[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bmw / choroy / dempart / doomer / firechan / skyqueen / thicc / xivlg ]

/leftyb/ - Leftist Off-Topic

This kills the fascist.
Winner of the 78th Attention-Hungry Games
/bimbo/ - Plastic and Fantastic!

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Let us build cameraderie!

File: ab5609f0dd846c2⋯.jpg (148.91 KB, 691x720, 691:720, 1524448564937.jpg)

 No.3233

Hate to break it to you guys, but all value is subjective, surplus value doesn't exist and wealth is not a zero sum game.

 No.3234

>>3233

>all value is subjective

No, even if we were talking about cultural values, they are NOT fucking subjective. This whole "it's subjective" bullshit is capitalist horse shit meant to degrade culture into a meaningless slurry.

>wealth is not a zero sum game

The fuck is that supposed to mean? If you mean that "wealth doesn't support itself" or some other horse shit, you're wrong; It's been shown that those born into wealth tend to stay in it, because wealth provides a number of social advantages that prop up further acquisition or maintenance of wealth even if one does not focus on profit. only excessive, irrational spending will destroy that, and that's less a risk of wealth and more a risk of life as a whole.

> surplus value doesn't exist

Yes, yes it does. If you truly read Marx (and Cockshott and Lenin and Stalin, because Marx's Das Kapital is not a biblical prophecy and so communist theory must adjust to human progress), then you'd know that Surplus value exists. Mostly because that value is a result of the means of production. There is no real subjective value to that. A painting by Rembrandt is worth so much, not only because of the intricacy and effort of the piece but because of how rembrandt made it. He spent decades learning his craft to be able to create paintings in a few months or years. This reflects on its value. Having value be subjective is an unnecessary destabilizer that, like the market, it bound to crash, and has to be artificially jacked back up, before it crashes.

In other words, capitalism is like a wind-up doll. You wind it up and it goes running until it runs down again. Except you keep winding it up. But the problem is, every time the doll stops, it falls and smashes its pretty porcelain head and you have to repair it before winding it up again. That is capitalism. Eventually this crashing will lead to a point where it cannot be repaired. The only option is to transition to socialism, or install a permanent self-recharging motor.

Lastly if you're going to shitpost like this, have the balls to do it on /leftypol/ where there will be more than 1 or 2 responses.


 No.3235

>>3234

>No, even if we were talking about cultural values, they are NOT fucking subjective.

Wut? Since when does everyone on Earth belong to the same culture?

>The fuck is that supposed to mean?

It means one person having more doesn't mean another having less. There's not a finite amount of wealth in existence.

>Yes, yes it does.

>Mostly because that value is a result of the means of production.

No it ain't. I have in fact read a fair amount of Marx's writing (and a great deal of /leftypol/ discourse on the same) and it failed to convince me, partly because Marx argued that only the value of "socially necessary" goods is determined by labor time, and social necessity is as subjective as you can get.

>But the problem is, every time the doll stops, it falls and smashes its pretty porcelain head and you have to repair it before winding it up again.

I love how according to you guys a brief increase in unemployment and decrease in productivity is a "failure" but a famine that kills millions of people and contributes to the country's economic and political system actually ceasing to exist isn't.

>Lastly if you're going to shitpost like this, have the balls to do it on /leftypol/ where there will be more than 1 or 2 responses.

I fail to see the difference between your wall of text and a typical /leftypol/ response to meaningful criticism of Marxism.


 No.3236

>>3234

>A painting by Rembrandt is worth so much, not only because of the intricacy and effort of the piece but because of how rembrandt made it. He spent decades learning his craft to be able to create paintings in a few months or years. This reflects on its value.

Oh, forgot to mention how that's a perfect example of how value is subjective. I could've spent my whole life so far learning the fine craft of painting, but my painting still wouldn't sell for as much as a Rembrandt because I'm not as famous as he is. It's kinda funny if you really delve into the modern art dealer's trade, it's basically insider trading only it's legal.


 No.3237

File: b7d59e131eee5fb⋯.gif (300.22 KB, 420x315, 4:3, are you sober.gif)

>>3236

>I could've spent my whole life so far learning the fine craft of painting, but my painting still wouldn't sell for as much as a Rembrandt because I'm not as famous as he is.

that wasn't what I meant at all. judging its vlue in terms of money is arbitrary in the long run. monetary value is only given because of markets. Objective value is measured in other ways, depending on what.

>when does everyone on Earth belong to the same culture

Exactly you dipshit. Almost all cultures have their share of objectively bad ideas and aspects, regardless of race, ethnicity or anything else.

>one person having more doesn't mean another having less

except that is exactly what it means. there is a finite amount of resources which makes wealth finite. If wealth wasn't based on finite resources we get inflation to the point wher eall the wealth in the world is meaningless. this is basic fucking dialectical materialism. Read Hegel

>a brief increase in unemployment and decrease in productivity

You mean like the repeated decade long recessions and crashes that result in massive backlash for the working class and only the working class?

>a famine that kills millions of people

Another "muh holodomor" shitpost This has been debunked a thousand times. Capitalism collapses out of its own problems. Communism/socialism collapses when it gets overwhelmed by dozens of outside factors.

>the country's economic and political system actually ceasing to exist

Uhh what? famines was the reason The Russians revolted against the Tsar you retard, in his CAPITALIST Russian Empire. The USSR didn't fall because of famine you retard, even in 1989 people still had enough food not to starve, and that was the worst years. During the 90s and 2000s people were cannabalizing each other there, because of capitalism destroying their food production.

>vwall of text

<wah I don't like to read

>meaningful criticism of Marxism

Where

In short you've clearly read none of Marx, just some college textbook level excerpts.


 No.3239

>>3237

>Objective value is measured in other ways, depending on what.

That's a paradox. Anything that depends on something is subjective. If you're so sure it's possible, tell me how you'd measure the objective value of a painting.

>Exactly you dipshit. Almost all cultures have their share of objectively bad ideas and aspects, regardless of race, ethnicity or anything else.

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to convey here. Knowing your type, you'll probably say something to the effect of "haha that's because I'm le smarter than you" and consider the point settled.

>there is a finite amount of resources which makes wealth finite.

Maybe so if the universe is finite, but it's still larger than any human can possibly utilize or even comprehend. For our purposes it's effectively infinite.

>If wealth wasn't based on finite resources we get inflation to the point wher eall the wealth in the world is meaningless.

If value is determined subjectively by people's opinions, then in order for that to happen, everyone would have to stop believing in the value of everything. How could that possibly happen?

>this is basic fucking dialectical materialism. Read Hegel

I haven't read much Hegel so call it a hunch, but something tells me that's not what dialectical materialism is.

>You mean like the repeated decade long recessions and crashes that result in massive backlash for the working class and only the working class?

Don't know where you're from, but here in the US we're still doing just peachy compared to all the countries that have ever been ruled by self-identified Marxist governments. Could be better if it weren't for the Fed and their shitty fiat currency, but it's still fine.

>Another "muh holodomor" shitpost This has been debunked a thousand times.

Holodomor denial is the left-wing equivalent of holocaust denial. I'm genuinely excited to hear what case you're gonna bring up. Are you gonna argue that it never happened, they deserved it or both?

>Capitalism collapses out of its own problems.

Assuming you're not a radical libertarian and your definition of "capitalism" doesn't include primitive tribes and kingdoms with no particular economic policy, when has a capitalist government ever collapsed?

>famines was the reason The Russians revolted against the Tsar you retard, in his CAPITALIST Russian Empire

Oh I see, you're a little underinformed about the economic policy of Tsarist Russia. That's understandable, not everyone took Russian history in college. Marx thought Russia was the least likely place for a proletarian revolution to happen, because even after they formally abolished serfdom it was still a largely feudal society with very little movement of capital, and virtually all of what capital did exist was controlled by the government.

<But that's state capitalism!

Then no Marxist government has ever existed and this entire point is moot.

>The USSR didn't fall because of famine you retard, even in 1989 people still had enough food not to starve, and that was the worst years.

It wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back, but it didn't help. They solved the problem by importing food from overseas, including the US, and their reliance on food imports only grew over time. When Glasnost revealed that information to the public, it was one of the factors that damaged people's confidence in the system.

>During the 90s and 2000s people were cannabalizing each other there

Sounds like a typical day in Russia лол

>because of capitalism destroying their food production.

Probably more like the government halting food imports and trying to become self-sufficient for a change, if it ever really happened.

>meaningful criticism of Marxism

<Where

Well, you're still here.

>In short you've clearly read none of Marx, just some college textbook level excerpts.

How much have you read? In order to actually read everything Marx actually wrote, you'd have to be reading every waking hour reading for years. That's how much time he spent writing.


 No.3240

File: cfa609fd479a363⋯.pdf (221.02 KB, Marx - Wage Labor and Capi….pdf)

I don't think it's worth banning/deleting anything posted here by a non-lefty. Especially someone who's discussing stuff. Kind of sucks that the posts are all over the place though. Protip for OP: throwing out new points before resolving the current question is bad arguing not good.

>>3233

FYI there are more people on /leftypol/ and /leftpol/ to talk to about this. This is more of a low-key shitpost board.

>>3235

>I have in fact read a fair amount of Marx's writing (and a great deal of /leftypol/ discourse on the same) and it failed to convince me, partly because Marx argued that only the value of "socially necessary" goods is determined by labor time, and social necessity is as subjective as you can get.

It sounds like if you read Marx you didn't really understand him. "Socially necessary" isn't a reference to the products being produced. He spoke about "socially necessary labor time," which is the amount of labor time (man-hours) for society to produce a given product. That's extremely concrete if difficult to measure. It's not a big deal if you haven't read it or don't get it. Most people are in that camp.


 No.3241

>>3240

>FYI there are more people on /leftypol/ and /leftpol/ to talk to about this. This is more of a low-key shitpost board.

I knew that, that's why I didn't think it would cause so much anal pain.

>"Socially necessary" isn't a reference to the products being produced. He spoke about "socially necessary labor time," which is the amount of labor time (man-hours) for society to produce a given product.

That's not what I'm talking about, I'm referring to his response to the mudpie argument.


 No.3242

>>3240

Also tl;dr on your attachment, point me to the part where he explains why capitalists don't deserve a share of their own revenue for taking the time to ensure that their capital is used in ways that keep the company functioning and the workers employed.


 No.3244

>>3241

>mudpie argument

That applies to capitalism more than it does to socialism. In socialism for something to be produced, the workers have to deem it worthwhile because production is done for use. In capitalism the business will make whatever they think they can sell, which includes all sorts of useless stuff that they will spend loads of money on marketing to convince people they need. Marx did address the mudpie argument though, in that value can only be realized when someone actually buys the product. If you work to make mudpies that never sell, then the labor isn't creating value. The point isn't that labor inherently creates value, but that it's the only way you can create value.

>>3242

>Also tl;dr on your attachment

It's only 25 pages but ok.

Value can only be generated by labor. Capitalists by labor and means of production (also produced by labor) and because of property law when they sell the products they take as much money as possible for themselves and pay the workers as little as possible.

>point me to the part where he explains why capitalists don't deserve a share of their own revenue

The point of Wage Labor & Capital is that the value a capitalist keeps was generated by the workers' labor. What someone "deserves" isn't the point. That's a moralistic and prescriptive argument, and Marx was going about describing how the system works. If that's your concern, though, the point is that the capitalist didn't work to earn that revenue; the workers did.

> for taking the time to ensure that their capital is used in ways that keep the company functioning and the workers employed

But they don't do that. They hire managers to do that for them. Even if they did, they aren't paid proportionally since they must take some of the value from workers to get the surplus (profit) that keeps the business going. And according to the logic of market capitalism, the businesses that function will survive and thrive while the ones that don't will fail. It's not the capitalist that ensures production and jobs from that perspective, but market competition. From a socialist perspective you can just have the workers manage production. They can pick managers from their own ranks by election or sortition or bring on a manger who answers to everyone in the company. There's no need for that to be done by someone in a separate class. All that does is give them different interests from the workers. Running a business is basic as fuck. I've taken business classes and aside from bureaucratic procedure it amounts to "DO THE FUCKING MATH, RETARD," which is apparently necessary for the retards in business schools.


 No.3245

File: 793e57e0ac4fc50⋯.png (31.59 KB, 976x1050, 488:525, the capitalist mode of pro….png)

>>3244

>Marx did address the mudpie argument though, in that value can only be realized when someone actually buys the product.

So Marx admitted labor only generates value when it produces things that society holds in demand. There you go. That's the subjectivity of people's needs layered on top of the subjectivity of whether or not labor itself generates value. It's like a lasagna of subjectivity.

>Value can only be generated by labor.

>the point is that the capitalist didn't work to earn that revenue; the workers did.

Sounds like circular logic to me.

<We know all value comes from labor because all value comes from labor.

If you ask me, value, being subjective, isn't "generated" by anything, but determined at will by purchasers. To give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute, don't the daily tasks of running a business constitute labor? How about managing capital and making plans for future investments?

>But they don't do that. They hire managers to do that for them.

Pic related, even if that were 100% true (it's not), hiring experienced and competent managers takes effort. Why wouldn't you call that labor?

>Even if they did, they aren't paid proportionally since they must take some of the value from workers to get the surplus (profit) that keeps the business going.

Or Mr. Porky could not hire them at all and give them nada. Wouldn't he save a big wad of money that way? That's what we mean when we say capitalists create jobs.

>It's not the capitalist that ensures production and jobs from that perspective, but market competition.

You have it backwards, Mr. Porky's job is to respond to changes in market competition and stay ahead of the bend if possible.

>Running a business is basic as fuck. I've taken business classes and aside from bureaucratic procedure it amounts to "DO THE FUCKING MATH, RETARD," which is apparently necessary for the retards in business schools.

If you think you can learn all there is to know about running a business from taking a few classes, I've got a big, fat bridge to sell ya. Did you learn all about human relations? What about marketing, research and development? Would you know what to do if the IRS put you under audit? I guarantee if you tried to start a business it wouldn't be long before you encountered some unforeseen difficulty.

>From a socialist perspective you can just have the workers manage production. They can pick managers from their own ranks by election or sortition or bring on a manger who answers to everyone in the company. There's no need for that to be done by someone in a separate class.

Anything is easier to manage when there's just one person in charge, whether it's a business, a country or a boy scout troop. Now I know this point is out of chronological order, but I saved it for last because I find it to be the coup de grace of Marxism: In a capitalist society, there's nothing to stop you from getting together with some friends and starting a business where the workers manage everything. People do it all the time. In a Marxist society, you'd be prohibited, if not by law then by some other force, from starting a business where you personally are the sole manager. One system lets you decide for yourself which business model is preferable, the other decides for you. I think I'd rather decide for myself, thank you.


 No.3247

File: 6ca07b0a57c5093⋯.png (518.63 KB, 540x666, 30:37, ClipboardImage.png)

File: f00a22474960df3⋯.png (517.21 KB, 600x1373, 600:1373, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3245

>meme argument and wiggling

At this point all you deserve is meme answers. fuck off shill.


 No.3248

File: 4872f0d2fc93ba6⋯.jpg (236.62 KB, 600x849, 200:283, 1548370992005.jpg)

>>3247

Your edit of pic related is lulzworthy, completely ignores the rebuttal and repeats the exact same argument as the original comic.


 No.3249

Whoever is reporting this guy can stop. Having bad arguments should get someone banned from a /b/ type board. Come on now.

>>3245

>So Marx admitted labor only generates value when it produces things that society holds in demand.

The labor is objectified in the sale though. The market price adjusts toward the value of the product. The subjective element is whether or not people will buy, not how valuable something is. It gets more complex with things like speculation, but on average prices fluctuate around the value (labor input) based on supply and demand. That's the reason microwaves are much less expensive than cars even if they have similar supply/demand ratios.

<We know all value comes from labor because all value comes from labor.

We know value can only be generated by labor because if we remove labor (via a strike for instance) value is no longer produced. No labor implies no value added. Therefore by contrapositive, value added implies labor.

>If you ask me, value, being subjective, isn't "generated" by anything, but determined at will by purchasers.

If that was true then the seller wouldn't have negotiation power in setting the price, because the value would be determined by purchasers alone.

>don't the daily tasks of running a business constitute labor?

I already mentioned management. It is productive labor, but it is not so vastly more productive than other labor that it explains the income disparity. And it's usually not the capitalist (business owner) doing this work, but someone they hired to do it. I already covered this.

>How about managing capital and making plans for future investments?

Not productive labor at all. Maximizing profit sacrifices producing more (or more efficiently) for the sake of being more efficient at taking value from the production process. Every dollar that goes to profit (dividends) is a dollar that could have been reinvested into production.

>Pic related, even if that were 100% true (it's not), hiring experienced and competent managers takes effort. Why wouldn't you call that labor?

The point isn't that the capitalist does no labor whatsoever, but that they don't do an amount of labor commensurate with the portion of the pie they control/take.

>Or Mr. Porky could not hire them at all and give them nada.

And what, the business owner is going to do the work of all those employees alone? I guess if you think value is some vague purely subjective thing, then it would make sense to you that employees are unnecessary for a business to function.

>That's what we mean when we say capitalists create jobs.

If capitalists just "created jobs" out of generosity they would be shitty capitalists since they'd be losing money relative to the competition. If a product can be sold then the job to make that product already exists. The capitalist just regulates who does the job and how (or whether it's filled in the first place).

>You have it backwards, Mr. Porky's job is to respond to changes in market competition and stay ahead of the bend if possible.

Porky plays the game. It's still the rules of the game that decide who wins.

>If you think you can learn all there is to know about running a business from taking a few classes

Not what I said. We did cover the examples you gave (aside from IRS audit, which is pretty specific), and for as much time was spent very little content was there. It was mostly hammering the point that being a business owner isn't carte blanche to do whatever you want, and you have to make sure the numbers check out.

>Anything is easier to manage when there's just one person in charge

The point is to manage it well. Anything is easy to do when you cut corners.

>In a capitalist society, there's nothing to stop you from getting together with some friends and starting a business where the workers manage everything. People do it all the time.

Over 90% of new businesses fail, largely because the startup capital is beyond most people's means and they are competing with already established megacorps fighting for dominance in the same market. The only hope for most small businesses is to be bought out. This isn't enshrined in Capitalist Law, but is a natural consequence of how the system works.

>In a Marxist society, you'd be prohibited, if not by law then by some other force, from starting a business where you personally are the sole manager.

That would be unnecessary because you'd have such a hard time finding someone who would work for you when they could get paid so much better working for the co-op, the guild, the state, whatever.

>One system lets you decide for yourself which business model is preferable, the other decides for you.

Socialism allows workers to pick the business model that is preferable. Capitalism decides for you what business model is viable in the system. People are going to labor to meet their needs in any system. That's human nature. Class society demands that in order to do that they must also sacrifice some of what they make to maintain the separate and (mostly) non-productive class(es).

>I think I'd rather decide for myself, thank you.

Then, polite suggestion, maybe you should investigate the system a bit further and verify how accurate your view of it is. It's pretty clear you're unfamiliar with Marx, so feel free to read anything he's written. There's plenty online. You can start with the PDF I posted earlier.


 No.3251

File: 9e6a992edcbfee1⋯.png (898 KB, 700x2519, 700:2519, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 490ebe098959c00⋯.png (393.52 KB, 597x767, 597:767, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3248

>completely ignores the rebuttal

no it doesn't it addresses the rebuttal, and the argument is the same because the rebuttal was bullshit. the Rebuttal in essence hinges on nit-picking about 'who pays for it' whilst ignoring that making a profit the issue is an attempted evasion of objective worth - i.e. The spending of a cappie to make a profit is basically a artificial necessity created by private ownership and markets when actually supply-demand would make the entire point moot.


 No.3252

>>3249

>That's the reason microwaves are much less expensive than cars even if they have similar supply/demand ratios.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo. The demand for cars is much greater than for microwaves pretty much anywhere you go, and the supply of both is variable. Plus there's plenty of room for variation. I'm willing to bet the world's best microwave is much more valuable than the world's worst car, even more so if you're running a car and microwave store in Lower Manhattan.

>We know value can only be generated by labor because if we remove labor (via a strike for instance) value is no longer produced. No labor implies no value added.

I suppose labor can seem to add value to things, seeing is a working car is generally more valuable than a pile of car parts, but the same is just as easily explained if you assume value is determined subjectively as a function of supply and demand, which also accounts for things like how a classic antique car can be worth more today than when it was new, or how the same model rifle can cost $100 more if it has a left handed bolt rather than a right handed one.

<If you ask me, value, being subjective, isn't "generated" by anything, but determined at will by purchasers.

>If that was true then the seller wouldn't have negotiation power in setting the price, because the value would be determined by purchasers alone.

That's kind of how it works. If the seller puts the price above what most people determine the product's value to be, he won't sell enough of them to pay his expenses. If he puts it too far below, he won't make enough revenue. It is the seller who must adapt to the buyer's preferences in the long run, not vice versa.

>I already mentioned management. It is productive labor, but it is not so vastly more productive than other labor that it explains the income disparity.

Would you believe me if I said if the CEO of McDonald's split his entire paycheck evenly among every single one of his employees, they'd each get about $40 a year? That's a little over $3 a month, and apparently, at least 375,000 people think that's a paltry sum to pay to ensure there will be another paycheck next month.

>And it's usually not the capitalist (business owner) doing this work, but someone they hired to do it. I already covered this.

Hate to say it but you really didn't make a very convincing case. Did you take a survey of all the business owners in the world?

>Maximizing profit sacrifices producing more (or more efficiently) for the sake of being more efficient at taking value from the production process. Every dollar that goes to profit (dividends) is a dollar that could have been reinvested into production.

U wot m8? If you create a supply that's significantly more than the demand for your product, you lose profits because you don't get revenue to cover the production costs. The way to maximize profits is to place the supply as close to the demand as possible.

<But what if you create artificial scarcities but shorting your supply and charging loony prices?

You wouldn't be the first to think of that, but it's not generally a reliable business model, because a competitor can offer a lower price and scoop up your sales.

>And what, the business owner is going to do the work of all those employees alone?

If he did some work himself he'd have to pay one less person, which means more profit. It's a pretty good business move.


 No.3253

>If capitalists just "created jobs" out of generosity they would be shitty capitalists since they'd be losing money relative to the competition.

Good thing most of them don't.

>If a product can be sold then the job to make that product already exists.

It's an imaginary job if no one does it. No one's going to do it if they don't get paid. A big part of any capitalist's job is paying people, that's what capital is for.

>Not what I said. We did cover the examples you gave (aside from IRS audit, which is pretty specific), and for as much time was spent very little content was there. It was mostly hammering the point that being a business owner isn't carte blanche to do whatever you want, and you have to make sure the numbers check out.

Sounds to me like you took an intro level course and snoozed through most of it. Would you be ready to take out a loan and set up shop right now if you wanted?

>Over 90% of new businesses fail, largely because the startup capital is beyond most people's means and they are competing with already established megacorps fighting for dominance in the same market.

Did you know 58% of statistics are made up on the sport? Seriously though, that just goes to show you running a business isn't child's play. Not just anyone can do it. Not to say it's impossible either. Plenty of small businesses, especially ones that, you know, supply goods and services that are in high demand, exist and do just fine alongside multinational corporations. Not every cafe is a Starbucks, and so on. My town, for instance, has one Domino's and half a dozen independent pizza joints.

>That would be unnecessary because you'd have such a hard time finding someone who would work for you when they could get paid so much better working for the co-op, the guild, the state, whatever.

I've yet to hear of someone fleeing a capitalist country for better pay and working conditions in a Marxist one.

>Socialism allows workers to pick the business model that is preferable.

Wut? By not giving them a choice?

>Capitalism decides for you what business model is viable in the system.

Not too long ago another commie told me socialism is better because in any capitalist society, some collective businesses still make it. I see the shoe is on the other foot now.

>Class society demands that in order to do that they must also sacrifice some of what they make to maintain the separate and (mostly) non-productive class(es).

What if I told you what you call "class" is an overly simplistic summary of how people with different talents, abilities, preferences and priorities will end up in different positions in any society?

>Then, polite suggestion, maybe you should investigate the system a bit further and verify how accurate your view of it is. It's pretty clear you're unfamiliar with Marx, so feel free to read anything he's written. There's plenty online. You can start with the PDF I posted earlier.

I love how assume that if I read more of Marx I'll see fewer faults in his arguments. Say, speaking of things we've read, have you heard of I, Pencil by Leonard Read?

https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/


 No.3254

File: 6dfd8f0c8709e3c⋯.jpg (297.54 KB, 1680x1050, 8:5, 1540515887471.jpg)

>>3251

>no it doesn't it addresses the rebuttal, and the argument is the same because the rebuttal was bullshit. the Rebuttal in essence hinges on nit-picking about 'who pays for it' whilst ignoring that making a profit the issue is an attempted evasion of objective worth - i.e. The spending of a cappie to make a profit is basically a artificial necessity created by private ownership and markets when actually supply-demand would make the entire point moot.

Go back and read it again, slowly.

<This operation is way bigger than one worker and without my oversight and capital he wouldn't have a guaranteed paycheck. He'd have to handle everything I just outlined. And that's just to start with.

>Your pics

Man, Marxism really is the troll science of economics. Why let the market decide anything when you can just get yourself a magic crystal ball to predict demand in the future and force people to meet the supply exactly? Screw letting people decide for themselves what kind of house they want to live in, or where, that just creates inuhfficiency when the government could be spending its effort on important things like building houses for people too fucking stupid to buy a house before they move?

I thoroughly fail to see the point of your right pic if it's not "waaaah if I can't be rich no one can".


 No.3255

>>3252

>The demand for cars is much greater than for microwaves pretty much anywhere you go

>I'm willing to bet the world's best microwave is much more valuable than the world's worst car

>If the seller puts the price above what most people determine the product's value to be, he won't sell enough of them to pay his expenses. If he puts it too far below, he won't make enough revenue. It is the seller who must adapt to the buyer's preferences in the long run, not vice versa.

>If he did some work himself he'd have to pay one less person, which means more profit. It's a pretty good business move.

All of this is wrong even by pro-capitalist economics, lmao.

>the CEO of McDonald's split his entire paycheck evenly among every single one of his employees, they'd each get about $40 a year?

The CEO is a manager. And CEOs get most of their pay in bonuses and stock options, not salary. The point isn't even what the CEO makes anyway, but the profit the company turns. The owners are the shareholders who get paid for the "labor" of owning the company and voting with their shares.

>If you create a supply that's significantly more than the demand for your product, you lose profits because you don't get revenue to cover the production costs.

Yes, that's the point. Managing production isn't productive labor because it doesn't strictly increase production. You lost plot here.

>It's an imaginary job if no one does it.

That's how jobs work. A job is a position, whether it's filled or not.

>No one's going to do it if they don't get paid. A big part of any capitalist's job is paying people, that's what capital is for.

People will do jobs because (A) the job needs to be done and (B) they will be credited with it and compensated at least partially for it (true of literally any of the very many functioning economic systems). What a capitalist does is hold the means of production privately so the only way people can do the job is to work on the capitalist's terms.

>Would you be ready to take out a loan and set up shop right now if you wanted?

Right now, no. I'd have to draft a business plan and research the viability first. Starting a business isn't something you can just do on a whim, that was kind of the point of the whole "DO THE MATH" thing, which managed to escape you somehow.

>Plenty of small businesses exist and do just fine alongside multinational corporations. Not every cafe is a Starbucks, and so on. My town, for instance, has one Domino's and half a dozen independent pizza joints.

The multinationals are always trying to push them out, and over time they succeed. Many "small" or "independent" businesses (especially in food industries) are actually owned by a large parent company and operated as if they're independent to provide the illusion that there is much more competition than there really is. It's the illusion of meaningful choice, like a dozen different flavors of potato chips. Not to mention there are usually laws against out-and-out monopolies (and porky just finds loopholes).

>I've yet to hear of someone fleeing a capitalist country for better pay and working conditions in a Marxist one.

Most of the people fleeing socialist countries are capitalists who've had their private property seized. When it's poor starving people that's usually because their home country was targeted by sanctions, not because of some internal failure. People go to Cuba for healthcare pretty often.

>Wut? By not giving them a choice?

When given a choice people tend to go with the option where they get better compensated for their work, amazingly enough. If a capitalist workplace is competing with a socialist one on the basis of the kind of deal a worker gets, the socialist one is going to be far better because it's not extracting surplus value from them.

