ThatRaccoonGuy
18182
458
43
Apr 10, 2025 4:23 PM
ThatRaccoonGuy
18182
458
43
freshthrowaway1138
On a side note, that I might not remember correctly. Marx didn't think that peasants were ready for the switch to Socialism. He talked about having to go through a period of prosperity and stability. Heck, he thought that capitalism was a learning ground for the development of the socialist struggle which needed people who understood a fair and peaceful society before true socialism was possible.
And basically most socialist peasant revolts failed to create a better nation for all citizens.
ghostly69
Free Healthcare IS Socialism...see? it doesn't work in USA
hjf2011
it's not though. socialism means "the people own the means of production". it doesn't mean "things are free" or "things are affordable". free healtchare is a social policy, not socialism.
ghostly69
yeah, but also "distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole". Exchange does not means free, you pay monthly for a benefit that you'll get for free when needed - depends how you interpret words. Or, according to Cambridge dictionary "the set of beliefs that states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country's money, or the political systems based on these beliefs" - so still a policy (set of beliefs), if you look at it like this
kerms
UsernameEmailPasswordRetypePasswordi
tiberiuswhythecrapcantweuseunderscoresxxvii
For the most part, yeah, but this seems to ignore the examples that started the whole thing. After the Russian/Chinese civil wars and subsequent governments killing millions of people, I feel like it wasn't insane to say "ok maybe we shouldn't let this happen again". That being said, the response absolutely went too far - with the peacefully-started socialist governments, the US/CIA really should have stayed out of it, and there's _especially_ no excuse for supporting fascists as an alternative.
ThatRaccoonGuy
Except that fascists and big business go hand in hand, and we kept making the mistake of not taxing or otherwise limiting the power of the ultra-rich while also letting them quite legally bribe our politicians
suggestedCleverUsernameGenerator
Ok but can the CIA do something about the one communist who is manipulating the current US government?
Khanamana324
Putin isn't a communist bub, its a fascist.
suggestedCleverUsernameGenerator
I realize. And it is under the communist guise for the country. Also poking at the Cold War that has finally been won.
amp99
Merdock
HitandRyan
Let's be fair, sometimes it's the CIA, sometimes it's monstrous dictators like Stalin.
Ivain
The reason "socialism" fails is because it inevitably boils down to the entire economy being controlled by a very small cabal of people who have the authority over it, and they decide what is available. The Unwashed Masses can do nothing but toil away at their jobs and hope they'll make it from one year to the next, never quite having hope that they have any ability to make their own future better.
Sound familiar?
VodkaReindeer
Weird that CIA could make Soviet Union and China fail but not Cuba.
IOAdler
The war on socialism started before the 1940s and the founding of the CIA. Under President Wilson and through the end of World War One, socialists in the US were deported, imprisoned, and even refused mail service for their newspapers. Then the CIA took on the popular stance as guided by the political leaders and you get to the meme.
GundamHeavyarms
wilson stood by and let the communists take over russia. He believed people, given the freedom of choice, would naturally pick a liberal western democracy
freshthrowaway1138
I can't tell if you're being serious. Wilson sent troops to Russia to fight for the Whites. An important thing that you shouldn't forget is that Wilson is never the guy doing the right thing for humanity. He was a piece of shit and one of our worst Presidents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
GundamHeavyarms
Wilson did not send troops to fight for the whites. his instructions were clear, maintain order and let the people of russia become a democracy. That wikipedia article leaves out a lot
freshthrowaway1138
Do you have something that I can read for that part of the story? No offense, it's Wilson just never struck me as a pro-democracy President, more of a piece of shit that should have ended his term at the end of a noose.
GundamHeavyarms
ill have to dig up my thesis on it for the bibliography. He was a piece of shit president IMO.
GundamHeavyarms
ill have to dig up my thesis on it for the bibliography. He was a piece of shit president IMO.
