Communism

Why doesn't communism work?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGAS
youtu.be/5_PswgsM3gE
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

we don't know if it doesn't, because it hasn't been tried.

It's utterly unnatural. Nothing about it giv eanyone motivation be achieve anything. It enriches the leaders and enslaves the people. Keep your communist shit over there.

Food.

gr8 b8 m8 I r8 88/8

Because humans exist.

Because communists don't work. Put shit in you get shit out.

It can work but it has not happened yet.

The only groups of people who like communism are the stupid/poor who think they will get a good life, and the political class who will benefit and control the others. So essentially it is a trick on the dumb and useless people of the world.

Would smart, wealthy and productive people ever choose communism? No because it would be against their interests, but it appears to benefit the stupid and weak who will inevitably be duped

Game theory and evolutionary biology

Kys commies

in what communist state has the means of production been in the hands of the people?

Communism doesn't work because it doesn't exist. If you believe the only real communism is working communism then communism cannot exist.

Because most communist countries were corrupt and hated by the rest of the world.

Communists have a point when they say that communism has never been tried. But the reason that it has never been tried is even more damning than the failures of the states that purported to be communist even if you don’t believe in the astronomical body counts. You see communism has never been tried because it has so far proven to be impossible to even achieve it due to human nature. The fact that you’re about to tell me there’s no such thing as human nature is more evidence of your idiocy and refusal to learn from history.

You see, communism has never been tried because the process that is supposed to implement it has broken down into tyrannical despotism every single time. The means of production is supposed to be seized democratically through socialism and then the socialist government is supposed to turn the means of production over to the workers and relieve themselves of power and dissolve the state. Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society right? This has never been done because it flies in the face of human motivations and desires. What human being or group of human beings who just seized all resources and means of production of a nation would then benevolently hand this power over to everyone equally and give up this absolute power? So far? Fucking nobody.

communism implies that humans work in a unity like insects. But humans don't work for the society. They work for themselves. Humans don't live in a swarm. there society isn't a big family. They only seek their own advantage. It's human nature, It's not lazyness etc. It's human nature that's makes communism impossible

Authoritarian regimes espousing slavery aren't popular. Equity and equality are different things.

yee

Most critics of communism have no idea what they're talking about. First of all, Marx said ya you gotta do capitalism and develop a bunch of industry so you can make a whole lotta shit so everyone has all the necessities, then you can and will automatically advance through socialism into communism because economics of having nearly infinite shit while letting people vote will make it so.

But Asian countries read Marx and laughed at his European nonsense and thought, "Oh hey we can just skip all the capitalism shit and just go straight to communism because only those european fags need capitalism and we're so awesome."

So they tried that and killed like 10000 million people before figuring out they needed capitalism to help them develop without killing everyone so that's what they did.

Ultimately communism happens when money is meaningless, and we're almost there naturally.
>All food made by 1% of labor force
>More vacant homes than homeless
>So much extra clothes we can't give them away.
AND we're build AI and robots. Once that happens and it is impossible for people to find work, they'll vote themselves right into communism. Where you just get a set amount of shit based on your UBI or whatever, which isn't really money, just a different way of measuring your rations really.

At that point man will be reunited with his "Species-essence". Meaning he gets to create whatever he wants and not have that value stolen from him by some capitalist overlord seeking profit. That's the essence of communism: we just sit around all day playing video games and designing mods and levels while robots feed us. Sort of like WallE.

By their own criteria, Marxists haven't tried "Communism", as it's impossible in the current age.

What you should be asking is "Why doesn't Marxism work" and the answer is relatively simple, really.

The core feature of Marxist ideology and doctrine is egalitarianism, which is incompatible with nature as a whole, and despite what humans think: we aren't above nature. Hierarchies exist for a reason, socially, economically, etc. As a result, the egalitarianism that most Marxists and leftists in general endorse is fundamentally impossible to achieve through bottom-up or grassroots means. The end result is always the same: the state has to become increasingly involved in the actions of it's citizens to enforce this egalitarianism (as it cannot exist naturally). So the government increasingly intervenes in the social and economic lives of it's citizens until it becomes unsustainable, inefficient and eventually collapses.

