I am not sure which is more cringey, the litany of erroneous assumptions you splayed out or the act of calling upon the student archetype with the intent of derision. Anti-intellectualism, check. src
Luckily capitalism never collapses. Or causes world wars. Or leaves millions starving or continents in ruin from imperialism. We just need less regulations damnit!
Right? Its not like capitalism kills millions making great leaps in infrastructure? Or brutally starves its population for allegedly holding great amounts of wealth? Its as if Capitalism is completely ignorant of the core human desire to be corrupted by absolute power?
But its alright, we just need to try again. Right guys?
Yes. In the 'West' it killed many working class children (and adults) working in horrible conditions in factories, the spread of disease and horrible pollution took care of many more. Average height decreased, malnutrition increased, etc. None of things really improved until unions started to gain serious power (Most of these unions were militant communists or syndicalists).
That's nothing to the untold millions the industrial revolution killed through colonisation, a natural outcome of capitalism desire for ever expanded makers and more cheap labour. Still going on today in fact. Thanks capitalism, you really are The Best System®️
No you goof. They’re responding to an earlier comment claiming industrialisation was unique to authoritarian communist countries. The comment your responding to is literally pointing out your point that industrialisation causes mass starvation and deaths in most countries it happens in.
Stalin industrialized his nation and the process of industrialization itself did not kill millions. Mao did not initiate any serious industrialization efforts due to his anti intellectualism and idealization of the peasant, China largely remained an agricultural state until Deng came along.
. In the 'West' it killed many working class children (and adults) working in horrible conditions in factories, the spread of disease and horrible pollution took care of many more. Average height decreased, malnutrition increased
So? The point here is both socialist and capitalist regimes have committed atrocities.
Of course, this is only a feature of specifically historical Marxist-Leninist regimes, as opposed to being universally encouraged by the system, like with capitalism.
Have to go to work so can't type up a proper reply rn, but I'll get back to you when I return. I do promise to type a full-length Marxist explanation, though. In the meantime here's this article I didn't read but seems to agree with my position. https://redflag.org.au/node/5494
I have been linked this before and have read it. It suffers from the same Marxist shtick of attributing and holding the Capitalist economic system responsible for natural behaviors that have been present since the dawn of our species. It's very disingenuous and fails to provide a good argument as to why Capitalism truly is the sole reason for the existence or amplification of these behaviors. This article's argument can only work if you completely disregard all history prior to pre-Industrial Revolution civilization. Can't say I'm surprised you'd link this garbage Marxist diarrhea though.
And please spare me your Marxist explanation. I don't want it nor need it. I've done my fair share of studying it throughout the years since and after college when I was majoring in Economics.
I look at my own, proud “social-democrat” Central American country... and see how the money that’s supposed to be redistributed is either squandered in incredibly inefficient projects and a bloated government, or downright stolen.
I look at Venezuela and how Chavez’s daughter is hoarding millions, and the sons and daughters of the “fathers of the revolution”, the high ranking party members, are living the capitalist dream in Europe, going to the most expensive bars and studying in prestigious universities.
But yeah, corruption and class obliteration is only inherent of capitalism, amirite???
I have been linked this before and have read it. It suffers from the same Marxist shtick of attributing and holding the Capitalist economic system responsible for natural behaviors that have been present since the dawn of our species.
So you handwave oppressions under capitalism as purely the result of human nature that are no fault of capitalism, but place the blame for failures you believe to be caused by human nature at the feet of socialism?
It's very disingenuous and fails to provide a good argument as to why Capitalism truly is the sole reason for the existence or amplification of these behaviors.
Capitalism is not solely responsible for the existence of these behaviours; it is more accurate to say that capitalism allows these behaviours to take place unchecked.
Meanwhile, socialism in its structure suppresses the impacts behaviours (as opposed to not taking account of them, like many claim). Of course, this is not a sustainable mode of production; socialism is a transitory phase towards communism, in a way in some aspects similar to how capitalism degenerates into fascism as its internal stresses become unmanageable.
This article's argument can only work if you completely disregard all history prior to pre-Industrial Revolution civilization.
In what way? Kindly explain how.
The article does not claim that such oppression is only present and incentivised under capitalism, just explains how capitalism as an econimic system incentivises it.
Now that I think of it please spare me your Marxist explanation.
So you handwave oppressions under capitalism as purely the result of human nature that are no fault of capitalism, but place the blame for failures you believe to be caused by human nature at the feet of socialism?
What?! I did no such thing.
Capitalism is not solely responsible for the existence of these behaviours; it is more accurate to say that capitalism allows these behaviours to take place unchecked.
The problem here is believing that Socialism is effective in suppressing the impacts of these behaviors without a big human life cost, as we've seen throughout history that isn't the case. Socialism is no better than Capitalism to avoid this. You'd have to be willingly ignorant of history to believe that.
