Serious On Communism.

[GenericPlayer]

i dont think their government was very rich to begin with seeing as they had to privatise their services. im sorry but my history extends to europe, not asia or africa so ill do my best to internet argue with you even though you know that communism has failed anyway.

Yes yes, since it's the internet the argument has no merit or worth. The government isn't going to be rich if all the resources were ransacked during the colonial era and all they have left is a lot of people for a workforce, not to mention the conflicts with Pakistan.

As for communism failing, what do you mean by this? It didn't achieve its goals, it didn't meet a certain standard of living quality, what exactly?

south american governments have been 'set up with us puppets' because they cant do their job themselves. narcotics trade from south america to north america was killing thousands of people, making many addicts and causing homelessness. if you let criminals stroll off your border into a different country without taking any good action then yes that different country will want to stop the criminals at the source.

Ah yes, American exceptionalism. The narcotics ring has only been an issue since the war on drugs moved all the drug runners from the US into South America and Central America. They done the job themselves in Chile before Pinochet was installed as a leader and the country had fucking deathsquads, turning it into a desolate shithole with no resources, or wealth.

assessing the congo. another country with an instable government and many rebel groups, be it for religious or political power trying to make money to buy arms so they can seize control. ofcourse they will enslave people from villages to work in their mines and ofcourse this is no utopia as i have already stated, westerners will buy those diamonds if they can make profit.

Yes, but this wouldn't be an issue unless the economic system encouraged it, which it currently does.

now, call my replies half assed, but take a look at China. China used to be a hardcore communist country and officially it still is today. Now lets see the poverty rate in 1981; 88 percent
2016: 6.5 percent

In the eighties the country wasn't really industrialised, and thus had no way of actually supporting an economic system outside of feudalism. The country needs to undergo a Capitalist economic system in order to create the conditions for a Socialist society. This was a mistake Russia made too, but was temporarily dealt with by Lenin with the NEP.

now please stop arguing FOR communism. its a failed flawed and crap system that never worked.

Cuba disagrees but aight.

 

[Spine]

 

[Gimmie]

Yes yes, since it's the internet the argument has no merit or worth. The government isn't going to be rich if all the resources were ransacked during the colonial era and all they have left is a lot of people for a workforce, not to mention the conflicts with Pakistan.

As for communism failing, what do you mean by this? It didn't achieve its goals, it didn't meet a certain standard of living quality, what exactly?



Ah yes, American exceptionalism. The narcotics ring has only been an issue since the war on drugs moved all the drug runners from the US into South America and Central America. They done the job themselves in Chile before Pinochet was installed as a leader and the country had fucking deathsquads, turning it into a desolate shithole with no resources, or wealth.



Yes, but this wouldn't be an issue unless the economic system encouraged it, which it currently does.



In the eighties the country wasn't really industrialised, and thus had no way of actually supporting an economic system outside of feudalism. The country needs to undergo a Capitalist economic system in order to create the conditions for a Socialist society. This was a mistake Russia made too, but was temporarily dealt with by Lenin with the NEP.



Cuba disagrees but aight.

im not gonna write a fucking essay again but yes, capitalism is flawed

but communism isnt? id love to hear why you think communism is better.

 

[GenericPlayer]

im not gonna write a fucking essay again but yes, capitalism is flawed

but communism isnt? id love to hear why you think communism is better.

Because I'd rather live in a society where I don't need to constantly sell myself off in order to gain money to buy the shit that I made.

There wouldn't be a class of people who amass more wealth simply by leeching off of other peoples labour. All in all, it wouldn't be as shitty of an existence imo.

And of course communism has flaws, but significantly less than capitalism. I mean fuck if you think communisms death toll is bad, then go see how many people die under capitalism each year.

 

[bird]

Because I'd rather live in a society where I don't need to constantly sell myself off in order to gain money to buy the shit that I made.

There wouldn't be a class of people who amass more wealth simply by leeching off of other peoples labour. All in all, it wouldn't be as shitty of an existence imo.

And of course communism has flaws, but significantly less than capitalism. I mean fuck if you think communisms death toll is bad, then go see how many people die under capitalism each year.

But the shit you make is in factories made at the hands of other people paid by the wealthy. If the factories aren't yours then it isn't "your" shit dude.
Your argument here summed up is as follows:

 

[GenericPlayer]

But the shit you make is in factories made at the hands of other people paid by the wealthy. If the factories aren't yours then it isn't "your" shit dude.
Your argument here summed up is as follows:

Then the factory doesn't belong to the wealthy, it belongs to those who made it or those who work in it. Your argument here implies that because certain wealthy figures financed the construction of a factory, a cut of a workers salary should go to them even after the initial cost was paid off. That's simply inefficient and borderline exploitive. So what gives them the right to own a commodity made by someone else? Why have a middleman?

And that's assuming that we're talking about factories, a mode of production doesn't need to be a factory at all. For example, painters have a brush and canvas, programmers have computers and so on.


You've made a hefty straw-man argument there, and it's a bad habit.

E: It's 1:30am here so if that sounded a little incoherent then that's my bad.

 

[bird]

Then the factory doesn't belong to the wealthy, it belongs to those who made it or those who work in it. Your argument here implies that because certain wealthy figures financed the construction of a factory, a cut of a workers salary should go to them even after the initial cost was paid off. That's simply inefficient and borderline exploitive. So what gives them the right to own a commodity made by someone else? Why have a middleman?

And that's assuming that we're talking about factories, a mode of production doesn't need to be a factory at all. For example, painters have a brush and canvas, programmers have computers and so on.


You've made a hefty straw-man argument there, and it's a bad habit.

