What is with communist countries and not being able to feed people?

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.

Even feudalism had it figured out.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE
i.4cdn.org/pol/1420756844457.jpg
piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/6932/03iie6932.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

more depression
>JUST

youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE

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

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.

found the pic

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

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

Because their economics is complete shit

>implying

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.

Bolsheviks were back stabbing bitter cunts. What they did to the black army and the people under them was disgusting

Anti communist propaganda.

LOLOLOLOLOL

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

>upper class, city-dwelling intellectuals have a good idea for agriculture
>turns out it sucks

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.

What's with capitalist countries and not being able to house people?

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.

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

>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

>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

>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.

>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.

Congo is not a capitalist country you autistic clueless commie neckbeard

>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.”

India is still way more hungry than China is...to this day.

Again, go away kiddo.

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.

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.

If you still think about just throwing insults, go to pol's main page and give a read at this
i.4cdn.org/pol/1420756844457.jpg

>looks its another idiot that thinks markets=capitalism

I don't even know why YOU post, if just to call people names or what.

Because you're too stupid to realize that free markets don't make a country capitalist. Private control of capital does.

socdems importing the third world probably

How many people are wage workers employed by capitalists in DR Congo?

Autistic commie neckbeard retard

piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/6932/03iie6932.pdf

But the bourgeoisie like immigration too.

...

>more people go hungry in capitalist countries than ever did in communist countries
lel

Trump doesn't like immigration

>capitalism is a mode of production
>means of production are privately owned in China
>China is not capitalist because I say so

>if the unemployment rate is high enough its not real capitalism

>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.

because most congolese were subsistence farmers, i.e. feudal

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?

so its only real capitalism™ when people aren't starving?

But they don't have serfdom or formal lords making subsistence farming a way of either private or independent employment.

most Congolese had village heads who controlled everything, they were landlords, the concept of property was strange to them

fugggg I guess only usa and western Europe is capitalism praise Jesus xD

A country of hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers is not capitalist.

>capitalism had agriculture figured out.
No they didn't

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts

>feudal pajeets in India starve because of el nino

still nothing compared to commies

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.

A book by some insane commie agitator and "activist" in not a credible source

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.

>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

so u be sayin' real capitalism hasn't been tried n SHIET

>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.

>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.

>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,

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

Capitalism has been tried in advanced capitalist countries as (((marx))) defined them and it has been OK I guess

>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

>Black markets aren't capitalist
I thought regulation was un-capitalist

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.

lel

fucking WRECKT

>yeltsin
>soviet leader.

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

???????
was he not a higher up in the central committee before becoming president of RF?

That film is from 1986

Actually I didn't. You've been arguing with more than one person.

yeah, all those illegals he employs in his construction gigs forced themselves upon him.

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.

that doesn't change the fact that marx defines capitalism as a mode of production, You've yet to give it a definition

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

>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

>workers
>parasites
>capitalists
>not parasites
muh jerb creators

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.

>illegals
>not parasites

>big gubmen save me from donald trump

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.

>nationalism
>1883+133

You could start by not having corn subsidies.

Cosmopolitanism is a spook

>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?

Nationalism is an even bigger spook.

Not to mention being anti-nationalist doesn't automatically equate to being a humanist.

>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.

>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.

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.

All ideas are spooks. Without spooks, it's impossible to form symbiotic social circles such as tribes or nations.

Spooks are abstract ideas people adopt that run contrary to their self interests. Private property for example.

Open a book chucklefuck.

Nationalism does not require a dictatorship.

>Nationalism does not require a dictatorship.

It sure does.

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.

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.

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.

Making sure penniless savages from the third world don't overflow my country is 100% in my self interests, TRUST me.

Makes you wonder

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.

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.

Nationalism isn't *simply* "close the borders".

And you know that very well.

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

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.

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.