/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15837076]

Not a single time in human history has socialism even half worked, every single time it has ended in utter disaster.

[Anonymous No.15837088]

>>15837076
Based and redpilled
redditors are seething rn

[Anonymous No.15837092]

I agree, op. Socialist countries always end up turning capitalist, and being capitalist is definitely constitutive of failure for a society.

[Anonymous No.15837095]

[Anonymous No.15837108]

Depends on what you mean by socialism. If by socialism you merely mean wealth redistribution then I would say Ancient Egypt, Vietnam, and Portugal are fairly functional states. Also, nearly all countries are more socialist now than they were in the past. I wouldn't say modern first world America is worse off in terms of quality of life economically speaking just because we're more socialist than we were in the 60s.

[Anonymous No.15837115]

>>15837095
They were so strong that the USSR collapsed and china switched to state capitalism

[Anonymous No.15837122]

>>15837076
Socialist country won the largest war in human history, despite being absolutely devastated by civil war two decades before.

[Anonymous No.15837132]

>>15837115
Yup, I agree, both the USSR and PRC were not leftist enough.

[Anonymous No.15837142]

>>15837076
>Not a single time in human history has socialism even half worked

Nazi Germany was pretty economically successful at clawing itself out of WW1-depression

[Anonymous No.15837144]

>>15837108
>we're more socialist than we were in the 60s.
Not an expert on american history, but are you sure? Wasn´t the peak of American "socialism" in the post war era (starting with FDR) until the rise of neoliberalism (starting with Nixon)?

[Anonymous No.15837158]

>>15837076
arguably native american tribes were very successful albeit technologically behind.
Socialism works fine enough in small communities where you can see the direct impact of sharing your stuff rather than having your income be taxed beyond belief to line some beurocrat's pockets.

[Anonymous No.15837160]

>>15837142
>pretty economically successful
If by succesful you mean losing the population east of Odra, getting cleaved in half and getting occupied to this day.

[Anonymous No.15837168]

>>15837158
>Socialism
>taxed income

[Anonymous No.15837187]

>>15837168
I get all these commie names messed up.
Socialism is when the state has taxes in order to fund social programs and stuff while communism is that everything is the state's property and is distributed as needed, right?

[Anonymous No.15837201]

>>15837076
What do mean by "worked"? Are we talking longevity? Productivity? Overall happiness? Social Mobility? Why don't you ask a Pakistan sweat shop worker how much Capitalism is "working" for them, ask any American about how Capitalism has helped their health care, ask any Zoomer how Capitalism has helped the ecology of the planet.

[Anonymous No.15837229]

>>15837187
No. If you mean socialism as an economic system, then almost everything is national property and economy is run by the state. Communism is the hypothetical state where money was abolished. In both of those taxes are either non-existent or very minor.

[Anonymous No.15837235]

>>15837201
This, nothing works in the long run. OP is just enjoying sucking the rancid cum out of his festering buzzwords.

[Anonymous No.15837273]

>>15837160
thats a result military losses

economically they were successful

[Anonymous No.15837283]

>>15837273
You cant divide those two. Economically they were dependent on looting and martially they were dependent on industrial production.

[Anonymous No.15837290]

>>15837076
The idea is that the whole world has to commit to an international socialist union. That way I produce bananas, you make the orange juice and we carry each other out of our middling GDPs altogether.

[Anonymous No.15837296]

>>15837076
who cares? it's over

[Anonymous No.15837303]

>>15837076
>ended in utter disaster
You mean capitalism?

[Anonymous No.15837313]

>>15837303
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15837315]

>>15837076
Not a single time in human history has capitalism even half worked, every single time it has ended in utter disaster.

[Anonymous No.15837333]

>>15837122
If we use this argument, then Autocratic Nationalism also did that.

[Anonymous No.15837336]

>>15837076
Go back to /pol/

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15837346]

>>15837076
Another fact. Not a single time in human history has capitalism even half worked, every single time it has ended in utter disaster, and will be our ultimate demise unless we stop it and do something else

[Anonymous No.15837362]

>>15837333
There was only one largest war in human history. It had two winners, one of them played major role the other one minor role. One was run on the socialist model the other one on the liberal model; neither of them was "autocratic nationalism" (whatever that means, its most likely not economic system).

