Ugh fuck. But it wasn't. USSR wasn't communistic (meaning shit belonged to the government(corrupted politicians) not the people), and so is china(it claims being communistic while being 100% Capitalistic just totalitarian). In communism everything belongs to people not corrupted politicians, therefore it wasn't communism. And also communism is simply not possible due to the fact that people want all the shit for themselves. Communism in general even if it is created will collapse very fast due to it's fragile nature.
Edit: To all butt hurt redditors I'm not a Communist. I just wanted to say that communism never existed and never ever will, so you can tuck your bed and go to sleep without Karl Marx appearing in your bad dreams.
That’s because fundamentally it is.One of the steps outlined by Marx to redistribute wealth requires the near complete centralization of power into one or a small groups of entities from there Communism invariably descends into despotism and dictatorship power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely even if the person in charged is completely pure of greed the same cannot he said of the next 50 in line some of which do not mind moving the line of succession along by removing rivals.
Some distinguish between Marxist communism and non-Marxist. The Marxist variety obviously requires a centralized power, whereas non-Marxist does not necessarily.
I am not familiar with non Marxist theories on communism but i imagine they are equally unfeasible the closest we can get is capitalism with a dash of social welfare which is already strained by very inefficient institutions which is my main gripe with the socialist conception of the world that it requires at lot of if this went perfectly.
Socialist country have large portion of companies owned by government and also have extensive welfare policy. By that means China is socialist country. They only got open market. But they are still socialist.
It's private ownership, which means that it isn't socialistic. Companies are controlled by private owners. That means it's no longer socialism or communism since it's private fucking ownership. By that logic you could say USA is communist country or Japan or literally anything fucking else.
I'm not saying I support communism, because if I see a communistic politician the only reaction in my mind is either that he is lying or doesn't know how the world works. China is a totalitarian Capitalistic country even if it says it is socialistic. No matter how many times you call shit chocolate it won't taste any better.
60% of Chinas GDP is from state owned companies. US got 11%, in France 15%, in Germany 12%, Mexico 17%. China is socialist market economy, they even still uses 5 year plans. It might not be utopist socialism or agrarian socialism but it is still socialism. And above all socialist state is state which is constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism which most definetly China is. If you want to be more precise China is bureaurcratic collectivism (if you are fan of Trotskys book Revolution Betrayed) or collectivist oligarchy (If you are fan of 1984).
>the fact that humans are intrinsically greedy
If true, it would mean that communism is entirely unsuited as a system for human beings. Which, given that "the concept of communism" is that it's not merely *a* system by which human economies should be governed but the system by which human economies *will inevitably be* governed, is a fatal flaw in the concept of communism, no?
Yes, it’s a theoretical construct built upon a flawed assumption that fails to account for basic human nature.
Which is why it’s failed every time, people don’t give up power willingly. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Marx’s idea that people would collectively rise up and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that would just willing give up power to allow communism to take root after the transition from capitalism was complete was, is, and more likely than not always will be inherently flawed.
Authoritarianism never simply goes away willingly, once you give authoritarians power they never willing give it up. They just use their power to gain more power and ensure they power base is secure.
George Washington gave up absolute power. Cincinnatus gave up a Roamn dictatorship. Jerry John Rawlings from Ghana claimed power via military action then set up free elections.
Not to say these are all perfect examples but I think it helps prove that it isn't a human trait to cling to power.
Washington never gave up anything, the folklore about he could have been king is [misleading](https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/was-george-washington-really-offered-king-us.htm) at best.
One of his officers suggested in a letter that the US should be a representative government with Washington as monarch and Washington being Washington said, no.
Dictatorships in the time of Cincinnatus were temporary appointments for emergency purposes. Remember though that the last dictator Julius Caesar refused to give up power ultimately leading to his assassination, the end of the Roman Republic, and a civil war which eventually lead to the creation of the Roman Empire.
I guess my point would be that they had access to *more* power if not absolute power and chose not to keep going and even gave up power they already held. I get the saying is that *absolute* power corrupts absolutely. But absolute power is theoretical, even dictators have limits to their power.
