Bulgaria was better under communism

Attached: Y0UOoAn (1).jpg (582x960, 126K)

Hahahahaha >1200 zaginali v katastrofi, vupreki che e imalo mnogo po-malko avtomobili

Attached: 2CB7DCF2-55D9-4DE5-B53C-27D1278F2984.jpg (609x1080, 167K)

It wasn't communsim that caused the holocaust. It wasn't communism that fought for the cause of chattel slavery. It wasn't communism that sterilized people by the thousands for purposes of genocide.

Attached: Whipped slave edit.jpg (1206x1613, 369K)

Yes, so?
My point is
- communism is shit
- good influence is good
So what we have in Bulgaria is - huge amount of good influence from Russia minus downsides of communism is still > 0.

Nazis are also evil sbuhumans, but Communism has claimed a shitload more lives, is quite literally slavery, and has absolutely no problems with racial genocide or any other mass murder.

>that 25 yo boomer that hates communism

Attached: Bv9jR8vCEAAnrN2.jpg (455x426, 38K)

>Slavery, mass murder, total rejection of individuality, an economic philosophy that falls apart even at the theoretical level, and the most egregious human rights violations in history that make Nazis look appealing in comparison are all good things!

>the common ownership of the means of production is quite literally slavery

Attached: victims of communism hitler mussolini alexander.png (522x347, 206K)

Yes, because that's a lot of flowery language that means, "The government controls literally fucking everything at your expense."

>Slavery
Well, not really. I'm pretty sure the ownership of people has been illegal in any country that called itself communist. You could make the argument that forced labour as punishment was a thing, and that that counts as some form of slavery. But of course that isn't unique to those countries, forced labour existing in the penal code of many countries during the 20th century and to this day.

No chance of improving life for yourself or people you care about, and a complete lack of rights, is slavery. Let alone how atrocious it is that communism by necessity is forced to oppress to achieve its goal.

Bulgaria was better before gyppo scum cocksuckers like serbs and greeks fucked it up in Balkan Wars

Attached: LZ7ERF7_d.jpg (640x552, 27K)

>IF YOU HATE COMMUNISM YOU MUST BE A NAZI! XDDDDDD
Both are equally disgusting subhumans that seek to oppress and murder.

you forgot that we had N-U-K-E-S

>a complete lack of rights
Mm. All those rights that americans have and the poor people in communist nations could only dream of. Like the right to die because you can't afford healthcare. Or the right live on the street because you cannot get a job and the homeless shelters won't take you in.

Attached: american scooter.png (750x523, 347K)

No you don't.
And what about T I G E R S?

Attached: deb97bbb19d6825ba9d0228d55f556ad--russian-models-sexy-poses.jpg (700x465, 58K)

>Right to die
This is not now nor has ever been a thing in the US. It's against several laws. Try again.
>Right to live on the street
Because they choose to, in spite of every opportunity and effort thrown in their direction to give them a new start. Aside from that, homelessness and poverty are at their worst in the US in left-dominated areas. Go figure.

Communism strips you of every freedom, including the freedom to starve, and kills or imprisons you if you complain.

Communism is objectively more evil than Naziism, but not by much. If you unironically believe in communism not only are you economically clueless, but you're also suicidal and welcome being enslaved by a government that has stripped you of everything.

Attached: img_3383.png (1524x258, 33K)

Attached: libertard.jpg (620x494, 60K)

We still have around 5

>This is not now nor has ever been a thing in the US
The right to healthcare isn't a thing, as it is in Cuba.
>>Right to live on the street
The right to housing and employment is not a thing, as it was in the USSR.

If you guys didn't know, the OP is a Swedish leftist who moved to Finland to study. I remember him talking about it on some thread.

It probably was in Poland, as their soil is inferior and they were the poorest communist block country anyway. We have God tier soil and can produce everything we need by ourselves

>and they were the poorest communist block country anyway
Romania?

>OP
Check again burger. Also not all finnish flags are the same, racist.