>Not too long ago another commie told me socialism is better because in any capitalist society, some collective businesses still make it.

That argument doesn't follow (socialism is an economic system not a way of running individual businesses within capitalism), and long-term capitalism won't sustain a business that doesn't turn a profit. Profit, accumulation of wealth, grabbing market share - that's what matters to capitalism (the "win conditions" of the "game"). An enterprise that instead focuses only on meeting needs will get out-competed in a market. Markets are therefore contrary to meeting needs. Production for use on the other hand means you make the supply meet the demand (slightly exceed it for redundancy purposes) without the extra bullshit and wasted resources keeping a parasitic class alive (not to mention meeting needs that can't be met while turning a profit, like investing in infrastructure).

>What if I told you what you call "class" is an overly simplistic summary of how people with different talents, abilities, preferences and priorities will end up in different positions in any society?

Nigga did you really claim to have read Marx?

>I love how assume that if I read more of Marx I'll see fewer faults in his arguments.

Nah bitch. I'm saying if you had read any Marx you'll know what his arguments are and be able to address them at all instead of spouting these liberal talking points.


 No.3256

File: 5f3f7cb43365b79⋯.jpg (3.61 MB, 4032x3024, 4:3, capitalism causes muh shor….jpg)

>>3255

>All of this is wrong even by pro-capitalist economics, lmao.

Wow, spectacular argument, you sure got me there.

>The CEO is a manager. And CEOs get most of their pay in bonuses and stock options, not salary

Let me show you where I got my numbers from:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-mcdonalds-executive-pay-0414-biz-20170413-story.html

<McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook's total compensation nearly doubled to $15.4 million last year, his second full year in the top job, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Thursday.

<Easterbrook received a base salary of about $1.3 million last year, up from just over $1 million in 2015. The value of his stock awards jumped to $5.1 million, up from $2.9 million the year before, and the value of his stock option awards rose to $3.9 million from $2.1 million the year before. His performance-based bonus shot up to $4.6 million, from $1.5 million in 2015. And the value of his perks rose to $523,665 from $341,301 a year earlier. The executive received perks including a car allowance, security, life insurance and financial planning, matching charitable contributions and use of the company aircraft, including for personal trips.

Divide 15.4 million by 375,000 (the approximate number of employees in the corporation) and you get about 40.

>The point isn't even what the CEO makes anyway, but the profit the company turns. The owners are the shareholders who get paid for the "labor" of owning the company and voting with their shares.

Nigger, shareholder dividends are determined by the board of directors, which in the case of McDonald's includes the CEO. Any bonuses he gets from shareholders are essentially payments to himself. Besides, all the same points I've been making apply to shareholders. Their decisions affect the performance of the company overall.

>Managing production isn't productive labor because it doesn't strictly increase production.

It prevents excessive production, which is a good thing, and it can increase production as well. It's something a company is generally better off with than without.

>What a capitalist does is hold the means of production privately so the only way people can do the job is to work on the capitalist's terms.

You're assuming only capitalists can control the means of production, which is patently false. Like I said, you can get your friends together and start a collective business anytime you want. The distinction is that the more capital you control, the greater your ability to identify demand and influence supply is. Those aren't just empty terms. Every time you ever bought something was an instance of supply meeting demand. Economics makes the world go round.

>I'd have to draft a business plan and research the viability first.

Badda-bing! The very fact that you have to plan it out proves it's not just a walk in the park. If that's what you mean by "DO THE MATH", I think you'll find there's more to it than you think.

>Many "small" or "independent" businesses (especially in food industries) are actually owned by a large parent company and operated as if they're independent to provide the illusion that there is much more competition than there really is. It's the illusion of meaningful choice, like a dozen different flavors of potato chips.

Nigga, I'm about to blow your mind wide open. Small businesses can compete with larger ones by meeting more specific demands. I'll use pizza as an example since it worked before. Domino's has the cheapest pizza in my town and it's open almost 24/7, but I haven't gotten pizza there in years. Why? It's limp, soggy, crap with stale toppings and "cheese" that's mostly cellulose. When I'm in the mood for pizza, which is quite often, I get it at any of the other half dozen places. My favorite place is a family-owned restaurant. They use handmade crust, sauce made in house, real cheese, and they never skimp on the toppings. It costs much more than Domino's, but it's worth every penny. But that's not all. There's another place that specializes in New York style slices, sometimes I don't need a full meal so I go there to grab a slice. If I were ever in the mood for Chicago style deep dish (unlikely because nothing good has ever come from Chicago, except maybe the Chicago school), I'd go to the place that has that as a specialty. The same applies to any industry; the smaller the business, the easier it is to specialize.

>Most of the people fleeing socialist countries are capitalists who've had their private property seized.

Sounds about right, if it has nothing to do with constant shortages and repression of civil liberties.


 No.3257

File: 7953aa6326a92b8⋯.jpg (45.75 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 1543553451342.jpg)

>When it's poor starving people that's usually because their home country was targeted by sanctions, not because of some internal failure.

I'm well aware that poverty is always the fault of capitalism even when it happens in socialist countries, the Soviet propaganda department told me so. So that begs the question, why don't socialist countries hit back at capitalist countries with their own sanctions? They can't because they depend on capitalist countries. The USSR was, and North Korea now is, heavily dependent on food imports from other countries. Venezuela needs the US and other countries to buy their oil. Whenever their quixotic ideas of economics fall short of pragmatic demands, they need to tap into capitalism to make it work.

>People go to Cuba for healthcare pretty often.

Missing the point, if it's even true. How often to people in capitalist countries leave everything behind to start a new life in a socialist one?

>When given a choice people tend to go with the option where they get better compensated for their work, amazingly enough. If a capitalist workplace is competing with a socialist one on the basis of the kind of deal a worker gets, the socialist one is going to be far better because it's not extracting surplus value from them.

So why do traditional businesses even still exist? Everyone should've been offered a super awesome way better job at a collective by now. And don't say "muh capital", you could get a business loan and start a collective business just as easily.

>An enterprise that instead focuses only on meeting needs will get out-competed in a market.

Wanna know why that really is? The concept of "need" itself is a 👻. Sure, we need food, water and oxygen to survive, but those aren't the things people are usually referring to when they talk about their needs. You don't need a car, a phone or a computer, those are things you buy to make your life more enjoyable. That is the origin of demand. Marxist governments throughout history have tried to calculate how much of those things people need, but come up short because their understanding of need itself was fundamentally flawed. The believed they could outdo the power of the free market with data and calculations, and the result was very often distortion between supply and demand, meaning severe shortages.

>Production for use on the other hand means you make the supply meet the demand (slightly exceed it for redundancy purposes) without the extra bullshit and wasted resources keeping a parasitic class alive

I know Occam's razor isn't a reliable axiom, but isn't it easier to believe that capitalism does exactly that and the "parasitic class" doesn't exist?

>Nigga did you really claim to have read Marx?

I've read several of his essays and excerpts of Capital, along with a couple of his later books. Also in my bathroom I have a book of essays on communism by Marx, Lenin and some others, and when I'm too lazy to buy toilet paper I read a page, think about why it's false, and then wipe my ass with it and flush it.

>Nah bitch. I'm saying if you had read any Marx you'll know what his arguments are and be able to address them at all instead of spouting these liberal talking points.

I don't have time to dig up the specific passages, but I pretty sure Marx did say at some point that value is objective, surplus value exists and wealth is a zero sum game.


 No.3258

>>3257

>pic

LOL you're going to do the "muh Cuban refugees" faggotry again?

The majority of immigrants from the Carribean islands and South 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔 have been from Haiti and other CAPITALIST countries like that, Cuba actually has one of the lowest immigration levels in all of South and Central 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔.

http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2013/02/a-visit-to-havana-.html

http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-by-edwin-s-rubenstein-100

http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-by-edwin-s-rubenstein-101

One of Cuba’s Caribbean neighbors is the Dominican Republic. 41,000 Dominicans immigrated to the US in 2012 (not including the tens of thousands more that came undocumented). Under 10,000 total came from Cuba that year, a fraction of the Dominicans that immigrated. The Dominican Republic produces far more immigrants than Cuba, and yet has a smaller population by 2 million, and requires a longer and more dangerous journey to the US for immigrants. Indeed, millions of people from all over the world immigrate to the US, including 11.7 million Mexicans. Millions more have come from all other Latin 🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔 countries. What’s clear is that there is not a mass exodus of refugees from Cuba. Cuban emigres are given the spotlight by the US government and media because it can be conveniently used to as ammo to demonize a country that is not compliant with imperialism. The simple fact is that any time there is a developed country nearby a less developed country, there is a tendency for the latter to produce immigration towards the former. Cuba experiencing emigration is nothing abnormal or unexpected. The claim that “Cubans are fleeing communism/socialism” is also tremendously hypocritical. When immigrants come from any other Latin 🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔 country, almost all which are capitalist. Regardless of their actual reasons, any immigrant that comes from Cuba is automatically a victim of communism who is fleeing their government. Nearly all immigrants from Central 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔 and the Caribbean migrate for economic reasons: they have little food, no way to make a living, may lose their home, or are employed on a poverty wage. Thus, they emigrate in hopes of alleviating economic problems. What’s more ironic is that these are problems that capitalist Latin 🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔 countries face at higher rates than Cuba. Homelessness, unemployment, and poverty in Cuba are among the lowest in the 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔s and even the world. In fact, Cuba is the 2nd-most developed country in Latin 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔, per the 2014 Human Development Index. While capitalist countries produce immigrants out of their systemic inability to provide such basic human rights, Cuba produces immigrants merely because some Cubans wish to live in a more developed country, and reap whatever individual benefits may come with development. If it is true that Cubans leave because “socialism/communism made their lives hard,” one must also acknowledge that statistically speaking, socialism provided the best lives they could’ve had in Latin 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔.

Socialism

Cuba

Official name: Republic of Cuba

Capital: Havana

GDP per capita: 9,900 dollars (year 2010)

Human Development Index: 0.815 (very high)

In the country there is a development of the system of services and government benefits. For example, there are given out free clothes for workers. The system provides free and quality medical aid, free higher and middle education.

Capitalism

Haiti

Official name: Republic of Haiti

Capital: Port-au-Prince

GDP per capita: 1,242 dollars (year 2012)

Human Development Index: 0.456 (low)

Haiti – one of the poorest, most unstable countries in the world, poorest country in the 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔s, constantly suffering from hunger, natural disasters and governmental coups.

Haiti – this country has one of the greatest epidemics of HIV among the countries in the Caribbean Sea: here lives no less than half of all people, who live with HIV in this region. By estimates, by the time of the earthquake the amount of people, who live with HIV in this country, is composed of 120,000 people.


 No.3259

File: ff5be6ac1f22a6d⋯.png (567.67 KB, 702x820, 351:410, ClipboardImage.png)

File: caaebb8711abc72⋯.png (1.7 MB, 1200x1200, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

File: df721db4ffc3f10⋯.png (656.29 KB, 1030x713, 1030:713, ClipboardImage.png)

File: c4698e780de7fda⋯.png (1.78 MB, 1326x2048, 663:1024, ClipboardImage.png)

File: c3d7b8cda695cb5⋯.png (621.29 KB, 940x742, 470:371, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3257

>the text

More wiggling, nitpicking and intentional obtuseness.

>poverty is always the fault of capitalism even when it happens in socialist countries

Yes, it is. Cuba's problems, are because of global capitalism. The same goes for North Korea, in spite of this North Korean HDI is close behind that of South Korea and Cuba outdoes the USA in many aspects, being on par with scandinavian countries in terms of living and isn't better ONLY because of the severe economic pressure they are under. the USA controls the Atlantic and Caribbean, AND controls Europe and portions of Asia, it pressure other countries to NOT trade with North Korea and Cuba and thus isolates them. the USSR was in an active socio-economic war, and the USA simply got lucky with that faggot Gorbachev and manage to overwhelm the social part of the equation even though the soviet economy, pound for pound was better organized and more efficient.

The USSR was NOT reliant on food imports, it imported only grain but it exported the same amount. Britain literally bought eggs and other food from Poland (pic 3)

>Venezuela

<muh vuvzuela

See pic 4 and 5

1) Venezuela is a social democratic country of state capitalism with an inlination towards socialism. Conditions have worsened when Maduro de-centralized many of the socialist laws created by his predecessor

2) Venezuela is massively improved compared to the past and its current risis is artificially created through US-instigated oil crises and US-funded opposition who literally torch food-storage and prevent supply trucks from entering


 No.3260

File: bc8f9ec87cb3a25⋯.png (199.63 KB, 600x1050, 4:7, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 657bad91f297b44⋯.png (51.82 KB, 420x528, 35:44, ClipboardImage.png)

File: dc1c9cf7042fa05⋯.png (31.08 KB, 311x447, 311:447, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3257

>How often to people in capitalist countries leave everything behind to start a new life in a socialist one

<implying there isn't an active anti-communist system that both creates misinformed majority of populations who are told that their lives are TOTALLY better than that in socialist ones and because they don't know better they accept it. not to mention active laws that prevent people from having active pro-socialist sentiment.

A person I knew sent me an email MENTIONING Cuba when they were moving, the US government froze my families bank accounts and theirs just for putting together the suggestion "moving to" and "Cuba" despite the actual email having those two being separate subjects.

That's not all

Singapore's Internal Security Act gives the government the power to, among other things, "prohibit the manufacture, sale, use, wearing, display or possession of any flag, banner, badge, emblem, device, uniform or distinctive dress or any part thereof."

The only symbol prohibited right now, as far as I'm aware - five-pointed star, hammer and sickle. Accusing people of being commies and then indefinitely detaining them without trial has been a fairly popular approach here.

Malaysia's government can pretty much arrest you for breathing in a communist fashion.

>124B. Activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124C. Attempt to commit activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124D. Printing, sale, etc., of documents and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124E. Possession of documents and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124F. Importation of document and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124G. Posting of placards, etc.

>124H. Dissemination of information

>124I. Dissemination of false reports

>124J. Receipt of document and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

Have to sign a form saying that you uphold the US Constitution to get any government job, even tangentially government-related like janitor.

Then there's this:

>The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

Meanwhile the former citizens of said socialist countries preferred it over capitalism and for good reason


 No.3261

File: 74fafb2434af094⋯.png (2.39 MB, 2640x947, 2640:947, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 38950095c48d2d8⋯.png (836.53 KB, 892x732, 223:183, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3260

>Meanwhile the former citizens of said socialist countries preferred it over capitalism and for good reason

Aside from the pics I posted

East Germany today and then:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1153037

As late as 1991, only 7.3% of the Soviet population supported the full legalization of private enterprise

>https://books.google.com.br/books?id=NOs6R2v5HysC&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false

>We Lived Better Then: https://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/we-lived-better-then/

>Freest under Czech Communism: https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/24/freest-under-czech-communism/

>Oppressive and grey? No, growing up under communism was the happiest time of my life: https://prolecenter.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/oppressive-and-grey-no-growing-up-under-communism-was-the-happiest-time-of-my-life-2/

>Central Asia In Nostalgia for Soviet Period: http://web.archive.org/web/20130722044443/http://www.thewashingtonreview.org/articles/central-asia-in-nostalgia-for-the-soviet-period.html

> East European Living standards have dropped: https://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/02/03/have-living-standards-in-eastern-europe-decreased-after-communism/

"Capitalism is not just an economic system, but an entire social order. Once it takes hold, it is not voted out of existence by electing socialists or communists. They may occupy office but the wealth of the nation, the basic property relations, organic law, financial system, and debt structure, along with the national media, police power, and state institutions have all been fundamentally restructured.” - Michael Parenti, Blackshirts & Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, City Light Books, 1997, p. 119.

In Czechoslovakia in 1989, respondents were asked if they wanted capitalism, socialism, or a mixed economy. 47% responded socialism, 43% said mixed economy, and 3% said capitalism. Which is ironic considering how Czechs are always brought up when people harp about how communism was hated etc. etc. The facts show that despite their issues with the Soviet Union, in general they were FOR it. In Russia, a poll conducted by an 🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔 organization showed 54% preferred socialism, and 20% preferred capitalism. [Both sets of Statistics are from Blackshirts and Reds, by Michael Parenti]. In 1991, a referendum taken in the Soviet Union showed that around 80% of Soviet citizens wanted the Union to remain intact. Polls taken immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union showed similar sentiments: for example over 75% of Russians said they regretted its fall. Victor Grossman, a well-known protester from East Germany explained the 1989 protests,

“most participants in the demonstrations and rebellions in the fateful autumn of 1989 wanted an improved [East Germany], not a dead one.”

Now, correctly, you’ll ask, “why, then, did the USSR fall apart if it had so much support and worked?” and "Why can't people just vote it back in", The explanation is simple if a bit sad. The fall of communist states was a result of the combination a number of strange, conspiratorial events: the swift resignations by communist officials unaware of the protesters’ generalized and ambiguous demands, the right-wing seizure of power in these countries, the unlikely scenario of capitalist sympathizers (Yeltsin and Gorbachev) leading the Soviet Union and therefore the whole socialist world, and the West’s keen maneuvers at quickly absorbing as much of Eastern Europe into it’s own sphere of influence when it got the chance, such as NATO and the EU.

The USA has no intention to create rivals on the world markets - why would USA want to have the same strong economies around it? - it would strip USA of incomes and influence - USA is interested to make all other countries WEAK and to achieve it through any means, including subversion, inciting ethnic unrest, demonizing, economic wars, sanctions etc.


 No.3262

>>3261

[1] 57% of Eastern Germans defend the GDR

"In 2009, a study revealed that 57 per cent of former East Germans preferred life in Communist East Germany under Soviet rule, and 8 per cent of those polled refused to accept any criticism of the former German Democratic Republic"

[2] 61% of Romanians think Communism is a good idea

[3] 62% of Hungarians were happiest under Communist Rule

[4] 36% percent in Ukraine are happy with the transition from State Socialism to Market Capitalism

[5] More than 60 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed that during the communist Yugoslav period they enjoyed greater personal freedoms, the economy was stronger and their living standard was higher. Only about 20 per cent of those queried disagreed with these statements.

[6] 60% of Russians see Communism as good.

[7] A 2013 poll by Gallup showed that on average, 51% of former-Soviet citizens say that the breakup of the USSR harmed their country, with 24% saying it benefited it. The older the respondents were (in other words, the more they actually remembered the Soviet system) the more likely they were to say that the breakup was harmful.

[8] The transition to capitalism, produced countless pre-mature deaths and continues to produce a higher mortality rate than likely would have prevailed under the socialist system. A 1986 study by Shirley Ciresto and Howard Waitzkin, based on World Bank data, found that the socialist economies of the Soviet bloc produced more favorable outcomes on measures of physical quality of life, including life expectancy, infant mortality, and caloric intake, than did capitalist economies at the same level of economic development, and as good as capitalist economies at a higher level of development.

[9] As regards the transition from a one-party state to a multi-party democracy, Pipes points to a poll that shows Russians view democracy as fraud. Over 3/4 believe “democracy is a facade for a government controlled by rich and powerful cliques.”

[10] According to a relatively recent Gallup poll, for each citizen of 11 former Soviet republics, who thinks the breakup of the USSR benefited their country, 2 think it did harm. Those aged 45+ year, (those who lived in the USSR) were mostly in the latter group.

[11] A 2003 poll asked Russians how they would react if the Communists seized power. Almost 1/4 would support the new government, 1 in 5 would collaborate, 27% would accept it, 16% would emigrate, and only 10% would actively resist it. In other words, for each Russian who would actively oppose a Communist take-over, 4 would support it or collaborate with it, and 3 would accept it

[12] Only 9% of Russians think the events of August 1991 was a victory of democracy and freedom

[13] 70% of Tajikistan’s population longs for soviet power and prestige.

[14] The majority of people 35 and older believe that life was better in the USSR, compared to the post-breakup period, whilst most people 25 and under believe life is better now.


 No.3263

>>3262

[15] 58% of Russians in 2017 regret the USSR’s fall, 16% had mixed feelings and only 25% did not regret its fall.

“When researchers asked those who regret the end of the USSR what the primary reasons were behind their sentiments, 54 percent said that they missed a single economic system, 36 percent said they had lost the feeling of belonging to a real superpower, 34 percent complained about the decrease of mutual trust among ordinary people, and 26 percent said that the collapse had destroyed the ties between friends and relatives. The same research showed that 52 percent of Russians think that the collapse of the USSR could have been avoided, 29 percent said that the event was absolutely inevitable, and 19 percent did not have a fixed opinion on the matter.”

[16] "In a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied."

[17] 72% of Hungarians say that they are actually worse off now economically than they were under communism.

[18] Roughly 28% of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime, according to a poll conducted by the polling institute SC&C and released Sunday. Only 23% said they had a better life now.

[19] As many as 81% of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -"during the time of socialism".

The survey focused on the respondents' views on the transition "from socialism to capitalism", and a clear majority said they trusted social institutions the most during the rule of Yugoslav communist president Josip Broz Tito. The standard of living during Tito's rule from the Second World War to the 1980s was also assessed as best, whereas the Milosevic decade of the 1990s, and the subsequent decade since the fall of his regime are seen as "more or less the same". 45% said they trusted social institutions most under communism with 23% choosing the 2001-2003 period when Zoran Djinđic was prime minister. Only 19% selected present-day institutions.


 No.3264

File: 2f4f69cb4a3a1d7⋯.pdf (1.18 MB, Economic Development, Poli….pdf)

>>3262

>>3263

Sources:

[1] - https://www.thetrumpet.com/6322-eastern-germans-feel-life-was-better-under-communism

- http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html

- http://www.idcommunism.com/2016/08/life-was-better-under-communism-says.html

[2] - http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/18/romania-turmoil-fuels-nostalgia-communism-1994811733.html

[3] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170605223544/http://www.politics.hu:80/20080521/poll-shows-majority-of-hungarians-feel-life-was-better-under-communism/

[4] - http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/16/the-rise-of-communist-nostalgi

[5] - http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/macedonians-deem-communist-past-better-than-present

[6] - https://www.rbth.com/news/2013/10/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_as_good_system_-_poll_30755.html

[7] - Judy Dempsey, “Study looks at mortality in post-Soviet era,” The New York Times, January 16, 2009

[8] - Shirley Ceresto and Howard Waitzkin, “Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life”, 🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔 Journal of Public Health, June 1986, Vol. 76, No. 6. (see pdf attached)

[9] - Richard Pipes, “Flight from Freedom: What Russians Think and Want,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004

[10] - Neli Espova and Julie Ray, “Former Soviet countries see more harm from breakup,” Gallup, December 19, 2013


 No.3265

File: e2a9af030192a1a⋯.png (6.81 MB, 2267x8334, 2267:8334, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 824675d94c8108c⋯.png (1.85 MB, 1480x1078, 740:539, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 76052f6b6b53e51⋯.png (201.34 KB, 531x2336, 531:2336, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 97c40d90d5ec8c1⋯.png (172.38 KB, 615x614, 615:614, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.3266

>>3265

> a bunch of statistics proving otherwise

After WW-1, a foreign backed civil war and then WW-2 (along side petty sabotage and economic western sanctions) the USSR had received more than its own share of devastation. 20+ million deaths in WW-2, at least 10 million during WW-1 and the civil war. Over 1/5 of its land (a land-mass equal to 1/2 of the entire USA) was burnt to the ground, Millions of buildings, thousands of villages and hundreds of towns, ERASED, along with a large portion of industrial factories and other production. Despite this the USSR rose up and outran the USA in almost every aspect despite the USA being nearly untouched by either war and gaining massively in terms of economics.

The USSR;

Raised life expectancy by 65% [1]

Increased Real Income by 370% [2]

Housing, Medicine, Transport and Insurance accounted for only 15% of family spending, compared to 50% in the USA.

Eliminated Homelessness [3] Housing was provided based on need, with rent making up 2–3% of the family income, compared to 25–30% in the USA

Eliminated Unemployment [4]

Employment was guaranteed, trade unions had the power to veto firings and recall managers and injured workers had job guarantees and sick pay as well as maternity leave. A minimum of 15 days vacation, annually. (Articles 66–70 of the Soviet Constitution of 1977).

Provided Healthcare was a right [5] Free healthcare for all and about twice as many doctors as the USA;

"Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection. This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life." (Soviet Constitution, 1936)

Achieved Full Literacy [6]

From a starting point of 38% for men and 12% for women. With School Enrollment raised by 460% [7] And secondary education was a right, funded by the government as long as cumulative grades remained at least at a ‘B’ average. [8]

Subsidized Early Childcare [9]

Fees for pre-school needs did not exceed 2–3% of family income. with 50% of urban and 33% of rural children attending, compared to 10% in the USA over-all.

Lastly they eliminated a Wage gap between Men and Women through equity, provided both sexes opportunities to choose from and grow in. [10]


 No.3267

>>3266

The USSR was in desperate condition at the start however it did not resort to the measures used in the West, and still caught up and exceeded it.

"If we are backward and weak, we may be beaten and enslaved. But if we are powerful, people must beware of us. We are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries of the West. We must make up this gap in 10 years. Either we do this or they crush us." - Josef Stalin, First Conference of Workers, 1931

And he did it. In time to be ready to defeat Hitler, whom he saw coming. He did it without forcing the country through the worst horrors of the Industrial Revolution in countries that had gone before. We have forgotten them, they did not. One hundred years into the British Industrial Revolution an Act of parliament was passed to reform working conditions for children, the Factory Act. Children, not adults.

These are its provisions:

- no child workers under nine years of age

- employers must have an age certificate for their child workers

- children of 9-13 years to work no more than nine hours a day

- children of 13-18 years to work no more than 12 hours a day

- children are not to work at night

- two hours schooling each day for children

- four factory inspectors appointed to enforce the law

It took many decades, much longer than the period of basic Soviet industrialization, before this became the norm in England, not an aspiration. Children were worked two days straight, and more. In the mines. In the mills. In the fields and factories. Try to imagine what adults had to do.

The first attempt at passing child labour laws in the U.S. was struck down by the Supreme Court. Eventually one was passed in 1938, but basically unenforced, especially in agricultural work. Children in the Soviet Union, from the very beginning, spent their days in school. Family farms, as everywhere, were probably exceptions, but this was the law and it was enforced. There were bureaucratic hoops to jump through to get permission for an exception.

[1] A. Szymanski, On the Uses of Disinformation to Legitimize Revival of the Cold War: Health and the USSR, Science and Society, Winter, 1981.

[2] Corrigan, Philip, Ramsay, Harvie and Sayer, Derek, Bolshevism and the USSR, New Left Review. No. 125. January.February, 1981.

[3,8,9] George. Vic and Manning, Nick, Socialism, Social Welfare and the Soviet Union, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.

[4] Gregory, Paul R. and Stuart. Robert C., Soviet Economic Structure and Performance, New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

[5] Sivard, Rush Legar, World Military and Social Expenditures. Leeburg, Virginia: WMSE Publications, 1980.

[6] Mickiewicz, Ruth, Handbook of Soviet Social Science Dam New York: Free Press, 1973.

[7] Central Statistical Board of the USSR, The USSR in Figures for 1978, Moscow Statisika Publishers, 1978.

