What lead to the complete downfall of socialism by the end of the xx century?
>>17089783https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwsiT2m6I7k
>complete downfallCommunism was never implemented in the first place. Socialism was.>b-b-but it wasn't real socialismYes it was. It was socialism, not communism. Not a single Socialist country ever claimed to have achieved communism. Now, whether modern pampered creative-class white-collar workers are ready to give up capitalist trinkets, one-day delivery, fast fashion, passive income, cheap flights or private healthcare for the world revolution, that's a different question.
>>17089878>our theories on how to achieve communism didn't work>therefore it wasn't real communismConsider dejecting yourself from the physical world and returning your properties to the monad
>>17089783I don't subscribe to a particular religion, or rather, I don't hold any as absolutely true; however, my answer is this: Communism failed because God is not at the center. You can scoff, but the truth is that all full-blown religions are ideological, they are the metaphysical foundations of political structures. Gods arise and become the minds of civilizations, gathering energy and intellect from its members to make decisions for them. If you created a system like Communism which was justified by God it would probably endure for a very long time.
>>17089783Chyna
>>17089783planned economy doesn't work, also the USSR only lasted 80 years because the US helped them
>>17089783>Other systems defeated it in war so it doesn't work.So you believe in might makes right?
>>17089783It really didnt.For an economic system to fail, you need it to collapse during an economic crisis.If instead, you introduce elements that are antithetic to it (in this case, private property), it stops being socialism. It becomes capitalism.Gorbachev introduced private property, hence the economy failed. The next thing that commies tried to do was reintroduce communism (abolish once again the private property), but they failed, because during social unrest the people with the weapons win.So communism didn't fail, it just stopped existing.
>>17090465>For an economic system to fail, you need it to collapse during an economic crisis.In that case nazism and japanese fascism didn't fail either, since there was war, not economic crisis.
>>17090542Indeed.Their fascist economies could even withstand the tolls of war.We cannot know if those system could survive after the war economy had to be dismantled, nor we can compare them to the soviet socialist system, which lasted for 69 years without a single economic crisis.And, my dear anon, we are looking at the economic policies of a certain country, not at the international policies of it.Fascist countries are known for being interventionist also, which was clearly a bad international policy for their existance.On the other hand, spain and portugal demostatingly had very solid economic systems. Franchist spain, for instance, lasted for 36 years, and only one big crisis (1957).So, if we want to summarize the best economic system of industrialized countries, the worse one would be the welfare state (what we have right now), next fascism and the best one being socialism.Communism, when it was tried, didn't last enough and it often failed, except for small, monastic communities.Hope this helped make some order in your mind.
>>17090582Then we understand fail differently. You could argue communism succeeded if its secret goal was to kill lots of people and make them change their ways of life and thoughts.
>>17089783The last real socialist state was destroyed by an alliance of capitalists and communists.https://files.catbox.moe/kzc2z0.mp4
>>17090582USSR only lasted because it was propped up economically and militarily by the US and other nations. Unlike capitalism or nazism it could not survive by itself.
>>17090465>For an economic system to fail, you need it to collapse during an economic crisis.It was stagnating since Brezhnev. It only industrialized because US foreign investment in the 30s. It only survived WW2 because of Lend Lease. Either way, this is just delusional and moving the goalpost.It took until 1969 for the Soviet Union to even have toilet paper. They had buy subsidized grain from the US just not to starve in the 1970s. The USSR was a zombie economy that never really could survive on its own.It was not a sustainable economic system.The fact that economic statistical fraud so common in the USSR is proof enough everything you're saying is just bullshit and non-sense.>So communism didn't fail, it just stopped existing.Lmao, imagine being so fucking stupid to think this isn't the same as failure. Its like saying your heart didn't fail because your heartbeat stopped existing. Its ridiculous. Its crazy this board is filled with retards like you.
>>17090737National Socialists viewed communism as a capitalist tool to destroy traditional economic and social structures in order to prepare a nation for transfer into the hands of international finance capital, and this is exactly how the endgame of communism has played out.
