Communism has never and will never work

I also made reference to the statistic of most boomers who actually lived through communism wanting it back.

To be honest I kind of wonder what would have actually happened had the United States not been so terrified of communism to the point of go four of their way to sabotage it at every opportunity.

Obviously communism would still fail but considering that capitalism failed first anyway it would have been interesting to see alternate history.

In my defense, he started it. If he'd opened with something substantive I would actually have argued, but "that's just an anecdote" rarely convinces people who think peraonal anecdotes constitute real evidence.

Could work if people were fine with their country fucking them over short term for long term growth.
Which they never would.

how would communism create long term growth

Nazbol has always worked and always will work

Attached: maxresdefault (3).jpg (1280x720, 93K)

Capitalism is starving millions, decaying into fascism, imprisoning millions, creating incentive for endless imperialist wars, poisoning rivers, spilling plastic and oil into the oceans, endangering thousands of species, choking the atmosphere with CO2, and leaving millions and millions in the most technologically developed & prosperous countries in the world without healthcare and shelter.

If capitalism is what you feel is a successful alternative, then just tell me so I can laugh in your face. Don't even bother with the "lifting out of poverty" meme where people make $1.92/day because it's not enough to keep oneself from starving.

To play devil's advocate, that commie bastard may be confused because that guy's putting out his left hand to shake

no political system has or ever will work

Attached: 1539779522141.jpg (514x514, 42K)

So what you're saying is we need a great leap foward?

Look at the Soviet famine, millions of people died but they would've eventually reached a balance and then slowly upscale production.
It's easy to see why people don't want this, though.

why aren't we making dank stone toss edits? I know some of you fags agree with this based redpilled nigger but honestly politics aside we could be making some filthy content out of this shit.

>portrays stereotypical right-wing blue collar Joe
>left out out to shake
>if anyone would be overzealous over handshakes if would be stereotypical right-wing blue collar joes.
>who the fuck was even the artist?
>seriously

Well, I would say that unless there are great strides made in the field of reducing CO2 emissions within a couple decades, then there's a scientific consensus that inaction will cause permanent damage to the environment

nothing wrong with nazis

Nazis are just nationalistic commies
>feeling this entitled to a higher quality of life in "technologically developed and prosperous" countries where life is pretty damn good compared to much of current and past human history
>failing to acknowledge the technological leaps and availability of both wants/needs for goods/services that capitalism has influenced and provided
>thinking communism will solve all your problems
Keep dreaming for that utopia, bud. You'll never be happy with unrealistic expectations
Life will always suck, but it'll only suck more if you're this ungrateful for everything available in the world today, and I say that as a nihilistfag who doesn't want to be forced by a governing figure (or "community" as you may put it, still an authoritative figure) to support faggots like you

Attached: cowjak__.jpg (1600x1250, 1.99M)

no nazis are cooler than commies prove me wrong retard

Subjective
Kek
Kek
Kek

Attached: nglrm3tqey611.jpg (918x1224, 142K)

Nazis are peak onions

Attached: DQnA-5eXUAEfyDf.jpg (1024x416, 52K)

>1 in 8 people food insecure in the US
>Price of insulin has increased by 3200% since it was invented (no changes)

If these things don't strike you as pathetic, then you need to go ahead and post your hog. There is plenty that is afflicted upon people that is worse than if nobody had done anything to them. For example, oil spills in the ocean devastate communities and ecosystems that would have otherwise been peaceful and pristine. There's plenty to be done that isn't supporting someone else, but rather, to cease acting violently upon someone else.

Why is Jow Forums so obsessed with Communism? You're not under any threat of communists taking over. Why do people constantly bring up the red menace as if it was still something to be concerned about?

Sure, whatever
>1 in 8 people food insecure in the US
Okay
>About 66 percent of American adults are overweight or obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Yeah, fuck those fatties

Attached: hilljak_.png (1600x1100, 170K)

They don't actually understand anything about communism. They're just afraid of having socialized healthcare. They would rather pay double in private healthcare than pay less for a single payer system because a single payer system would have some tax dollars be used to benefit people of color.