He oтгoвapяйтe нa тpeдa нa oбцecнaтия мaймoнoдoнeц.

Attached: .jpg (700x467, 149K)

Wow, what a great argument. You sure showed me with those awesome facts.

Every nation that's ever tried communism is a third world shithole as a result, suffered massive casualties in the process, and lived under some of the most oppressive conditions imaginable, all while producing the worst services and goods in comparison to non-communist nations.

It is, objectively, from any consideration, fucking awful. Economically, individually, collectively, ethically, historically, or currently.

You're a champagne socialist that wants to enslave everyone.

>Right to skills, experience, and education isn't free
No shit, but that still doesn't mean anyone in the US was denied lifesaving treatment. Again, it's illegal everywhere in the US, and care comes before payment in any event, every time. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just repeating propaganda absent of facts.

>Right to shit you didn't earn
Again, no shit. But also again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Private charities are proven time and time again to do much better for those in need than public ones. There are homeless shelters, churches, and employers everywhere that don't hesitate to take people in. As it turns out, many homeless are such because they consistently make shitty decisions or are mentally ill, which there's no shortage of support programs for.

But you think consequences for actions are unfair, so it'd be better if everyone got everything for "free" at the cost of all rights, academia, industry, economic and personal freedom, and any ounce of political power - even though they are invariably infinitely shittier.

Ah yes after them

I'm not sure why you're even wasting time giving the OP a serious reply since we well know him and his shitposts.

I'm new here, I don't know anyone.

>OP
Do americans just not know what it means?

You clearly don't know that communism means supporting the same shit the Nazis did, but somehow it's okay because it's not racially targeted.

Yes you and you found a Macedonia proxy so you could bump your own thread. Good freaking job.

I won't say whether it was good or not, but Bulgaria was certainly a bit unique among the Communist countries. We were also called the Eastern Bloc's 'Silicon Valley' by some, too.

Attached: file.png (935x329, 26K)

>supporting the same shit the Nazis did
Meaning?

Also, very interesting that you know all this. Where oh where did you find such in depth and scientific data on the nature of communism? Marx? Wolff? Kautsky? Hayek? You must have read quite a number of accredited authors to come to such definite conclusions, I'd love to hear them.

Attached: if_the_nazi_s_were_socialists____by_redamerican1945-dawt809 the nazis were not socialist.png (1024x607, 332K)

FWIW Henry Ford also built factories in the Soviet Union, Stalin also killed off left wing opposition like Trotsky and Bukharin, and unions and the right to protest were very much not allowed.

That's certainly true (although I had no idea about the Ford thing). That's why most socialists are pretty opposed to Stalin, and China for that part, their disregard for western socialist causes like labour unions and workers rights. Though some will disagree, like the icelanders on int.

Meaning total oppression, mass murder, stripping the people of the means to fight or live on their own terms, witch hunt secret police, religion-levels of dogma, and yes, most of the shit in your shitty image. Any attempt at 'collective bargaining' is met with a firing squad or the imprisonment of you and possibly your family.

And to answer the other half of your shitty image, because of the failed communist revolution that absolutely crippled Germany.

>Where did you learn
Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao. All you need to learn to realize Communism is on the same level as Naziism for dystopia, state-sponsored killing, enslavement, and human rights violations more sadistic than any fiction is to read up on history.

Even some American socialists aren't a huge fan of unions because of they singlehandedly buttfucked the US economy and operate as a mafia, complete with baseball-bat enforced extortion.

>That's why most socialists are pretty opposed to Stalin, and China

Bull. Shit. I distinctly remember leftist idiots like Paul Krugman saying how they wished we had China's system of government because Obama could rubber stamp everything without Republicans getting in his way.

