Let's all remember that communist such as Stalin and Mao actually ended famines in some of the most historically...

How do cappies justify the idea that communism creates famines, when, historically, the opposite is true?

Other urls found in this thread:

books.google.ca/books?id=hwc9nwEACAAJ&dq=inauthor:"Merle Fainsod"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIpdD437TXAhXQpKQKHZ8fBVMQ6AEIMDAB

right wingers aren't smart

They strawman so much that it becomes fact

Communism is responsible for all famines caused by natural causes and industrialization, Karl Marx wrote this between killling all whites and forced feminization of non jews.

They have the classrooms, publishers, academics, paid opinion formers, Hollywood, etc. at their disposal.

How are wars, rebellions, and peasant uprisings capitalism? Capitalism is not a military doctrine. That people die as a result of malnutrition is more to do with homeostasis than it is against capitalism. There is nothing within the economic ideology that says everyone will have food, no such reality has ever existed in all of human history so it's foolish to hold anything to a standard that is non-existent.

Read pdf related

If you don't want to there's a shorter version of the same ideas here:

If even this is too much just refer to pic related

So capitalism fuels military-based ideologies focused on acquiring resources or expanding territory? This speaks more to the nation's desires to acquire such resources or land. This isn't dependent upon capitalism, capitalism merely allows these actions to be emphasized. It doesn't logically follow that the absence of capitalism removes any such possibility for the aforementioned actions, if that's what you're trying to get at.

Peasant uprisings were a feudal thing. Wars and rebellions "aren't" capitalism, but caused by it.

More like the incredibly stupid way we allocate resources and commodities under capitalism. In the west 40% of our foodstuff goes straight to the trash from store counters while the rest of the world starves; we have all the drugs necessary to treat the top 10 killer diseases in the third world but big pharma won't let poorer countries violate its ownership rights of the recipes by allowing them to produce it for themselves and demands exploitative market prices.

What you are trying to do here is a typical move in ideology: trying to naturalize the real causes – "It's just nature, the laws of the universe, homeostasis, evolution" – that could be solved otherwise. You are literally sucking the cocks of genocidal tyrants in the process, fyi.

Currently? No. But then there was "nothing within the economic ideology" of feudalism about a lot of things we take for granted today. Your argument boils down to a weird nihilistic determinism of the same: this is how it is, this is how it will always be. History doesn't work that way. (And btw, primitive communism is a thing.)

Yeah, those meddling capitalists wanting to overthrow the monarchies, just who do they think they are?!

You clearly need an introduction to the overview of human progress throughout history: youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4

Because Hitler had less famines than Stalin and Mao meaning fascism is better at providing for the people than communism.

The modern nation-state is a bourgeoise one. That is, after the fall of serfdom, the capitalist economic system began to foster a "free" market where commodities were bought and sold according to demand and profit rather than need became the predominant goal of production. The means of production became privately owned by those early merchants who most benefited from this system and as capitalism continued to dispose of the feudal era, the former serfs began to have to sell their labor power on the market, IE to these capitalists. After a time, these capitalists began to buy out other capitalists, merge with them, etc creating monopolies. These monopolies in business began to become monopolies in politics, as the bourgeoise, once monopolizing the majority of industry and thus eliminating competition to a large extent, crafted Nation-States which worked to perpetuate their monopolies.

Essentially modern Nation-States are large economc-political monopolies which perpetuate this type of capitalism. To sustain these massive rates of profit, their living standards, and the massive debt that these monopolized industries owe to banks due to the gargantuan loans that must be taken out to maintain their rates of profit (which in turn creates monopolized banks who fuse more and more with the general corporate and State sector) the more they must 1) exploit and make into machines of resource/profit extraction the "less-developed" countries 2)eradicate or absorb other capitalist Nation-States and/or their dominance in a resourceful region

While war and imperialism existed before capitalism, capitalism's perpetuation of itself is dependent upon imperialism. That is why almost every single war from the 19th century to now can be traced back to some sort of business interest, with this tendency accelerating in the second half of the 20th Century and 21st Century as capital and banking became more advanced.

probably some sort of diversion. accuse your enemy of what in reality you are guilty of so people don't pay as much attention to your failures.

Not hard when you have a massive amount of slave labor and stolen riches from said slaves

You are acting from the premise that the state in which your ideology is absent is an -ism in itself which is cause of all that is wrong by means of circular logic, everything is capitalism because capitalism is the absence of socialism, and therefor capitalism is cause of this all.

If only stalin and mao had jews to steal matzos from and force to work on collective farms.. that would have prevented their great famines!

Read the book posted. And no, it's not about ideology, ideology is only a secondary thing to the economic base. The US has been postponing its economic catastrophe for the last 30 years by imperialist expansion aimed at primarily gathering more oil (still the number one energy resource). If it didn't do this the US would collapse under its current economic system. Those in power to be able to stay in power have to continue the system, so no surprise that both great parties expand military interventions at all costs. Ideology comes in where they manufacture the consent of the populace to the wars the population doesn't directly reap the benefits of (in fact, it is always they who fight the wars for the rich).

Feudalism is a political and military ideology, fundamentally. Capitalism is not.
Isn't this more of a critique of how capitalism is just really fucking efficient with the industrialization of war than attributing expansionism to capitalism? Sounds like it.
Yeah, like I said, the really efficient and often paradoxically wasteful way of producing things. So much shit is made that most of it is useless because we never even eat it. Efficiency doesn't always mean that what is produced goes in our bellies. There's a shit ton of bombs from the last two wars that were made and never went off, too.
Because it is. Your hypothesis is falsified when contradictory evidence rebukes it. Expansionism or wars for resources predate anything capitalistic. Like I said, that capitalism has made war on a much larger scale a possibility does not mean that war, in general, is dependent upon capitalism. The nirvana of pacifism has been a passing daydream instead of a common standard in human history. An ideology is a set of beliefs/ideals, what I'm doing is observing evidence. Whether you choose to believe in it is up to you.
Yes, because civilization has developed away from archaic principles.
Like that.
Stating that the nirvana of 'food for all' has literally never existed and that no evidence exists suggesting that such a universal future is on the horizon is not the same as making a claim of certainty that it can never exist. I'm saying that there is no evidence to suggest it could be a possibility. If you say that it is, the burden of proof is on your shoulders because there is a dearth of evidence in your favour, while I am abiding by what our history has shown us. I'm not saying that it is absolute, it could change tomorrow for all I know and I am open to such a possibility. But until I see evidence for this future, I reject claims that say it 'could happen'.
That was not what I said, I said that the standard of 'food for all' has no evidence supporting it (to be a future on the horizon). Try and address what I actually said instead of making shit up.

Lel. Quite the opposite. It is for you that everything is capitalism, it is for you that le free market and private ownership is the natural and eternal state of things. For us, communists, history is in motion. We recognize the development of subsequent and radically different systems throughout history.

You must think you are so clever, boy.