But you also really need to be aware of the failings of capitalist systems. We know from opinion polls that 64% of citizens living in former-Soviet countries think that life in the Soviet Union was better than today. Literally the only thing that has stopped the capitalist neoliberal economic shitshow from shitting itself just like the Marxist-socialist states of the world, is the obscene amount of debt that it generates, which gives just enough of an illusion of prosperity to keep people content.

So basically: Remove semitic influence from ideology.

you need likeminded people who have the same or very similar goals. It will never work since human nature is not completely equal.
It would kinda work for awhile in a full WHITE society, but any sort of mixed races it will always fail

If only there was... a third way

I always found this idea to be viscerally disgusting. Like at some point humanity should just stop progressing, and never try to improve or try for more. Marxists back in 1920 thought we'd come as far as we needed to, imagine if humanity had just gone into a stasis?

>What you should be asking is "Why doesn't Marxism work" and the answer is relatively simple, really.
This is really stupid too. If you actually READ the Communist Manifesto (hard work reading all 30 pages, I know) then you'll understand that every single policy Marx proposes to transform Capitalist nation into Communism has existed in America 100 years and most people at this point agree they are "common sense" even "tradition" just because they've lived under them so long. The only difference between us and Marx is we have Property/Estate tax instead of totally abolishing them.

Communism doesn't even depend on egalitarianism. In fact it depends on egoism, economic determinism in general. When we have robots and ai making everything, and the mass of laborers can't find any work and have no capital with which to create their own businesses, then they will just vote themselves into communism for their own survival. It is either that or starve or riot.

What the American state does, through the Central Bank (an institution Marx proposes for every country) is it regulates the supply of money to 1. minimize unemployment and 2. keep prices stable, this in effect maximizes production. Modern economics, like Marx, is about developing productive forces as rapidly as possible, only America does this through managing the money supply discretely so you have to keep working to stay solvent while Asian countries would force you to work at gunpoint, and didn't really succeed that much.

In America we are already in a post-scarcity economy, we have to do all sorts of crazy shit just enable markets so things can have prices so there's some sort of rationality to buying/selling.

But the central bank just doubled the money supply, trillions of dollars from nothing, and the economy keeps on chugging. So long as you allow some sort of competition so people can feel like they're succeeding/failing, and feel like they have some ownership over shit, then they keep on work

...

Its a problem of alocation of resources and information deficit. It can be proved that a central governament is unable to alocate resources with the same eficiency that individuals can. Im on the phone right now so i cant give you mich more than that.
A nice way to see this is by the definition of economy as an area if knowledge. As defined by the orthodoxy, economy is "the study of the alocation of scarce resorces, with unlimited uses for infinite necessities."
Marxists on the other hand define economy as the production relations.

As an exercise try to think about what this means. And how this two diferent ways to see the economy might shape a society living under capitalism (using the orthodox definition) and communism (using the marxist definition).

JUST

ONE

MORE

TIME

>Marxists back in 1920 thought we'd come as far as we needed to, imagine if humanity had just gone into a stasis?
Yeah no internet full of porn. No degeneracy. No surgeries to transition. No infinite designer drugs and shit. Sure would be terrible?

Back in 1920 we really had come as far as we needed to to produce food/clothing/shelter for everyone. And we've come a whole lot further since. And now most of the work is just busy work so people feel like they're doing something good and "developing a career" shuffling papers around and entering numbers into a computer all day.
Only a small portion of humanity does meaningful work creating shit people actually need. Another small portion of people create shit they want to create.
Most people just do busy work, military killing each other, or trying to sell you shit you don't need, or running outright scams.

"Colonizing space" or whatever really isn't worth it. It isn't worth the death and horror of all the people who will die for what isn't even guaranteed. Lets just control our population and live happily here on earth with our video games and burgers and soon to be fancy ai robots and have a good time until the sun dies out or Jesus comes back.

Anything else is just pathological based on issues people feel like they have to prove something to daddy.

zero incentive to strive to do better. same reason niggers will always be on welfare

Thing is though we don't really have 'scarce resources' for necessities anymore in America and really the entire 'developed world'. This is how we are able to have welfare and social security in the first place. Scarcity is for the more luxurious side of the economy, like imported exotic fruits, golden chains, and we even have to manufacture scarcity for a lot of things just to give them prices so companies can have profits and feel good about themselves.

