What is with communist countries and not being able to feed people?

more depression
>JUST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE

Also that soviet leader who came to the US and went to a random grocery store and thought it was fake because grocery stores sucked so much ass in the USSR comes to mind

File: 8tdQBsWfyUI.jpg (87KB, 960x627px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 960x627px

Planned economy fucks up agriculture really hard.
Soviet Union early problems with food were caused by forced collectivisation, which was extremely unpopular in most fertile regions of the country (Ukraine, namely). They later tried to solve these problems by starting several ill thought out agricultural reforms (pic related) and while later periods of Soviet Union saw no famines access to "luxury" foods was indeed scarce.
If a kolkhoz had a plan to produce X tones of grain or vegetables this year, but it was a really good year and they accidentally produced more, they'd just bury the excesses because they knew next year the plan would be raised to accomodate this increase and they had no guarantee that they could reproduce it.
Adding to the problem is the fact that population was steadily migrating to cities, world famous commieblocks were originally planned as temporary housing for all the new migrants from rural areas.

File: yeltsin-19890916_hc-04-07a.jpg (58KB, 580x363px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 580x363px

>>2007595
found the pic

>>2007647
Oh, and level of modernisation in soviet agriculture was extremely low due to the whole system being based around eliminating unemployment, not making production as effective as possible, so they had lots of people doing really simple, sometimes useless things. That applies to many Soviet jobs, I once read about a French delegation visiting a Soviet research centre, when they were leaving they wished the people there good luck on their strike. Since all of those scientists just spent entire day smoking, drinking tea and talking to each other, Frenchies presumed they were on a strike.
t. Russian

>>2007576

Manufactured famines was certainly a part of it. Commies preach freedom of the working class and abolishment of state.... BY IMPLEMENTING DICTATORSHIP OF THE WORKING CLASS. This results in the workers not being able to control the means of production which is what commies claim to want, and then when that promise fails they don't let go of their power, and they have the fucking gall to say "that wasn't real communism". When anarchists try it and succeed in doing so (liberating the working class from the get go as opposed to dictatorship) they get back stabbed by commies or dragged into conflicts which they want no part of.

Never trust communists.

t. Anarchist

File: image.png (205KB, 1516x872px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1516x872px

>>2007693

>implying

>>2007678
Dictatorship of the proletariat means proletariat are supposed to dictate policy. It was the bolshies that decided that the proles didn't know what was good for them, so the bolshies would dictate policy for the supposed benefit of the proletariat. Dictator did not have quite the same connotation in the 1800's as it does today.

>>2007715

Bolsheviks were back stabbing bitter cunts. What they did to the black army and the people under them was disgusting

Anti communist propaganda.

>>2007755
LOLOLOLOLOL

>>2007755
i wonder what happened to people like this who supported communism in their country and got to see it implemented

did they eventually realize they made a mistake or is the meme about them only realizing their error when the boot hits them in the face true

either that or they just slowly starved to death in some purge lmao

>upper class, city-dwelling intellectuals have a good idea for agriculture
>turns out it sucks

>>2007576
At this point NK doesn't consider itself aligned with communism. It's ideology is centered on loyalty to the Kims. It's kind of like a church-state. Kim is the pharao, the god-king.

Cuba was under embargo, so it would be difficult to import food. It's not like they could live off tabbacco and sugarcane, which were the things they got by on when they were a banana republic. It was really hard to restructure the country's production model.

Stalin didn't care about starving peasants, he'd just take food from them to hand it to the urbanites and keep them complacent. He also supported bad science that did a lot of damage to the agrarian sector, like Mao did.

File: 861258277_ce49df62a3_o.jpg (510KB, 2048x1361px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 2048x1361px

What's with capitalist countries and not being able to house people?

>>2007595
Yeltsin wasn't a soviet leader, he was the first president of the Russian Federation.

Also knowing Yeltsin I would not be surprised if that was a publicity stunt.

>>2007822
At least homelessness affects a minority while under Communism everyone suffers

This is basically capitalism vs communism in a nutshell

Nobody said capitalism isn't fucked up in some ways, but when people suffer, it's always a minority

When something sucks in communism, everyone suffers

i.e. everyone in communism having fucking nothing to eat versus a minority of poorfags on food stamps

the real question is, do you want everyone to suffer with you, or have a chance at lifting yourself above being a drege

>>2007843
>i.e. everyone in communism having fucking nothing to eat versus a minority of poorfags on food stamps
>famines hit certain parts of communist countries therefore everyone was starving all the time

more people go hungry in capitalist countries than ever did in communist countries

go away kiddo

File: Fedorov Automat.jpg (36KB, 406x423px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 406x423px

>some years ago, last year of secondary high school
>reading in the history book at how Lenin was financed by germans to cause a revolution in Russia...which of course he did, but then when he asked the people to vote for a party and he did not win he got mad and became a dictator
>the book also had a letter wrote by him where he instructed his police to kidnap middle class people and rob them

>nowadays
>my SST teacher says that Stalin was the bad guy and Lenin was a good person
>my fucking face

>>2007843
>everyone suffers
No. This never happens. Some groups will always be dealt different hands, regardless of ideology. If you were a factory worker with a sickly daughter, Stalinism might be a boon to you and your soon to be nursed-and-educated-for-low-cost-daughter. If you were a kulak, you'd be forced into the poorhouse with every other farmer and the shit you worked so hard to grow would be sold dirt-cheap to the bums in the city.

