Why are anticommunists so pathetic and terrible at arguing?

This.

Do you intend to promote NazBol or to threaten Holla Forumsshits in a language they are familiar with?

because they don't have to be good, the mere fact of being anti-communist is enough for the average person to see them as the one in the right

The thing to realize is that you're not arguing for their sake on these forums. You're arguing for everyone there to see.

They think they're automatically right and their ideas are obviously correct so it "goes without saying, bro". They'll just post the same ancapball "WHEN U STARVE HALF YOUR PEOPLE IT WASNT REAL COMMUNISM" tired meme or those stupid strawman cartoons because they think it's so obvious why communism is wrong, but they don't actually really understand communism beyond what the memes/agitprop says.

Nazbol is a gateway drug like it or not, check the ex-Holla Forums threads.

Too much Molymeme, ("hurr durr not an argument") combined with not actually reading any of the material they're criticising, besides some no context quotes on www.marxwasafag.com or whatever.

to be completely honest its got a good bit to do with how retarded leftists can't bring themselves to make coherent defenses of socialist states and instead fall back on muh not true socialism. this makes us look bad and makes it easy for right wingers to make fun of us

When a spade calls itself a television you have to do the right thing and call it a spade.

They don't actually want to argue with anybody, that's the key thing.
The stupid pictures are a response to people posting le cringly kekistannies all the time.

We have states that are trying to create socialism. The closest we ever got to actual socialism was the USSR under Stalin.

Except there's a much better case for calling the USSR/eastern bloc socialist than there is for calling a spade a television. Face it, even if those regimes weren't technically "socialist" by your special snowflake definition, you have to acknowledge the fact that they did some terrible things in the name of trying to realize socialism. Trying to completely disassociate from them is transparent bullshit made by lazy upper-class leftists.

Plus, socialist states did a lot of good and most bad shit they didn't isn't inherent to creating socialism. If you're both engaging in good faith it isn't that hard to argue this, providing you know your shit.

The post-Stalin USSR abandoned actual socialism in favor of social democracy with socialist aesthetics.

Pardon me, but I was browsing through the nerve center and I Couldn't help but notice that you linked to 4cuck there buddy. I suggest you go back there and stay there. To address your point, people who don't like communists generally don't like them because every time a government takes control of the economy, the economy goes down the shitter. See Venezuela, NK, Cuba, USSR, China before it implemented capitalist policies, and every other communist regime that has ever been created. Capitalism, meanwhile, has created healthy, productive societies that allow for free and exchange and expression of ideas. The imageboard we are posting on, the computers we post with, and the servers we communicate through, are all made possible by capitalism. Communism, on the other hand, produces states like North Korea. Coincidentally, North Korea is exactly the kind of government that Orwell predicted would precipitate out of communism in his book 1984. To summarize, people who don't like communists can't understand why anyone would believe in an ideology that has been proven to fail. Capitalism is certainly a flawed method of economics, but with regulations, it has functioned much better than communism ever could.

ok faggot, is that what you're going to say when someone inevitably brings up the various slaughters the USSR was implicated in before during and after WWII? That's sure to convince normies

What slaughters?

How does one familiar with chan culture not know the phrase lurk moar? You're far from the first to make such arguments and they're regularly debunked around here.

The creation of computers and the internet had far more to do with the public sector than the private, but cheers for proving OP's point

First off, I don't lurk here, I came to antagonize OP for being a cuckchanner. Second, if your going to tell me my arguments have been debunked at least take the time to say why they have been debunked instead of simply dismissing them. But that's because you can't. That's because you and I both know that North Korea is an Orwellian hellhole full of malnourished and diseased citizens. No army run by a capitalist society has soldiers suffering from 12 inch tapeworms. You and I both know that China has a surveillance state that would make the British blush and they have a network of censors who monitors what everyone says and does on the internet 24/7. You and I both have seen the news reports of rioting in Venezuela, we both know they are running out of basic products, like toilet paper. You and I both know that the USSR collapsed because it was not economically stable enough to compete with the US. If it was able to compete, the Berlin wall would never have been torn down. The ideology is deeply flawed and has not been anywhere near as successful as capitalism has been throughout history.

