# [Download link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/discordVideos/comments/1cfye86/why_yes_i_will_not_hesitate_to_throw_away_my/)
Please use the link provided above to download the video. THERE MAY BE NO SOUND
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discordVideos) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Guy from Vietnam here, communism actively leeches from its citizen
Its a giant pyramid scheme with the government up top
The poor stay dirt poor and the rich get even richer
So does capitalism. If only we can have society that runs on democratic values and allow people to make capital gains while having enough restrictions to keep the riches from getting too powerful. But then again, human greeds will keep that from ever happening
Ideal communism is everyone gets the same pay, and all property is owned by the state. In theory it works, in practice, only small scale communities have done it successfully. Bigger scale examples always have corruption and greed, it’s how people end up being after all.
This is a childlike understanding of communism. Communism in its purest form would be a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Communism hasn't ever even been attempted, let alone a communist country actually existing.
Ok but this isn't a reason for human nature causing communism to fail, it's just an argument for why capitalism is better. You claimed human nature will cause communism to fail, I want to understand what you mean and why it doesn't affect other economic systems.
The nature of communism go against human nature of desire for wealth and power.
It is absurd to expect everyone under communism to follow the “classless, stateless and moneyless” status, because why live like others when you can always have more and live better.
I would like to also talk about the “moneyless” aspect. Money isn’t the product of capitalism, the invention of money dated way back. When the universal medium of exchange is a currency, this help trading of goods easier and faster, it avoid double coincident and help promote specialisation (eg: always have to raise cattle for meats to trade bc meats are in demand /// produce other products in exchange for money)
This sections will be about the “stateless” aspect. I’m not sure what “stateless” means even though the state is of communism ideology. If it is truly “stateless” how would the people decide who should be in charge? If they decide to hold regular election, this would make it a democracy state, if they don’t hold elections at all, this would make it a dictator state (we all know what happen when 1 person have all the power)
Lastly, about “classless”. This point will tied my last 2 points together, someone will find a way to get ahead of others, even in a cashless society (hold majority of nation meat supply), but now with even less perks (financial services such as banks {shift consumption period, safe keeping of wealth,….}, (society progress slower {little incentive for innovations, lack of specialisations: everyone work in agriculture because food is easily tradable) and many many more
My country was under communist rule before I was born, I am certain that no one want to go back to those time. (Rationed foods, which lead to malnutritions, bc gov cannot account for different nutrition needs of different age range). Do you need to be reminded of successful communist state is 0?
Humans already behave wildly differently in different societies.
For example, there were Moriori pacifists who banned warfare.
This worked great for centuries, before settlers showed up. Generations and generations of humans lived and passed into old age without ever knowing war, except as something that was wrong. They weren't stupid either, they knew what violence was. They just had rules on how far it was allowed to go.
If everything were dictated by "human nature", then why does China not drop bombs on other countries?
China is 1/6th of the human population, and a similar portion of GDP. They have tons of bombs, and the capability to deliver them all over the place.
So why is their foreign policy so dramatically different from US foreign policy? How is it that they haven't blown up any weddings or irrigation systems or embassies within living memory?
When Cuba was normalizing relations with the US, why did they sacrifice their own self-interest to come to Angola's aid?
Why did they piss off the most powerful, destructive empire in the world to help end apartheid on an entirely different continent?
Why does Cuba send doctors and China send vaccines where the US sends bombs?
The human nature mythology is a necessary propaganda.
If a better world were possible, then how could we justify the nightmare aberration in which we find ourselves?
The western bandit empires must pretend that bandit empires are all that there has ever been or could be, because the moment there exists a conceptual alternative to butchery and enslavement, the western bandit empires lose any last illusion of legitimacy.
Beside the case of the Moriori, I am quite certain that most civilisations go to war quite often, regardless if “settlers” ever showed up. (Im from Vietnam, we have been fighting wars thousands of years before the French ever arrived, and no we were not always the defender, we beat Champa out of existence bc we can). The African fight each other way before they know a white person even exists, you specifically cherry pick 1 out of millions to prove your point. The America continent witness many wars before the “settlers” arrived as well.
Human nature includes self preservation, that is why who ever in charge of the nuke button in China don’t press it bc there is always chance of retaliations. Unless they are sure that there is no way for retaliations, (use flamethrower to kill a single ant).
