Because Amerifats are ugly, women want more Tyronne's and european Chads in Murica.
It gives them benefits. Once the welfare state collapses they'll move right overnight.
because the left "sympathize" with muh "womens problems".
J
The more of a sheltered, bubbled life absent of problems wrought by reality you live, the more you lean left. To say the least, women deal with harsh reality far less often than men.
cause women have lower iqs
V
PM_ME_STRIPPERS said:
I don’t know. Me and @Red Shambhala are commies (real leftists) and we don’t think like that.
Vision said:
no i mean like most of the numales and cucks do
tenta said:
Vision said:
LOL communism.
Venezuela, USSR, cuba, NK, Albania, ... It never worked and never will. Also, what's the difference for the average man in terms of status? how is a single corporate entity with its powerful, dictatorial, ruthless apparatchiks any better than a large collection of large powerful entities you can be a shareholder of or even create yourself from scratch if you have a modicum of talent in, say, programming (I know it's cope but I'd be dead already without any copes at all).
I
Because they are superior to men
WormGear said:
So they don't have to depend on a betabux ugly man.
tbh, anti-feminism is not marketable to women because how is telling them they can't have their own money, can't vote, can't go out of the house without be accompanied by a male relative etc an attractive proposition to them?
Only muslims seem to master the secret of selling the idea to femoids. (though it's usually because of an Arab chad they fell in love with)
Because feminism (a left-wing ideology) appeals to them
V
FeminismsCancer said:
Firstly, those countries you listed are not communism because:
- It is a state.
- It has classes.
- It has money.
- Workers do not own the means of production.
- Private property has become state property, effectively acting as private property where the state is the owner.
If the state is the sole owner of private property and controls the labor, then it is state capitalism. In communism, goods are built based on need rather than profit, houses are no longer being wasted, healthcare is freely provided, life expectancy is increased, literacy is increased, food is gratis, people can be engaged with their work, dickheads can’t boss you around, nobody can hoard things from you (and doing that would be pointless), anti‐environmental products and practices are eliminated, education isn’t about obedience and mindless memorization, and basically everybody can live almost however they want as long as it doesn’t harm others. When people own the means of production they use, they directly benefit from all productivity increases. So all automation reduces our workload. And since communism ends the commodity based production of capitalism, far less work would be required to maintain society. When you don't have millions of people working to reproduce nearly identical products and services with slight differences, it turns out that less work is necessary.
Communism/socialism offers a better quality of life, with lower taxes, and a more peaceful world. It's more attainable then the "promises" of capitalism which says everyone can "bootstrap" themselves and become rich, even though its a competetive system. You see, those giant corporations aren't your friend, depsite all those cheery ads, they have one singular goal, profit. And they're willing to sacrifice anything to get that, this includes killing their own people, lieing about, smashing any attempts at resistance and branding anyone they dislike as traitors to the nation. Your capitalist rulers see you nothing more than tool, that will become obsolete to their wealth generation. The Bourgeois can easily live while the rest of society collapses as they live in decadence. They waste what precious resources we have on themselves rather than for the good of the people. If you don't value that, that's fine. There's always class traitors, deluded enough to think that capitalism will serve them, protect them and their unattainable dreams. You might even own a store or chain, guess what, you're still not safe. The Middle Class and the Petty bourgeois (Small Business) are mere concepts, temporary solutions for the real controllers of capital to save face. Your indivdualism in capitalism is non-existent, you are not special, you are not important in capitalism. Only when the proletariat unites in due time, then we gain our power.
Also don't forget that:
- 80% of the world lives in poverty
- Capitalism needs poverty in order to survive
- Capitalism needs unemployment (see "reserve army of labour")
- We produce enough food for 10 billiion people so starvation shouldn't exist but solving it isn't profitable
- 20 million deaths each year that gets ignored because they aren't profitable
All hogwash.Vision said:
communism:
-100% live in poverty
-capitalism does not 'need' poverty, but communism creates 100% of it
-capitalism does not 'need' unemployment, that army argument is also stupid because communism actually always needs violence to uphold it (see last point)
-nobody is entitled to free food, the oversupply wouldn't be produced if there was demand for it from those who can pay for it
-100s of millions have been killed for communism
they want to be special
I
The left is progressive which means feminist.
V
FeminismsCancer said:
Read this post I saved.
The typical claim is that "socialist"* regimes have killed "100 million" people. This always includes famines and other things that are blamed on socialism and its supposed inefficiency, for instance, the 36 million people that died during the Chinese famine.
Well, let's see how better and how efficient capitalism is then.
(*Note: To be rigorous, many would agree that calling those regimes "socialist" is not accurate. But this post is about capitalism, not socialism, so let's not get into that.)
- UNICEF, RESULTS, and Bread for the World estimate that 15 million people die each year from preventable poverty, of whom 11 million are children under the age of five. (source)
"But that's not capitalism's fault! That's just scarcity/underdevelopment!"
So why are you blaming 36 million deaths of the Chinese famine on socialism and its inefficiency?
We have enough food to feed 10 billion people. Even assuming 20% of it is lost, we could still feed the entire population of the world. But we don't, because the logistics of it is expensive and inefficient. Because developing poor countries is too expensive, and sending them food "disrupts the local markets".
If these people didn't need to operate under capitalism to survive, sending them food wouldn't be an issue. If we prioritized things properly, we could develop self-sustainable agriculture projects everywhere in the world.
But we don't. Because of capitalism.
Or something closer to us in the west:
- In the US alone, 20,000 to 40,000 deaths every year because of lack of health insurance. On average, that's 300,000 over the last decade.
