ITT: What is the inherent problem with communism?

it doesn't benefit globalized capitalism so globalist capitalist powers fuck with it as much as possible until it crumbles.

also, communism literally works until NK crumbles, you can't say otherwise without being objectively wrong.
>j-juche isn't communism!!1!
no, it just isn't your specific idea of what communism is. weighted benefits towards those that reinforce the system + international trade conducted by the ruling party are adaptations that made it so NK didn't crumble.

Because humans, every goddamn time.

One day, the machines, with their superior intellect and infinitely better grasp of resource prioritization, will show how it's done. (Those still alive, if any, that is.)

Because (((capitalists))) actively destroying it.

>>1886142
It destroys the human spirit

I wouldn't say it "keeps" failing since there's no new self proclaimed communist countries (unless you consider something like rojava communist).

I'd say most of the failing come from historicism preventing the development of transitional institutions to a decentralized worker managed economy and the obsession with copying leninism.

>>1886142

Depends what kind of communism we're talking about, or, to be specific, what kind of Marxism we're talking about.

For example, the economy under Stalin didn't suffer from recession as badly as say, the economy under Pinochets.

And to say capitalism works 100% of the time is also false.

If we're saying "waah" communism failed because humans died, and so on, I could say the same about fascism.

Or "waah socialism failed", I would point to countries such as the Scandinavian states, or Bolivia, or territories such as Rojava.

The same arguement can be made vice versa for capitalism in the sense that I can point to Hong Kong being a prime example of Capitalism working, and yet point to the Great Depression within America being another.

File: 2015-09-27_00028.jpg (271KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1920x1080px

Can someone please clarify what communism is exactly?

Is communism a post state society, free of hierarchy? Must nations centralize their economies in order to make a transition to communism?

>>1886142
can't calculate prices

>>1886142
Can't compete with capitalist societies.
>Those meanie capitalists gang up on us!
No they don't. Capitalists will work to eliminate or neutralize threats and their biggest threats are other capitalists. Communist institutions are shit and inefficient. They don't need any outside intervention to collapse.

>>1886175

*being a counter

>>1886175
> I could say the same about fascism.
Well, fascism is just communism under other name anyway. No surprise here.

Communism works perfectly fine in local level i.e. in actual commune of people.

>>1886197
bait

>>1886180
>Is communism a post state society, free of hierarchy?
You got it.

>Must nations centralize their economies in order to make a transition to communism?
This is where it gets messy: it depends who you ask, and Communists spent most of the 20th century arguing about it. Those who said yes were the extreme minority, but were most inclined to seizing control of the state apparatus. Once they had that, it was a huge pulpit that allowed them to present their views as the only ones. The Soviets didn't just spend millions, if not billions trying to subvert western states, they also spent an equal amount of time trying to subvert communist critics. Once they crashed their economy with no survivors, and the dollerydoos stopped flowing, there was a lot less Bolshevik shills all of a sudden.

>>1886154
The hominid jew strikes again

>>1886152
>state existing
Not Communist.

>>1886175
The USSR was not Communist.

>>1886180
>Must nations centralize their economies in order to make a transition to communism?
No, there have been tons of different theories over the past 150 years about how to achieve a Communist society. Some believed the way to do so was by doing a revolution and taking over a government to centralize the government, and others have believed that violent revolution and not taking over the state is the way to go. But Communists are not for reformist governments.

Communism is doomed to fail because the slave/master dynamic is literally encoded into our genes, and more intelligent people will always want to lord over less intelligent people in any way they can, and I say this as a person sympathetic to the tenets of communism.

Core of a problem is communism not being well defined enough concept to implement. Even the Marx himself barely hints on what it must to be.

>>1886239
>muh human nature

>>1886249
Defined in what way? Because the definition of Communism has always been a society where there is no private capital, no class, no money and no state. These have been defined clearly since it's inception more or less.

File: True Communism.jpg (171KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1024x768px

>>1886255

>Communism has always been a society where there is no private capital, no class, no money and no state.

Behold! A society with no private capital, no class, no money, and no state.

>>1886142
Communism can't compete with capitalism; many (idiots) see this as a flaw of capitalism, but it's really because communism is fucking retarded and shouldn't exist.

>>1886255
>muh blank slate
Humans are slaves to their biology, I'm sorry modern day communists still have a 19th century mindset of how humans work.

>>1886142
Every community experiment has followed an authoritarian top-down model

>>1886270

>humans are slaves to their biology

Ah, so then I suppose we're all determined to be fascists then? Or feminists? Or right wingers or left wingers?

To say it's all biology and nothing to do with your environment or your experiences is fucking retarded

>>1886142
The USSR collapsed because it couldn't keep up with American military capabilities, losing all their satellites in the process

China and Vietnam became capitalist because career politicians would often rather get wealthy than liberate their countrymen

North Korea turned into a fascist state because the Kims liked power

Cuba is cool

>>1886255
In the constructive way. Mathematically speaking. If you define communism as no state society then I guess COLLAPSE is the success because state is totally kill forever, am I right?! You should define communism by what it is, not by what it isn't. The political system is always set of practices. World without money, state, capital and class becomes a failure automatically if you didn't replace niches and functions, all of a necessities that they serve.

File: 0339359cd55507152aea8141008005a2e7df3f98e54d1115d85193df3e73a614.jpg (60KB, 512x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 512x600px

>>1886142
Because stupid crapitalists keep trying to destroy it

>>1886265
This isn't true communism. Everyone knows, that under communism there would be lack of sand in Sahara

>>1886270
> Humans are slaves to their biology
You can change biology with technology. Humans done it from beginning of times.

>>1886288
> The USSR collapsed because it couldn't keep up with American military capabilities
Because it collapsed in military defeat? It is clear that it isn't true, anon. North Korea still exist even without hope to compete with USA, same for The Cuba. I am sure Soviets could still exist even in a form of second tier state... Like Russia exist now basically.

>>1886295
>essentialist definitions
>2016

Daily reminder that communism != equality.

>>1886296
well except your theories say proletarian self interest should overcome the efforts of the bourgeois to suppress it, so the very fact they win proves your ideas wrong

>>1886237
>Not Communist.
no, it's not your autistic specific idea of what communism is. goods are pooled and then redistributed as the primary economic system of a nation. that's communism.

>>1886330
>goods are pooled and then redistributed as the primary economic system of a nation. that's communism.
That's literally not socialism or communism.

>>1886330
> goods are pooled and then redistributed
Like in literally every economy ever?

>>1886330
>goods are pooled and then redistributed as the primary economic system of a nation. that's communism.
I kindly invite you to google communism, friend.

File: the-shocking-conditions-inside-chinas-brutal-foxconn-factory.jpg (24KB, 384x253px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 384x253px

>>1886170
No, you're thinking of capitalism

File: qq6N1zm.png (757KB, 2880x2020px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 2880x2020px

Communism is pretty much inevitable once the capitalist system finally collapses in on itself. Also fuck off bigoted reactionary scum.

>>1886347
Can't we abandon historicism already? In fact, can't we abandon every vestige of the cancer that is hegelian thought in the left?

>>1886347


No one with a history degree could possibly take this chart seriously

>>1886347
>inevitable once the capitalist system finally collapses in on itself.
Any day now. kek

I'd love to see the look on your face when you finally grow up and just vote social Democrat because you realize it's as good as it's gonna get, like everyone else who spent their teens reading Marx and Proudhon.

File: E9xw62c.png (18KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 625x626px

>>1886340
>China
>Capitalism

>>1886362
>FOXCONN
>not a Capitalist entity
???

>>1886347
Not if humans develop interstellar colonization first so there will be new frontiers for millions of years to come.

Also, just because capitalism collapses doesn't mean the proles won't collapse with it. As wages become depressed, and capitalists no longer need growing numbers of wage laborers to expand the economy, it may become economically nonviable for proles to maintain a fertility rate of 2+, dropping to around 1 or less, halving the population of proles every generation, until they're eventually bred out of existence.

>>1886142
it's too good for this world

>>1886362
>China
>not capitalist

Is this nigga serious?

It works as long as immigration and population growth is controlled.

>>1886347
epic falseflagging, /pol/

>>1886371
that's american education in action

>>1886371
>ussr
>in b4 gommies say not real gommunism

>prc
>its not real gommunism gaiz

>gapitalist logic

>>1886372
>immigration

spotted the racist

>>1886369
Actually any kind of space mining of asteroids will essentially lead to a post scarcity situation making capitalism obsolete.

>>1886378
>dprk
>people say it's not republican and democratic
Those idiots! It's on the name, can't they read?

>>1886255
>not this not that etc
This is still a denial judgement. It can be a definition if it's an affirmative judgement.