[Anonymous No.15837378]

>>15837122
By completely killing off some 20% of its population and stagnating its growth to this day. Even Germany is now still a global diplomatic and economical player with two world wars lost under its belt, while Russia benefits from Chinese diplomatic interests against the USA and has a worthless economy. Russia, sadly, is now only a shadow of what it could have been thanks to le epic gommunism.

[Anonymous No.15837443]

>>15837378
What a cope.

>By completely killing off some 20% of its population
On Belarus. The alternative was destruction of Russian nation and enslavement of what remained.
>stagnating its growth
No.
>Even Germany is now still a global diplomatic and economical player with two world wars lost under its belt
And? Time goes, things change. Soon even US empire will get btfo by China.
>Russia, sadly, is now only a shadow of what it could have been thanks to le epic gommunism.
SSSR was the peak of Russian history according to 3/4 of Russians. The system resposible for destruction was capitalism. Your ebin alt-history is nothing but pure speculation.

[Anonymous No.15837504]

>>15837315
What you uncover more and more is that the issue isn't the system under which people live - which is not to suggest they are all equal, but rather the fundamental incompatibility of human nature with the rational exercise of civilisation. All civilisations are doomed to fail if ever they work in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15837662]

>>15837443
>On Belarus.
Holy mother of cope. Belarus' population is not even 10 million today, how the fuck could they have lost 30 million people in ww2. Bitch please.
>The alternative was destruction of Russian nation and enslavement of what remained.
The alternative was that Stalin shouldn't have purged his military officers and use the leadershipless mob tactics that could be at best on par with the previous civil war against a well organized army.
>No.
Yes retard, that's not even an argument. Russian economic problems began with the Brezhnev stagnation during the soviet era, and could be rooted as far as the genocide of the middle wealth kulaks which actually gave a shit about feeding the population in return of profits. The killing of the agricultural base then limited the amount of food that could given to the population, thus reducing the population growth even further, as if the killings weren't enough. If you aren't convinced, you can talk to my mum who knows all about the communist system because she actually lived under its nightmare, but who am I kidding, you wouldn't even believe those who were there.
>And? Time goes, things change.
Yet you failed to address how Germany regained its international influence due to maintaining a capitalist system and Russia ultimately lost her due to the failed communist system.
>SSSR was the peak of Russian history according to 3/4 of Russians.
Of course it is, given the fact that now Russia lost its international influence and the Russians are now serfs under Putin. At least during the SSSR era the population had something to be proud of even if they were still enslaved by the government.
>The system responsible for destruction was capitalism.
No it wasn't, idiot. Go back to the previous explanations and read them carefully if you're slow brained.
>Your ebin alt-history is nothing but pure speculation.
Yours is pure speculation, retard. You failed to even address one single issue I presented without going around it or saying complete bullshit. Go away.

[Anonymous No.15837677]

>>15837346
Just do cap and trade bro.

[Anonymous No.15837714]

>>15837092
B-but that's not REAL capitalism

[Anonymous No.15837743]

>>15837108
We're far less socialist than we were in the 60s. The past 50 years both Democrats and Republicans have been managing our decline by deregulating, financializing, and privatizing. People like you are tricked into thinking we've moved to the left because we're more liberal on social issues. Productivity during this time has gone up. In the past that would have meant increased wages, but since unions have lost all their power wages have remained stagnant for decades.

[Anonymous No.15837761]

>>15837662
>Belarus' population is not even 10 million today
Are you retarded? Entire union did not lose 20% of population, Belarussian SSR did lost over 20%.
>The alternative was that Stalin shouldn't have purged his military officers and use the leadershipless mob tactics
Western historiography strikes again. Purges did not had as much of impact as the fact that RKKA drastically increased it´s size and thus majority of it was green. As for the "mob tactics", just kys.
>The killing of the agricultural base then limited the amount of food that could given to the population, thus reducing the population growth even further
That´s the dumbest thing I´ve heard in a long time.
>The killing of the agricultural base then limited the amount of food that could given to the population
Oh, here comes even dumber thing. Agricultural based was not killed, but transfered to industry which cause major problems in the first pyatiletka, but certainly did not "limited the amount of food that could given to the population", because grain production grew way above what was produced under NEP. Heck even the 1930 harvest was larger than ever before, despite majority of agriculture being collectivized.
>to my mum
Not your father, or grandparents? She married west, didn´t she? What a whore. My family never moved west, so your stupid amerimutt stories mean nothing to me.
>Russia ultimately lost her due to the failed communist system.
Russia lost her due to transition to capitalist system.
>Of course it is, given the fact that now Russia lost its international influence and the Russians are now serfs under Putin.
Speculative cope, statistics show otherwise. Also thanks to outing yourself as liberal scum.
>Go back to the previous explanations
Your "explanations" are retarded. They certainly are not capable of denying reality.
>Yours is pure speculation
My is reality, you dumb seminegroid. Capitalism happened, Russia went to shit. End of story.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15837781]

>>15837677
>market socialism
>when the oligarchy is saying “no more, thanks”
Zero emissions now.

