Is @Free the Pedos really a Pedo?Then came here to try and @ someone she thought was her "ally" in fighting the pedocon fight (which she thinks is a fight because of @Save the Loli 's username having loli in it btw, literally nothing else). Which then lead to the obvious rofling of people involved in the thread. Which lead to her attempt at comment deletion.
She's done this at least twice before from what I've seen. Like the same exact shit.
I provided my sources and here you're making assertion without evidence, again.
The only good commie is a dead commie, but you should stand by what you say and not DFE over a disagreement. Plus chasing people through random threads is ridiculous in any context.Holy shit she deleted her reply too
For everyone in the audience @Mothra1988 after being btfo'd in multiple concurrent communism topics dogpiling on @Save the Loli decided to make a thread SPECIFICALLY for shitting on the guy after being denied cunty satisfaction.
I proceeded to show her litany of faggotry and everyone had massive yucks. She then bitched about how the thread was getting off-topic IN MASS DEBATES (the topic of which being shit on loliman btw with the offtopic being "no shit on OP instead") got bitchy, left to her hugbox. Then deleted her thread.
Then came here to try and @ someone she thought was her "ally" in fighting the pedocon fight (which she thinks is a fight because of @Save the Loli 's username having loli in it btw, literally nothing else). Which then lead to the obvious rofling of people involved in the thread. Which lead to her attempt at comment deletion.
She did not like that and is instead looking through my comment history and replying to shit I replied to instead, again.
Economy needs a solid and measurable intermediary unit of trade, which is currency backed trade replaced barter system which was flawed in and clumsy in everyday practice, cashless or in case of Marxist/socialist/communist labour based economy, types of labor, quality and amount of labor still has to be measured by something and using subjective and inheritely unequal concept as basis for anything is impractical. Cashless society is impossible unless you want to return to monkey
I mentioned before how Marxism defies human nature, contradicts itself at multiple points and is a philosophical thought experiment, a flawed man creates flawed ideology that is hip with the unthinking knuckledraggers who follow cults of personality, a tale old as time.
Life is unfair, much like in business, large companies cemented their place in the market economy and provide service in highly competitive market, smaller companies are bought by bigger companies and are incentived to innovate, make wise decision that drive profit and innovation. Companies like Google and Apple form bipoly market for a reason, both innovate, a dopt and develop new products, learn from their mistakes and are beholden by Investors to make profit as much is it possible. Current bipoly competes for talent and will buy out small companies if they deem that to be wise. Free market is unpredictable and there isn't such thing as "too big to fail” See sinking Disney, fall of IBM, Atari and many others. Like in nature weak should fear the strong and bigger party has every right take out the smaller party, adapt or become irrelevant in big picture.
Communist countries banned unions, prevent ability to strike, write contracts which both parties are obligated follow by law, the state sets up everything, including wages that defy reason with guarantee of fair working hours we end up with poverty level monthly wages, below 800 USD per month in rubles, yuan, etc. This barely covers cost leased apartment, heating, water and electricity. Cost of food and healthcare are barely covered after this.
Disagree. This logic is only applicable if we assume that cash is a good and objective measurement unit for value, and you see, the problem at hand is that we can't be sure of that. For instance, how can you be sure that a janitor is paid enough? One can argue that minimal wage should be enough, but capitalism falls flat on its back in evaluating the proper cost of his work. What if he is an exceptionally good janitor? What if he is better than all of the other janitors in the same company he works in, yet gets paid the same? The wage you receive isn't linked to how much money you deserve, but to how much money someone is willing to give you. All of this inherently makes money act not as an objective and reasonable way to evaluate labor but as a way for large companies to keep the workers in check. After all, if nobody offers you enough money for your work, your options are to either work for less money than you're worth or starve.
Agreed, marxism/communism/socialism is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
To the first paragraph: saying "life is unfair; deal with it" is the equivalent of saying "cars cause pollution; deal with it", which isn't sufficient when you have the power to remove a piece of the unfairness. Google and Apple might have been innovative for a moment, but now everyone buys their products without even having a specific reason. One of the most important pieces of the free market is to have consumers know and compare the quality of different products, which most people clearly don't know how to do. This is a problem as it discourages innovation and instead relies on brand and recognition to dictate the fate of smaller, truly great companies. The fall of IBM and Disney is natural, but for their being, they were able to shut down multiple smaller companies that actually had lots of potential, yet they were strangled by the larger companies.
Again, they weren't communist, though you are right about that.
I will repeat myself from earlier: the money that you are given from work is the highest one is able to offer you, not how much you actually deserve. If nobody is willing to pay a janitor above the minimum wage, he will get paid the minimum wage. This will not really incentivize him to do his job better, will it?
Brown people and rich kids don't care about any of this. Communism is "gibs" to fat ugly people.
