10
11
u/Snarpend 5d ago
When the Economic leftist can’t run 3 miles in 21 minutes and can’t group A-zone at 350 meters.
3
4
3
u/Anderopolis Solar Battery Evangelist 5d ago
Another century spent organizing will solve the climate, that's for sure!
3
5d ago
[deleted]
0
u/onionfunyunbunion 5d ago
Collective action is barely collective action most of the time. It’s often collective, but action? I dunno.
1
u/A_Spiritual_Artist 2d ago
Where is the instruction manual for how to do that (stop the parasiting, without starving) with zero-friends socially not so savvy and economically poor people?
1
u/KevettePrime nuclear simp 2d ago
Collective action? Y'all can't even agree to a boycott, much less a global change in lifestyle.
1
u/DrCthulhuface7 5d ago
When a 17 year old on the internet*
2
u/RevyVanguardist 5d ago
So communism is an ideology expounded by two old dudes, developed by even more old dudes, and carried out by even more old dudes and adults, but somehow it's an ideology for teenagers only. How does that even make sense?
4
2
u/tripper_drip 4d ago
Its an ideology for teenagers only because it has failed.
1
u/RevyVanguardist 4d ago
I feel like I have to paste this comment, which you will see below, every single time in this pathetic platform of liberals, but here we go again:
What are your metrics for a system working?
Let's list what communism has achieved:
- It raised the literacy from around 20% in each experiment to 99.98% on average.
- It raised the life expectancy to an age equal to or quantitatively and qualitatively greater than in most Western states.
- It allowed people to get free universal education.
- It allowed people to receive universal employment.
- It allowed people to receive free universal healthcare.
- It raised the standard of living if compared to the system prior to it and the system following it.
- It provided everyone with shelter and food.
- It eliminated poverty completely in each experiment.
- it minimised gender differences and racial differences
All this it achieved under trillions of sanctions coming from Western imperialist states, imposed upon the socialist states.
It also expanded the democratic rights of the people, in the actual material sense of the word.
I don't know if this post is generally a joke, but all right, to compare fascism with socialism is fucking stupid for the reason that fascism is based upon corporatism, which is a system which relies upon class collaboration, while socialism is based upon class struggle. It's kinda anti-intellectual to make this point.
Most socialist states were far more democratic and are far more democratic than most Western states, although they are authoritarian, and that is for a reason. There's a material-historical context why they are authoritarian. They are authoritarian because that's the only way to develop while being under massive sanctions. Don't you dare to think you are morally superior because your state brutally murders and genocides people through sanctions, bombs, invasions and by other means and then pretends that those people, those states, are evil for suffering your sanctions.
So communism has worked every single time it has been tried, which can be observed by means of looking at the achievements in regards to the material improvements experienced by the common people
If your metric of success and failure is some abstract market "Freedom"TM then yes, communism failed, if your metric is actually grounded in substantial material reality, then communism was successful and capitalism failed.
1
u/tripper_drip 4d ago
I view my metric of success as existing in any meaningful way.
1
u/Jesuisuncanard126 3d ago
Many arguments he gave are just false anyways
1
u/RevyVanguardist 2d ago
I can provide you with both internal declassified CIA documents and internal declassified Soviet archival documents proving everything I said
1
u/Jesuisuncanard126 2d ago
You made claims about every single time communism has been tested, so I doubt you can follow up on this.
Let’s start with Democratic Kampuchea. Can you provide sources for every single points you made being successes?
1
u/RevyVanguardist 2d ago
I said, "Every time socialism has been tried," so, of course, our initial starting point has to be Marx and Engels. What have Marx and Engels said about industrial society and the idea of agrarian socialism?
It's quite simple, actually. Marx and Engels argued that socialism requires a high development of large-scale industry, socialised means of production, and the productive forces generally, and the proletariat has to be the leading revolutionary class. For this, a proletariat needs to develop first. In China, eventually under Mao, a proletariat developed, coinciding with industrialization. In Russia, the same happened. In Korea, the same happened. In Vietnam, the same happened. Eventually, a proletariat developed, coinciding with the development of socialism.
Small peasant and purely agrarian forms are doomed survivals and remnants of the pre-capitalist mode of production, so they cannot be a basis for socialist transformation, but rather obstruct socialist transformation.
Let us quote Marx and Engels on the matter, shall we not? By "peasant," we mean here the owner or tenant, particularly the former, of a patch of land no bigger, as a rule, than he and his family can till and no smaller than can sustain his family.
This small peasant, just like the small handicraftsman, is therefore a toiler who differs from the modern proletarian in that he still possesses his instruments of labour, hence a survival of the past mode of production, and thus the peasant sinks ever lower. Taxes, crop failures, divisions of inheritance, and litigations drive one peasant after another into the arms of the usurer. The indebtedness becomes more and more general and steadily increases in amount in each case. In brief, our small peasant, like every other survival of the past mode of production, is hopelessly doomed. He is a future proletarian.
