North Korea was once more developed than South Korea

How can we explain this?

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2011/05/01/cannibalism-under-communism/
books.google.com.br/books?id=vyX6PH0NYScC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=Bukharin get rich&source=bl&ots=JQ6wG_A7fA&sig=N_j33SYcBq8Ft0mIbDWEN5MGeAo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI3O6DqrnTAhWFE5AKHSKiD_cQ6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=Bukharin get rich&f=false
youtube.com/watch?v=6Tmi7JN3LkA&t=57s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

TRUE COMMUNISM HASN'T BEEN TRIED BEFORE

Korea has always been a shithole. It took an American backed dictatorship (South Korea) to turn it into something that wasn't a pile of mud.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that two of those countries had billions in U.S. development aid dumped on them and the other two were intentionally strangled.


A) That's a pretty low bar.
B) The actual wellbeing of the average Venezuelan improved dramatically under Chavez.
C) Like Cuba or North Korea they are a target of economic warfare.
D) They aren't socialist anyway.

Korea improved a lot under the Japanese Empire.

For start rural areas are not a good choice for implementing a system that a requires a developed capitalist economy, which has been stressed over and over, but retards don't listen.
Marxism-Leninism is gay if you ask
Venezuela is not communist, it's just shitter Norway
Also
OP, we all know that you're going for "lol communism is shite", why need to hide it?

Korea and Japan aren't liberal democracies with free markets though.

If you wanna call "mafia's playground" rich, sure.

The problem with you libertard faggots is you see "GDP" as "rich" even if the people die on the slum streets.

But that logic India is FUCKING RICH AS FUCK! Why not live there then?

...

Weren't you supposed to raid tomorrow?

blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2011/05/01/cannibalism-under-communism/

Cuba was a decadent, de-generate shithole before the revolution. Only a libertard would actually prefer a country that had abysmally low literacy rate, massive amounts of poverty, and de facto slavery to a free communist society.

Kek, gulf states confirmed paradise

That doesn't invalidate the point.

whataboutism at it's finest

cannabilism comes from a lack of food, the last century saw more capitalist famines than communist

The point isn't to abolish money but to make money obsolete.

...

This really shakes our conviction on Juche.

So was the UK, Spain, and Italy. What are you trying to say? That the Japanese grew a lot in the past century?

First, come up a source backing this, which by itself proves nothing, and then comes up with a source that says when this trend was reverted.

Not a single wanted them to? (Except Pol Pot apparently)

The point of Marxism-Leninist states was not the immediate creation of communist systems, and the abolition of money in Marxist theory is like the abolition of state, a gradual process that happens as productive forces develop, class society is dismantled and those institutions lose their social function, not a supposed abolition of money by decree.

Which attempts to abolish money were that, and which disastrous attempts to abolish private property in farmlands are you talking about?

Because at least to my understand, no mass disastrous attempts to collectivize farms happened after the Soviet experiment (maybe something in China, whose history I'm not familiar with it) and in that case, the collectivization wasn't the cause of disaster but one of the attempts to revert it. The Soviet Union had up until the early 30's a private, capitalist sector: the agrarian one. Bukharin, Stalin's ally, was so fond of agrarian capitalism that even told the peasants to "get rich!"

books.google.com.br/books?id=vyX6PH0NYScC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=Bukharin get rich&source=bl&ots=JQ6wG_A7fA&sig=N_j33SYcBq8Ft0mIbDWEN5MGeAo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI3O6DqrnTAhWFE5AKHSKiD_cQ6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=Bukharin get rich&f=false

The main thing that made Stalin break with Bukharin and push for collectivization in the farmland was the fact that famine was obviously approaching because the private agrarian sector wasn't producing enough. Of course, Collectivization didn't avert disaster but can hardly be blamed for it.

Venezuela has oil. They had a lot of cash, this is really easy for you to find. Thing with oil is some years it allows you to live like a king, others it's barely worth extracting. They have mostly heavy oil too, so they have to send it to the US for refining and with current prices it really hurts the bottom line.

Communism is not something that can be tried. Communism is not a state of affairs to be established, but rather the real movement which is to abolish the present state of things.

ITT

Defending Batista is one of the most vile things I've seen anti communists do in the name of profit. Even Kennedy admitted they ruined the country in a "communism is evil!" speech. He made Cuba a fucking hellhole whore House casino for the enjoyment of the burgers. I even saw an interview with a Cuban dissident get furious at some pompous Spanish rightists than lamented the fall of Batista, I shit you not.

The economic embargo fucked up Cuba but even then they have a better health care system and education then Merica.

but look at all the pretty signs!

Do you have an argument or are you just a meme-spouting retard?

lmao

C U B E R

North Korea covers the area of the Korean peninsula with exceptionally limited resources and has little to no trade with anyone. Most of it's problems lie in it's geographic position.

but user Venezuela has private property is capitalism!!
as far as i kwon most of the problems of Venezuela is the government obsession to keep capitalism.

All this proves is that the united states is afraid of collectivism.

Cuba was richer at the expense of the general public. But I guess gdp is more important than quality of life

OP you need Michael Parenti
youtube.com/watch?v=6Tmi7JN3LkA&t=57s

:^)