Thoughts on communism

>It was corrupted as hell and failed state Capitalism
Hey, that sounds just like what happens when you centralize the economy! I wonder which economic model always insists in doing that.

Death to marxists death to capitalists.

Hail to feudalism!

House, food, education, job to all end of story.

>monarchist christfag dictator from georgia
>communist

choose one

Communism and capitalism is feudalism

national socialism?

...

Hail to true socialismwhich gives power and rights to individuals.

The greatest joke is that the main source of nazi party funds were the donations from german monopolies and banks.

The people that were butchered deserved it, though.
I see in general the butchering as the biggest plus.

George Soros?

Which power and rights?

You have your supreme clergy the communism vuilders and interpeeters, you have your nobles as the comissars, you have your kings as the communist capital authorities and you are landless it all belongs to the communism aka it all belons to the feudalism

It must suck havinf 90% east slave dna

Nazis had a great support from the former nobility that lost their status in the new democracy.

Guns, power over your thoughts, power to own yoursrlf, power to your production, power to own land and thus be a free man.

National socialists power were meritocratic, hitler was an orphan and homeless in vienna.

>Guns
This meme again
Come on, fight me a civil war right this instant, keyboard soldier.

They apllied to the losers of the new system and it had plenty of them. Even more after 1929 Black Friday.

I am an orphan too

Can I become supreme leader of Poland?

Retarded nigger

Hitler was never in a situation of real need, he inherited more than enough from his parents.
Besides being a soldier in a minor position (courier) he never worked anything during his life.

First they were nobles now they are a party for the poor. Yes tgey were atgerty of the workets.

Hitler joined the army and saw many

I'm sorry to hear that bro. Was the orphanage tough? Or did you have foster parents

Nope, Krupp and Thyssen.
George Soros is the modern kind of asshole.
I just don't think of them as a serious power. My mistake.
You're making no sense.
Really, go read a book. Soviet system is closer to capitalism in it's weird forms.

all communists need to be killed, preferably by throwing them off helicopters

first world communist kiddies should just get an ass beating from their parents

>I just don't think of them as a serious power
Well they were the leaders of the Nation just some years ago.

Corporate capitalism?

Every marxist leninist system is feudalism.

>National socialists power were meritocratic
*roaring Goering laugh*

...

Lot's of young men joined the army, and still had to work to sustain their lifes.
Hitler is comparable to Berni Sanders from his social background.

Wilky asked to be put to power and he wss denied.

REVOLUTION OF 1917 BEST DAY OF MY LIFE
GET FUCKED BURGERS

Communism is a fedora government. It's a godless government. Just look at north korea.

Commies are a basket case.

It is precisely the opposite, since it aims to transfer the means of production from the overlord/owner to the workers. If anything it would be a company where everyone owns the same share. A few already exists and are doing well.

Hitler was homeless.

None
I was taken by my grandma
She got very sick, and she needed my care so I had to stop school

She was rich tho, and I inherited quite a lot of possesion

So i dont really consider myself a victim

All americans are godless material and class worshippers.

Communism exists to fix the problems with capitalism, but it creates a set of problems it self.

>Hitler was involved in the civil rights movement in Germany/Austria-Hungary

it gets worse

That's a meme.
>Hitler's friend from his hometown of Linz, August Kubizek, also came to Vienna and they roomed together. In Vienna, Hitler continued the same lazy lifestyle he had enjoyed in Linz after dropping out of school. Kubizek described Hitler as a night owl who slept till noon, would go out for walks taking in all the sights, then stay up late discussing his ideas on everything from social reform to city planning. Hitler made no effort to get a regular job, considering himself far above that. He dressed like an artist and at night dressed like a young gentleman of leisure and often attended the opera.

source: his friend:
historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/homeless.htm

It transfers power from individual to feudal lords woth alliases.

Good to hear everything worked out better than expected.

;_;

He lived like a king on the money of Germans, never visited a military hospital or a front line in WW2, and many of the tenants of NatSoc were not. Goering is the best example of institutional incomptence in authoritarian regimes.

>Anime
>Potchemou, tovarich ?

North Korea is doing much better than 10 years ago.
Not communism, socialism. The communism fixes the problems of socialism, and the socialism is the thing that comes after capitalism.

