many workers have the financial stability to invest in a business that isn't likely to turn a profit for years?
Profit is never a guarantee. Risk and reward muthafucka.
>Do you have any idea how many people have to live paycheck to paycheck?
More than a few, myself included. Does that mean everyone lives paycheck to paycheck and should be treated/coddled/taxed as such?
>>301694
>how many workers
If you actually plan things instead of relying on luck or just doing shit as you feel like it then it won't be that hard.
Sure you won't open a multimillion dollar business, but you can totally start a small business which will then give you money to reinvest.
Alternatively, some people invest their cash with others.
>Do you have any idea how many people have to live paycheck to paycheck?
And to be honest a lot of that comes from being fucking morons. My "poor" grandmother bought 3 houses she couldn't pay for in the span of 3 years and then she cries she's out of money.
>>301696
Let's look at the root sources of where that money came from.
>Hard Work and Dilligence
I don't know, sounds like labor to me, but you can only get really rich by paying other people to do this for you.
>Inheritance
Which must have come from one of the other sources at some point
>Being a crook
This is stealing from anyone who used the other options I suppose
So it looks like you've admitted labor is the source of value?
The arguments that a capitalist took a risk and invested hard in his business justifies his role is like arguing a feudal lord is justified because he worked hard to conquer and defend the land the peasants work on, and sometimes Peasants saved up enough money to buy their own titles so that minor social mobility makes the whole institution legitimate.
>>301703
>Profit is never a guarantee. Risk and reward muthafucka.
Sure, but this means the rational economic choice for people in poverty is going to keep begging for scraps. Do you not see how this kind of system means the people who already have shittons of money will be more likely to create successful enterprise?
>>301708
Anecdoteal and not remotely based on any kind of fact or statistic. Pic related shows that people are working harder than ever but being paid proportionately less.
>>301580
Possession vs Private Property crapitalist scum
>>301739
>>301638
Its the idea that they should at least be subject to a higher proportion of what they make rather than the profit for the Capitalist
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaSinPat
>>301770
what's the difference between wage and compensation?
>>301321
I'm, actually the most viable person to ask for this. Where that picture fails is in two different places. One is where he mentions how little he gets back from selling 100 dollars worth of product and mentioning how he gets pennies in return. You cant simply expect for him to pay every worker that remotely helped him in doing that (With everything from the miners to the transport people to the factory builders.) And that leads to my second point. The people who made that factory, who mined those metals, who maintained his machines, are not under his authority. They are someone else and to bring them in means to make an entire new comic about it. All he does in manage the people in his own factories. Remember, the whole "99%" doesn't just fall under one man. For instance, I own a landscaping company. By that logic the same people who are my employees are those who make my trucks, are those who grind up the mulch I use, and those who run the grocery stores for where my guys buy food from when they are hungry. They arent, I only command 30 or so people. Now for the last time commie, fuck off.
Communism was doomed to fail from the start.
Communism is horrible.
>>301739
Please just stop, your incompetence shows.
>>301955
>Im not going to actually deny anything you say, just call you dumb
>>302001
Sorry, Here's a bigger picture.
>>302001
>I'm not going to deny anything you say
There's no need to. You have no idea what you are talking about so me wasting precious time and energy to tell you why communism is trash won't change shit, at the end of the day you'll still be a communist.
>>298533
yes it did. russia would ruin anything. russian version of capitalism would be so horrible it's not even fathomable
>>301438
Ah yes.. The coveted let the poor and stupid do that job. Yes what's going to happen IF education and cost of living continues to increase? Should we revert back to slavery?
>>301490
"Just let the poor and underprivileged do it "
>>302053
>Being this classkeked
>>301438
>>302477
>Yes what's going to happen IF education and cost of living continues to increase? Should we revert back to slavery?
Robots.
humans are obsolete, poor humans are even MORE obsolete.
beep bop, motherfucker.
>>301804
Wage is what the employee is directly being paid for their labor. It's the paycheck.
Compensation is the total amount of benefits an employee receives from their employer including their wage but also things like bonuses, perks, amenities, etc.
>>301345
>capital magically appears
wat
I always find it odd when people talk massive shit about minimum wage jobs and workers.
They are jobs that must exist. Period. They have to be done. Not everybody is going to own a business. Not everybody can run a fortune 500 company. Not everybody is going to create the next greatest thing.
When it comes down to it somebody has to flip the burger, stock the shelves, and ring the cash register.
Just because they're doing the minimum wage shit doesn't mean they're sub human and somehow don't deserve to live on a wage that can at least meet the cost of living.
>>303182
The problem is what is the cost of living? Only a father working should not be able to support his wife and 4 kids and still have a house on minimum wage.
I agree with but no one can agree on the metrics, the poor want to be middle class on minimum wage
>>303182
sooner or later a lot of those jobs will be automated.
a bunch of fast-food places in my city have self serve machines.
Question for commies ITT.
Let's say I need a new garden shed but I don't have the skills to build one. I hire someone to build it for me. I provide the building tools, materials and I pay him for his work.
Is the garden shed his, since he built it with his "labor" ?
pic unrelated
>>298533
>Did Russia ruin communism?
The other way around.
>>303247
are you making any profit off his labor?
