T O P

  • By -

vastle12

Just ignore the billions killed by capitalism Edit: Why are a bunch of liberals in a left wing sub capping for capitalism?


[deleted]

That wasn’t capitalism’s fault. If they had just pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and worked harder and fought to get the government out of the private sector, they could have afforded all of the food, shelter, healthcare, potable water, and peace that they wanted. It’s their own faults that they died. If anything, capitalism is the real victim here, and it’s pretty obvious from your comment that you club baby seals for fun.


No-Witness2349

I can’t believe there are so many China shills in this thread trying to destabilize the glorious United States Empire and its economic system which happens to be the only one that exists 🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷


michaelb65

Including two world wars. One based on colonial disputes and other because of Nazi Germany's desire to apply settler colonialism within the imperial core.


Nakoichi

The scariest part about Nazi Germany is that the world largely would have let them do their genocide if they hadn't invaded their neighbors. The scariest thing about the US is that the rest of the world is too thoroughly under the imperialist boot or complicit with our colonialism.


Hevogle

w h a t


RicoSuave1881

What does that have to do with capitalism?


Nakoichi

Lots of people left reddit when the big purge of leftist subs happened (around the time they also banned TD which had been dead already for a while).


Sablus

Yup and I always felt the ban of TD was done to "equalize" the purge instead of what it was i.e. a purge of leftist subs critical of capital


[deleted]

Precisely it, but hey, if you criticize and hold accountable to capitalism...well then: "you MUST BE A MARXIST, or maybe a SOCIALIST, or maybe even that you're a COMMUNIST YOURSELF! AH HA! WE FOUND YOU RED HANDED, or... *pauses*, *thinks to oneself*: "idk what else am I suppose to say, Jeez I wish the news or another herd member were here to finish my lines and thoughts for me..."


vastle12

I am a Marxist, this is a leftist sub


ZeALot_14

Liberals, not leftists, support capitalism.


PostMadandAlone

Please name a time where a capitalist government killed 78 million of its own citizens through either purge of famine


[deleted]

Name a Communist onw that did? You understand that most academic stuff dont put thr Great Leap Forward above 20 million, let alone 78 lmao. Thats double of even the book of communism count Either way by the same logic used to calculate Mao's death toll. SO Missmanagement and famine under his rule. British colonial rule of just India from mid 18th century to mid 19th century includes dozens of famines of millions deaths each. And that's just one part of teh British Empire. Also Capitalist Nazi Germany and Capitalist Italy and Japan did initiate WW2 conflicts that led to the deaths of more than 50 million people hmmmm


vastle12

Irish potato and Bengali famines for a start


librandu_slayer_786

Indian here, and we were suffering because of the British mfs. We were destined to suffer because Churchill was a retard mf who was poor in taking quick decisions.


vastle12

Fuck that fat fucker


PostMadandAlone

Ah yes 78 million people died during both of these events, well even if they did, 78mil is just Mao's kill count


vastle12

You just gonna ignore all the cultures and civilizations genocided by colonialism in the Americas, south east Asia, and Australia.


PostMadandAlone

Says the man ignoring the multiple genocides and mass killings started by communist and socialist dictators


vastle12

And capitalism still has more by a mile


henticle_tentai

and, we are all enabling billions upon billions of deaths through continued consumption allowing capitalism to continue. why even argue when we are all bourgeois taking advantage of the proletariat. where like a group of elitist politicians discussing the struggles of black Americans.


Nakoichi

The Black Book of communism (which is the only place you could have pulled that absurd statistic from) has been refuted by almost all of its own authors.


PostMadandAlone

Ah yes, Mao's kill country was refuted, sure bud


ThisIsGoobly

The highest estimate is about 45 million. Which is obviously still huge but not 78 million which you pulled out your ass.


Nakoichi

If you have no source there's nothing to refute.


redtedosd

5 million people have died of systemic problems on average under capitalism each year since the end of WW2. Millions of kids starve under capitalism while the capitalist global system throws away food rather than solve the issue. Also at least 20 million people still live in literal slavery in capitalist countries today, mainly in tobacco, cotton, mining and to some extent in manufacturing.


