Every attempt to enact communism ends in the death of million of innocent workers

>Russians
>Chinese
>Cambodians
>Koreans
>Ethiopians
>Germans
>Vietnamese
Need I go on?

Common misconception. All (except Pol pot who was a CIA stooge) killed people who deserved it and maybe went a bit far (maos killing of school teachers). How about the fact that the world's second biggest economy for 70 years has been socialist

All of those were offshoots of the Third International, founded by Russians and based in Russia.

And if you call communism in Russia a "failure", then what do you call Russian attempts at literally every other system? Communism brought Russia from a medieval tier pre-industrial shithole to being a global superpower and putting the first man in space.

how many lives do vaccines save? have many lives has eradication of smallpox and polio saved?

>Pol pot who was a CIA stooge

>Install tyrannical regimes in Russia, Cambodia, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, and Ethiopia
>Each regime kills hundreds of thousands, if not millions of their own citizens directly by military force
>Regimes like the Khmer Rouge kill up to a quarter of the population
>Untold millions more are sent to suffer in specially made labor camps for disagreeing with Communist dogma
>Communist leaders deliberately engineer famines to cull their enemies, whether ideological or ethnic
>Mao himself claimed that "one-tenth of the peasants would have to be destroyed" (~50 million people at the time) to facilitate Communist reforms
>None of this happens in capitalist countries

>B-but muh preventable deaths!!!

Are Communists the most disgusting, morally bankrupt people in existence?

>Let's compare all of the "preventable" deaths in the world today with all of the government-enforced deaths in a couple of nations without accounting for population size!
>Whoa, the capitalist third-world shitholes (that would still be shitholes under communism) had more deaths! Wage-slaves BTFO!

really made me think

>Japan
>victim of communism
u wot

>people not being able to afford things is the same as intentionally preventing them from having them

give me all your money rn

IT NEVER COUNTS!

China is """"""""""""""""socialist """""""""""""""" and also has a fuck ton of people.

The USSR was also not real communism and also has natural resources out the ass, as well as receiving a huge industrial boost from the US during WW2.

>they deserved to die

>people dying from famine under communism is the fault of communism
>people dying from famine under capitalism is the fault of literally anything but capitalism

>intentional famine for the express purpose of killing people is the same as accidental famine due to a culmination of many factors, most of which are not anthropogenic

you are a nigger

Go to leftypol then

...

>Fascist and Nazi terror is capitalism
>Iran-Iraq war was because of capitalism
>Potato famine was because of capitalism
>Japanese and Israeli imperialism is caused by capitalism
Oh leftypol, never change

>everything that isn't communism is capitalism
neat

also

>ignoring the fact that communists managed to kill more of their own people than anyone else in history given the time span.
double neat

Okay, so Stalin deliberately starving the Ukraine is an inherently communist crime, but the British deliberately starving Ireland or India isn't an inherently capitalist crime?

>Potato famine was because of capitalism

That's the only thing that image got right, though.

The Irish starved because belief in the power of the market kept them exporting food while they couldn't afford it themselves.

Are you aware of the fact the British government continued to export and sell food from Ireland while millions starved?

>Smallpox is capitalism
-100 million
>Atlantic slave trade killed 15 million despite only involving 12 million slaves
-10 million
>Indian famines greatly exaggerated
-22 million
>Nazis were capitalists
-25 million
>Algerian war of independence is capitalism's fault despite being started by socialists
-1 million
>Vietnamese killed by US higher than total Vietnam war dead by both sides
-1.5 million
>US bombing killed twice as many people as died in the civil wars
-500,000
>Both Angolan and Mozambiquan civil war deaths exaggerated by half a million, murders by communists not mentioned
-550,000
-600,000
>UN sanctions on Iraq death toll exaggerated
-600,000
>Civil war in Afghanistan death toll exaggerated, blamed on capitalism rather than Communist invasion
-400,000
>Destruction of Communist Yugoslavia blamed on capitalism instead of just Nato bombings
-190,000
>Congolese civil war death toll exaggerated
-2 million
>East Timor massacre exaggerated
-97,200

Total killed:
222,655,929
-164,437,200 misattributed or made-up deaths
=58,218,729 killed by capitalism in over 500 years.

Remember not to fall for commie lies

>t. the classcuck

Stay mad wageslave, communism is inevitable

I thought that Stalin wasn't real communism. If that's true then why are the other two real capitalism?

>kill millions
They don't kill anyone, faggot. Taking food away forcefully (as in communism) is killing someone. Being an useless parasite that can't provide for himself is completely your fault. Why should anyone be responsible for providing you with clean water, food and medicine? How is anyone responsible for your death you inflicted upon yourself by not taking care for yourself?