[10] St. George, George, Our Soviet Sister, New York: Robert B. Luce, 1973


 No.3268

>>3267

InB4 Muh Gulags: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-there-is-no-evidence-at-all-that-Stalin-killed-60-million/answer/Chuck-Garen

Now let me explain the situation prior in more detail

95% of the people from Eastern Europe (mostly within the Russian empire) were poor peasant farmers who owned no land but paid high rents to the country's landlords who made up the middle/upper class, they were rich, privileged and had no problems withholding grain-stocks if necessary. Russian peasants lived in villages cut off from the rest of the world. The villages were not much more than a collection of mud huts lining the main road where illiterate peasants worked as indentured servants, farming the land to keep some food on the table and as payment of rent to wealthy landlords. When land grants were made originally, they were huge. The grantee came into possession of a huge chunk of land and whatever was on it, including towns and villages. The people became serfs, including the townspeople. The shopkeeper or blacksmith was a serf and paying rent or labour to a master on the same basis as a peasant serf. He was not free to move, or to go out of business, but he could start another, and occasionally a town serf would prosper. The town serfs were emancipated before the peasants; the peasants were freed in 1860, but on terms that worsened their living standards and security. The state bought 80% of their land from their landlord and sold it to them on a long-term mortgage. Since they considered it theirs already, this was no windfall. Around the middle of the 1800s, the British abandoned protectionist import barriers to grain, the Corn Laws, which gave southern Russia access to an export market. This created an opportunity for southern Russia to export, and they began growing wheat. The serfs who had originally worked half the landlord’s holding for him and half for themselves had often paid cash rent instead of labour and worked the whole holding for themselves. Now there was a new incentive in the mix and landlords reversed the terms. Serfs lost the produce from the extra land but still had to work it. Whatever entries into the cash economy they had contrived such as planting cash crops like flax frequently had to be abandoned. Russian peasants had one other alternative to a miserable life of tenant farming. They could move to the city to find work in one of the many miserable factories that were springing up all over Russia, becoming proletariat. By Russian law workers couldn’t be forced to work more than 11 ½ hours in a day (already a huge amount), but most factory bosses ignored this and the police were easily bribed to look the other way. Wages were very low, a few rubles for a months work. The factories were dirty, dark, and dangerous. Workers were given free housing but the conditions of these barracks were so terrible that they made a New York City tenement from 1890 look like a room at the Ritz. Each room was nothing more than a long, empty warehouse where each family stayed in a room divided by a piece of cloth. Each “room” was only large enough to fit a bunk bed that often touched the one next to it, (compare that to communals that at the least had proper rooms and were in themselves created ONLY because Tsarist Russia did not provide any proper houses for the people). The Russian Empire's peak production levels were in 1913 and the top estimate put it at about 1/5 of 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔's production prior to WW 1 (and even less as soon as the war began). The majority of these factories used outdated and inferior equipment, the top line new Battle-cruisers and Battleships that were to be the future of the Russian navy had almost all of its systems and products made over-seas because the Russian industry had no ability to provide an alternative. At the end of WW 1 and the civil war, Russia's production levels were about 0 because almost all the factories had been destroyed. The conclusion is obvious, the USSR was a drastic improvement over the Russian empire.

>http://www.hist.msu.ru/Labour/Babushkin/index.html

>https://www.quora.com/What-was-agriculture-like-in-Russia-before-the-Revolution/answer/Cass-Dean


 No.3269

>>3257

>why do traditional businesses even still exist? Everyone should've been offered a super awesome way better job at a collective by now

Because capitalists actively prevent that from happening, not to mention that it takes time and hard work for society to re-organize into a collective.

>You don't need a car, a phone or a computer, those are things you buy to make your life more enjoyable. That is the origin of demand. Marxist governments throughout history have tried to calculate how much of those things people need, but come up short because their understanding of need itself was fundamentally flawed. The believed they could outdo the power of the free market with data and calculations, and the result was very often distortion between supply and demand, meaning severe shortages.

Except that's patently false. shortages were due, not because of miscalculation of supply and demand but of the inability to produce the full amount at one time. As pointed out before, the USSR was not an established economy and thus lacked in some commodities. This issue was largely resolved by the late 70s, early 80s

According to a CIA report, the Soviet economy

“grew at an average annual rate of 4.6 percent from 1950 through 1981”, noting that “during the same period, U.S. GNP increased by 3.4% per year.”

What has happened, says the CIA, is that the rate of growth of the Soviet economy has slowed down to roughly two percent in the past three years. This drop in the rate of growth– largely due to four consecutive years of extremely unfavorable weather conditions which led to poor harvests – is what has been seized upon by some as evidence of Soviet socialism’s final downturn.

The report also notes that the Soviet economy is the second largest in the world and that its GNP quadrupled over the past 30 years, attaining an output valued at $ 1.6 trillion in 1982. Industrial output during this period went up 700 percent while the value of fixed capital – buildings, machinery, equipment, etc. – increased by 11 percent.

“Soviet levels of consumption continue to be extremely low compared with those of Western countries. No firm evidence is available, however, which would indicate serious dissatisfaction of soviet consumers” (Pg 1, CIA Provisional Intelligence Report № 114, Indexes of Household Consumption In the USSR 1928-1955).

Key word, this report is as of 1955, a decade after WW-2 ended, during a time of breakneck technological advancement to catch up to and surpass the USA, which itself only grew fat on WW-2 and other wars it continued to provoke during the 50s.

sources:

> https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498133.pdf

> https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000380517.pdf

> https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79-01093A000700060003-3.pdf

> https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00153R000100010021-7.pdf

> https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/watching-the-bear-essays-on-cias-analysis-of-the-soviet-union/article02.html


 No.3270

>>3269

The average daily caloric consumption per capita of the soviet union in 1975 is usually estimated at 3,500 kcal. This calorie data comes from a book called Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution. The author used the UN's methodology of calculating calorie availability, (which isn't necessarily the same thing as calorie consumption), from 1885 to 1989. He did his own calculations however and factored in the works of Wheatcroft and Jasny both of whom had done many analyses of the USSR’s economy. While one can argue that there were some health issues with this, such as obesity, (although back in the era people seemed far more active and probably burned through a lot more than a modern couch potato watching Netflix and playing video-games), that level of calorie production combined with Soviet price policy made it so that starving and hunger were eliminated in the USSR after WW-2 which is far more important an achievement. The only exception to this was the brief famine around 1947 around Moldova and Southwest Ukraine, which is to be expected considering that these were among the most heavily damaged regions during WW 2.

Written in 1986, Soviet Foreign Trade in Foodstuffs: A measure, by Vladimir G. Treml, written for the US Bureau of the Census argues that FAO data is far too high due to wrongly calculating the nutritional composition of Soviet foodstuff (Compared to official Soviet data). CIA data he references is higher than official Soviet data, but lower than FAO’s, giving a range of estimates for 1970 (2900-3100) and 1981 (3000-3300). He also says that both Soviets and Western analysts are probably overestimating Soviet nutrient quality, a statement he does not prove and is more than likely ingrained with bias. Frankly, considered how highly processed western foods were (and are today) this seems unlikely, however in saying this he proves the point that the USSR produced more than enough, as, to attain MORE caloric consumption with food of lower nutrient-capacity would suggest eating far MORE food, which implies the availability of food to allow for this. Additionally, as will be addressed, nutrient content is not everything, as quality of production is also important.

books.google.co.uk/books?dq=ussr++exports+food+3000+calories+soviet&hl=es&id=DO5aSpp_YyIC&lpg=PA24&ots=QeA88v49bu&pg=PA24&sa=X&sig=ppe7M3c_8417Y1uekEN8VRKw0us&source=bl&ved=0ahUKEwie-dr39vrLAhVM1x QKHUoaB70Q6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=united%20states&f=false

The CIA report is a remarkable admission of the basic health and stability of the Soviet economy, it should also be kept in mind that the study downplays Soviet strength. As the New York Times pointed out, the agency’s

>“estimates are far below those claimed in Moscow’s raw statistics and significantly lower than those calculated by leading 🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔 scholars in the past.”

In the 1970s and 1980s, the USSR exported 40-50 thousand pieces of machinery per year. the amount they produced over-all is far larger.

>https://www.quora.com/Why-couldnt-the-Soviet-Union-export-machinery

> http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=fa5b6de5135f49269cd2b35b727236f7

> http://blog.modernmechanix.com/i-drove-through-russia/

> https://web.archive.org/web/20070314063045/http://www.usm.maine.edu/eco/joe/works/Soviet.html


 No.3271

File: 7ffa069c2cd9c86⋯.jpg (37.4 KB, 500x417, 500:417, read a fucking book.jpg)

>>3257

>I know Occam's razor isn't a reliable axiom, but isn't it easier to believe that capitalism does exactly that and the "parasitic class" doesn't exist?

You answered your own retarded question, Occam's razor isn't a reliable axiom, especially in the complexities of socio-economics.

>

I've read several of his essays and excerpts of Capital, along with a couple of his later books

*Doubt inreases*

> I read a page, think about why it's false

Reading an excerpt without the rest is exactly why you are being laughed at here. Patchworking your understanding of communism like this, moreover while approaching it with intentional disdain and lack of interest to learn means that you're just seeing the words and ignoring their meaning.

> I don't have time to dig up the specific passages, but I pretty sure Marx did say at some point that value is objective, surplus value exists and wealth is a zero sum game

And even if Marx DIDN'T say that, that is correct. You failed to produce even a hint of an argument to those, just the same liberal wiggling.


 No.3272

>>3258

>Haiti and other CAPITALIST countries like that

I literally loled. Can you name a single Haitian bank or corporation? The place has practically no economy at all. If it's even an example of capitalism, it's just about the worst one there is.

>What’s clear is that there is not a mass exodus of refugees from Cuba.

Yeah, good luck escaping from an island with a totalitarian military dictatorship.

>In fact, Cuba is the 2nd-most developed country in Latin 🍔🍔🍔🍔stand🍔🍔🍔, per the 2014 Human Development Index.

Why don't you look up the data from 2018?

http://hdr.undp.org/en/2018-update

Cuba's real HDI is 0.777, just barely edging out Mexico, a country in a state of almost de facto civil war, ruled in many places by militant drug cartels, with 0.774. Also Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, even Panama all score higher than Cuba. The local countries that score lower than Cuba all have something in common: They were ravaged by decades of civil war involving, guess who? Communist factions.


 No.3273

Hang on, I'm gonna need some time to read all these massive walls of obviously copy-pasted text.


 No.3275

File: 696221a25b2116d⋯.png (17.83 KB, 990x88, 45:4, ClipboardImage.png)

File: e3a9db2e9d70565⋯.png (43.22 KB, 1001x217, 143:31, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3272

>Can you name a single Haitian bank or corporation

<Capitalism is banks and corporations

Banks are not inherintley capitalist. Haiti has a capitalist market economy, as do almost all other south-🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔 countries. mexico is most definitley capitalist, and its illegal immigrants are easily

>look up the data from 2018

A slight decline, a recent one caused largely by the GDP because that is among the criteria of the HDI

>cherry picks some countries on hDI alone, ignoring everything else such as life-expectancy and education, not to mention other aspects such as the fact that these countries are larger than Cuba by 5-10 times at least and are not under economic sanctions

I should also point out Mexico is home to the worlds biggest slum.

>They were ravaged by decades of civil war involving, guess who? Communist factions.

Uhh false. majority of them were ravaged by Civil war caused by uprising against fascist dictatorships installed by the USA OR caused by the USA creating artifiial Mujahed/Al-Qaueda like groups and creating conflict like they did in Syria, Libya, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, the Congo, etc.

Africa is a hellhole, not because of "communists fighting" or because of "inherint stoopid niggers" but because of capitalism. The USA has actively assassinated or removed all leaders that would help civilize africa because it'e economically disadvantageous, after all, without child-slave labor in the Congo, how would you faggot /pol/yps get those iphones you have. See this is also why commodity production in the USSR took time to grow, the USSR refused to rely on child-slave labor and imperialism for its industries.

>good luck escaping from an island with a totalitarian military dictatorship

Strawman argument

>If it's even an example of capitalism, it's just about the worst one there is

<It's not REAL capitalism

Amazing.

>>3260

Also some more on communism and its warping in the minds of the people pic 1 and 2

universities which receive state-funding have the authority to prohibit the use of their facilities for meetings or speaking from people who are members of "the communist party" (assuming that means CPUSA but either way it's still on the books, I could see this being applied broadly) in Ohio and that students here have to learn about the US, its history and Constitution before being taught about social issues, foreign affairs, the UN, world government, socialism or communism.


 No.3276

>>3275

Just to expand on my africa statement

The Congo is a hell hole beause of the USA and not communism:

Stuff on the Congo

Very briefly and leaving out a bunch of stuff, leader of the Congolese independence movement was Patrice Lumumba, who admired Nkrumah's Pan-Africanism but otherwise didn't have much of an ideology beyond wanting independence. However, he strongly denounced the record of Belgian colonial rule, telling King Baudouin at Congo's independence day celebrations, "From today we are no longer your monkeys."

The Belgians and 🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔s were convinced that Lumumba would allow "communist penetration" in the Congo. Shortly after Congolese independence the Belgians backed a secessionist government in Katanga (the wealthiest part of the Congo.)

Lumumba invited the United Nations to intervene in what he assumed would be putting down an illegal secession in Katanga. Instead UN troops were used by the organization's Secretary-General to "keep the peace," allowing the secession to continue until a time when the government and Katangan secessionists could peacefully work out their differences and reunite (which the secessionists, backed by Belgian troops and mercenaries, had no interest whatsoever in doing.)

Lumumba was infuriated and began seeking Soviet weaponry to put down the secession himself. Meanwhile the CIA conspired to get Lumumba thrown out of office, whereupon he was shipped to Katanga and murdered.

With no more pesky Lumumba (and a Soviet-supported, pro-Lumumba rival Congolese government led by Antoine Gizenga soon to disappear), the West was divided on how to deal with the Katangan secession. The US under JFK determined that the stability of the Congo under a pro-West leadership would be endangered so long as its richest province was in rebellion under a different pro-West administration, so eventually the UN was given the task of putting down the secession by force.

Mobutu, a CIA asset, overthrew the civilian government in 1965 and loyally served 🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔 interests in Central Africa from thereon out. He was dependent on the aid of Western countries to stay afloat (e.g. in 1977 and '78 leftist Congolese rebels attacked Zaire from Angolan territory and would have overthrown Mobutu if it hadn't been for Western intervention to beat back the rebellion.)

The USSR was not involved in the Congo obtaining its independence, but as I said it did help out Lumumba once the latter asked for aid.

As for the Congo wars, they're rather complex. After the Rwandan Genocide the new Tutsi government in Rwanda was angry at Hutu refugee camps in Zaire which Rwanda argued were housing the perpetrators of the genocide and preparing armed forces to attack Rwanda. So Rwanda backed the overthrow of Mobutu. However, the new Kabila government was fairly weak and other African states (including Rwanda) backed militias to keep Congolese government control over certain areas weak and obtain control of resources. Kabila didn't like this and worked with other African countries to oust the militias.

These are not isolated examples:

The Ethiopian Revolution and the Struggle Against U.S. Imperialism: http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=A64BA14495493BF5A7F1DD90C6A9CE97

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html [War Is A Racket]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism]

>>3273

>obviously copy-pasted text.

why bother re-writing what i already wrote ages ago?


 No.3277

>>3259

>Cuba's problems, are because of global capitalism

So global capitalism is the reason why Cuba's government throws people in prison for complaining about it?

>North Korean HDI is close behind that of South Korea

South Korea has 0.903, #22 worldwide. North Korea hasn't had a report done since 2009, but back then it was 0.733, which would put it at #96 today. Your statistics are such ostentatious bullshit I'm not even gonna bother looking up the rest of them.

>The USSR was NOT reliant on food imports, it imported only grain but it exported the same amount.

U wot m8? Not only did the USSR import millions of tons of grain each year, a substantial portion of the grain in the country, its imports grew almost every year. I googled around but I haven't managed to find references to the USSR exporting grain at all except to its satellites.

https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=su&commodity=wheat&graph=imports

>Conditions have worsened when Maduro de-centralized many of the socialist laws created by his predecessor

Like what? My understanding is that his policies are mostly a continuation of Chavez's.

>current risis is artificially created through US-instigated oil crises

By US do you mean OPEC? If so I can agree with you, if you don't blame Venezuela for nationalizing their entire oil industry and using it to fund government programs.

>US-funded opposition who literally torch food-storage and prevent supply trucks from entering

That accusation sounds like something out of Animal Farm. I've heard of Maduro shutting down grocery stores becuase they were accused of "hoarding" food but nothing else like that.


 No.3278

File: 82fc50d08408eee⋯.png (253.04 KB, 1541x781, 1541:781, ClipboardImage.png)

File: e33721e76b3624e⋯.png (103.89 KB, 613x451, 613:451, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 21e2f99ae765170⋯.png (196.25 KB, 960x684, 80:57, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 28d03e33842e91f⋯.png (1.28 MB, 800x2000, 2:5, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3259

> North Korean HDI

Just to cover this before you start nitpicking

It's normal that economic growth slows down after raw industrialisation. The DPRK obviously had difficulty ramping up light industry and consumer goods (something they are doing now). South Korea had direct access to the world market and became a exporter of industrial goods and high tech. As for the stagnation in the 80s, I assume that some reforms were necessary at that point. This period of stagnation did not happen in other socialist countries, so it's not a systemic but a North Korean problem. Many resources went into the army, this was "solved" by Kim Jong Il's Songun Policy to basically use the army as a labour force as well, to help with construction, infrastructure and harvest.

>How did South Korea overcame North Korea economically?

Besides what I already mentioned, massive amount of US aid played a role too.

>Why did North Korea's GDP started to grow in the 1970's?

It took them a decade to recover from the war that destroyed 30% of their industry, the DPRK was basically running on a Korean version of the NEP with a national bourgeosie until collectivization was carried out.

North Korea’s HDI in 2008 was 0.733 from UNESCAP which uses a different method of determining HDI than the UNDP and also happens to give Luxembourg 0.997.

https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/wp-09-02.pdf

The latest value from UNDP for the DPRK is 0.766 in 1995, which also happens to be during the Arduous March. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/259/hdr_1998_en_complete_nostats.pdf#33

UNDP is what is considered canon as they are the ones issuing annual Human Development Reports. UNESCAP released that working paper in 2009 and haven't gone beyond that. Also, they themselves use HDI data from UNDP reports. https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/The%20State%20of%20Human%20Development%20in%20the%20Pacific%28LORes%29..pdf


 No.3279

>>3275

>Banks are not inherintley capitalist.

I know that, I'm looking for evidence that there are capitalists in Haiti. It's kinda hard to have capitalism without those, you know.

>mexico is most definitley capitalist

Indeed it is, and you know what? It's not such a bad place all things considered. I bet if it weren't for the literal drug war and related corruption in the government they'd be on par with most other developed countries.

>Uhh false. majority of them were ravaged by Civil war caused by uprising against fascist dictatorships installed by the USA OR caused by the USA creating artifiial Mujahed/Al-Qaueda like groups and creating conflict like they did in Syria, Libya, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, the Congo, etc.

So you mean to tell me all those commie groups like the Sandinistas and FARC had nothing to do with communism?

>The USA has actively assassinated or removed all leaders that would help civilize africa because it'e economically disadvantageous, after all, without child-slave labor in the Congo, how would you faggot /pol/yps get those iphones you have.

Uh, examples? I'm pretty sure iphones are made in China, by the way.

>good luck escaping from an island with a totalitarian military dictatorship

>Strawman argument

Just saying it's hard enough to escape from an island even without the government trying to stop you.

>universities which receive state-funding have the authority to prohibit the use of their facilities for meetings or speaking from people who are members of "the communist party"

Do they though? My college had an openly communist speaker on campus almost every month.


 No.3280

>>3278

>Just to cover this before you start nitpicking

<all that shit

What does any of that have to do with HDI? What's that second pic even a graph of?

>Besides what I already mentioned, massive amount of US aid played a role too.

See how North Korea's GDP took a tumble after 1989? I'm willing to bet the USSR had something to do with it.


 No.3281

Man, this thread has gotten to the point where it's completely divorced from my original premise. This is exactly like every thread I ever made on /leftypol/.


 No.3282

File: c6a1e560ddc303b⋯.png (231.26 KB, 500x443, 500:443, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3279

>iphones

China is state capitalist at the present, while socialism has benefited china, it's recent state-capitalism has resulted in ill effects though some are being rectified.

Smart phones like iphones are not inherently bad, they can be made without capitalism; the cobalt mined in the Congo an be acquired through humane and proper means, however that requires a decade or so of effort to bring the Congo up to speed. That is not profitable under capitalism and therefore will not happen, under socialism it did (in other African States) and would work in the Congo as well.

Capitalism did not, in fact, make the iPhone. Labor did. The ‘-ism’ merely determines who gets paid. Also, most of the technology present in the iPhone actually originated in the State sector, not the so-called ‘free market.’

the only capitalist part of the iphone, its marketing. Its actual design, components etc. etc. are government funded and researched thus making the phone itself a product of the state. Making it a publicly sold item doesn't make it a capitalist creation, it is a capitalist use of a non-capitalist creation.

As Mariana Mazzucato writes in an article for New Scientist, “In [Apple’s] early stages the company received government cash support via a $500,000 small business investment company grant. And every technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone owes its vision and funding to the state: the internet, GPS, touchscreen displays and even the voice-activated smartphone assistant Siri all received state cash. The US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) bankrolled the internet, and the CIA and the military funded GPS. So, although the US is sold to us as the model example of progress through private enterprise, innovation there has benefited from a very interventionist state.” It is not the case even in theory that capitalism or ‘the free market,’ made the iPhone. At least, not the sort of capitalism people who make this argument usually advocate for.


 No.3283

>>3277

>Cuba's government throws people in prison for complaining about it

Any specific examples that aren't some meaningless anecdote? Sorry but such accusations coming from a country that has hosted and continues to host black site prisons where people are tortured for the ALLEGATION of being terrorists, that's pretty funny. See the thing is, all you're doing is the same onion level propaganda about

Muh Prisons and Muh Refugees with no actual relevance.

The Cuban Economy is mostly on the downturn because of the betrayal of the capitalist Russian Federation

The Russian Federation's breaches of contracts with Cuba caused economic setbacks. Cuba’s economy could be summed up: exports of food items she produced lavishly such as sugar, citrus, seafood, rum and coffee, import of most other food items; import of oil from the Soviet Union and resale of surplus for cash; export of nickel; import on a small scale of most items of daily life such as cosmetics, soaps, cooking oil, pharmaceuticals, paper, glass, appliances . . .

The contracts for the year were reached well in advance and were all broken without warning when Comecon collapsed. Even some ships were turned around at sea. Alternate sources had already contracted with some other market for their inventories of goods. It was an 🍔🍔🍔Burger🍔🍔🍔 wet dream. This is what they had thought they would achieve by the blockade.

This problem fored cuba to rely more heavily on tourism and organic exports,

> https://www.lifegate.com/people/lifestyle/cuba-organic-honey-exports

the economy has lowered in capaity however the conditions of liing hae been maintained however because HDI relies partially on GDP, this lowers the result, i posted an infographic on soviet wages seeming lower than actually because of the bad balancing of the comparison.

The only reason why Cuba is not precisely on par with Scandinavian countries - especially on consumer items - is the total economic blockade (ie warfare) US effects on Cuba by using every means possible from direct blockade to forcing its ‘allies’ to do so as well. Leave aside US ships patrolling off of Cuba to enforce that blockade, US govt. spends a few million dollars every year just to make sure that there are no ships having any kind of produce from Cuba passing through harbors in other countries with destination being in US.

Of course, that is before mentioning that US had a habit of bombing Cuban factories via CIA - they build a factory, CIA bombs it. Like a computer game.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/12/noam-chomsky-interview-donald-trump-democracy/

"Well, what Castro’s actual goals were, we don’t actually know. He was sharply constrained from the first moment, by a harsh and cruel attack from the reigning superpower. We have to remember that literally within months after his taking office, the planes from Florida were beginning to bomb Cuba. Within a year, the Eisenhower administration, secretly, but formally, determined [the US would] overthrow the government."

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/fidel-castro-obit-cuban-revolution-imperialism/

Its no surprise that Cuba was not able to develop its native industries aside from what was ‘allowed’ - its difficult to produce anything while unmarked planes are bombing your factories. Cuban HDI over time is consistently high, and even immediately after the revolution, living conditions were far better than during the capitalist Batista dictatorship


 No.3284

File: 1b96e6ee5385b5d⋯.png (4.12 MB, 3300x1619, 3300:1619, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3279

>Your statistics are such ostentatious bullshit I'm not even gonna bother looking up the rest of them.

I dated my statistics and clarified them, you nitpicked some details and then got lazy

>wheat imports

if you averaged the imports over a yearly basis the imports remained relatively stable

>the USSR exporting grain at all except to its satellites.

Yeah, of which there was a good half of Europe, Cuba, Ethiopia, Somalia and a good half of the world.

>y understanding is that his policies are mostly a continuation of Chavez's

No, they're not. Other than oil nothing is really nationalized, many sectors were privatized.

>By US do you mean OPEC

OPEC is in this, but OPE doesn't fund fake opposition agitators to burn down warehouses of food being given out, the USA does.

>blame Venezuela for nationalizing their entire oil industry and using it to fund government programs

That's not a fault of socialism, that's the fault of Venezuela being over-reliant on oil, a problem that was brough about by de-regulating the other sectors of the economy.

>That accusation sounds like something out of Animal Farm

<Muh animal farm

FFS

>https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Venezuela-Protesters-Set-40-Tons-of-Subsidized-Food-on-Fire-20170630-0017.html

>https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-led-economic-war-not-socialism-tearing-venezuela-apart/218335/

>>3279

>It's kinda hard to have capitalism without those

US banks operate in Haiti, Haiti, just like Mexico and most of South 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔 are puppets of the USA, and thus host US corporations and banks or shell companies for said corporations.

>It's not such a bad place all things considered

I know people who lived their whole lives their before immigrating (legally) Gangs playing football with human heads is a common sight on the street, just to put it lightly.

>if it weren't for the literal drug war and related corruption in the government

Literally created by the CIA to funnel cocaine and heroin into US projects and ghettos. The gangs and corruption are literally a part of Capitalism It's like saying, "The Sahara is a nice place if it weren't for all the sand"

Africa

>examples

Sankara is a great example. Mandela was put in jail for decades etc. This was orchestrated by the USA. The same happened around the world, or was at the very least attempted.

pic 1 is the same but for South 🍔🍔🍔Burgerstand🍔🍔🍔

> the Sandinistas and FARC had nothing to do with communism

FARC is a grass-roots movement who are atively fighting capitalism, however as I pointed out, capitalism will not just let itself get voted out. Columbia was turned into a drug-gang hell by the CIA during Reagan's reign, and still remains so, though not as bad as during the 80s.

The Sandistas as the same deal.

>What does any of that have to do with HDI

Everything. HDI is based on certain criteria, while ignoring other factors that are also important. North Korea's HDI is lower beause its light industry is not as large as SOuth Korea, thus in terms of commodities and other shit, is lower, however because of the inherent nature of socialist systems providing housing and other basic need stuff that would be bought in capitalism the difference is not as large as it seems.

>how North Korea's GDP took a tumble after 1989?

The GDP is rising again and remained steady, of course it would take a tumble, imagine in the USA collapsed, the entire West would collapse, NATO would be hollowed out and Japan and South Korea would no longer have the US armed forces at their beck and call.

>>3281

Your original premise was shit, and your arguments are too.

>Just saying it's hard enough to escape from an island even without the government trying to stop you.

There is no evidence to that and i even addressed that claim.

>My college had an openly communist speaker on campus almost every month.

A radical-liberal jokester who half-asses the theory publically provides the illusion of inclusiveness while also making communism look stupid, because the speakers allowed to talk on campuses regularly are always soy-boy liberals. People like Michael Parenti are rarely allowed to speak. Youtube actively shadow-bans communist and socialist channels and videos while promoting right wing and liberal ones, Prager U being an easy example.


 No.3286

File: 33afb433946f613⋯.jpg (37.93 KB, 216x250, 108:125, billymays.jpg)

>>3284

>Your original premise was shit, and your arguments are too.

You're not even talking about the objectivity of value, the theory of surplus value or the nature of wealth anymore. That makes you the one with the shit arguments my dude, and now that I think about it it's been that way for quite some time. I'm done with this thread, go ahead and celebrate your victory like a pigeon after a chess game.


 No.3287

File: 37b407f9cab4fd1⋯.gif (978.54 KB, 500x500, 1:1, Eva 00 banging head on wal….gif)

>>3286

>You're not even talking about the objectivity of value, the theory of surplus value or the nature of wealth anymore

Because you branched off in the first place after bitching about specifics and examples, you an go drink that oxi-clean

>a pigeon after a chess game.

A hollow attempt at a comeback.

Your arguments are unspecific, lacking citations and based in nitpicking, strawmen, cherrypicking, obtusity and all the other pseudo-intellectual methods of manipulative argumentation. Now you've added projection, to complete your set of falsities. This whole thread has been going around in circles because of your stubborn and apparently unironic shitposting, until you decided to make the same tired old

>muh vuvuela

>muh refugees

>muh liberal values

>etc. false anti-socialist memes

It's like talking to a wall with a loud-speaker, it just blares and doesn't listen.