Take computer chips for example. Once a computer fab plant is only it could print basically infinite of them for pennies, and CPUs haven't really come a long way lately (mostly just spending money on research to reduce their power draw or add more cores and threads for programs that don't even exist), and a lot of times you even have cases where Intel or AMD takes a chip and just disables cores and sells it for less just so they can sell other chips that don't have disabled cores for more. Marketing is the science of giving buyers the illusion of scarcity to make them want it more and pay more for it.

because theft is immoral, centralized power gets corrupted, and people are individuals not groups.

Also, OP is a giant faggot

I own and have read The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital actually faggot.

>Communism doesn't even depend on egalitarianism.

"Communism" doesn't, no. that's because it's an egalitarian worldview and socio-economic political system that can only exist in a technologically advanced future. As such arguing over it "working" or not when it isn't even close to being functional in the current world is actually retarded.

Marxism (as a whole) on the other hand centrally revolves around egalitarianism. The entire foundation is the oppressed rising up against the oppressor and leveling the playing field for everyone in totality. If that isn't egalitarianism, then nothing is.

>In America we are already in a post-scarcity economy, we have to do all sorts of crazy shit just enable markets so things can have prices so there's some sort of rationality to buying/selling.

This is demonstrably false. A post-scarcity system is entirely about surpassing the material needs and desires of every citizen. The debt-ridden consumerist disaster that is the United States shows that if everyone went out and "requisitioned"(for lack of a better word) even 5 things that they really wanted, there would be massive shortages of almost everything but food. The only thing that gives you the impression of post-scarcity is that people are so poor that they can't actually go out and get the things that they want without either saving up for weeks or getting another credit card.

>zero incentive to strive to do better.
Strive to do better...at what? Something you want to do? Most jobs in our economy are busy work. HR employee. That's needed why? Who really wants to strive to be a better HR employee?

I can see a chef wanting to be a better chef. But having to work off debt to a bank isn't going to make that chef be a better chef, it is just gonna stress him out. If he cares about his craft then he improves himself no matter which system, whether he's cooking for nobles in feudalism or cooking for random people on the street in capitalism, or cooking for his comrades in communism.

>Back in 1920 we really had come as far as we needed to to produce food/clothing/shelter for everyone.
Then why were people starving to death and dying from exposure?

>because theft is immoral,
Well you've already participated in it a great deal. Chances are most people wouldn't be able to read or write on this message board if the state didn't "steal" from someone to give you an education. And state education is one of the policies recommended by Marx in Communist Manifesto, along with abolishing Child Labor. If it weren't for him you likely would have grown up working in a factory or coal mine instead of learning technical skills.

>people are individuals not groups.
Wrong. Get locked in solitary confinement for months and see how that 'individual' thing works out for you. If you were really an individual then being locked in solitary wouldn't effect you. But it does. Because you need social interaction, because humans essentially work in packs, that's why you're on this message board right now, to participate in a group discussion

The resourses are scarce by definition not empirically. If there are people who want to buy it than the resource is scarce. Its not like air.
That is an important point. Viewing the resources as scarce even when they are not (in relation to how they were in the past) makes sure production is efficient producing tecnical and tecnological advancements and driving down costs.

>that can only exist in a technologically advanced future. As such arguing over it "working" or not when it isn't even close to being functional in the current world is actually retarded.
We already live in that world right now.
>All our food is made by 1% of the labor force, a few million people make food for around 600 million when you count exports.
>More vacant homes than homeless.
>So many clothes you get to change them each season.

The only scarcity we have is luxuries, not necessities. And most of our work is busy work. When we have more robots with AI here implemented this next generation it will be even worse.
>The entire foundation is the oppressed rising up against the oppressor and leveling the playing field for everyone in totality. If that isn't egalitarianism, then nothing is.
Egalitarianism is advocating the removal of inequalities among people. But in Marx's theory, the workers aren't doing it out of goodwill, they are doing it out of pure drive for survival. If workers don't rise up against capitalists, then workers starve and die. That's self-interest. That's why we have welfare. Because we literally can't make enough jobs for everyone (and most of the jobs we do make are stupid as fuck) and we have to feed people or kill them.

