>communism will always fail Explain lib fags

Indentured Vietnamese children make my favorite shirts in sweat shops.

>>130580755
Authoritarian Capitalism

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-19 16:51:02.png (101KB, 703x578px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 703x578px

>>130580755
but it wasn't real communism, remember?

I thought that wasn't real communism

>>130580755
>USD to VND
>1 to 22722

>>130580755
its the same communism as post 2000 china, aka hyper capitalism with and authoritarian state regime.

File: USSR meme great depression.jpg (42KB, 644x598px)

42KB, 644x598px

>>130582003
>>130582031
It wasn't.
But it's interesting how you don't actually need a parasitic investor class to have investment and economic growth

>>130582373
Are you fucking retarded nigger?

File: 1496678983553.jpg (32KB, 480x529px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x529px

>>130582373
no, you don't, you just need to go back to capitalism like everyone else because capitalism fucking works

pic related is capitalism in action

>>130580755
Wow, looks like strong growth after 1986, I wonder what happened then....
>It was agreed at 6th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam in December 1986 that the centrally management system dependent on state subsidies was abolished and a focus was shifted to the creation of a market driven economy with different sectors where competitions between the private sector and the state in non-strategic sectors would exist.[10] In 1987 there were significant reductions in the number of checkpoints set to prevent domestic trade.[10] Markets where private agricultural products were allowed to be sold were rapidly growing.

>Privately owned enterprises were permitted in commodity production (and later encouraged) by the Communist Party of Vietnam.

>>130582659
Looks like Vietnam doesnt actually have real communism. Probably why it isnt as much of a shithole as it could be

>>130582373
Fuck off back to lefty pol scumbag

>>130580755
>Doi Moi Reforms

File: 1494131912311.jpg (18KB, 466x354px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 466x354px

>>130582659

>>130581903
Thats china
>>130582803
The majority of enterprise is still state owned, its mixed sure but if 90% of the means of productiin are seized its still 90% communism

File: 1492871175973.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>130583376
so if you admit that you don't need 100% communism to count as "real communism", you must then accept that Venezuela is an example of communism knowing exactly how that shithole turned out

congratulations, you played yourself

File: 1469032689885.jpg (244KB, 732x1042px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 732x1042px

>>130582589
In all fairness, they do live in a capitalistic society - so they cant really act like they live in a communistic society.
It would be like if i want an ANCAP society, i would still upheld the laws and respect the authority of the government, instead of going full mental like those "free inhabitants".

>>130583376
>The majority of enterprise is still state owned, its mixed sure but if 90% of the means of productiin are seized its still 90% communism
The private sector makes up a disproportionately large part of the GDP, and the liberalization is the cause of the incredible growth since the mid 80's. Meanwhile state run enterprises stagnate there.

>>130583745
Yeah communism failed Venezuela but thats not my point patrickun. Pure central planning has consistently failed but mixed communist countries with a global trade like vietnam has flourished. Having a 100% pure capitalist market would fail too. The point is a communist model with limited private ownership is working.

>>130583376
Not only >>130583745 but also, you are still forced to acknowledge that 100% communism was failing, and that what reduced this failure was dropping it to 90% communism. That objectively means the growth is the result of the not communism, and that communism is still holding the country back.

>>130584216
Thats fine. I think if the state owned sectors were sold off the economy would bubble and crash though. Vital parts of the country should be maintained and not risked toying with the bear and bull.

>>130584756
Maybe but correlation isn't causation. You can't prove more liberal economic policy wont cause a recession.

File: 1496685144358.png (2MB, 2441x2362px)

2MB, 2441x2362px

>>130584363
>a communist model with limited private ownership is working.

...working because they've been incorporating more capitalistic elements over the years. The relationship is obvious: the more capitalism, the better, and that it was communism holding it back, not keeping it in place.

>Having a 100% pure capitalist market would fail too.

oh no, then that would be pure capitalism wouldn't it? according to the very trend you've proven on this thread, the ideal government is then 99.9% capitalism with 0.1% communism if you have stated earlier that the more communism, the worse the country gets

>>130585216
Except we can because it's been shown in dozens of countries. China's economic exploded after Deng's economic liberalization. Russia's economy exploded after Gorbachev's economic liberalization. Chile's economy exploded while under the dictatorship of Pinochet because of economic liberalization.

