What's wrong with communism?

What's wrong with communism?

It exists.

Low wages and no toilet paper. Now delete yourself.

It's never been tried.

about time then no?

It involves a violent purge of the middle & upper classes.

Then an authoritarian dictatorship.

Fair trials don't exist. The party rules everything.

People starve by the millions due to """mismanagement""" (or intentional genocide, such as the Holodomor)

What's NOT wrong with communism?

Nah, it never has and never will get past the authoritarian socialist phase. It's an ideological dead end.

More susceptible to corruption, and if the people try to protest they get rolled by tanks

...

equality isn't real. the higher classes and lower classes much exist in harmony.

There's no reason for people to be able to experience vast wealth, it isn't a necessity, and neither is poverty. Things should be divided between upper and middle class.

how do you know it isn't a necessity?
in nature there are predators and there are prey and there is a balance between them that is mutually beneficial.

No actual competitivy
Loss of human emotion which drives humans being

If humans were ants communism would work perfectly.

Can any leftist here (not a fellow nationalist LARPing pls) tell me why you think socialism leads to communism? So you set up a one party state and then you expect the state to disappear...that's a pretty big leap of faith

No

>You pretended to pay me so I'll pretend to work

It is entirely built of LTV, which is equivalent to being a creationist in economics.

There is also the economic calculation problem which they have yet to solve.

Absolutely nothing capitalism is complete dogshit. Literally look around at the state of our world and see the truth. We all live and die at the whim of masters being mind controlled by corporations into being consumers. We produce and consume for the benefit of these masters who see us as nothing but units, machines to work the factories then buy the same shit we make back off them like they're doing us a favour. These things are made to be exchanged not to be used or for enrichment. Meanwhile these companies pollute our planet with no end in sight. We've built a world that isn't for us, it isn't for anyone really. It's for massive systems to accumulate wealth while simultaneously robbing us of peace and happiness. It's no ones fault really, we all helped make this world and we all suffer for it. This isn't our world anymore

jews

holy fucking kek

never been done properly

capitalism was never been tried either. I ream REAL capitalism

t. ancap

King Leopold the 2nd's ownership of the Congo Free State was real capitalism. It's a shame 10 million Congolese died and many more mutilated.

No it wasn't. The market was heavily controlled by the state giving monopoly to certain groups.

Socialism doesn't lead to communism: socialism is communism (the first stage of it). Socialism is stateless. It is stateless because it is classless. It is classless because it is tradeless.

The one-party state is not socialism: it is the instrument for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the form the revolution will take (so before socialism). The one-party state will enforce the proletariat's rule onto the bourgeoisie (and its state) so that the proletariat can socialise the production and abolish trade.

I think a single person owning an entire country qualifies as the ultimate expression of capitalist ownership

No its not. You are wrong. Capitalism is about market competition. Market competition prevents anyone to gain complete market control. The only way to do that is either abusing your power, lobbying or similar i.e. creating laws via lobbying to prevent competition in the first place.

Banks are a prime example of this as the government does not allow anyone just to open a bank, thus the couple of big banks now control the economy. We dont live in a capitalist society, we live in an oligrachy with capitalistic shades.

Markets must be free
Free markets for all! As much as money can buy!

>how do you know it isn't a necessity

Literally the most retarded rebuttal. When people hoard vast amounts of wealth, do you know where it goes? Not into circulation. Why do you think 1% of the country has more money than the rest? I'm not saying lazy minorities should get a share of their pay but there's no particular reason that some asswipe, like the Rothschilds, who's family has been at the top of the ladder for centuries should be so financially secure that it's detrimental to the rest of society. And you wonder why Jews control the media and not anyone else.

>The only way to do that is either abusing your power, lobbying or similar i.e. creating laws via lobbying to prevent competition in the first place.
Yeah, so?

It was created by jews to overtrow the russian royality. Nothing else.

Somehow it spread and survived without being in need anymore.

So real capitalism was never been tried. The government instead of controlling the monopoly on violence like it should thus preventing violence between market actors it starts selling its lawmaking influence for money. Thus we end up with the same problem as with communism i.e. the problem is the state but you cannot do without the state either.