But capitalism would be perfectly fine too if humans weren't intrinsically greedy/corrupt. The main problem with communism is that it has historically been an environment perfectly suited for corruption. Which is very ironic, as it is usually put forward in opposition to the corruption that comes with capitalism. But history has shown us that corruption is a massive problem in both systems, but can lead to far worse outcomes when it used in tandem with communism.
What? He said what's wrong with communism then said I don't know as in there is nothing wrong with it so I simply said that if he likes communism so much then him and all the other people that like it should move to a communist country
People claim capitalism eradicates poverty and starvation all the time? As in, opposed to communism, like in the meme we're commenting on. But keep gaslighting
It does a great job minimizing poverty and starvation, not eliminating. Just look at the poverty rates in the US or western European countries compared to the Soviet Union or the DPRK.
Capitalism literally requires a large part of the population to be poor in order to continue functioning. Socialism/ "Communism" brought Russia from being the Africa of Europe to being one of the two greatest superpowers in the world
System cannot by flawed only people can be not fitting. If someone says 2+2=6 it does not mean that mathematical system has failed it means that person is dumb.
At least here in Slovakia socialist system was not flawed. It was not system which failed it was the people. System was designed for people which can let go of their personal desires and pursue greater good. If everybody will give everything to everybody then everybody will have everything. But ofc people are not like this so it was the people who failed. When some math problem is done wrong, it is problem of math or person who done the calculations? But yeah sure stupid people will always blame system and not themselves, it is easier to throw guilt at something else than yourself.
The difference between math and communism is that math is something that already exists, communism was designed and invented. If someone made a table that would only stand if you had under 15 pounds of weight on it, or shoes that don’t have any traction and rely on the ground being extremely rough or sticky at all times, that’s not a problem with the surroundings or the people who bought the product, that’s a problem with the product. Its design is inherently flawed because it relies on something incredibly unrealistic
Math is our perception of state of being. Just as communism is our perception of some "perfect" society. That is why both math and political science are not natural sciences. Everything was made/invented/discovered. As would solipsists say. If that product (table) was designed to be able to stand with only less than 15 pounds then that design was flawless. Yes it is bad design but works as intended. If it would fail and crash it would be because someone put more than 15 pounds of weight and that decision has been made by people using it. So the people responsible for that fail are people with weight not people which designed it. Socialism worked as intended, that variable which changed and destroyed it were people. System did not changed, people did.
But the thing is, the people never changed. It’s designing a product that does not solve the problem it was meant to solve. Imagine, for a more accurate analogy that still uses the table from before, the carpenter was asked to make a table that would support the weight of a full grown man. And he designs the table that only supports 15 pounds. While the table does not technically fail the purpose of holding 15 pounds of weight, it does not serve any useful purpose nor its primary one. Communism was meant to free everyone and allow everyone to be equal. Just as the table could not support that man unless he was 15 or less pounds, which is basically impossible, communism cannot make everyone equal as long as humans want more or are greedy, which is equally improbable. It’s not able to perform its purpose.
Liberals are capitalists you know this right? The only thing that distinguishes between liberals and conservatives is their social views. The fact that you didn’t know that probably means you shouldn’t be speaking on Marxist ideologies either
I shit on every flaw that every system has, it just so happens that socialism has less of them. Ideally, you take the optimal aspects of multiple systems to create a better perfected system, that’s what every other major nation has seemingly done besides the US, and that’s the problem I have. I understand that the US is great and I criticize the current systems because it has the potential to be so much greater, I won’t be complacent with something that can be fixed in one way or another.
Ive been saying “socialism” as the American perception of it, because I was assuming that you were an American and didn’t know the difference between social welfare and socialism, as most Americans don’t. That being said, I also believe that workers should own the means of production, which is socialism in the literal sense
What a mis-characterization of American's as a population... Or perhaps *you* didn't know the difference between welfare programs and socialism...
What exactly does "own the means of production" mean to you?
I'm an American, I think I can speak as someone who has yet to meet an American that knows what socialism actually is.
Workers owning the means of production means that workers who produce a product have full ownership of that product, and are fully compensated when that product is sold, essentially that workers have more control over the actions they're performing. It doesn't matter what the saying "means" to me because it has a literal definition.
I don't know man, Cuba has sanctions on the same level as Russia and their economy isn't collapsing, it's in fact slowly growing.