>>303281
I now have a garden shed, so I increased my capital.
anarcho-communism is inevitable
>>303285
no... i don't think it works like that. i believe under non-state socialism, the shed is still yours as long as the person that built it was compensated the equal value of his labor
>>303285
he gave you the right to build the shed he built with your tools and your land, its a community effort
>>303300
>no... i don't think it works like that
Meaning? I didn't have a garden shed, I now have a garden shed. My property has increased in value. If I sold my property now, I could sell it for more.
> the shed is still yours as long as the person that built it was compensated the equal value of his labor
How do you determine what is "the equal value of his labor"? He accepted the job, so he obviously thought it was worth it. People also accept willingly to work at McDonald's, is McDonald's compensating workers at "equal value of their labor"?
>>303304
>he gave you the right to build the shed he built with your tools and your land,
Pffft what??? Of course not. He had no say in this. He was my employee.
>>303300
and what is the equal value of his labor?
>>303304
>he gave you the right to build the shed he built with your tools and your land, its a community effort
HAHAHAHAHAHA
>this is what marxists unironically believe
>>301210
>No says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor.
>Washington
>poor
Wow, Ryan was a libertarian nut
>>303328
probably whatever they both agree on
>>303379
So you're in favor of unfettered free market capitalism?
>>303385
mutualism
>>303231
Couldn't the Orshansky poverty thresholds be a basis?
>>303402
>Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe these individuals are not laboring.
That's pretty fucking retarded
>>298533
/pol/ get out
>>303182
This thread is a good example of how necessary it is people for labor to be devalued both economically and socially for capitalism to be justified, despite that labor being necessary. I know Zizek is seen as a joke but things like this really hammer home his point about how deeply embedded these contradictions become in our psyches when unacknowledged.
>>303247
Exchange relations still exist in socialist and communist societies. The difference between these relations is that of property possession and exploitation. The first and foremost quality of capitalist societies is that of private property. Socialist societies still maintains private property regarding /personal/ property but its goal is to transition private property (the means of production) to the working class that utilizes for the commons. Communist societies have no notions of private property, only personal property, as the means of production are held by all of the classless society.
Given that: the shed is the product of his labor, not yours. The two of you entered into a mutual cooperation where you traded S for his labor. The shed is under capitalism your private property (assuming it's on land owned by you) and under socialism and communism constitutes your personal property.
I understand what you're trying to say but the problem with your example is that it doesn't actually address the problem. To be long winded: in feudal societies, land was "owned" by kings and lent to lords under his service, but the peasantry were laborers that took part in skilled labor they controlled on land they functionally owned, in exchange for taxation, in exchange for protection, etc. The Bourgeois Revolutions changed this by creating private property. This divvies up land for exclusive personal use and not semi-communal use. The peasantry is then stuck: in the best case scenario, they can claim some farmland for themselves, but the extent of that land is ever shrinking, and strict land claims will crowd out farming possibilities. (This need for land is one of the reason why there is a capitalist form of imperialism, of course.) And, of course, farmers fuck a lot to make lots of laborers. 1/2
>>303247
Well in a more anarcho-communist community the community would build your shed if you needed it. The manner in which you would "pay" for the shed would be by contributing to the welfare of the community in the way that you are best able.
>>301537
no but he surely negotiated with somebody who agreed to do some in exchange for some of the money they would be worth to him.
fucking gommies are so retarded. labor thoery is thoroughly and completely debunked, and is only being held onto by bourgeois college educated people who would in fact be the first against the wall if a real revolution ever came to pass.
>>303247
>>304214
2/2
Basically, land becomes scarce but labor itself becomes surplus. Even if the poor farmers don't sell off their land and move to the cities, their children necessarily move to the cities to become laborers in an environment where they are a dime a dozen (but, of course, necessary). People now have nothing to sell but their labor and - this is the important part - they MUST sell their labor or else they starve, freeze, and die. This is the meaning of competition: the measure of desperation and willingness to have one's time devalued in exchange for a partial return on an an endeavor that doesn't happen without you. What results in alienation, which results in class consciousness, which results in class conflict.
The kind of exchange in your scenario is actually closer to communism than capitalism and the question highlights the tenuous philosophy on which liberalism lies (though it is a necessary evolution and, indeed, historically beneficial). Something to consider there: communists aren't against capitalism per se, they just see that it's outstayed its usefulness.
>>304253
>no
Then his wealth is the product of exploitation and not his own labor.
>>301290
Look at Rojava. They are the only ones actually progressing in Syria despite the extreme scarcity as a result of the civil war. They are actually opening up academy's for science, liberating women to join rule society. The Rojava revolution is evident: There are other ways to rule, nations aren't as important as we make them out to be. Having democratic communities is enough, decentralisation is the answer to Syria.
>>304386
And it will end like the paris and barcelona communes did unless it goes international.
Pity poor Rojava.
for the last time - COMMUNISM HAS NEVER EXISTED!!
just because China and N. Korea and USSR and Cuba claimed they were doesn't actually mean they practiced the theory to a t. the fuckers still had private property and the state still existed
>>304270
>this is marxism
No wonder you people are thought of as fucking retards
>>305045
>for the last time - COMMUNISM HAS NEVER EXISTED!!
for the last time, enough with this "no true communist scotsman" fallacy.
