Care to educate me a little bit Sup Forums?

Care to educate me a little bit Sup Forums?

I'm a communist and I'm really questioning some of my beliefs. What are the negatives of communism? Also, what are the benefits of right-wing economics compared to communism?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign
youtu.be/CTV1To1e5w8
youtube.com/watch?v=oIeYoF1VhHc
youtube.com/watch?v=BNcERXGcpEY
youtube.com/watch?v=WqREtbt__O8
ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Do you like food or not?

Yes I do like food

...

nice meme

Then Communism isn't for you

> I'm a communist and I'm really questioning some of my beliefs

There are shittons of communist books written by dozens of people and you're still aren't sure about your beliefs?

There are no negatives to communism. We honstly cant see what would happen under true communsim because no-one has ever attempted it.

Fuck you you stupid porkey.

>meme

Idk man,I just want to be able to not worry about having enough money I don't give a shit about the sides

The primary negative of communism is that it inevitably suppresses criticism of itself. Any system which forbids criticism will not progress, and eventually fail. The greatest amount of technological and social progress has been made by societies that are permissive in terms of human rights, in particular freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

>"true communism"

Your denial is sickening. One day you'll support the next authoritarian regime.

I like this answer. I haven't thought of this before but now that it's been put in front of me, I realize that many communist states that have suppressed human rights have not made as much progress as states with more human rights.

...

It is simply based on selfishness and the "revolucionary mindset", with no capability of keeping itself from falling apart.

A couple things to consider:
Marxism is principally about revolution. In the past the working class were the vehicle for that but today the revolutionary class are homosexuals.
Dialectical Materialism doesn't exist. People who have actually read Hegel will know this.
The LTV is garbage. Capital produces value independent of labor and so naturally owners of capital derive wealth from it. Additionally, capital produces more wealth than labor which creates problems that weren't around in preindustrial societies. The communist solution to this, centralization into the state, actually only exacerbates the issue since the state itself becomes the largest driver of growth and labor ends up exploited even more.

But can it be possible for a communist state to not fall apart?

>What are the negatives of communism?
It's Jewish.
It's anti-White.

>Also, what are the benefits of right-wing economics compared to communism?
Capitalism is just as Jewish as Communism.

The internet is a further illustration of the problem of the Communist rejection of free speech. Communist and far-left places tend to silence those who criticize or debate, creating echo chambers. Most anti-Communist discussion spaces are far more permissive, hence becoming more popular gathering larger user bases.

Enforcing groupthink is pure tribal behavior, and is actually very primitive. It's for this reason that it inevitably leads to purges, like we're watching happen in North Korea and Venezuela.

This is not to say that non-Communist states are always standing up for human rights. Authoritarians of every stripe will always fight against individual liberty. Communism is simply an ideology that makes no pretense of standing up for liberty.

Wow, you really don't know much about communism then?

The face of "today's" communism is Leninist-Communism which gave us Stalinist-Communism.

Real, actual, dead ass serious quote from Lenin:

>'Freedom of criticism' means freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas...into socialism

So if you want to crack a joke without getting a government boot up your ass followed by prison time ... stop being a commie.

Checked.

>But can it be possible for a communist state to not fall apart?
No. Because Communism is Jewish and the Jews are a cursed race doomed to fail.

Gobunism is the next stage in fug and starve

>>fug xD xD xD

Meme?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign
>>fug xD xD xD gib and starve

Not if they suppress individual rights. Eventually the people will revolt. This is actually something that Marx himself emphasized. Marxists, in application, never acknowledge this fact.

Karl Marx was a smart guy who made some very flawed assumptions. One of these was that human beings are inherently good. That claim is utterly false. He used this false belief to push his ideal that uprisings would be based on people being "workers". The 20th Century showed us that human beings are far more likely to revolt over denial of human rights.

There's nothing inherently wrong with limited social programs, or socialism, if you can keep it restrained and not let democracy usurp it. Socialism/redistribution doesn't create more money and grow the economy.The problem arises when everyone is allowed to vote, and politicians realize that they can keep getting elected if they promise more "free shit" and people refuse to vote for anyone who wants to cut or limit spending.