File: congo famine.jpg (37KB, 480x331px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x331px

>>2007843
>versus a minority of poorfags on food stamps
Except in those countries where they don't have food-stamps and there's fucking nothing to eat.

>At least homelessness affects a minority while under Communism everyone suffers
Not with homelessness.

>>2007871

Congo is not a capitalist country you autistic clueless commie neckbeard

File: Thomas-Sowell-in-1974-900.jpg (80KB, 900x884px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 900x884px

>>2007855
>Conversely, when India and China— historically, two of the
poorest nations on earth— began in the late twentieth century to make
fundamental changes in their economic policies, their economies began
growing dramatically. It has been estimated that 20 million people in India
rose out of destitution in a decade. In China, the number of people living on
a dollar a day or less fell from 374 million— one third of the country’s
population in 1990— to 128 million by 2004, now just 10 percent of a
growing population. In other words, nearly a quarter of a billion Chinese were
now better off as a result of a change in economic policy

>Basic Economics Thomas Sowell pg7
>The estimate of millions of people rising out of poverty in India is from page B1 of the May 5, 2006 issue of the Wall Street Journal, in an article titled “Newspaper Nirvana?”

>The reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty in China was reported on page 110 of the April 21, 2007 issue of The Economist, under the heading “Poverty.”

>>2007887
India is still way more hungry than China is...to this day.

Again, go away kiddo.

>>2007879
Actually yes it is and always has been since DR Congo won the Congo crisis.

You might be thinking of the Republic of Congo, which didn't have a famine.

>>2007901
You said
>more people go hungry in capitalist countries than ever did in communist countries
So I said
>China goes from a Communist ECONOMY to a Capitalistic one (even if the rule is still under the Communist party and they still have a huge control over it)
>"[..] in China, where the Communists still run the government but, by the early twenty-first century, were allowing free markets to operate in
much of that country’s economy"
and notice, from commie to capitalist, extremely poor people went from 374 millions to 128, a lot, a lot less than before.
AKA: Capitalism = better for everyone's table and pockets.

If you still think about just throwing insults, go to pol's main page and give a read at this
http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1420756844457.jpg

>>2007924
>looks its another idiot that thinks markets=capitalism

>>2007927
I don't even know why YOU post, if just to call people names or what.

>>2007933
Because you're too stupid to realize that free markets don't make a country capitalist. Private control of capital does.

>>2007822
socdems importing the third world probably

>>2007913

How many people are wage workers employed by capitalists in DR Congo?

>>2007927
>>2007935

Autistic commie neckbeard retard

https://piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/6932/03iie6932.pdf

>>2007948
But the bourgeoisie like immigration too.

File: 1462039397149-0.jpg (402KB, 1245x1024px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1245x1024px

>>2007595

>>2007855
>more people go hungry in capitalist countries than ever did in communist countries
lel

File: leftcucks.jpg (586KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 1280x960px

>>2007950

Trump doesn't like immigration

>>2007927
>capitalism is a mode of production
>means of production are privately owned in China
>China is not capitalist because I say so

>>2007949
>if the unemployment rate is high enough its not real capitalism

>>2007949
>How many people are wage workers employed by capitalists in DR Congo?
I don't know, I'm not sure if they have statistics on that.

>>2007976
because most congolese were subsistence farmers, i.e. feudal

File: leftcuck autist.jpg (127KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1080x720px

>>2007970

Jesus Christ is every commie sperg shill a 14 year old? You just said that marlets =/= capitalism., So how can some random nigger shithole be a capitalist country when there is no accumulated capital or wage labour or a banking system?

>>2007982
so its only real capitalism™ when people aren't starving?

>>2007981
But they don't have serfdom or formal lords making subsistence farming a way of either private or independent employment.

>>2007989
most Congolese had village heads who controlled everything, they were landlords, the concept of property was strange to them

File: Global-Hunger-Index1.png (323KB, 1092x760px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1092x760px

fugggg I guess only usa and western Europe is capitalism praise Jesus xD

File: commie teen.jpg (39KB, 796x733px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 796x733px

>>2007987

A country of hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers is not capitalist.