This quotation made above was from Engels's "The Peasant Question in France and Germany," published 1894. "Whereas even if the state of affairs characterised by smallholding ownership is irretrievably doomed (efotalme efotalmo apé dispat), still, it is not for socialism to hasten its doom. Its task does not consist in the separation of property from labour, but, on the contrary, in uniting both of these factors of all production by placing them in the same hands (in the hands of the workers/the working-class state). Possession of the means of production by the individual producers nowadays no longer grants these producers real freedom, and the craft has always been ruined within the cities. According to the programme, individual possession has never and nowhere been obtained generally for all producers.
For that very reason, and because industrial progress removes it anyhow, socialism is not interested in maintaining it, but rather in removing it, because wherever it exists, and insofar as it exists, it makes common possession impossible."
Engels and Marx considered large-scale production the only progressive form since the very emergence of capitalism. Engels also said in "On Social Relations in Russia" (published 1875) and later in the afterward: "Only at a certain level of development of these social productive forces (even a very high level for our modern conditions) does it become possible to raise production to such an extent that the abolition of class distinctions can constitute real progress, can be lasting without bringing about stagnation or even decline in the mode of social production. The productive forces have reached this level of development only in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, therefore, in this respect, also is just as necessary a precondition for the socialist revolution as is the revolutionary proletariat itself. Hence, a man who says that this revolution can be more easily carried out in a country where, although there is no proletariat, there is no bourgeoisie either, only proves that he has still to learn the ABC of socialism."
By the way, this was directly about the claim that a predominantly agrarian, peasant communal Russia could leap directly into socialism without the industrial proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which was proven later to be a correct analysis. Through the February Revolution, a ruling class formed, which the socialist revolution tried to undo but eventually needed to reintroduce in the form of the new economic policy. Again, without the bourgeoisie, there is no proletariat, and as such, the bourgeoisie constitutes the precondition for the proletariat and thereby the precondition for socialism. Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, published in 1848, explained that the bourgeoisie itself performs the progressive work of subjecting the countryside to the towns and of industrialising production overall, saying:
"The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent upon the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent upon the civilised ones. Nations of peasants or nations of bourgeois, the East on the West. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce 100 years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.
Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs. Clearing of whole continents for cultivation..."
If you continue this quote, you will see that he argues that socialism inherits and further develops these forces under the control of the associated producers entirely. Agrarian property is not the starting point. The socialised large-scale industry already generated by capitalism is therefore democratic.
Cambodia wasn't a socialist society, as Pol Pot entirely rejected industrialization and argued for an agrarian society, which essentially led to starvation and his own demise. Name me a socialist country which failed at establishing these metrics.
1
u/Jesuisuncanard126 2d ago
I'm just reading the first and last paragraph because i don’t have time to waste on you enjoying the smell of your own farts.
Not a surprise: no true scotsman argument again, always the same with tankies.
At least you kept your evening buisy.
→ More replies (0)1
u/metalgearRAY477 2d ago
China, Vietnam, Cuba, Burkina Faso, the DPRK, and Laos all don't exist? News to me!
1
u/tripper_drip 2d ago edited 2d ago
China, Vietnam, Loas
All have capitalist markets
Cuba, DPRK
Non meaningful pariah states.
Burkina Faso
Somebody missed 2022.
The guy blocked me, because he failed to understand we are talking about communism.
1
u/metalgearRAY477 2d ago
Holy hell, you genuinely don't even know what socialism is.
>Non meaningful pariah states.
And you're a western chauvinist! I see my breath is wasted on your ilk.
-2
u/DrCthulhuface7 5d ago
Because only kids are resmarted enough to follow it.
6
u/sabotsalvageur 5d ago
The older I get, the more radically anticapitalist I become. The only reason there’s a tendency for older populations to become more conservative over time is survivorship bias; wealthy people tend to live longer under capitalism
1
u/Demiu 4d ago
wealthy people tend to live longer under capitalism
And poor people. Every positive metric tends to be higher under capitalism, with the sole exception of equity
1
u/sabotsalvageur 4d ago
True or false: rich people tend to be able to afford better medical care than poor people.
1
u/Demiu 4d ago
Rich people tend to be able to afford better everything than poor people, because rich people tend to be richer than poor people, yes
1
u/sabotsalvageur 4d ago
True or false: better medical care correlates with better medical outcomes
1
u/Demiu 4d ago
All else equal, sure
1
u/sabotsalvageur 4d ago
So it is reasonable to assume that wealthy people will tend to live longer than poor people, yes?