We can prove it over and over and over again.

You can't provide a single example to the contrary.

File: 1496424205747.png (182KB, 840x384px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 840x384px

>>130585216
>correlation isn't causation

It's not a correlation, capitalism IS the causation for growth

>You can't prove more liberal economic policy wont cause a recession.

read an economics book baka

>>130584881
There would be turbulence, but in the long run Vietnam would be substantially better off. If they continue this path of liberalization, I don't believe it is too idealistic to say they would become the next South Korea.

File: ussr.gif (75KB, 1400x948px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1400x948px

>>130585451
>Russia's economy exploded after Gorbachev's economic liberalization.
What the FUCK

>>130585686
>they would become the next South Korea.

that was the original plan when they divided Vietnam up, until commies at home costed us the war. We didn't lose militarily at all, it was done politically

>>130585451
>Russia's economy exploded after Gorbachev's economic liberalization.
>Chile's economy exploded while under the dictatorship of Pinochet because of economic liberalization.
Full retard.

File: ussr gdp vs different countries.jpg (85KB, 669x441px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 669x441px

>>130585615
False.
The cause for growth is investment, which is not dependent on capitalists. Society can invest resources without capitalists. Capitalism is actually a terrible system which gives the greater part of economic growth to the wealthy.
During the industrial 'revolution', capitalist economies only grew by one per cent year or so.

>>130585615
>capitalism IS the causation for growth
nah labour is the causation of growth.

>>130585773
>Gorbachev was in power from 85-1991
>graph shows non-stop growth during that time.
>That's wrong somehow.


>>130586210
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

Just be cause you deny facts, doesn't change them you retarded leaf.

File: 1494557198672.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>130586210
>man removes communism via helicopter
>economy gets better

hmmm

>>130585773
btw, the drop in 91-92 is from losing soviet states, not from any actual decline in per capita wealth.

>>130585773
USSR had more land and people in it than Russia. Add in the 'Stans, Baltics, Ukraine and the Caucasus back into that graph. USSR -> Russia comparison is bullshit.

>>130586426
you said exploded, it clearly didn't explode.

File: Chile_GDP_per_capita_(PPP).svg.png (55KB, 1280x790px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1280x790px

>>130586426
>>130586432
Okay, now look at the GDP of Chile between 1974 and 1990 when Pinochet was in power. It wasn't exactly a miraculous growth. Chile really took off only after he died and the government adopted a more Keynesian plan for the economy.
>>130586564
Have you even checked the graph? The blue part is the former soviet union, not just Russia.

>>130586630
>20% growth in 6 years
>not exploding

pick one.

>>130586278
>>During the industrial 'revolution', capitalist economies only grew by one per cent year or so.
How can a man be so delud
>flag
ok

>>130586795
>after he died
I should have said after he retired, my bad.

>>130586432
He didn't just try to kill commies, everyone under pinochets rules who wasn't an elite basically had very little food and was terribly suppressed. And no the economy under Pinochet DIDNT get better. That's just blatently wrong.

>>130586795
>>130586942
This fucking shithead leaf trying to wish Pinochet dead in the 90s. Delusional commie.

Kill yourself you retarded faggot

>>130585773
are you forgetting something?
a collapse perhaps

>>130587032
I hope you get aids. Die faggot

>>130587077
>kekistani flag
back to the_donald please
>>130586891
It was growing at a pretty steady pace the whole time, any deviation isn't big enough to be called remarkable until past 1991

>>130586426
He abolished the Soviet Union in '91 and the economy tanked. I thought that was what you were referring to.

>>130580755
Um I'm really hoping this was a joke but considering you communists actually this fucking stupid I'm not exactly sure. But none of that growth happened until they switched to a free market economy. I legit know people from there who said the turn around was unbelievable and instant.

>>130587130
>collaspe
>not an agreement of dissolvation between the leaders
wat
>>130587140
that's not very nice dezu

>>130587077
Why are neoliberal fags always so angry and juvenile?

