Can you elaborate in short why exactly can't communism be done right?

Really fires up the neurons doesnt it Johnny?

Not to mention eternal revolution. ie: constant state sanctioned murder, and death labor at the gulags, those people dont get a class, because no one would oppose glorious communism xddddd

>Hid the flag so that replies are unbiased.

Attached: 9827347627836487234.png (900x900, 276K)

It's incompatible with evolution. Inequalities would eventually occur and without an authoritarian intervention they'd only compound but that solution is at odds with stateless society.
Communists despite paying lip service to evolutionary theory are creationists at heart.

>competitive political system
Funny how it was always impelented by the use of force or external subversion.

there's a procedural explanation. By imposing "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" you create a series of incentives ending in misery, lack of products, backstabbing politics, purges, and mass deaths.
Listen to this:
youtube.com/watch?v=KCmJUobwKQk

Attached: commie prevention.jpg (600x600, 57K)

Because a flat income for everybody doesn't encourage hard work or excellence.

It actually encourages everybody to do the bare minimum.

And the bourgie aristocracy is simply replaced by a party aristocracy who rule "in the people's name" whilst reaping all the material benefits of their party status; which means that they accumulate wealth and live in luxury, much like the "hateful bourgeoisie" they replace.

>Merit
As if leading communist figureheads ever held a real job. Its reflective of the jewish aversion toward labor by and by. The classes that the marxist set up basically did nothing for the industrial worker, and even demoted them to untouchable status as it was with indian caste system. Its the same shit packaged in a jewish deal.

Very simple.
>economically - without a free market, there is no way of properly and accurately telling the actual needs of the people. If there is no market, you cant tell how much people need a certain product, therefore the management or ressources will always be wasteful (since it doesn't depend on the individuals choice) and every poor decision will always impact on the whole (instead of just impacting the individual).
>politically - it has to surpress freedom of speech to exist, any dissent must be eliminated on sight. The people cant ever rule a country, therefore the true speech will always be the one created by a small minority that will be the true aristocracy of the country.
>culturally - materialistic and just straight degenerate. Do you really want to be an atheist faggot without family ties that worships some goofy looking dictator?

Your understanding of communism is incompatible with actual Marxist theory.

Communism is a return to natural state of human society in a technologically developed world. There will be Leaders and Elites, except their status would only be dependent on their immediate utility to their comrades, on on completely arbitrary and alienated systems, which include possession of financial capital.

How utilitarian of you. Almost Darwinian

Communism was designed to fail when practiced to extreme so that it could start off ok and then become the nightmare that would lead to its overthrow and the pendulum swing. The aim is create the constant turmoil of chaos and unrest, not implement the perfect political and economic system. The perfect system would be neither extreme where people chose to combine bits according to their society, eg capitalism with socialised medicine

>extreme wealth
did Steve Jobs have "extreme wealth"
do Musk have "extreme wealth"
do they "deserve" it? according to whom?
I guess you imagine yourself as president of the "people's panel" determining who can have what...
A social safety net, by private charities or by the government IS NOT FUCKING COMMUNISM, it's just a safety net

Attached: do communism work - a pie chart.png (898x720, 353K)

Every political system is implemented by the use of force. Every political system deals with the outside influence and interference.

Funny how Poland never had any domestic political philosophy in it.

>obviously couple of different tiers/classes should exist
golly
>when you destroy your classless 'fair' system right off the bat
>it HAS to work this time

Attached: a3KjYPQ_460s.jpg (460x299, 27K)

The Hayek argument is best. Put basically, central economic planing is impossible due to the fact that any decision has virtually infinite unseen variables that skew the actual results into an unforeseeable mess. No person or group can ever hope to be capable of regulating and controlling an economy from the top-down.

It's actually Mises argument, Hayek only reused it.

>Marxist theory
And it will remain only a theory, because it is completely contradictory to human nature.
It is so alien to us that it failed even after 70 years of attempts to create a "soviet man".

Utilitarian - obviously. Marxism sees socioeconomic life of society driven by material interest of the people. "Social"Darwinian - not at all.