>Mighty, feared, mandatory conscription, respected, able to deport 1.3M Turks without batting an eye
I don't think anyone feared Bulgaria, certainly not the USSR after they rolled in with their tanks and changed the regime

the rest of the list is in similar vein, or worse it seems

The Balkan state was, by the 1980s, the Eastern Bloc’s ‘Silicon Valley’, home to cutting-edge factories producing processors, hard discs, floppy drives and industrial robots. It was called ‘the Japan of the Balkans’, producing nearly half of all computing devices and peripherals in the Eastern Bloc. Kesarovski himself was a trained mathematician, who spent time working in the electronic industry. He was one of more than 200,000 people who produced electronics in a country of just over 8 million people, the second biggest group of industrial workers. The party trumpeted its achievements worldwide, proud of transforming a small agricultural and backward state to a vanguard of the information society in the space of a generation.

Back in 1944, as the Red Army rolled over the Danube, and the Bulgarian communists took power in Sofia, the country was mainly an agricultural producer, its tobacco calming German troops throughout occupied Europe. As the cigarettes switched to the pockets of Soviet troops and citizens, so did society switch from the land to the city, with millions streaming into newly built workers’ dormitories and factories. By the 1960s, Bulgaria had been thoroughly transformed by breakneck industrialisation. The shortcomings such as poor housing or insufficient city infrastructure were not glaring enough to take the gloss off the massive achievement that was socialist modernisation. A sense of optimism pervaded many in a society that was now producing machines, cars, ships. As the Party sought extra cash, it focused on electronics as the specialised good of the future, and a niche that was yet to be filled by any one communist country. Computers and electronics were being produced throughout the Eastern Bloc, but not a single country was truly mass-producing them, and the region lagged behind its capitalist competitors.

Don't forget the decade in which dems looked to Venezuela and Cuba as examples to follow.

The Bulgarians surged ahead of their socialist allies through close contacts with Japanese firms and a massive industrial espionage effort. While Bulgarian engineers signed contracts with Fujitsu, state security agents criss-crossed the United States and Europe in search of the latest embargoed electronics to buy, copy or steal. In 1977, a whole IBM factory for magnetic discs based in Portugal was bought by a cover firm and shipped off to Bulgaria; elsewhere, secrets were passed on to Bulgarians by their foreign colleagues through the simple exchange of catalogues and information at conferences and fairs. Scientists back in Bulgaria reverse-engineered, improved, tinkered; soon towns that once processed tobacco were supplying hundreds of millions of customers with computers.

Some of these customers were in Bulgaria itself. Imperfect and piecemeal, automation nevertheless entered the shop floors of factories, warehouses, offices. As the country started producing robots and personal computers in the 1980s, more and more menial work was being done by steel muscles, and more and more offices and services became computerised. The party itself proclaimed confidently that it was through ‘cybernetisation’ that communism would be built. Computers in Bulgarian factories would provide accurate information about the economy, feeding information back to Sofia and allowing for accurate and perfect planning. The way to solve problems such as shortages or bad accounting and pilfering was to automate data-collection, decision-making, the whole administration of the economy. All this would be done through a vast computer network, which would cover Bulgaria and link even the smallest collective farm to the central computers in the capital. Similar plans had been dreamt up in other socialist countries, most notably the Soviet Union with its massive OGAS plan. Through perfect feedback, the plan went, Bulgarian socialism would function as a complete organism.

More so, the Party argued, as computers and robots took over from the fallible worker, quality would improve. The socialist economy was beset by problems of product quality, and the leadership placed the blame squarely on the workers themselves. ‘Robotisation will introduce changes in the role of the subjective factor in production quality. It will no longer be determined by the psycho-physical and physiological abilities of man, but by the stored programs and capabilities of the machines,’ thundered the Politburo, sure that Socialist Man was not cut out to be the perfect worker that a robot was.

Bulgarian engineers and cyberneticians, champions of this new technology, increasingly worried about what this meant. In the ivory towers of places such as the Institute of Technical Cybernetics and Robotics in Sofia, they wrote detailed papers on robotic movement, image recognition, planning algorithms. They ran experiments and built labs to test how to perfect Man-Machine Interfaces – from the design of the perfect office that would minimise an office worker’s eye-strain to the future melding of human and machine vision. Increasingly, they saw humans as cyborgs – the socialist economy was melding them with machines they had to operate or even take orders from.

