"If every socialist country so far has failed then why do you still support it? Communism can not work "

"If every socialist country so far has failed then why do you still support it? Communism can not work "
How would you respond if a normy told you this?

Other urls found in this thread:

prole.info/texts/hamburgervalue.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Tell them about Rojava, and if that doesn't work, tell them about outisde interference, and that as a leftist it's important to you that you learn from the pasts mistakes so you don't repeat them.

Tell them that I'm not a Marxist Leninist.

Tell them that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has stood strong against foreign imperialist aggression and has not failed.

China is the greatest nation on Earth. How is it a failure?

tell them to define "socialist" and "failure".

insist on telling them to define things until they have no idea what reality is and they're scared and confused.

I would do this. Force them to admit that they are operating on memes. Then admit that Leninsts have some serious thinking to do before they can be taken serious again and explain to him how varied the communist movement really is.

"but user, there is no freedom in nk, they have slave labor, and they are brainwashed into thinking kim jong un doesn't poop"

Tell them that's there is more nuance to the topic than they're giving it. Why precisely did these countries fail? Typically when one looks into the details we will find three general outcomes (often times overlapping):

1.) The country was crushed by external forces before it's policies could come into fruition
2.) The country was victim to extreme circumstance beyond its control (other than the actions of other sovereign nations)
3.) The country failed to implement socialism correctly. (This will generally need to be explained more carefully otherwise you'll be baraged with 'muh no true scottzaman" and "muh goalposts." You'll need to demonstrate how said nations did not follow the definition of socialism as given by Marxists– not because you are redefining socialism or "no true scotsman"-ing.

Poster you quoted here. That's what I generally do.

Doesn't produce more communists but at least they tone down the pointless rhetoric.

This is good too.

Because I identify any of these supposed "socialist countries" as little more than crushed proletarian movements which, in their aftermath, were little more than despotic capitalism under the red banner, I would respond by saying that communism is an ever-present movement I actively see in every single wage-working person today. A movement which with various degrees of success constantly fights against the estranging and exploitative system of capital.

prole.info/texts/hamburgervalue.html


A place that doesn't in any way call or characterize itself as communist or communistic. Rojava will show them a success story for radical left politics in a sea of reaction, yes, but not for communism (which is what the OP asked for).

Tell them that I "support employee ownership of firms, face-to-face democracy, and production for human use", and that I'm an anarcho-communist. If they start telling me that it's a contradiction in terms, I pull out my phone and lead them to Wikipedia. I'm going to make an app which links directly to the Wikipedia page for it so I can do this faster.

I wouldn't even try to bring up nuances in socialist ideology, as anyone who would make this argument in the first place is clearly far too spooked to understand that sort of thing.

I would tell them that many of the failures of communist revolutions have been due to the United States interference. Yes, despite these interference's, the USSR was the first nation to put a man in space, and the Cuban education system is considered to be the best in Latin America or the Caribbean (World Bank 2014).

I would knowledge that there has been plenty of oppression under communist regimes, but I'm not sure why they think the America is much better, considering that we have a higher incarceration rate than China, North Korea, Cuba, or any other country on the globe except for fucking Seychelles. And Seychelles is literally used by the international community to house incarcerated Somalian pirates.

Ask them if they think that the country that they live in right now is a "success."

just start going through history picking out failed empires and nations that don't exist anymore and ask them why they failed

"Well obviously that failed, feudalism sooounds nice in theory, but does it really work in practice."

Where does this meme come from? By that logic every society in history has failed because it ceased to exist.

liberals

I don't even have to get spooky and can still pass as a moderate liberal to normies while refuting that.

but they have legal, unregulated weed lmao.
Long live national soc- ehm, JUCHE

Because automation is quickly signaling the end of capitalism and communism is the only option that makes logical sense.

Last time I checked every anarchist society failed quicker than the ML's

...

Yeah I screencapped myself because I'm that much of a bad boy.

Also OC do not steal.

As long as we're talking interventions, was there a single democracy that was overthrown by the left?

Alternatively.

Ok but the moment you start listing off these reasons the normie that you're arguing with brings up "you know you leftists always have excuses rather than admit that socialism has failed!"

What now?

oh yeah, the normies will love that argument.

* centralized control of the economy does not work, i mean fuck, look at venezuela right now
* they were all authoritarian and people dont like being ruled, go figure
* outside interference

...

Easy.

But anyways, It was successfully "tried" only once, in Russia. Each other "Communist state" was a extension of Soviet influence.

I would punch that nazi in his face.

Any idea how much of Venezuela's economy is privatized?

We can't have socialism if capitalism is still the dominant paradigm. 20th century socialist states didn't have much chance of success because they were so poor and isolated.

Socialism needs to happen in the most wealthy countries, where the most amount of capital is accumulated.

Well that's the thing. The welfare state and globalization have turned even the lowliest prole of an industrialized country into a beneficiary of capitalism. Their proletariat has no revolutionary potential anymore, if there is a proletariat there at all, what with the service economy.

Capitalism is killing us right this instance. I'll risk another round of failure over the near-certainty of total collapse.

there's a difference between revolution and intervention

A wage labor is a proletarian, regardless of if they're a sweatshop worker or a teacher or a Target clerk or an Uber driver.