Meanwhile, socialism in its structure suppresses the impacts behaviours (as opposed to not taking account of them, like many claim). Of course, this is not a sustainable mode of production; socialism is a transitory phase towards communism, in a way in some aspects similar to how capitalism degenerates into fascism as its internal stresses become unmanageable.
Yes, in theory it promises to do so but in practice we've seen just how big and ineffective the cost is. Don't even get me started on Communism.
In what way? Kindly explain how.
The article does not claim that such oppression is only present and incentivised under capitalism, just explains how capitalism as an econimic system incentivises it.
That's why I said it's very disingenuous.
Human beings are the most important resource on the planet for the capitalist class. They are more important than all the oil, coal, military weaponry, gold and steel put together.
Without people working, nothing is produced. Even the most high-tech robot has to be designed, produced, serviced, powered and, presumably, switched on at some point by a person working somewhere. This is also the case with oil, gas and gold, which are only of value if there are human beings available to extract them from the ground, and others to build transport networks, engines and other infrastructure that make them useful.
The person who wrote this article is an absolute brainlet. Her knowledge of economics and its dynamics is downright laughable. I could go on a longpost completely shredding that article but I don't have the patience nor will to do so. I got work to do and I won't entertain some delusional Marxist's delusions over some shit op-ed.
It's true that many thousands died from disease, malnutrition and work accidents. I wouldn't go as far as say millions. But really it was inevitable when you take into consideration how new of a concept the Industrial Revolution was. It was a paradigm shift for society and the unprecedented competition for work and business creation coupled with the novelty of mass production factories with machinery was a very dangerous mix. The big migration of people and the need to build new housing as fast as possible proved itself a daunting task which resulted in very bad conditions and sanitation in some areas. These of course improved over time.
The union movement in Europe wasn't started by Communists but mostly by regular people and syndicalists in late 18th century long before Karl Mark and advent of Communism. In America, Communist labor unions were only a thing in early 20th century and their impact was very minor.
That's nothing to the untold millions the industrial revolution killed through colonisation
These are two separate subjects. Colonization started long before the Industrial Revolution and the drive for colonization would still exist whether the latter had happened or not.
a natural outcome of capitalisms desire for ever expanded makers and more cheap or slave labour.
Colonization is not a product of Capitalism. It has existed since and before the times of ancient Greece and the Phoenicians. Colonization has been throughout history the natural outcome of a stronger group encountering and subjugating a weaker group, be it a kingdom, tribe or nation. Also, the desire for expanding a work force with cheap and slave labor has existed since recorded history and cannot be attributed to any economic system in particular.
Let's also not act like under Socialist states there wasn't horrible conditions and worker exploitation in the name of innovation and industrialization.
We're talking about the first Industrial Revolution, right? I was contesting the millions not that there weren't any casualties during that era. If you can provide proof of the millions that died directly due to the Industrial Revolution and not the myriad of events that were either indirectly caused by it or ones that have no relation whatsoever to it then I'm all ears.
. If you can provide proof of the millions that died directly due to the Industrial Revolution and not the myriad of events that were either indirectly caused by it or ones that have no relation whatsoever to it then I'm all ears.
Sure thing. Just the genocide in the Congo comited by Belgium under the rule of Leopol II killed 1-15 million people, and that's just one example of deaths due to imperialism caused by industrialization.
If you can provide proof of the millions that died directly due to the Industrial Revolution and not the myriad of events that were either indirectly caused by it or ones that have no relation whatsoever to it then I'm all ears.
The atrocities committed in Congo by Leopold II are hardly directly due to the Industrial Revolution. They're more so due to Colonialism and Imperialism.
And even not counting imperialism, the shortening of lifespans in industrializing nations during the industrial revolution indicates many, many millions of deaths.
Yes, and I've already given you a few brief explanations as to why. This was bound to happen, it was just too big of paradigm shit for society. The argument was over the deaths directly caused by the Industrial Revolution and not the ones that were indirectly caused or completely unrelated.
Or brutally starves its population for allegedly holding great amounts of wealth?
How, exactly, is this a feature of socialism? Btw, if you refer to the USSR and similar regimes, those were a specific strand of authoritarian Marxist-Leninist socialism.
Its as if Capitalism is completely ignorant of the core human desire to be corrupted by absolute power?
How exactly is this a failing of socialism not present in capitalism? Inb4 you reply "Socialism is when the government does everything and you don't elect the guy in charge".
Imagine trying to dunk on the gommies and doing it this badly.
Socialism and communism are authoritarian by nature, unless you actually believe anarchocommunism is more than just a 19 year old kids fantasy made up from teenage angst.
In order for the tenets and structure of communism to exist the state has to have enormous control over the lives of the citizens everything from means of production (lol), distribution, healthcare, labor force, military, etc. Every aspect of life within the state must be under sole control of the state, there is only a purposeful delusion of citizen control which was brilliant btw.