>>2007576
>capitalism had agriculture figured out.
No they didn't

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

>>2008004
>feudal pajeets in India starve because of el nino

still nothing compared to commies

File: congolese exports.jpg (104KB, 800x627px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x627px

>>2007993
It's worth pointing out that though the majority of employment is in agriculture (which I imagine given industrial tools has yields high enough to make a profit) the majority of the economy itself is in mining resources for export to major capitalist powers.

I'd say that it is capitalist.

>>2008004

A book by some insane commie agitator and "activist" in not a credible source

>>2007968
Diff anon. It is in the past decade or so, but not during the Deng economic reforms. And yes, poverty is lower now than back then too. But the rate of reduction of poverty did not increase after the newer private property reforms. The big decrease was the market reforms, with gradual reduction because of economic growth. You can't just arbitrarily attribute a change over time as being due to a change in policy. That's intellectually dishonest. The recent changes towards capitalism have probably been due to the fact that China has always been corrupt and vulnerable to cronyism, since Imperial times, and the market reforms allowed for massive wealth inequality and led to increased cronyism.

>>2008014
>vast majority of the country is subsistence farmers
>with a few islands of mining companies

>exports are the economy
>this is the extent of communist knowledge

>>2007998
so u be sayin' real capitalism hasn't been tried n SHIET

>>2008023
>vast majority
Actually in the late 90s it was just a little over 50%. I'd assume that since it had already declined a good bit by then it continued to decline since. Meaning it is in no way a vast majority and never was in recent history.

>exports are the economy
Exports signal where the investment is going into and what the biggest moneymakers are. It's valuable information.

>>2008013
>Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence, which I witnessed as a child), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press.

The fundamental problem of any capitalist economy is that it eliminates any kind of subsistence. A farmer no longer provides for his and his family and instead hedges his entire prosperity off of growing one or two breed of crop and putting them on the market.

This wasn't just a problem in India. This is precisely the mechanism that led to the Dust Bowl and will lead to future fuckery once land aridation starts happening on a global scale.

>>2008021
>Diff anon. It is in the past decade or so, but not during the Deng economic reforms.

yes it did you stupid fuck

>Deng responded by decollectivizing agriculture and emphasizing the household-responsibility system, which divided the land of the People's communes into private plots.

>The country was opened to foreign investment for the first time since the Kuomintang era. Deng created a series of special economic zones for foreign investment that were relatively free of the bureaucratic regulations and interventions that hampered economic growth. These regions became engines of growth for the national economy.[14]

>During this period, Deng Xiaoping's policies continued beyond the initial reforms. Controls on private businesses and government intervention continued to decrease, and there was small-scale privatization of state enterprises which had become unviable. A notable development was the decentralization of state control, leaving local provincial leaders to experiment with ways to increase economic growth and privatize the state sector.[15]

China's economy has grown much faster in recent times than it had in the 80's, largely because of private entreprise.
>But the rate of reduction of poverty did not increase after the newer private property reforms.
but gdp/per capita and real incomes did,

File: congo.jpg (294KB, 943x768px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 943x768px

>>2008014

Well even Congo is benefiting from the establishment of large scale companies and capital accumulation over the past 15 years. I wouldn't hold my breath because those people have an average IQ of 75 but even they can benefit to some extent by private enterprise

File: leftcuck 11.jpg (103KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1280x720px

>>2008024

Capitalism has been tried in advanced capitalist countries as (((marx))) defined them and it has been OK I guess

>>2008032
>Actually in the late 90s it was just a little over 50%. I'd assume that since it had already declined a good bit by then it continued to decline since.

Congo has had massive civil wars since then, most people live in villages or urban slums where they live off family remitances, petty crime or hussling, not exactly capitalist mode or production

File: 1479974773035.png (8KB, 687x450px)

8KB, 687x450px

>>2008049
>Black markets aren't capitalist
I thought regulation was un-capitalist

>>2008043
Well obviously. Only Maoists think you can take agrarian farmers and create socialism with them. Orthodox Marxism says you need well developed capitalism because capitalism is better than feudalism.

>>2008057
lel

fucking WRECKT

>>2007595
>yeltsin
>soviet leader.

>>2008057
you said earlier that markets weren't capitalism, but that it was a mode of production, people in Congolese slums rarely produce anything for le ebil bourgeoisie

>>2008070
???????
was he not a higher up in the central committee before becoming president of RF?

>>2008070

That film is from 1986

>>2008075
Actually I didn't. You've been arguing with more than one person.

>>2007963
yeah, all those illegals he employs in his construction gigs forced themselves upon him.

File: 800px-marie_antoinette_young2.jpg__600x0_q85_upscale.jpg (254KB, 600x760px)

254KB, 600x760px

>>2007576

A surplus of food from decentralized sources (farms, markets, stores) reduces dependency on the state. Communist countries have always made it a point to not only seize the means of production, but also the means to feed the workers.

In the early days of Communism in the USSR, the party gained power by going from village to village taking grain by force. The then starving masses due to this theft were forced to join the very same party that pillaged this grain to even eat.