>British deliberately starving Ireland
>The potato blight was deliberate

This is your brain on communism

To be fair the Irish famine & the Indian famine(s) were more a case of "we really don't care" rather than going in and just taking all the food from the people there like the USSR did.

>look at my meme utopia that has never been achieved in history, despite 2 dozen countries trying and failing
>but it will surely work this time guys, I'm telling ya' just one more time

All serious attempts at Communism so far have been based on the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist model, which represents only a fairly small subset of Communist ideology. It indicates that the MLM model is seriously flawed, or at least has implementation issues that have yet to be effectively addressed, though it's not rational to assume that it means Communism as a whole is non-viable. Obviously, however, "let's hope it works this time" is not a good way for Communists to approach future attempts at building a Communist society; rather, they need to put serious effort into learning from the failures of past Communist revolutions and finding a different approach.

They did specify that they were talking about easily preventable deaths that are nonetheless NOT prevented in capitalist societies. The fact that capitalism is an improvement over earlier systems (something which even Marx admitted) does not mean capitalism should be above criticism. Capitalism was a good thing when it first happened, but to focus only on the past and refuse to look into addressing the problems that still remain is just plain silly.

>>people not being able to afford things is the same as intentionally preventing them from having them
Yeah because people who are starving to death really care about the difference.

It doesn't matter what the fuck they care about you dumb motherfucker. If you trip and fall on a sharp rock and bleed to death it's in no way the same as me coming up to you with a fucking knife and stabbing you, even though you bleed out all the same!

>Taking food away forcefully (as in communism) is killing someone
Not if you leave them enough to live on.

>Being an useless parasite that can't provide for himself is completely your fault.
>How is anyone responsible for your death you inflicted upon yourself by not taking care for yourself?
Because of course all disabled people are that way out of choice.

>Why should anyone be responsible for providing you with clean water, food and medicine?
Because otherwise you are choosing to profit from the suffering of others. Under most worldviews and philosophies, that is considered evil.

Except you had no part in me tripping over that rock. That's the difference. But when you knowingly make a decision that causes others to die, it doesn't matter if you do it out of malice or carelessness.

Other people are not responsible for your life. You need to stop trying to make everything that happens anthropogenic.

>enough to live
As in 1932 :^)

>all disabled people
>only disabled people die from no food, shit water and disease

>choosing to profit from
You don't sell them stuff, they don't buy it. How is that profiting? By no capitalistic model is that considered profit.

Communism will probably only work in a post scarcity world or anything

That's nonsense though. People don't live in a vacuum. If other's actions cause you to suffer, then they ARE responsible for your suffering. You seem to subscribe to the fallacious notion that people can just "opt out" of being affected by the world around them.

at least redo the helmet, maker of the meme (its repurposed from a wehraboo)

>>all disabled people
>>only disabled people die from no food, shit water and disease
So you actually think a significant number of people decide it's better to die than to work and take care of themselves? For people that are actually known to have suicidal tendencies that might make sense, but otherwise it's unrealistic.

>You don't sell them stuff, they don't buy it. How is that profiting? By no capitalistic model is that considered profit.
Because there are limited resources, meaning that if preventable deaths WERE prevented, there would be fewer luxuries.

>WERE prevented
I don't see how that's someone else's responsibility.

The bottom line is that your life is your responsibility. If you die from the inherent inability to take care for yourself, the fault is only yours.

No im being reasonable given the fact that everything you do has a profound and unknowable effect on everyone around you and morality and ethics are necessarily difficult things if you aren't a child or autistic. You can't reasonably hold people responsible for your own life when they don't intend to hurt you. Hell when it comes to your example they don't even think of you. Because you aren't they're responsibility. And it's entirely impossible for everyone to be everyone else's responsibility. Spend some time in the real world and grow up.

>limited resources
>wealth = physical resources
>wealth can't possibly be created ever
Why bother discussing stuff you have no idea about? If the useless person creates utility, the overall wealth increases and an capitalist would be foolish to not do business with him (i.e. sell him water, medicine, food).

>The bottom line is that your life is your responsibility. If you die from the inherent inability to take care for yourself, the fault is only yours.
And I'm saying that's immoral. It's basically saying that severely disabled people DESERVE to die.

So why do you think people starve and die from lack of healthcare? Why do you think capitalists are so frequently foolish?

>Why do you think capitalists are so frequently foolish?
Humams are foolish you dumb motherfucker. Capitalism spreads responsibility and decisions around rather than concentrating them in the hands of a planning authority. You know what's good for you better than some suit somewhere else.

>So why do you think people starve and die from lack of healthcare
Because they don't create enough (or any at all) utility to purchase goods and services. Capitalism isn't forcing you to do absolutely anything. The capitalist also doesn't win from this situation, since his goods and services aren't being consumed and he doesn't get wealthier.

