Why do leftists seem to ignore history when inconvenient to them?

Why do leftists seem to ignore history when inconvenient to them?

Other urls found in this thread:

heritage.org/index/ranking
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because they're human.

There's nothing humane about supporting a philosophy directly responsible for over 100 million deaths

human =/= humane

Which country is more socialist

China or the Netherlands?

They're not even close
heritage.org/index/ranking

Because they actually don't know any

How is socialism related to economic freedom?

Meto Nikolovski

Literally who?

More government ownership of industries and less private property

Well then what is the Dutch welfare state?

The government owns the healthcare industry for example but not much else

Yes but how is the welfare state NOT socialism? I mean regardless of whether or not it's run by private companies.

>leftists are all communists

Great jump in conclusions there.

Literally two forms of the same word except humane can only be an adjective.

lol

>muh hundred trillion

>PEOPLE'S Republic of China
>Korean DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC
>PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC of Poland
>Soviet Socialist REPUBLIC of Russia

that settles it, people and democracy are inherently wrong

>
>
>

what you call yourself is not necessarily what you are

i could call myself a unicorn and you would know that i would be fucking silly

a country that calls itself a 'people's' anything could very easily betray that fact through their actions and governing style.

point in case really

>well, his saying that his state is Holy, Roman and an Empire at that
>we can therefore jump to a conclusion that all Holy Romans are really Germans fighting to prove themselves relevant

That image is fucking terrible, it does not address anything. Commies are well aware that Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. all claimed to be communist. They know that, so they day they were not REAL communists because [insert reasons, diamat, dogmas and lysenkism]

if you manage to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth, everything is allowed

we just haven't succeeded yet is all

but once we do, it will all have been justified

Terrifying, isn't it?

18 million deaths each year due to hunger under capitalism.

So comunism did in 1 century and a half what capitalism does in 6-7 years. Sounds like an upgrade.

Deaths =/= deaths from capitalism you fucking retard, that's probably too difficult for you to understand. Nobody has died DUE to capitalism ever. Must I remind you that capitalism is the system that lifts people out of poverty?

Yes, I just told you that it is ONE part of the economy owned and run by the government, making the healthcare industry socialist but they are not as socialist as a country like Venezuela for example where the government owns and runs almost every single industry. When we coloquially call a country "socialist" it's because they have an extremely high amount of government ownership of industry

yeah, like 5 people. lol.

He's right. I disdain today's pseudo-left that rejects 20th century Marxist states as examples of socialism but Venezuela really has nothing to do with that. You should be embarrassed of your political illiteracy, but instead you came here to display it proudly.

From Engels.

>Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.

Dunning-Kruger effect. The fact that you're unable to separate the nationalized industries there from the nationalized-socialized industries in the USSR won't stop you from equating the two. Associating Venezuela with socialism is just another attempt by the world's ruling oligarchies to push the blame away from another crisis of capitalist production. Norway has nationalized oil too, but you don't see anti-communists whining about that half as much.

Capitalism is the reason you have food on your shelves capitalism is the reason why you can afford to sit on your macbook and shitpost about capitalism all day

The irony is that 10 years ago all these socialists sang praises to the Bolivarian Revolution. I still remember the praise Chávez got from the World Social Forum, socialist intellectuals called him the best example of socialism in the 20th century.

Of course, now that the whole thing has collapsed, they say "it wasn't true socialism".

Hahahahahahaha

Because otherwise they'd be forced to admit they're wrong and would therefore have to go on a self searching journey to find where they were wrong and would in the end come to new conclusions about the people, policy and the world as a whole. However, this process if difficult and takes a long time, people would much prefer to admit that everything around them is wrong and they're right rather than actually have something challenge their opinion. All people are guilty of this, it just so happens that leftists are the most vocal when it comes to failing to admit their failures.

>Nobody has died DUE to capitalism ever.

you mean nobody in your nieghbourhood?

I guess this is supposed to be your substitute for an argument.

This is an ironic post considering the right has a long history of historical revisionism.

For example?

You lost the debate generations ago Bernie, where should I start?

everyone ignores history when it inconveniences them

I think what they mean is that no one rides around in trucks at night and executes people in the name of capitalism.

Pop open an American history book from the south.

Conservative school boards in Texas push their apologist bullshit to make our fore-bearers look less like the literal impudent squatters they were. The Texan war for independence is made to be a righteous war for liberty, instead of an attempt from Santa Anna to put down slaveholder revolts over not having every privilege to hold slaves.

oh like the ludlow massacre.

Because leftism is flawed from the very beginning.