Subhuman.weimar job for gernans that wasnt prostitution or slavery

Yes, now I can live NEETs dream life by renting rooms

Not sure if that was better than normal life, but I consider myself to have rare character background build

Have you ever read anything about socialism ? Or do you believes in Memes and articles about the failed capitalist state of Venezuela ?

img.booru.org/lefty//images/4/76831ee8f2a94e6f7dace1d3c94633f8ea578cc6.gif

He lived in a house with wife with monet from nein kampf and party successes.

Hitler was a NEET.
Deal with it.

>shitty anime art

Defibitions of marxisys isnt true to the definition of soxialism as the benefit of the many over the few.

>He lived like a king
No. Not like a King.
Comparable to a man in his position he was very humble.

Pic related. This is where Hitler lived. Except or the location it's really nothing special.

What the many desire and that benefits them is socialism.

>The Bergof
>The new Chancellery of the Reich

Still not addressing Goering and other forms of authoritarian autism

> It is impossible to engage in intellectual discourse with National Socialist Philosophy, for if there were such an entity, one would have to try by means of analysis and discussion either to prove its validity or to combat it. In actuality, however, we face a totally different situation. At its very inception this movement depended on the deception and betrayal of one's fellow man; even at that time it was inwardly corrupt and could support itself only by constant lies. After all, Hitler states in an early edition of "his" book (a book written in the worst German I have ever read, in spite of the fact that it has been elevated to the position of the Bible in this nation of poets and thinkers): "It is unbelievable, to what extent one must betray a people in order to rule it." If at the start this cancerous growth in the nation was not particularly noticeable, it was only because there were still enough forces at work that operated for the good, so that it was kept under control. As it grew larger, however, and finally in an ultimate spurt of growth attained ruling power, the tumor broke open, as it were, and infected the whole body. The greater part of its former opponents went into hiding. The German intellectuals fled to their cellars, there, like plants struggling in the dark, away from light and sun, gradually to choke to death. Now the end is at hand. Now it is our task to find one another again, to spread information from person to person, to keep a steady purpose, and to allow ourselves no rest until the last man is persuaded of the urgent need of his struggle against this system. When thus a wave of unrest goes through the land, when "it is in the air," when many join the cause, then in a great final effort this system can be shaken off. After all, an end in terror is preferable to terror without end.

>American's talking about politics
not a surprise this thread is shit

Communism is the biggest cancer of the earth. The only people I ever see supporting it, are ones that never experienced it.

Most commies here are from the eastern part.

Liberals are authoritarian in their form of government.

The Berghof was literally his own private castle

god please bring him back

>are ones that never experienced it.
Isn't that obvious? Nobody has EVER experienced communism.

A house, all workers had houses, work for party and you get more shit.

>The definition of socialism is not the one of the people who invented it.
K

There are many branches of socialism you know. You can hate Stalin and still like socialism and equal redistribution of wealth and labour.

Nostalgia effect.

Pretty little for a castle.
This is a simple house.

What you experienced wasn't communism.
True.

No one has experienced millionareism.

Matxists didnt invent socialism.

>Nobody has EVER experienced communism.
because it is literally impossible

what people have experienced is attempts at at communism that got as close to it as they could

>Powerless Russian state
The tsars modernised the country before Lenin arrived. Serfdom was abolished in 1867 under Alexander II nada industry grew exponentially after the 1905 war.
The image of the tsars as useless dictators was propaganda spreader by the February revolution and, later, by the bolsheviks.
Second, all elements of Soviet power were already under Lenin: gulag, secret police, etc.

I seriously don't get the hate towards Stalin.
He did, what was necessary and he won with it.

Communism as doing what is said to try commubism yes.

Why wouldnt you hate soviets?

Because I read books on History that are not written by Fox News.

This world won't be a better place if we all are mentally disabled.

Anyway, i think capitalism will be transforming more into social way, globalism and planning, race and nation mixing, communism is like the final point of the moving.

Even if "true communism" is an absolutely fantastic system of governance every attempt at implementing it has failed miserably resulting in the death of millions and making life absolutely shit for even more millions.
Yet still the left attempts to implement it wherever it can, branding it's inevitable failure as "Not true communism".
The true hallmark of the left wing ideology is not recognising failure, the leftists of history and the present always have and always will persist in their pointless fight for "True communism"

Tell me why you like atheist degeneaye murderers and tgeives.

Why?
Your a dumb nigger, kek.

List of the workers who hate communists, 2billion muslins 2 billion christians 2 billion hindus 2 billion taoism

You're*

Seems to me the majority have spoken, death to comnunism.

