COMMUNISM

It collapsed so yea

Yes.

t. Ivan Ivanov

Pretty much? The Soviet Union had famines which were in many cases exacerbated by government incompetence, but so did the Tsarist regime. They wouldn't have had a revolution in the first place if it wasn't so shitty.

Education reforms and new plans for industrialization were set up a decade before WWII started. Indeed, they're probably a good part of why they were able to win in the first place.

The outcome wouldn't have changed much. But the post war era is what cemented the status of both the USA and USSR.

so the unnecessary deaths by incompetence and paranoid purges were inevitable to get a better country?

No, Fascism is.

Like I can't imagine being as fucking retarded as a Slavic Neo-Nazi, it's a miracle that they can even dress themselves.

...

Will never be as good as the original

this?

why does makhno look like ayn rand?

>Greatest example

What does that mean for the ideology that lost to it, then? I mean, sure they made great tanks, planes and propaganda posters...but they still lost and spent the next 40 years divided for it. And you can't say they weren't trying (trying meaning killing tens of millions of people in the lone communist military power).

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

>Communards
Weren't even Socialists
>Black army
A roaming band of thugs that got crushed easily and achieved literally nothing
>CNT-FAI
Society was so weak and fractured that they could get steamrolled by the rebels without any real effort. Don't forget the nun raping and priest executions
>skj
Failed, it started collapsing as soon as Tito died, even then it didn't collapse prior to that only because US was giving them so much money
>Allende
Got physically removed, thankfully
>zapatistas
a bunch of irrelevant criminals hiding up in some mountains
>psuv
Made it so that the world can today see the finest example of a failed socialist state with nearly the entire population in poverty and starvation while millions actively protest against the regime

the list continue

>Nazism is a society in perfect harmony with nature
>Communism is a society completely at odds with nature

Hmm.. also, you know might is not always right.

>Liberal arts
Do you know its term for basic education?

literally the same bottom of the barrel leftygag shit then.

>land of illiterate peasants

Fuck off with this meme, Europe was full of illiterate peasants in 1917 and Russia was a great power, literacy was going to rise whether or not Russia went communist.

>Tens of millions of russians
>transformed from being alive to dead
>Successful?

at cost of many lives

which is what id call a failed ideology

Don't forget that communards were a bunch of violent thugs who murdered christian priests in executions without any form of due trial.
Don't forget that in all of these infographics, "working class" doesn't cover the great majority of the population, which is made of peasants, who certainly never accepted any socialist policies.

Would you correlate the fall of relevancy and influence of the Russian empire with the rise of the Soviet Union?

Do you think these events might be connected somehow?

t. leftypol

yeah but the tsarist famines didnt have death tolls as high as 4 million

I don't get it. Are you trying to say that the rise of the Soviet Union was what caused the fall of relevancy and influence of the Russian Empire? Like it didn't collapse itself?

ourworldindata.org/literacy/

>1870
>Netherlands 85%
>UK 76%
>Sweden 80%
>France 69%
>Italy 32%
>Spain 30%
>Russia 15%

Seems like the other great powers had very high literacy rates. Even compared to the other rural pre-industrial crapholes it does poorly.

Literacy rose as a result of a concentrated education program instituted by the Soviets. It's possible that the Tsarist regime may have done that as well at some point, but it clearly wasn't that high on their list of priorities. Hell considering Portugal's Estado Novo kept its population deliberately under-educated all the way into the 1970s who's to say they might not continue their trend of not giving a shit about their serfs for decades to come?

They had their chance to pull it off, everyone else had, but they didn't so people that actually wanted to do it took over instead.

>In harmony with nature
>Enforced through a totalitarian state
Hmm.

Communism is a dumb ideology but peasants never accepting socialist policies is not true, I think. Mao had sizeable peasant support iirc.

I think in mao's case, the peasants were too supportive to his plans.

as a degenerate lefty myself I would only consider yugoslavia as really socialist, with the whole "worker self management"

Comparing him with stalin, I think Tito was more supportive to the worker self management.

Tito is definitely what I like to see in socialism, but many leftcoms would hang me for thinking a market can exist inside of socialism

Not even Germans could do anything with it.

Capitalism also came at the cost of millions of lives though

Like this?

