Why are communists so resistant to learning?

...

How many millions died with each flight attempt?

lmao
>commies actually believe that image
Where is that fucking big yellow grin when I need it?

the shit doesn't even make sense in theory
>muh objective value
Literally circlejerk tier

Go back

here you go senpai

>whatabout their crimes
which is the SOP for capitalism, but who cares about that. Its not the crimes that mattered, its the hypocrisy of aspiring to be something other than criminal.

Too few. Just think of the Ornithopters we might have if Da Vinci had cared about getting shit done, or the ether corkscrews that could be impelling us to distant stars right now, as we speak.

I honestly can't even tell anymore if this is sarcasm or a tankie that actually believes this shit

...

>bend over for (((Chicago Boys))) and let them tell you what to do
>worshipped by internet nationalists

Thank you user-kun

Autistic people are notoriously stubborn.

>wtf autistic people drink water so if you drink water you r like an autistic xD

Who are you quoting?

2720760
Looks like i struck a nerve.

This user r u stupid?

Newfag

But he never said that

...

I, my family, my town and my country have benefitted and thrived enormously from capitalism, if it's criminal so be it, but at least it wasn't for naught.

Communism left us with misery, regress, hatred and hopelessness. Capitalism might be ugly, i don't deny, but why would i support a system applied in real life if i didn't care sbout it's actual implementation, functioning and effects on real societies, made of real people? Why would i be so selfish to put my own ideological convictions over the fate of the society and human beings i seek to help and improve in the first place?

Meanwhile.
>/pol/ack screeching over globalism.

Because communism is an untenable ideology founded by and for limousine liberal NEETs who delude themselves into thinking that if they get rid of everyone who disagrees with them, they'll be able to reach utopia. If it doesn't work, they just conclude that those guys didn't get rid of enough dissidents, or the wrong ones.

Swines aren't people, and they're certainly not innocent

>innocents

Also there are others who go No True Scotsman on OP picture and point for some small parts of country in civil war or unrest (Rovaja is most recent one) or just some shithole country like that dude with pipe in Mexico.

globalism is ruining the western world

Is this memeing or is this meant to be a substitute for analysis of the conditions in which these movements occurred.

>it is all communism are Marx-Leninism episode
Why are capitalists so stubborn?

>capitalism is ba-

It's a late Abrahamic religion essentially. Except Marx (pbuh) brought the Semitic concept of Heaven to Earth and set everything in materialist terms. Marxists will never admit they're over because they genuinely believe that their souls shall be saved as history progresses because they believe that history moves along their DialecticalTM lines; when everything Marx said was wrong. Capitalism is stronger than ever, and I say this as an anti-capitalist

nobody ever said capitalism has never been tried??? And shah and leopod were kings and there crimes werent in the name of capitalism?? and you barley found 4 people witch killed a few thousand people while almost every communist country killed millions and destroyed the state and economy

None of those guys established communism or ever claimed to. Communism is a society in which production is socialized and there's no more market. This has never existed, and probably can't exist until capitalism is no longer the hegemonic global system. Instead, they tried to build socialism (worker owned industries) despite their generation backwards prerevolutionary economies.

Pretty much every extant socialist society was doomed to failure, due to their isolation. These poor countries lacked enough capital to properly socialize their economies. With imperialists at every gate, and under the austere guidance of Lenin then Stalin, socialist states became militarized and walled-off societies removed from the rest of the world and unable to provide a comfortable society apart from industrialization and amenities like housing and healthcare.

Much of that poverty reduction happened in China and Russia during the socialist period. Say what you want about Mao and Stalin, but their industrialization policies did provide substantial benefits to their citizens. While no socialist state been truly successful, abject poverty was eradicated in nearly all of them.

Learn to dialectics son

ahhh yes blaming others for your mistakes a classic

>my perfect system didnt work because of evil capitalists
>im a virgin because women are whores
>im a faliure in life because of my parents and school

have you noticed that people that are communist are really unsuccessful in life and dont work and never did work, just like only ugly women are femminists

>abject poverty was eradicated in nearly all of them
people literally died of hunger in every communist state or where really really poor wtf are you talking about

...

It's also worth mentioning their propensity for developing state-messiahs, such as the case of the Morozov cult in which a hero was made of a young boy who betrayed his father to the authorities.

>kill 400 million people

Rightists are fucking braindead what the hell

Those were all state capitalists, meanwhile Revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune are proof that communism/anarchism works.

Periods of starvation happened in Russia and China during the early socialist, just as periods of starvation had happened under capitalism and feudalism in these countries. After the transition to socialism, however, there was no more starvation in either society. Really makes you think.

In fact, the only times famine happened in the Eastern Bloc and Cuba was in the immediate wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, when this parallel international system of resource distribution collapsed and left the Cubans and North Koreans without the Soviet trade around which they had based their economies.

It's incredibly telling that even despite the famine in 1950s China, life expectancy rose dramatically under Mao.

To be fair Mosley was more stopped by Cable Street residents and a stray potato.

>Assuming the dialectics should lead to communism and not anarchy capitalism.