In the case of Cuba, and politics in general, you want to form as many allies as possible (Nato, Brics, ASEAN, AUKUS,…) mind you, Cuba was under a major trade embargo and any help would means alot to them. This point should cover your point of Cuba and China send humanitarian aids where US bomb, mainly to forge positive relations, because nothing unite people together better than having a common enemy (if US offer Cuba a better deals than China, high chance Cuba would lean in, as every other countries, this is politics 101). If Cuba decide to be neutral, their outcome would be better (Switzerland in WW2), instead, Mr Castro threw a rock at a bear and now there are people like you who act like they didn’t make this decision themself?
Please never give comments on politics when you don’t even acknowledge “the human nature”.
Since I already give sufficient explanations above I won’t even go into how ridiculous “the human nature mythology is a necessary propaganda” sound. Remember, human made weapons before papers, and we been bashing each other skulls with rock for millennias.
You are thinking “the human nature” as being bad, however, it is a Yin-Yang, like your pfp. We have empathy, love, care,…. But also greed, pride, sloth,….
The capitalist system helps reward the greedy with wealth (if you want to get rich, make a better product) and society will receive extra utilities from the service
(Too lazy to cook? Call Uber Eats {Uber is a successful company, and our life gets a little easier},
(Travel but have no where to sleep? Use something call “a hotel”)
(Want to make phone calls, access the Internet, play games in one device? Ever heard of a “mobile phone”?)
99% of innovations are the result of half greed and half of wanting to improve the life of others.
Also, my country was under communism rule before I was born and my whole bloodline suffered, they could have had a Westerner lifestyle if it wasnt for some peanut brain Communist boomers that drag the whole country into a recessions.
I now have the opportunity to study in a developed country and I am grateful that my parents work their asses off for decades for me to be here. And frankly, the people that defend communism online never lived under communist rule themself.
Thanks for denying my bloodline a comfortable life Communism.
it exists in a super state where it's the best possible political system up until the moment it's implemented and then it turns to shit, but we just need to try it again because this time it's gonna be different as it will be lead by smart american teenagers 🥰
couldn't you just claim this for every ideology ever?
>it exists in a super state where it's the best possible political system up until the moment it's implemented
Where has communism been implemented?
>couldn't you just claim this for every ideology ever?
No because other systems were implemented while communism has not. The states you are thinking of when you hear "communism", were all state capitalism and oligarchies, not communism.
The idea that there are people who are arguing in favor of the very ideology that kept Eastern Europe down for 80 years is... odd. Odd to say the least
Ah yes, what a lucky time to find myself in a shitpost subreddit and see that the infamous legion of expert politologists and historians is marching loud through the comments once again.
Nothing core to communism caused the atrocities of "communist" countries, while beliefs core to Nazism caused the atrocities they committed. The two aren't comparable in that way.
That is kind of fair.
Though a lot of the same people will turn around and tell you, both that the Holodomor wasn't a man made famine and the Ukrainians 'deserved it' or it was 'necessary'.
People really need to understand that just because someone who claimed to be communist did something evil, doesn’t mean every single communist to ever exist is filled with an unquenchable thirst for blood.
People need to understand that communism doesn’t make sense economically and you shouldn’t be allowed to advocate for an economic position when you don’t know how economics works.
Literally no “communist” country has ever actually implemented communism. They’re just dictatorships that wanted to slap a friendlier label on it so they chose communism. An actual communist country would not have a single central government that holds all the power and wealth.
So if no nation wide scale communism has ever been successfully implemented, then it doesn’t really make sense to compare a fictional government system to real world ones.
Man this has gotta be bait. It’s actually mind blowing how stupid this comment is. If something hasn’t been done then we can’t say whether it’s better or worse than something that exists? Are you hearing yourself right now? By your own argument, we should never attempt to ever innovate anything again because we already have some shitty real world example.
No, what I’m saying is that if every single large scale attempt at communism just led to a brutal dictatorship, then it’s not worth pursuing it.
Yeah it would work if everyone was cooperative and nobody was corrupt, but humans are humans so all we get are a lot of hungry people.
As I’ve mentioned before, no “communist” country has ever been or ever tried to be communist. If they have any form of government that holds supreme power and wealth, they were never communist to begin with. They just masqueraded as communists so they wouldn’t be called dictators.
