What is inherently wrong with communism? Why does it consistently ruin every country it is tried in?
pls respond
Because it's only ever been tried in poverty-ridden shitholes where all the leaders were thieving, corrupt and lazy.
>>71127257
well nature of man is bad and a selfish so giving all the money to goverment isnt really a good thing
>>71127257
nothing is inherently wrong with any form of government. If men were just then any system would work but men are not just.
>>71128059
>Because it's only ever been tried in poverty-ridden shitholes where all the leaders were thieving, corrupt and lazy.
You mean human?
Why do any thing if you can not surpass any one else.
>>71127257
You know better how to deal with you property than the government.
>>71127257
Because the fundamental philosophy underneath communism is the same as most religions. It requires you to accept and adopt into yourself the concepts of self-sacrifice and altruism. You sacrifice your property and ultimately yourself for the better of the society (in the case of communism) and reject rational self-interest. By doing so you create a situation where someone who represents "the society" must emerge and open the door for tyranny and oppression. The only way for a society to be healthy is to have at its foundation the notion that rational self-interest is at the core of each one of us and that ultimately it results in the betterment of society as a whole.
What's wrong with communism? Look at Eastern Europe.
>hurr durr it wasn't real communism
Fuck off
>>71128368
Of course that this will trigger the majority of /pol/ but nazism is an even more extreme form of altruism (everything for the fuhrer and the motherland) and therefore also flawed at its foundation just like communism is.
>>71127257
Marx wrote his bullshit before people really and truly understood biology, especially human biology.
Marx does not take into account any biological factors or psychological factors. He paints the world with broad "good guy/bad guy" brushes that obviously aren't going to work in practice. And they don't. Every communist regime in existence has collapsed or been forced to transition to capitalism.
People under the age of 25 who think communism will actually work are the lowest subhumans in the Western world and are too stupid to realize they're stupid.
>>71127257
It's a market system. And only a market system.
Attributing malevolence to it is like calling a gun evil. It's not the shitty gun but the person who's using it that is the problem.
>>71128550
It advocates stealing people's private property through the force of state. Evil by definition.
>>71128667
Actually places like North Korea and Mao's China are what happens when you have true democracy. It becomes a self-cannabalising mob. Communism is basically democracy taken too far. There is a reason that the enlightenment thinkers and the ancient Greek thinkers were against democracy but in favour of a Republic.
>>71128676
>Purposely sells goods for more than they're worth
>Purposely sells human labor for less than its worth.
>Calls communism evil
>>71128632
>Communist sympathizers
>Innocents
Your image is flawed
>>71128667
you should be comparing socialism with capitalism not socialism with democracy
how do you even breathe......
>>71128676
What you described sounds a lot like tax.
Communism would not have any nation states.
>>71129078
The point of the image is that you can't judge a country by what it calls itself. How stupid are conservatives anyway?
>>71127257
>What is inherently wrong with communism?
It is essentially a religion which is why its followers are such dogmatic fucks. They actually believe its "science" that the world will all be communist so they basically have witch trials on anyone who doesnt buy into it. Questioning it in any way is also grounds for execution or imprionment
its also illogical horseshit that pretends to be anarchist pretty much, even though it is the most authoritarian type of government other than a real monarchy.
>>71128632
Capitalism is the common system, and works just fine. It's not perfect but still the best we have
>>71129070
How's that, senpai?
>>71127257
It doesn't work in societies larger than a handful of people. Basically you are sharing, and who wants to share with people they dont know or think they can relate to?
>>71127257
>communism-people own the wealth,
not possible, will never happen
>socialism- been tried dozens of times, govt own wealth and distributes it
why turn anything over that you worked hard for? so someone else that isn't working hard can have something?
2/10 for making me respond
>>71129173
Tax is also evil.
>Communism would not have any nation states.
Then why haven't any communist nations in history disbanded into the wilderness
"Not true communism" is just a cop-out by people who don't want to admit it's a stupid ideology
>>71129259
i don't get the point then
>>71129007
>consider people to be units that belong to the state rather than people
>dehumanize them and force them into labor at the point of a gun
>they don't get paid to work, they're made to work
>kill millions in the process
>>71129488
Because communism is literally stateless society you idiot.
Term you want is Soviet-style socialism. Their goal was communism, but they never reached communism.
Communism is utopia. Use proper fucking terms when discussing politics.
>>71129671
I correct, I guess you are going with the meme that socialism never existed
I guess you also buy the meme that ISIS has nothing to do with islam
>>71128632
Thinking that the actions of rules has anything to do with an economic system and nothing to do with the size of the state he controls.
