Has real communism ever been tried?

If your definition of communism is something good, no, doing communism has never amounted to something good

>Buy a plot of land
>Rent out part of it to pay taxes
No, that's being a capitalist. You are literally living based off of capital gains instead of labor. You aren't even being a wage-laborer. You're just a very petit-capitalist.

Not full communism, though there have been some revolutions that have been close, like revolutionary Catalonia was, at its height, 75% collectivised (I think, don't quote me on that.) The problem with a lot of communist movements is that they almost always arise during poor economic situations, either because the ruling government failed or there was a war/conflict of some kind. These situations allow for the generally poor proletariat to seize the MoPs from the capitalists since the capitalists aren't doing so hot. But after the revolution, the economic situation is still shitty and rebuilding the country's industry while chaining to a radically different economic system is a hard ball to juggle, especially if there are external threats like war or resource scarcity. This is why many attempts of communism fail; economic failures or the aftermath of wars are never a great place to establish a system, communist or capitalist.

As someone from Eastern Europe your understanding insults me.
Higher taxes with welfare have nothing to do with a command economy and nationalization. Paying more of your income doesn't mean having the government shove someone into your home that you can't evict.

Tell that to Lenin. He shoved a nation that barely abolished feudalism into socialism.

Lenin a shit.

Depends on how you interpret those words
Communism has been tried to be achieved several times, however it has never been achieved

>he thinks soviet union was socialist

but I am forced to pay taxes, I pay the devil's share and the rest is owned in common

>human nature

Yep, and it was ridiculously successful.

gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/

gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/a-failed-systems-failed-promises/

gowans.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/seven-myths-about-the-ussr/

gowans.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/social-democracy-soviet-socialism-and-the-bottom-99-percent/

gowans.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/for-whom-the-war-bill-tolls/

youtube.com/watch?v=oU5P5noXZQA

youtube.com/watch?v=BYVes44hcJg

If you want to be technical about it, then no

Socialism has been tried, and it was, again, ridiculously successful.

"Real communism" (aka complete abolition of classes and by logical extension war, poverty, racism etc.), has not been tried because "real communism" is the highest stage of social and political-economic organization.

Socialism = classes still exist, but the working class runs the state and develops productive forces for socialist construction

Communism = the stage where the complete abolition of classes and states has been achieved

"Real communism" cannot be tried and will only be achieved when all the nations of the planet become socialist (i.e. public ownership of socialized means of production, development of the productive forces with technological and scientific innovation and production for needs, not profit, all managed by a dictatorship of the proletariat/workers as a class who wield state power to repress any CIA-paid fascist traitors and imperialist-backed 5th-columnists)

Why? Because while any nation is still capitalist, there will remain the inherent material incentive/motivation compelling that nation's ruling capitalist class to go to war with other nations in order to expand the capitalists' access to markets and natural resources to turn a profit for that capitalist class (aka imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, when competitive capital becomes mainly state monopoly capital)

Has it been tried? Yes. Has it actually been applied? No.
It's impossible to have "real" communism. It always leads to disaster.

>don't worry human nature won't interf-

Communism isn't something that you just "try." this is a gross misunderstanding of the theory.

Communism is not an alternative to capitalism. You don't try some communism over the weekend. According to Marx, communism is the theoretical end state of Capitalism once post-scarcity has been reached and profit based markets become unnecessary.

The "Communist" movements of the 20th century all attempted to bypass this process through various means and thus are named differently, i.e. "Leninism" "Stalinism" "Maoism."

It has been tried in the sense that there have been more than one attempt to achieve it, or to go throughout the phases needed for such.

Each person who, for some reason, sees communism as a goal, specially marxists, will agree that you will likely need to go through the ''socialism'' phase. That being the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the government having seized all the means of production from the capitalists and the capitalist system*.

Now, having shown that it HAS been tried, we need to go one step ahead. Has it worked? History can provide us examples of it. The reader can judge by its own.

Should someone reply that it hasn't been tried due to its inability to go farther than the socialist system; I shall answer briefly: the success of anything is a state of things that is separate from the attempt itself. For example, I can try to ride a bike. all the processes and things to be performed contribute towards an end[riding the bike], yet, by itself, do not make the act of it already successful. Keep also in mind that, socialism often being described as a phase before communism, and being held as the ultimate goal, could easily fall into what I referred to as processes necessary towards and end.

