There is not a single example where communism and taking the means of production has ever succeeded. With regards to the union and collective bargaining rights, all it takes is one asshole who does it for free or slightly less for the whole thing to fall apart.
The best we can do, that is shown to have empirically work is social democracy like Scandinavian countries, Denmark Sweden and the likes. High employment, happiness and relatively low traces of Imperialism.
Other urls found in this thread:
pastebin.com
youtube.com
dailymail.co.uk
vice.com
twitter.com
Pure ideology: the post
It succeeded many times despite the fact that it's barely 100 years old and was bloodily opposed by all major capitalist state powers.
Lurk moar newfag
Faggot
Show us examples.
psst guy, ever heard of the Eastern Bloc?
pastebin.com
now fuck off
What is "human nature," anyway? All we can really comment on is how humans, as a whole, act within a capitalist mode of production. Any other statements about what human nature prohibits, or leads to, is pure speculation.
I see a lot of people suggesting the thing inherent to human nature that makes socialism "great on paper, good in theory" or whatever other liberal bullshit is greed, or self interest. Greed is a byproduct of wealth accumulation; in a society where worker's retain the surplus value created by their labor, the ability to act upon greed is GREATLY restricted, and, in higher-stage communism, cannot exist, as money has been abolished.
Self-interest, however, is something that is mostly divorced from economic systems. While one can theorize about how capitalist socialization results in selfishness, and decreases altruism, we really don't know to what extent this exists. So the question remains about whether or not socialism would be in the self-interest of the majority of the population.
On the surface, socialism is, quite obviously "better" than capitalism; through the elimination of wage labor and private property, economic exploitation is lowered, and people retain the (majority, as publicly-funded programs would require some allocation of labor) of the value they produce.
Capitalists argue that capitalism incentives innovation, and as such, despite including exploitation not present in socialism, benefits the most amount of people, as even the exploited people supposedly benefit more from the extra wealth creation. However, when one analyzes this statement, it falls apart. In socialism, where value is determined by the labor used, advancements in efficient production methods is obviously an important issue, and a something that would be focused on. Under capitalism, innovation and advancement are not driven by increasing production efficiency and reducing the labor required, but instead by profit. The capitalist mode of production inherently devalues labor. If it is cheaper to continue with an inefficient production method, paying laborers next to nothing, than taking the time and effort, and resources, to innovate, then they WILL do this. This issue is only magnified in a global economy, where labor can be outsourced to third world countries, where capitalists are able to pay wages of mere pennies an hour.
Hope this can help explain my view of the situation. If anybody sees any errors I've made, or has any comments, I would appreciate it, as I am still learning, and somewhat new to socialism/communism as a whole.
It very well may fail (and has failed) but it is still the correct position.
I like you. Work hard red man.
This is really great. But here's the thing: if capitalists appeal to people's actual motivations of autonomy, mastery, and purpose, then there's no need for any capitalist boss once they achieve these skills.
No one likes a quitter, OP.
Is this what liberals consider a discussion topic?
It has, many times.
That is like saying the Roman Empire was a "failure" and ultimately achieved nothing because it eventually fell apart. The achievements of Soviet Socialism are plainly undeniable.
…What? Union action has had massive successes in the past, despite wreckers and scabs existing. In major part thanks to the USSR's influence. If it didn't you wouldn't be posting this because you died at 10 years old mining coal with your bare hands.
Social democracy solves literally nothing, is unsustainable and rolls the red carpet out for fascism.
Scand countries have some of the highest suicide rates in the world iirc
Scandinavian socdem is fully predicated on imperialism. What are you talking about? What the hell are "traces of imperialism"?
Meaningless mantra. Human nature is whatever you want it to be.
a bunch of defeatist buzzwords/10
it didn't fail in 70% of cases
it's this 30% shit that ruined it
who else a hardcore socialist here??
The Soviets' own bureaucratic incompetence ruined it. There is much to criticize about 20th century socialism, but none of it even comes close to invalidating radical theory as a whole.