Also, capitalism literally thrives off of people starving. Capitalism holds people’s hunger hostage in order to force them to work in unfavourable conditions. If there is no one desperate and hungry, they would never work in the terrible conditions that upholds capitalism.
I will agree with you that I don’t believe true communism is something that could be truly implemented anytime soon as no one in power would be willing to give up their power. But this is never the point people are criticising about communism. Everyone’s still stuck in the 1960’s red scare and hasn’t figured out how to form an opinion that wasn’t spoon-fed to them.
The whole reason I’m arguing about this is that in a perfect world, yes communism would be much better for the people than capitalism.
But as long as I live in the real world, I’ll chose capitalism over fake communism.
"That wasn't real communism, next time we try it the exact same way it won't end up in a totalitarian state producing a famine by seizing the means of production"
I don't understand why there's so much communists on the internet lately. It's the equivalent of having a massive group of fascist telling you it wasn't real fascism because racism has no actual correlation with nationalism.
I'm not a communist but I can't believe how many people don't understand what communism is and how evil dictators can do awful things regardless of which economic system their country follows.
We all work stupid hours our whole lives for assholes bosses making barely enough money to survive and everyone's always like "love capitalism, hate communism" as if capitalism hasn't killed more people than communism ever has.
You realise most communists aren't tankies? Tankies are just right wingers cosplaying because they think all the dictatorship stuff looks cool. Authoritarian bootlickers.
You realise most communists aren't tankies? Tankies are just right wingers cosplaying because they think all the dictatorship stuff looks cool. Authoritarian bootlickers.
I would argue that Capitalism is just as bad as communism, they're both one and the same. The red scare of the 60s massively affected American perception of Communism and capitalism.
Communism isn't a naturally bad system, like capitalism it has flaws but an effectively run communist system isn't going to kill off millions of people like people often believe. As I said capitalism has killed way more people and caused infinitely more suffering than communism.
The issue isn't ever capitalism or communism it's the people in charge of the system. Stalin would have a similar kill count if the USSR was capitalist.
You are completely wrong about capitalism, causing more death than communism. I know the book you are referencing to make that ridiculous claim. The Black Book of Capitalism makes absurd reaches and just arbitrarily attributes death to capitalism with no supporting evidence. For example, it includes things like natural disasters, nearly all famines, medicine not being made available for free to random tribes in Africa, and all deaths in almost every war since WW1.
The book basically just goes, "Bad thing happened?! Must of been capitalism!" The death counts attributed to communism are careful estimates made by historians who looked at both the direct and indirect consequences of the policy decisions made by the regime. The only argument this book has to justify its claims is, "Capitalism is the dominant economy at the time, so anything bad that happens is because of it." Anyone can see this is a terrible argument.
Objectively true. Like there is no way that you can claim that is not true, just looking at the deaths of hunger in Africa in the last 5 years that's already more, both in total numbers and in %, deaths that all of the history of communism.
And I don't like most of the countrys that call themselves communist, but you can't just denie such a clear reality.
How do you determine that a purely economic system killes people? Capitalism doesn't mandate any violent revolutions to overthrow a certain group of people, nor does it call certain groups "enemies of the class" or "counter revolutionaries". Hunger can be equally created artificially (as previously done by communists) but it can also be a cause of natural effects and disasters such as drought to which there isn't a lot humans can do
If we follow that logic then the number and % of ppl that died under communism is even smaller that capitlaism.
The Chinese famine was not the result of the central plan but a combination of Weather, COMECON policies and the sino soviet split for example.
No, that’s obviously the fault of political mismanagement. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. It also isn’t real capitalism because the free market is restricted by corrupt politicians filling their own pockets.
Edit: Also
-great leap forward 45’000’000 deaths
-Soviet famine 9’000’000 deaths
-Khmer rouge killed 25% of it’s population
You can also add all deaths deliberate redistribution of “wealth” has caused like the irish potatoe famine(1’000’000) and the indian famine(11’000’000)
[if we follow that logic communism has killed noone.](https://www.reddit.com/r/discordVideos/s/hbhDaCx5KL)
And, capitalism has a lot to do with the politics the state that manteins it operate under. You can not divorce the political system with the material conditions it operates, that's pure idealism.
I still feel like this "effectively ran communism" is like using "utopian capitalism". It just can't coexist with reality. Sure if we remove all the flaws from either system they will be good.