So there's your two issues right there with just socialism, not even communism. 1.) No economic growth from re-investment 2.) It must be constrained, and it never is permanently.

Now take that scenario where the government controls part of the economy, and give the government ALL of the power and control over the economy. Central planning is cancer. It never works because people are always corrupt, people aren't going to be encouraged to work harder/go to more schooling/etc... just to have everybody "earn" the same shit. Not only that, but it's dangerous to have a few people in control of everything, because if they fuck up and make a mistake, it can ruin the economy for everyone not just them or their private business like in a capitalist system.

I suggest you look up Styxhexenhammer666 on YouTube and watch some of his videos on Communism. He provides good insight. It's an idealist meme ideology that can never be "fully implemented" and is a net negative whenever it's tried in any of it's forms.

Communism and all other forms of socialism is a system that punishes those who work hard to support those who refuse to work.

In all reality, the only system that works is AnCap. It creates a worker's market which means wages are naturally higher by getting rid of useless regulations and taxation on job creators. The government knows it's place, and stays there.

Freedom over Oppression Beta Red Scum

Food? Pretty good reason there.

>AnCap
>government
What??

Social programs and socialism choke society and punish those who work hard to pay for failures to continue to be failures with zero risk and nothing learned.

The only good amount of socialism is no socialism.

Feast your eyes pinko.

Government can exist to administer several parts of government that are necessary, namely a military. But must NEVER get in the way of commerce even as low as setting a minimum wage.

It takes five years for communism to finish the class genocide, followed by hunger and poverty on 97% of the population.

EVERY single communist goverment on the history of the world had to take 3 paths:
>Follow Marx and collapse quickly.
>Go for totalitarian and opressive, killing
citizens and taking their rights(USSR).
>Surrender to capitalism and get integrated or
destroyed by it.

I'll throw you a bone, OP. As far as I can tell, communism is a pathology of too much compassion. You want everyone to be taken care of, and to not have to struggle. You see the injustice of some people dining on filet mignon while others dumpster dive for moldy bread, and you become outraged. Your reaction to this moral injustice is good and noble, but your solution leaves something lacking. See, while you are correct to care about the poor, communism is not about loving and helping the poor- it is about hating and destroying the rich.

The economic injustices that you see are a moral problem, but you offer a materialist solution, just as Marx did; the root of sinful inequalities is found in human hearts, not in our material conditions. The revolution needs to take place in man's heart, rather than in the streets, and that is what Jesus did; he led a revolution in men's hearts and taught us a different way to be in the world. I personally don't like capitalism, I think the focus on money over everything is toxic, and contributes to our disregard for our volk and environment, two things which are dear to me. But I also realize that people being able to own their own private and personal property is an important part of incentivizing people to work very hard to keep our society going, a society which (for all it's problems) is still far and away better than other societies on earth. If I had my way, rather than the government administering welfare as an act of mercy, I would much rather have private charities do the important work of caring for the sick, the elderly, the orphan and the widow, because the government is hopelessly incompetent and wasteful, and our taxes end up subsidizing the worst of human behavior. There is also the issue that not all inequalities are sinful. Some people are born more attractive, intelligent, hard working, outgoing and think more about the future, so they will naturally rise to the top and accumulate wealth.

Ideally, but that's if everyone can accept a society where there's absolutely no safety nets for anyone. Most capitalistic societies can afford to have a few social safety nets in place so that you don't have people utterly starving with no help at all. If you can limit it to a minimum, most people can afford and are willing to accept a couple less dollars out of their paychecks. A small tad bit that can be stopped from becoming excessive is not a big deal. Also if you live in a homogenous/high trust society, people are more willing to accept sacrifice to help their fellow countrymen. Communism is inherently against nationalism and racial/ethnic identity, therefore this is another reason it can't work.

How would you enforce a communist state unless you centralized absolute authority?
If you ever achieved a real communist state, what if your "contribution" was destined to clean toilets for the rest of your life? Would you enjoy it then, under penalty of death?
How do you motivate the janitors in a communist state?
These are very very basic questions you should have asked yourself a long time ago, and there are many other basic questions you should really consider.