So tell us user, what computer do you use? what government owned factory fabricated the processor of your computer? What goverment owned factory manufactured the ethernet cable that connects you to the internet? The development and growth of the internet and the computer industry has been driven purely by capitalism. It started out as a private sector, but it only exists as it does today because of capitalism.

A lot of people think of the "purges" as slaughters for some reason, but maybe hes talking about that forest in poland where they killed a bunch of polish soldiers?

It is only because the government is unwilling that they do not make things like computers, not that they are incapable. If the public sector were allowed to produce/compete in that manner it would have been able to mass produce and iterate on computers in a manner very similar to the market. The advantages of markets have nothing to do with doing things the government cannot, they don't have magic innovation powers that mean only they can invent shit.

Gross oversimplification. First of all, socialism isn't just "when a government takes over an economy." It's when there is a general social ownership of the means of production and an end to production for exchange. Furthermore, your arguments are fallacious, as they don't consider the material and political conditions in socialist countries. For example, the Russian Empire was a festering garbage-dump that couldn't even provide bread for its citizens before the Lenin and the bolsheviks laid the groundwork to create the next superpower. That is literally the opposite of the economy "going down the shitter." A similar argument goes for China. The country was completely ravaged by internal conflict and imperial intrusion. Mao objectively raised living standards and put in place a state with longevity and stability. Of course they didn't develop as quickly as the West. They weren't at the same starting point. And even if you don't buy this, it further exacerbated matters that the developed countries actively tried to sabotage the socialist states.

This is probably one of the few countries that I am pretty confident in saying is literally not socialist. It has a few major industries nationalized; this isn't socialism or a viable attempt at it. It's socdem opportunism. Plus, the economic failures had more to do with oil prices and general bad economic management than anything.

There's a whole thread about this, you should check it out on the catalog. Basically, North Korea is a country that was completely decimated after WWII and slapped with the harshest sanctions in the world since then. Its incredible that they are functioning on the level that they are considering these hardships. Other countries with similar GDP, like Rwanda and Mozambique, have nothing close to the military technology, internal political systems, and stability that North Korea does. See that thread for more about why the DPRK isn't actually that Orwellian and that even if it is, those things aren't necessary to its successes anyway.

Why would you bring this up as a failure? Here again a desperately poor and lawless state was uplifted by a socialist government and provided with stability and social welfare. The biggest barriers to its human development are sanctions and scant natural resources.

Even if you think that status quo capitalism is good, it must be clear that its not universally applicable, or sustainable. It requires a vastly expanding amount of resources and exploited labor that the natural world simply cannot handle. See: peak oil. The global supply chain is based on a constant supply of fossil fuels that does not exist. Switching to renewables just isn't incentivized enough within a profit-driven system. Plus, with the rise of neoliberal economics, the global capitalist economy has become irreversibly fragile. The globe's most trustworthy currency is based on literally nothing. This isn't something you can just wish away with regulations.

It's functioned great for delivering hedonistic consumer goods to the ignorant masses, not so much in providing equitable and sustainable human development.

oh and then that one last argument

this isn't fully true but even if it was its a retarded non-argument

Is that a challenge?

...

red terror, katyn, purges, massacre of german POWs. lets even throw in the government's incredibly inadequate response to chernobyl, or the soviet war crimes in afghanistan

Why not read a book about something user?

not massacres, that was war
germans did it
didn't happen
revisionist socdems but anyway, you really want to start counting in accidents in nuclear power plants that happened in the west now several times too, including the US?
and afghanistan was a war that was perpetuated by US mercenaries.

It's not that I can't, it's that I'm too lazy to repeat the same fucking things over and over to the thousands of newfag that stroll in here acting like they own the joint without putting in even the tiniest bit of research. Lucky for you someone is willing to spoonfeed you this time however.

idk if you were reading the thread, but I was playing devils advocate in the post you replied to. I agree with all the shit you said, but most red liberals or new leftists will just let people assert shit without holding them accountable, giving them a huge advantage in the conversation.

