Why are you not one of the happy cubans? Reality is he was a bloody dictator and we will never know how bad it got because he killed the reporters who would tell. Consider yourself lucky you live in USA.

File 148180064669.jpg - (91.05KB , 960x486 , 15193415_1175155879247027_1286833484298758945_n.jpg )

>>71
No, that isn't reality. Most people who fled cuba were Cuban elites, land owners, and those of the capitalist class in general.. While yes it is true that Fidel discriminated against gays and many other groups of people I think you are forgetting that the united statesa nd many, so called, allies, also did the same things. the united states has support fascist dictators (Including Batista) threw Japanese people in interment camps. And after 7 decades of leadership from Fidel Cuba has still come out on top. Esp compared to places like Haiti. (A capitalist country)

Face it people liked Fidel.

>>78
People liked Nelson Mandela too, doesn't mean South Africa isn't a shit hole.

>>79
The difference is that with enough mental gymnastics you can blame South Africa's current condition entirely on Jacob Zuma.

>>80
With enough mental gymnastics you can blame anything on anything. That's how you can take a kid who killed himself, because they tried to play him off as a girl, and turn it into proof that gender is a social construct. Hell, that's how you can take a study about stupid gender shit and use it to prove Fidel Castro was shit.

>>79
Cuba isn't a shit hole, tho.
They like any other country has their problems and there not problems.

>>82
Yes, but other country's problems don't make people cross the sea on an inner tube. Well, except the shit holes obviously.

>>87
Is that so?

Hati? Somolia? Syria? Mexico?
Also, let's not forget that many of those people who were fleeing Cuba were elites and land owners.

>>88
All of those countries being shit holes. Just because every communist state is a shit hole doesn't mean every shit hole is a communist state.

Also you keep saying "elite" and "land owners" like that somehow makes it different. Especially land owners because that is not someone I consider evil inherently. No shit the land owners left, one of the first things communist do is take away private land and try to hunt down anyone who wants to keep it. They did that in Zimbabwe and that is literally why the country is a shit hole.

>>89
The only reason Communism and state-sponsored Islam still exist is that we refuse to let natural selection run its course and keep these countries on life support, sending them billions of dollars in aid while they give us low-grade narcotics, AIDS and terrorists in return.

>>89
Yeah because private property is trash and should be abolished you dumb nigger.
It's not socialist goverments that make these places shit holes, tho, it's capital accumulation.

It's not rocket science. This is what happens when wealth is pooled and centralized. Because of it you have people with out.

>>90
This nigger is esp dumb for thinking evolution is soley about mutual struggle.

>>93
You do realize that communism is pretty much pooling all capital and giving it to the public according to need, right? And socialism is pooling all the capital and then putting a governing body in charge of it, right? So you're pretty much saying "a system where we pool all the capital and centralize it is not the problem; pooling all the capital and centralizing it is the problem."

>>90
>The only reason Communism and state-sponsored Islam still exist is that we refuse to let natural selection run its course and keep these countries on life support, sending them billions of dollars in aid while they give us low-grade narcotics, AIDS and terrorists in return.
I had no idea China received billions of dollars in aid and provided us with low-grade narcotics, AIDS and terrorists.

Do you have a source for this data or are you just pulling this generalization out of your ass to make yourself feel better about being a sociopath?

>>96
We still send them aid. Google that shit.

>>94
No, communism is about putting control of the means of production into the hands of the workers in a decentralized manor. Absolutely incorrect. While it is true that each will give and take according to ability and need that in no ways focuses on a centralized of capital. Capital is only capital when it reproduces capital, dumb shit.

Your understanding of socialism is also shit.

>>96
China gave up on communism; it is no longer a communist country. The "communist" party of china is in fact the upper managment of China Incorporated; China is a business, a capitalist business, out to make profit by any means possible. There's very little communism in China these days.

China actually got out of the narcotics business by outsourcing it to North Korea and other southeast asian puppet countries.

>source
I've been there. Eat a dick.

>make yourself feel better about being a sociopath
I feel great about being a sociopath; no reinforcement needed.

>>98
>>94
You're both wrong. The goal of communism is to disenfranchse the common people and centralize control of everything into a single-party national government. Oh, sure, you could look up all kinds of treatises, essays, and manuals to the contrary--but please consider the reality that no communist country has ever done anything but disenfranchise the common people and centralize all control of everything into a single-party national goverment.

>>98
Nigga capital is part of the means of production. What, you think a factory just falls out of the sky one day and some greedy bastard charges people to use it? No, they had to build that shit.

And my understanding of socialism is the definition of socialism. They take goods and resources and then distribute it. That first part is the pooling of wealth into a central point (the government).

>>99
Oh yeah man, forgot about like Ukraine, and Spain, and the Chiapas, and Rojava.

All those commies just didn't exist or something. . .wait, they did.

You guys love to babble about how "Muh communism always leads to a soviet dictatorship" Yet always conveniently forget about the places that didn't and hasn't consistently happened.