Communism didn't fail, it did for the russians and chinese exactly what they wanted it to do at the time.
A lot of third world communist movements went very liberal at the end of the cold war without losing too much momentum, because communism was something that would then not deliver what they wanted of it. the CPP-NPA put out a statement cautioning Duterte on his move towards China, not out of ideological reasons but for want of national control of resource extraction, to keep it domestic instead of foreign owned. Very big about-face for a group that got significant backing from the chinese in the last few decades.

File: cnn 2.png (107KB, 830x450px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 830x450px

>>1886347

>>1886381
>post-scarcity
But will the people with the dank asteroids share their limitless resource? Or will they just sell it to people for profit?

I imagine the "limitless" vastness of the New World in the 18th century, when there was more wood, beaver, and whale than you could chop, trap, or harpoon. We all know how that turned out.

If history is any indication....

>>1886390

>Communism didn't fail, it did for the russians and chinese exactly what they wanted it to do at the time.

Cause famines?

File: 1461772852486.jpg (91KB, 790x764px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 790x764px

>>1886142
Communism relies on a benevolent state that has perfect information.

Both things don't exist in the real world.

t. Economist

>>1886391
It is explained though. It's explained that if you want full world communism, you need to be very close to post-scarcity. Only socialism can make that final push to post scarcity where automation fully benefits society, because society becomes the owners of automation. Socialism is more accurately described as a prerequisite to communism. Historical dialectics shows a likely eventual trend. Socialism is not meant to be a blue print for communism.

>>1886410
>Communism relies on a benevolent state
Stopped reading.

>>1886402
A famine is only bad if it hits people in the cities. Capitalist or communist, if you want an industrial economy you gotta fuck up townies en masse.

>>1886412
OP interchangeably uses the terms communism and socialism.

That's why he asks why it keeps failing.

>>1886400
>If history is any indication
You mean how the new world went on to be an agricultural powerhouse that currently feeds half of Africa for free because the land is so productive? Or how corn farmers cash cheques from the US government to not grow corn to ensure that they don't completely crash corn prices?

Future is looking good if we can replicate similar success with metals and rare earth materials. I mean as long as we don't allow some Corp to claim ownership of the asteroid belt just because...

>>1886410
Free market capitalism relies on perfect information, otherwise you get investment and speculative bubbles.

Markets would function better if wealthy institutions were not too big to fail, able to manipulate markets and information, create artificial economic barriers, produce unregulated externalities, have diseconomies of scale, charge unproductive rent, demand large amounts of profits from entrepreneurs for them to be able to attempt to succeed, and so forth.

Clearly socialism is the answer.

It fails because a stateless, classless society cannot work in a world full of states and classes. Prove me wrong.

>>1886442
>Prove me wrong.
You're not wrong though. This is a perfectly natural conclusion for a strict Marxist who isn't Iosef "socialism in one country" Stalin.

>>1886431
There is a difference.

The market gets that information by looking how prices change, reflection the response of each individual.

The state would have to be omnipresent to get the same information. Which is impossible.

>>1886458
Not that guy, but variation of quantities/inventories gives you that information. Also, market information is partial, it rather reflects the response of each individual weighted by their wealth (for example, someone without wealth doesn't influence prices through demand, so his preferences aren't reflected in production).

>>1886362
are you joking

industry is held privately

File: redditnomics.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

Marx confers a lot of power to a group that is supposed to represent the workers, but little is said about the group's checks and balances against corruption. In a regular democracy people have the power to nationalize industry, increase taxes and generally assault capitalism, the reason they don't go all the way is because they start to run into corruption and inefficiency problems at the Venezuela level.

A stateless classless society sounds just swell, but there are about 500 other things that would be pretty neat too.

>>1886170
I agree. Full atheism sucks for any society and cult of personality will only get you 70 years before they throw your staues down

>>1886458
>The market gets that information by looking how prices change, reflection the response of each individual.
Which leads to speculative bubbles and volatile markets because they stop looking at the actual worth of the commodity they're trading in, seeing the commodity's value not as it actually pertains to usefulness and demand for the product itself, but the usefulness for the product to be traded to other speculators.

>The state would have to be omnipresent to get the same information. Which is impossible.
Which is why you have socialism, with markets. Wow. Problem solved.

>>1886479
We need more consumer's unions.

>>1886509
You're not wrong, but your post is more of a criticism of Marxism-Leninism than it is of Marxism itself.

>>1886509
>Marx confers a lot of power to a group that is supposed to represent the workers
No he doesn't. The German Marxists (Marx was German by the way), got butthurt over the undemocratic Marxist-Leninism in the Russian Revolution. It's Lenin, Bolsheviks, Stalin, and the CPSU, and people who followed in their footsteps, like Mao and the CPC, and the satellite puppet states that did this. What you're describing is the Marxist-Leninist model, not Marxism.

>>1886509
>Marx confers a lot of power to a group that is supposed to represent the workers
Please quote marx saying this.

>>1886545
>in b4 dictatorship of the proletariat being misinterpreted

>visit my grandpas village farming town
>wahey mfw im in a communist society

>>1886142
The world doesn't want it, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

Communists are idealists. They don't think realistically. Everything about communism sounds pleasant, and a little practical here and there, on paper — in reality it's like trying to enforce the concept of equality. Fact is, nothing is equal; nothing actually works according to your idealism. It will only work for brief periods, among a rare group of people, who are all idealistically foolish enough to sustain it in their heads, which is enough to make them think it is being sustained in reality.

Communists should stop hating class distinction. It's a petty hatred. Class is natural and we owe all our art and technology to inequality.

>>1886142
the inherent problem with communism is that it is undemocratic. time and again history shows us that a people will only tolerate tyrants for so long, and now that self governance has become such a widespread ideal, authoritarian regimes struggle even more so to hold on to their power

>>1886617
Communist isn't equality. That's retarded. Equality is a bourgeois concept based on inequality in capitalism. Communism is not about enforcing equality, it's about transcending the need for people to want equality by giving every person the ability for self-actualization without feeling the need to blame it on inequality. Socialism is more egalatarian than communism, but the goal of socialism is not equality, and still ultimately relies on some inequality (to each according to his contribution), which is explicitly acknowledged and accepted by Marx.

Stop falling for the marxism = equality meme. It has no basis in Marxism. Yes, there are naive people who support full equality in everything, but they aren't actually Marxist even if they think they are.

>>1886625
That's a problem with bolsheviks. The German communists were complaining about how undemocratic bolshevism was since the beginning.

because goverment central planing is garbage pseudoscience.

>comunists can't solve the central planning efficiency dilema
trash.

>no state
how do you defend your people from external forces, like an enemy state without a trained big army?

>no class
how do you stop the inevitable class diference because of job skills, or is an engineer the same as a janitor?

how do you solve the motivation problem if there's no profit or greed motivation to become rich that capitalism have?

people feel motivated by greed, and capitalism rewards the people who work harded to innovate, while comunism punishes the people who create innovation in capitalist countries.

>>1886152
What is NK? North Korea?

>>1886680
>comunists can't solve the central planning efficiency dilema
That's why you should have market socialism instead of centrally planned socialism. It's not some sort of fancy newfangled oxymoron. Ricardian market socialism predates Marxism, and Marx himself didn't completely discount market socialism, he just didn't like markets very much, especially in conjunction with the private ownership of capital. There's a reason his book is about Capital and not Markets.

>how do you defend your people from external forces, like an enemy state without a trained big army?
This is why you have a socialist state before communism, until it's safe to transition to communism because everyone else is socialist too and also wants to transition to communism.

>how do you stop the inevitable class diference because of job skills, or is an engineer the same as a janitor?
It doesn't matter, because with automation you only need to put in a token amount of work to meet your personal needs. You wouldn't have to work full time or be expected to. You seem to be stuck on the idea of equality, like equal wages, which is a anti-marxist idea.

>how do you solve the motivation problem if there's no profit or greed motivation to become rich that capitalism have?
He's working under the assumption that humans have a desire for self actualization, because internet porn hadn't been invented yet.

>people feel motivated by greed, and capitalism rewards the people who work harded to innovate
It also rewards people who own things because they own them. It sounds like your ideal is socialism, not communism. "To each according to his contribution" instead of signing a contract to an owner of a company that says all your ideas while you work for him are his intellectual property (this is standard language in most contracts for R&D engineers in capitalism) and you have no choice but to do this because he had the money to sponsor R&D and you don't.

>>1886154
>muh system is perfect, it's those fucking humans who are the problem!

>>1886676
my point is that communism can only be successfully implemented by a willing and conscious majority. there is no room for dissent in a communist system and because of that, it is inherently undemocratic.

>>1886142
This is like asking why Lysenkoism failed. It a less accurate descriptor than the competition, and you cannot force reality to bend to your ideology.

>>1886411

>Historical dialectics shows a likely eventual trend.

There is no historical trend towards a state-less society.

