Okay, would appreciate serious responses. Why exactly, doesn't full communism work...

probability? so long as you have anything that has these two properties, varying qualities, and a numerous amount. there will be differences. and this means you will always have inequality.
that's not just money, that's talent, skill, anything that is distributed will be distributed unevenly. next so long as it is beneficial to cheat and act immoral in any fashion people will do it. it will also always remain a legitimate strategy for survival. and so will always be present in human society.

human nature

Dunno, but it's profound enough an effect that you can chart star mass by it. It's not sociological. Might be as simple as inertia of opportunities, but we have a better idea of how to override gravity than override Pareto Distribution.

tl;dr Marxism and all its offshoots try to ignore a force as fundamental as time without understanding it.

Hi, Bermudanon

Attached: happy pepe.jpg (300x300, 22K)

>Why exactly, doesn't full communism work? What is the key pin point element stopping it from working?

Human nature. People are by nature greedy and self serving. Why the hell else does every communist country have a leader when they're supposed to be a congregation of equals?

The people pushing for a communist government naturally form by the most eager of people. Those people naturally see themselves as leaders - leaders above the rest of the equals. Any fantasy about true communism is already out the window.

Now on to how it further doesn't work. As I said, people are greedy. The people who excel, how do you get them to be equal with the people who don't excel? You can't make the idiots, the gimps, the retards, etc. move up to the level of the achieved. You have to force the achieved down. How do you do that? How do you make people strictly adhere to rules to not excel? You take away their rights, their motivation for producing. If you excelled at say, building houses. Now the government comes in and says you need to build more houses, but you get less and less of the money - what would be the point in continuing? Those people are going to end up doing the bare minimum to get by, giving up excelling when their labor is rewarded with confiscation.

it doesn’t take into account human motivation / the desire for success that pushes societies forward

not only is it impossible but theoretically detrimental. from what iv'e read from an MIT paper on gini coeffecients. it could be destrimental in any shift of a gini coeffecient. maybe because it's always a shift in the societal order and so any shifting of the gini coeffecient is a society experiencing turbulence. this means my theory of an "optimal" wealth distribution is a yes and a no.
there could be an "optimal" ealth distribution in a soceity, but it would vary from society to society depending on it economic structure.
america for example would naturally develop worse wealth inequality as a system to further fuel finance. the upper class needs a vast amount of capital to make investment a better income than starting a business. as the middle class needs enough money to make starting a business almost viable they need someone else with excess funds to aquire the funds for starting a business to move from middle class to upper class. so as the manufacturing sector shifts from america to abroad america needs less income equality to fuel the finance and investment industry for an optimal economic performance as the paradigm shifts.

Easy

people work for themselves, not for 1/7,500,000,000th

people disagree about how to spend resources

people disagree about quantity vs quality decisions

there are more people than things, so either the poor starve or the government decides who starves, say for a hurricane but also all the time

people who work for their country or others can give away their money in capitalism but it does not work in reverse. people who work for themselves in communism get killed or in prison or don't work, you can do one or or the other or both in capitalism.

people spend better than government

people spend for themselves better than others

one idiotic decision kills the idiot, not many others

value is dictated by supply and demand, not what value the people feel or vote on

there is more to value than labor, there is also trade and innovation

and 100 other reasons.

communism and socialism (communism lite) are retarded.... and most people confuse the economics and the system. You can have democractic, facist, or any kind of either socialism or capitalism, one is economic and the other is regulatory. Now why you need regulations is to subsidize metaphysically environment or some other bs, so fascism and socialism are teh same, just enforcement of metaphysics.

>sorry for reddit spacing.

You do also realize that human beings have an innate since of fairness that is also part of their natural humanity. The ideology of the right does not account for this, and this is also why communism in some aspects will never go away. Fairness and greed are both fundamental yet conflicting parts of human nature.

Full communism does work on really small scales like family units or small tribes who all cooperate and share everything.
When everyone gets the same that disincentivises hard work and rewards laziness.
It might work if we had robots doing all the work.

yes they do, and this is also part of the equation.
but being unfair is still a good way at getting what you want and in certain situations a very tempting option even for people concerned with fairness. and as for the "right" it depends on whom you are really speaking about. overall it seems to view the picture for fascist ideologies that people simply want a good life.
so if they have food, a good house and a family, and they don't feel like their life is purposeless than they are happy and healthy.
perhaps the workers of the industrial revolution felt they were treated unfairly because they didn't have these things no?

labor theory of value

It also might work if human nature evolved to be less greedy. Could you imagine everyone working very hard not for their own personal gain, but for the larger purpose and meaning of progressing of all society? If everyone was just selfless like that, then a society like that would have an even greater motivation to innovate than capitalism. With far less crime because no one would be trying to cheat, steal, and lie their way to the top.