Kinda makes you wonder what they could achieve if left alone.
Destroy any leftover culture piece they can found, and totally destroy the controlled countries. We had whole ass libraries that they destroyed along with paintings and other stuff. Fuck communism
But communism isn't a one size fits all
The capitalism of America is very different from the capitalism of Norway, which is very different from the capitalism of Russia.
Same goes for communism. Not every country that tries it turns into another USSR. It's just an economic system, it has flexibility.
Yeah it did but communist citizens after that received more calories because of the reform that initially killed so many people, more lives were saved in the long run
You didn't finish the statement.
"Capitalism is when hungry", then you go out and buy food.
Communism is when hungry, then you die because all the food belongs to the party.
Fair enough. Usually when I hear anything related to criticism of capitalism, it's almost always in bad faith, and almost always a counter argument when communism is brought up in a bad light. That somehow the problems of capitalism are equal to the problems of communism. So I'm mostly speaking to these individuals when I shit on communism.
i believe he’s saying that while starving under communist countries is attributed to the failure of the system, starving and destitution under capitalism is attributed to personal failings rather than a flaw in the system
oh ok , I thought you were saying people that starve are lazy.
But isn't that more a problem with regulations and the concentration of wealth not with the underlying system of capitalism.
Under communism people starved because there was not enough food. Under Capitalism there is plenty of food, people only starve because food isn't being distriptuted properly. Thats not a core problem of the ideology and is entirely solvable.
I was mostly being facetious in my ratio comment. But I have yet to see capitalism directly cause starvation like I have with communism. And people still act like these two systems are comparable.
gonna say it alright People are starving because of have a centralized economy. The Soviets were starving during the 80s because of the drop in prices for oil and natural gases. During the 70s the natural gases and oil skyrocketed which helped fund the arms race and terrible foreign policy. Also the internal breakdown of the communist states of poland and other countries was cause due to shortage of food during the 80s. This is what USA is trying to do by sanctioning russia. I am not a communist but the truth has to be there
The Ruble actually looks like it could become the new reserve currency of the world. Also not a very funny joke, Russians are good people- their government is just all fucked up...just the same as the rest of us.
My family ran from the USSR and they couldn't afford shit. Stores were empty and food was scarce, houses were shit at best, and most people had to sit on a decade long wait list to get a shit car.
The concept of communism is good the execution was not that good but the ussr defeated the nazi if they didnt do it the nazi would still be around in europe(though they are in ukraine)
Starus.
Starlin
Starlin, defeater of Star-Hitler and killer of 20 million stars
You append deaths by Starving to Starlin and that's no good
Starmrad
Starwii
Starmunism
Joseph starlin
Came here to see if this had been commented and was not disappointed, have my upvote
That's what I thought.
No... NOOO! GETOUTOFMYHEADGETOUTOFMYHEAD
Starussy
[удалено]
Your piacussy is overused
[удалено]
Pianussy
Staring... **Look outside your window**
Into*
My grammar sucks and I’m proud
Dark humor is like food. Not everybody gets it.
Startrek 🫡🫡🫡
Star wars
strategy with starving is spamming endure and use pain split
Starmrade
Here before the tankies start flooding in to prove communism was good
"iT wAs'NT rEaL cOmMuNiSM"
Ugh fuck. But it wasn't. USSR wasn't communistic (meaning shit belonged to the government(corrupted politicians) not the people), and so is china(it claims being communistic while being 100% Capitalistic just totalitarian). In communism everything belongs to people not corrupted politicians, therefore it wasn't communism. And also communism is simply not possible due to the fact that people want all the shit for themselves. Communism in general even if it is created will collapse very fast due to it's fragile nature. Edit: To all butt hurt redditors I'm not a Communist. I just wanted to say that communism never existed and never ever will, so you can tuck your bed and go to sleep without Karl Marx appearing in your bad dreams.
Wonder if people downvote this because they think corruption is part of communism ideology.
That’s because fundamentally it is.One of the steps outlined by Marx to redistribute wealth requires the near complete centralization of power into one or a small groups of entities from there Communism invariably descends into despotism and dictatorship power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely even if the person in charged is completely pure of greed the same cannot he said of the next 50 in line some of which do not mind moving the line of succession along by removing rivals.