This is literally the state of the world though.

Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and the yields (commodities) are traded on the market for profit on behalf of the owner of capital.

Socialism is where the means of production are publicly owned in a collective manner and where the yields are produced according to needs in society and distributed accordingly

Which is the current state of the world today?

Feudalism is an economic system. If you are unable to differentiate between slave holding societies, feudalism, and capitalism economically, maybe you should be reading more basic stuff before trying to BTFO them gommies, kid.

Primitive communism was mentioned. You didn't look it up. You don't plan to read the books recommended for you, you don't plan to watch the youtube lectures offered to you, you don't even do the most basic wikiing.

Maybe Holla Forums is a better place for you.

That's because people do not operate on exactly what they require for existence (physiological requirements) to be supplied to them by the market, but now have the luxury to acquire 'wants' by their personal demands.
More like lobbied to influence politics. That private owners influence political outcomes does not mean that they are the same senators they finance.
You know China is paying Africa for trade deals they engage in, right? They aren't stealing it for nothing.
A condition not observed solely within capitalism, like I said. Capitalism has merely industrialized war so it can occur on a much larger scale. That does not mean small-scale instances were non-existent.
Exactly my point.
Nations have existed that have not relied on economies that are fuelled by war. The Asian tigers are one example.

This just reposted a point of the war is attributable to capitalism. The Second Congo war and First Congo war are related to much more than 'capitalism', as it relates as much to ethnic conflicts and geo-political disputes. In fact, the Congo has, currently, nationalized portions of its mining industry, which is not exactly capitalist private ownership so much as it is state ownership.

Your book talks about many more things than just the circumstantial fact that capitalism created industrialized economies that could fuel wars. If you want to cite literature, actually cite it. What passage substantiates your argument?
To 'the', as in its? No, this is wrong, there are ideologies that do not even remotely relate to any economic base.
This is a really common canard debunked quite easily by just analyzing the imports from Iraq: eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M. It wasn't an oil war if the imports did not 'magically boost' the economy.
Citation? Where do you get this conclusion from?

Quite true and irrelevant to the point at hand.

I was trying to outline how capitalism evolved into imperialism m8 I thought that would be obvious from my next few points.

How is this not essentially the same exact thing I was saying? Also even if it isn't, if I am a millionaire or billionaire and I contribute a massive amount of money to a politicians campaign and they then in turn vote in my interested 95 percent of the time, perhaps even with a few specific gifts to my particular business, how exactly does that not make the politician merely an extension of my corporation/hedge fund/bank etc?

Again you are missing the point. There is a REASON capitalism has done this and it is because to maintain the higher and higher rates of profit of monopolies and the social relations the existence of monopolies fosters in each particular society imperialism becomes a NECESSITY. It is completely irrelevant that war and imperialism existed before capitalism because the point is that capitalism NEEDS these things to continue to perpetuate itself. This is why every time a country tries to go off the petrodollar or default on its IMF/World Bank loans the United States and other Western countries decide to invade/sanction/isolate said country.

This doesn't mean that Imperialism isn't a necessity to the continued existence of capitalism in the modern era. So there are a handful of nations that don't need imperialism, these nations will either be swallowed up by imperialism or, after going through their own capitalist revolution, will monopolize and become imperialist themselves.

Tell me how the African proletariat is benefiting here.


It has economic implications, but it was fundamentally a political and military code of beliefs.
It is not explicitly an economic system, though. Feudalism has economies, obviously, but the economic implications are secondary, they are a byproduct.

Okay, so you assert that primitive communism was an instance of where 'food for all' existed. Demonstrate how this is true. Your claim, not mine. Your burden of proof. 'Food for all' is an exceptionally 'large' claim that requires exceptional evidence to substantiate.

Nobody talks in meme terms like "food for all," except you. Under primitive communism the allocation of tribal resources were (are) egalitarian. There are no classes in a primitive tribe, there are no homeless, unemployed, etc. Naturally, if food is scarce, what little is left it gets allocated in the same way.




Even if it wasn't it definitely was a war for profit:



I can't tell if you are a neocon, a "radical centrist" or just a contrarian but either way gtfo back to reddit

Not when you're discussing demands and wants/needs. It is directly related to the discussion.
Imperialism is not an economic system. So capitalism cannot 'evolve' into it. Capitalism can be used for imperialism just as any other economic system can be used to fuel wars.
You said "become monopolies in politics". There is a difference between financing senators and being senators.
This assumes that all senators or political officials are funded in this way and that your success rate is factual. Using your logic, all the unions that contribute to campaigns also "becomes monopolies in politics".
No, there are economies with 'social relations' within their societies that have not relied on imperialism. Like I said, the Asian tigers or Asian dragons are examples of these. You claim it is a necessity, but all it takes to disprove this is one example where expansionist policies were not enforced. I already provided them, so you're just repeating the debunked narrative that wars are necessary to every economy. Many have engaged in war, and many have not and still succeed.
Irrelevant is "not connected with or relevant to something". When talking about wars and imperialism, it kind of is relevant. Don't get to dismiss contradictory points by dissociating them without explaining why they are not relevant.
Economies within capitalist or even quasi-capitalist societies exist without having waged wars.
Citation? Literally every time? Please source this outrageous claim, I want to believe it.
That isn't what a necessity is. Something is necessary if it is "required to be done, achieved, or present; needed". The fact that economies exist without having done what is necessary means that it is not necessary.
I never said they were, I said that they weren't stealing the goods for nothing, that isn't how trade works. Minerals bought from the mining industries aren't being stolen.

I'll cite it again in case you didn't read it: eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M. Where's your evidence of oil imports again?

You are confirming me, capitalism is a stage of history which renders everything in it capitalism, to then conclude that everything is caused by the name you give to it.
Obviously not as clever as Hitler though, I would have never thought of preventing famine through the persecution of jews and still don't get how he pulled it of.

If this is your reasoning, you could name any worldly thing, put -ism behind it, and hold it as fixation.

Another problem with your dichotomy is that no one can tell what public ownership is supposed to entail, and when they do make an attempt, there's at least five branches of marxism that disagree.

Yet you "cited" primitive communism as an example of it.
Can you cite me societies which have operated under this custom?
A class also entails social status. Unless it was 'gender neutral', the differences between males and females constitutes different social statuses, and therefore different social classes.
Teepees aren't exactly homes. If by home, you mean living quarters with a roof, then sure. But there were no utilities or anything like that: they didn't even exist. What employment, there was barely an economy for trade in prehistoric times.

There's no need for oil imports, you tard, when your oil companies are multinational. If I vassalize your ass I don't have to import your ass onto my cock to actually own it.


Yeah, you made a specific claim that you still haven't substantiated. If it was an oil war, then how come the evidence shows that oil imports from Iraq actually declined? Your videos claim something of planned interventionism, which I don't dispute. What I do dispute is that it was a war for oil specifically. The evidence rebukes this notion.
Sure, military contractors always benefit. That isn't what we're talking about, stick to the topic: war for oil even though oil imports declined.
Ah, so you are incapable of debate, got it.


