The Inevitable Failure of Communism: A Discussion

who fucking cares, like honestly what do you think they will say?
they're literally incapable of coming up with new arguements so they just create these shitty echochambers where they aren't BTFO'd in five seconds.

Could, at worst, be claimed to have been an oligarchy run by the politburo of the Communist Party.

Ever thought that people bring them up so much because they're good points and it's completely your fault that you're tuning them out?

Which is a point made in the video. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Get out of here

Attached: no thanks.gif (200x270, 544.71K)

Attached: smug.jpg (266x200, 7.85K)

Thanks for regurgitating another pointless liberal thought-stopper.

Anticommunist propaganda isn't "real failures"

Most of them were even worse off before.
There are also cases of right wing despots succeeding democratically elected leftist leaders, like in Chile, but of course that never gets mentioned, or hand waved with some idiotic excuse like body counts.

Sargon pls go, we don't care.

Nigger, what?

Well, again, there are countless examples of this being true, from military dictatorships to monarchs taking the throne by claiming to be the avatar of a popular god.

Are you saying North Korea isn't an Orwellian nightmare? That the Great Leap Forward and the Holodomor never happened, despite all evidence?

No Sargon here, only an unofficial ambassador.

Cool story, I'll tell the guy who asked.

Again, what has that to with communism being bad?

I really don't see any reason to take you seriously.

Holodomor was not intentional and not nearly as bad as people make it seem. Anyway the USSR ended famines in Russia.

This line of reasoning doesn't go where you think it goes. It effectively renders moot the entire notion of politics and suggests that no one should ever do anything because the results might not turn out very well, something that is more delusional and self-defeating than any apologetic for leftist personality cults. It is a paradoxical defense of existing tyranny out of fear of future tyranny, which is usually rationalized by denying that such tyranny (militarization of police, surveillance states, mass media information control) even exists to begin with and the hypocritical notion that people deserve whatever they are currently suffering because they asked for it. Or, in Sargon's case, rattling off the names of logical fallacies to feel smart.
Liberal capitalism as a success of peace and freedom is a myth, something that anyone with a vague awareness of modern geopolitics should be keenly aware of, assuming they aren't a brainwashed American that lives in a reality bubble. Anticommunism is little more than gut feelings of dystopia and apocalypse, rooted in Cold War paranoid over nuclear war, something that was exceedingly unlikely to happen anyway.

fucking goyim

Like pottery in mocean

Attached: lmao at ur life.JPG (456x343, 25.92K)

Wew, go ahead and defend the Russian aristocracy, which was so despised that even liberals were part of the initial rebellion. I'll wait.
The idiocy of the "communism = authority, capitalism = liberty" narrative.

Why is Zig Forums so obsessed with these youtubers? They aren't worth engaging with intellectually or giving attention. Why do you keep doing it?

OP is clearly not a leftypoler.

But none of that shit happened, not in the way anticommunists put it.

It doesn't say any of that. Saying power corrupts isn't defeatist, it's merely an understanding of human psychology. Ignoring that power corrupts ignores all of human psychology.

Such is why America's founding documents are what they are, it was built with the understanding that all the actors within it hated each other and would do anything possible to secure total power. Checks and balances were built directly into the system and it's why America is the oldest and most stable functional democracy, even if it's dominated by bourgeoisie. Fact is that America's founders figured out a way to keep bourgeoisie from ripping each other apart, as has happened in most other examples of democracy.

Attached: unsolicited_opinions_on_israel.jpg (679x315, 29.44K)

You see, when famines happen in Tsarist Russia every 10-15 years it's nature.
When after a combination of devastation brought by WW1 and Civil War and severe drought brings another famine it's Soviet genocide aimed to destroy specifically Ukrainians. Not to mention that it's very convenient for modern Ukranian failed state to bring this up every time to channel people's anger towards Communists who lived 80 years ago.
If anything collectivization prevented more deaths by forcing kulaks to contribute grain instead turning the prices of it to the sky.
People also fail to grasp that Russia 100 year ago was a backwards illiterate shithole with agriculture done only by manual labor and medicine/industry non-existant. If anything, you should compare Soviet Russia with capitalist Brasil, they all started in relatively same conditions.

