What is with communist countries and not being able to feed people?
That should be the basic fucking benchmark of a system of government. Literally every single system of government from 2000BC to feudalism to capitalism had agriculture figured out.
north korea cant fucking make enough food and almost collapsed in the 90s from a famine and people started to eat each other
similar fucking shit in CUBA a fertile island
the holodomor...
I mean, how the fuck can you think communism is a good system of government from a HISTORICAL standpoint when they can't even figure agriculture out? What the literal fuck, how can anyone defend this shit.
Also that soviet leader who came to the US and went to a random grocery store and thought it was fake because grocery stores sucked so much ass in the USSR comes to mind
Bentley Miller
Planned economy fucks up agriculture really hard. Soviet Union early problems with food were caused by forced collectivisation, which was extremely unpopular in most fertile regions of the country (Ukraine, namely). They later tried to solve these problems by starting several ill thought out agricultural reforms (pic related) and while later periods of Soviet Union saw no famines access to "luxury" foods was indeed scarce. If a kolkhoz had a plan to produce X tones of grain or vegetables this year, but it was a really good year and they accidentally produced more, they'd just bury the excesses because they knew next year the plan would be raised to accomodate this increase and they had no guarantee that they could reproduce it. Adding to the problem is the fact that population was steadily migrating to cities, world famous commieblocks were originally planned as temporary housing for all the new migrants from rural areas.
Oliver Morris
found the pic
Aaron Sanchez
Oh, and level of modernisation in soviet agriculture was extremely low due to the whole system being based around eliminating unemployment, not making production as effective as possible, so they had lots of people doing really simple, sometimes useless things. That applies to many Soviet jobs, I once read about a French delegation visiting a Soviet research centre, when they were leaving they wished the people there good luck on their strike. Since all of those scientists just spent entire day smoking, drinking tea and talking to each other, Frenchies presumed they were on a strike. t. Russian
Wyatt Hughes
Manufactured famines was certainly a part of it. Commies preach freedom of the working class and abolishment of state.... BY IMPLEMENTING DICTATORSHIP OF THE WORKING CLASS. This results in the workers not being able to control the means of production which is what commies claim to want, and then when that promise fails they don't let go of their power, and they have the fucking gall to say "that wasn't real communism". When anarchists try it and succeed in doing so (liberating the working class from the get go as opposed to dictatorship) they get back stabbed by commies or dragged into conflicts which they want no part of.
Never trust communists.
t. Anarchist
Anthony Lewis
Because their economics is complete shit
Logan Cruz
>implying
Michael Brown
Dictatorship of the proletariat means proletariat are supposed to dictate policy. It was the bolshies that decided that the proles didn't know what was good for them, so the bolshies would dictate policy for the supposed benefit of the proletariat. Dictator did not have quite the same connotation in the 1800's as it does today.
Caleb Cox
Bolsheviks were back stabbing bitter cunts. What they did to the black army and the people under them was disgusting
Adrian Sanders
Anti communist propaganda.
Cooper Russell
LOLOLOLOLOL
James Sullivan
i wonder what happened to people like this who supported communism in their country and got to see it implemented
did they eventually realize they made a mistake or is the meme about them only realizing their error when the boot hits them in the face true
either that or they just slowly starved to death in some purge lmao
Lincoln Green
>upper class, city-dwelling intellectuals have a good idea for agriculture >turns out it sucks
Benjamin Bennett
At this point NK doesn't consider itself aligned with communism. It's ideology is centered on loyalty to the Kims. It's kind of like a church-state. Kim is the pharao, the god-king.
Cuba was under embargo, so it would be difficult to import food. It's not like they could live off tabbacco and sugarcane, which were the things they got by on when they were a banana republic. It was really hard to restructure the country's production model.
Stalin didn't care about starving peasants, he'd just take food from them to hand it to the urbanites and keep them complacent. He also supported bad science that did a lot of damage to the agrarian sector, like Mao did.
Isaiah Nguyen
What's with capitalist countries and not being able to house people?
Eli Lopez
Yeltsin wasn't a soviet leader, he was the first president of the Russian Federation.
Also knowing Yeltsin I would not be surprised if that was a publicity stunt.
