There's literally nothing wrong with communism

Except the whole mass starvation and genocide thing

He did make a career of it, whether he later blew it by telling them shit they didn't want to hear is irrelevant you fucking autist.

You should have said "made a career by telling the west what it wanted to hear" or "made a career from telling the west what it wanted to hear" instead of "made a career of telling the west what it wanted to hear".

Hey, could lefty/his/ answer this question of mine?

Do you guys *actually* believe in marxist theory? As in do you *actually* believe that one day there will be a worldwide revolution which will instate a dictatorship of the proletariat, and that this will eventually cause the state to wither away and communism to appear?

Do you actually believe these horseshit theories?

Okay, so you have poor peasants fleeing from a country that has been absolutely ruined by French and U.S. massacres and bombing, and some Cubans and eastern Europeans who decided that they wanted to make more money with the free education given to them in their previous society. But the millions of people that flee from Really Existing Capitalism in the Third World (places ravaged by capitalist and neo-liberal economic policies, and capitalist wars), they're NOT political refugees?

The D of P was known bullshit by 1864.

Are you a fucking analytic philosopher or something?

>But the millions of people that flee from Really Existing Capitalism in the Third World (places ravaged by capitalist and neo-liberal economic policies, and capitalist wars), they're NOT political refugees?

They would be political refugees if they flet to a socialist country. But they don't.

Look at Haitians, when they emigrate, they don't go to Cuba, which is just at their side, they cross the entire continent to come to Brazil or Chile. Is there a worst indictment of communism?

It isn't that marxist-leninism leads to some utopia, it's that this world is unbearable for the vast majority of the world's population (with those in the rich countries -- who get rich from exploiting the Third World -- getting to live a nice life). Twenty-one thousand people are going to starve to death today (the majority in food EXPORTING nations).

As bad as Stalin was, he was squeezed from all sides, from capitalist nations that wanted to destroy the first socialist state to reactionary classes from inside the USSR. if he hadn't industrialized as fast as he could, the USSR would've have definitely been taken over by Nazi Germany (and whatever inflated death count that Robert Conquest and Robert Service come up with would certainly be a drop in the bucket to what would happen then). And even by Stalin's death, life expectancy had doubled from pre-revolutionary times, and the USSR was the second most powerful country in the world.

Mao, too, even a massive fuck up like the Great Leap Forward is basically equaled by famine deaths in India every ten years. And note that the Great Leap Forward was the last famine China has experienced (when pre-revolutionary China experienced famines 9 out of every 10 years).

It's just never been tried.... right bros? ..right? haha.. right?

It's more that communism is inevitable due to material conditions, capitalism is unsustainable.

>capitalism is unsustainable

Says increasingly nervous political movement for seventieth time in the last 250 years.

So you have a the choice between the richest country on the planet, and a nation under embargo (from said richest country), why would you choose the latter?

The only reason why western Europe, Japan, U.S.A. are so rich isn't because of a political culture or certain economic practices, it's because they're parasitic on the Third World. Most nations can't become the U.S. or Germany, but they can chart an independent course, and usually the most, say, resistant course is revolutionary socialism. I mean, I think that's unfortunate, and I wish it wasn't the case, but history has shown that it's true, which is why Baathist Iraq can get knocked over in weeks, and democratic socialist Chile gets knocked over with a few CIA dollars and Pinochet, but the U.S. still hesitates to touch Cuba just 90 miles from shore.

You didn't really answer my question.

Why Marxism? Why not, say, Neoliberalism? Do you believe in marxist theory?

>pic related
>flags of all the successful anarchist revolutions (i.e. lasted more than a year and a half)

So you believe in historical determinism?

Japan is rich because it is parasitic on the third world? Really?

So all of Japan's GDP comes from exploiting poor Haitians?

Except for all those people that died and bad things that happened. No system's perfect but hot damn communism just doesn't work.
Soviet and East German aesthetic is bretty nice though.

If you're jelly butthurt pleb with no moneyz whatsoever.

I want /leftypol/ to go home and stop trying to make every board a clone of itself like a demented even more autistic version of /pol/.

Because of historical practice -- only marxism-leninism has been able to turn back the tide against capitalist and imperialism. Social democracy in the Third World gets Pinocheted or Contra'd, half measures like Chavismo are slowly undermined by the capitalists that they compromised with.

Do you think that neoliberalism is separate from capitalism.

And big thing, I know that this is Veeky Forums, and everyone likes to be edgy and pretend that colonialism was awesome or "complicated", but a big selling point for me personally is that after centuries of resistance to colonial domination, it wasn't until revolutionary socialism led anti-colonial movements that colonialism started being defeated in country after country. it's ultimately about autonomy: you can't have autonomy when your nation (and class) is dominated from the outside, and historically speaking, only marxist-leninism has been able to effectively repel foreign domination.

>after he died he was praising Putin

I love how communists play the irrelevance card and call everyone a literal who, even though every single communist "thinker" who ever lived after Marx is the definition of a literal who not known anywhere outside of commie circlejerks.

......except that it's failed every time

>communist "thinker" who ever lived after Marx is the definition of a literal who not known anywhere outside of commie circlejerks.
Are you really suggesting Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Guevara and Gramsci are unknown?

wait, people take r.j. rummel seriously outside of his neocon echo chamber?

>Because of historical practice -- only marxism-leninism has been able to turn back the tide against capitalist and imperialism.
What do you mean by the "tide of capitalism and imperialism".

