Current Events > Can anyone here explain why they still defend Communism or Socialism?

(+) Yeah! (+)

As far as I know, we've never seen either result in anything except for mass murder of innocent people while eventually imploding in on themselves. Socialism being a bit trickier since plenty of countries utilize socialist policies, America included. But pure socialism I can't say has ever succeeded. Communism a bit easier, since its never worked and has always failed in the same spectacular fashion, murderous labor camps for political dissidents (or really anyone) and all.
---

Socialism and communism have killed over 100 million people in recent decades. It's evil. CE has seen an influx of far-left lunatic communists but several of them are alts. It's basically mostly one person who is posting shit to inundate people's minds with that kind of illness.
---

you'd think the 20th century would have thoroughly discredited communism and socialism but nope.
---

Silver spoon far left progressives with no life experience.
---

Capitalism has killed tons of people. Communism has never been tried except in small scales.

The real problem with communism is it doesn't work unless everybody does it at the same time. It's just not realistic and some form of social democracy is probably a better choice for us right now.

Like there are plenty of European countries with short work weeks, high pay, and free benefits that are pretty happy and well off. We should emulate that.

Both of these ideals involve redistribution of wealth from the Haves to the Have-Nots. The Have-Nots who support these ideals are most likely lazy, who feel the world owes them for some arbitrary reason.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Socialism and communism have killed over 100 million people in recent decades. It's evil. CE has seen an influx of far-left lunatic communists but several of them are alts. It's basically mostly one person who is posting shit to inundate people's minds with that kind of illness.

MakoReizei posted...

you'd think the 20th century would have thoroughly discredited communism and socialism but nope.

Its why I'm asking. Communism especially has been thoroughly disproved. And it always fails in the same murderous way. Had one guy a little while ago try to tell me that Maoist China and Stalinist Russia weren't real Communism because they weren't able to get Marx's blue print and principles to work. And I'm like yeah no shit, that's what happens when you attempt to enact Communism, because its impossible to actually succeed.

That's just me though.
---

Kamala_Harris posted...

Communism has never been tried except in small scales.

False. Its been tried, it just doesn't work, so that's how you get the examples of communism we know and love today.

008Zulu posted...

Both of these ideals involve redistribution of wealth from the Haves to the Have-Nots. The Have-Nots who support these ideals are most likely lazy, who feel the world owes them for some arbitrary reason.

Redistribution of wealth was never the issue though, and there have been examples of non communist or socialist countries redistributing wealth and it being a raging success. Check out Europe if you want some examples. Investing in your citizenry isn't a bad idea.
---

Yugoslavia did great. People had jobs, school and healthcare.
---

Socialism only has a chance to work in a country that already has a history of democracy.
---

idk, most people online seem to confuse the nordic model of capitalism with socialism
---

Communism is a good idea in theory but there is one huge problem with it, humanity.

As for socialism while it fails as a government taking socialist elements that do work and place them in a democratic government does.
---

Socialism and communism can't work. It is axiomatic.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Yugoslavia did great. People had jobs, school and healthcare.

I'm not too familiar with Yugoslavia, but isn't it not a country anymore?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Socialism and communism can't work. It is axiomatic.

Yeah this is what I think and really don't get how people can believe otherwise. Its why I made the topic.

Everyone can stop saying this tho, there's no need to all post that we agree with each other when the point of the topic is totally different.
---

Obligatory post about how Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are NOT socialist countries. They have highly free market economies with high levels of private ownership.

The practice something called the Nordic Model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
---

nicklebro posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Socialism and communism can't work. It is axiomatic.

Yeah this is what I think and really don't get how people can believe otherwise. Its why I made the topic.

Everyone can stop saying this tho, there's no need to all post that we agree with each other when the point of the topic is totally different.

Believe it or not, I made a topic just like this a month or two ago. And clowns were denying that there's actual communists here.

Yet there are a good number of them. I tag them when I see them. Now that you've noticed it too maybe CE will realize that there is an infestation that we need to get rid if.
---

Communism rapidly becomes unsustainable in groups larger than approximately thirty.

I mean it worked mostly in cuba, low level of poverty, high literacy, and healthcare for all.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

I mean it worked mostly in cuba, low level of poverty, high literacy, and healthcare for all.

lmfao youre joking right?
---

Theyre nice in theory, but anything that rejects human nature will fail. In this instance, greed and laziness. Youll always have a ruling class or people that just dont want to contribute.
---

nicklebro posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Yugoslavia did great. People had jobs, school and healthcare.

I'm not too familiar with Yugoslavia, but isn't it not a country anymore?

You're right it's not a country anymore. The countries that made up Yugoslavia broke apart due to religious tensions after Titos death. Then came ethnic tensions.