In Cuba, the country was rapidly de-industrialized by Fidel Castro. This lead to ridiculous decline in GDP as well as the inability to import fertilizers and industrial equipment from the United States which Cuba needed so desperately. This lead to many starving peasants with the inability to feed themselves due to the shortage of food. This forced the population to farm the land in a very inefficient manner.

The solution was that state seized private land and offered it to the now starving peasants "rent free" so long as they met certain production quotas. They were not even able to sell the excess of their food at market until 1994.

So in essence, Communism is a way to seize established power, create dependence, and "return" land and the means of the production to the proletariat, so long as they further the agenda of the Communist party.

This is a ponzi scheme of regime change at the expense of the workers to put power into the hands of scheming politicians. This is also a return to feudalism. The proletariat are the serfs and the party leaders are it's lords which allow the downtrodden to work the land so long as they recognize their right to rule.

Lastly, I want to point out that every communist country in the past (including Cuba, which had the same communist leader in power for over 50 years) ends up slowly decentralizing the economy to turn bigger profits for those who seized power and their families that are bequeathed power after their death.

>>2008081
that doesn't change the fact that marx defines capitalism as a mode of production, You've yet to give it a definition

>>2008085

Not an argument he is following the prevailing business practices of his industry.

It's the role and duty of the state to enforce immigration laws and kick those parasites out

>>2008091
>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
t. dictionary

>>2008094
>workers
>parasites
>capitalists
>not parasites
muh jerb creators

>>2008091
In brief: capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production for profit characterized by wage labour, capital accumulation, competitive markets and a price system.

File: parasites 2.png (95KB, 677x590px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 677x590px

>>2008098
>illegals
>not parasites

>>2008094
>big gubmen save me from donald trump

>>2008103

I am a fascist I don't care about the size of government. I want the state to serve the interests of the historical people of Western nations.

You are just a retarded cringy shitposter now. The state has a duty and role to protect the boders of the nation.

File: 1393216825409.png (728KB, 798x1000px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 798x1000px

>>2008112
>nationalism
>1883+133

>>2008112
You could start by not having corn subsidies.

>>2008121

Cosmopolitanism is a spook

>>2008112
>be fascist
>support candidate that off shored dozens of factories and personally benefitted from globalism, call him a "man of the people" while he lives in a penthouse of solid gold
what did DRUMPFlets mean by this?

>>2008125
Nationalism is an even bigger spook.

Not to mention being anti-nationalist doesn't automatically equate to being a humanist.

>>2008137
>nationalism is a spook
How is opening the borders and allowing millions of third world penniless savages to flow in in my self interests?

Nationalism is 100% not a spook because it is 100% in my self interests.

>>2008143
>nationalism = anti-immigration and nothing else
I have a strong suspicion that you're American.

>Nationalism is 100% not a spook because it is 100% in my self interests.
Spooks can be in your self-interest, numbnuts. People believing in Jesus because it makes them feel good are following their self-interest.

>>2008137
Nationalists always think that resistance to their ideology must necessarily mean that you're a xenophile. Which is ridiculous.

"The fallacy is to believe that under a dictatorial government you can be free inside." - Orwell.

>>2008137
>>2008125

All ideas are spooks. Without spooks, it's impossible to form symbiotic social circles such as tribes or nations.

>>2008152
Spooks are abstract ideas people adopt that run contrary to their self interests. Private property for example.

Open a book chucklefuck.

>>2008158

Nationalism does not require a dictatorship.

>>2008164
>Nationalism does not require a dictatorship.

It sure does.

>>2008159
Not necessarily.

Friends are not spooks, both of you are fully aware that you hang out with each other because of mutual self-interest and this arrangement can be terminated at any point.

I should also add that I'm not an Egoist, I follow Nietzsche who is quite spooky.

>>2008163
Nationalism is often not in your self interest though. It's usually just a proxy for some other non-existent ism that would better serve your self interests.

>>2008163

The social contract may inhibit you, but it also inhibits other people to a degree which improves your quality of life. There are virtues beyond freedom.

>>2008172
Making sure penniless savages from the third world don't overflow my country is 100% in my self interests, TRUST me.

Makes you wonder

>>2008163
This isn't true. A spook is any abstract idea independent of the actual material world, contrary to your self interest or no.

Private property is a good example of this, for many people private property is very much in their interests. But nonetheless it is still spook.

>>2008166

No. Nationalism exists to create a more cohesive state by redefining what a citizen is (or should be) on a cultural, religious, or ethnic level.

Greek philosophers knew the importance of these principles and discussed the topic of "the ideal citizen" at length.

If you have millions of people from a different culture pouring into your nation, there will be a direct conflict of interest which will create a divided nation.

>>2008218
Nationalism isn't *simply* "close the borders".

And you know that very well.