Amerifats are afraid of socialized healthcare*

Ftfy

>Make a point about the horrors created by capitalism
>Counterpoint is some shit about calories

Hog out or log out

You don't understand, communism always works, just in ways you don't notice

Attached: 3rbMRTtxa54sSCZgIBZHoM1i3H2Cj1ar-PSnbgZ_N-s.jpg (140x140, 6K)

I hope you're typing this shitpost out on your state approved iStarve, comrade!

>hurrrp I'm "food insecure"
>can't stop eating all this food that was provided to me as a result of evil capitalism
>the working class should pay for mah diabeeters
next, just add a bit of virtue signaling to act as if you care about people who are actually starving in third world shitholes and we'll be finished

Attached: IMG_2852.png (762x754, 61K)

>Capitalism is so efficient that it creates simultaneous food insecurity and obesity

My grandparents left Cuba on a boat with nothing but the clothes on their backs. That was pretty much all I needed to know about communism. Leftists can stuff it up their ass. I'll never lend an ear to the preachers of that idiocy.

my friend is a self identified ancom. i dont know what else to say

I'm glad you mentioned that.

56 US military interventions in South America since WW2. The Middle East absolutely devastated by American intervention. Millions dead in wars that congress didn't even vote on. When North Korea talks about the horrors that the US brought in the Korean war, they don't even need to exaggerate. Vietnamese still getting cancer from Agent Orange (likewise with Japanese and the atom bombs). That leaves plenty of places outside the US that would have been better off if the big bad capitalist wolf had just never visited them.

Also, in case you're actually pro-capitalism and not just the ghost of Lenin trolling me, the working class wouldn't need to help pay for insulin if 1) the rich payed more than 0% in taxes and 2) the price of insulin didn't go up by more than $1000 for nothing more than to enrich a rich person.

>if anyone would be overzealous over handshakes if would be stereotypical right-wing blue collar joes.
True, but that would most likely be in regards to weak shake
A proper handshake does hold quite a bit of weight in American culture, but in all fairness, this guy does have a pipe wrench in his right hand, so maybe it's covered in oil or pipe dope and he's just trying to be polite

Yet studies have found that left-wingers are much less tolerant than right-wingers

Sounds more like China then anything else

Attached: 002170196e1c1685da610f.jpg (600x400, 65K)

Anyone else spooked by that post on Jow Forums about how the majority of Americas restaurants were founded by former military and or S&B members? o.O

>China doesn't participate in capitalist markets

Even if it's shitty plan, at least China acknowledged the problem that climate change and pollution poses and proposed a plan. The US is content to just spend more in the long term to deal with the catastrophe that inaction will cause.

>capitalism
>noun
>a political system that excessively wastes taxpayer money on unnecessary military expenses
Wow, I never knew. Guess I'm a commie now
Also, regarding healthcare, I'd rather either an entirely privitized or socialized system (two-tier sounds better, preferably ran on a state level than a federal level, althought I'm retarded so I don't know, feel free to criticize me on that last bit) over the half & half shit we have now

>implying the Soviets didn't also intervene militarily in other countries
>implying the North Korean government is honest about anything and hasn't been committing far worse atrocities on their own people for decades
>implying communists haven't created far worse environmental disasters
capitalism has been responsible for most technological and social advancements of the past 300 years or so. if communism had won the Cold War, you would be starving in a hovel or being worked to death in a gulag instead of posting here, if you're even alive. and your point about insulin shows exactly how little you know about the healthcare system or how pharmaceutical companies operate

>Other country has natural resources
>Fight other country for natural resources
>Extort the ever living fuck out of them by occupying the country
>Profit

Or, you could do the American classic

>Invade country
>Overthrow democratically elected leader
>Install US market friendly dictator

The profit motive (capitalism) is an easy explanation for many US military interventions

>nonononononono you see, it's actually a good thing that people are priced out of affording insulin, think about the poor CEOs!
>What do you mean the US has draconian prison policies beyond prison rape? I don't give a fuck that the US has more people incarcerated than China (who ranks 134th in incarcerations per capita) or that the US is #1 in incarcerations per capita.