Nobody denies it. But the marxist interpretation of socialism is the most popular.
>Serfdom was abolished in 1867 under Alexander II
In 1861.
And it haven't improved the life of peasants. They had to leave for the city or to work on the landlord's territory as tennants. And they had to pay the additional taxes. And the peasant communes haven't been abolished.
> industry grew exponentially after the 1905 war.
Low base effect.
>The image of the tsars as useless dictators was propaganda
Not of all tsars. Of only one - Nicholas II. And it was pretty much true.
>econd, all elements of Soviet power were already under Lenin: gulag, secret police, etc.
The GULag system was established in 1930 and, no matter what the dissidents say, it was the system of mere prisons and penal labour camps without any, so to say, political accent.
The same thing was said about French revolution by the government of Napoleon III
Yet the ideals of french revolution prevail.

I'm interested on seeing how post-scarcity and automation of jobs plays out

I dont care youre a sub human skav. You murdered millions for coin for your ms
Aster and here you are with no coin your race deserves extintion.

...

>kill millions get killed
>less power and money than a negro slave

same shit happens with capitalism
>free market
>is not free

Here's one of the most blantant reasons communists/socialists are retarded:

nothing is stopping you from pooling your money together and giving it to an elite that will control spending - just stop using force to get the rest of us involved in yet another failed experiment.

I never realized there were so many filthy commies on Cred Forums. how do we save Cred Forums?

>your race deserves extintion
cringed a little.

Sunhuman

If they really beloved in their system they would do just that - but really they are just a bunch of greedy children. GET YOUR HAND OUT OF MY POCKET AND LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE

It's the natual course of free market into being taken by monopolies.
Just accept it.

>Sunhuman

Subhuman

Communism is not about elite controlling spending. It's about direct democracy and the public property on the means of production.

Who distributes the private property?

More like communal ownership, no?

critical theory has to do with interpretation of culture in different forms

That being said, capitalism (not to be confused with today's corporatism - the disfigured child of socialism and capitalism) is also completely detached from reality with regard to planetary boundaries, public health, etc

Everytime the topic of communism has brought there's always someone that says it has never tried properly
But maybe there's a reasong for this, don't you guys think?
What do y'all think of Marcuse?

*the public property
pardon

This should be done by the organisation of the workers of the facility and the party.
The party should be a group of people who know the theory and follow it.

The "ideals" prevail because they promote the freedom and equality of all humans these are all ideas that every human can get behind.
Communism demands subordinance and compliance of all it's participants, it demands the establishment of a totalitarian state because guess what people don't have energy to continue the "revolution" they don't have energy to keep supporting their fellow man all through their entire lives and they don't have energy to keep engaging in politics all the time.
The ideals of communism is only attractive to the lowest of society and even they will lose their interest once they find that everyone else is on their level

No, in communism all production is controlled by the state. Spending IS controlled by elites. If you want direct democracy, just vote for a DD-party in your country.

Won't make those party people to the new elite since they decide over the public property?
Also won't it cause a big bureaucracy if you do this for every little place in a country?

wtf i hate communism now

>automate labor
>new working class browse the internet providing metadata and consume information created by public relations firms
>loyal posters get paid in Facebook GoodBoyPoints

future's looking bright

>t there's always someone that says it has never tried properly
It's a meme. Communism is a stage of the evolution of human society, it can't be tried. It's either achieved or not. Nobody had succeed until now.
>But maybe there's a reasong for this, don't you guys think?
Maybe the XX century movements were too early. Maybe not.
>Marcuse
I don't agree with him.
>No, in communism all production is controlled by the state.
Are we speaking about communism or communist regimes? There's a difference, don't you know?
>If you want direct democracy, just vote for a DD-party in your country.
>implying that voting means shit
That's how it went in Soviet Union - the party became the elite. But the thing is that the main governing organ is the soviet - the council of the workers of the facilities, not the politburo or some other group.
Actually, I'm not that of a pro in marxist theory of the state, I tell it how I understand it and I might be pretty wrong. The Lenin's "State and revlolution" explains everything pretty well.
> it demands the establishment of a totalitarian state
No, it doesn't. The communism as a formation is achieved after the abolishing of the state and social classes.
And remember - classes in marxism are defined not by their wealth, but by their relation to the production. The ruling class includes the owners of the meands of production and banks, the opressed class is those who don't own them and work as employees.

The means of production only cover raw materials and means of labour like tools and machines.
How would you go about "democratically" controlling other sectors like finance, law, entertainment, etc...