>A post-scarcity system is entirely about surpassing the material needs and desires of every citizen.
No, you don't get a big fancy mansion, no you don't get a thousand gold chains, no you don't get a truck with 30 inch rims, but we're way past being able to supply the NEEDS of everyone, which, as I said, is how welfare and social security are possible in the first place. As far as DESIRES go, well, most of the desires you have are entirely due to capitalism itself, people making shiny junk to sell you so THEY can eat without relying on government aid, using all sorts of psychological tricks and sexy women to get you to DESIRE it. Those desires aren't NATURAL. They are programmed into you by jews.

IT's all capitalism fault, they don't play fair.

>Then why were people starving to death and dying from exposure?
Where? In America? We had the great depression in the 30s and that was entirely a problem with capitalism itself. We had plenty of productive forces to supply everyone with necessities, they just weren't being used because certain balance sheets didn't have the numbers on them that capitalists wanted them to have to ensure they stay super rich forever.

And then we implemented a lot of socialist policies under FDR to put those productive forces to work and from that we conquered Europe and Asia and dominated the world. Because we said hey, we're gonna produce what we can and then fit the numbers to what we produce, instead of vice versa leaving productive forces unutilized.

Overproduction today really is a serious problem because it makes markets worthless. That we can overproduce stuff at all is crazy.

>how are we going to organize this commune?
>I'll lead it!
>well okay, how will we feed everyo-
>SHUT UP AND GIVE ME ALL YOUR FOOD PEASANTS
>err, what about distribution of wea-
>SHUT UP AND GIVE ME ALL YOUR LAND PEASANTS
>hold on a second, we've got no food or land while you have it all, how is that fai-
>YOU DARE QUESTION COMMUNISM? OFF TO THE GULAG WITH YOU

Gee, I wonder?

Imagine being penalized for having talent and skill. Now take that to the extreme and punish everyone who is good and reward everyone who is bad. The good stop trying and the bad keep sucking. That's communism for you.

Cause nobody likes Jews.

Don't let the JWO happen.

Because of human nature. It's clear a sociopath/con-man came up with it and idiots follow his ideas because it appeals to their dumb emotions.

We do not operate like ants, user. I wish we did, then communism could work, and it does sound like a nice dream.

You're confusing my sides.

because it think every human should have equal outcome and its false. your folks should have the best outcome

I share your sentiments on the issue... I think it's just a matter of realizing when you've done all you can do and then be happy with what you have. I'm not one for religion, but there's something to be said for spirituality.

>inb4 that's not real communism

Because it contradicts the competitive nature of the human species.

I don't like commies but where's all this bullshit of "nobody has any incentive to work" come from?

People in commie countries worked about as hard as any other country, if not harder, because being perpetually unemployed was literally a crime.

How can communism give "no incentives to work or innovate" when commies literally invented the orbital satellite.

The truth is communism "works". but just not as well as capitalism and it always gets outcompeted as a result.

>No, you don't get a big fancy mansion, no you don't get a thousand gold chains, no you don't get a truck with 30 inch rims, but we're way past being able to supply the NEEDS of everyone, which, as I said, is how welfare and social security are possible in the first place

You scored an own goal there. In a communist system, there is no government and state-based system in place, and if there is no legitimate regulatory or governmental body, who determines what a "need" or a "desire" is, as a society of increasingly entitled individuals with different motives and opinions is incapable of doing so without an authority stopping their extreme natures.

>Egalitarianism is advocating the removal of inequalities among people.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

>But in Marx's theory, the workers aren't doing it out of goodwill, they are doing it out of pure drive for survival.

In the current capitalist system you said yourself that the bare necessities(food, housing, etc.) are already produced in massive quantities. It's not about survival then, it's about greed and the need for more shit.

>That's why we have welfare.

Marx stated several times that he was against the existence of a welfare state.

Nazism hasn't been tried too. Nazi Germany was not real nazism.

Technically it really isn't communism. I'm not going to give it another attempt though after seeing what it did to every country that tried it.

What about the collaborative nature of the human species? both exist

I give you the shovel, and if you don't get attain the quota I dictate, you go into the gulag.

You see, I'm not of "the people", so I don't need the shovel. All I need force.

Maybe the reason they don't work is because nobody knows what it would mean for them to be true to their roots. Like, even if you tried to figure out how the ideal looked, you wouldn't be able to come up with a coherent infrastructure.