[Anonymous No.15837834]

>>15837122
why do you lie? land lease.

[Anonymous No.15837879]

>>15837076

>socialism has never worked

depends on what you mean by worked

from a captialist point of view it hasn't worked because capitalism is all about profit and socialism is a highly unprofitable socio-economic system

socialism is not profit-centered

[Anonymous No.15837905]

These same conservatives who say socialism has never worked can't point to a freemarket capitalist society that has worked. They eventually devolve and become mixed economies because of a poor underclass

america is a mixed economy. It is not a freemarket as conservatives envision it

[Anonymous No.15837926]

If freemarket capitalism actually worked socialism would not exist. you would not have a poor underclass that needs the state to take care of them

freemarket capitalism not working is the reason socialism exists

[Anonymous No.15837932]

>>15837333
Yes, so let's combine the two.

[Anonymous No.15837935]

>>15837926
freemarket capitalism is a pipe dream just like communism

[jesus No.15837938]

>>15837926
capitalism works for those who work.

[Anonymous No.15837948]

>>15837834
>land lease.
According to a leading western expert on Soviet-Nazi war, David Glantz, LL did not have a decisive effect.

[Anonymous No.15837970]

>>15837076
It is not a working tool you dumb ass white christian. It is a social tool made for parliament. I fucking hate white christian. Israel will make sure you all get tortured, humiliated and go extinct.

[jesus No.15838006]

>>15837948
leading. you know, pope is leading christian. biggest problem hitler had was fuel. his primary target was Azerbaijan oil. oil lost war.

[jesus No.15838030]

>>15837076
it will never work. equality is depression, demotivation. correlation between effort and result is broken.

[Anonymous No.15838043]

>>15837092
And why do they always end up turning capitalist?
>>15837095
Global superpowers off the backs of western democracis

[Anonymous No.15838051]

>>15838043
>Global superpowers off the backs of western democracis
This is literally patently untrue, unless you want to somehow consider trade as 'off the backs of'

[Anonymous No.15838075]

>>15837201
>Pakistan sweat shop worker how much Capitalism is "working" for them
Gives them more money than they would make elsewhere or at the very least comparable to it
> ask any American about how Capitalism has helped their health care
By creating better machines and practices to practice with, and the reason healthcare is so expensive is government control, like what socialists want
> ask any Zoomer how Capitalism has helped the ecology of the planet
By bringing about recycling, less wasteful products, and by not draining a whole sea like the Soviets did

[Anonymous No.15838084]

>>15837290
>everyone has to believe it for it to work
Sounds shit
>>15837315
Explain. And refrain from using arguments like “muh culture”

[Anonymous No.15838096]

>>15837076
>Cuba

[Anonymous No.15838097]

>>15837948
Nice argument from authority
>>15838051
Lend leasing the USSR so they wouldn’t die
Sending Lenin back to Russia
Opening up patents to China

[Anonymous No.15838102]

>>15838096
If you count getting infinite money from your daddy socialism then yes

[Anonymous No.15838117]

>>15838097
>Lend leasing the USSR so they wouldn’t die
The Soviet Union was pretty much already a superpower before then. Lend Lease obviously was valuable, but the USSR likely would have won the war either way.
>Sending Lenin back to Russia
Done by the German Empire, at that time a military dictatorship, which also led to civil war in Russia, hardly helping it to superpower status.
>Opening up patents to China
Largely irrelevant, China simply used trade barriers to build up its own economy, same thing the US did in the 19th and 20th centuries.

[Anonymous No.15838130]

>>15838051
Considering the inherited a third of the world’s population, they were bound to be superpowers in any case.