>>17090731Economic systems are denoted by the adjective "economic". So the analysis needs to be done accordingly.>communism succeeded if its secret goal was to kill lots of peopleI don't believe that commies killed all the people that modern scholars say they did, at least in soviet union.The sources mainly originate from an organization known as "Memorial", which has a clear conflict of interests.>make them change their ways of life and thoughts.I wouldn't agree with this sentence either. The soviet union always held in high regard the cultural and ethnic differences between each group of people that inhabited their lands.As you may see, after its collapse nations that were separated from the soviet union all held a strong national identity. And even those which remained are still to this day (even if it is less and less the case because of capitalism) very peculiar and have only lost their identities from the collapse of the soviet union onwards.What I instead tend to see is capitalism forcing its ideas, even if they collide with national and regional interests. Its cultural roots are bottoms up, you know? They seem to superimpose over the average person. Eat big macs, watch holliwood movies, accept faggots... This is something I can sense in italy, where catholicism, pasta and folk music is what makes us italians.
>>17090749Yeah I don't disagree. Except that there has no transmission of power. The US was allied with the communists and the communists are still in power - now just in an (overtly) capitalist society.
>>17090757And when the Soviet Union "fell" people that lived in it adopted an Ex-Soviet identity. That became their national identity. You still have people alive saying how it was better etc (which in a lot of cases I'm sure it was in some or most ways)
>>17090757>I don't believe that commies killed all the people that modern scholars say they did, at least in soviet union.The incompetence especially when it came to adequate food supply was so idiotic it is fine to attribute it to actual malice. Both in China and USSR.
>>17090758>Everything I don't like is communismIn a capitalist society the people who are the best at accumulating capital have all of the political and cultural power. Jews perfected their techniques of capital accumulation through blackmail, usury, vice, currency manipulation and insider trading before any of our nations even existed, therefore Jews will always rule under capitalism. It is time to defending a system which your race isn't even evolved for; Aryans are a race of warriors, adventurers, philosophers, artists, craftsmen and inventors; we are simply not biologically suited to competing under a capitalist system.
>>17090757>The sources mainly originate from an organization known as "Memorial", which has a clear conflict of interests.The numbers don't come from "memorials." The the numbers are based on open Soviet archives. Its especially dumb to argue this too when Russia Today, and even Russian state media today, don't even deny the deaths or the fact the USSR was a dictatorship.
>>17090773>In a capitalist society the people who are the best at accumulating capital have all of the political and cultural power. Like in every society. Capital has always existed. You're just railing against meritocracy because you're a NEET.
>>17090749What you argue is that in theory, communism sucks.In practice, specifically Stalinism, USSR thrived.>The view of the Soviet family as the basic social unit in society evolved from revolutionary to conservative; the government of the Soviet Union first attempted to weaken the family and then to strengthen it from the 1930s onwards.On the other hand, Nazism in practice was bad, while in theory it was good.>Lebensborn was established by Heinrich Himmler, and provided welfare to its mostly unmarried mothers, encouraged anonymous births by unmarried women at their maternity homes
>>17089783Lack of computational power desu.
>>17090773You've died in Stalingrad while Hitler was enjoying his summer vacation at Berghof.Your cultish devotion is odd because he was just using idiots like you for his own personal enrichment.
>>17089863I am under the impression that Nietzsche was mostly referring to utopian socialists when he talked of 'socialism and communism'. Bolshevism completely shattered Nietzsche's idea that socialism is slave morality.
>>17090795>meritocracyYour brain is so steeped in Jewish capitalism that the only form of meritocracy you can comprehend is the ability to collectively accumulate capital through usury, pornography, drugs, currency manipulation, insider trading and outright mafia tactics like blackmail and assassination; these are the meritorious traits required to succeed in capitalism.Aryan skills like statecraft, arts, sciences, warfare, craftsmanship, invention and philosophy have no value under capitalism. Unless Aryans organize through philosophy, statecraft and warfare to destroy the power of capital, we are doomed to enslavement and extermination.
>>17090773>In a capitalist society the people who are the best at accumulating capital have all of the political and cultural power.No they don't. Elon Musk had to justify himself in front of the online Sanhedrin (pic related) and has very little political or cultural power. Buffett and Gates are also puppets for others.
>>17090832Elon Musk is an irrelevant tv celebrity created by Jews, there are no goyim with power under capitalism because all successful capitalist power-strategies are highly collectivist, individuals without an ethnic network cannot succeed under capitalism.
>>17089888>your theories on how to "achieve communism" didn't pan out in 75 years cut off short by undemocratic foreign meddlingnobody is buying your bullshit, hope the 3 cents was worth it.