*There's much an issue here, as many tend, either due to purity, or pure dishonesty, claim that the failure of the system is caused by it not being socialist, and resort to ''state capitalism''—which is an oxymoron in itself, unless, of course, you use a very specific definition of capitalism that suits your goals.

it was
see Majority of East Germans today want the DDR back because they've experienced both socialism and capitalism and learned the hard way that capitalism a shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=P1CyPjQQTAM

gowans.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/democracy-east-germany-and-the-berlin-wall/

gowans.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/we-lived-better-then/

>t. John Birch Society or CIA or FBI or Mossad (take your pick)

Socialism in the 20th century eliminated homelessness and lifted hundreds of millions of people from the most utter poverty and illiteracy and abject exploitation.

An achievement that has never been seen before or since.

Nice blogs you have there.

>An achievement that has never been seen before or since.
Except, you know, all the non-socialist countries in which that has been happening since the 90s.
But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology!

>Soviet Union
>rents were dirt cheap by law
>about 2-3 percent of the family budget
>utilities 4 to 5 percent

I think Sweden or some northern europe are trying that
I heard they want to have "basic income", pretty much giving every citizen a sum of money monthly to march that basic
so the citizen can focus on doing other shit than trying hard to live

Why does no one know what communism is?

The Soviets used the idea of "Achieving Communism in the next generation (or the idea that it would be achieved in around 80 years)" as a selling point for a while.

Meanwhile Lenin called the Soviet system State Capitalism (stalin just added power to the capitalist state)

While I see a State Capitalism as beneficial, without a democracy there is no socialism

Which non-socialist countries eliminated homelessness?

Which non-socialist countries had full employment (guaranteeing a job for everybody)?

Which non-socialist countries had monotonically increasing econic growth rates while also not experiencing any recessionary cycles?

Which non-socialist countries had education (up to and including university) available to everybody free of charge?

Which non-socialist countries had at least basic and often top-quality health/medical care available to everybody as a constitutional right, also free or nearly free of charge?

Which non-socialist countries had 12 week paid maternity leave guaranteed as a constitutional right?

Which non-socialist countries had gender equality (with the Soviet Union having 40 something percent of its engineers being women in the 1970's)?

Which non-socialist countries had free national childcare services?

Which non-socialist countries had free health resorts available to workers to enjoy during their month or 2 month long guaranteed vacations?

Which non-socialist countries eliminated racism?

Which non-socialist countries beat the U.S.A. in basically every major milestone of space-age technological and scientific achievement?

Now, tell me:

Which non-socialist country accomplished not just one or a few but all of these things combined, while simultaneously being hounded at all sides by hostile imperialist predators and internal fifth columnists backed by the CIA doing every sort of dirty and murderous trick to undermine and destroy socialism which was and still is such a grave threat to the profit-making interests of the capitalist class who wield state power in the imperialist West (especially the U.S.A.)?

*16 week paid maternity leave (56 days before and 56 days after childbirth)

>when large-scale communism has never been implemented without going against its core principles and hypocritically adopting the nation-state format as well as a vanguard party but it becomes a meme so if you bring this up you get shitposted to death by /pol/ shitters

vanguard party and building socialism in a nation-state is not going against the principles of socialism lol

Democratic centralism and socialist construction is literal Marxism-Leninism 101

>communism
>current year

Come on boys.

>babby hasn't taken the red pill yet

See

Now tell me, which socialist country did all of these?

The nation-state goes against the idea of communism as a world-wide movement to liberate the proletariat. I also leads to infighting within the movement which is ideologically hypocritical. Wars between communist states - like those between Vietnam, Cambodia, and China - cannot be reasonable justified from a Marxist theoretical perspective. That is because they are national conflicts, which supplanted the goal of the ideology.
A vanguard party simply creates another ruling class. Communism should be a natural progression from democracy to socialism, and then to a classless state. Leninism was a mistake.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, tovarisch!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=03ECXprmQf8

Every communist government, except maybe Cambodia, worked toward the ideal of communism as prescribed by Marx and Engels.

However, none of these governments succeeded in creating the conditions necessary for a society to be considered communist.

Communism is a society with no state, no class stratification, and no market economy. This kind of society, objectively, has never existed.

Realistically, on a material basis, how do you expect socialism to sweep capitalism off the planet if you don't have socialist states used as base areas to both build socialism and provide material support to revolutionary/national liberation struggles in other countries which are not yet socialist?

