Tanya

>a dictatorship is not left wing
Fuck off, Adorno. Your scale is shit.

He is saying that communism cannot succeed and be real gommunism until you have no metric to judge it by, ensuring true equal judgement, communist judgement.

The word leftwing was termed by the French revolution.

>termed
*coined

Stop being a retard nigger monkey

>the government has full control of everything
>"Nobody would abuse that position, everyone is good and wants what's best for everyone."

That is why communism fails, because it completely ignores human nature and acts like people aren't naturally prone to corruption when in places of immense power. Humans evolved into a class system just as all other animals in nature have. Its pack mentality and it is preprogrammed into our DNA.

>>the government has full control of everything
So it's not communism.

>no communism in the country who invented communism
Nice try.

Attached: fucking jews.jpg (662x541, 28K)

>the country who invented communism
Germany, the birthplace of Marx?
France, because their revolution made such ideas possible?
Or England, where Marx was living when he wrote the Capital?

>its not communism
It is however, the state is supposed to control the means of production and how it is distributed to the public. The government is supposed to function as the mediator of the will of the people but it always ends with massive corruption and economic collapse. Its funny because Fascism does the same thing except the difference is the production is seized by the government then placed into individual hands to control it. Even Marx himself said that his system would only ever truly be possible if it was enforced at gunpoint.

Germany?

>The government is supposed to function as the mediator
Not in communism.
You are confusing socialism (which indeed has never worked the way that communists envisioned it) with communism, which was never more than an end goal.

ITT: Anons attempt to reverse 8 decades of American propaganda.

Fair enough but both Fascism and Communism share government socialist ideas just in drastically different fashions. Really in my opinion socialism is the worst idea to possibly gain any traction in any country. Like when they were praising Venezuela for being a paradise in the 1990s and 2000s but now that it stopped working they say it wasn't real socialism when that is always the end result of what happens because of human nature of wanting to rule others. Socialism is the deadliest idea to emerge in the 20th century.

I want to seize Tanya's means of reproduction.

>seeing people eat rats and governments gunning down civilians is propaganda

No its called reality and truth, its something that in a free society you are allowed to pursue without fear of censorship or government retaliation.

>its not communism if it fails
great definitions there
>if i discount all the times i have lost then i have only ever won in my whole life

The same as her views on sushi

Attached: Tanya big sushi.png (600x800, 507K)

You can't point at Venezuela being a proof of socialist failure but ignore Norway or Canada.

I think there needs to be a balancing power to oppose the extreme lobbying power of corporations, otherwise your capitalism is just off-hinging itself and turning into something completely different.
Democracy is about making a composition of different opinions, and to reject the left half means to strengthen the right half, and then you just keep steering right with no way to ever readjust the direction because to do so would be leftwing and socialist.

>How can one be so retarded?
Good question, user, because the only times people have died to such things under Socialism were during massive famines. After fixing said famines, socialist countries simply didn't/don't have people starving in the streets like even the richest capitalist countries still do.
jstor.org/stable/40404638?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>That is why communism fails, because it completely ignores human nature and acts like people aren't naturally prone to corruption when in places of immense power. Humans evolved into a class system just as all other animals in nature have. Its pack mentality and it is preprogrammed into our DNA.
kek. If you unironically think communism is looking to remove "classes" as a whole you're fucking retarded. What communism, or more precisely, socialism is looking to remove, is the economic class dynamic between the employer and the worker. That's it. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
>It is however, the state is supposed to control the means of production and how it is distributed to the public.
Communism intrinsically CANNOT have a state you fucking retard. That's why when anyone who knows what they're talking about says "not true communism" they are right whether you like it or not; the state, in any national model of socialism ever tried, has never been abolished.
>Even Marx himself said that his system would only ever truly be possible if it was enforced at gunpoint.
let's see which quote you're misconstruing to present such a loaded point oh wait, this is something you heard on /pol/, you haven't read a single line of marx
Strawman points aren't legitimate, especially when they are saying literally nothing. And no, you fucking retard, there has never been "communism". There have been governments which have taken on a communist ideology and attempted to build it, but it has never been achieved.

It's not my definition, it's Karl's. A country that says it wants to try communism but remains a dictatorship is hardly the fault of communism.

book 5 is out. really wish someone would pick up translations like overlord cause jewpress is taking fucking forever.

