Would Communism have succeeded if Western capitalist countries stopped their meddling and trying to make it fail?

Would Communism have succeeded if Western capitalist countries stopped their meddling and trying to make it fail?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Western_Bloc_defectors
panampost.com/panam-staff/2015/10/02/venezuelan-governor-suggests-eating-fried-rocks-amid-shortages/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia
thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Circles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Communal_Councils
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
youtube.com/watch?v=Fd3JrFXLrA0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yes.

>communists feeling persecuted

But Western capitalist countries, including the fascists (sorry mates, corporatism is just a form of capitalism), did actively try to make communist countries fail.

communism would have succeeded if everyone else was communist.

Define capitalism.

>Posts guy who actively persecuted communists

>everyone meddles with everyone always
>countries that fail blame external meddling, because it's literally a universal constant of foreign relations

like pottery

evil, literaly pure evil

You sure showed them.

Would capitalism have survived if communism hadn't actively worked to undermine capitalists societies from the inside, using every possible legal and illegals means? Oh wait, it did. Actual non-utopian economic systems will continue to function regardless of what happens, whereas you need a dictatorship to enforce socialism or else everything falls apart.

Some countries meddle more than others.

For example: modern Japan today barely meddles in the Middle East compared to the US or NATO.

Other countries (that hold significant geostrategic importance) get meddled with more than others.

For example: Afghanistan has constantly been undermined by meddling from the Soviets, the CIA, the Pakistanis, the Indians, the Iranians, the British, etc.

Japan doesn't meddle because they have the US do their foreign policy for them.

To give an obvious example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Japan simply cut a check to the US to pay for their end of the deal.

But yeah, Afghanistan got fucked senseless.

Still doesn't explain why communism failed, when republicanism was up against just as much opposition.

>if communism hadn't actively worked to undermine capitalists societies from the inside, using every possible legal and illegals means

except that never happened, nice false equivalency though

now go back to licking your boss's shoes, wagecuck

You can't meddle when you have been emasculated into oblivion.

Because communism has not even existed for 200 years yet whereas republicanism rose, fell, rose again, then fell against countless times throughout history. It's only very recently that republicanism managed to effecitvely annihilate monarchism for good.

There's no reason to believe communism won't return, or that the next time it will be back for good.

>what is the Comintern
>What are communist parties?
>What is the KGB?
>What is Gramscism?
>What is the very concept of revolution?
You are either ignorant or playing dumb.

>Having political parties dedicated to a certain worldview is a conspiracy to destabilize countries from within.

There's no reason to believe communism won't return
There are many reasons to believe that. You'll understand once you get out of grade school and understand basic economics.

/thread

>There are many reasons to believe that. You'll understand once you get out of grade school and understand basic economics.
Western orthodox economists massively disagreed with communism 100 years ago as well. Hell, traitional theologians massively disagreed with republicanism 300 years ago.

The prevailing ideology of the times is not a reason to believe the ideology of the future will never be.

Yeah, communist parties work to achieve something they call a revolution, which sounds pretty destabilizing.

Now I now you're not playing, you're just dumb.

Sure thing, bro. Allende sure did some great revolting.

There's a reason there are no more Marxist economists left in academia. They all metamorphosed into Keynesians or retreated to sociology and philosophy, where people can spout any bs and get away with it.
Again, read on basic economics. You're embarassing yourself at this point.

There are Marxian economists to this day.

>Again, read on basic economics. You're embarassing yourself at this point.
>Again, read on basic theology. You serfs are embarrasing yourselves.

...

Distracted me for 5 min/10

I read that statement like three times and still not sure if you are for or against communism with that double negative.

Either way, communism is impracticable with human nature.

That said, as more and more jobs get automated, it might be the only reasonable thing to do unless you want millions of unemployed put into interment camps waiting to die.

Not an argument.

The CIA financed (using taxpayer dollars), backed, and engineered countless coups and "revolutions" in socialist or Soviet-sympathetic countries during the Cold War and proudly admitted it.

Hell, they still do it today (see Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc)

I don't remember Communists doing anything like that, cuck.

>Either way, communism is impracticable with human nature.

Not this "human nature" argument again.

They said the same thing about capitalism a few centuries ago when everyone was a monarchist mercantilist.

It doesn't mean shit.

As opposed to Austrian which basically makes horrid assumptions that humans will act rationally in their self interest.