Maybe it is idealistic, but it is a nice future to dream towards. And human nature is still evolving.

Equality does not work.
But desu capitalism will fail too, because it's "here and now" system without any thoughts about future.

The honest answer is human nature. Look around you most people are honestly only concerned for themselves. Yes some poeple are doctors or surgeons but take away incentives to do those jobs like money. And most people will stop. Look around you when you drive, idiots who would gladly run you off the road to shave 2 seconds off their trip. Or the police how many are not abusing power? Or the judges who are not impartial or biased? The honest truth is humans have gotten this far becuase of this nature. And the second you allocate full control of everything to the state as you must because who else will send the military to seize the means. People becomoe corrupt again. There will always be an elite. Even the communists had elites. The problem is power hungry people latch onto positions of power, and in communism you have basically allowed the state to redistibute everything. There is a story in ancient greek, I cannot remember the names but what happened was some guy had good ambitions wanted to help his country so he and his friends killed a lot of politicians and replaced them. Well things went from bad to worse. Do you know why? Because the type of people he replaced the politicians were bad people, and bad people seek to abuse power.
nice vpn

Attached: pepe.jpg (660x574, 31K)

>What is the key pin point element stopping it from working?
It doesnt take into account human nature.

let me set this straight for you stupid communist fucks

communism in the purist form would work, but so would capitalizing, socialism, fascism, any dictatorship, etc. It works, predicated without the human factor. Put in humans, and human tendencies, and SOME of these work, but the ones that dont are communism, fascism, totalitarianism, and socialism.

The End.

>totalitarianism
>don't work
You'll see you're wrong when China outlive USA.
Yeah user, china

China isn't a totalitarian government in its purist form. They allow some sense of freedom with business and trade.

oh and china, won't outlive the U.S.

The culture there is not the same as it is in the west.

Scarcity exists and communism is based around destroying the scientific system of managing scarcity- economics. Central planning can never adequately allocate resources to account for scarcity. There are economic laws which make this fact, such as the Iron Law of Oligarchy, but I'm not going to effort post a commie thread.

Attached: 20190313_083124.jpg (720x258, 69K)

Lets flip the question to realize the answer.
Why would communism work? It goes against human nature.

Because people arent perfect beings
Communism only works in an environment where everyone have 100% trust into eachother, like a family

Centralization of power.

>China isn't a totalitarian government in its purist form.
huh?
>They allow some sense of freedom with business and trade.
They're definitely more totalitarian than authoritarian, not enough freedom to be authoritarian government, enough to make an attempt in outjewing USA in their own game.

My first question would be, do you know the difference between Socialism and Communism?

If you can answer that question then you can probably figure out why Communism has never been truly implemented and why it will never work even if it was a goal for a country.

Attached: 1509735146800.png (1363x889, 115K)

Best to let rapacious Jew banking oligarchy make the rules than a well meaning, socially conscious one.

>Muh human nature
Capitalism isn't human nature.

Attached: human nature.jpg (720x960, 77K)

Why do you say full fascism doesn't work

People are greedy cunts.
Capitalism plays on that notion.

Quads of truth.

Better Question: Why hasn't the disgusting waste of valuable resources that is you killed yourself yet?

Because Hitler and Mussolini already proved so.

Because of foreign resistance?

Bitch capitalism ain't allocating resources properly. We've got millions of homeless people and 15 million empty homes. Automation and computers are going to fucking replace most of the jobs on this planet and you backwards morons will still insist that resource allocation shouldn't be handled by quantum computers. Imagine that kind of society, robots doing all the work except production is managed by a bunch of clueless people trying to determine how much demand is in the market. Kek
So let's keep a system that brings out the absolute worst in people. Brilliant idea. No wonder South Korea has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Wow
Another reply full of pure ideology. I wish we could put behind all this pure ideology so we can move on and fulfill the potential of humanity. We have a whole universe to explore and the vast unknown expanse of scientific and technological advancement ahead of us but instead we're stuck on this relatively tiny rock with 7 billion people many of whom are brainwashed to fight for this current broken system that ensures the elite maintain power and wealth at the expense of everyone and everything else. Profit is the number one goal and the system is self-serving.