>>100
No, capital can be anything. Capital isn't just the means of production. Read Das Capital, man.
Capital can be labor, it can be money, (money advance for instance) it can be, yes, the means of production, but those things are only accounted as capital when they accumulate and reproduce themselves for a profit.

Marx talks about all of this very early on.

>>100Also, no, that is not the "Definition" of socialism. Socialism is any society were workers "socially" control the means of production.

Whether that be from a workers state (Deformed workers states don't count) dolling out the will of the workers or the workers directly controlling the m.o.p.

In contrast with communism which is a stateless classes society.

>>99
>it is no longer a communist country.
This is what conservatards actually believe.

>>103
And what is a government if not "social workers." Seriously retard, even if we go by your definition it is still pooling capital in a centralized matter.
>>102
And just because you call it something else does not mean it isn't the same thing. "Oh, it's only capital if it produces a profit." Well a factory takes something you have no use for and turns it into something useful. As far as I'm concerned that's profit whether you use money or not.

>>105
It matters because that's not socialism, lmao. Maybe you could try actually reading a fucking book rather than just sitting around on /pol/ and listing to rants about the jews.

Refer back to the top of my post for the answers to your second incipient ramble.

Marx lays out specifically what capital is and how it functions in Das Capital. Sorry you want to alter the definitions of words at your own discretion but that isn't how things work.

>>104
I think that's the first time someone's ever mistaken me as conservative. I'm usually mistaken as liberal.

>>101
>Ukraine
Is a corrupt shithole, like it or not, and lost Crimea as much to Russia invading it as the people have no faith in their government.
>Spain
Is a constitutional monarchy because el Generalissimo ended his brutal and suppressive government before his successors could make it even worse.
>Chiapas
The EZLN are not communists. They seek to live in a communal way as their native american ancestors did before colonization. You can go and talk to them about it.
>Rojava
Also not communist; not even close. Read the wikipedo article at least.

>You guys
It pleases me that you imagine a large group of people sharing my opinions.

File 148247291839.gif - (1.86KB , 356x217 , krd-pkk.gif )

>>107
>>107
The point was that they are socialists.
Commies is a typo I meant to say "Communities" Rojava also, very much are communists. You just don't know what the hell you are talking about, lol. they live in a socialist market economy, ffs. The PKK is the Kurdish Workers Party.

Also, You apparently know jack shit about Ukrainian and Spanish history. Considering they had two of the largest and most successful anarchist societies of the 20th century.

I have done more than my fair share of learning about the EZLN and Rojava and regardless of how the EZLN feel they live under a socialist economy.

>Collectivization over the means of production
>Collectivization over land and private property
>Decentralized State society

That is a form of socialism.

>>108
Buy a gun, get some bullets, put the bullets in the gun, put the gun against your head and pull the trigger.

>The point was that they are socialists.
No it wasn't, and they aren't.
>Commies is a typo I meant to say "Communities"
No it wasn't, and no you didn't.

You don't know anything about anything, and you pretend there is or was some socialist/communist/anarchist utopia that actually worked. You're just a kid with a green mohawk and converse shoes who doesn't appreciate what capitalism has done for him because you think doing things against the grain is inherently cool, good, or pisses off your parents and that's fine too.

The world doesn't need you. Save the world the trouble of crushing you and remove yourself as soon as possible.

>>109
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Yes they are.
They are socialists.Like it or not.

Now you are just trying use punch straw to not seem like such a retard.

>>110
It's not like I come here expecting informed, intellectual discussion. I am quite aware that most of the time I'll be talking to uneducated, loud-mouthed teenagers. I used to be one of those myself, you know. Like you, I thought there could be a glorious society without a government like the one we have where resources are shared and people have liberty. Then I went to university and learned some things and after that I went out into the real world and got a career.

Humans are not the angels you think they are. It's not big brother that makes us greedy, treacherous murderers. Share and share alike doesn't work on the large scale because we get in the way. Humans form communities, and communities require structure and division of labor; leadership and the passing of skills from one generation to the next; trade and bargaining of goods between those who have and those who need--and always some have more than others, some want more than others, and some want others not to have as much as they do.

Humanity itself is the corrupting force that ruins all your utopias. If you are unwilling to recognize your own lack of information, at least recognize the horrible thing that you are--that we all are. No amount of wishing you were right changes the fact that what you want will never be possible.

>>111
I mean, you are just plan wrong. Spain and Ukraine had millions of members spread all over the country. I never said humans were angels or that workers control of the means of production is Utopian or will fix everything, but, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do better than what we have now and production based on need rather than profit controlled by those who produce is that.
The roles of "leadership" do not mean that we need "ownership."I'm so tierd of arguing these points to people like you, lol. Like, why does being a leader require class society?

but please, just keep punching your strawman.

>>112
No it's not. Going by needs begs the question "what do humans really need?" Do we really need the internet? We didn't for thousands of years, why should we now? Do we need agriculture? Again, we didn't for thousands of years, so why now?