Communism places all power and wealth into the hands of the government. Any government will eventually grow corrupt if there's nobody who can stand up to it. The only way communism can work is if wealth is distributed by an AI and human government has no way to influence the decisions of that AI. That could work, maybe.

>what are the positives of communism
That's the only question you need to ask to get turned off it

We didn't need social programs for years. It's only resently that the welfare state came into existence because we "needed it." The Welfate state chokes commerce and if we abolished it, businesses would be taxed less and could employ more people negating the need of the welfare state.

China?
I guess it's kinda number 2 but i still dunno.

...

Ayn Rand
"Anthem"

>What are the negatives of communism?
Trusting flawed human beings to implement a stateless, classless, borderless system into countries that have not fully industrialized, depend on market economies + money to function, and with the end goal in mind of abolishing everything in the process without external groups invading, or local people revolting, starving to death, getting massacred, and GULAG'D.

Communist societies tend to stagnate or don't progress as quickly as their competitors.
>inb4 Stalin's miracle
Bought and paid for by the West.
Pic related.

Most importantly, the idea was largely founded and implemented by kikes, such as Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Luxemburg, Yagoda, etc... which means its practically almost guaranteed to turn into a cluster-fuck wherever it springs up.

>MEY MEYS

Communists try to plan economies and dictate prices. Actually interpreting supply-demand signals is hard enough for single businesses, let alone a single institution (govenrment) to interpret all of those signals.
Eventually, the entire economy goes into a sort of fantasy-land where nothing really makes any sense anymore.

FDR style liberal-democracies aren't that much better; banks already lost contact with the real world since the big bank bailouts. Libdem and Communism aren't that far apart, but atleast libdem doesn't try to dictate prices.

don't be an *ist, make your own ideological corpus from both theory and experience.
Study history, what worked, what didn't, policies and forms of government through time, etc...
Also don't talk politics with idiots because they work on an *ist basis so they are unable to understand non restrained thought.

>What are the negatives of communism?
Niche markets and their consumers will be absolutely fucked for one thing.

Wanna spend all your days painting, sculping or animating things you love? Good luck getting the shit you need. Even if the bureaucratic clusterfuck that would be a centralised planning system were to subsidise and organise for the tools and materials you needed, they would be military-grade: That is, made as cheap as possible while still being technically functional, so no sablehair brushes or tyrian-purple paints for you. Problem is with that 'to each according to his need' rubbish is that you're gonna have commissars asking 'do you really NEED that?' you catch what I'm saying?

youtu.be/CTV1To1e5w8

Check out 'The Hand' by Jiri Trnka, about how communism gave him economic freedom at the cost of his creative freedom.

There's not enough jobs in my country (US) to support the entire workforce. There's more people who need employment than jobs available, and you think eliminating all safety nets will supply a job for every person who is willing and able to work? I don't think so, because the economy will just boom, and people will reproduce more, creating more people who need jobs.

Look to Europe. We have limited space and limited resources. It will happen eventually, when the US becomes saturated. You need to have some kind of safety net for unemployed people who have kids and bills and shit. What about workman's comp? If I get hurt on the job and can't work, and i can't afford the top tier lawyers like the company can, what am i supposed to do? Who will I rely on?

I understand the premise of your argument, and I was once too a libertarian/ancap believer. But this isn't the 1700/1800's anymore. Our population is too high and we are too industrialized as opposed to agricultural and rural to return to what you're describing.

There's nothing wrong with everyone dishing in a little so if shit hits the fan they can afford some food and to keep the heat on during the winter until they can figure something out. It shouldn't be endless, and it shouldn't be a lot, but a little bit of assistance that you don't have to beg for isn't a big deal to 1st world economies.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you cannot see any flaws or downsides to a plan, then you haven't put enough thought into the plan. Perfection isn't real.

I'm not even arguing against communism with this bit of philosophy; I'm arguing against you and your retarded shortsighted arrogance. Communism, capitalism, anarchy, fascism, they ALL have good points and bad points. Only a fucking idiot would claim that a complex plan that involves the participation of millions of individual humans and covers every facets of their daily lives from birth to death has "no negatives".

This is why you and your ilk are a joke. You're ideologues with no clue about anything.