I did a paper on this in uni actually, what I would do if I were a dictator;
I would create a sociopolitical ideology in which the people of the state are led into a delusion of control, where there is equality of outcome for the common man and wealth/resources are distributed evenly among the people. This would allow me to only record the absolute minimum amount of resources needed to sustain the people, while I use the rest for my own ends. I would seemingly randomly promote random citizens who displayed unconditional loyalty to the state entity to positions of power and ensure they get a share of the wealth. And invest heavily into a military industry and police force that would force my will upon the people and ensure that dissidents are punished. The dissidents would then be used as an extra labor force in which typical standards do not need to be met; either producing, extracting, or building resources and infrastructure to further the gains of the state and ensure complete state dominance of the people. I would sow nationalism into the people and ensure they all believed in their fellow statesmen and the capabilities of the state.
In short, in a fantasy world where I wanted to be a dictator I would enact classical communism and create an oligarchy that would reign through history. Becomes when you control production, distribution, and security you control the population with no chance of losing power as long as you can convince the population that equality is given to all.
He never actually made the country socialist, he did have a plan to but even without Pinochet probably wouldn't have succeeded as congress didn't support him and the economy was failing near the end
He unironically did the “real socialism has never been tried”
I literally didn't say this, I said the USSR-style ML people love to refer to is only one kind of socialism. Democratic socialism ahs been tried and certainly didn't result in purges.
Lol SEETHING downvotes. Imagine making a bait post and then not liking it when you get replies. The state of the sub nowadays smh.
I'm really tempted to make a sticky today since I'm on PTO for an injury so I have the time. The new influx of users from recently banned subs don't seem to understand our culture. Downvoting drives away people they disagree with, thereby reducing the drama potential in drama. Only degenerates would do such a thing 😠
Are you going to become a screeching retard when people tell you that most countries in Europe are socialist? Or "tHaT's Not REaL sOciALisM", same as when you ask a tankie why healthcare would be bad.
Socialism does not call for state ownership of all capital. However that which is not owned by the state should be in the hands of unions and workers collectives.
I'd say given two world wars, millions of deaths, the destruction of the global south, etc the burden of proof is on the pro imperialists at this point
Counterpoint: those were all good things. Also probably more accurately billions of deaths, or at least hundreds of millions. Also that's still a good thing.
Whataboutism is a basic technique of debate, pointing out the hypocrisy of your opponents. People who use the term 'whataboutism' as if it were some logical galaxy to point out that your opponent is a hypocritical douche bag, are merely trying to control the debate.
FYI if you do a search of literature for the term whataboutism you'll find that it was invented in 2007 by a russophobe. Literally the only example anyone can ever come up with is that the soviet union was given to mocking the professed commitment of the United States to human rights, when it was practicing the lynching of black people and a third of us states were white supremacist regimes in which significant numbers of citizens had no civil rights. That's kind of the problem with lynching black people and running white supremacist regimes, people are liable to call you on your shit when you say you have to invade Guetemala and install a fascist military dictatorship for 'human rights'.
Of course Americans are incapable of self reflection and consider that there is nothing sillier in the world than criticizing the United States for lynching its own citizens.
Anyway this is literally basically the only example of the soviet union doing this, I have no clue why russophobe decided to run with this and pretend as if the 'whataboutism' they themselves invented was some ancient Russian mind trick.
Without exception the US and its allies have everything they can to destroy socialist experiments. If a nation tries socialism it can expect crippling economic embargoes, coup attempts, and even invasion. Of course socialism hasn't worked under those conditions, capitalism wouldn't either.
Obviously socialist nations have done wrong (the imperialism of the USSR, Holodomor, ect.), but these crimes are not inherent to socialism and capitalist nations have done the same and worse
Socialism is not a utopia, literally the first tenet of Marxism.
Fact is that the developing world coerces developing nations indy taking IMF loans and implementing disastrous structural adjustments in which the assets of the nation are stripped and sent to the imperial core. America is not successful because of its freedom. Thank the world bank and the IMF for your prosperity and success, the entire neocolonial model is built around America being a parasite off of developing nations. Capital transfers from the global south to the parasitic global north amount to over 6 trillion a year. For comparison, the sum of all capital in the United States is roughly 50 trillion.
Why is Venezula being punished? Because it paid off its IMF debt. America is seeking to install a president who will sign up for a massive IMF loan at 50% interest and begin stripping Venezula of all assets to send it to America to repay it. No matter what short term difficulties may result, anything is better than surrendering your freedom and accepting the suzereignity of the IMF.
As opposed to despots where the US supoorts exactly those kind of guys. Can't believe anyone can still think American foreign policy is based on democracy and Human Rights
Without exception the US and its allies have done everything they can to destroy socialist experiments.