File: ew.jpg (37KB, 420x408px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 420x408px

>>130580755
>Chinks profiteering off 16 hour workday child labor with horrible workplace conditions

Marx is rolling over in his grave lmao

>>130587274
>>130587402

OH LOOK I CHANGED MY FLAG. LOOK HOW MUCH IT MEANS.

You fucking faggot. Kill yourself

>>130587645
>calling someone a leaf previously in the thread
>calling me a faggot because of my flag
>OMG FLAGS LITERALLY MEAN NOTHING AMIRITE FAMMMM

>>130585216
It will cause a bubble and burst in the short run, but there would still be more consistent economic growth in the long run. A liberalized economy comes with a boom-bust cycle >>130586278
>t. horrible base year and measure
Developed countries are not going to have high GDP growth rates. Additionally that base year lends itself favorably to the USSR. The only two countries on there that should be compared are Japan and the USSR, because those two were not fully developed countries in 1929.
>During the industrial 'revolution', capitalist economies only grew by one per cent year or so.
That is by far the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. Even if you subscribe to marxist thought, you wouldn't even think this.

>>130585773
>Russia's economy exploded after Putin's authoritarian stabilization and crack down on Jewish robber barons with mob ties
ftfy

>>130587396
They are not wrong, I'm not saying the reform isnt responisble for growth. But its still by definition a communist state. The point isn't how much more biggerer and betterer they could grow if they privatized but the fact that after 20 years of growth communism that makes up the backbone of viet hasn't crippled the country.

>>130580755
>gdp per capita = standard of living
nice meme

File: commieburn.jpg (376KB, 665x842px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 665x842px

>>130586795
The high growth rates actually start in the early 80s, after Pinochet (while maintaining the basics of capitalism) abandoned lolbertarian banking/social program orthodoxy. So Pinochet, regardless of what methods he used, can take the credit for his country's success.

>>130582003
underrated

>>130580755
They recently did the smae thing as china and established free economic zones and now they are stealing jobs from china, seriously look it up, china is about to experience several huge blows to their economy. Housing market collapse (china froze all trading after it started falling a few months ago), Jobs are going away, their GDP is a lie and related to the housing collapse, only a matter of time now.

>>130588269
Chile's GDP barely grew between 1980 and 1990. It grew massively between 1990 and 2000.

>>130587567
>hey shouldnt the workers own the products they make?
>sounds great, hey everyine the state owns everything!
> Wait i said the people not th-
>The state REPRESENTS the people, HEY WHO SAID YOU COULD BREATHE FREELY? 20 YEARS GULAG!

File: illusionofchoice.jpg (521KB, 2400x1507px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 2400x1507px

>>130580755
People still blindly going on with this communism vs capitalism bullshit but never question the market system itself. It has caused the collapse of capitalism and communism many times over, but people still keep going on with their "not real capitalism/communism" bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

>>130588269
>I don't know anything about Chiles history

>>130588667
>Dumb ancom thinks he can have an opinion

>>130586795
>inflation rate above 150 percent under Allende that was brought under control
>GDP growth above South American Average from 1986 to 2000
>reverse the trend created by Allende's price controls and overregulation
Pinochet wasn't as good as hardcore libertarians make him out to be, but his actions were crucial in creating the Chilean economic miracle. As you can see, the incredible growth rate starts around 1983, not after his leave from office. That being said, his main achievement should be reversing the trend under Allende through removing price controls and stopping nationalization, not throwing commies out of helicopters.
tl;dr At least he was better than Allende

>>130588707
Disapointing my lunch today wasn't on any of those

>>130585385
Well China's economy is forecasted to surpass our by next year

>>130589097
I'm sorry dicks weren't featured

>>130588985
The only thing I'll give you is the inflation. He did control it, and that's definitely a good thing. Most overrated leader apart from that.

Allende had a really bad start, but he only had two years to apply his policies. Honestly, I think it was too unfairly short to judge him.

>>130588929
>he uses flags seriously
You know gook moot is using the flags for data collection right?