All major developed countries on Earth offer universal healthcare. The US doesn't, and blames it on costs and making sure the "markets" are open for insurance companies, so that citizens "have options". All these claims are demonstrably false, and universal healthcare is known to be cheaper and more efficient.
We could be preventing all those deaths. But we don't, because of capitalism.
- In the US, "approximately 245,000 deaths in the United States in the year 2000 were attributable to low levels of education, 176,000 to racial segregation, 162,000 to low social support, 133,000 to individual-level poverty, 119,000 to income inequality, and 39,000 to area-level poverty" (sources). So that's about 2 million people every 10 years in the US alone.
- because the British performed a laissez faire experiment with grain trade.
- , also because of profit-seeking British involvement.
- , all because of oil and US imperialism.
Then why does socialism gets blamed for even less involvement?
- Many wars were motivated by imperialism and lack of large-scale cooperation and fight for resources, and these can be partially or fully blamed on capitalism and the need for expansion and profit. Any remotely conservative estimate will already put capitalism's death toll over half a BILLION people from these wars alone.
Other things:
- In the UK, there are 10 more empty houses than homeless families. In the US, it's almost 6 houses for every homeless person. We could give everybody a home, but we don't, because the "market is the most efficient way of allocating resources".
"That's not fair. I'm stuck with my mortgage and a homeless dude gets a free house!?"
- Worldwide, 100 million people are homeless and as many as 1.6 billion lack adequate housing. We could build housing for everyone, but we don't, because who's going to pay for it? Who's going to do all the work?
Capitalism discourages us from helping others because that is seen as "unfair". What's the point of having good intentions under capitalism?
And this is just the things I bothered searching in 10 minutes. There are many more things I could tie to capitalism.
From this alone we can already see that, even excluding the wars, capitalism has easily killed more than three times the amount that is attributed to socialism in a fifth of the time, due to the same sort of "inefficiency and incompetence" as it is attributed to socialism.
Excluding the wars, a rough UNDERestimate using the above figures adjusting for global population size every 25 years, puts capitalism death toll at 400-700 million people in the last century alone.
That makes capitalism AT LEAST 8 TIMES more efficient at killing people than socialist and "communist" regimes.
If you OVERestimate, capitalism has killed over 1.3 BILLION people in the last 100 years, making it 19x more efficient at killing people because of inefficiency and incompetence.
Now imagine including the wars.
These statistics are rough and not at all rigorous, but that doesn't matter. The same criticism can be made for a lot of the statistics used against socialism and communism even as ideas, instead of specific historic attempts plagued by many other issues. But nobody who claims to be striving for accuracy makes that argument, and instead, the "100 million" figure is perfectly reasonable and undeserving of a careful, critical look.
Even if I'm 80% off with all of these figures, capitalism still comes out with a worst death toll in the last century than what is attribute to socialism. You can also argue for a per capita analysis, but then you should not be talking about socialist regimes being worse than capitalism before you also do the same detailed analysis for capitalism as well, which nobody will bother doing before defending capitalism. The fact everyone simply assumes capitalism fares better shows how easy capitalism has it in the minds of people.
Finally, the fact so many people look at this and simply refuse to even acknowledge capitalism is to blame for any of these deaths, not even a fraction of them, shows exactly the kind of hypocrisy and lack of perspective defenders of capitalism have, and the immense lack of accountability of capitalism.
And if after looking at all of this the best counterargument you have for this criticism of capitalism is defending the "100 million" figure against socialism, then you are completely oblivious to that lack of accountability.
And this is why I made this post.
Capitalism forces us to look at these problems and accept them as part of life. Capitalism makes no attempt to address these issues, so it gets a pass for them. It's a horrifying ethical relativism that would not be tolerated in any other circumstance. Can responsibility only exist with intent? The ethical foundations of most cultures and legal systems in our society disagree. People generally agree that negligence is not an acceptable excuse.
But capitalism gets a pass.
It feels like just because it's not someone pointing a gun at another person, and you have access to 20 types of cereal and an iPhone, Capitalism gets a pass on all this crap.
But misery, hunger, suffering and death are still there, and are just as real. They just drag for longer to the point we all get used to it. Suffering is not just a statistic, these are actual human beings suffering because of the social and economic structures we created in our world. It's all just a horror picture constantly playing in the background of our lives, one that most people simply get used to.
And to me, that makes it worse, because in a way it's as if we're all pulling a very slow trigger, and we're supposed to be PROUD of it.
And that's the real atrocity here. Capitalism turns us into monsters, and we are proud of it as a civilization.
K
theres probably an incel to her right
Because they have no rights.
Imagine being so naive you actually trust your government to fix your economic woes.
Because feminism
K
Vision said:
I dint even read that wall of text but eexplain just this: whats prohibiting you commies from creating communism? Nothing. And yet you still dont create it.
I cant imagine stronger argument against communism than the fact even commies dont want it.
kvn said:
This.
Thanks for making it sweet and short as I didn't feel like reading such a wall of text.
Communism is so unattractive that force is always required to set it up and keep it in place.
The reason it can't work is because there is no incentive to achieve anything and there is no automatic price mechanism.
People used to joke that they pretended to work so the gov could pretend to pay them.
ihateallmen said:
this, we suck
koreancel26 said:
LOL
Vision said:
I like socialist policy because it strives to not mimic natural selection like capitalism, but to a create a uniquely human order.
In fact, its only drawback is that it's so alien to our true nature. Capitalism is the human animal on steroids.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