>>17090746>It was stagnating since BrezhnevWhich you might think is a bad thing, but not in communist eyes.Even right now, economies are stagnating all around the world. But the metrics show that there are record profits all around the world while people are having less and less value when it comes to their salaries.This is because real value caps, but you can still artificially increase it through: retirement companies reinvesting money that dont exist, public and private debt, ficticious spendings in, for instance, military, etc. Do you remember when in 2001 2.3 trillions disappeared? And nothing changed?>foreign investmentSource pls.>lend leaseSo debt is permited only in capitalism?>It took until 1969 for the Soviet Union to even have toilet paper.You don't actually believe that, anon, do you? You know that the only thing that can never be shortaged is toilet paper, right anon?Internet is a bourgoisie invention, anon.In saint petersburg (population:1900000) alone, between 1910 and 1912 each year were sold 120 thousands packs of toilet paper each year, which was 2000000 kilos for 1912, and the production continued until 1926.https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0And that page claims that they imported it. Which, I mean, is what capitalist countries do all the time, with phones for example, or even Ford cars, manufactured in Mexico... The capability to pay the price is what makes a country successful or not. When you instead get into debt and then cant repay it... That is failure. That is what happened in 2008, for example.
>>170908892/2>The fact that economic statistical fraud so common in the USSR is proof enough everything you're saying is just bullshit and non-sense.I cannot disagree with you, anon, because to look for data online is impossible when it comes to communism.Victors tell the story, so not much data that will claim otherwise.>Its like saying your heart didn't fail because your heartbeat stopped existingWrong analogy, anon. If I stop playing WoW and instead hop on Final Fantasy XIV, did I lose on WoW? You can argue that communism forfaited, but not that it lost. Political systems are not actually "real", then are not like gender. You cannot switch from male to female, but you can switch from one economic policy (subsidize small farmers) to another (subsidize big farmers). Without there being a reason...
>>17090761Only ukraine did adopt such position.Everyone else is very much pro soviets.It follows what the popular vote was...But I agree, the elite is not pro soviets (lul why would they, putin was smuggling shit to americans when he was working in st petersburg).
>>17090894>Victors tell the story,Communists won WW2, so they are free to tell the story.
>>17090912You seem to agree with my post, read again.
>>17090766Are you talking about Lenin, someone who was sent to russia from switzerland in order to destabilize it?The guy who called Trotsky "radish" (red on the outside, white on the inside), because everyone knew he was a cia dog, but then proceded to ask everyone to vote for him?The fact that stalin killed all those who were part of those trash agricultural politics and sent the rest to exile because they clearly were trying to destibilize the russian empire? And only after that russian economy started growing exponentially?Yes, communist revolution was done by kikes to divide and conquer russia, but stalin trolled them and fixed russia instead.You may say that mao zedong, khmer rouge and some other failed communist states were cia creations made to destibilize the respective countries.Soviet financed socialist countries (NK and Cuba and partially Vietnam) are still great places where to live.
>>17090931I was talking mostly about Lysenko, whose stupid (or malicious) ideas USSR and China both adopted. But you are spot on with your post so I have no disagreement.
>>17090782>open Soviet archivesWhich I looked at.The Nazino island papers that were quoted in the respective book talk about the need for more food to be sent to the prison, because it happened during the 1933 famine and the rations that were sent were too few. Instead you know how it is remembered for? A research on cannibalism!https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazino_tragedyYou can find them online. I don't wanna waste time.The reseatch, btw, was conducted by Memorial.
>>17090926Which they did.But who won the cold war?
>>17090931>>17090938Actually I do have a point of contention. Stalin had plenty of opportunity to kill him but never did. He only did in 1976. So it is factually incorrect Stalin killed all those people.
>>17090930Sorry, I thought that "Ex-soviet" meant "from soviet", like, a desire to distance oneself.
>>17090940It was a fake war between two allies. So the people who set up the fake conflict won. Even main stream thinkers and historians admit it is fake, in a sense, since they admit US and USSR never fought directly.
>>17090938Lyzenko? https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-new-lysenkoismWho is recognized as a lamarkian?https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2817%2930949-1And the lamarkian positions are slowly getting reintroduced into modern biology?https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/02/04/216134/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/And the critique of genetics as such by soviet scientists? Do you know any actual scientific paper on genetic origin of illnesses that doesnt get refuted in 10 years?https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21749552/https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324884I can go on.
>>17090945They were not allies tho.The lives of Castro for example.Or Garry Webb, or the red scare, or Sacco and Vanzetti... There are a lot.
