/liberty/ - Liberty

>>92487

Good idea, though it's bound to fail, not only the government will cut its own gibs last during crisis, it'll become corrupt and recieve (((foreign aid))) that'll keep it up slowly decaying but the biggest problem is that you create a whole generation of welfare leeches that cannot think for themselves and will suck anyone of for stuff if gibs' supply runs low, so you'll create another "not real socialism" that might then get a new beginning like Brazil seems to but t's slow painful and unlikely to happen, as well as requires special circumstances for people to go woke and not broke.

>Accelerationism

Not a great way to change people's opinions, so you just end up destroying a country and making people miserable for no real gain. If it worked, the USSR should have been the final nail in the coffin for communism, as they did exactly what you suggested only unironically. When the system collapses, people will just assume the government didn't work quite right, and they'll shill for a state that coerces you the "right" way instead.

The state sustains itself through the consent of the ruled. Not necessarily enthusiastic support, but people consent enough to it that they are apathetic about its existence and don't think there's a better alternative. The way to defeat the state is to remove that consent, and the way to do that is to educate people about possible alternatives. Eventually, once the concentration of non-consenting STATISTS GIT OUT REEE types in a certain region becomes high enough, and they have a proper or elites pushing them in the direction of seceding, they will become ungovernable and attempt secession.

>>92521

>people will just assume the government didn't work quite right, and they'll shill for a state that coerces you the "right" way instead.

This is the key point. The utopian ideologies promise heaven on earth. You're battling against religious thinking, not rational thinking. "Not real socialism/communism" is the handwave phrase for them instead of "god works in mysterious ways".

>>92487

Except this hasn't been happening in recent history. Look at Argentina, which has monetarily collapsed many times, and every single time it comes back it's somehow even fucking worse.

>>92521

>Not a great way to change people's opinions, so you just end up destroying a country and making people miserable for no real gain. If it worked, the USSR should have been the final nail in the coffin for communism, as they did exactly what you suggested only unironically. When the system collapses, people will just assume the government didn't work quite right, and they'll shill for a state that coerces you the "right" way instead.

This. You'd think that it would be the end of leftism in Russia at least, but now people are like "no no no, THAT WASN'T REAL SOCIALISM, it needs to be [insert special snowflake version of socialism here] for it to work!", because 70 years of the failure wasn't enough.

>>92521

Thirding this, you just end up with a new state, but this time over a ruined economy. Mugabe stayed in power after he completely wrecked whatever economy Zimbabwe had left, and the country wasn't doing well to begin with when the hyperinflation kicked in. In fact, in Zimbabwe, people started trading in whatever currency they had at hand, from BP to raw diamonds.

>>92487

>For the state to disappear, I think its system should become so authoritarian that the whole population of Normandie would stop following it due to its ridiculous expections.

Well, look at Peru under the Incas. It wasn't such a painful place to live in, more like a cozy place where your spirit withers away, but it shows how a population can get used to authoritarian ruling. The Peruvians were so docile and collectivist that travelers apologized for their boring and dull reports of them. When the last Inca, Atahualpa, fell in battle, they had so little initiative that they stopped fighting. Perhaps you couldn't subject them to Cambodian levels of cruelty without them revolting, but you could've certainly lined them up for mass lobotomies if you sold the idea well enough. The Americans, hardly a people that dislikes protesting, are now putting up with having their little sons and daughters groped at the airport and having their grandmas put through nude scanners.

And mind you, even the Cambodians did not revolt instantly when they were evicted from their cities, when their children were forced to hang their school teachers and after certain other atrocities that I do not want to name. Red Cambodia was hardly stable, but even it held up for four years, and killed a third of its own population before it finally came crashing down (thanks in no small part to the Vietnamese who got sick of their bullshit).

>>92487

>the more deathcamps the better

are you sure?

>>92487

Didn't work for North Korea. It might just be because they're a small state and China has a vested interest in them existing, but it still stands that it doesn't work.

>>92487

I thought of doing the same in Jooland, but we will probably end up as allahu snackbar before that happen…

>>92689

Nah, Greatest Ally would be bailed out by the US and we'd send our own soldiers to die in your place before that would ever happen.

>>92574

>70 years of failure

[citation needed]

USSR was a much better country than RF. “Oh, in USSR there were repression a-and hunger..!” So, why can't you just, you know, try again without repeating the same mistakes?