Idk man, China is doing pretty swell rn despite being Murrica's #1 rival. Could it be because... uh, I dunno, they ditched that shit-for-brains economic system Mao tried to impose and actually embraced free market? Could it be that the exact same thing happened with Vietnam?
But...but I thought that ''if a nation tries socialism it can expect crippling economic embargoes, coup attempts, and even invasion'' ?? Have Chapotards been lying to me?
J just told you the motivation was to undermine the biggest socialist state. The USSR was deemed more important to destroy than china. Cant you have more than one thoughts in you're mind at once?
Yes, because apparently the only form of socialism is the Marxism-Leninism popular last century and every socialist wants to re-hash it with no corrections.
Like how long has it been since a communist state collapsed, 40 years? Are you guys going to harp on this forever? Nevermind that the collapse of communism in many areas, such as Russia, was undoubtedly a disaster. Really Marxist Leninist socialist collapsed just once, the soviet union and its empire. And this was more due to liberalism actually than communism.
Good example, small nation being fucked over by thr majority of world superpowers in an attempt to destroy any progress is a good example of why socialidm doesnt work. My god you people are really fucking retarded.
Imagine replying to a four day old comment because you're SEETHING so hard.
Maybe if the poor innocent repressed government would stop killing people then they wouldn't be getting fucked over. Go to any lengths to lick the boots of people who call themselves socialist.
Let them bring “it collapsed because liberal economies were far more attractive to people, but if we get rid of free market people will not have an option to choose” argument
129 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-06-26
I am not sure which is more cringey, the litany of erroneous assumptions you splayed out or the act of calling upon the student archetype with the intent of derision. Anti-intellectualism, check. src
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 jamesinthehood 2019-06-26
Can this thing be any more pretentious?
1 HippiesNotHipsters 2019-06-26
Luckily capitalism never collapses. Or causes world wars. Or leaves millions starving or continents in ruin from imperialism. We just need less regulations damnit!
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
Right? Its not like capitalism kills millions making great leaps in infrastructure? Or brutally starves its population for allegedly holding great amounts of wealth? Its as if Capitalism is completely ignorant of the core human desire to be corrupted by absolute power?
But its alright, we just need to try again. Right guys?
1 HippiesNotHipsters 2019-06-26
Ultimate lol, have you heard of the industrial revolution you goof
Anti-communists are really the dumbest people haha
1 FoidBlaster 2019-06-26
The industrial revolution killed millions?
1 HippiesNotHipsters 2019-06-26
Yes. In the 'West' it killed many working class children (and adults) working in horrible conditions in factories, the spread of disease and horrible pollution took care of many more. Average height decreased, malnutrition increased, etc. None of things really improved until unions started to gain serious power (Most of these unions were militant communists or syndicalists).
That's nothing to the untold millions the industrial revolution killed through colonisation, a natural outcome of capitalism desire for ever expanded makers and more cheap labour. Still going on today in fact. Thanks capitalism, you really are The Best System®️
1 TorturedLight 2019-06-26
Imagine acting like industrialization is something unique to capitalism.
Imagine Stalin and Mao didn't kill millions through their rapid industrialization.
1 JamieSmallGuy 2019-06-26
No you goof. They’re responding to an earlier comment claiming industrialisation was unique to authoritarian communist countries. The comment your responding to is literally pointing out your point that industrialisation causes mass starvation and deaths in most countries it happens in.
1 watermark002 2019-06-26
Stalin industrialized his nation and the process of industrialization itself did not kill millions. Mao did not initiate any serious industrialization efforts due to his anti intellectualism and idealization of the peasant, China largely remained an agricultural state until Deng came along.
1 Quietus42 2019-06-26
Market Socialism is redcen, CMV.
1 Adramolino 2019-06-26
Have you ever heard of the Great Leap Forward?
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
So? The point here is both socialist and capitalist regimes have committed atrocities.
Of course, this is only a feature of specifically historical Marxist-Leninist regimes, as opposed to being universally encouraged by the system, like with capitalism.
1 FoidBlaster 2019-06-26
Do explain.
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
Have to go to work so can't type up a proper reply rn, but I'll get back to you when I return. I do promise to type a full-length Marxist explanation, though. In the meantime here's this article I didn't read but seems to agree with my position. https://redflag.org.au/node/5494
1 FoidBlaster 2019-06-26
I have been linked this before and have read it. It suffers from the same Marxist shtick of attributing and holding the Capitalist economic system responsible for natural behaviors that have been present since the dawn of our species. It's very disingenuous and fails to provide a good argument as to why Capitalism truly is the sole reason for the existence or amplification of these behaviors. This article's argument can only work if you completely disregard all history prior to pre-Industrial Revolution civilization. Can't say I'm surprised you'd link this garbage Marxist diarrhea though.