>>17090889>Even right now, economies are stagnating all around the world.This is not even remotely true. In the US, economy grew by 3.4% last quarter and the unemployment rate is around 4%. More people in the US are traveling aboard pre-pandemic. Wages are outpacing inflation. You're just completely wrong.>Source pls.https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=62138https://www.jstor.org/stable/42860014https://meaww.com/koch-industries-stalin-pull-russiahttps://automotivehistory.org/may-31-1929-ford-heads-to-the-ussr/This isn't even authoritative. There's so many sources and they're easy to find.>So debt is permied only in capitalism?This a strange non-sequitur. It is a fact the USSR could have not survived WW2 without Lend Lease.>You don't actually believe that, anon, The Russians themselves don't even agree with you.https://www.rbth.com/history/328837-things-people-dreamed-ussrYour own source disagrees with you.>"Presumably, after the revolution, and until 1937. Toilet paper was imported into the USSR. Possibly in 1937. Its production was established, but it was not in mass demand.[47]] In 1939, in the catalog of papers issued in the USSR there is a toilet paper made at the factory in Kondrave. However, the plans of the fourth five-year plan (1946-1950) were the creation of enterprises for the manufacture of toilet paper.[48][48]"Toiler had to be IMPORTED into the USSR. They couldn't even fucking produce it. You don't even read what you're posting. Its actually pointing out pre-revolutionary Russia was better producing toilet paper than the fucking Soviet government.Again, your source>"The first plant for the mass production of toilet paper in rolls on the territory of the USSR (Russia) appeared in 1969 in Syostroy [[50]]."You can't even read, Anon.>If I stop playing WoW and instead hop on Final Fantasy XIV, did I lose on WoW?This analogy doesn't even work.If WoW server's stopped being profitable, they would stop existing like the USSR did.
>>17090959What does that have to do with terrible agricultural practices?
>>17090965Does not invalidate my claims. Allies frequently kill each other's citizens. In fact, it's the opposite, if you believe allies do not kill each other, that view does not line up with history at all.
>>17090975The fact that lysenko was not the problem, the bureaucrats were.
>>17090965The Communist Party of Cuba put Batista into power dude.
>>17090987Lyensko was the problem, and he was a bureaucrat, dumbass.
>>17090987Lysenko had support from Stalin and other important officials like Zhdanov. They could have killed or replaced the bureaucrats if they wanted to.
>>17090969>In the US, economy grew by 3.4% last quarter and the unemployment rate is around 4%And? Those are numbers. Record profits say that american's economy is the most florid ever, yet the housing problem is bad, really bad. Those numbers are good only for investors, not real people.https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inflation-index/>Americans’ pay hasn’t fully recovered from inflation. Will it ever?>SourcesWhat you seem to have posted are contracts... Like if I go to the shop and get a mango... Did I fail as an economy? I don't get it: you consider autarchies to be successful and everything else failed?>It is a fact the USSR could have not survived WW2 without Lend Lease.Just like every other country cannot survive war without having to take debt.If the debt cannot be repayed, it means the country failed. If you need to take debt while you are in peace, like Greece for example, it will sooner or later end up in deficit, which means: failure.But soviet union didn't take debt to survive, it was not like america and basically the entirety of the western world right now.>Even the russians don't agree with youAs I said elsewhere, putin won't agree with me. Those who profitted will not agree with me.1/2
>>17091120>>17091120>Toiler had to be IMPORTED into the USSR.Completely ignores the "presumably", but that is ok. Again, not making phone component doesnt make america a failed economy.>Its actually pointing out pre-revolutionary Russia was better producing toilet paper than the fucking Soviet government.Partially. As I said, it kept production until 1926. What you don't understand is that russian wikipedia is trash because noone uses it. So, much probably, there was one guy who read a couple books and then quoted them. Saw the discrepancies (in one passage they say it continued production until at least 1926, in another it says there was not enough demand, even if people did use it, but somewhere it should have come right? So "presumably" it came for else where, because every russian knew that toilet paper was sold... Like, I think that it was not, as you put it, "profitable" to make their own).>You can't even read.Anon, you read up to that point that toilet paper was somehow present in the soviet union. Your original post said that they had no access to toilet paper until 1969... This is goalshifting, anon. Either soviet russia was so poor they had to clean their butts using sticks and leaves, or they were rich enough that the toilet paper of europeans countries cost less than making it yourself...And the answer, as you can see, is that soviet russia did not only have a great economy, but they had an economy richer than those capitalistic countries around them.2/3
>>17091132And your analogy doesn't work unless, as I said, you have an economic crisis.Only in that case a socialist country can be considered failed.In all the other cases, there can be no "unprofitability", because profit is a strictly capitalistic term.3/3
>>17090983Not citizens anon, but allies.Not feuds or colonies, but, again, allies.Superpowers with superpowers, nations with nations. Not superpowers killing people of nations they claim as "allies", but are actually just colonies in disguise , which I literally posted a lot of examples in the post you answered to.Communists are enemies for the US, because the ones who rule it are capitalists, just like capitalists are enemies to the US.