>immoral
And burdening strangers with your needs is moral? If you don't live in a country with a social safety net or don't have relatives/friends/other to take care of you voluntarily, you absolutely deserve to die.

>this shit again

>commiecucks are so pathetic and useless they can't even defend their memes irl

>read definition of communism
>looks at supposed "communist nations" and what their polices were
that answers your question right there retard

Socialism doesn't require central planning.

>Capitalism isn't forcing you to do absolutely anything.
It forces you to participate in the market if you want to survive. You might as well say you're not actually "required" to pay taxes, follow the speed limit, respect property rights, and so on, because once you decide that losing your life is an "acceptable consequence" and not something to be avoided at all costs, then there really isn't anything law enforcement can do to control you.

>And burdening strangers with your needs is moral?
Yes, when the burden placed on strangers is relatively small compared to the benefit you receive from it? Ever heard of diminishing marginal utility? It basically says, the more of something you have, the less each unit of it is worth to you on average. So if we have a society composed of two people, one who has ten widgets and other has just one, then taking one widget from the person with ten and giving it to the person with one would lead to an overall increase in that society's well-being, all other things being equal.

>If you don't live in a country with a social safety net or don't have relatives/friends/other to take care of you voluntarily, you absolutely deserve to die.
So people deserve to die preventable deaths due to circumstances they have no control over? I don't see that making sense from anything but a nihilist perspective.

what does the meme even mean, der ebil reactionaries torpedoed every communist movement since the beginning of time so the soviet union doesn't count? Goddamn the ecsocialists are irritating

Leftypol memes in Veeky Forums

behold the alt-left

>You know what's good for you better than some suit somewhere else
Exactly, so why should workplaces be run by absentee owners rather than the people that actually work in them?

>why should workplaces be run by absentee owners rather than the people that actually work in them?

Why should workers control the business when the business owner took on all the investment and risk? Why should workers be "democratically" mandated to receive a share in the profit when the business owner has not only taken on all the investment and risk, but also is working to make the business successful? Workers decide to work for a business, under a contract of mutual consent, because they see utility in the financial security of being an employee. This is the employee's "profit," financial security. It's a decision analysis question. If the worker thinks that they can get a better deal at another business, he can change jobs.

>Socialism doesn't require central planning.

Socialism doesn't work without central planning.

It even admits the Soviets were among those reactionaries though. It basically says that non-totalitarian Communism has never succeeded because every attempt was stopped either by anti-communists or by totalitarian communists.

>Why should workers control the business when the business owner took on all the investment and risk?
Because the workers are the ones who suffer when the business owner makes a poor decision.

>Workers decide to work for a business, under a contract of mutual consent
There can't really be consent when the choice is wage slavery or starvation.

>It's a decision analysis question. If the worker thinks that they can get a better deal at another business, he can change jobs.
Except the issue is that none of the businesses allow them to receive the full value of their labor.

Why not?

hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

>commies aren't commies aren't commies aren't commies aren't commies aren't commies

I hate socialists

>forces
Whoa, today I was forced to shop at the store.
>if you want to survive
Plant your own crops, produce your own medicine, faggot. Nobody is forcing you shit.

>Yes, when the burden placed on strangers is relatively small compared to the benefit you receive from it
Nice mindwank. Where does "small" even end?
>diminishing marginal utility
>one who has ten widgets and other has just one, then taking one widget from the person with ten and giving it to the person with one would lead to an overall increase in that society's well-being, all other things being equal.
This works in realtion to the consumer and not the producer. And producers are the one that are "supposed" to feed the retards in your scenario. If I produced a truckload of bread, I would sell it, not give it away at a loss.

>no control over
Classic excuse. If you're black, all you can do is lie and wait for FAO to feed your useless ass. God forbid you plant something or move closer to water sources.

And again, nobody is responsible for your wellbeing, aside from you yourself.

I didn't say that though. The Soviets WERE Communists, but totalitarian Communists, which many people didn't like for obvious reasons. And they refused to allow other Communists to reform the system away from totalitarianism while maintaining the Communist economic model.

It means ideological darwinism. If your "supr speshul" brand of communism cannot establish and defend itself, then it doesn't deserve to exist. (not that anarchism/communism doesn't fall apart by itself or anything).

>this never happens in capitalist countries
lol

>Plant your own crops, produce your own medicine, faggot. Nobody is forcing you shit.
Can't do that if you don't own land.

>I would sell it, not give it away at a loss.
If you were allowed to.

>Classic excuse. If you're black, all you can do is lie and wait for FAO to feed your useless ass. God forbid you plant something or move closer to water sources.
I was talking about severely disabled people, thanks for letting me know you're a racist though.

>And again, nobody is responsible for your wellbeing, aside from you yourself.
So once again, you're saying that disabled people don't deserve to live.