Big governments do the most killing, not fucking economic policy.
>>71129295
>innocents
B-but that's not REEAALLL communism
>>71129736
>Communism is utopia.
in other words, its a stupid fairy tale. Anyone who actually believes a "perfect" society is possible, especially one that has been tried many times, all of which have failed horribly, is a fucking idiot.
>>71129736
>Because communism is literally stateless society you idiot.
Nope. Communist regimes have always been nation states and will always be nation states. What you want it to be and what it is in practice do not have to match. Rome, for example, was ostensibly a government by and for the people of Rome, but ended up conquering 1/4th the known world and killing untold numbers in the process while run by despots and aristocrats. Your academic understanding of communism is meaningless when it plays out the same way every single time, regardless of culture or country.
Sorry. You sound like a religious zealot.
>>71129862
It's a prediction of direction in which society will evolve. It could be true.
Question is whether you should just let it happen or do something to make it happen faster.
Socialism and communism are separate terms. According to some point of socialism is to reach communism.
According to others, socialism itself is the point.
It's just that it's retarded to see people on a board dedicated to politics talk like 5 year old kids.
It's too easy to corrupt and the creators within society find no incentive to continue working. Only when resources can be fully distributed by machines and created by machines will it work.
>>71129488
Cos it's all fucking theory. "Communist state" is an oxymoron. At various times in history nation states have been governed by parties who called themselves communist parties while enforcing a kind of centralised command/planned economy.
A stateless world without currency. It does not "advocate stealing private property through the state" because there is no state and there is no private property.
>>71128353
>>71128059
>>71127257
Karl Marx intended for it to be used and tried in germany. He intended for people to go through Socialism into Communism calmly. He never wanted places with really shitty economies like Russia and China who had really shitty leaders to try it out. He wrote the book in Germany for it to be used in Germany because Germany had decent rule and economy at the time
>>71130238
This is incorrect. Marx and Engels actually thought the first socialist -> communist country would be Britain. Primarily because it was the first to industrialise. A lot of there work was from seeing factories especially in northern England.
They saw the conditions people lived in, from urban centres to the factories.
The problem is that pre industrial countries like Russia used these ideologies as ways to remove their leaders. They were not yet at that stage.
>>71129985
>Communist regimes
They were called communist because their goal was to reach communism. Communism was never reached.
>You sound like a religious zealot.
All I'm arguing for is using proper terms.
Unless everyone unilaterally agrees on the system, there will be the need for someone to enforce doctrine. My idea is that this creates an innate disparity since there is now an enforcement class with more power than the rest of the people.
>>71130105
>It's a prediction of direction in which society will evolve. It could be true.
which makes it even more irrational and silly. If its going to happen eventually, then why do communist always try to start these violent revolutions?
>>71129295
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INNOCENCE, ONLY VARYING DEGREES OF GUILT
>>71130235
>Cos it's all fucking theory.
And the theory doesn't work in practice.
I don't understand why kid commies have such a hard time grasping this concept.
If I tell you you can send a rocket to the moon using a shook-up bottle of soda, and you try it, and it fails to reach the moon the 10000000000 times you try it, your response shouldn't be "Well I didn't try it right! Next time it'll work!" It should be that my theory is fucking invalid.
>>71130533
I agree with you my friend.
On the other hand, I also agree with Marx, in the sense his analysis of capitalism was good. What wasn't good is the part about what to do about it.
I mean after several decades of Soviet-style socialist regimes, and their failure, it's clear that method isn't good.
>>71130498
>All I'm arguing for is using proper terms.
And I'm telling you that the 'proper terms' don't matter. When communism plays out in practice the same way in every single nation, as I said, regardless of country or culture, then what "True Communism" is supposed to be is meaningless. It's meaningless both because its implementation is always horrific, and because the desired result of its adherents is unachievable. Decisively unachievable. For "True Communism" to work, you would have to disband civilization.
No one is going to disband civilization, so communists have tried the next best thing: Applying it to nation states.
Guess what it fucking failed
>>71130787
>On the other hand, I also agree with Marx, in the sense his analysis of capitalism was good. What wasn't good is the part about what to do about it.
this 100%. He actually does bring up some good criticism of capitalism, especially of it at the time, but his solutions are even worse.
Plus you can easily fix the problems of capitalism without going into marxism, which is a problem that they hate. Teddy Roosevelt for example just improved conditions from workers around the US and it pretty much ended any chance for it to take hold because with the improved conditions, then they had nothing to rally people behind.
