How Does A Communist System Work?

How Does A Communist System Work?

>Not commie, just want to learn

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/8D6d6_-Vngo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
youtube.com/watch?v=uQJTdhrRjg4
youtube.com/watch?v=oIuW-vNQsQI
youtube.com/watch?v=j6p1zxKnDeM
vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=eseje&val=2_aj_eseje.html&typ=HTML
youtube.com/watch?v=Us2ylGAwBnk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruber
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It doesn't

It doesn't

It doesn't.

It doesn't

How is it SUPPOSED to work***

It doesn't

It doesn't

This thread will just be meme'd. K.

It doesn't

it doesn't

been there

it isn't

It doesn't

It isn't.

A political militia snags various factories, farms and properties from rich people and then gives them to some random local fucker they sympathised with
That's mostly how it happened in Asia, until the US comes and start to fuck shit up like they seem to have obsession with doing

All posts best posts.

It doesn't. You have to be a faggot just to ask such a bullshit

>How Does A Communist System Work?
It doesn't

Amazingly

You think all the Bernie bros clamoring for "socialism" planed to work to support it?

youtu.be/8D6d6_-Vngo

I need to know how it works if I'm going to refute it.

fpbp
spbp
tpbp
fpbp

>Sup Forums once again shows the world it is incapable of abstract thinking

That's a sign of a

>implying Sup Forums knows what communism even is
It doesn't

It doesn't you subhuman

It doesn't.

it's bluepill: the goverment

Sup Forums won't make you smarter, they only show you their side in the arguments, in rare occasions you'll get some useful information and truly interesting insight

Well meme'd, Mohammad

lower class of people living with minimal means, govern by a ruling elite who get all the good stuff.

Doesn't matter what your interests or talents are, the state needs carpenters so you're gonna be a carpenter. You will henceforth make 10 chairs per month and be paid x rubles for it. Needless to say, quality of produced goods will plummet.

It doesn't

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning

Wealth distributed equally, no free enterprise is allowed, property is owned by the state, etc etc etc.. blablabla.

It was created by the jews, hence it's a system for the rich.. like always. Communism is even worse than Capitalism in that sense.
It simply doesn't work which is why there's not a single ACTUAL communist country left on this earth.

Was just about to say this

all businesses are run by the government who series all private property and everyone is assigned a job and everyone is paid the same amount everyone has a job in communism but at the same time if you fail to work hard enough the government will punish you

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba

>Implement Marx's ten-step program for giving the government absolute control over everything and everyone, seize means of production
>government , now having absolute power, grants collective ownership of the MoP to the entire country and voluntarily dissolves itself
>???
>peaceful utopia

Guess why this never fucking works.

Jesus Christ that whole shit show started by you cucks getting your asses cored out by slopes.

>government controls all means of production
>provides basic needs to people
>this assumes people are more like dogs and can be trained to be useful and help make it work
>in reality people are more like cats
>cats don't do anything useful other than catch a few mice every now and then

North Korea and Cuba you say? I'm sold, yay communism!

>how does something that doesn't work work
It doesn't
Next you'll ask me how niggers work.

the (((state))) seize everything from everyone, and tries distribute just enough for the people not to revolt.

...

Why isn't Sweden helping?

Forced labor

Isn't "true communism" some sort of an anarchy state?

The same way as the far right.

>Some strife or a difficult scenario occurs
>People are desperate
>A wild populist faggot appears
>if hes claims to be somewhat far left he blames the rich for all the ailments everyone suffers. If he is far right he blames either an internal minority or/and an external threat
>gets to power
>crucifies the scapegoats
>backs down on his promises of prosperity and grandeur and silences the media/arrests dissenters/spews propaganda about how everything is going "great and how evil the "external enemy" is"
>Squeezes his "subjects" for every penny
>entrenches himself in his position of power
>profit

Something very few people on this board can grasp.

It's not even supposed to work on hypothetical level. It's a form of anti-country sabotage.

You have a job you have free school university free swimming you get money from the state when you get a child like in libya they got like fucking 10k $ of course the capitalists will say this is bad because they're faggots

Those are not fully communist countries though.
Like I said..
>there's not a single ACTUAL communist country left on this earth.

If you really want to know watch this, my parents fled Communism about 20 years before its end and what is discussed in this video is true:

youtube.com/watch?v=uQJTdhrRjg4

If you want to know how Communism came about and who was behind it watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=oIuW-vNQsQI

It never names the (((group of perpetrators))) as such directly, but if you feel that this is too much of a conspiracy then just watch this 1 min clip of Putin naming them in front of a Orthodox Jewish congregation:

youtube.com/watch?v=j6p1zxKnDeM

Marx and Hitler weren't that much different, on that front.
Marx's socialism saw that the bourgeois were to blame for all the evils in the world; Hitler's socialism saw that the ranks of the bourgeois were filled top to bottom with Jews (and still are).