*nomenklatura's incompetence
Now was it all sunshine and lollipops because they were cruel to criminals and homeless people and enslaved them in gulags to build for society?
I though you people on leftypol projected those crimes onto capitalists?
Albania
huh?
most actual labor in ussr was performed by wage workers. Prison labor was extremely ineffectual
Gulagees built a number of critical objects such as Belomorkanal, multiple railroads and power stations, they even built cities from nothing like Komsomolsk-na-Amure. Of course they weren't slaves either, they had bonuses and vacations and could have their sentences commuted for doing a good job - some stayed at gulag sites as free workers afterwards. It wasn't some miracle project but still infinitely preferable to the capitalist prison system in both moral and economic regards.
A large population of the homeless is a historical aberration almost totally unique to the United States after the 1970s.
indeed, but they weren't ' criminals and homeless people'
Can you prove this with first hand testimony not second hand knowledge from a book written with second and third hand knowledge?
Can you prove that with first hand testimony?
of Solzhenitsyn’s description of his camp after first arriving:
linen’ were unknown… no sheets or pillowcases existed here, and they did not issue or launder underwear. You had what you wore, and you had to look after it yourself… In the evening, when you lay down on the naked panel, you could take off your shoes. But take into consideration that your shoes would be swiped.”
as a ‘work foreman’ to successfully drive his brigade to achieve desired targets:
Inb4 muh second hand testimony says that all is a lie
They were criminals though…
*inhales* oh no no no
They were criminals according to nomenklatura criminals.
ok, this is epic
No, because I can only exist in one place at one time. I'm not claiming that overcrowded or substandard housing hasn't always existed, but homelessness is far less common in both contemporary Europe and Asia than it is in the United States. With the notable exception of the Depression, homelessness in the United States is fairly recent.
Calling his book a "literary investigation" means that he was afraid to defend his testimony. If you approach all first hand accounts with this reverence, you won't go very far in the study of history. Conflicting pagan and christian accounts of the harvests during late antiquity and other issues like that will prove to be an insurmountable hurdle for you.
dailymail.co.uk
Paid vacation with death benefits.
he keeps doing it
Fucking kek, you gonna throw some insight from Ths S*n at us next?
Why do you even post this? Clearly you're arguing in bad faith and you don't care about the USSR at all, you just want (You)s
Solzhenitsyn was a reactionary pissant that failed to provide any actual evidence of what he claimed to experience. The sole reason people believed him was because of the bias in the Western nations he published his shitty books in.
Are you retarded my man? That's not an argument. It used to be "human nature" to submit to kings. Or "human nature" to be a slave. Or, even better, there were pre-civilized societies with proto-communist characteristics. Are stocks human nature? Or taxes?
Socialism doesn't mean "everyone is exactly equal and gets the same stuff" you mong. By economic equality, we mean the aboliton of classes.
he isn't even arguing that, he means strikes and other labor action are useless because scabs exist
R O A D O F B O N E S
O
A
D
O
F
B
O
N
E
S
wait hold on THAT'S what he meant? I couldn't glean it from how vague everything was.
If strikes didn't work, he'd be working in even worse conditions.
All these posts don't even point out the first mistake that he makes which is him presupposing that communist societies have existed which is false
>>>/autpol/
We'll actually let me rephrase
Societies that have attempted to reach higher stage Communism have existed but usually on a Meso / Micro scale and only for short periods of time
Of course that's only if you don't count "primitive communist" societies with Social and economic models similar to the Communism envisioned by Marx
But effectively the furthest progress towards communism we have seen in the modern era is the M-L Socialist states
Thank you.
have a gagarin for your trouble
Lol, that's a pretty obvious lie.
But Stalin and Lenin were rich.
Another holocaust denier. You disgust me.
What is the USSR, Cuba, Yugoslavia, etc. Hell, even in the questionable ones like China or Albania enormous achievements were made compared to what preceded socialism.