Revolution can absolutely happen in developed countries (where capital is most often stored) or in developing countries (where capital is most often generated).

Capitalism is really brutal on Western proles, and becoming increasingly so. Anticapitalist pressures in the first world, paired with revolutionary activity in the third world, can topple the order of capitalism and allow us to build something better.

Use this meme.

The introduction of market socialism and thus capitalist elements into society lead to its fail, economically it was thus not socialism failing, the ideological struggle however was lost beforehand which began with anti "Stalinism" as a strawman to sabotage the socialist construction.

Regardless, did the left overthrow any democracies?


I'd say there's a fundamental difference between an industrial worker and a service worker.

Altho both are exploited and alienated, the industrial worker has the physical fruits of his labor literally stolen from him; he's much more likely to develop class consciousness because of it.

Service work kind of further hides away the exploitative, alienating relations of production. That worker, thanks to the fact that the fruits of his labor are abstract, is much less likely to see his exploitation. Instead, egged on by capitalist propaganda, he sees his job as a simple "voluntary exchange of labor for money". He gets to his workplace, fiddles on the computer for 8+ hours and calls it a day, all neat and simple, not seeing the machinery of capitalism under the hood. In order words, they tend to be much more classcucked.

It's common knowledge that first American, then other Western capitalists moved their factories to China, and afterwards other Asian countries, because of their ridiculously low labor costs. However, this had the side effect of rising the service economy to proeminence, which I don't think I'll ever know if it was on purpose or not.

Anyway, yes I agree with you, capitalism still can be brutal on first world service or industrial workers. It's nothing short of absurd when a couple needs to work 3 full time jobs between the two of them just to sustain a household of 1 or 2 kids. But at the same time, they still unquestioningly have it better than the third world prole, as they participate on its consumer economy; unlike the old, "classical" proles, they reap some benefit from third world exploitation. That's one of the incredibly malefic mechanisms of capital: it has turned the first world exploited into accomplices of the exploitation of the third world. So the first world industrial and service workers, having little class consciousness and being "micro-exploiters" of the third world, have been reduced from proletariat to petty-petty-bourgeoisie. They have virtually no revolutionary potential. Add to this capitalist propaganda and spooks, and yeah, the chance of the first world exploited rising is slim to none, I'm afraid.

Marx predicted revolution would breakout in the wealthy countries, because in that time these countries still had superexploited proles within their borders, and that is no longer the case.

Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how revolution can occur now. The world's proletariat is concentrated mostly in China, but they're kept pacified by moderate labor protection keeping them from being superexploited, economic growth and a repressive government. It feels like the entire left is in cold storage, waiting for some massive crisis that will make the house of cards crumble.

...

Socialism is inherently feminine philosophy. From it's position of fragility it is concerned with lack of rulers, and is against anyone ruling over any other person, be it by wealth, status or some inherent quality. In this sense it is no surprise that it's carriers are almost exclusively godless as they cannot accept even metaphysical entity governing their lives or actions.

It is in masculinity of the (traditional) right-wing that one finds the upward urge, the sort of bloodlust and willingness to conquer and establish order or die trying, the admiration of beauty in contrast to ugliness and appreciation of strong instead of the weak.

As soon as communist society is attacked it by necessity slides to masculinity (defense of nation, blood and beauty, institution of order and hierarchy) if it wishes to survive and at that point it is no longer deemed to be communism proper. The issue here is that everything changes it's state and all that can be named has it's opposite - the vector will sooner or later at least point to that opposite if not outright reach it. In that sense, communism's feminine principle will sooner or later either become more masculine (and thus not be communism at all) or the society will perish (and thus not be communism at all). The foundation of communism in the extreme pole is it's demise.

Only retarded alt-rightist would say that not wanting to be ruled by some dick but wanting to rule yourself is feminine, and that wanting to suck the cock of your boss is manly.

You have already given up on being a ruler in principle, that much is obvious. That is the essence of femininity. You want security and are not willing to face the potential failure, so you will never achieve glory.

And so you project the same stance onto me. I know there are feminine people like you. You have just not taken into account that there are masculine people out there.

But they haven't failed. Communism led to rapid industrialisation, gains in life expectancy, freedom for colonised nations, abolition of oppressive monarchies, social equality, ended homelessness and huge scientific accomplishments.

So wanting a society of people who rule themselves, a society of "manly" people, is somehow unmanly, but wanting your cock sucked by dudes is manly?

None of your hypothetical people rule over literally anything.

Thats only because you insist on forced feminization of the majority of society, making them suck your boss' cock and saying that they only want security not achieve glory.

Capitalism is a slave mentality.

Are bourgeoisie slaves?

Socialism is proletarian mentality in minds of effeminate bourgies. Because these bourgies cannot accept their position they are seen by proletariat as lower than even them. They are the nobility that wash slave feet.

In Roman society the manliest thing you could do was facefuck another guy.

Yes, dummy. Read Marx.

Who, according to Marx, is not a slave in non-communism? Take that position and place it as a striving point instead.

Not a Marxist-Leninist but a fucking manchild who believes people will somehow spontaneously rebuild society into communism. Whoop de fucking doo.