Attached: 2061SU.jpg (1920x1176, 393K)

But how did they prove the entire system fails?

Corruption and capitalism are almost always conflated. When people trade for mutual benefit, that's obviously good. Corruption needs to be mentioned specifically, because capitalism works in theory, a so do others. Also mention how your particular theory is immune to corruption, because that's fun.

We don't have capitalism here in the USA, we have a mixed economy. The degree to which plutocrats (parasites) have obtained power in government is absurd. The use of government to regulate the market for the benefit of those companies which can afford the lobbying procedure is one of the greatest flaws of government. Movement towards more pure capitalism reduces resource mislocation, movement away from it introduces more error.

Bitch fuck ass (I talk tough to deter the reader from lack of substance) if you weren't so damn retarded then you would see that effective members of society aren't friendly and aren't very giving. When end goals align and people work together for mutual benefit, that is when productivity skyrockets. If you had substance to add, and didn't need to rely on complaining or using strong language, this would actually work in your benefit, since many members of society trying to accomplish something will rely on you, essentially giving you an enormous worth in a capitalist society. Doing it for free is pretty dumb, since my time is limited and more than one person is in need of my services.

Attached: download.jpg (1280x720, 117K)

It tries to make everyone equal when infact they just aren't fundamentally equal. It tries to make everyone equal on the false assumption that they are equal and it's just the "system" oppressing and exploiting them.

Because people will not work as hard for the state as they will for themselves. People will want things, want to do and say things, that the government wont allow. This means the government has to repress those people in order to maintain power. Also, putting all power into a one party state makes it painfully easy for a sociopath tyrant to take over.

>brain surgeons get paid the same as fast food workers
you cant force people to be robots

Read Mises, Menger and Bohm Bawerk.

Niggers

Attached: Zimbabwe.png (2093x608, 722K)

How can a society without hierachy and authorities enforce any kind of laws?
Why would others have a right to deny me my equal share of rations when I provide them hentai sketches in return?
How are decisions made in such hierachyless and authorityless society? By majority vote? That creates already both aspects.
How can a society without hierachies or authorities prevent minority from implementing their own solution?

Human nature.

There's always gonna be a cluster of faggot contrarians that are gonna ruin it for everyone or be greedy as fuck.

> he honestly thinks everybody have the same definition of fairness
Lmao

To consume, you must produce. To produce, incentives must be provided. If everyone gets the same, people favor leisure, family, slow work, etc.

When production fails, and you refuse to reward based on productivity, you must resort to force. Then it's not real communism anymore, so the cycle begins anew.

... Where do you think private charities come from?

Spending on one's family is a form of selfishness. You spend time / efforts / money on your own genes. That's why it works.

PEOPLE. You fucking nigger it has been tried over and over again and you know what fucks it up that's right you fucking nigger, it's people. Because people have inherently good negative and positive character traits like jealousy, kindness, greed and love. Now when all the rich people leave because you are trying to redistribute wealth your country is fucked. Now instead of being fucked with your fellow country men you at least try to help yourself out, I mean hey why not you're in power and you are doing a more important job. There begins your countries dissent into poverty and corruption.

> Muh empty homes
When there won't be houses in progressive cities for sale for 1$, you'll be allowed to bitch about it. But you'd first have to acknowlege WHY there are homes for sale for 1$.

because some people are just better than others

H-hey um user, can I ask you for a favour? Come join this Jow Forums Discord server please, it's a really good server I promise! It would really make my day if you did... so join using this link right now:
discord
=|+|=|1|=|+|=
.gg/vvftDyy

Attached: join degeneracy akarin 1.png (320x360, 252K)

Most importantly, It makes assumptions about people and human behaviour that simply isn't true. If you read nothing else, then at least take this on board. Any system that completely falls apart because all humans don't act in a theoretical perfect way is terrible.

It comes from a complete lack of ecomonics. Lvt is a load of crap that a basic understanding of economics and value shows. It desires a moneyless society without addressing the coincidence of wants issue, there's a reason money exists. Communists often answer that its for post scarcity but at that point theres no need for communism so it's pointless.

It is fundamentally based on envy. It divides people into groups of oppressor & oppressed solely based on this envy. It uses envy to justify everything, including mass killing and theft.

Lastly it isn't specific at all how certain steps are achieved, ie how the government will simply disappear and a society with no form of government will maintain itself (from internal or external threats) . If your response to a system failing is "it just wasn't done right" but can't elaborate why or how and the method of Implimenting the system isn't adjusted to make sure that doesn't happen again, it fucking sucks. In other words its the flat earth theory of political systems, it refuses to adapt to new evidence that shows its wrong, bad or incorrect.

