How to argue against reactionaries when they say something like 'Socialism has been tried and failed'?

...

"Socialism means a society with NO ruling class"
thats an absolute bullshit. Creator of this shit image have never read Lenin's State and revolution. Socialism is a society where proletariat is a ruling class and bourgeoisie is opressed class. Go away stupid revisionist

...

...

I think you need to reread your theory.

Google "self-awareness"

Look them right in the eye, castrate your nutsack, shit on it and walk away LIKE A BOSS.

That's exactly what happened though.

inb4 "it wasn't communist!!!!!"

it wasn't. maoism is by and large why capitalism was allowed to so ruthlessly take over china

Lad I inb4'd it

"Communism works in theory, but in practice its destroyed by a CIA backed coup"

States don't exist in vacuums, the existing capitalist order does everything in its power to crush these experiments

point out how many failed capitalist states there are (Somalia?). the only "successful" ones are the ones who came to global dominance either through military and/or financial imperialism.

point out that the first capitalist experiments in the time of feudalism didn't necessary flourish either. progressing to a new mode of production is a lengthy historical process

you inb4'd a correct thing

Even without crashes, the supposed main advantage of capitalism is getting necessary surplus goods to people who need them most and in the most efficient way possible and yet there are countless examples of capitalism failing to live up to that on a daily basis. Not only does it not live up to that, it actively keeps some inefficient and unnecessary goods in the market and keeps them profitable over more efficient goods and services. (Oil industry.)

capitalism also began to emerge after mercantilist Europe had effectively plundered the entire world of its natural resources allowing them to spur industries rather easily and rapidly. Russia and China both came out of dogshit agrarian societies, with a Tsar and other counter-revolutionary groups attempting to undermine them (while also being paid by other foreign governments).

And it failed miserably and several successive monarchies replaced it.

really makes you think

I'm not very familiar with Rojava.

That was the actual word "capitalism" not the practice that it attempts to describe. That's like saying that reptiles didn't exist before someone came along and invented words.

You're both fags. Socialism is worker ownership and democratic control of the means of production

State and Revolution merely describes Lenin's theory on how to achieve said socialism, which at the time were Soviets and other councils

not entirely, charters to go out colonize land, and lead expeditions were funded by monarchs on the behest of a rising merchant class. After these merchants began to hoard and collect wealth, and become their own distinct class capitalism had spurred (private accumulation). Mercantilism isn't capitalism as there was no production for exchange, it was a form of conquest and plunder for the benefit of the monarch and merchants. People weren't reproducing luxury goods, or trading with other businesses, there was no industry other than the mercantilist industry.

tell them capitalism is failing

fascism only works based around a war economy (good way to get them to admit they're war mongers)

This is a eurocentrist view of merchant trade. Were expeditions authorized by monarchs or the Church?

So when did capitalism begin?

Trade and skilled labor have always existed.

"We never had real socialism!" Shuts 'em up every time.