Well, the answer can be yes and no, and because of that we end up having everything we need when times are good and having everything we need when times are bad because we just lowered the needs of living. Mean while when we go by what we want we get more when times are good and new ways to get it when times are bad. We might need a new system, but your system is shittier than the one we have. Your system is stagnant.

>>113
It's never been tried so you can't say anything and capitalism is,blatantly failing. If people could produce from what they see fit when they see fit from the M.O.P then I see no reason why our standards of living wouldn't improve. And sure, people having what they need when times are good and having what they need when times are bad are two different things but at least every one has what they need, period.
When we are able to automate working conditions and produce well about a surplus needs and wants will basically be indistinguishable anyways.

>>107
>They aren't communists in Rojava


Meanwhile. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj0mUN2B2C4

>>115
The title cites four different militant groups, none of which can claim to be representative of the government of Rojava. This country barely even exists. I'm not sure it's even been around long enough to say their system is "working" or not--nearly the whole territory is an active warzone.

>>114
>never been tried
I never understood this argument. Do you guys not know what tried means? They tried, and it goes to shit once they finish up the revolution part.

You also don't seem to know what blatantly or failing means either. We're still using this system and it's still doing what its supposed to, more or less. If it were blatantly failing then every time some one tried to implement it then it would result in something that is totally and completely different then what it set out to accomplish. But we wouldn't know any systems like that, would we?

>>117
A communist society has never existed.
And, the revolution part isn't solely restricted to soviet style dictatorships. Not even Lenin wanted that.

That's like saying because the Syrian revolution failed that ruthless dictatorships are the best they got.

And, no, every one has implemented capitalism and there is a growing gap between working poor and rich capitalist all over the world just like marx predicted there would be.

File 148255367912.jpg - (57.19KB , 850x995 , Rojava-An-Alternative-to-Imperialism-SDL538382949-.jpg )

>>116
All of those groups are connected by the over arching governing canton social structure. Dude, I have plenty of Novella I can recommend to you on The Rojavan revolution if you need to catch up.

>>119
They may be young and idealistic now, but they have no legitimate claim to sovreignty. Once the Syrian Civil War is concluded, I imagine the Kurds are going to get serious about the establishment of their independent, ethno-centric state. Turkey won't have it; Russia will want Syria restored to pre-conflict borders; the US will either turn it's back on them after supplying them with weapons and training or back them without UN sanction or NATO support--either way backing a proposal to divide Syrian territory--and the fighting will start all over again.

In the midst of all that it looks like they are trying to set up an inspiringly democratic free-market, multi-cultural society in Rojava--except for the national level elections that are postponed due to the ongoing war.

>>120
>>120
They already have established a formal state. They did it this year.
Also, it's not "free markets" it's Market socialism. they have abolished over 75% of private property. Like, I love how you can sit from your mothers basement and call actual revolutionaries "idealist and young. Hilarious.

>>121
>They did it this year.
Good luck to them.

>>50
Impressive with the child mortality rates. Quite recently, Cuba had less child mortality than Laos and Fiji. Not it has less than the US.

File 148563331884.png - (49.89KB , 1352x706 , the 10 planks of the communist manifesto.png )

>>118
>it hasn't been tried, goy.

>>169
What this ignores are all of the things unrelated to the communist manifesto that also comprised the USSR. Genocide, secret police, forced dissapearance, creation of a new upper class of political strongmen, denial of representation to the people, etc. etc.

>>170
Nigga, that's like saying a laissez-faire market has never been tried because a government existed in that system. Communism is shit, you'll realize this when you move out of mommy's basement.

>>171
Actually it's more like saying there's never been a purely laissez-faire market because governments have always--at the very least--taxed businesses. Pure laissez-faire would have no regluation, no taxes, no mandated interaction between commerce and government whatsoever. People like to pretend that examples that fit their selected criteria are what they want them to be, but what else they are is an important distinction between the ideal they may have come close to and what they really were.

The USSR was shit; communism is a fantasy.

>Communism is shit, you'll realize this when you move out of mommy's basement.

And democracy is farce. Take the good 'ol USA (being the self-proclaimed poster-boy for 'democracy and freedom'), it's not a democracy by a long mile, it's not even a republic like it feigns to be, it's an oligarchy at best until you realise there's strong-arming within the ranks which puts it more in-line with a dictatorship.

So let me get this straight: y'all are going back and forth about which thing that doesn't exist is the best and why any other choice is wrong?

Shit, I didn't know that political views were like waifus.

>Shit, I didn't know that political views were like waifus.
Political views are worse than waifus, waifus don't claim they are better than other waifus.

Welcome to politics.

>>175
>waifus don't claim they are better than other waifus
Elswhere on the internet, there's actually a meme of waifu fighting. Weaboos claim their waifu and exhort her virtues over the other "inferior" waifu, insulting them in any way they can. It makes me sad that I know about it.

>>176
I didn't think that "your waifu a shit" was that obscure.