Jow Forums why doesn't gommunism work?

Lol, a gypsy's the one to talk.

Cheaushescu's Romania was a pariah state, but it was better than the Neoliberal one. Marxism-Leninism has brought Russia and China to the apex of their power.

Attached: 9770b30b87b23975ee747be883047e4c9509f5fcd87cce1b28ceee3ddae946cf.jpg (500x638, 88K)

Ironically, only people as stupid as you think that communism can work.

Attached: retard.jpg (516x387, 26K)

Pure cringe.

Too many jews and non whites. White Communism will win.

TO GULAG

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 190K)

TO THE GAS CHAMBERS

Attached: 1493932497808.jpg (466x470, 38K)

The reason why communism never seem to work is because they are missing one key ingredient. The human element. Sharing the means of production, but what about the means of reproduction? Real communism can only be achieved if you're willing to share your wife with other men.

Neither Mao nor Stalin shared their wives, and look where that got them.
Communism needs the sharing of humans in order to be successful.
Real communism is essentially cuckoldry.
If you're not willing to share your wife with other men, then communism will never ever work.

If you're not willing to share your wife with other men. How can you be trusted enough to share your means of production? You are not a communist if you won't share your wife.

>Real communism can only be achieved if you're willing to share your wife with other men.
Absolute state of Eurofaggot political ideas.

Attached: gray_1-050913.jpg (950x1438, 554K)

Because one can only go on without food for so long.

Attached: 1527485805583.gif (500x346, 471K)

Jews

i appreciate you putting in all this effort for a meme post sven

nggers

twitter.com/DeoTasDevil

find me a dumber commie than this

THIS

Attached: 1527784231762.png (1291x1063, 261K)

The German Far "Right"

Communism doesn't work?

Attached: 041417-RD-Spend-ONLINE.V3.png (600x800, 175K)

Attached: american-median-income-compared-to-minimum-wage.jpg (2738x1796, 211K)

Attached: oj-am734_cpaten_9u_20160720061809 (1).jpg (700x683, 100K)

Attached: gdp2030uschina-1.png (400x340, 34K)

Cuba is literally the only non shithole in south america

Some of the best healthcare in the world also.

>Cuba is literally the only non shithole in south america

hahahaha nice joke hans

so capitalism means communism for you?

Hahahaha meanwhile actual Cubans sail nigger rigged rafts through 90 miles of shark infested water to escape their great utopia

Attached: IMG_5381.jpg (259x194, 28K)

Attached: 228356-1498845788.png (550x300, 52K)

Attached: 22h1kx.jpg (403x1031, 106K)

Howd freshman year of undergrad go buddy?

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. The chances of someone, especially someone who is akin to being a medieval serf, i.e. a minimum wage worker, has no non-violent shot at owning the means of production. Furthermore, if humans were that self-interested, capitalism would not work as most profits are going to investors, and those who have property claims on work.

It is ultimately fruitless to even entertain the idea of communism as a religion. No one entirely agrees with Marx - even Lenin did not, and expanded upon his ideas.

Which is far fewer than capitalist Mexico. Or capitalist Colombia. Or capitalist Russia. Or...

inefficiency.

Attached: 1467090152938.png (1132x1000, 248K)

Went right through fascist Berlin. Saw them, fought them, pounded them into dust.

it does though

Attached: main-qimg-f606441c462e814c78441441aee43f3c.png (602x487, 373K)

It requires a community of committed individuals willing to respect each other, which is NEVER seen among sub 105 IQ apes.

Because it doesn't? Seems we've tried it enough to watch it fail over and over, but anything that's loved by leftist retards simply CANNOT fail, it just wasn't executed right or didn't have enough funding, r-right guise?!?