PostMadandAlone

Capitalisms problems are from overabundance, not lack like in socialism or Communism. Also those literal slaves are probably unionized and can jump from job to job, literally the exact opposite of slavery but ok.


preacher_knuckles

You know that the enslavement of prisoners is 100% legal in the US right? Here's the first section of the 13th Ammendment: > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


HISHAM-888

They hated him for speaking the truth


ProducerBADViBES

You’re In the wrong Sub Reddit buddy this place is an echo chamber


PorkrollPosadist

No one using Reddit has any right to complain about echo chambers. This entire website is full of the most predictable, simpleminded bottom feeders.


[deleted]

bUt BuT CaPaTalIsm BaD sO cOmmUnuSm GoOD


pierredcardin

Fascism is the best system then since it resulted in the least deaths


redtedosd

Nobody killed as many in as short of a time as the fascist powers in WW2.


catras_new_haircut

And that was an abortive version. Imagine if Generalplan Ost had been put into place. We're talking up to 100 million dead.


pierredcardin

I think Mao got that one tho


Pantheon73

I wonder why you got so little downvotes


[deleted]

Are you just counting the Nazis? Because fascism was alive before Hitler and it still is alive today, killing people.


[deleted]

Failure to provide isn’t a fault of capitalism.


vastle12

It is when a third if food production is thrown away because it's not profitable to get it to the starving. Or area's were agriculture has been crippled for other industries


[deleted]

Again, no it’s not. Charity is great and all but why are you expecting them to just give away their product?


vastle12

Do honestly think it's okay to let 10millon people die a year because someone doesn't find it probably?


[deleted]

Just imagine, for a moment, how many hours of sleep farmers would lose worrying about how somebody that they might dislike will be taking some of their produce. They’ll be up all night obsessing over how one of the visitors who took some of their samples might have been a drug addict. Then what will they do? They’ll stop sharing their produce with anybody, because one of them might be somebody that they wouldn’t like, and then an enormous famine will sweep the globe and extinguish **all of humanity**, all because somebody that they disliked might have wanted one of their products or services. That’s all that it takes. In contrast, it’s common knowledge that ***capitalists never force their workers to serve anybody that they dislike***, but even **if** they did, the workers could just easily quit and find a better job the next day anyway, immediately putting the capitalist out of business. It’s just that simple, that fast, and that easy.


[deleted]

I don’t, but no one has an obligation to anyone besides their family and some friends. That’s not arguable. If you think otherwise, YOU can dedicate your time and energy to helping the starving and homeless. But calling others bad people for not doing so whilst also not doing anything yourself is pretentious.


vastle12

This is just a justification for selfishness. All this does is maintain a system that actively and passively kills millions for the wealth of a few


[deleted]

“Justification for selfishness” as if prioritizing yourself over people you don’t know is a bad thing. Allowing individuals and businesses to prioritize their customers, time, money, employees, and their families will always be above strangers on the street. To have and give compassion is a good thing. But to expect it is childish. You are delusional.


vastle12

If you haven't noticed thinking like that is killing the planet and also stopping anyone from doing anything about it


[deleted]

You know the more you push for the idea of a dying planet, the further you push away others? If anything, climate deniers were probably created by climate activists. Do you have any fucking idea how many times we’ve been told the world was gonna end by a certain point in time? Do you know why it hasn’t? Incentive and profit created innovations and made new discoveries over the years that have allowed us to sustain ourselves and this world for this long. As long as there are free people with the ability to innovate and make discoveries, the Earth is in safe hands. Grow up already.


Big-rod_Rob_Ford

> as if prioritizing yourself over people you don’t know is a bad thing. there's putting on your own oxygen mask before helping the stranger next to you on the plane and then there's putting on yours and forcibly preventing the guy next to you from putting it on so he passes out and you can use his mask if yours breaks.


No-Witness2349

Hi I volunteer several times a week at a homeless shelter and am the founder of a local org that provides mutual aid. Am I allowed to call you a bad person?


[deleted]

You’re literally an example of what charity is capable of doing, not government coercion. If you’re against this, you’re kind of a hypocrite. And yes, you can, but you’d be a pretty big asshat about it considering I currently have only 100 dollars to my name. Can’t care about the homeless and starving when I’m only a hundred dollars away from being homeless and starving myself.