 No.3290

File: 516b9134c2d7388⋯.jpg (122.25 KB, 837x625, 837:625, anal sex.jpg)

>>3287

Wow, I thought I was done here but that was just too funny. If anyone's still lurking, read that post and then count the responses to this one right here:

>>3256


 No.3292

File: b60ec047e77f8e5⋯.png (866.8 KB, 950x608, 25:16, ehehehe.png)

>>3290

Smug stupidity describes you and your posts well. If 1 of your posts out of the dozen or so you've made has some numbers that doesn't change anything. You literally point out that your source is singular; Chicago Tribune, a pro-capitalist shill media source barely aboe fox news, who also wrote retarded articles on how it was 'socialism' that is taking down Venezuela.

Moreover you ignore the rest of the post made by iggy that points how socialism isn't about dividing what the CEO makes among his workers. This is you being obtuse, then on top of that you ignore the fact that the over-all wealth of the CEO (people's bank accounts don't just re-set every year) is far higher than a piddly 15 million. Your argument is the same retarded averaging meme.

>Small businesses can compete with larger ones by meeting more specific demands

Except that there is a VERY limited market for that, and smaller places are forced to charge more for items that are cheaper in other places and thus in the long-run the business stagnates and often collapses. Not to mention that to start a business in the first place you require a certain amount of capital, which most people do not have.

You post this with no context, no itations or numbers. Moreover you get BTFO on this by me later

>constant shortages and repression of civil liberties.

Face it Mack, you're half-assing and argument and expecting people to take your whining seriously.


 No.3293

>>3292

*half-assing AN argument

inB4

>you copy pasted too

I copy pasted my own words and specifically organized them with cited quotes, context or explanations further down. You posted a few questionable articles and presented the same circular meme-argument you libertine morons always use.


 No.3294

File: a4896eea5fa1de3⋯.jpg (134.39 KB, 496x496, 1:1, 1541823105288.jpg)

>>3292

>If 1 of your posts out of the dozen or so you've made has some numbers that doesn't change anything. You literally point out that your source is singular; Chicago Tribune, a pro-capitalist shill media source barely aboe fox news, who also wrote retarded articles on how it was 'socialism' that is taking down Venezuela.

The very fact that the conversation drifted to that topic shows I've been arguing with a brainlet. This was supposed to be about the nature of value, the theory of surplus value and whether or not wealth is a zero sum game.

>Moreover you ignore the rest of the post made by iggy that points how socialism isn't about dividing what the CEO makes among his workers.

Because that wasn't the point. He said that even if capitalists do perform labor it's not enough to match the value of the wealth they receive, so I provided an example that shows about how much that value really is. He then moved the goalposts and said it was really the shareholders who reap the benefits of "surplus value", and I informed him that the shareholders are in fact paid by the CEO, which was one of the many points I made to which he had no response.

>Except that there is a VERY limited market for that, and smaller places are forced to charge more for items that are cheaper in other places and thus in the long-run the business stagnates and often collapses.

What fairy tale universe do you live in where every cafe is a Starbucks, every diner is a McDonald's, every pizzeria is a Domino's, every auto parts store is an Autozone, every insurance firm is GEICO, every car manufacturer is General Motors and every electronics company is Apple? Not that it's relevant anyway.

>Not to mention that to start a business in the first place you require a certain amount of capital, which most people do not have.

Ever heard of something called a business loan?

>You post this with no context, no itations or numbers. Moreover you get BTFO on this by me later

>constant shortages and repression of civil liberties.

How? Again, not that it's relevant anyway.

Also,

>saging when the thread is still on page 1


 No.3295

>>3294

>The very fact that the conversation drifted to that topic shows I've been arguing with a brainlet.

ad hominum does not dismiss the fat that it was you who first diverted from the main conversation in the first place, not to mention the fact that there is more than 1 person answering your retarded posts. seems the brainlet is you.

>Because that wasn't the point

But is part of the context you cherrypicking ignoramus.

>He then moved the goalposts and said it was really the shareholders who reap the benefits of "surplus value"

False dichotomy, the CEO doesn't NOT get profits just beause shareholders get some as well.

>What fairy tale universe do you live in where every cafe

More obtuse bullshit. just because not every business is owned by a monopoly doesn't mean that these markets aren't extremely limited. you do realize that eventually many such independent businesses fail right? OR they have to become branches of a bigger companies, or otherwise rely on bigger companies to get money through brands.

>Ever heard of something called a business loan?

Yes and most people annot get a business loan beause they lack the necessary credit and capital. The older you are the less likely you are to get suh a loan, the poorer you are the less likely you'll get such a loan etc. etc.

>How

By presenting an exact full picture of socialist countries

>not relevant,

except it is, because it debunks your false assertions

Also

>posting here after you said you were leaving

when will you leave, you big whiny baby?


 No.3296

>>3295

>when will you leave

I guess now's a good time. Some of your points would be answered if you just read the thread, and the rest are so retarded they're not worth my time. Peace out.


 No.3297

File: befc2f60fb50ba6⋯.jpg (70.18 KB, 720x597, 240:199, ok retard.jpg)

>>3296

>Some of your points would be answered if you just read the thread

nope, you nitpicked a few points out of context

>not worthy my time

nice excuse


 No.3394

>>3254

>Go back and read it again, slowly.

No, you need to you strawmanning moron.

<This operation is way bigger than one worker and without my oversight and capital he wouldn't have a guaranteed paycheck. He'd have to handle everything I just outlined. And that's just to start with.

A management job does not mean he should be paid dozens of times more than a worker. If he and his worker switched places they'd still be able to do the jobs, because its an individual cog in a big machine. He is not that much more important than any other worker. marginally so, yet his pay is excessively higher and he also has the rights to a lot more outside pure cash value.

Brainlets like you are the reason people hate america, you give us the image of obtuse nit-pickers with cancerous american exceptionalism


 No.3438

File: 20b6b06c96f55ba⋯.jpeg (6.76 KB, 262x192, 131:96, ancapball.jpeg)

Again this lolbertard mistaking value with use value with exchange value.

Post discarded.


 No.3439

>>3394

>A management job does not mean he should be paid dozens of times more than a worker

<Management isn't work

Man, no wonder you guys are so easily exploited by people like Stalin.

>If he and his worker switched places they'd still be able to do the jobs, because its an individual cog in a big machine.

You forgot to include "albeit poorly." Management isn't some skillless chair in an office somewhere, it's a skill to allocate capital, resources, and time, and plan accordingly to keep a business running. Not everyone can do it. Not everyone has the skill in math, HR, or foresight to do it, and that's okay.

What makes you commies so unbelievably stupid is that instead of trying to validate the "lowest ring in the ladder" as being of equal worth, you easily turn this into attacking the idea of 'management' as some unneeded skill that you'll magically sort out later, or will just be handled by the working class. This never works. This is why no socialist government has ever succeeded - because you don't understand the importance of management, so either someone who understands its importance comes along and abuses the populace's lax understanding of it until you have a dictator, or nobody who understands what 'foresight' is takes the wheels and the economy crashes and burns to the point where the populace is raiding zoos just so they can survive.


 No.3442

File: 2f4f69cb4a3a1d7⋯.pdf (1.18 MB, Economic Development, Poli….pdf)

File: c8e5af8cb03f397⋯.pdf (451.01 KB, Human Rights in Russia and….pdf)

>>3439

>Management isn't work

Nice strawman there, also didn't you already leave, why are you back you gormless twat?

>so easily exploited by people like Stalin

In what way? Oh right I forgot, muh 200 gorillions

>albeit poorly

Sure because it takes time to learn a certain job. That is a minor nit-pick that is attempting to avert from the main point, work is still work, while some jobs may require higher levels of expertise, that does not justify an excessive difference in payment on an individual basis.

>Management isn't some skillless chair in an office somewhere

Again, a strawman, its never said here that it is skill-less, but the point is that being paid far more on an individual basis for a job that is essentially making decisions is exploitative.

>it's a skill to allocate capital, resources, and time, and plan accordingly to keep a business running

Sure, for low-level basic businesses, any major business, the manager just pushes these things onto secretaries and essentially sits on his ass checking papers and signing off on them at his own whim. His job is no more important than the builder making the homes people live in

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.

For want of a shoe the horse was lost.

For want of a horse the rider was lost.

For want of a rider the message was lost.

For want of a message the battle was lost.

For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.

And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

and who makes those horseshoes and nails? The black-smith.

>t instead of trying to validate the "lowest ring in the ladder" as being of equal worth, you easily turn this into attacking the idea of 'management' as some unneeded skill that you'll magically sort out later

Again you're literally talking out of your ass, the entire concept of planned economy (a concept that functions primarily under socialism) is BUILT on the premise of management and its importance. The reason an excessively higher pay is a problem is because its more payment then what its actually worth, meaning the workers collectively gets a minor percentage of the profit as compared to the manager despite him only doing a certain amount of work. Even if the profits were split 50 50 between workers and manager, the manager still gets far more - he is 1 INDIVIDUAL recieving a major percentage, while the workers get a smaller percentage, further divided amongst themselves. They essentially get less than their labors worth.

>This is why no socialist government has ever succeeded

See posts

>>3258

>>3283

>>3259

>>3261

>>3265

>>3266

>>3267

>>3268

>>3269

>>3270

>>3278

>>3282

Socialist economies have historically been on the same level of economic production as the West despite having a far poorer initial industrial base and far less time to construct it. Socialist countries are better in almost every goddamn aspect to The transition to capitalism, produced countless pre-mature deaths and continues to produce a higher mortality rate than likely would have prevailed under the socialist system. A 1986 study by Shirley Ciresto and Howard Waitzkin, based on World Bank data, found that the socialist economies of the Soviet bloc produced more favorable outcomes on measures of physical quality of life, including life expectancy, infant mortality, and caloric intake, than did capitalist economies at the same level of economic development, and as good as capitalist economies at a higher level of development. See pdfs 1 and 2 as reference.

>have a dictator

This fucking meme again, see that's where you're wrong.

>nobody who understands what 'foresight' is takes the wheels and the economy crashes and burns

Citation needed. Also covered in the posts cited.

>raiding zoos

citation needed.


 No.3443

File: c419f79260e32cb⋯.pdf (15.32 MB, 1937_Soviet Democracy_Pat ….pdf)

>>3442

>aspect to The transition to capitalism

supposed to be

"aspect. The transition to capitalism"

>where you're wrong.

To extrapolate on that

The USSR was not democratic in the traditional sense, because democracy in the West seems to mean "Mob Rule" (regardless of what our politicians may say).

The USSR was a polity of worker soviets, which started on a local level, and built up to the federal government. It is a Cooperative Federalist system in that sense. No soviet leaders until Yeltsin were appointed power based on bloodline, political position or that kind of tripe, even Stalin was elected. If you just look at the Soviet Union's honored constitution, you can clearly see the evidence.

Quote:

"Article 36. The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. is elected for a term of four years."

You can argue semantics but that is individual and not systemic. Farming Co-Ops and Industrial centers were given basal supervision and otherwise maintained themselves, giving only reports to the central government so as to make decisions and accumulate votes for them.

Free Speech and other rights are all in both of the constitutions of the USSR.

>http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html

>https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html

>http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/2185/the-ussr-the-democracy-you-didnt-know-about

No it was not a perfect system, but as I pointed out in the posts I linked, it provides no fewer rights than the USA if not more, and to be judge on double-standards of how it wasn't perfect (when the USA is very far from perfect itself) is just a nit-pick that ignores the good points and emphasizes the bad.

I suggest reading

Stepehn Kotkin - Magnetic Mountain (good overview of the party/state tensions during industrialisation, has a big section of the later purges, policing, the NKVD etc.)

J. Arch Getty - The Origins of the Great Purge (very much about structures, a bit outdated and contested, but I think a good overview of the administrative purges and what local party politics could be like - the later book The Road to Terror with Getty and Naumov is better in terms of the origins of the terror etc... but less specific about local power politics.)

Sheila Fitzpatrick - Everyday Stalinism (this is more so about what it was like to live in the era than about structures and such but does a good job of explaining the role of the party in everyday life and how people felt about it all)

If you don't feel like reading I suggest you listen to these videos instead

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PoYzPfguJc

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okz2YMW1AwY

Also the pdf linked is a detailed over-view of the USSR in 1937 and is a critical but fair appraisal of its system.

>takes the wheels and the economy crashes and burns

The soviet economy has never 'crashed and burned'. The only real failure was in 1991, caused not by socialism but from leaving it.

It is self-evident that his "perestroika" was what truly damaged the Soviet economy

In 1986 (before Gorbachev's Market Reforms occurred)

Soviet GNP growth rate was at a solid 4.1%

Internal Debt as a percent of GDP was 20%

Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP was 2.4%

In 1987 (when the Market Reforms kicked in)

Soviet GDP growth rate was a pathetic 1.3%

Internal Debt as a percent of GDP was 22%

Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP was an incredible 6.2%

In 1988

Soviet GNP growth rate was a slightly better 2.3%

Internal Debt as a percent of GDP was a staggering 36%

Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP was a 8.8%

In 1989

Soviet GNP growth rate was a reduced to 1.5%

Internal Debt as a percentage of GDP was now 43%

Budget Deficit as a percentage of GDP was now 11%

In 1990

Soviet GNP growth rate was in a crisis at -11%

Internal Debt as a percentage of GDP was now 55%

Budget Deficit as a percentage of GDP was now 14%

In 1991

Soviet GNP growth rate was a disaster of -13%

Internal Debt as a percentage of GDP isn't available from the statics

Budget Deficit as a percentage of GDP was at 20% (that was the entire internal debt in just 5 years earlier).

This is despite the fact that prior to Gorby’s meddling, the Soviet growth exceeded the USA and had always remained steady (discounting the economic dip from WW-2).


 No.3453

File: 6cb58d6c0d0b0b9⋯.png (186.24 KB, 560x432, 35:27, 1440834698450.png)

>>3442

Wow, you're fucking dumb, kid.

>Nice strawman there

It isn't a strawman to note you excluding management from "workers" and hold it as such, you stupid Redditor

>Also didn't you leave,

<Everyone who disagrees with me is one person

Your board was on the top of the banner, I clicked, and wanted to see what this board was.

>In what way? Oh right I forgot, muh 200 gorillions

This bit I love, that you don't think 8 million people dying under Stalin was that big of a deal, yet you manchildren will piss yourselves at the sight of a bonafide Neo-Nazi because of the Holocaust, and those numbers are just from Stalin alone. Let's not drag every other disaster you pieces of crap have allowed to slip in.

>Sure because it takes time to learn a certain job

It takes a lot more than just time to learn a new job, other than entry level positions which are otherwise replaceable whenever a surplus of workers is present. You're actively arguing against the value of the workforce, and you're too stupid to see that, but I already stated my stance on the relation between hard labor verses management, so let's move on.

>while some jobs may require higher levels of expertise

This one's cute, because, like the previous one, you're putting management as something of a "higher level of expertise." Again, you're actively justifying an excessive paycheck for them by putting the bar for entry higher, you stupid shit.

>Again, a strawman

You really need to stop using Reddit for how to form an argument, because this pseudo-intellectual crap is tripe to read. Since this is pretty much a repeat of the first point, I'm going to take the time to say that you read like a pissed off 13 year old kid whose reading a fallacy list off of Wikipedia for terms to throw around, rather than study them to figure out how logical inconsistencies formulate. If I'm making a strawman, demonstrate this, because if you did you'd see I'm being intentionally hyperbolic there to highlight your disregard.

>that being paid far more on an individual basis for a job that is essentially making decisions is exploitative.

And meanwhile in reality not paying attention to it or giving it the respect it deserves leads to disaster. Meanwhile you yourself said that the skills need a higher level of expertise, and that it only takes time to learn a job management supervises, so why not pay them more? You're trying to convince me by repeating the same premise you're trying to arrive at, which doesn't work because I'm not a fucking idiot.

> for low-level basic businesses, any major business, the manager just pushes these things onto secretaries and essentially sits on his ass checking papers and signing off on them at his own whim

<Translation: All of my experience in management has been spent playing the Sims, watching sitcoms/cartoons, and listening to middle-aged men whine about getting written up

This might surprise you, but Aggretsuko is not a documentary. It is a comedy. Things are exaggerated for comedy.

>And who makes those horseshoes and nails? The black-smith

Holy shit, speaking of pretension, how are you so stupid that you copypasted a proverb without realizing what it means?

You're trying to deconstruct this as some causality meaning the importance of the lowest common denominator, but the proverb doesn't mean that at all. The shoe and nail already existed - the blacksmith did his job and the hypothetical kingdom still fell. The proverb is to stress the importance of oversight and management itself. You actively copypasted a proverb stressing this, and noting the nature of hindsight and you were too stupid to even take five seconds to see what it meant.

(Also, blacksmith is one word, you retarded fuck)

>you're literally talking out of your ass

That's... not what 'literally' means? Ugh... kids, this is a good lesson in what Reddit does to the brain...

> meaning the workers collectively gets a minor percentage of the profit as compared to the manager despite him only doing a certain amount of work

This might surprise you, but management doesn't make that big of a cut per-product sold, unless you want to post some actual numbers instead of talking about of your ass about this 50-50 crap or whatever. It's only the scale of business operation that causes it to spike up. Unless you want to practice day trading, then you're probably never going to experience this because you're too stupid to operate a business for more than a month, but I digress.


 No.3454

File: bb4d98b0adfe277⋯.png (266.67 KB, 646x611, 646:611, lol.PNG)

>>3442

>>3453

What I really don't understand about how stupid you are is that you don't think it's fair for management to get a bigger paycheck, so instead you want the government to mandate the means of production under the guise that the government is the people. Well, knowing that there's still going to be a body that regulates it, you essentially make upper management the government. So let me get this straight (and don't give me ideological crap as an answer, I want a consistent, logical structure): you don't like the highest level of management being paid more, so instead you want the highest level of management to outright be governing?

>Why no socialist government has ever succeeded

Nigger I am not going piece by piece against that gish gallop of faggotry that you probably didn't even write. My time is far too valuable. I will summarize a few, though, since that comes into a point later.

<Cuba's a good socialist country because Haiti is a worse one!

<Cuban refugees and cuban dictatorship are just a conspiracy propaganda by... someone... You should believe me because the US blocked it off. If it wasn't for other countries existing, Cuba would be fine.

<I don't have an argument, so here's some memes, namecalling, and outdated infographics from seven years ago. Also, you can't use Venezuela as an example because it's not real socialism (now that it's failing)

<According to communist sympathizers, Communism is good

I'm stopping at this one because I found it word-for-word in a Quora answer whenever I tried to find where the stat in it was from, meaning that you aren't even putting any thought into hastily copy/pasting off of Google and dumping stupid pics, so I shouldn't put in anymore thought than I have.

> Socialist countries are better in almost every goddamn aspect

Except for, you know, the part where the need to transition to capitalism because

<The workers don't like being regulated by the government

<Other countries exist

<The GDP experiences a downturn beforehand

Alternatively...

<The GDP takes an upturn, and citizens get upset about the government taking more of the money that they feel they earned

>produced countless pre-mature deaths and continues to produce a higher mortality rate than likely would have prevailed under the socialist system

Oh cry me a river. No, you don't go from "muh 200 million" to trying to care about human life. Besides that, you're hilarious. Somehow going for hundreds of thousands of deaths directly from government interference doesn't mean anything to you when you'll undoubtedly whine "well people die under capitalism too!"

> than did capitalist economies at the same level of economic development

This part's fucking hilarious."Oh, yeah, if they have the same amount of money, they're okay." No shit - anyone with a brain knows that if you have the existing capital then you can spend it on the people. Socialist countries never maintain that level of economic development, then turn for the worse.

>See that's where you're wrong

Well, that's just like your opinion, man.

>Citiation needed

Mentally noting the irony that you asked me to cite the importance of foresight in the same post as you pasting For Want of a Nail.

>citation needed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/08/17/venezuelas-starving-people-are-now-eating-the-zoo-animals-the-parisians-had-the-german-excuse/#318e1fe5d2cc

>>3443

> It is a Cooperative Federalist system in that sense

Holy shit no, it's as much Federalist as National Socialism is Socialism.

>Free Speech and other rights are all in both of the constitutions of the USSR.

Let me let you in on a secret - a constitution is just a document. It's not going to stop an abusive governing body from abusing the rights of the citizens on it. You can say "oh, yeah, the USSR promised not to restrict rights," but that doesn't change the results from the inherent weakness that Communism and Socialism introduced. That doesn't stop the KGB from forming. That doesn't stop the authoritarian regimens under them after the lower and middle classes are locked into a forced portion of wealth.

It doesn't provide any rights because the citizens couldn't fundamentally protect themselves.

>I suggest reading

<Literally "Go read a book"

Meanwhile I suggest you go read up on some actual history and testimonies from people who have lived in those countries, instead of curated crap from "progressive" activists.

>The only real failure was in 1991, caused not by socialism but from leaving it.

Boy, isn't that weird how whenever the smaller countries ruled outside of Russia by the USSR leave to govern themselves, the USSR collapses?

Also, loving how you're treating this as if it were some sort of high score. Thankfully in the real world, we have a measurement for if a country fails or not - is it still substantiated? No? Then it's failed.


 No.3455

File: ced5b1e880eaf50⋯.jpg (135.17 KB, 553x595, 79:85, this is fucking dumb.jpg)

>>3453

>It isn't a strawman to note you excluding management from "workers" and hold it as such, you stupid Redditor

1) Didn't do that thus you're strawmanning

2) Ad hominum, (in what way am I a redditor?)

3) Management under capitalism is labor, but is treated as something special, when it is not.

>veryone who disagrees with me is one person

No, but you're just repeating the same shit

>you don't think 8 million people dying under Stalin was that big of a deal

Where did you get 8 million? Also of course Stalin PERSONALLY shot all 8 million.

Literally EVERY /pol/ level meme statement you just posted is fucking adressed in the posts I sourced, but because you people can't be bothered to read you make retarded statements like that.

>piss yourselves at the sight of a bonafide Neo-Nazi because of the Holocaust

Sorry that's liberals and rad-libs, for that shit go to r/socialism or >>>/leftpol/

> You're actively arguing against the value of the workforce

How exactly, you're just saying that with no actual explanation.

>already stated my stance on the relation between hard labor verses management

In other words you already have your set views so you're just blustering without listening, as expected.

>you're putting management as something of a "higher level of expertise."

Yes, BUT, not so much so that it deserves to be over-compensated.

>putting the bar for entry higher

The bars are different per job. The same manager will also be unable to get a job as a fucking electrician because they know NOTHING about it. Communism isn't "Everyone gets exactly the same amount", the whole point is social equality, however, as john Rawls explained in his Theory of Justice, if some people have far more money compared to others, it is not possible for them to be socially equal because more money means more influence.

>You really need to stop using Reddit for how to form an argument

I don't use reddit, and the only "pseudo-intellectual tripe" here is your wiggling. you twist everything I say or provide contextless or citationless statements... a typical knave.

>rather than study them to figure out how logical inconsistencies formulate. If I'm making a strawman, demonstrate this, because if you did you'd see I'm being intentionally hyperbolic there to highlight your disregard.

Of course because this isn't an image-board this is a full-blown academic discussion forum, right? I pointed out your statements as a strawman and moved on. There was nothing to debunk when it is a paper-thin accusation.

Since you're an obnoxious pedant, I'll provide a brief example, I won't do so again, no matter how much you whine, because in the end I'd be a fool to engage such shallow bait.

You stated

>Management isn't some skillless chair in an office somewhere

That is a strawman because that was never my argument nor does it debunk my point.


 No.3456

File: 924d06607899fc5⋯.jpg (83.65 KB, 500x613, 500:613, retarded on purpose.jpg)

>>3455

Moving on

>in reality not paying attention to it or giving it the respect it deserves leads to disaster

What reality are you living in where this exists? Nobody fucking said that management shouldn't be paid attention to you straw-manning fuck. The rest of your argument is literally the same shit repeated over and over again, the same twisting of my words and false accusations.

>All of my experience in management has been spent playing the Sims, watching sitcoms/cartoons

uhh no, its called being employed and having to pick up the slack for others when they can't come in, including doing administrative stuff.

Sorry, but your projections aren't an argument.

>how are you so stupid that you copypasted a proverb without realizing what it means?

I know exactly what it means, and that's why I cited it.

>The shoe and nail already existed - the blacksmith did his job and the hypothetical kingdom still fell.

Uhhh, NO you illiterate fuck.

There was no nail made, so the shoe fell off leading to a series of ever increasing catastrophes. Your importance of management itself is meaningless. if the blacksmith doesn't work, then basic social functions will fail, leading to society eventually collapsing. Yes management helps prevent that, but it doesn't actually produce the goddamn nail you retarded fuck. It's enormously apparent that you see things ONLY the way YOU want to and then accuse others of that.

(also black smith and blacksmith can both be used you nit-picking twat).

>not what 'literally' means

yes, yes, yes I know, I was tired and typing fast, no-one likes a grammar nazi.

>management doesn't make that big of a cut per-product sold

Again like I already pointed out and you rehash,low-level businesses, in which there are too few workers and clearly too few products to allow for as high a difference.

>It's only the scale of business operation that causes it to spike up

Except that workers in larger scale business operations are usually paid more in ratio.

>50-50 crap

I was trying to explain to your screw-ball mind that while individually a manager's work may require more expertise in a certain sphere the fact remains that the manager will earn about as much as all the workers do collectively despite being only 1 individual.


 No.3458

>>3454

>edgy comic

Cool it there wrist-cutter.

>Ad hom

SKIP

>you don't think it's fair for management to get a bigger paycheck

This... again. I've lost count but I think you've repeated this same exact accusation at least 5 or 6 times... Stop arguing with this 'you think management is unimportant' strawman, you're not proving anything.

> you want the government to mandate the means of production under the guise that the government is the people.

Yes

>Upper management

>you want the highest level of management to outright be governing?

MFW You're a walking echo-chamber of projections, strawmen and fucking ignorance...

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. These things aren't something that is explained in a small 5 sentence paragraph.

>I am not going piece by piece against that gish gallop of faggotry that you probably didn't even write.

I did write it, and you've proved my point so I have no complaints

>My time is far too valuable

Sure it is, that's why you posted two massive textwalls... with edgy pictures and nitpicks.

>Cuban refugees and cuban dictatorship are just a conspiracy propagandand by the CIA

>You should believe me because the US blocked it off. If it wasn't for the USA isolating Cuba by pressuring other countries to not engage with it by economically threatening them, Cuba would be fine.

Fixed it for you

>here's some memes

As opposed to your pink text ad hom?

Most of those were infographs

>outdated

No, not really

>namecalling

Only because they started it

>you can't use Venezuela as an example because it's not real socialism (now that it's failing)

<Muh Vuvuela

You are so stupid it's a wonder you haven't drowned in a puddle yet. Venezuela was praised as capitalist by Western media up until the oil bubble collapsed, As soon as that happened the media started calling it socialist.

Venezuela is not socialist, it has social democratic policies but is essentially capitalist. nationalization =/=socialism, as South Korea demonstrates.

>word-for-word in a Quora answer

Yes, MY quora answers. Why re-write something that is already written. The citations are there regardless, your excuses do you no favors.

> the need to transition to capitalism

Non-existant

>lists off literal lies

See

>>3261

>>3262

>>3263

>>3264

>>3265

none of what you claimed is true, and I addressed all of that.

>GDP downturn

literally happened in 1 place, the War-saw Pact, which was a unified economy, if the USA collapsed the same would go for NATO. I already touched upon how that happened.


 No.3460

>>3454

>you don't go from "muh 200 million" to trying to care about human life.

>going for hundreds of thousands of deaths directly from government interference doesn't mean anything to you when you'll undoubtedly whine "well people die under capitalism too!"

The levels of your whataboutism is amazing and then you have the gall to attack me with that bullshit strawman.

Your "deaths from governmental interference" is fucking lolbertian levels of retardation I haven't seen since 2014.

Ok, lets dismiss the fact that '

A) Socialism didn't kill 100, 60, 20, or 10 million people as has been determined by objective and peer-reviewed historians who I cite in my sources or are otherwise linked

B) Deaths during a Revolution and war are different than deaths caused by social neglect and apathy

C) Global capitalism exists and isn't just going to let a sstem opposing it just idly grow, and will actively attempt to destroy it, no matter the casualties.

Your 1984-esque view on government is moronic

Your

>anyone with a brain knows that if you have the existing capital then you can spend it on the people. Socialist countries never maintain that level of economic development, then turn for the worse

You are talking out your ass again. That's not what happened. Not to mention that No, socialist governments were economically more proficient than capitalist countries with the same amount of capital, competing with capitalist countries possessing MORE capital on a regular basis.

