Socialism doesn't wo-

>socialism doesn't wo-

Attached: 1551398083316.webm (640x360, 2.15M)

Other urls found in this thread:

usdebtclock.org/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
link.springer.com/article/10.2307/3342145
country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12479.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Remember when they said Brazil was going to be a superpower by now?

usdebtclock.org/

-rk.

>balkanoid still believes
Not surprising

Socialist told me China isn't real socialism

there is a 32.6% chance this post was typed by NEET hands

you fail then... just like your country.

>implying china is socialist and not state capitalist

The US only leads in the twentieth century because the Soviets aren't included for whatever reason

Accurate version.

Attached: 2020.png (670x361, 105K)

ending Mao's socialism, and beginning Deng's (and his successors') state-capitalism (i.e. fascist economics), allowed China to pull itself out of Sub-Saharan African levels of poverty, and achieve rapid growth.

Attached: 1520800522645.png (901x461, 138K)

Based fascism.
And /his/ told me it didn't work.

>implying the state owning the means of production isn't the definition of socialism

but the state does not own the means of production
also yes, the ones who should own the means of production should be the proletariat

/his/ is often wrong.

>socialism
>not even healthcare is free

There wasn't even a billion people in China during Mao's times so that by itself shows that post blatantly makes shit up. And if a billion people had ended up with no capacity to make up food, China would have no population.
God, right wingers are so retarded.

to be fair, in theory, libertarian capitalism should generate more wealth than state-capitalism; something china hasn't really tried outside of Hong Kong. But that assumes that the domestic or geopolitical threats that stateism are protecting against, wouldn't just come and destroy the economy.

>but the state does not own the means of production

The US literally base their butthurt toward Huawei on the fact that they obey the CPC.

what is hyperbole?

Oh, and
>fascist economics
Literally not a thing.

An excuse to make shit up in this case.

the fascist countries (Japan, Germany, and Italy) all had very distinct economic policies, and a distinct economic ideology. It's basically, a mixture of private ownership, and very invasive and powerful state control.

For a good example, watch the movie Schinlder's List. Oscar Schindler is a German factory owner, running his own business, ostensibly for his own profit But every step of the way, there is a Nazi government stooge looking over his shoulder, to make sure that the factory is operating in a way that will benefit the state.

China does the same. They have CCP cadres imbeded into most medium-large sized companies, who make sure that the privately owned company is operating in the state's interest instead of simply perusing profit.

Elizabeth Warren wants something similar for the US, but I wouldn't call her a "fascist".

uhm it wasn't real fascism sweetie

China has weak property laws and therefore can not be called fascist.

But you realize huawei isn't state owned?

Delusional

China will pass USA but the flag is wrong. My nigga CASH-MA-SHEK's ghost is going to open his grave and eat winnie the pooh alive live on a worldwide broadcast from CCTV. After that every single red party member will be annhilated because chinks will submit to their instincts and follow their new (old) leader. And if you don't believe me just google the patterns of Chinese regime collapses. This is shaping up to be a good one folks, grab your popcorn because the next 2 decades are going to be a sight to behold.

Attached: 1551277939181.jpg (600x800, 130K)

wtf i love elizabeth warren now

China can never pass the US, as their economy is based on the US economy. They do nothing but sell shit to us.

>China had a fuckton of people and yet an awful economy and mass starvation under communism
>once they opened up their markets, adopted large scale capitalist economic reforms, they started exploding in wealth and economy

You're proving the point

And more importantly, copy off of us and then sell those copies to their own people while forbidding American companies from having free access to their market. It is an entire nation of cheaters and copies.

Those policies predated fascism though. Germany had adopted a developmentalist policy since Bismarck.

Nothing can ever be proven to commies. Much like women, they just don't care.

Don’t think anybody is denying China’s massive advancement under Deng, but it doesn’t disprove the central thesis of communism for two reasons. First, Russia achieved similar growth under socialism. Second, Marx literally says that capitalism has to come before socialism, and China never really had a capitalist period before 1949.