Its whole existence is based on finding some desperate as fuck poor peasant and then promising him paradise. So it makes perfect sense why some Russian peasant in 1916, or some poor sickly vietnamese rice farmer in 1953 would support it.
It operates just like a religion
>>71127257
Utimately Communism is no longer relevant - it can only be used in industrial countries. Maybe they had a point, way back when, when urbanisation and industrialisation was so fast that European countries changed so rapidly.
But nowadays in the West despite the constant accusations of inequality, the majority of people have a certain standard of living. And even those that whine they don't, still utlize high end goods (from iPhones to large TVs).
In the developing world it has been used incorrectly as a way of uniting people together but because there is not the industrial infrastructure in place it means that the countries end up in decades of turmoil or destabilization as they can't end want. If you're not a highly centralised/urban/industrial society then you end up with bread lines and no support for the masses.
To cling on to power this inevitable leads to the destruction of liberty.
The basic idea is to go socialism (state controls economy and means of production) to communism (no state, no money, no private property, so kind of like an abbo tribe)
Thing is, the moment you convert to socialism and give all the power to the state you WILL get fucked. It's inevitable because humans gonna human. Then you have a fuckton of corruption, oppresion and you lose all your liberties to your community in exchange of some gibsmedats that more likely than not won't be enough.
Also, the whole point of socialism is bringing an end to class war and give power to the proletariat. Thing is, in doing so the new leaders will become another ruling class and then you're back to square one. Same happens with opposition political parties and their candidates, give them power and they'll eventually turn out to be the same as their predecessors
>>71131009
>'proper terms' don't matter
They do when we're discussing political ideologies. That's my point.
Otherwise someone like Sanders who simply argues for some welfare policies is ''communist''. Now I'm not saying about what he really believes in, but his platform isn't communist or even really socialist in any way.
>>71131284
>It operates just like a religion
Exactly, and I agree with your post in general.
Notice for example, how Lenin was treated after death. It's almost exactly a religion.
>>71130787
Communism will be relevant as long as there is capitalism, and vice versa.
Marx main contribution was power and relations of production. Exploitation of labour was discussed even by Adam Smith. One of the best analysis of failure of Communist regimes is The Alternative for Easter Europe by Rudolf Bahro. His solution is as shit as every other method unfortunately.
>>71127257
Becauae it goes against human nature
>>71131284
>Its whole existence is based on finding some desperate as fuck poor peasant and then promising him paradise. So it makes perfect sense why some Russian peasant in 1916, or some poor sickly vietnamese rice farmer in 1953 would support it.
>It operates just like a religion
Which is why I compare its adherents to religious zealots.
It's a failed ideology, it's always failed, yet people still defend communism with fervor because it's their faith. They'd rather believe in the WHOLLY INFALLIBLE theory written by some guy who never worked a job in his life but promised eternal paradise, than exercise critical thinking skills and say "Hmm... maybe this doesn't work after all and we're wasting our time?"
The proverbial opiate of the masses is Marx, himself.
>>71131667
So does liberal capitalism, especially it's modern mutations, neoliberalism/neoconservatism.
Human nature is both collectivist and individualist. Without balance, society and individual suffer.
>>71131631
I will read that now that you mention it.
What is wrong with communism? Literally EVERYTHING.
Pretty much everything that marx predicted would happen , DID NOT HAPPEN AT ALL.
The entire science , theory of marxist economics has multiple times been proven to BE COMPLETELY WRONG.
And every time it has been attempted it has only ended in bloodshed, starvation failure.
Heres a few examples
1) Marx predicted that as economic globalization progressed, national identities, religion , the concept of a nationaly such as "I am a german" would dissapear. And that the only thing that seperated humans would be class. Poor, rich, middle class etc.
Has that happened? Has islam and christianity dissapeared? Have different cultures dissapeared? Have they merged together? Look at the failures of multiculturalism. NOTHING LIKE THAT HAPPENED. Globalization only made the clash of cultures WORSE as different cultures become more aggresive to each other ( the cucked situation os europe really is only for a short while). Look at how muslims started hating "the west" when globalization started happening.
2) Marx predicted that as technology progressed more and more, the workers in DEVELOPED NATIONS, yes, DEVELOPED NATIONS such as France, England, USA, would become so poor that they would have "nothing to lose but your chains". Has that happened? No. Capitalism has improved the quality of life in developed nations by an INCREDIBLE AMOUNT. And the only place where communist revolutions did happen WAS in backwards, agrarian countries like China, Russia ( at the time). Marx predicted that revolution would start in DEVELOPED countries.
