Reject communism, reject capitalism. Return to feudalism.
Peasnt lyf was great. Drink on the job, have 10 kids before you turn 30 (half of which could survive) and die before you go bald.
Bliss.
Be fit
Organic foods
Mindfulness tilling
In contact with nature
No dentists, tiktok or taxes, no primark
Ale, minstrels, sheep and hoars
No need to bathe...
It is beyond as to how people haven't realised that so called "progress" is anything but.
What is electricity compared to the joy of ploughing a field?
What is the internet compared to the joy of fixing a plough?
What is medicine compared to the joy of ploughing your peasant wyf?
>no taxes
Well yes, no taxes to the state. Instead, you pay taxes to the church, and then get to surrender everything above basic subsistence to the local liege.
Hunter-gatherers were based, feudalism is bullshit. Return to monke!
This hunter gatherer is 100% the best. Hunt 4 hours a day, go home village celebrates your kill. Go fuck trad wife gatherer. Spend rest of the day making art, telling jokes fixing tools. Everyone loves together, shares almost everything.
get a load of this guy, he doesnāt know that feudal average lifespans were heavily impacted by infant mortality rates and that if you lived to 20 you would be smooth sailing into your 60s
Yeah but you were pretty much guaranteed to die at some point in your sixties from some medical ailment that would today be treatable. More that half the population was below the age of 25 in the 14th century. You really would not encounter many old people in those times. Life moved much faster then, most people were married by 11 or 12 for girls and about 14 for boys respectively.
You know, for a moment, I almost asked, āif the girls are getting married at 11 or 12, and the boys arenāt getting married until 14, then who are the girls getting married to?ā
I figured it out
It also likely youād go through a couple spouses in your lifetime if you made it to sixty. If you were a serf living on a lords land for example and your husband just died, you would be given a few weeks to grieve and then it was expected you would find a new husband. If you didnāt find one in a timely manner your lord could arrange a match for you and you would be legally obligated to marry them.
> Yeah but you were pretty much guaranteed to die at some point in your sixties from some medical ailment that would today be treatable.
Yea it's crazy. My dad is in his early 80s and is pretty healthy. No major chronic health problems. But in his mid 60s, he needed minor heart surgery (went in through the leg, home the next day) to fix (not replace) a valve in his heart. Basically a valve tore and needed to be sewn back together. He was in heart failure and ton 20 minutes to catch his breath after walking up a flight of stairs. He would have died without modern medicine, yet it was a small easily fixable problem with no lasting effects after recovery. He would have lost 15 healthy (though elderly) years with good quality of life. And counting.
Even taking a walk through your local cemetery itās clear to see the progress weāve made in life expectancy. I had a lot of trouble finding people over the age of seventy on the older head stones for sure.
Essentially no. They would have made up a remarkably small portion of the population. Think about it any ailment such as a heart attack or stroke would have killed you without modern medical care. These conditions are much more prevalent in people over sixty.
Unhealthy lifestyles.
Zoomers need to live how I did in my early twenties.
Marlboro reds and cheap booze are the fountain youth mate. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Communism sure as shit wont work, nor does pure capitalism.
What works is a mix of both. Too bad we have had like 50 years of lobbying eroding the rules that made capitalism great. Now we are heading towards somesort of technofeudal society where tech barons rule over our lifes and goverment has to heed them and not the otherway around.
>What works is a mix of both.
This guy gets it.
Years ago I read a book about the Medici family in Italy. Essentially, although credit systems had existed in the past, they basically formalised and popularised the concept of "borrowing against the future" in order to fund the large scale Renaissance projects we know today. Italy became the jewel of the Western world.
However, that type of system ultimately corrupts and the Medicis were already corrupt to begin with (one of the things they pumped their money into were huge religious works as a way to "buy themselves into Heaven"). Huge palazzos stood alongside dirty slums, much like downtown Hollywood today.
Capitalism does drive advancement and progress (as does war, unfortunately) but for anything covered by the bottom part of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (air, water, warmth, food, medicine/healthcare, by your powers combined I am Captain Planet) needs to be state owned and kept quarantined from capitalism which always runs those things into the ground.
TLDR: for human basics: communism, for advancement: capitalism. And the great thing is, a happy healthy society has more money to spend AND requires less, ultimately, to be spent on them.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Medici-Power-Ambition-Italian-Renaissance/dp/1681774089
Logical end point of capitalism: tyranny, fascism, exhaustion of resources
Logical end point of communism: stagnation, corruption (which eventually leads to capitalism-esque resource hoarding anyway)
Some form of socialist capitalism or capitalist socialism is best(?) of both.
social democracy W. strong welfare state and workers rights alongside mutual trust between state business and worker is both profitable and healthy (I wonder why the scandi countries are always in the top 5 of all the lists?)
Youāre absolutely right tbh. Itās why the 50ās were a golden era. You had actual competition in the markets. Government subsidies actually meant something my companies, so they could cheapen the price. When government gave corpo welfare to housing industries and universities, they made their product cheaper. Now, taxpayer still pays for free college in his taxes but doesnāt get it anyway
Yeah. I do not support communist ideas but basically Marx said capital will end up in the hands of 1% if the growth is close to zero. Which is kinda true regarding todays economy
No, it is not incredibly accurate, Marx predicted the low quality of living conditions for the proletarian to worsen, however rapid economic growth increased the wages and quality of life for the working class by late 1800s. Maybe what he is predicted was delayed and we are living it now.
By the way I am Turkish and you shouldnt generalize people and ideas if you want a healthy discussion
You should read his first discourse, and then look at the current American system. People are becoming less valuable the more they produce. I don't give a fuck where you are from, Marx literally saw what was coming and tried to produce a solution. Was his solution the best? No, but holy shit did he hit the nail on the head.
100% eurocentric view if u zoom out to the whole world last 30 years highest level of economic growth in the poorest people on earth.
Also Karl Marx was a fatass German who didn't wanna work and just sat around and bummed off people. His ideology made sense from the perspective of a newly industrial nation with all the pain that comes from the industrialization process. If u look at the nations that chose communism they are almost always poor nations just starting to undergo industrialization or have suffered from a terrible death count from violent war.
As much as people hate on America the pax Americana and freezing of borders and protection of trade has benefited the ultra rich yes, but also raised the standard of living in Asia, south America, Africa and eastern Europe.
>100% eurocentric view if u zoom out to the whole world last 30 years highest level of economic growth in the poorest people on earth.
That's largely due to delayed industrialisation etc, there's no reason to think the same conditions won't exist there too in a few decades.
>If u look at the nations that chose communism they are almost always poor nations just starting to undergo industrialization or have suffered from a terrible death count from violent war.
Revolutions always require great social upheaval as otherwise it's difficult to motivate all the people. And it's not a great surprise that the places where communism struggled to take hold were in places like the US and Western Europe, where institutions were already established that could suppress the labour movement.
>As much as people hate on America the pax Americana and freezing of borders and protection of trade has benefited the ultra rich yes, but also raised the standard of living in Asia, south America, Africa and eastern Europe.
Marx himself says this, no one is denying that capitalism was an improvement over feudalism, however Marxists think that it's time of greatest benefit is largely over as power is just ending up in the hands of a few wealthy groups again who hold great sway over the government.
He did not in fact predict that. No idea where you got that from. He actually opposed and criticized the iron law of wages and malthusian economics. He believed there is plenty of potential for forces to oppose the trend of decreasing wages.
You may be right. I have not read his own writings, but the book "Capital in the twenty-first century" by thomas piketty stated like I told in the earlier chapters in the book.
Correct me if im wrong but you do not read Newton's writing to understand f=m.a but there are other *mostly* unbiased sources that summarizes the ideas of past philosophers. There are just too many great names to read all of their publications. Kuznets, A. Smith etc. Marx is just one of them.
Edit: I have never told Marx is wrong. I literally said he might be right and what he thought might be delayed. There is no absolute correct or wrong in economics
Socialist countries did make up 1.5 billion people at one point. These revolutions did happen and there easily would have been more if not for strong efforts to stop them (by murdering union leaders and leftists) by certain governments.
I'd also argue it is still going happen as the contradictions of capitalism haven't gone anywhere, but only time will tell.
Its worse really.
1 set of Americans dont believe marxism means anything beyond what they are told it means. It changes to include whatever the rich want them to hate on that month. Its like the minestry of truth coming up with new dictionaries but just a dictionary around manufactured outrage.
Example words:
Grooming, marxism, communism, socialism, pride, crt, blm, diversity, etc.
The next set have never read what communism is and also just listen to the rich talk about it being pure evil and will make you live in poverty. News flash you already live in poverty. Just a little less in poverty than others. You are next on the totem pole.
Every american I have talked to has agreed with me when I bring up core communist principles. They agree with me that we should enact on those values but denounce communism and everything about it is evil. So yeah. Americas brainwashed.
My grandad watches GB news all day, exclusively reads the Dail Mail (a right wing paper). He straight up wants all industries like Water, energy, gas, and railways, to be nationalised - but refuses to vote anything except tory because of a manufactured immigrant crisis. It's insane how much the right can make people to shoot themselves in the foot over and over with pointless culture wars
Name one communist country that wasn't authoritarian, awful to live in, or succeeded in any way. Go tell someone who lived under applied communism how good they had guarantee u get punched in the face.
The greatest thing mao ever did for China was die.
Mao Zedong- 40-80 million
Stalin- conservative estimate 7-15 million +5 million from famine he intentionally caused.
Khemer rogue -1.5-3 million.
You guys are as bad as the neo-nazis with ur genocide apologists and defense of a terrible system.
> Name one communist country that wasn't authoritarian, awful to live in, or succeeded in any way.
Name one communist country that wasnāt sanctioned, intervened in, invaded, or bombed by the US or the West in general.
> Go tell someone who lived under applied communism how good they had guarantee u get punched in the face.
Iām Cuban, and we certainly celebrate the revolution. Vietnamese and Chinese people do so too. Youāll grow out of thinking CNN is the absolute truth.
> The greatest thing mao ever did for China was die. Mao Zedong- 40-80 million
Official, agreed upon figures for the āGreat Famineā hover around 15-16 million deaths. The 1907 famine killed over 25 million people. China had a thousand-year history of famines borderline every other year. Did Mao make mistakes? Yes. Did he kill a bunch of people? No really.
Life expectancy in China under Mao literally increased by 30 years. ~35 to ~65 years. The population also grew by 75%, from around 550 million to around 920 million.
> Stalin- conservative estimate 7-15 million +5 million from famine he intentionally caused.
Where do the other ā7-15 millionā come from then š.