Attached: losloslos.jpg (1280x720, 165K)

>Fair enough but both Fascism and Communism share government socialist ideas just in drastically different fashions.
They don't at all. One strives to build a dictatorship of those determined to be strongest, the other strives to remove any means for a dictatorship to form.>Really in my opinion socialism is the worst idea to possibly gain any traction in any country. Like when they were praising Venezuela for being a paradise in the 1990s and 2000s but now that it stopped working they say it wasn't real socialism when that is always the end result of what happens because of human nature of wanting to rule others.
Let's define socialism first of all:
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them
Your understanding of what happened in Venezuela is simply wrong. During that period, things were rapidly nationalized, and quality of life shot up. Things were shortly thereafter re-privatized, and the Venezuelan economy is now sitting at being around 70% private. By definition, Venezuela is not socialist as the workers, or even the public, do not own the means of production or their economy. What we see because of this, as well as factors like oil-prices plummeting, is the massive decline of Venezuelan quality of life.
This isn't the failure of socialism, and this is provable via empirical evidence. Issues only arose when the economy was re-privatized.

Socialism, nearly without fail, has always provided a better quality of life than its previous system or similar capitalist counterparts. This is objective. (jstor.org/stable/40404638?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) Saying socialism has failed is simply stupid. What we should instead focus on is criticizing the parts that made aspects go poorly, which leftists have been at the forefront of doing for fucking decades.

>Issues only arose when the economy was re-privatized.
You say that like the nationalized economy was functional. It wasn't and reprivatizing the economy was too little too late. That's like saying the Irish Potato Famine was the "fault" of the British government pursuing free market capitalism, when the potato famine only got as bad as it did in the first place because the Corn Laws arbitrarily made growing anything other than potatoes prohibitively expensive. Yes, during the Potato Famine the Corn Laws were repealed, but expacting that to suddenly rebalance a problem that the Corn Laws had created for decades would be nothing more than magic.

Norway and Canada are not socialist countries you brainlet. Having semi socialist policies does not make you a socialist country. SSI is socialist in nature but that doesn't make the US a socialist country. Anyone who cites a country with a capitalist economy as a bastion of socialism has already lost the fight.

I'm just glad it's being done at all.
There was one person translating it before, but it was going at such a glacial pace that even if they continued what they were doing the yenon release would still be caught up by now if not ahead of his.

Norway and Canada aren't socialist failures because they still have a white middle class and natural resources to pay for those socialist policies.

Lobbying power of corporations is a major problem which lobbying in of itself should be illegal but money talks. The divide in the political environment is one of leftist creation though with witch hunts and use of corporate media as a politcal propaganda machine, which has only served to spark anger in the right which in turn divides even further leaving anyone in the middle left out. You are either far left or far right in today's politics and if you hold views outside of the norms than you are a blah blah so and so buzzwords, its rediculous and the divide has completely shut down debate between both sides who view each other as evil.

>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them

Again social ownership of anything is not possible if you have any idea of human nature. There will always be one who seeks to own more than the other to be in a position of power. That is how it has been since the dawn of man and how it will be at the sunset of man.

>Communism intrinsically CANNOT have a state you fucking retard
So its a fairy tail, got it.

>What communism, or more precisely, socialism is looking to remove, is the economic class dynamic between the employer and the worker.

That is literally impossible, you will always need a leader to make decisions as far as how production is managed, distributed, and created. Even Unions fail to do this and money always ends up in someone's pocket or policies are enacted that benefit the higher ups without the consent of the collective which it is supposed to represent. Face it, the utopian idea is one that looks good on paper but in reality would never be possible.

Well there are no helicopters yet, but

Attached: 1537911517279.png (660x370, 298K)

20 million is generous estimate of gulaged population in USSR alone.

You decry the political divides of today's political climate, but blame the left in the same breath. What a joke.

>Again social ownership of anything is not possible if you have any idea of human nature. There will always be one who seeks to own more than the other to be in a position of power. That is how it has been since the dawn of man and how it will be at the sunset of man.
>Again social ownership of anything is not possible if you have any idea of human nature. There will always be one who seeks to own more than the other to be in a position of power.
Why do those who clearly no nothing of socialist theory feel the need to dispute it? Socialists have never once, EVER, called for the equalization of property and power. Shocking, I know. Literally all a socialist wants is for the inherently exploitative relationship between capitalist and worker to be abolished. Once this class dynamic is gone we will be able to get what socialists are after: equality of opportunity and fair pay. That means that everyone can earn what they actually fucking work for and spend it as they please. If you work more hours than your coworker, you can own more than him. If you put in more effort, you can climb the ranks in your work place and get more power. That is what socialism is all about: socialists aren't a fan of a dictator siphoning off a percent of what workers own and acting as a dictator in decisions.
So now that you've heard your first legitimate introduction to socialism, what part of human nature contradicts what I wrote? As a socialist, all I want is for everyone to have equal opportunity to get ahead of his counterparts.
>That is how it has been since the dawn of man
That is objectively incorrect. How the fuck do you think primitive societies were structured?