>I'm a communist and I'm really questioning some of my beliefs.
Oh yeah? Which ones?

that's because the modern job system, just like pretty much everything else, is just a mean of social control.
Service economies rely on useless jobs that only exist for people to work, and western company have a shitton of "Human Resources" post that only exist to find job for women.

>Putin: Soviet Government Was Mostly Jewish 80-85%
youtube.com/watch?v=oIeYoF1VhHc

>Winston Churchill exposes Jewish forces behind Communism
youtube.com/watch?v=BNcERXGcpEY

>Europa - The Last Battle
youtube.com/watch?v=WqREtbt__O8

>In his book, Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954, I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.
>In Europe A History, British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties.
>Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, a Soviet politician and historian, estimated 35 million deaths.
>In his acclaimed book The Great Terror: Stalins Purge of the Thirties, Anglo-American historian Robert Conquest said: We get a figure of 20 million dead [under Stalin], which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so.
ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789

Statement 1: Everyone is equal.
Statement 2: Everyone should get according to their needs and need to produce what they can produce.
Do you not see that these two statements cancel each other out?
How can you be equal and have a specific need or ability to produce?
It is nonsense. It is a dreamiology. It is something to tell weak people, workshy people, hopeless people.

>There's not enough jobs in my country (US) to support the entire workforce.
This is done on purpose. Capitalists have realized that it is effective to have an unemployed underclass. This French bro is on the right track .

allow me to play double's advocate for a second here; people being equal doesn't mean they are the same, you can all be equal in front of the government and the law but be treated differently in functions of your abilities, capacities and behavior among other things.
being equal != being the same

Just look up “Communist Atocities” and there you go.

that's a strawman though

>Statement 1: Everyone is equal.
Nice bourgeois statement.

Here's a Marxist one:
>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society;
>Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
>But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society.

>In a higher phase of communist society, […] after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha program

The funny thing is, he isnt technically wrong with the "muh true communism" argument

Communism has never actually been achieved because communism itself is incapable of being achieved. Its pipe dream. First you need a state of total global control which is impossible. Next you'd need to take control away from the leader of that, which more thank likely wont happen. Finally you would have to maintain a state of global anarchy, the act of which is an oxymoron.

In short you'd need to have literally every single person on earth have the exact same mindset for communism to ever be close to working. Good luck with that.

You are right, but the problem is that we as humans always tend to go further and further, instead of realizing we should stop.
Look at the anti racism movements today. They are literally the perfect growing environment for NatSocs.
I saw a netflix show, Chef's Table, there was a russian chef featured. He was trying to rediscover all of the recipes lost during communism. He said that the equalizing factor even was turned towards the food they ate. So instead of having traditionist food they ate the same shitty porridge.
I get your point, but I just want to emphasize mine, everything will grow untill it dies, even retarded and foolish ideas.
>Feminism
>Anti-Racism
>Diversity

>There are no negatives to communism.
It abolishes capitalism. If I want to make ice cream and sell it at the beach, why shouldn't I? If I want to pay people to make ice cream and then pay other people to sell it at the beach, why shouldn't I? Labour theory of value isn't an argument. There is no moral imperative against making profit off other people's labour. There's literally nothing objectively wrong with it unless labour is coerced and its products forcibly requisitioned, which ironically only happens under communism. Communism is not a moral imperative or logical necessity. It's 100% motivated by envy and greed. It creates a toxic environment where working class people are shamed by intellectuals for doing their jobs and removes from them any source of pride, such as nationalism or Christianity and offers them an alternative of being a literal slave indefinitely under a dictatorship of the proletariat until the illusory and purely hypothetical withering away of the state (implying jews would ever give up power and people wouldn't immediately go back to selling ice cream on the street if the state wasn't stopping them). It has also made the working class materially poorer to the point of mass starvation literally ever single time it's been tried.

but those ideas are more post-communist than anything, if you allow me a silly analogy, it's like if grandpa USSR left the subversion gun lying around before dying and his grandkid is shooting half the neighborhood with it.
The French communist party had a pretty hardline stance on immigration in the late 70's and early 80's because they knew it would create unfair competition for French workers.