My source is literally the same one your source (a silly libertarian website) cites, and I know it is because it also repeats that 40% poverty rate (actually 38%) stat you claimed while adding the caveat that despite that rate, the USSR as a whole had Gini coefficient (i.e. inequality measurement) close to Scandinavia. This suggests to me you either didn't read the source you cited, or you just used CTRL+F to get the point you wanted from it. That also ignores the fact that of the 40%, the majority was concentrated in Central Asia which was incredibly poor and undeveloped and exploited as a colony during the days of the Russian Empire. That modern Central Asia is classified as "middle-income" nations is solely due to the USSR, and there is a reason those nations voted overwhelmingly to stay in the USSR (unlike most of Eastern Europe or the Caucasus)--they were getting endless subsidies from the government! It's not surprising that to maintain that standard of living, Soviet-created disasters like the drying of the Aral Sea only intensified after the end of communism.
That is technically true, but that definition of communism is only used by disingenuous people so I feel it's better to refer to the USSR and pre-Deng China as communist states. I don't think China since Deng is a communist state (Xi Jinping Thought is arguably closer to National Socialism), and nor is, say, North Korea since the 90s given Kim Jong-il moved away from his father's ideology and eventually removed all mentions of Marxism in DPRK's Constitution.
If you think the USSR was a communist country, you are lying to yourself a lot. The same goes for CCP. The main purpose of communism is to abolish class differences by giving the means of production to the working class; no single country in history has done that.
It's ok
Historical context to modern parallels, Russian city of Tolyatti first produced Ladas by the thousands, they were very cheap, broke down often. Ladas were so simple that they could be McGyvered in any climate from harsh and record breaking colds near arctic circle, arid and sun bleached unpaved roads of the steps.
In free market societies Specific unions make sure that janitors get fair pay, working hours and benefits in communist societies you're given wage that state mandates, other low end jobs aren't given any guarantee or protection. In the west average wage of a janitor is higher than those communist countries, state decides what's fair and what is not fair and to say the least low end jobs don't give liveable wages. In China janitor wage is 4 dollars an hour in United States janitor wage is 14 dollars per hour depending on the employer, benefits and other things are added in signed contract.
Public sector healthcare is funded by taxes and controlled by the government, private and public health welfare keeps many death fat lolcows alive in tax payers dime.
See above
Stalin forcibly took grain and cattle from Ukrainians before Holomdor, Mao took both land and personal property during cultural purge, Northern Vietnamese communists took land and personal property from fellow vietnamese before US intervention, Soviet Union confiscated excess wealth, gold and non ruble currencies from ordinary citizens.
Worker unions are essentially a left idea, and it is incorrect to state that they are inherent to the free market. And, yet again, China isn't a communist country, so don't give it as an example.
There is no such thing as "wages" in communism. It is a cashless/moneyless society.
Everyone should pay taxes. In communist countries, everybody technically does, because money does not exist. It is rather difficult to explain, but you can think of it the following way: everyone(including doctors) gets the right to a nice house, living supplies, furniture, cars, etc.; goes to work without getting any money; and when they get sick, they get to go to the hospital for free. As to the quality factor, if we make the private hospitals less appealing or non-existent, the adequate doctors are going to transition into the public hospitals, which will, in turn, increase the quality of healthcare for everyone.
Stalin wasn't communist, as mentioned many times above, nor were the USSR or CCP.
Oh no 2% off, since you didn't provide sources here's a paper proving that 40% of USSR lived in poverty see attachment. Where's your sources by the way?
Even Marx himself stated that humans are inequal by nature, pecking order or class system form in every society. Hell even communist Paris commune had class system before it collapsed.
I'm saying that Unions that advocate for fair wages, rights and benefits is only possible in western free market democracies
Both were, communism as is impossible to implement, cashless and classless society that exists only in paper and communist leaders did their best to implement an ideology that is dead on arrival.
what this means is forcing the public to give the sweat of their brow to bureaucrats that say they represent them while promising a paradise (a stateless, "classless" society), which is what every socialist state achieved
I did agree that communism is rather difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. This isn't because of self-sustainability, but because of the inherently egoistic human nature.
The reason unions exist in the first place is to fight problems caused by the "western free market democracies". If the needs of the people were met better, there would be no need for such unions in the first place, yet here we are.
I actually agree with your stance and was misled by your original post. In it, you said that you were arguing against communism, as if you thought that it was a bad system ideologically and not just difficult to achieve. On the other hand, I support the communist ideology as a general direction in which we can move as a society, though I am skeptical if it is actually achievable..
Every state that does this isn't socialist, as the means of production should fall into the hands of the people, not a select few bureaucrats. The thing you are describing is closer to feudalism.
what if those bureaucrats represent the Workers
If the workers have willingly thought that those bureaucrats are worthy of standing as representatives, sure. But in all of the "socialist countries" that have existed in known history, it hasn't been like that for the majority of their existence.
Another basic problem Communism can't overcome is the economic calculation issue. Without a market mechanism, there is no way to properly value inputs and outputs and determine the relative demand for and value of different kinds of labor.
economists confuse people by making this so abstract