Oh, and the translation of Putins words is correct, I speak Russian.

Marxism is pretty abstract and takes itself to utopian levels, which is why Leninism was created.
They are not Marxist, but they are communist in the sense that the means of production are not privately owned, and their economies are planned by the government.

It really isn't some simple concept someone can explain to you in a few minutes. You'd have to read up on it on your own.

>incapable of abstract thinking
>actually doing avant-garde dadaist memeing

The tactic is old as fuck!

By executing people until either it does, or the country collapses.

Well yeah, but that doesn't mean they are full-blown communists like I stated.

The ideological theoretical communism, or the real applied one?

If the latter, well let me explain
>Government owns and runs all medium and large scale businesses (But not directly, in practice gov't worked as large corporation, no real involvement in actual daily workings - they just owned shit) , the small businesses are run by private citizens
>Heavily nationalist (Attempts to instill patriotic feelings to make population focused on fighting the common enemy that was the evil west)

In my view, these are two factors that shaped the communist regimes of eastern europe the most. Control and ownership of the economy and heavy dose of nationalism.

Yes, I believe Hitlers ideology would have had the same results of exterminating and enslaving large parts of the German population at the end.
Everything necessary to run a top down indoctrinated slave colony was in place in Hitlers Germany, although not nearly as brutal towards its own population like the Soviets were.
After all Hitler was a German himself, while Soviet leadership was comprised of jews. So it was easier for the latter to implement policies targeting large scale extermination of natives.
But one could see what Hitler was capable of doing to non Germans.
He would have taken over Eastern Europe and just continue to run the same extermination policies.

Marxist communism happens when communism becomes more economically viable than capitalism via technological progress and changes in the environment. It doesn't happen through politics or somesuch.

One way it could happen: robots replace people - people who don't own robots die out - 100 people who do own robots and have concentrated all the means of production in their hands have all their needs catered to and live in communism.

Alternatively, Star Trek happens.

I think Marx stressed that you don't get communism by having a political figure start a revolution or implementing it from the top down. It sorta naturally happens because it's more viable.

hi real china

It Dosen't

when Czech Rep was communist how much independence could you have from the state? Were you constantly spied?

>Hitler was German
Come on.

This is disproven by history, where >95% of Western population was working in farming at the beginning of the 20th century and today it's only >1%.
So all jobs are gone in that field, people will just use their labour to work improving their own lives in areas that previously were impossible.
The same will happen with robots, we will use our freed up labour to improve our lives in other areas, that were previously economically not viable.

> "Faan, gidder ikke"
> Faa Sup Forums til å gjoere leksene dine
> Presentasjon
> "Det kommunistiske systemet er en joedisk konspirasjon mot den hvite mann"
> Kastet ut av videregaande
> Outet til SOS Rasisme
> ?????
> Profitt

it's not supposed to

Schicklgruber is a surname as German as they get. There's been lots of speculation if someone way back in his ancestry was a jew, but even according to Nuremberg racial laws and to jewish laws he wouldn't have been a jew.

Communism is a strawman. It was never really implemented -- all the offshots had the PARTY above all, which goes vs. spirit of the commune, and is totalitarianist in disguise.

I actually believe in enlightened dictatorship at this point, as far as governing systems go. Because no goverment, and bam, tons of mini violent governents form, in the form of mafias.

No government would only work if ALL people were physically super fit, and mentally super alert, fearless, and armed and dangerous, EQUALLY.

Because once the populace starts to FEAR, it SUBMITS.

they never actually thought that far ahead. there are some common platitudes they'll spew like workers ownership of the means of production but as has been said before it doesn't work

They never specify it because it'd then be easier to attack their ideology.
Since it was never specified they can just claim that the 150 million dead caused by Communism in their native countries (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, various South American and African countries) were not caused by _REAL_ communism as they would envision it.

The one best way to show why Communism is based on violence is to just ask a Communist why he doesn't implement it in his community with like minded persons.
He will have to admit at some point that he has to force people to play along with his utopian phantasies, since they wont to it voluntarily. That's why Communism is genocidal in its nature.

It was czechoslovakia famalam
Well, there is a nice article by Havel, first Czech and last Czechoslovak president, about the nature of communism in Czechoslovakia. Not sure if it's in English tho.

Essentailly, he argued that what the regimes of Eastern Europe were was post-totalitarian system of government, where you did not even need the government to maintain the dictatorship. The population maintained it itself.

