Untitled

Funny how these "famines" always happen the second farmers land is stolen from them and redistributed to everyone else, every single time throughout history.
I'm sure it's a complete coincidence, though.

Attached: 1xkgs0ogvgoz.png (340x407, 192.54K)

Humans are so stupid! xD

So you're admitting you're an NPC and can't think for yourself?

(You)

yeah and then famine stopped and they ran a successful state-owned system for decades.
but sure blame the ebil commies for all the economic instability and not the wars and sanctions

the floor is niggers

SEE IT WORKED LOL

yes because despite starving gorillions of innocent people the Soviets were somehow able to industrialise their economy, become a world super power, stop all famines by the end of WWII, give everyone a job, healthcare, and other social benefits no other system has achieved, and make some of the greatest scientific leaps.
also let's completely ignore that the population in the USSR increased up until it's fall, and that the authors of the black book of communism even admitted to going out of their way to come up with the "100 million" number.
funny how you Zig Forumsfags are always talking about the lies spread in the media, yet will swallow all the anti-communist rhetoric without question.

Attached: c692bb40cf02f2aa7af81ad471f8c677d10979595dba3bcb9fd8263c646c26cc.png (659x767 566.74 KB, 134.83K)

I wasn't talking about communism specifically, but communist countries do have a pretty regular pattern of stealing land from farmers, and unsurprisingly having massive famines as a result. I wouldn't call Zimbabwe a communist country, but they did the same thing, and unsurprisingly, had to call on international aid due to food shortages.
Also,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Soviet_Union#Efficiency_or_inefficiency_of_collective_farming

Try reading something other than your dumb propaganda sometime.

Except that’s not even close to true.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country

Right, and do you ever bother asking why is it that some attempts at land reform failed? I think you’ll find that it usually comes down to practical considerations and solveable problems rather than some nebulous force that makes leftist policies magically fail. For example in Zimbabwe they literally gave land to people who didn’t know how to farm, and so productivity suffered.

Anti-communist arguments are so often intellectually lazy, looking at the failures of some socialist policies and drawing general conclusions without actually analyzing the process by which they fail. To you dipshits the collapse of a socialist economy doesn’t emerge from any real mechanism or cause, it doesn’t come from bureaucratic inneficiencies, or exclusion from foreign resources, or corruption or poor methods of planning and accounting. It’s always some mystical force that magically conjures bread lines. You people never bother looking in to the reasons for a failure, because that would reveal an actual practical issue in organization or execution that can be addressed and solved, rather than some Rothbardian magic that strikes down socialism from on high.

Attached: F30751E8-8CD0-41BF-8406-861D70B86393.jpeg (812x1200, 197.82K)

That's hilarious.

Attached: power privilege.jpg (657x254, 23.38K)

wow that Wikipedia article really convinced me
here, read this. it's a study done by Joseph E. Medley that discusses Soviet agriculture.
soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=47201
didn't realise studies done by sources i posted were "propaganda", considering the majority of them were conducted by westerners.

Attached: 83a39c2cb40fd1f612e995a5e41686ac48725e15.jpg (640x640, 95.52K)

Lmao, what kind of cuck do you have to be to accept poverty and subjugation just because some asshole claims to own a piece of land? Ownership is arbitrary, any attempt to justify it by natural law inevitably falls apart. The only basis for a system of ownership should be social utility. The best system of ownership and distribution of property is that which provides the greatest freedom, prosperity, and individual autonomy for the greatest number.

Attached: D54442D8-4AC1-4F94-8705-485857992EFD.png (662x638, 604.95K)

Attached: i9ui7gy7wwvz.png (720x775, 454.29K)

pastebin.com/5a8qmTth
Here is the the academic article if the hosting website scared you.

woah… so this… is the power… of right wingers

The literal neo-Marxist?
How about you read some good books? Try some of the translated ones by Tatyana Zaslavskaya.

Attached: red-between-the-lines.png (1000x962, 473.61K)

empty buzzword from a brainlet academic
Why don't you do it? I already have and was a capitalist libertartian before i became a socialist.

yeah okay faggot sure this random author that you've definitely not just head about for the first time and who you've read many works of is totally a "neo-marxist". get over yourself.

Yeah that one worked out real well.

what do you think are the odds the author of this image actually read Das Kapital?

what do you think the odds are the author of that image actually read Animal Farm or anything at all tbh

Orwell was a commie you dipshit.

Attached: A9C9EC48-0356-406D-AC97-D5686EED8761.jpeg (1676x1069, 510.76K)

I also like how a fiction novel about talking animals is supposed to be the antithesis to fucking Das Kapital. I know the "joke" is "commies are le degenerates lmao" but it's such a brainlet comic

I don't hold it against him. He wrote it in the 1940s; there's no way he could have known that some form of Stalinism is what communism always devolves into before collapsing.

Except that’s horseshit, once again you’re just talking out your ass without providing any actual analysis or mechanism by which what you claim happens actually happens. You’re just regurgitating whatever boomer meme your high school history teacher taught you.

No.

Why is it that ☭TANKIE☭s and conservatives seem to agree on everything?

It’s really uncanny.

A better question is why you contest obvious stuff like "2+2=4", "sky is blue", "moon is not made of cheese" and "Orwell was anti-Communist".

Yep.

Out of existing to date. A case can be made about Cuba, but they simply don't have the industrial capacity to take off.

Is there something Anarchists wouldn't call "authoritarian state"? Other than totally-not-state of Catalonia, of course.

If Anarchists aren't in charge, any organization of society instantly becomes "government does stuff".

Attached: political compass.png (705x767, 62.9K)

Why do you think Orwell was an anti-communist? Do you actually think that opposing Stalinism is the same as opposing communism?

Yes but you do admit that it was flawed, and that there were valid criticisms of it from a leftist perspective correct? And that it was therefore possible to be both anti-Stalinist and a communist simultaneously right?

I’m not an anarchist and neither was Orwell. Also pointing out that “all societies are authoritarian” is idiotic. Of course all societies rely on violence to some degree, but they are different in the scope, target, and method of its application. Comparing two states that are radically different in this regard and saying that they are “both authoritarian” is beyond stupid.

Also the statement that “all politics is the imposition of violence of one class over another” and the implication that this is inherently authoritarian erases the fundamental difference between the violence of the oppressor and that of the oppressed. Read Fanon ffs. Calling the violence of the oppressed that is carried out in pursuit of liberation “authoritarian” basically makes the word meaningless. Which doesn’t surprise me given that you people love to use this as an excuse to justify why so many ML experiments failed to secure the goal of socialism: the universal liberation of humanity.

This is what Zig Forums tells themselves they need to believe

I’m not sure how this relates to my post.

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism as I understand it."
~George Orwell

Attached: 20180913_140532.png (720x645, 78.64K)