And please spare me your Marxist explanation. I don't want it nor need it. I've done my fair share of studying it throughout the years since and after college when I was majoring in Economics.
1 _SweetnessFollows 2019-06-26
I look at my own, proud “social-democrat” Central American country... and see how the money that’s supposed to be redistributed is either squandered in incredibly inefficient projects and a bloated government, or downright stolen.
I look at Venezuela and how Chavez’s daughter is hoarding millions, and the sons and daughters of the “fathers of the revolution”, the high ranking party members, are living the capitalist dream in Europe, going to the most expensive bars and studying in prestigious universities.
But yeah, corruption and class obliteration is only inherent of capitalism, amirite???
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
So you handwave oppressions under capitalism as purely the result of human nature that are no fault of capitalism, but place the blame for failures you believe to be caused by human nature at the feet of socialism?
Capitalism is not solely responsible for the existence of these behaviours; it is more accurate to say that capitalism allows these behaviours to take place unchecked.
Meanwhile, socialism in its structure suppresses the impacts behaviours (as opposed to not taking account of them, like many claim). Of course, this is not a sustainable mode of production; socialism is a transitory phase towards communism, in a way in some aspects similar to how capitalism degenerates into fascism as its internal stresses become unmanageable.
In what way? Kindly explain how.
The article does not claim that such oppression is only present and incentivised under capitalism, just explains how capitalism as an econimic system incentivises it.
I was planning one, but if you say so.
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-26
You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 FoidBlaster 2019-06-26
What?! I did no such thing.
The problem here is believing that Socialism is effective in suppressing the impacts of these behaviors without a big human life cost, as we've seen throughout history that isn't the case. Socialism is no better than Capitalism to avoid this. You'd have to be willingly ignorant of history to believe that.
Yes, in theory it promises to do so but in practice we've seen just how big and ineffective the cost is. Don't even get me started on Communism.
That's why I said it's very disingenuous.
The person who wrote this article is an absolute brainlet. Her knowledge of economics and its dynamics is downright laughable. I could go on a longpost completely shredding that article but I don't have the patience nor will to do so. I got work to do and I won't entertain some delusional Marxist's delusions over some shit op-ed.
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-26
No, don't reply like this, please do another wall of unhinged rant please.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 FoidBlaster 2019-06-26
It's true that many thousands died from disease, malnutrition and work accidents. I wouldn't go as far as say millions. But really it was inevitable when you take into consideration how new of a concept the Industrial Revolution was. It was a paradigm shift for society and the unprecedented competition for work and business creation coupled with the novelty of mass production factories with machinery was a very dangerous mix. The big migration of people and the need to build new housing as fast as possible proved itself a daunting task which resulted in very bad conditions and sanitation in some areas. These of course improved over time.
The union movement in Europe wasn't started by Communists but mostly by regular people and syndicalists in late 18th century long before Karl Mark and advent of Communism. In America, Communist labor unions were only a thing in early 20th century and their impact was very minor.
These are two separate subjects. Colonization started long before the Industrial Revolution and the drive for colonization would still exist whether the latter had happened or not.
Colonization is not a product of Capitalism. It has existed since and before the times of ancient Greece and the Phoenicians. Colonization has been throughout history the natural outcome of a stronger group encountering and subjugating a weaker group, be it a kingdom, tribe or nation. Also, the desire for expanding a work force with cheap and slave labor has existed since recorded history and cannot be attributed to any economic system in particular.
Let's also not act like under Socialist states there wasn't horrible conditions and worker exploitation in the name of innovation and industrialization.
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-26
Have you owned the libs yet?
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Benislet 2019-06-26
Okay but tbh who cares?
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
Imagine being this historically illiterate.
1 FoidBlaster 2019-06-26
We're talking about the first Industrial Revolution, right? I was contesting the millions not that there weren't any casualties during that era. If you can provide proof of the millions that died directly due to the Industrial Revolution and not the myriad of events that were either indirectly caused by it or ones that have no relation whatsoever to it then I'm all ears.
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
Sure thing. Just the genocide in the Congo comited by Belgium under the rule of Leopol II killed 1-15 million people, and that's just one example of deaths due to imperialism caused by industrialization.
1 FoidBlaster 2019-06-26
The atrocities committed in Congo by Leopold II are hardly directly due to the Industrial Revolution. They're more so due to Colonialism and Imperialism.
Yes, and I've already given you a few brief explanations as to why. This was bound to happen, it was just too big of paradigm shit for society. The argument was over the deaths directly caused by the Industrial Revolution and not the ones that were indirectly caused or completely unrelated.
1 DuckSosu 2019-06-26
Imagine spending your time trying to dunk on commies and doing it poorly. It's like losing to a kid in a wheelchair in a foot race.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
I do it for free.