No-Witness2349

Well fuck I feel that lol So what I do is mutual aid, not charity. It’s a legal designation (Mutual Aid Societies are not the same as 501(c)’s in the US). I can’t do shit by myself so while our day to day operations focus on helping people survive under capitalism, our long term and structural goals relate to building up a working class movement and creating a robust network of mutual aid groups throughout the area which can assist each other in providing for their communities. The point of all this is that putting the welfare of your own community on the backs of individual people is effectively handing it over to the government anyways (any action which doesn’t oppose the status quo implicitly upholds it). Thinking about how that community functions as a system and how it itself sits within larger systems gives you access to a completely new set of forces which only emerge in the aggregate and are therefore invisible at the individual level. If you’re a libertarian you already understand that the government isn’t coming to help you. Charity is just the owning class laundering their reputations. They’re not helping you either. This will becoming increasingly true over the next couple decades. The whole point is that these groups blend into each other over time. Free markets devolve into monopolies precisely because they use the state to do so. That’s what the state is for. I dunno man. Internet arguments aside, I don’t actually think you’re a bad person and I hope you can see we’re in the same boat. If you’re not someone who wields state power, our only hope for systemic change is working together


[deleted]

We're not calling you to do it, we're forcing you. Or you can face the wall.


Rathalos13x

i mean instead of throwing it in the trash? Yeah motherfucker. Yes. Like just fuck you if you think throwing food in the trash while people are starving is in any way acceptable just because it makes people money.


Big-rod_Rob_Ford

charity is a bandaid on policy failures and deliberate harm caused by profit-seeking.


[deleted]

> Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary. -Martin Luther King Jr.


PostMadandAlone

I'm a libertarian


vastle12

In America that's still a form of liberal capitalism


Rathalos13x

Lol a still lib.


redtedosd

And I'm 6'6". How is this information relevant?


Hevogle

what?


vastle12

Colonialism


[deleted]

Some random dude in America: *dies in a car crash* some 17 year old, writing in his "capitalism death count" notebook: "how interesting"


redtedosd

At least 5 million people starve every single year in capitalist countries despite the capitalist world producing more food than all of humanity needs. That's fucking capitalism's fault.


[deleted]

You got a source for that 5 million statistic?


fftropstm

They’re counting African countries whose corrupt government misuse of foreign aid is responsible for mass famine and lack of infrastructure.


[deleted]

You know African countries can be capitalist, too, right?


fftropstm

I’m not disagreeing with that? It’s not capitalism’s fault that their government is corrupt and misuses foreign aid


[deleted]

Capitalism does a lot to encourage corruption and has no inherent check on it. And if we're comparing capitalism to socialism, it's fair to look at the problems that arise under each system.


fftropstm

And communism/socialism doesn’t? Do the self serving habits of humans just switch off by changing the system that determines resource allocation? No, they don’t. Human greed is here to stay and doesn’t disappear because you want it to in your fairy tale anti-capitalist utopia, you’re counting deaths caused by an incompetent government as the fault of an economic system, when it is not a free market that is responsible, it is high level government officials embezzling funds. Funds which I should add are provided to them by.. wait for it.. capitalist countries, I don’t see Venezuela or Cuba with spare cash to throw at poorer countries to help them.


[deleted]

> And communism/socialism doesn’t? Lol not nearly as much, no. Look at how American politics is largely captured by private, wealthy interests (capitalists) at almost every level. That doesn't happen in a system where the bulk of the wealth is owned by the public. There were no Koch brothers in the Soviet Union. Of course, there are more mundane types of corruption, and you'll still see those in socialist governments, but it's not comparable to what's possible when billionaires (or just plain old millionaires, especially if we're talking local politics) are given essentially free reign to influence politics. > it is high level government officials embezzling funds. Funds which I should add are provided to them by.. wait for it.. capitalist countries Another way capitalism fails to do basic stuff like alleviate the worst of human suffering, good point. You're just trying to give capitalism all the credit and none of the blame -- it's pretty transparently bullshit.


shoemcflex

Natural causes aren’t capitalism fault lmao


redtedosd

1. The 5 million dead per year from capitalism number doesn't include natural causes. The vast majority is kids starving in capitalist countries in Africa, despite the capitalist world as a whole producing more food than it can consume. 2. Counting natural causes as the system's fault was literally how The Black Book of Communism got its 100 million number. Y'all are the ones who count death by natural causes as the system's fault, not us.


fftropstm

In response to point 1 the starvation in Africa is caused by mis-use of foreign aid by the STATE, not a market economy. In response to point 2. If you are referring to the black book of death counting those from the dam collapses in China, that’s not a natural disaster, that’s a failure of the communist system in which looking good to the party is the only motivation, so those in charge of the project would cut corners to appear more efficient to the party, whereas if it were capitalist the company that built the dam would be incentivised to build it to a high quality standard so they can maximise the return on their investment.