Gavin Murphy
At least homelessness affects a minority while under Communism everyone suffers
This is basically capitalism vs communism in a nutshell
Nobody said capitalism isn't fucked up in some ways, but when people suffer, it's always a minority
When something sucks in communism, everyone suffers
i.e. everyone in communism having fucking nothing to eat versus a minority of poorfags on food stamps
the real question is, do you want everyone to suffer with you, or have a chance at lifting yourself above being a drege
Justin Cooper
>i.e. everyone in communism having fucking nothing to eat versus a minority of poorfags on food stamps >famines hit certain parts of communist countries therefore everyone was starving all the time
more people go hungry in capitalist countries than ever did in communist countries
go away kiddo
Isaiah Powell
>some years ago, last year of secondary high school >reading in the history book at how Lenin was financed by germans to cause a revolution in Russia...which of course he did, but then when he asked the people to vote for a party and he did not win he got mad and became a dictator >the book also had a letter wrote by him where he instructed his police to kidnap middle class people and rob them
>nowadays >my SST teacher says that Stalin was the bad guy and Lenin was a good person >my fucking face
Sebastian Smith
>everyone suffers No. This never happens. Some groups will always be dealt different hands, regardless of ideology. If you were a factory worker with a sickly daughter, Stalinism might be a boon to you and your soon to be nursed-and-educated-for-low-cost-daughter. If you were a kulak, you'd be forced into the poorhouse with every other farmer and the shit you worked so hard to grow would be sold dirt-cheap to the bums in the city.
Nolan Taylor
>versus a minority of poorfags on food stamps Except in those countries where they don't have food-stamps and there's fucking nothing to eat.
>At least homelessness affects a minority while under Communism everyone suffers Not with homelessness.
Elijah Young
Congo is not a capitalist country you autistic clueless commie neckbeard
Landon Nguyen
>Conversely, when India and China— historically, two of the poorest nations on earth— began in the late twentieth century to make fundamental changes in their economic policies, their economies began growing dramatically. It has been estimated that 20 million people in India rose out of destitution in a decade. In China, the number of people living on a dollar a day or less fell from 374 million— one third of the country’s population in 1990— to 128 million by 2004, now just 10 percent of a growing population. In other words, nearly a quarter of a billion Chinese were now better off as a result of a change in economic policy
>Basic Economics Thomas Sowell pg7 >The estimate of millions of people rising out of poverty in India is from page B1 of the May 5, 2006 issue of the Wall Street Journal, in an article titled “Newspaper Nirvana?”
>The reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty in China was reported on page 110 of the April 21, 2007 issue of The Economist, under the heading “Poverty.”
William Evans
India is still way more hungry than China is...to this day.
Again, go away kiddo.
Kevin Hughes
Actually yes it is and always has been since DR Congo won the Congo crisis.
You might be thinking of the Republic of Congo, which didn't have a famine.
Evan Morales
You said >more people go hungry in capitalist countries than ever did in communist countries So I said >China goes from a Communist ECONOMY to a Capitalistic one (even if the rule is still under the Communist party and they still have a huge control over it) >"[..] in China, where the Communists still run the government but, by the early twenty-first century, were allowing free markets to operate in much of that country’s economy" and notice, from commie to capitalist, extremely poor people went from 374 millions to 128, a lot, a lot less than before. AKA: Capitalism = better for everyone's table and pockets.
>more people go hungry in capitalist countries than ever did in communist countries lel
Angel King
Trump doesn't like immigration
Easton Myers
>capitalism is a mode of production >means of production are privately owned in China >China is not capitalist because I say so
Evan Parker
>if the unemployment rate is high enough its not real capitalism
Anthony Brooks
>How many people are wage workers employed by capitalists in DR Congo? I don't know, I'm not sure if they have statistics on that.
Leo Williams
because most congolese were subsistence farmers, i.e. feudal
Lincoln Garcia
Jesus Christ is every commie sperg shill a 14 year old? You just said that marlets =/= capitalism., So how can some random nigger shithole be a capitalist country when there is no accumulated capital or wage labour or a banking system?
Jaxon Jones
so its only real capitalism™ when people aren't starving?
Jayden Watson
But they don't have serfdom or formal lords making subsistence farming a way of either private or independent employment.
Aiden Young
most Congolese had village heads who controlled everything, they were landlords, the concept of property was strange to them
Carter Cook
fugggg I guess only usa and western Europe is capitalism praise Jesus xD
Nathan Jenkins
A country of hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers is not capitalist.
Caleb Cruz
>capitalism had agriculture figured out. No they didn't
>feudal pajeets in India starve because of el nino
still nothing compared to commies
Matthew Foster
It's worth pointing out that though the majority of employment is in agriculture (which I imagine given industrial tools has yields high enough to make a profit) the majority of the economy itself is in mining resources for export to major capitalist powers.
I'd say that it is capitalist.
Kevin Walker
A book by some insane commie agitator and "activist" in not a credible source
Josiah Cook
Diff user. It is in the past decade or so, but not during the Deng economic reforms. And yes, poverty is lower now than back then too. But the rate of reduction of poverty did not increase after the newer private property reforms. The big decrease was the market reforms, with gradual reduction because of economic growth. You can't just arbitrarily attribute a change over time as being due to a change in policy. That's intellectually dishonest. The recent changes towards capitalism have probably been due to the fact that China has always been corrupt and vulnerable to cronyism, since Imperial times, and the market reforms allowed for massive wealth inequality and led to increased cronyism.