>I don't remember
I wonder if that has anything to do with you reading only books that confirm your bias? Moscow had a hand in everything from Chinese and Korean revolutions to South American guerrillas to African and Asian anti-colonialist movements, in Congo going so far as to send combatants and tanks.

>Moscow had a hand in everything from Chinese and Korean revolutions

Not coups engineered by foreign governments, unlike the capitalist CIA

>South American guerrillas to African and Asian anti-colonialist movements, in Congo
>anti-colonialist movements

What were the capitalist colonizers doing there in the first place?

Again, not coups engineered by foreign governments, unlike the capitalist CIA. These were indigenous people fighting against foreign exploitation who received help from Moscow after the fighting already started.

Give up kids. Communism is the only social and economic system where they had to build walls to keep people inside from going outside and not the way around. We have people risking their lives to escape communism. We Don't have people trying to flee capitalism to communism (except college students). That by itself is a harsh indicative that it is a failed system that people detest.

>We have people risking their lives to escape communism.

Where?

inb4 North Korea, which follows Juche, NOT Communism or Socialism

Which would only ever work in a society that puts a premium on rationality and education.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Western_Bloc_defectors

Every soviet-occupied country had a phony "revolution" or coup engineered by a foreign government. Read history. It's a cool subject.

Give up kids. Capitalism is the only social and economic system where they had to build walls to keep people inside from going outside and not the other way around. We have people risking their lives to escape sweatshops. We don't have anyone trying to flee communism(they're dead, motherfucker). That by itself is a harsh indicative that we fuck up everything we touch.

>People are risking their lives to escape Canada, a communist socialist leftist pinko hellhole, and flee to Somalia, a libertarian free market right-wing paradise

Berlin wall ring a bell?

You mean that thing a bunch of westerners jumped over to get away from the shitty capitalist system?

Yeah.

That was 50 years ago.

Your post indicated the present tense.

Try again, cuck.

There are still Marxist economists in academia.
Not a single Austrian though :^)

Why do wagecucks and poorfags defend capitalism so fiercely?

I understand when the bourgeoisie do it as they rightly should since they have all to gain from it, but why do all the cucks come crawling out of the woodwork to defend the system that systematically humiliates and cucks them on a daily basis?

Do they get some sexual thrill from the humiliation? Or are they simply developmentally disabled and fail to comprehend basic facts?

I'm talking normal people not agents. Normal people who just want to lead a normal life. People travel by boat risking their lives to reach Florida from Cuba. Nobody goes from Florida to Cuba. People risked their lives to tear down the wall from the communist side, not the capitalist side. People weren't allowed to leave the Soviet Union. The list goes on. Your system is so good that you require a dictatorship and border patrol to KEEP PEOPLE IN. You can't make that shit up.

>that guy who defected in 1989
>came back with his leg between his tails
>"I'm sorry, I was feeling overworked"
holy shit

can the commies in this thread please describe the communist utopia they dream about. Genuinely interested

>Give up kids
>procedes to pretend communists defend regimes they don't defend
Never fails.

>People travel by boat risking their lives to reach Florida from Cuba
Yes because the USA is the richest country on the planet whereas Cuba is just a relatively decent place given it's surrounded by shitholes on every side but north.

> People risked their lives to tear down the wall from the communist side
That's not what happened.

>People weren't allowed to leave the Soviet Union
Yes they were.

>Your system is so good that you require a dictatorship and border patrol to KEEP PEOPLE IN
tbqh given concerns about brain drain in East Berlin it's quite understandable.
They're investing so much money into university education so if those graduates turn around and fuck off to West Berlin they're effectively arming the enemy.

Worker control of the means of production.
No state

You can just read Marx.

No.

The prediction that socialism will naturally lead into communism is a false one.
The idea that central planning's time had come was a false one.

That said, without fear of socialist revolution we probably wouldn't have most of the social-democratic reforms we see today, even if governments have successively tried to destroy them with marketization.

no state

automation of labor

man can do as he pleases, isn't bound by his 'job title'

we Star Trek nao

>The prediction that socialism will naturally lead into communism is a false one.

then what WILL lead into communism?

does China have the right idea?

At this rate we will be Star Trek.

Just not the Federation.

