More like crapitalism am I right?

>implying there's fresh water of any sort anywhere in Venezuela

lol

>socialists will defend this

lol, just lol

>Why shouldn't it?

Leads to discontent, instability, lack of social cohesion, and eventually uprisings, riots, and possibly armed insurrection and violent revolution.

Nobody gives a fuck about Venezuela. Why are you comparing the US to Venezuela?

It's a video you dipshit, YouTube is just the medium.

Why don't you just do some research you deluded cretin.

Nobody changes the pipes. Hmmm I wonder why.

Could it be that the country is getting ass blasted by capitalism?

This.

Same reason polygamy is a bad idea in modern post-industrial societies.

>>Why shouldn't it?
>Leads to discontent,
Muh fee fees
>instability,
The west is much more stable than say, Venezuela.
Rome was the same way, it collapsed for broadly different reasons, but it lasted as long with most of the wealth concentrated at the top.
Hail Crassus.
>lack of social cohesion,
Crock of shit
>and eventually uprisings, riots, and possibly armed insurrection and violent revolution.
Good luck with that kommunist kitty.
You're awfully cute.
Anyway, you're graph and YouTube video is shite. Come back with something real.
Link a proper paper you pop culture piece of garbage.

Except because of capitalism, we can supply them with fresh water from other areas you sniviling little shit.
In places like Venezuela good luck even finding any.

The equality meme has to stop. For commies it's better to be equal in poverty than inequal in wealth.

Or maybe, just fucking maybe you idiot, that Flint is suffering because nobody has any jobs because of the presidents dealings? Do you even live in Michigan you faggot?

...

Hmm, I don't know, maybe because the post you replied to had a picture of Venezuela in it, and was clearly using it as an example of the economic stagnation that happens under socialism. That might be it.

>Good luck with that kommunist kitty.

Yes, it's not like we have a history of violent revolutions caused by massive wealth inequality, class divisions, and disenfranchised lower classes?

>what is the French Revolution
>what are the revolutions of 1848
>what is the Russian Revolution
>what is the Iranian Revolution
>what is the Arab Spring

>Arab Spring

USA-funded revolts where the top dogs tend to be radical islamists. What does this have to do with socialism?

1848 revolutions were almost purely nationalistic in nature.

>"communism means everyone gets paid the same hurr durr"

Quality American education, everyone

>all in backward shit water countries that don't have the world's most powerful military and a democratic system of governance
MUH GLOBAL REVOLUTION!!!!
Enjoy the ice pick to the head.

And when all the rivers and aquifers have been used up and polluted?

Come on, use that brain of yours. I know it's not completely stuffed with garbage.

The entire town of flint is receiving quality water for free. They are all fully supplied.
Quit your lying.

Or maybe the system is broken.

Get your head out of your ass.

The problem is much bigger than Flint.

Not American. I was born and grew up in Eastern Europe where the government equalized society by the method of making everyone poor. Look up the Czechoslovak currency reform and collectivization.

>one example of a local problem involving a corruption scandal
>THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BROKE
You're right, their local government is corrupt as fuck and needs to be reformed.
Commie shithead.

Which is why Flint is literally the only town where this is an issue, of course

>US
>democratic system of government

So basically, what you're saying is that the "world's most powerful military" solely exists to make sure the disenfranchised underclasses that are exploited by the upper class don't get all uppity and revolt, threatening the hegemony of the bourgeoisie .

>implying I'm supporting socialism

Criticizing the failures of capitalism doesn't translate to support for socialism.

There are more than two possible economic systems you uneducated shit.

No you get your head out of your ass you fucking prick. Why are you using MY fucking city and then try to go on to say that we need Socialism? Again the fucking question still remains, do you user, live in Michigan?

>disenfranchised lower classes
They can all fucking vote and every election, do you know what disenfranchised means nigger?
Look here faggot.
Blame capitalism now.
I'm not that user, but I'm moving to Michigan to attend Hillsdale college. See you around neighbor.

That's not the fault of communism.

It's just dumb subhuman Slavshits being Slavshits.