Because the same person who financed the factories is incentivizing the workers to produce goods, not to have them? He's paying the workers, it's not like a capitalist exploitative slave game, he financed a factory in order to produce goods, so technically the workers -are- getting a cut of the profits from the goods via wages.

 

[GenericPlayer]

Because the same person who financed the factories is incentivizing the workers to produce goods, not to have them? He's paying the workers, it's not like a capitalist exploitative slave game, he financed a factory in order to produce goods, so technically the workers -are- getting a cut of the profits from the goods via wages.

Yes but how is this efficient? And they're forced to sell their labour to make enough money to buy food and their own commodities (That they made). Profits beyond what's necessary to make money back are just stolen wages imo, seeing as the workers are the ones doing all the work.

 

[bird]

Yes but how is this efficient? And they're forced to sell their labour to make enough money to buy food and their own commodities (That they made). Profits beyond what's necessary to make money back are just stolen wages imo, seeing as the workers are the ones doing all the work.

So you don't see why the person who financed this hypothetical factory should get a large return on his investment? How is it more efficient to give the products to the workers and lose your return so that someone else distributes the goods at the same rate to a consumer. It doesn't make any sense. I can't decide if you're trolling or legitimately don't understand capitalism.

 

[GenericPlayer]

So you don't see why the person who financed this hypothetical factory should get a large return on his investment? How is it more efficient to give the products to the workers and lose your return so that someone else distributes the goods at the same rate to a consumer. It doesn't make any sense. I can't decide if you're trolling or legitimately don't understand capitalism.

I understand capitalism, but I don't agree with it.

It's more efficient as a society for the workers to control their workplace in order to have a larger output (Although automation already solves this, but if workplaces were to be fully automated then no one would be employed to make money to buy commodities).

I really couldn't give less of a fuck if someone loses their profits, considering I don't agree with the core idea of it.

 

[bird]

I understand capitalism, but I don't agree with it.

It's more efficient as a society for the workers to control their workplace in order to have a larger output (Although automation already solves this, but if workplaces were to be fully automated then no one would be employed to make money to buy commodities).

I really couldn't give less of a fuck if someone loses their profits, considering I don't agree with the core idea of it.

So you think that someone should buy you and your friends a factory and not share in the return from the products.
You realize that you could collectively own a factory with other people, right?
That's not exclusive to communism, you can produce and distribute products in a collective.

 

[GenericPlayer]

You realize that you could collectively own a factory with other people, right?

Yes but then there wouldn't be an owner per sé, it'd be a collective. No one person would exclusively own the factory, and if all people working in the factory pooled their excess profit together inorder to finance said factory then there wouldn't be an issue. The issue comes when one man amasses more wealth than the workers for merely "owning" the factory.

 

[ruben slikk]

Cuba disagrees but aight.

Now wait a minute...

When people bring up communist countries that have failed as an example, it is said, "they're not really communist!" "they're socialist, leninist, whatever!"

But commies always bring up Cuba (seeing as it's the only nation that has some success), yet Cuba is constitutionally defined as a Marxist–Leninist "socialist state guided by the political ideas of Marx, one of the fathers of historical materialism, Engels and Lenin".

Can somebody explain this to me?

 

[GenericPlayer]

Now wait a minute...

When people bring up communist countries that have failed as an example, it is said, "they're not really communist!" "they're socialist, leninist, whatever!"

But commies always bring up Cuba (seeing as it's the only nation that has some success), yet Cuba is constitutionally defined as a Marxist–Leninist "socialist state guided by the political ideas of Marx, one of the fathers of historical materialism, Engels and Lenin".

Can somebody explain this to me?

Because they don't want to admit that such nations are flawed and have "failed" in a sense. The USSR didn't have the right material conditions to sustain a Socialist society, whereas a place like the UK or Germany did.

Also sectarian infighting is another thing.

 

[bird]

Because they don't want to admit that such nations are flawed and have "failed" in a sense. The USSR didn't have the right material conditions to sustain a Socialist society, whereas a place like the UK or Germany did.

Also sectarian infighting is another thing.

The largest mass of land with heaps of Caucasus oil, massive lumber supply, coal veins, etc. didn't have the material conditions? I feel like it was due to poor leadership and flawed economic organization.

 

[GenericPlayer]

The largest mass of land with heaps of Caucasus oil, massive lumber supply, coal veins, etc. didn't have the material conditions? I feel like it was due to poor leadership and flawed economic organization.

Material conditions =/= Resources.

I was referring to the fact that the country didn't even undergo a capitalist economic state, nor industrialisation until the 30s.

 

[Deleted member 61]

Communist apologists are the fucking reason we can't have nice things.

 

[Deleted member 377]

communism not good am i right

 

[Edgelord Freeman]

holyshit then what the fuck are you arguing for in this fucking thread youre only ruining your reputation

If youd read carefully youd come upon the conclusion that a question and answer thread has transformed into an argument wheter socialism is better than capitalism. Although I know for sure communism cant get to power for americans wouldnt be willing to comply, i am still a communist because the ideology is not the problem, of course because of that I would only be able to make a socialkst state, not communist but why should that limit my view on whicj side i am. To your "ruining your reputation" - care about yourself, I dont feel bad for being pushed away because of my way of thinking.

 

[Gimmie]

Because I'd rather live in a society where I don't need to constantly sell myself off in order to gain money to buy the shit that I made.

There wouldn't be a class of people who amass more wealth simply by leeching off of other peoples labour. All in all, it wouldn't be as shitty of an existence imo.

And of course communism has flaws, but significantly less than capitalism. I mean fuck if you think communisms death toll is bad, then go see how many people die under capitalism each year.

Well maybe more people die under capitalism due to the fact that capitalism is more widely used.
So all youre saying is 'you dont want to sell yourself' and 'rich people trigger you'.

Have you thought about opening a business mr communist?