>>17090988>For two years (December 1956 – December 1958) Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement and other rebelling elements led an urban- and rural-based guerrilla uprising against Batista's government, which culminated in his eventual defeat by rebels under the command of Che Guevara at the Battle of Santa Clara on New Year's Day 1959Huh? What are you talking about?
>>17091120>And? Those are numbers. Record profits say that american's economy is the most florid ever,Record profits are signs of a good economy because it means consumers have money to buy stuff. Consumer spending being high has always been a sign of great economy.>yet the housing problem is bad, really badAlso wrong. The housing problem is only bad in shit holes like New York and California because by zoning laws and rent control de-incentivizing housing production. Places like Texas aren't really having this problem. You clearly don't live in the US, and you know anything about our economy. Stop just talking about subjects you're not intelligent enough to have an opinion - especially Russian history.>What you seem to have posted are contracts...You tend not to read sources, so, of course you don't have an argument here. >Just like every other country cannot survive war without having to take debt.No, the US did not take out debt from any country to survive World War II. The USSR did. Your statement, even if it was true (which isn't), doesn't change the fact USSR's survival was entirely dependent on US financial aid and manufacturing during, before and even after the war. You lose the argument here either you frame your argument because the facts don't align with you.>As I said elsewhere, putin won't agree with me.The average Russian thinks this about communism. You don't live in reality dude.>Completely ignores the "presumably", but that is ok.No, anon, you just completely lied because you don't read your sources. Your source says the USSR could only mass produce toilet paper until 1969, and that it had to be imported. Pre-Revolutionary Russia, which your quote is about, had it in significant amounts. The problem, anon, is you can't read. Nothing you posted agrees with your assessment. It actually agrees with me. Explicitly.
>>17091163The Communist Party of Cuba put Batista in power, retard.Are you just not aware of the fact the Communist Party of Cuba existed before Castro?Batista was not a US installed dictator. He came to power via an electoral coalition that was possible because of communists in the 1930s.Castro was also supported by the CIA, and was initially not even a communist.
>>17090992He was not a bureaucrat, anon.Where do you take such claims?>>17090998>Lysenko had support from Stalin and other important officials like Zhdanov. Yes. And he has the support of modern day scientists also.>They could have killed or replaced the bureaucrats if they wanted to.They did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_PurgeI... don't get where the point of contention is. You know that agrarian politics take years to be implemented, right? And having to profile over 700k people (although I agree that the numbers are clearly inflated) takes an additional 3 years... The great purge happened in 1936...
>>17091156I only said citizens because Gary Webb was an ordinary citizen, not a soldier or otherwise aligned to the nation.
>>17091185Even China experienced famines due to adopting Lysenko's policies decades later. Can't blame the Soviet Bureaucrats for that one.
>>17091142>Only in that case a socialist country can be considered failed.But every socialist country failed. That's why the revolutions of 1989 happened.>because profit is a strictly capitalistic term.Not really, no. The idea of profit even exists in the bible even before capitalism. And Stalin himself acknowledged profits were necessary for the USSR to operate. He famously wrote in the "Economic Problems of the USSR" that USSR needed positive profit margins to pay for expenses. Again, you're just dumb and don't know anything.
>>17091185>He was not a bureaucrat, anon.Yes he was... he worked for the Soviet Agricultural Department. How are you this fucking dumb you don't even know basic Soviet History you can google lmfao
Communism is a secular variant of theocracy, and like actual theocracy, it's fundamentally tyrannical, unsustainable and doomed to failure.
