Death rates under communist regimes is genocide

Purging the resitance.

>people falling into machinery is the same as people being beaten to death by concentration camp guards

>Soviet statistics

Ha.

...

They were all Jews, Americanism is the most Jewish thing there is. Make a deity out of capital accumulation, yet pretend this is you serving "the nation" or whatever.

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, Socialism is the equal distribution of misery.

The liberal capitalist hegemony is so powerful that most people don't even know it's there

Socialism has brought enormous improvements to every society which practiced it except North Korea and Cambodia

>except North Korea and Cambodia
And Hungary. And Poland. And Ukraine. And Germany. And Czechoslovakia.

>And Ukraine
*Western Ukraine

Lmao, comparing 100 million now to 94 million nearly 100 years ago.
"Between 1900 and 2000 the increase in world population was three times greater than the entire previous history of humanity– an increase from 1.5 to 6.1 billion in just 100 years."
You really are a dumb nigga, aren't u?

>pic doesn't define which countries or break down the plethora of other issues that could lead to why theyre such shitholes
>must be a theory about capital and property gain!

Utterly retarded, you communists are.

>socialism enormously improved Germany and Czechoslovakia
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

How is the capitalist hegemony supposed to help societies that are completely closed off to it?

The complete opposite is true but you are too spooked to see it. Dictators, who are just as bad as you imagine capitalists to be, intentionally cut off their population from the outside world to make them easier to control. They deny them economic opportunities to better themselves and foreign aid.

That is simply because the communistic / socialistic economy differs so greatly from capitalism and cannot compete with the latter, so it must be isolated, or the communistic uprising must be global, as is the end-goal of the ideology.

That's social-democracy's fault

>Explain this shit, Veeky Forums.

if I admit they are the same, will you agree that both socialism and capitalism are shit?

This is correct.

Unless the revolution involves a massive section of the world, and can overpower capital, it's going to be reversed.

lmfao

I agree with you but you should really post statistics concerning quality of life not GDP

GDP per capita is positively correlated with the quality of life

What this guy said: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

While it's not perfect, it's still the best metric of development.

Because death from shitting yourself to death in the closet isnt the same as to die of starvation you commie fuck.

>everyone who died under Stalin or Mao was beaten to death in a concentration camp
Nice meme.
Even North Korea was actually ahead of South Korea for a while.
*revisionism intensifies*
Some of those countries didn't even exist in 1938. Also, you forgot to mention how they were basically razed in WWII.

>didn't even exist in 1938
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria ALL existed in '38. They just had different names than during their socialist period obviously you fucking moron.

>basically razed in WWII
Only Poland was razed to a significant degree.

You seem like a dense fucking retard but I still wanna point out that ALL of those countries existed in 1938

>Lmao, comparing 100 million now to 94 million nearly 100 years ago.

It's a good thing that "communist body counts" are completely fabricated.

>capitalist regimes

Not a thing. Capitalism is not an ideology, nor a political structure.

Every time people mention capitalism in an ideological context they usually imply Rand, consumerism and Sorosism.

Yeah but it's still retarded
>Rand
ideas never been tried and no one really wants to

>consumerism
not an ideology

>Sorosism
not a real thing

It absolutely is an ideology, read what the early reactionaries had to say about them. Meritocracy instead of aristocracy, republican tendencies, free trade instead of mercantilism, profit over tradition and materialistic fetishization of money, those are all parts of the capitalist ideology.

You need a wider lens dawg. Most of that GDP was concentrated in the hands of the international capitalist elite who run all those countries. The standard of living between Hungary and Austria, or East and West Germany, was nowhere as broad as GDP alone would suggest.

More importantly, western capitalist nations had access to 95% oh the third world's resources. This both allowed for cheap goods and cheap labor, but hurt the third world massively as their economies fell under the control of foreign companies and corrupt collaborationist governments.

While the Soviet Bloc was unacceptably repressive and almost as imperialistic as the West, its internal and external economic relations were far more equitable. There was not the kind of exploitation you saw in the Soviet economic sphere. If the socialist world was wider, and included formerly imperialist nations, the average standard of living would have substantially exceeded that of the West.

I meant that the Marxist-Leninist states of Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary didn't exist in 1938. Their predecessor states existed though.
>only Poland was razed to a significant degree
lol
Try saying that in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia.

