Why doesnt communism work?

Why doesnt communism work?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8
youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ
youtube.com/watch?v=jWSxev7eJvs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bamp

Because the idea that no matter how hard you try you'll never rise in hierarchy is pretty discouraging. Plus economy doesn't work and dictatorships and shit

It goes against human nature, we are naturally tribalistic and goal reaching creatures, so take away anything to unite us as a culture and any incentives for work and the society just won't continue to function.

The little commie Russian grill a cute. A CUTE

People naturally prefer to keep what they own instead of put it into some communal stockpile. People just won't sacrifice their own interests in the name of the greater good.

Because controlled markets are never optimized and no one has incentive to optimize them

Socialism without coercion doesn't work because socialists don't work without coercion

- Elementary Economics

Becouse a fucking 5 year old can debunk Marx's economic theory

It's extremely difficult to motivate people to do anything when they don't receive any benefit from doing so.

Why would a farmer put in the effort to produce excess grain when the government will always take his excess?

I've thought about this a lot; I discussed it over and over when I was in the Peace Corps in Moldova.

Short answer: because people will be lazy when they can neither be punished nor truly rewarded for the quality of their work or the amount of productivity. Also, the arbitrary nature of Government attention/punishment under Communism just pisses people off and depresses them.

Intellectuals

The college educated and upper class try to lead the workers for a revolution to empower the lower classes, even those these intellectuals never worked a hard job in their life.

Then they try to convince the people that things such as religion or pride in one's culture are unnecessary and enemies of the state, even those these things are quite important to the working class and keep them satiated and productive.

Thus, Communism is just a way for the upper class to convince the lower classes to destroy the things they love and collapse society as a whole.

The only example of communism actually working were the kibbutz communes in Israel before it became an official state. Everyone in these small communities had to contribute to the whole and work, they were united and strengthened by religion and culture, and since there was no greater government system to tell them what to do and take away their money to waste on bullshit, the money literally did go straight to the workers and farmers and small community they lived in instead of a bloated, out of touch, and dictatorial state.

OH! And the fucking CORRUPTION! In Moldova, you have to bribe EVERYBODY to get ANYTHING. I mean EVERYTHING. Broken sidewalk? Bribe. Passport problem? Bribe. Need a shot of penicillin? BRIBE. Common problem in Communist regimes (and their aftermath).

Translation of a Moldovan joke:

Why did your daughter girl get electrocuted?
Because there was a short in the pool lights.
Why was there a short in the pool lights?
Because I didn't have enough money to bribe the electrician.
Why didn't you have enough to bribe the electrician?
Because Ms. Smith didn't have enough to bribe me for repairing her stoop.

This is very simplified but here's an example

In Cuba after the revolution a surgeon made the same amount of money as a cane cutter

Why should I go through all that extra education and work a job where I am under pressure to save lives when I could just drop out of school and cut sugar cane for the exact same pay and living conditions?

Therefore there is no real incentive for people to become surgeons

OP, this. Marx was an intellectual NEET mind you.

CIA coups

I think communism can work with a small, agricultural community. Anything larger than a town and you'll have gulags.

>these intellectuals never worked a hard job in their life.
what kind of bullshit conjecture is that? how do you know intellectuals can't be hard workers?

fuck your anti-intellectualism

because we are humans not robots.

>can
Has and does. Small scale communist communes already exist.

It's just a matter of figuring out how to upscale.

...

Jewish scam to give Jews total control

plz no contra financerino

those who run the government are always more equal than everyone else

because its poorly thought out, its basically philosophy tier. Much like religion and other things do not really work with reality. Pretty much all *isms fall short of reality.

You want to know why the law books are so thick? Why we have so many regulations for our environments? Because every single law, every single object, thing or system interacts with small things, big things and then these small and big things have small and big effects on other things. Since we have destroyed a lot of nature, there is a smaller buffer of "non human things that reset after a while, kinda" meaning that you need thicker and thicker scripts on the various things that interact with the other various things, which make up a society. From industrial levels, to science, to politics and police forces. Everything is extremely complicated, barely even 2% of it all is even covered by any dumb political system. Nearly 98% has to be done on the fly, or is in shaky grounds where neither science, nor reason has managed to penetrate to but some placeholder was put there because lol it explodes otherwise.

thats why

>It's just a matter of figuring out how to upscale.
You don't. Humans aren't naturally inclined to larger societies. Smaller communist-like communities are the closest to "natural" humans imo. Larger communities require more complex hierarchies to function.

it's incredibly how someone can type so many words but not state a single coherent thought or idea

Because not all people are equal,and even if they where there would always be people who think they are better than others.