1 Pinksister 2019-06-26
Don't listen to him, I thought it was a decent dunk bb.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
I thought it was too.
But you can't impress everyone.
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
Kind of, but you're winning, but it kind of feels bad, because the kids is, in fact, in a wheelchair, most likely from bussy surgery.
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
How, exactly, is this a feature of socialism? Btw, if you refer to the USSR and similar regimes, those were a specific strand of authoritarian Marxist-Leninist socialism.
How exactly is this a failing of socialism not present in capitalism? Inb4 you reply "Socialism is when the government does everything and you don't elect the guy in charge".
Imagine trying to dunk on the gommies and doing it this badly.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
Give me a democratic socialist country. And no, don't even try Norway, because its not a socialist country.
Nobody has absolute power or even close to absolute power in Capitalism. The worker, the business and the government each regulate each other.
I upvote lolcows :)
1 watermark002 2019-06-26
Give me a democratic casuals country.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
Maybe in Burgerland.
Again. Burgerland.
Australias a good example of what you're asking.
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
What is: soc Dem.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
Doesn't exist.
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
It exists in here: points to heart
1 SidewalkCemet 2019-06-26
Socialism and communism are authoritarian by nature, unless you actually believe anarchocommunism is more than just a 19 year old kids fantasy made up from teenage angst.
In order for the tenets and structure of communism to exist the state has to have enormous control over the lives of the citizens everything from means of production (lol), distribution, healthcare, labor force, military, etc. Every aspect of life within the state must be under sole control of the state, there is only a purposeful delusion of citizen control which was brilliant btw.
I did a paper on this in uni actually, what I would do if I were a dictator;
I would create a sociopolitical ideology in which the people of the state are led into a delusion of control, where there is equality of outcome for the common man and wealth/resources are distributed evenly among the people. This would allow me to only record the absolute minimum amount of resources needed to sustain the people, while I use the rest for my own ends. I would seemingly randomly promote random citizens who displayed unconditional loyalty to the state entity to positions of power and ensure they get a share of the wealth. And invest heavily into a military industry and police force that would force my will upon the people and ensure that dissidents are punished. The dissidents would then be used as an extra labor force in which typical standards do not need to be met; either producing, extracting, or building resources and infrastructure to further the gains of the state and ensure complete state dominance of the people. I would sow nationalism into the people and ensure they all believed in their fellow statesmen and the capabilities of the state.
In short, in a fantasy world where I wanted to be a dictator I would enact classical communism and create an oligarchy that would reign through history. Becomes when you control production, distribution, and security you control the population with no chance of losing power as long as you can convince the population that equality is given to all.
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-26
K
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 watermark002 2019-06-26
Socialism does not call exclusively for state ownership. Anarchist strands are directly opposed to that.
1 SidewalkCemet 2019-06-26
Anarcho anything is nothing but fantasy. Next
1 Jidi_Isle 2019-06-26
😭 downvoters on arr drama Reddit really has gone to complete shit.
1 _SweetnessFollows 2019-06-26
I upvoted but then saw his lame ass edit and downvoted.
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
RIP pinging.
1 Kiru-Kokujin45 2019-06-26
can you name a democratic-socialist government
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
Sure. I.e Allende was a socialist ellected to power in Chile.
1 Kiru-Kokujin45 2019-06-26
He never actually made the country socialist, he did have a plan to but even without Pinochet probably wouldn't have succeeded as congress didn't support him and the economy was failing near the end
1 Pinksister 2019-06-26
>Committee a fourth-degree seroouspost on r/drama and then gets surprised and complains about downvotes.
You clearly can't assimilate with our culture and have to go back.
1 clubby789 2019-06-26
Put a backslash before the meme arrow
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
Retard, this post is a seriouspost. Seriouspost =/= not a meme, seriouspost = your actually politics.
1 Day_of_the_COPE 2019-06-26
Dont downvote the Lolcow!!! Mods not can’t to agendapost you fucking mongs
1 Quietus42 2019-06-26
This thread's voting is really disappointing.
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
I literally didn't say this, I said the USSR-style ML people love to refer to is only one kind of socialism. Democratic socialism ahs been tried and certainly didn't result in purges.
1 Day_of_the_COPE 2019-06-26
🤤 jannie
1 Quietus42 2019-06-26
I'm really tempted to make a sticky today since I'm on PTO for an injury so I have the time. The new influx of users from recently banned subs don't seem to understand our culture. Downvoting drives away people they disagree with, thereby reducing the drama potential in drama. Only degenerates would do such a thing 😠
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
Ping death has killed the sub.
1 Ragarnoy 2019-06-26
Are you going to become a screeching retard when people tell you that most countries in Europe are socialist? Or "tHaT's Not REaL sOciALisM", same as when you ask a tankie why healthcare would be bad.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
Its not socialism. They implement aspects of socialism. Which is not a bad thing.