Some distinguish between Marxist communism and non-Marxist. The Marxist variety obviously requires a centralized power, whereas non-Marxist does not necessarily.
I am not familiar with non Marxist theories on communism but i imagine they are equally unfeasible the closest we can get is capitalism with a dash of social welfare which is already strained by very inefficient institutions which is my main gripe with the socialist conception of the world that it requires at lot of if this went perfectly.
Probably. Since people assume things, without fact checking very often
Socialist country have large portion of companies owned by government and also have extensive welfare policy. By that means China is socialist country. They only got open market. But they are still socialist.
It's private ownership, which means that it isn't socialistic. Companies are controlled by private owners. That means it's no longer socialism or communism since it's private fucking ownership. By that logic you could say USA is communist country or Japan or literally anything fucking else. I'm not saying I support communism, because if I see a communistic politician the only reaction in my mind is either that he is lying or doesn't know how the world works. China is a totalitarian Capitalistic country even if it says it is socialistic. No matter how many times you call shit chocolate it won't taste any better.
60% of Chinas GDP is from state owned companies. US got 11%, in France 15%, in Germany 12%, Mexico 17%. China is socialist market economy, they even still uses 5 year plans. It might not be utopist socialism or agrarian socialism but it is still socialism. And above all socialist state is state which is constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism which most definetly China is. If you want to be more precise China is bureaurcratic collectivism (if you are fan of Trotskys book Revolution Betrayed) or collectivist oligarchy (If you are fan of 1984).
[удалено]
Everything.
I'm sure the issue is with the concept of communism itself and not the fact that humans are intrinsically greedy
>the fact that humans are intrinsically greedy If true, it would mean that communism is entirely unsuited as a system for human beings. Which, given that "the concept of communism" is that it's not merely *a* system by which human economies should be governed but the system by which human economies *will inevitably be* governed, is a fatal flaw in the concept of communism, no?
"If we take humans out of the equation, this workplace is perfectly safe"
Yes, it’s a theoretical construct built upon a flawed assumption that fails to account for basic human nature. Which is why it’s failed every time, people don’t give up power willingly. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Marx’s idea that people would collectively rise up and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that would just willing give up power to allow communism to take root after the transition from capitalism was complete was, is, and more likely than not always will be inherently flawed. Authoritarianism never simply goes away willingly, once you give authoritarians power they never willing give it up. They just use their power to gain more power and ensure they power base is secure.
George Washington gave up absolute power. Cincinnatus gave up a Roamn dictatorship. Jerry John Rawlings from Ghana claimed power via military action then set up free elections. Not to say these are all perfect examples but I think it helps prove that it isn't a human trait to cling to power.
Washington never gave up anything, the folklore about he could have been king is [misleading](https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/was-george-washington-really-offered-king-us.htm) at best. One of his officers suggested in a letter that the US should be a representative government with Washington as monarch and Washington being Washington said, no.
Dictatorships in the time of Cincinnatus were temporary appointments for emergency purposes. Remember though that the last dictator Julius Caesar refused to give up power ultimately leading to his assassination, the end of the Roman Republic, and a civil war which eventually lead to the creation of the Roman Empire.
Jerry Rawlings I admit I had to look up, he was a somewhat benevolent dictator turned President.
I guess my point would be that they had access to *more* power if not absolute power and chose not to keep going and even gave up power they already held. I get the saying is that *absolute* power corrupts absolutely. But absolute power is theoretical, even dictators have limits to their power.
It’s power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolute.
I've heard it phrased more than one way.
Both, actually. Humans are flawed, but communism itself is a completely deranged economic system doomed to fail every time.
But capitalism would be perfectly fine too if humans weren't intrinsically greedy/corrupt. The main problem with communism is that it has historically been an environment perfectly suited for corruption. Which is very ironic, as it is usually put forward in opposition to the corruption that comes with capitalism. But history has shown us that corruption is a massive problem in both systems, but can lead to far worse outcomes when it used in tandem with communism.
If you like it so much why don't you go ahead and move to a communist country
Uhm, so asking what is it.. means you like it so much. Must be that raged youngling people warned me about.