I hear your points, and I disagree with some of them, but I can agree with others. I'd prefer not to delve heavily into argument; I admit that I am unprepared to create a convincing argument at the moment. However, since you actually seem to be interested in having a rational discussion, I'd like to ask you a question. How come democracy and communism never seem to intersect? When a communist state is created, it always ends up becoming a dictatorship, and fairly soon afterwards the freedoms of the people are taken away. Mao took them away, Castro took them away, Stalin took them away, Chavez took them away, Kim took them away. Is it not possible to have a democratic society with an economy that is communist in nature, but still allows for freedom of expression and speech? Consider that, even if you are an American poster, no government agency is going to break down your door because you support communism. Meanwhile, if I lived in China, I almost certainly would be taken away by the police because of my political view. How come capitalist societies do not seem to have this problem?

oh, guess i should stop jumping into threads after reading one comment i feel compelled to reply to

but then again i'm a lazy fuck so that wont happen

...

Maybe in his early days.

I said the creation, not the production. The state did the risky work of investing capital in research, but because they're classcucks the technology was only used by the govt, while us proles had to buy it from their buddies in the private sector (with all the accompanying fuckery such as planned obsolescence)

I must be terrible at reading comprehension or Orwell must be a terrible writer, because I completely missed the point of the book if this is true. Most of what he described in 1984 was based directly on Stalin's Russia, with people like Nikolai Yezhov becoming "unpersons" (Yes I know it's just a quick example I grabbed from wikipedia, clobber me for it I don't care).

Not that guy, but "democracy and communism" do interact, but they have two big barriers to working together.
The first is an organization called the CIA, which will literally remove your government from power if you go too far left in an election. See australia and most of south america for examples of that, plus Iran. The other thing is that the two biggest examples of this don't really appear that way to the outside. Libya and Cuba had most shit done by councils, but because the man at the top wasn't optional it doesn't matter what other shit people decide as a group. You might say that's not democracy, but its not like anywhere else is great on democracy either, deciding the man at the top is nice but its not what the word democracy means and it doesn't really mean the people get a say in their lives. Do you really look at places like the USA or the EU countries and think "man people sure do get what they voted for"?

Also no, they won't break down your door for shitposting about gulags but they damn well will for plenty of other shit.

It was based on Stalin’s Russia, but Stalin wasn’t a socialist, he was a cunt.

Google Fred Hampton you fucking idiot.

I think most leftists will argue that yes, free speech and socialism are completely compatible, to a certain degree, at least to the same degree that capitalism allows free speech. Structural capitalist coercion obscures the limits that capital places on speech and action, whereas communism, as a departure from the status quo, has often resorted to nakedly portraying coerciveness. If I want to make a living in a capitalist society, I have to take actions that inevitably serve to prop up capitalism, except in very rare circumstances. Sure, I can talk shit about capitalism all I want, but if I want to actively refuse it, the system's violence becomes physical. I'll get fired and won't be able to put food on the table. The state will crack down on me. It's nice to say that I have freedoms because I can theoretically speak my mind, but the truth is that this doesn't really constitute actual freedom

Socialist states reversed this dynamic by making porkies, petty-bourgeois liberals, and reactionaries the subject of structural violence instead of proles. I agree that they could have done more to allow free speech, because normalizing crackdowns on free speech enabled more cultural control that became detrimental. But, the economic freedom of living in a collective socialist economy far outweighs the nominal freedom to speak your mind. This is why we aren't liberals.

wrong

With the exception of Chernobyl and excesses of Yezhov, all of those fuckers had it coming.

Read a fucking book you cretin, the only reason we have universal suffrage is because of leftist agitation. Even libs only thought people who paid a certain amount of tax deserved the vote.