/thread

/thread

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Quality of life in the Soviet Bloc was pretty shit for most of the population. I don't believe you've actually gone and talked to many people who lived through that period, or even read many firsthand accounts. There was a really big gap between well-connected Party insiders and common folk. It's true that most of said Party insiders had less than e.g. western millionaires/billionaires but that's pretty small comfort when EVERYBODY has less of EVERYTHING. You can't blame all of this on poor access to resources -- hell, when it came to many resources the USSR *was* largely self-sufficient. I'm talking about people lacking access to basic commodities and food, medical care, labor-saving equipment, etc. The Soviets simply never figured out how to distribute goods and services as efficiently as a market could have. I'm not particularly right-wing, not ideologically invested in capitalism at all, but that's a fact, they simply weren't good at it. All that went double for the peripheral SSRs, for Asian Russia, and so on -- contrary to popular belief there did exist more to the country than Moscow and Leningrad and while life might not have been hellish elsewhere it generally was not comfortable.

All this at a time when in much of the west the middle class was for the first time in history the LARGEST social class, when the average man was in fact better off than he'd ever been before, both in absolute terms and relative to the rich.

cont'd chewing you out in a followup post because this got long

cont'd

It's an anecdote (and one I've told on here before), but it's a pretty good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about: my old Russian professor was born in Latvia and lived there til she managed to get out in her 30s. In the USSR there were general stores for most folk and then special stores for Party insiders and other people who had "performed services to the Party." One of the only ways for common folk to get access was by being a "Mother Heroine" i.e. a woman who'd had a whole bunch of kids (started at I believe 5 and eventually they hiked it up to 10 (!)) Given that most women had full-time jobs and were still culturally expected to cook, do most household chores and take care of all their kids, even having 3 kids was a pipe dream for most women, fucking forget about 5 or 10 (Track down a copy of Nedelya kak nedelya for a good look at what even a *lucky* woman's life was like -- one with a *good* husband and a *very good* job -- in summary, it was exhausting.) Basically what I'm getting at is these special stores were off limits for most people.

So, my Latvian Russian professor. When she hit about 30 she started feeling kinda crappy. Her husband took her to the doctor and sat in the waiting area while he took her back. At some point he heard her sobbing and rushed into the room where the doctor had just diagnosed her with Type 2 diabetes. The punchline? They were tears of joy. People with serious medical conditions got special passes that let them shop at the special Mother Heroine stores, which meant she'd actually be able to buy diverse and healthy food, and not have to wait in line for hours after work at the regular store before rushing home to take care of her family.

To recap: the Soviet Union was SO SHITTY at getting basic necessities to its citizens that BEING DIAGNOSED WITH DIABETES was one of the happiest moments in a woman's life.

That sounds like one of those reddit-tier "such is life in Latvia" jokes, but that really happened.

Most of these countries aren't "true socialism". In order for there to be the slightest chance of socialism becoming a reality it has to happen in a democracy, in fact it can, the Amish seem to do fine implementing their unusual social system and no evil capitalists have come to throw them off their land.

Were the 50 million British famine deaths in India entirely excusable to you then? And if so, why aren't the famine deaths under Mao and Stalin excusable?

I know that's just one anecdote, but I could lob others at you for literally hours.

Quit making apologies for the Soviet Union (or the other governments under their wing). Life wasn't bad because of the big bad western imperialists or collaborationists or because it WASN'T BIG ENOUGH. It was bad because it was run by incompetents who had no idea how to manage an economy and were unwilling to consider new innovations or to even admit that what they were doing wasn't working very well, who rewarded ass-kicking over actual results, who valued their military-industrial complex over their citizens' quality of life and who were often outright corrupt. This to the concrete detriment of hundreds of millions of innocent people. It just wasn't a good thing.

by removing power from their jewish masters and putting it in the hands of russians he doomed russia for all its future

not really lol

>capitalist invents modern water sanitation
>capitalists invent modern means for mass producing food
>capitalists invent vaccines
>capitalist invent cures and treatments for malaria
try again

...

Capitalism didn't invent sanitation or vaccines.

But even if they did, who gives a shit? Capitalism should be thanked for its achievements and shamed for its failures before we move on to a more equitable system.

4/10 Thank you for trying

I am from one of those countries. Almost nothing was razed, the only destruction happened from late '44 onwards and it was still nothing compared to bombed out Britain or Germany.