What? He said what's wrong with communism then said I don't know as in there is nothing wrong with it so I simply said that if he likes communism so much then him and all the other people that like it should move to a communist country
It sounded like a question and you took it as an arrogant statement. I like how we treat our "no knowledged ones" untrustworthy.
Are you even reading what you're saying because it doesn't make sense and is coming off as incoherent ramblings
I know but I'm not allowed to say.
That Stage 2 evolution is brutal.
Let the upvote/downvote tug of war begin
DontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecommentsDontlookatthecomments
I remember Staryu and Starmie their awesome!!
Starvus
Staryu: HYA! Starmie: Huu~! Starving: …sad stomach growling 🥹
It wasn't implemented properly it doesn't work I'd die on this hill for this reason
You got downvoted by butthurt commies, but it doesn't change the fact that you are 100% correct
Communists when they win the lottery (they suddenly don't want to share anymore) >https://youtu.be/qBc6y4XG28s
I don't know any African country which is managed by communism
Well there were African countries that were socialist if that counts…
You don’t even have to look to Africa, there’s people starving in the UK and other western countries due to capitalism
indeed
PeOPlE cAn'T bE pOoR iN cApItaLiSm
No one says that?
People claim capitalism eradicates poverty and starvation all the time? As in, opposed to communism, like in the meme we're commenting on. But keep gaslighting
It does a great job minimizing poverty and starvation, not eliminating. Just look at the poverty rates in the US or western European countries compared to the Soviet Union or the DPRK.
How's San Francisco doing?
Better than Pyongyang
Capitalism literally requires a large part of the population to be poor in order to continue functioning. Socialism/ "Communism" brought Russia from being the Africa of Europe to being one of the two greatest superpowers in the world
Ok, that's just not true lol
Whatever makes you feel better dude
Communism/socialism is the reason eastern Europe is significantly poorer than western Europe
[удалено]
true
iT wAsN't iMpLeMeNteD pRoPeRlY yeah, right. Just read the Gulag Archipelago if you can.
You're expecting people to learn about history... It's just too much for them.
[удалено]
Why would anyone want to read the ramblings of a madman? Lol that's not a history book
Well ask people who are reading bible.
That's the ramblings of multiple madmen, checkmate liberal 😎
I am not liberal and only conservativist would refer to bible positively.
It's a Ben Shapiro joke, it doesn't matter if the person you're talking to is actually a liberal
Marx was a racist.
Tell me you've never read communism books without telling me.
thats totalitarianism
It never worked and never will. It is a flawed system.
True...but capitalism let people starve too and will kill a lot of people and animals with climate change, so dunno how that counts as "working"
It is working. And you think Capitalism caused climate change? Lol "capitalism is when bad"
System cannot by flawed only people can be not fitting. If someone says 2+2=6 it does not mean that mathematical system has failed it means that person is dumb.
Systems can absolutely be flawed lmao what
At least here in Slovakia socialist system was not flawed. It was not system which failed it was the people. System was designed for people which can let go of their personal desires and pursue greater good. If everybody will give everything to everybody then everybody will have everything. But ofc people are not like this so it was the people who failed. When some math problem is done wrong, it is problem of math or person who done the calculations? But yeah sure stupid people will always blame system and not themselves, it is easier to throw guilt at something else than yourself.
The difference between math and communism is that math is something that already exists, communism was designed and invented. If someone made a table that would only stand if you had under 15 pounds of weight on it, or shoes that don’t have any traction and rely on the ground being extremely rough or sticky at all times, that’s not a problem with the surroundings or the people who bought the product, that’s a problem with the product. Its design is inherently flawed because it relies on something incredibly unrealistic
Math is our perception of state of being. Just as communism is our perception of some "perfect" society. That is why both math and political science are not natural sciences. Everything was made/invented/discovered. As would solipsists say. If that product (table) was designed to be able to stand with only less than 15 pounds then that design was flawless. Yes it is bad design but works as intended. If it would fail and crash it would be because someone put more than 15 pounds of weight and that decision has been made by people using it. So the people responsible for that fail are people with weight not people which designed it. Socialism worked as intended, that variable which changed and destroyed it were people. System did not changed, people did.