Yes there is when Iraq is halfway around the world from the USA.
Then the acquired oil would be declared, but it wasn't. From: eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=a
Oil production peaked in the 60's and declined well into the '90's (virtually every year declined in the '90's), only to show positive growth back into the 7k mark in the 2010's.

Ouch, is that your only response? This is easy, lol.

Mao was a moron who didn't know the difference between iron and steel. In 1962.

Caricature scholarship.


Completely meaningless. Iraq has the largest unused oil reserves on the planet. Since 99% of gov. revenue comes from oil, the occupiers couldn't risk taking away what little the government has when in need of reconstruction and solidification, unless risking rebellion. The unused oil fields are being developed by Exxon (&co.) for future extraction and the US puppet state in Iraq will have to allow privatized oil extraction for US profit.

I was thinking the same thing.
It's like asking the other guy for proof of something you claim exists or doesn't exist.

Dude, we're talking about US oil production and imports. It is absolutely essential to look at the stats around the issue.
Citation? And can you demonstrate where these reserves show up in the imports or production of oil?
You know that the production that's happening today is a trade, and not a war some country wages to just steal all the oil? Two different things.

wiki it up, you complete tard

Hey, I didn't make the claim that "99% of government revenue comes from oil": he did. Do I ask you for proof of shit I claimed? I said that US oil imports from Iraq declined over the war period of the '90's/00's, and I cited it. I didn't ask you to show proof of something I claimed because that assumes what I said was true before finding evidence to support it, that's on me to do.

Not your problem, isn't it?

I'm just saying that your entire point is you can't blame economic systems and their relations for human folly yet you probably are the first one to blame the flaws in socialist societies on socialism. Yet for some reason we aren't allowed to do the same to capitalism


But people do that all the time. The issue is the arguments are not comparable. If I choose to strike up a deal with one guy over another because he gave me a better deal than some other, third guy, then that's my choice to make. If the third guy starves to death because he didn't get the deal I had made with the other guy, that's on him, not me. He ought to blame the other guy I did the deal with for undercutting his offer.
But when I show up to both of those guys' farms and say "I'm taking your shit now" and they starve as a result of it, that's a big difference in action. One is a choice to deal and associate with others, the other is a choice to act in a malicious way against others.

This shows that 99% of Iraq's revenue comes from oil, but that's it. I think you have the issue mistaken: asking for a citation doesn't mean I don't believe you, it means that you should provide evidence for your claims so that people can test the validity.
Where's the citation for 'largest unused oil reserves', btw? From the wiki (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves), it's actually Venezuela. Iraq is number 5.

Not socialism and not even what happened in the Soviet Union m80

Literally "You aren't allowed to say one mean word about my preferred economic system but yours is empirically wrong"

It was the result of a socialist implementation by Lenin, though.
It actually did. Peasants didn't like the "reacquisition" and revolted. Soviet officials debated over using more brainwashing or military force, and Lenin opted to choose 'harsher measures'.
No, I explained how choosing to trade with one person over the other and having people die as a result of not being chosen to trade with is no the same as going and taking their shit.

Also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka.
It's literally 'reacquisition', says it right there.

You are talking about the period of the civil war, when around a dozen capitalist states attacked revolutionary Russia. For Russia to defend itself the troops needed food. It's either that or become a colony, reinstate the Tsar's feudal conditions. Neither option would have proven to be good for the peasants.

Then how come the policy of surrending your shit to the state continued after the civil war ended in 1922?
You aren't actually denying that it existed as policy and that the people that were stolen from hated it, you're just justifying it, which kind agrees with my point. The intention and actions were pretty clear.

What is specifically socialist about them implementing this policy? Kek

No, my point is that the place capitalism has in marxist ideology is that of an ideological function and that this entity is not the tangible fact that people trade, employ and own private property. This is why marxists never substantiate their ad-hoc theories and don't even understand what is being asked when questioned on this, the mechanic of the capitalist entity which forms the base of these theories is already taken as synonymous with the tangible facts. Socialism is the theoretical completion of this misconceived model, the horizon that can only ever be horizon in an ultimately stagnant ideological constellation.

Which is?

No, not 'the policy': I said it was a socialist implementation, in the context of the revolution started by Lenin. It was an attempt. It inevitably failed, like the others.
That's because you can't have "the people" control the means of production when you kill the people.
I am under no obligation to trade with one person and not the other, you know. It's ironic that you cast blame against me for trading with somebody offering the deal and not cast any blame to the other guy who undercut the starving man's deal offer. He is more to blame, I am associating with people as I please. Why are you against people choosing who they deal with, why do you want to force people to trade with people they don't want to? Hmmm… with that attitude, the worker's revolution must wait.
No, the same doesn't happen because the choice of trade with one person over the other is not the same as reacquisition of resources by force. One is choosing to trade with others, the other is "give me your shit".
See, you agree with the point!
Yeah it was initial all right. Resisting the "optional trade" resulted in prison sentences.

Choose one.

You are pulling this out of your arse now.

Right there. Pretty clear. Surrender your shit to the state. What do you think happened to the workers who said "no thanks, I don't want to".

The Kulaks were known for a hundred years for holding back the grain to create artificial scarcity and boost market prices.

Ironic that prodnalog allowed the peasants to fair better than under prodrazvyorstka by lessening the load they had to pay up, entirely by choice, of course :^).

Lenin could have implemented anything and it wouldn't be "socialist" just because he himself was a socialist. If he implemented a ban on brushing your teeth like the King did in England many years ago that wouldn't have made bad hygiene a specifically "socialist" stance.

Muh kulaks

Citation? Also, why is saving resources that they own a bad thing?


You came here from the Moo-Moo Academy of Political Science (MMAPS), no?

Right of the bat you conflate three different strata into one: poor peasants, kulaks (rich, land and tool owning peasants), and workers.

It's called seed corn. You do that so you can grow another crop. It has nothing to do with "creating scarcity".

I think enacting harsh measures against enemies of the regime who resisted the policy of reacquisition qualifies it as a stance the socialist regime acted on. It doesn't mean that such repression is only socialist, I never claimed that. I said that the revolution was a socialist 'implementation'. That was their pronounced goal from the get-go. When it inevitably failed, that reflects more on the inability of the concept to exist in the real world than anything else.
I never said it was unique and dependent on a specific ideology, I said that it was observed within the context of that ideology.
Yeah, I don't have to deal with everybody at once, m8. Want to trade with me, offer a good deal. Same goes for everyone.
Except it wasn't "hey, want to trade", the people who died were killed because they chose NOT to trade. How is free association the same as forced association?
Yes, it did.