If you live outside the US, then your children would talk about the government of the US the way you talk about Soviet Russia

Attached: DyBbg0oWwAI9unZ.jpg (576x498, 29K)

>The profit motive (capitalism) is an easy explanation for many US military interventions
Do you think acquisition of resources is strictly limited to capitalism?
Capitalism isn't inherently supportive of this excessive intervention, especially regarding taxes, which leech from its very essence
People need to eat regardless of their potical system. Communism is a more authoritative form of distribution masked by some virtue-signaling fantasy of "caring about community" when humans are still selfish on an genetic/individual (and communal) level

They want the soviet union back because the globalist utopia is even worse.
At least the soviet exterminated the degenerates and the criminals, even if they forced everyone to live in poverty.
And remember, the soviet union wasn't real communism or we talk about the purges, the famines and the political cleaning.

It seems like now we're deviating into "every philosophy is just a cover for selfishness."

The problem you're describing is authoritarianism, which is something capitalism economically opposes
Communism attempts to avoid the label of authoritarianism by calling the "state" the "community," which is ultimately the same thing in the end

>stereotypes the working class as idiots
Republicans just can't help themselves lmao. You guys speak for yourselves

>stereotypes the working class as idiots
Source?

There is literally no difference between national socialism and marxist-leninism

>Capitalism isn't inherently supportive of this excessive intervention

Yes it is. If intervention brings profit for a CEO, then intervention is a good thing under capitalism.

>Capitalism opposes authoritarians
>Unless they own a company, then they can do whatever they want

I guess anarcho-communism is the only answer if you don't have a bootlicking fetish. The only problem with that is that ancaps can't take on climate change as effectively as state communists.

My fellow Cuban. My grandparents left Cuba right before Castro. My cousin in Cuba shits in a bucket. I shitpost on a $2,000 rig.

Attached: NJHMYT~1.png (1280x620, 380K)

most of the money pharma companies get goes to research, which funds the creation of drugs that save lives. even if you confiscated the whole salary and bonuses of these CEOs and used it to reduce the price of these drugs, it would barely make a dent. also, if you think China honestly reports everyone it incarcerates (and given their policies on travel, trade, and so many other issues, that's arguably the majority of their population, and 100% of people who aren't Han Chinese atheists), you're a fucking moron.

Capitalism acknowledges selfishness.
Communism either believes it doesn't exist or can be overcome through communal (authoritative) force.

Drug discovery is conventionally done with public spending. Promising drugs, equipment, etc. have their patents bought by giga-corporations who sponsor clinical trials (much of which is also publicly funded). Subsidizing the sponsorship by pricing millions out of insulin seems like a shitty step in the process, but I guess I'm a fucking moron.

>You can't use statistics about China in an argument!

You're such a fucking virgin it's unbelievable

>Yes it is. If intervention brings profit for a CEO, then intervention is a good thing under capitalism.
Only under an authoritative government.
Again, what you're describing is authoritarianism, which communism relies upon more inherently.
>Capitalism opposes authoritarians
>Unless they own a company, then they can do whatever they want
>I guess anarcho-communism is the only answer
You don't have to go full ancap to acknowledge the fact that a capitalistic economy still needs some regulations, user. Why are 0 and 100 the only choices?

>much less tolerant
Oh please.
Both sides are intolerant as fuck to the point of any difference being insignificant in practice.
Sure the right was a fuckton more pleasant and definitely more tolerant than liberals.
Then trump happened.

>Only under an authoritative government.
To clarify, there's a clear difference between a business owner seeking a deal with a foreign country and an authoritative government bombing the shit out of them to further that company's interests for their own benefit.
If, for example, the CEO tried to bomb that country themselves, that would be different.

Capitalism does not oppose authoritarianism, so libertarianism is still authoritarianism. Needless to say the authoritarian right doesn't oppose authoritarianism. State communism does not oppose authoritarianism. So the only part of the political spectrum remaining is the bottom left. So the further down-left you go, the less authoritarianism is a problem. Maybe there needs to be some organization, but this would be the only solution if authoritarianism is the problem.

Capitalism with regulation would just be some authoritarianism tempered with some authoritarianism.

>statistics reported by one of the most totalitarian governments on the planet to it's most powerful enemy are accurate
you are either the most naive human on the planet, or you're being deliberately dishonest to promote a narrative

It could be possible but the most likely explanation is that the artist was blowing it out of his ass and doesn't really have such a good grasp of what's going on.