The building of socialism in individual nations is not the cause of conflicts between socialist states.

Btw, PRC directly supported Vietnam in its national liberation struggle against the U.S. imperialists. Were there border skirmishes later on between PRC and Vietnam? Sure. But you'd be hard-pressed trying to make a solid case to argue that those national antagonisms were really so enormous as to take higher priority over socialist construction (i.e. "the goal of the ideology") for the leadership of each respective nation (PRC, Vietnam).

How do you expect to wage a successful revolution without a disciplined cadre organized around a vanguard party?

I bet you think Bernie Sanders is a communist too.

"Real Communism" is not something that can exist in reality. So of course it's never reached full manifestation.

>Which non-socialist countries eliminated homelessness?
Dude, if we cram everyone in the same shitty box, it counts as them not being homeless.
>Which non-socialist countries had full employment (guaranteeing a job for everybody)?
t. the country that spawned the phrase "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"
>Which non-socialist countries had monotonically increasing econic growth rates while also not experiencing any recessionary cycles?
>believing Soviet statistics
>Which non-socialist countries had education (up to and including university) available to everybody free of charge?
Dude, if we give everyone a garbage product, we can claim moral superiority!
>Which non-socialist countries had at least basic and often top-quality health/medical care available to everybody as a constitutional right, also free or nearly free of charge?
See above
>Which non-socialist countries had 12 week paid maternity leave guaranteed as a constitutional right?
Literally why is this positive?
>Which non-socialist countries had gender equality (with the Soviet Union having 40 something percent of its engineers being women in the 1970's)?
Literally why is this positive?
>Which non-socialist countries had free health resorts available to workers to enjoy during their month or 2 month long guaranteed vacations?
Best euphemism for gulag I've ever seen.
>Which non-socialist countries eliminated racism?
.....is this fucking retard serious? The former soviet states nowadays are hella racist. Socialist Yugoslavia literally committed a genocide during the breakup.
>Which non-socialist countries beat the U.S.A. in basically every major milestone of space-age technological and scientific achievement?
I think you mean to say "lost the Space Race", bud

>Were there border skirmishes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Indochina_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian–Vietnamese_War
Are the Indochina wars a border skirmish? The dismantling of an independent socialist state, that is advancing an ideology and in no way a grievous national antagonism? You are downplaying the serious implications of the conflicts, in that they spurn ideology for the well-being of the nation-state.

>starve your population so you can send a dog into space

Real great country.

...

Building socialism in one country and proletarian internationalism are not mutually exclusive concepts, both can be done simultaneously and in fact, feed off each other to further both ends more effectively than could be done if only one or the other was chosen as the only course of action allowed, in a dogmatic fashion.

To suggest otherwise is Trotskyite "permanent revolution" and ultra-left deviationist revisionism.

Explain to me how the newly born Soviet state could have possibly survived the foreign intervention of 14+ foreign capitalist-imperialist powers in the Civil War in 1918 and then the Nazi-fascist Lebensraum genocidal blitzkrieg that almost reached Moscow a couple decades later if Stalin had decided: "Hey, you know what? Trotsky was right. Fuck farm collectivization. Fuck building heavy industry and electrification. Fuck developing the productive forces and rebuilding from the economic and material devastation of World War 1, the October Revolution and the Civil War all of which hit our territory in the span of some 5 years. Permanent worldwide revolution! Instantly go to town against all the more heavily industrially developed and economically and militarily powerful capitalist imperialist powers on all fronts at once, even though we still haven't developed our economic base past feudalism yet."

>starve your population

Let me guess, Stalin killed 20 BaJillion Russians and Ukrainians?

Heh.

High-school teachers called.

They want their shitty capitalist and Zionist propaganda books with no solid evidence back.

Starvation has happened under every Russian regime.

If life expectancy and population growth are anything to go by, the Soviets reduced starvation enormously in the long term.

It was real socialism

And it worked phenomenally

See

books.google.nl/books/about/The_Harvest_of_Sorrow.html?id=Bp31GmfH-6YC&redir_esc=y
???

pretty sure history teachers would agree the communists were responsible for holodomor and gulags

No it has to be achieved, not tried.

We accomplish communism once everyone dies.

>all communist countries are shit tier
>th-that's not Real Communism™ and that's why it doesnt work!!!1

>reddit formatting
>reddit ideas
No shit

>making up "reddit formatting" to hide from the arguments

How come people give the USSR and China shit for starvation in their countries, but not Qajar Persia, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, Nigeria, Bangladesh, or Dem. Republic of the Congo?