Fucking commies

Why would I? I'm against aristocracy.

Give it this, it has a mighty fine track record of being proven right.

Attached: 1510793934784.png (746x717, 101.9K)

Ukraine's government actually loves the USSR because they were actually created by them. Where communists actually created their state the big bad (Russian) Tsar filled them with big bad Tsarist Russians. Much like Putin now does. Actually open a UKR textbook and read it, it's 90% whining about the Tsar because it allows for direct comparisons to Putin.

That's not what I said, nor what "absolute power corrupts absolutely" says. In fact the statement works against capitalism when one realizes productive efforts are all owned by a handful of companies.

lol
aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/06/ukraine-anti-communist-laws-stir-controversy-150601054437645.html

That doesn't go against anything I said. Ukraine wants to join the EU and removing communist ornaments is a thing required of all eastern bloc members that want to join. This does not impede Ukrainians from viewing Putin as a big bad Tsarist imperialist in any way.

Also the laws passed banned nazi messages too, as a means to prevent further ethnic tensions within the country. The EU more or less requires this now because they're afraid of nazis and communists as both aren't pure capitalism like they are.

This is enough for me to know you know nothing about CIS politics, I am actually from that region. They larp a mix of Ukranian Republic created by Kaiser, Nazi collaborationists and PLC. When USSR broke up all of the populist movements created by that power void were united in being anti-soviet. All their identity and platform is based on nationalism and anti-communism. And when people actually started starving in the 90ies propaganda about the holodomor and evil russian-jewish communists reached it's peak.

Everyone who uses "liberty" with a secret, silent "negative" in front of it should be shot immediately. Do not pass gulag. Do not collect 200 labor vouchers.
I fucking hate libs jesus fuck

Attached: shut the fuck up liberal.jpg (651x407, 65.68K)

Pinochet, Franco and Hitler were truly champions of liberty.

Entire rightist world-view is based on opinions and flawed interpretation of history. Only objective way to trace a success of economic system is to look for changes it caused in the country. In absolute majority of cases socialism immediately improved standard of living: eradicated poverty, illiteracy, increased length of life and brought industrialization and urbanization.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf (Economic Development, Political-Economic System, and the Physical Quality of Life).

I'm talking specifically about Sargon's liberal "centrist" narrative, the kind of bullshit you commonly hear from """""""rationalists""""""".

Then it was worse, since the USSR fostered tremendous economic development in spite of the authoritarianism.
Proven right by lying by omission about any example that inconveniences them. Banana Wars, Operation Condor, mainland China, the list goes on. Even Iran is a theocratic hellhole because of the burgers constantly fucking with their politics to maintain oil trade.
For that matter, the Nazis were ideologically capitalist and violently persecuted their leftist party faction, and even pioneered mass privatization. This doesn't count, for some reason.

Attached: 1506723704756.jpg (563x503, 21.18K)

Why is it that when we try to defend our ideologies, it's a No True Scotsman fallacy, but we can't criticize capitalism because any negative example of it is Not True Capitalism?

Attached: Implying Jesus wasn't white.jpg (1088x1200, 125.18K)

The failure of communism is that it is attached primarily to materialism and does not acknowledge that humans have ambitions beyond the material. Thus the premise for communism is debunked at its foundation. If humans are capable of taking actions in contradiction to class or their relation to the means of production (and they do) then dialectal materialism is false.

Are you trying to write colossally stupid posts, or do you do that involuntarily?

Almost everyone I have met from Ukraine when I went to Ukraine hates communists to death because the famine and general social poverty it caused in the country combined with their disdain for Russians. I was there when they were tearing down old communist memorials.

How exactly does keeping theocratic psychopaths in power, who call America "The Great Satan" help maintain oil trade?

Nod an argument. If your ideas have merit let them out or forever be the failed ideology

It took you 15 minutes to come up with an elaborate human nature argument. Try harder, or better yet, maintain a discussion instead of moving the goalposts.

