The commie paradox

>All commie regimes fail at one point
NOT TRUE COMMUNISM,MY SPECIFIC BRANCH OF COMMUNISM HAS NECER BEEN TRIED
>A small capitalist and irrelevant country crushes under capitalism,while the rest of the capitalist world is a success(and obviously ignoring the different branches of capitalism).
SEE I TOLD YOU THAT CAPITALISM IS GOING TO FAIL. HAHAHAHAHA PIGGIES BTFO
why are commies so hipocritical?

Other urls found in this thread:

econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html
forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/01/14/beware-of-politicians-bearing-household-analogies-3/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>All commie regimes fail at one point
They haven't, there are still state-capitalist countries following the Soviet model and the equally un-communist economies of China and Vietnam are doing just fine.

>>A small capitalist and irrelevant country crushes under capitalism,while the rest of the capitalist world is a success(and obviously ignoring the different branches of capitalism).
The thing is the predicted contradictions and failings of capitalism happen in the first world as well. At this point the capitalist system is basically running on fumes (and literal memes) and if it doesn't wise up when the next 2008 happens there will be nothing left to cut.

>They haven't, there are still state-capitalist countries following the Soviet model and the equally un-communist economies of China and Vietnam are doing just fine.
Proving my point,then somehow Denmark proves that socialism works.
> The thing is the predicted contradictions and failings of capitalism happen in the first world as well. At this point the capitalist system is basically running on fumes (and literal memes) and if it doesn't wise up when the next 2008 happens there will be nothing left to cut.
>Capitalism will crash in the next recession said angryly the fat NEET for the 60 time in 200 years

DENMARK IS NOT SOCIALIST
REEEEEEEEEEEE

>MY SPECIFIC BRANCH OF COMMUNISM HAS NECER BEEN TRIED
THIS. FUCKING. MEME.

Communism isn't a single step process. You don't just "do communism". Most communist revolutions implemented centrally planned SOCIALIST economies, with the end goal of communism.

Communism will almost certainly never happen, but communism has never been IMPLEMENTED on a national scale even if people tried to take steps towards it via socialism. If your plane crashes on takeoff it's stupid to say "LANDING HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED :^) :^) :^)" because it never got a chance to get anywhere near seriously considering landing the plane.

>Denmark is socialist
When will you commie faggots stop spewing this meme about my country?

Pretty much every Commie regime in history has been Marxist-Leninist, built on the Soviet model.

I don't think it's unfair to say that other schools of the thought under the very wide umbrella of socialism deserve a shot.

dumb frogposter

>Capitalism will crash in the next recession said angryly the fat NEET for the 60 time in 200 years
Don't take it from me, I'm referencing Paul Mason.

And my point wasn't it would collapse, my point is neoliberal economics is running out of ways to preserve capitalism. The neoliberal methods of dealing with business cycles are nothing short of retarded and if they keep it up I don't see capitalism having much of a future.

>Proving my point,then somehow Denmark proves that socialism works.
Actually my point was that the USSR failing isn't a criticism of socialism because it wasn't socialist.

>inb4 HURR NO TRUE SCOTSMAN
Right, just because it says so in the name I suppose North Korea is democratic.

>Point 1 proven right
Checked

>I don't think it's unfair to say that other schools of the thought under the very wide umbrella of socialism deserve a shot.
>First point checked.
Checked

>I suppose North Korea is democratic.
I have seen commies defend this.

>Implying I'm a commie.
Learn to read:
>"Communism will almost certainly never happen"

Communism is a stupid ideology because it's unimplementable. Every attempt to implement it has failed. This is distinct from an implementable but nightmarish ideology like Pol Pot's Agarian Socialism.

Anarchist societies have been implemented and economically worked, it's just that they get conquered by statist shitters shortly afterwards.

>Anarchist societies have been implemented and economically worked, it's just that they get conquered by statist shitters shortly afterwards.
>The Spanish anarchists may may
Pls tell me you are joking

>Neoliberalism

econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html

Banks which know that they will be bailed out isn't neoliberalism.

Okay, how is this a may may?

No, but mass privatization and cuts sure are and they're sure as hell diabolical.

So what? Saying it's a meme doesn't make it wrong. It's not like other schools of socialism only sprung up when the USSR failed. From the very start there were a lot of people saying that the Russians were doing it wrong.

They were just local caziques, that just used force and created their meme systems of currency and the like. People were scared as fuck of the unions,and the leader of one union forced the whole village to be naked in winter for the lulz (this happened in my granfathers village). Anarchists were just idealized by Orwell,when mostly they were kind of feudal lords.

