Your face when communism fell because it's bad

Anarcho-Communism is the only way! without your dictatorship! fuck your stalinism

but capitalism is crap anyway ,
questons well be answered

Communism= Great idea, humans are just shit at it. That's how my dad explained it to me

Because Lenin's vision of what Marx wrote was wrong. Really wrong. It was the antithesis of Marxism, really.

The crisis was caused by government intervention in the housing market. Congress highly subsidized the housing market causing malinvestments and inflation of assets beyond their fundamentals.
Free market Capitalism 1
Keynesians 0

Not only that, but the two biggest mortgage companies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are both GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises). Both of these companies, whom alone comprised of around 60% of the mortgage market, began much of the sub-prime mortgage crap that was responsible for the crisis. In addition, when both companies were on the verge of bankruptcy in 2007, both were bailed out by the federal reserve/ treasury and now are in the same exact position as they were before (although there is rightfully a wariness towards sub-prime mortgages now).

Also, I would like to praise you sir. You make very good arguments and know what you are talking about, my fellow Free-market enthusiast.

Free market has never existed..

Yet its still the free market's fault somehow...

Remember free market should've fixed the great depression.

One of the biggest lies in American History: Herbert Hoover was a capitalist. Hoover did many of the same type of work programs and stimulus spending FDR did in the New Deal, and guess what, the Depression still happened. Smoot Hawley Tariff Act really added fuel to the fire also. Whenever politicians refer to the free market as the cause of these problems, what they're describing is never the free market, its usually cronyism, corporatism, etc.

Still free market didn't fix it.

Government intervention =/= Free Market

Hoover: Just let it be it'll fix itself.
Roosevelt: Lets actually do something *Takes out a loan, gives people a tax break to spent more money on consumer products and actually fix the economy* What if free market.

You could argue that World war 2 actually fixed the economy, war is always good for industry.

>let it fix itself
>did you even look at the chart

It's debatable whether Roosevelt helped or hurt the depression. Personally I am against him except for establishing the FDIC (although that turned into a terrible government agency soon after). Regardless, I will not touch upon that.

What I do want to say is that war does NOT help an economy (in the long run) ever. What makes an economy strong? Production. What is war? Destruction. War is the opposite of what breeds a strong functional economy. War may boost GDP during the war, but a higher GDP doesn't mean anything if all of the output is based off of Government consumption. Because efforts are solely aimed at fueling the war efforts, consumer consumption is forced to cut back, there are typically either higher taxes or large increases in national debt to fund the war, and there can also bemore importing of war materials while cutting back exports.

Using the output equation this can be represented as Y = C + I + G + (X-M)). Basically this creates an increase in Y (or GDP) because G (government consumption) is increasing. However, this does not actually create much (if any) new productive technology, puts strains on other areas of the economy, and as soon as the war ends those resources need to be re-allocated to different industries. This is the reason for the 1919 depression. The belief that war or government spending in general makes an economy "strong" is not true.

China's economy is built this way, their GDP keeps increasing largely because of increases in government spending. Well you might say "But China's economy is doing great!", well that's not entirely true at all. If you look close up, the government spent enormous amounts of money funding construction projects all over the country. However, the people are still poor and can not afford to buy goods in these mega malls and such. Many of these developments have become ghost towns. In addition, if China does not maintain it's current growth rate, its economy will collapse.

if barrack obama is a communist then so was Ronald Reagan.

That's bullshit, neither the liberals or conservatives are on the right currently. You can not call a country where 40% of the GDP is caused by government spending a "free market" economy in ANY sense.

Ronald Regan was just a liar. He knew how to run a country though.

