How do Communists cope with the fact that every implementation of Communism has resulted in monumental failure and that the ideology is responsible for more than 94,000,000 deaths?
Does anybody actually believe that the Marxists who fermented revolutions in the 20th century would not have implemented the system that they nearly died for to it's fullest extent if it were possible?
...
That's western and proky propaganda. The only people killed in those countries were useless corruption lovers like you.
Decent and hardworking people were allowed to carry on with their lifes.
how do you cope with the nsdap's defeat and destruction during wwii?
enjoy your ban
That's not accurate, communism killed 1000 trillion people in 10 years.
I don't know. I'm a socialist, not a state capitalist.
...
Name a true socialist state cunt
94,000,000 is not enough tbh we need more
You know everyone who helped that guy write the black book of communism came out after and said he was intentionally making up numbers because he wanted the 100 million claim?
Is this supposed to be an argument?
enjoy your ban
You don't get it, do you
there's more from where that came from bucko, hold tight 'cause we're coming
No I don't. How the fuck do you force someone to give you his money without the coercive power of a state-like structure?
I'm talking about socialism, what the fuck are you talking about?
ok
guess how many preventable deaths cigarettes have caused
over 1 billion
Socialism isn't the problem, it's authoritarianism. For example, name one genocide in history committed by anarchists.
PROTIP: you can't.
See the problem?
the reason I cant do that is the same reason I cant name many anarchist societies at all. 10 at max.
Google "genocide committed by anarchists" and get back to me
Ok, your shitty strawmanning got me.
I meant the products of his labour. OR someone might even create a means of production, how do you take that away from him without the coercive power of a state-like structure?
Google "tasks successfully completed by anarchists" tho
Socialism (just like capitalism or slavery) is a way of organizing a company or an enterprise. The state isn't involved here.
...
Change the bottom also
Not an argument; and nice red herring, fact remains, anarchists have never committed a genocide in all history.
anarchists are objectively less violent than any other group, including buddhists. Stay mad.
Whoops, just noticed that.
Just bantz tbh
I certainly like anarchists more than tankies and who could hate mutualists
What about the Stirnerites?
I've no idea what they're about but they know how to funpost I tell ya hwat
First of all, the largest branch of socialism by occurence in history is state socialism.
Next, even if you like to call the form you choose to institutionalize the power 'of the working class' a TOTALLY NOT STATE, it is still a state-like structure with because
1. it retains it's supreme function: organizing a large amount of people.
2. For that you'd still need Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers.
Anarcho-socialism is basically creating a state and shouting like a fucking retard that it is not a state. Just like Nestor Makhno did and no one dared to contradict him because he had A FUCKING ARMY - totally not state-like.
Citation please
We have now a clean table to start over. Marxism-leninism was doomed to fail as a totalitarian system
Do you really not want to talk about what I said of the Anarcho-Socialism? Do you agree with everything I said and admit you are retarded?
What does that have to do with anything?
Nice torture chamber you've got here. Funny how you faggots whine all the time about Holla Forums yet are perfectly fine to do the exact same shit they do.
You can't just pretend popular doctrines don't exist. I'm very familiar with the USSR system and I can confirm it was a true democracy. People went to vote. en.wikipedia.org
:^)
By "occurrence in history" indeed. If you had to acknowledge current socialist movements, you might have to admit that Marxist-Leninists are nowhere close to the majority anymore, making a new Marxist-Leninist state unlikely. Fortunately, you can just jerk off about the 20th century, so since the largest number of socialist states in the 20th century, surely all socialist movements are Marxist-Leninists and would create Marxist-Leninist systems despite all evidence to the contrary.
No I didn't, I just posted a flipped picture of the "capitalists explaining socialism" meme
If this was Holla Forums, you'd be banned and this thread would have been deleted.
I meant to adress this to
As for you, you can fuck off with the Capitalism being a creation science retardation. Capitalism was what got us into the modern era in the first place. And smart nations sticked to it and thrived.
No, the modern era created capitalism, not the other way around.
And most of that "thriving" had a lot to do with turning the rest of the world into a colony.