Sorry, but when your entire "science" and "theory" of economics GETS proven wrong, it's hard to take communism seriously.
>>71131599
>Otherwise someone like Sanders who simply argues for some welfare policies is ''communist''. Now I'm not saying about what he really believes in, but his platform isn't communist or even really socialist in any way.
yeah, plus for the most part, all "communist" in America are just upper middle class faggots LARPing as "le revolutionaries!" who just want a nanny state to pay them to sit around all day playing with their dicks. They dont even know what it really is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXAJ185zsjc
>>71127257
that image is retarded
that those folks had mass killings going on was incidental to them being communists
just as you can have, now and before, NATSOC without any genocide
By the way I just listened to 9-10 year old kids outside shouting "kill slaughter so Turk doesn't exist".
What in the actual fuck. This is like twilight zone, fucking Balkans.
>>71130437
And yet they were completely wrong
People started getting richer not poorer so his revolution never happened
>>71127257
It requires community ownership of the means of production. This means that if I have land, it needs to be taken. If I don't want my land taken, somebody with more power than I must take it. Somebody who is willing to resort to violence. People generally don't like giving up power once they have it.
>>71132139
>than exercise critical thinking skills and say "Hmm... maybe this doesn't work after all and we're wasting our time?"
its pretty funny. They apply critical theory to the west, questioning and bitching and pointing out every little detail no matter how small as "OMG ITS FAILED WE NEED TO END IT!"
but the moment someone does the same thing to their ideas, its heresy
>>71131631
>Communism will be relevant as long as there is capitalism, and vice versa.
Not really. Capitalism has decisively won the argument and has been in practice hundreds of years. Communism hasn't lasted one century. Anywhere. It is to social pragmatism and economics, what a lava pit is to home security: Grotesque, stupid, potentially quite violent, unsustainable, expensive, and fails to do what it was designed to do.
The only "communism" that could ever potentially work would first require capitalism to achieve: Post-scarcity.
Until you can materialize products out of atoms like on Star Trek, capitalism will always win. Even then it will still probably win, as the need for services (such as the people who design aforementioned products) will always exist, as long as humans breathe and are made of carbon.
Marx could just be summarized as "moody edgy philosopher has an obsolete thought".
>>71127257
>“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
Socialist or communists think that they are better than other human beings. They always put themselves in the position of god to steer, to direct people into their own thinkings. Frederic Bastiat on his book The Law, BTFO of socialist and communist in everyway.
>>71132162
Both are happening actually. You're just blind.
What "clash of cultures"? It's just temporary hindrance, in time that will be crushed if nothing prevents the march of globalism. That is the product of liberal capitalism.
Of course, Marx didn't observe this from a nationalist standpoint.
Second is also true, in a sense. Wealth inequality is growing and people are more and more apathetic, apolitical and indulged in meaningless pursuits and consumerism. In effect, chained slaves.
Pretty close to what Marx predicted.
>>71128632
>implying these countries weren't better off after they purged the commies and commie sympathizers
>implying the commie countries that purged ANYONE that disagreed with their shitty idea were better off after it
boy oh boy.
>>71128366
/thread
>>71132519
Exactly. You're always going to have some stupid tween come along and think communism is a great idea because they read something about it on Facebook once. They've never lived through it, they've never opened a book and read about it, they've never asked the people who've experienced it how it played out, yet they'll automatically think they're smarter than 99% of the people on Earth because they know about True Communism™. It's hubris born of arrogance, the naive idealism of a sheltered youth.
And Critical Theory is effectively just bitching about minutae, like whining about cracks in the sidewalk, and then advocating the whole city be burned to ashes because of it. It's majoring in the minors for people whose intellect is also quite minor.
Societal problems are always obvious and don't require much digging to see. Mexican illegals is an obvious society-wide problem. Islamic terrorism is an obvious society-wide problem. Lobby groups are an obvious society-wide problem. Etc. But when people start busting out these theories that like... I'm racist, because my distant relative was a colonist, and the colony was chartered by a kingdom, and that kingdom was ruled by a king, and that king made fun of a transgendered midget Muslim nigger 400 years ago, therefore I owe someone I've never met money, it's just pure LOL. And those are the only "solutions" Critical Theory adherents produce.
>>71133030
No country really achieved much after fall of socialism.