Yeah, I don't have to pamper everyone. What world do you live in? You have no obligation to take care of everyone on earth.
Why don't you start with yourself. You have a computer or a phone valued at some price, don't you know there are millions of starving children? Go sell your shit and feed them or else you are at-fault just as everyone who chooses to trade with one person over the other out of their own self-interest is at-fault for the starving chillun.

The article talks about peasants in congruence with kulaks. It literally says peasants right there. The kulaks alone did not own enough assets to cover the millions of metric tons in-question, it was paired with the peasants, too; not to mention, the definition of a kulak also included people who were involved in 'non-labour income' or trade of that nature. That's a shit ton of people you just included in your genocidal prospects because they traded. Or do you think the poor peasants were immune from the 'reacquisition'? I guess that's why the numerous peasants who resisted were tossed in prison.

Actually their pronounced goal from the get-go was to create a society wherein the working people held the power in government and in turn the government worked to guarantee them a social order wherein the yields of production would be collectively shared. Whether or not this happened we could debate all day, but you can't say that "from the get-go" the bolsheviks desired to simply subjugate the people forever.

So when capitalism fails to lift people out of poverty, hunger, create jobs, give "the most freedom" etc, it doesn't illustrate its failure?

Because under capitalism I am forced to trade or else I starve to death

I literally don't have enough smug laughing images to respond to you m8

But why did Stalin export grain while the starvation was occurring. Didn't the grain sales exacerbate domestic shortages?

Probably because he didn't

And all the people who resisted this forced "sharing" were labelled by the state and dealt with as the prodrazvyorstka outlined.
How obtuse to imagine that everyone would be on-board with the "collective sharing".
Fairly certain that the first-world nations have freer markets and higher standards of living when they privatize the marketplaces, but okay. Also, what examples are you talking about. Or are you confusing state ownership and manipulation with private ownership? I agree that when governments dictate a top-down policy, shit hits the fan.
And under the socialist attempts, you are forced to share or you go to prison, have your shit taken from you, or die. Your point? We can deal in false dichotomies all day long, it goes both ways.
Also, you are forgetting the fact that you can dictate your own work hours, conditions, etc. by contracting your own labour for yourself.
I know this is hard for you to understand, but I am not your mommy or daddy so I don't owe you shit. Not everyone buys into your 'b-but you gotta shaaaaaare' mentality.

Literally: what your boss does to you.


The key "intellectual" methods of reactionarism thought are ahistoricism and decontextualization, with ignorance and disinformation as the goal. And it works pretty well, I must say.

Except your boss doesn't force you to do shit when you choose not to associate with him. Also, nice diversion by using a false comparison: a boss saying "hey, you and I agreed to this contract" is not the same as "hey, you are forced to share with me or else".

Yet you will not even begin to tolerate the argument that whatever socialist country you decide to criticize using CIA red scare propaganda to back you up wasn't communist despite them not being communist by literally everyone's definition.

I mean half of america is poor right now and the unemployment rate is way higher than the official one and of the jobs that were created most of them are shitty paying part-time and temporary positions and people with mainstream college degrees who are in massive amounts of debt can't find work anywhere and there is essentially no seperation between the private sector and the State and media and there are more people imprisoned right now than there were ever in the gulags but okay

Muh kulaks

So you cry endlessly about the minority of people in the Union being punished for not giving up their grain at a fair price but you don't mind doing the same to people who are systematically kept down. Lmao

Then you should be able to argue that the marxist conception of the capitalist system is correct without assuming marxism's systematical territorialization as evident from the tangible facts.

Oh wait, lol, I just realize your whole point

Have you actually listened to the clip? He confirms that Stalin exported grain in order to trade with the West.
Tl;Dr Stalin exported grain during the famine.

Got a copy of that book? I'm interested in the exact timeline. The famine in Ukraine happened in 1932-1933 and Stalin ruled ~1926-1953. You are not substantiating your claim until the timeline is looked at.

Literally lurk more.

freedumb aint free

Yes, believe it or not, there are people with different worldview than you. Also
Because communism cannot exist so long as people aren't primitive or forced to share out of necessity and have free choice of association/contracts/etc.
Actually if you have 2200, you're rich: irememberthepoor.org/3-2/.
Poor compared to what?
[citation needed
The fact that they are "shitty" doesn't mean those people are unemployed.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Ah yes, extracting billions is totally a mutually beneficial relationship that is super voluntary.
Oh, the irony
ahahahahahahaha okay
Easy, don't trade with me then. Simple. There is no arbitrarily defined 'fair' bullshit I force down your throat.

Google "How Russia is Ruled" by Merle Fainsod, 1970 (revised), page 529. It's in google books. books.google.ca/books?id=hwc9nwEACAAJ&dq=inauthor:"Merle Fainsod"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIpdD437TXAhXQpKQKHZ8fBVMQ6AEIMDAB
There was more than one famine, my man. Yeah, standards of living were pretty shit, even in the late '80's, the HDI was low as shit in the USSR.

The implication was that Stalin did it intentionally to starve his own people. He literally had no choice because the USA wouldn't allow them to pay for anything with money.

A boss saying "hey, you and I agreed to this contract" is not the same as "hey, you are forced to share with me or else".

See: investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp

Q: Did the USSR export grain in 1932 and 1933?
A: Yes

So you aren't denying it, just putting forth a half-baked justification. The statement is still true and you just affirmed it: Stalin exported grain during famines.

yeah lol, that's the same thing I just said, and that he just agreed with. It's just a roundabout way of trying to make it sound better than it actually is while also appealing to "muh starving chillun muh capitalism" appeals to moral outrage. Now that's a hot take if I've ever heard of one, kek

I mean you are the one who is against using force to get people to give you things so it should follow that you'd understand the scenario the USSR was in. But of course you don't because "muh capitalism=liberty

Except that's the opposite, I've been arguing for the existence of optional contracts, but okay.
Oh yeah, the half-baked justifications sure go a long way when you pair it with "haha fug peasants we had to muh war, oh nooo muh starving chillun capitalism da system n shiet".
I didn't know optional contracts were "capitalism". So everything else is forceful association? Sounds shitty but okay

user: Stalin exported grain during 1932 and 1933
Leftypol: LOL didn't happen listen to this youtube clip
Clip: Stalin exported grain in 1932 and 1933 beacuse he wanted to buy shit from the West.
user: Stalin exported grain during 1932 and 1933.
Leftypol: LOL You didn't listen to the clip.

For profit.

shhhhh, it's okay contradictions are okay when it's leftypol tho

Almost as if… profit is… necessary…and favour-based economies….suck

Profit is necessary to capital yeah, there's no denying that.

Can I get a citation for this?
Could be useful when the bring up “muh poor kulaks”

Do you have any alternative solutions for an economy and do you have any evidence to demonstrate how it is viable?

really makes you think

T. Dead kulak society

Stalin was an incredibly inept leader. But you'd have to ask him.

Oil wars are not only about that. The problem was that iraq started to detach itself from this petro dollar, this always mean war


Sure: slavery, feudalism, … communism.

