Why can't communists define communism?

...

because they're idiots

/thread. That was quick.

Because they have their own specific brand of communism which only exists in their head and they're constantly moving back the goalpost

Basically this, but not only this.
The "crafty" communists -- those who aren't completely retarded useful idiots or violent thugs who just want to steal capital from the capitalists -- are slippery, slimy eels; impossible to pin down. Much like Jews. You can't get them to admit to any single downside to communism, and if you do, the very next day they will carry on with the same retarded arguments.

The reason why you can't pin them down is that most of them are too cowardly to say that they want to openly kill you in the streets to steal your wealth, even if you are as poor as they are, so they will dissemble and slither like snakes.

They can't see the forest, because of all the trees

Forced collective ownership of the means of production.

What does this ownership consist of?

What do you mean, specifically and concretely, by the means of production?

It's called Praxis, keep the revolution going no matter what, because it's the state of revolution that matters, not the result per se.

because if they do they have to stop working behind the shadows like rats

Well you certainly know a lot about rats, Pablo.

Daily reminder that to BTFO a communist, you literally need to just ask 1-2 questions to destroy their shitty meme definitions LOL

>Praxis
These american retards here don't know what that means

You'll have to explain to them.

Whatever, a monkey's word is worth nothing to the average americunt Sup Forumsack, remember, english speaking countries do not get second language IQ filtered to get here, and the ones worth explaining it for will search and find out for themselves

Based chile.
Its so weird how people who have absolutely no qualifications or experience will advocate for a system that has failed again and again.
Funnily enough they advocate for a system that would have them executed for being discontent with it.

How is a state of constant revolution any good at all? Do communists want unending waves after waves of people being murdered by their fellow communists because they think the wrong thoughts? Or is it a communo-puritan lifestyle they are after?

I'll answer with a riddle: what good are revolutionaries for after the revolution ends?

This is what communism means.

...

Factories and such are owned by the workers. They elect supervisors and managers.

First you must understand that there is a difference between marxism-leninism and all offshoots, which are revolutionary brands of radical socialism, and actual Communism.

The former is -supposed- to lead to the latter. Obviously this doesn't happen because the latter is a bunch of nonsense.

True Communism is supposed to be a stateless, currency-less society in which everyone naturally cooperates and provides goods and services to each other if they feel like it (which they would of course, in the Communist's mind, because everyone is naturally a good hard-working person and nice, right?) and also if you don't feel like it, you can engage in "leisure time" and not do anything, and maybe make art or write books or some shit like that. It's stupid. Actual Communism is supposed to be very similar to vanilla anarchism. Literally communes.

GULLIBLE U L L I B L E

Because they wouldn't be able to keep changing the rules. Communism has never been the same anywhere. All it is is a political tool for corrupt tyrants to brainwash, slaughter and control the masses while making as much money as possible for the central power players.

You don't own shit when you're always under the ever watchful eye and a moment's notice from being whisked off to some fucking gulag in the furthest corner of a Peter Jackson movie.

>G U L A G
>U
>L
>A
>G

I will leave you faggots with two paths to enlightenment in this matter: search for the meaning of 'Praxis' and look at every radical political theory under the scope of the 'Revolutionary mindset'. Glue those two together and the world starts to make sense.

Then some neighbouring commies decide that your supervisors and managers exert too much control over your factory and decide that it belongs to the community and that they should have full access to the means of production. Don't like it? Either move aside or get stoned to death. Who's going to stop them? Not the state, certainly.

Dude please just do some copypasta redpilling. You wanna drop some redpills; we wanna read some redpills. Just do it and I'll give you a crisp fiver.

To add to this: It is ironic that Communists are correct that "true Communism has never been tried". The reason is that it can't be tried. It's literally impossible to implement because it's such a convoluted theory that is entirely out of touch with reality and the nature of man.