It's almost as if these arguments are being made in bad faith to forward a right-wing agenda...

>communist statistics, compiled by communist bureaucrats, prove that communism is great
>believe me, goy

>capitalist statistics, compiled by capitalist faux-academics and spread by capital-interest controlled journalists, prove that communism is awful
>believe me, jew

>Has real communism ever been tried?

yes, real national socialism however has never been tried

Ah yes, the reddit fallacy. Respond to the arguments faggot.

>be common citizen in USSR
>have to apply to government for permission to buy a motor car. Average application processing time was more than a year
>meanwhile Brezhnev's daughter raids the Winter Palace for dresses

real socialism my ass

>caring about the value of an unfunctioning currency
It was not rubles that the average soviet citizen was hard up for, it was availability of commodities to use them for.

Communism is a paradox. On one hand it wants to get rid of the state, on the other it cannot possibly be established without a dictatorial state (which is essential for keeping people inside your system and "redistributing" their properties). Therefore, not only is communism unachievable, but it causes millions of deaths every time some retard tries his "real" version of it and fails spectacularly like all of his predecessors.

National socialism has nothing to with communism. The Nazis persecuted socialists.

No communism, at least real communism, has never been tried. One of the fundamentals of Marxist theory is that the function of capital be abolished. In no socialist country has that ever been implemented. The control of capital is given completely to the government but the role of capital is never abolished.

You can't argue that it requires a dictatorial state to keep people in line if any society relies on people staying in line. That would be like saying that social democracy practiced in the US requires a dictatorial state for people to pay taxes. Also classical marxism makes no mention of abolishing the state

Communism ironically needs a state to ensure that communes won't compete for resources. It's a moot ideology and its adherents should be ignored for being blind to the glaring truths of reality

The difference is that communism can't allow rich people or wokers to leave the country, otherwise it would have no wealth to steal or labor to exploit.
On the other hand, no matter how disfunctional a social democracy might be, you can still leave it.

>Dude, if we cram everyone
not an argument
Again, which non-socialist countries eliminated homelessness, guaranteeing for everybody at least an apartment or house with necessary utilities?

>t. the country that spawned the phrase...
not an argument
Again, which non-socialist countries had full employment, guaranteeing everybody a job?

>believing Soviet statistics
Even the CIA estimates, which had ample reason to lie and slander about their hated "commie" enemy, agree that the USSR had unremitting economic growth throughout the entirety of its history, with the exception of the extraordinary years of WW2 when Nazi Germany invaded and murdered 27 million Soviet citizens and destroyed much of the USSR's infrastructure and agriculture in the western region (where the bulk of the Soviet population lived in the major cities).

>Dude, if we give everyone a garbage product, we can claim moral superiority!
That "garbage product" you speak of (free Soviet education, including higher education), allowed the Soviet Union to make astonishing leaps in scientific and technical development. Leaps and advances with which the Soviets thrashed the U.S.A. in pretty much every aspect of the Space Race.

>Literally why is this positive?
Ok, Burger, you're right. 16 week paid maternity leave is not positive. Instead women need to continue to work in the fields, factories etc. during the most critical stages of pre-pregnancy and post-pregnancy when she should be resting to prepare to birth a healthy baby and take the time to nurse and care for it so that Mr. Pig Boss can make more profits $$$ and buy more new yachts this year.

Never been tried =/= never been successfully implemented

It's been tried plenty of times, and it has always failed to achieve its goals. Which is why we can say that it doesn't work.

(cont.)

>Literally why is this positive?
Women, freed from backwards and patriarchal subjugation, now became literate, educated, and learn technical skills to earn a wage and make a living. Which means half of the Soviet population became much healthier, happier, more productive citizens than they otherwise would have been under backwards patriarchy, thus contributing to the growth of Soviet economy, industry and technology/science while at the same time providing healthy and advanced upbringing to their children (future generation) with the paid maternity leave and the free national childcare for when mom was at work on her 8-hour shift (shorter shift if she had a highly technically important or dangerous job) rather than at home.

(See Pic Related)

>Best euphemism for gulag
No, not gulag. Actual health resorts. For free. And available to all Soviet citizens during their guaranteed vacations. Gulag for criminals/mafia/murderers/predators and CIA-backed fifth columnist fascist traitors and infiltrators.