>>>redd/lit/
Anarchism has already replaced Marxism as the dominant Leftist school of thought
Their numbers have grown extremely quickly since the turn of this century, and they don't have the historical baggage Marxism does since all of their revolutions either failed or are limited to small regions
>>303182
And all of those have a huge supply of unskilled workers (so they aren't valuable)
And due to requiring nearly zero uniwuely human aspects they are very prone to mechanization.
>>304386
>hey look at muh perddy propaganda
>this is what college students actually believe
>>305253
Which is unsustainable without some form of communism.
Over 50% of America falls into the bracket of "Poor or Low income jobs." how much of that is going to be mechanized? What the hell are you going to do when you have unemployment at 25% and climbing? Because telling people to just pick themselves up by their bootstraps or just invest their money isn't going to work.
This is what Marx actually talked about.
>inb4 they can all just die because they didn't have the ability to go to the right school, come from the right family, know the right people, or simply aren't smart enough to get a scholarship.
Good luck telling that to such a large portion of the population.
>>305218
>This is liberalism
No wonder you people are thought of as fucking retards
>>302053
This is a board for discussion you dumb autist, if you have nothing to contribute/refute fuck off back to whatever hugbox you came from.
>>303182
Congrats, you just ideologically headbutted the typical ancap.
>>303231
>the poor want to be middle class on minimum wage
It wouldn't be an issue if you could guarantee that the poor who are willing to do the extra work/have the right ideas were able to advance themselves, but since you can't make that guarantee it will continue being a broken system where people on the bottom demand more than they earn.
>>301284
>>307898
>>307922
>Hey, why is poo in my sandwich instead of meat?
>umm.. well my competition is also serving poo.
That defense does not make the shit sandwich you are serving up any less shit anon.
>>307898
>>308030
>Chavez
>Allende
>Zapatistas
is this ironic?
>>301523
this is equality.
Equality is not "you get 10, I get 10". If I need 12, I have to have 12, or my needs aren't satisified. And if my needs aren't satisified while yours are, then we are not receiving equally. You receive more than me, despite the numbers staying the same. This is called utility value and its clash against trade value is the main field of conflict on which people die everyday. And when I say die, I mean actually losing their lives: from starvation, diseases, bombings, assasinations.
>>308030
>>307898
[spoiler]I like that these reversed memes are actually true, unlike yours.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Also not sure if spoiler works here. Testing.[/spoiler]
>>308048
Are you actually retarded?
communism is inevitable, like it or not society is forever changing and becoming more equal
>>302001
>>302011
>not posting the correct version
>>308425
Well, not actually true. Kim wasn't killed by Maoists for example.
>>308470
*actually -> entirely.
>>308451
>muh Kropotkin
actually I want to believe.
>>308477
It is, Capitalism has existed for 200-300 years, it's not like it'll last forever, it's not the perfect system unless you're talking to a conservative, but they're always proven wrong
>>308486
it is transitioning and we all feel it, but to what? I think all the current crises are just machinations to keep the world keep their breaths, just like during Cold War. But this time there is great pole to fend for the common man.
>>308048
No socialists actually believe this nonsense
>>301554
Yeah because so much is going to get done with that raw ore. I guess the average miner can also run a foundry.
>>298533
>>298533
No, communism ruined Russia.
>>308522
>I guess the average miner can also run a foundry.
Anyone trained to run a foundry and do so and that includes the average miner. Or do you think there is a breed of human beings that are genetically designed to run foundries and to be miners?
>>308502
I truly think socialism is the next step... unfortunately it will likely come with SJWs at first since all the socialists, looking for "allies" have latched onto every social justice campaign
>>308573
And where besides small tribes, do we have an example of a non market based economy actually working?
>>308573
>I truly think socialism is the next step...
Retards have been saying this shit since the 1920s dude
>>308522
>I guess the average miner can also run a foundry.
yes they can you dolt. plenty of historic examples where workers manage their place of work, not even mentioning the Parissienne Commune, I 'll just say that even the Unions have a say in management i.e. safety precautions and hours of work.
>>308560
>he believes in the division of labour
kek
>>308573
I meant to say there isn't* a pole to fend for the common man. SJWs, if you mean people in movements and alternativism, are not by default retards, or even at all. It's just that alternativism was a great blow in the struggle, because it removes the class core of the struggle concept and only emphasises examples of oppression.
>>308588
>And where besides small tribes
This is a tacit agreement that one doesn't need "market based economy". But we have bigger problems.
>there's no market in socialism
Not true. The market is not made for consumerism.
>"working"
Loaded statement. Feudalism works, and it worked for thousands of years. Primitive communism works, and worked for millions of years. There is no indication that any new system, including liberalism, will "work" until it manifests. Further, what's being ignored is the qualitative aspect of a system. Capitalism "works", but its working includes massive pollution, impossible to conceive levels of wastefulness, necessarily maintained levels of poverty and hunger that are entirely, 100% artificial conditions. Even further, what's being ignored is that capitalism did not simply happen, but it had a series of revolutionary moments that resulted in failures until the "inevitable" victory occurred. "Inevitable" because although there are no guarantees and prophecies in history, societies nevertheless necessarily change and develop based on their internal class conflicts and material development. Also, it is difficult to assess the functionality of a new system when every single instance of this new system's birthing is strangled in its infancy, only to have the stranglers say "well, sorry anon, it just doesn't work".