There's a clear difference between the two. But EU is mixed market capitalism.
1 Consensual__Rape_ 2019-06-26
Imagine being such a mental midget that you conflate government ownership of all businesses to a government run social safety net system.
1 watermark002 2019-06-26
Socialism does not call for state ownership of all capital. However that which is not owned by the state should be in the hands of unions and workers collectives.
1 Consensual__Rape_ 2019-06-26
Fuck off your autistic contrarianism isnt funny.
1 heeehaaw 2019-06-26
the real capitalism has not been tried
1 Professor_Crunchwrap 2019-06-26
Imperialism is a good thing. Prove me wrong.
1 HippiesNotHipsters 2019-06-26
I'd say given two world wars, millions of deaths, the destruction of the global south, etc the burden of proof is on the pro imperialists at this point
1 e-guy 2019-06-26
Counterpoint: those were all good things. Also probably more accurately billions of deaths, or at least hundreds of millions. Also that's still a good thing.
1 memsahibthrowaway 2019-06-26
mUh GlObAl SoUtH
1 watermark002 2019-06-26
Imperialism is good and we should start with your nation.
1 Momruepari 2019-06-26
we only serve bussy here sir, no hog
1 GaysianSupremacist 2019-06-26
Looks like whataboutism is a core feature of Communists.
Fascists killed less people than capitalism too.
1 watermark002 2019-06-26
Whataboutism is a basic technique of debate, pointing out the hypocrisy of your opponents. People who use the term 'whataboutism' as if it were some logical galaxy to point out that your opponent is a hypocritical douche bag, are merely trying to control the debate.
FYI if you do a search of literature for the term whataboutism you'll find that it was invented in 2007 by a russophobe. Literally the only example anyone can ever come up with is that the soviet union was given to mocking the professed commitment of the United States to human rights, when it was practicing the lynching of black people and a third of us states were white supremacist regimes in which significant numbers of citizens had no civil rights. That's kind of the problem with lynching black people and running white supremacist regimes, people are liable to call you on your shit when you say you have to invade Guetemala and install a fascist military dictatorship for 'human rights'.
Of course Americans are incapable of self reflection and consider that there is nothing sillier in the world than criticizing the United States for lynching its own citizens.
Anyway this is literally basically the only example of the soviet union doing this, I have no clue why russophobe decided to run with this and pretend as if the 'whataboutism' they themselves invented was some ancient Russian mind trick.
1 LongPostBot 2019-06-26
I don't know what you said, because I've seen another human naked.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 TheBigDogAteMyAss 2019-06-26
no
1 closedshop 2019-06-26
yes. you're correct.
1 AVeryAngryPenis 2019-06-26
Without exception the US and its allies have everything they can to destroy socialist experiments. If a nation tries socialism it can expect crippling economic embargoes, coup attempts, and even invasion. Of course socialism hasn't worked under those conditions, capitalism wouldn't either.
Obviously socialist nations have done wrong (the imperialism of the USSR, Holodomor, ect.), but these crimes are not inherent to socialism and capitalist nations have done the same and worse
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
Survival of the fittest. If socialism is the utopia it proposes, it should be able to survive these things.
1 watermark002 2019-06-26
Socialism is not a utopia, literally the first tenet of Marxism.
Fact is that the developing world coerces developing nations indy taking IMF loans and implementing disastrous structural adjustments in which the assets of the nation are stripped and sent to the imperial core. America is not successful because of its freedom. Thank the world bank and the IMF for your prosperity and success, the entire neocolonial model is built around America being a parasite off of developing nations. Capital transfers from the global south to the parasitic global north amount to over 6 trillion a year. For comparison, the sum of all capital in the United States is roughly 50 trillion.
Why is Venezula being punished? Because it paid off its IMF debt. America is seeking to install a president who will sign up for a massive IMF loan at 50% interest and begin stripping Venezula of all assets to send it to America to repay it. No matter what short term difficulties may result, anything is better than surrendering your freedom and accepting the suzereignity of the IMF.
1 Faidheanta 2019-06-26
Venezuela is being punished because the president gets fat while his people starve.
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
I prefer the US, where the president gets fat, while all of his population also gets fat.
1 Faidheanta 2019-06-26
As a peruser of BBW porn, me too.
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
Careful, that's how you catch the fatness.
1 Genuinetruthseeker 2019-06-26
As opposed to despots where the US supoorts exactly those kind of guys. Can't believe anyone can still think American foreign policy is based on democracy and Human Rights
1 Faidheanta 2019-06-26
I agree
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
That's a lotta words for "not my fault."
1 memsahibthrowaway 2019-06-26
Counterpoint :
The IMF is in fact good and cool and the global south would suck no matter what.
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
Guns, Germs, and Retards.