>>1886722
>market socialism
how is diferent from state capitalism?

>everyone else is comunism
how do you get to the point where everyone wants to be socialist.

I don't want to be a socialist.
capitalists and millionaires don't want to be socialism.

how do you force a millionaire to become a socialists?

>We'll force him
and he hires a private militia and shoot you faggots the moment you start rioting.

>automatization
Capitalism won't die.

Capitalism will be succeeded by descentralized local comunities that have a welfare system powered by universal income, machines and the internet, meanwhile the big national decisions will be done by big corporations.

>own things
I want to own things, having things are nice.
private property feels good.

>each acording to his contribution
how bout niggers who live in welfare, what are their contribution?

>muh worker explotation
kek, another usefull idiot brainswhased by economic pseudoscience of the XIX century.

>>1886733
>my point is that communism can only be successfully implemented by a willing and conscious majority
The same could be said of any democratic polity. If people vote in a tyrant that abolishes democracy then that's what happens.

>there is no room for dissent in a communist system and because of that, it is inherently undemocratic.
Yes there is. Any revolutionary government is going to crack down on dissent though for the beginning of it's existence, and bolshevism, which you seem to think is representative of all communist thought, was particularly bad in suppressing dissent. But it's not like democratic USA didn't have it's own milder forms of cracking down on dissent too.

File: 1477124613289.png (243KB, 540x721px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 540x721px

>>1886739

>The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism built on Lamarckian concepts of the heritability of acquired characteristics.[2] Lysenko's theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the "gene"; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[3] Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that "natural cooperation" was observed in nature as opposed to "natural selection".[3] Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.

Jesus fucking Christ.

explain to me why post scarcity means a stateless society?

Capitalist propaganda.

>>1886766

>explain to me why post scarcity means a stateless society?

I've asked this many times as well. There is no answer.

>>1886142
Because it's enlightenment ideology, one which is predicated to internal failure, taken to it's very extreme. It's no wonder it fails so spectacularly in every instance. You don't force reality to bend itself to your will. You bend yourself to reality.

>>1886773
there's post scarcity of paper, does this mean paper isn't controlled by capitalists?

>>1886763
you're right on some points, in any power structure there will be suppression of dissent, but i was under the impression that communists sought a state-less society free of authoritarian power structures.

>Any revolutionary government is going to crack down on dissent though for the beginning of it's existence, and bolshevism, which you seem to think is representative of all communist thought, was particularly bad in suppressing dissent.

are you attempting to excuse the use of force to suppress dissent or are you implying that a different school of communist would more effectively do so when compared to russian bolsheviks?

>>1886758
>how is diferent from state capitalism?
Am I supposed to take this as you won't take the definition of state capitalism and market socialism in good faith? Because it sounds like you want to deny basic definitions.

Market socialism is socialism with markets. It has social ownership/control of capital, and markets to deal with supply and demand. It means the distribution of capital is decided socially, rather than based on private individual's rights to ownership. It's not implied that capital is distributed equally.

To explain it in capitalist terms, and example, imagine you're an equal shareholder in an investment fund that everyone else is also an equal shareholder of. You go to a shareholder's meeting and elect a board of representative who you think will adequately present your interests in a way that benefit you, not only in maximizing returns but also anything else you feel will benefit you, including not funding things that harm you. This investment fund then loans out the capital to entrepreneurs such as yourself possibly according to decisions made by the board. The investment fund reinvests in itself if it felt it had inadequate capital to take advantage of all the opportunity out there, or otherwise pays out an equal dividend to all shareholders, which is everyone. That's an example of social ownership of capital.

>how do you get to the point where everyone wants to be socialist.
You change the material conditions.

>I don't want to be a socialist.
You don't live forever.

>capitalists and millionaires don't want to be socialism.
They get taxed until their descendants become upper-middle class SJWs.

>and he hires a private militia and shoot you faggots the moment you start rioting.
Strawman.

>Capitalism won't die.
Property is a social construct. Capitalism is the formalization of a certain kind of society based on a certain formation of property rights.

>>1886758
>I want to own things, having things are nice.
>private property feels good.
Personal property is not the same as capital. Socialism encompasses a wide range of ideas many of which include property. A society could socially decide to have limited property rights.

>how bout niggers who live in welfare, what are their contribution?
You do your best to give them an opprotunity to contribute, and if they don't contribute anyways, then depending on how hardline you are, they either get the bare minimum welfare, workfare, or you go hardline "those who do not work do not eat"

>kek, another usefull idiot brainswhased by economic pseudoscience of the XIX century.
And now I realized that typing out semi-serious responses was a waste of time because you have no intention of actually discussing in good faith.

>>1886427
>agricultural powerhouse that currently feeds half of Africa for free because the land is so productive? Or how corn farmers cash cheques from the US government to not grow corn to ensure that they don't completely crash corn prices?

While both of these are somewhat true, these conditions are created largely by good old fashioned profit-driven monopolies, patents, and corporate protectionism leading directly to....

> some Corp to claim ownership of the asteroid belt just because...

Which is what history suggests is most likely to happen.

>>1886817
do you realize people doesn't give a fuck about equality and live happier lives under a capitalist system?

>they get taxed
just like in america?

then they move their money to other nations, or pay congress people to lower their taxes.
or pay for propaganda to make people vote for policies that lower their taxes.

>strawman
why?
don't you think rich people can't afford a private militia?

>property is a social construct
so what.
people like to own shit.

Why do you think people emigrate from socialist countries to capitalist ones?

>>1886832
how does a coop compete against a capitalist enterprise who sells shit at cheaper prices?

>bare minimal welfare
capitalist can afford a welfare state without becoming socialists.

>but obamacare is socialism
kek

>>1886815
>you're right on some points, in any power structure there will be suppression of dissent, but i was under the impression that communists sought a state-less society free of authoritarian power structures.
Eventually.

>are you attempting to excuse the use of force to suppress dissent or are you implying that a different school of communist would more effectively do so when compared to russian bolsheviks?
I'm saying I hate bolsheviks, and it happens in most revolutions, including nominally democratic ones. Saying bolsheviks were bad in suppressing dissent means bad, as in it is a negative evil thing, not bad as in unskillful.

>>1886838
>not even trying anymore and just making up random greentexts

>>1886849
>people kill themselves trying to escape comunist shitholes into capitalist countries
>huh duh people want socialism

>let's try again socialism, I'm sure venezuela falling into a failed state means we'll fail another time

>It'll work fine if we change these few things

>>1886838
>do you realize people doesn't give a fuck about equality and live happier lives under a capitalist system?

>proceeds to list bad things about capitalism
>then they move their money to other nations, or pay congress people to lower their taxes.
>or pay for propaganda to make people vote for policies that lower their taxes.
>don't you think rich people can't afford a private militia?
>Why do you think people emigrate from socialist countries to capitalist ones?

>>1886844
at what point then do communists propose to abolish the state and the adjoining power structures and how would such a feat be feasible?

>>1886875
>im going to pretend like minarchism and ancap and small gubment isnt a thing in the right and no one could ever conceive or agree to having an decreasingly smaller gubment

>>1886871
most people are happy being under a capitalist system.

most people just want a home, a job, send their kids to school, have wife, masturbate to cuck porn on their phones, sent their nudes to camwhores, watch some anime and games, and iphones to see porn.

they don't give a fuck about class inequality and ideals and shit.

Tragic vision of man vs the anointed

See Rousseau, French revolutionaries. It's this assumption of man being born free yet everywhere he is in chains. That man is and should be perfect and it's only society holding us back. This is communism view of humanity.

The tragic view is that humans can not be perfected no matter how many re-education camps, propogandizing and violent acts. There is darkness in the hearts of men. Some control it better than others. You can't prevent evil from existing. You can fight it and minimize it, but you cannot eliminate it.

So ultimately human nature and communism is inherently anti-human

>>1886883
>most people are happy being under a capitalist system.
Take a stroll through any country of your choice outside of the usa and western Europe and ask them if they are satisfied with capitalism kiddo

>>1886886
funny how animals live under hierarchical institutions, where an alpha male reigns supreme among the beta caste.

an horizontal caste is simply anti natural.

>>1886886
>hands means of oppression to evilest men
>literally every government ever
The only question is how much power the evilest men can get in any system of government.

>>1886890
I just have to go to the fancy shopping malls in Hong Kong where the rich people are.

>>1886883
>goyim are happier living subservient to the jew because the jew will fuck them over with bribes and backstabbing and taking all their money away when the aryan tries to stand up for himself and his countrymen
The fact that you're happier is predicated on the fact that capitalism gives those who benefit the most from capitalism the power to fuck you over if you don't support capitalism,.