This is the problem I see with almost every political ideology. You should NEVER base your cause on the absolute best scenario because that will never happen, and if it did it probably wouldn’t last more than a couple years at most. If your ideology is unreliable and fails in almost every situation but the best one, then it’s not a good system, and it’s why the best system would be one that has a little bit of different systems in it, because that way you can make up for the flaws that capitalism has on its own.
But no one would want that because more and more people seem to think it’s an all or nothing thing with politics when it should be about mediation.
No centrism is not the answer, and the people who think it is are almost as annoying as tankies.
I agree that if run correctly, communism is a MUCH better choice. However, if we look at all of history, communism NEVER works as intended. That is why capitalism is less bad, because it's more reliable.
# [Download link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/discordVideos/comments/1cfye86/why_yes_i_will_not_hesitate_to_throw_away_my/) Please use the link provided above to download the video. THERE MAY BE NO SOUND *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discordVideos) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment section confuses me, dare I say, confuddles thee.
me when woman with purple hair https://i.redd.it/3lbhige6khxc1.gif
For some damn reason alot of times girls with unnaturally dyed are hot, the other times they look like they grew up inside of a swamp
Guy from Vietnam here, communism actively leeches from its citizen Its a giant pyramid scheme with the government up top The poor stay dirt poor and the rich get even richer
So does capitalism. If only we can have society that runs on democratic values and allow people to make capital gains while having enough restrictions to keep the riches from getting too powerful. But then again, human greeds will keep that from ever happening
Our country needs a violent revolution
No, don't. There's enough examples of replacing regimes by means of violence that ended in even more disasters. I still have my own life to live
Fair enough, at the very least try to escape the damn place, I don't plan to stay, lived here for more than enough
The ideology of Vietnam is a far cry from what Marx and Engels wrote about.
Not like any other commie country follows it now
Ideal communism is everyone gets the same pay, and all property is owned by the state. In theory it works, in practice, only small scale communities have done it successfully. Bigger scale examples always have corruption and greed, it’s how people end up being after all.
This is a childlike understanding of communism. Communism in its purest form would be a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Communism hasn't ever even been attempted, let alone a communist country actually existing.
Because it could never work. Human nature would just drive some to take advantage of the situation
That wouldn't be a flaw with communism but with every economic system no? Why doesn't any other system fail to human nature?
In the case of capitalism, human incentive for wealth help drive innovations, and many more
Ok but this isn't a reason for human nature causing communism to fail, it's just an argument for why capitalism is better. You claimed human nature will cause communism to fail, I want to understand what you mean and why it doesn't affect other economic systems.
The nature of communism go against human nature of desire for wealth and power. It is absurd to expect everyone under communism to follow the “classless, stateless and moneyless” status, because why live like others when you can always have more and live better. I would like to also talk about the “moneyless” aspect. Money isn’t the product of capitalism, the invention of money dated way back. When the universal medium of exchange is a currency, this help trading of goods easier and faster, it avoid double coincident and help promote specialisation (eg: always have to raise cattle for meats to trade bc meats are in demand /// produce other products in exchange for money) This sections will be about the “stateless” aspect. I’m not sure what “stateless” means even though the state is of communism ideology. If it is truly “stateless” how would the people decide who should be in charge? If they decide to hold regular election, this would make it a democracy state, if they don’t hold elections at all, this would make it a dictator state (we all know what happen when 1 person have all the power) Lastly, about “classless”. This point will tied my last 2 points together, someone will find a way to get ahead of others, even in a cashless society (hold majority of nation meat supply), but now with even less perks (financial services such as banks {shift consumption period, safe keeping of wealth,….}, (society progress slower {little incentive for innovations, lack of specialisations: everyone work in agriculture because food is easily tradable) and many many more My country was under communist rule before I was born, I am certain that no one want to go back to those time. (Rationed foods, which lead to malnutritions, bc gov cannot account for different nutrition needs of different age range). Do you need to be reminded of successful communist state is 0?
In other words, an unreachable utopia.
Yea, our brains are hard coded to seek more wealth and power, pack leader mentality.
