Oh god yes.

Losers who don't die get shipped to University of Chicago(home of Friedman economics) for indoctrination.

With required readings of 1984 and Ayn Rand?

That, Hayek, and and we'll thrown in the Federalist papers

ooooohh god yes~

Thanks!~

Yankee version
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ra9cXx1-o

I like the Southern version more

Keep talking this is turning me on

We could make raids into San Francisco and Seattle to acquire specimen. There will be plenty.

Oh god yes.

Losers who don't die get shipped to University of Chicago(home of Friedman economics) for indoctrination.

With required readings of 1984 and Ayn Rand?

That, Hayek, and and we'll thrown in the Federalist papers

ooooohh god yes~

Turn into commie killing season?

Gladiator fights with commies?

Keep talking this is turning me on

We could make raids into San Francisco and Seattle to acquire specimen. There will be plenty.

Oh god yes.

Losers who don't die get shipped to University of Chicago(home of Friedman economics) for indoctrination.

With required readings of 1984 and Ayn Rand?

That, Hayek, and and we'll thrown in the Federalist papers

ooooohh god yes~

Good luck taking Texas or any of the south. We will fuck you up.

My biggest concern if this were to happen is what happens to college football? The collapse of our society pales in comparison.

Turn into commie killing season?

Gladiator fights with commies?

Keep talking this is turning me on

We could make raids into San Francisco and Seattle to acquire specimen. There will be plenty.

Oh god yes.

Losers who don't die get shipped to University of Chicago(home of Friedman economics) for indoctrination.

With required readings of 1984 and Ayn Rand?

That, Hayek, and and we'll thrown in the Federalist papers

ooooohh god yes~

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LArGlfEVYqM

Texas pride.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd1oA47Ti0I&bpctr=1370504005
I'll leave this here

Thanks!~

Yankee version
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ra9cXx1-o

I like the Southern version more

Bull shit lol

>the intended result was not achieved.
Because the conditions were never met.

None of these were ever actually Marxist in concept; just authoritarian dictatorships that redistributed wealth. Stalinism was extremely different from anything Marx would have ever wanted.

Have I ever told you the definition of insanity?.gif

Let them try its like watching a retarded kid trying to pet a porcupine.

If a hypothesis has never been tested, then it cannot be disproven, because all that exists is speculation.

Also, you're conflating communism with socialism. This is like saying anarcho-capitalism and corporatism are the same thing.

We could consider USSR, China, Vietnam, Cambodia. Laos, The Warsaw Pact, and Cuba all tests in the experiment of communism. And in each case, the intended result was not achieved. And is socialism not an integral part of communism? The transition as the say?

>the intended result was not achieved.
Because the conditions were never met.

None of these were ever actually Marxist in concept; just authoritarian dictatorships that redistributed wealth. Stalinism was extremely different from anything Marx would have ever wanted.

They see "True" communism only comes after communists have killed off every living capitalist country and citizen. So yeah we don't want to try it.

Bullshit. Marx only wanted the death of people directly and intentionally responsible for the economic enslavement of others, and later in his life, acknowledged that revolution could be peacefully accomplished.

This is ignoring the fact that anarcho- communism is not inherently Marxist. There is no reason a group of consenting people could not consciously agree to form an an com society, in theory.

I'll believe it when I see it.

If so, all that capital would likely shift to Texas and Florida. No big deal.

>Soviet infiltration of Hollywood
And what about Western infiltration of the Eastern Bloc?

>USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in...
Funding revolutionary parties is different from intentionally destroying economies.

>The US didn't appoint...
No, the bourgeoisie did.

>Cuban Missile Crisis
Meanwhile NATO was refusing to sign no-first-use treaties.

Meanwhile the USA was bombing countries and orchestrating coups against democratically elected governments. Western Europe was no more independent from the US than Eastern Europe was from the USSR, if you want to play it that way.

And the USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in China, Southeast Asia, and even Western Europe? Western Europe was free. The US didn't appoint the UK rulers and it didn't send tanks into Britain and France if they didn't do what the US said. France actually left NATO temporarily. What did the US do? not a damn thing. Cuban Missile Crisis? And I'm not sure if you were aware of the Soviet infiltration of Hollywood. Anything America did was a reaction to Soviet Aggression.

>Soviet infiltration of Hollywood
And what about Western infiltration of the Eastern Bloc?

>USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in...
Funding revolutionary parties is different from intentionally destroying economies.