>>17091170>consumers have money to buy stuff.>Massive layoffs>After a brutal year of layoffs in 2023, companies this year have continued to cut jobs across tech, media, finance, manufacturing, and retail.https://www.businessinsider.com/layoffs-sweeping-us-these-are-companies-making-cuts-2024>Record profitsAnon, do you read the news?>The housing problem is only bad in shit holes like New York and California>The United States is experiencing a serious housing crisis, and has been for a long time. Growth in rents continues to exceed overall price inflation. Mortgage rates have been at a multi-decade high due to the Federal Reserve’s aggressive rate hikes since summer 2022. Tens of millions of households spend more than 30% of their income on housinghttps://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis>You tend not to read sources, so, of course you don't have an argument here.So again, autarchies are the only successful economies in your opinion?>No, the US did not take out debt from any country to survive World War II. Wrong again. Pic rel shows that it never had more public debt if not during wwii.>You don't live in reality dude.Well, after this post, you seem to live in the dreams of Ayn Rand, anon.>Your source says the USSR could only mass produce toilet paperWrong again. It didn't say "could", it said "did".You are trying to projecting your desires of depicting soviet russia as a shit hole, and I don't blame you. How could you not, every source of information is owned by capitalists.
>>17091185>You know that agrarian politics take years to be implemented, rightUh, Lysenko was in charge of agriculture in 1928, and years later the Holodomor happened.Even if we use your timeframe of "years" he's still responsible.Are you a troll by any chance? Because you're making communists really bad.
>>17091182>He maintained control through a series of puppet presidents until 1940, when he was elected president on a populist platform.[3][4] He then instated the 1940 Constitution of Cuba[5] and served until 1944. After finishing his term, Batista moved to Florida, returning to Cuba to run for president in 1952. Facing certain electoral defeat, he led a military coup against President Carlos Prío Socarrás that pre-empted the election.[6]Back in power and receiving financial, military and logistical support from the United States government,[7][8] Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor CubansHe was a populist, anon. He came back from the US, with a coup financed by them.Where the fuck are you getting your info anon?>Eventually, it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land.[10] As such, Batista's repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships both with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinational companies who were awarded lucrative contracts.
>>17091186Ah they all prove my point really.Communism scares the capitalist.
>>17091192You can blame every bureaucrat of china for that one. They clearly were against soviet union, they wanted to fuck up china and sell it the US. Which they did, lowering all the quality of life and then Deng giving out ridicolously low price deals to foreign contractors.I agree, china sucked. Xijing ping is doing a good job tho.
>>17091194>That's why the revolutions of 1989 happened.Revolutions happen because someone finances mentally ill people anon. Read the tianman square massacre. Did they massacre chinese people? No! They killed hong kong university students, indoctrinated by british officials.
>>17091235That does not prove your point. They were allies, and not not allies like you claimed.
>>17091194>The idea of profit exists in the bibleProfit is linked with the capital.During socialism, capital is still present.During feudalism, capital is still present.Issues with profit was not present, because the capital was not in danger.Maybe I explained poorly.You need private property, the market wellness linked to the capital in order to determine its success.This was absent in soviet russia.
>>17091204He did work there as a scientist.Unless you think that everyone that works in the public sector is a bureaucrat, researchers are not bureaucrats because they have no executive power (the branch of government, just to be clear).
>>17091227He was not the cause, anon.If he was the cause then the holodomor would have happened in 1929 or 1930 or 1931... It instead happened in 1932 and 1933.2 years, because, logically speaking, you cannot blame the famine on bad logistics if it had not happened two years in a row.
>>17091264They were not allies, anon. They were colonies.America is an imperialist force, which kills their colonized people according to its need. The italians, the americans, the cubans they killed show a clear connection between the political affiliations of all of them.
>>17091224>Business InsiderYeah, tech layoffs happen all the time. You don't understand how the tech industry works. Tech companies laying people off because of lower demand expected in the winter isn't proof the US economy is doing bad. The US economy added 206K jobs, and the FED is cutting interest rates because the economy is doing well.Public debt doesn't matter much because most of its due to spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Those are issues that can solved, as your graph shows, because the US is just going to raise taxes. Its not a big deal. Its even more irrelevant when the US the world's reserve currency.>Anon, do you read the news?Anon, you don't. Your source doesn't even prove your claim. Its just single paragraph with few sentences. The actual data doesn't support your argument. Rent rising in Chicago doesn't mean its expensive everywhere. You're not even American; don't pretend you know anything about US economics when you're clearly panic googling stuff.>ic rel shows that it never had more public debt if not during wwiiYeah, US didn't take public debt from another country like the USSR did. I don't think you can read very well. Most be your post-Soviet education. The US did not need the USSR to survive. The USSR did need the US to survive, and relied on it heavily for aid. It could have survived Nazis onslaught without the US.>the dreams of Ayn Rand, anon.You live a world where USSR still exists when it does not. You're suffering from severe mental illness and cope. By all benchmarks, the USSR was a complete failure. It doesn't exist anymore and never will. The US won the Cold War dude, and you're on 4chan pretending it didn't.>Wrong again. It didn't say "could", it said "did".No, your own source says the USSR had to import toilet, and could only really produce it until the 1960s.You're just mentally ill.You just don't want to accept reality.Just imagine being a communist 4chan. Your life is sad and is going no where.