Attached: 1527733395477.jpg (353x353, 62K)

>This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. The chances of someone, especially someone who is akin to being a medieval serf, i.e. a minimum wage worker, has no non-violent shot at owning the means of production.

okay retard, if you don't want to work your way to a better job and then build your own business just fuck off, no one is interested in your childish fantasies about owning giant corporations because it was "your turn"

Attached: 1513549367466.jpg (428x604, 29K)

This bait

Attached: SnapCringe.png (680x496, 530K)

Attached: 29597913_1806803986289848_8013106640129353723_n.jpg (480x832, 33K)

Attached: 29573004_556145621408287_670575295048628699_n.jpg (247x260, 14K)

Fleeing violent drug cartels isn't the same as fleeing an oppressive government. If our country took a more libertarian approach to drugs mexicos problem would be vastly mitigated.

The left really can't meme

Because central planning is meme tier and it needed to die.
Communists relied on a retarded theory which couldn't be exploited any longer because market based economies performed empirically better.

>you guys are gonna be rich any day now, I swear, just put in the extra hours!
>pay no attention to the fact that productivity per worker has gone up
>or the fact that the cost of capital has extended beyond reason
>or that wealthy people see their capital grow far more than you do
>just put in 80 hours a week, friend!
>sure, GE has more than a dozen million shares, but if we let the workers vote on decisions it would be a caaaaaaaatastrophe

The only 'skill' that most capitalists have is access to more capital.

Attached: 2627g0.jpg (500x728, 74K)

Right, it is what happen when the monopoly on violence breaks down. Which is the inevitable result of capitalism.

>Soviet Union outgrew the United States every year except when the fascists invaded and the post Civil War period
>Soviet Union sees production triple while the West is mired in the Great Depression
>completely turns around standard of living for more than a hundred million people

Try again, sweet cheeks.

I kekked. Nice one, comrade.

>Losing a war against vietnamese rice farmers
>Shittalking about efficiency

>soviet union was an economic success
>societ union collapsed due to economic insolvency, murdering millions along the way
Pick one

It only works if you send everyone who disagrees with you to gulag.

Soviets invented many great wonders during cold war. Like Kalashnikov of many killings and Sukhoi 27.

Gorbachev really dropped the ball.

Everywhere. It eventually kills millions of retards.

national survey over a decade vs livescience poll

>Heavily relied on agricultural imports
>Literally dependent on slavery to achieve successes
>Millions of deaths in the process
>Standards of living improve marginally
>By the fall of CCCP GDP per capita was 1/8 of USA's
It was truly a great success, I wonder why they suddenly decided to flip to capitalism.

What was the economic insolvency due to? Couldn't have been the market reforms, could it?

And who cares about the millions of dead Nazis? They deserved it.

It only works if you take over India, the Southeastern US, Africa, etc. The number of deaths in the gulag have been hilariously inflated by ideological opponents of capitalism.

But you are right. Gorbachev fucked up.

Attached: 1521748150725.jpg (204x227, 17K)

Is that the kids from stranger things?

You have to go through capitalism first. Its not an overnight process.

because for people to continue working they need food.

Same reason Heaven's Gate didn't have a death-toll in the millions: Not everyone's stupid enough to buy into a cult.

Attached: 1497302710775.jpg (2047x3482, 1.04M)

What where the market reforms attempting to correct? You leftists are so fucking deluded.
USSR: Failed
China:Failed
Cuba:Failed
Venezuela:Failed
Every single communist experience that ends the same way, but you will continue to shill it because you want to be edgy and different. Read some soviet literature, which was banned because of wrongthink. Your fucking myopic viewpoint means absolutely nothing you absolute faggot.

Since when did a totalitarian capitalistic economy count as communist.

Oh, that's right. When Deng Xiaoping and Lenin realised how stupid Marxism is.

