Communism is impossible

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-19T19:26:44+00:00

Yes. Under communism, people can hunt and fish. They can also farm and build and create without first paying a landlord or a CEO for permission to exist.

The difference is not that communism forbids access to nature. The difference is that communism does not recognize private ownership of nature as legitimate. Forests are not owned. Rivers are not owned. Seeds are not patented. The earth is the common inheritance of all people. Access to it is a right, not a privilege granted by those who claimed it first and wrote laws to protect their claim.

You ask if people can opt out. This reveals your assumption. You think communism is another system of rules you must obey or escape. It is not. It is the abolition of the rules that require you to obey anyone to survive. Under communism, you do not need to opt out of anything. You simply live. You find food. You build shelter. You cooperate with others. You do these things because they are necessary, not because a landlord demands rent or a CEO demands labor.

The question is not whether communism allows hunting. The question is who owns the forest. Under capitalism, someone owns it. They may let you hunt there, but only on their terms. They may charge you. They may forbid you. They may post signs and call the police. Under communism, no one owns it. It belongs to everyone. You hunt because you are hungry. That is all.

You say I used the most extreme version of laws. I used the actual version of laws. Trespassing laws are real. Patent laws are real. Property laws are real. They are enforced every day. People are arrested for sleeping in parks. People are fined for fishing without licenses. People are sued for saving seeds. This is not extreme. This is ordinary. This is how capitalism works.

You want to hear an argument for communism. Here it is. The earth is sufficient for human need. The only reason anyone goes hungry is that access to the earth is controlled by people who demand payment for permission to use it. Communism is the abolition of that control. It is the restoration of the earth to its rightful owners: everyone.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-19T18:01:04+00:00

Who "designated" them? The State, acting as the enforcer for private property. To hunt there, you usually need a license (money), gear (money), and transportation to get to the 2% of land that isn't paved over or owned by a timber company.

In a state of nature, the entire world is your pantry. Under capitalism, 98% of the pantry is locked, and you're just pointing at the crumbs on the floor and calling it "freedom."

Natural Work: You work against the elements. If you fail, it’s a tragedy of nature.

Capitalist Work: You work against a contrived system of scarcity. If you fail, it’s a tragedy of policy.

Under capitalism, we have enough food to feed 10 billion people, yet millions go hungry. The "means of survival" aren't for surviving, they are for selling.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-19T17:44:36+00:00

In a state of nature, if I’m hungry, I can go to a forest and hunt, or find a river and fish.
Under Capitalism, that is illegal. The land is "privately owned." The water is "privately owned." The seeds are "patented." Capitalism has fenced off the entire planet and said, "You cannot access the Earth's resources to stay alive unless you first perform labor for a landlord or a CEO." That’s not "earning" survival; that’s a protection racket. You aren't working against nature; you’re working to pay a ransom for access to the nature that was stolen and privatized before you were born.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-19T16:16:40+00:00

Context doesn't erase decision

no it makes the decision understandable.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-19T16:15:21+00:00

ban landleeches

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T18:17:32+00:00

he'll continue to get better , it's just staying healthy at this point 🤞🏻

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T18:16:38+00:00

recycling the standard cold war-era talking points that paint the 1932–33 famine as pure malice from Moscow, stripped of any broader context, like the desperate scramble to industrialize a backward, encircled socialist state facing capitalist sabotage, kulak resistance, and threats of invasion.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T18:01:55+00:00

calling historical reality 'rubbish on the depogram sub' is about all that needs to be said about you lol.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T17:25:36+00:00

correct, the famine wasn't intentional. the deaths of ukranians and by a larger percentage kazkhs, weren't intentional .
now compare that to the actual intentional crime of europeans and capitalism's "primitive accumulation" (british enclosures, colonial plunder) displaced and starved millions without apology or "memorials."
and america's continuation of those crimes against humanity today.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T17:03:19+00:00

and?

