Why did the Russians and Chinese fall for the scam of Communism? Do they culturally hate freedom and individuality?

>She
>her

Why doesn't this boy wear pants?

He only has tight pants and the added chastity + diaper would make it hurt a lot.

Culture under capitalism is commodified garbage. Just look at how people in former commie states, no matter their opinions on whether it was worse or better, all fondly remember soviet cinema classics.

Refrain from posting on subjects you know nothing about, unless your post is an honest question. And by that I don't mean baity charged questions.

The aristocratic elite in those countries were responsible for stagnation and the failure of reforms because they were too powerful in relation to the State. They are the people who had the most to lose in a capitalist democracy because they would no longer be in charge of policymaking. They were directly responsible for the humiliations the Russian and Chinese nations experienced in the late 19th/early 20th century and anything associated with the old order was condemned.

>Do they culturally hate freedom and individuality?
People having a different culture than you does not equate them "hating" on every other existing way of life...
They actually value freedom more than anything else, they simply took the time to rethink the concepts of freedom, society and individual.

Communism, like all the ideologies born from the Enlightment (liberalism anarchism marxism feminism), is a rationalist philosophical movement. But unlike liberalism (and before you jump at my throat, I mean actual liberalism, not your meme american meme political category) left-wing movements (marxism, feminism, anarchism, anti-colonialism, antifascism...) are also materialistic ideologies. It means that it inscribes its ethical, political, economic and social approach on the analysis of concrete and historical social relations. Thus, its ideas are not abstract concepts clasped on reality, but concepts forged in relation to social relations that characterise human society.

The concepts of freedom, equality, rights, but also domination, exploitation and oppression are thus not thought of as abstract and subjective concepts, but as concepts related to social relations, to the material reality of the arrangement of human relations.

Freedom is not defined in communism (and other movements like anarchism...) in an essentially negative way: contrary to liberal ideology, it is not a question for an individual to enjoy and abstract "absence of constraint", planting the individual against society and placing individual freedom above society, and therefore other individuals. It is not a question of the individual exercising unlimited power, regardless of the material conditions of its realization and its consequences on other human beings.

Because they don't like being exploited by corporations. There's literally nothing wrong with Marx's criticisms of Capitalism, it's just the functioning alternative that has the fatal flaws

>state culture

"Individual liberty is not, according to them [liberals], a creation, a historical product of society. They claim that it is prior to all society, and that every man is free at the moment of birth, with his immortal soul, as a divine gift. Hence it imply that man is not completely himself, a whole and absolute being, except outside of society. Being free himself before and outside of society, he necessarily forms it by a voluntary act and by a kind of contract, whether instinctive or tacit. In a word, in this theory, it is not the individuals who are created by society, they are the ones who create it, driven by some external necessity, such as work and war."

"The materialist, realist, and collectivist definition of freedom is quite opposite to that of the idealists in this: Man does not become a man and only comes to consciousness and the realization of his humanity in society and only through the collective action of society as a whole; he is freed from the yoke of external nature only by the collective or social work which alone is capable of transforming the surface of the earth into a residence favorable to the development of humanity; and without this material emancipation there can be no intellectual and moral emancipation for anyone. Finally the isolated man can not have the consciousness of his freedom. To be free for man means to be recognized and considered and treated as such by another man, by all the men around him. Freedom is therefore not a fact of isolation, but of mutual reflection, not of exclusion but, on the contrary, of connection, the freedom of every individual being nothing but the reflection of his humanity or his human right in the conscience of all free men, his brothers, his equals."

Quotes are from Bakunin "God and the State"

(((freedom and individuality)))

They were scammed with the promise of freedom and individuality. The only way this can scam you is if you want it.

Or is OP saying there is no scam, and everyone knows communism is just a new elite acting precisely like the old elite?