>zoo animals

<venezuela

I already addressed your false argument.

>it's as much Federalist as National Socialism is Socialism.

Denial

>a constitution is just a document.

<literally ignores the rest of the post and the posts of people under Socialism and how it was

The KGB boogie man isn't an argument. You might as well say that the FBI existing means the US constitution is meaningless... oh wait

>go read up on some actual history and testimonies

I did and I cited at least a dozen with polls and data

>It doesn't provide any rights because the citizens couldn't fundamentally protect themselves.

The sources, legal and anecdotal, disagree

Here are some more: https://pastebin.com/Zwuejk4A

>Literally "Go read a book"

It is a subject of 70+ years I already explained the basic premise and provided sources that further explained how they functioned. Your laziness is not my problem

>sn't that weird how whenever the smaller countries ruled outside of Russia by the USSR leave to govern themselves, the USSR collapses

That's not what happened, I already cited sources to the contrary.

>we have a measurement for if a country fails or not - is it still substantiated

That's a weird reality you're from, that must mean Rome, South Korea, the Shah's Iraq, the Russian Empire and every other country that has passed is a 'failure'. Sorry but that's not an objective measurement of success, because at some point every country collapses or otherwise falls, and as capitalism reaches its last stages, such rises and collapses will become common-place.

Also legally speaking the USSR didn't legally dissolve as the decision went against the majority ruling, as the process of its dissolution was illegally signed, the document of said dissolution and formation of the Post soviet federations and republics are legally null, so one can argue that the USSR, by technicality still exists. It's not really relevant but an interesting thing to know.

Regardless you are a complete waste of time with the same repeated arguments that just ignore everything that doesn't fit your cognitive dissonant view of the world. Do yourself and everyone a favor and stay on /pol/ and circle-jerk about capitalism there.


 No.3461

File: 2d36a0c72ea586d⋯.jpg (48.01 KB, 700x871, 700:871, American critisism of comm….jpg)

File: dfcfef71fc80eee⋯.jpg (283.61 KB, 1268x1600, 317:400, anti capitalist meme.jpg)

File: c118ce3cffbb77a⋯.jpg (92.18 KB, 640x819, 640:819, But muh KGB.jpg)

File: 598e30a1a11d4b5⋯.jpg (538.88 KB, 810x1214, 405:607, but muh unworkable sociali….jpg)

File: 69a34ad842ddd39⋯.jpg (78.06 KB, 640x640, 1:1, can't fail without a goal.jpg)


 No.3482

File: 11381017a6c11e6⋯.png (122.48 KB, 643x643, 1:1, 8.png)


 No.3483

File: b18039ef2d6dbe2⋯.png (1.28 MB, 800x1600, 1:2, ClipboardImage.png)

File: f5a48d9a3484715⋯.png (137.26 KB, 480x459, 160:153, ClipboardImage.png)

File: da0df589fb2ce05⋯.png (213.4 KB, 431x431, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 6397b97f463fe70⋯.png (324.41 KB, 500x622, 250:311, ClipboardImage.png)

File: ff0e80386cd0f66⋯.png (530.06 KB, 1195x997, 1195:997, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.3484

File: 5c060350093e8e9⋯.png (599.27 KB, 1273x634, 1273:634, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3482

THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA: by John Stockwell

John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, #GeorgeBush. He spent 13 years in the agency. He gives a short history of CIA covert operations. He is a very compelling speaker and the highest level CIA officer to testify to the Congress about his actions. He estimates that over 6 million people have died in CIA covert actions, and this was in the late 1980's.

A lecture given in October, 1987

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

"Remember: if America wasn't constantly staging coups, waging proxy wars, bombing people, arming terrorists, inflicting starvation sanctions on impoverished populations, torturing people in CIA black sites, and spying on us all with Orwellian surveillance, the bad guys would win."

~ Caity Johnstone


 No.3487

>claimed to have read it

>clearly hasn't read anything

hmmm


 No.3488

File: 1d7c4f32f87c994⋯.png (140.17 KB, 796x1156, 199:289, 1494825159241.png)

File: 09fc1fc0d5753c7⋯.jpg (53.6 KB, 480x541, 480:541, 1515102780948.jpg)

File: be7190b5831c226⋯.png (124.99 KB, 643x643, 1:1, 9.png)

File: b7b160252558b34⋯.png (132.58 KB, 642x774, 107:129, 15.png)

>>3483

>>3484

Sweet holy kek, it just keeps getting better.

>le bad thing is only bad when America does it

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/19820625.pdf

Who the fuck is Caity Johnstone anyway?


 No.3490

File: 8fa8a04953d7122⋯.png (18.27 KB, 250x272, 125:136, 8fa8a04953d7122ea0d7c944e3….png)

>>3455

>1) Didn't do that thus you're strawmanning

>2) Ad hominum, (in what way am I a redditor?)


 No.3491

File: 51d3543c309a301⋯.png (201.66 KB, 459x585, 51:65, Kak skazat 'lol' po russki.png)

>>3490

Too bad, man. He really threw you a meatball talking about free speech in the Soviet constitution.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6224&context=penn_law_review

Pic related.


 No.3492

File: e3a9db2e9d70565⋯.png (43.22 KB, 1001x217, 143:31, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 696221a25b2116d⋯.png (17.83 KB, 990x88, 45:4, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3491

As if the USA doesn't do the same exact thing. The difference is the USSR points this out from the get go so that citizens know specifically what to engage and not, while in the USA you're given no warning before you get pulled into a HUAC hearing or sent to Guantanomo. The CIA forcefully edits any and all media produced in the USA by Holly-wood and related productions, forcing them to change scripts so that whenever there is a 'bad depiction of the US government or the CIA' its instead made into a 'rogue cell' or some other rubbish.

This applies to almost all capitalist countries

Singapore's Internal Security Act gives the government the power to, among other things, "prohibit the manufacture, sale, use, wearing, display or possession of any flag, banner, badge, emblem, device, uniform or distinctive dress or any part thereof."

The only symbol prohibited right now, as far as I'm aware - five-pointed star, hammer and sickle. Accusing people of being commies and then indefinitely detaining them without trial has been a fairly popular approach here.

Malaysia's government can pretty much arrest you for breathing in a communist fashion.

>124B. Activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124C. Attempt to commit activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124D. Printing, sale, etc., of documents and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124E. Possession of documents and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124F. Importation of document and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

>124G. Posting of placards, etc.

>124H. Dissemination of information

>124I. Dissemination of false reports

>124J. Receipt of document and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

You have to sign a form saying that you uphold the US Constitution to get any government job, even tangentially government-related like a janitor.

Then there's this:

>The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

Universities which receive state-funding have the authority to prohibit the use of their facilities for meetings or speaking from people who are members of "the communist party" (assuming that means CPUSA but either way it's still on the books, I could see this being applied broadly) in Ohio and that students here have to learn about the US, its history and Constitution before being taught about social issues, foreign affairs, the UN, world government, socialism or communism.

>>3490

Good job coward, you lose.


 No.3493

File: 6f2e93fd9f67317⋯.png (1.06 MB, 1010x1604, 505:802, ClipboardImage.png)

File: debcc2f93e6244b⋯.png (863.88 KB, 700x926, 350:463, ClipboardImage.png)

File: d3f60a8094673aa⋯.png (1.11 MB, 740x912, 185:228, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.3494

>>3492

>As if the USA doesn't do the same exact thing.

Take the front page of cnn.com right now and, hell, I'm not even gonna ask you to compare it to the Soviet Union, if you replaced "Trump" with "Putin" and sent it to Russia now, imagine how well received it would be.

>Universities which receive state-funding have the authority to prohibit the use of their facilities for meetings or speaking from people who are members of "the communist party"

You should visit an American university sometime, they're all crawling with unironic commies.

>>3493

>Literal Soviet propaganda as a source

Wow, you sure got me there.


 No.3495

File: c118ce3cffbb77a⋯.jpg (92.18 KB, 640x819, 640:819, But muh KGB.jpg)

File: 97e4f04ab5d6a3e⋯.png (298.46 KB, 1000x600, 5:3, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3494

>Take the front page of cnn.com right now and, hell, I'm not even gonna ask you to compare it to the Soviet Union, if you replaced "Trump" with "Putin" and sent it to Russia now, imagine how well received it would be. LOL

Considering that the people on Radio Dozhde are still alive and well (people who write far more damaging things than CNN ever has) I doubt it.

>visit a university

I went to one m8, I live here.

>unironic commies

garden variety radical-liberals are not commies, get that through your head you twat. Identity Politics and communism do not function, and in fact that is literally the first thing pointed about by just about any communist

>soviet propaganda as a source

Krokodil wasn't soviet propaganda, and if you actually fucking knew what was written you'd realize that these comics are lambasting the soviet government for work mis-management. This went through the censors.

Also nice of you to ignore the thing about Sholokhov, quite convenient. I can name you several other soviet writers who wrote anti-communist things who not only got through the censor but were personally defended by Stalin, people such as Bulgakov, who wrote a Dogs Heart, Master and Margarita and Day of Turbins all three of which are critical of the USSR and bolsheviks. Or perhaps you'd like to listen to a non-soviet source? There is that interview with George Lucas where he points out that Soviet film makers had far more freedom to make films than in the USA. In the USA you can make what you like but if the movie theatre won't take it, it's for naught.


 No.3496

>>3495

>Radio Dozhde

Who the hell? Certainly not members of Pussy Riot.

>garden variety radical-liberals are not commies, get that through your head you twat.

Even if they call themselves Communists and are members of the Communist party?

>Politics and communism do not function, and in fact that is literally the first thing pointed about by just about any communist

I've never once heard a Communist say that but I have no trouble believing it.

>Krokodil wasn't soviet propaganda, and if you actually fucking knew what was written you'd realize that these comics are lambasting the soviet government for work mis-management.

<Congratulations Petrov, for absolutely no defective details!

<While I was on vacation!

Sounds to me like an attempt to blame the shortcomings of Soviet industry on bad management. Trust us comrades, it's not our fault you still didn't get that car you bought 10 years ago, it's those lazy bureaucrats!

This entire point is a strawman anyway. Who cares if the Soviet government allowed people to make fun of bureaucrats? Under the official Soviet doctrine that wouldn't be considered an attack on the Soviet government anyway, since the workers, peasants and intelligentsia were considered equal. As I already showed, the Soviet Constitution quite clearly affirmed that the rights of citizens were only to be respected insofar as they followed the doctrine of Socialism.

>Also nice of you to ignore the thing about Sholokhov,

Because it was a non-argument. Hitler let Lionel de Rothschild off the hook, does that mean he was really cool with the Jews all along?

>There is that interview with George Lucas where he points out that Soviet film makers had far more freedom to make films than in the USA. In the USA you can make what you like but if the movie theatre won't take it, it's for naught.

That doesn't mean the government wasn't restricting the film industry, it means Soviet theatres would play any garbage they got their hands on. Who would've bothered making Star Wars in the USSR? It would've been shown as a double feature with Howard the Duck and probably would've made the same amount of money.


 No.3497

File: 947779fa76dfce2⋯.png (625.94 KB, 544x960, 17:30, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 865dbc4883bb53b⋯.png (652.35 KB, 1024x601, 1024:601, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 67f03c93bc4d275⋯.png (177.39 KB, 655x1065, 131:213, pinochet neoliberal shill.png)

File: f8950fbaf4ef7da⋯.png (319.72 KB, 480x490, 48:49, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3488

>This much ironic whataboutism

Are you trying to make me laugh? Because you're succeeding.

Meme 1 is probably the most ironic and I'll pick it apart because it's amusing to me.

>Capitalism is more humane than imperialism and fascism

LOL fascism and imperialism are forms of capitalism, you're literally doing the "Not Real Capitalism" argument unironically. Also you're literally doing the "It's not perfect but its the only system we got" argument.

Nazi Germany was not anti-capitalist. They claimed to be but literally everything about their policy screamed “rampant free market”. The term “privatisation” was literally coined to describe their economic policy. Hitler made it very clear that NatSoc was diametrically opposed to Marxism.

>Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner, 'The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry'(The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 66, No. 2 (Jun., 2006)- pp. 390-416: http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/buchheim-041020.pdf

>www.ub.edu/graap/bel_Italy_fascist.pdf

>http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

>Mises defends Austro-fascism: https://books.google.com/books?id=Nxl7tR4CzQ4C&pg=PA13&dq=Mises+Dollfuss&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiThZKQ6uDUAhWK4CYKHVRdA7EQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Mises%20Dollfuss&f=false

>https://www.quora.com/If-fascism-is-ruled-by-a-nationalistic-dictator-why-doesnt-it-include-communists-like-Stalin/answer/Chuck-Garen

>https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-were-Hitler-and-Stalin-similar-dictators/answer/Chuck-Garen

Imperialism is capitalist lenin wrote and entire book dedicated to proving and explaining that: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Frederick

>illegal in capitalism

But under true capitalism nothing is truly illegal because its a no regulations free-market. regardless, the Belgian Congo was privately owned by him until it was nationalied in the 1960s, however it remained in control of private Belgian companies, just as India was largely under the control of British ones. Even without Leo, Belgium continued to have human zoos until 1958 (pic 4) to speak nothing of the atrocities that were committed: http://www.digitaljournal.com/blog/11297

>Shah

>Islamo fascism

1) fascism is a form of capitalism as stated before

2) the Shah came into power and only stayed in power because the Capitalist USA supported him and his bloody rule. This was done by the CIA over-throwing a democratically elected government in the 50s. The Shah's bloody regime provoked Islamic fundamentalists to eventually revolt and cause the Iran crisis and the modern theocracy we see today.

>Pinochet

>Save Chile

He slaughtered men women and children at a football stadium, repressed any and all sympathy for leftism with brutal torture and executions, and he threw his fellow "capitalists" out of Helicopters if they opposed him. He was a foreign shill who took over Chile illegally, backed by extra-national armed forces who conducted a coup on the democratically elected and popular Allende. Comparing the economy and living standards of Allende's presidency and Pinochet's rule, one sees that the economic result made chile a back-water once more, as is preferred by global corporations, it's easier to make sweat-shop workers out of them. See pic 2 and 3

i will get to the country examples below in a moment.


 No.3498

File: c1842a2d53a69d8⋯.png (49 KB, 348x642, 58:107, 'not an argument'.png)

>>3496

>members of Pussy Riot.

If the members of Pussy Riot tried to do what they did in the USA

>cutting down a cross

>dancing naked in church harassing elderly people

>etc.

They'd get a prison sentence as well. Regardless, Russia today is a capitalist country so your example is retarded. Inb4 in the USSR they'd get worse, During the USSR nobody would be retarded enough to do that, even in the USA that type of behavior was seen as being chaotic and stupid. You could, would and still do get arrested in the USA for such behavior, as would occur in any country.

Even ignoring that, according to property laws, their vandalization of a public property and public indecency is already a crime in any country.

>members of the Communist party?

Most of the people you speak of on Universities are not members. Calling yourself a communist doesn't automatically make you one. Pol Pot is an example of this, a CIA backed, US-supported murderous dictator who was over-thrown by Vietnam after the killing fields became public knowledge.

>no trouble believing it

Your little clip must make you think you're clever.

>the shortcomings of Soviet industry on bad management.

False.

>it's not our fault you still didn't get that car you bought 10 years ago, it's those lazy bureaucrats!

Yes, that's the point.

>not an argument!

>strawman!

See pic 1

>Under the official Soviet doctrine that wouldn't be considered an attack on the Soviet government anyway, since the workers, peasants and intelligentsia were considered equal

Yes, that's the point dummkopf.

>the Soviet Constitution quite clearly affirmed that the rights of citizens were only to be respected insofar as they followed the doctrine of Socialism.

Which is no different to any other system and there is nothing wrong with that. All it means is that you can't go around and make neo-nazi statements openly, or profess any other kind of id-pol rubbish.

>Hitler let Lionel de Rothschild off the hook, does that mean he was really cool with the Jews all along

false equivalency. Rothschild had Hitler in his pocket m8. You're still ignoring the fact that Sholokhov's book, didn't just exist, it was awarded and supported by Stalin personally despite it being bitterly critical of the soviet regime with open anti-soviet sentiment. but of course its a non-argument because after-all you can't demonize the USSR without the "muh censorship" rubbish. Sorry that quality control for media exists, as compared to the hundreds of Hunger Games and other dumb crap being made in the free-market.

>doesn't mean the government wasn't restricting the film industry

Yes it does. As long as the film wasn't some retarded anti-government shpiel the cinematographers were allowed to be as creative as they liked. Politics is a very restrictive area of creativity, there is only so much you can film about without turning into a blatant propaganda film, while any other medium is not. Soviet films were still full of japes towards the government.

>it means Soviet theatres would play any garbage they got their hands on.

Wrong. Soviet Theatres would only play the very best, so that shitty stupid movies like Pixels, the Emoji movie and other crap would never be made.

>Who would've bothered making Star Wars in the USSR?

Clearly you don't know that Lucas got some of his inspirations for Star Wars from Soviet films and that Soviet Sci Fi is rather famous. The reason people like you are ignorant of it is because the USA actively denied most soviet films from being shown, despite a distinct lack of politics in most soviet films.

Here is a list

>Solaris

>Planet of the Storms

>Aelita

>Meteorites

>The Universe

>Road to the Stars

>Pilot Pirx’s Inquest

>Per Astra Ad aspera

>Kin-dza-dza!

Those are just a few soviet space films

Lucas thought Star Wars would fail and never planned it as a franchise. The success was a surprise to him. BTW Star Wars was available for viewing in the USSR.

>shown as a double feature with Howard the Duck

Sorry that's on capitalism, keep your retarded MCU shit.

>and probably would've made the same amount of money

<measuring socialism with capitalist consumerism

Are you demented?


 No.3499

File: 15ec5d86b7093dc⋯.png (340.98 KB, 679x605, 679:605, a Japanese supermarket aft….png)

File: 18423eed334af63⋯.png (575.13 KB, 1080x944, 135:118, toilet paper shortage taiw….png)

File: 448eabdf75ba80a⋯.jpeg (730.21 KB, 2292x1557, 764:519, south korea slum 2.jpeg)

File: 7573238b1a7ffd1⋯.jpg (725.59 KB, 3110x2332, 1555:1166, south korea slum 1.jpg)

>>3497

>>3488

South Korea:

- Economically speaking the country is undeniably productive... but only because of severe and continued nationalization of any and all industries along side massive US funding to cover debt. This isn't capitalism, because nationalization goes against a free-market.

>https://piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/341/2iie3373.pdf

>http://www.geocities.ws/mortuzakhaled/park.pdf

>https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_adMWevoEq0C&pg=PA150&dq=Pohang+steel+works+domestic+companies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9mrz6yeHYAhXKerwKHSMEBVwQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=Pohang%20steel%20works%20domestic%20companies&f=false

>https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ebDQCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1915&dq=South+KOrea+nationalised+Park+Chun+Hee&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE7N2o8tzYAhWKT7wKHXk0A8EQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=South%20KOrea%20nationalised%20Park%20Chun%20Hee&f=false

-Socially South Korea is not well off. Asides the discount illuminati revealed to rule the country it hs been well known for hiding human rights abuses (see below) including but not liited to massacres. And unlike with North Korea, where most such stories are speculative and unproven, these are well known cases.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_South_Korea

>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-islands-of-abuse-inside-south-koreas-slave-farms-for-the-disabled-9954527.html

>http://nationalpost.com/news/modern-day-slavery-alive-in-salt-farms-on-small-islands-off-south-korea

>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/world/asia/north-korea-defector-south-korea.html?mcubz=1\

>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-26340583

>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-south-korea-covered-up-mass-abuse-killing-of-vagrants/

>https://www.local10.com/news/international/the-forgotten-my-lai-south-koreas-vietnam-war-massacres

>http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/21/defector-who-fled-north-korea-returns-claiming-each-day-outside-was-hell-6796791/

>https://www.globalresearch.ca/media-in-china-fraudsters-prepare-fake-defectors-from-north-korea/5543787

You can't even call these articles biased against South Korea, they were written by fellow capitalists (Global Research not withstanding), and if anything are biased FOR South Korea... but I digress.

>Japan:

Similar to South Korea just fewer massacres and rights abuses. Economy is nationalized and backed by US-funding.

However it is full of social issues caused by repressing their emotions and self-respect for the sake of 'efficiency' resulting in lower birth-rates among other things.

>Hong Kong and Taiwan

HAHAHAHAHA yeah that place where poor people live in literal cages in apartment building basements and prices are so absurd that parking spaces are sold at up 760,000 dollars for a >

the only reason those two are afloat is, again, US support. Even the poorest families in the USSR who lives in Communal living had at least a room for themselves, and this housing issue was literally only because the czar had almost no proper housing built (mud and log huts were what peasants were allowed to make for themselves), and then in WW-2 the Nazis destroyed

>https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/hong-kong-parking-space-intl/index.html

>https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2017/jun/07/boxed-life-inside-hong-kong-coffin-cubicles-cage-homes-in-pictures

>https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Hong-Kong-suck/answers/76240555

I'll get to the others on the list in a moment


 No.3500

File: 35c817da6a0e4ee⋯.png (19.89 KB, 641x405, 641:405, My specific brand of capit….png)

>>3497

>Are you trying to make me laugh? Because you're succeeding.

Well, I've got to admit I didn't come here expecting a seasoned debate anyway since none of this has jack to do with OP's point. I'm just here for the lulz.

>LOL fascism and imperialism are forms of capitalism, you're literally doing the "Not Real Capitalism" argument unironically.

Because they're actually not real capitalism, pic related.

>Nazi Germany was not anti-capitalist. They claimed to be but literally everything about their policy screamed “rampant free market”.

Even when they dratstically increased public spending on infrastructure, banned private charities, created a massive and constantly growing welfare system, instituted an individual mandate for health insurance and created a national labor union? It may have been more capitalistic overall than the Soviet Union but that doesn't say much in the grand scheme of things.

>the Shah came into power and only stayed in power because the Capitalist USA supported him and his bloody rule. This was done by the CIA over-throwing a democratically elected government in the 50s

You're on mad crack dude, Iran was never a democracy. Moreover, the Shah of Iran was an ancient title for which Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was next in line anyway when the allies of WWII (including the USSR) deposed his father to keep him from supplying oil to Hitler.

>He slaughtered men women and children at a football stadium

Good thing communists aren't people.

>he threw his fellow "capitalists" out of Helicopters if they opposed him

Wait, communism is a form of capitalism? Thanks for clearing that up, your arguments make more sense now.

>He was a foreign shill who took over Chile illegally, backed by extra-national armed forces who conducted a coup on the democratically elected and popular Allende.

The election was a farce and everyone in Chile knew it. The KGB supported Allende even more directly than the CIA did Alessandri.

>Comparing the economy and living standards of Allende's presidency and Pinochet's rule, one sees that the economic result made chile a back-water once more, as is preferred by global corporations, it's easier to make sweat-shop workers out of them.

His methods may have been extreme (and arguably not even capitalist at times), but he most certainly didn't make Chile a worse place in terms of material living standards. Under Allende real wages collapsed and inflation was out of control, it was Pinochet who restored purchasing power to the currency. It's certainly no back-water today, with the highest HDI in South America.


 No.3502

File: b17f3ceea472810⋯.png (189.54 KB, 1270x569, 1270:569, soviet Poland.png)

File: 1f4b7b9beca930a⋯.png (101.93 KB, 1278x2407, 1278:2407, Poland leech.png)

File: c6a1e560ddc303b⋯.png (231.26 KB, 500x443, 500:443, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3499

>>3497

>>3488

>Poland

>Baltics

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Baltics were industrial centers as part of the USSR. They even had their own nuclear power station, now over 20% of the population has moved out, former nuclear scientists work as road sweepers due to staggering unemployement and the only reason its still afloat is because NATO gives it funding to be a base as a position against Russia. Poland is the exact same thing, but worse. It's a running joke in Europe that Poles are the European Union's Toilet cleaners. Economic production in Poland has not risen much and its unemployment and homeless have rocketed up as compared to the USSR. See Pic 1 and 2

>Czechoslovakia

The country was also a major industrial country in the Warsaw Pact and because it remained intact after WW-2 its economic conditions have remained steady since soviet times. There has been no major economic improvement that isn't following the economic trend line in the USSR. There has been an increase in LGBT id-pol, something that Western Democratic values have brought with them.

>New Zealand

>Norway

>Denmark

>Finland

>Iceland

These countries are literal democratic socialists, especially Finland, which collectivized its agriculture like the USSR, and maintains a rigid planned economy for the most part. Hardly a free-market capitalism.

>Germany

It is a social democratic country that has regulations and concrete welfare, not a free-market capitalist society. State-capitalist at best, but then that contradict the whole idea of capitalism and its 'great' free-market

Eastern Germany economic output has dropped severely, and living standards are lower than compared to East Germany prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, see: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1153037

>France

HAHAHAHAHA fucking what? That country today is an economic disaster. During the Cold War Soviet workers had a higher fucking wage than French workers, despite France having far less to recover from in WW-2 and being regularly boosted by money from the USA's various Marshall Plans.

>Australia

That's quite the kettle of fish. Australia has plenty of problems but because its such a laid back country and because of its position as a tourist hotspot and major sea-port.

>Costa Rica

>Chile

It's not doing great, its mediocre, and only because its allowed to by the USA. It's rife with gangs and slums

Why didn't you mention Brazil?

Oh right because that capitalist country isn't REALLY capitalism... because... because... Yes it is. It is a massive capitalist country with terrible ecology, massive slums, number 1 police violence, gangs, drugs, rape and sweatshops etc.

Or How about Thailand? Or maybe Mexico?

Oh right, LARGEST SLUM IN THE WORLD SO THAT CAN'T COUNT!

You're hilarious. This is like those retarded pro-Imperial Russia people talking about how it exported grain. No shit they do, by denying their own people and just exporting regardless of the internal situation. Or in the case of the West, taking stuff from sweat-shops and inhuman child-labor mines in Asia, South America and Africa. No wonder your 'capitalism' works there, they do it at the cost of the lives of people in other countries, how convenient.

Eat shit cappie


 No.3503

File: b12d10b11ba118c⋯.png (549.58 KB, 1785x2537, 1785:2537, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 4cb9935dd312aa0⋯.png (298.28 KB, 640x640, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3488

Meme 2: Is about ancoms, no shit it doesn't function. No anarchism ever does, ancaps can't even try their rubbish, it wouldn't even get off the ground. Not applicable regardless.

Meme 3:

>Temporary Recession

The Great Depression wouldn't have lifted if the FDR and Coolidge had not emplaced heavy market regulations, created social benefits and safety nets and began enforcing human rights 9such as finally banning child labour in 1938), even then, if WW-2 had not started the US economy would likely have taken a decade or two to fully recover, even with its colonies in Cuba, the Phillipines, etc.

>famine kills millions is inordinary

See pic 1, those are the famines over the 19th and 20th century.

The USSR had 3 major famines only 2 of which had large numbers of casualties. 1 of which caused by WW-2's destruction in 1947. Despite this the USSR was the first country to stop needing to use ration cards.

The other 2 famines were in 1922 and 1932.

1922: This is a continuation of the famine under the Russian Empire during WW-1, The Soviet government formed in 1922, they inherited this famine and through drastic measures such as the NEP ended it. They did not cause it.

In 1932, the famine began because of droughts and wheat rust. This affected badly both Bulgaria and Poland as well, despite those countries being capitalist and not related to the USSR whatsoever.

This is covered fully here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1109532

Moreover, between 1928 and 1934 there were 7 million estimated deaths due to famine from the Great Depression. 80% of farm property was lost, this was called de-farming. US farmers, seeking to produce as much as possible to keep up with their bank payments over-used the land and created dustbowls, that left them without food or money, then banks would force them off the land, trying to collect money all the more aggressively to stave off their inevitable bankruptcy. Many people starved to death or died. People sold their children as indentured servants (a nice way of saying slave) to get enough money to survive. Except that unlike the USSR, they didn't have a blockade on them, and had an established industrial economy. The USA was a major economic power in the world, the USSR, in 1932 was not, yet somehow capitalist USA dropped to the same crisis conditions as one in an unestablished country.

Also there are always hungry and starving people in the USA with over 1/10 of the population struggling off of food stamps.