So much for free markets.
>>308641
*is simply not made
>>308540
>turned backwater semi-feudal shithole into the modern industrial nations that literally invented the science of space-travel
>ruined
>>298551
/thread, Russia didn't have time to ruin Communism because Marx had that covered. Enjoy your lack of progress Reds.
>>301321
>parazite
>>308661
>people still believe the "Russia was semi-feudal" meme
The guy who actually began the Soviet space program was educated under Tsarism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky
>>303247
If you're a communist then you aren't getting a garden shed. Your commune will have a new garden shed for the community garden, which you will maybe have some time to use. But first get back to the factory and assemble those kalashnikovs.
>>308708
Well, lucky he is. In the country where most people were uneducated
>>305222
>for the last time, even though the government didn't practice any communist theory, IT'S STILL COMMUNIST GUISE! I MEAN COME ON!
free market ftw! xD
>>308708
>implying anything you've said doesn't mean that at the start of the century it had a vast peasant class that required the permission of the landowner to leave or get married
>>298533
Where is capitalism?
On the edge of the abyss
Where is communism?
As usual, always one step ahead.
>>301290
One example, Diggers.
>>308732
Old soviet anecdotes are not arguments
>>308708
That Russia had good schools doesn't dismiss its semi-feudal status. Universities and education weren't foreign to feudalism. Also, Tsiolkovsky was also a Bolshevik.
>>301405
China.
>>308721
So what? That doesn't have anything to do with feudalism. Sark presumably had good education (it was part of the UK) but it only abolished feudalism a few years ago. Brazil has shitty education but it has never been feudalist in the classical sense.
Tsarist Russia was a country developing according to the normal path of countries with the same size and situation, I'm sure it would have become a developed country without communism, just look at Finland, it was part of the Russian Empire too, and it became the best country in the world once it escaped from the Bolsheviks.
>>308727
Serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1861.
>>298533
Hitler and Stalin meet in hell. They're both standing in a pool of blood. Hitler is up to his neck in blood while Stalin is only up to his waist. Hitler angrily asked "why is the blood only up to your waist?"
Stalin replied "because I'm standing on Lenin's shoulders "
>>308661
>>turned backwater semi-feudal shithole into the modern industrial shithole that can't wait to have a new tsar
>ftfy
And Russia was industrializing before the Communists took over, but, you know, stick to what you believe, Red filth.
>>305269
But, man, if a walord in charge of a military group declares himself a communist or anarchist, that means the territory he controls magically becomes communist and anarchist too!
It's like, when Baron von Ungern-Sternberg declared himself the successor to Genghis Khan, the territory he controlled magically became the Mongol Empire, that's why shit went so crazy there.
>>308760
>he's actually conflating serfdom and peasantry
whew lad
>>306165
Read the Judge Dredd comics, honestly.
>>308767
>And Russia was industrializing before the Communists took over
No one said otherwise? Yet it took communists to make it competitive with the modern industrial nations. A nation that, you know, actually used its industry for things other than military defense and royal bolstering.
>>302540
>making no money is better than making some money
>>308767
>Industrializing
> the main exported goods is the bread
>the main reason of pre-war economic growth is the good harvest
>the industrial production depends on foreign investments
>>306165
Actually, Marx talked about the working class seizing the means of production, not about automation making work dispensable and everyone living on the dole.
But of course, devout intellectuals will add epicycles to his theories to make it look that's how he predicted everything, and therefore revolutionary activism is legitimated by the "will of history".
>>308742
No point in arguing about history. It already happened
>>308809
>their industrialization wasn't quick as just killing millions of people, robbing their property and using the money looted to buy specialists and techniques from the West
>>307922
>implying anyone is falling over themselves to claim that those guys weren't capitalists
>>308840
>robbing
The first nationalised facilities had their previous owners in charge. Mitrofan Lagidze is the best example.
>implying that buying technology is a bad thing
Well, let's go and invent the bicycle all over again.
If you are depending on foreign money, you will have to help the investor in the foreign affairs, even if it means no profit for you.
>>308837
The point is not what has happened. The point is the reason why.
>>308840
Why are you talking about the US all of a sudden?
>>305247
this is why true progressives are against ideology: because ideology is nowadays another commodity which you can pick from the shelf.
Anarchism was the most progressive part of the revolutionaries, because anarchists realised the essence of theory, that theory has a dialectical connection to reality that compells it to evolve, that revolution was not picking the right method or the right party. It was about doing it right here, right now, against any compromise and dialogue. The historical experience of anarchism shines through history and will add important lessons to the workers' struggle.
>>308837
I bet you actually felt a little melancholic when Roddy Pipper died.
>>309086
Literally ideology: the post.
>>308339
That was a combination of an outright fabrication and an engels quote. Holocaust was not even a widely used term back then.
>>309161
what? how?
>>309173
It's a standard /pol/ image. Very embarrassing, yes. Suggested course of actions:
1) report the post, do not reply to it
2) hide the post, do not reply to it
>>309192
absolutely this
>old memes altered by leftypol
Further proof that the humanities should be banned from the board.
>>309184
>this is why true
Already, right here, we're in trouble. One of the ideological trappings of Left movements is its puritanical leanings, and anarchism is really the most puritanical of all Leftisms.
