Why can't Communism provide an average quality of life on par with Capitalism?

Why can't Communism provide an average quality of life on par with Capitalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

thecommentator.com/article/646/does_socialism_work_a_classroom_experiment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism
mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited
taxhavens.biz/other_tax_havens/tax_haven_seychelles/
google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:CUB:CHL&ifdim=region&tdim=true&tstart=-312051600000&tend=1423638000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

because "duh 1%" has absolute control, instead of just 90% control.

>Why can't Communism provide an average quality of life on par with Capitalism?
it does, the greedy people in charge live great lives while the poor schmucks starving to death live worse ones

capitalism just has less extremes

>giving control to a bunch of people who have no idea what they are doing

china has a star on their flag for the "peasant" class. what's that supposed to mean?

Depends which countries you're comparing. While Ceausescu's Romania in 1988 was much worse off than Sweden or France, Cuba or Hoxha-era Albania were/are much, much, much better than places like Haiti or 1980s El Salvador. You just never hear that.

So communism cannot excel until the entire world is communist? Sounds gay. If it were the best system then it would be the naturally selected system.

A professor did an experiment with this concept a while back. I dread of income he averaged the classes grades... The resulting average grade meant everyone in the class received an F.

thecommentator.com/article/646/does_socialism_work_a_classroom_experiment

I never said that.
That experiment sounds like a fucking meme.

Yeah, it seems more like a big scheme to trick gullible people into handing over control to a clever, charismatic, yet incompetent few, rather than just allowing nature to duke it out in the arena of natural selection

Competition is the natural order of living things - a constant struggle for resources and mating.

Free enterprise in a market system is natural offshoot of that basic fact. The incentive to work hard and I get new and better things is that success will give one more resources and increase one's mating fitness.

Communism takes away that incentive. You're supposed to work for the greater good of a bunch of worthless retards who would and should fall behind.

a free market will always incentivize the provision of resources and services better than a bureaucracy could ever hope to achieve

anything but a free society will always become needlessly bogged by regulation

communism is utopia and has always been a total fail

sweden and france had lots of money to burn on an experiment though, right?

cuba was basically given all the assistance of the soviet union in order to put communism on the doorstep of the usa, and get the vanguard to pop off (but they had bad intelligence on that, it will never happen in the usa, the status quo is just too good, especially in comparison).

it cost relatively little to set up a communist shop on a couple of tiny carribean islands with small populations. sort of a model house of communism, if you will. but, if nobody cooperates with the communists, they shrivel up and die. they can only proliferate by bringing the rest of the world down to their level, the "F" grade of that experiment.

soviet scientific advancement had nothing to do with the communist government, they had a track record going back hundreds of years already of producing some of the most influential scientific minds in history, especially in mathematics.

What a stupid response.

More or less. Socialism/communism can't be imposed without big brother government to enforce it. So realistically, it makes 'everyone equal' with the exception of the enforcers, who in many cases historically decide that what's good for the state is good for the public, thereby making the assumption that lowering the quality of living for the public is good for the public. Just like all liberal bullshit, a lot of beautiful utopian ideology with zero sense of practicality or consequence.

>Socialism/communism can't be imposed without big brother government to enforce it.
Objectively false.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism
>So realistically, it makes 'everyone equal' with the exception of the enforcers, who in many cases historically decide that what's good for the state is good for the public, thereby making the assumption that lowering the quality of living for the public is good for the public.
Even the fucking Soviet Union had rising living standards. Nice revisionism.

They have a lot of faith in the system, even though it's always fucking them over, from my perspective.

I had the pleasure of speaking with someone who was in on the ground floor of a revolution and he said that marxism is like their religion. It's what they believe. He even said other people have Christianity, or Buddhism, but communists have Marxism. He's almost 100 years old.

It's weird because they wanted to get rid of the elite, but then they create a bureaucratic elite. They swap out the businessmen with farmers. I still don't understand it.

>Even the fucking Soviet Union had rising living standards.
when millions of people starve to death or get thrown in prison for life, things do tend to improve for the remaining population because there's more stuff to give them

>rising living standards

famine to subsistence is a rise, yes, but you are conflating two very different realities.

comparing the UK to the USA is valid, but comparing anywhere in the USSR to the USA is just ridiculous.

90% of humans want to, and will, work as little as they can to achieve a comfortable level of existence.

If "comfort" is achievable by spending one day a week making coffee, then that's what they'll do.

For example, I'm wholly comfortable in a tiny house with some computer and gun related toys. This lifestyle costs around 30k a year, and I have no idea what to do with money beyond that, so put forth no additional effort beyond that.

If your quality of life is capped, or guaranteed to a minimum level, there is no incentive to work beyond those levels.

That's the primary reason.

