Why does commies always starve to death?

I don't. I just wish communist's would just say they made mistakes and communism isn't a prefect system (just like ever ideology on Earth), instead of going "it's not real communism".

> not real communism

This word again

no loli in here, plz delet

It's always a combination of factors.

1. The bureaucracy is now staffed not by cunts who know how to run a country but by half-illiterates and bums who were appointed on the basis of their devotion to the ideology and loyalty. They know nothing and are usually corrupted as fuck.

2. The guys on the very top are fucking autists who care only about their precious ideology and bend reality to conform to that ideology. In other words, they refuse to critically analize situation and double-check any fact. Like all autists, they shit out massive amounts of ideas, most being retarded, and pass them to local bureaucrats to implement. And that's how you have things like Lysenkoism or Four Pests Campaign.

3. Everything is planned, which means that there are production quotas, tax quotas etc. Exceeding plans is rewarded, while failing to fulfill them is severely punished. So the local bureaucrats have incentive to falsify data, report overproduction and cover up failures regardless of how these failures happened.

4. Since overproduction is reported, the cunts in charge make production quotas even higher and order to peasants to give away even more grain. The grain will be sold abroad in order to fund industrialization.

5. Peasants refuse to give away grain. The army is sent in to deal with those counterrevolutionary elements and take gain by force.

6. Since everything is done with incredible incompetence, half of the grain taken from peasants rots away.

>Holodomor

Soviet weather machine strikes again.

While shit would certainly hit the fan during a post scarcity society i highly doubt a Marxist utopia would rise from the ashes. Either everyone becomes rich as shit or the world goes into a dark age.

They're stupid and delusional enough to think that people will pursue high skill careers like being doctors or engineers without a profit incentive.

Marx was happy for people to be rewarded for harder work. Just not with higher wages.

The so called 'holodomor' is a revisionist lie to discredit the young Soviet Union. Famines happen all the time, it's not as if the government could control the weather.

I doubt it too but that's a different conversation than most want to have, mainly because they completely fail to understand Marx or his predictions.

He did a fairly good job of predicting the future of capitalism though. Globalization, the centralization of market power, automation of the workforce, and the creation of unsustainable welfare states to counter balance increasing unemployment have all so far been proven to be true.

Advancements in 3D printing and their affordability is going to be interesting to watch and how they play a role.

>Communists couldn't prevent weather famines so communism is shit

Why not? Seems to me only fair that a guy who saves lives is paid more than somebody who digs ditches

...

>muh weather

Why don't you fat high schoolers read up on this topic sometimes?

You know the joke from communist Poland?

What are the main enemies of socialist agriculture?
- Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter.

Unequal wages were bourgeois but necessary for transition. But afterwards they wanted people to receive rewards for their piece work, not how many hours they worked per day.

I think you are wrong that people wouldn't work unless there is a "profit".

I have, the famine was unavoidable. Collectivisation or not people would have died. What makes you think the Bolsheviks aggravated the situation?

Guess that was created by a Polish nationalist.

Communism = Stateless
If you have a state its not true communism

Because they set unreasonably high quotas because they thought the farmers were hiding food; thus, they were forced to hand over even their grain seed, which seriously fucked them up

>I have, the famine was unavoidable. Collectivisation or not people would have died. What makes you think the Bolsheviks aggravated the situation?

Bullshit. Communities on the Polish side of the border were untouched despite heaving the same soils and climate.

There's no explanation other than failed Soviet policies.

>Guess that was created by a Polish nationalist.

Spoken like a real commie. How many years of gulag for a joke?

Grain was only to be collected from the kolkhozers that had failed to fulfil their quota. It was hold hostage until the spring and returned as peasants did hide grain. Maybe they should have tried not hiding it?

The full effects of the famine were seen late and exports were cut too late but famines were regular under the Russian Tsar.

>Chavez is President and makes all decisions
>therefore the people are in charge

doesn't follow. what people elected was someone to do actions for them. they aren't doing those actions themselves. delegating the work to people like chavez means you're depriving yourself and your class of your own potential governmental power.

The quotas were too high. Read Can.you.finally.understand.it?

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow, you parasite?

Why does workers always starve to death?

Just look at Depression, the beat winter, or the 14 million people/year starving to death in SE Asian countries :-)

right, i agree that at present the people don't necessarily have the power to rule themselves. many are uneducated in key facets of governance. that's why the hypothetical dictatorship of the proletariat is going to be a slow, transitory process in which the inept proles slowly learn the skills to become their own masters, no longer requiring a state.

If they don't life,e what Chavez is doing he won't get re elected. He did, so they were clearly okay with depriving themselves of power

I thought the Holodomor was Stalin intentionally murdering millions of people? You're sure it was an accident?

There were famines all the time 1917, 1920-1923 (Volga), 1923 (Siberia), 1924-25 (Volga & Ukraine). The Ukraine famine was the third natural-disaster famine in seven years for the Soviet Union.

> Polish side of the border were untouched despite heaving the same soils and climate.

Outright nationalist lies

The quotas were not too high. Unless your proof is 'famine ergo quotas too high!!!!'