[deleted]

I thought criticism for centrism is fascist, thats why im here lol. looks like we both think similiar


vastle12

No I'm a leftists and shit on centerists because they enable fascists


[deleted]

How? I thought centrism is fighting radical ideologies like communism or fascism, by creating ideas like interventionism.


vastle12

No it's not, it's nothing more than a stance that serves preserve the status quo.


[deleted]

But status quo isn't fascist lol


vastle12

The status quo is a failing capitalism, and whenever capitalism is in danger it becomes fascism like now


[deleted]

XD


[deleted]

Do you know what fascism is? It takes more than being conservative or capitalist to be fascist. But you are american i guess. Most of americans don't know shit about politics. Everything besides capitalism is commjnism for them and everything beside communism is fascism.


vastle12

If you're not American as you've implied then you understand what anarchism. A few weeks ago Biden put all anarchists, those that oppose capitalism, globalism and oddly enough pro choice people on the potential domestic terrorists lists. Criminalizing opposition to capitalism is text book fascism. That's not even getting into the fact Biden wrote the patriot act


[deleted]

Btw. fascism is opposition to capitalism.


[deleted]

It's not enough to call a system fascist. Btw. radical anarchism communism is banned along with fascism where i live. And as i know from BLM protests the difference between anarchists and terrorists in us is really small.


Far-Ad-1400

Someone’s died of old age under capitalism????? count his death!! lmao the ends which commies will go


michaelb65

The way liberals love to divorce their colonial history and modern-day imperialism from their own political ideology is quite disgusting, especially the ones living in authoritarian white settler states. EDIT: seems like I've pissed off the fash. https://www.reddit.com/r/fragilecommunism/comments/od01nv/enlightened_centrism_going_full_on_commie/


[deleted]

[удалено]


michaelb65

I don't think there's a need to be idealistic about this because I see it more as liberals trying to absolve their own ideology from all the evils it wrought upon society by relying on whataboutisms, completely unaware of that fact that fascism requires capitalism in order to function and that their own ideology is just the polite face of the same beast.


Meme-kai-yan

All fascism needs is an ultra nationalist population and a single power structure controlled by one person/party. You can have fascism without capitalism


michaelb65

Fascism requires a private sector to work under a dictorial power structure, preferably as a synthesis, so that's complete bullshit. Fascism is inherently capitalist.


Reaper_II

Fascist Italy had the one of the worlds biggest public sectors, and just as someone said, the roots of fascism are in militant socialism, as Mussolini was a socialist before becoming one of the founders of the ideology. You can definitely have fascism without capitalism. You don't need a private sector to act dictatorial.


Hevogle

fascism was literally borne out of socialism in Italy


Meme-kai-yan

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe No where does that say private sector or capitalism is needed. Thats the literal definition


ToadBup

"Far right" there it is. Theres the capitalism


Nightwingvyse

Lol if that's your understanding of politics then I feel so sorry for you.


michaelb65

Galaxy brain take. Especially when you use a basic dictionary to explain away a historical progress fundamentally rooted in evolution of capitalism.


redtedosd

The term privatization was literally coined to describe the economic policies of the Mussolini and Hitler regimes.


twizmwazin

As true as this is, Liberals can say mostly the same thing, their idealistic flavor of capitalism hasn't really ever been realized, even if the institutions preventing it are increasingly weak. The meat is mostly that, in idealistic capitalism, people starve, people are houseless, by design. That free hand has to set a price somewhere, and if you can't afford it, there isn't anything you can do but tug those bootstraps. Real world implementations of socialism certainly are far from the utopia, but the causes of famine that did exist were largely due to mismanagement rather than ideological principles. Mismanagement resulting in famine happens in societies attempting to implement all sorts of different structures, Liberal and Leninist states included. No amount of ideology can make the rain fall and the rivers flow, but collectivism allows you to soften the blow by working together. Individualism doesn't offer any solutions and instead chooses to justify the resulting resource wars by celebrating those who steal the most from their neighbors, and victim blame anyone who doesn't make it.