Is that why eastern Europe is the poorest part of Europe or was it something else I'm missing?

Your not arguing and it took me about 30 seconds to write that after I joined the thread. You haven't critiqued the merit of my statement just disregarded it and attacked me personally.

Wow looks like you debunked Marxism forever. I guess you can leave now.

The thing that always frustrated me about all the classic anticommunist platitudes was than none of them ever offer any kind of structural or historical analysis. They point to a lot of its legitimate failures like authoritarianism, lower living standards, famines, inefficiencies, etc. which, while obviously exaggerated, are all true to some degree. What's so annoying however is that none of them ever try to explain in concrete terms why these things happened. Sure, the USSR did away with democracy pretty quickly, but how and why did this happen? Sure, socialist economies were often inefficient and suffered problems like shortages, but why and how? The only criticism of socialism ive heard that actually addresses it on a structural level and doesnt strawman is Mises calculation problem. Everything else is usually explained by some platitude without any kind of analysis of the structures of socialist societies, their historical circumstances, etc. The obvious reason for this seems to be that if they were to do this, they would find specific flaws and issues relating to the institutions or policies of 20th century socialism, or would locate specific pressures caused by historical circumstances. In other words, it would force them to address the fact that the failure of socialism in the 20th century was the result of actual mistakes, policies, and circumstances which can be learned from and overcome in the future, as opposed to being sold as some nebulous total failure of socialism as a concept.

To take a perfect example of what I'm talking about, people often point out the economic problems Chile faced under Salvador Allende's reforms, they bring out some statistics on inflation or other problems and leave it at that. They dont bother looking into the circumstances outside Allende's control like the slump in copper prices, or even the bad policy decisions that could have been avoided like borrowing to fund his reforms instead of increasing taxes. If they did this then it would force them to admit that the problems confronting socialism arent some supernatural force dictating that it must always fail, but they are material, practical issues that can be analyzed, understood, and solved within a socialist framework. In other words, they never properly analyze the problems of 20th century socialism because if they did it would open up the possibility of solving them.

No you will come out and you will face me cowards

The Islamic Revolution was an accident resulting from this fuckery.

It was much, much poorer before the Soviet era, you retard, and most of them haven't been doing any better since. Do you think the entire human race lived in utopia before the evil reds came and ruined it out of spite?

They were always the poorest part of Europe.

Refusing to argue with yet another liberal who thinks he can just intuit his way through a discussion on Marxism based on reading a wikipedia article at best is just me knowing what's a bad use of my time.

If you have ever been in Ukraine or even close to Eastern Hemisphere you would realize that most of the anti-communist sentiment and (perhaps, coincidentally, nazi sentiment) comes from the generation that have never lived in USSR and judge it based on modern school textbooks and constant propaganda.

Read this
Eastern Europe prior to socialism was on the level of development of the worse Latin American countries. It leaped forward a great deal, see systematic analysis in the paper i linked.

It really wasn't. Russia was the fastest growing nation in Europe before the USSR and was a genuine concern for both the British and German empires. The parts of the USSR that were annexed from Germany saw a massive decline in living standards. The most developed parts of the USSR were former German territories

Dialectical materialism is a sociological model. I challenge you to find me a single sociologist who would suggest that these models are meant to apply universally to all individuals without fail. They're meant to be descriptions of prevailing trends in human social behavior on the macro scale, not laws of physics that force individuals to act a particular way.

Been all over eastern Europe and the Ukraine everyone I met born in the USSR doesn't miss it and generally regarded it as a nightmare.

And anti-imperialism. Actually read the books you're given ivan.

And most of the world's top 10 fastest growing economies are in Africa. The speed of their growth doesnt change the fact that they were way behind the rest of Europe. Not to mention that Stalin's industrialization made the growth under the Tsars look like child's play.

How are you going to apply communism to a society if you cannot apply it to every individual? How are you going to control the whole of a nations means of production within taking into account the inability to make this aclicable to a whole host of individuals

No they aren't they are in Asia everything growing in Africa is China colonizing the fuck out of the continent

Literally no society functions on the basis of complete and total conformity by every individual, and that includes capitalism.