Why don't you let the workers chose their destiny instead of trying to be demagogues? It turns out that workers everywhere have rejected communism (and atheism for that matter). It's always the middle class that comes up with these salvia if utopian ideologies, out of resentment for the higher classes, but it's the workers who end up getting in the ass.

>every single communist revolution was backed and funded by Western capitalists and great powers
>"it's their fault communism fails!"

>Annex every single country around you
>Spread Communist propaganda and supply arms to any country that swears allegiance
>Start proxy wars everywhere it's feasible
>B-but muh capitalists are meddling and making us fail, y-you class traitor

Nice try.

>then what WILL lead into communism?
Probably nothing will lead to communism as generally envisioned.

Social democracy with basic income funded by taxation on automated manufacturing is probably the closest we can acceptably predict. At a certain point this might lead into something which could be considered communism. [Although it's less a fair society for workers, and more a society built on robot slavery.]

communism is not inevitable, which is the big thing.

> It turns out that workers everywhere have rejected communism
Because workers are generally tightly influenced by the ruling elite unless the contradictions of the prevailing system are so apparent no propaganda known to man could conceal them.

Communists just so happen to see this particular ideology as the best for them and everyone else then trying to convince others of this, this is no different to what every other ideology on the planet does.

Because they are the ones with most to lose.

The typical intellectual who defends socialism can just move to another country when his glorious revolution inevitably fails, either that or his cushy job in the academia shields him from the worst of economic collapse.

Meanwhile the common people is left to eat rocks, like in Venezuela.

panampost.com/panam-staff/2015/10/02/venezuelan-governor-suggests-eating-fried-rocks-amid-shortages/

>brain drain
Woah comrade it turns out ze workers prefer to be oppressed! Quick Hans close ze borders!

It should be the other way around, the capitalists should be the ones fearing that their workers might escape their system of oppression to live in workers paradise don't you think?

Every communist revolution was attacked and/or sabotaged by capitalist nations. The bolshevik revolution in particular was greeted with a dozen foreign armies from capitalist countries attacking the red army for no reason. And i say this as someone that hates lenin. Go with your retareded conspiracies to /pol/.

To be fair, socialism works when the government isn't corrupt... Say Denmark.

there's no difference in marxism between a "worker class" and a "middle class". there is just the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

the proletariat consists of anyone who doesn't own the means of production, which ranges from poorfags like janitors and McDonald's employees to middle class professionals like engineers and accountants and doctors.

the bourgeoisie is the class which owns the means of production and can employ the proletariat, taking the product of their labor and thereby their surplus value. these are the large factory owners, the big CEOs, the big property owners, the business owners, etc. they don't live off labor income (like an engineer or a tradesman), they live off rent and interest and surplus value (taken from their workers).

This is historically really inaccurate user.

workers don't determine the outcome of class warfare. The only important question is "who does the middle class side with"
And right now, the middle class life is just way too blissfull for it to side with the workers.

Individualism for the middle class is liberating. Individualism for the working class is a burden.

Name one

>ze workers
University educated individuals would stand to make loads of money in the west, it's not exactly that unskilled labourers are important in terms of brain drain.

>the capitalists should be the ones fearing that their workers might escape their system of oppression to live in workers paradise don't you think?
No because capitalists just bring in foreigners to do their jobs anyway.

They are however very worried about them creating a worker's paradise right there.

The Bolshevik Revolution was financed and supported by Imperial Germany.

And the Allied intervention in Russia wasn't done in order to stop the Red Army, but in order to get Allied material and personnel (like the Czechoslovak Legions) out of that clusterfuck. A lot of White Russians were mad at Woodrow Wilson because he didn't allow American troops to directly find the Red Army, for example.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

>General Graves believed their mission in Siberia was to provide protection for American-supplied property and to help the Czechoslovak Legions evacuate Russia, and that it did not include fighting against the Bolsheviks.

Do workers own the means of production in venezuela user?
Literally the only argument against communism i see is pretending that communists defend regimes they don't.

Denmark is not socialist, and have never claimed to be socialist.

thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

Venezuela is socialist, actually, it claims to be The socialism of the 21st century.

And it is an abject failure.

>Venezuela is socialist
It literally isn't, 70% of the economy is private. Seriously, if you can recognize Denmark isn't socialist it isn't too much of a leap to see that Venezuela is not socialist. But of course your logic has nothing to do with who controls the means of production but rather "One is good and one sucks, therefore the good one is capitalist and the shitty one is socialist".

