Would communism work if the entire planet's economy was centrally planned instead of just one nation...

yes, that's the plan

Artificial Intelligence will lead to communism

Attached: becbba0cc77b9de470d35076163f654531d05a69d460605a276ca0182dc011c1.jpg (540x960, 39K)

>Would communism work if the entire planet's economy was centrally planned instead of just one nation? It might have had problems in the past just because of outside influences fucking it over, and we probably need to eventually switch to something like communism and a one world government in the near future anyway since automation's going to make earning money through jobs obsolete.
Communism can't work because it's Jewish.

>yes, that's the plan
Communism's (Jewish) plan is to destroy the White race though.

>Trust us Jewish Communists, we know what's up
lolno.

>can't even manage own its own campaigns' finances properly anywhere
>thinking it could manage the entire world's economy
I think you forgot your two neurons outside

Attached: 1512903180515.png (645x729, 56K)

Communism has never worked.

Once the world abandons borders, national identity, social class etc and accepts communism the world will be a better place.

>Once the world abandons borders, national identity, social class etc and accepts communism the world will be a better place.
Interesting how the Jews are promoting all those things and all those things are harmful to the White race.

Only if its controlled by AI, people in charge would corrupt themselves and take advantages as in any statist country

Such sinister symbolism.

Hey faggot. The entire planets econnomy is already planned by one pkace. Its called wallstreet.

Regional central planning failed every time with catastrophic consequences.
> Let's try it again, this time will work. But let's do it globally.

Race is a social construct and doesn’t exist. You can’t harm something that doesn’t exist.

>Would communism work

NO

Attached: 1530417448877.jpg (719x719, 152K)

>Race is a social construct and doesn’t exist.
Race is real, race matters and society is a racial construct.

>You can’t harm something that doesn’t exist.
you claim the White race doesn't exist so you can continue to support the Jewish enabled program of genocide against the White race.

We have borders to keep powers like the US in check. If we did what you wanted then the world would just end up being American, and we all know how American capitalism affects the world as it is. I seriously think you should reconsider and adopt Stalinist views of isolationism. The US can't be stopped by communism.

Attached: 1434802029526.jpg (3380x1763, 1.48M)

bump

>DUuuhh would communism ever work?
No.

>Can't incentivize any of their workers, because lazy niggers won't work when there's free money
>State can't figure out the value of goods/services because there's no one to sell to
>Wages don't adjust for distasteful jobs like they do in the free market, thus no one wants to clean toilets or pick up trash
>No financial capital therefore allocating capital to new firms for innovation, thus innovation grinds to a halt
>Literally ends in one giant monopoly and eventual starvation even without the help of "muh outside people"

Fuck off, get a job and burn your che t-shirt, you green-haired s.oyim queer.

Attached: 1536120679082.jpg (592x543, 152K)

yes it would and it's the future anyway, don't you want to spend all day cuddling with cute gay girls?

Attached: 98769548553427473476690110202030230.jpg (720x716, 132K)

Would poison work to bring about health if we poisoned the entire population and not just a subset?

how do you like central planning so far?

JHC

Get on faggots.

Attached: 2c0.png (680x714, 380K)

hmm

>Actually trying to argue with the fact that you don't understand the subjective theory of value.
Marxism is built around the labor theory of value (the dumbest theory in history).

>Would communism work
No

YES
READ
>C O C K S H O T T
>O
>C
>K
>S
>H
>O
>T
>T

Attached: 8bfa90cf752c8eee6b26db5843b90a41d87b22a7.png (1000x1000, 1.46M)

Well, there's a bit more to the idea that just having access to all of the resouces: there's also the idea of how it's all managed.

If we look at the USSR experience, there was small groups all vying for limited amounts of funding, with a lot of dedicated individuals having great ideas, but fucked over due to lack of access to resources from other markets.

Without access to the global market, it's hard to get shit.. like lithium-ion batteries, or the industrial and manufacturing bases of other countries, or blah blah blah.

I personally think that socialism would need to have a global strategy to work as envisioned by the 1800s socialists if we're not just going to bend over for markets.

TL;DR - yes

Attached: DWsUrorUQAUkWE_.jpg (1200x844, 199K)

No, that's just one element of marxist economics. There's stuff like utility value (how the product in question satisfies human needs) and exchange value (it's price). Marx lifted a bunch of his shit from Adam Smith, dork

IT WOULD BE WORSE CENTRALIZATION IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM YOU ABSOLUTE POND SCUM LEVEL INTELLIGENCE GET THE FUCK OFF MY PLANET YOU GODDAMN COMMIES!!!!!!!!! RRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: 1454394509825.jpg (900x900, 128K)

it's the centralization of planning not of power you fucking frogledite

Value isn't inherent in objects you dumb commie. A ticket to see a drag show is worthless to me but valuable to you because value is a subjective measurement that doesn't exist outside of the individual's mind.

true for the most part, but within the context of the cycle of production and profit of the overarching capitalist system, you have stuff like scarcity and costs that arrive to deliver a final price

out of context you're right, yeah

If Marx was ever right about anything these two shirts would have the same value. Spoiler, they don't.
youtube.com/watch?v=AYuHUdE_pys

Attached: 58976879.png (857x442, 767K)

this is basically inevitable

marx regarded things in terms of utility value and exchange value and you're conflating them

No
Why should I work hard if I don't have shit to spend money on

what if you didnt need money to get things

The two T-shirts have the same amount of time, labor, and materials in them and they have the exact same use. They're exactly the same except for image printed on them. One is more valuable than the other because people want/like one more than the other. Value is subjective and Marx was a retarded Jew who didn't want people to be allowed to own businesses.