>>2007576
Planned economy is fucking stupid
Even capitalist countries have some policies of a planned economy, namely how government funding is handled for public education

The only people who are advocates for planned economies have never once had to face the trials and tribulations of farming and have never been through a good harvest or a bad one

>>2008228
The United States biggest planned economy revolves around the farming industry, actually. All part of post depression reforms.

The US government literally pays you not to plant crops here.

>>2008218
>Nationalism exists to create a more cohesive state by redefining what a citizen is (or should be) on a cultural, religious, or ethnic level.
And through this totalitarian ideas are created as are dictatorships.

>>2007806
At least by the time Stalin purged half of the original architects of the revolution, and nearly the entire parliament so that he can remain in power unopposed they might have.

I think a major aspect is how generally all communist leaders are not civic leaders at all, they are military leaders. And they then proceed to try running a nation using the exact same tactics one runs an army. And that never works because farmers, workers and civilians are not drilled soldiers, they will not act like soldiers, they will not be placed into positions according to their skills as soldiers, and they will not receive and follow orders like soldiers.

An army does not know shot about producing goods and supplies, they just receive supplies from elsewhere.

Quotas and punishments instead of incentives are their game. The superior officer makes a demand for X production on Y date then decrees that punishment will be given if X amount is not produced by Y time. And farming just does not work that way, this might work out in a factory where things are made. But it cannot work in food production. Punishing farmers because of a drought or frost does not help anything.

North Korea is 90% mountains. They got the raw end of the deal when the peninsula was divided.

>>2007815
>under embargo
>banned trade with the united states only
>ONLY

>>2007822
gulags and work camps do not count as "housing" Yuri

>>2008004
Why when commietards want to have a word about capitalism they always bring "muh XIX century" to the table?

>>2008999
They also got all the mineral resources which is what they were after in the division.

>>2007576
> N. Korea
> Communist countries

Pick one

>>2007576

North Korea is an isolated state that never really had the ability to recover from the catastrophic damage inflicted on it during the 50's. I'm also not sure why you're under the impression that all people living in capitalist countries today are well-fed, I can assure you that's not the case.

It's impossible to know what was meant by feudalism but I can promise you 13th century Europe, being a pre-industrial society, had no shortage of famine. If you were a sharper person, you might also have noted the famines in the PRC and USSR were also in agrarian societies. Which isn't to say communism isn't partially to blame for those shortages, of course they were. It's just unfortunate that you refuse to put things in perspective or place any blame on capitalism or even feudalism at all.

I cannot even begin to imagine what was going through this guy's head when he made this post, this is just pure insanity.

File: 738fb8120067fc6742a4805aff86d0e099f54f944f35c28eea9c0d73551b2739.png (91KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x600px

>>2007576

North Korea dont even call themselves communists anymore and Juche has always been more of Japanese fascism with a red paint job then anything socialists.

The USSR had famines early after the civil war/rush for industrialization, which they then solved.

Feudalism had constant faminies, and capitalism too for that matter.

What the fuck are you on about OP?

>What is with communist countries and not being able to feed people?
Not gonna read the thread or try real hard but I'm going to sketch out an answer for you though this is in actually a dumb and loaded question packed with misunderstanding and unaware propaganda.

1. Not that the time frames of famines are inconsistent. For example your OP has North Korea where its infamous famine period was the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Before which there was years of food stability and has since been somewhat of a recovery. The USSR's Holodomor was at the beginning of its existence. These are wildly differential time frames by the scope of generations and one shot deals. Before or after there is no hunger but there is a notable pattern of crisis.

Others are like this: Khmer, USSR, China, Vietnam: early.
North Korea, Cuba late (1990s)

For propaganda reasons you are taught to string these all together as if there is a single cause despite such time differences and hopefully don't think too much and assume they are continual (they are not). Keep in mind hunger didn't exist in these hotpoint time periods, i.e. the USSR solved the holodmor and continued on for generations while still being in the hands of Stalinism at its most extreme (he didn't die until the 50s)

>>2009479
2. One consistent theme with the "at the start" pattern a la USSR is the politicization of the food distribution system. People were having fights with the farmers and putting cronies more interested in personal career advancement than good service misattributed resources. The cronies would abuse the local farmers or not report bad harvests for fear of looking incompetent then ship out exports as if the most optimistic productivity gains possible happened. This led to infamous situations where grain was been exported into cities while the farmlands harvesting them were in starvation and the USSR or China exporting foodstuffs while in their famine period.

This is a genuine flaw of Marxism-Leninism imo and you can blame the leaders for doing it, but it is and was correctable. There's no need to make food a crony political battle ground like a presidential cabinet.

>>2009481
3. The inherit radicalism and violence of "Communist" revolution. It's not a tea party.

If you look into the American Revolution you might notice that in actuality they were already semi running independent governments in the "colonies" with their own functioning democratic legislatures and everything. The Revolution was thus a formal rejection of far away masters with a lot of hot rhetoric about "we free nao". In actually once they won they returned to life as mostly normal with some semi-experimental add ons to governance.

