One of the easiest ways to debunk an anti-com argument.
If communism "always fails" then why do capitalists spend billions, hell, trillions trying to prevent and destroy it? They could just leave it alone and let it destroy itself if it were as fragile as they claim.
Imagine that the Wright brothers’ first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each and every test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Humans shall never fly.
You don't have to imagine because in Canada and the US, that's exactly what happened with trains. Now the two countries are extremely car dependent and barely have any trains, despite the fact that trains are really great.
And for a very recent example, there's Elon Musk trying to prevent high speed rail with his incredibly dumb hyperloop or whatever they're calling it. The freaking tunnel for cars that tries to poorly emulate a subway.
hyperloop or whatever they're calling it. The freaking tunnel for cars
You're conflating two different things. Musk's tunnels and the hyperloop are different ideas.
Probably. I admittedly stopped caring about getting the names for Musk's products right after it became clear that his ideas were all shit. Not gonna call Twitter "X" either.
I don't understand this analogy. Why does capitalism have a gun but communism doesn't?
The gun is a metaphor for, among other things, US backed coups. Sanctions against Cuba are another example.
This is an old meme format where the foreground character shoots the background character, then blames the flaws of the background character on something unrelated to being shot.
The gun is a metaphor for, among other things, US backed coups. Sanctions against Cuba are another example.
That doesn't answer the question.
This is an old meme format
LOL I know what the meme is.
It really does, the meme is about how Capitalist countries (namely the US) will sabotage Socialist countries, then use that as proof that "communism doesn't work". Such as flattening North Korea in the Korean war, or embargoing Cuba.
If you understand the meme format, it shouldn't be hard to understand the implication of the meme.
So capitalist countries harmed other countries and hence in the meme capitalism has a gun. Therefore in the meme, communism should also have a gun.
I asked:
"Why does capitalism have a gun but communism doesn't?"
That question hasn't been answered.
Alright, I can see there's really no point dealing with you then.
Why doesn't communism have a gun in the meme? because that's not the meme. It's that simple.
I looked at your other interactions in other places on lemmy federation, and I can see this is a pattern with you. You seem to only be open to your own interpretation of a subject, then you seem to try to force people to use your logic in the conversation. That feels 'bad faith' to me, so I'm just gonna go ahead and ban you. You don't seem to actually want to discuss Socialism in good faith.
What if they argue this, "If communism works so well, why can't it resist capitalistic forces?" As a disclaimer, I'm a communist.
Well, several have, and most couped countries were in turmoil and really small, without developing industrial forces before being quickly put down.
See how long any given capitalist country survives being completely isolated. In fact, I've found some research on the subject you can check out here.
Hell, I'd love to see how long USA would survive without being able to invade and destabilise countries to steal their resources and manipulate market prices. No amount of trading can save you if your economy is based on the idea of infinite resources and growth.
If you can't survive without society than you can't survive at all.
And other equivalent and obviously ridiculous statements
You people couldn't even make face masks when supply chains went down lmfao.
it took centuries for capitalism to replace feudalism, and during those long centuries of mercantilism and colonialism, the rising bourgeoisie were suppressed by the feudal absolutist aristocracy. It was only after long centuries of class struggle that the bourgeoisie became the ruling class and the feudal aristocracy became a historical curiosity. And yet, in some parts of the world, there are still constitutional monarchs (England, Belgium) and absolute monarchs (Saudi Arabia). Some day, the proletariat will succeed the bourgeoisie, even if it takes centuries.