Chile under Pinochet underwent tremendous economic growth, and is today the richest country in Latin America. By comparison, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge had a quarter of its population massacred. An unbiased observer would think that stemming the tide of communism would be the priority, rather than stemming the tide of capitalism.

>Do you think that neoliberalism is separate from capitalism.
Neoliberalism is very open markets. It's an "implementation" of capitalism if you will.

>And big thing, I know that this is Veeky Forums, and everyone likes to be edgy and pretend that colonialism was awesome or "complicated", but a big selling point for me personally is that after centuries of resistance to colonial domination, it wasn't until revolutionary socialism led anti-colonial movements that colonialism started being defeated in country after country.
Perhaps in Africa and South East Asia. The first anti-colonial movement was born in India and was not inspired in the least from marxist theory, but rather was inspired from the classical liberalism and nationalism which emerged from the 19th century.

> it's ultimately about autonomy:
I thought communists were for internationalism. Doesn't that conflict with autonomy?

>Stalin, Guevera
Those are not thinkers or philosophers. The former was a man of action, the latter was just some 80 IQ alcoholic fucktard only known because the American capitalists turned him into a fashion icon.

>Luxemburg, Gramsci
Textbook literal whos. Nobody knows or even gives a flying fuck about Rosa Luxemburg other than leftist autistically screeching about that ugly whore getting killed. Gramsci even less, not even /pol/ memers who sperg about Frankfurt school know who he was.

>only marxist-leninism has been able to effectively repel foreign domination.

somebody tell that to Putin in the 2000s, somebody tell that to China in their entire fucking history including up to this point, somebody tell that to Japan, India.

further, even if marxism-leninism is an effect tool for revolutionaryism, its a fucking retarded way to actually govern a country, which is why countries that bend too far socialist and communist continually fucking starve and go bankrupt.

socialist/communist ideals can work to some extent if your ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY is the equivalent of hardworking protestants. Otherwise, once you overthrow your foreign invaders, you're probable to just become venezuela, greece, the USSR, or any other fucking failed nation of extreme collectivism.

Communism is antithetical to human nature. Marx had a point- unrestrained capitalism is also antithetical to human nature- but communism is fucking retarded.

I didn't mention the U.S. in my post about Haitian emigration, but Brazil and Chile.

>The only reason why western Europe, Japan, U.S.A. are so rich isn't because of a political culture or certain economic practices, it's because they're parasitic on the Third World.

There is no way you can prove or quantify that.

>western Europe
Who the fuck does the extremely rich Austria, Switzerland or Norway parasite on? Who did they exploit? It's actually the former colonial hegemons like Spain, Britain and Portugal that are poverty zones right now while the non-colonial countries are the rich ones.

>greece
Greece's problem have fuck all to do with "extreme collectivism" and everything to do with the capitalist EU, corruption and tax evasion.

>Those are not thinkers or philosophers. The former was a man of action
Wrong. Both Stalin and Guevara wrote extensively.
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/decades-index.htm
marxists.org/archive/guevara/works.htm

I write a lot too, doesn't make me a thinker. Guevera was an imbecile.

Zizek. I know he's not a great thinker, but he is well known, as far as contemporary philosophers go.

Well if Peterson and Solzhenitsyn are literal whos then so is Zizek.

Nobody claimed that the latter was a literally who, he's fairly well known and has received awards from major institutions; the claim was that he was known because he told the west what they wanted to hear because he had an axe to grind against the USSR. The latter is a literally who because he only became relatively widely known because he said dumb shit during a controversy. Zizek is relatively well known, even outside of philosophy as a famous social critic; better known than Peterson by far.

Sartre was very well known during the 60s and 70s.

His work on imperialism and colonialism is excellent. He's admired around the world for a reason.

the most prominent bunch of communists that rightfully condemn the soviet union like trotsky, who was a massive warmonger

communism that is neither "internationalist" (warmongering, shitty domestically) nor domestically oppressive might work, but communists never argue for that so it can be assumed they're talking about the trot/tankie varieties, which are definitely shit

He's admired by pretentious western hipsters and by low IQ mongrel farmers in bumblefuck Guatemala, not by anyone with a brain.

>the most prominent bunch of communists that rightfully condemn the soviet union like trotsky, who was a massive warmonger
trots aren't that prominent any more. i mostly see anarchists criticise the ussr

OK, whatever you say.

We have this obvious bait thread every single day and Veeky Forums still falls for it

>dumb shit
Like what?
Sort yourself out bucko

You can't have a history board without talking about Communism.
And you can't talk about Communism without apologists coming in acting like their version of Communism wouldn't end in mass death camps and the rape of a nation.

Wow, that's some amazing insight there Mr. Peterson, you're the next fucking Nietzsche I tell you what.

Oh wait, it's complete bollocks because then the contrary claim that people bring up (that SJW's ignore the plight of poor white groups) wouldn't apply. All of the groups that mainstream social justice advocates champion have a very well known history of being oppressed and mistreated.

They don't care about the poor whites. Poverty and injustice are complicated, and they aren't what they are campaigning against.
They see white as an identity group, and their ideology doesn't allow for separating the individual from the perception, its a hard collectivist view. From which spawn ideas such as white guilt, cultural appropriation or reparations for crimes done by ancestral race, not even proven family ties to past crimes are relevant.

You look to Detroit and ask why it is a broken city, the Prog says it is because of institutionalized racism. Whilst it is in fact a complex answer with causes beginning with the fall of the American Auto-Industry.
They don't talk about the economy and ways to remedy, they talk about crimes and paths to vengeance.