Face it, /pol/.

The world would be a better place if the Soviet Union still existed.

>>510204463 (OP)
yes because capitalism turns viciously anti social the moment communism no longer breathes down its neck

>>510204463 (OP)
I do wonder what would have happened if the USSR and GDR had implemented the reforms to enable them to essentially be the Chinas of today while still under control of their respective parties.

>>510204692
deng reforms turned them into state capitalist (fascist)

>>510204463 (OP)
Actually true since we could continue to exploit them for cheap resources with our reverse colonial relationship and make easy money

>>510204692
utopia ;_;

>>510204463 (OP)
Their very presence forced the capitalist West to temper some of its worst excesses, like unchecked corporate power and extreme inequality, out of fear of losing the ideological battle. That competition sparked massive social programs, workers’ rights, and scientific advancements driven by a collective ideal, not just profit. Sure, it had flaws, but its vision of universal healthcare, education, and employment pushed the world to imagine a society where people mattered more than markets and maybe kept global power from spiraling into absolute corporate control like we have now because capitalism is a trash system.

>>510205621
One can say that capitalism (ie. competition) works very well. But you can never allow monopolies to form which kills competition. In this regard capitalism achieved an ideological monopoly, and thus stopped improving.

>>510204463 (OP)
But it doesn’t because it wouldn’t.

>>510204463 (OP)
I always said that

>>510205867
The problem with our modern capitalism is that there are not enough capitalists.

>>510204463 (OP)
>>510204589
>>510205621
>>510205867
>capitalism is not practically capable to gigacuck itself or its constituents to death because it has to remain internally viable in an unglobalized world
>USSR just like the capitalist west is forced to be at least quasi based to maintain stability reforms or no, may ironically be less gulaghomo than modern federal Russia
>proxy warfare balance of power remains relatively balanced instead of NATO being able to progressively destroy the entirety of the Unaligned Movement middle powers and vaguely Soviet leaning Ba'athists for the Jews' flesh trade & insane biblical expansionism respectively
>the militant fascist underground in both blocs is a relevant force thanks to the still existing Soviet bogeyman instead of 90% latent or 10% GLOW'D retards turned to fertilizer in Ukraine
>could conceivably take covert or overt power in either or both blocs with anticommunist populism and nazbol meme reverse NSDAP as easy back doors, kinotardation may ensue as they horseshoe into each other while nominally rivals
>cargo cult numerological glowniggery forced historical dialectic is not allowed to fully advance to the 'literally everyone in power is a Jew-compromised pedophile controlled by the Mossad+Five Eyes' stage
>in fact they may trip up horribly if they ever try because the kayfabe is fragile enough and real competition between securitates from at least the middle rungs down real enough that one if not all of them will stumble on & destroy it
>they could even end up doing so collaboratively, ironically resulting in the groundwork for a world government framework that isn't fake & gay as CIA and KGB niggers take turns openly curb stomping faggot kike flesh traffickers & bankers as a global detente settles
I don't like that I'm considering this (1) bait OP to be correct nor what that says about the seemingly unstoppable forces of historical involution, where any road not traveled always seems to be the obviously better one

>>510204775
>state capitalist (fascist)

Lenin coined the term "State Capitalist" to describe Bukhain's New Economic Policy, which was the basis of the Dengist reforms in China.

Nothing fascist about it.

Only as a foe and foil to the US, they never had any intrinsic value beyond acting as that boogyman, and those who were forced to live inside it seem to agree

>>510204463 (OP)
That is true for the world, although not necessarily for some eastern European countries

The best case scenario would have been if Gorbachev had reformed the USSR in the way Deng Xiaoping reformed China, rather than his stupid perestroika, and the rest of Comecon had followed

>>510205867
>>510206599
Monopolisation has always been inevitable under a surplus economic system - it begain in the agricultural sector back in the late 1600s (many of the Blue Bloods first accumulated wealth here).

There is no such thing as non-monopolistic capitalism. This is idealism.

>>510204463 (OP)
You're right. Commies didn't show their stupid faces when America was united against them between the 50s and 80s.

>>510209976
you just need a based enough government to come in and curbstomp monopolies. it isn't that hard. And you don't need communism for it. Let's say it takes 100 years for a sector to coalesce into a monopoly. You just need to have the government come in and break them apart every 100 years and enjoy the fruits of fierce competition constantly. Like a Sports tournament, you have competitors advancing until one team wins, then the next year you do it all over again. We just don't have any good systems in place for this and thus the one winner of yesteryear stays as the winner.

>>510210793
>you just need a based enough government to come in and curbstomp monopolies. it isn't that hard

Do you have any examples of this?

>Let's say it takes 100 years for a sector to coalesce into a monopoly. You just need to have the government come in and break them apart every 100 years and enjoy the fruits of fierce competition constantly.