Agriculture at the time was wasteful and labour-consuming. Collectivisation was a means to allow farmers to access machinery and modern tools. It modernised Ukrainian farming from the backwards feudal state it was in.

>Outright nationalist lies

Show me the famine in Poland at the same time, retard.

>The quotas were not too high. Unless your proof is 'famine ergo quotas too high!!!!'

Somehow farmers who didn't have quotas also didn't experienced famine. Coincidence?

>Outright nationalist lies
Simple truth, but for your kind it is poison, I know

>Unless your proof is 'famine ergo quotas too high!!!

No, Molotov writing to Stalin that the quotas were too high is his proof.

And I noticed you didn't answer my question. Why should Stalin and the KGB agents profit off of the labor of the farmers? Seems one sided as fuck. You don't want to end Inequality, merely replace it with another kind

>>capitalism dindu nuffin
>>ain't nobody starved under capitalism
>this is what capitalists actually believe

NOT

REAL

COMMUNISM

>bad things happened under capitalism
>THAT MEANS OUR BAD THINGS ARE OK

(Fat) tankies, not even once

The beauty of leftist thought is that it is debated and not defined by a 'one true communism'.
There are many socialists who hate stalin, but there are no fascists who hate hitler etc. etc.

>bad things happened under communism
>THEREFORE EVERYTHING WE DID WAS OKAY

Classcucks, ladies and gentlemen

Oh I see I misread. Ukraine is huge. There were all sorts of heavy rainfall, pests and crop diseases. Labour shortages and lack of horses as well meant a lot of land was not planted.

Local party leaders ignored warnings that the famine was a lot worse than they thought. Declassified letters show the Soviet leadership were caught unawares.

>Somehow farmers who didn't have quotas also didn't experienced famine. Coincidence?

Source? Must have been very small plots of land. Just enough to provide for themselves.

>No, Molotov writing to Stalin that the quotas were too high is his proof.

Can you post this.

>Why should Stalin and the KGB agents profit off of the labor of the farmers? Seems one sided as fuck.

To provide food for the urban areas.

But I never said that, fatty.

Time for a diet, all that sugar's messing with your brain

Bolivia and Ecuador have kinda similar governments, only not that retarded. They are doing pretty well for the regions' standards.

>being this obtuse

So if more people starve under capitalism than under communism (literally, empirically true), doesn't that make capitalism the bad thing?

NOT TRUE COMMUNISM

>>being this obtuse
>watches shawshank redemption once

>literally, empirically true

Really? Which famine under capitalism beats the Great Leap Forward?

>The problem was starvation and death. Grain targets were not met because collectivization had failed, the harvest of autumn 1932 was poor, and requisition targets were too high. Stalin sent Molotov to Ukraine to urge comrades forward in the “struggle for grain.” But the enthusiasm of Stalin’s servants could not change what had already happened. Even Molotov was forced to recommend on 30 October that quotas for Ukraine be reduced somewhat. Stalin accepted the recommendation, but soon he was more categorical than ever. As of November 1932 only about one third of the annual target had been met.
>Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, Snyder 2010

>To provide food for the urban areas.

And why should the farmer be forced to give to urban areas?

>Africa or Asia don't exist

My sides when

You do realize tens of millions of people have starved in capitalist nations since the fall of communism, right?

That was a superlative deflection.

>mfw socialist Ethiopia starved heavily from the same crop failures that capitalist Botswana dealt with easily

>not real communism
>the people know better how to run a state
9.5//10 many a one will fall for it.

Your dick is pressed against female buttocks.
All females are ugly subhuman mulattoes.

well seeing as the raj was largely run by a company for over half of it's history as a tool for making profit, I suppose capitalism does kill a lot of people

>Stalin accepted the recommendation

What is the issue here?

>As of November 1932 only about one third of the annual target had been met.

One third of the reduction? Depends on what the reduction was.

>And why should the farmer be forced to give to urban areas?

Because they would also most likely die from the famine. Collectivisation tried to provide for everyone.

>And why should the farmer be forced to give to urban areas?
Because only cishet patriarchal rednecks live in rural areas. It is only right that they give the fruit of their toils to the sophisticated and progressive urbanites.

>Ethiopia
>socialist
They've been capitalist for over 30 years and still people are dying there LOL

t. reactionary

socialism tries and fails to adequatly feed people, capitalism produces enough food to end hunger and wastes most of it

Capitalist don't need wall because their country is so shit that people leave.

>produces enough food to end world hunger but wastes it

Which is worse

Capitalist countries feed socialist countries. Been that way for centuries.

honestly the latter.
Same reason why evergreen patents for drugs let a lot of people die.

>And why should the farmer be forced to give to urban areas?
Because then you have a famine in the urban areas.

Now you have to find a way to not waste it.
Yep it still better than not having it.

What do Urban areas contribute to the farmer?

right but there is no motivation for the farmer to do so, if he can farm and make enough to subsist or make more via more labor, risk, and damage to himself but only be left with enough to subsist why would he give a shit to help urban centers he's never been to to help people who have never done anything for him?

Funnily, you still failed to provide an example.