Anarchism is indeed focused on direct action, as you say, but it's a direct action toward manifesting an idea. How is this not ideological? The difference with anarchism in general and other Left groups is that anarchists are especially prone to conflating the part with the whole as well as idealism and application. It's precisely because anarchism thinks it can impose a condition onto a society regardless of its conditions, something like the flower child "drop-out" idea, that it splinters off into infinite forms, quite a few of which are literally irreconcilable with anarchism specifically and leftism in general (anarcho-capitalism for example, though it isabsolutely ridiculous, it is a regardless a real anarchism).
The historical experience of anarchism does, indeed, shine through history: anarchists have tended to divide themselves from the rest of their fellow workers and working-class revolutionaries "without compromise and dialogue" in pursuit of a pure ideology that is identical with the anarchists' actions. Not being able to acknowledge ideology and thinking one can be 'against' or 'beyond' ideology is exactly when one is most ideologue.
>>309316
>it is a regardless a real anarchism
never, neither was Stirner.
>anarchists have tended to divide themselves from the rest of their fellow workers and working-class revolutionaries "without compromise and dialogue" in pursuit of a pure ideology that is identical with the anarchists' actions
you sound like a stalinist mate.
>Not being able to acknowledge ideology and thinking one can be 'against' or 'beyond' ideology is exactly when one is most ideologue.
that is not a contradiction in itself. You have to be alert at all times, yes, you have to make self-assesment a constant, yes, but if anything, being against ideology is not the same as being against existing ideologies while believing in another.
What I didn't include in my post is that anarchism has become anti-historic, in that it has failed to renew theory and maintains the same tennets as 40 years ago, which renders it a dogma, and that is by judging it in action.
>it's a direct action toward manifesting an idea
maybe today. Originally you could find anarchists in unions and strikes all over the world, not to mention Makhno and Spain. Even today you could find anarchists in Occupy and every major conflict. And what about the Rojava paradigm? After all, how could there be communism without anarchy and vice-versa? It doesn't matter if people don't recognise themselves as anarchists, the substance of course is that they chose to live without a state and handle both the struggle and its outcome themselves.
So would you rather have people await history unfold? Do you think, like Kropotkin, that anarchy and communism could naturaly occur as history goes on? That the state will gradually dissolve and economy will develop to be another social sphere, no different than art or human contact? I can't tell for sure, noone is a prophet, but I don't understand how you make that division between communists and anarchists in terms of struggle;
>>298533
Not Russia.
China's betrayal ruined communism.
By the 60s, Russia had strayed from communist ideals, causing Mao to call them faggots. But since Russia still resisted linking with the global economy, it wasn't so bad.
But then Mao died and Deng got in. In short succession: Chinese workers lost the right to strike. Wages were kept artificially low. China was opened to the west.
Results: Worldwide glut in cheap labor. Western industries transferred manufacturing to China, ruining worker income and bargaining power in their countries. Chinese industry was lauded by the west in exchange for fucking over workers everywhere.
>>298533
>"No guys wait MY government system is perfect and will last forever!"
Oh my fucking Christ literally any system for running a country or state or whatever has flaws that will be exploited eventually
How about instead of trying to find some sort of magic fucking bullet just adapt as issues come along and times change
>>309385
and let me add this; anarchists were simply applying what was true and prevalent throughout all historic experiences and embracing it honestly: that workers wouldn't need a permanent centralised governing body; that decentralisation of power and immediate participation, which was stemming straight out of the way workers would traditionally organise before unionism (what you referred to as "purism"), did work and was the preferred model for organisation. Even Guy Debord acknowledged workers' councils (like the original soviets) as the only form that hasn't failed as far as workers' organisation was concerned. And a council is of course not a pyramid...Now you might say that I am arguing based on an authority figure (Debord) instead of experience and that the soviets did fail, since Soviet Russia as we know it existed. But this is just proof that ideology conquered the manifestation of life, not that anarchists struggled for an ideology. And Debord is just an example, probably the most prominent and subversive post-modern marxian thinker. It's not ideology if his writings set your mind on a thinking track. It would be ideology if I made dogma out of him. But I don't think his writings coul;d ever become that.
Wasn't it all Stalin's fault? I thought the soviets were fine before he came along.
>>309385
>never, neither was Stirner.
In a sense I agree with you about AnCaps, they are ridiculous. Stirner is as anarchist as anyone else that predates the modern notion but shares the ideology.
>you sound like a stalinist mate.
A complete non-argument and ad hominem. Also extremely typical of anarchists and proving my point about the obsession with purity. "Stalinists" are boogeymen, or, if you prefer, "spooks" ;)
>being against ideology is not the same as being against existing ideologies while believing in another.
Theoretically, yes, maybe, but it's a mode that can't be practiced. "Being against ideology" is itself ideological expression. Consider anti-communism: it's against something (communism), but it represents and defines itself continuously as an expression against that thing, and it becomes not simply an act but an ideology. Anti-ideology is the same thing, and like every "anti-" position it becomes a grotesque perversion of itself in order to maintain itself.
>Do you think, like Kropotkin, that anarchy and communism could naturaly occur as history goes on?
There is nothing unnatural within history, and everything that happens is part of a material development. This is exactly the point: one can't just achieve anarchism (indeed, communism) by saying "this is anarchism now". That's idealistic and ideological. The Paris Commune proved that.