>The US didn't appoint...
No, the bourgeoisie did.

>Cuban Missile Crisis
Meanwhile NATO was refusing to sign no-first-use treaties.

I don't have time to hold your hand through Marxism 101.

Maybe because it requires violent revolution to accomplish? It requires a gun to your head to work.

It requires a violent revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

And what, capitalism doesn't require a gun to your head? You know how property laws are enforced, right? Another 'Meanwhile in Australia!': uni students protesting peacefully with their professors and other university staff are rushed by police, beaten and strangled.

I'm sorry what gives you the right to steal and take from others? What gives you a right to extend your influence over something you did contribute to? Did not risk your funds or work for?

That's fascism not capitalism at work.

>I'm sorry what gives you the right to steal and take from others?
Capitalism.

Where do we steal? What do we steal?

Capitalists appropriate the fruits of labour of the proletariat.

And we pay them for their labor from what they are willing to work for.

Capitalists pay a mere fraction of what an individual's labour is worth.

And the argument that people 'willingly' work is rubbish. It comes down to 'starve and die or work'. This is wage slavery, and it is not voluntary.

Also if the labor is so valuable then why is it plentiful, replaceable and cheap?
And if the labor's work is under valued what do you think the resources that the owner provides are worth?

Well in the wild does man like all animals have to work or die?

What makes man any different?

In the wild a man is producing for himself, and he is receiving all the fruits of his labour. In a capitalist society, man is producing for a capitalist, who then steals the fruits of his labour and pays him in wages.

>And if the labor's work is under valued what do you think the resources that the owner provides are worth?
Like for repost or church, I don't have time to hold your hand through Marxism 101. The resources the owner provides are irrelevant. The worker is the one producing the wealth that the owner uses to purchase resources anyway.

>Also if the labor is so valuable then why is it plentiful, replaceable and cheap?
Have you never heard of the reserve army of labour?

No, in communism the workers labor is owned by the state or the will of the many, he is a slave and NEVER the master.

If the resources and RISK (workers can find other work but the own is pouring his life and money risking it all) are irrelevant what value does a worker's plentiful mindless labor have? How are their wants more relevant than his needs?

Another government resource I presume?

Undead, I recommend reading Marx before attempting to criticise communism. Protip: communism is stateless.

Not the way history tells it.

Okay, find me one source in which a state has ever proclaimed they had achieved communism.

Well is it not true?

Well the way you see it, the whole world must be communistic in order to reach that stateless communism so yeah you'll never get past stalinism

A gross oversimplification.

Yeah, because priority had to be given to military industry because of Western aggression and sometimes they struggled to balance it out with consumer goods.

"Western aggression" ? Sorry but the USSR was way more imperialist than the West. They occupied all of Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile the USA was bombing countries and orchestrating coups against democratically elected governments. Western Europe was no more independent from the US than Eastern Europe was from the USSR, if you want to play it that way.

And the USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in China, Southeast Asia, and even Western Europe? Western Europe was free. The US didn't appoint the UK rulers and it didn't send tanks into Britain and France if they didn't do what the US said. France actually left NATO temporarily. What did the US do? not a damn thing. Cuban Missile Crisis? And I'm not sure if you were aware of the Soviet infiltration of Hollywood. Anything America did was a reaction to Soviet Aggression.

>Soviet infiltration of Hollywood
And what about Western infiltration of the Eastern Bloc?

>USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in...
Funding revolutionary parties is different from intentionally destroying economies.

>The US didn't appoint...
No, the bourgeoisie did.

>Cuban Missile Crisis
Meanwhile NATO was refusing to sign no-first-use treaties.

Welp, no. That's why I don't like stalinism either. Inflation, well... help me Oxan plox.

To put it simply, one cause of inflation is when people are earning more than they're spending. So, you had workers in the USSR producing military goods (because the Soviet state was threatened, and had to be heavily militarised) and earning money, but there were no consumer goods to purchase. Thus, inflation ensued.

To counter inflation, you'd were granted more leisure time until consumer goods picked up again. But by now the planning system had already begun to fall apart. Remind me to get you the analysis of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

Peasants were allotted a personal garden type thing to grow their own food.

Yeah, and finding another business to work at would be fine if they were actually competing for jobs. What do you think the reserve industrial army is?

Still they start running out of food for the peasants in the city they will take more than they can grow. They have a status quo after all.

