Does Jow Forums actually have any good faith critiques of communism or is it just "VENEZUELA!!!!!!!!!!"

>nazi germany
>not failing

Attached: 465.png (200x193, 61K)

Communism fails the second humans are introduced into the equation. It's kind've funny because communism would work if we were all perfect, but if we were all perfect we wouldn't need a communist economy set up in the first place.

Communism dosen't appeal to people in wealthy countries. That's why it never really took root in Western Europe or North America. Panem et circences and such.

Conservatives are correct in viewing communism as a serious danger, an evil which should be opposed. But — and this is the essence of the matter — conservatives oppose communism for the wrong reasons. They see it, first and foremost, as a threat to free enterprise: a threat to their bank accounts. What they really hate about communism is that it is collectivist (i.e., that it subordinates the welfare of the individual to the welfare of the community — at least, in theory) and that it is statist (i.e., that it vests ultimate authority in a highly centralized party-government apparatus instead of in more-or-less autonomous local governments).

But if collectivism and statism were the only aspects of communism we had to worry about, I, for one, would welcome it with open arms, as an infinitely superior alternative to the Jew-ridden, minority-coddling, culture-defiling, soul-stifling, filth-wallowing, corruption-breeding, decadence-producing, race-destroying monstrosity of a System which now squats so unwholesomely in the power centers of our nation (and which, of course, is also collectivist and statist, in the worst sense of the words, even if not so forthrightly as the Kremlin).

No, the real evils of communism are that it, like capitalism, is alien to us in origin and essence; and it, also like capitalism, is racially destructive. The doctrine of communism was born in an alien mind; and it, as a doctrine which interprets history and all social phenomena solely in economic terms, predicates the primacy of gold over blood.

Imagine creating a government where one man has the power to kill millions.

Every society from monarchy to socialism with that much centralization has always succumbed to internal struggles as every sociopath wants to become the king, premier, etc.

Socialism is required to transition to communism, so it's impossible to actually bring about the latter, at least currently. Who knows, maybe collective ownership will prevail in the future. Or we'll continue concentrating wealth and the means of productions into private hands and see how that goes.

Karl Marx said that communism has to happen in an already wealthy and powerful capitalist society. Human nature, as you said, shows that that isn't the case because in successful countries people typically don't want to make such drastic changes (for good reason). Communism is a leech that has only been able to feed on sickly animals

first define communism

No point in critiquing that has never existed.
Socialiam on the other hand makes sence when 90% of welth comes from a single market like oil in Venezuela so that private people in control of oil market for example cant loby the shit out of goverment and efectly become unelected goverment aswell.
While for divers economys like the ones in the west socialism isnt needed.
And socialism places lots of power in the goverment.
While state with balanced power among its people drives competition and motivets ingenuity among themselfs.
So in Venezuelas case socialism is arguably the best option while in a countrie like for example the US free market is the best option and is a better option over all. And that makes free market better where it works than any socialist state.
Example where the free market faled is Russia during the Yeltsin era because it is another state with largly dispoporsonate oil market and it happend so that it had socialiam at one point.
In conclusion socialism has its place and is not the best option out of them all but for some it is really is the best option.
Not exactly fair but one must make the best out of the cards they are delt.

You can't argue with communist from an economic angle because they still believe in and would die for an economically dead philosophy.

Communism is simply the state manifestation of the crab in the bucket mentality.

Eh, even capitalism isn't "real capitalism" when you got jews and niggers, isn't it?

Well, at least we tryed with communism, Tito wasn't half bad(yeah, I know of various deals, gulags and what not), but the rest degenerated under corruption(by youknowwho). The self-sustainable communities are not a bad idea.

From historical point of view, best time was under Austro-Hungary monarchy of Franc Jožef. Why? Cause he wasn't a retard and actually made some things for plebs like water, roads etc.. The rest are just exploiting the system.

All systems are good if used for doing good and used by non-retards, the reverse is true too.

It's really hard to stay in good faith, when the entire idea is just a bad British skit

>Gommunism
>Faith
To the gulag with this one.

Attached: Comrades-Turn-em-in.jpg (500x783, 104K)

Communism is against human nature. That's why it fails time and time again.

>be Nepalese
>be low IQ with 78 score on average
>remove king
>elect commies
>commies take away free speech, press freedom, Internet freedom + porn
>commies are now controlling market
>commie are shutting down private schools and converting them into public according to their 10 years plan
>corruption in every level of governance and inside the system
>there are people in the west who defend this fucked up low IQ system
>mfw I have no face

this is wrong. kys and go back to shitddit, nigger

This. /thread

youtube.com/watch?v=lO5191haBOQ&t=227s

It didn't fail

It's the third most deadly ideology in history, after Islam & Christianity

Equality = religion.
Communism = religious dogma.
Communist = religious nutter.
You don't deserve any more consideration than that.