>stripping the people of the means to fight or live on their own terms
I assume that's some of saying gun control?

And the numerous communist countries where literally none of the things you describe happen? And the none communist states where it also happened? I mean what about the communist ideology makes you think such things are automatically intrinsic to it?

Attached: nazis are not socialist compilation.jpg (3256x2808, 2.54M)

Tasked with creating such cyborgs and the theory behind them, many of these technical intellectuals started worrying about the effect on humans in general. Their debates moved out of the labs and onto the pages of the premier philosophy journal in the country, as well as popular-science magazines with names such as Cosmos and Orbit, aimed at teenagers and adults alike. The Bulgarian reader was increasingly treated to debates about what humanity would be in this new age. Some, such as the philosopher Mityu Yankov, argued that what set Man apart from the animals was his ability to change and shape nature. For thousands of years, he had done this through physical means and his own brawn. But the Industrial Revolution had started a change of Man’s own nature, which was culminating with the Information Revolution – humanity now was becoming not a worker but a ‘governor’, a master of nature, and the means of production were not machines or muscles, but the human brain.

Man would thus create rather than truly produce. Bulgarian engineers became caught up in the great cultural politics that swept the country in the late 1970s and early ’80s, under the auspices of Lyudmila Zhivkova, the culture minister and daughter of the country’s leader. Interested in theosophy, Eastern mysticism and Indian philosophy, she trumpeted the need for a New Man who would be multifaceted and truly creative, driven by the ideals of aesthetics and beauty.

As computers came to the workplace, psychologists pointed to the rise in anxieties among the workforce. These machines were not spurring creativity, but often stifling it. Directors used them to surveil their workers, who in turn feared that they would soon be obsolete. Physiological problems of strain were highlighted, as were psychological issues stretching from anxiety to addiction. Man was becoming dependent on the very machines that he feared and was oppressed by, while those who loved these new tools fell into dream worlds and lost a sense of reality, warned reports in the late 1980s. Bulgarian children had started taking compulsory computer classes as part of their schooling in 1984, and more and more politicians and engineers wondered about the effect. While this ‘second literacy’ was key to the new world, weren’t more and more children falling into this new addiction?

The children were also reading the outpouring of science-fiction stories that were concerned with the same questions. Dilov, one of the towering figures in Bulgarian science fiction, shot to prominence with his novel The Road of Icarus (1974). Humanity has taken to the stars on a spaceship made from a hollowed-out asteroid, serving as a home for this generation with only one aim – to explore the Universe. The main protagonist – Zenon Belov – is the first child born on the Icarus, a true citizen of the asteroid.

A turning point in the novel is the trial of a scientist who created a cyborg child, programming it to play and learn, convinced that it is humans’ propensity for games that allows us to innovate and grow into individuals. But such experiments are forbidden, with robots permitted only as helpers to humans, not mimickers. Even worse, the little cyborg’s brainwave functions are identical to those of the scientist who created him – an attempt at cloning in its way. The child is killed, its creator frozen. A critical point is thus reached where Icarian society has to discuss whether it can allow changes to its stringent rules. The Icarus’s firstborn human, Zenon, sees it as a fool’s errand, a debate he is doomed to lose.

The book is a warning against a rule by experts, who might be great at keeping society running, but often don’t allow it to make the leaps forward it needs. While the Icarus flies, its people do not progress meaningfully until a few outliers – including someone who is born on the asteroid and thus cannot be satisfied by a novelty that for him is his whole life – shake things up.

>Paul Krugman = most socialists

>Bulgarians are among the smartest in the world

Attached: 109837894310.png (326x160, 27K)

Can you choose what you'd to work on in a communist country? Or does the state decide what you work on?

Gun control, thought crimes, legally mandated absolute loyalty to the state, et al. "Agree with us and your lot in life or die." That's what you're championing.