>>17091266>But anon, you're wrong.Profit is talked about even in the bible. You're just dumb. And the USSR did operate on profits, as Stalin admitted in the Economic Problems of the USSR. You can find statistical records of Soviet officials tracking proofs dude. Google is free.What is your point?Private property was not absent in the USSR. It was protected by the Soviet Constitution. In fact, private property in the USSR was the most efficient at producing agriculture. Despite being only three percent of Soviet agricultural land, it produced 64% of all the Soviet Union's potatoes.
>>17091231Anon, how are you this dumb? You don't even read the stuff you post.Castro was from a rich family, and he said himself he wasn't a communist.And the reason why the US was anti-Cuba because they stole US property through nationalization.https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-episode-fidel-castro-says-he-is-not-a-communist-152454214001You're a dumb tranny lmfao and you don't know anything
>>17091249>Revolutions happen because someone finances mentally ill people anon.The revolutions of 1989 happened because people were starving, Anon. Communist polcieis were causing hunger. Its not mental illness that people want food.>Did they massacre chinese people? No! It was studentsPinochet, Hitler and Franco didn't massacre communists. They were indoctrinated by the Soviet Union, and had to die. Hitler didn't do anything wrong.
>>17091282>If he was the cause then the holodomor would have happened in 1929 or 1930 or 1931... It instead happened in 1932 and 1933.It happened while he was in charge, using your time frame, even in years, so yeah he was responsible. Its impossible to say otherwise. He was in charge of agricultural policy during,before, and after the Holodomor.Russia currently blames him for it too along with Stalin's policies.Seems like a clear cut case to me.
>>17091300>Yeah, tech layoffs happen all the time. You don't understand how the tech industry worksthis year have continued to cut jobs across [...] media, finance, manufacturing, and retail.Anon, do you read what I post?Noone cares about techbros.>The U.S. economy suffered an unexpected setback in July as hiring fell sharply and the unemployment rate rose for the fourth straight month with raised interest rates taking a toll on businesses and households.https://apnews.com/article/economy-jobs-unemployment-federal-reserve-inflation-22095766804d9c1532b4fcc29565be49You keep talking about data for investors. Investors don't care if you are hungry and have no home.>Fed cuttting interest ratesOf course, anon, the american economy is not in a great state right now. They need incentives. If you have a crisis, you lower the interest rates. If you have a market expansion, then you increase them! Otherwise you get inflation during market growth. Fed didnt increase the interest rates enough and the US had inflation... Anon, you have never studied econ, did you?>Your source doesn't even prove your claim.You reject the study because I don't live in America. You actually reject a study by harvard business review... You are trolling, these will be the last posts I answer to.>Yeah, US didn't take public debt from another country like the USSR did. Of course! Where do you think all the money are? In the hands of governments? No! They are in the hands of the 1%! Soviet union doesn't have the 1%!>The US won the Cold War dude, and you're on 4chan pretending it didn't.You didn't read my other posts.>could only really produce it until the 1960s.Well, the freudian slip proves me right.>>17091313Because the books you are consulting are not communist. I am talking about private property, not personal property.See it as possession versus naked property, if you study law.>>17091335Oh didn't know that lol.They stopped calling themselves commies sometime after that lul
>>17091380>this year have continued to cut jobs across [...] media, finance, manufacturing, and retail.The mass majority of those jobs, even in the article, is tech jobs. You didn't read it>https://apnews.com/article/economy-jobs-unemployment-federal-reserve-inflation-22095766804d9c1532b4fcc29565be49.You posted an article from July. The most recent data. You're not good at this dude, lol.You're panic googling stuff because you don't know what you're talking about.>Well, the freudian slip proves me right.No? Your reading comprehension is really bad.The Soviet Union could not produce toilet paper until the 1960s.Your own source, in Russian, says that was the case - it could only import it.You're pretty much illiterate dude. This whole conversation is you being entirely illiterate and retarded.Leftypol isn't sending their best.