But you don't necessarily need "money" or capitalism to measure and drive down costs. And already money is mostly meaningless, and since it looks like we're gonna get rid of the debt ceiling it will be even more meaningless.

In fact, if there's a quicker way to do something, then people will naturally take the shortest route, so long as the difficulty and risk doesn't exceed the time saved. People will naturally organize to have Bill catch the animals and Bob skin the animals if they are the best and fastest at those functions in their community.

One of the most important takeaways from Marx is that whatever economic system people grow up in, that's what they will take as being "the natural system". If people grow up in a competitive system, then they "naturally" believe that competition is natural. It is just what they're used to and they'll keep doing it insisting it is the best until it proves to be insufficient to getting them what they need and want. People thought feudalism was naturalism, now they think capitalism is natural, etc.

At some point people say "Whoa whoa what are we doing here guys? We're wasting a lot of shit for no good reason, lets figure out something better." And they make changes to the economic system and then their children grow up thinking THAT is natural.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGAS

yfw soviets were attempting to invent the internet first and their entire planned economy would have been run by computers and scientists

The soviet Union. No capitalists to blame for that.

Yeah, it's a complete non-sequitor. It pains me to think that there are people out there so dumb as they are confident willing to put everything on the line for a bad idea that's been proven to bad.

And notice how it's never: Alright guys, were leaving, were gonna start a communist state and it's gonna be great. No, it's always forcing people into the mess who aren't feeling it. Gives it a real dark tone. I don't know you, leave me alone.

Human Nature

Seems like the critics and the folks trying to implement it have something in common. Maybe there isn't much to understand and we should just pop this bubble and try to get along by other means. If you don't force me to do stuff to which I can't agree, and if you'd learn to agree to disagree were already halfway there.

Now get a job or apply for welfare. There is socialism enough already.

But niggers always need more, I guess.

Because it assumes humans won't act like humans, and relies upon that to "work".

Also communism is all about equality (equal outcome), at the expense of fairness (equal process) and individuality.

...

Do we *need* to try it though?

A single government cannot take care of a population larger than [insert shitty African country here]. It didn't work in Russia, it wouldn't work in America, and it failed in China (so they changed it.)

Yugoslavia

I agree. That's why I cannot take the idea anarachy serious in any form. The world is chaos and man creates order, like we have. What I make out of what anarchy is supposed to mean is that we remove this founded order... Okay, so that is a reset then. The ones first to create order in their image will dominate all over again, so what's the point. The same denial of cause and effect of human nature as commies.

Funny thing is, if I'd live under communism, I'd likely warm up to the idea of anarchy... Rather have nothing than less than nothing, I suppose.

It couldn't have worked in the technological limitations of the 20th century, but in modern times, with the advent of the internet and computer, in a country that was already set up to work with a centrally planned economy?

It could work. Not saying it'd better than what we have now, but it could definitely work.

You have to remember that the USSR literally ran on snail mail and punch cards.

Maybe if the jews would've shilled for the nazi's like they do for communism. You do understand that you're nothing to them but a tool, right? And I agree, you're a tool.

because it has a dictator

It could but the USSR also ran on mafia favors and the organized shirking of responsibility. Not everybody is going to play ball and you're going to have a much bigger and rowdier NEET problem with an equal-outcome idea economy.

>Ideology turns a backwards war-torn shithole into a space-faring superpower that dominated half the globe for half a century

>"It doesn't work"

It does work just gotta stop being greedy.

>the USSR also ran on mafia favors and the organized shirking of responsibility.

Literally where in the world is this not true

Commumism, like any centralized regime (ex: monarchy) are too fragile against risk, any mistake they make its made a global problem that could kill millons, unlike capitalism were if a single person does something stupid it only bankrupts himself.

>>Ideology turns a backwards war-torn shithole into a space-faring superpower that dominated half the globe for half a century
Points are deducted when millions of your people starve to death while you're launching dogs into space.

>millions of your people starve to death while you're launching dogs into space.

Literally when is there a famine in the USSR past 1947?

Ayy lmao.

>ritually murder people to maintain food production
>sputter out in 70 years

youtu.be/5_PswgsM3gE
some pig

Give the negro little, and he will at least try. Give him welfare and... You have massive burden. Corruption only makes it worse of course, but what's stopping the commie leaders from corrupting, even more so, as they have more power? I mean, weren't they supposed to relinquish power at some point?