[Anonymous No.15838149]

>>15838117
Millions of people starving doesn’t sound like a superpower
And who influenced the Germans to do so? Keep in mind that without Lenin the USSR would not have even existed most likely, or would be in a different form.
>having blueprints to cut corners on so you can undercut the world’s manufacturing and create jobs is largely irrelevant and protectionism is actually what creates growth
Ok buddy

[Anonymous No.15838153]

>>15838130
I'm not arguing they became superpowers because of socialism, though that's pretty much the case for the Soviet Union, but that it's retarded to claim that socialism doesn't work at all when both states were pretty successful.

[Anonymous No.15838185]

>>15838149
>Millions of people starving doesn’t sound like a superpower
Only true in the 20's and 30's, which is retarded to extrapolate that to the rest of the time the Soviet Union existed. Even if people are starving, that has no bearing on superpower status anyway, that's dependent on the military, economy, and nuclear stockpile.
>And who influenced the Germans to do so?
The Germans obviously saw it was in their interest to disrupt one of their enemies. No 'influence' needed.

China's economic boom happened after the Dengist reforms, so that would mean it happened under capitalism anyway, so it's largely irrelevant here. And yes it was protectionism combined with a large manufacturing base. Stealing patents is a bonus, not a sole determiner.

[Anonymous No.15838188]

>>15838153
>it’s retarded to claim that having massive resources and massive populations in areas ripe to be controlled and a geopolitical landscape in which you are unable to be stopped from consolidating power means that there were far better ways of going about their growth
This is what people mean by socialism not working. “Work” means efficiency, and these states succeeded in spite of socialism, not because of it. See Deng’s reforms or the scissors crisis.

[Anonymous No.15838200]

>>15838185
>Only true in the 20's and 30's, which is retarded to extrapolate that to the rest of the time the Soviet Union existed
Well it’s a good thing I was talking about pre WW2 Soviets then wasn’t it? Retard.
>The Germans obviously saw it was in their interest to disrupt one of their enemies.
And those enemies?
> China's economic boom happened after the Dengist reforms, so that would mean it happened under capitalism anyway, so it's largely irrelevant here.
Good, then we agree.
> Stealing patents is... not a sole determiner.
Never claimed it was

[Anonymous No.15838204]

>>15838075
>Gives them more money than they would make elsewhere or at the very least comparable to it
All while committing several human rights abuses
>By creating better machines and practices to practice with, and the reason healthcare is so expensive is government control, like what socialists want
This is the biggest joke out of the three.
>By bringing about recycling, less wasteful products, and by not draining a whole sea like the Soviets did
You think I was talking about recycling?

[Anonymous No.15838220]

>>15838204
Prove human rights exist first. Also like native Pakistanis don’t have business practices that would raise red flags.
No arguments? Ok great.
It helps ecology doesn’t it? Or is an attempt at least. What societies developed renewable energy? Not socialist ones.

[Anonymous No.15838222]

>>15837095
The meme brainlet socialists get indoctrinated with

[Anonymous No.15838225]

>>15837076
China is the strongest nation in the world

[Anonymous No.15838226]

>>15838200
>Well it’s a good thing I was talking about pre WW2 Soviets then wasn’t it? Retard.
Early 30's =/= the Soviet Union right before the war.
>And those enemies?
Tsarist Russia.

[Anonymous No.15838231]

>>15837095
The whole picture that supports chadpitalism. The USSR always had a pathetic gdp and they needed to build walls to keep their citizens in. Stay mad.

[Anonymous No.15838239]

>>15837938
Yeah, spending half your waking life doing menial tasks to enrich your superiors who actually get to enjoy their lives... sounds wonderful.

[Anonymous No.15838240]

>>15838188
The Soviet Union succeeded because it was socialist, Russia hadn't been as successful before or since. The USSR's centrally planned economy allowed it to industrialize and bring more people out of poverty at a speed not yet matched, even by China.

[Anonymous No.15838250]

>>15838231
Now do GDP growth by year of Russia now and the Soviet Union.

[Anonymous No.15838267]

>>15838226
The starving didn’t end outright in 1933, just was severely mitigated. Even discounting that, millions lost means less manpower, and less projectiiom of power, and less production. These are essential to becoming a superpower.

[Anonymous No.15838279]

>>15838240
Allowed it to industrialize? How so? Are you implying that no other system would have created such a thing in that period of time? Saying it was because of initiatives like the five year plan that led to mass starvation is not a thing to brag about.

[Anonymous No.15838281]

>>15838231
And yet Soviet citizens had easy access to housing while today working millennials in the US are stuck with their parents because their modest wages aren't enough to cover the obscene cost of rent. Not that I'm even arguing for a Soviet-like system. In most respects it was a catastrophic failure.