Because when you call it a meme it becomes wrong.

>They were just local caziques, that just used force and created their meme systems of currency and the like.
Anarchism doesn't mean pacifism.

>they're sure as hell diabolical.
>Having balance budgets is evil
Oh boy here we go

>He doesn't know that cutting back on the safety net that keeps capitalism going is straight up shooting yourself in the foot.

>Anarchism doesn't mean pacifism.
So you just support neofeudalism? Well,it was even worse,because when people tried to run away they were killed or humiliated.

>Implying that the welfare state wasn't hyperinflated precrisis

Anarchism and Communism aren't 1:1

Like Communism, I doubt the effectiveness of large scale anarchist societies. [Or the chance for a global revolution.]

>Balanced budgets meme
forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/01/14/beware-of-politicians-bearing-household-analogies-3/

While deficits should be controlled, long-term balanced budgets [especially if ensured with persistent surpluses] are not a good idea.

>Anarchism aside from anarcho-pacifism
>Neo-feudalism.

>Implying this isn't because capitalism is inherently inconsistent and will always struggle to maintain itself.

>Implying this isn't because capitalism is inherently inconsistent
Why?

I am just telling you for a primary source (my grandfather) how this fuckers operated. They were usually very violent,and forced people to work people in works that they didnt want by force.

Even if communism led to a perfect world I still wouldn't indulge. It's such a pussy ideology.

Because every method of fixing it is later going to become a problem in itself that needs to either be neutered, going back to the original problem, or the system will continually deterioriate. It's a permanent back and forth struggle to rectify the inherent contradictions of capitalism that Marx spends a lot of time analysing.

How can we have this thread 50 times every single day and still not ONE of you faggots have an iota of a clue what you're talking about?

Can we start fucking reporting these threads, please? There's no way these retards are 18+ years old.

>>every method of fixing
>Implying it needs fixing
>> it is later going to become a problem in itself that needs to either be neutered, going back to the original problem, or the system will continually deterioriate.
>Just made that up. Cuts during a recession have nothing to do with the viablity of welfare state.
>rectify the inherent contradictions of capitalism that Marx made up,and were proven wrong.

...

Why do I have to repeat myself every fucking thread?

>Just made that up. Cuts during a recession have nothing to do with the viablity of welfare state.
Yes they do. If cutting back on the public sector is the new way of dealing with business cycles (as it has been for some decades now) then obviously there's going to come a time when there's nothing left to cut.

>>rectify the inherent contradictions of capitalism that Marx made up,and were proven wrong.
>were proven wrong
Without linking to freedomlibertyradio.org.us can you back that up?

daily reminder that communists don't care about communism working to help people, they want communism to work simply to prove them right, and therefore any loses on the way are acceptable because communism is just a dick measuring contest

> they want communism to work simply to prove them right,
wut

It's just another useful idiot that doesn't want to think too hard but wants to have the upper-hand. Also known as "anticommunists".

>long-term balanced budgets [especially if ensured with persistent surpluses] are not a good idea.

What does that mean a nation should always be in a perpetual state of accumulating debt? Continued debt accumulation is not exactly good for the economy either.

It is.

Debt is what makes the world go round.

If growth exceeds debt then there's no problem.

And our economic system is predicated on infinite growth

Nothing wrong with privatisation m8, depends on how it's done.

>growth exceeds debt
Let me clarify:
if Economic growth exceeds debt growth.

Privatization sucks dick, bro.

t. Bonglander.

Again continual debt accumulation isn't good for a nation either. It ties up liquidity and drives up the cost of acquiring debt for everyone else in society.Secondly constantly using deficit spending to prop an economy is a sure fire to overheat it. Busts are sometimes necessary in order to bring the economy back to more reasonable and stable levels before the fall becomes to steep to reasonably handle.

>western communist unironically using the term "useful idiot" to refer to someone who disagrees with him
holy shit

> It ties up liquidity and drives up the cost of acquiring debt for everyone else in society.Secondly constantly using deficit spending to prop an economy is a sure fire to overheat it.
Congrats, this is the exact problem with modern economics.

>And our economic system is predicated on infinite growth
>This Marxists meme again

>if Economic growth
You need to think of things in terms of reality. Debt has to be paid back and with interest. Larger and larger debt accumulation will lead to larger and larger percentages of the budget leading towards paying off literal interest, until the very deficit spending you use to support the economy is used to support your debt. It's a dangerous game to have eternal deficit spending.

>It's a dangerous game to have eternal deficit spending
Only in excess of the rate of economic growth: So long as debt remains stable as a % of GDP there's very little to worry about.