Collectivism.
All collectivist ideologies seek to promote "collective welfare" often at the expense of individual welfare.

Of course, what this fails to account for is that most people are individuals.

When you crush all dissent from within and without, then your movement starts to be dominated by fear, and a culture of "dibbing each other in".

The Soviet Union under Stalin employed record numbers of citizen informants, so you couldn't even trust your neighbor to air your real feelings over the garden fence, for fear he might betray you for forty pieces of silver.

That and taking the means of production off the people who understand how to manage it always goes about as well as expected.

See; Holodomor, Post-colonial famine in Zimbabwe, the Khmer Rouge, ect.

Attached: 1542341453871.jpg (924x1024, 96K)

Nepotism is fundamentally about trust, not selfishness. People trust family and friends more than some random citizen.

Think about it in military terms. Would you rather a soldier that's an amazing fighter but you font know if you can trust him not to defect or turn traitor, or would you rather your brother who's an average fighter but you have known him your whole life.

>full communism utopia
Every system would be a utopia without selfishness.

Depends whether he's likely to come back from deployment.

You give your brother the stable desk job, and send super trooper to die for his country before he gets the chance to show his true colours.

Because full communism is impossible to achieve. So long as there’s a ruling class, in a society advertised as classless, it failed from the start

People aren't equal.

If someone is better at making money than someone else, they are just going to keep being better at making money when they have more money to use to make money.

Socialist revolutions only ever succeed in supplanting the old aristocracy with a "Party aristocracy" instead.

And if America and Russia nuked China and Cuba into oblivion that would prove communism doesn't work? Is being overwhelmed by superior force the measure of what system does and doesn't work?

At the end of the day, the slot for power is open when it happens and they want to have it. Calling it anything other than a ruling class is deliberate misrepresentation

I honestly can't tell if you're autistic or making a lame joke.

Stop talking sense, you're scaring me.

It’s expected to work whether people have the will to survive or not. It’s like an engine that works if you put gas in it... or not. An idea so absurd it’s not even wrong which is why people get confused. They’re still dumb as shit

Of course, I'm taking for granted that you love your brother and wish to shield him from harm, and that the life of an ambiguous stranger is less valuable to you, though he might be put to use, as long as he isn't given the chance to bite you on the arse.

I'm more inclined to think you're the autistic one if you can't grok such basic shit.

Leftist whites are powerless or non-responsive when it comes to opposing nonwhite ethnocentrism.

Open borders + the destruction of white hierarchy will just lead to us becoming disenfranchised and rule-over by de facto nonwhite ethnocentric power blocs.

Attached: global race population levels white people versus nonwhite.png (500x647, 167K)

.

People and their natural tendency to favour themselves, their family and their tribe over the whole nation.

Also crushing dissent and alternative thoughts really negatively affects innovation in the broad sense, and only select fields will thrive

>Why exactly, doesn't
Humans aren't perfect, that's why. The very idea of communism assumes that people are behaving in a way that humans don't normally behave...
To put it simply - Communism and humans are incompatible.

Attached: 1545085412682.jpg (500x746, 74K)

Communism doesn't work because people aren't equal, and because foreign influences would destroy a stateless society were it created. Many Communists believe that man is a blank sheet of paper, that the family is a gun in the hands of the bourgeoisie and must be crushed, that nations, nationalities and peoples must be abolished. This is utopian thinking that ignores human nature. Things like strength, beauty and intellect are biological, so is tribalism and the result of tribalism is the family and broader tribal loyalties. These two things give rise to the nation-state.
Communists believe that tribalism gave rise to feudalism, which gave rise to capitalism, which will eventually be supplanted by socialism, and then communism. But what if the next stage of man after socialism is national socialism? What if nationalism and eugenics are the only way to make a group truly equal? This is what China is experimenting with today.

This, I find it funny how Marxists still use the labor theory as a fundamental critique of capitalism when we know that it is simply not applicable anymore.

Why? Because the issue is that Communist doctrine tends to go Internationalist, that leaves easy work for Capitalist international finance to make it's way in and corrupt the system in place. We saw this with the Soviet Union and China, after Lenin died, it made it's way in real quick. Especially through Stalin.
To get to the point, the key things that fuck it up on it's transitionary process through Marx's doctrine is the existence of Capitalism. That and the CIA if you wanna be technical too.