[Anonymous No.15838287]

>>15838267
Well clearly those didn't hinder the Soviet Union that much, given that they were able to win most of the war before Lend Lease arrived in meaningful numbers.

[Anonymous No.15838304]

>>15838281
do you dumb nigger seriously compare the life of a 21st century entitled soft burger with that of soviet citizens?

[Anonymous No.15838306]

>>15838220
>Prove human rights exist
Edgy arguments like this is just as bad as idealist arguments. But if you want to compare a system that supports human rights vs a system that doesnt support it the you'll find the former to be more functional.
>Pakis don't have bad buisness practices

https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/01/24/no-room-bargain/unfair-and-abusive-labor-practices-pakistan
Damn, edgy argument AND a just-world fallacy?
>it helps ecology doesn't it?
Not when it rapes the earth of its resources and causes an climate imbalance with potential to be an existential threat
Also, I'm not even gonna start if you think that the american healthcare system is somehow socialist. Keep espousing Molymeme talking points, please.

[Anonymous No.15838316]

>>15838279
>Are you implying that no other system would have created such a thing in that period of time?
Yes, nothing else has replicated it. The closest has been China. The Five Year Plan did cause much suffering, and I don't deny that, but it also launched the Soviet Union into superpower status. Stalin made the cold calculation of trading agricultural output for industrial means of production, and it worked very well. Life expectancy was going up, even during the famines. Life in the Soviet Union was not all butterflies and flowers, but it also did have its successes.

[Anonymous No.15838319]

>>15838306
>But if you want to compare a system that supports human rights vs a system that doesnt support it the you'll find the former to be more functional.
Not really, both China and Singapore have little in the way of human rights, but have great economies and have coped with the global crisis far better than the US.

[Anonymous No.15838343]

>>15837229
Retarded. Taxes are socialist

[Anonymous No.15838347]

>>15838304
Life in the US is pretty terrible.
Sure Walmart pays $10 an hour but for $800 you get to live in a shoe box and not to mention the other expenses.
I left, even Mexicans are leaving.

[Anonymous No.15838349]

>>15838306
Calling it edgy doesn’t disprove my point.
Way to misread what I said, that’s exactly the point I was making retard. Countries where multinational corporations “exploit” workers have low labor rights in the first place, which is why they are allowed to do such things.
>recycling rapes earth of its resources
Lol
It may not be socialist, but things like patent laws artificially reducing competition in the health care industry, not allowing for insurance to purchased across state lines, and controls on medical supplies in general dramatically raise prices.

[Anonymous No.15838353]

>>15838304
Yeah the Soviet Union was better in some ways.

[Anonymous No.15838354]

>>15838347
Live in the suburbs/countryside bro

[Anonymous No.15838361]

>>15838353
Lmao

[Anonymous No.15838364]

>>15838354
Ah yes, the places of abundant employment such as rural America, which is not a place of extreme despair, economic decline drug addition, and suicide.

[Anonymous No.15838366]

Calling yourself a socialist is just a shorter way to explain that you're economically illiterate

[Anonymous No.15838369]

>>15838361
It was, everyone had a job, healthcare, and housing. It wasn't perfect, but it did have its advantages.

[Anonymous No.15838372]

>>15838364
It isn’t in most rural areas
Cherry-picking shitholes does not mean all of rural America sucks

[Anonymous No.15838375]

>>15837076
Scandinavia

[Anonymous No.15838378]

>>15838366
>le basic economics meme
Best part about this is that none of the people spouting this know anything about economics either, since about 99% of the public does not.

[Anonymous No.15838379]

>>15838369
>everyone had a job
So?
>healthcare
Shitty soviet healthcare
>housing
Shitty commieblokcs

[Anonymous No.15838387]

>>15838372
I grew up in rural America, I prefer rural life, but I also just moved away since I had absolutely no economic opportunities in my home town. The decline of rural America is very widespread at this point, and remaining is not an option for most people who want enough money to raise a family.

[Anonymous No.15838391]

>>15838378
Did I hurt your feefees? It's true. Socialism (an economic system) is predicated on a severe failure in understanding economics. Im sorry your English degree didn't teach you that

[Anonymous No.15838395]

>>15838379
>So?
People like to have jobs to support their families and not wallow in despair.
>Shitty soviet healthcare
As compared to the absolutely great healthcare that everyone gets in the US.
>Shitty commieblokcs
They're really not that bad, I've stayed in them on trips in Europe. Not any worse than US apartments. Beats paying out the ass for housing.