>relied on agricultural imports
Uh, you know that Central Asia was part of the Soviet Union, right? And why would this matter? Don't Western countries do the same thing?
>dependent on slavery
[citation needed] The gulag is exaggerated in the mind of the Westerner. Furthermore, look at the fucking US. Finally, what were they meant to do with people who hoarded grain and worked against the revolution? Hug them?
>millions of deaths
Not enough dead fascists, friendo.
>improve marginally
It is at this point I realized you were a slobbering retard. The SU electrified before the US did. By 1975, a Soviet citizen was eating more calories per day than an American citizen. A country of turnip farmers ventured to the stars while the US struggled.
>fall of the CCCP
That is what happens when you institute market reforms. And they struggled quite a little bit longer than that. The RF's GDP didn't hit the Soviet Union's until the mid 2010's.

Oh, and if you are curious, a majority of Russian want the SU back.

Yup.

Then you never switch back and pass off your bloodless revolution as a complete success.

It's basic principle is to destroy and demonize success and competence. So it is unsustainable

The market reforms in the 80s? What? Are you that fucking illiterate? Gorbachev was in a goddamn Pizza Hut commercial and you act like he is the second coming of Lenin. The market reforms didn't attempt to correct anything - it was a naked power grab by capitalists, as we have seen in Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Cuba has the second highest quality of life in Latin America.
China is the second largest economy in the world.
Venezuela is the victim of forces entirely outside of its control, and cannot be blamed for capitalist interference.

I have read Soviet literature. It is much better than sycophants who will lick the boots of Westerners that they may have their name remembered.

>Jow Forums why doesn't gommunism work?

>Hello Comrades. I have come here with the army to bring you Communism. I am the leader. Please give me all of your money, all of your animals, and everything I can sell- that represents the old way. You will receive a loaf of bread at the end of the month.
Hey, that doesn't sound like Communism, aren't we supposed to form labor unions and own the...
>Private Ivanoff, kill him. *bang* Does anyone else not want to be Communist? Good. I will be taking the blankets too.

it can't do economic calculation

it's the first part in pic related on >try to allocate scarce resources
>fail because you don't have any initial data on how to do it
>Economical collapse

also, gommunism is based around the LTV, which has been proved wrong by multiple economists (the marginalists), several decades ago, and nowadays it's just a meme on econ

Attached: 663.jpg (624x445, 44K)

>being born with access to capital is success

Whew, lad.

>from each according to his needs to each according to his abilities

Learn to need=get to steal stuff 'free'. Don't learn to have abilities, which=be a slave for 'free'.

Producing things is a pain in the ass. Why do it if you don't get anything in exchange? Let the other guy be the sucker.

There is no pricing system to motivate people.
youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

it trusts people too much

it assumes that:
>people will be fine with any amount of their property being taken away and given to others
>people will be fine with being removed if they disagree with the new societal system
>the intellectuals who create the party will be fine with giving up power once the time comes

It's fine in theory but in practice it's a horrible mess that really brings the worst parts of the human psyche to light.

Right, then why create in a capitalist system? After all, most of your labor is going to investors, and not you.

Learn to need? What? How are you going to be hungrier, or more deserving of shelter? What the fuck does that mean?

>don't have initial data
This is how I know you are dumb. What barriers to data could there be when property does not exist?

If you think you can get something done without capital, then do it. If not, then pay.

Even having most of your labor go to investors is better than earning nothing. Despite the fact that investors are workers too and are a relatively small part of an economy.

Bc it's an ideology that completely ignores the nature of humans. The fact that it always ends in a starving dictatorship proves that point. People that claim "real communism hasn't been tried" simply don't understand that starving dictatorship is real communism when the human factor is considered

it discourages people from working hard so technological innovation and industry stalls and everything rots from the inside out

I never understand why people say systems like Communism "work in theory". On who's theory? Anything can work in theory if you have the mind of a vegetable.

Attached: commieopoly.jpg (561x573, 72K)

I made a long ass post about this. I'll repost it here

Alright Jow Forums we've been seeing a lot of commies posting lately so I figured I'd do a refresher course to better equip you to combat such wreckless and idiotic ideologies.

Background and Introduction of Terms:
Communism is a socioeconomic order based on Marxist socialism, and the absense of social class, money, and the state.