>There will be Leaders and Elites, except their status would only be dependent on their immediate utility to their comrades
You mean "utility" like managing companies producing better goods at better prices?
That's Capitalism & free markets.

Attached: socialism vs capitalism.jpg (900x439, 107K)

>Your understanding of communism is incompatible with actual Marxist theory.

It's possible. I see no point in investing time to learn about dead ideologies.

>Communism is a return to natural state of human society in a technologically developed world. There will be Leaders and Elites, except their status would only be dependent on their immediate utility to their comrades,

That might work in a tribe sized community like a kibbutz. I haven't seen evidence that this approach scales up very well.

Soviet Union failed due to being the first - visionary attempt borne in mortal struggle, which resulted in some inborn deffects. The fall of the Soviet Empire was due to a single crisis, which could be avoided.

China, the most stable world power right now, is doing just fine.

>everyone gets a liveable income regardless of output
>sweet I dont have to work anymore
>govt has to force labor to keep production up
>forced laborers resentful, work as little as possible
>production drops, govt cant maintain universal livable wage, communism fails
That plus the 'I'm a member of the ruling party so I should live like a millionaire' corruption shuts down communism every time.

>Funny how Poland never had any domestic political philosophy in it.

Attached: 1309779089269.jpg (638x206, 48K)

Whateves. As Shakespire wrote,
>A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

Although, Free market is never free. It's one of the Liberal fantasies abandoned long ago.

>China, the most stable world power right now, is doing just fine.

After implementing "socialism with Chinese characteristic" and being included in to WHO, stealing capitalist know how and reaping the benefits of cheap exploitative labor and currency manipulation. Not mention the fact that it's a totalitarian hellhole, but your affection towards SU tells that you wouldn't mind a social credit system.

it's made by betas, for betas.
which is why it underachieved and produced nothing of value

Show flag commie

Attached: IMG_1942.png (420x420, 32K)

>Soviet Union failed due to being the first - visionary attempt borne in mortal struggle, which resulted in some inborn deffects
It took 70 years, and USSR tried to change several times, so "inborn defects" argument is a bit silly

>The fall of the Soviet Empire was due to a single crisis, which could be avoided.
The existence of communist countries was almost a constant crisis

>China, the most stable world power right now, is doing just fine.
Except it is a mix of authoritarian rule with a market economy, nothing like the "real communism" you go on about

Funny how Russia ran on a (((German))) political philsophy for most of the 20th century

>It's possible. I see no point in investing time to learn about dead ideologies.

You are being Hypocritical here. Dislike Marxism all you like, Marxism is secondmost influential philosophy, and, seeing how Neoliberalism is in complete meltdown, it's only a formality when it becomes a dominant worldwide philosophy.

>That might work in a tribe sized community like a kibbutz. I haven't seen evidence that this approach scales up very well.

Communism, as a Formation, is an endgame. But Marxist political systems like Social Democracy and Marxism-Leninism are perfectly viable in the modern world, and exist on quite a large scale in it.

>Communism
>Natural State

pick one.

communism is utter shit.

Start by Karl Marx, an idiot that never worked a day in his life, living off the wealth of his friend rich parents.

Then look at ANYWHERE it was implemented, hunger, death, misery, executions.

The reason it will never work is because you cannot force some people to work for free, that's what communism is, why the fuck would I put any effort into anything if I don't own the fruits of my labor?

I saw a video once where a college teacher that said it best, in the beginning of the year he asked his students who was a Capitalism and who was a commie.
Overwhelmingly commies.
For the Capitalists he said they would get the grade they could individually get.
For the communists, he said they would get their grades averaged out as a group.

How long did you did it took for those guys to just stop putting any work into that class because why bother only to soon after a lot of them start asking for Capitalistic grades?

Capitalism is the true natural order, under Capitalism you voluntarily trade, if I make a product you have the option to buy it or not, it's your decision, there is no state behind forcing anyone to do anything.

The "problem" with Capitalism is when you get people under the impression of everything they wanna have is a human right.
Take the RTX 2080 Ti and how many people are salty about it being 1200 USD and blaming Capitalism for that, DEMANDING it should be priced at 500 USD or less...