They just collapsed totally due to ''shock therapy'', and then infusion of capital and credits restored them to previous or slightly higher level, at the cost of virtual debt slavery and political independence. Even in matters of internal policies options are restricted.
This occurred in Poland, Baltic states, Balkans.
We're simply dangling on Western key-chain. They control our fates, and they could crush us like bugs if we ever dare oppose their interests in any way, even unintentional.
You will see the gentle embrace of neoliberal empire if their interests are ever really threatened.
And this comes from someone who's opposed to communism.
>>71132867
Do you have any evidence that national identities will wear down in the future?
Just because western europe is tolerant and such doesn't mean the rest of the world is, or the refugees that are coming to europe are as tolerant.
Literally everywhere where there are many cultures sewn together in one place there is nothing but constant crime, war, explosions and horror.
Look at Isreal. They literally had to build a wall around the palestinians, and there are CONSTANT attacks on the israeli jews and shootings pretty much happen every single day.
Look at western europe today, any immigrant area is a literal shithole. Are cultures wearing down there? No, if anything, the difference between cultures becomes more and more apparent , leading to their inevitable clash and war.
We already had something similar in medieval times, were the official language of everything was latin. Like English now ( Kinda)
Did that prevent nationalism and chauvinism from booming in the 19th century? No it didin't.
Hell, you can use the internet as an example that cultures will not wear down in the future.
The internet in its essence is the perfect multicultural, or post cultural society. There are no borders. And yet, does that make everyone tolerant, informed and everyone essentially the same in terms of culture?
No. Look at 4chan and reddit. Both sites are free to access, everyone can come to them. And both of them have vastly different behaviour and culture. Look at an arguement at the internet. Every single time it just devolves to a complete shitstorm and everyone at each others throat.
Hell, even seperate BOARDS on 4chan have different board culture.
2) Yes, people are more apathetic, apolitical, indulged as never before. Which is EXACTLY why they will never, EVER, partake in a goddam extremist far left ideology.
People being apathetic, indulgent, apolitical is a sign of a civilization dying. Not the forthcoming of a communist utopia.
>>71129259
All those democratic countries are democratic, though? NK at least is.
>>71130238
And, as with everything else, he was wrong. A revolutionary movement that only works in prosperous countries is worthless, because prosperous countries don't change. Why would they?
It's poverty and oppression that drive that kind of paradigm shift, and as prosperity grows, so does resistance to change until the nation stagnates and becomes poorer. He created a system which can inherently only be tried by the societies he knew it would never work for.
It is impossible and does not account for human thinking "I want to be better than others."
Both Capitalism and Communism end up the same way: With a small class ruling over the oblivious majority and getting them to do the bidding of those in charge, The only difference is the motivation, in Capitalism it's "Work hard to move up!" and in Communism it's "Work for improvement of the state!"
Communism fails because people would much rather stride towards the first of those motivations and no amount of indoctrination will change that.
>>71133670
>Do you have any evidence that national identities will wear down in the future?
How can I provide you evidence on this matter?
Just look at what's going on in Europe.
I'm not saying nations disappeared, but it's certainly going towards that. Even governments are encouraging it.
>Literally everywhere where there are many cultures sewn together in one place there is nothing but constant crime, war, explosions and horror.
Yet they keep pushing it. Why?
>clash and conflict
I'm not saying there is no clashes and conflict, I'm saying that just opposition to a trend that's occurring. You're acting as if it's not occurring.
>were the official language of everything was latin
Yes but only to a tiny minority. And that minority was pretty ''globalist'' in some aspects, but it was different time.
Lithuanian noble felt stronger bond to some German noble than Lithuanian peasant working on his land.
>tolerant, informed
I never argued that will happen. That's why I'm opposed to globalism.
Rather we're mixing and superior Western culture is giving way to inferior cultures.
Theoretically in some time some mixing might occur.
Already there is Americanization of Europe, for example, and America itself is a good example of how it works.
>civilization dying
I agree.
>forthcoming utopia
Marx didn't set some deadline you know.
In a way, if we ever reach post-scarcity, communism becomes more logical, doesn't it?
Advance of robotics opens up some new perspectives, don't you think?
Marx was writing in 19th century, he couldn't really predict everything.
I'd say that his ultimate conclusion might be right, and his analysis was good.
I already stated I find his opinions on how to proceed wrong.
>>71129070
>politically motivated murder is OK if it's people I don't like
Get fucked.
>>71129282
Not really. You're making incredibly broad generalizations.