File: tmp_12612-1477197294784-229754905.jpg (27KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 403x403px

>>1886894
Exactly. Enter the US and liberalism. Neutralizing power as much as possible upon its founding. Letting people govern themselves, but still having just enough power in institutions for maintenance, upkeep and defense. Every position of power has at least two other offices if not entire branches all pit against each other in a war of self interest. So, the wicked won't get very far, because other wicked people will want to undercut them.

It's not that everyone is evil, horrible monsters. It's just that we all CAN be. Who knows what someone will be like once they have the ring of power.

File: image.jpg (72KB, 500x456px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x456px

>>1886410

>communism
>relies on state

>>1886880
im not arguing that the ideas are inconceivable, i am asking how such ideas would be implemented. arguing theory and rhetoric is all well and good but how can we ever determine just how successful or not it could be without implementation. would it be so difficult to prepare a plan of action? how and why should such a system even be implemented, and with how much bloodshed if any? i am not content to argue the theoretical merits of any political ideal. if such an ideal could indeed be set it place then a logical course of action which is capable of doing so is a requirement for it to possess any sort of real world credibility.

>>1886902
Fuck off retard. Sorry your shitty ideology is of no value to the noble proletariat. Face it faggot. Your nonsense has nothing to offer. So much to lose and nothing to gain.

File: image.gif (567KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 320x240px

>>1886509

>Venezuala
>socialist

>>1886913
Dont start this bullshit. Chavezs entire platform siezing the means of production, and they did it. And like every other time, all the wealth left the country and now the most resource rich country in South America is having their middle class hunt rats and dogs

>>1886912
stop shitposting dude, there is actually a decent discussion going on here. take that inflammatory shit back to >>>/pol/

>>1886905
Many branches of socialism don't want big centrally planned government, they just want there to be a social check and balance to the accumulation of wealth because money is power. That way people who manage lots of wealth will have to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement with everyone else.

>>1886898

Or perhaps take a stroll down the streets of Somalia?

>>1886890
did you know that thirld worlders support like 90% a capitalist system than a socialist one?

America and europe is where the vast majority of people who support comunism are.

Go ask any eastern european, latinoamerican, african, indian, asian if they like socialims.

Ask venezuelans if they like socialims.
Or cubans.

>>1886912
You listed a half dozen reasons about why capitalism was better, which were because capitalists will do X to you if you aren't friendly to capitalists.

>>1886902
I rather have HD porn and better internet to download porn in a better PC than having socialism.

Also games, and porn videogames.

File: tmp_12612-1476669598438-1904923652.png (15KB, 205x221px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 205x221px

>>1886921
You have to be at least 18 years old to browse this website

>>1886927
[spoiler]socialims[/spoiler]

>>1886927
Uh huh. Tell me more.

Where did you get that statistic? Breitbart?

>>1886938
if socialism is an utter failure, how do they expect to contries to archieve comunism?

>>1886941
because I'm colombian and I live next to the failure that is venezuela.

Go ask the average latino or see latino comments when talking about socialism.

Many feel happy and glad when a commie gets killed.

I do.

I only wish for more helicopter rides.

>>1886941
The percent figure is pulled out of his ass, but is you actually think the Venezuelans living there today are enjoying their socialism you really ought to look into it a little more.

>>1886142
Over Centralized economies always fall. Plus commie nations always become what they fight against. An oligarchy with a elite few in power at the expense of the general populace.

>>1886943
i tend to agree that socialism is not a necessarily wise economic system, but you're throwing around claims without a source and instead of actually trying to debate the idea on its own merits and disprove it fairly, you just claim that it is unpopular and therefore bad. for nearly the entirety of human history the idea of self governance was largely unpopular and yet the world we live in today is dominated by democratic nations. what i am trying to say, is pull your ass off your shoulders and contribute something to the discussion.

>>1886175
Is rojava really marxist?

>>1886952
Last I read Maduro enjoys a large amount of popular support from the super poor.

But let's not pretend Venezuela was a legitimate attempt at socialism. They nationalized all of their oil and tried to follow the Norwegian model but fucked it all up via incompetence and general idiocy.

>>1886911
Because people want small government when they feel they would be better off with small government, and they want big government when they feel like they'd be better off with big government. You need to view Marx's statelessness in the context of anarchist movements of the day. What Marx was saying is you can't just go stateless and expect everything to fix itself. If you want statelessness, you have to fix things first and put society in a place where it feels comfortable and be stable without a state. Lots of people don't support full ancap, because they feel if you took away regulations, with the way wealth is distributed, the rich and powerful will become even more rich and powerful.

You don't need a plan of action to go from socialism to communism, because there's nothing wrong with socialism except for the fact that it isn't communism. There's no need to look at socialism as something to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.

Most revolutions have bloodshed. Revolutions rarely spontaneously happen just because of an ideology. What happens is there are failings with the status quo, and people want change, change that often demands and requires bloodshed. Sometimes it doesn't work out the the new provisional government becomes a dictatorship or is too weak with deal with corruption. The ideology exists and is developed to be there for when people seek an alternative to the status quo to turn to.

The only plan is to educate people to think about possible alternatives, seriously consider the nature of property, so when the time comes that the system is failing, and revolution is imminent because of dialectics, they will consider it as an alternative when hoping to create a new and better system.

>>1886933
Pirating is anti capitalist

>>1886964
Nah not really
all orgs have a dual ideological structure: that of the upper echelons of leadership, and that of the rank and file, and a properly run org will blend these two objectives. Ocalan is a good ideological head because he balances the orthodox socialism of his older cadres are used to and the unsophisticated nationalism of the younger folks who do the actual legwork.

So, to answer your question, there are marxists in Rojava and they participate politically, but a movement rests on no one group within the multitude that make up a movement.

>>1886984
>muh perfect system won't fail next time
kek

>>1886991
It probably will fail. Lots of things fail, you keep trying making changes here and there until it works. This is the basis of all human development and technology. Liberal democracy wasn't an instant success with no fuckups along the way. Neither was feudalism or capitalism or anything else.

Failure is the basis on which capitalism thrives. People keep trying until they succeed and reap the benefits. Those who fail get pushed out of the way or follow those who succeed. Capitalism works the way it does because it both lets people fail, and it rewards them to overcome failure.

>>1887009
>capitalism has never failed to produce wealth and make countries richer
>let's try this another system that keeps failing and only produces people starving and eating trash to not stave to death
>but let's not use the other system that already works because muh theory of labor and XIX century pseudoscience

>>1886142
One aspect, I imagine, is that a command economy cannot respond as quickly or organically as a relatively free market. It's more stable in some ways but cannot operate efficiently.

>>1887014
I'm not a country bruh.

>>1887014
>country gets richer
>wealth is produced
>it actually just mostly goes to a jew who happens to live in your country and will leave your country with all his shekels at the drop of a hat

>>1887052
name a single case where a capitalism system hasn't improved life conditions better than socialism.

name a single case where socialism or comunism made happier their population than a capitalist system.

>>1887057
Not that the USSR was actually socialist, but it was definitely not conventional capitalism, and the economy was growing faster than the United States through the Stalin era. It became worse when bureaucrats started sabotaging the central planning by misreporting numbers so they could make things look better than they were, the same way you might see a large corporation fudging numbers to hide losses. This was actually a bigger problem than the calculation problem. They didn't even have accurate numbers to calculate from.

Every monarchy from the fall of Rome up to the founding of the modern democracies could have just said democracy leads to [COLAPSE] just look at Rome and read Plato's Republic. But you had people with enlightenment ideals push through liberal democracy anyways, and got it to work.

>>1886913
>United Socialist Party of Venezuela

holds

Seats in the National Assembly
52 / 167
Seats in the Latin American Parliament
4 / 12
Governors
19 / 23
Mayors
254 / 335

yeah the country is pretty much run by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela which also hold The Presidency and VP slot. Also the slots that they do hold, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela holds a majority of the slots on every level of government. Stop please just stop.

>>1887057
0.5 shekels has been added to your account

>>1886529
>>1886539
>>1886545
>>1886572
>When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another.

Removing superficial class distinctions and concentrating economic power into the hands of a "vast association" has little effect on political power, it still suffers from the same problems as other systems that represent millions of people.

>>1887083
Mayors and governors can seize the means of production in Venezuela?

>>1887088
It means workers will oppress non-workers, rather than non-workers oppressing workers. I see nothing wrong with this. He's not saying a small group of representatives. He's literally saying the vast association this is the whole nation. The problem is you think "a vast association of the whole nation" is figurative. The idea is that it has lesser and fewer problems, which was based on his historical dialectics.

>>1887090
not my point. Someone who is trying to say "Venezuela isn't socialist" is wrong because the entire governing party is a bunch of believers in socialism and have obtained the power of government to achieve those ends.

Trying to say it is not socialist is plane wrong.

>>1887120
Do you not know what the word majority means?