Communists had no such luxury of kicking out some monarchs and calling it a day. It demands a rethinking of every aspect of traditional society from the basest parts up - with no strong model or tradition to ease people in or draw inspiration from. This meant that the revolution touched parts of everyone's lives for better or worse. Naturally this means the Soviets have a lot of fanatical friends and a whole lot more enemies, internally. This leads into point 2 where soviets where much more politically contentious with peasants than other Capitalist friendly revolutions would be because they are telling peasants to reorganize their lives after literally centuries of tradition. "Communist" governments ipso facto tinker with the food production and distribution system more than other revolutions. This leads to more room for error. And they stupidly do it all at once.

There's a lot of distrust and a lot of room for social sabotage. That latter concern being the main focus of Soviet repression and bad cronyism.

This is sort of but sort of not "Communism's" fault imo. It's an inherit difficulty in any truly radical movement. Be you an Islamist or one of those /pol/ racial realists. It is the fault of Marxist-Leninists for doing it all so fast with something so critical as food. That leaves more room for catastrophic error. It is however correctable - eventually.

4. "Communism" trends toward autarky and suffers near constant global siege.

This is what you see in the "later point" countries like NK. It is simply not possible for most countries to feed themselves AND be a modernized nation with all their own airplanes et al.

If Japan went completely self sufficient tomorrow it would probably starve, just like NK in the 90s. There's too many people and not enough worked farmland. The USA is an exception to this. You don't notice because third world nations pick up the slack to feed countries like Japan and they make up the difference with trade in cars and etc.

"Communist" countries have difficulty with this because they are blocked from the global economy. Capitalism will not trade with them unless they have an utterly desirable can't say no commodity like oil or the socialist nations surrender autonomy to the capitalist mode of production and debt form of investment. Disagreement has been non-negotiable.

In the past the "Communist" world was big enough that it functioned as a mini world of its own. Once that collapsed with the USSR smaller nations isolated from the world like NK or Cuba faced extreme difficulty reorienting.

"Communism" is hated by the world elites in a way only republicanism during the French revolution can maybe match. Keep in mind that the USSR was invaded 11 different nations at the start of its revolution to strangle the movement before it begun.

"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make up this gap in ten years. Either we do it or they will crush us."
- Stalin

This is not "Communism's" fault at all imo. It's totally avoidable. N Koreans aren't stupid. They could learn advanced skills to trade off for rice from some African nations to subsidize their little mountain half-country. Hell they could probably trade guns for rice right now if the USA was okay with that (it's not). But they need initial investment and a global net of resources. This is not correctable.

>>2007576

Since time immemorial death has been the lot of men. But if the rulers are without virtue, none can prosper. The great Kim Il Sung abolished capitalism and brought about independence from Japan. Without him all would speak Japanese and be unemployed except as sex slaves.

>>2008085

When he said mexicans were gonna build the wall, that's what he really meant.

>>2007982
Who said there's no accumulated capital, wage labor or a banking system in Congo?

>>2007811

Huh, perhaps the workers SHOULD CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION

>>2008218

>Nationalism exists to create a more cohesive state by redefining what a citizen is (or should be) on a cultural, religious, or ethnic level.

And who is in charge of carrying these ideas/ policies out?

calling something a spook literally provides nothing valuable to the conversation

>>2009931

>nothing valuable

Spooky

>>2009495
lol shut the fuck up

>>2009935
damn great one!

File: Walmart asks workers to donate food to fellow employees.jpg (46KB, 960x458px)

46KB, 960x458px

>>2007576
>What is with communist countries and not being able to feed people?

They should just starve to death alone and out of the public eye.

telling people that something is a spook is like reminding them thar they need water to survive

File: 1480234136243.png (95KB, 581x445px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 581x445px

>>2009954

>>2009965
Dude you think anarchism could possibly work, Too bad, Somalia exists go there LOL!!!!

>>2009972
I never said anarchy can work
It's better to stop using Africa as a benchmark for stable governments because they've tried everything from monarchism, to communism, to capitalism, to authoritarianism and it's all gone to shit

The only ones that worked were when whitey was running the place

>>2009965

>implying Botswana isn't improving
>implying Africa doesn't have an improving economy

http://oecdobserver.org/news/archivestory.php/aid/1618/Africa_92s_economy:_Aid_and_growth_.html

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21572377-african-lives-have-already-greatly-improved-over-past-decade-says-oliver-august

Stormfag please

>>2009986
Wew lad they went from mud huts to favelas. PROGRESS

>>2009985

>socialism
>all gone to shit
>implying Thomas Sankara wasn't improving Africa prior to his assassination and the coup

Why are stormfags historically illiterate?

>>2009985
My post was in agreement with yours. Excuse my autism.

>>2009965
>A more fair example would be the worst possible example of a communist-led state I can think of.