But the problem isn't ideology- it's not being conscious of ideology. Accept it necessarily exists and don't, as you say, allow it to be dogma, but use it in scientific analyses.
god this thread is a clusterfuck of circular logic, blatantly imagined realities and an air of smug pothead college student wiseasses
>>308725
so which market did employ free market to it's full extent? It's a stupid argument no matter who uses it, each one took steps in the direction towards their ideal model in every conceivable way they could, how can any system come to be without a transformation process? that they were unwilling or unable to move further are failings of the goal as much as of the path.
>>309528
I 'm not denying its existance, but in essence and etymology, ideology is a set of ideals. Recognising the movement of history, having a round perception of the world and of society, being on the side of the struggle that benefits your interests, what is ideological about that? There may be philosophy into it, but not ideology. Ideology is dogma, it's set ideas that transcend history, like religion. NOT recognising the amount of accumulated capital in this particular phase and how theory reinvents the incarnation of struggle today and how marxist thought set the fundamentals for recognising said accumulation and how one should assess facts in every historical period, is ideological. Acknowledging that ideologies which are displayed in a museum manner and are at best outdated and at worst incorporated by the Spectacle exist, is not.
Linear, freshman year marxism-leninism is ideology and was in fact, in many instances, attempted to be imposed with force.
Anarchy is what springs immediately out of people who are united by the conditions surrounding them. Anarchy and communism ARE organic, they "shouldn't be", are not artificial. This is how theory and ideology differ my friend; the former, I repeat, is in dialectical relation to reality i.e. recognises tendencies and movements, the latter has reality interpreted through it.
And no, Stirner, despite what your local bookstore (a store with shelves...you can pick anything you like ;) ) has you thinking, has never been an anarchist.
>>301321
>>301863
I think the problem people have is when companies abuse the power that they have. Most companies can make a profit and pay their workers a decent wage. But they don't. Instead of buying a product for $2 and selling for $4 they want to sell it for $10 and pay their workers a quarter. I know they paid for the material, warehouse ect. I understand, and agree with them for the most part.
What I don't agree with is when big companies start crying "waaa I'm a multi billion dollar company and my workers are asking me to pay them $13 an hour instead of minimum wage waaa." as if paying them 13 would bankrupt them.
Take Starbucks for example. I have a buddy of mine that works in one of their plants in Nevada. They start you off as a temp anywhere from $9 to $13 an hour. If you actually work, they hire you on. My friend started at $16 driving a forklift and slowly rose to $20 in three years. He works long hours, yes but he's payed fairly. Everytime he works 7 days straight, he gets paid double time. So that's $40 an hour to drive a forklift. I'm not sure if the rest of the Starbucks plants do this, but it shows that a company can pay their workers decently. Although not every company charges $6 for a coffee, lol.
>>309620
>I'm too stupid to follow this thread
Okay.
>>302540
>implying companies won't switch to this even when minimum wage is not $15/hr
>>301863
>I own a landscaping company
oh that's great, your story will make an interesting one around the campfire in the gulag!
>>309808
You're a good fello/fella anon
>>301438
>The single worker doesn't benefit at all fromand doesn't control the circulation of the commodities
ftfy, you 're welcome you stupid shit.
The difference between Capitalism and (political) Marxism is that Capitalism sacrifices Equality for Efficiency while Marxism sacrifices Efficiency for Equality. That's it. The specifics you can pick and choose, Marxism, for example, is a sociopolitical practice which was developed by Marx and Engels, is inherently violent hence "revolution." On the other hand, Capitalism, another sociopolitical practice, is the end result of the growth of human society. Competition, conflict, etc. is natural and needed for societies to grow, hence the exponential growth in all sectors of the world and in humanity under Capitalism.
>>307922
>implying those actions were done explicitly under the guise of furthering Capitalism
>implying Imperialism is inherently bad
>implying removing internationalist traitors is bad
>>308030
>delescluze
Lasted ~2 months and nothing substantial happened other than getting BTFO by angry French Soldiers.
>makhno
No shit it lasted a while given the size of Russia and the shitty infrastructure to get armed forces from place to place and the insane number of factions fighting each other in the Russian Civil War.
>durruti
Production in the cities dropped and was constantly getting it's shit pushed in. Furthermore, as Orwell pointed out, "le rebolutionury fervor xD" stopped after a while and no one was actually "enforcing" Anarcho-Syndicalist principles anymore outside of the big industries.
>tito
Was alright tbqh.
>dubcek
Got BTFO by the USSR before anything substantial happened.
>allende
Again, gaining short-term social achievements while sacrificing long-term opportunities. Shit like healthcare, education, etc. is widely available under his system, but everyone lives destitute compared to other countries at the time. Pick and choose really.
>marcos
Regardless of whatever rhetoric they peddle, the EZLN are drug dealers, traffickers, etc. They don't make money just from selling Coffee. Life there may be alright, but they're in the game with the Cartels and Government selling peddling dope and people northwards. If they weren't, they would've gotten beheaded by the Cartels a while ago. Source: Mexican friend and his family from Oaxaca who had family in Chiapas.
>chavez
Look at it today.
Overall, 3/10 made me reply. Most are shit examples that didn't produce anything other than giving another ivory tower pseudo-intellectual "revolutionary" in uni ammunition to use when talking politics and such.