> majority of the slots on every level of government
>52 / 167
>4 / 12

>>1887120
by governing party I mean those that hold enough of a majority to enact their whim and judgement and from the looks of it, nothing can really stop the United Socialist Party of Venezuela from completing its tasks.

>>1887126
Do you understand how legislation and the legislative branch work in parliamentary democracy?

>>1887126
so you're saying the democracy doesn't work with socialism?

>>1887125
>I don't know that Venezuela has more than two major parties

when it comes to the national assembly of Venezuela, the next biggest competitor is the Primero Justicia with 33 votes (Center right, probably not going to agree on most issues brought up by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela) and the third biggest is Acción Democrática with 25 (Center left, which means the odds of them agreeing with the United Socialist Party of Venezuela is greater) and after looking through the more minor parties that are there. A majority of them are Center-Left to solid socialist Left.

Before you create an assumption please look up the break down of Venezuela first and their current political climate. The amount of back push against the United Socialist Party of Venezuela is very little.

Also not using the word incorrectly because they own the most seats within the corresponding places (The greater number if you didn't know the definition buddy)

Because utopian ideals lead nowhere and humans rightly reject a life without any struggle.

>>1887166
>he thinks plurality is the same as majority
>he thinks centre left wants to seize the means of production
>this is the education level of /pol/ on politics

>>1887143
not saying that at all, those people were elected democratically to enact the people will as a legislative representative.

>>1887137
Not the addressing my point. The current political climate of Venezuela is currently in a center left to full on socialism style left based on all of the political parties involved. A majority of them are left leaning to socialist.

>>1887173
Center left does not mean "seize the means of production"

I know in /pol/think everyone to the left of you is a communist but that isn't actually the case

>>1886288
lol jailing gays is cool af

>>1886142
Communism has been the product of radicalization in tumultuous countries and therefore has failed under ineffectiveness, reactionism, and more tumult.

>>1886206
Forgetting the approach of the frankfurt school that in order to achieve a communist society you must change the culture through and through. They are having some good success,

>>1887171
>keeps trying to miss address my point

please continue to be wrong friend. Point of the matter is that Venezuela IS currently going through an active stage of Socialism. You cannot disagree with that point because there is no argument to the contrary. The United Socialist Party of Venezuela holds the majority of voting power with in the elected sectors and based on the political breakdown of Venezuela the Socialist Party in charge will have no real counter balance power to stop its actions it wishes to push forth.

>>1887179
#imwithher

>>1887186
You can't just push through radical legislation through a parliament that you only have a plurality in when you have conservatives and centrists that don't agree with a radical agenda. You can't even distinguish between plurality and majority, and you think center left will agree to radical left things. If they were radical leftists, they wouldn't be center leftists. They agree to things that are leftist, but not radical leftist.

>>1886288
>Cuba is cool
haha yeah sure love jailing people who criticize the government

>>1887189
votin trump

>>1887057
Socialist states in the first world have richer, happier, and more long-lived people then more capitalist ones.

>>1887206
So why do you care about jailing gay people?

File: 1477604741619.jpg (19KB, 341x395px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 341x395px

>>1887086

>>1887213
trump doesn't give a shit about the homos
its only the mexicans and m*slims

>>1887213
because I am not a larper

>>1887220
>trump voters arent larpers

>>1887176
my point in bringing up the "Center-Left" parties is that they are more likely to agree with the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Venezuela has "seized the means of production" in several sectors of Venezuela. Agriculture, Aluminum , telephone service, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. is the only oil production company, electricity, fertilizers, media outlets, food production industry, and steel.

Whether it decides to ditch the government and still hold public ownership of the companies is another story to which I wish not to try and Nostradamus the result.

>>1887195
I never said flat out that the center left would automatically agree with the socialist party of Venezuela, I just pointed out that they will more likely agree and probably give less push back.

>>1887226
>my point in bringing up the "Center-Left" parties is that they are more likely to agree with the United Socialist Party of Venezuela.
When it comes to left, but not radical left things. It's not like they throw dice and do a vote check to see if they go along with them. They are more likely to go along with them on less radical things and less likely to go along with them on more radical things. That's what center left parties do, and then you end up with idiotic compromises like price controls.

>>1887224
maybe the ones who like to post on the internet but the vast majority of his base are just normal folk who couldn't give much of a hoot or heck about politics I tell ye what,

>>1887229
The reason why center left parties exist is to be leftist and anti-seize-the-means-of-production at the same time. Because people want leftist instead of rightist policy, but they don't want seize-the-means-of-production.

>>1887239
> I tell ye what
I give you one kek.

communism isn't the problem, autocracy is

leaders who don't have to answer directly to the people will invariably become corrupt

>>1887237
The only thing I can see is that Venezuela is going to be a very interesting topic for both economist, political scientists, political philosophers for a while. Until some kind of counter balance pushes back or people look for the next "big thing."

>>1887243
There's also the problem of propaganda, when you can convince people something that is bad for them is good for them so they support it.

>>1887240

I understand that, I am stating that leftists are more likely to agree (where they believe it should be) with seizing said means of said production. I do believe that Healthcare is an example. Media (News specifically) is another one.

>>1887266
You do know that rightist nationalists are often times in favor of nationalization when it means taking over a business owned by a foreign company, as was the case with several of the Venezuelan nationalizations? Not all rightists are meme economic free trade lolbertarians.

>>1887285
this is why I try to use

Authoritarian vs Liberal
Centralized vs Decentralized
Free-market vs Planned Market

Left v Right is a bit too braud for my tasts

>>1887298
You could be any combination of those, and come up with an argument for nationalist anti-globalism and justify trying to get rid of foreign corporations.

>authoritarian
Undermines state's authority
>liberal
Exploits people unfairly
>centralized
They are a big powerful outside interest that is too strong
>decentralized
They are a big powerful outside interest that is too strong
>free market
They are market manipulators
>planned market
They are market manipulators

>>1887316
A free market person supporter wouldn't want the removal of a foreign company. Their presence is simply a representation of the market at work.

I am not using "liberal" as in the left general presumption of "liberal" which I assume is some interesting hybrid of Progressive/Democrat for america as a general representation.

Liberal in its based base definition is well, favoring individual liberties as a style of governance, pretty much rules the government must play by where in contrast of authoritarian is essentially "I" or "Our special group" (examples PolitBuro of USSR, Monarchy, Oligarchy).

Mostly I'd say is Liberal and Free-Market is where I'd disagree with your premise.

>>1887346
>A free market person supporter wouldn't want the removal of a foreign company.
Yes they could. If the companies has the revenue the size of your GDP, you could feel like they're engaging economic war on you, and fucking up your markets. The point of free markets, for most free market advocates, is markets that work. They argue regulations make markets not work as well. It's not usually based on ideological freedoms.

>Liberal in its based base definition is well, favoring individual liberties as a style of governance
Liberties of the citizens, not foreign companies that come and fuck things up.

>>1886142
countries desperate enough to go communist were shitholes anyway

Czarist Russia
Qing Dynasty China
Mafia controlled Cuba
Imperial Indochina
The Balkans

they were shitholes before communism and communism doesn't do much to fix it even removing communism in places like Russia and the Balkans they are still shitholes.

>>1887371
free market advocates believe that regulations help enforce monopolies and stifle competition. As well as government, bailouts, and well any general government entity that tries to manipulate the market. A company however isn't a government entity and in the free market system, if that specific company does not deliver a superior product at a cheap affordable price for the consumer to purchase than it will go tits up because competition incentive as well as the incentives for others to own their own private company. A free marketeer would not ask the government to remove said company because that would go against their ideals of believing that "the invisible-hand/free-market will fix it." Whether this happens or not is hotly debated.

The reasons why I have those as specifically set as such is because 1: level of government authority 2: represents distribution of power within government 3: government involvement and supervision in the economy.

I'll stop this discussion however here to have the thread return to its original intent of "why does it (communism) keep on failing." I have realized I have slightly derailed the topic at hand with Venezuela and its current socialist position.

>>1887427
They could believe that a foreign company is bribing the government and the only way to get rid of the corruption is to get them out of the country.

Lets say a company is buying natural resource extraction rights from the government, and the bidding system is such that they could bribe a few officials to secure the rights for cheaper. Then they could be willing to nationalize it if domestic privatization wasn't an option.

>>1886142
Not enough resources to go around.
Simple as that.

File: Socialism for dumbfucks.png (97KB, 961x974px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 961x974px

>>1886509
>Venezuela is socialist meme

>>1886142
The problem is not communism, the problem is humans, communism works in small tribes where gibs muh dat is at its lowest, or human civilization where individuality is an alien concept everyone is apart of the collective which is psychologically impossible.