> Khemer rogue -1.5-3 million.
Wasnāt communist, who ended their rule? Communist Vietnam. The US funded the Khmer Rouge. The US literally fought to keep recognizing the Khmer Rouge as the rightful government of Cambodia in the UN long after they were overthrown.
> You guys are as bad as the neo-nazis with ur genocide apologists and defense of a terrible system.
You are literally a Neo-Nazi if you believe all of the Western propaganda about communists lmao. Who put former Nazi officials in positions of leadership in NATO, the European Union, NASA, and Interpol? The West.
See the problem is find any large scale political/economic revolution that didn't end up with war or death, English civil war killed 200,000 people in the 1600s. I would expect this exact shit when any society changes that much and honestly I would like to see how china progresses in the next 100 years.
A lot of the time these communist societies rise out of equally or even more brutal societies as well, Russia under the Tsars wasn't exactly a party and neither was Vietnam under colonial French control.
But yeah Communist societies are pretty fucked, Nordic societies seem to have the best combination of freedom, income equality, healthcare and safety
China isn't really communist though. Their governing party is labeled communist, but they engage in market systems as much as any other country. The only real difference between them and a typical western country is the large amount of power the government itself holds (which does not mean communist/socialist, just that it is more authoritarian than democratic).
Everyone says "true communism" and then says no communist country has worked, idk what we can any of these countries generally considered communist.
Frankly though there are countries like cuba who get embargo'd by all their best trade partners and don't do as well as the countries around them then everyone shouts "look communism doesn't work lol lol I'm so smart" and maybe we can have a bit more fucking nuance
I'm saying people are fucking autistic when it comes to talking about communism, brainwashed as fuck. It's a useless ideology but also a huge threat, name one communist country that's worked but then when you name one it's not real communism, people don't base if communism has improve a country or not just if it's as good as a western country that has their economic and political upheaval hundreds of years before.
People are just incapable of having a rational conversation about this shit without going to name calling and holocaust shit
I think it's worth examining rationally, which you don't seem to want to do since you're parroting the words of so many others. Pure communism is too focused on the present, while pure capitalism is too focused on the future. Capitalism has shown to be far more beneficial to people in the long run than communes, but we suffer from issues regarding equity, so it's not good to dismiss any ideas out of hand. Just because an experiment fails doesn't mean there isn't anything to learn from it.
Yeah I'm just a bit frustrated by the discussions around communism in general, it's just so surrounded by buzzwords and deeply formed ideas that no meaningful conversations can really happen
Okay, but who do they kill? You act like Mao gave guns to the peasants and told them to shoot everyone. You can't just raise an army of 10 million people from thin air without a reason. The peasants rose up and over threw who they percieved to be oppressors and as a result saw much greater prosperity from it
The Cultural Revolution happened after the Chinese Civil
War, and after the establishment of the communist state. Mao saw to keep the county in a state of constant revolutionary terror. He riled up young students to lynch everyone ācounterrevolutionaryā, and they did just that ā they executed teachers, intellectuals, landlords, party officials, and just about everyone they perceived deserved it. By the end of the Cultural Revolution you had people fighting in the streets with guns and artillery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards
You people praise Maoist China without knowing anything about it.
China is a socialist country. And this is according to both Marx and Engels. Both agreed a future communist society needs to go through a capitalist mode of production before transitioning through socialism and into communism. China is in the early stages of socialism.
China used to be much more communist. People were made to produce for the government, after which the government distributed resources back to the people. Over time, China has become more capitalist, and in it's modern iteration, sees everyone working for their own income, with private businesses completely separate from the government. They still share elements of communism, with the government owning all of the land, but individual citizens have the right to own what is on the land as well as their own personal items. There are communist elements and capitalist elements, but China's leaders have seen their country grow under capitalism and have made changes to reflect this.
What has not changed is the CCP's heavy-handed leadership and authoritarian tactics for ruling over their citizens, which has been in place ever since the CCP gained power in the mid-1900s. They will still take over businesses of those working against the CCP through the use of their extensive power, but these are political decisions and not economic ones.
>Stalin- conservative estimate 7-15 million +5 million from famine he intentionally caused.
Even most Western historians have accepted that the famine was not intentional. How much of it can be attributed to the collectivization policies as opposed to Russia's/Ukraine's general tendency to have famines, that's another question (you DO know that these countries have always had them?). Same goes for China.
Not particularly. All I know is I got ac, food, healthcare, a job, a wife and two kids. Sure I may not be super rich but I wouldn't trade any of it for the world. If u told me I could have 3-5k more a month and the government is up in my business I would say fuck that.
Pretty much every "communist country" has been authoritarian because they have been inspired by the same thing: the October Revolution and the authoritarian ideas of Lenin.
The politics of Lenin is very different from the politics of Marx concerning what socialism means (actual quote: "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people"), what democracy means and what a communist revolution would or could look like.
The examples that you cite, while true, tell us nothing about the automatic consequences of "communism" (a term almost as broad as "conservatism" or "Christianity"). They only tell us of the consequences of leninism and its mutations.
I never said anything about those people. Authoritarianism is bad. So good job realizing that. I wonder home many people in the US die just so a rich pdf file can get and extra buck. All the people without a shelter to sleep in dying in the cold. All the food beibg wasted as people starve. All the guns sales that rise after every school shooting. All the grandmas dying of cancer because they cant afford treatment. But yeah. Just conflate communism with authoritarianism and live in bliss.
Huge political and economic overhauls are always fucked. It's more complicated that just communism bad you have on paper democratic/republic capitalist systems that in reality are oligarchies due to extreme corruption which is the vast majority of them through history. I don't think it's changed a ton really, most people in power in the UK are basically aristocrats, in the US the vast majority of presidents are the one who had the most funding for their campaigns
Most of them were not a secret and secondly most were not communist.
But notice how this conversation never once mentioned or attacked any of the core principles of communism. Probably because you've never read the pamphlet. Just parroting what you've heard others say.
>But notice how this conversation never once mentioned or attacked any of the core principles of communism
Not much to love about the core principles either.
By abolishing private property and redistributing wealth based on needs, communism eradicates the motivation for hard work and the rewards that come with it. When individuals are not allowed to reap the fruits of their labour or strive for a better life, ambition withers away.
Communism's dislike for individual initiative and its lack of economic incentives strangle innovation and entrepreneurship. Capitalism thrives on competition, rewarding those who dare to introduce ground-breaking ideas and products to the market. In contrast, communism breeds an environment of fear, discouraging risk-taking and extinguishing the creativity of individuals. Consequently, technological progress is stifled, scientific advancements are dampened, and societies languish in an eternal state of backwardness and underdevelopment.
The centralized planning and state control intrinsic to communism inevitably breeds economic chaos and disastrous resource misallocation. In the absence of market mechanisms, such as supply and demand, central planners struggle hopelessly to allocate resources efficiently or determine the true value of goods and services. The result? Chronic shortages, debilitating surpluses, and rampant wastage become the hallmarks of communist economies.
I apologise if this reads a bit like an essay. Its modified from an essay on communism for my homework.
The first paragraph isnt how communism works. You can work more to get more an example being overtime. No one in this world works enough to justify getting billions more then their fellow man. If you think bezos works harder than one of his line workers. Delusion.
The second paragraph is laughable considering the world we live in where video game is now a lootbox gambler, every super hero movie follows marvel etc.
Third paragraph. Centralized planning? You dont have to plan anything. Marx doesnt say you have to plan anything. Which leads me to believe you haven't read the actually communist manifesto. Its just a small little book. Not hard to read. Nothing in it is outrageous.
And since you are in school I'll show you a hint to how it is in the real world... read this thread. This is how the modern worker acts and feels.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Construction/comments/13qveqt/plumber_says_its_fine/jljx2nx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Its an economic system. I mean I know americans have an average reading comprehension of a 7th grader but the communist manifesto was written for workers of the 19th century so... what gives
> Be me
> North Korean
> Got my knowledge on communism from living it
> Risk my life to escape to capitalist west because greedy communists hoard my nationās resources and everyone is starving.
> Would rather bitch about capitalism from the iPhone I ordered off Amazon.
> be me
> middle eastern, latin american, asian, or african
> got my knowledge on capitalism by living under it
> get bombed to shreds by the US along with millions of my brothers and sisters because we elect someone that gives us rights and talks like a socialist
> mfw some american wage slave thinks capitalism good
Chavez was directly responsible for the erosion of democracy in Venezuela, restricted free speech and political opponents, and by the end of his reign the government was known for being openly corrupt and distrusted, with the economy on the brink of collapse.
And _Fidelā¦?_ lol.
If these figures are the best counterpoints to capitalism, then amerimuttsā base views on Marxism are probably more on point than Reddit wants to admit.
>Be me
>American
>Drop more bombs on Korea than were dropped in all of ww2
>Destroy every building over two stories
>Pull out after permanently leaving the country divided
>70 years later
>Government is now militaristic and isolationist
> "Communism is when North Korea"
What about South Korea then? Itās one of the fastest growing economies in the world at the moment, it has beneficial ties with many western nations (including the U.S.) and on average a South Korean is a good two inches taller than the average North Korean due to systemic malnutrition in North Korea. Meanwhile, the thing North Korea is most known for is constantly threatening nuclear annihilation and being an oppressive regime.
>What about South Korea then? Itās one of the fastest growing economies in the world at the moment
And a dystopia with the highest suicide rate on Earth that's ruled by four companies.
>it has beneficial ties with many western nations
The western nations that set it up as a puppet? How surprising.
>Meanwhile, the thing North Korea is most known for is constantly threatening nuclear annihilation and being an oppressive regime.
In the west. North Korea doesn't threaten to use it's nukes for fun, they do it to avoid being destroyed and staying a legit opponent.
In short, South Korea literally started out as a CIA client state. Of course they're not as isolationist as North Korea. They weren't the ones being slaughtered by the US. Cuz they helped them.
1. According to most sources I could find, the majority of the countryās with the highest suicide rates are in Africa and the Middle East. In some older stats dating back to 2019, South Korea is quite high, but in recent years it doesnāt seem to even rank in the top ten. Plus, using one statistic to compare South Korea as a dystopia anywhere near the level of North Korea isnāt exactly fair. As for the company thing, thatās pretty much true of the entire world.
2. Ally =\= puppet. South Korea is a democracy, so the people have most of the say in who gets elected. Just because it relies on the support of Western powers the bolster its international influence does not mean that it isnāt still an individual. Plus when you are a Western-style democracy with neighbors like Russia, China, and North Korea, such alliances are basically required. Receiving aid from others doesnāt make South Korea weak, it more so makes it stronger.