I wish I had been there !

Actually, I don't think that I can explain the idea properly because of both of lack of my knowledge of the idea and my english skills - they're not enough and I don't want to post the "State and revolution" copypasta

It's alright just wanted clarification because society and economics is vastly more complex and different now than it was 150 years ago

You are missing the point, the point is that it requires the complete cooperation of all it's participants. Even if you had"True communism" where there is no state and no social class you still have to ensure people are engaged to the system the only way to ensure this is by the establishment of a central authority which you can't do because that would mean it's not true communism. And withing a totalitarian state murder and purges are as common as breathing, that is the central idea even if communism was the most perfect form of government it's attempt at implementation only leads to disasters

You would be right if you said it back in 1970s.
The original works by Marx have been written before the age of imperialism - before the establishing of monopolies, the increasing role of banks and so on. The Lenin's "Imperialism" is a bit closer to modern realities.

You won't get anything if you don't work and make something.
Motivation enough?

>Socialism doesn't work

Comunism is shit. The problem is Americans tend to disparage the democratic socialism of Western Europe as comunism which isn't quite the same thing. The Scandinavian model in particular is a proven success (regardless of unrelated migration policies) despite high tax rates.

>Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state... ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom". Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever. And only then will democracy begin to wither away, owing to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims. They will become accustomed to observing them without force, without coercion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state.

Looks like North Korea but with prettier architecture

Communism doesn't work though. Technically it can't compete against any other statesform. And as others produce cheaper products, they can't export anymore and can't participate in trade. They would be left alone and rot away, like Cuba or North Korea, the much closer example, not the Sovjet Union.

It wasn't socialism, it was basically states capitalism. Big companies got promoted and were free todo whatever they want as long as it's good for the country. Similarily to Russia or China today. There was the social security system from Bismark which we still have today, but it's no means of a socialist state.

norks are on some crazy communist-disneyland utopian shit man

Creepy as shit
Would look better without all thes smog and opression

You guys should worship G.G Videla instead of this huaso ladino

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campamento_de_Prisioneros_de_Pisagua

Even Pablo Neruda wrote a poem against him

reflexionesantojadizas.blogspot.cl/2013/07/poema-gonzalez-videla-el-traidor-de.html

>utopia

Looks like Belarus.

Is not the fundemental thesis of communism “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
The fundemental truth of humans however is that we are all different, we all have different opinions, wants, and needs. What exactly would stop me from being as absolutely lazy as possible in this system, and what would encourage me to be as productive as possible? Both generate the same outcome.
Based on what your extract is saying communism seeks to change the fundemental aspects of being human by force and manipulation, it is no wonder that “supposedly” communist countries look/looked like a mixture of 1984 and “Brave new world”

Пoчeмy вaшa диктaтop чypкa, Ивaн?

It looks worse to be quite honest. There is literally no cars, no electronics, no nothing. They just can't produce it themselves. They can't import anything because they simply can't pay it. They can't export anything of value to exchange something either.

youtube.com/watch?v=WPwKh1u-Ksg

utopia is what they're envisioning, nauseating and disturbing fits better

>Пoчeмy вaш диктaтop - чypкa?
That's the correct way.
He's not a churka. He's an asshole.

Each of the banks have to actually interact with each other though. None of them has absolute power. Although there has been a significant consolidation of power through government action saving large banks without forcing them to break up or really face any consequences at all, plus not always enforcing regulation.

The "communism" as a lot of people talk about is a fairy tale that says humans won't augment ourselves as AI learns to do more tasks. That or it mostly ends up as UBI advocates because universal elimination of human labor probably just won't happen. We'll still have to design things, especially if we use them to augment ourselves or something.

You guys' current flag is the flag of the movement that fought against communism. So I guess the reactionaries won in the long run.

Ideally, yes this is the goal, employee ownership. The problem is that you still need people making executive decisions, which complicates that.

NK is a theocracy, sort of.

>need people making executive decisions, which complicates that
The facility counsil. The employees vote for the descisions

The problem boils down to democracy being fairly slow and not making good decisions enough times to be reliable. A single executive could be elected, which could speed things up. I think as the nature of "employment" changes we may see some of that anyways- construction workers essentially do just that it seems like, except it's determined by seniority and acumen, which also works. I know Distributism used guilds to solve that and it looks kinda like we're headed in a direction vaguely similar to that.