>Humans aren't naturally inclined to larger societies.
Is that why people constantly moved to cities even though they were gigantic death traps?

Not enough anime girls in positions of leadership.

Cities aren't built by anarcho-communist societies.

Governments don't usually work as well as people tend to believe. The stronger the government, the more sociopaths it will gather and they'll love the chance to get rich at the cost of everyone else's tax money.
Turns out communists aren't fond of freedom.
Why take the chance? Unless you want to become a commissar of the party yourself, you're probably going to get fucked in some way or another.

Sorry Katyusha, but papa Stalin was a cunt.
>inb4 but who was roads xD

It needs to be tried harder

Thats because you are too stupid to not see how everything is interwoven and connected with one another. If you even had the slightest idea how industry and regulation interacts with one another...oh god. Do you think that the law books on pollution, on chemical storage are a joke? Have you got even the slightest of clues on how society works?

Simply put, society has so many moving parts, its a huge, gigantic script, extremely complicated. And most things do not follow somekind of "natural" reasoning that either right wing people or left wing people have. Because the regulations are tied to formula, they are math, they are scientific studies, they are economic strategies. They are immensely complicated and you basically should kill yourself you faget.

out of the pie of human knowledge, you barely even know 1% off.

Because it's an ideology. Ideologies always fail in the long run. The only way to effectively manage a society is with CULTURE, not ideology.

It does, too bad it has never been tried before

Because they never get past the socialism stage of central government?

People are greedy.

People don't want to go to university for 10 years to become a doctor when a janitor makes the same.

There will be no competetive market where the best and cheapest product is what is bought.

Its not a system built to get the most out of human nature.

Short answer? Niggers.

So communism only works when it's small communities and/or extremely small government?

Because the faggots who ponder on it think that images of some vaguely russian loli from some shitty anime where lolis drive around tanks for sport is a good representation to start a debate about Communism on an image forum.

It does though for certain countries and societies.
Russia before communism: backwards country far behind the West.
Russia after communism: a superpower so powerful that the entire West had to unite to stop it.
China before communism: backwards country raped by literally everyone in the world.
China after communism: rapidly growing country about to become the next superpower.

Because it's a hopelessly Utopian system whose proponents can't even agree on how to implement many of its most basic premises.

It's hilarious watching /leftypol/ types smugly assert that "the theory is SETTLED", and then engage in vicious slapfights and bickering over what "the workers owning the means of production" even entails (a vote by all workers on every matter? a council appointed by the workers? technical experts chosen at the behest of workers)

Still would've done better with fascism though.

Marx says that a communist society should have no state

you can't have equal distribution of wealth without a central authority (aka a state) to distribute it

I've once had a guy on /his/ argue with me that distributism is socialism, despite private property and private ownership of the means of production being widespread under such a system.

Try to explain it again, but this time with a song.

youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8

You know what I can't stand? Those self righteous leftists who think they're justified in killing fascists because it is "self defense". Don't they see how that works in reverse though? You've just declared your intention to overthrow the state and kill fascists, so now we have to kill you in self defense! Tell them this though and they insist that they're just the "poor little innocent communists" who want peace.

Numerous communes in western countries set up by hippies regularly fail, for reasons varying from the failure of communal farming to power struggles.

we can't be sure, it hasn't been tried yet :^)

/THREAD

To be fair you can upscaled societies are certainly possible, but without a fair amount of nationalism and shared culture you're just going to get failure followed by balkanization as shown in previous communist countries. Honestly, systems like fascism and distributism simply handle the problems communism seeks to solve better.

At the cost of tens of millions of the workers they profess to defend in both cases.

Additionally both cases generated profoundly corrupt wealth gobbling oligarthies.

Plus China is capitalist it simply uses the control mechanisms of communism aka single party state and state control of media/propaganda.

These are not success stories, every functioning country is better off now then it was during WW II. This is not a bar for measuring achievement.

It will eventually, just not with the way the world is currently. I think most civilisations in the universe eventually end up with some form of communism as their global political society.

I also think whoever is pulling the strings (Bilderberg meetings etc) is probably planning this outcome, but slowly. You have to slowly remove borders & mix races around the globe to make the transition a smooth one.

So what I said is probably centuries or even millennia away, but it will happen. You wouldn't reach the dyson sphere building galaxy colonising type society without sacrificing the early nationalistic individualistic stuff. The only exception would be if one race wiped out or completely subjugated the rest of their species and managed to reach that stage themselves, but that outcome seems highly unlikely with our current global society's conditions.