Communism is alright on paper. However, people forget that giving way too much power and responsibility to a central power makes the nation EXTREMELY easy to be taken over by corruption, and in turn, become a pseudo-communist dictatorship.

That is why all communist nations end up becoming a shithole dictatorship country.

"Real communism/socialism was never tried?" Okay I agree. Frankly, the main issue with Communism is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have real Communism thanks to its weakness to corruption.

...

...

Capitalism cures hunger, socialism creates hunger.

But they do and have.

>When we coloquially call a country "socialist" it's because they have an extremely high amount of government ownership of industry

That's one retarded definition.

What about the Catalonian anarchists? According to some leftists, it's an example of libertarian socialism.

I'd say my parents fucking is the actual reason.

Hunger can't be "cured". Stop spouting political party talking points.

Is OP implying rightists don't do that as well?

It can't, but thanks to capitalism billions of people now are not living without food.

>billions of people now are not living without food.

because they are already ded

Sorry but europe pulled out of africa and india because of cultural marxism

If they are unfortunate enough to live in socialist shitholes yes that is the case.

*tips fedora*

Welfare is a countermeasure imimented by the government to quell socialist sympathies. Bismarck made German healthcare a mandatory program for all in order to undermine socialists from influencing public opinion.

He's objectively right though.

>calls others bootlickers
>sucks Stalin's authoritarian dong

people dont starve in capitalistic paradises like honduras, bangladesh ,haiti etc.

>Communism
>central power
:^)

>Communal cooperatives
>Labor councils
>Community driven land reform
>Not socialist

>central economy
>not central power

>Classes
>Semi-Free Market
>Socialist

Pretending that he economy of venezuela is run by cooperatives and labor councils is akin to pretending that soviets had real power. Come on, user.

>communism
>central economy

Are you sincerely that ignorant? Hunger affects billions of people worldwide and most of them live in capitaalist countries.

>tfw I know this fag
>tfw he posts /leftypol/ memes and image macros on his fb page

So what you're saying is that socialist nations fail because the governments are run by inept mouth breathers who always go back on their promises?

It does, and it happens in capitalistic countries as well. Capitalism is not the cause of said hunger through, which is what that poster implied.-

>Capitalism is not the cause of said hunger through

Yes it is.

I am a leftist and have no problem calling Venezuela socialiste.

>Honduras
113th most restricted economy
>Bangladesh
137th most restricted economy
>Haiti
150th most restricted economy
t.heritage.org/index/ranking

If the economy isn't run by the workers it isn't socialist. Since you are implying that the government is running it, what you say is tautologically wrong.

Precisely the opposite, since you're a leftist though I'm assuming you've never heard of the economic calculation problem.

If neither technology nor nature are the limiting factor, how is the organization of society/labour not the problem?

The idea that millions of workers will come together to discuss economic matters and come to a viable conclusion is frankly autistic, they would have to create some form of body to represent the workers that would then settle economic matters which would of course be a fucking government.

>Since you are implying that the government
Is the government not democratically elected in by the workers to represent them?

Also parts of the Venezuelan economy are run communally, or were until Chavez quashed that shit. Which just further goes to show that socialist economies are impossible on a scale larger than a town.

>yes it is

And let me guess, socialism is the answer.

Jesus christ this board.

This is just untrue. Communism is just as broken on paper. Debunked many times over.

It is in the majority of cases , an issue of economic ability to buy food, which is physically accessible. Since the institution which regulates people's income is capitalism it seems fair to blame it.

>Is the government not democratically elected in by the workers to represent them?
If leftists assumed that representative democracy is truly democratic and representative of workers there would be no need for any revolution.

I honestly don't know why I even come to /lefty pol/ anymore, there's a degree of irony with /pol/, here it's just a pro communist circle jerk of neets.

But user, the people will magically come to a consensus that will solve everyone's problems in a way that satisfies everyone because it can.

:^)

Oh shit, the austrians are here to pretend they understand economics.

i have doubts that that form of government works on a national scale, provincial and regional maybe but not national

And that's what they did in Venezuela. Chavez appealed to millions of mouth breathers and they got exactly what they asked for (mostly) non-violently. And look where it is now.

Again, the workers in venezuela have as much power as soviets did in the soviet union, your conclusion is pretty retarded.

>Again, the workers in venezuela have as much power as soviets did in the soviet union
And how is that not the fault of "socialists" who disenfranchise the very people they claim to be fighting for? Maybe they're too hopped up on Marxist-Leninist ideology to realize that they're going in the wrong direction? In that case, I'd conclude that the idea of human nature being a roadblock to "true" socialism to be an entirely valid one.