[Anonymous No.15838402]

>>15837076
If this is the case, why can't you just leave it be? To fail on its own?
Sounds to me you're afraid and worried you might be wrong, and therefore are driven to post stuff like this in the loose hope that you'd contribute in fending it off, for a while.

[Anonymous No.15838413]

>>15838402
>To fail on its own?
That's literally what happens lmfao

[Anonymous No.15838417]

>>15838391
I minored in econ lol. There are many modern Marxist economists. Just because it's not classical or Chicago school non-sense, doesn't mean its not economically valid.

[Anonymous No.15838419]

>>15838413
Then what are you worrying about?

[Anonymous No.15838422]

>>15838417
>There are many modern Marxist economists
Those are meme economists anon. They are not taken seriously

[Anonymous No.15838428]

>>15838391
Perhaps you should ask that to Richard D. Wolff.

[Anonymous No.15838434]

>>15837076
I don't care. Give me free stuff or I'm going to tell everyone that you're mean.

[Anonymous No.15838435]

>>15838422
>Those are meme economists anon.
Not according to the academic programs they work in, which far exceeds any qualifications to speak on economics than you.

[Anonymous No.15838438]

>>15838419
>Then what are you worrying about?
I don't want to suffer the consequences of other people's incompetence? It's pretty logical

[jesus No.15838440]

>>15838239
if your skills are not needed you are free to suicide or to go back to trees eating free bananas, fighting other monkeys for them. understand this, you was born as legal migrant via vagina border without skills and work permit, and your mom employed your skill "cute boi". if you are still cute you can sell your ass to some rich homo. but otherwise your life has negative value. we live in technological society, in The Machine, people are cogs, and you must fit to use it benefits.

[Anonymous No.15838446]

>>15837076
Socialism always devolves into dictatorship
Even the Spartans, and they were genuine hardcore socialists

[Anonymous No.15838447]

>>15838428
>Perhaps you should ask that to Richard D. Wolff.
He's a buffoon and more importantly he is wrong
>>15838435
State-subsidized commie nest universities don't count for shit

[Anonymous No.15838454]

>>15838447
>State-subsidized commie nest universities don't count for shit
Ah, I see. You're a retard who thinks communists are everywhere.

[Anonymous No.15838456]

>>15838446
>Even the Spartans, and they were genuine hardcore socialists
If it existed before industrial production, it wasn't socialism.

[jesus No.15838462]

>>15838446
socialism IS dictatorship. to make people equal you must castrate unequal.

[Anonymous No.15838466]

>>15838454
>n-no! There's no connection between me advocating for socialism and the fact that the government writes my paycheck!! W-what do you mean I need to compete for my place on a free market!?!? Subsidizing my failing ideas is b-based!

[Anonymous No.15838474]

>>15837092
Based and Marx pilled

[Anonymous No.15838475]

>>15838281
I'd rather live with my parents than in Soviet kommunalkas lmao. Did you think they just gave separate apartments to everyone?

[Anonymous No.15838478]

>>15838466
>state doing something has anything to do with socialism
Retard, it wouldn't undermine the points being made anyway.

[Anonymous No.15838482]

USSR was the no. 2 world power, what are you talking about? It wasn't internal problems why it collapsed, it was Gorbachev cucking and western subversion. Blame george soros

[Anonymous No.15838486]

>>15838478
Nah, it's clear that if the government writes your paycheck then you have an incentive to expand the scope of government (aka armchair revolutionaries aka socialists aka deadweight)

More proof that socialists have no clue how economics works

[Anonymous No.15838490]

Stop posting. All of you.

[Anonymous No.15838493]

>>15837095
USSR doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.15838495]

>>15838490
Its true. The only good ideology is neoliberalism, its an enlightened synthesis of all the worlds best ideas, its austrian marxism

[Anonymous No.15838497]

Have you actually read the book OP?
Care to explain this?

[Anonymous No.15838500]

>>15838482
>It wasn't internal problems why it collapsed
Imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.15838504]

>>15838486
You are literally retarded, you can probably get in on those government checks too, maybe free bus passes as well

[Anonymous No.15838509]

>>15838482
Please, get off 4chan

[Anonymous No.15838523]

>>15838504
I'm sorry your favorite marxist economists come from state schools and they wouldn't even have a job if the government didn't subsidize them and bail them out with taxpayer money. Money down the drain. They contribute nothing!