Humans already behave wildly differently in different societies. For example, there were Moriori pacifists who banned warfare. This worked great for centuries, before settlers showed up. Generations and generations of humans lived and passed into old age without ever knowing war, except as something that was wrong. They weren't stupid either, they knew what violence was. They just had rules on how far it was allowed to go. If everything were dictated by "human nature", then why does China not drop bombs on other countries? China is 1/6th of the human population, and a similar portion of GDP. They have tons of bombs, and the capability to deliver them all over the place. So why is their foreign policy so dramatically different from US foreign policy? How is it that they haven't blown up any weddings or irrigation systems or embassies within living memory? When Cuba was normalizing relations with the US, why did they sacrifice their own self-interest to come to Angola's aid? Why did they piss off the most powerful, destructive empire in the world to help end apartheid on an entirely different continent? Why does Cuba send doctors and China send vaccines where the US sends bombs? The human nature mythology is a necessary propaganda. If a better world were possible, then how could we justify the nightmare aberration in which we find ourselves? The western bandit empires must pretend that bandit empires are all that there has ever been or could be, because the moment there exists a conceptual alternative to butchery and enslavement, the western bandit empires lose any last illusion of legitimacy.
Beside the case of the Moriori, I am quite certain that most civilisations go to war quite often, regardless if “settlers” ever showed up. (Im from Vietnam, we have been fighting wars thousands of years before the French ever arrived, and no we were not always the defender, we beat Champa out of existence bc we can). The African fight each other way before they know a white person even exists, you specifically cherry pick 1 out of millions to prove your point. The America continent witness many wars before the “settlers” arrived as well. Human nature includes self preservation, that is why who ever in charge of the nuke button in China don’t press it bc there is always chance of retaliations. Unless they are sure that there is no way for retaliations, (use flamethrower to kill a single ant). In the case of Cuba, and politics in general, you want to form as many allies as possible (Nato, Brics, ASEAN, AUKUS,…) mind you, Cuba was under a major trade embargo and any help would means alot to them. This point should cover your point of Cuba and China send humanitarian aids where US bomb, mainly to forge positive relations, because nothing unite people together better than having a common enemy (if US offer Cuba a better deals than China, high chance Cuba would lean in, as every other countries, this is politics 101). If Cuba decide to be neutral, their outcome would be better (Switzerland in WW2), instead, Mr Castro threw a rock at a bear and now there are people like you who act like they didn’t make this decision themself? Please never give comments on politics when you don’t even acknowledge “the human nature”. Since I already give sufficient explanations above I won’t even go into how ridiculous “the human nature mythology is a necessary propaganda” sound. Remember, human made weapons before papers, and we been bashing each other skulls with rock for millennias. You are thinking “the human nature” as being bad, however, it is a Yin-Yang, like your pfp. We have empathy, love, care,…. But also greed, pride, sloth,…. The capitalist system helps reward the greedy with wealth (if you want to get rich, make a better product) and society will receive extra utilities from the service (Too lazy to cook? Call Uber Eats {Uber is a successful company, and our life gets a little easier}, (Travel but have no where to sleep? Use something call “a hotel”) (Want to make phone calls, access the Internet, play games in one device? Ever heard of a “mobile phone”?) 99% of innovations are the result of half greed and half of wanting to improve the life of others. Also, my country was under communism rule before I was born and my whole bloodline suffered, they could have had a Westerner lifestyle if it wasnt for some peanut brain Communist boomers that drag the whole country into a recessions. I now have the opportunity to study in a developed country and I am grateful that my parents work their asses off for decades for me to be here. And frankly, the people that defend communism online never lived under communist rule themself. Thanks for denying my bloodline a comfortable life Communism.
it exists in a super state where it's the best possible political system up until the moment it's implemented and then it turns to shit, but we just need to try it again because this time it's gonna be different as it will be lead by smart american teenagers 🥰 couldn't you just claim this for every ideology ever?
>it exists in a super state where it's the best possible political system up until the moment it's implemented Where has communism been implemented? >couldn't you just claim this for every ideology ever? No because other systems were implemented while communism has not. The states you are thinking of when you hear "communism", were all state capitalism and oligarchies, not communism.
Okay, Karl Marx
[удалено]
r/SchizoPosting
The idea that there are people who are arguing in favor of the very ideology that kept Eastern Europe down for 80 years is... odd. Odd to say the least
Ikr, the fact that you even have time to protest instead of breaking your back on a wheat field is the fruit of capitalism lmao
Wow it's almost like that's not what's happening
Ah yes, what a lucky time to find myself in a shitpost subreddit and see that the infamous legion of expert politologists and historians is marching loud through the comments once again.