China is by now even more capitalist than the US lol

Also fudged GDP numbers

>the central thesis of communism

The fact that it's shit and this was proven in the USSR vs. USA economic battle from 1950-1989? Every single commie government of note fell under massive popular pressure and failure, and those that maintained semblances of communism instead adopted economic reforms to leave the commie model.

It's shit, it doesn't work, it never will, leave good countries alone.

>The fact that it's shit and this was proven in the USSR vs. USA economic battle from 1950-1989?
>a country that was one of the least developed in Europe, had fought two world wars and a civil war on its own soil in the past 30 years, and had only industrialized in the 1930s
>vs a country that hadn’t fought a major war on its soil since the 1860s, industrialized in the mid 19th century, and was totally unscathed by the world wars
Wow clearly this was a head to head matchup on an even playing field.
>Every single commie government of note fell under massive popular pressure and failure
Not true. The Soviet government was dismantled by the elite who thought they could gain more from capitalism. The majority of the population wanted to keep the USSR together, and the number of people who wanted to maintain socialism was larger than those who wanted it gone. Today the people who are nostalgic for socialism is typically higher than those who aren’t, even in the satellite nations.
>It's shit, it doesn't work, it never will
t. NPC bootlicker

Attached: 4BCE099B-8145-487B-962E-DDA1241D738C.png (600x1050, 90K)

/his/ is full of christian retards

>Remember when they said Brazil was going to be a superpower by now?

Nobody has ever said such thing, never.

And Brazil used to be the 18 economy by PPP and now is the 7.

Now post PPP (measuring the real production of Wealth in the country)

Nominal only says if your country use a conversible currency

The USSR had a massive sphere of influence, the USA had a massive sphere of influence, if communism was as great as its proponents claim it wouldn't have been a contest for America, as it turns out all it is is a breeding ground for economic morass and despotism. Sorry you're a myopic fuckhead.

>Nobody has ever said such thing, never.

Zoomers are a mistake.

Attached: 20091114issuecovUS400.jpg (400x527, 40K)

That isn't relevant in international terms. It's only relevant for standard of life intranationally. An American can still come over to your country and buy a billion Brazilian hookers for $5.

>The USSR had a massive sphere of influence, the USA had a massive sphere of influence
Not as large, and the USSR didn’t extract as much wealth from its vassals as the US did. Also that point doesn’t refute the fact that the USSR was nowhere near in an equal starting position in 1945 as the US was. WW2 alone was horrifically destructive, Russia had fought two other major wars on its own soil in previous decades, and was far less developed even before 1917. Even still they rose to have high GDP and HDI as well as their superpower status by the end of the Cold War. Obviously there were major flaws in the Soviet system, but they go far beyond “hurr durr gommies r dumb murica #1”.

>Economist, shit neoliberal propaganda

And they have said that Brazil was improving, and really is, since we surpassed every European country except for Germany in GDP PPP

We just call her "a left-leaning moron pandering to low-wage commoners and impressionable college undergraduates"

Their money printing machine will kill them.

>dude I'm telling you, the stars weren't aligned correctly that time either, also there's 150 prerequisites that you have to follow with precision before my epik socialist utopia can properly function
>y-you'll see next time how great it is

It’s not a question of the stars being aligned just right, it’s that an objective assessment of how well communism worked has to take into account factors like the previous levels of development of each country, the impact of wars, etc. When you do that you come up with a far less obvious picture, with benefits and drawbacks. There’s also the question of exactly why it failed, something right wingers never seem to be willing to elaborate on.

USSR established a form of state capitalism in the 1930s. Stalin's heavy industry was built by foreign multinationals. Then the country became a bureaucratic oligarchy in the 1950s, stagnated in the Brezhnev era and collapsed upon its own contradictions, dumbass.