>http://www.andrewruis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/RuisChildren_with_Half.pdf

>http://www.pravdareport.com/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/

>https://www.rt.com/usa/interview-with-boris-borisov/

>https://www.infowars.com/researcher-famine-killed-7-million-in-us-during-great-depression/

>Inb4 "muh life expectancy rose during great Depression"

It was just due to the continuation of mortality trends from the 1920s. Life expectancy in the USSR rose dramatically in its first 3 decades... INCLUDING during the 1932 famine. Does that mean that people didn't starve? No.

Statistics show no significant increase in mortality rates, in either the USA or the USSR... the reason being both the 7 million that I cited above, and the X millions claimed about the Famine of 1932 was calculated through rounding the deaths per year and predicted mising of birthes by birth rate. Or in other words, anyone who died in the period, regardless of whether it was of old age or disease and the supposed number of people who weren't born is how these numbers are acquired.

Yes, suicide rates and homocide rates were what primarily rose during the great depression. BUT It's quite reasonable that lack of food caused this increase. The question is literally, "How many starved to death?", but if it was intended to be, "How many died due to lack of food?", it would have to look into the causes of those suicides. Both because suicide and depression can be causally linked to hunger, but also because people know starving to death is unpleasant and for some, suicide might be preferable if they know they are out of food, or maybe Grandpa deciding to stop being a mouth to feed so the rest of the family can make it through and survive

The USA didn't experience anywhere NEAR the economic isolation and hardship the USSR did and its retarded to claim otherwise, so judging an unestablished economy ravaged by war to one untouched by war and with an established economic base is a double-standard. The US economy has repeated recessions over the years with the majority of its modern economy resting on what is essentially just capital being transferred from one person to another without any major productive value. I posted this earlier and will expand on it more in a moment.


 No.3504

>>3498

>Regardless, Russia today is a capitalist country so your example is retarded.

Again, maybe it is compared to the Soviet Union, but I'm hesitant to call any country that's nationalized most of its energy and banking center "capitalist". No need to waste time on my examples, why don't you point me to some mainstream Russian media that's critical of Putin, if you're so sure it exists?

>Most of the people you speak of on Universities are not members.

I guess they're liars then, they told me they were.

>See pic 1

Wut?

>Yes, that's the point dummkopf.

Glad we're on the same page then, dummkopf.

>Which is no different to any other system and there is nothing wrong with that.

Uh yeah, it kinda is.

<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

>false equivalency. Rothschild had Hitler in his pocket m8.

Not false equivalence, if Hitler had reasons to make an exception Stalin probably did too.

>Soviet films were still full of japes towards the government.

Anti-Soviet Soviet films? This I've gotta see. Link plox?

>Soviet Theatres would only play the very best, so that shitty stupid movies like Pixels, the Emoji movie and other crap would never be made.

That's precisely the opposite of what you just said.

<There is that interview with George Lucas where he points out that Soviet film makers had far more freedom to make films than in the USA. In the USA you can make what you like but if the movie theatre won't take it, it's for naught.

>Clearly you don't know that Lucas got some of his inspirations for Star Wars from Soviet films and that Soviet Sci Fi is rather famous.

For an artist, "I was inspired by it" means "I saw it and knew I could do better".

>BTW Star Wars was available for viewing in the USSR.

Yeah, in 1990, after Glasnost.

>Are you demented?

If it's demented to make an example of how Socialist economics works, then yes, I guess you could say that.


 No.3505

File: 322d8590b1b21f2⋯.png (1.49 MB, 2200x2400, 11:12, muh famine.png)

>>3503

>When your economic system is so bad that in the 1960s your crypto commie President established an unprecedented welfare state and today just over a tenth of the country, including illegal immigrants, is on food stamps

At least we can feed our populace while still being a net exporter of food.

>Is about ancoms, no shit it doesn't function

It's a general example of socialism, don't try to tell me what my memes mean.

>The Great Depression wouldn't have lifted if the FDR and Coolidge had not emplaced heavy market regulations, created social benefits and safety nets and began enforcing human rights 9such as finally banning child labour in 1938), even then, if WW-2 had not started the US economy would likely have taken a decade or two to fully recover, even with its colonies in Cuba, the Phillipines, etc.

It wouldn't have happened at all if it weren't for the Fed manipulating the currency.

>In 1932, the famine began because of droughts and wheat rust.

Are you sure confiscating grain from farmers and calling it "collectivization" had nothing to do with it?

>Moreover, between 1928 and 1934 there were 7 million estimated deaths due to famine from the Great Depression.

My bullshit senses are tingling, source?

>The USA didn't experience anywhere NEAR the economic isolation and hardship the USSR did and its retarded to claim otherwise

I'm not trying to, capitalism FTW.

>so judging an unestablished economy ravaged by war to one untouched by war and with an established economic base is a double-standard

If you're talking about a war started by communists it's only fair.


 No.3506

File: b661d97e6748fd9⋯.jpg (14.94 KB, 259x266, 37:38, helicopters are good targe….jpg)

>>3500

>Pic

HAHAHAHAHAHA thanks for proving my point. Therefore all your examples about South Korea, Japan etc. are NULL. Not to mention that it debunks nothing because privately owned corporations like the United Fruit Company in Guatemala are who control it, using the US government as their handy-man

>Because they're actually not real capitalism, pic related

The Nazi economy was 97% privatized. Fascism is built on class collaborationism.

I posted actual peer-reviewed academic works on the subject, keep whining.

>More whining about nazi public funding

Read the academic papers, they address all that and more.

>a national labor union

Which was controlled by the industrial corporations of Germany and functioned as a way of preventing any and all indpedendent strikes. Sorry but academic papers over-rule your sourceless drivel.

>Iran was never a democracy

It was til the UK and USA butted in.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

>http://theconversation.com/how-the-cia-toppled-iranian-democracy-81628

Thank you for establishing a theocracy USA!

> was next in line anyway

fuck him and his line, I thought the US was about freedom and democracy yet they keep supporting an unpopular monarch who was deposed after his nazi-collaborating father was killed.

>the allies of WWII (including the USSR)

Why specify the USSR? The USSR was never for monarchs, you state this like its important.

>Good thing communists aren't people.

De-humanizing your victims with ideological rubbish is convenient, typical nazi tactic. even though most of them weren't communists even

>communism is a form of capitalism

No. Pinochet threw anyone who opposed him out helicopters or killed them, regardless of their ideology. He was supported in this by the USA and UK.

>The KGB supported Allende even more directly than the CIA did Alessandri

Actually it was the opposite, the KGB openly stated that they would only watch and did nothing to support Allende. This is documented fact.

>Death toll under Allende: 96(both sides)- Pinochet's "White book"-“white book on the change of government” + http://www.economist.com/node/184063

> Death toll under Pinochet: 3000 + 27 000 tortured: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-14584095

>

>arguably not even capitalist at times

<NO TRUE CAPITALISM!

mhmm

>he most certainly didn't make Chile a worse place in terms of material living standards

I posted statistics to the otherwise

>Under Allende real wages collapsed and inflation was out of control

False, stop watching Prager U unironically, or at the least stop repeating their rhetoric word for word. they've been debunked ages ago and time has not made their claims any truer

>"After Pinochet was installed, the IMF and World Bank restructured Chilean debt on much more favorable terms than those afforded Allende, and foreign banks returned almost overnight. For the economy at large, however, living standards dropped and income inequality became the worst in Latin America. From 1970 to 1987 the proportion of the population falling below the poverty line rose from 20 percent to 44.4 percent."

>https://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/05/business/chile-is-expected-to-get-900-million-imf-loan.html

>http://michael-hudson.com/2003/10/chiles-failed-economic-laboratory/

>https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82588&page=1

>https://www.theguardian.com/business/1998/nov/22/observerbusiness.theobserver

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4JeR-V-i5g

>1971: Municipal elections: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cmCrF2G7YQ0C&pg=PA160&dq=1971+municipal+elections+Allende&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=1971%20municipal%20elections%20Allende&f=false

>

I can provide over half a dozen more sources on this, point is, Allende stimulated the economy well. The inflation that ocurred was caused by the congress not passing allende's anti-inflationist proposals because the opposition parties (backed by the CIA) refused to sign off.


 No.3507

File: 8f78a51d1df1e0b⋯.jpg (80.85 KB, 598x643, 598:643, Hayek on organization and ….jpg)

File: 318c020f72aa476⋯.jpg (50.54 KB, 753x527, 753:527, liberty dzugashvili.jpg)

File: 3c98f6123e7041c⋯.jpg (37.23 KB, 720x540, 4:3, sacred principle of libert….jpg)

>>3504

>I'm hesitant to call any country that's nationalized most of its energy and banking center "capitalist"

More than 50% of Russias economy is privatized, South Korea and Japan, the countries with some of the highest HDIs are japan's and S.Korea's and they are almsot completely nationalized.

>No need to waste time on my examples

because you have no real examples. THe only true example of full free-market capitalism is fucking Somalia.

>Russian media that's critical of Putin, if you're so sure it exists

Dozhd is a major media poster in Russia m8. Again Russian Federation is capitalist, period.

>I guess they're liars then, they told me they were.

So you asked over 100 people on 1 campus who openly professed to being socialists and that they were members of a party?

<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

>Citing the US consitution as if its end all, be all of liberty's definition.

Read the Soviet constitution, m8. Just selecting a penn state analysis is fucking facetious because you clearly just picked a section about censorship

LOL

>f Hitler had reasons to make an exception Stalin probably did too.

Wow those are some mental gymnastics.

Yeah a Rothschild is totally the same as an ordinary writer.

>That's precisely the opposite of what you just said

No it isn't

>For an artist

Uhh no, you don't know what art is, clearly. Stop saying things you know little about.

>Yeah, in 1990, after Glasnost.

No back when it was released. It was available in Soviet Theatres on a limited run

>make an example of how Socialist economics works

Bad example then.


 No.3508

File: e0ff4427e06cb59⋯.png (65.79 KB, 770x376, 385:188, here you go.png)

>>3506

>Therefore all your examples about South Korea, Japan etc. are NULL

They're still mostly capitalist, just with some outlying policies.

>The Nazi economy was 97% privatized. Fascism is built on class collaborationism. I posted actual peer-reviewed academic works on the subject, keep whining.

Don't have time to read all that shit, where does it say the Nazi economy was 97% privatized?

>Which was controlled by the industrial corporations of Germany and functioned as a way of preventing any and all indpedendent strikes.

If by "industrial corporations" you mean "government" you're 100% right.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

>http://theconversation.com/how-the-cia-toppled-iranian-democracy-81628

Uh, where's the part where Iran was a democracy? If you mean Mossaddegh he wasn't elected, he was appointed.

>Why specify the USSR?

Uhhhhh, because they were partly responsible for what you're accusing the UK and USA of.

>No. Pinochet threw anyone who opposed him out helicopters or killed them, regardless of their ideology.

Not too hard to see why if you know how often people tried to assassinate him.

>Actually it was the opposite, the KGB openly stated that they would only watch and did nothing to support Allende. This is documented fact.

Want to know what else is a documented fact? They donated money to his campaign and to him personally.

http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20060416/news_mz1e16billin.html

>I posted statistics to the otherwise

Have some more, pic related.

http://www.cieplan.org/media/publicaciones/archivos/27/Capitulo_1.pdf

>they've been debunked ages ago

How about you debunk it now?


 No.3509

>>3507

>More than 50% of Russias economy is privatized

https://www.oecd.org/corporate/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/42576825.pdf

<Fraction of firms with 100% state and mixed (state and

private), domestic ownership (2007):

among all firms and organizations: 11%

<in employment 39%

<in capital investment: 32%

<in fixed assets (state ownership greater than 50%): 23%

That's a lot more than I'd bargain for.

>South Korea and Japan, the countries with some of the highest HDIs are japan's and S.Korea's and they are almsot completely nationalized.

News to me. Source?

>THe only true example of full free-market capitalism is fucking Somalia

Not sure I'd call Somalia a bright example of capitalism, but you have a point in that there are no 100% unequivocally capitalist countries. Some are clearly closer to it than others, though.

>Dozhd is a major media poster in Russia m8

Dandy, now what do they say about Putin?

>Read the Soviet constitution, m8

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1977,_Unamended)

>Article 39. Citizens of the USSR enjoy in full the social, economic, political and personal rights and freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR and by Soviet laws. The socialist system ensures enlargement of the rights and freedoms of citizens and continuous improvement of their living standards as social, economic, and cultural development programmes are fulfilled. Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens.

>Wow those are some mental gymnastics.

No, you're just denying it. Not that you had a really good point to begin with. If the Soviet Union really had such a hate boner for censorship, what was Glasnost all about?

>No it isn't

OK, enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

>Uhh no, you don't know what art is, clearly. Stop saying things you know little about.

Oh yeah well your face.

>It was available in Soviet Theatres on a limited run

>limited

There you go.

>Bad example then.

Enlighten me, if George Lucas made Star Wars in the Soviet Union how much money would he have made on it?


 No.3510

File: 604669cc23714a2⋯.png (1.1 MB, 583x831, 583:831, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3505

pfff wow you are unironically retarded.

>pic

1) it's an infograph, not a meme. Learn basic terminology.

2) The only cancer here is you

3) Your little 'debunk' is false

For one thing it was never stated that these famines were expressly caused by 1 or another ideology, only that they occurred under that ideological system. Secondly this 'meme' as you call it was made ironically you twat. It uses the same method that capitalist shills use to accuse communist systems with to blame all these famines on capitalism. It is an obvious exaggeration to anyone who actually tried to do some historical research rather than just spit out ideological bullshit.

- China wasn't Feudal at the time of that famine. Just because there was a puppet Emperor, is meaningless because the Brits, French, Russians, Americans etc. had conquered and colonized it and forced it to allow their corporations to freely sell their stuff, especially opium. This colonization pre-dates said famine and is a well-known fact. Regardless of your wiggling it is capitalism. Pic 1 related.

- Spain was not a feudal economy, there were no effectively large feudal economies in the 19th century. They were all capitalists. This is basic fucking history.

-Indonesia 'natural disaster' for which there was no food aid provided despite being a colony.

- Japan in the 19th century and onward was not feudal. Monarchies do not exclude capitalism, especially since the fact that japan embraced Western Capitalism is why it wasn't colonized the same way the rest of Asia was.

- Ireland and Britain were not feudal economies at the time of that famine. ESPECIALLY not Britain which was already in the beginning of the agricultural revolution, when, among other things, the tragedy of the commons begins.

- Natural disaster natural disaster uhuh, sure. It couldn't be that these natural disasters were exacerbated by an uncaring colonial capitalist system where it's a dog-eat-dog system from the get go.

- famine of 1922

<communism

I explained why that's a lie but keep on bullshitting

- Leningrad

fascism is a kind of capitalism, the leningrad blockade was conducted by the fascist nazi germans, but keep denying it tho.

- china 1942

Foreign invasion... by capitalist Japanese forces

- bengal famine

Caused by drought, exacerbated by Churchill being a cunt because he hated Indians.

- Dutch famine

Foreign invasion by fascists (capitalists) and worsened by carpet bombing

- **caveat

False, See pages 129-132 of the following work: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/page/n71

"Famine in Russia is periodical like the snows, or rather it is perennial like the Siberian plague. To be scientifically accurate, one should distinguish two different varieties of it the provincial and the national; the former termed golodovka or the little hunger, and the latter golod or the great hunger. Not a year ever elapses in which extreme distress in some province or provinces of the Empire do not assume the dimensions of a famine, while rarely a decade passes away in which the local misfortune does not ripen into the national calamity. If we go back as far as the year 996 and follow the course of Russian history down to the year of grace 1892, we shall find that, while the little hunger is an annual incident, as familiar as the destruction of human lives by wolves, the normal number of national famines fluctuates between seven and eight per century."

- Cambodia

The Khmer Rouge didn't kill all those people, they also destroyed the modern agricultural system because they were cunts (backed by the CIA).

- Natural disaster in X

SO under capitalism you can't hold them accountable but in communism you do... interesting double standard.

-North Korea 1996

<Communism

Of course it couldn't be because of the global changes causing a sudden drop in trade availability and the fact that unlike South Korea, only 15% of North Korean land is arable and thus a drought is very damaging. It's not like collectivzation actually minimized casualties as compared to any other famine on the list.

-*caveat 1

>first on the list

Yes, but this list is not absolute, it is not every single famine in the world at that time.


 No.3511

File: 47846d36cf4f22c⋯.png (58.79 KB, 761x515, 761:515, meriam webster meme.png)

>>3510

>it's an infograph, not a meme. Learn basic terminology

Well that does it, I have better things to do than argue over the definition of "capitalism" with someone who would argue with Meriam-Webster over the definition of the word "meme". Good night.


 No.3512

File: 3ba18a94b6a8e62⋯.png (1.03 MB, 960x952, 120:119, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3505

>t in the 1960s your crypto commie President established an unprecedented welfare state and today just over a tenth of the country, including illegal immigrants, is on food stamps

What exactly are you talking about

>we can feed our populace while still being a net exporter of food.

No, no you can't, being able to sell cooked plastic nuggets for 1 dollar per 10 is not feeding the population, it's poisoning them. Food Stamps does not let you buy any decent food, it lets you buy essentially mac and cheese and any other packed poison and pink slime, while exporting actually good products out, OR by importing massive amounts in from other colonies. Not to mention that this comparison is retarded for a variety of reasons that I already stated before on this very thread, with a detailed map to boot.

>It's a general example of socialism

The majority of socialist revolutions and attempts that actually formed were Marxist-Leninist or otherwise NON-anarchist. Spain's Republic was formed of M-L socialists, with the An-coms actively in-fighting because they're whiny cunts who nobody likes.

>don't try to tell me what my memes mean.

cry harder

>It wouldn't have happened at all if it weren't for the Fed manipulating the currency

Not what happened, there is tons of literature on the topic if you can't be bothered to do more than bullshit then i won't bother either.

>confiscating grain from farmers

Read the link I posted on the specific subject. Your surface level feels>reals argument is poor.

>My bullshit senses are tingling, source

literally posted right below

>not trying to

yet you keep making false comparisons

>If you're talking about a war started by communists

WW-1 was started by the Tsar, among other people. The Revolution started as a peaceful protest because of sever food-shortages and inhuman treatment of people. The Czar ordered his troops to fire on these protestors and thus began a violent revolution. the first was actually led by liberal-democrats headed by Kerensky, who was unpopular with the people because he continued fighting WW-1, instead the people backed Lenin's 3rd international and they overthrew Kerensky in a coup that had almost no losses, a few people were injured in a brief struggle, this is a historical fact.

Lenin's first action was to end the war with Germany and proceeded to fight with the White-Guards who were backed by the USA, Britain and several other European powers, including Germany later on after 1919. This was the Intervention, an attempt to divide and conquer Russia like they had China, but they failed.

>It's only fair

Except that the famine began and was caused by Czarist policies and his petty war, and ended by the Communists.


 No.3513

>>3511

>better things to do than argue over the definition of "capitalism"

1) no one asked you to come

2) Your definition is literally not contradicted by anything I say, not matter how much you shift your goal-posts.


 No.3514

File: 5f3cb021f78fee3⋯.gif (318.82 KB, 576x500, 144:125, new and improved che.gif)

>>3513

>not a meme

>Both 1. an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture AND 2. an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media

>not

>a

>meme

You have brain damage. Seek medical help immediately.


 No.3515

>>3511

>definition of a meme

And it barely fits, unless you want to say any image that isn't a photograph or drawing is a fucking meme, how convenient.

Google "infograph definition" it takes less than a second I swear.


 No.3516

File: 323e1076c6dda67⋯.png (767.83 KB, 806x600, 403:300, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 17f04464f0a6a32⋯.png (1.13 MB, 759x800, 759:800, ClipboardImage.png)

File: e96585075537f17⋯.png (238.03 KB, 519x804, 173:268, ClipboardImage.png)

File: f6324263353d901⋯.png (108.45 KB, 499x727, 499:727, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3488

Meme 4:

>created in the first place

Famines were plaguing Russia since the empire, that was part of the reason the revolution began, protests over no bread for soldiers or ordinary people while the Tsar and the other Bourgs were stuffing themselves.

>The USSR's last famine was in 1947, which was caused by WW-2 and the fact that Germany brunt down over 50% of their crops and arable land. This has already been covered in previous posts.

>importing millions of tons

And exporting, its called Gobal trade

Also Britain literally had to import eggs and pork from Poland due to the lack of produce...

I already addressed this before your post and later here

>>3503

See pages 129-132 of the following work: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/page/n71

To quote from the 1892 book "Russian Characteristics" by bourgeois author E.J. Dillon:

>"Famine in Russia is periodical like the snows, or rather it is perennial like the Siberian plague. To be scientifically accurate, one should distinguish two different varieties of it the provincial and the national; the former termed golodovka or the little hunger, and the latter golod or the great hunger. Not a year ever elapses in which extreme distress in some province or provinces of the Empire do not assume the dimensions of a famine, while rarely a decade passes away in which the local misfortune does not ripen into the national calamity. If we go back as far as the year 996 and follow the course of Russian history down to the year of grace 1892, we shall find that, while the little hunger is an annual incident, as familiar as the destruction of human lives by wolves, the normal number of national famines fluctuates between seven and eight per century."

CIA

>it's only bad when america does it

America never funded grass-roots revolutions, not to mention that the USSR only supported already existing revolutions without forcibly creating new ones, unlike the USA which created artificial terrorist groups and inserted them into countries.

Also

>CIA: Creates half dozens of coup attempts over the Cold War

UN aside from the Soviet Bloc looks the other way

>USSR: Expresses support for a revolt against a dictator and provides support to an established, people's revolution

UN freaks out and the USA starts wailing about communist dictatorship (mostly because they're revolting against a US supported Dictator).

Your whataboutism isn't working, sorry.


 No.3517

File: eab37ee2e204655⋯.png (356.96 KB, 471x757, 471:757, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3514

>>Both 1. an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture AND 2. an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media

See >>3515

YOU have brain damage you internet freak

Get off the internet and get a life you moron. no wonder you're a right-winger. being this asshurt over the fact that your definition does not fit unless you make the term meme mean almost anything.


 No.3518

File: 6bacf12a53ffc89⋯.png (14.11 KB, 666x353, 666:353, infographic.png)

>>3515

I don't see anything mutually exclusive with the concept of a meme.

Seriously dude, call 911 before you lose consciousness.


 No.3519

File: e15efc533c65500⋯.png (449.19 KB, 1004x1112, 251:278, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 0f1a820f2b8577f⋯.png (226.32 KB, 599x600, 599:600, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3508

>They're still mostly capitalist, just with some outlying policies

Wow, so Russia is not capitalist despite having a massively more privatized economy but Japan and South Korea are... convenient.

>Don't have time to read all that shit

Then why ask questions, the answers to which you deny. Either read of GTFO.

>If by "industrial corporations" you mean "government"

Nope, Krupp, Ford, Standard Oil, GM, IBM etc. were never heading the German government... at least not directly keep squealing.

>where's the part where Iran was a democracy

Get glasses

>If you mean Mossaddegh he wasn't elected, he was appointed.

After a parliamentary vote. A parliament that was voted into power. Until the Wests monarchy-daddy fetish kicked in and they installed a bloody tyrant whose brutal us-supported rule caused Islamic Fundamentalists to gain popularity and power, good job.

> inb4, the CIA didn't have anything to do with the Shah's crimes, they actively provided support and money and arms and training.

>they were partly responsible for what you're accusing the UK and USA

They didn't over-throw Mossaddegh, so no they aren't.

>Not too hard to see why if you know how often people tried to assassinate him.

<It's only okay when WE do it!

double standards are great innit?

>They donated money to his campaign and to him personally.

Which doesn't mean shit, Hillary had the KOCH brothers supporting her last election, she didn't get elected though

>Pic related

Pic related ignores what I wrote

>source

I read it unlike you. It states some interesting things but fails to include major facts and factors in its reasoning for the issues with Allende-period economy, which I and my sources mentioned.

>How about you debunk it now

I already did, you just keep sending me the same thing that I already addressed.


 No.3520

>>3518

>i don't see

You're an idiot

>Call 911

You first


 No.3521

>>3509

>Russia

Because Gaz-Prom and other major corporations are owned by members of the Duma, but they are privately owned corps, but listed as national because of the position of their owners. Also because parts of the Russian economy is leased out to companies like Exxon and Shell.

>Source (Japan/Korea)

This is why you people are mocked. I posted it in the beginning of todays posts and you just skipped right by. Amazing.

>Not sure I'd call Somalia a bright example of capitalism, but you have a point in that there are no 100% unequivocally capitalist countries. Some are clearly closer to it than others.

Holy fuck finally an intelligent statement.

>Wikisource

I literally provided the constitution with a link, but ok.

>Article 39

And? That is basic logic. That is a major issue of the US constitution which is why the Free-Speech debate is still a thing 2 centuries later.

Incorrect claims like Flat Earth get put forth, get shot down by factual information, but the factual information get ignored and the incorrect claims just keep being used over and over again. Define free speech, there is no absolute definition, thus there is a problem, we must create a definition (still broad enough for use) and universally agree to it, but we won't because the world is full of petty * too self-centered to care for a greater good. But a lengthy weird definition is retarded, thus the Soviet constitution put it simply, don't put yourself on a high horse and think you have any more rights than anyone else, and don't go around proposing terrorism or any other political crime. In the USA these laws exist but in the criminal justice system instead, which is why people still get prison for treason.

>If the Soviet Union really had such a hate boner for censorship, what was Glasnost all about

A fucking farce. As I pointed out, Gorbachev was a fucking shill who got into power through strange circumstances and chance and began dismantling the USSR from within. All the removed censorship did was let all the nazis and political retards come crawling out of the woodwork and behave like modern US society. Except unlike the US which started off that way, this disjointed mess was new to the Soviet people and they, accustomed to the idea that only actually worthy and informed opinions were allowed into the press believed the rubbish the newly de-censored cunts spoke of. By the time they realized what garbage it was, Yeltsin had dissolved the USSR and crushed the opposition the same way all US backed dictators do. And yes, it is a fact that Yeltsin was a US-government asset.

>enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

You first

>There you go.

Because it wasn't available in hundreds of copies, it's a fucking film, basically rented to the USSR from abroad. They didn't have the physical capability to show it everywhere.

>Enlighten me, if George Lucas made Star Wars in the Soviet Union how much money would he have made on it

He would have made a good amount of money. In direct comparison the numbers may seem lower but the reason is because of how wages worked in the USSR. Which is why even the average worker in the USSR would recieve a pay-check similar to a French or Italian workers but in terms of actual buying power was equivalent to the higher paid British and German workers. This applies to films as well. Because of provided benefits, money that would otherwise have gone to buying things, instead go to automatically allowing you to select a home, car, furniture, dacha etc. Moreover utilities and needs like electricity, education, sporting goods etc.

Inb4 waiting line. The reasons for lines is explained by how the system works and its differentiating buying power. I posted this before and posted examples in my link to the East German conditions, but I'll explain a little here

The shops in almost all capitalist countries are full because the price-income system prevents a majority of the population (i.e. the lower class) from buying them. This is visible today in the USA, where you can spend 100$ worth in a Star Market and if you actually buy any food that isn't food-scented plastic/poison you'll end up buying very little actual food, less than a weeks worth for a full family. Meanwhile in the USSR this wasn't the issue. Income was not very high, but because utility bills were essentially non-existent the entire income could be spent on buying things, which meant that the actual demand is higher than the production, despite the high productivity. This is actually touched upon in your Allende source, though poorly worded.

To quote, "If everyone in Mexico could afford to buy a pair of new shoes how many do you think would be left in the stores?"


 No.3525

File: 2a9e020e3ce73ad⋯.png (341.92 KB, 500x539, 500:539, ClipboardImage.png)

A drop of rain raises the sea.

or to put it in the classic way.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.

For want of a shoe the horse was lost.

For want of a horse the rider was lost.

For want of a rider the message was lost.

For want of a message the battle was lost.

For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.

And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

There isn't much point to Einsteins physics if no-one puts them into practice, is there? And society has many cogs. Sure person A may only be a street cleaner, but without their labor and their existence many people would have a tougher time and society as a whole would be affected.


 No.3540

File: bfd5508bcf26b9a⋯.png (852.11 KB, 1500x1050, 10:7, 1534960482212.png)


 No.3541

>i invalidate good arguments because i made some stupid meme


 No.3542

>>3541

It's not a meme, it's an infographic.