>>309808
Your revolution won't happen. The problem with the modern Left (true Leftwing not SocDems) is that you are all
a) College students
and
b) Have little to no real life experience
People don't unionize in America any more at a considerable level. Furthermore, those that are unionized don't fucking want to support unkempt college students wearing che guevara shirts who claim to represent their interests. Finally, most people would rather live in the comfortable although shit status-quo than live in a violent revolutionary period in which those that are against it (for whatever reason) will be rounded up and shot.
>inb4 hurr durr he is mad xD
>>298533
Don't worry. Capitalism will fail the same way, it just takes longer. If we lucky maybe it evolves into something smarter.
>>298533
Is an Uber driver a worker, because he works, or is he a capitalist because he owns his means of production?
Is Uber company a capitalist even if they don't own the means of production?
The communist conception of Workers vs Capitalists is already outdated and obsolete.
>>301405
>fascist nations glorify war
>expansionism is integral to fascist ideology
>fascist countries bite off more than they could chew
Saying "fascist nations were only brought down by war" is like saying "Communist nations were only brought down by economic problems".
>>308847
Capitalism has never lost, it doesn't have to bare its dark side to public history.
>>309949
>Marxism sacrifices Efficiency for Equality. That's it.
in other boards, I would reply with an aphorism of your post.
>>310016
>unkempt college students wearing che guevara shirts
nice stereotyping there. oh are you a man judging others by appearance? sure your arguments must be compelling.
>Finally, most people would rather live in the comfortable although shit status-quo than live in a violent revolutionary period
I bet you celebrate the 4th of July with pride inside.
not only are you mad, you are also deeply afraid that you could have a pol pot type of "fate" should communism come to fruition. This fear is deep rooted within you because you were raised to be afraid of the word COMMUNISM and disregard ANARCHY and those emotions are invoked within you like a reflex, like a Pavlov's reaction. Look at your whole post, replying to a single joke.
>inb4 hurrrr you can't joke about lives
>>305222
Russia claims it is democratic and capitalistic now, is it though? The same worked with Soviet Russia.
>>310246
>Capitalism has never lost, it doesn't have to bare its dark side to public history.
does this count as shitposting?
let's explain the self explained:
Enron
Vietnam conflict
fracking
Sacco & Vanzeti
war on drugs
covert overthrowing and constant undermining of third world governments
China's slave labour
colonisation
pollution
unfair distribution
>>298634
>slight division
>slight
le one percent meme
or are you """""" slightly """""" poorer than bank owners?
>>309440
Every post made with this image has been garbage.
Is it the same person every time?
>>311175
I'm sure 60 million people starving to death in China is not comparable to Enron.
>>311190
China and Russia have had mass starvation, genocide, pogroms and overall disregard for human lives before communism.
They continue to have them after communism.
I dont see how this has anything to do with communism, actually. Its just asians being asians.
>>306165
Basic income, good public services, amd that's pretty much it.
People comfortable with "just living on" without great luxuries but without any harsh conditions get to be shitheads.
People who actually want to improve get access to education and the means to actually do something that's still on demand.
>>311194
>China and Russia have had mass starvation, genocide, pogroms and overall disregard for human lives before communism.
Not even remotely close to the horrors of communism. Take Russia.
Worst 19th century famine caused 500 000 dead. And that was when it was completely unindustrialized. Famines in the USSR happened in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s and every time killed millions
Now take executions. 3000 people were executed for political crimes during the entire 19th century in Imperial Russia. 1000 people were executed EVERY SINGLE DAY during Stalin's Terror.
So no, fuck off.
>>311185
He's literally a tripfag, so yeah.
>>311204
>tripfag
either the butthurt got to you or you are new.
>>311207
>either the butthurt got you
correct, I get triggered now mainly by tripfags after seeing them just literally shit down a thread and everyone just accuses each other of being X.
>>311210
do you know what a tripcode is?
>>311214
That's not what I meant. I meant the posts are y'know regular "Anonymous" etc etc, but people then start spouting memes at said anonymous like "Oh, Hi X" and then like 300 replies to that other anonymous going "Hi Y", even though both posters are anonymous.
>>311201
>executions
Not having been documented doesnt equal didnt occur.
By your logic many diseases didnt exist until the enlightenment or modern times, since their effects were just put under the umbrella "old age".
>famines
Common throughout russian history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1601%E2%80%9303
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315%E2%80%9317
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1891%E2%80%9392
>>311190
what about 60 million who starve to death in capitalist Africa? Why isn't the perfect market hand helping them out to chose from the best grocery store?
>>311229
>Not having been documented doesnt equal didnt occur.
Imperial Russia actually had a functional court system. There were no komissars appointed with the right to execute people. If anything, it's the number of executions in the USSR which are underreported.
I mean, unless you can provide conclusive proof that many extra-judicial executions for political purposes were conducted in Imperial Russia during the 19th century, but we both know you can't.
>By your logic many diseases didnt exist until the enlightenment or modern times, since their effects were just put under the umbrella "old age".
This is the most retarded analogy I've ever read. Jesus, you redditors are insufferable.
>Common throughout russian history.