The Russian Empire was already fastest industrializing country in Europe with a human cost not even close to Stalinism.

Wake up, that's your socialism. One big fraud

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

>"You're ugh...*cough* the sixth greatest lord."

>The Russian Empire was already fastest industrializing country in Europe
Not as fast, and being done mostly by foreign companies which owned much of Russia’s economy.
>with a human cost not even close to Stalinism.
The human cost of Stalinism was terrible, but not much more than what you saw in European powers dealing with colonies. Stalinism was bad, but it wasn’t doing anything that others weren’t doing.
>Wake up, that's your socialism.
But user you literally just said it was a state capitalist bureaucratic oligarchy.

>china
>socialist

>the USSR didn’t extract as much wealth from its vassals as the US did
GTFO we didn't extract shit from you guys, we dumped billions in post war aid for the Euros and garrisoned their country and didn't force them to build fucking walls to keep their people in.

>Not as fast, and being done mostly by foreign companies which owned much of Russia’s economy
The investment was done by foreign funds, but the industrialization itself was largely done by the state.

>The human cost of Stalinism was terrible, but not much more than what you saw in European powers dealing with colonies. Stalinism was bad, but it wasn’t doing anything that others weren’t doing.
There's no comparison. Whataboutism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

>But user you literally just said it was a state capitalist bureaucratic oligarchy.
Precisely. Do you understand it now?

Attached: Russian Empire.png (1600x1332, 469K)

I was talking about vassals in the third world. US companies took billions out of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The USSR didn’t have the same relationship with countries like Cuba, Ethiopia, Vietnam, etc.

>Looking at it in terms of "extraction of wealth" and not capitalistic investment

This is why your brain is broken. You don't understand macroeconomics. Time for your helicopter ride as you're a cancer and danger to all prosperity-loving people around you lol

Attached: bueno.jpg (680x680, 61K)

>Whataboutism
A made up term used to dismiss the fact that Stalinism, for all its crimes, never did anything that capitalist powers hadn’t been doing for decades. If you are going to compare the two, you have to compare the damage they both did.
>There's no comparison.
Yes there is, victims of colonial repression by Britain, Belgium, etc ran into the tens of millions. That’s not even getting into all the heinous shit the US did during the Cold War.
>Precisely
So you’re saying it wasn’t socialism?

>USSR sphere of influence
>shitholes all around
>USA sphere of influence
>too much wealth than anyone knows what to do with

>the USSR literally had to put up a wall with armed guards to keep people IN

L M A O L M A O L M A O

Nigger you do understand that investments require that you extract more wealth than you invest right? If you invest $10 million into a country and take $50 million out, then that country is receiving a net loss in wealth.

We didn't take billions, global wealthy people did that and it wasn't all the USA. The USA mostly built large projects of infrastructure so that the nations will be friendly to the USA, i know the USA intervened with espionage and coops to keep friendly governments in power, but that was our literal back yard. When the the Soviets back yard stepped out of line, they brought literal hell to the nations. Not our fault that our southern brethren slaughter one another at the first chance.

Exploiting a nation weaker than you is not an issue pertaining to ideology, it's a human flaw.

>Country wouldn't have made the money to be taken, if the investment never happened
>Poor nation where people are starving and dying in mass
The Socialist sleeps
>Developing nation where 10% of the wealth leaves because many foreign nations operate investments there, the people make enough money to buy food and homes, a few still live in poverty
OMG WTF they're killing those people, stupid capitalist, god these people need Marx

>We didn't take billions, global wealthy people did that and it wasn't all the USA
It was the international capitalist class, disproportionately concentrated in the US.
>The USA mostly built large projects of infrastructure so that the nations will be friendly to the USA
Sometimes in strategically important countries like South Vietnam, but that typically dwarfed what was being taken out in other countries by American companies.
>When the the Soviets back yard stepped out of line, they brought literal hell to the nations.
So did the US, they imposed brutal dictatorships on countries that tried to oppose American interests.
>Exploiting a nation weaker than you is not an issue pertaining to ideology, it's a human flaw.
True, but capitalism operates according to a specific logic according to the rational interest of market actors. This involves maximization of profits, which means maximum exploitation of resources, which means keeping countries subject so they can be exploited for the greatest profit.