Do we blame democracy when niggers in Africa try to implement it and fail?

Well can you blame them? Only a tiny fraction of Americans are able to afford to live in districts with good schools.

>bourgeoisie
I hope you realize that you being able to afford internet makes you bourgeois. The real working class of the world is those who live in developing countries, building routers and cell phones for people like you to enjoy while they barely get enough to eat. You can believe what you want, but I'd just like to let you know that according to communist theory, you're not the victim. You're the perpetrator, and you'd be put up against the wal like the rest of us should a Marxist revolution break out.

Stay away from Detroit, stay away from Flint, Dearborn is actually okay, Chaldean girls and Lebanese girls are nice.

We blame it not being a real democracy.
Most actual democracies in Africa are doing quite well, until some fucko like Idi seizes power.
I know, Hillsdale is an hour and a half from Detroit.
I plan on going up north over the summer to sail and hunt (I'm from Texas).
Great college, has some free courses online aswell.

Considering Czechoslovakia went from a reasonably wealthy, capitalist, industrialized country to a poor commie shithole almost overnight it's pretty safe to say it's the fault of communism.

No, but you commies blame capitalism for some reason.

I think the problem sometimes with that is GDP is measured in the amount of wealth transacted from a product the first time it's sold...
Communist countries don't exactly exchange products with currency.
That being said, it's still a shithole.

>We blame it not being a real democracy.
Would you accept communists saying that the failures of the eastern bloc were not failures of communism because they weren't "real" communist states?

>I hope you realize that you being able to afford internet makes you bourgeois.

You're a fucking retard.

Owning the means of production makes you bourgeois.

The means of production are assets on which you can employ human capital (labor) and make profit for yourself. For example, if I owned a copper mine or a factory, then I would be considered bourgeoisie. Simply having good living standards doesn't make bourgeoisie.

Try reading Das Kapital for a change dipshit

>bad shit happens in a capitalist country
>FUCK CAPITALISM!

>bad shit happens in a communist country
>Y-YOU CAN'T BLAME COMMUNISM

Assume everyone has Norwegian living standards. What happens if one guy controls 99% of the wealth while everyone else controls 1%?

They were the explicit failures of socialism.
Communism cannot exist in a scarce society, it's simply impossible.

Where did I say we need socialism? Not once did I utter the word socialism.

Chill for a minute you tweaker. Pointing out the severe shortcomings of present day capitalism isn't the same as calling for socialism. Understandbly your copious abuse of meth blurs your grasp of this simple logical relation.

And no I haven't been to Michigan.

>And no I haven't been to Michigan.
Then shut the fuck up.

Why not?

>It's just dumb subhuman Slavshits being Slavshits.

I genuinely wonder where you're from. The massive gap between western and eastern Germany was also a faul of "slavshits"? Fuck off back to /int/.

Doesn't that correlate better with technological progress?

Considering the Soviets made great leaps in technology, wouldn't that imply that the share of absolute poverty would decrease as well?

Eastern Europe and Russia have always been massively underdeveloped compared to Western Europe, well before Marx even existed.

Communism has jack shit to do with it.

It's Slavs. They're essentially niggers with pale skin.

>hur durr i'm poor

fuck off faggot, everyone has the ability to be rich in a capitalist country (like me under Pinochet)

Try reading something other than commie economics books that have long since been discarded even by most commies.
And even if you don't own any means of production yourself, you're still very clearly part of the problem. If you care so much, why not donate all your spare money to charity to make sure people in need have some?

yeah, they made great leaps in weapons technology, not so much for things that actually improved everyday lives, like computers.

Nah, I'd rather just kill lots of people for being better off than me.

So why were Slavs the only ones in Europe who accepted communism, while the more educated Western side of Europe (according to your words) preferred to stick with capitalism?