Nope. It would be worse. Same destruction on a larger scale. The fundamental problem with central planning is that it's very bad at allocating resources. The knowledge needed for a functioning economy is always distributed, not centralized.

And they still manage to fail.

Automation does not extinguish job, it replaces them with new ones. There can be no robots without people to design, build, program, repair and deploy them.
Can't wait for those Space Elevator technician and Genome Designer jobs. Get fucked.

Comunism may just work when YouTube share a beer with your friends, furthermore it would fail.

Attached: 1532392783484.jpg (700x439, 109K)

This American gets it.

Er, no.

Attached: who-would-win-some-kind-of-orange-shape-anprim-who-22760934.png (500x333, 61K)

yes: in terms of utility, they provide basically the same use, so they're equal, but in terms of price, they're unequal because they have differing amounts of scarcity and they're in a market

pls at least understand marx before you bash him :(

Any system which is only stable in the absence of competitors is a inefficient system..

the ussr had competition in it's economy tho

I know right? How retarded do you have to be to fail even harder than anprim? Get your shit together ancapists.

youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4&
You still don't solve the local knowledge problem. Even a centralized economy doesn't know how to allocate scarce goods accurately, without prices.

Attached: Hayek.jpg (333x500, 29K)

It's not just the price that's different. I would throw a Che T-shirt away. It has nothing to do with scarcity. If people like one more than the other the market provides one more than the other.

(This is the reason free markets work btw)

why do they have a different amount of scarcity?
We could print an equal amount of them

Why?

well, scarcity factors into supply and demand, so prices and driven up by costs.

and yes, there's other stuff like the applicable market, but the point is that the utility value is the same, but all the market shit isn't

Then how would we decide how to allocate labour and scarce resources? Bread lines, and multi year waiting lists for cars or houses?

Attached: bread lines.jpg (1000x657, 271K)

demographics

there's multiple answers to this question: labour vouchers, market socialism, COMPOODAHS, some gay anarchist shit, etc

if we're already producing adequete amounts of things for people, we can still do that, we just need a method of getting goods to people when they want it, but also by cutting out all of the inefficent capitalist bullshit. like marketers.

This plus
Plus the problem with the fuckton of calculation (and yeah computers won't solve it), additional fuckton of simplification (what are needs ? what are skills ? how to compute), another level of fucktonnery of retardation (as in in-time-adaptation).

No, they aren't. In basic usage as clothing - i.e. shelter from elements yes. You and Marx disregard the idea that there are other subjective values of utility to everyone.

Simply put - no. Free market is natural and simply the best. It allocates resources as every para-random decentralized algorithm - to the lowest energy point, the easiest to maintain state. But its also fucked up as it promotes the accumulation of wealth and monopolies. So it needs to be tempered.

Free market with social safety nets (to maximize participation) and anti-monopoly laws. That's simply the best. Communism is just another tool to promote tyranny - somebody has to make them plans and oversee the distribution of goods right ?

Attached: 1534452861489.jpg (1000x1362, 267K)

Race is not a social construct you fucking retard shitskin, there's a reason the nogs in Africa never built a civilization when they were on the most resource heavy continent.

What demographic is communist?

You have inefficiencies in marketing, but I would say that was made up for by the efficiency of prices. You lose more by making the switch, than you gain

It works so well that a prerequisite is to have no one doing anything else!

Also: Who is John Galt?

Communism is Feudalism under another name, instead of labouring for the Lord of the Manor, you’re simply an economic unit of the Government whose labour will be exploited at their command, no choice, no will, you’re simply a conscript worker taking orders from the government.

>and we probably need to eventually switch to
Who is this We shit?
You and the rest of the Bernster Basement Club?

that's the crux of the problem right there
"planned economy"
free economy will grow naturally giving them most amount of people a chance
the best a "planned" economy will ever be is a banzai and usually it leads to genocide over resources

there is a reason but I don't think it's about race as much as it's made out to be
I think it's about lack of foresight due to environmental influences
in the more northern parts of the world, seasons determine food and shelter, requiring planning and foresight
in souther regions, food and shelter availability is static year round so the level of availability to day is what can be expected tomorrow, next week, and next year
planning ahead becomes a tool that can be used for all kinds of things and time becomes more important and more valuable
one of the truly horrible things about communism is that it does the same thing to the population
individual planning means little as it cannot change someone else's plan for you
no planning, no abstract though, less useful over all, dumbed down population
over time, the entire culture would be people that just live for today and so all development comes to a halt
this is very dangerous when you start talking about large concentrations of people or any situation demands forethought