He used an example of vendor putting leninist slogans and propaganda into windows of his shop. He does not have to do it, but he knows it might help him. The party might not focus on him if they know he is such a devoted communist. He might even profit from it by having some important party member shop at his place.

By doing this, he contributes to the regime's well being despite the fact that he does not need - or indeed want - to.

I think that answers your question - Obviously they were anti-regime elements and sizeable resistance - especially after 1968 - But general population was so used to the state of affairs that the regime could survive even without spying or terrorizing the majority of population.

Step One: Go to Gulag

And of course there were untold millions exterminated first before people reached the state of total submission.

It isn't

According to communists
>history is an eternal struggle between multiple groups or classes. In the earliest times of human history it was master and slave, then landowner and serf, then industrialist and worker, etc.
>each paradigm shift has lowered the amount of people "in between" (for example in rome there were patricians, plebians and slaves, but communists postulate that in modern times there is only rich or poor) and created two distinct classes
>Communists believe in historical materialism, which is a system meant to explain human conflict and progress. That throughout human society people entered into "relationships" (master/slave, owner/worker) to produce goods, whether it be food, raw materials, etc.
>Communists consider the lower classes to be exploited in their work based on the labor theory of value
>the labor theory of value basically says that the amount of work put into the production of a good by a worker should be equivalent to how much compensation they receive. IE you work for an hour to build 50 items. You receive exact compensation for this amount. The existence of a "factory owner" skimming profit from the labor of others is considered to be immoral and unjustifiable
communists believe (not all of them but most) that the solution to this is a workers state (socialism) that seizes the means of production (factories, farms) from capital owners and gives them to the workers. For example you and your coworkers now run the factory democratically, or alternatively the state nationalizes the factory and you have no boss. you just work to produce, confident that you are guaranteed basic human needs for working. That's socialism. A state that distributes.

Communism is the eventual conclusion of such a state, a stateless, moneyless society of workers communes.
of course there are also wackos like stirner in there somewhere. and some syndicalist/ anarchist movements too

Not a commie, so I might be wrong about some things.

Hey friend :)

Objectification of the subject.

In the most basic of communist societies the means of production are owned by everyone in society. There is no private property, no currency, no bartering.

This works very well in small agricultural communities but fails catastrophically when scaled up. Modern societies need market based economies to exist, the alternative being centrally administered resources which invariably consumes more than it produces.

Think bees and ants.

Fuck shit up as groundwork, until you reach the inevitable utopia. This is especially heinous since what wouldn't you do to achieve the ultimate end-goal utopia of all times? A few genocides there destruction of previous traditions, religions etc..
In the utopia there are no hierarchies and no identities outside of "the worker". Everyone will be completely and absolutely equal. In practice this means that everything has to be dragged down to the level of the lowest common denominator, though no one has any idea how this is to be actually implemented.
Basically it proposes a society with zero verticality. Of course in historical examples of this beautiful idea, there has always been a "planner/party class" which imposes the will of the absract "worker" on the society at large.

TL;DR: It doesn't.

First everyone kills the rich people

Then everyone kills the middle class

Then everyone kills the farmers

Then everyone starves to death

Then we are finally equal

Yes it works very well in many small communities in Africa. (low crime, not a lot of violence, but poor as shit)
I doubt anyone here wants to live in such a society.
I'm not saying Africans shouldn't live that way, it's probably even better for them than living in this Socialist type societies they have today.
But I don't want this here.

Not here. Obviously soviet union had their brutal civil war, and poland had their purges. But generally speaking, the victims were in thousands, not millions.

Let me focus on Czechoslovakia in particular -
Officialy there were
>248 persons executed for politican reasons (interestingly only 1 of them was a woman)
>282 were killed trying to cross the border (Interestingly enough that's only about half of the casualties that the border guard had during the same period kek)
Obviously, commies being commies these are not full numbers, there were estimated about 4 thousand that died in internment. Majority due to health and age related issues however.

Either way, back to my point - in individual eastern european countries, the number of victims after 1945 does not exceed thousands. Obviously this is terrible and proves that communism is wretched, dangerous ideology. But it also shows how willing society is to subjugating itself.

So basically my point is - the dictatorships of eastern european communist countries were not secret police, military and opression (these were obviously present too tho - 1956 or 1968 comes to my mind), but their true essence is also the reason they prevailed for so long and only crashed once the USSR crashed as well - They wre institutionalized, self-preserving, societies that were in a way "self-tyranizing" as it was not the government might that enabled them, but rather individual citizens willing to become subjects of the regime.

Obviously this is not a new or bold thesis, but rather a common sense.