>And how is that not the fault of "socialists" who disenfranchise the very people they claim to be fighting for?
Then they do are by definition not socialists. Again, you are tautologically wrong.
The other conclusion doesn't make much sense either.

>The other conclusion doesn't make much sense either
Then tell me, why have these people hijacked the term socialism in a way that allows them to use it as a moralized for numerous atrocities? And what makes socialism such an easy idealogy to exploit?

>leftists
More like most people, no matter what they believe in.

>government socialism is capitalism

kek

Words are social constructs, user. Authoritarians use the words socialist to refer to the opposite of what it means, the same way american libertarians do. It is convenient to both authoritarians, since it legitimizes them, and to capitalists, since it delegitimizes socialism.

>And what makes socialism such an easy idealogy to exploit?

or to target.
we hear news about Venezuela every fucking day (I even remember Obama declaring Venezuela a security threat kek), before Chavez people didn't know where Caracas is.

There are worse things in this world to care about, but it seems that a "socialist" little country is a big concern.

So esstially, socialism has been successfully delegitimized again and again in a way that has obfuscated any understanding of its original meaning?

Why, pray tell, have socialists allowed this to happen, often willingly giving power to an authoritarian government?

>we hear news about Venezuela every fucking day
What? I don't hear shit about Venezuela m8. Not even BBC cares about it. At this point, it's failing to such a degree anyway that any threat it would have opposed is in the back of the Presidents mind at best.

>but Venezuela really has nothing to do with that
you havent really offered a single argument supporting this peculiar idea of yours, curiously enough

>Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism
Yes, nationalization by itself doesnt mean that a certain government is pushing for any sort of particular socio-political agenda, I agree.
But thats exactly the case of what happened in Venezuela. Money gathered from nationalized oil industries were siphoned out towards social programs without a single care in the world, for strong populist gains.
No attempt at balancing the economy. A simple extractivist economy with focus towards short to mid term populist gains via extensive welfare and social programs.
And nevermind the equally disastrous programs and expropriations that fucked agricultural exploration in Venezuela completely (it was already somewhat weak before, but reaching food shortages tier in a country with the ability to produce food like Venezuela is a particularly notable fail)

Funny how you also make a reference to Norway and talk about crisis of capitalist production on the same post.
I'm guessing you were talking about the oil glut. Funny enough I dont see the Nowegian Krone having inflation on the triple digits or food shortages. Its cruising along pretty nicely, actually.

>So esstially, socialism has been successfully delegitimized again and again in a way that has obfuscated any understanding of its original meaning?
Pretty much. The two big propaganda systems of the last century (american and soviet) were interested in associating socialism with the soviet union.

>Why, pray tell, have socialists allowed this to happen, often willingly giving power to an authoritarian government?
Not really true. "Traditional" leftists were opposed to bolsheviks when they rose to power, even in russia.

I'm not a Marxist but that is a terrible strawman of Marx. He was the last great classical economist. Most people don't actually understand Marx and either hate him or love him falsely. He's much like Nietzsche. He's a nihilist/iconoclast that tears down the old failing systems and gives us the hope of overcoming the past, though communism and overman are both unobtainable. Like Nietzsche their genius is muddled in interpretation of "what Nietzsche/Marx really meant". What they really meant is: WHAT THEY REALLY MEANT. The ignorant and simple minded readers of Marx and Nietzsche fail to see the piercing insights in the works.

If you want to drag someone through the mud, drag Marshall. """Austrian economics""" is really a set of probing criticisms and not a "school of economics" as this image makes out. Hayek was an intellectual and often spent more time writing about law, politics and meta-economics. He would probe the foundations of economics and its epistemology (taking up the torch from Mises) rather than try to establish a new theory or doctrine. Most of his and Rothbard's criticisms have actually been incorporated into mainstream economics now. Chicago economics is a school, granted, though it's simply a rebellious strand of orthodoxy that sees itself as a heresy. It collapses under the same pathetic foundations that Hayek probed. Friedman says: it doesn't matter if the theory has false assumptions so long as it works in application! he has obviously a shallow understanding of epistemology. Leaving that aside, his monetarism was tried under Thatcher, when she applied his theories the economy tanked. She reversed the policies and he slipped out of the UK, back to the seclusion of Chicago.

Now for Keynes... Oh Keynes.. He was such an arrogant man. A page of Malthus here, and Marshall there, and he thought he understood all existing theory. It wasn't his ignorance that lead to his oversight of the insights of the 19th century, but his arrogance.