People need incentives.

I unironically want Star Trek to be real one day.

Yes but Star Trek is science fiction. I'm just talking about the future of our species. It's inevitable we'll look to the stars some day, and whether you or I like it or not, it'll probably be as a globalist society.

How about we have only a couple of allied massive fascist nations instead?

Because it ignores the fact that people in general are very selfish. There is no natural incentive for people to join in on building a communist order when they can't directly personally benefit themselves in any meaningful way even if they perform well. Meanwhile the system usually offers good oportunies for ruthless people to promote themselves as watch dogs of the system and this also provides a strong seedbed for corruption.

It doesn't work when subhumans try to implement it. If Whites did communism it would work

>You wouldn't reach the dyson sphere building galaxy colonising type society without sacrificing the early nationalistic individualistic stuff
Quite the opposite, you can't get rid of the individualistic stuff without emphasizing the nationalism. Unless we discover aliens, people aren't going to go through great personal sacrifice for "humanity" as a whole, there needs to be an in group and out group that we can relate to.

>it'll probably be as a globalist society.
Let's be honest here, our attempts to spread to Mars and any planets beyond that will be nationalistic attempts at colonizing. Any rebellions or breakaways will be nationalistic attempts at independence. Nationalism will increase if anything.

>I think most civilisations in the universe eventually end up with some form of communism as their global political society.
I don't really think so. Sure, automation will change society, but systems like the UBI, fascism, and distributism are all capable of handling that rise of automation in their own way. We'll likely see a new ideological conflict similar to the cold war over how to deal with automation, but people aren't just going to arrive at communism necessarily.

It does not scale.

Communism only works at a very small and transparent scale.

A small group can see that everyone is working together and benefiting equally. Any abuses can be dealt with.

It still will have problems as greed is a part of the human condition. The greedy will want more than their share and either seek ways to get it improperly or leave for better opportunities.

That leaves communism full of unmotivated unskilled masses that are satisfied to merely get by.

because communists don't work

Communism is just as, if not more, coercive than our present system. Unless of course, you are NOT going to stop myself and a few friends from exchanging currency to pay for services and acquiring assets which we then claim as our own.

Except if you allow that, we are operating outside of the commune, and you have to use the threat of force to maintain your own order to things. It lacks freedom.

Also, even in socialist countries -Sweden comes to mind- we see the government admitting that they are trying to push further out the age at which people are permitted to retire, or 'able' to retire. It effectively enslaves everyone.

I might not become as rich as Peter Schiff, but I know I have the capability to become less poor based on my own work. Some will argue this, but it is true. I moved to a fairly insular community with an average economy right before turning 18. Had horid social anxiety and depression, both of which I still fight.

But without medication, and without grants or scholarships, and without any community connections -in fact, being from California, I was initially hated by 90% of the people here- I was able to find a job, gain skills, get a few college courses, and improve my social abilities. I now live quite comfortably, and I can invest my money to earn more.

Which leads to a point I've been trying to drive lately: Purchasing stock is the same as owning the means of production. It's not like it's all locked away behind some mysterious door labeled 'CAPITALISM! KEEP OUT!'.

Go ahead and institute communism though and watch folks like me intentionally do as little as possible, as poorly as possible. I will have no incentive to work hard, and every incentive to undermine you. I don't give a shit about Fred in New York or what his problems are. Actually, I hate Fred, because his entire lifestyle is different than mine but he is adamant -through voting and politics- that I must also live as he does. Why would I want to help an enemy?

Communism is bread, capitalism is cake. People want cake, even if they need bread.

Communism could be cake too if we didnt have 8 billion people on the planet.

because no tribe is classless

I think you have it backwards there friend, sure under capitalism the poor get bread and the rich get cake, but under communism you didn't get the bread or cake.

/thread

That sounds more like fascism. Name me one non fascist communist government to ever have existed. No one's tried it. But it's happening in Europe, slowly. We're at democratic socialism currently but it's heading fast torwards communism. And it's sort of working. The universal basic income will be in every Western country within our lifetimes. Humans will no longer be forced to wageslave and do menial tasks to lead an interesting existence.

because deep down most of us don't want to work and only do so to get stuff we want. working a harder job that pays the same as an easy won would also be stupid and while you can "destroy" class when it comes to workers you will still have social class and various other manifestations of power because power is never destroyed, it only changes form and hands.

It's impossible for a stateless society to exist for very long without interference from outside state actors. Take Anarchist Aragon or Revolutionary Catalonia as examples of short-lived versions.

