Socialism x capitalism:who is great?

Capitalism kills and it's more coward than Socialism ,you retardads go to cuba and see the worst of human. Go to EUA and see the misery of human .either both of them are bad you idiots.

Capitalism succeeds because it thrives on the chaos of natural human behavior.

Communism succeeds only when people put aside their natural human behavior in the name of cooperation.

Communism has the ethical high ground, but it often sounds like Secular Christianity, with its rhetoric about sharing, the poor, a utopian society in the distant future, etc. etc.

Capitalism is just a merchant with invisible hands moaning "chaos is ladder" as he jacks himself off and uses his cum to impregnate his own money so that it makes more money.

Capitalism is really good at refining technical systems. In truth, concentrating wealth in the hands of an ambitious few often results in a wiser budget than a bunch of average people in a cooperative situation.

However very often the people with money aren't ambitious.

Get rid of inheritance, and destroy the family unity and Capitalism will be much better. Much more of an honest meritocracy. Too bad they're only doing the second thing right now.

Capitalism with inheritance and the family unit in tact is little more than feudalism plus industrialism.

Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.

>Communism succeeds only when people put aside their natural human behavior in the name of cooperation.
>Communism has the ethical high ground, but it often sounds like Secular Christianity, with its rhetoric about sharing, the poor, a utopian society in the distant future, etc. etc.

>I don't understand what communism is: the post

Meme tier understanding of socialist developemnt, central planning was only popular originally amongst the Bolsheviks, as Russia had not reached the Capitalsit stage of development where it could meet the production needs of all the population through worker self management, so central planning would be necessary. Hence the Menshevik/Bolshevik divide. read Lenin's 'the state and revolution' for more info.

In truth, Bakuninites, Syndicalists and Libertarian Socialists were the most popular forms of socialists in developed europe, but these parties lost credible support due to stalinism enforcing itself as the dominant interpretation in The Third International.

The collapse of the USSR, primarily triggered by state dependence on oil, would destroy this status quo.

Why are you on a history board, when you know fuck all about history?

Not even gonna respond to this retardation.

Capitalist countries use leverage in trade to embargo and sanction emerging socialist nations until they are starving and hate socialism. They then fund right wing paramilitary groups to overthrow the government a la pinochet.

Capitalist countries feed socialist countries like some kind of mythical firefighter who starts fires on purpose just to bask in the glory of putting them out.

I think capitalism is necessary to develop the technology and infrastructure to make socialism feasible once a resource based economy is obtained or we come arbitrary close to one.

Right now, capitalism is the clear bread winner, but I think as automation begins becoming more and more prevalent, countries ought to slowly adopt more socialistic policies. This will take time, of course, but I definitely see one feeding into the other eventually, and that forcing socialism without the resources as futile.

>I don't understand what communism is: the post
You've only asserted that I don't understand.

But you've explained nothing further.

What am I supposed to do with your assertion? Bash myself over the head with it?
Read more about Communism?

I know about class struggle, seizing the means of production, imperialism, the proletariat, wage labor and capital, private property, the Capitalist mode of production, consumption, supply, demand, automation, various revolutionary groups inspired by Marx, various philosophies inspired by marx, various nations inspired by marx, the implementation of marxism as distinct from the theories of marx, schisms among marxists, etc. etc.

All you have done is charge me with something I know for myself isn't entirely true

That's marxism 101 mate

you're a marxist

Huh. What is Marxism 102 or even 201?

Okay, let's go through it.

>Communism succeeds only when people put aside their natural human behavior in the name of cooperation.

First of all, Mutual Aid theory. secondly, working for the common good of your society within communism is in your personal benefit as well. In a stateless, classless community, you will want to contribute, for the sake of the living standard where you are. As currency does not exist, the potential and reward for exploitation is low.
>Communism has the ethical high ground, but it often sounds like Secular Christianity, with its rhetoric about sharing, the poor, a utopian society in the distant future, etc. etc.

Communist theory doesn't use morals at all. It's a theory of self interest.

Marx summarizes a large amount of recent human development through the struggle of class through the Hegelian Dialectic theory. It is naturally in the self interest of the working people, and all who do not hold the means of production in which wealth and product is accumulated, to take control of them. Normally, the worker does this through simply working to the point where he himself is in a position to exploit others for the product of their labour, yet Engels was acutely aware that the Liberal system would essentially create an industrial feudalist system in which it becomes more and more difficult to move through social class, and in this sense it is necessary for the working people to cooperate, or else they're all stuck where they are. We already see this in human development. most don't realize just how powerful Unions were until the Keynesian age of concession and welfare state began, but as this ended with the 70's crash, class conciousness is on the rise again. Morals have nothing to do with it, just self interest.

morally, neither work

efficiently, capitalism is better (though whether we can call it efficient is up the time).

>First of all, Mutual Aid theory. secondly, working for the common good of your society within communism is in your personal benefit as well.

Let's be honest here. I know a Communist society would be better than a Capitalist one if implemented, but the implementation would have to be so bloody, it would not be in the self interest of the people fighting for it, but rather for their distant descendants, who would not appreciate the revolution.

A Truly stateless-classless society would require the bravery, death, and moral fortitude of millions who would not live to see it. Most people are willing to fight for the common good, but not like that. They want to live to fight another day.

In a stateless, classless community, the proletariat would not only own the means of production, but also the means of seizing the means of production.

This means somehow taking over arms corporations and governments with near-trillion dollar military budgets. It is literally like Ewoks fighting the empire. It would take a lot of brittleness in our current system for a true insurrection to be possible.

Even among historical Marxists who won, there were disagreements and power vacuums.

It is not the IDEAS of Marxism, but the IMPLEMENTATION of Marxism I am skeptical of.

>socialism works as long as capitalist countries support them