>Poor nation where people are starving and dying in mass
>The Socialist Sleeps
Not at all, socialist movements were the strongest in poor countries like Vietnam, Cuba, Mozambique, India, Columbia, etc. Incidently it was these countries that were most heavily exploited by the West under capitalism, and still are.

>projections
>projections for 100 of years in the future

i dont really get why are socialists complaining
you can register a socialist corporation (keep reading faggot) where all workers/employees would own the shares and all of them would be exec board members (ceos)
so there, done

what is stopping socialists from registering their own corporation and running it according to socialist principles? i think its laziness and hypocrisy, go and work mr worker

The European powers did not kill THEIR OWN citizens, idiot. The Bolsheviks killed at least 20 million Russians.

they were exploited by their own tyrannical governments

>The European powers did not kill THEIR OWN citizens, idiot. The Bolsheviks killed at least 20 million Russians.
No they didn’t. The 1932 famine was responsible for the bulk of excess deaths in the USSR, and it was the product of bad policy, not intentional murder. As far as deaths from repression go, European countries definitely did kill their own citizens, since like the USSR they could be quite repressive.

Not nearly on the same scale or in the same way. Socialist countries outperformed capitalist countries of similar GDP in measurements of quality of life. Corrupt politicians buying themselves a new mansion doesn’t compare to foreign corporations stealing billions in resources for decades on end.

>stealing
capitalism may be without remorse, but unless it deals in transactions stemming from mutual agreement you can't make the claim that it is capitalism
>Socialist countries outperformed capitalist countries of similar GDP in measurements of quality of life
do you have an example to back this up? I can't think of a single state that saw massive improvement in quality of life other than russia and they were modern africa-tier before the bolsheviks seized power

Yeah, """bad policy""" like Civil war, Red Terror, Russian famine of 1921-1922, Collectivization, Great Purge, etc. This is a planned genocide of Russians, just like Holocaust.

Attached: YfuYd_PRmho.jpg (420x480, 69K)

it makes me slightly sad that someone is so inadequate that they resort to leeching off of others or in trying to gain virtue points for being insufficient in other parts of their life, advocate to pull down people to their level.
we sure have some pathethic individuals omegalul

Is this assuming that China's mega growth rates will continue unabated into the future? Because that's retarded.

I watched this whole thread with you constantly saying capitalist like it's a fucking form of governing, it's an economic idea, it can be applied to Socialist, Liberal, Conservative, Reactionary, Fascist and any fucking political system. That's what made the USA and the west perform so well, it's super flexible. Unlike the autistic USSR that wanted Socialist sytems to placed in all their unwilling puppets, the USA just wanted it in the economic sense.

>pajeets will overtake usa in 40 years
never going to happen

The USA implanted the feudal system in their puppets

>GDP projection
>2050

uhuh

Only because you had plenty of people willing to follow said authoritarian government. All we did was do a little push and your people rushed to make you indios gather bananas

>capitalism may be without remorse, but unless it deals in transactions stemming from mutual agreement you can't make the claim that it is capitalism
Call it what you want, but what I’m talking about is the western economic system as it existed since the mid 19th century. If you want to insist that this wasn’t real capitalism then go ahead, but I’m talking about the flaws of this system as it actually existed.
>do you have an example to back this up?
Studies were done.
link.springer.com/article/10.2307/3342145
>This is a planned genocide of Russians, just like Holocaust.
Well completely ignoring the fact that literally no historian (including hardcore anticommunist ones like Robert Conquest) agrees with you, it would be the worst attempt at genocide in the world. The USSR’s population grew dramatically following the end of WW2, and dropped like a stone in 1991. Soviet population grew from 180,000,000 in 1945 to 290,000,000 in 1989. For a group that wanted to genocide the Russians those evil commies sure oversaw a big growth in its population.
Politics and economics are inseparable. Liberal democracy, fascism etc are different for sure, but ultimately the wealthy elites exercise hegemonic power under all of them, if not outright dictatorial power.