Actually the real number is 6 out of the 12 fastest growing economies are African, so I was close.

businessinsider.com/world-bank-fast-growing-global-economies-2015-6#13-china-1

Define materialism.

Does capitalism? Under both capitalism and communism (unlike under fascism), personal fulfillment is judged to be a matter best left to the individual.

How did we get to capitalism and liberal democracy? I don't think the monarchy and feudal upper classes were all that keen on it, but here we are.

Growth isn't of much solace in a country that is de facto feudal for the most part. Popular revolt happened for a reason.

You could apply this reasoning to every mode of production imaginable.

He dedicated his entire life to being a useful idiot and enabler of fascism. What's the big difference?

Stop playing with terminology and diluting words' meaning. Imperialism directed against a country is characterized by domination of her market by capitalistic state monopolies. Liberalizing their market and destroying their industry is opposite to anti-imperialism.
I haven't linked a book, but western statistics paper that largely BTFO's your previous argument about development. You preferred to ignore it and keep moving the goalposts.

Yes but the point is communism cannot be implemented without forcing a totalitarian goverment that runs contrary to all individuals. Even if you do implement it individuals will destroy it just by being individuals some lazy some hard working some smart some dumb.

Popular revolution was for a Republican goverment against a tsarist regime. Communism came about via a coup by the communists

When did literally every person in existence explicitly agree to the current status quo? Don't be disingenuous.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Your argument is so terrible it hurts.

And why do you think the anti-tsarist revolution happened, dipshit? Because everyone was content with the monarchy?

Why not?

...

You keep rephrasing the same argument for a while now. Socialism is only beneficial to the growth of individual because it prevents alienation of the workers.
"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before."
Albert Einstein, Why Socialism

Material thought or material things? Materialism is an attachment to things and basing identity and persona and said material things. I.e someone obsessed with class.

Much like capitalism is when you're obsessed with capital letters.

brain_hat_wojak.png

Attached: i don't like this post.png (800x800, 121.76K)

I'm noticing an astounding lack of arguments

See my posts on why I won't bother arguing with you if you can't do me the common courtesy of learning what the fuck you're talking about first.

Attached: a779d6e5792bcf8ac3e6c24ed20bda6fcde1a15604e234a1e86eb06e02b64909.jpg (480x798, 52.94K)

Materialism as described by Marxism is simply the theory that society is primarily shaped by physical, economic factors, and that other factors operate within the framework set by things like geography, means of production, relations of production, etc. It doesnt suggest that material factors are the only things that motivates humans.

The free market has already proven to be more cost effective then central run economies so it's a good thing Einstein wasn't an economist.
Also are we debating communism or socialism? They are two seperate things and socialism can indeed function.

No one can possibly be this dull. If you're not trolling to make Sargon's followers look bad, someone should hire you to do it.

see and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_planning_(economics)

Holy shit he pulled the, "Capitalism has cracked down on poverty" meme. Honestly can't stand anymore of this shit.

It took less than a year for people to realize that Provisional Government was more of the same and failed to deliver on anything they promised.
And that coup was orchestrated by a three million Red Army.

Nah dude. You're using it in the colloquial sense while we're talking about the philosophical concept of materialism. Which essentially states that the material proceeds consciousness.

Wew, no.

Materialism posits that everything is made of matter, or material, and all interactions are the interactions of material forces. It's usually contrasted to idealism, which holds that consciousness is prior to and forms material reality. Materialism posits that material reality is prior to and forms consciousness.

Attached: brainlet.png (645x729, 74.68K)

What do you mean by cost effective?

They are two separate things, but I guarantee you they dont mean what you think they mean. If you're like most libs what you think of as socialism is social democracy, what you think of as communism is socialism, and you have yet to even develop a concept of what real communism might even look like.

Yeah but it does everything you just listed is within the realm of materialism not the intangible. Someone having a religious experience that tells them to burn every person born on Thursday at the stake is an example of an individual who has taken an action completely in disregard to their relation to any of the things you listed.