>>130589294
>Honestly, I think it was too unfairly short to judge this cancer cell when it hasn't gone full Venezuela yet

>>130587567
>Helene Demuth
>Marx family maid for 45yrs
>was paid nothing
>given nothing in Marx's will
>even though she birthed his bastard child
Actually, he wouldn't.

>>130580755
>Implying Vietnam didn't stop being communist a long time ago

File: pinochet.jpg (44KB, 620x410px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 620x410px

>>130588599
The upward trend begins under Pinochet, though it significantly heightens under the post-Pinochet regime. It should also be noted that Pinochet's economic plan in the second half of his term is very similar to that of every Chilean president following him, so though he was not in control for Chile's greatest economic revival it followed his blueprint (mixed economy/Keynesian esque ideas- heavy banking restrictions and social+infrastructure spending coupled with lax business and taxation laws). Once again not a pro free market claim just pointing out Pinochet gets some credit.

>>130589320
>You know gook moot is using the flags for data collection right?
Does moot even run 4chan anymore? And data collection lmao wat.

>>130586936
>British education
>does not understand the meaning of a scale in percentages

>>130589592
Not techincally. State own the means of the majority of production.

>>130589294
>Allende had a really bad start, but he only had two years to apply his policies. Honestly, I think it was too unfairly short to judge him.
I disagree, I think his policies of price controls and nationalization (especially of the copper industry) would have been disastrous without a doubt. Either he would have learned that those policies lead to a weak, monocultured economy and done something somewhat similar to Pinochet, or he would have driven the country into the ground.
>Most overrated leader apart from that.
On /lrg/, yes. In public opinion, no. I think he is overhated by the average person, he was a good dictator (compared to other dictators) and most likely better than what would have been

>>130588707
Not watched it all, but would think there are incentives to reduce resource use and some incentives to preserve rare species

>>130588985
He didn't stop nationalization, many key job providing nationalized industries stayed that way.

>>130589800
GOOK moot. Hiro. Someone post it.

>>130589856
>(especially of the copper industry)

You know the copper industry was still nationalized under Pinochet right? God you people are retarded, that dictator isn't your libertarian superhero

>>130582589
There's no way that picture is real.

>>130589177
There's almost 1.4 billion people in China.

>>130590086
>He doesn't realize I was talking about Allende's continued nationalizations in that industry
>He doesn't realize that Pinochet allowed private firms to take advantage of minerals without nationalizing them
He reversed the trend of continued nationalization. If you knew how to read, you would recognize I was talking about Allende's policy of nationalizing industries. I pointed specifically to the mining industry. Although Pinochet did not denationalize the copper mines nationalized under Allende, he declared he would not continue to nationalize the copper mines.

File: Codelco copper mine.jpg (394KB, 1024x684px)

394KB, 1024x684px

>>130590086
>>130589906
It could be argued that he increased Copper nationalization:

>"Codelco's foundations were laid in 1971, when Salvador Allende, a socialist president, nationalised Chile's American-owned mines. Although General Augusto Pinochet toppled Allende in a coup two years later and then instituted free-market reforms, the dictator did not reprivatise the mines. Instead he merged them into a single state-owned enterprise, and required it to hand over 10% of its export revenues to the armed forces. Today, Codelco still mines over a tenth of the world's copper..."

-http://www.economist.com/node/17311933

>>130582589
Buying and selling things isn't inherently capitalism.

>>130583745
But Venezuela is capitalist by that logic.

File: Op can't stop sucking dicks.jpg (39KB, 411x381px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 411x381px

>>130580755

I worked in Vietnam and can tell you that it has very little to do with communism. In fact, it is more capitalistic than my European homeland.

Also, you should give the rate in USD PPP, and you would see a decrase in the recent years.

But you are probably too stupid to understand what all of this means.

>>130585451
>Gorbachev's liberalization caused explosive economic growth
>Pinochet caused explosive economic growth
*tips revisionism*

>>130585856
>da commies lost us da war

>>130590511
>"[Codelco's] share of Chile's output dwindled from 75% in 1990 to 32% last year."

-http://www.economist.com/node/17311933

Up until recently, and throughout the entirety of Pinochet's term, those copper mines dominated the Chilean economy, if nationalization is so bad why shouldn't the economy have been strangled by such a major industry undergoing it?