 No.3543

Hate to break it to you guys, but all value is subjective, surplus value doesn't exist and wealth is not a zero sum game

Your opinions value is subjective and thus is objectively meaningless. Left tard Logical fuck up 101


 No.3547

>>3542

>/pol/ infographics

pretty pathetic tbh


 No.3549

File: a22e2f7a295844f⋯.jpg (442.38 KB, 2000x1087, 2000:1087, collective laughter.jpg)

>>3540

How amusing, also untrue.

>refuted basic premise of Marxism

By ignoring its points and repeating the same re-directional statements "muh management is being hated" which was never the argument in the first placement

>No censorship in the USSR

Never said that. In fact I confirmed it, but also explained what it meant and pointed out how the USA does the same exact thing and both countries had genuine ideological reasons for doing so. You don't let your enemy educate your children.

>USSR imported muh grain

See pages 129-132 of the following work: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/page/n71

>Poland once

Britain is one of the more important members of NATO, yet it had to import food from a mid-end country of the Warsaw Pact, due to poor economic management. The USSR only imported because it didn't take from other countries through vassal state colonialism.

>coups and revolutions are bad when the USA did them

The USA never funded legitimate revolutions, they created artificial ones and backed literal nazis. the USSR only funded and assisted established movements and did not back nazis.

>every economic system is capitalism except post-revolutionary M-L

Essentially Yes.

>Sure holodomor was bad

Yes, and it wasn't caused by the USSR.

>Depression was worse

never stated anywhere, nice strawman. The depression was brought up for comparison of the concept of famine.

>government confiscating food

They didn't confiscate food, they re-distributed it because

a) cities cannot physically produce food

b) as you were whining 30 posts ago, management is important, and without it, people would eat their supplies within weeks, including the seeding grain and be left with nothing and have nothing to plant worsening the hunger. The soviet government sent in aid the moment news of the famine reached it, this is documented fact.

>famines that killed millions used to happen all the time before communism

yes, unironically

>Life in the USSR was great

It really was

>propaganda ministry

When did the CIA become Soviet propaganda? When did anecdotal accounts by individuals unaffiliated with the government become propaganda? When did official, internationally confirmed economic statistics and geographical maps become propaganda

>Venezuela is america's fault

Yes and the sources I provided point out in detail. It is literally no different to what happened in Guatemala or Chile or Columbia or anywhere else the USA tries coups in.

>Glasnost

Explained already.

If the left can't meme, then the right can't do anything right at all.

>>3543

>Rehash

Thanks for ironically proving my point.


 No.3554

>>3234

>if you're going to shitpost like this, have the balls to do it on /leftypol/ where there will be more than 1 or 2 responses.

>thread gets 110 responses because new /pol/tards who make the same braindead non-arguments keep appearing

epic


 No.3555

>>3272

>I literally loled. Can you name a single Haitian bank or corporation?

Holy shit dude I'm not even the most well read but this is a garbage tier understanding of how economic systems work


 No.3577

File: bfe0248de5a3670⋯.jpeg (117.03 KB, 1080x889, 1080:889, 01E7A456-E5D1-49DC-A02B-F….jpeg)

>>3543

ok wow looks like i can magically poof everyone into infinity money

scarcity doesnt real


 No.3595

File: cef08412e815218⋯.jpg (122 KB, 707x539, 101:77, 57066306.jpg)

>>3577

Scarcity is one of the reasons why value is subjective.


 No.3597

>>3595

>scarcity, supply being less than demand, an objective property

>making value subjective

how in the fuck


 No.3598

File: 4985452b73dd6a4⋯.png (538.24 KB, 610x660, 61:66, 4567.png)

>>3597

>supply being less than demand

There's nothing objective about that.


 No.3599

File: 16e595ef7b9745e⋯.jpg (45.33 KB, 903x960, 301:320, dense as a neutron star.jpg)


 No.3600

File: bcd69c961a18735⋯.png (32.03 KB, 256x256, 1:1, 1506313012095.png)

>>3599

You should get a Nobel prize for making such a magnificent argument.


 No.3601

>>3600

To argue with an idiot is to be an even bigger idiot. You don't have an argument you just keep repeating your statements and ignoring everything else, why should people bother trying to convince a shill?


 No.3605

File: 0ef4552912a036f⋯.jpg (59.85 KB, 766x600, 383:300, 0ef4552912a036fcde6443a0b6….jpg)

>>3601

>To argue with an idiot is to be an even bigger idiot.

That's why I never responded to your other posts. I mean come on,

>They didn't confiscate food, they re-distributed it

Really?

There's no honor in fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. I'm disgracing myself just by typing this.


 No.3606

>>3605

>Really

Lets see I provided an argument with primary sources and academic papers such as those written by Tauger, Wheatcroft, Davies (an anti-communist libertarian BTW), Ukrainian archive documents, the accounts of several people who were there and an economic analysis backed by statistical data that proves my point. You and your /pol/yp friends have provided... nothing to that end, just strawmen claims about deliberate starvation and circular arguments about subjectivity. To claim that I am unarmed is to declare yourself naked and with no limbs... good job.


 No.3609

>>3605

so... you shit up a bunch of substance free opinions, get btfo but you want us to believe you're not trying to argue your points because the posts in response to you are dumb

yet you cant even make an attempt of an argument, not just once


 No.3610

File: a70453c25b23fd9⋯.jpg (260.49 KB, 640x456, 80:57, 5586719141_2da6e2c0c3_z.jpg)

>>3606

>Lets see I provided an argument with primary sources and academic papers

Doesn't mean your arguments aren't anything but garbage. Whenever I point out your logical fallacies you just pile on more. Besides, like I said, I didn't come here looking for a good debate anyway since everything you said has exactly fuckall to do with the topic of this thread. It was a mistake ever trying to argue with you. I now realize it's a much better use of my time to make spiteful memes about you.


 No.3611

>>3610

>posting arguments with evidence and sources is less than random shitting on the internet

this post made by

RETARD GANG


 No.3612

File: e3f174c3cb81ee4⋯.jpg (20.16 KB, 430x374, 215:187, 10353650_747832731920566_7….jpg)


 No.3613

File: c8644d7c7a099ed⋯.jpg (516.98 KB, 4000x1220, 200:61, how communism really works.jpg)

>>3610

>Pic

The DDR didn't have famines, sorry dip-shit so your meme fails.

>https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1153037

And yes redistribute does mean something different. Confiscation means you have that thing TAKEN from you, personally. The grain was never yours personally, it was public property and food that needs to be collected and re-distributed,

Distribute defintion: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distribute

Now fuck off.

>Doesn't mean your arguments aren't anything but garbage

Except you never even countered them. You just repeated the same thing about it being "intentional" even when the sources backed my claim.

>Whenever I point out your logical fallacies

Fucking where? You don't point out fallacies you nit-pick and try to divert the argument. You try to claim documents as propaganda, so I provide non-soviet sources, then you claim that these academic papers know nothing and that my statements, which directly cite them don't either.

>>3612

Strawman argument. you didn't use evidence or sources you spam-posted links without citation, without any detailed information.


 No.3615

File: 631139d3348cd3b⋯.jpg (79.68 KB, 720x536, 90:67, 1437433899121.jpg)

>>3613

>The DDR didn't have famines

I wasn't making fun of the DDR, I was making fun of you. Same about fucking everything you just said, you're so daft you can't even tell when you're being ridiculed. You've got some Chris-chan level autism, dude.


 No.3616

File: 4fe7784559f402f⋯.jpg (943.48 KB, 4000x1220, 200:61, c8644d7c7a099ed9eb48cabcd6….jpg)

>>3613

Also, this will probably go right over your head like everything else but fuck it, I'm having fun.


 No.3619

File: 3240ad8fc684f1a⋯.jpg (112.16 KB, 630x688, 315:344, Should have killed more.jpg)

>>3615

>I wasn't making fun of the DDR

Yet you use German in the context of the military, which would imply East German troops.

>I was making fun of you

And failing

>Everything you just said

And you're still failing

>you're so daft you can't even tell when you're being ridiculed.

no, i'm just playing it straight

>Chris-chan level autism

That's you.

>>3616

< MUH CONFISCATION

< MUH MANAGEMENT

Pick one you contradictive fuck.

>Go over your head

What is there to go over, it's afucking shitty edit of a meme that ironically proves how much libtards like you are completely ignorant of how things function.

<confiscation

Except that it isn't personal property to be confiscated, it's a private product that, under socialism has no point in existing, instead it is redestributed, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. What is this guy going to do with his apples? sell them and buy things for himself. This does the same exact thing with no personal loss to the owner.

This is why right-wingers are laughed at, you make surface level analyses and then refuse to read the theory of what and why things are being done this way.


 No.3621

File: 761b40b9c00e907⋯.png (103.09 KB, 491x311, 491:311, Untitled-1.png)

>>3619

>Yet you use German in the context of the military, which would imply East German troops.

Because you post with an East German flag. Did you seriously not know that? I've never had to try this hard to explain a joke to someone before.

>Pick one you contradictive fuck.

I'm not even gonna bother asking what you think the contradiction is. You'll probably just copy-paste half a dozen more links about how great life in the USSR was according to some other faggot's opinion.

>Except that it isn't personal property to be confiscated, it's a private product that, under socialism has no point in existing, instead it is redestributed, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. What is this guy going to do with his apples? sell them and buy things for himself. This does the same exact thing with no personal loss to the owner.

Assuming whoever's doing the "redistributing" knows better than both the apple farmer AND his customers exactly what they need. Why not let them decide for themselves? Oh that's right, someone might make le evil profit, can't have that.


 No.3622

>>3621

By the way I'm not an ancap, that's just the flag that was used in the meme template. Most people would understand this but I see you have severe autism and need things like this explained to you.


 No.3623

>>3621

>You post with an East German Flag

Yes but your strawmen arguments are about the USSR, putting those memes and mixing them with the DDR makes your memes unintelligible.

>never had to try this hard

You're not

>not even gonna bother asking what you think the contradiction is.

If you can't see it you're even dumber than I gave you credit for.

>You'll probably just copy-paste half a dozen more links

This is fucking rich. I post statements and arguments and you wiggle and twist my words and avoid my argument. I post direct, cited sources arguing and backing my points and you say "copy paste". priceless.

>some other faggot's opinion.

HAHAHAHA

<Communism sucks just ask the people who lived there

>They say its good

<they're faggots blinded by nostalgia

>statistical data, including the CIA's backs their "nostalgia"

<It's just on paper

That is your entire argument.

>Assuming whoever's doing the "redistributing" knows better than both the apple farmer AND his customers exactly what they need

That is called central planning you dumb fuck. >Why not let them decide for themselves

Because that doesn't function above a local level, and if anyone does that, then there is not enough proper cooperation to achieve any major progress. The USSR had that during the 1920s, it was called the NEP and the result was poor productivity as compared to collectives like kolkhozes.

>someone might make le evil profit, can't have that

<MUH PROFITS!

>Pic

<not real communism

Never said that in this thread.

<real communism is no property

NO PRIVATE property.

<What if I don't want to do that

<Kill you

LOL more strawman.

>>3622

>Not an ancap

yeah you're a libtard who has nothing better to do than make strawmen arguments and shitty, poorly thought out memes.


 No.3625

>>3623

>>3621

<Muh profits

Just to clarify because you're an ignoramus

1) Profit motive only exists because you need the profit for something, otherwise its just pointlessly collecting wealth, which in a non-consumerist society is pointless. It would be the equivalent of collecting wine-corks and not using them, just having them.

2) Incentives exist past monetary gain. We, as a society, must pass the obsession with materialistic incentives which is provided by capitalist indoctrination throughout our entire young, scholastic lives. In a communist society, the general welfare of the state (which is comprised of the proletariat) is of top priority. People do not struggle to survive and succeed their birth-given socio-economic status so much because no-one is more or less advanced than you in any meaningful way. The work is distributed to the strong, able, and appropriate, and the incentive to discover and invent is to leave a mark on mankind and to improve society as a whole, as extreme wealth is not a given option for this mark, mostly because it is not needed. It persuades the individual to seek scholastic advancement and make scientific discoveries by removing the Capitalist-added incentive to simply gain money and buy extravagant things and act ostentatiously to gain fame/ recognition. The idea is to pass the predatory phase of society and establish a more peaceful, academically-oriented society that champions general welfare and scientific/mathematic advancement as opposed to championing income inequality and profit. Having a state simply means this can be given more complexity and structure without fear of collapse.


 No.3628

>>3623

>Yes but your strawmen arguments are about the USSR, putting those memes and mixing them with the DDR makes your memes unintelligible

My memes aren't about the USSR. They're not about the DDR. They're about you. You still don't understand this after I've spelled it out multiple times. Making fun of your intellectual disability was fun for a while but it's getting old. I'm done here for now.


 No.3629

>>3628

>My memes aren't about the USSR. They're not about the DDR. They're about you.

And they still fail, because 1/2 the arguments you try and state as mine, were never stated by me to begin with. You make a strawman of me and my arguments, which are all about the USSR and communism, because that is the topic of the thread.

>making fun of your intellectual disability

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." - Romans 1:22

PS

There is more than 1 GDR poster on this board for your information.


 No.3630

File: 10c704df923fb2b⋯.jpg (102.09 KB, 481x360, 481:360, 1492545342666.jpg)

>>3629

>You make a strawman of me and my arguments, which are all about the USSR and communism, because that is the topic of the thread.

>because that is the topic of the thread.

<Hate to break it to you guys, but all value is subjective, surplus value doesn't exist and wealth is not a zero sum game.

>because

>that

>is

>the

>topic

>of

>the

>thread.

Great going, now in addition to myself everyone reading this will know you're an imbecile.


 No.3631

File: a6ca06a52cd419b⋯.png (266.96 KB, 932x471, 932:471, point and laugh.png)

>>3630

>Cuts a bit of the OP without context

<Ignores the fact that the OP also posted this in relation to the fact that they thought communism fails as represented by OP's meme

<Ignores that OP himself diverted the thread into an arguement where he attempted to wave away arguments by claiming that "socialism didn't work" and then nit-picking when the opposite was pointed out

<Ignores the fact that other lolbertians come in here and begin shitting about the USSR and provoking responses.

The thread's topic is communism and its theory, the USSR and COMMUNISM falls under that.

OP is a denying faggot and so are you.


 No.3632

File: 1ebba32eeb75cd2⋯.png (79.9 KB, 667x473, 667:473, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3631

>>3630

Oh wait I forgot, according to /b/ and other /pol/ friends, Marx isn't communist. I keep forgetting that actual concrete theory beyond the vague concept of 'Muh Liburty' is something lolberts have no fathoming about.


 No.3660


 No.3782

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>3660

Fox News is reporting that Venezuelans are eating rats and zoo animals, killing each other because there is a "humanitarian crisis."

So this guy went to Caracas and visited one of their supermarkets.


 No.3789

File: 6b66e067d6efaa7⋯.jpg (27.2 KB, 324x296, 81:74, 1463378434288.jpg)

>>3782

>mfw he finally mentions the price of something and it's expensive as balls because people are hoarding olive oil to make a quick buck


 No.3898


 No.3907

File: 62919732538b51a⋯.png (975.67 KB, 1556x2048, 389:512, venezualan economy.png)

>>3898

The argument most anti-socialists make is: "Venezuela's oil, agriculture, finance, industry, gold, syeel, telecommunications, transportation, power and tourism infrastructures and industries are all nationalized. thus it is socialist"

Here is a response you can use.

A) that makes up less than 1/2 of the economy. in fact it makes up 1/3.

B) Nationalization =/= socialism. South Korea has all industries nationalized to this day, as does most of Japan.

- https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_adMWevoEq0C&pg=PA150&dq=Pohang+steel+works+domestic+companies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9mrz6yeHYAhXKerwKHSMEBVwQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=Pohang%20steel%20works%20domestic%20companies&f=false

- http://www.geocities.ws/mortuzakhaled/park.pdf

- https://books.google.com/books?id=loDCS-JEF78C&pg=PT88&dq=Park+Chun+Hee+profiterring&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqzu7u5dvUAhUDSSYKHZCwDcMQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Park%20Chun%20Hee%20profiterring&f=false

- https://piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/341/2iie3373.pdf

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP472lT9JXw

C) economists disagree

- https://www.thenation.com/article/why-is-venezuela-in-crisis/

- http://cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2007_07.pdf

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd4tsaRJBes

- http://www.appnations.net/video/yk_JhRVlIR-c

- https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/US-Targets-Venezuela-Using-Border-Dispute-as-Pretext-20150721-0023.html

- https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/06/whats-the-matter-with-venezuela-its-not-socialism.html

- https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Venezuela-Protesters-Set-40-Tons-of-Subsidized-Food-on-Fire-20170630-0017.html


 No.3973

File: fcdf15511659304⋯.jpg (31.79 KB, 490x324, 245:162, 1430848422623.jpg)

>>3907

If you care at all to hear an actual anti-socialist's opinion, allow me to interpose. The question of "What is socialism?" is ultimately meaningless, since as I have learned from years of frequent debates, no two self-described "socialists" agree completely on what socialism is. I've yet to find a dictionary that offers only a single definition of the word, and I'm positive that not a single one of them is universally agreed upon in all the nuances of its meaning. It is much more prudent to ask "What is socialism according to Lenin?" or "What is socialism according to Mao?", etc.

Since we're talking about Venezuela, and Venezuela is ruled by a party called the United Socialist Party, led by Nicolás Maduro, the question at hand becomes, "What is socialism according to Maduro?" What's the answer? Let's ask Maduro:

-https://www.lanacion.com.ar/1684248-maduro-insiste-con-una-nueva-ofensiva-economica

Since I'm not sure if you know Spanish (and I wouldn't behoove you to read a whole article to justify one of my own points, who has time for that?), I'll try to pick out the good stuff.

>Las medidas se centran en tres ejes: producción, abastecimiento y precios justos. Al hablar de la "nueva ofensiva económica", Maduro dijo recientemente que Venezuela "debe producir más y mejor para destrabar todos los mecanismos inducidos o creados que impidan la producción en el país".

<The measures center on three axes: production, sufficiency and fair prices. Speaking of the "new economic offensive", Maduro said recently that Venezuela "should produce more and better to overcome all the induced or created mechanisms that impede production in the country.

>Maduro puso en vigencia a inicios de año una "ley de precios justos" que establece ganancias máximas del 30% para los empresarios, y creó una Superintendencia Nacional de Precios Justos para garantizar el cumplimiento de la nueva regulación. Según el presidente, para asegurar el abastecimiento "hay que terminar de desmontar los mecanismos de la guerra económica, ya que siguen funcionando".

<At the start of the year, Maduro put in place a "law of fair prices" that establishes maximum profits of 30% for employers, and created a National Superintendency of Fair Prices to guarantee compliance with the new regulation. According to the president, to assure sufficiency "we must cease to dismantle the mechanisms of the economic war, inasmuch as they continue functioning".

>Maduro inició en noviembre una primera fase de la "ofensiva económica" que implicó un plan masivo de fiscalizaciones de comercios, expropiaciones de algunas tiendas de electrodomésticos que fueron acusadas de especular con los precios, y reducciones de más de 20% en el valor de algunos productos, lo que animó frenéticas compras a fines de 2013.

<In November, Maduro initiated a first phase of "economic offensive" that involved a massive plan of audits of businesses, expropriations of certain electronics stores that were accused of price speculation, and reductions of more that 20% in value of certain products, that caused frenetic purchases at the end of 2013.

What can we deduce from all this? By the looks of it, Maduro believes that the actions of private business owners are a force of malevolence that must be actively fought. Like I said, it's ultimately meaningless to ask whether or not this entails socialism, but if it's not a position most self-described "socialists" would agree on, and to which I would dissent, I don't know what is.


 No.3974

File: 066c9aa0aa644ae⋯.png (424.46 KB, 1133x717, 1133:717, pol pot.png)

>>3973

>Maduro believes that the actions of private business owners are a force of malevolence that must be actively fought. Like I said, it's ultimately meaningless to ask whether or not this entails socialism, but if it's not a position most self-described "socialists" would agree on, and to which I would dissent, I don't know what is.

The first actual argument I've seen on this thread from an anti-socialist that isn't "I've totally read the theory but not really".

You present an excellent point, indeed socialism is a debated definition, BUT more from a social side than anything else. The Economic definition of socialism remains rarely disputed by almost any socialists (except An-coms because they're idiots).

In that sense, even if Maduro's ideological statements go against capitalism or rather the concept of a free-market, that isn't necessarily reflected by their actions. It's why Pol Pot is denounced as a shill because, in spite of claiming and spouting ideology of socialism his actions were anything but socialist, economically speaking.

Thanks for your time and politeness.


 No.3975

>>3974

>The Economic definition of socialism remains rarely disputed by almost any socialists

What do you mean by that?


 No.3976

>>3975

The economic definition of socialism is essentially that workers own and manage the means of production, through direct democracy at a work-place and on the federal level through things like referendums. An essential part of this is elimination of class as a concept. Now while some people may be marginally richer or poorer, this isn't due to an inherent social reason (such as one possessing private property or being born into a high class) but only due to individual reasons like disability or laziness. Private property as a concept does not exist, only public and personal property, thus private business doesn't exist even if there is a 'market', as all things produced by a workers collective is redistributed as evenly as possible to provide for all.

Of course there are deficits sometimes (until one eventually reaches non-scarcity), but in a properly managed economy like in the USSR the deficit never rises higher than a small percentage of the annual economy and is mostly for things like commodity products such as a new winter coat or fancy chair rather than ordinary ones.

In Venezuela there is private property... a lot of it, there are classes of bourgeoisie and proletariat and most importantly, even though there is some nationalization, the workers do not control the means of production. There-fore in-spite of whatever rhetoric Maduro may state, unless he begins actively removing the presence of private property and the classes which possess this private property, his movement will be nothing but a social democracy.


 No.3977

>>3975

While I answer as best as I understand and know socialism, the person who truly is good at explaining this fully would be Ismail on >>>/marx/ He'll answer within a day usually if you ask there.


 No.3979

>>3976

So in your opinion, did the USSR actually achieve socialism?


 No.3980

>>3979

Socialism? Yes. Communism? No. One can nit-pick minor details about the USSR in an attempt to try and claim otherwise, however the basic system in the USSR, minor exceptions excluded) was socialist, as they eliminated class, gave the means of production to workers collectives (thus eliminating private property) and fulfilled the basic concept of socialism. Venezuela, even if one was to look at in the most basic format and ignore outliers, is not socialist, it hasn;t eliminated class, it hasn't given workers the means of production and thus hasn't fulfilled the basic economic concept of socialism.


 No.3985

>>3980

>they eliminated class

On paper at least they did. It seems to me that the Communist Party, particularly its highest ranks, started to take on the characteristics of a new ruling class, but it's hard to say for sure since the Soviet Union didn't exist long enough for much study of intergenerational social mobility. Only one General Secretary was actually born in the USSR, and he also happened to be the last.

>gave the means of production to workers collectives

Did they really? It wasn't the workers in the USSR who determined their production quotas, how their products were distributed or least of all their wages.


 No.3987

File: 24ef4f1d7bb3c83⋯.jpg (28.57 KB, 354x499, 354:499, Class Theory and History.jpg)

>>3980

>as they eliminated class

lol like hell they did. Read this.


 No.3988

>>3987

nigger book


 No.4001

File: 35fbd21807283ef⋯.pdf (207.8 KB, 'state capitalism' in USSR.pdf)

>>3987

>Richard Wolff

>Class theory and history

That fuckin' book is some of the dumbest shit I've read arguing that the USSR wasn't socialist.

See PDF (a scathing critisism of the USSR that I disagree with in places, but also concludes that it was socialist over-all) and the following

- https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-6/lom-cap-rest.htm

- https://archive.fo/xnGnG

To quote a eloquently written post I read,

People conflate control of the means of production with day-to-day operation. Just because managers exist, this doesn’t indicate capitalism or fundamental control by some sort of ruling class. Stalin’s Russia saw rapid increase in living conditions, housing, literacy, healthcare, life expectancy, etc. Structural unemployment was virtually non-existent, and as we know, a reserve army of the unemployed is crucial for capitalists. In fact, Soviet Russia faced a perpetual labor shortage as they sought to industrialize. The economy grew every year (save years of war), indicating the absence of overproduction crises. The commanding heights of the economy of the Soviet Union were collectively owned, and the economy was centrally planned. There’s really no evidence for any sort of ruling class exploiting workers, it’s mainly propaganda.


 No.4002

File: c419f79260e32cb⋯.pdf (15.32 MB, 1937_Soviet Democracy_Pat ….pdf)

>>3985

>It seems to me that the Communist Party, particularly its highest ranks, started to take on the characteristics of a new ruling class

I was in the middle of writing a large explanation post, when I realized that I had written one on this exact subject already, please enjoy.

To quote from a bourgeois work, ==There Is No Freedom Without Bread!== by Constantine Pleshakov, 2009, pp. 60-61:

>The world of luxury [Soviet and Eastern European officials] created for themselves was still a far cry from that of Imelda Marcos or John F. Kennedy and their wealth was not hereditary or even for life, because a leader ousted from power lost most of the material benefits the day he as sacked, and every person in Romania knew that the Ceaușescus' prosperity was exactly as lasting as the orchids they imported.

>These were elites whose dacha furniture had metal tags nailed to it, so that when the person fell out with the leader or retired, an inventory team could count and account for every chair he left to his successor (in 2006 in the United States, a severance package for a "failed" chief executive of Home Depot was $210 million). Moguls drove around in Soviet-made Chaika limousines, their windows covered by arrogant curtains, but their children could not inherit them. Here, privileges were like fiefs and had no monetary backup: you lose power, you lose its spoils.

>In 1968, the conqueror of Warsaw, Marshal Rokossovsky, diagnosed with terminal cancer, begged a doctor to send him to the subtropical Crimea on the Black Sea, to the Ministry of Defense dacha: "I know that I can die at any moment, please make my last year good." The doctor counterfeited the paperwork, and the retired war hero got clean bedsheets, free meals, and a room with a view. When one of the most powerful men in Bulgaria, a secretary of the party's Central Committee, had a fling, he asked a subordinate—in his case, a writer, for the secretary supervised arts and literature—to lend him his apartment for the night because he couldn't take his date to a hotel: the management would have reported him to his very own Central Committee, which would have been only too happy to shred him to pieces for "moral decadence." In principle, Eastern European elites were as shackled by the rules as were their subjects, and, doubtlessly, whispered the names of freedoms they would've wanted.

>The greatest spymaster of Eastern Europe, Markus Wolf, chief of East German intelligence for thirty years, wrote in his memoir: People who could leave the country were greatly envied by the population at large; travel fever was acute in this country of nontravelers. I had traveled less widely for pleasure than most middle-class American college students, which is something that Western commentators tend to forget when they talk about the lives of the members of the nomenklatura. For all my privileges, I had never visited the Prado, the British Museum, or the Louvre . . . I was privileged to have a fine apartment, a car and a driver, and pleasant holidays at the invitation of other secret services in the Eastern bloc. But these were always connected to my job and status; in the end, the wider world was sealed off to me, too.

Not to mention that the "nomenclatura" was not the capitalist class, which exploits labor and engages in mass layoffs whenever the recessions and depressions inherent in capitalism set in.

The USSR lasted for roughly 3 generational life-spans. Those who were born during Before the revolution (and were part of it) or the 2 generations born during the soviet period, that was 70 years, plenty of time for social-mobility, especially as opportunities to move around were common following the WW-2 period.

>Only one General Secretary was actually born in the USSR. True, however most of the Gen-Secs after Corn-man were born right before the revolution and GREW UP in the USSR (which is the important part).

> It wasn't the workers in the USSR who determined their production quotas, how their products were distributed or least of all their wages.

Not entirely true, workers could and did recall managers on a local scale and with representative referendums this could go all the way to the federal level, and sometimes did. After all, with a scale the size of the USSR pure democracy wouldn't function, it's not practical in a country that covers several time-zones and has a population of several-hundred million.