Secondly, is that being a believer is more important than being competent to any communist bureaucracy.
This places those who are blind to pragmatism and incompetent in general in higher levels of management than they would normally attain.

So you have broken management dealing with an unmotivated workforce.

You can't get rid of these elements through any means available other than violent repression, which only works for short periods of time before it has diminishing returns, and never matches the productivity of voluntary labor.

You can see "communism" "working" in minuscule examples such as Co-op businesses or communes, because they have the ability to be selective and allow only competent believers, or competent but willing to play along non-believers into their society.

It's a collectivist ideology, like all collectivist ideologies it just isn't compatible with human nature. The individualism and freedom that capitalism provides gives people the freedom to succeed, which is really all you need to give people for them to prosper.

Because there is no accountability... and governments that cannot be held accountable end up becoming authoritarian

>competent but willing to play along non-believers into their society.

that's what most communist governments are doing by hiring foreign workers for important training gigs. i mean yeah, if you're gonna pay 10x the wage of a normal gig in their own country why not, at least for a little while.

The last famine occurred in 1947, and the GULAG camps were mostly closed in the mid 1950s. Secondly, for demographic shifts to even begin impacting the possibility of rising living standards for the survivors, there has to be literal Black Death-tier population loss. The Soviet Union didn't even come close to that.
>If your quality of life is capped, or guaranteed to a minimum level, there is no incentive to work beyond those levels.
Wrong.
>
You can't get rid of these elements through any means available other than violent repression, which only works for short periods of time before it has diminishing returns, and never matches the productivity of voluntary labor.
That's not the reason the Soviet Union had violent repression. The violent repression stemmed from the fact that Stalin was a paranoid nutcase and the single-party system that relied on suppressing dissent.

...

What's the definition of "socialist" being used? This looks like another meme-tier info graphic used to confirm smug preconceptions of the superiority of the capitalist status quo.

>That's not the reason the Soviet Union had violent repression. The violent repression stemmed from the fact that Stalin was a paranoid nutcase and the single-party system that relied on suppressing dissent.
I spose it's just a (((total coincidence))) that all such communist regimes liberally employed violent oppression?

>The last famine occurred in 1947, and the GULAG camps were mostly closed in the mid 1950s.
According to who? This is the regime that literally tried to erase people from history, you expect them to be honest about this sort of stuff?

Economic calculation.

Countries that were under socialist governments previously.

>Communism
This is what I don't get about Sup Forums. The Gulag Archipelago completely destroyed all basis for which communism can be defended upon. Why the fuck are we still talking about it? Every communism thread should just be ended by a single post to a pdf link of the book.

>Objectively false
It's not though. Sweden and some of these socialist European countries with smaller populations and less inequality to begin with. Just give them a few more years. And the Soviet Union has never been balanced and well functioning even In the brief periods that their standard of living was on the rise.

That's interesting user. To me, capitalism is the entire equivalent of economic freedom. It has too many self balancing mechanisms that communism lacks, with the one consequence that unambitious people tend to act as widespread complainers and naysayers, they should be exported to shitty little 3rd world countries where Communism is necessary to survive desu.

>I spose it's just a (((total coincidence))) that all such communist regimes liberally employed violent oppression?
>le (((meme)))
Actually, the vast majority of socialist and Marxist-Leninist countries were/are not much more repressive than most capitalist countries. You just never hear about the ones that don't.
No, according to respected mainstream historians (in the West), confirmed records like the Secret Speech, and leaked documents that the USSR suppressed for decades. You can literally find this on Wikipedia.

>It's not though. Sweden and some of these socialist European countries with smaller populations and less inequality to begin with. Just give them a few more years.
Oh yeah I'm sure Sweden and the other Nordic states will be totalitarian states with GULAG camps and secret police even after being social democracies for several decades already... any day now...
Funny how it conveniently doesn't mention how living standards in some Marxist-Leninist states actually declined significantly after the state collapsed and capitalism came in. What's more, there are some countries (like Angola or Mozambique) that had governments that claimed Marxist-Leninist or socialist inspiration solely to get aid from the USSR while remaining very un-Marxist-Leninist and un-socialist in practice.

>You just never hear about the ones that don't.
Feel free to tell of some of them then, commie.

yeah and sweden is such a great place to live today, so great in fact, that people are just tripping over themselves to get in on the free gibs while the gibbing is good

>Funny how it conveniently doesn't mention how living standards in some Marxist-Leninist states actually declined significantly after the state collapsed and capitalism came in.
That's what happens when your economy collapses. The fact that socialist economies tend to collapse pretty hard isn't an argument against capitalism.

>while remaining very un-Marxist-Leninist and un-socialist in practice.
When socialists are united enough to actually have a "real socialist nation" then we'll talk about whether they are real socialists or not, cause right now even the leftists can't agree on what socialism or communism is.