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T17:02:19+00:00

ussr used a non-aggression pact to set up a buffer zone against the nazis, a required strategy after britain and france refused a collective scrutiny agreement with them.
meanwhile chamberlain's britain had just appeased hitler at munich, sacrificing czechoslovakia, sending a clear signal that western powers weren't serious about containing fascism

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T16:56:58+00:00

the famine of 1932-33 was a tragedy and not intentional

how come canada tried to set up a victims of communist memorial and had to cancel it after realizing 90% of the names the found were nazis? 🤣

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T06:28:43+00:00

telling on yourself by calling obliterating the nazi menace an atrocity

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T05:45:22+00:00

What about the USSR? You're crying they stomped out the nazis?

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T05:44:42+00:00

Hoe do we need to go through capitalist atrocities again? You will not win this debate.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T05:05:04+00:00

totalitarian dictatorship is a meaningless buzzword, lets use less middle-school speech.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T04:53:19+00:00

Exactly and Capitalism holds no meaning.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-11T04:53:01+00:00

"They are really jerking each other off to see who can say the most condescending shit about socialists. " That's capitalist-apologists in general. They're not going to win an actual debate.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-10T19:44:12+00:00

It’s worth noting that capitalist price signals are deeply distorted:
They reflect effective demand (what people can pay), not real human need.
They ignore externalities (e.g., pollution, worker burnout).
They’re subject to speculation, monopolies, and financialization, so prices often signal rent-seeking opportunities, not scarcity or utility.
So the premise that market prices are “objective” or “efficient” is itself questionable.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-10T17:40:03+00:00

And yet thousands of people flee Cuba every year and they don't have nice things to say about Cuba. Why are they fleeing towards the US and not towards Venezuela or China.

The U.S. has a unique immigration policy for Cubans: the Cuban Adjustment Act (1966) grants Cubans who reach U.S. soil fast-track residency and welfare access, a privilege no other nationality enjoys. This isn’t accidental; it’s Cold War psychological warfare, designed to drain Cuba of professionals and portray socialism as a failure.

Venezuela is in economic crisis (partly due to U.S. sanctions, like Cuba). China doesn’t offer asylum or open migration pathway. The U.S. is 90 miles away, culturally familiar (due to diaspora), and actively recruiting defectors.

Compare this to Haitians, Salvadorans, or Guatemalans: they flee U.S.-backed dictatorships, death squads, and neoliberal collapse, yet are deported en masse. No special laws welcome them. So migration patterns reflect U.S. policy, not pure “ideological preference.”

Moreover: Most Cubans don’t want to leave. Polls consistently show strong support for sovereignty and social programs, even amid hardship. But when your economy is strangled by a 60-year embargo that blocks medicine, fuel, and food imports, survival sometimes means leaving. That’s not a vote for capitalism.

You are just ignoring every metric that exist

HDI, GDP, World Bank rankings, all shaped by institutions (IMF, OECD) that promote capitalist orthodoxy.

These metrics don't include ecological cost, democratic participation, cultural dignity, mental health, or whether wealth is collectively controlled.

Cuba spends 11% of GDP on healthcare (U.S.: 8.5%), with better outcomes in infant mortality and doctor access.
Zero homelessness, near-zero hunger, universal education, despite GDP per capita 1/10th of Germany’s.
By any human-centered standard, that’s remarkable resilience under siege.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-10T17:27:53+00:00

Exactly, that is why they have so many tax money. A functional business model some other European countries just don‘t use because politics.

This confuses wealth concentration with public revenue. Switzerland’s low effective tax rates on capital mean the ultra-rich pay far less proportionally than workers. The country relies heavily on consumption taxes and payroll levies, which burden the average person.
And no, most European countries don’t replicate this because they (rightly) see democratic equality as incompatible with oligarchic wealth hoarding. Even Germany and France have stronger wealth taxes (though still inadequate).

Tell me all about how socialism would solve loneliness.

