Name me one up to date study which proves that socialism has more disadvantages than capitalism...

Hope this clears things up.

Also, the most tyrannical and murderous nations in history considered themselves, and aimed to be, "socialist" but in reality were oppressive authoritarian regimes. This explains the "socialism was never implemented properly!" fallacy--socialism CANNOT ever be implemented "properly" because it is a fantasy, that always, inevitably, ends in disaster.

answer me that then, pig

LMAO that graph
>let me just make some random graph, not even gonna bother with a fake source

...

That's like showing India has higher growth than a fully developed Western nation and then claiming that makes India a better place to live.
Growth slows the more developed you are.

The fact you need source tells me you're deluded. Socialist countries end in poverty, capitalist countries flourish (despite the pay gap).

Eat shit.

i wonder where he thinks the missing parts of the bars went because the graphs explicitly cover all of society so i guess his idea of socialism involves actively dumping resources into the sea

>economy is a zero sum game
>wealth is finite
>what is inefficiency

...

how come east germany looks like shit and the effects still show years after the the fall of the wall? also why did oh so many people lose their live by trying to escape the communist utopia?

I don't think you understand basic economics. There is such a thing as destruction of wealth.

dont post this cartoon character
purge your personality of visual cummies, psychedelic fascism, cheap fantastic things

>visual cummies, psychedelic fascism, cheap fantastic things

what do these string of words mean?

>Also, the most tyrannical and murderous nations in history considered themselves, and aimed to be, "socialist" but in reality were oppressive authoritarian regimes.
The USSR was indeed oppressive and authoritarian, but one has to look at the Russian context. Russia wasn't a liberal democracy in 1917, it was one of the most oppressive and authoritarian nations on earth. In additions living standards for the average worker was horrible, the peasantry suffered from severe land hunger and millions died in a pointless war. Russia was also perhaps the most backward country in Europe.
Fast forward 40 years, and the living standards are increased dramatically, the land that has been suffering from periodical famines for almost all eternity has seen its last famine, they are sending the first man-made satellite into space ever and they have ended the holocaust.
>that always, inevitably, ends in disaster.
If you look at everything negative which has happened in a country over an extended amount of time, while looking away from everything positive that happened, every country has been a disaster from start to end.
Granted, it DID end in disaster, but for a long time it was quite a success story.
For the record I have no wish to repeat the socialist experiments of the 20th century, but one cannot look at them out of context and filtered trough lies if one is top learn anything from them.

...

...

you know in your gut, where pleasure and shame and disgust sit

>how come east germany looks like shit and the effects still show years after the the fall of the wall?
It was the poorer part of Germany at the end of ww2 as well
>also why did oh so many people lose their live by trying to escape the communist utopia?
Because of government oppression, duh. I've never claimed that it was a utopia, nor that the undeniable facts about the horrors committed by communist leaders are false. But it was far from the hell that it is often imagined by.

Do you have a source? I am not doubting the numbers, but I would honestly like a source.

I'm actually studying medicine and I wish everyone in the world knew this piece of information: the majority of medicine (drugs, treatment, procedures etc.) was developed between 1920 and 1970. Before 1920 we still had witch doctors around, and after 1970 there were very few discoveries (it's mostly been pharma companies trying to push anti-depressants and stimulants on disillusioned teenagers and stressed middle aged people). This means in the last 100 years life expectancy has gone up, but now it's actually falling, because instead of getting to the root of the problem (obesity, overworking) we're working on more drugs to get people hooked on. This wasn't a result of capitalism or socialism or anything else, it's simply the result of a few men in white coats paid millions by the pharma industry.

OP, you're a faggot. Your question is so general that it is impossible to answer, and it is on the wrong board.
Mods where are you?

Yeah, it was a mild hell at most. After all, most of those people who were escaping didn't even run that fast because they allowed themselves to be caught or shot.

>it's simply the result of a few men in white coats paid millions by the pharma industry.

how is that not definitive capitalism though

Because it could happen under any system. Some guy invents an SSRI, people are depressed... either the state buys it in a socialist country, or people pay for it out of picket in a capitalist society. The problem of depression doesn't go away either way.

Kind of doubt that's how soviet scientists operated.

It is. State sponsored medical studies were not pushed into a certain direction, as long as it didn't conflict with the socialist ideology.

Both are retarded degrading materialist positions. Every time you talk about something as meaningless as money, in capitalist terms or socialist terms, a part of your soul dies.

Why would the invention belong to a scientist and not the project? Regardless there's no copyright in the SU or Communist China.

that's the same with most science m8 (I'm in atmospheric science for reference) It's not something most people realize, that scientism is already on the verge of collapsing right as it becomes a faith. Human progress peaked in the 60's and 70's, we've been decelerating since then and are on the verge of decline now.

You can literally BTFO this twitter philosopher by asking them if they like Freedom so much why do they let laws govern them, etc., etc.
All they're doing is trying to say an idea is bad by taking it to the illogical extremes that don't allow it exist in reality. It's kind of the same way how socialists have this fairy tale that can't exist in reality but try for it anyways, and it end ups turning into an oppressive disaster for the people.

Name me one up to date study which proves that socialism has more advantages than capitalism. You can't but you still support such a crooked system because you're a fucking selfish cunt who is scared of the status quo.

>selfish cunts
yet another communist who thinks in terms of morality. Marx had nothing to do with ethics and morality, as far as he realized the only way the unthinking masses could ever get behind his ideology was sugarcoating it with feelings of helplessness and christian morality. Capitalism is whack not because some rich fuck is exploiting poor workers, but because of its incoherences.

You politicized fucks are pathetic. Brainwashed and dragged around from one ideology to the next. I can't resent the elite for manhandling the masses when you realize JUST how dumb they are. Both sides of the political spectrum are cute though, leftists are on the side of history without even realizing it (even though that's Marx's point through and through), while right wingers have somewhat more insight into politics but the worse execution, ever.

>which proves that socialism has more disadvantages than capitalism
prove that a harness has more disadvantages than Balius.

You're forgetting en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela

ah yes remember the soviet union...you know the place where no one had to work

also didn't this guy get metoo'd

Lol, c'mon you need better bait.

Unless you're actually stupid enough to not understand why East Germany had higher per capitalism GDP growth?

Ideology speaks