>929

>the only way for commies to defend their failed ideology is saying fascism was worse

lmaoing at your lives

Global literacy has been steadily increasing for a while. Even other corners of Europe were still relatively backward at the turn of the century

What's it called when someone say, "But, X failed too and was worst than Y!"

It might be a rephrasing of the classic moving the goalposts strategy.

whataboutism

>Is it the greatest example of a failed ideology in history?
No, that's NatSoc

that wasn't REAL national socialism, real national socialism hasn't been tried

I'd say Capitalism is a bigger failure, considering it faces no opposition and still manages to sabotage itself.

So did capitalism, monarchism, fascism etc etc, without needing to starve millions upon millions and destory culture

Capitalism has literally never failed.

If we made one with Apollo-1 or Challenger you wouldn't think it's funny.

I don't care man. here is a image, meme it if you want.

And the only time there was an attempt at NatSocialism, it was undermined by the ZOG.

>Our population is illiterate
>What do?
>Starve 60 million
?????
>I cant believe that our averages rose!

Communism, not once.

>Starve 60 million
what did he mean by this

What the hell are you even saying?

Yeah, these fucking commies causing natural famines exactly like the ones that had already occurred within the time of Tsarist Russia.

>it's another "random underage capitalist tries to dismiss communism as a failed ideology by describing twentieth century dictatorships as perfect examples of communism" episode

>Don't true communism: the post.

yeah it wasn't really communism. I'm not beating around that or ashamed to say that because it's true. Do you have an argument for why it isn't true or are you just going to parrot that around as if it proves me wrong in some way?

They are not true communism because they don't let the very workers own the means of production, what tankies did is state capitalism but this don't stop them to preach how they followed marx's words to the letter with all their fanatism.

>natural famines
Nothing natural about that shit, there wasn't even a period of drought or pestilence. Famines of that scale are almost always 100% man-made.
Also fun fact: USSR experienced more famines between 1920 and 1940 than Russian empire did between 1800 and 1917.

...

Just a reminder lads

Every commie you see here will have no real impact on the world they might dream of leading a political revelation or a small group to lobby there government or communism

But the fact is they and every mu-commie on this earth is a fat transvestite that lives with there parents and can not get into a debate without getting extremely upset

So please fucking stop replying to them the most they can do is shootup a school or import some 3rd wolrders to live with them

Well you are probably completly irrelevant to the world and will always be too.
So welcome to the club Comrade here is your party membership card.

socialism and communism are probably the most obvious ones the problem with it is that the workers labour benifits only one person the leader of the country

But that's wrong there was a drought and natural causes, and the gouvernement did try to alleviate the situation but admitedly not enough
But oyu are correct though, there was some human responsibility, the fact that those who resisted the collectivisation killed their animals and burned their seeds, for exemple it is reported that 26.6 million head of cattle had been lost, and 63.4 million sheep.

What are you trying to prove with this graph ? That calory intake actually steadly increased during soviet times and that before the revolution it would drop bellow 2000 calories per day every five years, going as low as 1500 calories per day in 1905 ?
Not a very convincing argument against the Soviets here

>muh based tito
You forgot the purge of non-communists in the partisans that was literally ongoing during the war and followed by large scale extra-judicial executions after the war of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

Yeah, such a great system that it needed to encourage workers emigration to western countries to deal with unemployment. By 1990 the Yugoslav economy was getting over 9 billion dollars in remittance and roughly 1 million Yugoslavs were working abroad. The entire GDP of Yugoslavia was $129.5 billion (per capita $5,464).

Equating the collapse of the soviet union to a failure of communism is the mental analogy of claiming the Saudi's wealth is due to worshipping Mohammed.

Lol, thank God someone finally decided to debunk that garbage.

Saudis are rich because of oil, there are plenty of oil rich countries that aren't Muslim: Norway, Russia, Venezuela, and their success varies.
There are no succesful communist socieities, though.

Fascism/Nazism failed much harder

Notice how they got more food as they became less and less communist?

Fascism survived well into the seventies in Portugal, Greece and Spain. They weren't good, but millions didn't starve and they transformed into modern capitalist countries pretty quickly.
East Europe meanwhile still hasn't recovered.

>natural famine

Hurr no. Overexploitation of grassland, unsustainable farming practice and destruction of natural forest cover, plus mismanagement from central government caused famine of such scale

Even i you want to claim Salazar and Franco as "fascists", even if you want to compare the """economies""" and """militaries""" of the Iberian peninsular to the Soviet Union, you STILL concede that Gommunism lasted longer! What was the point of your post, just to give me a good laugh? Thanks, I guess, dope!.