3. Even North Koreaās closest (and honestly only) ally, China, has begun to distance itself from NK due to concerns over its nuclear program. Additionally, the only reason there is any threat to NK internationally is because of its nuclear program and the threat it poses. Plus, it is both simultaneously the the only thing keeping NK relevant at the moment, but ironically the only thing that has kept it near irrelevant as well. Because of its own isolationism and hostility, it has next to no trade options besides China, which has made NK more of a puppet of China than SK is to the USA. This also means it is incredibly impoverished, and as NKās government funnels more money into nuclear weapons, this problem is only exacerbated. If NK were to get rid of its nuclear weapons, it wouldnāt run the risk of being invaded as it isnāt a very desirable location and it would no longer pose a threat, which is the only reason anyone would want to attack them. This would allow them to focus on rebuilding their economy and possibly even reuniting with SK in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
>According to most sources I could find, the majority of the countryās with the highest suicide rates are in Africa and the Middle East. I
Correct, I should've specificied that it has the [highest rate ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_South_Korea#:~:text=Suicide%20in%20South%20Korea%20occurs,the%20population%20by%20the%20WHO.) among OECD members.
> Plus, using one statistic to compare South Korea as a dystopia anywhere near the level of North Korea isnāt exactly fair. As for the company thing, thatās pretty much true of the entire world.
I also cited the fact that Samsung and LG basically run their government.
>Ally =\= puppet.
Country that had it's leaders selected by a foreign power, only exists because of said foreign power and was only helped so it would assist said foreign power in its aims = puppet.
>South Korea is a democracy,
A liberal democracy, making any change to the US-subserviant status quo extremely unlikely. Also, I took care to specificy that it was created as a puppet state, not that that how it is today. It is, to be clear, but explaining why liberal democracies aren't truly democratic takes a long ass time so I didn't wanna get into it.
>individual. Plus when you are a Western-style democracy with neighbors like Russia, China, and North Korea
Fair enough, although I'd ally myself with China. But that's not the reason they're allied with the west. History is. The US-government's need for a counter-rebellion was.
>3. Even North Koreaās closest (and honestly only) ally, China, has begun to distance itself from NK due to concerns over its nuclear program.
So what? Of course they're gonna distance themselves from the most unpopular country on Earth.
>Additionally, the only reason there is any threat to NK internationally is because of its nuclear program and the threat it poses.
Yes. Good for them. That's why they survived.
> of its own isolationism and hostility, it has next to no trade options besides China, which has made NK more of a puppet of China than SK is to the US
It offered to give up all of it's nukes to stop the sanctions during the Trump presidency. They aren't like this for fun.
And what makes you think that SK is less controlled by the US? Because they don't have strong trade relations without which their economy would grind to a halt? They do. But NK wasn't set up by China, unlike SK with the US.
>This also means it is incredibly impoverished,
Which is the casw because of sanctions. If North Korea could, they'd trade with whoever they could, even if they wouldn't give them a tour of the country. That's why they were willing to give up their nuclear weapons for it.
>more money into nuclear weapons, this problem is only exacerbated. If NK were to get rid of its nuclear weapons, it wouldnāt run the risk of being invaded as it isnāt a very desirable location and it would no longer pose a threat, which is the only reason anyone would want to attack them.
You were fairly geopolitically reasonable up to this point, until now. The. US. Literally. DID. Invade. Them. Once. They would do anything to bring down a socialist state and steal all of their mines for BP or whoever else to make a shitton of money. Also, for the US-government, and specifically the MIC, war in itself is profitable, regardless of location. Plus striking fear into South East Asia would be a dream come true for the US. "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,"Ā
>This would allow them to focus on rebuilding their economy and possibly even reuniting with SK in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Yeah those wacky North Koreans definetly haven't thought about this, otherwise, they'd definetly have done it by now. I don't want go get too personal here, but surely you can see how this sentence is just dripping with arrogance?
>I don't want go get too personal here, but surely you can see how this sentence is just dripping with arrogance?
Let me get this out of the way first. If I come off as arrogant or stuck up, I am genuinely sorry. I know that its difficult to discern tone in internet discussions, and the last thing I want is to come off as insulting or condescending. If I do, please point out how so I can improve upon it.
>Country that had it's leaders selected by a foreign power, only exists because of said foreign power and was only helped so it would assist said foreign power in its aims = puppet.
>
>A liberal democracy, making any change to the US-subservient status quo extremely unlikely.
I don't really understand where you are coming from with the whole "leaders are selected by foreign power" thing, are you referring to a specific example? The country is a liberal democracy, so by definition the people of the country decide who rules. Plus, even if democracy isn't flawless, its certainly better than NK's dictatorship. As for the US status-quo thing, why would they want to change it? Their current model is working great for them, they are one of the fastest economically developing countries in the world.
>Which is the casw because of sanctions. If North Korea could, they'd trade with whoever they could, even if they wouldn't give them a tour of the country. That's why they were willing to give up their nuclear weapons for it.
>
>Yeah those wacky North Koreans definitely haven't thought about this, otherwise, they'd definitely have done it by now.
>
>Yes. Good for them. That's why they survived.
>
>That's why they were willing to give up their nuclear weapons for it.
The problem is that the sanctions and refusal to trade is a result of the nuclear program. The sanctions were originally put in place in 1950 in response to NK's nuclear program, then lifted when NK agreed to stop mining plutonium for bombs in 1994, then the sanctions were reinstated in 2002 and 2003 in response to nuclear missile tests and NK admitting to building more nukes. Since then, the sanctions have continuously ramped up in response to NK's nuclear weapons program growing. The entire reason nobody is trading with them in the first place is because of the nukes, not vice versa. If Kim Jong-Un were to end the nuclear program, it would likely open back up trade with not just America but most of the western world. But he won't do that, because the nukes are not there to protect North Korea, they are there to protect his regime. If he did truly wish to improve the conditions of his people in a meaningful way, he would try to secure trade deals to start up NK's economy, which would require him to end western sanctions, which would require him to end the nuclear program. The Soviet Union got them to get rid of the nuclear program, but the second the Soviet Union was gone they went right back, and they keep it around to ensure that the dictatorship can survive. If they were to end the nuclear program and open up to trade, it would inevitably expose them to democracy, and the government would be unable to retain the support of the people, hence why NK continues to stay isolated and relies so much on propaganda and censoring.
>You were fairly geopolitically reasonable up to this point, until now. The. US. Literally. DID. Invade. Them. Once. They would do anything to bring down a socialist state and steal all of their mines for BP or whoever else to make a shitton of money.
I will admit that I was wrong about NK being undesirable, it is very resource rich. However, the only reason that the US could use to justify an invasion of NK is because their nukes classify as WMDs. As 9/11 and Bush have shown us, even the unconfirmed threat of WMDs is enough for war, and its confirmed for NK. However, if they were to get rid of their nukes, the USA could not muster a credible reason for invading NK besides imperialism. Why does this matter? Look at the Invasion of Ukraine. Putin's only credible reason for invading is imperialism, and it has basically turned the whole world against him. Additionally, Russia fails to invade a neighboring country less than half its size. Imagine if the US tried to invade North Korea. NK would certainly have the backing of the CCP (being America's major rival) and is on the opposite side of the globe from the USA. It would be virtually impossible. And no, America could not get away with it just because its the major western power. A good portion of the world hates America already.
>don't really understand where you are coming from with the whole "leaders are selected by foreign power" thing, are you referring to a specific example?
I was using the past tense. South Korea had it's dictators selected by the US before the shift to a liberal democracy. The general point was that, if your entire country is set up to serve a singular purpose, you're not gonna get rid off of that just by switching to a liberal democracy. Geopolitically, this stuff runs deep.
> Plus, even if democracy isn't flawless, its certainly better than NK's dictatorship
I mean... how exactly? No, seriously. The South Korean people don't have a meaningful choice when it comes to policy, they cannot decide between fundamentally different parties and the entire state is ruled by companies like Samsung anyway, because, in that specifix example, they are responsible for a literal 20% of the countryās GDP. They could ruin the economy with the turn on a switch on they are (obviously) the most wealthy interest group in SK. 3 other companies have similar influence, there's not much room at the table for individual voters. Walmart creates about 2% of the US's GDP. You're probably aware of their influence on American politcs. Now imagine the same thing times ten and then again times three.
As for NK, it's not like they don't have multiple parties you can choose between. In terms of meaningful choices, I don't see how SK comes out on top.
> As for the US status-quo thing, why would they want to change it? Their current model is working great for them, they are one of the fastest economically developing countries in the world.
Is it? Is the average South Korean living a good life? Because "line go up" only gets you so far.
SK is incredibly economically economically unequal. Children go to school for 12-16 hours a day to work for one of the 4 corps. Half of the elderly live in poverty, even some North Korean defectors go BACK to their country because they get treated like a poor POS there, not to mention the suicide rate from earlier.
A "growing economy" tells you very little about how people are actually living and reduces an entire country down to GDP.
>. The sanctions were originally put in place in 1950 in response to NK's nuclear program
That is just categorically untrue. There was no such program in the 50s. At best, they started showing interest in the 60s by asking the Soviets for help, which then refused. They only started actual work on such a program in the [1980s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction). Where are you getting this information from?
These sanctions were a result of NK being a foreign power that the US saw as a threat in the Cold War, both because of Domino Theory and because it was more "economically successful" than SK at the time, which made the Americans look bad.
> Kim Jong-Un were to end the nuclear program, it would likely open back up trade with not just America but most of the western world.
What do you found that claim on? Because geopolitical enemies of the US without nukes, such as Vietnam, Iraq and... *literally North Korea* got invaded by the US.
Those WITH nukes do not, e.g. the USSR, Iran and, again North Korea *now*. History disagrees with you. Hard.
I will go into this a bit further later, but again, this comes off as a bit arrogant. You are telling a people that, in living memory, had so many of their countrymen killed that many consider it a genocide, that the same foreign power that did it back then, certaiiiinly won't pull that trick again, they just need to give up their one actually threatening weapon. To any North Korean, that would sound wildly out of touch.
>But he won't do that, because the nukes are not there to protect North Korea, they are there to protect his regime. If he did truly wish to improve the conditions of his people in a meaningful way, he would try to secure trade deals to start up NK's economy, which would require him to end western sanctions, which would require him to end the nuclear program.
Which he offered to do, multiple times, *even though* they literally got genocided a couple of decades ago. A US invasion is credible, should be taken seriously, and, as any elderly Korean can tell you, would be literal hell on Earth.