*Stalinism.

What if there are few capitalists and too many workers? Or you don't have money to buy land so you can grow your food?

Then you're a poor fuck. But would you rather live in a country where everyone is a poor fuck and you have no freedom? And it get worse because inflation in communist countries was quite the problem.

Yeah, because priority had to be given to military industry because of Western aggression and sometimes they struggled to balance it out with consumer goods.

"Western aggression" ? Sorry but the USSR was way more imperialist than the West. They occupied all of Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile the USA was bombing countries and orchestrating coups against democratically elected governments. Western Europe was no more independent from the US than Eastern Europe was from the USSR, if you want to play it that way.

And the USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in China, Southeast Asia, and even Western Europe? Western Europe was free. The US didn't appoint the UK rulers and it didn't send tanks into Britain and France if they didn't do what the US said. France actually left NATO temporarily. What did the US do? not a damn thing. Cuban Missile Crisis? And I'm not sure if you were aware of the Soviet infiltration of Hollywood. Anything America did was a reaction to Soviet Aggression.

>Soviet infiltration of Hollywood
And what about Western infiltration of the Eastern Bloc?

>USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in...
Funding revolutionary parties is different from intentionally destroying economies.

>The US didn't appoint...
No, the bourgeoisie did.

>Cuban Missile Crisis
Meanwhile NATO was refusing to sign no-first-use treaties.

Welp, no. That's why I don't like stalinism either. Inflation, well... help me Oxan plox.

To put it simply, one cause of inflation is when people are earning more than they're spending. So, you had workers in the USSR producing military goods (because the Soviet state was threatened, and had to be heavily militarised) and earning money, but there were no consumer goods to purchase. Thus, inflation ensued.

To counter inflation, you'd were granted more leisure time until consumer goods picked up again. But by now the planning system had already begun to fall apart. Remind me to get you the analysis of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

You're quite simply fucked, at least Comrade Stalin gives choice of camp.
Satire and I'm out for today.

That's quite vague, but you fail to consider if or not the person has a choice to work for the capitalist, If I want to live I have to sell my labour, should I choose not to I will simply die, undermining my right to life (Even though rights are a human construct), perhaps you should consider that in a Stalinist government you are not looking out solely for yourself personal sacrifice means little for what is 1 among a crowd of millions. (Inb4 But in nature you'd have to work, in nature there is no capitalist double dipping on your wages and in nature there is no state to support the capitalist in his exploits) I'll get back to you in the evening it's 2am and I'm falling asleep.

If you do not want to do business with the capitalist, you starve.

No, you find another business to do business with under more favorable terms for you. Or just grow your own damn food. In communism you can't even do that because it belongs to the State.

Peasants were allotted a personal garden type thing to grow their own food.

Yeah, and finding another business to work at would be fine if they were actually competing for jobs. What do you think the reserve industrial army is?

Still they start running out of food for the peasants in the city they will take more than they can grow. They have a status quo after all.

*Stalinism.

What if there are few capitalists and too many workers? Or you don't have money to buy land so you can grow your food?

Then you're a poor fuck. But would you rather live in a country where everyone is a poor fuck and you have no freedom? And it get worse because inflation in communist countries was quite the problem.

Yeah, because priority had to be given to military industry because of Western aggression and sometimes they struggled to balance it out with consumer goods.

"Western aggression" ? Sorry but the USSR was way more imperialist than the West. They occupied all of Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile the USA was bombing countries and orchestrating coups against democratically elected governments. Western Europe was no more independent from the US than Eastern Europe was from the USSR, if you want to play it that way.

And the USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in China, Southeast Asia, and even Western Europe? Western Europe was free. The US didn't appoint the UK rulers and it didn't send tanks into Britain and France if they didn't do what the US said. France actually left NATO temporarily. What did the US do? not a damn thing. Cuban Missile Crisis? And I'm not sure if you were aware of the Soviet infiltration of Hollywood. Anything America did was a reaction to Soviet Aggression.

>Soviet infiltration of Hollywood
And what about Western infiltration of the Eastern Bloc?

>USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in...
Funding revolutionary parties is different from intentionally destroying economies.

>The US didn't appoint...
No, the bourgeoisie did.

>Cuban Missile Crisis
Meanwhile NATO was refusing to sign no-first-use treaties.

Welp, no. That's why I don't like stalinism either. Inflation, well... help me Oxan plox.