Because the communist took power by force and didn't ask around. Contrary to what american college students believe, revolution involves a lot of indiscriminate killing, mass executions and very little discussion rounds

/thread

only a realist could attribute freedom to the cogs of a machine

>people are starving but at least they can die surrounded by great art

>it's another "opposing views with irreconcilable and fixed base assumptions proceed with the facade of debate when each party already has their mind made up and proceed all too happy to spout and shrilly defend dubious arguments which are only valid in conclusion if one ignores the fact they are based on gut feelings" thread

> "Let's keep going with the broken exploitative system we have, despite the fact that it causes misery and is literately destroying the environment and causing a mass extinction event because the alternative didn't work in violent broken shitholes after massive civil wars and huge efforts by richer capitalists to undermine communism. No matter that communism lite in the form of social democracy has worked amazingly or that communism is the only ideology to effectively deal with over population by restraining breeding."

Fuck that. Communism is the future or there will be no future. It just needed trans humanism and AI to work.

god i wanna suck her dick

>violent broken shitholes

What about the eastern bloc? Most of them were pretty stable decades after the war but were still far inferior to their western counterparts in terms of their quality of life.

>It just needed trans humanism and AI to work.

When we have an automated economy it will be perverse to restrict access to it.

And yet the owning class definitely will, and the obeying class will definitely argue for why they don't deserve access.

You don't deserve access because you do not own or do anything that creates value in the world. Be less worthless rather than demanding that others provide for you.

Then only those who are required to maintain the automated economy should benefit from it?

That really sucks for the owning classes. But if you say so.

>machine creates all value in the future
>hurr durr your worthless you dont deserve to share in the benefits of automation despite the machine owner doing jackshit
If this is your reasoning i really do hope the robots revolt and rule us so retards like you are culled

This meme is retarded because after the 30s and WW2 nobody in Russia was starving. They worked out the kinks pretty quickly.

>it just needed trans-humanism and AI to work
So it's, as of now, fatally flawed

Indeed

Hell yes

>post Lelnin

> Robots produce everything but their "owners" should get all the rewards because they inherited wealth

This comrades is your brain on slavish capitalism.

>trans humanism and AI

>Why did the Russians and Chinese fall for the scam of Communism?
They were illiterate farmers who didn't know any better at the time.
>Do they culturally hate freedom and individuality?
Yes. Russians want an authoritarian daddy and the chinese are basically a hivemind that will kill themselves if the dear leader tells them too.

>Communism
>Supporting art
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Mind if I steal this?

They didnt just inherit wealth, they inherited the intelligence that made the wealth in the first place.

>capitalist """"arguments"""" summarized in a single post

You don't inherit intelligence, moron. You inherit social, economic and cultural capital that ensure the reproduction of the social status of your parents
>inb4 IQ is genetic
no it's not

Then why do they always try to make sure inheritance matters more than intelligence?

They know they actually don't have intelligence, only inheritance.

You inherit SOME intelligence.

But most of it is down to nutrition and education.

Russia was very illiterate country and the propaganda that promised equality, paradise on earth and brotherhood was extremely appealing to their population.

there is some truth to this but in the end culture under socialist regimes is just subject to different kinds of pressures and limitations, e.g. literature and visual arts had to be supportive of state ideology otherwise the artists would lose their license to practise.

>what is africa

Lacks nutrition and education.

Are you implying the ccp lacked popular support in 1949?

So everyone across the world with the same nutrition and education would have the exact same IQ. You're a genius!!!! You sure proved those genetic scientists wrong!

Millions of people were killed by the communists to suppress dissent. If that's "popular support" then sure.

Name a Russian movie released after 1991 or a living Russian composer

Name a North Korean movie released after 1991 or a living North Korean composer

They'd have the IQ they were genetically capable of having. Without adequate nutrition and education they won't.

There are not many, if any, rich Americans who decide to give their children to an orphanage in Rwanda. They know that success does not have to do with their genetic inheritance.