Communism isn't only viable, it's an historical necessity. See Capital for the evidence.

I just want more dead kulaks, honestly. There’s no point being fair to them.

Then what are they for, the whole petrodollar meme is about securing foreign interests to accumulate capital or secure capital (directly or indirectly). But oil imports didn't rise up drastically (even though Iraq is #5 in proven oil reserves) and US oil production actually declined.
But this isn't shown in the statistics, the subsequent wars didn't effect the status of oil production in any way for the US.

Piketty or Marx?

And what makes these viable? Where's the evidence?
How is it a historical necessity if it doesn't exist? Since capital, you'd think the absolute necessity of it would come to fruition. But you keep waiting and it doesn't happen. You know that this is how hypotheses are falsified, right? When you can't prove it even after you've waited for decades, you give up because there is a dearth of convincing evidence.

Okay so don't throw a hissy fit dead people.




I don't, the fact that they existed for centuries?

I guess the sun will never die then.

So, what capitalists engage in? Self-interest in accumulating capital? Did you… just justify capitalism?

In what nations? The US nation? The Roman empire? The ancient Persian empire?
But we have observed evidence about stars like our sun and the life cycle they follow. Our sun will eventually become a red giant: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant#The_Sun_as_a_red_giant

And capitalism will eventually become communism.

If they weren’t spooked by profit, they might be. You meet very few who aren’t, though.
You missed the point

See, the difference is that the model and life cycle of our sun has been hypothesized, examined, observed, and survived falsification.
What you say is a hypothesis, it is a prediction that can only have empirical evidence brought forth once the central claim is fulfilled. That isn't how evidence works, you need to examine the evidence before reaching the conclusion. Where is the evidence that communism is inevitable, that we are on the cusp, that it is the undeniable future? Or is it just a faith-based, evidence-lacking hypothesis that suffers from confirmation bias?

If that's their self-interest, then fuck off who cares lmao
Absence of justification, they do whatever they want because they can. Got a problem and want to bitch about 'muh immorality', go wait in line to kiss their asses.

I told you where it is. It's up to you to read now.

Citations aren't books, you know. A citation includes a page number. If you have actually read what you claim to have read, you would be able to properly cite it. "The argument that commuism is inevitable is demonstrated, with proof, in chapter , page _ of _, as it states…"

Assertions are not evidence. Whenever Leftypol is losing its always muh obscure text.

I've noticed the same thing. It's funny, if you cite some random, 700 page book, they get pissy and say "dude that's not fair actually cite your info", but when you ask the same of them, they refuse.
Really makes you think…

The argument that communism is inevitable is demonstrated, with proof, in the whole book – as it is the whole point of this book to demonstrate this.

There are pages within chapters that do not work to demonstrate this hypothesis and work in an unrelated fashion to the central claim (that it is inevitable), so this is simply wrong.

Capital isn't obscure. It is just long.

"It's obvious you haven't read Krapoloingorv??? Its *foundational*."

When you "cite" it as "my claim is somewhere here lol", it's obscure in that it is "not clearly expressed".

Nobody actually reads it unless its assigned. Its a dead letter.

That’s what they’ve been doing yes. It’s self-interest yes, but still isn’t egoistic self interest, if they’re spooked by profit. Not that I really expect you to understand the difference. That would require reading.
Still missing the point. Read Stirner, fam. I already know the capitalist does as he pleases.

It is literally egoist, by definition. People pursuing and acting in their own-self interests will still do just that regardless of your opinion of their self-interest.

An egoist, yes.

The right can’t read

Oh God. I was waiting for Stirner to put in an appearance. There ought to be a corollary to Godwins law that covers this.

You'll get more out of rereading Mein Kampf than you will out of reading Marx once.

lol dude just uhhh read Hayek okay

fam, srlsy, read Sowell. He proves this stuff.



Don't you know that communism is inevitable because this book says so, wherein it is shown that communism is inevitable because… uhhh… hey guys where's the empirical evidence Marx analyzed substantiating the predictions and hypotheses he made?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Egoism by common parlance.
Not philosophical egoism.
did I deny this or something? The point was that it wasn’t egoistic. You should at least admit ignorance of what I’m referring to and try to learn. It would make avoiding non-sense arguments a lot easier for you, and I wouldn’t even fault you for not knowing.

Excellent, then we agree. Capitalists are egoists by virtue of pursuing their own interests, whatever your opinion on it such desires may be.

So is anybody actually going to provide proof beyond faith-based arguments about the inevitability of communism?

But can't we at least agree that the USSR exported grain in 1932 and 1933?

Well, there is the example of Venezuela. Oh, wait..

Here's the dialectical proof, too bad your petty-bourgeois ideology forces you to deny the truth of communism because it is in your class interest to do so.

Well, Venezuela wasn't socialist because they failed to make pigs fly…

Yeah, that's about what I thought you would cite. No wonder there are no actual proofs for the prediction.

Um…Under Stalin 85 million people died of starvation.

Wasn't 85 million, but it wasn't non-existent either.

Hitler only had famines because every other kike infested country was attacking him from all sides. Before they attacked, Germany was THE most prosperous & advanced place to live on Earth. The kikes couldn't allow that.

It was actually 120 million

I have literally no reason to respect anyone's contracts or property rights, that's what the left has been arguing since Rousseau, you repeating "don't thread on me brah" the entire thread isn't going to convince anyone.


there are people starving right now.

Ah, and you missed the point again. Key word is “own”, and to understand “owness”, you have to understand Stirner. Again, I’m not denying an egoist porky is possible, but it’s much more likely he’s too spooked by profit to really grasp egoism.

Within the borders of Germany, Hitler had 0 famines. He used famine as a weapon. Just like Stalin.

And they have literally no reason to respect thieves with no justified claims to property, so they kill them
Dat inferiority complex tho

Venezuela is a social democracy like denmark, scandinavia ecc. Is not socialism, is capitalism with a welfare state. And if we follow the defenition of socialism of you guys "when the state does stuff" Venezuela is less socialist than fucking sweden

Yeah, when you kill people for not taking part in your 'fair' collective sharing experiment, that isn't the same as choosing not to trade with people.

yes, all politics is violence.
You're the one arguing that capitalism is a world free of coercion.

Capitalists understand the concept of the own and act however they damn well please. I would say porky egoists living lavishly are more egoist than anybody else.

Okay so if public ownership is not the same as state ownership, private ownership is not the same as state ownership.

Your bodily integrity means nothing to me, the integrity of your property rights is detrimental to me.

Who forces you to do shit under capitalism? You can choose to contract your own independent labour if you can compete within the market. Of course, inferior people will always exist and they will fail.
Or you can live like a primitive communist if you choose. Nobody is stopping you, I just know communists are scared to live like primitive communists because they wouldn't last a day in the wild.

70% of venezuela's economy is private, including those empty markets everyone keeps whining about.
That's what happens when the price of your main exports shrinks in half.