Point is though that while Tito was alive he successfuly provided for Yugoslavia. This is anecdotal evidence from my family and many many people who are refugees as well from ex Yugoslavia. They all said that everybody had jobs, school and healthcare.

They didn't mention the downsides if there were any.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Obligatory post about how Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are NOT socialist countries. They have highly free market economies with high levels of private ownership.

The practice something called the Nordic Model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

ty, was gonna put that in the OP, but felt like that would just invite the debate anyways.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Believe it or not, I made a topic just like this a month or two ago. And clowns were denying that there's actual communists here.

Yet there are a good number of them. I tag them when I see them. Now that you've noticed it too maybe CE will realize that there is an infestation that we need to get rid if.

There were student protesters that literally had the hammer and sickle as they were protesting this professor named Jordan Peterson for saying that he would not use made up pronouns like zim, zer, zier, and all that weird shit. How is that ok but swastikas are universally detested (and rightfully so)?

and then there's this.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/channel/politics/Socialism+is+the+cure/RXRuLEK#b2d49e_6446154

Don't get me wrong, Trump is obviously horrible for America. Lol but in no way is that an argument for socialism.
---

Does anybody here actually defend pure communism or socialism? Or do they just think there's a lot of good ideas there?

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

nicklebro posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Yugoslavia did great. People had jobs, school and healthcare.

I'm not too familiar with Yugoslavia, but isn't it not a country anymore?

You're right it's not a country anymore. The countries that made up Yugoslavia broke apart due to religious tensions after Titos death. Then came ethnic tensions.

Point is though that while Tito was alive he successfuly provided for Yugoslavia. This is anecdotal evidence from my family and many many people who are refugees as well from ex Yugoslavia. They all said that everybody has jobs, school and healthcare.

They didn't mention the downsides if there were any.

Werent some ethnic groups favoured over others though? (Could be wrong.)
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

nicklebro posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Yugoslavia did great. People had jobs, school and healthcare.

I'm not too familiar with Yugoslavia, but isn't it not a country anymore?

You're right it's not a country anymore. The countries that made up Yugoslavia broke apart due to religious tensions after Titos death. Then came ethnic tensions.

Point is though that while Tito was alive he successfuly provided for Yugoslavia. This is anecdotal evidence from my family and many many people who are refugees as well from ex Yugoslavia. They all said that everybody had jobs, school and healthcare.

They didn't mention the downsides if there were any.

I mean when the death of a dictator causes the downfall of your country, pretty sure its hard to argue the economic philosophy was solid.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

I mean it worked mostly in cuba, low level of poverty, high literacy, and healthcare for all.

lmfao youre joking right?

After Cuba lost Soviet subsidies in 1991, malnutrition resulted in an outbreak of diseases. Despite this, the poverty level reported by the government is one of the lowest in the developing world, ranking 6th out of 108 countries, 4th in Latin America and 48th among all countries.

Unemployment Rate in Cuba decreased to 2 percent in 2016 from 2.40 percent in 2015. Unemployment Rate in Cuba averaged 2.68 percent from 2000 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 5.40 percent in 2000 and a record low of 1.60 percent in 2008.

According to the CIA Factbook, Cuba infant mortality rate is indeed lower -- an estimated 4.76 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2013, compared to 5.90 for the United States.

99% literacy rate in Cuba too.
---

ThanksUglyGod posted...

Does anybody here actually defend pure communism or socialism? Or do they just think there's a lot of good ideas there?

Ive seen it. Yeah, there definitely are.
---

nicklebro posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Obligatory post about how Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are NOT socialist countries. They have highly free market economies with high levels of private ownership.

The practice something called the Nordic Model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

ty, was gonna put that in the OP, but felt like that would just invite the debate anyways.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Believe it or not, I made a topic just like this a month or two ago. And clowns were denying that there's actual communists here.

Yet there are a good number of them. I tag them when I see them. Now that you've noticed it too maybe CE will realize that there is an infestation that we need to get rid if.

There were student protesters that literally had the hammer and sickle as they were protesting this professor named Jordan Peterson for saying that he would not use made up pronouns like zim, zer, zier, and all that weird shit. How is that ok but swastikas are universally detested (and rightfully so)?

and then there's this.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/channel/politics/Socialism+is+the+cure/RXRuLEK#b2d49e_6446154

Don't get me wrong, Trump is obviously horrible for America. Lol but in no way is that an argument for socialism.

The far left has been using colleges as centers for indoctrinating young people into Marxism. That's how this happened. Now they're trying to start even earlier.
---

ThanksUglyGod posted...

Does anybody here actually defend pure communism or socialism? Or do they just think there's a lot of good ideas there?