Every communist state has enslaved, oppressed, and failed, because it's a system flawed to the core. It doesn't work, and does as much damage as one could do to a nation and its people in the process.

I still don't know why you think images saying the Nazis were bad is offensive to me, or why you think the opposite of communism is naziism when they share more than you care to admit.

What makes these shitty things intrinsic to communism is that communism, by necessity, requires brutal control over a population, a complete rejection of the individual in favor of the collective - which is utterly reprehensible - and has universally required violent revolution to enact.

The fact that its economics are based on Keynesian economics which falls apart even on the theoretical level, and spectacularly in practice, is just the cherry on top. Governments tend to be extraordinarily shit at everything they do compared to private options in terms of anything related to money, and when they also hold a monopoly on industry, violence, and force, you get the perfect storm of hell.

Why would the state decide? I don't think any place would want that, seems pretty inefficient.
youtube.com/watch?v=q4tIhHHvzNA

Attached: during-the-soviet-era-this-girl-would-be-forced-to-2561598.png (500x424, 49K)

While such things aren't intrinsic to communism as outlined and theorized by communist 'scholars,' they sure as shit are in practice. I know Marx believed an armed citizenry was necessary so that the state didn't hold a monopoly on violence of action, yet every communist nation makes disarmament a priority.

Even the premise of this video is wrong on its own thesis, and quickly snowballs to a lulzcow.

Blue collar workers in the US make more than most white collar workers, and education and certification for skilled labor is incredibly cheap. Two people working minimum wage can support basic living conditions and pay for such education.

Again, your only arguments come down to propaganda, a total rejection of reality, and refusal to accept that personal responsibility exists.

>total rejection of individuality
Can you expand on that? What do you mean when you say that it "rejects individuality"? Seems subjective and kinda meaningless.

Attached: the-soul-of-a-man-under-socialism.jpg (1200x628, 128K)

Based Bulgarians

>russian defending communism
its like watching an abused girlfriend defend the boyfriend that beats her every night

When millions starved to death during the Great Leap Forward, various socialists in the West including future French president Francois Mitterrand glowed over China's "economic miracle".

What would you work in a communist country?
I'd want to be an officer of the army. Seems like the best job.

Do you have any reason why it is intrinsic in practice? Your claim is that it has to happen because it historically has. Even if we accept that that is what happened, why do you imagine it will always happen? That marxism necessitates disarming the workers even though, as you say, that goes against Marx' own words?

Attached: huey-newton-774048 weapons guns america black panther arms.jpg (640x916, 140K)

You are assigned a job if you are unable to find a job yourself

Mathematician

People starved in India under brittish rule, for no good reason. They starved many times in China before the modern state was founded. The economic progress in China that happened in spite of, not because of the famines, remained. And as a result they have no famines for 50 years since.

*eyes you suspiciously*

Attached: franco.jpg (892x1024, 436K)

telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/3556836/The-Forsaken-Americans-in-Stalins-gulags.html

geohistory.today/finnish-americans-ussr-disillusionment/

Hundreds of dumb American leftists (notably including many Finnish-Americans) moved to the USSR in the 1930s thinking they'd find the worker's paradise and escape from Depression-addled America. The poor fools learned the brutal truth.

Socialism and communism both, as well as naziism and unmitigated fascism, both make the individual meaningless. As you've already asserted, no matter how badly someone fucks up, how consistently, or how abhorrently, you believe they should be given a living at the expense of someone else. No matter how well someone does, how skilled they are, how talented or brilliant, they should be oppressed to meet the needs of the fuckup.

All of these systems place the needs, desires, and rights of an individual as entirely irrelevant, instead prioritizing the whole - the collective. To you, it doesn't matter if the housing is so bad it literally kills people, as long as everyone has it. It doesn't matter how awful the healthcare is, or how many people it kills, as long as everyone has it without needing to use personal resources.