>>1887792

COLLAPSE

File: leftypol neckberds 3.jpg (184KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 960x720px

>>1887792

[collapsing intensifies]

>>1886142

The biggest meme of all is that it's a 'good idea' that just fails in practice. This is mistaken. It's a shit idea, and works exactly the way it's supposed to in practice; shit.

>>1887820
Be sure to tell Mr.Shecklestein I said hello

>>1887797
>works in small tribes

No it doesn't most tribes are hierarchical and the available resources are not distributed in an egalitarian way

>>1886152
>this is what commiecucks actually believe

File: judeobolshevism.png (32KB, 642x591px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 642x591px

>>1887825

Wut?

>>1887831
Sure, those sources seem reliable...

>>1887831
>jews infiltrate communism to sabotage it and make it fail
>goyim are now thankful to have their jewish capitalist overlords
Seems to have worked pretty well.

File: leftcucks cringe.jpg (446KB, 1000x2022px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1000x2022px

>>1887856

Cringe

>>1886142
It doesn't fail. It's designed to starve people.
Once accomplished, the government transitions to cultural control while exchanging previous economic interests for the new format.

>>1887867
>t's designed to starve people.

aka war communsim

>>1887179
They don't jail gays, it isn't the 90s anymore

>>1887861
>hurr i hate jews because theyre happy merchants and usurers and this is why everyone has hated jews for hundreds of years
>also i hate them because they communists
>communism definitely isnt a jewish consisting of 95% jews plot to make me like happy merchant usury jews nope

>>1886410
Sorry Hayek, but not all communist ideologies demand a planned economy

File: HUfu6.gif (23KB, 801x600px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 801x600px

>>1887057
USSR, Cuba, China

File: socialism works.jpg (46KB, 301x314px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 301x314px

>>1887891

*tips fedora*

You can stop larping now you autistic sovietboo neckbeard redditor

>>1887886
>>hurr i hate jews because theyre happy merchants and usurers and this is why everyone has hated jews for hundreds of years
>also i hate them because they communists
>free market, usury, trade and merchandise all day, every day if I get a say

>>1887904
You're so jewpilled you don't even know it.

File: surprising hat.png (8KB, 85x89px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 85x89px

>>1886142
everyone's full of shit let me tell you the reality of things

far as history knows the prime cause for things going up or down has been the current adminstration. competent autocrats have reformed things and incompetent elected officials have fucked shit up. the only consistent correlation republics and democracies have has been been on the adminstration that comes after the current one; it tends to turn out pretty well. in no way is it a direct cause and effect, though. for one thing you need to be in a pretty good situation to adopt those forms of government, and it might be anything you did would have turned out about as well.

there's no way to discern an "Inherent fault in communism" from experience because it's been tried by anyone but lunatics controlling shithole countries through murderous militias. idiots in power always fails. power through violence tends to fail. poor countries tend to not become hegemons overnight.

you ask "why does communism fail" instead of "why was stalin such a fuckhead" or "why was china so shitty" because you look for correlation where there is none. things fail because of shit adminstration. what form that adminstration takes matters less than who's doing it. what it claims to believe is utterly irrelevant.

>>1886676
>Communist isn't equality.
Poor reading comprehension. I never said it is. But I related it to equality in the sense that it is just as much an ideological delusion that is not in touch with reality.

>people keep mixing up democratic socialism and social democracy
>people unironically think european nordic countries are socialist
Socialism and communism are trash, social democracy is dank.

File: 342384834.png (25KB, 597x431px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 597x431px

>not being a super capitalist

File: 0fb.jpg (22KB, 564x314px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 564x314px

>>1886142
>another gommunism thread
goddammit, /his/ don't you ever get tired of talking about this shit?

>>1887891
>he thinks the BRICS are communists since the fall of the URSS
hilarious

>cuba
>a literal prison island where people escape in cardboard boats to the USA

>>1886152

Nobody believes that NK practices communism and anyone who does has no idea of what communism is. NK is a totalitarian state with extremely socialistic economic markets.

>>1887944
>put communism in shitholes
>they fail
>put capitalism in shitholes (S.Korea, singapore, japan, war torn germany, india after they dropped socialism)
>GDP growth, HDI growth, wages increases, modern infraestructure, increase in PISA scores, life expectancy increases, poverty decreases

>huh duh socialism could work

>>1888271
could it be they used competent people and sane methods of control
resources from genuinely concerned world power probably also helped

I seem to have written "tried communism" but that was really not what I was getting at. they said they were doing communism and some stupids somewhere probably believed it but totalitarianism with memes is really just totalitarianism with memes. I make no comment on whether communism is a real ideology or can be made to work anywhere. practice being magnitudes more important than some vaguely defined ideology was the whole point of the post.

>>1888349
the only real comunism is the one that existed in history and real life, not in your books.

>but muh fairy tale will work
>the commies failures aren't real comunism

>>1886180
>Free of higherarchy
>Everyone is equal

Bahaha, oh wow!

Communism is a mental illness. It really is the pinnacle of slave morality.

>>1888393
>I make no comment on whether communism is a real ideology or can be made to work anywhere

>>1888402
no faggot, the real shit is the one that was tried in history.

why keep making excuses over dozens of examples in history.

don't you think chavez believed he was doing comunism or socialism (same garbage)?

Why is it that every Communists you meet is someone who seems like they just want to get paid to do nothing?

I swear they all think they would be the centre autism planners some shit.

Also, I've yet to meet a commie who works out, owns guns or has any capacity for the violence needed to wage a revolution or enforce the radical equality they promote.

>>1886142
It doesn't account for greed.

It doesn't account for the chains of command that tend to form in political systems.

It doesn't account for wants, only basic needs.

It doesn't account for opposing ideologies that have superior soft/hard power than the state communism will be started in.

It doesn't account for differing cultures, languages, and customs. Just look at how different Chinese communism was from Soviet communism, and they were literally right next to each other.

Communism at best is a temporary system of government that will eventually make way for some form of republic. It happened in the USSR, Vietnam, and it's happening in China. Communism is only useful in third-world shitholes that have an uneducated peasant population. If the USA had realized this in the 1940s there probably wouldn't have been a Korean or Vietnam war. Then again, they mostly left Yugoslavia alone so I'm sure they had some idea of this and we're just trying to exert influence over those countries.

>>1888265
In what way is its market socialistic?

North Korea is basically a slave kingdom in a Marxist sense

>>1886180
A stateless society in which communities, not private industrialists, control industrial works like a mine or a farm.

There are no class distinctions and, according to some definitions, no currency.

>>1887198
They are American spies desu

>>1888495
>keeps defending a country where people don't even access to modern phones and internet while african shitholes can

>>1886185
Objectively wrong. Virtually every anti capitalist state has been targeted by extensive terrorism.
See: Cuba.

>>1886239
>slave/master dynamic is genetic
Nice meme.

>>1888406
are you taking these replies from a flowchart somewhere

I'm not what you think you're arguing with. you can try to actually read a post somewhere.

>>1888541


>No GODS no KANGZ an shit
> All PEOPLE are equal. Fuck science and Daily observation.

Lol, egalitarianism is a mental disorder.

>>1886142
You can read "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth".
That should give you an answer beyond the usual retardation.

>>1888240
capital allocation is an economically productive task and the rewards should be determined by market forces

File: index.jpg (10KB, 295x171px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 295x171px

>>1888644
> I invent mental disorders on the spot! XD

>>1886142

Because:

1: Communism hands unopposed, unaccountable power to a tiny minority.

2: That tiny minority tends to be composed of people who are student radicals with absolutely no idea of nations actually work.

3: Communism tends to rise up in areas with dumb-as-fuck populations with long histories of oppression by a ruling elite and no expectation that a government be actually accountable.

tl:dr version: Communism fails because it almost always involves dumbasses leading other dumbasses.

>>1886237
>Not Communist
I think it's more of an indictment of the political theory that every attempt to bring it about has failed utterly and ended up creating the exact opposite of the classless, stateless utopia that they were ostensibly working for

>>1889663
> That tiny minority tends to be composed of people who are student radicals
Is that true? I don't remember Mao being a student.

>>1889650
People are not equal. It takes more then blind faith to believe in egalitarianism it takes denial of daily observation and science.


Dumber than any Chirstcuck

>>1886142
Because only Leninists managed to get into power so far. And Leninism is pretty shit.
>we must create the dual power of soviets and vanguard party
>oops, we took power from the soviets, now we're a one party state :^)
>now let's export our dual power system without dual power to the other countries :^))))

File: 76c3693544528055aab4b8e4215b8f1d.jpg (43KB, 468x631px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 468x631px

Liberal Professor Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky is on the war path against socialism. This time he has approached the question, not from the political and economic angle, but from that of an abstract discussion on equality (perhaps the professor thought such an abstract discussion more suitable for the religious and philosophical gatherings which he has addressed?).