>>2009993
Lul
I bet you think communist Cambodia was a nice place to live too. That is if you like 35% of the population dying and minefields

File: image.jpg (55KB, 429x343px)

55KB, 429x343px

>>2009992

>implying all Africans lived in mud huts/ are still living in mud huts

>not even reading the articles when getting BTFO

K

>>2009999
name one example of a "good" Communist state
you cant and they're all shit. Russia is much better off under their current system than they ever were

>>2010002

>I bet you think

Nice strawman.

>>2010009

>name one good communist state
>you can't
>implying capitalism doesn't have equally shitty states
>implying socialism has failed every single time it has been tried

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

File: tumblr_inline_nt0vfexkpK1spsojg_500.jpg (60KB, 500x495px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x495px

>>2010023
>you know a system is shit when whitey can't even make it work
Now THIS is a pill
I'm just not sure what color

>>2010023

>brings race out of nowhere
>implying I give a shit if you're brown or not
>failed communist states

>still denying evidence when getting BTFO

>implying all those recessions and financial collapses weren't results of capitalism

K

>>2010046
Okay buddy, keep advocating for communism, this is your future

By the way, this is exactly what Venezuela looks like right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOBFMMbUFI8

Now compare it to capitalist Russia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzmZxiIv8mA

Funnily enough I found a thread on >lebbit and they were talking about this video one year ago. Somebody mentioned, "I'm surprised they haven't collapsed yet, this is what the USSR looked like before they did" oh guess what Venezuela DID collapse.

Enjoy shilling for a retarded ideology that will never work

>>2010009
Relative to the rest of the planet and indeed the rest of their history Eastern European communist states were actually kinda good.


>Russia is much better off under their current system than they ever were
Yes, it's so great and free and prosperous now that oligarchs run the place and 3% of the entire population is homeless.

>>2010066

>unironically claims to go on reddit

Jesus Christ you are retarded

>muh falling Venezuala

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ4W209fjWQ

K

>>2010066

Also who said I was advocating for communism? I merely stated that there have been successful forms of capitalism and socialism.

>>2010079
I just don't understand how you could think it's a good system unless you don't like basic things like food or toilet paper

And you can't use the "venezeula was singled out" excuse when the USSR had a whole host of satellite states on their side and they still failed

please kill yourself for pushing a dangerous ideology on others

>>2010073

Not to mention seeing a rise in aids

>>2007576
DPRK is not communist. It is Juche.

>>2010088

>food or toilet paper
>implying famines weren't manufactured
>implying capitalist states haven't gone under famine before/ haven't experienced disease

http://m.mensxp.com/special-features/today/27992-the-forgotten-famine-how-capitalist-british-killed-10-million-people-in-bengal-for-profits.html

>please kys

I like living so no

File: image.jpg (100KB, 716x533px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 716x533px

>>2010088

>USSR
>failed

See

>>2007698

>>2010100
"famine" in america
>8 years of nobody dying and then everyone goes back to having food again
famine in ussr
>11 million die and then scarce food for its entire 70+ years of existence

>>2010111

>never brought up America
>rejects evidence I posted from India
>implying famines in USSR weren't manufactured

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

>>2010118
>it was manufactured so it was okay

wtf I love communism and starving now?

>>2010123

I never said it was, but if you're going to criticise a communist state for """waaahhhh it always fails cuz the system makes the people starve""" as opposed to the people in charge of said system, you're a fucking retard. Especially when you're posting on /his/

>>2010132
>if only my perfect version of communism in my head was tried it would work I know it REEEEE

File: image.png (147KB, 793x4926px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 793x4926px

>>2010139

>if only I actually had arguements before getting BTFO and resorting to memes reeeeee

FTFY

>>2010150
>an mspaint comic

WTF I'm BTFO now! The end of that comic should be "and then everyone lived in food scarcity for the rest of the regime"
Sometimes I almost want america to try communism so all of the fat sheltered fucks who advocate for it can starve to death

>>2010150
>The Hungarian revolution was a good thing
I bet whatever idiot made this believed the Arab spring was legit too.

>>2010164

>literally getting mad over a meme
>implying all said examples struggled with starvation

>I wish I could fantasy
>strawmanning

k

>>2010170
Hungarian communism was dogshit and they didn't even want it the USSR basically just rolled in with tanks and took them over, ask any of the refugees and they'll tell you about it
>secret police taking you away if they think you don't like the government
>no food
>shit "jobs"
>hallmonitor tier people who randomly pat you down to see if your ID is correct
>people with machine guns on every street corner to keep them in line

>>2010182
And apparently all this was necessary on the count the Hungarians jumped in to bed with fascists at the first opportunity just like before.

File: dank communism.png (1MB, 1048x716px)

1MB, 1048x716px

>>2010180
this is what you shill for lol

>>2007576
Don't they use food as a means to controll the population?