Owen Stewart
>vast majority of the country is subsistence farmers >with a few islands of mining companies
>exports are the economy >this is the extent of communist knowledge
Jackson Ortiz
so u be sayin' real capitalism hasn't been tried n SHIET
Nolan Perez
>vast majority Actually in the late 90s it was just a little over 50%. I'd assume that since it had already declined a good bit by then it continued to decline since. Meaning it is in no way a vast majority and never was in recent history.
>exports are the economy Exports signal where the investment is going into and what the biggest moneymakers are. It's valuable information.
Blake James
>Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence, which I witnessed as a child), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press.
The fundamental problem of any capitalist economy is that it eliminates any kind of subsistence. A farmer no longer provides for his and his family and instead hedges his entire prosperity off of growing one or two breed of crop and putting them on the market.
This wasn't just a problem in India. This is precisely the mechanism that led to the Dust Bowl and will lead to future fuckery once land aridation starts happening on a global scale.
Daniel Howard
>Diff user. It is in the past decade or so, but not during the Deng economic reforms.
yes it did you stupid fuck
>Deng responded by decollectivizing agriculture and emphasizing the household-responsibility system, which divided the land of the People's communes into private plots.
>The country was opened to foreign investment for the first time since the Kuomintang era. Deng created a series of special economic zones for foreign investment that were relatively free of the bureaucratic regulations and interventions that hampered economic growth. These regions became engines of growth for the national economy.[14]
>During this period, Deng Xiaoping's policies continued beyond the initial reforms. Controls on private businesses and government intervention continued to decrease, and there was small-scale privatization of state enterprises which had become unviable. A notable development was the decentralization of state control, leaving local provincial leaders to experiment with ways to increase economic growth and privatize the state sector.[15]
China's economy has grown much faster in recent times than it had in the 80's, largely because of private entreprise. >But the rate of reduction of poverty did not increase after the newer private property reforms. but gdp/per capita and real incomes did,
Nathan Fisher
Well even Congo is benefiting from the establishment of large scale companies and capital accumulation over the past 15 years. I wouldn't hold my breath because those people have an average IQ of 75 but even they can benefit to some extent by private enterprise
Christopher Garcia
Capitalism has been tried in advanced capitalist countries as (((marx))) defined them and it has been OK I guess
Xavier Campbell
>Actually in the late 90s it was just a little over 50%. I'd assume that since it had already declined a good bit by then it continued to decline since.
Congo has had massive civil wars since then, most people live in villages or urban slums where they live off family remitances, petty crime or hussling, not exactly capitalist mode or production
Aiden White
>Black markets aren't capitalist I thought regulation was un-capitalist
Joshua Lopez
Well obviously. Only Maoists think you can take agrarian farmers and create socialism with them. Orthodox Marxism says you need well developed capitalism because capitalism is better than feudalism.
Adam Garcia
lel
fucking WRECKT
Asher Sullivan
>yeltsin >soviet leader.
Benjamin Evans
you said earlier that markets weren't capitalism, but that it was a mode of production, people in Congolese slums rarely produce anything for le ebil bourgeoisie
Aiden Rodriguez
??????? was he not a higher up in the central committee before becoming president of RF?
Connor Ortiz
That film is from 1986
Ayden Foster
Actually I didn't. You've been arguing with more than one person.
Jaxson Lee
yeah, all those illegals he employs in his construction gigs forced themselves upon him.
Brayden Hernandez
A surplus of food from decentralized sources (farms, markets, stores) reduces dependency on the state. Communist countries have always made it a point to not only seize the means of production, but also the means to feed the workers.
In the early days of Communism in the USSR, the party gained power by going from village to village taking grain by force. The then starving masses due to this theft were forced to join the very same party that pillaged this grain to even eat.
In Cuba, the country was rapidly de-industrialized by Fidel Castro. This lead to ridiculous decline in GDP as well as the inability to import fertilizers and industrial equipment from the United States which Cuba needed so desperately. This lead to many starving peasants with the inability to feed themselves due to the shortage of food. This forced the population to farm the land in a very inefficient manner.
The solution was that state seized private land and offered it to the now starving peasants "rent free" so long as they met certain production quotas. They were not even able to sell the excess of their food at market until 1994.
So in essence, Communism is a way to seize established power, create dependence, and "return" land and the means of the production to the proletariat, so long as they further the agenda of the Communist party.