Well news flash, don't like it don't buy, go somewhere else, unless there is no where else in which case how are you labeling something "expensive" if there is nothing to compare it to?

But hey, I'm sure the communist countries will come to the rescue on this one and put out something that competes with an RTX 2080 Ti at a "fair" price... that is, if their citizens aren;t too busy running away from those communist countries.

because everyone has the right to private property

>Free market is never free
Free market means other people can compete with you. You can't kill them, dump products, slander or bomb their factories. Also the government should not support monopolies.
What's your definition of "free market"?

Attached: free speech berkley 1967 2017.jpg (452x711, 157K)

>Social Democracy
It is not Marxist.
It is the thing communists despite most.

it can't be done right because fundamentally it is wrong and is destined to fail.

This is bullshit. Just look at cartels ever since 1910s on lightbulbs and Philips doing planned obsolence.
Yesterday there was a thread about old cars and products such as fridges functioning 50 years straight without break.
Meanwhile modern efficient shit dies after 5 years.
For Gods sake Soviet lightbulbs lasted up to 10 years.
Capitalism isn't efficient in everything you claim since if theres no demand theres no profit.
And who would profit if you fulfilled the demand for fridges for the next 100 years?
The consumers, and youd be out of business soon enough .

Kibbutz are proof of anarchist utopia.
More than marxist one.
Also Kibbutz are jews and unironically anarchy forced them to become traditional.
It is as if the more you try to regulate people, more degenerate they are.
And if they are left to their own devices, they go back to traditional conservative/fascists wet dream.

>the concept of "property" exists

lul, no buddy, you merely use it while you're here. no one owns anything.

>Not mention the fact that it's a totalitarian hellhole
What's that supposed to mean? Liberal Republic is no less undemocratic, and much more hypocritical and biassed.

>you wouldn't mind a social credit system.
It is the best thing ever! It will put an end to the greatest disease of civilisation: anonymity. When people live in natural conditions, everyone in their community knows about everyone else.

This allows for cooperation - because you can trust your fellow man - and stimulates discipline and will - as you know that people will remember your good and bad deeds and conduct.

City living abolishes it. It erodes societal cooperation, it destroys motivation and will of an individual.

My commie relatives went over to China to teach english.
They were the kids who wore Che Guevarras shirt.
They say its better than where they come from. They got girlfriends soon enough and live in 100m^2 apartment which they pay rent like 500€.
Wage is 2000€ or so.

It is an offshoot. A bastard child of Marxism Leninism. But it was borne out of it as non violent revolution.

>And who would profit if you fulfilled the demand for fridges for the next 100 years?
>The consumers, and youd be out of business soon enough .
your flag is correlated to your IQ

>And who would profit if you fulfilled the demand for fridges for the next 100 years?
and who would keep building fridges?
What about new technologies, lower consumption?
Do you understand that a fridge built to last 100 years would be 5 or 6 times more expensive than a 5-10 year normal one?
If its SUCH A GREAT BUSINESS to fabricate will-last-100-years fridges, WHY THE FUCK DON'T YOU START A COMPANY! You'll earn a lot of money!!!
Look moron, there are already different prices and duration of fridges, cars, ligthbulbs. The stronger and durable, the higher the price.
you're a commie out of ignorance. GO get a job, create a company, manufacture something, and then you can talk about "Production".
You have no idea of how things are produced, so when your kind gain power things end up like Venezuela

Attached: commie value.png (500x300, 29K)

>it's only a formality when it becomes a dominant worldwide philosophy.

Judging by the growing support for right wing parties among young voters I wouldn't bet on it.

>Communism, as a Formation, is an endgame.
That's nice fantasy.

>But Marxist political systems like Social Democracy and Marxism-Leninism are perfectly viable in the modern world, and exist on quite a large scale in it.

Everything is Marxism now. Maybe try to be more precise.
I bet you think Scandinavian countries are socialist.

>It took 70 years
It took Napoleonic France much less, and age of Absolutist Reaction lasted much longer.

>The existence of communist countries was almost a constant crisis
Soviet Union developed at an excellent pace to the apex of power never seen in Russian history prior or after until the 70s.