>putting communist standards in a capitalist society for a comparison as if it means jack anything
EVERY

FUCKING

TIME

Are you stupid or just pretending to be? When people talk about deaths caused by communism, they are talking about forced faines and genocide, not Vlad drinking himself to death. Additionally, your data is after the collapses of the Soviet Union and shows a spike and then gradual decline, indicating shit appears to be working under capitalism. Take your retardation somewhere else.

Capitalism is leftwing

Have you wondered what made Vlad drink himself to death to begin with, though? Could it be that glorious capitalist freedom was too much for him to handle?

>forced faines
>what is poverty (especially so for 90's Russia and modern African countries)

>genocide
>what is ethnocide and American cultural imperialism

>your data is after the collapses of the Soviet Union and shows a spike and then gradual decline
>the means justify the end as long as it's for capitalism! people in 1970s USSR were dying just as much as they did in 1950!

>Take your retardation somewhere else
Literally kill yourself Soros shill.

So that's what we gonna do today?

Just BTFO communists?

Don't you people get bored of that after a while?

These horror stories are always late 80's/early 90's
The Soviet Union was never good, not by any measure, but it's purposeful ignorance when folks bring up these stories as representative of the whole period. Things were sometimes a lot better, things were sometimes *a lot* worse.

> that shit meemee

Hello /pol/. Good to see you here, up and projecting as usual. The only ones you ever BTFO around here are yourselves.

Your spies were better than your spies. We flipped more neutral states, and we broke your alliance with Yugoslavia and China. Our embargo on you tortured more than your embargo on us. We won. You lost.

You lost. We won.
We are the winners. We write history.
You lost. Go away, loser.

>Le /pol/ boogeyman
>Le bait
>NO U
Sounds like the dead-behind-the-eyes, autistic, typical Commie response alright.

+1

>and we broke your alliance with China
Uhh that was a pretty self-guided breakup on China's part
The second Khrushchev got in Mao did his utmost to troll the fuck out of him, they didn't get with the states until after they learned how much it sux to not have relations with any great powers.

Yeah. Enjoy being relevant for another 20 or so years, tops.

Well I mean the whole "not real socialism" schtick is always challenged without response, so one can't exactly blame a poster if they're a bit exasperated.
To shorten: we wouldn't be having this problem if you lot were more into discussion as opposed to raw shitposting.

Enjoy Siberia declaring independence after our spies there rouse the local population and we have cameras exaggerate the number of people to justify it to the international community, and fabricate atrocities to justify intervening.

We win the spy wars. CIA > KGB. You lost, and will continue losing, until there is no more to lose.

>KGB
You mean the FSB, yeah?

You mean the discussion that was held a million times on Veeky Forums? And on /pol/? And on /news/ before that? And on /int/, where people from former Commie countries gave their first hand experiences with that shitty ideology?

It's pointless to have yet ANOTHER """debate""" with Communists, you always lose. It's like unironically trying to argue for a Fascist dictatorship to take place today, even with Fascism's record being "better" (read "better", not "good") than the Communist one with countries like Portugal and Spain, it's STILL retarded to attempt such a thing.

Just accept it. It's a shitty, deadly, unfair ideology with a massive death toll and move on. There's no point to argue about it. You lost, accept it, grow up (which is the advice I'd give to all Communist losers) and move on.

>where people from former Commie countries gave their first hand experiences with that shitty ideology?
>first hand experience of the soviet union
>on a siberian pelmeni-cooking board

I in fact lived in the soviet union, it was great, I didn't eat as much as today but I could bone anyone I felt like whenever I felt like, and they could bone me the same.

>You lost, accept it, grow up
now imagine if republicans had this sort of sentiment after the british commonwealth went sour

*english commonwealth, pardon me.

>it was great
It was only great for mediocre and poor people. Anyone attempting to do a little more got the shaft.

>Source
I come from a former satellite myself, despite my parents not being Slavs, they were born and raised there. More often than not people will agree Communism was shit. Some loser with no ambition in life claiming otherwise doesn't attest much to its efficiency.

>People unironically, STILL, trying to defend Communism
>2017
It's funny in a sad way.

Also, I fail to see what the Republicans have to do with this.

>It was only great for mediocre and poor people. Anyone attempting to do a little more got the shaft.
Oh no, as a member of the party, I could expect to have brandy and spit-roasted pork at every presidium meeting. I found it quite nice. I may have been mediocre, but hey, with no real means of measuring between mediocre and talented, I could have been either. I could have been simply competent, if such could have been knowable.