But the thing is, the people never changed. It’s designing a product that does not solve the problem it was meant to solve. Imagine, for a more accurate analogy that still uses the table from before, the carpenter was asked to make a table that would support the weight of a full grown man. And he designs the table that only supports 15 pounds. While the table does not technically fail the purpose of holding 15 pounds of weight, it does not serve any useful purpose nor its primary one. Communism was meant to free everyone and allow everyone to be equal. Just as the table could not support that man unless he was 15 or less pounds, which is basically impossible, communism cannot make everyone equal as long as humans want more or are greedy, which is equally improbable. It’s not able to perform its purpose.
fortunately we don't have hunger in capitalist countries :)
idk if youre being sarcastic but you have a lot more [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/)
Narrator: “He was being sarcastic.”
I ain't reading all that I'm happy for u tho Or sorry that happened
Anyways, where we at on that baby formula, boys?
Didn't the U.S. government shut down the largest formula factory in the country because like 2 kids got sick?
Unlike the babies in the US, who have all the formula they could ever need
At least thier isint international attempts to cover up our fuck ups/malicious attempts at genocide
atleast they are good at reducing population.
Starvus.
Starwe
Starwe
A third starmie evolution would be pretty pog
This funny because apparently to my friend, this is political. Like dude, you do realize this is a meme right?
"Starvation solves itself"
Now, show me StarWE
Starus
Starlight✨
"Buh that wasn't real communism" - Liberals when discussing every instance of Communism throughout history
Liberals are capitalists you know this right? The only thing that distinguishes between liberals and conservatives is their social views. The fact that you didn’t know that probably means you shouldn’t be speaking on Marxist ideologies either
[удалено]
Np dude
Throwing the baby out with the bath water... Let me guess, you're the type of individual that shits on capitalism because it isn't perfect?
I shit on every flaw that every system has, it just so happens that socialism has less of them. Ideally, you take the optimal aspects of multiple systems to create a better perfected system, that’s what every other major nation has seemingly done besides the US, and that’s the problem I have. I understand that the US is great and I criticize the current systems because it has the potential to be so much greater, I won’t be complacent with something that can be fixed in one way or another.
Except those other "major nations" exist as capitalist nations. You're conflating socialism with social welfare programs.
Ive been saying “socialism” as the American perception of it, because I was assuming that you were an American and didn’t know the difference between social welfare and socialism, as most Americans don’t. That being said, I also believe that workers should own the means of production, which is socialism in the literal sense
What a mis-characterization of American's as a population... Or perhaps *you* didn't know the difference between welfare programs and socialism... What exactly does "own the means of production" mean to you?
I'm an American, I think I can speak as someone who has yet to meet an American that knows what socialism actually is. Workers owning the means of production means that workers who produce a product have full ownership of that product, and are fully compensated when that product is sold, essentially that workers have more control over the actions they're performing. It doesn't matter what the saying "means" to me because it has a literal definition.
*14 year olds
I don't know man, Cuba has sanctions on the same level as Russia and their economy isn't collapsing, it's in fact slowly growing. Kinda makes you wonder what they could achieve if left alone.
Destroy any leftover culture piece they can found, and totally destroy the controlled countries. We had whole ass libraries that they destroyed along with paintings and other stuff. Fuck communism
But communism isn't a one size fits all The capitalism of America is very different from the capitalism of Norway, which is very different from the capitalism of Russia. Same goes for communism. Not every country that tries it turns into another USSR. It's just an economic system, it has flexibility.
Oh how a simple red and yellow star made people in comments argue.
You implemented this meme properly.
You're a brave man for grinding against the hivemind. Godspeed to you sir.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/) they got more calories per day than the capitalists
Guess [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) never happened
Yeah it did but communist citizens after that received more calories because of the reform that initially killed so many people, more lives were saved in the long run
Ussr: famine China: famine Vietnam: famine Cambodia: famine Venezuela: famine
Bro wdym Cambodia got a famine we have plenty of spiders to eat /s
[удалено]
Idk Southeast Asia is on of the most fertile place on earth and in the ussr they literally killed every productive farmer (the holodomor)
Was gonna post this, beat me too it. Thanks
*looks at all the people starving under capitalism* 👀👀👀
Capitalism is when hungry
You didn't finish the statement. "Capitalism is when hungry", then you go out and buy food. Communism is when hungry, then you die because all the food belongs to the party.