^ responding to
(cont.)
>The former soviet states nowadays are hella racist.
Keyword, nowadays, not during Soviet era.
>Socialist Yugoslavia literally committed a genocide during the breakup.
Yugoslavia committed genocide?
Explain to me then how forensic pathologists who went to Kosovo after the Yugoslav conflict and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (a major war crime that deliberately targeted and killed thousands of civilians and civilian public infrastructure), left in disgust because they found zero evidence of genocide by Yugoslavia against ethnic Albanians (as NATO had claimed in the propaganda leading up to its aggression) and realized that they had been duped by NATO?

>I think you mean to say "lost the Space Race", bud
Hmm...let's take a quick look at the Soviet space program.
>first satellite
>first animal in orbit
>first human in orbit
>first woman in orbit
>first spacewalk
>first moon impact
>first image of the far side of the moon
>first unmanned lunar soft landing
>first space rover
>first space station
>first interplanetary probe
Soviets lost the space race how?

>Women, freed from backwards and patriarchal subjugation, now became literate, educated, and learn technical skills to earn a wage and make a living. Which means half of the Soviet population became much healthier, happier, more productive citizens than they otherwise would have been under backwards patriarchy, thus contributing to the growth of Soviet economy, industry and technology/science while at the same time providing healthy and advanced upbringing to their children
Sounds awful

Oh, and don't forget to mention these Soviet women BTFO your Nazi-Fascists on the Eastern Front of WW2.

youtube.com/watch?v=ccLnJI1HSTI

youtube.com/watch?v=rYnnBpxsI7s

youtube.com/watch?v=MJHpWPBtEwQ

youtube.com/watch?v=jDO6n7GuslA

youtube.com/watch?v=tVEA0dkV_4k

Over and over and over again.

And it failed over and over and over again.

>failed over and over and over again
Fake News.

Socialism actually succeeded phenomenally well.

Socialism transformed a feudal backwater (Tsarist Russia) into the 2nd largest and most powerful industrial economy in the entire planet within the span of a few decades.

>Socialism in the 20th century eliminated homelessness and lifted hundreds of millions of people from the most utter poverty and illiteracy and abject exploitation.
>An achievement that has never been seen before or since.

See youtube.com/watch?v=VTGfbItY_Ls

yes

>Socialism transformed a feudal backwater (Tsarist Russia) into the 2nd largest and most powerful industrial economy in the entire planet within the span of a few decades.

You mean the thing that was happening under Czar Nicholas II in 1914, before WW1 started? Which was one of the biggest reasons for WW1 in the first place?

Communism delayed Russia's industrialization by over two decades, and WW2 was the only reason it could.

Also, notice you say "Second" most powerful.

Who's #1, again? The Capitalist Democracy that DIDN'T die because the people revolted so hard the entire system collapsed?

If Socialism works, why can't socialist enterprises compete with capitalist ones in the open market?

sputniknews.com/politics/201508091025560345/

See

by failing to plant their flag and take a selfie

>You mean the thing
>Which was one of the biggest reasons for WW1
wrong.
WW1 was caused by imperialist rivalry between German, Anglo, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Tsarist Russia etc. for division of colonies and expansion of state monopoly capitalism.

>Who's #1, again?
The Soviets did not reach the same economic height of the U.S.A., ok. The U.S.A. had about a couple century head-start in industrial development thought, which was massively benefitted by its genocide of indigenous people and enslavement of millions of Africans (dirt-cheap, virtually free labor for centuries which jumpstarted the cotton and other materials needed to trade and develop industry through protective tariffs).

>people revolted so hard the entire system collapsed
Soviet people did not revolt.
In fact, during a referendum shortly before the fall of USSR, big majority of Soviet citizens wanted the USSR to continue as a state and further development.
The collapse of USSR was due to the crushing burden of having to divert increasingly higher percentage of its GDP to military outlays (since the USA was constantly aggressing against and threatening the USSR with nuclear annihilation, in fact the Arms Race by the US was started for this specific purpose, to sabotage the Soviet Union's economy).
As well as the fact that a deviant-revisionist traitor clique within the organs of state power (Gorbachev and then Yeltsin) organized a coup with the help of the U.S.A. to overthrow and break apart the Soviet state and revert it to capitalism in order to sell off publicly owned, state-planned enterprises to their fat-cat oligarch cronies. This clique even rolled in tanks to bomb the Parliament in Moscow.

