Would communism have succeeded if capitalism wasn't hostile and aggressive?

Communism is a western product

>if capitalism wasn't hostile and aggressive
Then there's no reason to have communism in the first place.

unusually smart post

Yet another quality facebookfucktard post

global capitalism has destroyed, corrupted and cheapened more culture than any authoritarian socialist regime could ever dream of

This, I have no idea what OP is on about. Class struggle is at the very heart of communism, unless you're a reformist or some sort of functionalistic communist.

Commies are the aggressors. If the capitalist could not defend their property they would not buy it in the first place.

So what?

So the west probably has some good comments on it

"Peaceful co-existence" is what killed the USSR so I suppose so

>Communism is a (((western))) product

FTFY

Communism is a product of French socialism, German philosophy and British political economy, as well as smaller influences like Epicurus and Lewis Morgan. Nothing to do with Jews.

No, the industrial revolution did, capitalism is the only ideology that can work while keeping people somewhat happy

Would fascism, national-socialism and other violent reactionary movements have gained any importance in the 20th century if communism wasn't hostile and aggressive?

We complain about what communists did in a direct manner, but almost nobody condemns them for the fact that they also generated Fascism and many of the military dictatorships. Without the threat of Communism many of these would have never existed.

>Would fascism, national-socialism and other violent reactionary movements have gained any importance in the 20th century if communism wasn't hostile and aggressive?
Yes, the depression and postwar bitterness were much bigger factors than communists. Although fascism wouldn’t exist in the first place without syndicalists like Sorel.

POL BTFO!!!

Many conservatives and capitalists sided with Fascists and Nazis because they saw Communists as a bigger threat. Their support was not automatic. In fact in many cases there was initial hostility.

Without the communist threat these would have been seen as nothing more than extremists and trouble makers. This is exactly what happened before 1934 and the removal of Rohm in Nazi Germany, when conservatives saw the Nazis as a threat.
For many Fascists/Nazis were the "lesser" evil.
Remove the other evil, and there's no reason to support them.

Whatever bitter and vengeful common people existed would have simply turned to the conservatives.
The point is, Communists made politics even shitier by turning it into a competition on who is the most extremist.

>You can't have a government mandate an entire country's worth of materials and goods without an index of its worth, proportional to its need in a market.
The thing is that you can have all that in a communist society, but you need a system of supply and demand just as complex as that of a market economy (or modeled after it), which most if not all of the attempted communist countries lacked, since they went from being largely pre-industrial agricultural societies.

Well judging by what most Marxist-Leninist or Maoist states looked like, I'd say you'd be morally wrong not to be aggressive against it.

Even if you are one of the "This wasn't real Communism" people, you have to admit that it was a good thing those states were destroyed or disintegrated by themselves.

No, communism is dogmatic, inflexible and uses a flawed economic theory from the 19th century to explain the world of the 21st.
Also, it misunderstands human nature and basics of human economic behavior.
It is bound to fail every time. It makes way more sense to support social democracy and achieve goals of equality and social justice via them.

Marxism will succeed when it succeeds, we all know the USSR was adapted and so not true communism

It's quite possible. As the revolutionary ideals were perfect for the period of decolonization.

>ignoring the millions dead due to crapitalism

Bumpan

Judging by what every Marxist Leninist or Maoist state looked like at the end of its life versus the years prior, communist ideology is an amazing tool for development and industrialization.

With the exception of Cambodia, every socialist state saw enormous economic growth and quality-of-life improvements. Today, Cuba is one of the most developed Latin American countries and exceeds the US in many ways despite its isolation and poverty.

Nothing destroys culture worse than capitalism.

China actively destroyed much of its heritage under Mao... yet is far more culturally independent than Hong Kong or Taiwan, who were left at the mercy of the market.

>culturally independent
What does that mean exactly?

Oh shit we got a live fiddy center

>Meanwhile in Venezuela
You have a point though, which is that a dictatorial government can flex muscles and crack skulls to industrialize much quicker than a pure market economy. A capitalist-side example would be South Korea.

(you)

>WAHHH I NEED A SAFESPACE FOR MY SJW IDEOLOGY TO SURVIVE

China has a far stronger cultural identity than Taiwan, even though Taiwan never endured the same effort to destroy aspects of traditional culture.

Capitalism is incredibly globalizing and homogenizing, and compels governments and communities to abandon much of their cultural heritage to become modern and competitive.

Venezuela isn't communist in the slightest, I'm not sure how this meme started. It's not even socialist by any reasonable definition.

Venezuela is very similar to Sweden, a capitalist country with strong social services paid for by a nationalized oil industry. When this company faltered thanks to market fluctuations, the whole system fell apart.

I mean, the problem with Taiwan isn't so much capitalism as it is the fact that when Chang Kai-Shek arrived on the island, he basically established the mainland refugees as the dominant class while having the natives be second-class citizens. Of course the island's cultural identity would be affected by this.