Also, funnily enough in some ways the nordic countries are even more economically free than America is, and during their greatest period of growth they had a much freer economy than they do today.

Its just some theory a philosopher came up with.
People decided to try to implement it before there was any basis of whether aspects of it would even work.
Capitalism derived from mercantilism which naturally spawned from humans trading with each other.

Pretty much this. Capitalism comes naturally from human nature. Socialism has to be forced at gunpoint, and just doesn't fit right with humanity.

>Its just some theory a philosopher came up with.

yeah, and some thinking, charismatic types created the right narrative that appeals to the commoners in order to rile them up and it sort of achieved it's immediate goals, but the spaghetti fell out of the pockets when suddenly wheat farmers were in charge of geopolitical politics and interfacing with global markets

Communism doesn't strive to provide high quality of life, the idea is that everybody gets the minimum that they need. That was the soviet idea, "we're not living in fancy apartments, in fact we force to people to live in communal flats, but at least there are no homeless"
This was considered an improvement to tzarist times

The problem with (((socialism))) is that you end up running out of others people's money.

I would be pretty fucking mad if I had worked all my life to earn a nice villa, and employ people to maintain the place, only to have a bunch of angry farmers (who I previously employed at a fair wage) come to my house and tell me I have to now work in a shoe factory, give up my house, and land, and turn it over to them so it may be turned into a museum.

It is ironic that the ideology that believes you have the right to your labor the most is actually capitalism, as communism demands that you steal from other's work no matter how much they put in or how much you deserve.

Calm down aussie, I'm speaking from my knowledge of russian revolution, not from a pro-commie perspective. I know very well that communism fucks you up for good, and let me tell you that tzarist Russia had a signifcant amount of rich peasants who had homes made out of stone, these homes got blown up during Civil war and then the reds teached russian children about how tzar oppressed the peasants and they were all poor as fuck, and communists put an end to this injustice

>and let me tell you that tzarist Russia had a signifcant amount of rich peasants who had homes made out of stone, these homes got blown up during Civil war and then the reds teached russian children about how tzar oppressed the peasants and they were all poor as fuck, and communists put an end to this injustice
exact same situation in china, right out of stalin's playbook actually

I hear Hoxha's Albania was better off than post-Hoxha Albania

Because any system of government or economy based on a fundamental immorality (theft) is internally inconsistent and unstable. Eventually the thing will collapse.

Kind of like single mother.

>Karl Marx
>A philosopher

Get the fuck out.

>they should be exported to shitty little 3rd world countries where Communism is necessary to survive desu.

YES! I'll go to the first country that gets rid of these envious fucks, even if I have to cross the ocean on a steamboat!

Every time I hear one of them call successful people evil, I just want to slap them with a copy of Economics 101, or with an Ayn Rand book.

Rojava, Seychelles, Tito's Yugoslavia, etc
Sweden being shitty is a meme.
>Also, funnily enough in some ways the nordic countries are even more economically free than America is, and during their greatest period of growth they had a much freer economy than they do today.
What's funnier is that economic growth in Nordic countries has been aimed to benefit the whole society, while the USA and some other countries have a system aiming to collectivize all the costs of the market while privatizing the benefits.
Epic meme.
Yeah that doesn't really work out in the real world. You can rave about villas and high living standards all you want, but it won't last if you fuck over the majority of the population in getting there.
>as communism demands that you steal from other's work no matter how much they put in or how much you deserve.
Wrong.
In some ways definitely. The "democratic" government that took power in 1992 collapsed in 1997 after an elaborate Ponzi scheme and serious corruption, leading to a civil war that killed thousands.

The specific reason being the knowledge and calculation problems.

Which commies haven't seen to have been able to understand for the last nearly 100 years let alone begin to formulate a real argument against it.
Some have tried but they've failed repeatedly and even their solutions (market socialism) is in of itself a near full concession that yes socialism is impossible and needs market forces to possibly function but we're still going to have central planners manage everything.

mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited

*tips fedora*

Are you dumb or memeing?
It gives power to people only in theory.
It's same 1% as capitalism. That's not the problem.

The only person who can use "Wrong." as a valid rebuttal is President Donald J. Trump, when he's talking to a liberal reporter.

You, and everyone else need to elaborate.

Because human nature is that people will act in their own interests. There is no incentive to work and create when the fruits of your labor are given to the state. Imagine you have a job and you must be there for 8 hours per day. You pretty much can't get fired and you earn the same amount of money whether you work hard or browse the Internet. Human nature is to make yourself as comfortable as possible and just get through the day. This is communism. It is antithetical to human nature. Profit is the incentive that drives industry. Without it, industry is just showing up.

> Sweden being shitty is a meme
Sweden being the greatest country in the world is also a meme by liberals.