Also, I wound the article.

Vaclav Havel - Power of the Powerless

vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=eseje&val=2_aj_eseje.html&typ=HTML

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Havel. He was an idealist that is in my view wrongfuly celebrated as a champion of liberal democracy. But he was right in his assesment of communist regimes of eastern europe, that he did afterall, help to bring down.

Shekel grabber?

this
youtube.com/watch?v=Us2ylGAwBnk

it's a narrative more than anything else. The system is feudalism.

The inherent problem with communism; it's not that communism creates poverty, it's that it only works in that context.

Once you introduce technology and innovation communism cannot work. You need market leverage to create those things which is impossible in a communist society.

This one is so stupid. Gruber has nothing to do with "grabbing" in German language, it's a very common classical German surname ending.
In fact "Gruber" is the most common surname in Austria:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruber

And Schickel certainly has no origin in "shekel".

Communism would work if humans were like, ants or so.

Annihilate oneself for the greater good.

This is a general description of egalitarianism. It is good - or even necessary - as a starting point. But once you go below that, you need something better, that is capitalism.

Look at Israel - In it's beginnings, you would describe it as communist utopia. It was socialist to such an extreme degree that private ownership essentially ceased to exist. Absolute majority of Israelis arrived with next to nothing and it was up to these lucky few with actual wealth to subside the majority of population. Because it was necessary for the nation to survive.

But once they secured their place on map and developed functioning society, they abandoned it.

>communism
>work
pick one

Absolutely not.
Feudalism spans a very wide range of types of societies throughout history. Most have been built by centuries of fighting and thus establishing a clear hierarchy, which consists of a large network of owners/rulers that is held together by bonds of loyalty and family. Despite the numerous flaws of the various sorts feudalism, it is by far the most stable historical system of governance. This is clear when you consider it's universality, longevity and versatility.
Communism on the other hand denies familial bonds of loyalty, private ownership of land, hierarchies etc.

What both of you mistake is that Communism is not exclusively a societal order, it is a system to violently impose these norms.
So when you look at small African communities or at the Israeli state in its beginning, you might say, yes this is Communism or Socialism.
But the important thing here is it was done voluntarily, no one had to be beaten or party of society exterminated in order for it to be accepted.
That's the main difference I see.

In Capitalist societies no one is preventing our people to form voluntary communities that implement Communism.
The fact that these communities do not exist, yet there are many commies around attacking police and throwing Molotov cocktails shows that their ideology, as opposed to these other societies, is about violence and nothing else.

There is a reason why people like Lenin wrote, that even if he had to exterminate 90% of the Russian population to achieve his goal, he would still be willing to do that.
There is a reason why basically every Communist leadership immediately started their reign by exterminating those they deem subversive.
There is a reason why they all immediately free all prisoners and have them rage among the population, as they are most likely to kill, rape and plunder those who were productive members of society previously.
And I see very clearly, that in the US it will be the blacks that they will "free" and use to violate all those who maintained the previous society.
In Europe they will use newly imported Africans and Arabs to do that job.

It doesn't, Marx never wrote about what is is, he only said it was a fantastical utopian future society where there are no classes, hierarchies and infinite resources for everyone. He defined it by what it isn't. It's just Sugar Candy Mountain. A political form of religion.

The basic gestalt on the ideal:
>gouvernment owns all factories, all farms, all industry
>workers are paid the same fair wage no matter their job
>proud honest workers produce glorious goods for the betterment of the nation
>nation equally redistributes all goods from people according to their needs, not their ability
>go to space and win

The basic gestalt on the reality of it:
>former gouvernment was violently cast out as consequence of civil war
>new gouvernment steals every good and every factory from their owners
>workers are forced into labour in these factories because unemployment is illegal and punishable by gulag
>get the same pay whether they clean toilets or develop nukes, or pretend to clean toilets and develop nukes poorly
>millions of dissidents were purged from each communist country, about 100 million conservatively estimated from USSR and China alone
>communist products were never built well enough to function properly, see British Leyland

A few redpills that most people don't know:
>USSR used KGB infiltration to subvert the Western education system with hopes of turning everyone into communist through the school system in a multi-generational grand plan
>Frankfurt School facilitated this plan
>practically every communist / bolshevik institution around the world was full of Jews
>Lenin was Jewish
>1910s and 1920s saw loads of communist riots in Germany that were agitated by Jews
>Karl Marx was Jewish

And people still wonder why we're obsessed with the JQ.

>jews
after 1950s they were purged from most of communist regimes

Czechoslovakia saw some pretty brutal party purges with pretty much every jew within it's ranks either executed or jailed