Not even an argument. I always hear the same things from socialists

[jesus No.15838541]

>>15838474
un ironically based != true, unless you are female.

[Anonymous No.15838545]

>>15838500
im sorry but this is just the facts. gorbachev became too friendly with the west so the KGB tried to coup him in 91 and it all spiraled into a shitstorm where clintons favorite the pube helmeted yeltsin decided to yeet the whole thing

[Anonymous No.15838565]

>>15838545
>gorbachev became too friendly with the west
God forbid a country take part in international relations. Are you 15?

[Anonymous No.15838570]

>>15838545
the fact is that the USSR relied on high oil prices to support its cumbersome and inefficient system and when the oil prices fell then they collapsed

[Anonymous No.15838677]

>>15838570
I dont give a shit about economics, its just a fact that gorbachev became a little a cuck and bffs with george h w bush and the hardliner psycho kgb deep state hated this and it all went to shit
>>15838565
Yes, god forbid the leader of the soviet union from getting in bed with its mortal enemy and trying to turn it into some social democratic pussy shit if he doesnt want to be deposed

[Anonymous No.15838696]

>>15837378
Population grew under Stalin.

[Anonymous No.15838701]

>>15838043
>Global superpowers off the backs of western democracis
white bois love to take credit for shit they dont do. They just can't help themselves.

[Anonymous No.15838709]

>>15838565

[Anonymous No.15838719]

>>15838375
Capitalism with a big welfare state is still capitalism. They also have a more flat tax rate system than the U.S., lower corporate taxes and are highly rated for their ease of doing business.

[Anonymous No.15838754]

>>15838231
>>15838222
>muh graphs
Midwits, man.. fucking midwits.

[Anonymous No.15838765]

>>15838222
>>15838231

[Anonymous No.15838776]

>>15838754
>>15838765
Dunning-kruger case study right here

[Anonymous No.15838822]

>>15838545
>>15838565
Gorbachev was a traitor who sold out the country

[Anonymous No.15838832]

>>15838776
You talking bout yourself?

[Anonymous No.15838896]

Who could be behind the sowell spam?

[Anonymous No.15838904]

>>15837761
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
Total civilian and military casualties of the Soviet union during the war are around 15%, which while is not as much as I previously stated, it certainly cannot be labelled as "few"
>Purges did not had as much of impact
While in terms of numbers the purge didn't affect that much, just around 5%, it killed the top military commanders and proponents of the deep operation doctrine, so those who could have made a difference in the Barbarossa Campaign, which ties in to
>As for the mob tactics, just kys
The purge killed the proponents of that same new military doctrine that the Soviets needed so desperately during the Barbarossa Campaign, effectively rendering the military useless when it was most needed.
>Agricultural base was not killed
>grain production grew way above what was produced under NEP. Heck even the 1930 harvest was larger than before, despite majority of agriculture being collectivized.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–33
Guess what retard, you can even quadruple the amount of food you produce, but as long as the leadership doesn't care or want that that food will end to the table of the people, it doesn't mean shit.
>Not your father, or grandparents? She married west didn't she? What a whore. My family never moved west, so your stupid amerimutt stories mean nothing to me.
I should have known.
>She married west didn't she? What a whore.
That doesn't invalidate her account.
>My family never moved west, so your stupid amerimutt stories mean nothing to me.
Not a counter argument.
>Russia lost her due to transition to capitalist system.
Guess what led that to happen? It's like admitting that a man died because the heart stopped pulsating and not because of the disease that killed him.
>Speculative cope, statistics show otherwise.
What statistics? GDP per capita? Average salary? Political corruption index? Either way things look bleak.
>Also, thanks to outing yourself as liberal scum.
Again, not an argument. Also I'm definitely not a liberal, but I'm not surprised that you as a leftist identify the wellbeing of the people as something from "the liberal scum".
>Your "explanations" are retarded. They certainly are not capable of denying reality.
Of course they are not capable of denying reality, because what they are denying are your twisting of the reality.
This ties then to this:
>My is reality, you dumb seminegroid. Capitalism happened, Russia went to shit. End of story.
How many times do I have to tell you what led to that happening you retard? Capitalism happened because Communism failed. Modern Russia went to shit because of the transition. If communism hadn't happened, your dreaded transition wouldn't have happened. It was the ultimate grand finale of a shitfest of genocides and famines and repression that had lasted 70 years that brought down the potential of the largest nation of Earth. That's the end of the story.