Investment creates wealth generation. Both the investor and the investee can profit in this arrangement, it's a matter of applying resources where the recipient lacks them. You're a fucktard.

I’m not sure you could call paying the military to overthrow the government and then institute decades long reigns of terror a “little push.”

>Well completely ignoring the fact that literally no historian (including hardcore anticommunist ones like Robert Conquest) agrees with you, it would be the worst attempt at genocide in the world. The USSR’s population grew dramatically following the end of WW2, and dropped like a stone in 1991. Soviet population grew from 180,000,000 in 1945 to 290,000,000 in 1989. For a group that wanted to genocide the Russians those evil commies sure oversaw a big growth in its population.
In agrarian countries there is always a high birth rate, even in Kampuchea under Pol Pot. But the Communists killed tens of millions of people, intentionally or not. Also they allowed abortions and this killed another 200 million people.

>Both the investor and the investee can profit in this arrangement
They can sure, and sometimes they even did, but much of the time they didn't. These arrangements were typically very one sided, and its the reason why so much of the third world remains poor.

>In agrarian countries there is always a high birth rate
The Soviet Union wasn't an agrarian country. It had a fully developed industrial base and high urbanization.
>But the Communists killed tens of millions of people, intentionally or not.
So did everybody else. There were heinous crimes committed by communist regimes, but there was nothing unique to communism about those crimes.

>The Soviet Union wasn't an agrarian country. It had a fully developed industrial base and high urbanization.
Until the 70s, most of the population lived in rural areas.

Give up Slav, he's just pulling irrelevant tidbits. He doesn't care like every other socialist of the millions that die under the system. The only solace i find, that if the system were to be implemented, he would be shot first for not sipping the same red tea as the leader.

>China
>socialism

/his/ is like 50% /leftypol/ at this point.

The future looks dark.

western states were real capitalism but you're making the claim that they were stealing capital which is inherently anti-capitalism. the "exploited state" had to consent, in one form or another
>Studies were done.
The two studies it cites were done in the 80s. Are you trying to tell me that quality of life increases at a steady rate across the board irregardless of previous measurements? The economy of India is increasing rapidly compared to Germany, but no one would make the claim that the German economy is inferior to India. The growth in quality of life is exponential, meaning it rises more rapidly at the bottom than at the top.

and like 50% regular Jow Forums so it all evens out?

is not exponential*

Are you aware of the influence of Canadian mining companies in LatAm? You personally benefit from the same system you criticize the US for

>Until the 70s, most of the population lived in rural areas.
A little earlier than that actually, the rural-urban population reached parity in 1961.
country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12479.html
Even still, that wouldn't explain the fact that in order to go from 180 million to 290 million, a 160% increase, while supposedly millions were dying in a genocide, would require Africa tier birth rates for 40 years straight, even after the USSR was highly industrialized and urbanized.
Of course I care about the people who died, my point is than in an objective assessment of the two systems, socialism at worst doesn't appear as any more evil than capitalism.

>western states were real capitalism but you're making the claim that they were stealing capital
I mean they weren't "stealing" in the sense that they were making consensual agreements with repressive undemocratic governments to extract wealth from countries. The thing is that those governments didn't give a fuck whether or not their population consented to this.
>Are you aware of the influence of Canadian mining companies in LatAm?
I am, and I oppose it.
>You personally benefit from the same system you criticize the US for
Of course I do, but that doesn't make what I'm saying less true.

>socialism at worst doesn't appear as any more evil than capitalism
Nice bait