>>17091350>The revolutions of 1989 happened because people were starving, AnonWhat was the name of the famine again?>Pinochet, Hitler and Franco didn't massacre communistsNeither did the communist party of china.They mauled british citizens.>>17091359>It happened while he was in charge, using your time frame, even in years, so yeah he was responsibleNo, why would it be? It works, and scientists agree that it does. His theories are right, and I proved it to you.The application of his theories was flawed. You can even say that true lysenkism never happened (even if it did, from 1928 to 1931 and from 1934 onward).
>>17091380>Because the books you are consulting are not communist.You're pretty retarded dude. They're using private property in the communist sense too. Soviet firms had capital, and that capital operated on a profit basis. The distinction between "personal and private property" is not relevant here.The Soviet Union had wage labor, profit, markets and capital firms. Communism so bad in the USSR that cooperative firms, and state farms, were way less efficient than private firms.USSR even had Pepsi dude. You really don't know anything about the Soviet economy.
>>17091406Just stepping in to say that it's perfectly reasonable the only "privately owned" farms were in extremely arable conditions. The USSR was statistically speaking like 20% arable land and 80% permafrost sand.It would not surprise me one bit that the well-populated extremely fertile soils inhabited by "private" farmers (Who really are just independent workers who know their shit operating on an entirely different level than anyone else because that's just the nature of agriculture amongst an industrialized world) would produce more than the naturally infertile Government-Owned land.
>>17091394>What was the name of the famine again?You don't need to have a famine for people to be starving, anon. Food shelves were empty. That's why Boris Yeltsin was shocked when he went to an American super market.>Neither did the communist party of china.The Communist Party of China admitted Mao killed millions of people due to a fact though. That's why he was forced to step down.>No, why would it be?Because the Soviet regularly killed government officials for wrecking. The Soviet Union's own legal system would agree that government officials can be blamed for things when stuff goes wrong.Stalin and Lyeno just blamed the wrong officials because they weren't loyal to them. Good ol' Soviet favoritism.
>>17091419>Just stepping in to say that it's perfectly reasonable the only "privately owned" farms were in extremely arable conditionIt just so happens only 3% of Soviet land was extremely arable (the land on private plots), and the Soviets intentionally built non-private agricultural land at shitty places over 90% of the time?Its ridiculous to believe this, and even if you did, how could you defend communism when officials were stupid enough to allegedly do something like that on purpose to hurt their own agricultural production?You're dumb as fuck.
>>17089894One of the dumbest things I’ve read on this board
>>17091426>It just so happens only 3% of Soviet land was extremely arable (the land on private plots), and the Soviets intentionally built non-private agricultural land at shitty places over 90% of the time?Yes. Most arable land would naturally be populated by more people, and therefore during the Soviet Union's decisions to feed their people would naturally then be more inclined to A) give the arable already populated land to the farmers who know how to work said land to produce as much food as they can, and B) do the best they can on their own on non-owned non-populated albeit shitty land.The Soviets wanted FOOD. Not an ideological accomplishment. If it worked better, they did it.You're a fucking retard for not knowing the obvious fucking relationship between land arability, population, and potential policy.
Dumbest thing Ive read on /his/ today>The USSR just so happened to put farming co-operatives on bad farming land on purpose, and didn't bother collectivizing private property because clearly communism was superior to capitalismIts amazing the amount of mental gymnastics communists do to justify their retarded ideology.
>>17091445Literally the dumbest thing I've read on /his/. Has to be a troll.>The USSR just so happened to put farming co-operatives on bad farming land on purpose, and didn't bother collectivizing private property because clearly communism was superior to capitalism!Its no wonder you guys think women can have penises, and that children can consent to sex. Your mind is melted from porn, leftypol, and high fructose corn syrup.
>>17091452The irony is most or all of the ethnic groups in the soviet union were capable of producing enough food by themselves in their local communities, if you just leave them alone and don't try to control or subvert them. But the commies could not do that of course.
>>17091474Not replying to you, Anon, but here's something:The real reason why private plots were productive wasn't because they weren't all on arable land.The Soviet Union tried collectivization in the 1930s, and it failed. It caused a famine that killed millions of people. So Stalin reversed the policy, and allowed private land for farming.China even did the same thing with the famous "Xiaogang Experiment."It had nothing do with the batshit, mentally retarded idea that Soviet officials knowingly chose bad land for farming and not private plots.They just knew capitalism was better at producing food which is why they were so harsh on Mao's policies and split with him.Marxists have a room temperature IQ bro.Communists are the stupidest posters on /his/.
>>17091474Also, to add, you're right. The Soviets also genocided many Siberian farmers because they could be self sufficient, but the soviets wanted them to work in factories.