>>71127257
Because corruption, when the socialist get to power is because they country is doing very well so they can start stealing money without people noticing, but when everything is bad they dont know how to defend themselfs
Proof
>Brazil,Venezuela,Argentina,Chile
>>71129786
Government is inexorably tied with economic policy, unless you're talking about anarchist capitalism.
>>71129295
>Frick
Who?
>Leopold
Colonialism is not capitalism.
In what weird twilight zone did he introduce free markets with property rights for all citizens?
>Shah
CIA didn't do jackshit in Iran.
>Pinochet
Capitalism is the reason why Chiles per capita GDP is higher than any other latin american country (that isnt just an island tax heaven).
>>71129852
hahahahahaha epic meme XDDDDD
>>71129985
You're literally denying dictionary definitions and accusing anyone who disagrees of being a religious zealot.
>>71128368
U wot m8? What religions other than christianity are based on sacrifice? Stop equating christianity to communism - it's just retarded. The Church declared Communism an enemy of humanity.
>>71134665
>CIA didn't do shit in Iran
Besides propping up Shah and bringing him to power in the first place.
>>71130708
Epic straw man. Who here advocated for repeating the Soviet Union? His sole point was that people like you should stop smearing all far leftists as Soviet conspirators, because they're fucking not.
>>71133524
That may be so over there but here the West has been loosing hold of us and the chinese have been stepping in.
The Chinese have us in their hold now though not every body knows that since our news never really report anything worthwhile. It's always "oh this guy got killed" or "look at this kitten its so cute and it needs a home", or "haha we beat Colombia's ass in football/soccer" and shit like that. Never anything important.
Circus and bread I suppose, but we're still becoming more independent and richer.
>>71131009
Terminology matters because when it's corrupted, both tyrannical propagandists and schmucks like you can distort it and thus manipulate people's thoughts.
>>71127257
Feel free to expand that pic with Tito's Yugoslavia and UDBA
>>71135139
ok shill
>>71135115
Mossadegh was beaten by the military, religious elite and wealthy tehran vendors.
They whole CIA meme was willfully created to make the CIA appear omnipotent.
Remember: CIA is a government agency and therefore inherently inneficient and incompetent.
>>71132139
Get your head out of the clouds.
Not only did Marx actually hold several jobs throughout his life, but (surprise!) far leftist ideas don't conveniently resemble some monolithic, centralized, unthinking blob like the Medieval Catholic Church.
>ctrl + f
>economic calculation problem
>zero results
Jesus Christ. Does ANYONE on /pol/ bother studying economics before having opinions on it?
>>71135555
>>71135115
oh, and of course they propped up the Shah, but look how that worked out...
Just further proving my point.
ALso check my delicious quads.
>>71133455
Just watching the mental gymnastics that these people do to legitimize their ideology is hilarious. I saw a video where a bunch of college-aged communist were protesting how America was evil and killing blacks for imperialist and racist reasons. When the gentlemen who was filming them began to quiz them on all the millions that socialism killed in relation to... 40,000 blacks within five years or so they were quick to try to not only deny the figures but also say that revolution cannot happen without sacrifices.
Goes to show how fucking stupid they are.
>>71135853
>/pol/
>studying
why actually study economics and politics when you can just call each other cucks xDDDD
>>71132162
Marx actually knew that workers would be better off potential-wise in industrial capitalism than in feudalism or such. What he predicted was that class antagonism would grow as technological advances made large sections of the labor force less needed or obsolete, and as profits would concentrate increasingly in the hands of a minority.
>>71132764
Epic meme image XDDDDDD
>>71133524
Good post
>>71133788
>Marx knew he would fail
You're a moron.
>>71134526
Allende wasn't nearly as corrupt as Pinochet. The funny thing is that some of the most corrupt officials in modern history have been staunchly anti leftist.
>>71134665
Pinochet actually caused economic lull until he renationalized some industries.
>>71135695
You're right, there were different flavors of communism, and each one was shit and got millions killed.
You have the Red Terror flavor, the NKVD flavor, the Khmer Rouge flavor, the Red Guard flavor, under leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and other forms of Marxism.
All of which share the same fundamental retardation of being unable to understand supply, demand, and the human condition, trying to force people to operate as if each person were exactly the same, with the exact same needs and wants, and a strong, violent opposition to anyone that challenged the state.
Now I know you're probably going to say "But REAL communism is stateless" and the simple reply to that is, you and what army? How do you stop one group from forming a state? Once one group forms a deathsquad, it's game over for the stateless society.