Ismail on >>>/marx/ can give you a better summary than I but if you're looking for some basic readings on that subject the PDF posted is a good start along with the following two videos.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PoYzPfguJc

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okz2YMW1AwY


 No.4007

File: 5a6be327432c752⋯.jpg (215.35 KB, 878x849, 878:849, 1513575266784.jpg)

>>4002

>recessions and depressions inherent in capitalism

I was about to ask where this meme came from, but then I realized I know exactly. Since it's apparently considered reasonable around here to ask someone to read an entire book to justify your point, here, read this:

https://federalexpression.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/none-dare-call-it-conspiracy.pdf


 No.4010

File: 9e6a992edcbfee1⋯.png (898 KB, 700x2519, 700:2519, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 635726a617ee556⋯.png (275.01 KB, 540x960, 9:16, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 490ebe098959c00⋯.png (393.52 KB, 597x767, 597:767, ClipboardImage.png)

>>4007

I already read that back in the 2000s when Ron Paul was a popular libertarian-choices. This entire argument breaks down in the face of the USSR, and the US Federal Bank.

1) The US Federal Bank is privately owned, not state-owned. The Debt-Money cycles described are a part of capitalism. The roaring free-market of the 1890s allowed for it to arise and take control because that is what always happens in unregulated free-markets; monopolies take over spheres of production and absorb or eliminate competition (except shell competitor systems Ex. Comcast vs Verizon).

This system of money exchange without any real backing, such as a gold-standard, means that inflation and collapse is an inevitable part of capitalism. The less regulations there are, the faster this occurs and the heavier this hits. We see this in Britain and the USA during Reagan/Thatcher, when their de-regulation instantly made wages stop rising while productivity continued to rise, prices became unstable, and by the 1990s there was a small fall. This later eroded into the 2008 recession.

The book argues that socialism creates "super-rich" yet this isn't backed by real-life examples. In the USSR the highest paid positions were not political but scientific/constructional. A young technic-engineer, fresh from the university would recieved the same amount as a high-level government official. Even after capitalism was restored in the former soviet regions, the richest big-boys were practically penniless compared to the average western oligarch.

TL;DR It's making the "It's not REAL capitalism" excuse and trying to fear-monger the reader with the same old "socialism will make you poor!" bullshit.

I don't have much more to say since it's night and I have work to finish, so I'll leave it with this quote, Everything we feared about communism – that we would lose our houses and savings and be forced to labor eternally for meager wages with no voice in the system – has come true under capitalism.


 No.4013

>>4010

No, you didn't read it. If you had, you'd know that the U.S. government created the Federal Reserve, and did so at the behest of the same people who financed and profited from the Bolshevik revolution, and they couldn't have done any of it without exploiting people's misguided resentment of capitalism. I was being sarcastic when I said I expected you to read the whole book. Let me pull out a few of the important parts:

>Taking advantage of Congress' desire to adjourn for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 22, 1913 by a vote of 298 to 60 in the House, and in the Senate by a majority of 43 to 25. Wilson had fulfilled to the insiders the pledge he had made in order to become President. Warburg told House, "Well, it hasn't got quite everything we want, but the lack can be adjusted later by administrative process." (p. 32)

>The whole central bank concept was engineered by the very group it was supposed to strip of power. The myth that the "money trust" had been defrocked should have been exploded when Paul Warburg was appointed to the first Federal Reserve Board-a board which was handpicked by "Colonel" House. Paul Warburg relinquished his $500,000 a year job as a Kuhn, Loeb partner to take a $12,000 a year job with the Federal Reserve. The "accidentalists" who teach in our universities would have you believe that he did it because he was a "public spirited citizen." And the man who served as Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank during its early critical years was the same Benjamin Strong of the Morgan interests, who accompanied Warburg, Davison, Vanderlip et al. to Jekyl Island, Georgia, to draft the Aldrich Bill. (p.33)

>Two months prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the conspirators had created the mechanism to collect the funds to pay the interest on the national debt. That mechanism was the progressive income tax, the second plank of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto which contained ten planks for SOCIALIZING a country. One quite naturally assumes that the graduated income tax would be opposed by the wealthy. The fact is that many of the wealthiest Americans supported it. Some, no doubt, out of altruism and because, at first, the taxes were very small. But others backed the scheme because they already had a plan for permanently avoiding both the income tax and the subsequent inheritance tax. What happened was this: At the turn of the century the Populists, a group of rural socialists, were gaining strength and challenging the power of the New York bankers and monopolist industrialists. While the Populists had the wrong answers, they asked many of the right questions. Unfortunately, they were led to believe that the banker-monopolist control over government, which they opposed, was a product of free enterprise. (p.38)


 No.4014

>>4013

>The Germans, on the face of it, had a plausible excuse for financing Lenin and Trotsky. The two Germans most responsible for the financing of Lenin were Max Warburg and a displaced Russian named Alexander Helphand. They could claim that they were serving their country's cause by helping and financing Lenin. However, these two German "patriots" neglected to mention to the Kaiser their plan to foment a Communist revolution in Russia. The picture takes on another dimension when you consider that the brother of Max Warburg was Paul Warburg, prime mover in establishing the Federal Reserve System and who from his position on the Federal Reserve Board of Directors, played a key role in financing the American war effort. (When news leaked out in American papers about brother Max running the German finances, Paul resigned from his Federal Reserve post without a whimper.) From here on the plot sickens. For the father-in-law of Max Warburg's brother, Felix, was Jacob Schiff, senior partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Paul and Felix Warburg, you will recall, were also partners in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. while Max ran the Rothschild-allied family bank of Frankfurt.) Jacob Schiff also helped finance Leon Trotsky. According to the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949: "Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia." (See Chart 6.) (p.44-45)

>But the Rockefellers apparently were not alone in financing the Communist arm of the Insiders' conspiracy .According to Professor Sutton"… there is a report in the State Department files that names Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (the long established and important financial house in New York) as the financier of the First Five Year Plan. See U. S. State Dept. Decimal File, 811.51/3711 and 861.50 FIVE YEAR PLAN/236." (Sutton, op. cit.,Vol. II, p. 340n.) (p.68)

>Certainly every loyal American will say to himself, "Well, I would hope to God the Soviets couldn't walk into our defense plants and buy a patent." The Rockefellers and the Eatons have solved that problem for the Communists. Now, instead of dealing with an official agency of the Soviet government, American concerns will be dealing with the Rockefellers. Meanwhile, nearly 50,000 Americans have died in Vietnam, many of them killed by weapons which the Rockefellers directly or indirectly supplied to our avowed enemies. Only the technicality of the lack of a formal declaration of war prevents the Rockefellers' trading in the blood of dead Americans from being actionable as treason. Thus by the purchase of patents for the Communists the Rockefellers are virtually in charge of research and development for the Soviet military machine, allowing the Soviets to mass produce American developments. The transfer of such knowledge is even more important than the sale of weapons. A process that may have taken an American corporation a decade to develop is transferred in toto to the Communists. Does it make sense to spend $75 billion a year on national defense and then deliberately increase the war-making potential of an avowed enemy? It does to Mr. Rockefeller and the insiders. (p. 71-72)


 No.4015

>>4013

>the U.S. government created the Federal Reserve, and did so at the behest of the same people who financed and profited from the Bolshevik revolution, and they couldn't have done any of it without exploiting people's misguided resentment of capitalism.

What I stated isn't what the book states I know that, that's why I dismissed it. The US government allowed its creation officially, but it has NO control over it.

- https://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/the-federal-reserve-is-privately-owned

>Muh Wall-street Bolsheviks

Oh for fucks sake not this shit all over again. Yes the Bolsheviks USED the money and capital of Western capitalists, however they simply played Wall-street then thumbed their noses at those rich fucks after they used those investments to help solidify their movement and essentially create the USSR which rejected them and their hope to divide up Russia and use its resources the same way they used Africa.

>Professor Sutton

MFW This guy again.

Again this shit has been covered YEARS ago by others, if you bothered to research or at the very least look up some basic counter-arguments you'd find things like this video, which goes over the Chapter of Sutton's book which talks about this and cites all its sources in the description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaZXojJsVlA


 No.4017

>>4015

The lands of Russia at the time were controlled by the Czar regime, a Feudalist monarchy which had only begun introducing state capitalism during the past decade of the Empire. It was an obstacle to the Capitalism of international private entrepreneurs. It was a common enemy to the Bolsheviks and the Capitalists. By creating a financial relationship with the Bosheviks who would then overthrow the Tsar, the Capitalists could both destroy the Feudalists and have control over the Communists.

Russia's immaturity as a Capitalist country was the reason for Lenin's "vanguard party" approach, setting himself apart from orthodox Marxism (Marx did not think Russia was ready for a revolution toward Communism despite the Copper Revolt and other revolutionary activity). Lenin's first goal was to establish a controlled Capitalism held by the State, i.e. State-Capitalism, which was achieved with the NEP:

Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory. - Vladimir Lenin, Minutes of the Sessions of the All-Russia C.E.C. (1920) Key word here is STEP FORWARD, not solution.

Among the prominent Wall Street contributors to the February revolution (the revolution leading to the Kerensky Provisional Government) ,was Jacob Schiff, who stated his stance against the Czar in his telegraph to New York Times:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9802E4DD163AE532A2575BC1A9659C946696D6CF

There is no logical reason for Wall Street to finance a socialist revolution. The Bolsheviks did get financing from Germany for propaganda uses during the first world war because the Bolsheviks wanted to pull Russia out of the War, which would of allowed Germany to direct all their forces into attacking France. After the War this stopped and a vigorous anti-Jew/anti-socialist propaganda campaign was launched in Germany, blaming the losing of the war on these groups by claiming they sabotaged the war effort (classic scapegoat theory). This helped combat the threat of Germany having their own socialist revolution against those that got them into, and then lost this bloody and costly war.

Great Britain, the United States, and their WW-1 allies invaded Russia in the Intervention to fight the Bolsheviks (using the White guards as cannon fodder) and protect property interests, and wanted nothing more than to destroy them.

It is also extremely illogical to claim that this revolution would be profitable to the financial oligarchy. Deregulated capitalism is much more profitable.

On another side note, who would want to be a Bolshevik politician? Most that died in the purges where party members. Talk about being held accountable. And none of the Communist politicians where even millionaires yet alone billionaires like western politicians, and there was no financial and industrial class, with the unbelievably disproportionate fortunes ... which are beyond belief. All the wealth is in all the most worthless sectors of the modern economy. The wealthiest nations contribute the least.


 No.4022

>>4015

>>4017

>not even reading the excerpts I pre-chewed for you

Just read it dude. You'll see how the fact the the government doesn't control the Fed is part of my point and how the Wall Street insiders continued to profit from the USSR long after the Revolution. In case you still have trouble seeing the big picture after that, I'll add one more excerpt:

>For five decades the Communists have based their propaganda on the theme that they were going to destroy the Rockefellers and the other super-rich. Yet we find that for five decades the Rockefellers have been involved in building the strength of the Soviets. We are supposed to believe those international cartelists do this because they are foolish or greedy. Does this make sense? If a criminal goes up and down the streets shouting at the top of his lungs that as soon as he gets hold of a gun he is going to kill Joe Doaks, and you learn that Doaks is secretly giving guns to the criminal, one of two things must be true. Either Doaks is a fool or all the shouting is just "show biz" and the criminal secretly works for Doaks. The Rockefellers are not fools. (p. 72)


 No.4029

>>4022

>not even reading the excerpts I pre-chewed for you

Because they're the same thing I read the last 50 times some smart-alek tries to 'discredit' the Bolsheviks.

> Wall Street insiders continued to profit from the USSR long after the Revolution.

Your green literally just says "The Rockafellers only got more powerful" without any actual direct relevance to the USSR stated after the Revolution, only claims of such and this falls apart if you actually read MY argument, and links.


 No.4045

>>4029

>Your green literally just says "The Rockafellers only got more powerful" without any actual direct relevance to the USSR stated after the Revolution

I thought if you wanted more detail on the matter you'd go to the source and read the parts leading up to and following it, my mistake.

>The New York Times reported one week later on October 13, 1966:

>"The United States put into effect today one of President Johnson's proposals for stimulating East-West trade by removing restrictions on the export of more than four

hundred commodities to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe… Among the categories from which items have been selected for export relaxation are vegetables, cereals, fodder, hides, crude and manufactured rubber, pulp and waste paper, textiles and textile fibers, crude fertilizers, metal ores and scrap, petroleum, gas and derivatives, chemical compounds and products, dyes, medicines, fireworks, detergents, plastic materials, metal products and machinery, and scientific and professional instruments."

>Virtually every one of these "non-strategic" items has a direct or indirect use in war. Later, items such as rifle cleaning compounds, electronic equipment and radar were declared "non-strategic" and cleared for shipment to the Soviet Union. The trick simply is to declare almost everything "non-strategic." A machine gun is still considered strategic and therefore may not be shipped to the Communists, but the tools for making the machine guns and the chemicals to propel the bullets have been declared "non-strategic." Meanwhile, nearly 50,000 Americans have died in Vietnam. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese receive 85 percent of their war materials from Russia and the Soviet bloc nations. Since their economies are incapable of supporting a war, the Communist arm of the conspiracy needed help from the Finance Capitalist arm. The United States has been financing and equipping both sides of the terrible Vietnamese war, killing our own soldiers by proxy. Again, the landscape painters in the mass media have kept the American public from learning this provable fact.

>Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers have been leaders in championing this bloody trade. On January 16, 1967, one of the most incredible articles ever to appear in a newspaper graced the front page of the Establishment's daily, the New York Times. Under the headline "Eaton Joins Rockefellers To Spur Trade With Reds" the article stated: "An alliance of family fortunes linking Wall Street and the Midwest is going to try to build economic bridges between the free world and Communist Europe. The International Basic Economy Corporation, controlled by the Rockefeller brothers, and Tower International, Inc., headed by Cyrus S. Eaton Jr., Cleveland financier, plan to cooperate in promoting trade between the Iron Curtain countries, including the Soviet Union…" International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC) is run by Richard Aldrich, grandson of Federal Reserve plotter Nelson Aldrich, and Rodman Rockefeller (CFR), Rocky 5 son. On October 20, 1969, IBEC announced that N M Rothschild & Sons of London had entered into partner ship with the firm.

>Cyrus Eaton Jr. is the son of the notoriously pro Soviet Cyrus Eaton, who began his career as secretary to John D. Rockefeller. It is believed that Eaton's rise to power in finance resulted from backing by his mentor. The agreement between Tower International and IBEC continues an old alliance. Although Eaton's name does not appear on the CFR's membership rolls, the Reece Committee which investigated foundations for Congress in 1953, found that Eaton was a secret member.

>Among the "non-strategic" items which the Rockefeller Eaton axis is going to build for the Communists are ten rubber goods plants, including two synthetic rubber plants worth $200 million. Mr. Eaton explains in the Times article: "These people are setting up new automobile plants and know they have got to have tire factories." Under the Nixon Administration which, contrary to campaign promises, has multiplied trade with the Reds tenfold, American concerns are building the world's largest truck factory for the Communists. Trucks are necessary for a nation's war machine and truck factories can be converted to the production of tanks as was done during WWII. The U.S. will provide the Soviets with both the facilities to build the trucks and the tires (or tank treads) for them to roll on.

>In addition, the Rockefellers and Eatons are constructing a $50 million aluminum producing plant for the Reds Aluminum for jet planes is considered "non-strategic under Johnson-Nixon doctrine. (p.69-70)


 No.4047

>>4045

>This

<concrete evidence of post-revolutionary support

Listen Mr.Birch are you trying to make me laugh? The statements here aren't just ludicrous but downright idiotic.

> their economies are incapable of supporting a war, the Communist arm of the conspiracy needed help from the Finance Capitalist arm.

In 1960 the US spent more than 3x the amount of cash the USSR did, which consisted of 45% of the federal budget 8.7% of the Gross National Product, or 251 rubles per person. The USSR’s military consisted of 21% of the Budget, which was 7.5% of the GNP or 75 rubles per person. The difference is staggering. Now take note, this was long before Reagan’s ‘brilliant’ plan to outspend the USSR into economic collapse, (a faulty idea, used by the economically ignorant to praise him as the destroyer of communism). In 1970 the USA’s expenditure was 39.4% of the federal budget, a federal budget which had significantly rose since 1960. The Soviet budget rose as well, but just as in 1960, the expenditure was 3x lower and dropped in terms of GNP and budget.

>Source: http://naspravdi.info/analitika/voennye-rashody-sssr-ne-prichina-razvala-strany

I could go on and on, but the point is, these are tangential 'deducations' based on a few loose, facts. This is no different to Robert Conquests Famine of Sorrow. Even if genuine facts are present, there is so much garbage speculation placed in along side that its dismissable tripe, like I already said. Again I have read this shit before, I have no interest in doing something that has been done before.


 No.4053

File: 92b0605fc02afc0⋯.png (1.68 MB, 1615x1040, 323:208, 1435097980307.png)

>>4047

>In 1960 the US spent more than 3x the amount of cash the USSR did, which consisted of 45% of the federal budget 8.7% of the Gross National Product, or 251 rubles per person. The USSR’s military consisted of 21% of the Budget, which was 7.5% of the GNP or 75 rubles per person.

That means the US could afford to spend more on the war in both relative and absolute terms. That supports MY argument, not yours.


 No.4059

File: 9e194811947f97e⋯.png (510.81 KB, 640x426, 320:213, ClipboardImage.png)

>>4053

>That means the US could afford to spend more on the war in both relative and absolute terms.

No, simply that the US had to spend more yet the USSR produced more than the USA ever did for half the cost. This is just conspiratorial bullshit supported by nothing but some 'facts' and statements stringed together as 'evidence' It's at this point I will take my leave, as I'd be a fool to continue wasting time on such an old, fruitless and debunked argument. I bid thee good day


 No.4065

>>4059

>This is just conspiratorial bullshit supported by nothing but some 'facts' and statements stringed together as 'evidence'

I could say just the same about everything you linked. Fare thee well, my friend.


 No.4069

>>4065

don't leave you cowardly cat


 No.4094

>>3621

If you think communism is when everyone shares, I'm sorry but the GDR poster has been wasting his time, because you have a second grader understanding of economic systems. Communism is a totally different mode of production than capitalism, not when you have capitalism and make people share their stuff. The dominant form property takes has been constantly changing throughout history, if you think what we have right now is the final and highest expression of it then you're a brainlet.


 No.4098

>>4065

No, no you can't because everything linked was an exact fact with exact explained context.


 No.4099

File: 33ca2e616c2c408⋯.gif (539.63 KB, 309x234, 103:78, 1536120366846.gif)

>>4098

>facts are only real when I post them


 No.4101

>>4099

FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING OBTUSE SHITBRAIN


 No.4102

File: 1d328325f32ee02⋯.png (81.63 KB, 800x640, 5:4, this is bait.png)

>>4101

OI OI, stop responding to the bait, he was writing to me and i didn't answer, so why TF are you?


 No.4104

>>4102

sorry comrade @ini


 No.4415

Price/“resale value”=/=value. Marx is extremely clear about the fact that there isn’t an absolutely determinative relationship between the two. A commodity’s price, the amount of dollars we pay in order to consume whatever commodity it is, is determined by a multitude of factors (monopolization/artificial price inflation by firms/etc.). There is nothing guaranteeing that a commodity is sold at its value, in fact, an individual firm can sell a commodity at twice its “real social value” (designer brands do this sort of thing with clothes all the time) but that price doesn’t have anything to do with the value of the commodity in aggregate/socially speaking. Rather, prices set by capitalists tend to trail behind value because they have to sell on the market alongside other firms at the same historical moment with the same productive technologies available to them. That’s why, although as stated above price=/=value, prices are in aggregate usually close to value. You can sell something for whatever you want, but b/c no one’s going to buy your $3000 basketball (barring some contingent factor), that’s probably not what you’ll sell it for.

Value is a socio-historical category relating to production, which means that it can only be “measured” in aggregate, i.e. relative to the historical conditions of technological innovation and its impact on the AVERAGE amount of time it takes to make the commodities in question. Computers haven’t gotten cheaper/more available in the last several decades because capitalists just decided to start charging less for them, revolutions in productive technologies made the productive process faster, which lowered the value of computers [i]en masse.[/i] This was due to objective historical developments, and NOT pricing by select firms. Where did you get the idea that value has anything to do with whether or not a commodity is desired by someone? As long as a machine is used in the process of commodity production (assuming no contingent factors e.g. damaged products due to machine defects) it imbues the commodities it produces with a constant quantity of value until the machine is removed from the production process. Machines are removed from production if they either break (i.e. they aren’t able to transfer their value to commodities anymore) or become outdated (I.e. technological innovation produces machines which lower the value of whatever particular commodity by quickening the labor process, causing firms with the old machinery to lose their ability to compete w/ the now cheaper commodities produced by the firms w/ new machines). Barring these two situations, capitalists have no reason to remove a machine from commodity production/the valorisation process. Assuming a machine’s degree of “usage” isn’t causing an observable degradation in its ability to produce at a constant rate, this “usage” means literally nothing about that machine’s value.

I’m short, no you have not discovered a contradiction in Marx’s theory, you’ve just misunderstood it.


 No.4416

>>4415

>Rather, prices set by capitalists tend to trail behind value

Then whence cometh surplus value?

>You can sell something for whatever you want, but b/c no one’s going to buy your $3000 basketball (barring some contingent factor), that’s probably not what you’ll sell it for.

>(barring some contingent factor)

There you go. "Contingent factors" are ubiquitous and fluid. You could certainly sell a basketball for $3000 under the right circumstances. What if the NBA All-Star game is tomorrow and you have the last basketball in town? You could say that's not the norm, and you'd be right, but every market in every sector deals with unforeseen circumstances all the time. Shit happens, and it happens often. That's why demand is subjective.

>This was due to objective historical developments, and NOT pricing by select firms. Where did you get the idea that value has anything to do with whether or not a commodity is desired by someone?

Why do you think someone bothered to invent a faster way to make computers in the first place? Methinks the growing demand for computers had something to do with it.


 No.4417

File: d7d718fdf955b5e⋯.png (694.11 KB, 593x960, 593:960, ClipboardImage.png)

>>4416

>Muh surplus value

To quote, According to Marx's theory, surplus value is equal to the new value created by workers in excess of their own labor-cost, which is appropriated by the capitalist as profit when products are sold. The Surplus you speak of isn't usually surplus or is otherwise excess product created to spur demand. this was addressed earlier in the thread.

>"Contingent factors" are ubiquitous and fluid.

It really isn't. These factors are obviously rare, such as a ball autographed by, say, Michael Jordan.

>every market in every sector deals with unforeseen circumstances all the time

BECAUSE it is a market system. The instability of the market is inherent and would be eliminated outside a market system.

> Shit happens, and it happens often.

Excuses, excuses. You're only proving why the market is a liability and artificially de-values what otherwise has an objective value. A fishing rod would be objectively more valuable than an action figure, yet a fishing rod that isn't some new-fangled fancy ass rod, costs 15-20 dollars, while some action figures can sell for high prices, yet the fishing rod is more useful and valuable than a plastic toy. However because of the consumerist market, the consumer, ignorant and distracted will go for the thing that seems 'cooler' to put it in layman terms.

>a faster way to make computers

I don't see what you mean, computers being made on production lines is how it functioned since they were put into production. If you mean ways for computers to be more efficient than sure, but that isn't to do with a commodity being desired, but through the sheer logic of modernization as the needs of the progressing society require increased capacity, compactness and efficiency. Consumer demand is a secondary concern that under capitalism determines very little, because you assume that the consumer is aware of whether they are consuming what they actually need. A lot of things people 'need' are unnecessary, a false demand created by delusional BELIEF that they are needed. That is because the consumer doesn't always know what is best for them. A consumer that is ignorant or unaware will buy things they will not need or worse will be detrimental, but because they buy it, they funnel more money creating more supply, which creates more demand.

> the growing demand for computers

Supply creates its own demand. However in this case this demand already had a need to fill already, your argument fails.


 No.4418

>>4417

>According to Marx's theory

I didn't ask what surplus value is, I asked how it can exist if capitalists sell products at prices below their value.

>The instability of the market is inherent and would be eliminated outside a market system.

Outside a market system? What do you mean?

> A fishing rod would be objectively more valuable than an action figure

>yet the fishing rod is more useful and valuable than a plastic toy

Begging the question. What makes a fishing rod objectively more valuable? If you mean use value, hate to break it to you, that's a lie, I'm gonna love breaking it to you, but use value is subjective too. If you're in a desert or anywhere else with no standing water, a fishing pole has less use value than the sum of its parts.

>computers being made on production lines is how it functioned since they were put into production.

>revolutions in productive technologies made the productive process faster

Pick one.

>A lot of things people 'need' are unnecessary

You're quite right about that. The only things people really 'need' are food, water and oxygen, everything else we can make do without.

>a false demand created by delusional BELIEF that they are needed.

The way I see it, once people's needs are met, they're free to focus on desires, i.e. things that make their lives more enjoyable. If people tend to confuse needs with desires these days, it's because the materials necessary for their immediate survival are so easily available that they can afford to take them for granted. I, for one, have no problem with that at all.

>Supply creates its own demand.

Alrighty then, how many mudpies do I have to make before people start buying them?

>However in this case this demand already had a need to fill already

Wut? That doesn't make semantic sense.


 No.4419

File: 9f0053793b01839⋯.png (2.85 MB, 2000x1546, 1000:773, ClipboardImage.png)

>>4418

> I asked how it can exist

I addressed this, either read carefully or go to /marx/ if you're not satisfied with my answer.

>Outside a market system? What do you mean?

Market economies are not the only ones that can exist and function FFS.

>What makes a fishing rod objectively more valuable?

Thank you for being obtuse. Since you're being a child, here's why. A fishing rod is actually useful, it can allow to catch fish as well as act as a form of entertainment. It is more valuable than a toy. Rating a toy's value as higher is not an objective evaluation of them, merely what a consumer thinks is more valuable due to their own ignorance and manipulation of market advertising.

>use value is subjective too

It really isn't

> If you're in a desert or anywhere else with no standing water, a fishing pole has less use value than the sum of its parts.

But it still has value nonetheless, and the sum of its parts is still a usefulness of the rod. And certainly more than a toy in the same desert.

>Pick one

Those do not contradict one another. Production lines remain essentially the same

>The only things people really 'need' are food, water and oxygen, everything else we can make do without.

Thanks for being obtuse.

>once people's needs are met, they're free to focus on desires

See Maslow's pyramid of needs.

>how many mudpies do I have to make before people start buying them

Depends on how you advertise them

>That doesn't make semantic sense.

It does. Capitalism can create demand through supply. HOWEVER in the case of computers the demand for them existed through actual needs requiring computational devices of certain advancement. This need created a demand. Generally speaking most things ought aren't needed and are arbitrary products.


 No.4421

>>4419

>I addressed this, either read carefully or go to /marx/ if you're not satisfied with my answer.

Your answer sure seemed like a big ol' non sequitur to me. Guess I'll head over to /marx/ sometime.

>Market economies are not the only ones that can exist and function FFS.

You just reiterated your statement so I'll restate my question. What kind of economy isn't a market economy?

>A fishing rod is actually useful, it can allow to catch fish as well as act as a form of entertainment. It is more valuable than a toy.

Way to beg the question again. Two undefined values are not greater than one undefined value.

>But it still has value nonetheless, and the sum of its parts is still a usefulness of the rod. And certainly more than a toy in the same desert.

How? You're begging the question like your life depends on it.

>Thanks for being obtuse.

Wow jeez what a flawless argument, no coming back from that one.

>See Maslow's pyramid of needs.

Is that supposed to contradict something I said? Anything that's not at the bottom isn't really a need in the strictest sense, it's an object of desire.

>Depends on how you advertise them

So advertising creates demand? I don't doubt you but advertising isn't the same as supply.

>It does.

Nothing you said after this point explains how a demand can fill a need. I understand if English isn't your first language, feel free to rephrase it.

>HOWEVER in the case of computers the demand for them existed through actual needs requiring computational devices of certain advancement.

What if I told you people got along just fine before computers were invented, any they were only invented because people desired the power of computation?


 No.4422

File: 3551fb732f8f44b⋯.png (166.71 KB, 676x864, 169:216, Shai-hulud.png)

This discussion is great and all but what does it say about the increasing scarcity of water and the innate human condition?


 No.4424

>>4421

>circling

I'm not going to waste my time with someone playing the obtuse fool, or actually being one. I have better things to do than waste my time on something already addressed and clearly ignored.


 No.4425

File: 6e6d4621cce15b3⋯.png (631 KB, 1009x739, 1009:739, nice job faggot.png)

>>4424

You do you, my man.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bmw / choroy / dempart / doomer / firechan / skyqueen / thicc / xivlg ]