Your bodily integrity means nothing to me.
The integrity of your property claims are detrimental to me.

[citation needed]

property is maintained by coercion, property is lost by coercion, it's all the same to me.

you're goddamn right.

Look at this shit. It has a market. PJW is selling lonely men "male enhancement brain testosterone acceleration not snake oil salesman nutropics" called Brain Force Plus, they have no shame buying, they have no shame selling. They have no guilt producing.

Libertarians refuse to acknowledge their system is ripping itself apart

It is defended by people with irrational claims, yeah. It's the same way that other private property is defended against thieves with no claim to ownership.
Unowned land that was claimed and passed down the familial line is bestowed upon the heir, it doesn't belong to "everyone", that's not how ownership or claims to ownership work. You can claim all my property btw, be my guest. I will kill you every time you try, tho.
Fair enough, try it.

I like the way you think, brother.

It's like you want porky to win.

Then tell me how they understand owness. I’m curious.

"We're going to bury Venezuelan capitalism." - Hugo Chavez

Yep. That sounds like Sweden.

idk I am not a capitalist, I don't eat caviar and fuck actresses like Weinstein. Go ask him about how 'un-egoist' and incapable of reconciling his owness when he's getting sucked off by Angelina Jolie and getting bank because of his dick.

Venezuela's economic minister stated it in this interview:

and Fox news said this 7 years ago:


It has the spice melange in it to, but enough to counter act the lead, 100% proven positive you will be the AMERICAN, RED BLOODED MUA'DIB in just THREE DAYS.

Remember this was before oil ravenues crashed (the oil industry is owned by the venezuelan state), so the percentages are probably even more pronounced toward the private sector now.
There's also the fact that venezuela has less government employees as a percentage of population than most EU countries like France and Sweden, I don't know the sources for that but it's probably some international organ like the UN, IMF or world bank.
There's also this interview with the Venezuelan finance minister but you'll call it propaganda

vug. lel


Not the gas and steel companies, those aren't privatized: venezuelanalysis.com/news/4464.
Or the oil industry, that's also nationalized by "Petróleos de Venezuela": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDVSA#Politicization.
I found a lot more here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country#Venezuela.
Sounds like a significant chunk is actually nationalized.

Expect a lawsuit from PJW and Jones.

I would 100% go to court with Paul Joseph Watson. That would be the pinnacle of my life.

I would appreciate them. Otherwise I just have to believe your faith.
Every time I cite Forbes for anything, guess what it's called.

You have to be a member of the super secret capitalist club to understand their owness. Obviously, you don't understand their owness because it transcends plebian formats.

They don't because it is not true.

You would lose so fast. He will take one bottle of Alpha Brain and go super saiyan on your ass.


RIP those millions of axis soldiers



No aggression here, mate. I just realize that my opinion towards the desires of others does not invalidate their interests. I don't have a soapbox that large

Brain force plus navigators, the plans are just within plans. Us knar nothin'. Us are nothin'. The brain force choam mines are just 'eaten us dry. I 'eg for just an ounce of the brain force plus. It isn't enough, i'm hooked. I 'an't stop dreamin' of paul joseph watson leadin' the jihad to end all jihads of knarn space. I wake up in a sweat, clock in a new hour. Paul smiles sly, grinning, take it, it's alright, ya dinnit want to be in the jones pit dee ya

Hey, at least you admit that your ideology relies on establishing black markets. Oh, do you think disallowing or banning products/practices makes them disappear? We should just ban drugs or make murder illegal lol

if you can't own things you can't sell them. all major industry should be supervised by society.
You can sell your ass for some pretty drawings I guess.

What's the problem? Who's more likely to have these statistics? I even gave you Central Bank estimates reported by FOX NEWS

Yes, some things are nationalized, doesn't ignore the fact that 70% of the economy is still privatized.

I sell apples. I own them to sell them. You try and steal them by claiming victimhood for not having apples, I kill you. Easy peasy.
Yes, black markets. Supervise it as much as you want, markets still exist.

Ah, good so far.
When? They used to have semi-free market policies in the past. Today? No, I just demonstrated that many major industries (more than 30% because the industries mentioned constitute large sectors of the economy) are nationalized.

Well, I never said that either, so glad we are in agreement

You were talking about "your ideology" so I had assumed I'd already outgunned you, yes selling things under capitalism is OK.
If people know you're stealing collective goods for private gain they'll be pretty mad at you, markets won't exist. Plus today we have cheap high quality cameras, imagine if we had those in Stalin's time, how butthurt kulaks would be.


No dude, this is my thought experiment. I always win.
I don't need your opinion, my man. The entire argument I'm making is that optional contractual agreements are not invalidated by differing opinions. That's what makes them optional to begin with.
How the fuck is it stealing to trade shit with others in a market but it isn't stealing to form collectives with "sharing" in mind (dude it's fair just gibs apples nao).
Black markets and even grey markets will literally always exist in our societies today.

not anymore
Service sector industries are the main source of GDP in pretty much every country. much more so on a 3rd world country with actual worker's rights like venezuela international porkies don't want them.

Markets aren't exclusive to capitalism, read a book.

And? 70% of the economy is still privatized. It's capitalism, social democracy to be accurate.

TANS is just simulated markets, not real markets, right?

and hence manufacturing is underdeveloped, forgot to mention that.

The only industry wasn't the oil industry, though. The six supermarkets, food distribution industries, all rice processing plants, steel industries, glass industries, and so on. Goes more in-depth here: reuters.com/article/venezuela-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSN1E79I0Z520111201.
All of these are not only 30%, sorry.

Means that it isn't even a quasi-free market when it nationalizes major industries.
[citation needed]

btw because I know you love """"""""""citing"""""""""" works (literally no page numbers tho lol trust me I read it lmao), here's a response to Cuckshott: mises.org/system/tdf/qjae7_1_6.pdf?file=1&type=document.

most of those were foreign companies anyway, who would very likely leave the country on their own under the threat of crisis or diplomatic requirement by the US.

In Capital.

It argues labor time eliminates the need for factor markets.

When 70% of your economy is privatized that entails markets. It's predominantly capitalist and the country produces for exchange. Well what do you know, looks like it's the opposite of socialism.


I wasn't formally citing anything you retard, I just pointed out how markets aren't exclusive to capitalism; You're treating it like a black and white issue. Here's Paul giving Brewster the Cockshott: reality.gn.apc.org/econ/replytobrewster.pdf

it wasnt "real capitalism" because anything a government does is socialism according to their dumb asses

and a market/labor voucher system for commodities


Still nationalized.


image familiar
Is state ownership the same as public ownership? Oh wait… lmao fugg nuance for da cappies but I wasn't the commissar so not true communism lmao
See: reuters.com/article/venezuela-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSN1E79I0Z520111201
>Here's Paul giving Brewster the Cockshott: reality.gn.apc.org/econ/replytobrewster.pdf
pic related

who knew. alaska is socialist guys.