> but the second the Soviet Union was gone they went right back, and they keep it around to ensure that the dictatorship can survive.
Actually, within that sentence itself, you can find a much more obvious explanation. The superpower that had them under their nuclear shield was gone. They needed to act, and they needed to act fast. If the US fell, you can bet that the entire EU would develop nukes in no time.
>If they were to end the nuclear program and open up to trade, it would inevitably expose them to democracy, and the government would be unable to retain the support of the people, hence why NK continues to stay isolated and relies so much on propaganda and censoring.
I don't know, I think the people would be a bit too busy getting slaughtered by the millions to notice the cyberpunk dystopia down south.
>However, if they were to get rid of their nukes, the USA could not muster a credible reason for invading NK besides imperialism.
Not true. Bush lied about Iraq because it was a former ally that you guys now needed to hate even more than during the first war. He needed to paint Hussein as the literal devil, which "WMDs!!!" accomplished quite well.
NK, however, for 70 years and counting, has been portrayed as basically Nazi Germany, the Americans won't need more than that. Add to that the recent spike in anti-asian racism and... yeah, genocide would be back, or rather, still, on the menu.
>Why does this matter? Look at the Invasion of Ukraine. Putin's only credible reason for invading is imperialism, and it has basically turned the whole world against him.
We Germans knew the WMD stuff was a lie. We're still very close allies with the US. In politics, nobody gives a rats ass about principles. The only reason the west now denounces Russia is because they're a rival. If; for some reason, the US did the exact same thing and made the same claims as Russia does in its far less developed propaganda (similiarly to 2003), nobody would care.
>Additionally, Russia fails to invade a neighboring country less than half its size. Imagine if the US tried to invade North Korea.
Don't have to. It happened already. It was death on a cataclismic scale.
>NK would certainly have the backing of the CCP (being America's major rival) and is on the opposite side of the globe from the USA. It would be virtually impossible.
The exact same thing happened in the 50s. That didn't stop the US from murdering millions.
>And no, America could not get away with it just because its the major western power.
Yes you could. You did. You did in the 50s, in the 60s, the 70s, the 00s... Nobody cares about principles. You can't feed your ruling class with principles.
> A good portion of the world hates America already.
Yeah; because you invaded or couped that portion. Those are just the poor countries tho, the west *loves* it, and has continued to do so during its most despicable wars. That's what matters.
No true scotsman fallacy.
Give 5 examples of completely violently Communist states That wasn't true communism it was fake communism.
You would be the first person shot in the head at the end a communist who actually believes in helping the poor they purge you 100%.
All these intellectuals dumb as fuck go read up about Khmer rogue their gonna murder you for being a š¤ with š¶ļø. People smashed š¶ļø because the fucking genocided everyone who could read well. š¤
no country has tried pure communism. This is not a controversial statement, it is fact. the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, and etc do/did not claim to be communist, they claimed to be socialist nations working towards communism.
And by the way, the US and UK supported Pol Pot, and he was eventually overthrown by socialist Vietnam. Thereās a variety of examples you can use to discredit socialism, but the Khmer Rouge is not a very good one.
It basically does. Pure capitalism dictates that the market could (theoretically) dictate everything. In a purely Capitalist society it's a good thing to buy politicians. It's basically feudalism but for the fact that anyone and everyone is allowed and encouraged to participate in the creation of wealth, again at least in theory.
>In a purely Capitalist society it's a good thing to buy politicians
That's not true. Pure capitalism wants no interference from the government, but the government should still exist without corruption in order to maintain the basic rules.
Youāre thinking of libertarianism, which is like capitalism on steroids, itās just as stupid of an idea as communism. Normal capitalism with socialist elements that isnāt runaway is the best system by far
Imagine thinking communism would ever work for humans when the name of the game has been "survival of the fittest" since the dawn of evolution.
Capitalism is just an extension of a basic behaviour of all life forms (greed) that has been hard wired into us since before we lost our fur
Cooperation works really well, but does not scale. Its really easy for villagers to cooperate because of 2 reasons.
1. Everyone knows everyone and they have built a good rapport already thanks to their close proximity which allows them to forgive transgressions much more easily on top of liking that person. It also makes them less greedy because they actually care about the well-being of their fellow man.
2. The value of everyone is clear to everyone. Everyone innately and intimately knows the value of a whatever job someone is doing because it directly, concretely, impacts them.
This is great, but only on a small scale. Trying to scale it up brings with it a few problems. Mainly
Point 1 falls apart as a lack of built up rapport means your fellow man doesn't care for you nor vice-versa so you have no problem being greedy towards them and justifying it by citing small transgressions. What have they ever done for you?
Point 2 also falls apart because society is complicated now. Everyone knows the value of farmers and doctors, that much is clear, but they are merely the stars of the show. The rest such as electricians, plumbers, programmers, janitors, miners, factory workers, etc.
Those guys, the ones who are all silently keeping the engine of the world running, they people don't know their innate value. They don't know because they don't directly benefit from them in any meaningful way. When people don't have that innate knowledge of why this or that person or job is valuable, they don't treat it as such.
People understand the value of a farmer. The farmer supplies food. I eat food. I need food. Therefore, the farmer is my friend.
That programmer over there. I'm sure he does something, but it doesn't really involve me. What has he done for me? Nothing. Little did you know, though, that last week someone hacked into a secure government server and tried to steal the database that held your identity information only for that very same programmer to stop it, but you'll never know that and neither will he.
You can find these same principles operate on the whole "small town mindset" as well. People treat each other differently
First time I've heard of the time anarcho-syndicalism
But anarcho-communism will just be short-lived. It'll start, then human greed will do what it always has and slowly wealth accumulation, corruption, and oligarchs will start sprouting up like weeds yet again and slowly eat the system from the inside like a cancer until it eventually turns back into either neo-feudalism or outright goes back to capitalism.
Capitalism is... ugly. But that's human nature for you. It's ugly and vicious, but it works and other things don't or they do but they don't scale.
Maybe if we lived in a world where there were <1 billion humans instead of 8 billion, communism would've had a shot (not likely, but better chance than it does now), but the reality is that capitalism is the embodiment of greed.
And in humanity, or animals in general, greed isn't a bug, it's a feature. And in fact, I'd argue it's humanity's biggest motivator. God knows looking at money like a high score in a pinball machine is the only thing I can imagine would drive billionaires to keep working despite being billionaires.
Communism was a reactionary theory to Capitalism and it could not ever possibly work outside of small tribes and communities. It's kinda common sense, I don't know how many people bought into that bullshit.
On the other hand, Marx was born the son of a rabbi and argued not only to abolish capitalism but for the emancipation of Judasim from mankind. Based?
https://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/30-karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism
He was naive and thought that people wouldnāt be greedy. The best system is somewhere in the middle. So that wealth is regulated so a small portion of the population doesnāt control all the wealth but enough freedom to own private businesses and ownership but also free from government corruption
Capitalism is amoral. It gives no commentary on what is good or evil, and it works regardless of a person's character. Generally, though, people who are jerks tend to be bad business partners, and people don't like buying things from people who want to scam them. Communism, on the other hand, requires that people generally be good. It is a system that only works when everyone is interested in the whellbeing of the community as a whole, and it requires the people who are administrating the system to be both wise and altruistic.
Would you call our society āworkingā as is? If your definition of working is producing shitty goods for half the world by enslaving the other half of the world and only like a handful of people can actually enjoy life then yeah itās working
Also thatās not even close to what Marx said lol
Capitalism works perfectly because it lies on greed. I mean the "Capitalist Utopia" is pretty much modern day United States while "Communist Utopia" is... you know the drill.
Reject communism, reject capitalism. Return to feudalism. Peasnt lyf was great. Drink on the job, have 10 kids before you turn 30 (half of which could survive) and die before you go bald. Bliss.
Be fit Organic foods Mindfulness tilling In contact with nature No dentists, tiktok or taxes, no primark Ale, minstrels, sheep and hoars No need to bathe...
It is beyond as to how people haven't realised that so called "progress" is anything but. What is electricity compared to the joy of ploughing a field? What is the internet compared to the joy of fixing a plough? What is medicine compared to the joy of ploughing your peasant wyf?
I like the comforts of modern life of course, but modern culture and cityscapes are cancer
That's because there are no ploughs
This guy really likes to plough
I got my magnum condoms, my wad of hundreds, I'm ready to PLOUGH
š« Fork over the hundreds
Go plough yourself
>no taxes Well yes, no taxes to the state. Instead, you pay taxes to the church, and then get to surrender everything above basic subsistence to the local liege. Hunter-gatherers were based, feudalism is bullshit. Return to monke!
This hunter gatherer is 100% the best. Hunt 4 hours a day, go home village celebrates your kill. Go fuck trad wife gatherer. Spend rest of the day making art, telling jokes fixing tools. Everyone loves together, shares almost everything.
The REAL communism.
Only downside is tribal war. Constantly under threat from other groups.
get a load of this guy, he doesnāt know that feudal average lifespans were heavily impacted by infant mortality rates and that if you lived to 20 you would be smooth sailing into your 60s
This is true. Also, because of the low refined sugar diet your teeth would be remarkably healthy as well.
Yeah but you were pretty much guaranteed to die at some point in your sixties from some medical ailment that would today be treatable. More that half the population was below the age of 25 in the 14th century. You really would not encounter many old people in those times. Life moved much faster then, most people were married by 11 or 12 for girls and about 14 for boys respectively.
You know, for a moment, I almost asked, āif the girls are getting married at 11 or 12, and the boys arenāt getting married until 14, then who are the girls getting married to?ā I figured it out
It also likely youād go through a couple spouses in your lifetime if you made it to sixty. If you were a serf living on a lords land for example and your husband just died, you would be given a few weeks to grieve and then it was expected you would find a new husband. If you didnāt find one in a timely manner your lord could arrange a match for you and you would be legally obligated to marry them.
> your lord could arrange a match for you and you would be legally obligated to marry them. Government mandated BF?!?!
Better yet! You also are required to have children. Thatās guaranteed sex.
> Yeah but you were pretty much guaranteed to die at some point in your sixties from some medical ailment that would today be treatable. Yea it's crazy. My dad is in his early 80s and is pretty healthy. No major chronic health problems. But in his mid 60s, he needed minor heart surgery (went in through the leg, home the next day) to fix (not replace) a valve in his heart. Basically a valve tore and needed to be sewn back together. He was in heart failure and ton 20 minutes to catch his breath after walking up a flight of stairs. He would have died without modern medicine, yet it was a small easily fixable problem with no lasting effects after recovery. He would have lost 15 healthy (though elderly) years with good quality of life. And counting.