My argument however is that communists often say "capitalism is bad because of x" but they dont acknowledge that real capitalism, just like real socialism was never been tried. Because they are probably impossible to have in their purest forms.

However I still think having a "pure capitalistic" system is still less impossible than communism.

You are sort of correct. Most western societies have a mixed economy with a market, semblance of economic planning and state interventions. King Leopold privately owned an entire country's means of production and used them to create profit. Not quite similar to the kind of capitalism usually practiced but still a form of capitalism.

It ends up genociding its own people.

/thread

>it should
>So much idealism

NKVD, Fidel, Stalin, GULAG and shitload of other people-killing thingies just because if in capitalism there's jungle law, in communism there's HIDDEN jungle law, which enforce you to follow it in much stronger ways, than in "rotting west" countries.

>1 post by this ID

Communists.

IDs change; I am the user you were talking to.

What I meant is that what a state is and do is not the result of some good or bad ideas ("it should do this, it shouldn't do that"), but of material conditions. The bourgeois state you describe, the one that "sells its lawmaking influence for money", is the necessary result of the capitalist mode of production, whereas the absence of state is the necessary result of the communist mode of production.

Say it with me Sup Forums

I N E V I T A B L E

What is wrong with with communism is that it encourages patriotism to the state by stifling loyalty to the family. National socialism and capitalism both promote patriotism by building on loyalty to the family, and family loyalty is too profound a human instinct to fight.

It's an ideological poison that promises a fair share for all, but instead drives the masses into placing a new less forgiving government in power than the one that allowed communism to exist in the first place.

Save up your money wisely and start your own business so you can be a master too.
A man chooses, a slave obeys.

Fuck. I bet you're a catalunian nigger

They once said it'd be inevitable for everything to be coated in plastic and for food to come in frozen bricks.

Obviously not everyone can be "a master", otherwise we would all be masters of nothing.

No

They hang "Him"? My God!

Absolutely

it's like cancer

Socialism cannot work. It just cann't. It's like squering the circle with prmitive tools only. Doesn't work. And we know it since 20s.

That's how simple trade works. If your business produces something of value to the people, or if you can convince your customers that your product is better than your competitors, people will buy your merchandise.
A town in which everyone runs a small business that looks after one need or desire of the population in the town should be in equilibrium so long as each business only produces what everyone needs and regulates their prices to match the supply and demand.
You won't find a mattress dealership, or furniture outlet store unless the town is expanding, but once you do the smart thing for other businesses to do would be expand to meet the needs of a growing population.

>the dialectic method proves communism to be the inevitable unavoidable end to capitalism, which will come naturally
>communism needs to be forced by worldwide violent revolution

Was Marx fucking retarded?

The problem isn't that we'd all be masters of nothing, it's that most people are trying to fit into a system that has expanded beyond the capacity to give you an equal share.
The solution is to move out of the cities and establish or join smaller communities in which you can preform a role more effectively. Doing this instead of wasting away in a system that's far too large to consider you an asset is a better option than living in a closet working for breadcrumbs.

It doesn't work, so it changes itself in an attempt to work. Then ignorant people say real Communism has never been tried and try it all over again with the same result.

It's a pipe dream ruined by the reality of evolved social dynamics of dominance vs subservience in humans and other primates.

because of greed, it will never work
also, because some people are just better than others

fpbp

artificial intelligence and eugenics can solve that

>When people hoard vast amounts of wealth, do you know where it goes? Not into circulation.
t. economic illiterate

Communism is one of those "good in theory, terrible in practice" ideologies. You can argue that the best communities come together to help each other and ultimately better themselves, so why not try apply that idea on a national scale?

The answer to that question is simple: distance.

Distance erodes empathy. Anybody who has worked for an MNC or even just a national chain franchise will know this. It's easy to have empathy for your neighbour, or an employee you see on a daily basis. You know that person, their background, their wants and needs. So of course you want to help them.perhaps with financial support, perhaps by giving them the opportunity to succeed. But try to apply that to a similar person a continent, a country or even a city away and suddenly they're not "Ted from down the road" or "Dolores from accounting". Now they're just a number, a statistic. And if they're not the number you want them to be, then they're an inconvenience, a roadblock to your plans. And if you had the power to remove that roadblock then you absolutely would.