Also
> Rojava
> country
Kek

people lose their drive to work if they can't enjoy the fruits of their labor
they turn to black market for extra income and put in all extra energy and effort they can afford

>Wrong.
No it's right.

Reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator isn't helping anybody but those in positions to pilfer from the public coffers.

the problem with communism is that it's impossible to implement in the real world because it glosses over important facets of the human condition, it ignores, or attempts to repress them at it's own peril. people's aspirations, the corruption of leaders, the incompetence of leaders, the slowness of committees incapable of reacting in time to events

means they dont give a shit

>Objectively false
I fail to see how posting wikipedia links of ideologies that THINK it can work, proves that it actually can work

Seychelles is a fucking tax haven, no wonder they're doing okay.
taxhavens.biz/other_tax_havens/tax_haven_seychelles/

Theyuad violent repression before and after Stalin, because theyremoved all normal motivation for labor.

And every single othercommunist nation has relied on violent oppression once the gibs from looting run out.

>You pretty much can't get fired and you earn the same amount of money whether you work hard or browse the Internet. Human nature is to make yourself as comfortable as possible and just get through the day. This is communism. It is antithetical to human nature. Profit is the incentive that drives industry. Without it, industry is just showing up

this.

i saw some guys at work in china once at some low level government social office job, and they were literally playing games on their computer. DoTA or whatever.

>Seychelles
oh you mean the tax haven which is entirely dependent on capitalist market wealth for it's existence?

Because it is Inefficient, unscientific and destroys personal motivations and aspirations.

Cuba was subsidized by the soviet union because of it's geopolitical location

It can. If you were to implement it in a country that isn't underdeveloped

lol and then what? we already had this discussion, it's called your country and sweden. it's a bubble, a very dirty bubble

I'd like to see a commie defend this
google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:CUB:CHL&ifdim=region&tdim=true&tstart=-312051600000&tend=1423638000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

Because capitalists export their suffering to poorer nations, and when those people start to demand workers rights the cheap goods that capitalists laud as signs of their success and will skyrocket in price.

Cuba prior to the revolution was booming.

Because the 3 driving forces of civilization are attrition, selfishness, and competition. You take out competition and force people to be selfless instead of selfish which is against human nature, and with the attrition part what someone produces they don't get to keep what they produce, so you have an extremely suppressed attrition that someone can't work their way out of.

>implying Humans are not social creatures who naturally create groups and societies for their mutual benefit

why can't capitalists even into human nature?

>what is the invisible hand
If you think I'm going to sacrifice my dreams, and what will make me happy in life for the community/collective you're out of your fucking mind.

>implying people want to destroy themselves for the benefit of othe-

never mind, you win.

>What's funnier is that economic growth in Nordic countries has been aimed to benefit the whole society, while the USA and some other countries have a system aiming to collectivize all the costs of the market while privatizing the benefits.
What's even funnier is how pretty much all the success of the nordic countries and the USA can be attributed to the capitalistic elements they have, whereas the socialist parts have always been harmful to the nations and people.

>Wrong.
That's pretty much the definition of communism mate. Under communism you have no right to the fruits of your own labor.

It takes an immense amount of knowledge to determine how much of a good should be produced, more than any government can acquire. Price serves as a natural way how resources should be used, and when the government interferes with it, results in shortages and surpluses and reduced overall output.

Communism also removes any incentive to innovate and take risks.

Then there's also the issue of the over regulation that typically accompanies communism, making it even more inefficient. There's a story from the soviet union of miner's being prohibited to use machinery because they were accidentally painted the wrong color and the machines sat idle for months as the minin company tried to get approval to use them.

>what is the invisible hand
General Greivous' flagship, why do you ask on 4ch? Fag.

All economic systems will rise and fall, because we are confined to using the international banking and monetary systems set up by Kikes and run by Kikes, and they have most of the fucking money anyway because that is why they created it. Another control.

This threads points are therefore moot. Idiots. You autists get so wrapped up shouting "GOMMUNISMS EBIL!!!" you forget that for a moment it's all controlled by (((them))) anyway.

>General Greivous' flagship
a plot device used as an allusion to make a false point, written by hollycucks in a ficticious story, hidden as an easter egg for losers to discover and feel intelligent for getting the allusion, therefore drawing them even deeper into the star wars brand. capitalism.

Right...IMF and Fed reserve fuck us over, and what has been slowing down our progress...also free trade does the same. That, human biodiversity, and demographics is why i'm not ancap anymore. However free market is absolutely still the way to go.

The biggest problem with communism other than its incompatibility with human nature, is the fact that communists have a non-sensical philosophy and viewpoint surrounding wealth and property. They make arbitrary distinctions between "personal" and "private" property, they believe that you have the right to the fruits of your labor yet advocate the collectivization of everything you produce, and they don't really understand the role of administrators and janitors when it relates to work and wealth.