Marxist socialism is a form of socialism invented by German philosopher Karl Marx, and is roughly described as a revolutionary ideology where the proletariat have usurped the bourgeoise class and seized the means of production so that they can be commonly owned.

The proletariat is the working class. Specifically, it is anyone who doesn't own the means of production.

The bourgeoise is the capitalist class. Specifically, it is anyone who owns the means of production.

The means of production is a catchall term to describe any object used in production. Examples typically include factories, farms, offices, and their accompanying equipment, tools, machines, etc.

So how can they reason this revolution, and how do they claim that seizing the means of production isn't just mass theft?

(cont)

Marxist socialism is justified by Marxists through the following train of thought. According to Marxists, all value is a product of labour, and all labour is equal in value, differing in magnitude only temporally, by time. This is called the Labour Theory of Value (LTV). More verbosely, the LTV states that 'Any commodity is worth the sum of all means of production used for it, plus the sum of the average of all socially necessary labour used for it'. From this axiom, communists, and all Marxists can claim that since value is derived exclusively from labour, and all labour is equal, then renters, leasers, bankers, and anyone who provides wages in exchange for labour is essentially skimming off the surface, or 'extracting surplus value' from their workers, tenents, etc. Since this extracting is immoral and has been commited since time immemorial, Communists are justified to take back what belongs to them, giving them moral impetus to revolt against the bourgeoise.

That's a microcosmic view of communism. Now why all of that is horribly wrong.

Firstly, let's look at the labour theory of value. There are numerous problems with the labour theory of value. First of all, while the LTV has some use in macroscopic price prediction, it is not a moral axiom. Far from being an axiom, it's psychologically and neurologically wrong. The human brain does not determine value as a function of labour, but as a function of use. Any man dehydrating in the desert with a diamond that took 100000000 manhours to mine would trade it in a heartbeat for the glass of water that would save his life, for example.

The LTV also literally has no comprehension of risk. In rational economic theories, an entrepreneur takes risk by paying his employees before the product of their labour is sold. As the only person taking risk, he is entitled to the lions share of the companies profits.

(cont)

Right, I would. Except, those with capital are mostly born with it. And they are prone to the same irrationality as any individual. And they own the means of making laws. And they subvert democracy at every step. And...

Except, when you own the means of production along with your comrades, it goes back to you. The fat is cut off.
>investors are a small part of the economy
You know how I know you are an imbecile?

It's like how some people will make engineering designs that 'theoretically work' because their designs ignore gravity, wind, temperature, etc. Communism, especially anarcho-communism, works under the presumption that the entirety of the 'proletariat' will function as a flawlessly coordinated hive-mind free of corruption and self-interest.

Attached: Yes, those are actual quotes from leftypol.png (1200x1224, 149K)

The LTV is inapplicable in many instances such as the production of art. Marxists try to explain this away as monopoly pricing, but fail to account for reproductions which also have value not related to their labour input.

Lastly, the term 'socially necessary' is a weasel word. Social necessity is a social construct, and can easily differ between people and societies, and over time, resulting in different valuations of the same commodity produced in exactly the same manner. Also, 'social necessity' inherently depends on whether a commodity is deemed useful after it has been produced.

With the LTV thuroughly disproven, you, my dear reader, should notice that the communist now has no moral impetus to overthrow the bourgeoise class, and to redistribute wealth, since we can safetly say that value is intersubjective and the payment of wages in exchange for labour, moral.

So that should be the end of it, but let's keep going just to see how much of a brainlet ideology Communism is.