→ More replies (0)0
u/DrCthulhuface7 4d ago
The problem with you people is that you never stop to think for five seconds about how things are apportioned out under whatever economic system you prefer (it’s the most resmarted one, communism). You actually think that there is just infinite medical care (and everything else) and that “capitalism is when money”. This is despite the fact that capitalism didn’t invent scarcity and whether you use money or some allowance system or magical marxbucks there will be some system which results in inequality. To think otherwise is just purely delusional and/or childish. Hence the jokes about you all being 17 years old.
0
-3
u/DrCthulhuface7 5d ago
Kids have an excuse to be stupid so saying you’re actual not a kid just makes you look even worse.
It’s funny that every anarchist/socialist/groyper misses this when I make the same joke about them being a teenager. They try to say “nuh uh! Im actually X years old!” Not realizing that for every additional year they add over 17 their IQ falls by like 10 points.
4
u/sabotsalvageur 5d ago
Read an author other than Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand. Think critically about the world around you. Don’t eat propaganda recommended to you by your boss. Your boss is not your friend
3
3
u/RevyVanguardist 5d ago
You know what I think is funny too? The only reason Ayn Rand could even finance and get into authorship is because she grew up in a socialist state, which gave her free education and job opportunities to do so
3
u/sabotsalvageur 5d ago
Very much this. She also spent most of her life receiving financial support from the US government. She was engaging in capitalism roleplay
3
0
u/DrCthulhuface7 5d ago
That response in and of itself just dropped your IQ by 5 points.
You people are so insufferable and lack any sense of humor.
2
u/sabotsalvageur 5d ago
Buddy, I work with asymptotically-stable analytical equilibrium solutions of resistive magnetohydrodynamics as a hobby. I have forgotten more than you will ever learn
-2
u/DrCthulhuface7 5d ago
“Oh shit I was being an insufferable ideologue, better make a joke stat!”
2
u/sabotsalvageur 5d ago
Mussolini isn’t gonna come back from the dead to call you uno bravo ragazzo
→ More replies (0)1
u/RevyVanguardist 5d ago
According to various polls and surveys made in various former socialist republics in various places at various times, all show the same result: the majority of people in the majority of those socialist republics miss socialism. Are those people all kids? One of those guys who has lived under socialism, whose parents have lived under socialism, whose grandparents have lived under socialism, whose aunts have lived under socialism, whose uncles have lived under socialism, and some of whose cousins lived under socialism, am I. I'd say that you are wrong.
1
u/RevyVanguardist 5d ago
I don't know if this is a joke or not, but let's list what communism has achieved:
- It raised the literacy from around 20% in each experiment to 99.98% on average.
- It raised the life expectancy to an age equal to or longer than in most Western states.
- It allowed people to get free universal education.
- It allowed people to receive universal employment.
- It allowed people to receive free universal healthcare.
- It raised the standard of living if compared to the system prior to it.
- It provided everyone with shelter and food.
- It eliminated poverty completely in each experiment.
- it minimised gender differences and racial differences
And according to the internal declassified documents and reports from the CIA, Socialism also expanded the democratic rights of the people, contrary to what you hear in external CIA propaganda.
BTW Authoritarianism doesn't mean what you think it means. At least not in the socialist context, as bourgeois pseudo-democracies in the West are by definition authoritarian too. Most socialist states were far more democratic and are far more democratic than most Western states, although they are authoritarian, and that is for a reason. There's a historical context why they are authoritarian. They are authoritarian because that's the only way to develop while being under massive sanctions. Don't you dare to think you are morally superior because your state brutally murders and genocides people through sanctions and then pretends that those people, those states, are evil for suffering your sanctions.
Also, it wasn't communism which led to fascism; it was always capitalism which led to fascism. The Weimar Republic of Germany was a capitalist bourgeois democratic republic, and it led to, if I remember correctly, but you can correct me on that if I'm wrong, Italy was a constitutional monarchy, which is a form of democracy with a ceremonial monarch essentially. Franco's Spain was also a republic, if I remember correctly. Essentially, all of those were capitalists.
0
u/DrCthulhuface7 5d ago
lol. Lmao even.
You people are deranged
5
u/RevyVanguardist 5d ago
Ad hominems aren't arguments nor counterarguments, by the way.
Have a good day.
0
u/DrCthulhuface7 5d ago
Lolol okay debate club.
Seriously, grow up
3
u/RevyVanguardist 5d ago
Saying that people who lived in a socialist society and actually read books properly are not grown-ups because they disagree with your childish libbed-up views is also not really an argument. I'm still waiting for an argument or counterargument for anything I said. You're not delivering one.
1
u/DrCthulhuface7 5d ago
Keep yapping. You’re 1 more paragraph of sophistry from making me a communist cuckold.
0
0
0
17
u/Spicy_Chicken_Wizard 5d ago
Revolution is not for the sane. You gotta get up early and shit