To put it simply, one cause of inflation is when people are earning more than they're spending. So, you had workers in the USSR producing military goods (because the Soviet state was threatened, and had to be heavily militarised) and earning money, but there were no consumer goods to purchase. Thus, inflation ensued.

To counter inflation, you'd were granted more leisure time until consumer goods picked up again. But by now the planning system had already begun to fall apart. Remind me to get you the analysis of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

You're quite simply fucked, at least Comrade Stalin gives choice of camp.
Satire and I'm out for today.

What about minarchism, isn't it the same as 'american' libertarianism?

No where. Because there are no communist countries.

Except maybe Cuba. I don't know. Haven't really looked into Cuba. But their economy is based off of sugar. And the largest importer of sugar is like the US or something. And the US has an embargo on Cuba, so...

If it's such a great system then why aren't there? There are no communist countries left for a reason. And I am fully against embargoes. All the communist countries whom traded with the United States either collapsed or reformed. The power of the free market is more powerful than guns and battleships.

I don't have time to hold your hand through Marxism 101.

Maybe because it requires violent revolution to accomplish? It requires a gun to your head to work.

It requires a violent revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

And what, capitalism doesn't require a gun to your head? You know how property laws are enforced, right? Another 'Meanwhile in Australia!': uni students protesting peacefully with their professors and other university staff are rushed by police, beaten and strangled.

I'm sorry what gives you the right to steal and take from others? What gives you a right to extend your influence over something you did contribute to? Did not risk your funds or work for?

That's fascism not capitalism at work.

>I'm sorry what gives you the right to steal and take from others?
Capitalism.

Where do we steal? What do we steal?

Capitalists appropriate the fruits of labour of the proletariat.

And we pay them for their labor from what they are willing to work for.

Capitalists pay a mere fraction of what an individual's labour is worth.

And the argument that people 'willingly' work is rubbish. It comes down to 'starve and die or work'. This is wage slavery, and it is not voluntary.

Also if the labor is so valuable then why is it plentiful, replaceable and cheap?
And if the labor's work is under valued what do you think the resources that the owner provides are worth?

Well in the wild does man like all animals have to work or die?

What makes man any different?

In the wild a man is producing for himself, and he is receiving all the fruits of his labour. In a capitalist society, man is producing for a capitalist, who then steals the fruits of his labour and pays him in wages.

>And if the labor's work is under valued what do you think the resources that the owner provides are worth?
Like for repost or church, I don't have time to hold your hand through Marxism 101. The resources the owner provides are irrelevant. The worker is the one producing the wealth that the owner uses to purchase resources anyway.

>Also if the labor is so valuable then why is it plentiful, replaceable and cheap?
Have you never heard of the reserve army of labour?

No, in communism the workers labor is owned by the state or the will of the many, he is a slave and NEVER the master.

If the resources and RISK (workers can find other work but the own is pouring his life and money risking it all) are irrelevant what value does a worker's plentiful mindless labor have? How are their wants more relevant than his needs?

Another government resource I presume?

Undead, I recommend reading Marx before attempting to criticise communism. Protip: communism is stateless.

Not the way history tells it.

Okay, find me one source in which a state has ever proclaimed they had achieved communism.

Well is it not true?

Well the way you see it, the whole world must be communistic in order to reach that stateless communism so yeah you'll never get past stalinism

A gross oversimplification.

Oh look this is your political system commies,

Define freedom are we talking political freedom civil freedom/rights (I'm not sure what you call them.) . There can not be freedom so long as their is capitalism by nature capitalism oppresses the workers what freedom do they have in their lives, if you believe you can be free whilst living in a capitalist system then you're deluding yourself as to the nature of your circumstances.

Freedom is the absence of tyranny. Plain and simple. The lack of tyranny as far as economic decisions go is capitalism. The capitalist cannot oppress because if do not want to do business with the capitalist, then don't. The capitalist does not have the capability of force. If you refuse to do what a tyrannical Stalinist government says, you get killed. That's oppression.

That's quite vague, but you fail to consider if or not the person has a choice to work for the capitalist, If I want to live I have to sell my labour, should I choose not to I will simply die, undermining my right to life (Even though rights are a human construct), perhaps you should consider that in a Stalinist government you are not looking out solely for yourself personal sacrifice means little for what is 1 among a crowd of millions. (Inb4 But in nature you'd have to work, in nature there is no capitalist double dipping on your wages and in nature there is no state to support the capitalist in his exploits) I'll get back to you in the evening it's 2am and I'm falling asleep.

