Name one reason why communism can't work under competent leadership

Name one reason why communism can't work under competent leadership

...

niggers

Competent people aren't Communists. Communism appeals to the insecure and useless people who want to 'get back' at those they have perceived to have wronged them.

People aren't equal

>communist leadership
>competent

Pick one.

This

So obvious

Eventually people are going to stop cooperating if you hold everyone else back for the sake of the lowest common denominator.

Name one reason a lobotomy wouldn't increase IQ if performed by the right surgeon.

Name a single country with a competent leader.

Don't give me this trump bullshit he's a kike lover. All 'leaders' of the world are overshadowed by their fellow kike masters. The system is designed to weed out all competent goym.

Because humans aren't inherently communist.

The competent leadership will have to cull rebels.

If you full your population, it doesn't work (I think)

How can a stateless ideology have leadership?

Everyone dies, including competent leaders.

competency is not morality

Because you need an unbroken chain of perfectly competent leadership and even just one misstep from that will mean the immediate doom of the system.

It's like all those stories where evil can never truly be defeated - it's not a question of if it will win but only when.

Communism can't work because it needs a socialist revolution before the communism take place, and a socialism system is very dependent on State and burocracy and government rules, while communism is the opposite of it. So it's very unlikely that a society who needs and likes the government changes itself in a world without state where everyone live in peace and stuff

...

Any system of government can survive a competent leader, the good systems are designed for what the vast majority of people are, unremarkable retards.

There's no such thing as a competent leader. Humans are greedy and shitty.

/thread
Never happened, never will.

Human nature.

The initiation of force upon someone is the ultimate immorality. That includes the government sending men to my house and taking me to jail if I don't give them money so that they can distribute it amongst the bottom half of society where I will gain nothing. I would even argue that most people don't actually have a problem with their money going to help others, but ONLY IF IT'S THEIR DECISION, it's immoral to force people to spend time they can't get back to earn money that they will never benefit from. Humans get a bad taste in their mouth about doing something because they are forced to, even if they would do it otherwise. Example: most people would be happier giving $100 to a friend in need than the government taking the $100 by force and probably not giving it to your friend. Taxes are a necessary evil, but they should only go towards the government doing the only jobs it should: protect its citizens from physical violence, destruction of property, breech of contract, theft, etc.