Literally any form of goverment is theoretically possible if you assume morals. The reality is just some forms of goverment are more practical

The Comintern was abolished before Maduro was even born, actually.
It was strictly an interwar period alliance and stopped existing after WWII.

Are you trying to tell people that famine, mass culling of the population, and labor camps are traditional to Russia and China, and aren't inherent to socialism?

Communism will only improve its chance of success as we near post scarcity and a universal living wage thanks to tech advances

Capitalists certainly aren't blind to this fact right?

Considering people still don't realize how the USSR ended a decade before the home computer boom could've revived it, and how lucky we were it died just then and didn't struggle on a bit longer... yes. I think they are blind.

>"communism will work as soon as we create a perpetual motion machine!! You'll see!!!"

This criticism is as old as modern utopianism. It's completely outdated.

Marx never said that Communism was theologically inevitable by the forces of history. He just said that once class consciousness developed and socialism in all its forms was implemented it would render capitalism ineffective and unproductive.

In fact this criticism is more addressed to the bizarre Soviet-Stalinist idea that history was on their side due to historical materialism and that they were going to beat Western Capitalism no matter no what, even though they never achieved full post-scarcity communism.

>post scarcity
Post-scarcity isn't a thing.
We're already post-scarcity with respect to the lifestyle of a well-off artisan in 14th century italy.
The problem is, while it's true that the more technology improves the more you're able to reach post-scarcity for a given lifestyle, it's also true people's standards shoot up, which means you're never going to reach post-scarcity for the latest lifestyle people have become used to.

Communism is a religion. Religions aren't based on reason or observation or evidence, they're based on faith. Communists have faith that their revolution is inevitable. They have a linear view of history and believe its course is preordained by the Prophet, Marx (PbuH). The revolution WILL happen, Marx said so in their scripture, Capitalism will eventually give way to the new order. You just have to have faith.

Now I wait for a Marxist to come and tell me my interpretation of the Capital is wrong and really Marx (PbuH) is infallible and all-knowing etc.

Criminally underrated post

>just as periods of starvation had happened under capitalism
Having trouble remembering any widespread famine that killed millions of people in free, capitalist societies. Can you name a few?

>just as periods of starvation had happened under capitalism and feudalism
Haha man it's a good thing you tacked that "and feudalism" on there or you'd have literally zero examples. The ability for Communist dunces to equate capitalism with fucking feudalism never ceases to amaze me.

One time my corner store was out of tendies, so i had to drive to the big box store that was, like, 20 miles away.

Didn't eat for, like, 2 hours. Pretty tragic

Dude, like, I once was at a slam poetry and event and starbucks run out of my favorite pumpkin spaced latte.
I was basically dying.

>Blah blah Joe perverted Uljanov's revolution blah blah if only Bronstein
For fucks sake.

Anyone wanting an understanding of the subject should read first Chamberlins 'Russian Revolution' (although, that is obviously 'reactionary' to commies, because Chamberlin - still heavily leaning to left when arriving in Russia - became critical when learning straight from Bolsheviks what they had done following October coup and when witnessing the Ukrainian genocide first-hand) then Pipes work with the same name, which much more intimidately explains the Russian autocracy, muzhik - the one staying in village and other working in cities, but maintaining his peasantry - and intelligentsia and how these forces interacted and obviously the follow-up, 'Russia under the Bolshevik regime'.
There isn't too much difference between Chamberlin's and Pipes work really, the latter just paints the personel involved and social conditions in much more minute detail.

Volkogonov's Lenin -biography draws picture of the man with the help of Lenin's personal archive, which no Western scholars have had opportunity to take look at, not 25 years ago and especially not today: it's through the opening of secondary archives (Communist party archives in previously Soviet republics) that they have constructed very similar picture of the baldie. And that picture makes it very clear that there is very little difference between the mongol looking Ivan and the wood-legged Georgian, especially where it matters to people under their rule: complete indifference to human casualties if the cause needs it.

Oh, the more scholarly Jew would been less brutal leader? Is that so? Maybe take a look at how he consructed the army and how much value he put for a single - or for thousand - lives.

>Lenin killed over 2 million people not counting civil war casualties
>Mao killed 70 million, more than any other leader in history
>Not comparable

>Much of that poverty reduction happened in China and Russia during the socialist period
>Graph clearly shows most of it happening in the 80's and 90's, when China and Russia began to adopt capitalism
Why do commies always have to blatantly lie to support their theories?

Dictators aren't communists lol

Lenin did not kill anyone, he never lead any armies.

Attributing natural famines to heads of states as being done on purpose, is the most idiotic anti-communist accusation Amerilards invented.

I guess blaming the dust bowl Franklin D. Roosevelt would also be ok according to this nonsensical logic.

Uuuuh sweetie? That's not real communism, honey.

Sure thing, Hitler wasn't Nazi too.

Lenin was a ruthless pragmatist of course he was going to order men to be executed if the situation demanded it, like killing the Romanovs, rebellious kulaks, white russians etc. However there is a major difference between Stalin and Lenin. Lenin was in absolute control of his political instincts and of the bureaucratic leviathan he had set up as long as he was alive. Stalin on the other hand was a paranoid sociopath that was in fact lead by this ruthless bureaucratic behemoth.