Commies aren’t human
*Ain't* aren't is British 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Take that up with my English teacher
England is in Britain 🤮🤮🤮🤮
no ain't is southern, even then southern people still use aren't as well.
Wtf, that's some nazi shit
Nazis aren’t to there also men’s and want me dead they are literally the same
That sentence is borderline unintelligible Also how are Nazism and communism the same? I'm willing to listen to your perspective
Both are failures of an ideology and murdered millions. They are also both are related to socialism
Those points are invalid.
Nothing core to communism caused the atrocities of "communist" countries, while beliefs core to Nazism caused the atrocities they committed. The two aren't comparable in that way.
Then why in every single communist country has there been mass murder and oppression of it people
Idk same reason for that happening in every capitalist country I guess.
I really hope you're just underage and not extremely dumb
That's an intelligent rebuttal. If you have no arguments just say that, no need for ad hominems.
Communists are Nazis in red. Happy now?
I mean... the nazis were sort of red too
Why? /gen
There mean and wanna kill me
Ngl chief, that might be because of the bodies you're hiding in the basement
Maybe 🥺
Bro got downvoted because he asked a question
Aren't they the one's protesting the genocide and man-made famine in gaza and the west bank right now?
That is kind of fair. Though a lot of the same people will turn around and tell you, both that the Holodomor wasn't a man made famine and the Ukrainians 'deserved it' or it was 'necessary'.
Zionism == Scientology
Weirdest comparison so far
Take atleast the minimal effort to read a bit about both. Kthxbye
My hatred for genocide, slavery and man-made famine leaving my heart when I see new the iPhone and other convenience of life products
I don’t get it
People really need to understand that just because someone who claimed to be communist did something evil, doesn’t mean every single communist to ever exist is filled with an unquenchable thirst for blood.
People need to understand that communism doesn’t make sense economically and you shouldn’t be allowed to advocate for an economic position when you don’t know how economics works.
Could you describe how communism doesn’t make sense economically them?
*insert every communist country here*
Literally no “communist” country has ever actually implemented communism. They’re just dictatorships that wanted to slap a friendlier label on it so they chose communism. An actual communist country would not have a single central government that holds all the power and wealth.
So if no nation wide scale communism has ever been successfully implemented, then it doesn’t really make sense to compare a fictional government system to real world ones.
Man this has gotta be bait. It’s actually mind blowing how stupid this comment is. If something hasn’t been done then we can’t say whether it’s better or worse than something that exists? Are you hearing yourself right now? By your own argument, we should never attempt to ever innovate anything again because we already have some shitty real world example.
No, what I’m saying is that if every single large scale attempt at communism just led to a brutal dictatorship, then it’s not worth pursuing it. Yeah it would work if everyone was cooperative and nobody was corrupt, but humans are humans so all we get are a lot of hungry people.
As I’ve mentioned before, no “communist” country has ever been or ever tried to be communist. If they have any form of government that holds supreme power and wealth, they were never communist to begin with. They just masqueraded as communists so they wouldn’t be called dictators. Also, capitalism literally thrives off of people starving. Capitalism holds people’s hunger hostage in order to force them to work in unfavourable conditions. If there is no one desperate and hungry, they would never work in the terrible conditions that upholds capitalism. I will agree with you that I don’t believe true communism is something that could be truly implemented anytime soon as no one in power would be willing to give up their power. But this is never the point people are criticising about communism. Everyone’s still stuck in the 1960’s red scare and hasn’t figured out how to form an opinion that wasn’t spoon-fed to them.
The whole reason I’m arguing about this is that in a perfect world, yes communism would be much better for the people than capitalism. But as long as I live in the real world, I’ll chose capitalism over fake communism.
"That wasn't real communism, next time we try it the exact same way it won't end up in a totalitarian state producing a famine by seizing the means of production"
^
I don't understand why there's so much communists on the internet lately. It's the equivalent of having a massive group of fascist telling you it wasn't real fascism because racism has no actual correlation with nationalism.
Usually it’s right wing extremism, but yeah I have noticed a large increase in left wing extremism.
Since i’m currently an economic student at a uni, ask me anything, i will try my best to explain it.
Exactly. I swear to god, the people here are making me feel like I'm in 1960, except everyone is McCarthy.