>Except it is a mix of authoritarian rule with a market economy, nothing like the "real communism" you go on about
It is the same policy exercised by Lenin - the OG communist.
Again, you aren't very aware of history.
Lenin's party was called RSDWP before 1917; just like the first proper Marxist political party in the world, and is derived from Der Sozialdemokrat, the title of Newspaper published by Marx and Engels.

The best example of pure communism was Jamestown the first year it was settled. They went full communist and shared all the food they grew. They put it all in to a big lot, some had to go back to the bankers that financed them and what was leftover they shared. Well around 5% or less of them survived that winter because no one wanted to farm they all decided to let "him" farm.

Ohh I have a sore back, not farming to day.
Ohh my kid is sick, not farming today.
Ohh Bob is a good chap, ill let him do my farming while I go coon hunting to make some side money.
Ohh Bills not farming, them im not farming.

Then winter comes and they all starve to death.

After that they went pure capitalist. You keep what you grow, a portion will go to pay off the bankers. Instant success, they thrived. Indians showed up and became culturally enriched.

Now the other way that could have gone was they tried communism again, because that was not REAL communism and had the Mayor make everyone farm at the barrel of a gun and you know the rest.

Communism always leads to genocide.

Because everyone today promoting it is not even 1% the men and intellectual than previous communists that tried and failed.
Do you really think you have anyone in your movement today that is smarter than past politicans that have been politicans their entire life with more experience than the entire democrat party combined?
Are you truly as arrogant and think because your mentally retarded sociology professor told you his mentally retarded opinions and sold them as fact to you and that because of that you are now in a matter of no time smarter than some of the most brilliant politicians of all time that all failed to implement it?
Every single thing you thought is a new though about communism has already been tried by better men, you are not special get that stupid notion out of your head.
Honestly really think about what i just told you.

Because it has no basis in actual economics so it can't be implemented. That's why every communist country ends up being state capitalism which is just an objectively shittier version of regular capitalism.

>implying communism has been tried

>But it was borne out of it as non violent revolution.
It was born as non-violent alternative.
Subtle difference.

How anything of this prove that China is communist country?
100m^2 apartment?
Girlfriends?
2000€ wage?

Please read about planned obsolence. Adhominems are brainlet way.

Why would you waste so much materials on building a fridge every 5-10 years?
Doesnt production use energy as well?
How much is it justified for a fridge to be energy efficient if you spend just as much energy to produce another one?
I figure it's better to find ways for renewable resources when it comes to electricity and nuclear reactors.
But pollution from production and refinement of materials doesnt fit in my equation.
Also " why dont you start lel "

> i work 8hours a day and cant get enough capital nor time to do it
> im unskilled in that field
> nobody would give me 2million dollars to start a factory and produce them
> id get fucked by ((( authoroties)))
> id get shoahed by competitors and corporate set ups ( see Linus Torvalds)
> not profitable since consumer would buy it and use it until lifetime, thus after i met demand of a consumer why would he want to buy newest fridge with 20% less energy use when the first one i sold him is working fine for him?

Beacause if I don't have to work for my money,
why should I?

Nothing, im just telling you experience of people that live in china that its not a shithole as people say here it is

A fucking leaf

You wouldnt work in your life if you were financially securr till death?

Definition is quite right. It does not match to any real processes, of course, because Capitals equals political power, and property relations equal violence.

Free market is an idealistic hypothetical concept that you described, which was completely excluded from practical political technologies in the 1st half of 20th century due to its' evident lack of utility.

you do realize that todays china is basically the HQ of capitalism in the world... I mean you know that right? They literally do nothing else.

Sort of yes.
I may have memeflag but Im not supporting fervently communism as is.
I think it needs a lot of shit to get revamped.
And yes I know China is half capitalist. They have shit ton of subsidies though.

>Judging by the growing support for right wing parties among young voters I wouldn't bet on it.
That's nothing but a baseless hope. This support, too, is localized, and actual Right wing opposition that came to power is even more failing and unstable than traditional NeoLiberals.