>>130580755
vietnam isnt a communism anymore

>>130588267
I know people in Vietnam. It seems better than most nearby countries.

>>130580755
Vietnam is the new China to make all your shit at. Give it 10 years and they'll be the next South Korea. Screencap this.

>>130589463
>muh Venezuela

>>130591313
>Codelco stagnates
>Private Sector grows rapidly
>The article explains the problems facing the company, and explains that moving it away from gov't control is the policy that it is adopting

>DURING last year's election campaign, Sebastián Piñera, who became Chile's president in March, often criticised Codelco, the country's state-owned copper company, for its inefficiency, griping over its stagnant output and climbing costs.
>For the past decade, its production has been stuck at around 1.6m tonnes (although it reached 1.8m tonnes last year), while more expensive inputs and overstaffing have pushed up costs. Its stagnation is largely the fault of past governments that, eager for tax revenues, short-changed the company's investment budget.

>>130588267
Have you seen hcm city?

>>130591724
>Give it 10 years and they'll be the next South Korea. Screencap this.
not happening since a lot of the smart Vietnamese are in america now.

>>130592035
Yeah opening up titty cafes in san jose with their sex slave daughters. Its kinda great.

>>130591313
Additionally, when the gov't relies too much on a nationalized industry like copper or oil; you get a monocultured economy that will fail if the price of those commodities fall. See Venezuela.

File: kd_ratio.jpg (29KB, 767x554px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 767x554px

>>130590705
>seeks to abolish private property and free trade (as stated by the goddamn Manifesto)
>sells privately produced, privately purchased ice cream, sold privately retail for a sum of currency at a higher value than what the ice cream was initially worth to raise funds by making a profit

it was capitalism. If they gave all for free, that would be a different story, but sadly the world does not operate on dude free shit lmao logic

>>130590821
>you can be 99.9% communism but 0.1% of capitalism ruins the flavor of Pure Communism and thus you are full capitalist state >:(((((

christ you commies are worse than Nazis and jews when it comes to the 1 drop rule

>>130591258
>political action by the Democratics (communists) leading up to the full withdrawal of U.S. forces and signing of the Paris Peace Accords without providing additional reinforcements and support to the South Vietnamese giving the North Vietnamese ample chance to swarm the country that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to do under continued U.S. anti-communist presence if we stayed

commies at home cost us Vietnam. By sheer body count and tactics, we slaughtered more Charlies than they ever threw at us. We were so close to making another prosperous South Korea 2.0 SEA edition until the D*mocrats fucked it all up

>>130591917
stay mad

Was literally in Vietnam earlier this year and I can tell you that the country is anything but Communist outside of the ruling party's visual aesthetic.

They literally have hammer and sickles right next to massive Samsung billboards and electronics stores.

Wow really makes me think, I'm totally on board with the destruction of the white race now

>>130592017
Obviously bad management has a dreadful effect on state owned companies, but the negative economic effects have been minimal especially during the Pinochet period when the company was so important. I'm not advocating for nationalization just pointing out it isn't all that harmful and Pinochet is not some libertarian hero.

>>130592729
out of interest what is the source for the pie chart and is that including north, south and non aligned Vietnamese?

>>130592965
I agree he wasn't a libertarian hero, I try to preface my post with weasel words because of this. I think he was better than Allende, and he did reverse the trend of continued nationalization even if he did not denationalize the Codelco. I also believe nationalization is always harmful, the poor management and stagnation is a symptom of nationalization. Even if they aren't visible at first, the problems become evident later on. Unless it is a necessity like infrastructure, the gov't should not directly control it.

>>130593451
I would say nationalization can be useful to protect from foreign influence or crack down on illegal practices, but I agree that Pinochet is miles better than Comrade Allende.

>>130582373
Some crap sold in the US is made in Vietnam, so most of Vietnam's GDP is actually from American companies outsourcing manufacturing, aka investors.
>Check and mate

>>130595235
The problem is that there are better methods for alleviating both those problems, that don't have the incredible drawbacks. It looks good on paper, until you consider all of the much more effective options that exist.

>>130582659

Communists on the internet are always stupid.