Please, point out all the genocidal famines which Capitalism has created.

genocide is the systematic murder of a single ethnic group

america may not have done this, however they have murdered thousands of civilians in south east asia, terror bombed japanease and german cities, killed 40k civilians in Iraq and overthrew central american governments that ended up murdering thousands of their population

And? The USSR killed huge numbers of Poles when it invaded Poland, used German POW's as slave labour, started the Winter War, but also murdered huge numbers of their own citizens (a communist trait, practically), unmatched by Capitalist powers.

genocide is the systematic murder of a single ethnic group

IE millions of Slavs in Russia.

yes i am well aware of the mass graves at Katyn and other areas. My parents made sure it was burned into my brain. And I know about the holodomor I wrote an essay about it back in May...

We both know what my argument to the USSR will be so i will just leave it at that

Of course you'd have to be aware. Hell, in Poland it's a crime to deny both the Holocaust and the crimes committed by the USSR.

The USSR is proof Communism doesn't work. Initially when Lenin took power he handed all capital over to the workers. But when the civil war broke out he reverted back to the capitalist structure (manager ----> Workers ------> Wages) because production had dropped tremendously, but had everything still state owned. Communism has been tried, and it hasn't worked. Worker ownership deteriorates to state capitalism.

the USSR is proof that communism had not been tried

a communist revolution is supposed to occur in an industrialized nation, like england at the time.
Russia was the farthest thing from being industrialized. It was still feudal. The communist leaders attempted to create an industrial revolution after the proletarian revolution

Well so far, I haven't seen the workers in any industrialized nation "seize control of the means of production", so if you say it hasn't been tried, it probably never will.

nigga what do you call the paris commune?

>clearly hasn't read marx

Not even going to bother

I'm really sleepy and I'm having a hard time gathering my thoughts. I will reply to you sometime... just send me a private message or something.

kudos.

Because we've (we as in everyone) taken it upon ourselves to distract ourselves with trivial matters such as race, sex, etc.

Mass media/propaganda didn't exactly fuel the revolution. McCarthy didn't help, either.

Or maybe it's because those who currently hold political power don't want to get off the marry-go-round?

Yeah, good for Lenin, he was a fucktard.

Decisions will be made using direct democracy. If something is needed it is produced. It's really not that hard to grasp.

Well, you can always bootleg DVD's and then burn them onto blank ones. D.I.Y ethics play a big role in marxist ideology.

Just to clarify I hate the fuck out of stalinists, trotskyists, maoists, leninists, and many of the others. I'm more fond of the Situationist International.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it becomes an exclusivity.

Arguably you could say that capitalism failed to prevent the Irish potato famine, that and the amount of famines the british empire caused reforming the countries it annexed economic systems to capitalism and changing their agricultural methods to suit cash crops which would in turn fail. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378

Mercantilism =/= Capitalism

It's arguable, yes, but the mercantilist system and colonialism are normally deemed responsible. Plus the cause of these famines weren't as blatant as the many under communism.

Gonna play devils advocate and argue that Stalinist "communism" and marxist communism are entirely different things, you could argue that the atrocity was done in the name of communism (wheres facistsoldier/soldat I want to make him rage, Tangent) Either way communism as it was originally theorized has yet to be put into practice and will likely never come about since it simply doesn't conform to the ideals of most 1st world modern societies, in other words we don't want to not have a state the rich poor gap is still small in comparison to what it was 100 years ago, we enjoy our safety nets and such provided by the state.

Also on the colonialism note, they took the farming method known to work by the locals, and replaced it with a crop rotation which wasn't needed and didn't actually yield many crops, this was done for money and as part of a business by the EITT is that not capitalism?

Sure, the workers didn't own the means of production, but the state did, rather than private owners competing for customers and making profits.

Also on the colonialism note, they took the farming method known to work by the locals, and replaced it with a crop rotation which wasn't needed and didn't actually yield many crops, this was done for money and as part of a business by the EITT is that not capitalism?

Making money isn't capitalism. Capitalism is where the means of production are privately owned, and compete for private profit. Now, you say the Crop Rotation thing made more money, then where did the money go? Normally, it would go towards production so that the prices will be lowered and the business will be more competitive. If the conditions remained the same that implies there was no competition, or that the government was forcing the owners to spend the money in Britain (Mercantilist principles, not capitalist ones).