All of them use "equality of outcome" as a goal, in which everyone is given the same rewards for entirely different achievements, or lack thereof, and totally removes the individual's ability to improve their lot in life regardless of how much they contribute. This is collectivism, and it's cancer.

Because communism is a deeply flawed system, and any deeply authoritarian system can only maintain its power at the cost of its people.

Even in theory, even when you only consider the economic principals, it falls flat on its face. Capitalism has always produced far better results, societies, and opportunity than communism, because it allows individuals to create wealth for themselves, and more importantly, for others. Keynesian economic theory doesn't even function sustainably in theoretical models.

And China has long since moved to a much more capitalist economic model, because that's what works, and are still one of the world leaders in rights violations.

There were famines before, but usually the result of natural disasters or bad weather. The idea of manmade famine as an instrument of state terror is a 20th century invention.

Bump

:^)

>And China has long since moved to a much more capitalist economic model
China is far from capitalist and the economy is still largely planned and state-managed, although insanity like the Great Leap Forward isn't done anymore because nobody is that dumb.

Communist states also depend on capitalist countries to survive, especially in terms of having technology they can steal, for they can't really invent anything on their own.

Attached: Snap.png (500x359, 329K)

Sure, but they're also a far cry from full communism now, at least.

>I still haven't actually made a single post, I just want an excuse to use this image macro

>implying thay stalin is representative of the entire history of the Soviet Union
This is your brain on Jow Forums

Perhaps not, but he laid down the basic tone and style of the Soviet state that lasted to the end in 1991.

Pick any, they were all evil headcases that threw anyone they didn't like in prison or just murdered them. Communism wasn't any better anywhere else it's been attempted, either. Every single time, without fail, there's massive rights violations, murder, and oppression.

Pretty sure I didn't say any of that stuff. I do believe that people should contribute to society and the good of everyone in it. Hence why I'm not an ancap complaining about fucking taxes being a thing. Living in a society, as humans do by instinct because we are social creatures and not solitary by nature, it is good to take care of eachother. Hence, welfare states exist. And it's not about "equality of outcome", it's about standard of living, about making people on the whole live better more comfortable lives.

Don't really know where you got the keynesianism shit from. This is the second time you've brought it up, completely unwarranted. Marxian economics are derived from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, not Keynes. I hope you're not just some anti-statist trying to blanket argue against everyone to the left of Rand for wanting to have less than laissez faire neo-feudalism.

Attached: individualism oscar wilde socialism capitalism private property.jpg (1478x1037, 326K)

Planned economies never work because they work based on arbitrary production quotas and not supply and demand. It isn't democratic like market economics because the people do not get to decide with their pocketbooks what products they want and need; some government bureaucrat arbitrarily decides how many shoes or refrigerators you need.

He did. He laid down the whole of the shitty foundation for the Soviet Union after Lenin.

Kerala, India. That's one.

Wait, isn't their economy mostly based off of cash crops like cashews and pepper?

You said exactly that, because it's true of every example of communism available.
Forced charity isn't charity, and again, private charities perform the same task and role but infinitely better and more efficiently. Yes, people should take care of each other, but at no point is it acceptable for the government to decide who gets what and how much. Welfare states are a thing to be avoided because of economic frailty, unsustainable practices, bureaucratic waste, and what said. The lack of tax-funded programs in the US does not denote a lack of organizations and programs in the US, as there's massive financial incentive to donate.

Invariably, capitalism produces better products, more accessibly, and better standards of living, than communism. That's not how it's supposed to work, in Marxist theory, but that's how it always happens. At some point you have to acknowledge that if nobody can do it right, it can't be done right.

I'm not an ancap because I'm not retarded. Equally, I'm not a communist because I'm not retarded.

You mean the state that had to begin adopting capitalist policies because they work better?

Also tourism, and they stopped being communist in the 90s with better results than communism.

Attached: 1526828115422.gif (1080x793, 1018K)

Since you believe in communism, I'm stealing this gif from you and there's nothing you can do about it.