If you do not want to do business with the capitalist, you starve.

No, you find another business to do business with under more favorable terms for you. Or just grow your own damn food. In communism you can't even do that because it belongs to the State.

Peasants were allotted a personal garden type thing to grow their own food.

Yeah, and finding another business to work at would be fine if they were actually competing for jobs. What do you think the reserve industrial army is?

Still they start running out of food for the peasants in the city they will take more than they can grow. They have a status quo after all.

*Stalinism.

What if there are few capitalists and too many workers? Or you don't have money to buy land so you can grow your food?

Then you're a poor fuck. But would you rather live in a country where everyone is a poor fuck and you have no freedom? And it get worse because inflation in communist countries was quite the problem.

Yeah, because priority had to be given to military industry because of Western aggression and sometimes they struggled to balance it out with consumer goods.

"Western aggression" ? Sorry but the USSR was way more imperialist than the West. They occupied all of Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile the USA was bombing countries and orchestrating coups against democratically elected governments. Western Europe was no more independent from the US than Eastern Europe was from the USSR, if you want to play it that way.

And the USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in China, Southeast Asia, and even Western Europe? Western Europe was free. The US didn't appoint the UK rulers and it didn't send tanks into Britain and France if they didn't do what the US said. France actually left NATO temporarily. What did the US do? not a damn thing. Cuban Missile Crisis? And I'm not sure if you were aware of the Soviet infiltration of Hollywood. Anything America did was a reaction to Soviet Aggression.

>Soviet infiltration of Hollywood
And what about Western infiltration of the Eastern Bloc?

>USSR wasn't orchestrating communist takeovers in...
Funding revolutionary parties is different from intentionally destroying economies.

>The US didn't appoint...
No, the bourgeoisie did.

>Cuban Missile Crisis
Meanwhile NATO was refusing to sign no-first-use treaties.

Welp, no. That's why I don't like stalinism either. Inflation, well... help me Oxan plox.

To put it simply, one cause of inflation is when people are earning more than they're spending. So, you had workers in the USSR producing military goods (because the Soviet state was threatened, and had to be heavily militarised) and earning money, but there were no consumer goods to purchase. Thus, inflation ensued.

To counter inflation, you'd were granted more leisure time until consumer goods picked up again. But by now the planning system had already begun to fall apart. Remind me to get you the analysis of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

You're quite simply fucked, at least Comrade Stalin gives choice of camp.
Satire and I'm out for today.

Rugby League - england

Rugby and Cricket. But that could just be because I live in London

"soccer" is a bigger sport than the sports in USA, every single country plays it

That's not what he asked...

you're right, but i was just saying

That's why communists believe in the supremacy of councils over the government. This didn't happen in many socialist countries because the revolutions took place in feudal societies where they weren't meant to, so the governments used that to justify the suppression of councils in favour of state capitalism, which in most cases wasn't replaced when it should.

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean wealth redistribution, its main principle is that workers are in control of the means of production.

Labor cannot control the means of production, because labor is only a part of the production process, the other part being capital. And in no socialist country has that ever been the case, because the governments end up with the power and they use it not to do what is good for the "proletariat" but what furthers their own power.

That's why communists believe in the supremacy of councils over the government. This didn't happen in many socialist countries because the revolutions took place in feudal societies where they weren't meant to, so the governments used that to justify the suppression of councils in favour of state capitalism, which in most cases wasn't replaced when it should.

Also, socialists make a distinction between private and personal property.

Individualist socialism is not very usual, but it still exists.

Individualism and socialism is contradictory. You can't have wealth redistribution and respect for the individual at the same time.

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean wealth redistribution, its main principle is that workers are in control of the means of production.

Labor cannot control the means of production, because labor is only a part of the production process, the other part being capital. And in no socialist country has that ever been the case, because the governments end up with the power and they use it not to do what is good for the "proletariat" but what furthers their own power.

That's why communists believe in the supremacy of councils over the government. This didn't happen in many socialist countries because the revolutions took place in feudal societies where they weren't meant to, so the governments used that to justify the suppression of councils in favour of state capitalism, which in most cases wasn't replaced when it should.

Population, USSR: 240,000,000
Population, USA: 201,000,000

Yes, the Soviets clearly had twice the population of the US.