>socialism
>in a 3rd world country

yeah no shit it failed

it could only work in a developed economy like USA or France or Japan

that's why China is so intent on developing it's economy using traditional capitalist means before it can go full socialist and then let that lead it into communism

>Do workers own the means of production in venezuela user?

They were moving towards that. This was a huge part of their failure, since factories and farms under "communal" control simply couldn't produce as much.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Circles

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Communal_Councils

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela)

You sound very worried that the working class rejects your frustrated ideology. How are you going to get revenge on those spoiled rich kids?

Do you know how to use google? Pic related.

Germany had an interest in bolsheviks succeeding because they were against the war and willing to get out of it in ridiculously bad terms (see Brest-Litovsk). It's not some retarded conspiracy.

>And the Allied intervention in Russia wasn't done in order to stop the Red Army, but in order to get Allied material and personnel (like the Czechoslovak Legions) out of that clusterfuck.
It's a mix of both. Kennan explains it pretty well in Russia and the West Under Lenin and Stalin.

I am because I think it's very important that class solidarity happens and the world becomes communist.

>How are you going to get revenge on those spoiled rich kids?
wut

This is wrong though.

Marx considered the completely impoverished a threat to the cause of Communism, which is why the proletariat ONLY includes workers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

>"Let me tell you about your country."

Political gangs aren't workers with means of production in their hands user.

You must endure this comrade, for the sake of the world revolution! You're not a reactionary are you?

Being from Venezuela does not give you magical expertise in what is and is not socialism.

Particularly since Venezuela is not socialism so you would not have a frame of reference.

Look... When automation replaces 50% or more of jobs, then we will have to consider socialism or communism.

And if you think you will still have a job in the next 20 years, you are going to be in for an unfortunate surprise.

Not him, but even if that were true, it is the state's commitment towards Socialism that is it's problem.

It's refusal to use any oil wealth to create infrastructure, or prop up any new industry, coupled with a refusal to increase the amount of capital investment in the country, is the reason it's a shithole, and that's because people are so committed to this bullshit ideal of socialism.

The Venezuelan government claims to be socialist, the Danish government doesn't. That was my fucking point.

10 years ago people like you were saying that Venezuela was socialist. Guys like Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Oliver Stone, they couldn't shup up about how great Hugo Chávez was and how his revolution showed a way to the world.

Now that the whole thing collapsed you pretend it isn't about you, while the people suffer. And that answer the question: "why do the poor ones do not support full communism". Because they can't flee it when it arrives.

Sergio Leone makes this point nicely in this scene.

youtube.com/watch?v=Fd3JrFXLrA0

There will never be "real" socialism you dumb fuck. There will just be dumb governments attempting and failing to implement socialism, resulting in poverty and backwardness. And there will be kids on Veeky Forums complaining that it is the capitalists' fault.

communism was ONLY possible because of western meddling. Lets see the reds win the civil war with Lenin still in Switzerland

The Soviet Union may have survived longer, perhaps even outlasted the United States, but it's doubtful it would have attained actual Communism. If it was actually on the course to doing so, it would have done so much sooner.

So does the Portuguese government, this for certain does not make Portugal socialist.

>Now that the whole thing collapsed you pretend it isn't about you, while the people suffer.
10 years ago I was 9 and probably could not point to Venezuela on a map. Believing me when I say I'm not contradicting myself pretending to believe Venezuela isn't socialist. It's not a grand conspiracy to institute world communism despite being fully aware of alleged failures, I simply recognize that it isn't socialist.

The venezuelan government claims to be democratic. The north korean government claims to be republican. As did the UUSR.
But we agree that they aren't right? Nice doublethink.
Also, in defense of chomsky, he criticized chavez long before the crisis in venezuela started.

The catalonian revolution was real socialism though, or pretty close to it.

But there was, it was called the Eastern bloc and their socialism still survives to an extent in Cuba.

This is real socialism, it's quite crude but it's definitely legit.

people like you need to be gassed

Daily reminder.

>straw man
>meme pic as an argument
I see /pol/ has arrived.

Don't forget the Vietnamese boat people.

Solzhenitsyn became persona non grata in Western intellectual circles when he rightly pointed out that the liberals and progressives who opposed the Vietnam War for humanitarian reasons were blind and deaf to the suffering of South Vietnamese people under communism.