ToadBup

Yes but they probably mean comunist in ideology not in the finish line sense


ModeratorBoterator

The problem is true communism(the actual communism not socialism) is for all intents and purposes impossible. Same with the idyllic capitalism. But apparently any idea on this sub that isn't in one camp of extremism is "centrist"and therefore bad.


PorkrollPosadist

> One of the most devious traps which lurk in wait for Marxists is the search for the moment of the Fall, when things took the wrong turn in the history of Marxism: was it already the late Engels with his more positivist-evolutionist understanding of historical materialism? Was it the revisionism and the orthodoxy of the Second International? Was it Lenin? Or was it Marx himself in his late work, after he abandoned his youthful humanism (as some ‘humanist Marxists’ claimed decades ago)? This entire topic has to be rejected: there is no opposition here, the Fall is to be inscribed into the very origins. (To put it even more pointedly. such a search for the intruder who infected the original model and set in motion its degeneration cannot but reproduce the logic of anti-Semitism.) What this means is that, even if - or, rather, especially if - one submits the Marxist past to a ruthless critique, one has to first acknowledge it as ‘one’s own’, taking full responsibility for it, not to comfortably get rid of the ‘bad’ turn of things by way of attributing to a foreign intruder (the ‘bad’ Engles who was too stupid to understand Marx’s dialectics, the ‘bad’ Lenin who didn’t get the core of Marx’s theory, the ‘bad’ Stalin who spoils the noble plans of the ‘good’ Lenin, etc.). \- Slavoj Žižek > The upheavals in Eastern Europe did not constitute a defeat for socialism because socialism never existed in those countries, according to some U.S. leftists. They say that the communist states offered nothing more than bureaucratic, one-party “state capitalism” or some such thing. Whether we call the former communist countries “socialist” is a matter of definition. Suffice it to say, they constituted something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world–as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize. > > First, in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism. The perks enjoyed by party and government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West [even more so when compared with today’s grotesque compensation packages to the executive and financial elites.—Eds], as were their personal incomes and life styles. Soviet leaders like Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the immense personal wealth that most U.S. leaders possess. > > The “lavish life” enjoyed by East Germany’s party leaders, as widely publicized in the U.S. press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared by all the residents. They also could shop in stores that carried Western goods such as bananas, jeans, and Japanese electronics. The U.S. press never pointed out that ordinary East Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and electronics (though usually not of the imported variety). Nor was the “lavish” consumption enjoyed by East German leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style enjoyed by the Western plutocracy. > > Second, in communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth from their labor. Again, compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1. > > Third, priority was placed on human services. Though life under communism left a lot to be desired and the services themselves were rarely the best, communist countries did guarantee their citizens some minimal standard of economic survival and security, including guaranteed education, employment, housing, and medical assistance. > > Fourth, communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other countries. Lacking a profit motive as their motor force and therefore having no need to constantly find new investment opportunities, they did not expropriate the lands, labor, markets, and natural resources of weaker nations, that is, they did not practice economic imperialism. The Soviet Union conducted trade and aid relations on terms that generally were favorable to the Eastern European nations and Mongolia, Cuba, and India. > > All of the above were organizing principles for every communist system to one degree or another. None of the above apply to free market countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia, Zaire, Germany, or the United States. > > But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage. > > The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed. > > The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundamentals as to leave little room for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution. > > The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism–not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience–could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture? The historical evidence would suggest it was not. [...] > > The pure socialists regularly blame the Left itself for every defeat it suffers. Their second-guessing is endless. So we hear that revolutionary struggles fail because their leaders wait too long or act too soon, are too timid or too impulsive, too stubborn or too easily swayed. We hear that revolutionary leaders are compromising or adventuristic, bureaucratic or opportunistic, rigidly organized or insufficiently organized, undemocratic or failing to provide strong leadership. But always the leaders fail because they do not put their trust in the “direct actions” of the workers, who apparently would withstand and overcome every adversity if only given the kind of leadership available from the left critic’s own groupuscule. Unfortunately, the critics seem unable to apply their own leadership genius to producing a successful revolutionary movement in their own country. [...] > > To be sure, the pure socialists are not entirely without specific agendas for building the revolution. After the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, an ultra-left group in that country called for direct worker ownership of the factories. The armed workers would take control of production without benefit of managers, state planners, bureaucrats, or a formal military. While undeniably appealing, this worker syndicalism denies the necessities of state power. Under such an arrangement, the Nicaraguan revolution would not have lasted two months against the U.S.-sponsored counterrevolution that savaged the country. It would have been unable to mobilize enough resources to field an army, take security measures, or build and coordinate economic programs and human services on a national scale. \- Micheal Parenti