Well except the major points in theory and practice, anyway.

To all those fuckers who praise capitalism so much, I'd like to inform them that out of dozens of capitalists countries, less than 20 are getting the benefits of it while the remaining 90% is getting fucked by capitalism, because this is how it works, capitalism needs to subjugate the lower classes in order to preserve the oligarch class' status quo, but of course only bootlickers would find that system better than any other much effective system

Attached: 0a574436b97ebedd96a49c7d72c153be2bdf9abed63a07bd3febe3c0129ff0c2.jpg (1280x720, 125K)

Not sure where you're hearing this rhetoric. Actual marxists organize unions on the grounds of "selfishness". The main critique of capitalism, pitched to your average worker, is that your boss takes the lion's share of the value you generate as profit and pays you a pittance as wages. What is the desire to overthrow this system, and take the full value of your labor, other than a justified form of selfishness?

>Capitalism acknowledges selfishness.
And then fails to contain it according to this particular set of examples, unless proceeding regardless of the other party's consent is now a libertarian/capitalist value (I don't believe it is, I've seen a few NAP memes in my time). If we're just interested in free trade until the very second it inconveniences our drive for profit and we start manufacturing consent, then we're not really interested in free trade, right?

And of course we can say "not real capitalism" but just like with communism we have to look at how things actually play out in reality rather than just looking at the ideals. It doesn't matter that real communism doesn't have hierarchies if every communist country ends up with a hierarchy.

Which is where we get back to everything being a plausible cover for self-interest. The rhetoric says it's about competition and merit, but the actions always say it's about institutional power. It's about choosing an unconditioned group that you're part of and advancing their interests, no matter what you need to tell other people to trick them into not coming after you full force.

Attached: 1351446884287.jpg (937x971, 290K)

For all those fuckers who praise capitalism along with you
Capitalism is dead
Kek
It died a long time ago.
It's just easiest and best to let you all think this abomination is actually capitalism and not some fucked up crony corporatism thing with capitalist features.

Attached: 1enema.jpg (450x319, 24K)

except for the whole internationalist vs nationalist part. but go ahead and misuse literally.

The bottom-left is fiscally authoritative.
>The economic (left-right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: 'left' is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes)
That means it strips you of your individual right to run a business.
That is authoritative, regardless of whether you call it the state or the "community"

I mean you can argue this all you want but I've never seen anyone post statistics showing left-wingers to be more tolerant to people than right-wingers.
>Inb4 why don't you post some statistics first
I'm not trying to preach my point. If you don't believe me I'm content with that, as I don't know what folder I have the images stored in

I'm curious as to what you think "pure" capitalism was or would look like.

Yes, and I'm sure the ones posting said stats (which are very likely from 10 years ago or more) are on the right.
Both sides are guilty as fuck at virtue signaling.
But face it. The modern right, especially online and anonymous, is hardly any better than the left.
It's like taking both your hands, left akd right, and stuck them right into fresh wet feces and then started clapping like a retard. Before you know it everyone in and the room itself are all splattered in shit.

Basically capitalism exists before consolidation.
A primary feature of capitalism is free competition.
We don't have free competition. We haven't for a while.

Obviously capitalist features will always stay because capitalism is beneficial to the big sharks

I'm not going to barrage you with requests for term definitions, since that shit's boring. But I don't think this squares with capitalism as the term has been historically understood and used. By most estimates capitalism began in the 16th century in northern Italy and was refined in the Netherlands in the 17th and its primary feature is two-fold, ownership of production lying in the hands of private owners and a large class of laborers who sell their labor for wages. This is distinct from classical slave economies, medieval cottage industries, serfdom, and even the urban production of the past.
By its very nature capitalism isn't really fair or free, since privately held capital necessarily becomes entrenched and more powerful as time goes on, which will of course reduce competition, not encourage it. I think the main confusion is the idea that capitalism is simply the market, when in fact it has mostly to do with production. The market comes later in the process, and is indeed much older.
It's worth noting that capitalism was never theorized as a model and then later instituted based on that theorizing, it started being described by people like Ricardo and Adam Smith who are falsely attributed as the "founders" of capitalism, when in fact they were just the first to recognize what made it distinct and describe it in detail.