Attached: DVqn09SVMAA_BW0.jpg (1200x798, 310K)

>t. Low IQ black/tranny

The cornerstone of Communism is that labor theory of value, which is the theory that labor has inherent value, but this is provably false. Therefore, you've built an entire movement on top of a lie. It only makes sense that anything built on top of this incorrect theory would also be incorrect.

Human nature

You're implying that capital hasn't historically allocated their resources to promote leftist causes - look at the history of the Bolsheviks (the big example), or how Marx's works were disseminated amongst the masses.
In the modern context it's a ploy to preoccupy society's underclasses/underachievers with delusions of grandeur and a sense of utopic idealism. It is the very opiate Marx claimed religion to be.

Find me a person who is willing to give up all the power after he has taken all of said power.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 63K)

human nature.

If you want more:

Humans naturally make hierarchies.
Humans are naturally tribal.
Humans are naturally violent.
Humans are naturally greedy.
Humans are naturally corrupt.
Humans are naturally weak-willed.
Humans are naturally flawed.
Humans die, so they live for the now and don't give a fuck about the future.
Humans are racist.
Humans aren't equal (in any regard), even twins ultimately develop apart, equality is a myth.
Humans mutate.
Humans are subjective animals.

Do I need to go on?

Communism doesn't work because no one wants it. Everyone could cooperate and just make it work, but then their lives would be shit.
I wouldn't want to participate and contribute to a communist system, there is nothing for me to gain from it. I like having my money and spending my money how I want, I like having a house that I want to live in and not government housing, I like working the job I applied to and consented to instead of a government job.
If everyone worked together and was the faceless miserable cog in the system that communism needs, it would work, but everyone would be miserable while the people at the top would be enjoying life.
Communism in practice is everything that communists claim capitalism is.

Socialism according to Marx exists only to bridge the gap between the necessary evil of capitalism and the inevitable 'utopia' of communism
Under communism, the means of production are owned, by definition, by the state.
Under communism there exists no free market as the state sets prices.
Without subtracting the input from the output, one cannot do cost accounting. It cannot be determined if production is more efficient under communism than under capitalism, or if production is more efficient than last week, or if it is even profitable at all, as "profits" are illegal.

You use your money to buy flour, yeast, rent an oven for a day, ect. Why do you do this? To bake bread. Why? Because you have determined and bet that there is a market for bread. You invest $50 and bake 50 loaves. So $1/loaf is your input cost. Your research says people will pay $2 or more for good bread every day, but they'll only pay $0.50/loaf for shitty bread. So, if you bake shitty bread you'll only be able to sell it for $25, half of the cost of production, a loss. But, if you are reasonably sure you can bake great bread, you may invest the time and money to bake 50 loaves and sell them for $100. It cost you $50 to make so your profit is $50, you have doubled your money, pretty good.

But under socialistic conditions, there can never be any cost accounting. That's why there is always bread lines and famines in communist countries, even in breadbaskets like Ukraine and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Communism is genocide. Socialism and democracy must be opposed as a moral imperative.

Attached: 1509330319580.jpg (558x754, 89K)

people's definition of fairness varies within bounds - there are several well-known solutions to what fair is and they have a very high tendency to choose the one definition that benefits them the most. There have been multiple experiments on this. I treat all social science experiments with a degree of suspicion but this is the best we have atm

most people are good, if flawed (Neurotypical + ASD/Cluster B, etc.) . A few are terrible and are beyond redemption ( ASPD)

Technically a Marxist vision of communism would be stateless and moneyless, but you're otherwise correct.
A large aspect of why a moneyless society wouldn't work is due to the influence of international trade, economies of scale and the necessity of insurance - all of these require a form of liquid capital in order to function.

>communist
>serious discussion
Talking about communism is like talking about 'the gender pay gap'. It is just ridiculous and tiresome to repeat yourself again after already going over it 220 million times. Just kys and be quick about it pls.

Attached: 1549109831200m.jpg (812x1024, 61K)

I suppose, but consider this, if you have two groups in society and let's say, for argument's sake, both have strong in group preferences and therefore distrust of the other, their respective concepts of fairness would de facto be at the detriment of the other.
See my flag for an example.

That's another thing. You define fairness differently. It's not greed, people on the right create bonds with their family, friends, coworkers and their families. I will give the shirt off my back to keep my sister fed and safe. I will not do the same for a that has no impact on my group.

Wew lad standard costing and flexible budgets at work. That said, I hated cost