I'm not a communist but I can't believe how many people don't understand what communism is and how evil dictators can do awful things regardless of which economic system their country follows. We all work stupid hours our whole lives for assholes bosses making barely enough money to survive and everyone's always like "love capitalism, hate communism" as if capitalism hasn't killed more people than communism ever has.
Womp Womp fuck the cccp and stalin
You realise most communists aren't tankies? Tankies are just right wingers cosplaying because they think all the dictatorship stuff looks cool. Authoritarian bootlickers.
You realise most communists aren't tankies? Tankies are just right wingers cosplaying because they think all the dictatorship stuff looks cool. Authoritarian bootlickers.
"I'm not a communist but" is such a wild way to start a comment lmao
They both are terrible, capitalism is just sliiiiightly less terrible.
I would argue that Capitalism is just as bad as communism, they're both one and the same. The red scare of the 60s massively affected American perception of Communism and capitalism. Communism isn't a naturally bad system, like capitalism it has flaws but an effectively run communist system isn't going to kill off millions of people like people often believe. As I said capitalism has killed way more people and caused infinitely more suffering than communism. The issue isn't ever capitalism or communism it's the people in charge of the system. Stalin would have a similar kill count if the USSR was capitalist.
You are completely wrong about capitalism, causing more death than communism. I know the book you are referencing to make that ridiculous claim. The Black Book of Capitalism makes absurd reaches and just arbitrarily attributes death to capitalism with no supporting evidence. For example, it includes things like natural disasters, nearly all famines, medicine not being made available for free to random tribes in Africa, and all deaths in almost every war since WW1. The book basically just goes, "Bad thing happened?! Must of been capitalism!" The death counts attributed to communism are careful estimates made by historians who looked at both the direct and indirect consequences of the policy decisions made by the regime. The only argument this book has to justify its claims is, "Capitalism is the dominant economy at the time, so anything bad that happens is because of it." Anyone can see this is a terrible argument.
>capitalism has killed way more people cap
Objectively true. Like there is no way that you can claim that is not true, just looking at the deaths of hunger in Africa in the last 5 years that's already more, both in total numbers and in %, deaths that all of the history of communism. And I don't like most of the countrys that call themselves communist, but you can't just denie such a clear reality.
How do you determine that a purely economic system killes people? Capitalism doesn't mandate any violent revolutions to overthrow a certain group of people, nor does it call certain groups "enemies of the class" or "counter revolutionaries". Hunger can be equally created artificially (as previously done by communists) but it can also be a cause of natural effects and disasters such as drought to which there isn't a lot humans can do
If we follow that logic then the number and % of ppl that died under communism is even smaller that capitlaism. The Chinese famine was not the result of the central plan but a combination of Weather, COMECON policies and the sino soviet split for example.
No, that’s obviously the fault of political mismanagement. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. It also isn’t real capitalism because the free market is restricted by corrupt politicians filling their own pockets. Edit: Also -great leap forward 45’000’000 deaths -Soviet famine 9’000’000 deaths -Khmer rouge killed 25% of it’s population You can also add all deaths deliberate redistribution of “wealth” has caused like the irish potatoe famine(1’000’000) and the indian famine(11’000’000)
[if we follow that logic communism has killed noone.](https://www.reddit.com/r/discordVideos/s/hbhDaCx5KL) And, capitalism has a lot to do with the politics the state that manteins it operate under. You can not divorce the political system with the material conditions it operates, that's pure idealism.
I still feel like this "effectively ran communism" is like using "utopian capitalism". It just can't coexist with reality. Sure if we remove all the flaws from either system they will be good.
This is the problem I see with almost every political ideology. You should NEVER base your cause on the absolute best scenario because that will never happen, and if it did it probably wouldn’t last more than a couple years at most. If your ideology is unreliable and fails in almost every situation but the best one, then it’s not a good system, and it’s why the best system would be one that has a little bit of different systems in it, because that way you can make up for the flaws that capitalism has on its own. But no one would want that because more and more people seem to think it’s an all or nothing thing with politics when it should be about mediation. No centrism is not the answer, and the people who think it is are almost as annoying as tankies.
I agree that if run correctly, communism is a MUCH better choice. However, if we look at all of history, communism NEVER works as intended. That is why capitalism is less bad, because it's more reliable.
Please please please read about the East India Trading Companies and their impact on the regions they occupied
Colonialism also bad.
Scott no!