NKato
And Trump is pretty much on track to surpass him if he hasn't already.
freshthrowaway1138
Wilson did a lot of bad shit and I would still consider as worse than Trump. Trump has a few more bad Presidents to beat before being labeled as one of the worst.
woozle
"don't you understand? Socialism doesn't work! For your sake we'll make sure it doesn't work since you don't know how bad it is"
johnnyhandbags
“Socialism” works great in Scandinavia
chrisinsocalif
They aren't socialist, they are a mixed-market capitalist economic system that features high degrees of private ownership, with the exception of Norway which includes a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.
ilikepot8os
It's a bit like smoking weed used to be isn't it. Worst thing that would happen with smoking weed was getting caught by the police.
woozle
azzabat
Every single one of Americas current enemies are a former Ally they backstabbed. Don’t believe me … google ANY current American adversaries history. THIS is why the world hates you.
ThatRaccoonGuy
It started when France loaned us money, troops, munitions, etc to fight the British and then we refused to repay them so they started sacking our ships. Our first war as a sovereign nation (other than the revolution itself) was against our closest ally.
GeorgeCostabaplaps
Tell my Venezuelan friend this, and he snaps. Some fucked up shit down there
camn333
The Venezuelan government was never socialist, though. They say they are, and they put the spotlight on some program or another that looks socialist in nature, but that is all just a front to cover the gargantuan amounts of corruption. The US had nothing to do with our economic collapse, that was all out own doing.
Source: I'm a Venezuelan still living in Venezuela.
GeorgeCostabaplaps
Agreed fully. He just doesn't understand
RuijiRiku
So the sanctions US placed had nothing to do with it? or even trying to install Guaido as a president?
hjf2011
are you really telling a venezuelan living in venezuela what his problem is?
PresldentClef
are you really telling an american what sanctions or coups they did or didn't drop on another country?
camn333
Guaido was a moment in history which our democracy lost. We supported him, we were exited for the future and what he could represent for change. The highs we reached when he assumed the presidency (which was constitutional be the way, as the president of the assembly when Maduro's term ended) were only matched by the lows we fell to when we realized he was powerless.
Turns out, there's not much change to be had when the real power is held by the people with the guns. And they weren't...
camn333
...interested in changing anything, because the status quo has them on top.
Regarding the sanctions, they do absolutely nothing, to be honest. The only people who stand to gain something from removing them, are the exact same people who are least affected by them. The money Maduro's government can't reach because of the sanctions would never benefit anyone but Maduro and his friends.
Life here before the sanctions was the same as with them now.
Shoutrr
it's the same for the ussr: claim to be communist/socialist, but was just a junta, same for china, or north korea. socialism and communism are really appealing things that are used by dictator to garner the people's support and then keep power through fear and manipulation. And the us were deathly afraid that one of those really turns out successful, so they sabotaged everything they could, especially if it was on the same continent.
ilikepot8os
It's kind of Amazing how many or today's problems are directly attributable to the CIA doing it's thing in the 50s,60s, and 70s
Want to know why Iran is the way it is? Check the CIA
Want to know why so many countries in South and Central America were/aren't stable? Check the CIA
Want to know why so much of Africa has had conflicts? Ask the British, then ask the CIA
SilverNicktail
Just the British? You sure on that one?
ImmaCatImmaSexyCat
Hey, you can't blame all of Africa on the Brits and the CIA! Other colonial powers did their part, too. The Dutch, Portuguese, French, Spanish, Belgian and German did their parts, too. Even the Italians got in on the action. You will not erase our history (like we tried to do to them)!
InfectedHau
There's two kinds of conspiracy theories: blatant antisemitism, and things the CIA 100% did and have admitted to doing
Sleepingpanda1260
RadishIsAMeat
Look The Gambia is a perfectly normal and naturally shaped country and definitely wasn't the result of the Brits going "we'll just take this big river here so nobody else has any water".
unclesporky
Doesn't this give them a LITTLE too much credit? Are they the most successful organization in the history of the world or what? What makes every other secret spy organization so uniquely ineffectual that nothing nearly this influential can be attributed to any of them?
Radix865
Parts of Africa should be Germany, French, Portugal, Italy and Belgium in addition to the British. Then the CIA.
meergull
Also, French don't forget the French when talking about for Africa being fucked
Mycologics
Yeah it's fucked up. After the world war 2, America even helped the Greek Junta because there were too many leftie commies which of course was a danger to them. CIA even worked with people who worked with nazi's to stop communists
hellsgunslinger
Pretty sure the CIA's slogan should be "Training America's future enemies since 1950". Also don't forget the CIA's support for Bin Laden back in the 80's.
theb1ackduck
Direct result of Ollie North’s actions…
[deleted]
[deleted]
gumshoe99
Please finish your thought. I’m certain that we’d all love to see this.