>despite my parents not being Slavs
Spotted the fraud. As a party member, I knew pan-slavism to be the true order of the day, and we would not have tolerated you bourgeois cosmopolitans.

>It's funny in a sad way.
Not an argument

>Also, I fail to see what the Republicans have to do with this.
If at first you don't succeed, try try again.
I mean, you're obviously quite satisfied with liberal democracy and capitalism and all that sort of thing, surely you wouldn't the progenitors to have quite while they were ahead, with phrases like
>1660
>STILL being a republican
I mean, I'd wager neither of us would be satisfied with that.

>It's like unironically trying to argue for a Fascist dictatorship to take place today
Except there are zero Fascist dictatorships in this day and age whereas there are still a couple of Communist states. One of them will soon even beat the US in economic prowess.

>d we broke your alliance with Yugoslavia and China.
Tito and Mao did that

>s there are still a couple of Communist states. One of them will soon even beat the US in economic prowess.
China is not a communist state

>Hey guys, I was a member of the party, meaning I got my dick sucked
>Everyone else was having their bread, milk and eggs in rations, but I was fine
>This means Communism works!
Lol.

>Fraud
My birth certificate begs to differ.

My parents were already drinking smuggled Coca-Cola and reading smuggled magazines, so were their friends, so was everyone who despised the system, e.g. most people. Even my great grandfather, who was a member of the Communist party, eventually bitched about it until the moment he died saying the only "good" thing was that everyone had a job because if you couldn't find one the state would provide you with a mediocre one to boot the mediocrity of the mediocre affairs.

>Argument
More like a remark, it's still funny. It's literally no different than advocating for Hitler to come back and finish the job but the irony is lost to you autists. I'm guessing it takes a certain degree of autism to support Communism anyway, but still.

>quite satisfied
Not really. I'm not going to put forth my political beliefs and economic views, they need not to be know for me to shit on Commies.

>China
>Communist
>Rest of the Communist shit-holes in South America
>Good
Top lel. I love how you pinkos keep grasping at straws so bad to justify your murderous ideology. It'll never not be funny.

bump

Comparative GDP is basically all they have

...

reminder that even the most capitalist countries are part socialist

>all these braindead commies actually trying to defend Leninist states

>Commies resorting to false analogy to justify their murderous ideology
Is being "brain-dead and autistic" a requirement to being a Commie? Because that's the most common trait I see amongst your kind.

/thread

Communism is murderous, but nowhere near as murderous as capitalism

Rethink your life bruh.

>part socialist
Are you one of those retards that think the state handling anything is socialist?

A capitalist regime is not a thing.
Capitalisim is purely an economic theory. It makes no calls for grand social change or revolution, it merely says: if you want your economy to be efficient and produce what people want, let the free market do it.
While this is of course a gross simplification of capitalism and ignores the many competing schools of thought it contians, that is fundamentally what capitalism is. Because of this lack of entanglement, where capitalism is not tied to any singular social structure, type of goverment or paticular group of people. It is fundamentally divorced from the actions of any reigme, and as such isn't to blame for the actions of any regime.

With communism, this is not the case. While we can debate endlessly about what is or is not "real communism," in the end communisim is, in every single form, tied to a class of people and type of society. That is the fundamentals of the theory: the working class overthrowing the capitalist and creating a society where the means of production is commonly owned. Because of this, communism, unlike capitalism, is not divorced from society, but fundamentally linked with it. While the USSR may not be marxist communist, the variant of communism it practiced was fundamentally tied with the society of the USSR, and thus the acts of the USSR are the acts of Soviet communism.

You've already been proven wrong on this.

Capitalism didn't kill those people, it wasn't an ideology driven extermination such as the case of Communism and Fascism.

See and .
Grow up.

There's no meaningful distinction. In both cases, economic dynamics kill people. Capitalist dynamics kill many, many more.

You're right, there's a difference.

Communism kills through accident and incompetence.

Capitalism kills through design.

>I'm allowing your choice to starve under capitalism!

Boy am I innocent!

check maet sweetie XD
try again!!!!!!!

>you are free to make the right choice

This argument also falls apart once you realize just how much influence market forces have over everyone's lives.

I shudder at the thought that this is unironic

youtube.com/watch?v=VxTGtX8ixgQ