Well, tolerant and pleasant in regards to what? Surely it's not virtuous to be tolerant of a serial killer, and as one quote goes, tolerance is the last virtue of a dying civilization.

There's nothing inherently good about tolerance, absolute tolerance is just permissiveness, a lack of effort. Tolerance only seems to have a value where it intersects with allowing those without power to have influence in hopes of better long-term benefits for everyone, at the cost of the short-term gains of individual actors who do have power. We can "tolerate" alternate viewpoints where those viewpoints lead to truth and improvement, but where we tolerate beliefs and actions that lead to degeneration, we seem to undermine ourselves.

Yeah, what a terrible system capitalism is. Let's just magically lift everyone out of poverty and make scarce resources infinite user because that's totally how the world works!

Attached: World-Poverty-Since-1820-768x548.png (768x548, 162K)

>Yet studies have found that left-wingers are much less tolerant than right-wingers
Wut source user?

Have I misunderstood or does that not elaborate on my former point? Capitalism capitalizes on selfishness while communism attempts to artificially control it.

Reminder that r9k is a right-wing board and all lefties need to vacate immediately.

>The US is content to just spend more in the long term to deal with the catastrophe that inaction will cause.

Whoa, hold on now. Spending money to help with this so called "environment issue" could possibly hurt the economy. Cant be having that now!

This is bait but I'm bored so I'll dissect it for the brainlets and you in case you're actually serious.

>Capitalism is starving millions.
False. Capitalism combined with socialistic infrastructure is what keeps the majority of the world from starving. The few that do starve do so because of negligence, not lack of resources or a flawed system. We have enough food and resources to feed the entire world several times over. If I recall correctly the average american wastes about a pound of food/day. Source: theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/18/americans-waste-food-fruit-vegetables-study
>decaying into fascism
I believe it's the absolute opposite. Capitalism promotes freedom and entrepreneurship while the biggest proponents of communist ideas today (China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea) are starting to look like dystopic big brother societies. In North Korea's case I'd argue it already is.
>imprisoning millions
You're going to have to expand on this. Are you suggesting that jobs are "slavery" or just perpetuating the stupid notion that people are put in jail as a way to circumvent slavery? Because both are objectively not true.
>creating incentive for endless imperialist wars
The incentive is hunger for power and never being satisfied with what you have. This is something that is inherent in human nature and not something born of the economic system. Try again.
>Spilling plastic and oil into the oceans, endangering thousands of species, choking the atmosphere with CO2
Again, human nature and natural progression of industrialism. You think this would stop if we used any other system such as communism? The goal is always to progress our living standards and that doesn't change even if you take away the profit factor. A country with no other means of supplying power other than coal/oil will use just that.

Not that user but things like these get posted all the time.

Attached: 1549860774955.jpg (1000x698, 264K)

Thanks user, and holy shit liberals really hate diversity of thought

>and leaving millions and millions in the most technologically developed & prosperous countries in the world without healthcare and shelter.
This is just objectively wrong. Murica is probably the only first world country you could name where healthcare and shelter is even an issue. Almost all first world countries have free healthcare and many if not most of them also provide free education. Basic social safety nets go hand in hand with capitalism when it reaches a certain prosperity and almost everyone realizes it. Murica is just utilizing an antiquated capitalistic system because their population has been brainwashed into believing in the ol' american dream and the few who have woken up and realized that it's bullshit can't change shit because of the retarded two-party voting mentality.

They love diversity of skin but diversity of thought is apparently a sin.

The people with the most shitty ideas that will get shut down if opposed will be the people who are most uncomfortable with opposite ideas I guess

people like to call NEETs leeches but billionaires are the biggest parasites

Attached: sociopath.jpg (640x360, 33K)

Go back to Jow Forums we don't want your kind here

You forgot to post the one that tells it how it actually is...

Attached: MAGAvs.workingclass.jpg (720x240, 51K)

>Makes a platform that provides cheap goods
>Leech??

cnbc.com/2019/02/15/amazon-will-pay-0-in-federal-taxes-this-year.html
+ The rampant abuse of workers
stallman.org/amazon.html#exploiting

Oh yea RMS, I fucking love his posts

My granddad (a Pole) used to say that Hitler treated them better than the commies.