IUpvoteEveryNicholasCageGIF
America:
RuijiRiku
I mean, even the Nazis used the States Jim crow laws as a template for their own racist policies.
ilikepot8os
The number of democratically elected governments that we disposed of because their population voted 'wrong' is staggering. And it often left the country in termoil as warlords stepped in to fill the power vacuum.
And often they weren't even that far left, they just said things like "maybe, our countrymen should benefit from our natural resources rather than our former colonizers.
TheWombatStrikesAgain
America: *exploits the shit out of Central and South America, puts down the resulting leftist movements, imposes far-right and outright fascist regimes*
Also America: "Why are all these people coming here, they should stay home and fix their own countries!"
Shaodyn
What about "maybe the poor don't deserve to starve in the street"? That one has always been particularly hated despite seeming like basic kindness.
end3r420
This pains me that it’s true. There is a reason most of the rest of the world don’t like Americans. This is not a new thing
OperationRustysBlanket
I may be radicalized by history podcast at this point. But I believe the owners were around back then too. And realized they didn’t need a king, they could do it.
buzkilljoy
There has never been a socialist country.
FiftyShadesOfBroccoli
Because the CIA staged coups or assassinations every time one was about to form.
ChiLLeCheeze
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jakarta_Method Be careful, the book is woke!
Shoutrr
that's true. People(american) don't, know what socialism is and conflate it with anything left of hunting people for sports.
Juttypants
Spain.
Pikachaan
Spain is capitalist lmao. What do you think socialism means?
buzkilljoy
Nope. Spain is a Parliamentary Monarchy
JackalopeElope
What is a socialist country?
tinydog
What is a country?
DotcoreJetkill
Music genre
ConfederacyOfDunces
A kind of road to take you home
Radix865
A miserable little pile of secrets.
Clockworkdancerobot
"What are cows?"
buzkilljoy
Social ownership of means of production.
Battle4ngel
Wouldn't that be every single country in the Eastern Bloc, back when it was still around?
You may be thinking of communism. There has never been a communist country, as none of the aforementioned socialist states managed to graduate/evolve from that preliminary stage.
buzkilljoy
No. Socialist means the people own the means of production, not the government. No private companies. No government owned companies. No classes. Those countries weren't socialist or communist.
Battle4ngel
That's neither how it would nor how it's meant to work, though. As the theory goes, the government is the representative of the people: the people own the government, and thus by extension also whatever the government has control of.
Without some sort of company i.e. organization you couldn't feasibly have any "means of production" beyond a personal garden or some tiny medieval-style shoppe, not to mention the lack of coordination. An economy such as this wouldn't function.
cenfou2tout
Europe is full of socialiste countries
Shoutrr
social democracies, so not socialists. there's a huge difference between the two.
johnnyhandbags
“Socialism” in the US means any social service that MAGA are told to hate by Republican leadership. By that definition most of the world is socialist
SilverNicktail
I mean it's not, dude. I am very much in favour of a lot of those European policies, but they're not socialist countries.
Pikachaan
No it isn't lmao. How is this blatant Republican propaganda getting upvoted?
buzkilljoy
Can't think of one?
cenfou2tout
I don't know what you think socialism is. Imagine a country where when you get sick you have nothing to pay for the doctor, when you want to learn you have nothing to pay for school, when you go to work you get payed a leaving amount and have "tons" of vacation, when your boss wants to fire you he has to have a serious motive, and give you 3 month notice before that and also gives money for your seniority in the company...
Shoutrr
that's a social democracy. France is a social democracy, not a socialist country. Social democracy means that capitalism is reigned in to protect the people from it with a huge support to the people via taxation. Socialism means the people own everything, so there's no private companies.