>I bet you think Scandinavian countries are socialist.
Scandinavian countries are, for the most part, Neoliberal. But there are a plenty Socialist policies and institution. Socialist policies, too, created the golden decades that they had.

>you do realize that todays china is basically the HQ of capitalism in the world
As it Should be. Capitalist England was an HQ of Absolutism/feudalism in the world, and had a hybrid system itself.

>Soviet Union developed at an excellent pace to the apex of power never seen in Russian history prior or after until the 70s.
This is bullshit, Russian horses drank from Seine after defeating Napoleon. USSR rise to power was possible only because all traditional European powers were weakening and crumbling one after another.

>It is the same policy exercised by Lenin - the OG communist.
Atre you talking about New Economic Policy? An interim measure that even Lenin thought to be a step backward?

And Communists always despited Social-democrats for fundamental reasons - Communism aims to destroy capitalist society by violent means. Social-democrats started as an non-violent alternative aimed to change the system from inside, and evolved into being part of it. Hence they were traitors for communists, even worse than open capitalists.

>What's that supposed to mean? Liberal Republic is no less undemocratic, and much more hypocritical and biassed.

Just Google the word totalitarian

>It is the best thing ever! It will put an end to the greatest disease of civilisation: anonymity.
It won't, governments already know a lot about you. Chinese social credit system will serve to scrap their citizens of little personal freedoms that their citizens enjoy and will be used to squash dissent.

>When people live in natural conditions, everyone in their community knows about everyone else.

And that's good but you can't know everything about a billion people. That knowledge will be in the hands of government.

>This allows for cooperation - because you can trust your fellow man - and stimulates discipline and will - as you know that people will remember your good and bad deeds and conduct.

Yeah it's reputation and social capital. We don't need communism to make use of it.

>City living abolishes it. It erodes societal cooperation, it destroys motivation and will of an individual.
I agree with that, but find your solutions completely misguided.

Almost, yeah. Besides occasionally doing something on a whim I wouldn't lift a finger.

People are lazy by their nature, I didn''t knew it is disputable?

>They have shit ton of subsidies though.
Not really relevant, state-intervention is as old as a concept of state itself.
That's what the taxes are collected for.

>Carl Marx

lol!

Look at eastern europe

asking slavs to reflect and expect any kind of self awareness is akin to asking a pajeet not to shit on the street
not gonna happen in this dimension buddy
slavs are subhumans, they can only accept and follow an ideology, not create it

>This support, too, is localized, and actual Right wing opposition that came to power is even more failing and unstable than traditional NeoLiberals.

Doesn't matter in the longer frame. Lefties don't breed at rate that conservatives do so each new generation will learn more to the right. Add to that factors like mass migrations that will only increase in the future and you've got a recipe for the unraveling of lefts dominance over politics.

>Socialist policies, too, created the golden decades that they had.
It was thanks to the high iq and high social capital. If it was a matter of policy then it'd be possible for every country to replicate their success to some degree.

>slavs are subhumans, they can only accept and follow an ideology, not create it
Is that why Germans from three different countries decided to destroy the Commonwealth?

Read “I, pencil”, retard. Do you realize there is not one single person in this entire world that can make a pencil? An object so early in technological advancement we don’t even know who invented it, yet not one person can do it. Get back to us after you have completed the task.

>what is the economic calculation problem

humans are greedy. leaders are sociopathic narcissists. most dictators were cia.

Best analysis and comparison of real men and the fat privileged NEET who invented gommunism.

Attached: IMG_0134.jpg (1000x1000, 185K)

"Hey you, start a farm."
>> I don't want to farm. I want to paint.
"Into the gulags"
>> Shit, there's no food.
"Eat each other"

The End.

In any system that attacks and limits productivity via seizing rights to production, you lose the drive and insentive that propels an economy.
In short: without insentive, you have no competition to drive productivity.

Becase its fundamentally evil and based on redistribution. Society can only progress when its desire is to progress

Globalism is communism and it's failing.

same reason any form of government at all in human history ultimately fails
because lazy and greedy niggers always flood absolutely everything with their shit
and do keep in mind here leftypol that I'm using nigger as a generalization. Its what people do here