Nigger what? Your argument is a famine which happened in the fucking 1300s? Are you deliberately acting like a total moron or are you really this unintelligent? I can't tell if you're making fun of me or if you believe that a famine which happened 7 centuries ago has any relevance in this discussion.
Either ways, kill yourself.
>>311234
>what about 60 million who starve to death in capitalist Africa?
Where?
The only places were people starved to death in Africa were in marxist-leninist countries, such as Ethiopia or Somalia.
>>311238
>a third of the population of the country died in 1600 from starvation
>but russians being hungry is a strictly communist thing!!!
>>311249
You fucking moron. Compare what is comparable. Compare early 20th century Russia to 20th century USSR, for instance.
This makes as much sense (i.e. no sense at all) as comparing famines during the Roman empire to present day Italy.
In essence, try to use the few neurons you have.
>>311256
>Roman empire to present day Italy
>as uncomparable as early 20th century Russia to 20th century USSR
not him, but you don't seem to have a firm grasp of history. And I 'm not a fan of USSR.
>>311279
There are 3 possibilities :
-you read my post quickly and thus misread it
-you have an IQ of 70
-english is not your native language
Read my post again. I said that comparing 16th century Russia with the soviet union was like comparing the roman empire with present day Italy.
>>311290
>I said that comparing 16th century Russia with the soviet union was like comparing the roman empire with present day Italy.
No. Stop being wrong.
>>311298
I see, you chose "I have an IQ of 70".
>>311305
>this is an online forum, scripta manent
This is an english-speaking forum, fuck off.
>Compare early 20th century Russia to 20th century USSR
Yes, good. So are you gonna do it? Or are you going to continue comparing what is uncomparable?
>>311314
if right now I replied with "u mad" you 'd call me a shitposter.
![holycrackas[1].jpg_w=474.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eIXCTDQ.jpg "holycrackas[1].jpg_w=474.jpg")
>>311314
>This is an english-SPEAKING forum
>>309808
agreed, landscaping is bourgeois vanity tbqh
>>308641
>Primitive communism works, and worked for millions of years
I sympathize with your beliefs but this is utter bullshit
>>311379
cognitive dissonance: the post.
>>311385
Humans went extinct? Nah, pre-class societies successfully reproduced themselves just fine.
>>311314
>speaking
>forum
You are stupid.
>>311385
What are you trying to say?
>>311190
It isn't, because 60 million people didn't starve to death in (Revolutionary) China. Jesus Fuck, stop making up these numbers, people.
in before >HUR DUR HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Honestly consider suicide
>>311379
>I sympathize with your beliefs but this is utter bullshit
I don't understand, weren't communal hunter-gatherer societies the norm for millions of years?
>>301369
Russia was shithole before communism.
>>309724
This, they've done it here in a lot of MacDonalds and they were only hiring kids 16 - 18 for around £4 an hour. Tech will kill the need for the working class, I'm afraid, but there will be no avenue for moving up once work is gone.
>>308540
>You will never shoot foreign inbred scum with the lads
>>311695
Honestly makes me sad senpai
>>311325
>>311422
English-speaking is a valid phrase you fucking autists.
>>311651
>It isn't, because 60 million people didn't starve to death in (Revolutionary) China.
Well we can't know for sure since obviously the CPC won't give the true figures, but 40 million dead is a lower estimate.
I'm sure you're going to post a lefty/pol/ tier infographic, don't bother.
>>298533
Protip: If any political idea or whatever is based around some sort of "us vs them" thing, then its autistm tier bullshit that losers attach themselves to
just look at modern western society and look at the people who are communist and nazis.
>>311892
>Well we can't know for sure since obviously the CPC won't give the true figures
They don't have "true figures" because there aren't any. The original numbers are made up by people that weren't there and had no reliable contacts ("Chinese Village, Socialist State") and based on assumed population numbers gathered decades later. All actual experiences of the famine don't reflect the numbers: famine existed, hunger existed, and some people did starve, but that was a rare and shocking occurrence. The Three Bad Years literally takes place in the first period in Chinese history where mass starvation didn't happen during a famine, and was the last real hunger crisis in China. Go cry about leftypol somewhere where that's an actual argument.
>>311971
>modern western society
>not us vs them
You what mate
>>311987
>famine existed, hunger existed, and some people did starve,
Yeah, 60 million of them.
>but that was a rare and shocking occurrence.
It was widespread. The incredible thing about China's famine is that if affected every single Chinese province, which in a country as large as China proves that "bad weather" couldn't have been the cause of the famine. Rather it was governmental policy which was the cause of it.
>The Three Bad Years literally takes place in the first period in Chinese history where mass starvation didn't happen during a famine
>mass starvation didn't happen during a famine?
Literally what? Are you clinically retarded?
>Go cry about leftypol somewhere where that's an actual argument.
But let's be honest, you're an underage teenager with communist sympathies.
>>310113
>The communist conception of Workers vs Capitalists is already outdated and obsolete.
it was obsolete shortly after it's invention.
they think work = production, when it's work = service, they can't gain ownership of the fruits of a labor that is inherently dedicated to someone else.
it's like they want to be capitalists.
>>311175
many of these are byproducts of nationalism instead of an economic program, but sure, capitalism is everything the government does and does not do.
>>311234
>>what about 60 million who starve to death in capitalist Africa?
you mean the one part owned by China right now? that part is doing fucking great.