>>2010191
At least fascism could feed its people :>

>>2010196

>this what I shill for
>still STRAWMANNING

just stop lad, you're embarassing yourself

>>2010207
t. Gabor Laszlo

>>2010207

>implying

http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/eco/hunger.html

>>2010221

>this is what I shill for
>implying I didnt give credit to capitalism prior

You do realise you can criticise systems of economics but also realise what they do right and do wrong?

>>2010236

so this is what a melt down looks like

Is this a fuck communism thread?
>The hideously depressing thing is that Cuba under Battista--Cuba in 1957--was a developed country.
>Cuba in 1957 had lower infant mortality than France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had doctors and nurses: as many doctors and nurses per capita as the Netherlands, and more than Britain or Finland. Cuba in 1957 had as many vehicles per capita as Uruguay, Italy, or Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had 45 TVs per 1000 people--fifth highest in the world. Cuba today has fewer telephones per capita than it had TVs in 1957.
>You take a look at the standard Human Development Indicator variables--GDP per capita, infant mortality, education--and you try to throw together an HDI for Cuba in the late 1950s, and you come out in the range of Japan, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Israel. Today? Today the UN puts Cuba's HDI in the range of Lithuania, Trinidad, and Mexico. (And Carmelo Mesa-Lago thinks the UN's calculations are seriously flawed: that Cuba's right HDI peers today are places like China, Tunisia, Iran, and South Africa.)
>Thus I don't understand lefties who talk about the achievements of the Cuban Revolution: "...to have better health care, housing, education, and general social relations than virtually all other comparably developed countries." Yes, Cuba today has a GDP per capita level roughly that of--is "comparably developed"--Bolivia or Honduras or Zimbabwe, but given where Cuba was in 1957 we ought to be talking about how it is as developed as Italy or Spain.

>>2010248
Food is very important

>>2010252
RIP batista desu

File: gommunism serfdom.jpg (140KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x534px

Why DID they do this?

>>2007994
bye rddit

it's not like north korea is a struggling nation. they had a weather related famine in the 90s, a bunch of people died because that's what happens when you have a weather related famine in asia. it's just how they solve their problems, let some people go. it werkz.

>>2009479
>>2009481
>>2009488
>>2009490
true shit

>>2007855
ahahahaha

>>2007822
Bruh there's a difference between drug/crime riddled places vs communist state

>>2007576

A need to keep the people beholden to the leadership.

>>2007576
Eariler than that anon. The Sumerian temple governments fell apart after 3000 years because they couldn't feed people

>>2007961
>more people go hungry in capitalist countries than ever did in communist countries

Haha sure thing buddy, I also remember when more than 15 million Americans starved to death in the space of 2 years.

1959-1961 The Great American Famine, never 4get their great leap forward

File: colonizinghis.png (105KB, 954x1157px)

105KB, 954x1157px

Daily reminder

>really activates your almonds

Every Communist nation can't seem to get over the idea of collectivization when it's proven that people give a shit over their own plots of land and produce than what the State demands. Communism can only work in small communities where everyone knows each other and depends on one another to survive.

>>2014355
Then do you think it is possible to organize society in small/local communities with an organic organizational structure through delegation councils?

File: 1478860759186.jpg (253KB, 504x470px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 504x470px

>>2012503
>these people are real
>people actually care about what happens on 4chan

>>2012503
It's too late. We reddit now.

>>2007576
>That should be the basic fucking benchmark of a system of government. Literally every single system of government from 2000BC to feudalism to capitalism had agriculture figured out.
Mass Famines were considered a routine part of life until the 20th century. A cornerstone of the ideology of the British Empire was that it was literally unavoidable.

>>2010004
>posting an image of Tokyo while defending niggers

>>2014558
What if they start coming together to form bigger communities (nation states) on their own, because joining together to pursue and protect mutual interests is better/easier?

Are you going to stop that?

>>2007576
Cuba feeds their people better than most capitalist countries

North Korea hasn't called themselves a communist country for decades

File: eb4.jpg (32KB, 600x486px)

32KB, 600x486px

>>2015255
>Cuba feeds their people better than most capitalist countries
Is that why they apply for humanitarian help every 10 years or so?

I'd wager it's due to having difficulties with importing food.

Historically speaking, famines were a pretty regular thing, but nowadays with the increased interconnectedness of trade, places experiencing famine can trade of wealth and other resources for food from areas experiencing a surplus to compensate for a limited supply. Communist countries don't have much option for this, due to their difficulties with market economies and general international relations problems.

>>2012503
>it's real
>There are communist nerd virgins attacking a burmese alternative art hub

>>2015279
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/

>>2015183
Well, I think that the people living in the small communes would be much
better off. For example, in small communities they could have some level of universal basic income and everyone can get together and make things better by working together.
The bigger the worse.

That's why the kvutzot works better than the kibutzim: an small-scale organic organization based on fellowship is much more workable than a mechanistic organization.

>>2015299

What the hell Guatemala