>The problem boils down to democracy being fairly slow and not making good decisions enough times to be reliable.
That's the fact in parliamentary republics. In a group of employees of a single factory this should be much easier.

That helps, yes, but my point was that they're not isolated. It works really well if the proverbial dollar stopped at the factory but it also has to work with everyone else (truck drivers, train schedules, advertisers, retailers, IT, etc). So there has to be a system to deal with that. Right now it's corporatism but that's slowly changing to be more contract based, so it'll be interesting to see what kind of hierarchy comes out of that in labor. We know how it works for professionals in the form of freelancers but the contractor system that currently decentralizes labor from an executive may or may not survive.

Good business for logistics people either way though.

Every time a socialist state has been put together, it ended up getting fucked up by some dumb fucker.

A true socialist state, one not ruined by tyrants or fucking imbeciles, but one that follow's Marx and Lenin's ideaology closely, maybe altering certain policies that require it to fit the situation, would probably be the best political system ever implemented.

Prove otherwise.

Same idea, different implementation. In USSR state owns everything, all income of every company, in Scandinavian model they do it through high tax rates, so they keep private propety and competition. Yep, it's not planned economy, but EU quotas it's the same planning.

It goes to the root of all human problems
And to have a step to step in between is problematic no matter what
Energy currency is the only way to make post-scarcity possible

The GDR and most east european states didn't fail because of stupid leaders. They were mainly peaceful and had great ideas.

The problem is just that the economic system was not really competetive, as it's based on social support for those who don't earn much or have no jobs. Alot of companies produced for twice or even thrice the price than in western countries, even though the quality was worse. It wasn't bad, it came up out of solidarism towards others. It worked in itself.
The problem is just the competetive force from abroad. If they would leave their market open and wouldn't go into some sort of protective state, they would loose their own manufacturing sector. To buy things from abroad, they have to compensate with exports, which weren't rarely possible, due to innefficiency. So either they go bankrupt or they isolate their market. It gets problematic though as the world progresses and production is sometimes only gobally possible such as hightech products. People start to revolt, if they notice that they can't have things as others.

Isolationism is an inevitable part of socialism or communism.

>Communism was never implemented correctly

2016, people still act like communism works

This is a really good point. It's why I disagree with my country's decision under Reagan to intervene in Nicaragua. Vietnam was somewhat excusable from an IR standpoint, but Nicaragua was failing. The benefits of capitalism come mostly from getting out of stable people's way and letting people innovate, but if the country isn't stable and doesn't really experience the problems that isolationism presents then socialism is a good option to renovate things.

>China is communism
Oh boy

>ended in 12 years with Germany being reduced to rubble and their women being raped by a horde of drunken Ivans

>This is a really good point. It's why I disagree with my country's decision under Reagan to intervene in Nicaragua. Vietnam was somewhat excusable from an IR standpoint, but Nicaragua was failing. The benefits of capitalism come mostly from getting out of stable people's way and letting people innovate, but if the country isn't stable and doesn't really experience the problems that isolationism presents then socialism is a good option to renovate things

The main reason of intervention in Nicaragua was to prevent the country from becoming a Soviet base.

Maybe the sources I read were just biased then because that makes more sense. I still feel that the contras were mostly unjustified but that's more of a military carelessness issue than a policy making one.

The reason communism (in theory) sounds nice to people in the west is because there are so many who are disenfranchised with the world as it is. By which I mean the capitalist free market world. It's corrupt, and the daily lives of the common person amount to little more than being a cog in a machine so that they can hopefully do fun things with the money they earn, if they aren't just working to get by.
Of course communism doesn't really fix any of that. Marx was good at pointing out flaws in capitalism, he was also shitty at coming up with solutions to them.

>The practical applications of Communism were thought out by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc... with dubious results. But Lenin did managed to transform the almost powerless Russian Empire (no real industry, serfdom, bad literacy...) into the powerful Soviet Union

They didn't, though. Propaganda aside, Stalin didn't really "industrialize" the country, most of that was built by foreign investors, for example Henry Ford actively funded automobile production in the USSR during the 1930s. The USSR massively depended on Lend-Lease aid to win WWII.

The USSR never really did modernize after Stalin's time and were still using those same outdated 1930s factories in the Gorbachev era. Any technology they did acquire was through industrial espionage.

If you were reading Noam Chomsky...yeah. Moscow and their attack dog in Havana were all over the place in Latin America at that time.