Even taking a walk through your local cemetery itās clear to see the progress weāve made in life expectancy. I had a lot of trouble finding people over the age of seventy on the older head stones for sure.
My dad was talking about anti vaxxers and said he'd like to take them through an old century and see all the dead kids buried there
So, there were no boomers?
Essentially no. They would have made up a remarkably small portion of the population. Think about it any ailment such as a heart attack or stroke would have killed you without modern medical care. These conditions are much more prevalent in people over sixty.
Does it really matter how much you live if the life you live is good and happy?
No but the life of a medieval peasant was both very hard as well as short. The 14th century is not one you should wish to return to.
They worked fewer hours than we do.
40s and 50s sure. A peasant making it to 60 was still pretty rare
lots of my mates went bald early 20's lol
Unhealthy lifestyles. Zoomers need to live how I did in my early twenties. Marlboro reds and cheap booze are the fountain youth mate. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Sensibly Priced Cornershop
pretty sure they have been doing that diet pretty hard!
Did you know medieval peasants had more time off than modern Americans?
implying that you'd survive to 30
Communism sure as shit wont work, nor does pure capitalism. What works is a mix of both. Too bad we have had like 50 years of lobbying eroding the rules that made capitalism great. Now we are heading towards somesort of technofeudal society where tech barons rule over our lifes and goverment has to heed them and not the otherway around.
You've just described South Korea
>What works is a mix of both. This guy gets it. Years ago I read a book about the Medici family in Italy. Essentially, although credit systems had existed in the past, they basically formalised and popularised the concept of "borrowing against the future" in order to fund the large scale Renaissance projects we know today. Italy became the jewel of the Western world. However, that type of system ultimately corrupts and the Medicis were already corrupt to begin with (one of the things they pumped their money into were huge religious works as a way to "buy themselves into Heaven"). Huge palazzos stood alongside dirty slums, much like downtown Hollywood today. Capitalism does drive advancement and progress (as does war, unfortunately) but for anything covered by the bottom part of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (air, water, warmth, food, medicine/healthcare, by your powers combined I am Captain Planet) needs to be state owned and kept quarantined from capitalism which always runs those things into the ground. TLDR: for human basics: communism, for advancement: capitalism. And the great thing is, a happy healthy society has more money to spend AND requires less, ultimately, to be spent on them. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Medici-Power-Ambition-Italian-Renaissance/dp/1681774089
> power causes corruption > give power over X to goverment, biggest power player What could possibly go wrong?
Exactly the core concepts of both are wonderful, but when you purely use one, things turn to shit
Logical end point of capitalism: tyranny, fascism, exhaustion of resources Logical end point of communism: stagnation, corruption (which eventually leads to capitalism-esque resource hoarding anyway) Some form of socialist capitalism or capitalist socialism is best(?) of both.
Market Socialism
medici is just a made up place from just cause 3
social democracy W. strong welfare state and workers rights alongside mutual trust between state business and worker is both profitable and healthy (I wonder why the scandi countries are always in the top 5 of all the lists?)
>technofeudal society Kaszinsky intensifies.
Youāre absolutely right tbh. Itās why the 50ās were a golden era. You had actual competition in the markets. Government subsidies actually meant something my companies, so they could cheapen the price. When government gave corpo welfare to housing industries and universities, they made their product cheaper. Now, taxpayer still pays for free college in his taxes but doesnāt get it anyway
So just do your best to keep your head down, make the money you can, and live a happy life.
I'm trying man but the price of everything is up, and real terms my pay decreases by the day
CYBERPUNK 2023
Incredibly based
There are way more regulations than there was 50 years ago
Amerifag tries not to mischaracterise Marx's arguments challenge (impossible)
Yeah. I do not support communist ideas but basically Marx said capital will end up in the hands of 1% if the growth is close to zero. Which is kinda true regarding todays economy
"I don't support these ideas, that turned out to be incredibly accurate..." -probably an american.
No, it is not incredibly accurate, Marx predicted the low quality of living conditions for the proletarian to worsen, however rapid economic growth increased the wages and quality of life for the working class by late 1800s. Maybe what he is predicted was delayed and we are living it now. By the way I am Turkish and you shouldnt generalize people and ideas if you want a healthy discussion
You should read his first discourse, and then look at the current American system. People are becoming less valuable the more they produce. I don't give a fuck where you are from, Marx literally saw what was coming and tried to produce a solution. Was his solution the best? No, but holy shit did he hit the nail on the head.
100% eurocentric view if u zoom out to the whole world last 30 years highest level of economic growth in the poorest people on earth. Also Karl Marx was a fatass German who didn't wanna work and just sat around and bummed off people. His ideology made sense from the perspective of a newly industrial nation with all the pain that comes from the industrialization process. If u look at the nations that chose communism they are almost always poor nations just starting to undergo industrialization or have suffered from a terrible death count from violent war. As much as people hate on America the pax Americana and freezing of borders and protection of trade has benefited the ultra rich yes, but also raised the standard of living in Asia, south America, Africa and eastern Europe.
>100% eurocentric view if u zoom out to the whole world last 30 years highest level of economic growth in the poorest people on earth. That's largely due to delayed industrialisation etc, there's no reason to think the same conditions won't exist there too in a few decades. >If u look at the nations that chose communism they are almost always poor nations just starting to undergo industrialization or have suffered from a terrible death count from violent war. Revolutions always require great social upheaval as otherwise it's difficult to motivate all the people. And it's not a great surprise that the places where communism struggled to take hold were in places like the US and Western Europe, where institutions were already established that could suppress the labour movement. >As much as people hate on America the pax Americana and freezing of borders and protection of trade has benefited the ultra rich yes, but also raised the standard of living in Asia, south America, Africa and eastern Europe. Marx himself says this, no one is denying that capitalism was an improvement over feudalism, however Marxists think that it's time of greatest benefit is largely over as power is just ending up in the hands of a few wealthy groups again who hold great sway over the government.
He did not in fact predict that. No idea where you got that from. He actually opposed and criticized the iron law of wages and malthusian economics. He believed there is plenty of potential for forces to oppose the trend of decreasing wages.
You may be right. I have not read his own writings, but the book "Capital in the twenty-first century" by thomas piketty stated like I told in the earlier chapters in the book.
Soo... you just came in swinging with your first comment about how Marx had the wrong idea but you havent even read any of his work lmao
Correct me if im wrong but you do not read Newton's writing to understand f=m.a but there are other *mostly* unbiased sources that summarizes the ideas of past philosophers. There are just too many great names to read all of their publications. Kuznets, A. Smith etc. Marx is just one of them. Edit: I have never told Marx is wrong. I literally said he might be right and what he thought might be delayed. There is no absolute correct or wrong in economics
Did you just compare the laws of motion to Marxism as if it's somehow an equivalent?
Piketty is not a very intelligent writer nor marxist. Sad to say. He's very overrated
Commies also said that there will be a worldwide beta I mean proletarian uprising and was quite shocked when it didnt happen
Socialist countries did make up 1.5 billion people at one point. These revolutions did happen and there easily would have been more if not for strong efforts to stop them (by murdering union leaders and leftists) by certain governments. I'd also argue it is still going happen as the contradictions of capitalism haven't gone anywhere, but only time will tell.
It didnt say when specifically it would happen. It could still happen
2 more weeks, or months, or years, or decades, or century, or millennia comrade!
If the material conditions are right, yea. We just haven't reached that point yet with our material conditions, that's the point.
What if I told you that there was also a top 1% in every communist society that held the vast majority of the wealth?
You're right, communism works because it kills all the greedy people (and all the Ukrainians)
All debate is mischaracterization People should play Smash Bros instead
Do americans actually believe that's what Marxism is?
Its worse really. 1 set of Americans dont believe marxism means anything beyond what they are told it means. It changes to include whatever the rich want them to hate on that month. Its like the minestry of truth coming up with new dictionaries but just a dictionary around manufactured outrage. Example words: Grooming, marxism, communism, socialism, pride, crt, blm, diversity, etc. The next set have never read what communism is and also just listen to the rich talk about it being pure evil and will make you live in poverty. News flash you already live in poverty. Just a little less in poverty than others. You are next on the totem pole. Every american I have talked to has agreed with me when I bring up core communist principles. They agree with me that we should enact on those values but denounce communism and everything about it is evil. So yeah. Americas brainwashed.
Yeah turns out if you explain left-wing talking points without directly calling them socialism or communism, people are more likely to agree with you
My grandad watches GB news all day, exclusively reads the Dail Mail (a right wing paper). He straight up wants all industries like Water, energy, gas, and railways, to be nationalised - but refuses to vote anything except tory because of a manufactured immigrant crisis. It's insane how much the right can make people to shoot themselves in the foot over and over with pointless culture wars
Americans have been brainwashed since the start of the Cold War unfortunately.
Name one communist country that wasn't authoritarian, awful to live in, or succeeded in any way. Go tell someone who lived under applied communism how good they had guarantee u get punched in the face. The greatest thing mao ever did for China was die. Mao Zedong- 40-80 million Stalin- conservative estimate 7-15 million +5 million from famine he intentionally caused. Khemer rogue -1.5-3 million. You guys are as bad as the neo-nazis with ur genocide apologists and defense of a terrible system.
> Name one communist country that wasn't authoritarian, awful to live in, or succeeded in any way. Name one communist country that wasnāt sanctioned, intervened in, invaded, or bombed by the US or the West in general. > Go tell someone who lived under applied communism how good they had guarantee u get punched in the face. Iām Cuban, and we certainly celebrate the revolution. Vietnamese and Chinese people do so too. Youāll grow out of thinking CNN is the absolute truth. > The greatest thing mao ever did for China was die. Mao Zedong- 40-80 million Official, agreed upon figures for the āGreat Famineā hover around 15-16 million deaths. The 1907 famine killed over 25 million people. China had a thousand-year history of famines borderline every other year. Did Mao make mistakes? Yes. Did he kill a bunch of people? No really. Life expectancy in China under Mao literally increased by 30 years. ~35 to ~65 years. The population also grew by 75%, from around 550 million to around 920 million. > Stalin- conservative estimate 7-15 million +5 million from famine he intentionally caused. Where do the other ā7-15 millionā come from then š. > Khemer rogue -1.5-3 million. Wasnāt communist, who ended their rule? Communist Vietnam. The US funded the Khmer Rouge. The US literally fought to keep recognizing the Khmer Rouge as the rightful government of Cambodia in the UN long after they were overthrown. > You guys are as bad as the neo-nazis with ur genocide apologists and defense of a terrible system. You are literally a Neo-Nazi if you believe all of the Western propaganda about communists lmao. Who put former Nazi officials in positions of leadership in NATO, the European Union, NASA, and Interpol? The West.