1 Pinksister 2019-06-26
And Here's Why That's a Good Thing!
1 watermark002 2019-06-26
Even the mildest reforms are met with waves of violence and massacres. All while crying.
1 AVeryAngryPenis 2019-06-26
And why's that?
1 closedshop 2019-06-26
lmao should have destroyed us first
1 AVeryAngryPenis 2019-06-26
This is the first time I've ever seen someone advocate for the USSR nuking America, not even chapo has reached this level of take.
1 closedshop 2019-06-26
Not only that, but the USSR should have nuked China when they deviated into Maoism. Prove me wrong.
1 Matues49 2019-06-26
Idk man, China is doing pretty swell rn despite being Murrica's #1 rival. Could it be because... uh, I dunno, they ditched that shit-for-brains economic system Mao tried to impose and actually embraced free market? Could it be that the exact same thing happened with Vietnam?
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
Well, I guess this one really counts as notrealcommunism™
1 Genuinetruthseeker 2019-06-26
The US helped china because they wanted to undermine the USSR dumbass. Why do you think Nixon opened up china? To be nice to them?
1 Matues49 2019-06-26
But...but I thought that ''if a nation tries socialism it can expect crippling economic embargoes, coup attempts, and even invasion'' ?? Have Chapotards been lying to me?
1 Genuinetruthseeker 2019-06-26
J just told you the motivation was to undermine the biggest socialist state. The USSR was deemed more important to destroy than china. Cant you have more than one thoughts in you're mind at once?
1 bleached_ammonia 2019-06-26
Yes, because apparently the only form of socialism is the Marxism-Leninism popular last century and every socialist wants to re-hash it with no corrections.
1 closedshop 2019-06-26
yup, now you're getting it
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
I know right. Like, I want to rehash Stalinism without the socialism.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
This was a good bait post to bring out the commies.
Tomorrow is MDE baitpost inshallah.
1 Quietus42 2019-06-26
This was a great post. I just wish idiots didn't downvote all the lolcows you baited 😢
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
Finally, a Janny has recognised my hard-fought efforts to bait in the lolcows.
I can only hope the following posts get this type of reception. Though I have little to bait the MDEs in with.
1 TheBigDogAteMyAss 2019-06-26
Just sayhow women and Jews are superior. Or post a pic of gal gadot behind it.
1 Feanorfanclub 2019-06-26
I can't think of any memeballs. IR is always solid though.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
DW. I have something good in mind. Just gotta see if it works.
1 campy 2019-06-26
upper-middle class white americans for socialism
1 Lil-Limerick 2019-06-26
How the fuck is being middle class contradictory to socialism you fucking retard
1 simplicity3000 2019-06-26
US middle class = global top 0.3%
1 Escer 2019-06-26
What do you consider to be middle class in the US?
1 simplicity3000 2019-06-26
$50k
(and the original comment said upper middle class)
1 watermark002 2019-06-26
Like how long has it been since a communist state collapsed, 40 years? Are you guys going to harp on this forever? Nevermind that the collapse of communism in many areas, such as Russia, was undoubtedly a disaster. Really Marxist Leninist socialist collapsed just once, the soviet union and its empire. And this was more due to liberalism actually than communism.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴
1 whoresloverfat 2019-06-26
Do you count China switching to hyper-unregulated capitalism, and become the world superpower in like 35 years?
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-06-26
Cope
1 Clean_It_Up_Jannie 2019-06-26
Vuvuzela is gonna go any minute if it didn't already.
1 Lil-Limerick 2019-06-26
Good example, small nation being fucked over by thr majority of world superpowers in an attempt to destroy any progress is a good example of why socialidm doesnt work. My god you people are really fucking retarded.
1 Clean_It_Up_Jannie 2019-06-26
Imagine replying to a four day old comment because you're SEETHING so hard.
Maybe if the poor innocent repressed government would stop killing people then they wouldn't be getting fucked over. Go to any lengths to lick the boots of people who call themselves socialist.
1 Lil-Limerick 2019-06-26
I mean, I excpect no less from a dramatard. Fucking retard lmao
1 Clean_It_Up_Jannie 2019-06-26
How does boot taste?
1 Lil-Limerick 2019-06-26
What boots, the one of Stalin? Idk, how do the bootd of a genicidal pig taste? This further cements that you are a seething fucking moron.
1 Clean_It_Up_Jannie 2019-06-26
Who is the genocidal pig I'm bootlicking? You're the one defending Venezuela.
1 Lil-Limerick 2019-06-26
Lmao cope
1 DonElad1o 2019-06-26
Let them bring “it collapsed because liberal economies were far more attractive to people, but if we get rid of free market people will not have an option to choose” argument
1 Xhaka_Qhan 2019-06-26
O7 Solidarity Forever
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-26
🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮
1 Helios980 2019-06-26
nice