Pikachaan
None of the things you listed have anything to do with socialism lmao. How did Republicans get away with brainwashing even the left into thinking socialism = public spending? Socialism is characterized by social ownership (typically workers) of the means of production. None of the countries in Europe follow this system. Every single one is capitalist (private ownership).
buzkilljoy
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1ODdtNDB1dHpnZnhzeG04dmRoYjd3NzV0NWNqZ2U3YWgxZmw1dmQ1ayZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3o6Zt7g9nH1nFGeBcQ/200w.webp
IGotMyDreamJobProgrammingGames
This dead account brought to life to argue. Usually means they are an account that was bought to shill for the right. Just mute this idiot.
insanitycontinuum
So it's CIA's fault the Soviet Union sent thousands of citizens of the Baltic States to gulags? When you look at actual socialist states in history it is not pretty, even without CIA. It's nice in theory but there are no nice implementations known
Battle4ngel
Hungary under Kadar was pretty nice, or so I've read.
And Stalin was .. Stalin. There's a reason he got denounced by his successors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Stalinization
The USSR spans almost 70 years of history; you can't judge it on one ruler alone given the extremes range from Stalin on one end and Gorbachev on the other. It'd be like looking at the US and talking only about Reagan or Jackson.
Battle4ngel
Of course you still have a point, though: they were still dictatorships with some important civil rights being suppressed. I just find that generally the old Eastern Bloc gets judged a little too harshly whilst a lot of people aren't even aware of what went on in the West at the same time. Or in other words: one side isn't quite as villainous as PR made it out to be, whilst the other isn't quite as pure.
insanitycontinuum
I think Kadar wasn't really socialist, he just had to be part of the socialist machine to be able to have power in the Eastern Block. Under him Hungary was the 'Happiest barrack' in the Warszaw Pact precisely because his government was able to make exceptions to socialism. Samewith Gorbachev, his politics aimed to bring down the socialist system of the Soviet Union. That's why they were on the side of the people and liberty, not of the socialist system of oppression
Battle4ngel
See, by automatically equating socialism with oppression your post now just sounds like propaganda. We could just as well turn this around and say Obama was actually a communist (granted, probably what a lot in the GOP actually believe) because he sought to rein in some of the predatory abuse built into American capitalism. But that'd be just as weird -- good politics is always about compromise, regardless of the system.
Gorbachev's reforms were not anti-socialist but anti-dictatorship.
insanitycontinuum
Socialism in the Eastern Bloc was an oppressive dictatorship. There is no honest way to sugarcoat it. Millions of Eastern Europeans tried to escape it and they celebrated like there was no tomorrow when it collapsed. Of course Western Capitalism has never been a flawless utopia but it doesn't mean socialism weren't worse. I'm Finnish but I don't consider my country to be socialist, but a distributive democratic market economy, and it works
Battle4ngel
On a side note, I think the term for Finland (or most of Europe, really) would be social market economy - and it could well be described as capitalism with socialist policies as a counterweight. A hybrid model that, in the eyes of many, combines the best of both worlds?
Battle4ngel
No, I agree. What I'm saying is it's not an automatic outcome. All those countries became dictatorships due to the way their regimes came into power: violence, with the last man standing then refusing to share/limit power. Chile could have been the exception, with a socialist government peacefully elected and a working democracy already in place. But then came the coup.
For governance it doesn't really matter whether a country is capitalist or socialist, what matters is checks and balances.
Pikachaan
I see tankie propaganda still makes its way over here occasionally. The CIA did some shady shit during the Cold War but to blame them entirely for every failed socialist state is hysterically asinine. Reminder that the collapse of the USSR not only took America by surprise, the Americans at the time were actively negotiating and coming to terms with the fact that the Soviet Union was here to stay for possibly centuries.
NinjaCongo
We're talking the smaller states of the world. The US never managed to control the USSR, China, India, Brazil and a few other places. But Latin America and the Middle East in particular? A finger in every crashed govt. Often much more than that.