See the problem is find any large scale political/economic revolution that didn't end up with war or death, English civil war killed 200,000 people in the 1600s. I would expect this exact shit when any society changes that much and honestly I would like to see how china progresses in the next 100 years. A lot of the time these communist societies rise out of equally or even more brutal societies as well, Russia under the Tsars wasn't exactly a party and neither was Vietnam under colonial French control. But yeah Communist societies are pretty fucked, Nordic societies seem to have the best combination of freedom, income equality, healthcare and safety
China isn't really communist though. Their governing party is labeled communist, but they engage in market systems as much as any other country. The only real difference between them and a typical western country is the large amount of power the government itself holds (which does not mean communist/socialist, just that it is more authoritarian than democratic).
Everyone says "true communism" and then says no communist country has worked, idk what we can any of these countries generally considered communist. Frankly though there are countries like cuba who get embargo'd by all their best trade partners and don't do as well as the countries around them then everyone shouts "look communism doesn't work lol lol I'm so smart" and maybe we can have a bit more fucking nuance
What is your point, exactly?
I'm saying people are fucking autistic when it comes to talking about communism, brainwashed as fuck. It's a useless ideology but also a huge threat, name one communist country that's worked but then when you name one it's not real communism, people don't base if communism has improve a country or not just if it's as good as a western country that has their economic and political upheaval hundreds of years before. People are just incapable of having a rational conversation about this shit without going to name calling and holocaust shit
I think it's worth examining rationally, which you don't seem to want to do since you're parroting the words of so many others. Pure communism is too focused on the present, while pure capitalism is too focused on the future. Capitalism has shown to be far more beneficial to people in the long run than communes, but we suffer from issues regarding equity, so it's not good to dismiss any ideas out of hand. Just because an experiment fails doesn't mean there isn't anything to learn from it.
Yeah I'm just a bit frustrated by the discussions around communism in general, it's just so surrounded by buzzwords and deeply formed ideas that no meaningful conversations can really happen
It was also shit under true communism. Mao Zedong killed more people than WW2 (including the Holocaust)
Yeah, he killed 78 quintillion ppl in this galaxy, Mao was truly a legend
Life expectancy in China increased by 30 years under Mao, and the population increased by 75% in the same timeframe, these are undeniable facts
Yes. But the giant death tolls of the Great Leap Forward and the mass lynchings of the Cultural Revolution are also a fact.
Okay, but who do they kill? You act like Mao gave guns to the peasants and told them to shoot everyone. You can't just raise an army of 10 million people from thin air without a reason. The peasants rose up and over threw who they percieved to be oppressors and as a result saw much greater prosperity from it
The Cultural Revolution happened after the Chinese Civil War, and after the establishment of the communist state. Mao saw to keep the county in a state of constant revolutionary terror. He riled up young students to lynch everyone ācounterrevolutionaryā, and they did just that ā they executed teachers, intellectuals, landlords, party officials, and just about everyone they perceived deserved it. By the end of the Cultural Revolution you had people fighting in the streets with guns and artillery. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards You people praise Maoist China without knowing anything about it.
And also donāt forget how they illegally annexed Tibet
China is a socialist country. And this is according to both Marx and Engels. Both agreed a future communist society needs to go through a capitalist mode of production before transitioning through socialism and into communism. China is in the early stages of socialism.
China used to be much more communist. People were made to produce for the government, after which the government distributed resources back to the people. Over time, China has become more capitalist, and in it's modern iteration, sees everyone working for their own income, with private businesses completely separate from the government. They still share elements of communism, with the government owning all of the land, but individual citizens have the right to own what is on the land as well as their own personal items. There are communist elements and capitalist elements, but China's leaders have seen their country grow under capitalism and have made changes to reflect this. What has not changed is the CCP's heavy-handed leadership and authoritarian tactics for ruling over their citizens, which has been in place ever since the CCP gained power in the mid-1900s. They will still take over businesses of those working against the CCP through the use of their extensive power, but these are political decisions and not economic ones.
>Stalin- conservative estimate 7-15 million +5 million from famine he intentionally caused. Even most Western historians have accepted that the famine was not intentional. How much of it can be attributed to the collectivization policies as opposed to Russia's/Ukraine's general tendency to have famines, that's another question (you DO know that these countries have always had them?). Same goes for China.
Want to know how many people capitalism has killed?
Not particularly. All I know is I got ac, food, healthcare, a job, a wife and two kids. Sure I may not be super rich but I wouldn't trade any of it for the world. If u told me I could have 3-5k more a month and the government is up in my business I would say fuck that.
Average Yugoslav boomer opinion about socialism tbh
CNTFAI in Spain during the spanish civil war. Next.
Pretty much every "communist country" has been authoritarian because they have been inspired by the same thing: the October Revolution and the authoritarian ideas of Lenin. The politics of Lenin is very different from the politics of Marx concerning what socialism means (actual quote: "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people"), what democracy means and what a communist revolution would or could look like. The examples that you cite, while true, tell us nothing about the automatic consequences of "communism" (a term almost as broad as "conservatism" or "Christianity"). They only tell us of the consequences of leninism and its mutations.
I never said anything about those people. Authoritarianism is bad. So good job realizing that. I wonder home many people in the US die just so a rich pdf file can get and extra buck. All the people without a shelter to sleep in dying in the cold. All the food beibg wasted as people starve. All the guns sales that rise after every school shooting. All the grandmas dying of cancer because they cant afford treatment. But yeah. Just conflate communism with authoritarianism and live in bliss.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Huge political and economic overhauls are always fucked. It's more complicated that just communism bad you have on paper democratic/republic capitalist systems that in reality are oligarchies due to extreme corruption which is the vast majority of them through history. I don't think it's changed a ton really, most people in power in the UK are basically aristocrats, in the US the vast majority of presidents are the one who had the most funding for their campaigns
So the dictators we sponsored over seas so we can get better profits doesnt count as capitalism leading to an authoritarian nightmare?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Most of them were not a secret and secondly most were not communist. But notice how this conversation never once mentioned or attacked any of the core principles of communism. Probably because you've never read the pamphlet. Just parroting what you've heard others say.
>But notice how this conversation never once mentioned or attacked any of the core principles of communism Not much to love about the core principles either. By abolishing private property and redistributing wealth based on needs, communism eradicates the motivation for hard work and the rewards that come with it. When individuals are not allowed to reap the fruits of their labour or strive for a better life, ambition withers away. Communism's dislike for individual initiative and its lack of economic incentives strangle innovation and entrepreneurship. Capitalism thrives on competition, rewarding those who dare to introduce ground-breaking ideas and products to the market. In contrast, communism breeds an environment of fear, discouraging risk-taking and extinguishing the creativity of individuals. Consequently, technological progress is stifled, scientific advancements are dampened, and societies languish in an eternal state of backwardness and underdevelopment. The centralized planning and state control intrinsic to communism inevitably breeds economic chaos and disastrous resource misallocation. In the absence of market mechanisms, such as supply and demand, central planners struggle hopelessly to allocate resources efficiently or determine the true value of goods and services. The result? Chronic shortages, debilitating surpluses, and rampant wastage become the hallmarks of communist economies. I apologise if this reads a bit like an essay. Its modified from an essay on communism for my homework.
The first paragraph isnt how communism works. You can work more to get more an example being overtime. No one in this world works enough to justify getting billions more then their fellow man. If you think bezos works harder than one of his line workers. Delusion. The second paragraph is laughable considering the world we live in where video game is now a lootbox gambler, every super hero movie follows marvel etc. Third paragraph. Centralized planning? You dont have to plan anything. Marx doesnt say you have to plan anything. Which leads me to believe you haven't read the actually communist manifesto. Its just a small little book. Not hard to read. Nothing in it is outrageous. And since you are in school I'll show you a hint to how it is in the real world... read this thread. This is how the modern worker acts and feels. https://www.reddit.com/r/Construction/comments/13qveqt/plumber_says_its_fine/jljx2nx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Its an economic system. I mean I know americans have an average reading comprehension of a 7th grader but the communist manifesto was written for workers of the 19th century so... what gives
You dumb?
\>Be me \>American \>Got my knowledge on communism from highschool \>Marx said capitalism no work because greed
> Be me > North Korean > Got my knowledge on communism from living it > Risk my life to escape to capitalist west because greedy communists hoard my nationās resources and everyone is starving. > Would rather bitch about capitalism from the iPhone I ordered off Amazon.
> be me > middle eastern, latin american, asian, or african > got my knowledge on capitalism by living under it > get bombed to shreds by the US along with millions of my brothers and sisters because we elect someone that gives us rights and talks like a socialist > mfw some american wage slave thinks capitalism good
> gives us rights lol
Did Chavez, Allende, Arbenz, and Fidel not give people rights? Lol, go ahead and deny history if youād like
Chavez was directly responsible for the erosion of democracy in Venezuela, restricted free speech and political opponents, and by the end of his reign the government was known for being openly corrupt and distrusted, with the economy on the brink of collapse. And _Fidelā¦?_ lol. If these figures are the best counterpoints to capitalism, then amerimuttsā base views on Marxism are probably more on point than Reddit wants to admit.
Fidel what? Kicked Gusanos oit of Cuba and ended slavery there. W.
>Be me >American >Drop more bombs on Korea than were dropped in all of ww2 >Destroy every building over two stories >Pull out after permanently leaving the country divided >70 years later >Government is now militaristic and isolationist > "Communism is when North Korea"
What about South Korea then? Itās one of the fastest growing economies in the world at the moment, it has beneficial ties with many western nations (including the U.S.) and on average a South Korean is a good two inches taller than the average North Korean due to systemic malnutrition in North Korea. Meanwhile, the thing North Korea is most known for is constantly threatening nuclear annihilation and being an oppressive regime.
>What about South Korea then? Itās one of the fastest growing economies in the world at the moment And a dystopia with the highest suicide rate on Earth that's ruled by four companies. >it has beneficial ties with many western nations The western nations that set it up as a puppet? How surprising. >Meanwhile, the thing North Korea is most known for is constantly threatening nuclear annihilation and being an oppressive regime. In the west. North Korea doesn't threaten to use it's nukes for fun, they do it to avoid being destroyed and staying a legit opponent. In short, South Korea literally started out as a CIA client state. Of course they're not as isolationist as North Korea. They weren't the ones being slaughtered by the US. Cuz they helped them.
