Daily reminder

Real communism hasn't been tried yet.

And it never will be

fpbp

spbp

...

yes, by your pilgrims or settlers or whatever you are celebrating this week you retard

If real communism is so great why hasn't it been tried yet

Pre-colonial native American tribes were communist.

Almost all ancient hunter-gatherer tribes were communist.

Most of Sup Forums doesn't know what communism is.

In a communist society there is no money or government. Ironically Sup Forums thinks communism = overbearing government that spreads the money equally, when the reality is that IF THERE'S A GOVERNMENT OR MONEY, IT'S NOT COMMUNIST.

because whenever they try to make real communism, they end up with fake communism.

It is a mystery.

Indeed never tried yet.

Native Americans
>practiced communism
>not smart enough to even invent the wheel
>handily conquered by outsiders

daily reminder that Communism doesn't work because of human nature. same with identity politics

Yeah interestingly enough these practices were eradicated when people settled, separation of labour occurred and money was invented.
Supply and demand is still the greatest thing humans understood. Marx thought of the evolution of society breaking free of it but it just doesn't work. It's deeply flawed in the first notion of that.

Both shit

Fascism has been tried and has worked before communist jews and capitalist jews took it out. Why not try what worked?

>IF THERE'S A GOVERNMENT OR MONEY, IT'S NOT COMMUNIST.

Then communism doesn't and can't exist within human societies.

What is "government"? It's a person or persons making decisions on behalf of the people/community. Even ancient hunter/gatherer tribes and native American tribes were not purely communist.

It simply is not an ideal that can exist. Leaders will always emerge to make decisions on behalf of the pack. It is human nature. This behavior emerges from the smallest level(family unit) to the very top(Presidents and those ranking below them). Hierarchy is present in all facets of society. Therefore, communism is not possible.

>no money
>no government

Who will lead? Its human nature and animal nature that in a group you will always end up with a leader.Then that leader unloads some of the work of leading the masses onto his close friends aaaand boom you have a governmental situation.

>no money


Let me guess you dont work and have no money, so you jelly? Why is it these fucking idiot kids who dont work or have shitty jobs cause they never tried to be successful always spout the whole '' we dont need money mayn'' meme, all because they dont have any?

dqdɟ

/thread

Communism in such a large and diverse economy as most modern nation-states have would necessitate a very large and active government to oversee it. Of course tiny communities can manage communism just fine, it just becomes much more complicated when they need to be bringing in resources from all over the world that can only be processed in certain areas, etc.

You lying shill
>>conquered
More like: Sorry we gave you the american version or the black plague
>>didn't invent the wheel
Still built canoes

>faggot implying communism have ever been tried
>shows examples of Leninism and Stalinism.

Communism is too idealistic to be achievable. The scandinavian economic models are probably the closest achievable alternative.

...

Communism is shit, but I hope you guys can realize capitalism isn't perfect either.

...

Even abos made canoes.

...

Duh.

Because it cannot even work in theory much less in practice.

>freikorps
>social democrats killed Rosa

what did he mean by this?

That's because real communism is only possible on paper
you dumb nigger motherfucker

...

Human nature, or kike nature?

I think you meant anarchy, not communism.

...

The Freikorps were given the blessing to quell the revolution(as well as a good amount of money) by the head of the German Defense Minister, Gustav Noske, a politician from the SDP.

hah

Came here to post this

Communism isn't shit. How is the practice of giving what you don't need and receiving what you do is shit?

No no no, we all know what communism is supposed to be. What actually matters is whether communism will work on the scale of a country as big as Canada or the US, which it won't.

Communism only functions, you know, within a community.

Who built the machine?

this guy.

The only place I have ever seen Communism work is on a Minecraft server.

accurate

>Durruti
>Socialism

Neither has real magic.

All that failure in one post.

You have to go back

These people are fucking retarded. So long as there's a place where you can vent your opinion without being banned they will never win.

...

FPBP

...

>venezuela
>cuba
>USSR
>Laos
>North Korea
>Vietnam
>China
The only successful ones are the ones who embrace open markets. That's capitalism winning, and I'm sorry; but it just speaks for itself.

supposed real communism still fails in comparison to a semi regulated capitalist system

/std::thread

...

fpbp

>human nature necessitates a leader
Wrong.
epic meme
truly le ebin post XD
>le everyone i dont le like is le rebbit meme le XDD!!!
>Venezuela
>North Korea
>communist

yep look up history of Jamestown. Colonists ran it as a purely communist society, with no big government bullshit to oppress people. They ran the place into the ground within 10 years because nobody did any fucking work so they starved themselves out

Neither had feminist snow plowing until sweden tried it.
You really wanna be the guinea pig?