>>92713

>The only reason the USSR lasted as long as it did was through constant technology updates "borrowed" from the West, and using the prices of Western markets as a crude template on which to base their central planning schemes.

Sounds interesting, I'll give it a read.

As for these…

>destroyed their culture

Utter nonsense.

>destroying their religion

Nothing of value was lost.

>>92715

>t. Actually lives and has parents here

Fuck you, lying faggot.

>modern Russia we've at least got some people who can get shit done

>implying

>>92716

Not even a leftist, was just genuinely curious. But I guess this such taboo questions trigger people here too much.

>>92710

because trying again means in that case neccesarily repeating the same mistakes.

>>92719

>Utter nonsense.

You shilling for communism the the best proof of that you could have given us.

>implying

I never said they were from Russia.

>Not even a leftist

Sure thing, buddy. It's not like you shill for communism, you're just asking harmless questions like "why do you stupid faggots not like my speshul communism?!11!1", of course not.

>>92719

>Utter nonsense.

Where's the lie? Pushkin Dostoevsky, and most other major writers were suppressed for promoting "Bourgeois thought," in favor of "proper" Soviet works. Traditional art and architecture were eschewed in favor of that hideous excuse of a design style they named "brutalism", and with the loss of the church (which you don't seem to deny), the people lost the primary method through which to express their creative drive; it's not a coincidence that the most beautiful and intricate buildings of the West are chapels, cathedrals, and basilicas.

>Nothing of value was lost.

*tips fedora*

>>92731

>asking for a verification of claims makes you a "необучаемый"

That's probably one of the reasons they call Russians niggers.

>>92710

>USSR was a much better country than RF

1965-1985 - over 5 million abortions every year in RSFSR

85-00 - 2 to 1 million abortions a year

00+ - less than 1 million abortions a year

>>92713

>The commies destroyed Russia's small but fast-growing industrial economy

The meme needs to end. Russia already overtook France in industrial output by WWI. It's like calling modern Japan a small economy because it is below China. By PPP and modern calculations, the Russian Empire was below only Germany in Europe, and only slightly below, slightly above UK without the empire.

The list would be:

1. The British Empire

2. USA

3. Qing China

4. The German Empire

5. The Russian Empire

Qing, Germany and Russia were very close to each other, Russia would overtake both by 1920's no World War Commie happenings, and maybe even overtake the US by 1950's.

A shame the Russian Empire was a ~60% 'White' country with very large very young populations dealing with shit like echo of serfdom the second decade into XX century. The commies happened to have solution to every problem and of course they made it even worse.

How the fuck can somebody advocate a shithole of a country that had kolkhoz serfdom abolished in 1974, trying in futile to avoid famine in world once prime exporter of food, is beyond me, unless the advocate happened to have a Party granddaddy or is a religious zealot.

Seriously, the kolkhoz agriworkers didn't have right to voluntarily leave their village region until 1974 for fucks sake. Can you image the US abolishing slavery in 1974?

Fucking nonsense, how can anyone advocate a slavery based eternally poor and hungry dystopia.

>How about we for example support the lefties in the "give everyone money"-welfare

>OP pays triple the taxes to provide for welfare leftists

>OP dies of hunger

Genius plan.

>>95828

>Russia already overtook France in industrial output by WWI

…Except I agree with that, if you read the article I posted it actually talks about the overtaking of France specifically. You're making the exact same claim that I was making, that if it wasn't for commie retardation Russia would have been immensely rich and productive. The only reason I called it "small" was because Russia is a good deal more populous than France.

>>92713

>The only reason the USSR lasted as long as it did was through constant technology updates "borrowed" from the West, and using the prices of Western markets as a crude template on which to base their central planning schemes.

It also shouldn't be forgotten that the Soviet economy depended mostly on the sale of natural resources which the west had no problems buying from us, so in other words, all that world conquest, all of those nuclear warheads and aircraft carriers and military bases around the world and everything else that the Soviet Union had was essentially funded by the west.

>>95828

>A shame the Russian Empire was a ~60% 'White' country

Dude, it was an empire, so of course it was only "60% white" before losing its colonized territories, but you said it yourself, serfdom wasn't abolished until the 70s, so you can't exactly compare a country like that to a country like the US where nigs and spics were free to migrate to white cities and also have various anti-discrimination laws protecting them.