Lenin himself claimed that the Golden Age of Capitalism existed from the 1840s to the 1870s, citing how mining companies in the Rhineland started collaborating with the banks in order to under-cut rival mining companies.

>Like a Sports tournament, you have competitors advancing until one team wins, then the next year you do it all over again

The Champions League is more monopolised than ever before - you will never see a team like Celtic or Porto win it ever again.

>We just don't have any good systems in place for this

Who is going to make it? Why would they make it? What is the incentive?

>>510204463 (OP)
>Be a loud and boring simpleton who thinks that he's a genius i.e. be a leftard
>1917: Take power in a coup d'etat, starting the Russian civil war.
>Tell your soldiers to "live off the land". Soldiers start confiscating food from civilians and cause an artificial famine.
>12 million dead in the war. 5 million of which are civilians who starved to death in the famines that you created.

>Early 1920s: The gulag
>Leftists win the war and take power. The first thing they do is reintroduce the slave trade.
>Eventually 1 in 6 people in the USSR are reduced to slavery and sent to forced labour camps.

>1928-1940: Collectivisation
>Leftists decide to introduce some of Marx's retarded economic ideas such as the collectivisation of agriculture. Farmers resent having their farms stolen from them so the socialists have them shot. 10 million dead. Agricultural production with Russia more than halves.

>1932-1933 Holodomor
>Socialists go from farm to farm in the Ukraine and confiscate all food causing another artificial famine.
>5 million dead.

>1930s Lysenkoism
>All academics who believe in genetics are arrested and sent to labour camps. Leftists start promoting Lysenko, who peddles pseudo-scientific nonsense theories that state that genes play no role at all in agriculture and that all plants are created equal. Introduction of his theories cause an artificial famine in both the USSR and red china.
>30 million dead.

>1936-1938: The great purge
>After 25 years there is a generation of kids who have been indoctrinated in the schools and are socialist fanatics. Leftists decide to purge the old guard from all institutions and replace them with socialist fanatics.
>1.2 million dead

1/2

>>510212686
>WW2
>The socialists murder the entire officer corp of the Polish army at Katyn and commit a similar massacre in the western Ukraine.
>During the red army's march from Moscow to Berlin they rape millions of European women and reduce millions of others to slavery.

>The 1940s
>The socialists start falsifying the historical record to hide their crimes against humanity and start making up bullshit stories about Hitler and the Germans.
>They still do this today

That's the first 25 years or so of the soviet union. This is what happens when leftards have free reign to run a country any way they want.

I left out various ethnic cleansings like the cleansing of the Tartars from the Crimean peninsula for example.
2/2

>>510211783
>Do you have any examples of this?
Governments of the 1800s to 1900s used to constantly nationalize and break up corporations. It's only now in the post 1990s neoliberal world where it's considered "government overreach" if it interferes in the economy in any way. This is not "inevitable" in a capitalist society, only how things currently stand.
>Lenin himself claimed that the Golden Age of Capitalism existed from the 1840s to the 1870s
It was a general statement
>The Champions League is more monopolised than ever before
Again, it was a general statement. I'm not into football but that's how sports tournaments work. One doesn't stay as the winner and only occasionally has to defend their title, no every year every team has to start over and win their bracket or whatever. If one team is consistently better than the others then good. The problem is that in current neoliberal capitalism, that resetting of the entire system doesn't happen.
>Who is going to make it? Why would they make it? What is the incentive?
The government, for their self-interest. Monopolies lead to stagnation. Less technological innovation, less taxes, less investment. It's also in the governments interest not to become reliant on one company. (Excluding bribes etc. but that's another issue) Constant ruthless competition is in the governments self-interest.

>>510204463 (OP)
Better for America and its allies, yes. Rome needs Carthage and the United States has had terrible difficulty finding another one.

>>510204463 (OP)
yes honestly. Unless you bomb communist countries and force them into enteral disarray they work better. You're celebrating violence that doesn't have to 'work'.

>>510213088
Why would a Goverment be against monopolisation? What is the incentive?

>>510213357
>The government, for their self-interest. Monopolies lead to stagnation. Less technological innovation, less taxes, less investment. It's also in the governments interest not to become reliant on one company. (Excluding bribes etc. but that's another issue) Constant ruthless competition is in the governments self-interest.

>>510213539
And what could Urho Kekkonen do about the monopolisation of the mid/late Social Democrat situation in Finland?

What could Nokia do about the tech monopolisation around Seattle and Tech Valley? The only realistic journey is that Nkia dies, and replaced by another company in California.

>>510204463 (OP)
Yeah but if mixed with mahayana buddhism and islam

Islamobuddhistcommunism

>>510204463 (OP)
Was literally looking for Soviet posters last night to put up as artwork in my new place, they look great

>>510214777
>Was literally looking for Soviet posters last night to put up as artwork in my new place, they look great