The communist manifesto mandates that the communist party forms a dictatorship for the purpose of purifying the revolution (rein of terror style) so that a stateless society is possible at the end. To understand why this doesn't work, simply ask yourself "why can't I just kill everyone who's unhappy until everyone is happy?"

It's amusing the anal pain this pic causes in leftards.

Jamestown colony. Nobody tried to stop them. Starved out in under 5 years and the last survivors were eating shoes and mice.

>

The Communist Manifesto never mentioned dictatorship last time I checked. As for the reign of terror, you're just pulling that out of your ass. That's not even hinted at in the Manifesto.

It's not even possible on paper.

Providing for everyone's needs, means they don't 'need' to provide for themselves and so there is a disincentive to work and provide for others. It removes the basic survival instinct.

When 50% of the population demand more than they produce the whole system comes crashing down.

Coincidentally, we are at that point now in most western countries with social welfare programs. Women pay no net tax over their lifetime.

Because if you receive what you need, then you don't 'need' to work and will produce nothing. So there will be nothing to give to others.

What do you think happens to socialist and communist society when 50% of the people receive more than they produce?

Actually, the nordic economies are closer to a fascist system, but without the nationalism and authoritarianism.

Source?
That's not how the USSR collapsed. No society collapses from one factor.

The lack of nationalism is really what is screwing them, as without it they are allowing muslims to take advantage of a system that was otherwise working just fine.

/thread

Actually no, I'm not pulling it out of my ass. Lenin and the Bolsheviks even built a statue of Robespierre and praised him as a true Bolshevik.

The manifesto calls specifically for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and called for a vanguard party to guide the revolution and assume state power for the proletariat. The book itself is vague and doesn't say what means the "vanguard party" should take in this, but when asked about the revolution in Hungary, Marx said "there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror"

to shorten, simplify and concentrate his words: "fight fire with fire". Since all governments are protected by the threat of violence, then violence is the only way to rid the world of violence.

Any they forget that we don't have attention seeking Points.

If someone disagrees on reddit, the hive mind down votes it, effectively shadow banning the wrong opinions.

On Sup Forums a dissenting opinion attracts more comments, making it more visible.

One person will counter their bullshit with a comment and everyone else will see it and do the same.

It's actually what makes Sup Forums good.

>communism is a money machine
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Of course pure capitalism isn't perfect, but it is efficient. All it needs is to be directed so as to benefit the state. That's where fascism comes in.

> Real communism hasn't been tried yet.
Because it's an utopia you commiefags.

communist societies cannot produce wealth and therefore cannot provide anything for anyone.

It's simple maths. When 50% of the people demand more than they produce, people starve.

Communism never has and never will work. It would require 100% of the people to voluntarily want to be in that communist community.

This is why all communist countries engage in propaganda and mass murder of anyone that doesn't want to be part of it. It requires 100% compliance.

Since they will never achieve that voluntarily, they violently enforce it.

Communism is terrible on paper, terrible in theory and terrible in practice.

The Manifesto doesn't mention dictatorship or a vanguard party. That came with Lenin. The quote about terror is taken out of context.

You provided no source and made a bunch of bullshit blanket statements.

>councils of elders
>tribal leaders
>"no government"

Turn off your proxy leaf

How about this, show us a single example of a successful communist society, and we'll talk about it.

I've asked the following in a thread yesterday/a few days ago.

Before I ask, let me use the following definition of communism: the common ownership of means of production.

Following this definition, I must ask:

1) What does "common ownership mean"? How "common" is it? Because means of production can be organized on a property level. Does ownership extend nationally, over the whole national territory? Or does it extend to factories/whatever?

2) How are production decisions made (what to produce, what inputs to use, how much of each input, how much to produce, etc.)? If we assume a national scale of ownership and a national scale of decision (central planning), then why would a democratically-elected government not be a legitimate decision-maker?

When collective ownership is restricted to factories it makes more sense (the cooperative model), but it makes more sense because it can be perfectly explained over a private-property system. A free market has no problem with workers organizing themselves and forming cooperatives, as long as the workers collectively own the property. The "abolition of private property" though fucks with any form of production that comes from voluntary transactions between private property owners.

>communism means a stateless, classless, moneyless society
This is what people mean with the "communism has never been tried". Not that there haven't been people who wanted to achieve that

Rojava or Seychelles.

Reminder, there is a reddit invasion going on
Sage goes in options and report obvious troll/shill threads.

Rojava:
>Has only existed for 3 years so far, not long enough to collapse
>Has already elected a government, making it not communist

Seychelles
>Is a presidential republic, and thus not communist