Are you retarded?

The calorie intake was raising from the 60s all the way to the 80s, and they wren't getting any less communist by that point.

You're literally seeing what you want to see.

What do you think communism is? In what possible universe did the USSR become MORE communist between the 60's and 80's?

>Edgy internet leftard spouting no true gommunism shit
>calling anyone else underage
Now THAT is rich.

>All of this happened before the industrial revolution and modern capitalism
Is the guy who answered not aware that capitalism existed centuries several decades before the industrial? Oh wait, he actually precised "modern capitalism" so it's just intellectual dishonesty, same business as usual on /pol/.
>World war I
>Disqualified
WW1 was the result of years of resentment. For example germany resented France and England for taking away the big majority of africa and wanted larger colonies for itself. Colonialism was one of the cause for WW1 and it happened because of capitalism. European nations didn't go to war with each other just because of some alliances anyone thinking that is stupid.

>Iraq and afghanistan
>Disqualified because ISIS and terrorism
So basically the war that created ISIS (iraq war) was actually the consequence of ISIS?
Also you need to be pretty oblivious to think that America went to Irag because of terrorism, the main reason they went there was to protect their interests(mostly economical ones) in the Middle East since Saddam Hussein was endangering them.

>same business as usual on /pol/.
That cap is from Veeky Forums. Not everyone who disagrees with your commie bullshit is a poltard either.

Also Isis is just another rebranding of an organization that has existed since the late 90s.

>tfw to smart too not collapse

Wars do that.
Also troo communism(tm) has never been tried.

>germany resented France and England for taking away the big majority of africa and wanted larger colonies for itself
Bismark didn't even want any colonies in Africa, they only took colonies because most Germans believed that having a colonial empire would make the country more legitimate.

>Also Isis is just another rebranding of an organization that has existed since the late 90s.

Wrong, ISIS was born in 2006 from the fusion of the iraqi branch of Al quaeda and 5 other rebel groups.
Considering that it existed prior to 2006 is like considering that the UE(or rather the EEC but it's the same organisation.) existed before 1957 because the countries that compose it existed before.

>"Not everyone who disagrees with your commie bullshit is a poltard either."
>Proceed to assume I'm a commie because I disagree with a post that defended Capitalism.
:^)

>plenty of oil rich countries that aren't Muslim: Norway, Russia, Venezuela, and their success varies. There are no succesful communist socieities, though.

You are missing the argument. First, we are talking about rich. Countries become rich by engaging in trade, and economic isolation is a sure trademark of making a country poor. So it has fundamentally nothing to do with your economic system of distribution, if there is nothing to be distributed.

Look at north Korea. They have functioning chemical plants, steel mills, even consumer manufacturing, but they lack oil on their peninsula. And trade with North Korea is restricted by the world leaders for political reasons. Without oil, you are unable to run a modern economy no matter your economic system.

If we were to restrict oil imports to Europe it would quickly look like in the 18th century again. Same logic.

"Richness" has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with trade.

"Success" between countries can be measured by other things besides economical power: culture, military, academia, sports, achievements for mankind, just to name a few. In this regard the soviet union was more successful than her western counterparts.

>if you're dead from starvation you cant be illiterate

true communist progress at work

Are you really fucking retarded?

You're the one implying there was a change between the 60s and 80s towards "less communism", whatever the fuck that means in your head, which led to them having more food. What I'm saying is that you're stupidly wrong because you're pulling that from your ass.

lel

As a communist I agree with this. Capitalism has remained to be dominant mode of production regardless of its constant faltering. Capitalism is in fact so strong that attempts to create an alternative system (Russian and Chinese revolutions, Islamic revivalism, Ghandian socialism, Baathism) have never accomplished anything more revolutionary than the nationalization of capital.

However, the contradictions within capitalism are so extreme (and currently growing, thanks to rising material inequality) and its various systems so unsustainable that its survival until the end of time seems less tenable with every passing year.

honestly this.

>lol whataboutism amirite
OP didn't just say "communism is a failed ideology", they literally asked if communism was the greatest example of a failed ideology, which entails comparisons of degree of failure.

Anyway, to see an example of a sucessful ideology, look no further than based neoliberalism.

Yes