From what I've heard, anarcho-communism worked pretty well until external actors decided they didn't want it to exist.

>external actors
Exactly my point. If you can't defeat "external actors" you ain't shit.

>East Timor killings weren't in the hundreds of thousands
*revisionism intensifies*

>why should a country be run democratically when the original founders took the risk to found it? If the citizens don't like their country they could always move
This is how you sound.

>if Rhodesia couldn't defend itself, it shouldn't have been allowed to exist

>Can't do that if you don't own land.
If you want land, you go earn enough cash and you buy it from it's owner. Or you could just squat on public property (if you don't live in the north american police state, that is)

>If you were allowed to.
By whom. Last time I checked, I can sell whatever I like. If you live in totalitarian distopia, that's your problem, not mine.

>disabled people
>implying being black and having a 2 standard deviations lower IQ isn't a disability
Again, disabled people are responsible for themselves. I am not responsible for their wellbeing.
>don't deserve to live
They deserve what they get, nothing more nothing less. If a quadruple amputee deaf bling mentally disabled child has 1 billion dollars, it's their money to spend. I don't care. My life is mine, their is theirs. No handuts no nothing.

Yes. Whites have no business living in Africa.

>The 2005 report of the UN's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR) reports an estimated minimum number of conflict-related deaths of 102,800 (+/- 12,000).

Nice try commie

t. Robber Mugarbage

>They deserve what they get, nothing more nothing less. If a quadruple amputee deaf bling mentally disabled child has 1 billion dollars, it's their money to spend. I don't care. My life is mine, their is theirs. No handuts no nothing.
So why should anyone go out of their way to protect your property rights if someone stronger and better-armed than you takes your stuff?

Name me one example of any of these happening in capitalist countries

I'm not even communist. I just know that the 1975 invasion killed something like 1/3 of the population.

Marxist thinking is flawed at its core because it believes class consciousness is stronger than religious or cultural consciousness.

Because the police and army are paid to protect private property and the nation as a whole with my taxes.
>go out of their way
I don't expect them to protect me for free.

Nope, Africa should be left to handle it's civilizational problems by itself, just like how Europe did. They obviously don't have the capacity for modern civilization yet.

>Haiti
>Guatemala
>El Salvador
>Chile
>Brazil
>basically all of Africa
>Pakistan
>Indonesia
>Philippines
>Mexico
>Batista's Cuba
>South Africa before 1994
>Spain
>Portugal
>Argentina
>even the USA at some points

Religious consciousness has been dying for decades (at least in the West) and cultural consciousness has increasingly taken a different form, while the economic class disparity is continuing to grow. Keep in mind, according to Marx, modern-day America is far more ripe for Communist revolution than Tsarist Russia ever was.

So you're also okay with the fact that your tax money goes to help disabled people that would otherwise be unable to provide for themselves?

This is only in the west aka north america and europe.

In every other part of the world religion and culture is stronger.

The same changes seem to be happening in the rest of the world, they're just somewhat behind the West.

humanities """discussion""" isn't welcome here, none of your brainlets have shown that you're smart enough for it, excluding the obvious bait posters that use humanities as a flimsy excuse to shitpost.

Not really. Third world countries are protecting their culture and heritage unlike europeans and north americans.

>Chile
>Brazil
>Argentina
>Indonesia
All fascist

>Haiti
>Guatemala
>El Salvador
>Philippines
>Mexico
>Batista's Cuba
>South Africa before 1994
>Spain
>Portugal
Name on example of hundreds of thousands being killed in any of those countries by capitalists

>im not being a revisionist! here!
>posts revisionist horseshit

hahah
hahahahhahahaha oh my fucking god dude

For the time being. But I don't think it will last for long, seeing as the changing attitudes seem to be a consequence of industrialization.

>fascist
>not capitalist
lol
Guatemala and Spain saw hundreds of thousands killed, Haiti, El Salvador, Cuba, Mexico, and the Philippines saw tens of thousands each killed, and South Africa may have seen a million or more killed.

>communism is a theoretical system of social science that can not and has not been proven to be superior to existing systems
Not even pro-communist, just want to say that the people that tote around the success of the current system tend to focus in on that success and fail to take into account its myriad of failures. More accurately, they disregard the failures by hand waving them away as systems that are in development or subject to quasi-communist laws.

So despite there being only a small secluded handful of communist states in the world (which usually are actually more technically conform to some middle-ground), most trumpeters of the success of capitalism ignore the fact that the world economy is heavily interdependent and linked to the point that the successes cannot be divorced from the failures. That said, 2/3 of the world lives in poverty to the betterment of the remaining 1/3, I would not categorize that as a successful system.

The positives, for me at least, from the system outweight the negatives. I wouldn't pay them anything, if I had a say.