>iq is not genetic
>They'd have the IQ they were genetically capable of having.
pick one

IQ is mostly not genetic. If everyone got the same access to food and school, then the spread would be entirely genetic.

This isn't that complicated.

Not the same guy, but I'd go for option 1

Except that genetics make up atleast 50% of IQ

Let's agree it's 50% then.

How can you influence the IQ of this random child?

What race are they

What difference does it make?

Okay. It is impossible to tell from looking at the kid. What can you do to make their IQ as high as possible?

Make them watch Rick and Morty

Seriously though, put them in a high ranking school from an early age, hard discipline, and make sure they do all of their work. Even so with all of these things 50% is a giant chunk.

>Seriously though, put them in a high ranking school from an early age, hard discipline, and make sure they do all of their work. Even so with all of these things 50% is a giant chunk.

It's fifty percent influence. The range isn't all that great. Any human can learn modern human or primitive human stuff (whichever you think is harder, there is not THAT great a range between them), they just have to be raised in it.

Wait a fucking minute.

Is that a girl or what?

>Russians

>communism will work, as long as we have access to insanely futuristic technology that may not be able to even exist

I'm hoping it's a boy

A man with that body?

I'd admire that, if you catch my drift.

It was a civil war.

Russians are literally genetically hardwired to being serfs and higher economic classes (more like castes even today) servants and slaves. The Chinese abhor individualism so they are entirely reliant on collectivism.

That's a boy?

>Do they culturally hate freedom and individuality?
you americans think that individualism and economic liberism are some sort of "natural order" of things but it really isn't and never was in those nations

The Russians and chinese were poor low IQ retards, hence why they were so easily manipulated

"No"

>Capitalism
>Supporting creativity over guaranteed profits
I mean seriously, look at hollywood for example.

>Communism
>No money for creativity
Makes me thinks

>Joe starts a company that makes a product that benefits people
>Joe gets profit because of the product

>Bob has to be creative to outdo Joe's company
>Bob's creativity gets people to buy his products instead

>Joe has to get creative to outdo his competitor
>???
>Profit!

The free market is a wonderful thing.

Capitalist Idealism strikes again

so are you actually retarded?

>implying it's just an ideal
History calls. It shows that capitalism works.
Entire nations flourished because of capitalism. Bartering and voluntary exchanges is the natural order of trade and commerce.

Unlike the utopian communism that only works in (((your mind))).

>the economic system that made the United States the most powerful, wealthy and succesful nation on earth

>the economic system that turned backwater shitholes like Singapore and Hong Kong into flourishing cities

>the economic system that has shown to repeatedly work based on human nature

>just an ideal
Are commies this delusional?

are you?

>you do not own or do anything that creates value in the world
Do you think wealth comes from people sitting on assets they own or by using their labor power?

lmao take a look at restrictions on art in the west at the same time
the USSR only had stricter restrictions on political art, it was actually more free in showing other things

>discussion is about soviet union
>muh north korea tho

fun fact: solzhenitsyn was a holodomor denier

this, tsarist russia was a shithole and it's a miracle the bolsheviks managed to do anything at all with that backwater

>inb4 "hollywood is communist!" by retarded /pol/acks

>the free market
literally doesn't exist, capitalism has always required state power

Free market means the prices aren't pegged, which they aren't, fucking dumbass

hi guys im brother of jesus:DDDDDDDDDDDD

The soviet union had 27million casualties and lost so much of its heavy industry that it was nearly put back to 1925 levels because its territory was ravaged by war. It had to take industrial capacity from conquered territory i.e eastern bloc to supplement this. Meanwhile the Americans had a few hundred thousand casualties and sold war supplies and never got invaded. Why are you surprised that it struggled? Up until ww2 the country underwent massive and profound industrialization and education was a corner stone of the soviet society. Meanwhile 45% of americans live below the poverty line today.

You are making so many uneducated fallacious assumptions by ascribing it to an overarching result.