You are correct that the democracies of the US and EU are flawed in many ways, i.e. lobbying. However, democracies also offer the people a way to voice their dissatisfaction with the way a government is run and to peacefully change the government. Many of the problems that the US democracy has can be fixed if enough of the voting population was willing to actually vote for it. For example, limiting the terms of our representatives or blocking lobbyists from making campaign donations. It's not perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

I should have stipulated in my post that I am referring to the present day. This was a mistake of the US government to persecute its citizens, and you'll notice that stuff like this does not happen anymore. It also doesn't happen in the EU or Britain.

even all the old bolsheviks? and the military?

actually redpill me on this tho

No need to be rude, user, I didn't say anything about suffrage. The people pushing for suffrage during the Civil Rights act may have held communist views, but the idea they were fighting for was not in itself communist, it was democratic. My question was asking why communist governments always seem to become autocratic or at least concentrate power in a very small group of people. In other words, how come communist societies are never democratic?

I said excesses of Yezhov or did you not pay attention? I can't say for certain, because Tukhachevskiy's confession is still a state secret in Russia.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_primary
Anything that goes against those who own the vast amount of wealth doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing in this "democracy". Real democracy is not just choosing your dictator either. Also the left loves real democracy so much that we want to extend it into the workplace. Why are businesses all run like totalitarian governments?

Swatting still happens frequently to this very day, in fact it's so frequent that it's become a bit of a running gag in video gamer streams if you aren't aware.

Without universal suffrage there is no democracy, and socialism is just the extension of said democracy to the workplace. The reason "communist societies" tend towards authoritarianism is because these were not communist societies. Instead they were a kind of advanced feudalism which were repressive (much like the regimes which preceded and often succeeded them) but were ultimately able to turn backwater shitholes into regional and even global superpowers.

...

Because most Anticoms are baseless Reactionaries that are as socially degenerate as you lot, possibly more so

I don't know about most EU nations but in Britain the police are extremely likely to break into your house based on online content and in the US police shooting people who are in their own homes is at the highest rate it has ever been.

There is an entire thread on how the US police pick out BLM protesters involved in organization, and peacefully visits them to have some tea and pudding.

8ch.net/leftypol/res/2331594.html

Whats the argument against the human nature thing when people talk about capitalism over communism? I have a beederson friend who tried this before and it just sounded very idiotic and left field

There isn't one. On the one hand when most people refer to muh hooman natur, they are referring to atavistic concepts like greed when one could very well make the argument that it is one's rational self interest to be a socialist (most people do not benefit from capital or its accumulation). However socialism and Marx's work does not satisfactorily address The Social Problem as outlined as Hobbes nor does his histographical concept of class conflict satisfactorily explain history (the supposition of class is idealist, and Idealism did not exist prior to Kant) . When I refer to human nature I refer to sociobiological phenomena that forms the base of the superstructure of human behavior like dunbars number or kin selection.

swatting a streamer is completely unrelated to someone being persecuted for their political beliefs. When someone swats a streamer, they call 911 under the bogus pretense that the streamer is violent and holding a hostage or threatening other people etc. It isn’t because someone called the secret police and said that the streamer is a communist/capitalist/whatever. I’m referring to how anyone can voice their political opinion in the US, and they will not be risking imprisonment or torture or death.

The BLM activists have gone far beyond just voicing their opinions and participating in peaceful organization. They’ve incited riots, blocked the delivery of US mail by closing highways, etc. No BLM supporter is going to be arrested because they are wearing a BLM T-shirt or because they write about BLM on their blog.

literally read "The Letter from Birmingham Jail" by MLK
you're crying over some late mail while there's children getting buried because police officers are too retarded to think before they squeeze the trigger

How comforting to know that I can have my personal property violated and possibly be killed without evidence of any violence on my own part and have it be called law, but should I do the opposite and enter any personal property of the state to prevent their violence on me I will be gunned down and called a criminal.

Is this is a stealthy baitpost?

Here's another example of liberals """""arguing"""", in which they believe making threats on 4chins is somehow supposed to intimidate someone.
boards.4chan.org/int/thread/83744177
boards.4chan.org/int/thread/83744177

wew
please delete your thread out of shame OP

back in my day we'd recognize such bait easily

see pics related

also even if it was based on stalin's russia, it doesnt mean hes any less of a socialist.