The Economic Failures of Marxist Socialism
Communists try to remove money, even as a concept, but money plays a very important role in determining the social need of any commodity, and sums up the scarcity, demand, and value of a commodity at any given time in a free market system. In a communist system, they have to rely on central planners to do the things that the market would otherwise do, but this is impossible to do anywhere near efficiently, since it would require every persons wants and needs to be constantly ennumerated and supplied to the central planners and parsed for useful information at speeds that will always exceed the technical abilities of then current computer hardware. This is called the economic calculation problem.
(cont)

Some communists will claim that the above fact has been disproven, and will refer to Paul Cockshott and claim that he proved that the economic calculation problem can be solved. He didn't. He proved that a subset of the economic calculation problem, in which almost all the inputs are neutral values, can be solved with the aid of modern computers.

To make matters worse, since all labour is equal in value, there is no incentive to work hard or smart, only to work. As such Marxist socialist societies will and have suffered from brain drain, a lack of innovation, and low quality.

The Moral Failures of Communism
Other than those stated above, communists routinely suffer from moral abhorrences. For instance, according to Marxism, anyone who sells or trades for profit is a bourgeoise, and can be punished severely. in 1929, the Soviet Union, operating on this axiom, liquidated a class of people known as the 'kulak'. Official soviet policy stated that a kulak included any farmer who sold or traded their produce. For reference, any farmer who isn't starving to death, and many who are, still sell and trade their produce. As a result of this 'moral axiom' 700000 kulaks were killed, and the next harvest saw production drop so low that between 1931 and 1933 historians estimate that 5000000 soviet citizens died of preventable starvation. During this period, the central planners did not undo an order to confiscate all produce for distribution to the cities. Many countries today consider this man made famine a genocide, and it is a shining example of the failure of communist social and economic policies.
(cont)

>Learn to need? What? How are you going to be hungrier, or more deserving of shelter? What the fuck does that mean?

It means you learn to make choices which make you unproductive so you can get shit for 'free' as opposed to being perpetually exploited by the needy.

Communists often use the phrase 'from each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs'. Both statements are dubious. What is a man's abilities, and who gets to decide his ability, and why should it be demanded that he give all his ability? What are a man's needs, and who gets to decide which are his needs as opposed to wants, and who gets to list them from most important to least important, and who gets to decide which needs be satisfied? And for that matter, what about his wants? Surely a society demanding his abilities ought to be able to promise him some of his wants, and yet, we find wants missing.

Communists believe that democratic decision making will abound in a communist or socialist system, but this goes against the iron law of oligarchy, in which people, even after being given or taking the power to vote, eventually vote for beurocrats to manage most of the decision making which in turn turns into an oligarchy.

The 'no true communist' meme, and other 'counter criticisms'
Communists often deflect criticism by claiming that some communist country 'wasn't real communism', and generally, they're correct. Communism has never been implemented, just as no machine has ever been built to solve the halting problem. That does not invalidate criticism of those societies and people who earnestly wished to create such a system, or the systemic failings of the policies which were supposed to bring about communism. If anything, the ever increasing track record of failed marxist societies should attest to how bad the ideology is in practice.
(cont)

Communists further often lay out a laundry list of 'successful' communist societies. I have personally gone through lists of these. They all fall into the following categories. They were either: violent mobs who mass murdered during periods of strife before order was restored by others, anarchist living safetly within the bounds of a western liberal capitalist society, anticommunist rebellions (No, I am not joking), and others are either failed coups that were never 'societies' or simply did not exist.

Communists often also call self proclaimed communist countries 'state capitalism', or any other other term to try and deflect, but there is no such thing as state capitalism. capitalism requires that seperate entities act in their own economic interest. If the state subsumes the market or institutes price fixing, then it is no longer a capitalist country, but a socialist one (though not necessarily Marxist). But most of these 'not real communism' countries were built by people who were by and large trying to institute communism.

Communists further try to claim that socialism failed because of imperialist countries putting them down, but we have already explained that Marxist socialism is immoral, and thus there can be no blame in dismantling a socialist country.

And that's my long ass post about why communism doesn't work

Come on now. You know perfectly well the food rations pile is always empty.

Oh, cool, like an investor.

But you are part of the means of production. You get a fair slice of what you produce. The less you produce, the less you have.