This is why communism fails, because it's in our nature to dehumanise people we don't know.

Undialectical. Everyone is equal under marxism.
>from each, according to their ability
>to EACH, according to their need.

it punishes people if they succeed and then wonders why nobody want's to be successful

>Communism is one of those "good in theory, terrible in practice" ideologies
if you're an economic illiterate, sure

>Being a slave to an AI and killed off if not subservient enough like cattle.

Nah I'm good, thanks.

>tryin to derive an ought from an is

my sides bro read some non marxist shit ffs

>it's an economists don't understand social constructs and the role they play in the development of a society episode.

Man, they play this one every day on pol.

Communism's primary goal is to annihilate the need for any sort of global economy, in favour of only local economies. Funnily enough that means it's not ideal for dealing with a real world economy, yes.

Well done, you win the prize for least effective argument.

That first part sounds like it's sort of worth all the bits that come after.

The Upper and Middle classes are the problem with industrial capitalism; periodically killing them off and redistributing their wealth is certainly one way to cripple dynastic power.

If your counter-argument cites ethics as a reason to not kill the rich, all I can do is laugh at your lack of perspective.

Killing an entire family is nothing compared to enslaving an entire nation.

You need a price sytem based on private property and trade to efficiently coordinate ressources.
Private property os the best system to solve conflict over scarce ressources
Dont violate my rights nigger

>killing the middle class and upper class
>killing the back bone of your country
>killing the rightmost half of your country's IQ bell curve

Yea I'm sure that'll work out just fine

>least effective argument
>putting words in my mouth
>coming from a guy whose entire argument is psychoanalytical
>implying you would even understand the more advanced economic arguments that essentially prove that communism is impossible
hello economic illiterate

Protip: humans are not above nature.

>enslaving an entire nation
>by being even moderately successful
>this justifies murder
This is why we have to support groups that want to genocide you in South America.

>You can argue that the best communities come together to help each other and ultimately better themselves
Maybe you could argue that, but how is it related to communism?

WOW YOU ARE SO DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY. YOU'RE SO STUPID FOR NOT AGREEING WITH MY ARGUMENT, LET ME STRAWMAN YOU AND THEN ACCUSE YOU OF NOT UNDERSTANDING HUMAN NATURE FOR NOT BUYING INTO MY UNACADEMIC PSYCHOANALYSES
t. Irish flag

Economics is only of concern for the enfranchised classes - dirt-eaters like me don't really get any benefit.

Attempted Anglo-Irish Genocide is just a form of suicide.

>Medicine is only of concern for the enfranchised patients - NEETs like me don't really get any benefits from it
kek

>NEET
>communist who wants to genocide successful people because they're successful and not lazy fuckboys like him
into the gas chamber you go!

ITT niggas who never read Spengler's Prussendom and Socialism.

>tl;dr: Marx poisoned the very white and very European ideal of socialism with hebraic and utilitarian concepts that he passed off as "universals" using shitty Hegelian logic.

internationalism is my biggest problem

Worse, I'm what you might call an illegalist.

I believe that criminal activity is a natural part of the social ecosystem, and that when the underclass grows unchecked due to systemic inequality, that the concurrent revolution is a natural levelling process.

I could kill you like an animal for your house and your car and think it a fine thing.

A useful perspective for our uncertain age, no?

Crisis ,hunger, deaths, shit services, No Freedom and etc.
just with 13 years of a ligth socialism Brazil shit was multiplied by 100, you are spaniard i think you can read about Venezuela and others south americans countrys who falled for the socialist meme way to the gommunism my hermano.

who cares what you think? you're a NEET who shills for /leftypol/, and is probably socially inept. You have less influence than even a McDonald's wageslave.

pic related, hahahah bet you and all of your "comrades" are ugly permavirgins!

It doesn't mean what you think it does.

Read the manifesto.
Read the point about abolishing the family unit.

Wtf is "light socialism"?

what's right