Yeah because it's impossible to impose a system of checks and balances to avoid corruption as much as possible.
Wage labor, exploitation, unemployment and commodity creation surely are great indicators of a functional society.
"Being rich" does not automatically classify someone into this or that class, as bourgeois economics will have it. What matters is your relationship to the means of production. Besides, Lenin always lived a fairly sober life and didn't take more for himself than needed.
...
Yes. Humans are trash and they will never understand something angelic like communism in their life.
We must kill ourselves.
Religion is entirely based on a loser who said that a bush talked to him and said it was a new god they should start believe in or bad things would happen, then they got invaded so it was a proof, they believed in this new god.
Jesus may have existed but at best he was just an illuminated. Three centuries after his death, an emperor created christianity by forbidding the hundreds of different and contradictory versions of Jesus story and imposing his bullshit official version instead. By the way, the character born on 25 dec from a virgin mother, murdered at age 33 then coming back and so on, actually had nothing to do with Jesus at all, the exact same story was found in several ancient religions from over 8.000 years ago.
Someone watched Zeitgeist.
Protip: That part was bullshit. First off, Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, no account gives the exact date of his birth, but it was actually traditionally celebrated in the spring until the Church decided to change the date to December 25th to compete with the Roman holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. On the flip side, most of the gods whose stories are supposed to mirror that of Christ according to Christ Mythers have had their stories significantly twisted to fit that narrative. Two examples are Mythra and Horus, who these guys claim to have had "virgin births" when Mythra was born from a rock and Horus's conception was very decidedly non-"immaculate" (Horus's father, Osiris, had been cut up into multiple pieces by Set, but that isn't enough to kill a god, so Isis found Osiris's apparently still-living cock and used it to impregnate herself)
and yet even in capitalist countries there exist various, qualitatively distinct relations of production, subordination and distribution. A family does not run based on mutually beneficial exchanges of cash. Workers in a firm hold various implements of production in common in order to more effectively serve the will of the capitalist. You're looking for a "communist country" and you end up taking for granted some rather remarkable features of our everyday lives. U a dumbass chief. Read Zur Kritik.
In any case the bourgeois state is an extension of bourgeois class power. I don't draw a sharp line between reform and revolution but it's obvious that what is now commonly called "social democracy" does not challenge this power. It hands the bourgies a series of polite requests and hopes they'll be courteous enough to carry them out.
i would assume their high standards of living are dependent on imperialism even if they themselves are not imperialist. it's not like you could turn burkina faso into sweden by a series of decrees.
And these are supposed to be success stories?
...
...
By this standard, capitalist countries are a success as well. Technically, even more so since they're thriving more than the communist countries that didn't already get btfo years ago
We were talking about the USSR, not the USA.
>Really? Where's the success of capitalism in Africa, southeast Asia and Latin America? Or are you referring strictly to imperialist Western nations fat on global loot? The success of communist experiments is that they were able to achieve these things without having to loot other countries and hold their populace in servitude.
Don't know why that all got greentexted.
No it's not. There are plenty of other manufactured boogeymen to chase after.
Sure thing, Putin.
They represented a successful worker revolution, and their state, the Soviet Union, was a major sponsor of socialist revolution globally. The welfare state was an attempt to bribe the national proletariat into loyalty, but this is pointless now that the Soviet Union collapsed. The bourgeoisie feel that socialist revolution is no longer a credible threat, so there's no real need to fund the welfare state.
Are you implying that Putin is a communist or…?
How do you seize the means of production in America when there is no production?
what are you gonna do? Seize all of the fast food restaurants? The factories left you idiots when you started demanding minimum wage, regulation and heavier taxes. Your only option is to live in 3rd world despair. Move to an economically liberated country if you want to improve the quality of your life. Aint no revolution going to save your deadass.
Actually there is a 3rd option: join the civil war, kill each other off and then there will be no one left around to feud over resources.
Imagine being this much of a classcuck
back to Zig Forums
...