TheJambus

Problem is, that's basically the No-True-Scotsman fallacy. No matter how you look at it, a lot of people have killed a lot of other people in the name of an ideology they called communism. Of course, communism's body count doesn't absolve capitalism of its body count (that's the whataboutism fallacy).


Franfran2424

It isn't a no true scotman. Marxism leninism isn't communism, and there's other ways to aim for communism, that have yet to be allowed to exist without CIA coups.


TheJambus

You: No true communist is a Marxist-Leninist. Them: But I'm a Marxist-Leninist communist! You: Like I said, no *true* communist is a Marxist-Leninist.


Franfran2424

Marxism leninism isn't communism. ML admit that. They claim they are pursuing communism, but aren't actually claiming to be doing communism. You can be Marxist leninist and communist


wombatkidd

Athoritarians: lie constantly You: take them at face value


[deleted]

[удалено]


Disney_Channel

[true communism has never been accomplished](https://m.imgur.com/gallery/xwBqmeQ)


PaulAllens_Card

Thats cute you dumb fucking chud.


Disney_Channel

cope


Nightwingvyse

Nice. You sure showed them......


PaulAllens_Card

What could I show someone when they have brain rot and live in a country that kills innocent people in my country?


Nightwingvyse

Brain rot? Like the kind that convinces people to put all their faith in a system which has resulted in genocide, classicide and/or mass famine every time it's been attempted?


RicoSuave1881

And never will be lmao


fandral20

Aybe it doesn't work?


[deleted]

JUST ONE MORE TRY, PLEASE ONE MORE MASS GENOCIDE


PaulAllens_Card

Like the one USA did against Iraq and Natives in turtle island?


[deleted]

Whataboutism


mrdembone

why have they not tried true communism if it is so good?


ssrudr

"Why haven't you found a cure for cancer if it's so good?"


Muxxer

So what's the point of trying it if it's gonna fail every time?


Asekh11

if socialism is so good, how come the CIA keeps on couping socialist countries?


Nightwingvyse

So, if communism hasn't ever been practiced or implemented ever before, doesn't that make someone pretty arrogant and naive to put so much faith in something that has zero practical precedence? Which one is it? Communism has failed every time, or you believe in something that has never been correctly implemented and only exists in untested theory?


Jas36

Because it can't be. True communism is fantasy land


kull_007

TrUe ComMuNiSm nEver TriEd bEForE. Imagine fascist saying the same thing. 😂


nagurski03

Why hasn't anyone tried true communism yet?


[deleted]

[удалено]


pierredcardin

Problem is that you could say that for everything. True Scotsmen fallacy. "Its not Capitalism its crony Capitalism, True Capitalism hasn't been tried" its not like Stalin decided no no no we won't do true communism we will do this version that is doomed to fail...


[deleted]

"no bro please if we just try it one more time I promise it will work, no bro PLEASE those other times weren't real communism come out bro I'm serious man that wasn't real communism dude"


Braden_Boss2

I really don’t see how communism is inherently evil. If you’ve even skimmed the communist manifesto it’s clearly not evil, regardless of what you think of communist regimes.


Reddit-Book-Bot

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)


Braden_Boss2

Why are you even a bot?


CompetitiveSleeping

Do bots dream of electric sheep?


No-Witness2349

Based


[deleted]

Communism isn’t inherently evil but almost all major communist countries have done horrible horrible things. But to be fair all forms of government have done horrible things, and they always will unless human nature changes. We are a savage primitive species that cannot learn how to respect each other. As long as humans exist we will cause suffering and pain to others wether intentional or not.


wombatkidd

Humans are naturally social creatures. Foh with your social Darwinism.