@Antifar
@Godnorgosh
@Omnislasher
@averagejoel
@Paper_Okami
---

The only form of socialism I can see working is some form of democratic socialism planned out decades in advance (it would probably have to be agreed upon by most major governments, unlikely now but possible far in the future). Two main obstacles (of many) are finding a way to incentivise workers beyond monetary rewards and whether society would be able to handle mass public ownership. Socialism may eventually become justifiable as people begin to see the detriments of capitalism getting out of hand (if we can't find sufficient solutions to issues such as economic disparity and the effects of radical materialism). Of course what we don't want is some sort of anti-capitalist revolution so the change would need to be gradual.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

I mean it worked mostly in cuba, low level of poverty, high literacy, and healthcare for all.

lmfao youre joking right?

After Cuba lost Soviet subsidies in 1991, malnutrition resulted in an outbreak of diseases. Despite this, the poverty level reported by the government is one of the lowest in the developing world, ranking 6th out of 108 countries, 4th in Latin America and 48th among all countries.

Unemployment Rate in Cuba decreased to 2 percent in 2016 from 2.40 percent in 2015. Unemployment Rate in Cuba averaged 2.68 percent from 2000 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 5.40 percent in 2000 and a record low of 1.60 percent in 2008.

According to the CIA Factbook, Cuba infant mortality rate is indeed lower -- an estimated 4.76 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2013, compared to 5.90 for the United States.

99% literacy rate in Cuba too.

of course there's next to no unemployment in Cuba, lol you're literally forced to work for defunct businesses. There's videos of people working in restaurants that have no food or customers, and then have to work their black market/private sector jobs afterwards to actually survive.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

I mean it worked mostly in cuba, low level of poverty, high literacy, and healthcare for all.

lmfao youre joking right?

After Cuba lost Soviet subsidies in 1991, malnutrition resulted in an outbreak of diseases. Despite this, the poverty level reported by the government is one of the lowest in the developing world, ranking 6th out of 108 countries, 4th in Latin America and 48th among all countries.

Unemployment Rate in Cuba decreased to 2 percent in 2016 from 2.40 percent in 2015. Unemployment Rate in Cuba averaged 2.68 percent from 2000 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 5.40 percent in 2000 and a record low of 1.60 percent in 2008.

According to the CIA Factbook, Cuba infant mortality rate is indeed lower -- an estimated 4.76 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2013, compared to 5.90 for the United States.

99% literacy rate in Cuba too.

then move to Cuba lmfao

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426334/look-how-cubas-working-class-lives-scott-beyer
---

Godnorgosh posted...

I mean, you realize that Marx would have fundamentally disagreed with the concept of a "communist" state in a globally capitalist society, right?

Something like the USSR might happen when a particular state attempts to resist the current mode of production before the material processes of that phase of economic history have fully substantiated. But those instances should be distinguished from the overall historical sequence: chattel slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> communism.

Communism has no place after capitalism except to the delusional communists who think it's tenable. It's all just a religious fervor.
---

People defend Marx himself too even though he and Engels advocated genocide
---

nicklebro posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

nicklebro posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Yugoslavia did great. People had jobs, school and healthcare.

I'm not too familiar with Yugoslavia, but isn't it not a country anymore?

You're right it's not a country anymore. The countries that made up Yugoslavia broke apart due to religious tensions after Titos death. Then came ethnic tensions.

Point is though that while Tito was alive he successfuly provided for Yugoslavia. This is anecdotal evidence from my family and many many people who are refugees as well from ex Yugoslavia. They all said that everybody had jobs, school and healthcare.

They didn't mention the downsides if there were any.

I mean when the death of a dictator causes the downfall of your country, pretty sure its hard to argue the economic philosophy was solid.

Yea maybe, but it wasn't the economy that caused the breakup of Yugoslavia. But my point was that Tito came the closest to successful communism that didn't end in war due to the communist policies.

If Ex Yugoslavia wasn't a diverse place with groups that were hostile towards one another and was instead a single homogeneous country, who knows how it would've played out.

I'm not defending communism, I'm just pointing out that it had mild success in Yugoslavia.
---

Even without background knowledge, it would have been easy for me to conclude that Castros Communist system has been a miserable failure. Yet this isnt how everyone thinks. After becoming president, Fidels brother Ral pursued some economic liberalizations, viewing them as an obvious step to boost living standards. But he has mostly maintained a system that illegalizes entrepreneurship while dispersing paltry benefits. Speaking out of either fear or conviction, many Cubans whom I met blamed their poverty (of which they were well aware) on the U.S. embargo rather than the Castros policies. Indira had hung her Che photograph inside the apartment because she appreciated the revolutions intentions, though acknowledging that in practice it had flaws. Meanwhile, much of the left-wing international press either criticizes Cubas system only lightly or, in occasional bouts of revolting stupidity, celebrates it. For example, the Seattle-based environmental blog Grist.org recently lauded Cubas pre-modern organic agricultural system for its low-carbon footprint. Never mind that the resulting lack of food production causes shortages, forcing a tropical island with nutrient-rich soil to import 80 percent of its food.
Communism in Cuba has at least remained true to its roots, imposing, for more than half a century, a juvenile notion of egalitarianism on the masses. Rather than uplifting them, this has reinforced the lowest common denominator: Everyone is poor.