Pikachaan
So much dumb bs to unpack here. Firstly, I love the goal posts moving. From "socialist countries only failed because CIA" to "okay not ALL socialist countries, just the tiny ones". Sorry, if your largest and most successful socialist country to ever exist completely and spectacularly collapsed on its own, you can't even BEGIN to argue that socialism doesn't work because "muh CIA". Secondly, it's so funny that you mention places like China and the ME when the USSR was doing the same exact thing
IGotMyDreamJobProgrammingGames
Dead account brought to life to argue. Usually means they are an account that was bought to shill for the right. Just mute this idiot.
hjf2011
and remember, when it's not the CIA, it's the embargos. cuba and venezuela aren't failed states because they are corrupt dictatorships. no. they're failed states because the US refuses to buy from them.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Yup, this is why you can't argue with tankies. The second you point out how obviously wrong they are, they go "well, wait..." and move the goalposts yet again.
Pikachaan
as the CIA in those countries lmao. Do you think the CCP came to power entirely on their own devoid of any communication or support from the USSR? You realize places like Afghanistan weren't just invaded by Americans right? It's funny you don't mention the smaller socialist countries in eastern Europe that were forcefully overtaken by the USSR. Fun fact, American leadership during the Cold War shot down ANY potential plans targeting overthrowing soviet regimes in smaller countries in
Pikachaan
eastern Europe since eastern Europe was considered to be under the Soviet sphere of influence. The USSR similarly avoided areas like Central and South American countries as they considered that to be part of America's sphere of influence. There are some exceptions, but generally, both sides tried to avoid direct confrontation due to nuclear war fears.
NinjaCongo
Ofc, yeah. The US and the Soviets carved up the world between them as best they could while avoiding direct confrontation as you write, based on Mutual Assured Destruction. Some places were very directly controlled while other were too powerful or there were too many other international players and so they stayed more or less "free".
NinjaCongo
I'm a different person than whoever you're referring to. We're not all one non-you entity here on Imgur. I haven't said that ALL socialist countries failed because of the CIA. Neither have I claimed they wouldn't have failed anyway, if the CIA wasn't involved. And I have certainly never claimed that "socialism" "works". What I'm talking about is the extent to which the CIA has meddled in the politics of other countries since the 50's. It's unparalleled and very well documented by historians.
Pikachaan
You replied under a post talking about how socialist countries only fail because of the CIA to which I gave examples of this not being the case and then you respond "WE'RE talking about smaller socialist countries" What does the we mean if you're just speaking for yourself lmao? YOU might be talking about smaller socialist countries but the post is not which is what my original comment was replying to lmao.
NinjaCongo
You don't need to be so hostile dude. We can have a civil discussion and maybe both learn something new. Anyways, I commented further up in the thread on something you wrote.
DubhIainn
If socialism and communism are so terrible, why is the USA so afraid of them?
OliverOtter
If cancer is so terrible, why are you cutting it out before the patient dies? What are you afraid of?
DubhIainn
Oh Buddy
theadmailgoeshere
Because they're a cancer
Shoutrr
yup. the usa are a cancer.
theadmailgoeshere
No, socialism and communism are cancers
HumanCats
How the hell is socialism cancer when it benefits the greater population giving them freedoms, protections and a better way of life? And yes social democracy is socialism.
ArgentXero
Socialism is what China is doing right now, which America considers "cheating" because it's better and it makes the actual cancer, Capitalism, look bad.
Shoutrr
china is one of the most capitalistic nation on the planet, second to the us. Socialism would mean the population owns the means of production, which they aren't. It's a bunch of elite, extremely corrupted, and quite rich, who elect each other depending on internal factions and power play, the general population has basically no say in anything. They are a junta.
MaleProstateMilker88
China is not a good example considering that it is an imperialist dictatorship.
Shoutrr
how so ? if you respond by giving an example of a country being "socialist" or "communist", be sure to quote the part of the country you use as an example that correspond to the definition of the words "socialist" or "communist". Example: if you say "the ussr was a communist cancer", that would mean that the population of ussr was part of all the decision process and all the population had equal status. which isn't true, meaning the ussr wasn't communist (nor socialist). I won't hold my breath.
Gvilain
By your logic no country ever was any form of governance, cause every single form had its retractions when it was implemented. Communism and socialism are failures, because that's in their nature as concept, they cannot be implemented in reality and work. If you think democracy is bad - look at examples where it works - bunch of EU countries. Now check how many countries in history who had socialism or you could even add communism to make numbers were at that level.