>“If we take socialism, not as an economic theory, but as a living ideal,” Mr. Tugan declared, “then, undoubtedly, it is associated with the ideal of equality, but equality is a concept ... that cannot be deduced from experience and reason.”

This is the reasoning of a liberal scholar who repeats the incredibly trite and threadbare argument that experience and reason clearly prove that men are not equal, yet socialism bases its ideal on equality. Hence, socialism, if you please, is an absurdity which is contrary to experience and reason, and so forth!

Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness

>>1889804
Since we have Mr. Tugan to deal with, we shall have to start with the rudiments.

By political equality Social-Democrats mean equal rights, and by economic equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such things.

Political equality is a demand for equal political rights for all citizens of a country who have reached, a certain age and who do not suffer from either ordinary or liberal-professorial feeble-mindedness. This demand was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all countries of the world proves this, and Mr. Tugan could easily have discovered this had he not called “experience” to witness solely in order to dupe students and workers, and please the powers that be by “abolishing” socialism.

The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things.

Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights.

Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities?

>>1886539
>Marx was German b t w

Loving
Every
Laugh

>>1889806
We shall now deal with economic equality. In the United States of America, as in other advanced countries, there are no medieval privileges. All citizens, are equal in political rights. But are they equal as regards their position in social production?

No, Mr. Tugan, they are not. Some own land, factories and capital and live on the unpaid labour of the workers; these form an insignificant minority. Others, namely, the vast mass of the population, own no means of production and live only by selling their labour-power; these are proletarians.

In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market.

The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

>>1886142
It's repetitive failures are likely due to the idea that it is based around the ideal human being. Human greed and violence were not taken into consideration, so it is manipulated that way.

>>1889824
This is a very authentic portrayal of stereotypical GOP voter's opinion

>>1889813
Good so you have dispelled the idea that man is equal.

But can you please give me a non-metaphycial, non faith based reason why everyone even needs to be treated equally let alone deserve the stolen goods of others.

And don't give me that
>We gonna rise up and steal your SHIT if you don't stop being richer then me. Reeee!

Because every single "revolution" has been one group replacing the authority if another.


I don't know. It just seems like you have to believe in a bunch of baseless nonsense from some Jew with warts on his dick and barely bathed.


I don't know about you , but the low IQ masses deserve their lit in life.

>>1889870
>But can you please give me a non-metaphycial, non faith based reason why everyone even needs to be treated equally
In the meaning of economic equality? To ensure a potential of a given person's potential won't be limited/wasted because he was born in the lower class.

>deserve the stolen goods of others
le private property meme

>Because every single "revolution" has been one group replacing the authority if another.
Like those in Chiapas or Rojava?

>>1889776
Christianity recognized inequality in men, the only time Christianity states all men are equal is spiritually in Christ, but the religion itself recognizes power structures, leadership, gifts and abilities, and negative societies (notably the Cretans)

>>1889644
According to market rates for the labor, not market rates for the capital.

>>1887106
> He's not saying a small group of representatives. He's literally saying the vast association this is the whole nation.
Well they need representatives or it will just be a shouting match.

>The idea is that it has lesser and fewer problems
If the goal was to improve systems of representation he would be looking at different voting systems, free speech and the right to peacefully assemble, not trying to abolish the family etcetera... the net benefits of which are dubious at best.

>>1887792
It is a practical example of socialism. They are trying to achieve socialism as per the instructions which are clearly incomplete if not flawed.

>>1889982
but the market rates for capital are needed to determine the market value of the value of their labor

File: marxistfaggoy.jpg (90KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x509px

>>1889940
sorry buddy. I own property. The fact that you need to take it by force tells me that you are a hypocrite.

>In the meaning of economic equality? To ensure a potential of a given person's potential won't be limited/wasted because he was born in the lower class.

Sorry, but giving economic power to low IQ dimwits would be like giving a lottery check to trailer trash.

Their is no reason why people should have equal economic station at birth. Generational wealth is an aspect of generating natural hierarchy that can invest and "plan" society. A Nobilitas Naturaslis would form.


>In a sound society, leadership responsibility, and exemplary defense of the society’s guiding norms and values must be the exalted duty and unchallengeable right of a minority that forms and is willingly and respectfully recognized as the apex of a social pyramid hierarchically structured by performance. Mass society … must be counteracted by individual leadership-not on the part of original geniuses or eccentrics or will-o’ -the wisp intellectuals, but, on the contrary, on the part of people with courage to reject eccentric novelty for the sake of the ‘old truths’ which Goethe admonishes us to hold on to and for the sake of historically proved, indestructible, and simple human values.

Wilhelm Ropke

>>1889696

The Red Guard was mostly students.

File: image.png (692KB, 499x623px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 499x623px

>>1887861

>>1890183
But the person providing the labor of allocating capital can be compensated purely for the market value of their labor, such as when an investor hires a hedge fund manager.

>>1890213
>sorry buddy. I own property. The fact that you need to take it by force tells me that you are a hypocrite.
Nice spook you got there. Property only exists when enforced by force.

>>1890213

>implying countries which haven't had economic aid aren't growing/ improving

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-23267647

>implying iq isn't growing

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/black-iq-gains-in-britain-kenya-and-dominica/

>this is what stormfags actually believe

File: image.jpg (75KB, 1127x1015px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1127x1015px

>>1890213

>property

>>1890213
>sorry buddy. I own property. The fact that you need to take it by force tells me that you are a hypocrite.
laughing_stirner.jpg
The existence of property is something that must be enforced itself, especially if it's non-personal one(the object of anti-capitalists' interest).
>Sorry, but giving economic power to low IQ dimwits would be like giving a lottery check to trailer trash.
How so? If one wishes to remain just a common worker, then he will be able to do so, while the ambitious ones would be able to go up with bigger ease than under capitalism.

>>1890213
>i'm smarter and better than everyone else
>p-please don't put me in an equal starting point to have to prove it

>>1886142
Because people are greedy fucks, I suggest removing selfish people from the gene pool. If you don't donate at least 5% of your income, consider sudoku.

>>1890248
property exists. I cannot control your body or even force you to do anything. I cannot move your arm for you. I can not make you read a book.

Because of this, you own your body. From there, the fruits of your labor and the idea of homesteading.

conflict occurs when ownership of property comes into question, ether because of honest misunderstandings or downright barbarism. Even in the case of conquest, it is recognized that the people own the land, so they are killed and imprisoned.

>>1890284
>implying the self is property
>implying everything else is property because the self is property
Are you arguing you can sell yourself into slavery, just like all "property"?

>>1890284
Your property is limited to what you can defend, and this includes your body. The fruits of your labor are certainly not necessarily your property if you can't defend them, as is the case for most workers. In the case of conquest, the forceful arbitrary appropriation of natural land by some people is replaced by the arbitrary appropriation by other people with more force.

File: hqdefault.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>1890280
>i'm smarter and better than everyone else
>p-please don't put me in an equal starting point to have to prove it

You assume a lot about me. I'm posting on 4chan from a cubical. Both my parents are drug addicts and I grew up in a trailer. I don't really bitch about it, I just know how dumb poor people are with money, I've "loaned" more then my fair share of funds to them.

inequality does not imply superiority, I don't even think the issue low intelligence and irresponsible behavior are entirely genetic, I'm not a stormfag. I try to limit my animistic desire to envy others. I recognize my station in life and understand that dynastic wealth takes generations of careful planning.

>>1890266
>We need a natural nobility whose authority is, fortunately, readily accepted by all men, an elite deriving its title solely from supreme performance and peerless moral example and invested with the moral dignity of such a life.

>>1890284
>From there, the fruits of your labor and the idea of homesteading.
So when you work in a company, you should be one of its owners, since the things created in there are also fruits of your labour, I think I get it ;^)

>>1890318
>muh property is violence meme.

Your idea of property being violence only occurs when someone is defending it. This does not imply that it does not exist. Most societies except the idea of private property and accumulated wealth. It does not take constant threat of violence to make it existence. Defending it is only an option when the uncivilized wish to steal.

>>1890320
>I don't even think the issue low intelligence and irresponsible behavior are entirely genetic
Then your idea of dynastic wealth is even more retarded.

>>1890341
>Most societies except the idea of private property
Not an argument.

>It does not take constant threat of violence to make it existence
It does take constant threat of violence, which doesn't mean constant actual violence.

>>1890324
No, because the capital required to start the company didn't utilize your labor if you were hired after the business began.

>>1890320
>We need a natural nobility whose authority is, fortunately, readily accepted by all men, an elite deriving its title solely from supreme performance and peerless moral example and invested with the moral dignity of such a life.
Only if they got to that position rather than inheriting it because their daddy wuz kang or borgissi and preferably if their authority is a subject to those peoples' will ie. they can be recalled if they stop being that "peerless moral example".

>>1890364
Are you implying that the capital required to start a company is the fruit of the labor of its shareholders? How deluded can a man be?