Did people in CNT-FAI controlled territory starve?

communist economies are always dependent on exporting to capitalist countries.

Soviets collapsed because of a glut in oil and other commodities. Which killed their exports and source of money. Russia before communism and collectivisation, was the largest exporter of grain in the world. Grain production crashed and then stabilized in the 1960s. Then grain production never increased since. So as the Soviet urban population grew. They had to increase grain imports every year. No one outside the commie sphere, bought russian manufactured goods. Even then the other commies wanted to make their own or buy western.

The Socialists in Venezuela came into power during rising and high oil prices. Promising everything and it would be paid for by oil. Which, if the price had stayed high, would work for decades. Since Venezuela has proven reserves on par or greater than Saudi Arabia. Though their oil cost more to produce than the Saudis. So when the Saudis started producing and selling at a loss. To maintain market share and kill fracking, oil sands, and Russian oil. Venezuela's oil revenues collapsed.

Cuba is another commodity export dependent communist shit hole. They export tropical agri products like coffee, sugar, tobacco, citrus. They do export manufactured medical goods. Though their biggest trading partner was Venezuela. So they are kind of screwed.

Then you have all the various African commie shitholes. all fell for the commodities economy trap.

China was declining in the 80s, along with the rest of the commmies. Instead of trying to figure out on how to make communism work. They reformed and adopted "state capitalism". Becoming a manufacturing center for foreign companies. though even this economic miracle is going to end. As rising wages, cost of living, and pollution are making manufacturing too expensive. So China is moving their factories to Africa. Which puts the manufacturing next to the raw materials. Then chinese companies will ship finished goods.

That's not how you spell Haiti.

If not with higher wages, then with what?

they clear cut their entire country of trees, to make charcoal for cooking.

the secret police shoot you in the back of the head with a pistol that has a silencer. So your surviving family members don't have hearing damage.

qualitypost

China will become a source of capital, but then so will Brazil, Mexico and many other places.

Love that chicken from Popeye's.

That's not real hunger, though.

True starvation has never been tried.

Central planning limits economic complexity to that level of complexity which the center can plan.

>Brazil
huemonkey here. Not likely for at least 10 years. Maybe more. PT (Workers Party, the political party that was in power for 13 years and got its president, Dilma, recently impeached) structured the whole government machine to their liking. It'll take years to purge everything (hopefully).

...

It's a pretty convincing theory if you ask me. Not aware of a communist society that avoided that outcome.

Hence Jack Ma saying today/yesterday that trade wars start real wars.

Good post. Refreshing to see something other than shitposting and bait

Huh, his comment actually makes sense now in that context. Thanks.

there is no personal incentive to produce surplus

if you think all your shit is guaranteed, and you aren't going to see the results of your own labour (i.e. all the shit you make gets taken and given to others), there is really no incentive to do more than the bare minimum to produce what the state requires

whereas if you and your family benefit from your labour, say you grow grain and you eat it and your family does as well, you now have a motive to make damn sure it desn't fail and is high quality etc

and now in capitalism you have a huge motive to be highly effecient to produce as much as possible so you can trade the excess for more shit for your families

communism fails because it doesn't grasp that people are FUNDAMENTALLY self interested, people find it extremely difficult to contribute to some spook (i.e. state) when they need to eat and so do their families. people don't like giving away shit they made or produced

capitalism (not true capitalism, the kind we have with govt. taxes, laws etc) works because it harness the power of human self interest

communism tries to either ignore this or just supress it, and then everyone dies

Heavily underrated post.

Truth is, every ideology sucks. Kapitalism inevitably leads to wealth gaps, communism leads to economic catastrophy, feminism will lead to matriarchy, anarchy will lead to total chaos on global scale, fascims leads to social divide, national socialism leads to economic collapse once it runs out of enemies, communism leads to power divide, hierarchy leads to opression, democracy leads to vigilante and so on.

The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.never, EVER, throw away an idea and silence it. You want to know what i hate most in society? People not learning from other ideas.

Americans calling other americans traitors for empathising with socialism. People calling you racist for defending the good aspects of national socialism.feminist blatantly ignoring all critisism, kapitalist never learning from their mistakes. All examples of people not learning from other mistakes.

Extract the good parts of every ideoligy you can find, and throw away the bad aspects. Combine those good parts and there in the middle you will find the best societal structrure we can imagine until we will move forward once again.

>all ideologies suck
>the synthesis of various ideologies isn't an ideology btw

Yes it is
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_anarchism

>but there are no fascists who hate hitler
There are plenty, especially the more Catholic oriented versions

>not understanding greentexting

No, capitalists understand that pure unadulterated Capitalism is impossible to achieve, but a free market is mainly capitalistic so you can say it's a capitalists country by this parameter with some exceptions.

how does a """pure unadultered capitalism"" looks like?

Well depends on your definition, but mainly no regulations at all which is impractical. Libertarians will tell you that you only need to prevent the government having a monopoly in regulations, enforcement and justice but you will end with restrictions and conflict.

*regulations on the market

>mainly no regulations

so just.. free market?

Yea, but tell me a completely free market. Every country regulates it's market.