This is what communism does to a nation

>all people with education are purged--doctors, attorneys, schoolteachers, college professors, bankers
>jobs assigned based on your status as a worker or peasant
>most school curricula is just propaganda bullshit about the victory of the working class and how war with capitalism is inevitable
>complain about anything and you get arrested and tortured by political police
>enjoy your rationed electricity for two hours a day in which you can listen to broadcasts on state radio about how tractor production increased 250% this year
>and thanking our "brothers" in the USSR for having "liberated" the nation from fascism in the war
>wait six months to buy a bicycle
>wait three hours in line at a market to buy the only loaf of bread on the shelf
>food quality is awful and people suffering malnutrition from the shit commie diet

/thread

It was mostly online articles but I got my start from Kingsolver on it. So definitely a little biased.

Chomsky doesn't interest me outside of his linguistic work.

Don't forget the part where upward mobility is totally impossible because there isn't an up to move in.

This.

Problem is that there's never been a communist revolution in a Western industrialized country, like Marx intended

SJWs are capitalist as fuck though

They think it's okay to have an upper class as long as it's diverse

He definitely wanted to implement communism but was very aggressive about it

It doesn't happen in stable Western nations with a middle class, only poor shitholes.

Butthurt eastern europoors thinking what they experienced was Communism and not a military dictatorship for the purpose of imperialism.

name one communist nation that wasn't a shithole dictatorship that deprives its citizens of basic human rights and get back to me

Market socialism is communism for grown ups.

They didn't implement communism

Show a country that did.

Nobody has.

FRIENDLY REMINDER:
MARX WAS A LITERAL BASEMENT-DWELLING AUTISTIC NECKBEARD WHO NEVER ACHIEVED ANYTHING ON HIS OWN
HE MADE UP RANDOM BULLSHIT THAT SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK AND THE ONLY PURPOSE IT EVER SERVED AND CAN EVER SERVE IS TO BE AN EXCUSE FOR PSYCHOPATHIC DEMAGOGUES TO GRAB POWER
THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION, HAVE A NICE NIGHT

a country without the need to use money does not exist

he changed the world
you don't have to like it but it did happen, he is not like us

If socialism is so easily corrupted then maybe, just maybe, it's, you know, a shitty system?

communism is not some in-between system or some viable alternative, it is the end, the last stop, as the japanese posters always say here, it is inhuman

Retarded murrilard thinking that his speshul snowflake kind of communism could work and wouldn't get as easily corrupted.
seriously, just kys

ITT

Then again, Marx had a wife and five kids. At least he actually had sex which is still a notch above what anyone on Cred Forums has accomplished.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

A wild Pole appears!

Ash sends out Stalin.

Stalin used Purge!

It's super-effective!

The Pole has fainted.

>I had sex therefore my political beliefs are right
communism? more like chadism amirite :-{DDDD

ITT

If communism doesn't work, why does Cuba have universal and free health care and we don't?

his kids had no kids his line died

yeah, that's working out real well for them.

PERPLEXED

last I knew Cuba has to utilize two currencies concurrently so their economy doesn't shit itself

The problem with socialism is that it is implemented in unstable countries, because very few people will like the idea of having the state to control the means of production.

When that happens, governance is very affected because you need to have short term solutions to long term goals, in a scenario where it's not only important to focus on economics but also diplomacy.

But socialism shouldn't and is not always, at given, like this. There are many ways to have a socialist regime without giving up individual rights of property, the right of usury and etc.

Socialism doesn't mean everybody should have the same net worth, but really about having a self-sustaining working class and equality of opportunity regardless of race, religion, gender (or sexual orientation) and etc.

Some socialist ideas can be implemented without having a revolution and yet achieve socialist ideals, e.g: free education (Brazil), free healthcare (U.S.), food stamps and other benefits (Brazil), maternity leave (Argentina), higher taxes to develop your industry (Brazil)

People also have the misconception that socialism is beneficial only for poor people: that's utter wrong, it just makes them also first class citizens but the owners of business will still have profits from their operations, some times even more due to the new consumers brought to market.

Or that socialism is authoritarian, that the state is what holds all together, so it is huuuge. I'm a libertarian socialism myself and I have my own biz, so I'm not being a giddy here.

For those that say Brazil is a role model of failed socialism:

First - Brazil was market socialist, now it is neoliberal.
Second - The poverty was even worse years ago, so you can't have miracles in a decade when we were one of the last western countries to abolish slavery.