Also, whether one has internally or externally owned debt remains a factor. Owing money to foreign creditors is more risky than owing it domestically.

the problem with privatization is that governments are generally so incompetent that they can't even privatize properly and end up doing shit like selling an entire power grid to one company and giving them a bare minimum of oversight, then acting indignant when prices massively increase

>unimplementable
THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH IDEOLOGY IN GENERAL.

For example, capitalism is supposed to be promote people based off of merit, work ethic, and level of education.

Problem? Educational institutions are corrupt. Rich kids can cheat more easily than poor kids using technology, bribery, and cronyism. Cheating is fairly easy to get away with, even at the college level. See wireless earpieces for cheating on exams. See piracy of textbooks (which you need a computer for, so good luck poor kids with no laptop)

Problem? Regulatory bodies are corrupt. Private interests race to bribe regulatory bodies for short term profit. This results in a playing field that can't be level. Removal/corruption of regulatory bodies results in disregard of safety, too-big-to-fail corporations, and exploitation of elderly/children/disabled.

Problem? Countries that do not embrace Capitalism regularly corrupt efforts at implementing capitalism (and vice-versa). All ideologies attempt to sabotage the genuine efforts of their ideological opponents so that the staged failure can be pointed to as a genuine failure in revised history.

Problem? Cronyism, Nepotism, Inheritance, Lobbyism.

HOW TO FIX?
DO YOU CARE?

>For example, capitalism is supposed to be promote people based off of merit, work ethic, and level of education.
No. Capitalism is just about voluntary association and private property. Anything else is just make up of what it really is

Capitalism is barely a single ideology. It's an economic system featured in many ideologies.

Many lolbertarians freely admit that they consider it completely valid that their meritocracy rapidly implodes by the 2nd or 3rd generation because each family grouping was given a fair start.

Then its problem is that it is not meritocratic.
How can a non-meritocratic ideology be said to have merit?

How can a system where the most corrupt easily flourish be said to have merit?

Nobody was given a fair start because the playing field was never level.

Some of us are trying to make the playing field level (admittedly because they're below sea level) while others are trying to make sure the playing field is never level (admittedly because they're on top of the god damn mountains).

The only way to fix this is to do something we likely can't: Make humanity realize that life without corruption and sabotage is loads better then trying to smash every """enemy""" effort at standing up.

It is.

Corporate interests often care only about short term gains and ignore the long term erosion of non-renewable resources, and the dependence of entities upon social stability.

I have met many people freely admit who don't even give a fuck if their grandkids grow up in a warzone as long as they get THE PUSSY AND THE CASH MONEY RIGHT NOW-ISH.

So long as we can get access to resources on space, it's not completely unreasonable.

It has certain meritocracy,as sucessful people in the market place will be rewarded acordingly. The initial advantages are taken as none factors in capitalism,as someone having more advantages is totally irrelevant in a purely capitalist POV.

>It has certain meritocracy,as sucessful people in the market place will be rewarded acordingly.

But the """successes""" are often the result of bribery, lobbyism, cronyism, nepotism, inheritance, cheating, and pretty much doing anything you can get away with, which is still a lot.

>Corporate interests often care only about short term gains and ignore the long term erosion of non-renewable resources, and the dependence of entities upon social stability.
>I have met many people freely admit who don't even give a fuck if their grandkids grow up in a warzone as long as they get THE PUSSY AND THE CASH MONEY RIGHT NOW-ISH.
The increase of economic growth is related to technology. We are growing fast right now because massive technological leaps. Even communist societies grow faster than any economic model explained before. Companies care about the short,the middle and the long term. Really is not as simple as you put it. Most oil companies have been investing in renewables for decades for example. Trying to perpetuate a company is the rule,not the exception,if companies just thought in the long run they would just go bankrupt,as it sometimes happen. Infinite growth is physically impossible,even if we grew 1000% of the GDP a year.

>But the """successes""" are often the result of bribery, lobbyism, cronyism, nepotism, inheritance, cheating, and pretty much doing anything you can get away with, which is still a lot.
No. Most companies have fewer than 10 people working on them. If you think that all the people participating in trade are multimillionaires you are delusional. Bribery, lobbyism and cronyism is a result of the goverment. Inheritance may help, but most big companies are newly founded by entrepreneurs with little initial capital,and companies have a shorter lifespam than you would imagine. Capitalism is mostly about voluntary action and the respect of property. As long as they dont attack either of this, the system is capitalistic.

>No. Most companies have fewer than 10 people working on them.
Most companies also fail.
A handful are too big to.
Also, source?
>If you think that all the people participating in trade are multimillionaires, you are delusional.

