The central committee decreed that the orchard was to be collectivized, and many ladders built and distributed. But when the trees belong to everyone they belong to nobody, and that is who is motivated to care for them. So there would be no apples that year, only tears.
Because community gardens always get destroyed …
A hobby operated by volunteers isn’t load-bearing. Forced collectivization invariably leads to disaster.
No, it doesn’t … You have a central authority that makes sure that doesn’t happen or the community makes sure that doesn’t happen like how hippies grow their own food
The Soviet Union and Maoist China both had central authorities and millions of people starved to death because of collectivization. Do you think they just weren’t trying hard enough?
This is such a bad faith and ignorant argument.
There were literally famines before Stalin and Mao. And both places were being invaded by other countries, and had their own farmers sabotage the crops to make people raise up against the government. Also, once that was taken care of, nobody ever died of a famine even under Stalin or Mao and let alone after them.
Lets talk about how Britain purposefully created a famine that killed millions of Irish and Indians, shall we? And how European powers take away food security from Africa, and millions starve to death every year under capitalism.
The Holodomor happened years before the second world war started, The Great Leap Forward was over a decade after it had ended. Both of these were man-made famines inflicted during peacetime by communist governments upon their own people. Millions of people do not starve every year under capitalism, that’s just ridiculous.
Why would we talk about how empires treat their conquered subjects? That has nothing to do with capitalism and communism, you’re just trying to change the subject. I’m defending empires, war and conquest are terrible no matter who’s doing it.
Ignorance and bad faith? Every accusation is a confession.
Still ignorant and bad faith arguments that lacks any historical nuance
The Holodomor happened years before the second world war started
The USSR was being under constant invasions by the world powers that didn’t want to allow a socialist state to exist. Add to that, that the kulaks sabotaged their own crops to make people revolt and overthrow the socialist government.
The Great Leap Forward was over a decade after it had ended.
China was a poor agrarian country which infrastructure was destroyed by Japan. It constantly had famines that killed people even before that. Mao just couldn’t fix the issues that caused famine fast enough for another one not to repeat.
Literally millions of people starve in Africa due to not having enough money to eat, and due to the privatization of food and fields. That is capitalism. It is insane that you would say otherwise. And even in America lots of people are food insecure. And a capitalist nation Israel has killed like 100k people and a capitalist nation Germany killed 50 Million people.
Colonization is part of capitalism. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and so is fascism
Begone capitalist bootlicker
Community gardens still divide the space into individual plots. If I grow a bunch of jalapeño peppers on my plot then it’s not cool if you just come along and harvest them all.
what a kludge justice is.
capitalism: nuking the tree to mine for lithium
Where is the justice for everyone that Stalin killed by sending them to gulags? To Siberia? Where is the justice for those killed by Khmer Rouge?
The US is capitalist and has greater gulags than Russia ever could and regularly kills and enslaves millions.
Whataboutism doesn’t answer the question.
Sure it does. Hypocrisy has to be eliminated from the equation first.
No, it responds to the question. Waiting for a perfect hero before calling out problems is an excellent way to enable all kinds of atrocities.
We all know that capitalism is bad. It doesn’t automatically make communism good.
not even “better”.
Communism will never, has never and can never work on a large scale.
Neither can capitalism. But communism is incompatible with war.
history disagrees.
Are you counting defensive wars against capitalist colonizers, fascist invasions, and uprisings against oppressive puppet regimes and tyrants?
Everyone can be a tyrant or a puppet if you think different enough
I like how everyone’s response so far is “words have no meaning”
Always the victim. Get back to your struggle sessions, and hope the target isn’t you.
Are you counting defensive wars against capitalist colonizers, fascist invasions, and uprisings against oppressive puppet regimes and tyrants?
I’m sure you’re definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you’d discount. …but not all.
in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there’d be enough to disprove “communism is incompatible with war”.
Rather, you could say “in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn’t a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war.”
Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.
In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.
I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand’s claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.
Marxism is anti-utopian, it’s based on analyzing how societies evolve over time. What is deemed “authoritarianism” is the need for the proletariat to exert its control over the bourgeoisie, rather than the reverse, yet bourgeois rule is more authoritarian.
That’s fine in theory, until the party starts calling everything it sees as a potential opposition or threat to itself and any attempts to adapt to the times “burgeois”.
Until you guys create a clear set of rules to permit gradual evolution, dissenting voices, protecting the rights of the individual and political opposition, while preventing things like cult of personality, nobody is getting on that ride again.
(oh wait, there is another ride like that but for the nation instead of the proletariat, it’s called fascism…and everybody is getting on it…again)
Yes, because rule by the bourgeois will always tend towards a more authoritarian level than Socialism.
Yeah, because authoritarian systems always fail, without exception
The only real solution is to remove authority and bring society to adult level - better the other way round though.
remove adults and bring all the kids to the authoritarian level. Check.
ai slop with ai generated citation text…
Wow I almost didn’t catch it - you’re right, it is slop. Sorry you’re being downvoted.
Sorry, what is even happening in the last panel? Why does this art look so weird when you look at the people closely? Was this picture AI generated?
Yup, it’s all AI, at least the images and copyright.
This ai generated crap does less than nothing to promote communism.
I have seen this drawing many years ago, I don’t think this is AI generated.
Perhaps a base drawing the AI and prompter are riffing off of, but this collage is so nonsensical and only gets worse the more you look at it. Most of it is either AI, or the artist has some very curious mental disorders.
The original drawing from Tony Ruth (2019) can easily be found, it looks the same. Maybe it’s just and AI upscaling.
Copying my own comment from when this was posted last year:
Every time I see this quaint but misleading image reposted it’s necessary to make the same comment: the words attached to each image are do not exclusively represent those images. “Equality” could apply to all but the first; nobody uses “equity” this way; and most people use “justice” to refer to criminal justice and punishment.