So… if state ownership doesn't equal public ownership because no shit states are not people…. then private ownership isn't state ownership because no shit states are not private enterprise…
nahhhhh that can't make sense, fuck consistency lmao


This isn't providing any statistics for entire economy. How is this a refutation of the Central Bank's estimates showing the private sector making up two-thirds of the Venezula's economy in 2010 and the economic minister telling you 70% of their economy is privatized in 2017?

When did I imply I didn't care? I'm telling you it's predominantly privatized, that means it's predominantly capitalist. Is your argument here 'hur derr the venezuelan government calls themselves socialist so that means venezuelan economy is socialist.'

Ok, and?

1st, states can often be people, Aramco is owned by Saudi Royalty for the benefit of Saudi Royalty, the pakis and indians that clean their bathrooms have no claim to any of it, and have no legal rights that could create such a claim, that's what the people who claim "not real socialism" generally mean, that the Soviet Union was not operated for the workers but for the party elite, that's also what orwell claimed.
Remember that monarchy is pretty relevant topic for far-right proprietarians, from Hoppe to Moldbug

You are too dumb to realize that the piece only demonstrates the inability of the state-run companies to compete.
No citation on that quote btw.
Admission of superiority? Hmmmm…
No citation btw. Try googling key words to find the Central Bank citation, the only thing that pops up is that one article.
It's only making my argument that nationalization of enterprise sucks ass and that the private enterprise still out-competes the other businesses that are state-run.
Try and actually find a primary source btw. Your own article only shows that the majority of industries are state-run, but the rest that survived nationalization still out-compete the dying nationalized businesses.
You utter moron, if you even bothered to read your own source, that IS Cuckshott's response: he's tacitly admitting the necessity of the market.


Honestly I'd almost think that image was satire if it were posted anywhere but Holla Forums. That leftists actually think this is an example of good argumentative method is what's truly laughable.

He is wrong in saying that our labour values are no longer labour values since they are now influenced by market prices. In Marxian economics there are three distinct concepts, value in use, value in exchange and labour value. […] We continue to reproduce these distinctions in the consumer goods market.

Literally go read a fucking book you idiot.

The picture had nothing to with what I said. It's purpose was to trigger the person I was responding to, thanks for the (you)

That projection.
And yet all those "semi-interventionist" attempts have, in your own source, '[produced] well below goals or production capacity'.
The quote makes it clear that there is a disparity in terms of ability.
You're right, it was never a competition to begin with, the nationalized industries have been failing in comparison.
The image you cited only shows gross domestic product, NOT the fact that the majority are 'mostly privatized'. Your OWN source asserts that, "In a review of 15 state-run companies, economist Richard Obuchi found that all "were producing well below goals or production capacity". Private companies out-competing and out-producing state-run industries does not mean that they are the majority, especially if the state-run industries are preforming poorly in comparison.

GDP is not a measure of the size of the industries, it shows their gross domestic product: what you are dealing with is that all the industries that were nationalized have sucked at producing in comparison to the privatized industries that remain. You claim that seventy percent of the economy is private: no, seventy percent of what little freedom is allowed to private companies TO run business without state intervention STILL out-paces all the other industries that are nationalized, listed here: reuters.com/article/venezuela-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSN1E79I0Z520111201.
Your Fox article says that this isn't socialism because the private enterprise still out-competes nationalized industries by a margin of ~1.7: all this demonstrates is the ineptitude of the state to run things top-down, not that the majority of the economy is allowed by private business. The fact that they can out-produce nationalized industry by ~1.7 is not the same as saying that the majority of the economy is privatized. You are making the fatal flaw of assuming linear ability across industries, nationalized or privatized.
GDP is not 'the economy' and the production ability of the industries isn't linear. This doesn't mean that the economy is majority-privatized, it means the state-industries have failed.
So…private enterprise is far superior in employing people?
Venezuela is as capitalist as it is socialist if state ownership is equal to private/public ownership, respectively.
Yes, the fairytale of production with no profit can never exist so long as global markets exist.
No, it's exactly in-line with what I asserted, he is admitting to the necessity of markets while also berating others for playing definition games. It's the pot calling the kettle black, really.
Yes, because you cannot dictate an objective value top-down so long as black markets arise to subjectively interpret the value goods have into subjectively-categorized prices.
I would laugh because it's been debunked many, many times, with no coherent response beyond Cuckshott's "s-stop playing definition games….but market contamination doesn't count when I say it does, t-that's no TRUUU market!".
That's why I included the screenshot that you thought wasn't by Cuckshott (probably because it rebukes his argument of eating your cake and having it, too) that demonstrates the necessity of markets.
Ah, yes. The sly affirmation.
Because it isn't. You've got markets that are free to allow consumers to subjectively interpret the value goods/services have in their own eyes. That's an affirmation towards the necessity of markets. His only response is to dissociate the market of subjective and free association from…. a free market by… get this: accusing the other party of playing redefinition games.

What you should include is the real GDP if you want to fall for the meme that GDP is 'da economy', or gross output by industry. Your own source alleges that the output from the nationalized industries, plentiful as they may be from tourism to agriculture, is not competitive enough when juxtaposed to the private industries. Why not just compare the scale of nationalization to the output by the nationalized industry? Is it because it shows that they've been preforming abysmally compared to the private sector?

You really should read Capital.

If Capital included empirical evidence of the necessity of communism, then the predictions would have already came true. The absence of any evidence for the extraordinary claims raised within lead to one conclusion: no positive or negative claims one way or the other cannot be made when there is no convincing evidence. I can't say that Communism will NEVER happen just as you cannot say that it is inevitable.




Scared of arguments? Sad.

Stalin was an imperialist and a russian cultural chauvinist despite himself being georgian who launched imperialist regime changes in Estonia Latvia Lithuania followed up with invasion and invaded Finland along with participating in the Anglo imperial invasion of iran

He was hardly a socialist t b h just a Imperialist/Nationalist who liked socialist aesthetics

That's maybe the most stupid thing you've said in this thread.

Anyway, that wasn't even my point.

I did not make that argument, nigger. Others in this thread did, I am not them. I may use their arguments at any time but I will evaluate them too.
"That's not what the argument was about at all. I said that American (partially CIA) intervention and destruction of revolutionary societies was what caused the GDP per capital to fall along with indicators of economic development and living standards. You focussed on the validity GDP statistics, not me. You've made an argument in your mind and tried to debunk that argument, ignoring what I actually said. That's called a straw man."

Then the predictions are unfalsifiable because there is no upper boundary or deadline.

I love pointing out leftypol's contradictions, lol.
[citation needed]
Where's the conspiracy theories about false statistics now? I'll wait.

Am I barred from assessing and using other people's points because I am not them, Herr Neoliberal? You use the evaluations of the likes of Mises all the time.
I did not use those points.
You are reusing the same old straw man argument and I'm just sitting here saying that you got something else wrong. Your capacity for dishonesty is increasing.