They didn't gulag and kill 20 million unique people every year.

If you can't admit that media manipulation by the left has been a critical factor in political divides in the last 4 years than you are literally retarded. I'm saying that they started the problem and both sides escalated it.

I want to fuck Tanya.

total deaths in GULag equal to some 680000 peolpe

>exploitative relationship between capitalist and worker to be abolished.
Who's going to run the company then? The state? I'm laughing. Without personal investment in development of business, without business owners - nobody would care enough and nothing would work, just how it never works in socialism.

Attached: 1525671749911.jpg (278x1136, 50K)

Whay you described is literally capitalism you dumbass brainlet.

Fuck off.

Seeing as s/he is 100% Capitalist individualist she despises communism.

>gulaged means only gulag
Retard.

Socialism and capitalism are compatible ideologies, because people aren't lunatics in their natural state. What's hard to understand?

So what you are saying is that if the individual works hard to improve the individual's life he can achieve more as an individual? Sounds like capitalism to me friendo

A rocket breaking up within the atmosphere isn't "spaceflight".

They aren't "socialist failures" because they haven't been suffocated with blockades you fucking idiot. It's the same for the rest of Scandinavia.
>Who's going to run the company then? The state? I'm laughing.
The workers you mongoloid. Do you actually think owners are the ones who run companies? The people running "companies" are the same under any economic system: the workers. The managers, the producers, it doesn't matter, they are the ones running the company. The guy who owns it and sits back making a ridiculously importunate amount of the profit is not necessary, and I'd love to hear why you think he is.
>Whay you described is literally capitalism you dumbass brainlet.
Oh sorry, I forgot the version of capitalism that doesn't have capitalists. My bad.
>So what you are saying is that if the individual works hard to improve the individual's life he can achieve more as an individual?
Yeah.
>Sounds like capitalism to me friendo
Working ridiculous hours and in laughably bad conditions in the richest countries on earth to improve porky's life isn't exactly what I think of when I talk about an individual working hard to improve his own life, but to each his own I guess.

Tanya hates communists because salaryman was raised in Japan, the country butt-fucked and tamed by America, whose brand of capitalist-freedom is the absolute model of a perfect society.

Volume 4 is pretty heavy handed with the "communists are evil subhuman" crap, it was so tiring. As a Brit looking on the Brexit "democracy" shitpie, killing "commies" was not cool or amusing in the slightest, in fact Tanya's colonial subject mentality was disappointing.

Communism can only exist when everyone independently works towards a single goal, such as with an ant hive. People are not hives, therefore communism can't work.

>both sides
>but it's the left's fault
Who could be behind this comment, I wonder.

>186465543
>this assmad
>farming (you)s
No more replies to you whore.

Attached: 1537495510072.gif (520x360, 1.95M)

And why does everyone need to work towards a single goal, friend? I don't remember Marx, Engels, or anyone else I've read say that.

>The workers you mongoloid.
>Country can be run by a cook
>Industry can be run by a blacksmith

Attached: 1523190749552.jpg (960x640, 215K)

>If you can't admit that media manipulation by the left has been a critical factor in political divides in the last 4 years than you are literally retarded. I'm saying that they started the problem and both sides escalated it.
>the left
who is the left in your mind? The pink haired liberal who was hired by the media company so they look a bit more progressive?
Fuck off pol.

Communism needs slaves. It always ends up using them. Therefore communism would only be possible in post-scarcity when there are AI slaves doing party bidding.

For everyone to be equal they need to value others over themselves at all points in time. Such as with a hive. It doesn't work. It can never work. Communism fails to accept the human condition at the most basic level.

It's also a joke to call the relationship exploitative when it is a voluntary relationship between the two parties through the formation of a contract. If the employer really is being "exploitative", there's nothing (except maybe some clauses in the contract that the employee voluntarily signed) that prohibits him from leaving to work for a different company. In fact, allowing workers to leave company A if company B provides more benefits is part of the system.

Worker run companies can theoretically be viable, though it would require these workers to themselves invest into opening up the company or alternatively buy stocks into that company and then work to improve the value of their stocks. I think Mondragon works according to the latter model. Though this doesn't change the fact that there still is a place for a worker-employer relationship for people who can't afford stocks, can't afford an investment to open a company or simply prefer the security of a fixed and steady wage over the risk of having to take both profits and losses depending on the flow of the market.

The idea that workers are exploited is a meme. Workers are exploited if they are not given a choice and not allowed to leave. Those "workers" are called slaves.

If a system has slaves, it is not communist.