This is a ponzi scheme of regime change at the expense of the workers to put power into the hands of scheming politicians. This is also a return to feudalism. The proletariat are the serfs and the party leaders are it's lords which allow the downtrodden to work the land so long as they recognize their right to rule.
Lastly, I want to point out that every communist country in the past (including Cuba, which had the same communist leader in power for over 50 years) ends up slowly decentralizing the economy to turn bigger profits for those who seized power and their families that are bequeathed power after their death.
Colton Green
that doesn't change the fact that marx defines capitalism as a mode of production, You've yet to give it a definition
Joseph Scott
Not an argument he is following the prevailing business practices of his industry.
It's the role and duty of the state to enforce immigration laws and kick those parasites out
Aaron Williams
>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. t. dictionary
In brief: capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production for profit characterized by wage labour, capital accumulation, competitive markets and a price system.
Easton Moore
>illegals >not parasites
Elijah Wood
>big gubmen save me from donald trump
Ethan Rogers
I am a fascist I don't care about the size of government. I want the state to serve the interests of the historical people of Western nations.
You are just a retarded cringy shitposter now. The state has a duty and role to protect the boders of the nation.
Cameron Davis
>nationalism >1883+133
Julian Flores
You could start by not having corn subsidies.
Jaxon Hernandez
Cosmopolitanism is a spook
Luis Cook
>be fascist >support candidate that off shored dozens of factories and personally benefitted from globalism, call him a "man of the people" while he lives in a penthouse of solid gold what did DRUMPFlets mean by this?
Cameron Ramirez
Nationalism is an even bigger spook.
Not to mention being anti-nationalist doesn't automatically equate to being a humanist.
Ryder Gonzalez
>nationalism is a spook How is opening the borders and allowing millions of third world penniless savages to flow in in my self interests?
Nationalism is 100% not a spook because it is 100% in my self interests.
Evan Gray
>nationalism = anti-immigration and nothing else I have a strong suspicion that you're American.
>Nationalism is 100% not a spook because it is 100% in my self interests. Spooks can be in your self-interest, numbnuts. People believing in Jesus because it makes them feel good are following their self-interest.
Josiah Edwards
Nationalists always think that resistance to their ideology must necessarily mean that you're a xenophile. Which is ridiculous.
"The fallacy is to believe that under a dictatorial government you can be free inside." - Orwell.
Daniel Rodriguez
All ideas are spooks. Without spooks, it's impossible to form symbiotic social circles such as tribes or nations.
Levi Martinez
Spooks are abstract ideas people adopt that run contrary to their self interests. Private property for example.
Open a book chucklefuck.
Connor Butler
Nationalism does not require a dictatorship.
Gabriel Torres
>Nationalism does not require a dictatorship.
It sure does.
Christopher Evans
Not necessarily.
Friends are not spooks, both of you are fully aware that you hang out with each other because of mutual self-interest and this arrangement can be terminated at any point.
I should also add that I'm not an Egoist, I follow Nietzsche who is quite spooky.
Oliver Miller
Nationalism is often not in your self interest though. It's usually just a proxy for some other non-existent ism that would better serve your self interests.
Dominic Campbell
The social contract may inhibit you, but it also inhibits other people to a degree which improves your quality of life. There are virtues beyond freedom.
Ian Thomas
Making sure penniless savages from the third world don't overflow my country is 100% in my self interests, TRUST me.
Jackson Moore
Makes you wonder
Hunter Barnes
This isn't true. A spook is any abstract idea independent of the actual material world, contrary to your self interest or no.
Private property is a good example of this, for many people private property is very much in their interests. But nonetheless it is still spook.
Isaac Morales
No. Nationalism exists to create a more cohesive state by redefining what a citizen is (or should be) on a cultural, religious, or ethnic level.
Greek philosophers knew the importance of these principles and discussed the topic of "the ideal citizen" at length.
If you have millions of people from a different culture pouring into your nation, there will be a direct conflict of interest which will create a divided nation.
Evan Lopez
Nationalism isn't *simply* "close the borders".
And you know that very well.
Christopher Ortiz
Planned economy is fucking stupid Even capitalist countries have some policies of a planned economy, namely how government funding is handled for public education
The only people who are advocates for planned economies have never once had to face the trials and tribulations of farming and have never been through a good harvest or a bad one
Jonathan Flores
The United States biggest planned economy revolves around the farming industry, actually. All part of post depression reforms.
The US government literally pays you not to plant crops here.
>Nationalism exists to create a more cohesive state by redefining what a citizen is (or should be) on a cultural, religious, or ethnic level. And through this totalitarian ideas are created as are dictatorships.
David Howard
At least by the time Stalin purged half of the original architects of the revolution, and nearly the entire parliament so that he can remain in power unopposed they might have.