Good thing I don't think that. I just think that multimillionaires are creating barriers to entry for mom-and-pop capitalists.

All the locally-owned stores in my area are going out of business and getting replaced by Supermarkets and Retail giants. I've known fiscally responsible people be unable to start a business due to bureaucratic barriers-to-entry created by corporations that have no problem hopping these barriers to entry due to having the best lawyers and bureaucrats working for them.

>Bribery lobbyism and cronyism is a result of the gov.

It is a consequence of corporate interests infiltrating government. Corporate interests either want government to disappear, or be reduced to a tool for corporate interests. Would you rather have a world where safety regulations don't exist, minimum wage doesn't exist, child labor is legal, and companies are only restricted by tan internal sense of morality?

>but most big companies are newly founded by entrepreneurs with little initial capital

Mark Zuckerbergs don't happen every week. And when they do they often become corrupt quite quickly.

>Companies have a shorter lifespan than you would imagine.
Yeah, the small ones do.

>Capitalism is mostly about voluntary action and the respect of property.
If only it were so simple.

>As long as they don't attack either of this, the system is capitalistic.
These things are regularly attacked as competing interests race to corrupt governing bodies to their own advantage. I'm looking for a solution, not a justification via tired rhetoric.

Hypocrisy is not a paradox.

>Most companies also fail
Your point?
>A handful are too big to.
No such thing as too big
>Also, source?
Depends on the country. But usually the poorer the country the smaller the companies.
>Good thing I don't think that. I just think that multimillionaires are creating barriers to entry for mom-and-pop capitalists.
I didnt understand this
>All the locally-owned stores in my area are going out of business and getting replaced by Supermarkets and Retail giants.
Nothing wrong with this
> I've known fiscally responsible people be unable to start a business due to bureaucratic barriers-to-entry created by corporations that have no problem hopping these barriers to entry due to having the best lawyers and bureaucrats working.
Again, no free association= no capitalism. If bureacracy cuts people,it is a mixed economy,with capitalistic elements.
>It is a consequence of corporate interests infiltrating government.
Basically what I said
>Corporate interests either want government to disappear
Depends.
>or be reduced to a tool for corporate interests.
Mostly
>Would you rather have a world where safety regulations don't exist, minimum wage doesn't exist, child labor is legal, and companies are only restricted by tan internal sense of morality?
In short,yes, but you are assuming that things like child labour dissappeared due the increase of wealth and capitalization. The goverment really had little to do with it.
>Mark Zuckerbergs don't happen every week.
No. But the biggest companies were started by middle class people,except oil related ones.
>Yeah, the small ones do.
Depends. Most textil companies of the XIX century dont exist anymore,and they were a huge part of the economy at the time. As I said,in 50 years,google will probably a second tier company or directly disappear.
> If only it were so simple.
Capitalism is an economic system. Obviously an economic system is influenced by politics,culture or tradition.
I couldnt answer everything,due text cap

>Only in excess of the rate of economic growth
And I'm saying look at reality. Busts are going to happen, and when those busts happen increased deficit spending is going to be used to return the economy back to standard. Thus during the period you have a period wherein debt accumulation surpasses growth.

And again there is always the everpresent danger of overheating the economy. Running permanent deficits is game of constant and careful management, one which national bodies are not well equipped to handle.

bretton woods should never have died.

it should have just moved to the bancor instead of the USD so that the USA wasn't forced to make domestic sacrifices for the international system.

>I didnt understand this
Multinational conglomerates whose yearly income is greater than the GDP of some small nations use corrupt means to prevent smaller companies from coming to power or sometimes even entering the industry.

Although to be fair labor unions do this too.

>Nothing wrong with this
Let's agree to disagree.

>Basically what I said

No, you said it was the fault of government. I said it's the fault of corporate interests infiltrating and sabotaging government for their own short term benefit. There is a world of difference between what those two things imply.

Thanks for caring to respond. Even if we disgree.

>Multinational conglomerates whose yearly income is greater than the GDP of some small nations use corrupt means to prevent smaller companies from coming to power or sometimes even entering the industry.
I know this. But market regulations have more to do with goverments having too much power in some sectors of the economy.
>Although to be fair labor unions do this too.
Sure. I am not against unions though,unionizing is fine by me but it should be an individual choice,not the goverment's one.
>
No, you said it was the fault of government. I said it's the fault of corporate interests infiltrating and sabotaging government for their own short term benefit. There is a world of difference between what those two things imply.
Tomatoe or tomato it doesnt matter. It is a result of greedy polititians and companies pacting woth each other.
Good night