Attached: 1535650967946.jpg (1100x500, 235K)

If communism doesn't have slaves it keels over and dies.

>The idea that workers are exploited is a meme. Workers are exploited if they are not given a choice and not allowed to leave. Those "workers" are called slaves.
This is currently the case in the US today. If the worker does not wish to be exploited, they have the capitalist, free market choice to become homeless and die.
Socialism seeks to end this false dichotomy. The idea that your work conditions should compete with "starve to death" in a post industrial society is a laughably convenient interpretation of capitalism.

Don't be ridiculous. Every society needs slaves. The very foundation of society depends on undervaluing labor and over valuing leadership.

>The workers you mongoloid.
Well can they sell their company to other workers in communism? Then they don't own anything. If you don't own a company - you're not attached to it and not personally invested in it's development. It's just a post party have put you into. This is why productivity was shit and theft was rampant in USSR production and why Colhoz collective agriculture were rotting: nobody was interested in working seriously on what is essentially not their land.

>Workers are slaves because they need money to pay for rent and food
OK

>media manipulation by the left
Media that are to 99% owned by incredibly rich individuals?
I doubt that they are actually left-leaning.
Don't confuse leftwing with liberal.

>Country can be run by a cook
Probably not, but the country can be ran by those who are educated in political science and economics rather than soldiers and economic puppets.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
>Industry can be run by a blacksmith
Maybe. It could certainly be ran by the manager who would be managing it anyway.
>For everyone to be equal they need to value others over themselves at all points in time. Such as with a hive. It doesn't work. It can never work. Communism fails to accept the human condition at the most basic level.
Communists don't want everyone to be equal you fucking retard. Read my other reply before replying next time.
>Worker run companies can theoretically be viable, though it would require these workers to themselves invest into opening up the company or alternatively buy stocks into that company and then work to improve the value of their stocks.
This is an interesting approach, and there are tons others that in my opinion would serve to benefit the workers in a much more direct way, but you're on the right track.
>The idea that workers are exploited is a meme. Workers are exploited if they are not given a choice and not allowed to leave. Those "workers" are called slaves.
They inherently are, and since you seem somewhat openminded I'll give a quick rundown:
The profit acquired by an employer is necessarily taken off the money a worker is generating merely because they were wealthy enough to purchase the means of production. The worker in this scenereo is inherently exploited, and there is no reason for the employer to even be involved in this as someone who exists only as an owner is unnecessary. The relationship is inherently exploitative.

Funny how the socialists do the whole "starving to death" bit the best, then. Last I checked, the problem America has is the exact opposite. Then again, this is the anime board, not the "sucking marx's cock" board, so maybe you should try

Attached: Problem Potato.jpg (1366x768, 121K)

I bet he's an underage who never had decent work. I know a lot of people who used to be communist until they got a decent job.
Then suddenly they weren't keen on sharing fruits of their labor with useless trash.

Attached: 1540428428713.jpg (1676x943, 580K)

>Communists don't want everyone to be equal you fucking retard.
When nobody is allowed to own anything above personal property toothbrush - everyone is equal in their misery.

>Volume 4 is pretty heavy handed with the "communists are evil subhuman" crap, it was so tiring.
To me it was simply "in character", so I didn't see a problem.

>you aren't entitled to a return on your investment

Did the workers buy the machines? Did the workers buy the materials to make the finished product? If the company fails is it the worker that has to foot the debt? No? Well then guess what you aren't entitled to that. The investment in the infrastructure requires capital in the first place. If I want to to build a car I have to attain the materials and machinery for the car as well as the work to build it. Thay requires capital to invest in the machines, to invest in the materials, and to invest in the manpower in order to produce a product that generates capital to make a return on my investment. The worker is a part of this cycle as the production portion of my investment and works on an agreed upon wage given to him. If the worker wishes to back out of this at any time he can do so and seek employment elsewhere as is his right. I make further investment to gain another worker. If I pay too little than no one will be willing to do the work and if I pay to much I don't see a return on my investment that is large enough for me to expand my business. Individuals that work hard are seen as a good investment and are moved up the ladder to increase productivity in order to generate more capital. Now the option to automate production is there, however the cost of automation is larger than that of the human labor so I continue to employ human labor, however if the cost of human labor is too high and it is generating a net loss than automation s introduced in order to keep the company above water so that further investment can be made into production.

Everything is a cycle and functions well under the current system which is why people now have a higher QoL than any other time in human history.

So tell me what happens in communism with people who don't want to work? They're lazy and at any post they get assigned to they do more harm than good.

What qualifications do western politicians have?

Being born rich and having the correct friends, of course.