---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The far left has been using colleges as centers for indoctrinating young people into Marxism. That's how this happened. Now they're trying to start even earlier.

Oh I'm aware. And I'm pretty liberal, but there's a no connection between me and the far left. I think its something like 1 in 5 social science professors admits to being a Marxist.

Godnorgosh posted...

I mean, you realize that Marx would have fundamentally disagreed with the concept of a "communist" state in a globally capitalist society, right?

Something like the USSR might happen when a particular state attempts to resist the current mode of production before the material processes of that phase of economic history have fully substantiated. But those instances should be distinguished from the overall historical sequence: chattel slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> communism.

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

Joelypoely posted...

Socialism may eventually become justifiable as people begin to see the detriments of capitalism getting out of hand

Idk why we'd resort to socialism when its never showed itself to even be as good as capitalism. Capitalism obviously isn't perfect, but its also quite obviously the best thing we've ever come up with as a species.
---

Mortality rates in Cuba were lower in 2013 than those in the US for men, women, and children under five years old.

Literally the national review, a notoriously conservative publication.

And no i don't want to move to Cuba, I want to make life better for people in the U.S.
---

Funny how every time people spout "hundreds of millions died from communism" they are overlooking the fact that the biggest list of their victims consists of Nazis (seriously, they killed way more than America). Then there's the fact that farmers purposely destroyed their crops and in turn starved Russia because of their capitalist ideals. So actually those numbers would go to capitalism victims.

Then there's global starvation, disease and pollution deaths which could be drastically reduced if we dropped the notion of profitability as a leading motivation. So yeah, starving poor people who die would be considered victims of capitalism.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Then there's the fact that farmers purposely destroyed their crops and in turn starved Russia because of their capitalist ideals. So actually those numbers would go to capitalism victims.

http://www.aei.org/publication/thomas-sowell-on-the-fallacy-of-redistribution/

You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

nicklebro posted...

but its also quite obviously the best thing we've ever come up with as a species.

It's literally make money as much money as possible, which is exactly why the economy crashed.

Corporations would sell your Grandma for a nickel if they could.

And like what the fuck is the point of people like Venture capitalists? Do they contribute to society at all?

JEff Bezos is the richest man in the world, and he makes his money off the backs of countless employees that are treated exceptionally poorly.

You don't get to be a billionaire by being moral.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Theyre nice in theory, but anything that rejects human nature will fail. In this instance, greed and laziness. Youll always have a ruling class or people that just dont want to contribute.

It's funny because most rich are greedy and lazy. Congress has half the year off unless they choose to campaign or fund raise but those aren't essential duties throughout the year every single year.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Then there's the fact that farmers purposely destroyed their crops and in turn starved Russia because of their capitalist ideals. So actually those numbers would go to capitalism victims.

http://www.aei.org/publication/thomas-sowell-on-the-fallacy-of-redistribution/

You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

"Cannot confiscate future wealth"

*stares at the tax bill in congress that will take money from future generations*

This adds up.
---

People can't get rich when they are too busy trying to afford to pay off student loans, their car that they need to get to work, plus all the rent which is getting worse and worse every damn year, and they can't afford their fucking healthcare either so those are more fucking bills.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

It's literally make money as much money as possible, which is exactly why the economy crashed.

The 2008 collapse was brought about by an intentionally-created system of private-profit/public-losses in the home mortgage sector.
Go make a fuckton of money on risky or outright stupid ventures, and we'll bail you out if it goes bad. Thus, there was no real "risk" in issuing loans to people who likely would never pay it back.

gunplagirl posted...

Then there's the fact that farmers purposely destroyed their crops and in turn starved Russia because of their capitalist ideals.

Would you want to put in hundreds of hours of back-breaking work for little to no reward? Because that's what the farmers were doing until they stopped. They were getting what amounted to slave wages. Working for the betterment of society works in theory, until you are the one conscripted to do the heavy lifting.
---

gunplagirl posted...

"Cannot confiscate future wealth"

*stares at the tax bill in congress that will take money from future generations*

This adds up.

Exactly. You can't confiscate future wealth - just pretend to do so.