I always say, the perfect model is a dictatorship with a pure and benevolent leader. But that's a pipedream, just like communism.

The fundamentel problem has always been and will always be humanity itself. Mankind is imperfect at best and an absolute cancer at worst, and if you're not willing or able to accept that, you're going to cause a lot more suffering than is neccesary and give support to people who do not deserve it. A total net loss if you will.

>people have to wait hours for food
>if they don't work, they get killed
>people starve

>"We sent someone to space, so it works!"

it's an ideology based in personal insecurity and resentment towards happy and successful people. on what fucking planet do you ever expect it to work?? it naturally leads to genocide by virtue of the underlying emotions fueling it.

The reason communism has never been tried is because as soon as they overthrow the existing government they install their own authoritarian body which is completely against the will of communism.

Best post so far

...

True this. He hoped there would be enough class concioussness to force the changes but it seems to always be diverted to a new ruling class everytime that they accept for some reason.

>ritually murder people to maintain food production
>sputter out in 70 years

Listen, I'm not saying the USSR was a good idea or was run well.

I'm just saying people who say "it doesn't work" are being purposefully ignorant of history

The idea that your political ideals or being a capitalist republic will protect your from fatal economic failure is a lie. What happened in the USSR in 1991 could happen to any nation. Don't think our nation has some sort secret immunity against the pressures of time and history.

read ayn rand's "anthem" or george orwell's "animal farm"
they're short and point out the faults of communism/collectivism

aliens will bring communism to you whether you like it or not, meatbags.

Is putting words in my mouth dialectical?

The real / historical one

ignores the corporate sector and allows them to continue to control politics through economic control both internationally and domestically.
Regresses towards dictatorship with an extreme divide between those with power and those without.
It is inherently disingenuous and corrupt.
People have much less incentive to work hard or do creative work because their impoverished life situation will never change anyway.
The Larp / New Communism

Is a lie, it is neoliberalism under the guise of Marxism / Communism.
Heavily influenced by identity politics and the cultural revolution where feminism, neo-orientalism and everything else began.
No criticism of market structures or the "free market", because it is not communist or marxist.
The working class (99%) end up losing all political representation.
Will try to circumvent political change once established. Deeply corrupt.

Wow I haven't seen such a sensible thread since the great Minarchist Anarchist debates of 0'12.

Simple
Communites will always need leaders
Leaders will always want or be treated better and given more than others
This causes classes
The leader and his group with be the upper class and will be given more power, money or such.
Everyone will have less than the leader, thus its already failed communism.

For actual communism to work, their can be no leader. There is no such thing as no leader, thus communism does not exist nor ever will exist.

most of us at /pol is against the establishment and the "representative" political system which is implemented worldwide.

But we're not going to exchange one system of oppression for another.
Nationalism works because people work together, and liberals doesn't force people to endure massive immigration which the nation states cannot afford and which severely affects most of the population's ability to exist.
They (liberals, the left) should not force something they can afford onto the poor. So we will never go left. They are disingenuous.

Hegelian Dialects looks like a good tool for confusion. I mean, if you look at it, can it even hold water for longer than one disagreement? I always assumed logic was used to create order, by saying what you see. Isn't it just a surefire way to turn everything into an emotional debate? Jezus Christ man, the pieces are really coming together on this one... If this is the tool they have the useful idiots use it's no wonder that all they need is feelings to feel they are right, and why they can never convince someone who arrived at a conclusion using proper logic.

So if they "know" they are right, why violence? I suppose it's more like a religion than I thought.

Maybe I'm wrong in my assertment, but at least I have that... What a mess...

>communism works

Anything that brings people together becomes a religion. Maybe not in name, but certainly in spirit.

>space-faring superpower

it's more or less fake science.
They wont be able to build sustainable environments for human exploration of space for another millennia.

the lack of gravity, humidity, pressure, and an ecosystem of all common bacteria and plants (many of which die in zero gravity environments).

The amount of energy and resources needed to send all that into space where it would die is astronomical, it's currently impossible.

>What human being or group of human beings who just seized all resources and means of production of a nation would then benevolently hand this power over to everyone equally and give up this absolute power?

The Jews say they will. We should let them lead us.

Short answer? Free will. People need to be 100% on board with the system for it to work.