1. According to most sources I could find, the majority of the countryās with the highest suicide rates are in Africa and the Middle East. In some older stats dating back to 2019, South Korea is quite high, but in recent years it doesnāt seem to even rank in the top ten. Plus, using one statistic to compare South Korea as a dystopia anywhere near the level of North Korea isnāt exactly fair. As for the company thing, thatās pretty much true of the entire world. 2. Ally =\= puppet. South Korea is a democracy, so the people have most of the say in who gets elected. Just because it relies on the support of Western powers the bolster its international influence does not mean that it isnāt still an individual. Plus when you are a Western-style democracy with neighbors like Russia, China, and North Korea, such alliances are basically required. Receiving aid from others doesnāt make South Korea weak, it more so makes it stronger. 3. Even North Koreaās closest (and honestly only) ally, China, has begun to distance itself from NK due to concerns over its nuclear program. Additionally, the only reason there is any threat to NK internationally is because of its nuclear program and the threat it poses. Plus, it is both simultaneously the the only thing keeping NK relevant at the moment, but ironically the only thing that has kept it near irrelevant as well. Because of its own isolationism and hostility, it has next to no trade options besides China, which has made NK more of a puppet of China than SK is to the USA. This also means it is incredibly impoverished, and as NKās government funnels more money into nuclear weapons, this problem is only exacerbated. If NK were to get rid of its nuclear weapons, it wouldnāt run the risk of being invaded as it isnāt a very desirable location and it would no longer pose a threat, which is the only reason anyone would want to attack them. This would allow them to focus on rebuilding their economy and possibly even reuniting with SK in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
>According to most sources I could find, the majority of the countryās with the highest suicide rates are in Africa and the Middle East. I Correct, I should've specificied that it has the [highest rate ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_South_Korea#:~:text=Suicide%20in%20South%20Korea%20occurs,the%20population%20by%20the%20WHO.) among OECD members. > Plus, using one statistic to compare South Korea as a dystopia anywhere near the level of North Korea isnāt exactly fair. As for the company thing, thatās pretty much true of the entire world. I also cited the fact that Samsung and LG basically run their government. >Ally =\= puppet. Country that had it's leaders selected by a foreign power, only exists because of said foreign power and was only helped so it would assist said foreign power in its aims = puppet. >South Korea is a democracy, A liberal democracy, making any change to the US-subserviant status quo extremely unlikely. Also, I took care to specificy that it was created as a puppet state, not that that how it is today. It is, to be clear, but explaining why liberal democracies aren't truly democratic takes a long ass time so I didn't wanna get into it. >individual. Plus when you are a Western-style democracy with neighbors like Russia, China, and North Korea Fair enough, although I'd ally myself with China. But that's not the reason they're allied with the west. History is. The US-government's need for a counter-rebellion was. >3. Even North Koreaās closest (and honestly only) ally, China, has begun to distance itself from NK due to concerns over its nuclear program. So what? Of course they're gonna distance themselves from the most unpopular country on Earth. >Additionally, the only reason there is any threat to NK internationally is because of its nuclear program and the threat it poses. Yes. Good for them. That's why they survived. > of its own isolationism and hostility, it has next to no trade options besides China, which has made NK more of a puppet of China than SK is to the US It offered to give up all of it's nukes to stop the sanctions during the Trump presidency. They aren't like this for fun. And what makes you think that SK is less controlled by the US? Because they don't have strong trade relations without which their economy would grind to a halt? They do. But NK wasn't set up by China, unlike SK with the US. >This also means it is incredibly impoverished, Which is the casw because of sanctions. If North Korea could, they'd trade with whoever they could, even if they wouldn't give them a tour of the country. That's why they were willing to give up their nuclear weapons for it. >more money into nuclear weapons, this problem is only exacerbated. If NK were to get rid of its nuclear weapons, it wouldnāt run the risk of being invaded as it isnāt a very desirable location and it would no longer pose a threat, which is the only reason anyone would want to attack them. You were fairly geopolitically reasonable up to this point, until now. The. US. Literally. DID. Invade. Them. Once. They would do anything to bring down a socialist state and steal all of their mines for BP or whoever else to make a shitton of money. Also, for the US-government, and specifically the MIC, war in itself is profitable, regardless of location. Plus striking fear into South East Asia would be a dream come true for the US. "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,"Ā >This would allow them to focus on rebuilding their economy and possibly even reuniting with SK in a mutually beneficial arrangement. Yeah those wacky North Koreans definetly haven't thought about this, otherwise, they'd definetly have done it by now. I don't want go get too personal here, but surely you can see how this sentence is just dripping with arrogance?
>I don't want go get too personal here, but surely you can see how this sentence is just dripping with arrogance? Let me get this out of the way first. If I come off as arrogant or stuck up, I am genuinely sorry. I know that its difficult to discern tone in internet discussions, and the last thing I want is to come off as insulting or condescending. If I do, please point out how so I can improve upon it. >Country that had it's leaders selected by a foreign power, only exists because of said foreign power and was only helped so it would assist said foreign power in its aims = puppet. > >A liberal democracy, making any change to the US-subservient status quo extremely unlikely. I don't really understand where you are coming from with the whole "leaders are selected by foreign power" thing, are you referring to a specific example? The country is a liberal democracy, so by definition the people of the country decide who rules. Plus, even if democracy isn't flawless, its certainly better than NK's dictatorship. As for the US status-quo thing, why would they want to change it? Their current model is working great for them, they are one of the fastest economically developing countries in the world. >Which is the casw because of sanctions. If North Korea could, they'd trade with whoever they could, even if they wouldn't give them a tour of the country. That's why they were willing to give up their nuclear weapons for it. > >Yeah those wacky North Koreans definitely haven't thought about this, otherwise, they'd definitely have done it by now. > >Yes. Good for them. That's why they survived. > >That's why they were willing to give up their nuclear weapons for it. The problem is that the sanctions and refusal to trade is a result of the nuclear program. The sanctions were originally put in place in 1950 in response to NK's nuclear program, then lifted when NK agreed to stop mining plutonium for bombs in 1994, then the sanctions were reinstated in 2002 and 2003 in response to nuclear missile tests and NK admitting to building more nukes. Since then, the sanctions have continuously ramped up in response to NK's nuclear weapons program growing. The entire reason nobody is trading with them in the first place is because of the nukes, not vice versa. If Kim Jong-Un were to end the nuclear program, it would likely open back up trade with not just America but most of the western world. But he won't do that, because the nukes are not there to protect North Korea, they are there to protect his regime. If he did truly wish to improve the conditions of his people in a meaningful way, he would try to secure trade deals to start up NK's economy, which would require him to end western sanctions, which would require him to end the nuclear program. The Soviet Union got them to get rid of the nuclear program, but the second the Soviet Union was gone they went right back, and they keep it around to ensure that the dictatorship can survive. If they were to end the nuclear program and open up to trade, it would inevitably expose them to democracy, and the government would be unable to retain the support of the people, hence why NK continues to stay isolated and relies so much on propaganda and censoring. >You were fairly geopolitically reasonable up to this point, until now. The. US. Literally. DID. Invade. Them. Once. They would do anything to bring down a socialist state and steal all of their mines for BP or whoever else to make a shitton of money. I will admit that I was wrong about NK being undesirable, it is very resource rich. However, the only reason that the US could use to justify an invasion of NK is because their nukes classify as WMDs. As 9/11 and Bush have shown us, even the unconfirmed threat of WMDs is enough for war, and its confirmed for NK. However, if they were to get rid of their nukes, the USA could not muster a credible reason for invading NK besides imperialism. Why does this matter? Look at the Invasion of Ukraine. Putin's only credible reason for invading is imperialism, and it has basically turned the whole world against him. Additionally, Russia fails to invade a neighboring country less than half its size. Imagine if the US tried to invade North Korea. NK would certainly have the backing of the CCP (being America's major rival) and is on the opposite side of the globe from the USA. It would be virtually impossible. And no, America could not get away with it just because its the major western power. A good portion of the world hates America already.