Because of this, the idea of a vanguard regime or state capitalism as a transition government became popular for some communist thinkers (Lenin), even though it runs counter to the communist goal of stateless society and other communists opposed the idea as self-defeating (Trotsky). As we know, Trotsky was right in that the transition regime never enters the "Withering Away of the State" phase, because absolute power corrupts and all.

Because the only incentive to even complete your assigned tasks is you don't want a bullet in the head. Don't even think about excellence.

because the people who run it take all the wealth

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

There has never been a communist society, but there has been numerous attempts at communism, all of which have regressed into totalitarian socialism.

Also, why do socialists treat automation as if it is the messiah that will finally make socialism possible?

Mixed economies, distributism, and fascism are all perfectly capable of dealing with rising automation. In fact fascism and distributism actually bother to deal with the cultural issues that would arise from automation, whereas socialism and mixed economies don't even attempt to deal with those problems. So why do the leftists think automation will always lead to communism?

I should probably add a couple notes to this because it seems a lot of people ITT are unaware.

Communism is stateless.

None of the vanguard regime or state capitalist transition governments ever claimed to achieve communism (USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, et al). They never entered the "Withering Away of the State" phase.

so it's just anarchy for hippies?

please don't bully
youtube.com/watch?v=jWSxev7eJvs

Anarchists are leftists. Anarchism was synonymous with the socialist/communist movement up until a few American intellectuals redefined the term during the Cold War.

Pic related, the first anarchist (Proudhon) corresponded with Karl Marx often before Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. They shared the same notions of abolishing private ownership rights and replacing with stateless collectivism similar to how most societies and tribal communities lived before the state was established.

Well said.

But I'm thinking of terms how you destroy Communism, just like with Anarchy you can just create some kind of mafia that can hijack any stateless society, because a classless society without a power hiearchy can't defend itself.

You just described the dilemma of communism in a nutshell.

I personally think it's very unrealistic for this exact reason.

This is why some communist thinkers proposed a "vanguard regime" or state capitalist transition government to take control and initiate the transition. This is also why they viewed communism as only achievable if there is a worldwide revolution that upends all capitalist governments. Marx himself thought communism would not be achieved for several centuries.

Their argument for the inevitable downfall of capitalism is somewhat compelling, that capitalism relies on endless growth and unlimited resources in and limited world. I do think another system will eventually replace capitalism, probably not communism and likely not for centuries to come.

I want to be Georgian so bad. Is it nice where you are?

Step 1: Kill the intelligentsia and the successful

I think distributism is pretty legit as a replacement system, as is fascism once the taboo against it goes away.

>you pretend to pay me
>I pretend to work

>somewhat compelling

It's really not.

In terms of physical resources, we are not bound to earth, mining the moon and asteroids is doable by the time resources on the earth become a real problem.

More importantly creativity and innovation is by no means finite and a lot of the "products" in a technological world are service based, therefore don't require additional physical resources the same way physical products do.

Labor has value.
Plus people are not naturally equal. Communism assumes everybody is equal. Some people are natural born peasants others are natural born kings. In a communist society the peasent and the king get the same thing so why should the king act like a king instead of acting like a peasant to get off easy?
In capitalism the king will naturally rise to the top or fail. Everybody will reach their full potential in life. Communist seem to be dissatisfied that a lot of peoples full potential is being a peasant but thats just nature.

Its not possible. Nobody can stop me from capitalizing and anyone who could wouldn't because they would also be able to capitalize on my capitalizing.

>Doesn't know what Labor Theory of Value is

Marx actually used Adam Smith's Labor Theory of Value. The idea behind communism is that labor value should be rewarded fairly, not equally.

It attempted to solve what communists perceived as a flaw of capitalism: that landlords, bankers and shareholders can be rewarded for the labor of others while sitting back.

You are just retarded. There is no reason fascism can't be capitalist. You are confusing economies with government.

Yeah no shit, which is exactly why I wrote this Don't confuse my understanding of the ideology as support for it.

A little bit of this but mostly, work and the value of things are subjective.

Some would consider teaching music as a harder thing to do than farming, others would say the opposite.

If someone gets sick often, should they pay him the same? This is also subjective

Katyusha is my waifu desu

/thread

>that landlords and shareholders can be rewarded for the labor of others while sitting back.
There is literally nothing wrong with that.

Fascism is corporatist, which like distributism is capitalist, but sort of rearranged in a certain way.

Get off the proxy you fucking tripfag.

Those landlords, bankers and shareholders are assuming risk.

Or would you be okay with paying a fee out of your paycheck whenever something bad happens to the company you work in?