>Nothing to do with Jews.
Jews were involved and promoted socialism, the point is more this is innocuous and not some giant conspiracy.

Oh just fuck off already

It's more the fact that communism wasn't aggressive enough.

Isn't it great when someone denies the presence of socialism once it goes awry wrong?

If you put the whole "stateless, classless society" meme aside and look at what communist leaders actually attempted to do, Communism did succeed. But what it did succeed at is not something most people would consider desirable.

yes and it would have dragged half the world to the pit with it

What scares me the most is how Communism closed the gap between the deaths it caused and the deaths caused by Capitalism in only 80 years

Get good, faggot. Capitalism outcompeted and outproduced feudalism, do the same if you can.

hmm

Cuban healthcare is a point of interest though in the real world I doubt it is some kind of brilliant system due to commie magic, even Britain struggles with the NHS. The rest of Cuba and communism and socialism in general leaves much to be desired. Russia's economic growth was mediocre compared to Mexico or Brazil, no communist country matched the european miracles or asian tigers. Cambodia wasn't the only horror story, Zimbabwe and North Korea should be on that list. Turkmenistan perhaps also. Communist ideology did nothing to help these countries deespite their goverrnments zealously promoting the idology.

I don't understand how anyone can seriously reach into the ash heap, pull out "das kapital", dust it off and proclaim it to be the solution to all the world's problems. It shouldn't be allowed.

Cuba's healthcare was already pretty good before the revolution. Cuba had the best infant healthcare in Latin America, and the general mortality rate was actually lower than Canada and the US at the time. There were 190 inhabitants per bed, compared to 200 in most developed countries, and in terms of the number of doctors available, 1 for every 980 citizens, which at the time was the second best in latin america, behind Argentina.

Batista was far from perfect, but Cuba at least had some decent growth during his government.

one reason liberalism (capitalism is merely the economic part of the system) is so successful is it plays well with other liberal systems while being HYPER aggressive towards other kinds of systems.

But Taiwan doesn't even have a Chinese identity

Culturally it's just an American and Japanese colony, even moreso than South Korea

>mfw a bunch of neets argue about ideologies from their mothers basement
>this is what they do when not being socially retarded, failing to get girlfriends, and subsequently masterbaiting to trap, furry, or cuck porn.

The world is a clusterfuck but I'm glad that shit posters are hard at work figuring it all out. One or two of your might be retarded enough to believe your own bullshit like the world's ills could be solved if only they would have asked some fag of Veeky Forums.

Remember to clean your rooms kids.

>China has a far stronger cultural identity than Taiwan, even though Taiwan never endured the same effort to destroy aspects of traditional culture.

yeah none of that is true...what traditional chinese culture survived Mao is being destroyed by Beijing's efforts to enforce a national "chinese" culture.

Socialism, according to Marx, is a society in which production is socialized and there's no more market.

Socialism, according to Lenin, is a society in which the economy is controlled by the working class.

Does Venezuela look like any of these?

the only thing worse than imperialist / capitalist apologists are so-called "socialists" who refuse to defend those that are actually trying to realize socialism, i.e. cuba, the bolivarian revolution in venezuela, etc. etc. Choosing only between perfect socialism and no socialism means, in practice, no socialism.

- t. tankie

>implying I'm not fapping to traps while I argue about ideologies
step it up, my nigga

Not as well as capitalism would have succeeded if we weren't having to spend half of our government budget on nukes to keep the commies at bay.

It's what happens when you realize socialism is good while still basically being a liberal

Nah not at all dude

If the third world went red capitalism in the West might not have survived

The only thing worse than doing nothing because perfection is impossible is actually trying to make some kind of kierkegaardian leap of faith.

The third world did go red, they demanded immediate decolonization then within years they were set upon by marxist guerrillas, islamists and tribal warlords leading to decades of civil war.

Capitalism enslaved over 100 million Africans and genocided 30 million Amerindians.

Its a good thing the commies freed all those slaves

Oh wait, those were capitalist with a heart except they weren't capitalist because capitalists is now a buzzword used by idiots like you for anyone you don't like

Its a good thing we stomped on those commies dicks, it was starting to look like they were trying to beat the "Capitalists" record really fast

The only countries in the third world which became socialist were China, Korea, Vietnam, Ghana (before the coup), Cuba, Chile (before the coup), Laos, Cambodia, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique, and Grenada (before the invasion).

120 other countries remained capitalist.

While a great portion of the world became socialist, this bloc was nowhere near large enough to starve out the capitalist world. Sino-Soviet aims of safeguarding third world resources away from Western hands failed completely when both these states shifted toward improving quality-of-life and engaging with the West throughout the 1970s.

The capitalist world managed to survive various third world revolutions, and instead the cold war expenditure caused the Soviet Union to collapse all on its own.

>Would fashism have succeeded if capitalism wasn't hostile and aggressive

>Africans
>people

>Amerindians
>people