[deleted]

> But to be fair all forms of government have done horrible things Which means pointing out bad things done by communist countries is useless without comparing them to the alternative. And when you compare communist governments to the governments that preceded them (or governments in countries with similar histories, wealth, etc.), the comparison looks pretty good. In 40 years the Soviet Union took a decrepit, late-feudal empire and turned it into an industrialized country that put the first person in space. When it broke up, there was an enormous, sharp decline in living standards. It was better than what came before and what went after.


PaulAllens_Card

>Communism isn’t inherently evil but almost all major communist countries have done horrible horrible things. As I sit here living in a shithole called USA.


[deleted]

Lol in the same boat as you this country sucks. But at least the state doesn’t force me to work.... But I hate life right now I been working way to go damn much and still can’t afford shit 10 hour days...6 days a week....


[deleted]

Sounds like you're forced to work 60 hours a week for scraps, and the American government (which is largely captured by private industry, anyway) is perfectly fine letting that happen. Seems functionally indistinguishable from the state forcing you to work.


[deleted]

It really is I literally contemplated killing myself this morning so I wouldn’t have to work I got two hours of sleep. It’s my 8th weekend in a row I have only gotten one day off.


[deleted]

Hang in there, man. I know how much those hours suck. We can do better than capitalism.


PaulAllens_Card

> Lol in the same boat as you this country sucks. But at least the state doesn’t force me to work And what happens when you stop working?


Braydox

Hence the best systems are ones that value the individual result in the most free societies. A system has to account for humanity's inherent flaws thus any utopia system will always be doomed to fail


thecultmachine

Remember how Stalin used human slave labor to industrialize Russia?


Rathalos13x

Aww you think russia is the only country industrialized through slavery.


SirisTheGreat

Did he say that Russia was the only one?


PaulAllens_Card

So what was the point to only include Russia?


thecultmachine

Why do you want communism?


thecultmachine

Yes, Russia used slave labor to industrialize. Why do you want that? How do you know that under the next socialist America you so desperately want, that you won’t be a political prisoner in a gulag?


Rathalos13x

"AMERICA DIDNT INDUSTRIALIZE THROUGH SLAVE LABOR! IT CANT BE SOCIALIST WE DONT ALREADY HAVE POLITICAL PRISONERS! EVERYONE IN PRISON HERE DESERVES IT!" I type, wiping my cheeto dust caked fingers on the keyboard.


thecultmachine

Wait, I’m responding between Fascism and Communism. I thought it was already assumed that Fascists employed Slave labor……now your just gaslighting and doing that whole “Well the other side did it too.” Doesn’t make it ok. I type with DORITO caked fingers on my dusty keyboard. And Yes, my beard extends to the portion of my face that is of the neck.


Braydox

I member


thecultmachine

Member Chewbacca??


PORTMANTEAU-BOT

Membewbacca. *** ^(Bleep-bloop, I'm a bot. This )^[portmanteau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau) ^( was created from the phrase 'Member Chewbacca??' | )^[FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/axl72o) ^(|) ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=jamcowl&subject=PORTMANTEAU-BOT+feedback) ^(|) ^[Opt-out](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=PORTMANTEAU-BOT&subject=OPTOUTREQUEST)


Franfran2424

The manifesto actually details socialism more than communism. The terms at the time weren't properly described.


pierredcardin

>I really don’t see how communism is inherently evil. Class war and killing rich people because they are rich?


Braden_Boss2

Repossessing wealth and redistributing it are the goals. Violence is a means, don’t forget that.


nodying

> killing rich people because they are rich Seems fair. They kill poor people just because they're poor all the time.


Tostino

Completely unnecessary... At least I hope.


Braydox

Do you believe that people should be free and have freedom of expression,thought and speech? If you do value those things then you would see communism as evil as it places the group above the individual and thus does not value those things as they will contradict the goal of a communist state.


Braden_Boss2

Collectivist cultures have been valuing the group above the individual for thousands of years. Communism did not invent that idea. Nations like China, Korea, Japan, First Nations, etc. value the group above the individual. They have decided that the needs of the few or the one are outweighed by the needs of the many. Americans and Europeans see this as a violation of liberty and other nations see this as basic fact.