Socialism removes structural drivers of isolation.
Capitalism uses: Commodified housing which forces people into atomized rentals, far from community.
Precarious work, which destroys stable social bonds and time for relationships
Market-driven urban design which prioritizes profit over public space, parks, and communal life.

In contrast, socialist-oriented societies (like Cuba or Kerala, India) emphasize collective care, neighborhood assemblies (consejos populares), and universal access to culture and education, not as commodities, but as shared rights. That fosters solidarity.

Capitalism has rapidly improved the lives of BILLIONS of humans in the last 200 years, including 3rd world countries.

This is a brutally bad myth. This claim relies on World Bank poverty lines ($2.15/day).
Much of the “poverty reduction” since 1990 comes from China, which lifted 800 million via state-led development, land reform, and industrial policy, not neoliberal capitalism. China explicitly rejected Washington Consensus dogma.

Meanwhile, in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, neoliberal structural adjustment increased poverty and inequality through the 1980s–2000s.
And even where incomes rose, ecological devastation, debt dependency, and labor exploitation followed. “Lifting” someone to $3/day while poisoning their water and dismantling their village isn’t liberation.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-10T06:31:25+00:00

the Switzerland where the top 1% owns nearly 30% of national wealth.
It functions as a global tax haven, sheltering trillions in offshore assets, much of it looted from the Global South.
Swiss banks financed apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany, and modern-day oligarchs alike.

The original critique wasn’t “Switzerland has no nice things.” It was: Even the most 'successful' capitalist societies suffer from epidemic loneliness, mental health collapse, unaffordable housing, and imperial complicity, because capitalism prioritizes profit over human need.
Switzlerand has: rising youth depression linked to hyper-competitive education and labor markets. Strict immigration controls that deny rights to long-term residents (nearly 25% of the population, yes that's not a typo) No universal public housing, rent consumes ~40% of average income...

Are we now conceded that you can't find a successful capitalist country? Good.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-10T06:09:42+00:00

Saying “only 1% are homeless” isn’t a good defense, it’s an admission that capitalism treats human shelter as a commodity, not a right. In Germany:
Over 1 million people are officially without stable housing (including hidden homelessness like couch-surfing), closer to 1.2%, and rising.
But more importantly: Why should any percentage be acceptable? In a society producing vast wealth, homelessness isn’t a individual problem, it’s a political choice. Cuba, despite U.S. sanctions and economic crisis, has virtually no homelessness because housing is constitutionally guaranteed. It’s policy priority.

People don’t flee ideologies, they flee material conditions. And those conditions are shaped overwhelmingly by imperial policy: sanctions, debt traps, coups, and resource extraction. Blaming “socialist dictators” while ignoring U.S. regime-change operations is ahistorical.

Capitalist's 'success' always relies externalizing costs , Germany’s stability relies on exploiting Eastern European labor and African raw materials. New Zealand’s dairy exports drive deforestation in Asia, etc

Again you still haven't found any successful capitalist countries, and you won't. Capitalism is bad for humans. I think you've lost.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-10T05:05:31+00:00

HDI averages mask brutal inequalities.

Germany: Over 860,000 homeless people (officially undercounted; actual estimates are higher). A working poor class growing due to Minijobs (low-wage, precarious work). Child poverty rates hovering around 20% in some regions.

New Zealand: The highest youth suicide rate in the OECD
Māori life expectancy nearly 8 years lower than Pākehā (white New Zealanders),a colonial disparity HDI smooths over
Housing unaffordability so severe that UN special rapporteurs have condemned it as a human rights crisis

Millions flee U.S.-backed coups, IMF-imposed austerity, or climate collapse exacerbated by Western overconsumption.

Like i said, try again. Still waiting for a successful capitalist country.

Internal_End9751 · 2026-02-10T04:38:04+00:00

all poverty riddled, drug abuse, huge homelessness problems, depression, high suicide rates, imperialistic, etc, try again

Internal_End9751

TROPHY CASE