It's sheltered man-child: the political/economic theory.

two reasons. Either they don't' know what it actually is, or they just don't' want to TELL you what it is because they know it's absolute shit and impossible to defend against even the most mild of criticism.

This board is already similar enough to Sup Forums without faggots creating Sup Forums meme threads on here. What's next, a "political views you shouldn't share" thread? Fuck off.

The same reason they don't like contracts.

t. pinko

Because its marxist hogwash.

No, I'm not a fucking communist/socialist/whatever the hell else those lefty tards are. This is a Sup Forums meme thread slightly changed up posted on Sup Forums, just like the goddamn ylyl cancer that's been getting posted on here recently. You faggot election newfags are ruining this board.

This

Been here 9 years and communists still can't answer a few simple questions. :^)

...

If they aren't producing in my factory, they can go fuck themselves. The workers should own the means of production.

Because...

The means of production is the infrastructure and machinery needed to produce a particular good. For instance, steel mills, machining shops, assembly lines, etc. This term of course makes the most sense in the context of the industrial age in which Marx wrote.

The primary reasoning behind the idea of collective ownership of the means of production was that at the time and up until the early 1970's the work force needed to be fairly skilled to use these means. As such, the idea was that the worker were voluntarily submitting themselves to collective exploitation and even death in many cases (due to accidents and overwork) to enrich someone else disproportionately. As a result after hundred of strikes and worker movements, the workers gained adequate work conditions and compensation. However, during the 1970's as mechanization and globalization began to take hold in manufacturing the power Marx believed workers had in perpetuity began to shift to the owner. Thus workers in the US began to lose their jobs and the industries that had negotiated permanent benefits with their workers began to decline ( as we seen with the auto industry).

Thus we live in a post industrial society that see the owner class as being the only viable to class to be apart of. This is because there is very little a human can do that machines cannot do better or that cannot be outsourced to humans who are drone like in their precision. Understand when I say owner class I mean people who own stock in companies or are developers of the company. Consider Silicon Valley and its benefits packages, which often include stock in the company. Also consider the google model which is predicated on the idea that its workers develop new technologies in their free time.

Marx could not of fully predicted the rapid acceleration of technology or the changing need of individuals. Even the most humble farmer of any real success rely of various technologies to ensure optimal yields.

Whoa, suddenly it is your factory? Tsk, tsk, sounds like greedy capitalist pig that wants to destabilize the communal paradise where everybody owns everything.
And you little sunshines think you would not be the ones with a bullet in your skulls in glorious communism.

cont.

Given that such incredible efficiency is now possible, be it through a drone line peasant class and/or the wide availability of mechanization, it makes it necessary to begin thinking about what people really should be doing. Manufacturing in this country, even if all of it returned, is well beyond what Marx could of imagined and in no way could ever benefit the average American as it did in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. So what is the average American in the midwest really to do?

Consider the idea that if the owner class is the only class the truly exists, then that means that anyone who cannot create something of use is ultimately a nonperson. Hence, we have an explosion of people who are essentially fighting over the crumbs left by the pre-global industrial generations. People who try to become drivers, bar tenders, waiters, and warehouse workers. Yet, within 30 years even jobs like these will begin to decline. The truth is that Marx and communism are entirely irrelevant, because the worker no longer exists. What is left are people who essentially are borrowing money from the owner class to do things that have no adequately been mechanized. The grand irony is that Trump's America will accelerate this process, leading to teachers, doctors, and even engineers becoming replaced by the technologies of the innovators to come. Safety will be of no concern because of massive deregulation. We truly live in the second gilded age, one that will be lead by both old money and the speculators who will seek to thrive in this new world. I hope all of you are ready. This will be social darwinism at its finest.

It belongs to me and everyone else who works there. Don't put words in my mouth, asshole.

You're completely missing the point. The next group of communists is going to take it from you and shoot you in the head because you exert too much control for their liking. That is what communists intend to do.

>communism won't work because communists r DUM!!1!

If they say things like 'Labor has inherent value' then yes, they are dumb.