^ response to
(cont.)

Notice that the collapse in Soviet economy happened AFTER Gorbachev implemented perestroika (i.e. capitalism)

Also notice that at the highest levels of the U.S.A. political-economy military complex, the capitalist class feared as early as the late 1970's and into the 1980's that the USSR would soon overtake the US economy and make a mockery of the US claim to superiority of private enterprise, free market system unless they did something to reverse the Soviet growth (i.e. intensifying the Arms Race to a monstrous level game of nuclear chicken)

^ respond to
And even then, the Arms Race did not reverse Soviet economic growth, only slowed the rate of that growth.

The U.S.A. still needed the internal coup to be carried out by the revisionist-traitor capitalist Gorbachev-Yeltsin clique.

If socialism is superior to capitalism, why didn't communes within western countries provide a higher standard of living than private corporations?

>friends and I want to run a marathon
>start training
>more people join the training group
>start a club
>call it the marathon club because that's the goal we want to achieve
>print shirts
>while training one guy asks us if we are running a marathon
>explain that this is not a marathon, we are only training for one
>his face lights up with glee, starts running in circles shouting "Ha! Not a real marathon!" over and over.

Do you really think Stalin's end goal was to abolish the state that gave him power? He was a dictator using the label

>communes in capitalist countries = socialism
lol no

Socialism = the working class runs the state (i.e. you can't have a socialist system if the capitalist class still runs the state) and there is publicly owned, planned economy with production for need, not profit

If the state is not run by the working class, then it's not socialism.

To think that socialism can be developed in isolated little communities while the capitalist class still runs the state is NOT scientific socialism. That is "utopian socialism" in that it takes an idealist position that is not fundamentally grounded in a material reality-based, dialectically sound approach to socialist construction.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

Also, if you're referring to the "hippie communes" of the U.S.A. in the 1960's and 1970's, LEHMAO.

Reminder that the "hippie movement" in the U.S.A. was literally a CIA/FBI plot to divert the activity of young people from serious, committed, disciplined, sober-headed revolutionary activity (Black Panthers, Brown Berets, American Indian Movement, Young Lords, White Panthers, Marxist-Leninist cadre building etc.) into paths of least concern and lowest threat to the ruling class (i.e. music festivals with abundant hard recreational drugs, booze and orgy sex).

Reminder that the major music groups and cultural icons of Laurel Canyon literally all had direct connections to the CIA or Office of Naval Intelligence.
centerforaninformedamerica.com/laurelcanyon/

I'm not sure if I got your analogy 100%

but

Are you referring to Trotskyite or "authentic Marxist" idealist types who shit on Actually Existing Socialism and it's many achievements because "It wasn't real socialism! Stalinist totalitarianism! Soviet Union was state capitalism!"

?

greanvillepost.com/2015/05/23/left-anticommunism-the-unkindest-cut/

>still believes the U.S.A. actually sent a successful manned mission to the moon

user, I...

youtube.com/watch?v=rbZatP7TycM

centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

checktheevidence.com/pdf/Dave McGowan - Wagging The Moon Doggie.pdf

There has never been a mass migration from a capitalist country to a communist country.

Let that sink in. Not even Haitians want to live in Cuba, they prefer to cross the entire continent and settle in Brazil or Chile. This is reality, this is beyond statistics, where does people actually want to live. As it turns out, no one wants to live in a communist country.

And how do those Haitians end up in Brazil or Chile? Oh, that's right, in the slums, working the most long hours, no-benefits, dangerous, shit, constantly subject to abuse by the capitalist police, local mafias and right-wing paramilitaries while also enjoying a negligible to non-existent possibility of social mobility or educational opportunity for their children.

Is the Brazilian and Chilean economy on aggregate larger than Cuba's?

Of course, but are Brazil and Chile subject to a constant 60-year long genocidal blockade by the USA and it's navy cutting them off from most trade with other countries in the world and from international credit for capital accumulation?

Also, has Brazil or Chile eliminated homelessness?

No, but Cuba has.

We can play this game all day, Burger.

youtube.com/watch?v=qXyBSX_mnnc

yeah, and by /ourguy/

Yo momma went to the moon, oh wait, she is the moon (cuz shes fat)

>Pol Pot was socialist and /ourguy/!
He was literally a darling of the CIA.

thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html