There is no morality in politics, and it depends on the way one looks at it. Indeed Lenin did set up a ruthless bureaucratic mechanism that was ready for Stalin to abuse it. But did he do on purpose? Not really.

But in the end, all bureaucracy is ruthless, and much easier to abuse in totalitarian systems. There is no single instrumentalist actor in historical disasters like the Great Purge, that truly killed the Russian Revolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_famine_of_1928–30

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770

"free capitalist society" is a fucking meme term but I'm guessing you're trying to avoid capitalist famines by narrowing it down to the few core capitalist countries dependent on the (direct or simply economic) colonial exploitation of the periphery. I don't even agree with Wallerstein all that much but read this and you'll understand the connection: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory

>Fascism has never worked
>Franco doesn't exist
If your going to steal a meme make sure it makes sense.

>The Great Leap Forward never happened
>The Holodomor is a propaganda tool
>The Soviets essentially slaughtering 100 million of their own population never happened as well

>Bengal's economy was predominantly agrarian. For at least a decade before the food crisis, between half and three fourths of those dependent on agriculture were already at or near subsistence level. Underlying causes of the famine included inefficient agricultural practices, population pressures, and de-peasantisation through usury and land grabbing. (Bengal famine in 1943)
>The start of the famine has been attributed to a failed monsoon in 1769 that caused widespread drought and two consecutive failed rice crops. (Bengal famine in 1770)
> 1928–1930, a drought hit the provinces of Henan, Shaanxi, and Gansu.(Chinese famine of 1928)
>The Great Famine of Ireland had to do with diseased potatoes that weren't fit for consumption or sale
>Somehow Capitalism is to blame for nature being an ardent bitch

*nature being an ardent bitch and inefficient uses of land

The Soviets didn't kill anywhere near than 100 million people. Not even the now-debunked Cold War estimates, from before we had access to actual Soviet material, was that high.

The other shit happened, but the total death toll was nowhere near 400 million. That's absurd. You realize that such a high death toll would have left a substantial mark on the human population? Yet populations grew during the Cold War, even in the socialist countries where these atrocities happened.

Excuse me? The vast majority of modern famines have happened under capitalist governments.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

Are you being disingenuous or are you really that brainwashed?

Literally every famine under a socialist regime had natural origins. Read the wiki page for all of them.

Crop failures and droughts happen constantly. Famine happens when new and ineffective systems can't deal with them as effectively as traditional, usually localized means of food distribution.

They don't understand economics and efficiency.

Franco wasn't a fascist, he was a traditionalist.

>holodomor
>natural origins

>great leap forward
>natural origins

Oh boy

Strange, the word "capitalism" doesn't appear there once. Neither does "America" show any famines. So strange.

>See famines happened in capitalistic regimes despite not being directly cause by said regimes
>That means they were responsible for it

>Denies that the socialistic model tends to lead to famine due to the failures of central planning, even in an favorable climate conditions like Venezuela

Because we're a fucking first world country enriched by the wholesale exploitation of the third world, where starvation happens.

The reason why the Soviet bloc had lower food availability than the West was because they lacked access to third world capital.

Absolutely. Natural conditions create food scarcity, but social conditions inhibit relief and prolong starvation.

...

...

>my capitalism has never been tried

Except capitalism has worked in 99% percent of cases, as opposed to communism which has worked in 0%.

Maybe innocents and plebs are the problem

Capitalism has literally never worked.

Every comfortable capitalist society has been built upon the brutal exploitation of poor people abroad. Sweden wouldn't be a nice social democracy if there were Africans and South Americans to produce resources and Asians to assemble them into consumer goods.

Under liberal capitalism, the third world must stay poor, subordinated by the first. Our economic order is based on these countries providing labor and resources. It's fundamentally impossible in our system for every poor country to become rich.

>There is no single instrumentalist actor in historical disasters like the Great Purge, that truly killed the Russian Revolution.

Thank God it did. After the Great Purge, the Soviet regime became much milder and quite livable, even good for Russian standards.

Communists are such scum.
>muh kulaks were responsible for the famine :(

Revolutionary ideologies like communism operate through an inversion of time in the mind of its followers. Instead of using the past as an example for what they want in the future, they use an imaginary future as legitimation of what they want in the present.

No matter how much communist regimes fail, they will never cease to be communist, because the imaginary communist society of the future is always perfect and that imaginary society is what makes them commies.

Canada and Australia are doing quite fine producing resources for more industrialized countries.

There is another reason why Africans and South Americans can rise above their primitive stage...

...

This is good

they are manlets and thus never learn

Why are you using the continents with the largest numbers of corrupt gov'ts to say that capitalism never worked? What you're proving is that capitalism can't work in an extremely corrupt political climate, which is obvious as fuck. If Africa and South America fixed their political climates, then I can guarantee that they would stop hemorrhaging money like fucking crazy and have a functioning economy.