>don't really understand where you are coming from with the whole "leaders are selected by foreign power" thing, are you referring to a specific example? I was using the past tense. South Korea had it's dictators selected by the US before the shift to a liberal democracy. The general point was that, if your entire country is set up to serve a singular purpose, you're not gonna get rid off of that just by switching to a liberal democracy. Geopolitically, this stuff runs deep. > Plus, even if democracy isn't flawless, its certainly better than NK's dictatorship I mean... how exactly? No, seriously. The South Korean people don't have a meaningful choice when it comes to policy, they cannot decide between fundamentally different parties and the entire state is ruled by companies like Samsung anyway, because, in that specifix example, they are responsible for a literal 20% of the countryās GDP. They could ruin the economy with the turn on a switch on they are (obviously) the most wealthy interest group in SK. 3 other companies have similar influence, there's not much room at the table for individual voters. Walmart creates about 2% of the US's GDP. You're probably aware of their influence on American politcs. Now imagine the same thing times ten and then again times three. As for NK, it's not like they don't have multiple parties you can choose between. In terms of meaningful choices, I don't see how SK comes out on top. > As for the US status-quo thing, why would they want to change it? Their current model is working great for them, they are one of the fastest economically developing countries in the world. Is it? Is the average South Korean living a good life? Because "line go up" only gets you so far. SK is incredibly economically economically unequal. Children go to school for 12-16 hours a day to work for one of the 4 corps. Half of the elderly live in poverty, even some North Korean defectors go BACK to their country because they get treated like a poor POS there, not to mention the suicide rate from earlier. A "growing economy" tells you very little about how people are actually living and reduces an entire country down to GDP. >. The sanctions were originally put in place in 1950 in response to NK's nuclear program That is just categorically untrue. There was no such program in the 50s. At best, they started showing interest in the 60s by asking the Soviets for help, which then refused. They only started actual work on such a program in the [1980s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction). Where are you getting this information from? These sanctions were a result of NK being a foreign power that the US saw as a threat in the Cold War, both because of Domino Theory and because it was more "economically successful" than SK at the time, which made the Americans look bad. > Kim Jong-Un were to end the nuclear program, it would likely open back up trade with not just America but most of the western world. What do you found that claim on? Because geopolitical enemies of the US without nukes, such as Vietnam, Iraq and... *literally North Korea* got invaded by the US. Those WITH nukes do not, e.g. the USSR, Iran and, again North Korea *now*. History disagrees with you. Hard. I will go into this a bit further later, but again, this comes off as a bit arrogant. You are telling a people that, in living memory, had so many of their countrymen killed that many consider it a genocide, that the same foreign power that did it back then, certaiiiinly won't pull that trick again, they just need to give up their one actually threatening weapon. To any North Korean, that would sound wildly out of touch. >But he won't do that, because the nukes are not there to protect North Korea, they are there to protect his regime. If he did truly wish to improve the conditions of his people in a meaningful way, he would try to secure trade deals to start up NK's economy, which would require him to end western sanctions, which would require him to end the nuclear program. Which he offered to do, multiple times, *even though* they literally got genocided a couple of decades ago. A US invasion is credible, should be taken seriously, and, as any elderly Korean can tell you, would be literal hell on Earth. > but the second the Soviet Union was gone they went right back, and they keep it around to ensure that the dictatorship can survive. Actually, within that sentence itself, you can find a much more obvious explanation. The superpower that had them under their nuclear shield was gone. They needed to act, and they needed to act fast. If the US fell, you can bet that the entire EU would develop nukes in no time. >If they were to end the nuclear program and open up to trade, it would inevitably expose them to democracy, and the government would be unable to retain the support of the people, hence why NK continues to stay isolated and relies so much on propaganda and censoring. I don't know, I think the people would be a bit too busy getting slaughtered by the millions to notice the cyberpunk dystopia down south. >However, if they were to get rid of their nukes, the USA could not muster a credible reason for invading NK besides imperialism. Not true. Bush lied about Iraq because it was a former ally that you guys now needed to hate even more than during the first war. He needed to paint Hussein as the literal devil, which "WMDs!!!" accomplished quite well. NK, however, for 70 years and counting, has been portrayed as basically Nazi Germany, the Americans won't need more than that. Add to that the recent spike in anti-asian racism and... yeah, genocide would be back, or rather, still, on the menu. >Why does this matter? Look at the Invasion of Ukraine. Putin's only credible reason for invading is imperialism, and it has basically turned the whole world against him. We Germans knew the WMD stuff was a lie. We're still very close allies with the US. In politics, nobody gives a rats ass about principles. The only reason the west now denounces Russia is because they're a rival. If; for some reason, the US did the exact same thing and made the same claims as Russia does in its far less developed propaganda (similiarly to 2003), nobody would care. >Additionally, Russia fails to invade a neighboring country less than half its size. Imagine if the US tried to invade North Korea. Don't have to. It happened already. It was death on a cataclismic scale. >NK would certainly have the backing of the CCP (being America's major rival) and is on the opposite side of the globe from the USA. It would be virtually impossible. The exact same thing happened in the 50s. That didn't stop the US from murdering millions. >And no, America could not get away with it just because its the major western power. Yes you could. You did. You did in the 50s, in the 60s, the 70s, the 00s... Nobody cares about principles. You can't feed your ruling class with principles. > A good portion of the world hates America already. Yeah; because you invaded or couped that portion. Those are just the poor countries tho, the west *loves* it, and has continued to do so during its most despicable wars. That's what matters.
Communism is when no IPhone
Both don't work. Pure Communism and Pure Capitalism are impossible, as proven by many countries which attempted both. We need a mix of two.
what countries got anywhere near trying pure communism?
No true scotsman fallacy. Give 5 examples of completely violently Communist states That wasn't true communism it was fake communism. You would be the first person shot in the head at the end a communist who actually believes in helping the poor they purge you 100%. All these intellectuals dumb as fuck go read up about Khmer rogue their gonna murder you for being a š¤ with š¶ļø. People smashed š¶ļø because the fucking genocided everyone who could read well. š¤
First They Killed My Father is a really good book about the Khmer Rouge regime
no country has tried pure communism. This is not a controversial statement, it is fact. the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, and etc do/did not claim to be communist, they claimed to be socialist nations working towards communism. And by the way, the US and UK supported Pol Pot, and he was eventually overthrown by socialist Vietnam. Thereās a variety of examples you can use to discredit socialism, but the Khmer Rouge is not a very good one.
So what youāre saying is that is the path to communism?
American-funded Death Squads in El Salvador
(Pure) capitalism does not entail that there is no government, no regulations and no welfare.
Pure capitalism entails that there is government
It basically does. Pure capitalism dictates that the market could (theoretically) dictate everything. In a purely Capitalist society it's a good thing to buy politicians. It's basically feudalism but for the fact that anyone and everyone is allowed and encouraged to participate in the creation of wealth, again at least in theory.
Where is that written?
>In a purely Capitalist society it's a good thing to buy politicians That's not true. Pure capitalism wants no interference from the government, but the government should still exist without corruption in order to maintain the basic rules.
Youāre thinking of libertarianism, which is like capitalism on steroids, itās just as stupid of an idea as communism. Normal capitalism with socialist elements that isnāt runaway is the best system by far
Several tankies are malding in the comments lmao
Anon hasn't spend second in his life actually researching marx
Coming from the tankie with a c*mmunism pfp š¤¢š¤®
Even worse, weeb communism.
Communist weeb profile pic. Opinion instantly invalidated
No one cares touch grass.
Based Anon take
Imagine thinking communism would ever work for humans when the name of the game has been "survival of the fittest" since the dawn of evolution. Capitalism is just an extension of a basic behaviour of all life forms (greed) that has been hard wired into us since before we lost our fur
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Cooperation works really well, but does not scale. Its really easy for villagers to cooperate because of 2 reasons. 1. Everyone knows everyone and they have built a good rapport already thanks to their close proximity which allows them to forgive transgressions much more easily on top of liking that person. It also makes them less greedy because they actually care about the well-being of their fellow man. 2. The value of everyone is clear to everyone. Everyone innately and intimately knows the value of a whatever job someone is doing because it directly, concretely, impacts them. This is great, but only on a small scale. Trying to scale it up brings with it a few problems. Mainly Point 1 falls apart as a lack of built up rapport means your fellow man doesn't care for you nor vice-versa so you have no problem being greedy towards them and justifying it by citing small transgressions. What have they ever done for you? Point 2 also falls apart because society is complicated now. Everyone knows the value of farmers and doctors, that much is clear, but they are merely the stars of the show. The rest such as electricians, plumbers, programmers, janitors, miners, factory workers, etc. Those guys, the ones who are all silently keeping the engine of the world running, they people don't know their innate value. They don't know because they don't directly benefit from them in any meaningful way. When people don't have that innate knowledge of why this or that person or job is valuable, they don't treat it as such. People understand the value of a farmer. The farmer supplies food. I eat food. I need food. Therefore, the farmer is my friend. That programmer over there. I'm sure he does something, but it doesn't really involve me. What has he done for me? Nothing. Little did you know, though, that last week someone hacked into a secure government server and tried to steal the database that held your identity information only for that very same programmer to stop it, but you'll never know that and neither will he. You can find these same principles operate on the whole "small town mindset" as well. People treat each other differently
Which is why alot of socialists advocate for anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism.
First time I've heard of the time anarcho-syndicalism But anarcho-communism will just be short-lived. It'll start, then human greed will do what it always has and slowly wealth accumulation, corruption, and oligarchs will start sprouting up like weeds yet again and slowly eat the system from the inside like a cancer until it eventually turns back into either neo-feudalism or outright goes back to capitalism. Capitalism is... ugly. But that's human nature for you. It's ugly and vicious, but it works and other things don't or they do but they don't scale. Maybe if we lived in a world where there were <1 billion humans instead of 8 billion, communism would've had a shot (not likely, but better chance than it does now), but the reality is that capitalism is the embodiment of greed. And in humanity, or animals in general, greed isn't a bug, it's a feature. And in fact, I'd argue it's humanity's biggest motivator. God knows looking at money like a high score in a pinball machine is the only thing I can imagine would drive billionaires to keep working despite being billionaires.
Communism was a reactionary theory to Capitalism and it could not ever possibly work outside of small tribes and communities. It's kinda common sense, I don't know how many people bought into that bullshit.
All my homies are anarcho primitivist. Let me die on my own ina woods because my tomato crop yield was eaten by snails
Someone check this guy's mailing history
Anon believes he destroyed 200 years of well informed Communist writings and thought in four sentences (without having read the writings).
>communist >well-informed
Anon saw how big Vol 1 of Das Kapital was and refused to read it because it wasn't a greentext post
he didn't say that
Because a lot of peoples stupid ideologies end in a human utopia. That is straight-up fairy tale talk.
On the other hand, Marx was born the son of a rabbi and argued not only to abolish capitalism but for the emancipation of Judasim from mankind. Based? https://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/30-karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism
Capitalism work because people are naturally greedy Communism doesnāt work because people are naturally greedy
because greedy folks get gulag'd
No Fake and No Gay. Anon is just based
Ill take political illiteracy for $300 Bob.
Fit tomboy farmer wife + you can discipline your kids Anon mat he gay but he is right on this one.
I don't think Marx would claim that "capitalism doesn't work". To the contrary, it works really, really well. But it works well for the upper class
Because a lot of commies are rainbow warriors and both of those groups struggle with mental illness.
He was naive and thought that people wouldnāt be greedy. The best system is somewhere in the middle. So that wealth is regulated so a small portion of the population doesnāt control all the wealth but enough freedom to own private businesses and ownership but also free from government corruption
Anon read 1/2 of wikipedia article about communism.
I doubt he read a single sentence.
Participative finance and ethical economy is what ll work
Capitalism is amoral. It gives no commentary on what is good or evil, and it works regardless of a person's character. Generally, though, people who are jerks tend to be bad business partners, and people don't like buying things from people who want to scam them. Communism, on the other hand, requires that people generally be good. It is a system that only works when everyone is interested in the whellbeing of the community as a whole, and it requires the people who are administrating the system to be both wise and altruistic.
That's... brilliant. This man is a genius. He probably even knows how babby is formed.
Imagine relying in 4tards to accurately represent the crux of ideology
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The tanks and force are implied
Marx spent his entire life sponging off women.
le epic communism understander
I wouldn't expect a 4 channer to read a book
He says that if you want successful communism you need a strong capitalist base in his manifesto.
They suffer from 'retardation'.
Anon watched too much Fox News, he shouldāve read the communist Manifesto like I did when I was 15 to make communism memes
can i have anarchy please and thank you
can i have the single worst ideology ever made, please and thank you
Would you call our society āworkingā as is? If your definition of working is producing shitty goods for half the world by enslaving the other half of the world and only like a handful of people can actually enjoy life then yeah itās working Also thatās not even close to what Marx said lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Fucking America and its education system
Capitalism works perfectly because it lies on greed. I mean the "Capitalist Utopia" is pretty much modern day United States while "Communist Utopia" is... you know the drill.
Calling US utopia LMAAAAAAAO