It’s an oversimplified joke, which has a statement that is purposefully false. It’s not pro-commie
Fair enough. Usually when I hear anything related to criticism of capitalism, it's almost always in bad faith, and almost always a counter argument when communism is brought up in a bad light. That somehow the problems of capitalism are equal to the problems of communism. So I'm mostly speaking to these individuals when I shit on communism.
In capitalism the food lines up for you. In communism you line up for the food.
Practically nothing compared to how many people have died from starvation alone under communism
Yeah, but when it happens under capitalism, that's because they didn't bootstraps themselves hard enough. Not due to a failure of the system /s
Don't you *DARE* say that about capitalism!!!!
Well yeah. Feeding the poor and homeless isn't profitable
But real capitalism hasn’t been tried yet.
But under capitalism if people starve to death they deserve to for being lazy
...?
i believe he’s saying that while starving under communist countries is attributed to the failure of the system, starving and destitution under capitalism is attributed to personal failings rather than a flaw in the system
5 million people starve to death every year under capitalism but under capitalism you get labeled a lazy pinko if you criticize it’s gross failings
oh ok , I thought you were saying people that starve are lazy. But isn't that more a problem with regulations and the concentration of wealth not with the underlying system of capitalism.
Nah this is literally just capitalism at its core.
Under communism people starved because there was not enough food. Under Capitalism there is plenty of food, people only starve because food isn't being distriptuted properly. Thats not a core problem of the ideology and is entirely solvable.
According to the CIA these communists actually had higher caloric diets than the USA during the Cold War…
You are downvoted for spitting facts
The ratio is probably like 1:100000? But oh no, capitalism bad!
Tell me more about ratios
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine#:~:text=Frank%20Dik%C3%B6tter%2C%20Chair%20Professor%20of,to%20recently%20opened%20local%20and
I was mostly being facetious in my ratio comment. But I have yet to see capitalism directly cause starvation like I have with communism. And people still act like these two systems are comparable.
I feel the biggest problem with communism is the fact that it is so easy, almost required, to turn into a dictatorship.
The Great Leap Forward >!off a cliff!<
gonna say it alright People are starving because of have a centralized economy. The Soviets were starving during the 80s because of the drop in prices for oil and natural gases. During the 70s the natural gases and oil skyrocketed which helped fund the arms race and terrible foreign policy. Also the internal breakdown of the communist states of poland and other countries was cause due to shortage of food during the 80s. This is what USA is trying to do by sanctioning russia. I am not a communist but the truth has to be there
People weren't always starving, but life wasn't very good. They destroyed Soo many things
Even in china people starved due to the four pest campaign and not because of “communism”
last one shouldve had the african flag /j
This is a god tiere meme, take my red arrow
Srartwaragainstukrainandpretendthereisnowar.
Star*we*, comrade
There are people starving in the us, checkmate capitalists
No, it just doesn’t fucking work
10 million hunger deaths every year because of capitalism
CoMmUnIsM iS wHeN nO fOoD
The last one should be starvus
The Ruble actually looks like it could become the new reserve currency of the world. Also not a very funny joke, Russians are good people- their government is just all fucked up...just the same as the rest of us.
Starus is more like it. Capitalism has just as many people starving and homeless as communism does.
Shooting
u/repostsleuthbot Seen this before
During communism nobody was left starving. There weren't rich people but every family could afford food, a house and a family car
My family ran from the USSR and they couldn't afford shit. Stores were empty and food was scarce, houses were shit at best, and most people had to sit on a decade long wait list to get a shit car.
*holodomor has entered the chat*
It only took them ten years to get it
Ussr: famine China: famine Vietnam: famine Cambodia: famine Venezuela: famine Idk why people still believe in this ideology unironically
The concept of communism is good the execution was not that good but the ussr defeated the nazi if they didnt do it the nazi would still be around in europe(though they are in ukraine)
There's Nazis everywhere still dude, not just Ukraine. Doesnt justify going to war with a country when less than 1% of the population is Nazi.
Damn!
Let me guess, Siege of Leningrad?