[Anonymous No.15838913]

>>15838822
I try to say this, but the normiecon brainwashing is too deep, ppl have to believe in some gay graph based explanation tied into their ideology. it was really just gorbachev vs the kgb. im a ron paul voter

[jesus No.15838918]

>>15838822
what? it was already sold, he just acknowledged bankruptcy. oil prices dropped. people hated the country.

[Anonymous No.15838919]

>>15838904
>>15837761
>>15837662
>>15837443
You motherfuckers should just kill yourselves for writing posts like this.

[jesus No.15838937]

>>15838677
what enemy schizo? soviet union was always autonomous colony of west larping enemy to motivate economy by cold war. to rule scum you need internal and external enemies.

[Anonymous No.15839117]

>>15838904
>are around 15%
So you admit you were wrong, alright.
>top military commanders and proponents of the deep operation doctrine
The big brain behind deep battle survived, he was bullied for being a jew, but he survived. Trifiandilov died in an accident. Tukhachevski was a mediocre general and too offense-minded (even as a person).
>effectively rendering the military useless when it was most needed.
RKKA suffered because Stalin did not anticipate the offensive and because Wehrmacht was the most powerful and tactically advanced army in the world, it fucking raped France in less than a month. Few people expected Russia to withstand Nazi onslaught. Also the big problem of Russian military was the lack of competent under-officers which plagues the military to this day.
>as long as the leadership doesn't care or want that that food will end to the table of the people
Guess what retard, the problem during the famine was production not allocation. Leadership over-prioritized industry so agriculture suffered. In the long run however it was fixed and Russians first time in history enjoyed food security. You are so fucking clueless...
>That doesn't invalidate her account.
Her account did not had any relevance to begin with. No one cares about anecdotes from some mail order bride.
>Guess what led that to happen?
Traitorous leadership, Khrushchov´s denouncement of Stalin, Afghan, under-estimation of solid state electronics, national problems etc.
>What statistics?
The ones on the topic obviously. Opinion polling on how do people view Soviet regime.
>If communism hadn't happened, your dreaded transition wouldn't have happened.
How many times do I have to tell you that we don´t have a single fucking clue on what could have happened without communism you fucking retard? That´s completely speculative alt-history. Russians might have as well been completely genocided considering how badly did industrial development under Tsarist regime (picrel).

[Anonymous No.15839163]

>>15837076
albania

[Anonymous No.15839245]

>>15838765
Man, being a neoliberal who supports the current economic hegemony, increased free trade and deregulation has me feeling too based sometimes.

[Anonymous No.15839279]

>>15837187
No in communism everything is the workers' property not the state's.
Paradoxically in a completely communist country there would be no need for a government except for national defense

[Anonymous No.15839280]

>>15839163
thanks for proving OP's point

[Anonymous No.15839303]

>>15838149
Millions of people starving? Sounds like America at the moment

[Anonymous No.15839331]

>>15837076
Not gonna read the thread, but that's bullshit. Socialism always works for exactly who it's meant to work for. What is with this board's hardon for libertarian faggotry? Government is not your enemy, the foreign tribe in it is. Government doesn't exist, only people do, so address the real problem: the wrong people are in charge, and they'll stay in charge as long as your gay little philosophy of "leave me alone" is all you wield.

[Anonymous No.15839341]

>>15839303
Nah, most Americans are simultaneously obese and malnurished.

[Anonymous No.15839357]

The Gini coefficient is having a good time in the West these days.

[Anonymous No.15839426]

>>15839341
mcdonalds is cheap

[Anonymous No.15839448]

>>15838222
What does this mean? Russian GDP is better than Soviet GDP ever was?

[Anonymous No.15839578]

>>15838347
your right being unemployed and leaving in government provided concrete apartments is much better great idea! lets start with Seattle

[Anonymous No.15839733]

>>15838509
I like how 4chan is retarded but it's way less retarded than TV talking heads or popular intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.15841452]

>>15839448
This is usually used out of context to imply that socialism is good because there was economic growth under the soviet union. Hence people itt saying stuff like "socialism industrialized Russia," to suggest that socialism isn't that bad.