I don't necessarily aim to say that all the relevant social movements were Marxist-Leninist, though it is so. My ambition is to enlighten all of you how retarded are all the socialist doctrines. I've started with the Anarcho-socialism and I explained why it is shit-tier here
Next, even if you like to call the form you choose to institutionalize the power 'of the working class' a TOTALLY NOT STATE, it is still a state-like structure with because
1. it retains it's supreme function: organizing a large amount of people.
2. For that you'd still need Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers.
Anarcho-socialism is basically creating a state and shouting like a fucking retard that it is not a state. Just like Nestor Makhno did and no one dared to contradict him because he had A FUCKING ARMY - totally not state-like.
If you're anarcho-socialist feel free to admit you're not anymore. In your counter-meme, however, you seemed to defend the government, so if you belong to another stream, pls tell me which so i can btfo it.
What? I'm not an anarchist.
Obviously you need revolutionary violence to create a new system. Capitalism was no different, it burst into the world blood dripping from every pore, establishing itself through violent conflict.
It is only here 200 years later after it established itself as the dominant global economic system that we can pretend that capitalism is some sort of natural, non-violent socio-economic system.
The excess of resources brought by colonization stimulated people to find the better methods to process them that's how capitalism appeared. The result of integrating that shit ton of resources into the then still feudal societies was the modern era.
So how can the fruit create the tree it fell from?
Implying that is bad. The fucking brown men had those resources at their disposal for millenia and did nothing with them, while we were doomed to live in scarcity.
Your argument here is, at best, that colonialism created industry which created capitalism. You haven't established that capitalism created the modern era at all.
Scarcity that only got worse for the majority because of the logic of capitalism.
It is only here 200 years later after it established itself as the dominant global economic system
How do you explain trade, jobs (prostitution, carpentry), attributions of roles in a society organized by the supply - demand rule, expressed through money, which existed at least since writing did? - in fact the first cuneiform writings were contability of trade. Capitalism was always part of the human nature, it was only turned into a precise doctrine when people had to be a lot more efficient
The improvements in agriculture which came with the development of industry caused a boom in population, increasing the chances of some being smarter. The smarter started to experiment with natural science, philosophy, humanitary studies, cause that's what smart people are interested in, then they applied the results and improved the civilization
Scarcity that only got worse for the majority because of the logic of capitalism.
Scarcity never got worse. It is the population which grew drastically because we implemented what we could of our ways of getting resources and infrastructure in r-selected shitholes (where people bred often and concieved that many of their offsprings would die young - dying young is still a thing among the contemporary african americans kek) causing their offsprings to die more rarely. Even in countries that weren't colonized, like Ethiopia, but adopted our infrastructure the problem of scarcity persists.
Capitalism isn't trade.
Capitalism is the use of private property and wage labor (for the purpose of generating a profit). It only came into prominence in Europe after the decline of feudalism and in the rest of the world after colonialism.
There really wasn't a huge population boom until the turn of the 20th century with advances in modern medicine.
As soon as socialists realize that the only true value of labor is the market price of said product of said labor and that the labor-theory of value was a marx trying to wave his dick around trying to sound smart by referencing The Wealth of Nations, and that he didn't actually apply the theory to its logically refutable conclusion.
I didn't say trade is capitalism, I said the society was organized to do jobs and get money - wage labor. I then showed that we have writing because there were people who got paid to do the contability.
The Labor Theory of Value was had it's origins with John Locke, and was advocated for by Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
In fact, Marx's LTV was less dogmatic than Smith and Ricardo's LTV, contrary to what you're trying to claim.
Sometimes scribes were slaves, like many Greek slaves taken by the Roman Empire.
But, regardless, I fail to see the point you're trying to make. That society had a particular organization to it so… what?
The population boom was sufficient to make said changes. The more people were living, the more the civilization increased, the ability to use the resources increased, and with it the population increased. And we still aren't stopping, even if commies killed some millions. That's what shows that capitalism is the way to go if we want to finally conquer the space and achieve unlimited resources for mankind.
doing jobs for people who have enough money to pay you, so that those people get more money is capitalism, isn't it?
was nice chit-chatting with you, you filthy commie, but I have to go to bed now, it's 3 a.m. in this region of the world that actually tried socialism. we'll continue tomorrow right here, if you will.