>no reading comprehension

Let me use an example that might work better with your IQ. Say you get mad your mommy only gives you 5 tendies instead of 6 so you argue with her, well you have started the argument. Now say you two keep arguing and you reee and goto your room, a divide has been created between you because you both began to argue. It's the same thing.

people who are lazy and refuse to work are send to the gulag/re-education camps/forced labor camps

Attached: vietnam fucking shits.jpg (530x401, 107K)

Well of course not. The capitalist didn't build any of those things either. They spent money earned by the labor of their workers. In any event, people are more responsible with things that they own. That's the only reason why owning things is good.

>Then suddenly they weren't keen on sharing fruits of their labor with useless trash.
Like management who delegate out all their own duties to everyone else and just wander around the workplace or jack off in their office?

It's true, just like how true capitalism has never been tried

Wrong. A worker presents a product with their skillsets. If a worker has a desired skillset to produce a product or service required by a corporation he is given compensation for the use of his skillsets in the form of a wage. If a worker had no desirable skillset than nobody will want to invest capital into them and they go without a wage. The worker then has a choice, to adapt to a changing workplace or fall behind and be left in the dust.

>Well can they sell their company to other workers in communism?
I'm going to use socialism as it is more correct here, but possibly, yeah. It depends on what you think. There are market socialist models that take that sort of perspective. Not every communist or socialist is a stalinist.
user, what private property do you own? Personally, I own none, like nearly every other worker on the entire planet. What I own is tons of personal property, i.e, my toothbrush, my computer, my house, my car, etc., things which every single socialist on earth makes it very clear has nothing to do with the seizing of the means of production because they aren't means of production.
You get to own what you own. The rich guy in the wealthy part of town who owns several factories and doesn't work anymore because of it does not.
They aren't paid or given housing? There's no reason to support parasites -- that's the point of phasing out the capitalist class.
>Did the workers buy the machines?
No, they did something much more important: they made them and supplied the capital for porky to buy them.
>Did the workers buy the materials to make the finished product?
No, but they mined them and supplied the capital for porky to buy them.
>If the company fails is it the worker that has to foot the debt?
Yes, and even if that wasn't the case, why does risk involved have any influence over whether it is right to reach into the majority's pockets and take money out of it?
>Everything is a cycle and functions well under the current system which is why people now have a higher QoL than any other time in human history.
Technology provides increases in quality of life regardless of economic system you fucking mong. We have the most inequality present since ancient egypt and could easily make that quality of life a lot higher. Poverty rates have been getting steadily worse under global capitalism. These aren't difficult issues to identify or address.

I meant total death sentences in USSR from 1928 till 1953

I do not see how what you are saying disagrees with his statement.

>fall behind and be left in the dust.
Western societies produce on a scale that makes this an unacceptable fate for any citizen.

>>/pol/

>Like management who delegate out all their own duties to everyone else
Holy shit so you ARE underage who never worked a company.
Unless we're talking severe case of nepotism - where the fuck do you think managers who delegate come from?
>you start as a newbie and team-lead and manager both look out for you
>then you're a full-fledged specialist
>then senior specialist
>then principal specialist
>then if you have a knack at communication - you are given a team lead position
>at this point you do less of the job itself and coordinate efforts of your subordinates as well as cooperating with other teams
>you cooperate with manager if there's something you need from other departments and any requests from those departments for your team will come down through your manager
>then as you accumulate experience and if position is available - you become a manager
>you coordinate efforts of several teams or a department and requests for those teams and departments come through you
>every day both your subordinates and other teams/departments will want shit to be done by them and it's your duty to sort this out, forward/approve/deny requests
>And it's up to you to decide how to fit all that shit into a plan set to you by director of department
>You'll also participate in meetings to no end, to help figure out and estimate those efforts
>Then you would need to discuss those plans with your team-leads to work out a feasible schedule

Fuck off kid, you know nothing.

> western societies produce
Then why does half of my shit say "made in china"?

Every capitalist did not start with capital like some magic genie gave them all their money you microminded mong. Someone at some time, whether it be their family or through financial institutions had to generate that capital with their own labor. Now what that person did with their produced capital they invested into generating more capital and through trial and error either fail or succeed but at one time the worker had to generate that capital in order to invest in order to produce more in order to invest more and eventually you have a large company. Capitalists and their children are a result of risks and smart decisions that got them to that point because they saw potential in an idea and took it to where it gets to. Every company on earth started out as a small enterprise. Capitalism is the best system for this very reason that if you have an idea and you run with it and it is a good one it can succeed.

>my house
>owning house in communism
Fucking retard, there was no private-owned real estate in USSR until years before it's fall.