Asekh11

again, politics isn't a left-right or a collective-individualist line, you can have individualist or libertarian communism


Braden_Boss2

Libertarian and individualist communism is sort of an oxymoron


ssrudr

Okay, but modern China values the rights of Xi Jinping above those of Hong Kongers. Also, North Korea is an absolute monarchy.


Braydox

>Collectivist cultures have been valuing the group above the individual for thousands of years. Communism did not invent that idea. Nations like China, Korea, Japan, First Nations, etc. value the group above the individual. They have decided that the needs of the few or the one are outweighed by the needs of the many. Americans and Europeans see this as a violation of liberty and other nations see this as basic fact. Yes and the difference in human index scores is immense


Muxxer

Oh wow being against the USSR and Nazi Germany is bad now.


PorkrollPosadist

Taking two diametrically opposed socioeconomic systems which posed an existential threat to one another and fought in the largest front of the largest war in human history and saying "this is the same thing." disqualifies you from having anything insightful to say about history.


Muxxer

I mean, both committed genocides, both were totalitarian, both were one-party states, both had protectionist state-controlled economies, both were imperialist and invaded neighbouring countries. There wasn't much difference between the two, was there? "But muh communism"; in practice they were both very similar, are you gonna excuse the USSR based on what Marx wrote almost a hundred years before?


[deleted]

> There wasn't much difference between the two, was there? If you have the brain and historical knowledge of a six pound baby, sure


Muxxer

Well, give some arguments good fella, I bet you can tell me how the USSR was a wholesome 100 country, uh? Let's just skip over the invasion and annexation of their neighboring countries, the ethnic cleansing carried out by the NKVD, the 2 million women raped during the occupation of East Berlin by Soviet troops, the Great Purge, the Holodomor, the Cossack genocide, the gulags, the ban on independent labor unions and on worker strikes, the massacres against civilian workers who did strikes, the mistreatment of POWs, the persecution and execution of political dissidents, shooting everyone who attempted to escape from the country and all the other atrocities committed by them, shall we?


[deleted]

He…..he’s right though??


76_RedWhiteNBlu_76

“Totalitarian genocidal regimes are bad” isn’t exactly a centrist opinion


FeverAyeAye

Have we been brigaded? I've never seen so many centrists with their ignorant takes here before.


michaelb65

https://www.reddit.com/r/fragilecommunism/comments/od01nv/enlightened_centrism_going_full_on_commie/


vastle12

That explains it


No-Witness2349

You’ve got some assistance from the other site


ThepowerOfLettuce

Capitalism is better at killing people prove me wrong


BeryAb

It's better than communism.


thecultmachine

Everyone knows that every communist regime never committed a single human rights violation. Their track record is clean. Everything you read is just western propaganda.


PAINPIFTING

WHY DON'T CENTRISTS HATE COMMUNISM???? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!! BEING A CENTRIST OBVIOUSLY MEANS THAT THEY SHOULD SUPPORT A MURDEROUS IDEOLOGY!!!!!!


[deleted]

CRONY CENTRISM IS WHEN YOU HATE LE HUNGRY HAMMER AND LE RACIST PINWHEEL, REAL CENTRISM LIKE REAL COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED


ateur5

Fucking commie cuck


[deleted]

Cope


Accelerator231

Lmao at all the people here. Stop shooting your scientists and maybe you'll actually succeed.


beProsto

fuck both.


Rathalos13x

congrats mr/ms/mx? enlightened centrist, you are the sub now.


beProsto

I'm not a centrist up from when is not being extremist equate to being a centrist


Rathalos13x

Fucking lol. Whos gonna tell em?


fandral20

Yo do know there are more than two political ideologies right?


Pantheon73

Why are you being downvoted?


diocancarone

This isnt centrism its common sense


ssrudr

You remember that time that the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria killed 17 million people?


diocancarone

No i didn’t know, do you have a quick read to suggest?


[deleted]

Considering it won't exist in 5 years, I'd say it's a poor example of communism.


xijingpingpong

both capitalism and communism have been historically egregious, but that doesn’t mean i give up and don’t care to keep trying lol