>>1890324
no, working for a company is an agreement of bodily use.

you agree to sale your services, aka, use of your body and mind.

It is an exchange of goods.

>>1890341
> It does not take constant threat of violence to make it existence.
Yes it does. This is why the justice system exists and why possession is 9/10s of the law.

>>1890366
>inheriting a position is bad
>seeking it at any cost is good. Being super ambitious and greedy all the time is good.

if anything, generation wealth allows for the softening of ambition and greed. This can foster more clarity of the mind.

>>1890375
Sure, in the same way that you "agree" to give your stuff to a robber pointing a gun at you.

>>1886142

Some people are more equal than others.

>>1890359
>>1890380


>hey man, that property we need for our marxist revolution only because you are willing to defend it.

I think you don't understand. Defending it is only an option. The public recognizes the property as under the ownership of that person.

Even slaves who were unwilling to fight back still owned themselves.

How people react to property ownership does not create its existence.

File: commielogic.png (112KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 900x600px

>>1890388
>in the same way that you "agree" to give your stuff to a robber pointing a gun

>I want money or I will starve.
You can ether, grow your own food or trade service for exchange. Sorry, survival is not a form of oppression.

>>1890364
>Being super ambitious and greedy all the time is good.
So the first generation of "natural nobility" were actually ambitious and greedy fucks?

>>1890408
Meant to >>1890386

File: 1477060256032.jpg (92KB, 600x415px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x415px

>>1886410

>>1886766
You need it, you get it.

>>1890396
You don't need to be a marxist to know that believing in a natural right to property is a gigantic spook.

>The public recognizes the property as under the ownership of that person.
Yes, under the threat of violence. But even if you got every dispossessed person to agree to recognize the ownership somehow, their delusion wouldn't make the ownership natural, and property would indeed depend on "how people react to it".

>>1890396
>How people react to property ownership does not create its existence.
Yes it does.

For this reason
>The public recognizes the property as under the ownership of that person.

So when
>hey man, that property we need for our marxist revolution only because you are willing to defend it.
happens, and the public turns out to be a bunch of commies who are collectively willing to use force and don't recognize your claim to ownership, guess who wins if you don't have a recreational nuke.

Property that does not rely on your personal ability to enforce it, but on society's collective force to enforce an concept of property, is a social construct, because society is deciding when to use force to define property.

>>1890260
woah man stop the presses!!!!!

File: 1469144517992.jpg (46KB, 457x700px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 457x700px

>>1887243
L U X E M B U R G I S M

>>1890404
Not when the lands are owned by a lord. This has been a major grievance throughout history and why many revolutions were associated with land reform.

>>1889650
well, it is obvious he was not being literal you taking it that way exposes your true autism to the rest of us.

>>1886199
republican socialism 4 life

>>1890412
>>1890408
Nothing wrong with being a little greedy or ambitious, what I am saying is that later generations have the advantage of moderating that behavior.

>>1888414
>my anecdotal interactions are applicable to everyone under x ideology

Is that why all libertarians are fedora-tipping, Mountain Dew-drinking, Pony-loving faggots?

>>1890445
So wouldn't the ideal system be one that rewards people for being "a little greedy or ambitious" if that is the optimal range of greed and ambition?

Seems like socialist "to each according to his contribution" fits the bill to let everyone act on their little greed and ambition while benefiting everyone at the same time, which only happens sometimes under capitalism.

>>1890404
>grow your own food
Cool, where is my free piece of land?

>trade service for exchange
Back to forced slavery i guess.

>Sorry, survival is not a form of oppression.
Sure it is. As your comic implies, humanity has been in constant struggle with nature for survival, which has historically prevented individuals to fully develop, unless others were producing for their consumption. Now that we have the technology to free ourselves from the chains of nature, but are instead enslaved by our economic system. Rather than being free from the struggle for survival, and after the technological domination nature, we work more hours than hunter gatherers did.

>>1888414
Communism is literally a cult of labor. You're thinking about welfare statists, which actually usually happen under a monarchy, when the monarchy has control over rare natural resources, and uses the welfare state to stay in control. "If you let me keep being king, I'll share some of the stuff I own because I'm king with you"

>>1890448
>>1890430
>>1890427

Ok, lets go back to basics here.

Are you claiming that you can't even own your own body? That even a slave has no sense of self ownship?

No one else can control your body or make it perform action, this is widely agreed upon. Even under slavery the person is never owned, the person just reacts in a way that provides protection to what little property he has left.

>>1890457
>post scarcity Venus project faggot appears.
>"magic robots will do everything so I can be a neet and watch anime".
>"we space trek now nigga"

I wonder how many communists are actually married and have children. This shit is getting pathetic.

>>1886886
I find 'the tragic view' much more optimistic. we've been subscribing to it under capitalism for centuries and in the meantime we've gotten to the moon, built electric cars, emphasized learning and free speech, etc.

>>1890391

This

>>1890471
You own your body and have ultimate control of your actions, but to meet your basic needs for survival under capitalism, you will need to exchange your time and labor power in exchange for a wage to buy what is needed for survival.

>>1887171
you're a fucking retard. if you want to confront his point, do it instead of being pedantic about the meaning of plurality and 'centre left'. if you knew what he meant, then you knew what he meant

>>1890471
Not in the same way you own other material property. They're not the same. If you own your body in the same way you own other property, you can sell yourself in the same way. You're saying the self is unalienable and can't be owned by another, therefore making it inherently different from the next kind of property, that which can be traded and sold, that you try to extend from the ownership of the self.

Owning oneself is different from owning other property that is not yourself. You can't extend the naturalness of owning yourself to owning other property when you claim at the same time owning yourself has different properties than other property.

>>1890479
It's not post scarcity, we could actually work very little with our current technological level. The company i work for has a thousand workers and an operating income of a hundred million USD. I could literally live the rest of my life with the share of my work from one year. In fact, i'm certain that i've already worked far more than the time it takes to produce what i'll need in my entire life. Do you think it's unreasonable to expect a social system to allow their citizens freedom from work in relation to the reduction of technological constraints?

>>1890471
If you are a slave and your owners demands you to do X or he'll kill you, are you the owner of your body? Only in the same sense that a labor worker can chose to starve to death instead of working for others. Your ownership over your body can be pretty limited.

>>1890372
You think every modern major corporation from McDonalds to Walmart was birthed into existence by rich CEO's relying on slave labor and not small business entrepreneurs?
Why do communists keep crawling out of the trash heap of history?

>>1890240
I love Aryanne unironically.

>>1890500
>Do you think it's unreasonable to expect a social system to allow their citizens freedom from work in relation to the reduction of technological constraints?

If their was a higher captial to worker ratio, it would be safe to assume that the price of goods would be very low. I think the idea of work will never go away. I think that their will be limited professionals and extended familes paid for by these "bread winners". The other option is that most people work very short hours, like 12 hour weeks for low cost goods.

Working hours have been decreasing since the onset of industrialization. Farmers used to work from the crack of dawn until dusk. Factory workers used to work 12hr days.

Now, must people work 45hrs a week and you still hear them bitch about how much work they have to do. Societal and economic pressure may make it possible for working hours to be lowered more. Though I believe there may be a limit to how low hours can be before work proficiency goes down.

I lean more towards the extended family bread winner theory. You already see this in some countries like south korea.

Why do commies hate rich people?
Are they jelly?

Is like r9k fags who are losers and hate Chads, or fat people who hate fit guys.

>>1886381
>implying it won't lead to supercorp space wars and privately owned colonies

>>1886142
Splitting economic control into heaps of corporations allows a finer response to supply and demand, as well as innovation, compared to having some lumbering central entity trying to calculate how many cars everyone needs. Competition also keeps them somewhat in check, whereas communism typically has too much bullshit like over reporting grain surpluses which naturally leads to famine. Giving the government centralized economic control also massively increases their power, and as we all know absolute power corrupts absolutely. Social mobility isn't perfect under capitalism but a central government with no checks and balances, which is typical for communism, becomes a clusterfuck of paranoid assassinations and backstabbing as people try to rise to the top.

>>1886180
>Can someone please clarify what communism is exactly?
No one fucking knows anymore, too many hotheads trying to start their own brand of it and claim it as THE definition of communism

>>1886142
Simply, because it's not realistic.

Honestly we humans are to chaotic, greedy, (Sinful; do to lack of words) to live in a Utopian society.
Marx liked to talk about working class this, working class that, but the man was a fucking leech. He simply wanted others to work for him and he would reap the rewards. He hated the Burghers ( Bourgeoisie ) Because he himself was not a bourgeois. Communism in our reality is equivalent to Huckleberry Fin tricking you into painting the fence and he is the one rewarded.

Idealistic people, when it come to politics are fucking incompetent and deadly.