>being this assblasted

You're speaking entirely in hypotheticals, I have no idea what system of social governance is going on, how he got the wealth, how long does the standard of living last, and so on.
Because what you described is an impossible situation completely outside of the bounds of the discussion.
Human nature is dictated by its material needs, and some by anomalies of our conscience mind. In a scarce society our primary motivator is greed; as is every other animals prime motivator
>I want this thing (or "need")
>come up with a reason for that want
>attempt to achieve want
With that spurrs innovation and scientific and technological advances. That is what which stagnated in a scarce comminist society.
Another thing is that most comminist (albeit socialist) societies fell from external pressures, internal corruption, or failure to adapt quickly to either of those circumstances.

East Germans were not Slavs you dumb cuck and Czechoslovakia was ahead of many western nations prior to communism. Literally every fucking time you memers talk about communism you only bring up Russia while completely ignoring the countries that were already developed and got rekt by communism after WW2.

All I need now is a fedora reaction image, and we have ourselves a genuine Veeky Forums communism thread.

I would recommend finding another source to argue from than GDP, if you understand how GDP works, it's not that strong of a basis of argument because they are not bound by the same economic rules.
Your argument will only go so far on Veeky Forums.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_in_Plzeň_(1953)

>The agricultural sector was forcibly collectivised. These policies led to shortages of customer goods, especially food, accompanied by inflation (28%). The government's reaction was to increase the prices of state-supplied goods at the start of 1953. This led to growing disaffection among people, and to short-lived strikes.
>The next step to be implemented was a currency reform—which amounted to a devaluation of savings. All savings were devalued in the ratio of 50:1, all salaries in the ratio of 5:1 (small groups of people were exempted).

Communism objectively made people there poorer.

>before communism
>on par with Austria

>after communism
>poorer than even utter shitholes like Spain and Portugal

>arguing with communists
>not throwing them from helicopters into the Atlantic

I don't see what the point of arguing against the ussr is considering basically no communist defends it. It's a straw man, you're not arguing with anyone.

Nice argument bro.

It's okay to admit you're wrong you know.

By the way how's Detroit?

>Leads to discontent, instability, lack of social cohesion, and eventually uprisings, riots, and possibly armed insurrection and violent revolution.
Except that's what communists actually want in order to bring down the entire system so that they can rebuild it as their own communist utopia, which will then collapse when it experiences the similar problems it had before because you don't change how supply and demand works just because your ideology says we're all equal now.

Now that its being gentrified, its getting a bit better.

I do not dispute this point.
Just saying GDP is based on exchanged goods.
See above

>any place other than the U.S. or a country under similar Reaganomic or Paultard economic policies is not capitalism
>countries like the Netherlands and Norway are marked by food lines, gangster domination, widespread poverty, and other lamentable things that always result from people believing the government has ever done anything right by not letting a few powerful people have their way with everything

inb4 THEY WILL BE WHEN THE MUSLIMS TAKE OVER EVERYTHING IN 3 MONTHS HURHUR [smuganimegirlwithtrumphat.jpg]

Home ownership rates are consistently higher in socialist/former socialist countries than those with more liberal economies, even with the post-commie shock therapy destroying most of the socialist gains. Countries with a history of authoritarian third-way or anti-liberal governments provided housing better than the free market as well. 82% of Singapore lives in public housing.

>So 80% of the wealth should be controlled by a fraction of the population?

8/10 would be a fraction too, get more precise

Wealth distribution is scale-free, btw, if you look at the top 1%, you'll find about the same distribution among them. This is why people all along the income distribution perceive themselves as 'middle class' and well-off kids still gripe about 'the rich' like that's someone else: Wherever you are, you can see people 10x as wealthy as you. 80%/20%, 99%/1% and so on are arbitrary lines chosen because they are memorable, not particularly significant.

With that in mind, "capitalism" doesn't really pin down the problem. The dynamic of preferential attachment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment probably causes the scale-free distribution. It is by no means unique to capital. Without capital, preferential attachment would still exist in other resources like social connections. What are you gonna do, outlaw people making friends?

None of which is to excuse the situation or to say we couldn't change our society for the better, I'm sure we can, but not until we move past the 1800s buzzwords and 1930s larp and start looking for new theories and solutions.

Sage and report for neither history, nor humanities, nor an empire