I notice you conveniently ignore his

You've got people asserting that public ownership must have nuance in order to properly differentiate the concept from any other kind of ownership. Extend the same intellectual honesty to private ownership, or criticize the former stance (i.e. on public ownership nuance), as well.
What kind of a beta whimpers around asking people these kinds of questions?
Yes, it is a contradiction when one accuses others of redefinition gameplay when one does the same thing. That means that one's own criticism against others is used against themselves, too. That's what is being done. If the criticism raised against others is rejected when it is reflected in the opposite direction, then you've got an irrational moron on your hands.
Yes you did.
Hey, if we don't need citations, I'll do the same. Let's all be consistent in our irrationality :^)
That's what I thought, bitch boy. Nice job admitting inferiority.
[citation needed]
Oh wait… lmao fuck sources haha

This thread is why I am an accelerationist with Stalinist characteristics tbh

But Stalinism failed… why do you rally yourself behind a failed system of beliefs that would have you the first to die? After all, you are the upper-class computer-poster…


State capitalism rocks, doesn't it?
State capitalism rocks, doesn't it?
Ah yes, from the same LARPers who bitch about Nazi crimes against humanity.

isn't not me but okay.
Then you can't use others' too.
I didn't do the same thing; you're talking about the others in this thread. I am not them, Herr Neoliberal.
Cite me where I said 'it wasn't true socialism'. So much for citations when you won't give them yourself.
Because you were being intellectually dishonest and that was the thing I started with.
"Unless the increase in imports from the US is directed towards increasing export capacity
and/or accompanied by an opening of US markets to imports from the intervened country, the
intervention is unlikely to have positive welfare effects."
What are you smoking? Explain your point, nigger.
I'm asking you to prevent some logic.
Then find some just as I am.
Too bad.

I can see where this is going, an avenue where you'll get cucked again.

The basic problem with capitalist's assertions that capitalism is natural is that they fail to understand the difference between private property and personal property, and the necessity of the state to defend the former. Private property and personal property are two different things.

Private property is property held that you never use, for purposes of rent. This includes things like land ownership for charging rent, owning a car for charging rent, etc. All private property is a form of absentee ownership.

Personal property is property you acquire for yourself because you are (personally) using it. Examples include a house you live on, a plot of land you directly farm, a car you actually drive, etc.

The mechanism for capitalists to increase their capital is to hold property they don't use personally, while either charging rent to those who wish to use the property personally (ex: a landlord), extracting wealth from those who use the property personally (ex: a factory owner), or by simply holding the resource to exclude others who would use it personally (ex: a real estate tycoon).

Now the problem is that it has been known, at least since the Enlightenment by classical liberals, that it is impossible to have this form of property in nature. The rule of nature is "you use it or you lose it." If an animal abandons a habitat, another animals move in. And it is impossible for animals to claim ownership over anything they are not personally occupying. And this scheme existed for stateless humans for thousands of years too.

So the classical liberals realized that if you want to have private property, you need something to defy nature's law of property. You need something to allow absentee ownership. You need something to allow you to acquire exclusive ownership of land that would be common otherwise. You need a strong state.

You will find no examples in history of private property in a stateless society.

Also see this.

It didn't. What is a failed system of beliefs from objective point of view? It is an ideology that holds no sway in society: the one that is seen negatively or not considered at all by the people, the one whose supporters hold no sway and power in politics and media. Stalinism alone is alive and well in Russia, not to mention Marxism-Leninism and Marxism as a whole, which is precisely opposite of failure.

Herr Neoliberal will argue that it is possible and that 'private property' as he defines it did exist, ignoring your definition. Then he will ask for 'da citations' before screeching about how private property is magically voluntary because muh contracts. I have seen how he argues and he tailspins every time, only finding diversions.

He will use a different criterion for failure, just watch.

*present some logic


This is mostly due to the post Stalin reforms which accelerated after Kruschev died

This is why NASA and Apple stole all of their ideas from the Soviet science community right?

Reforms or no reforms, it wasn't going to last. It was a bubble.

Adoption as in actually implementing new technology across the economy

Not even an hour after this, Herr Neoliberal makes himself shown at >2240226 before we see his signature lowercase 'ahahahahahahaaaaha' in further down the chain.


I'm just going to ignore all the memearrow nitpicking and ask you a few questions. Where are you getting this idea that public sector is trying to compete with the private sector when the country is a service industry? Do you have any sources showing this? I very much doubt it. Second question, do you have any better sources showing the size of the private and public sectors? How else would you observe this other than looking at where the GDP is coming from.

And specifically this idiot

Again whether or not markets are necessity is irreverent, the point is MARKETS AREN'T EXCLUSIVE TO CAPITALISM My god how delusional are you? Read the entire response Cuckshott made to Brewster, he demonstrates marxian economics in consumer goods and his book destroys the the economic calculation problem by showing how unnecessary markets are for factor markets, you know the only thing that objectively matters? Like holy shit, socialists have been advocating markets with labor vouchers since the 1820s, fuck out of here retard.

That is Herr Neoliberal, a baiting and dishonest poster whom I have had to deal with on two threads.


[citation needed]
Look mom, I can use leftypol-tier retorts, too!
Good thing I wasn't.
Never said you did. I said that public ownership is rightfully differentiated between state ownership, just like private ownership is.
Try harder.
Policies behind the Iron curtain is what lead to embargoes. Does not equal intervention into their economies. They did that themselves.
Straw-man alert.
Talking about East/West Germany, but keep making straw-men.
Not a single primary source. Please try harder, I've got generals and officials alive at the time admitting to the benefits and necessity.

Scroll up, I've already discussed this. The interpretation and assessment of the usage, or lack thereof, of land that I own and defend is irrelevant if and only if the critics are to remain destitute peasants with no might, which they (more often than not) are. I can buy as much land as I want to and sit until the price increases. Your opinion is your own belief system, which is irrelevant and inconsequential in determining the affairs I am in charge of.

Yes, and most nation-wide implementations of socialist policies relied on the state. Guess that means public ownership is now always state ownership because it was historically implemented as such and, inevitably, failed and was subverted.

LARPed about success while subverting the original revolution and what it stood for. LARPing about worker's paradises while resorting to restricting emigration and building border walls, or sending "counter-revolutionary" peasants to 'corrective labour camps'. As far as the middle class or their workers are concerned, it failed. It was a wild success for the bureaucrats who enriched themselves.

I know you hate citations, it's okay. Your straw-men arguments are quite easy to debunk by literally just saying "okay, and where do you get this information from?" You still have not addressed anything I said in the previous thread beyond old talking points I already debunked or even remotely responded to the primary sources I provided on the Lend-Lease issue.

It is de facto a competitive institution when what little private industry is allowed to exist still out-preforms the state-run industries.
Try harder