The negatives to Marxism-Leninism are that the vanguard will temporarily preserve wage labour in state owned industry and use the profits as state funding, and then eventually notice that it's a very good idea to keep business nationalised rather than to collectivise business as should be done. The chairman or the Supreme Leader will then become the owner of all the means of production, wage labour and commodity production will continue, and voilá, you have state capitalism. Socialism is a realistic concept in that the society does not be coerced into equality as socialism is just an economic plan where labour is viewed as the most important factor of production rather than capital, and workers are paid for their produce, rather than those who own the capital

>There is no moral imperative against making profit off other people's labour.
Communism isn't about moral imperative.

>If I want to make ice cream and sell it at the beach, why shouldn't I?
You are allowed to, it's just that there will be no incentive to work for you unless you split your wages 50/50. If you don't, then people will go and employ themselves into a worker co-op where they are paid their fair share

That's what I said. It's 100% motivated by envy and greed.

Or the common good, what about the common good ?

>Communism = central planning

Too bad Marx never wrote this.

Try again.

The depression lasted 2 decades, comie bread lines lasted from a century to half a century,

Successfully implemented Communism always puts in power a leader seeking the absolute ruination of the economy and culture, along with the starvation and suffering of all. Gun control and political correctness are means of putting the power in the hands of a select few who are chosen to carry out mass murders of all their political opponents.

What if they get more money working for me because I have a better business model and a bigger business than some shitty co-op?

Communism does not work, and has failed every single time. Look at North Korea and you will see for yourself.

>Not muh rael communism

Gommies sure love it when people claim to be something they are not, but as soon as it comes to esoteric communism thats when they start demanding standards.

>In all reality, the only system that works is AnCap.

As empirical shown by all the AnCap countries in the world, oh wait there are 0...

If you think your business model of an ice cream stand on the side of the road is more efficient than some shitty co-op, you both earn more money and won't mind splitting your wages 50/50 or according to each of the products of your labour. If you make 20 ice creams and your employee makes 10, you get 2:1 ratio pay

Allow me to play darjeeling's avocado again but North Korea was better off than before the revolution until the american embargo and economic sanctions and the fall of one of its two main trading partners, the USSR.
Same with China, Mao's policies were misguided at times and had horrible effects but he left the country better off than he found it.

>common good
>leads to famines

That would still classify as moral imperatives.

Anyway, the point is: individual motives never come first. The inherent dynamics of the mode of production do.

>split your wages 50/50
between? all person involved? who purchases the ice cream to sell? who transports it? who sells it? who scoops it? who maintains the freezer? what about the worker who produces the spoon? what about the person who put up the tent for shade? the person who recommended your ice cream to other potential customers? the person who made the sign for the ice cream stand?
Should we all receive the same share of that dollar?
You are a fucking moron. Think before you speak.

So if I shit into your plate and call it a medium-rare tenderloin, does it become a medium rare tenderloin? No true Scotsmans only exist when the subject fits the definition but the person denies it. Communism is completely different to central planning according to every communist theory ever

killing millions to save billions

> but he left the country better off than he found it.
HAHAHAH
Because he took over a civil war torn nation that before that was getting infected with the plague and gassed by Tojo.

Compare China just when Mao kicked the bucket with Taiwan, per capita and you will see that one's a shithole.

>classify
qualify

>save billions

What bilions. First off gommunism only reached around 1.5 billion people. 2ndly it didn't save anybody.

Take one look at my country or any other ex commie country and I'll tell you the negative aspects of communism you pasty assfat gated community dwelling liberal american university attending bull prepping cuckold

Were the means of production not ceased?

>between? all person involved? who purchases the ice cream to sell? who transports it? who sells it? who scoops it? who maintains the freezer? what about the worker who produces the spoon? what about the person who put up the tent for shade? the person who recommended your ice cream to other potential customers? the person who made the sign for the ice cream stand?
Yeah, you get paid the amount your service contributes to the final sale value, you don't get a set wage
>Should we all receive the same share of that dollar?
No, you get what you give. If someone puts in twice the effort, they get twice the moolah
>You are a fucking moron. Think before you speak.
t. person who can't read

> What are the negatives of communism?
it doesn't work

>meme
>actually happened
>in more than one instance of communism
Who's the real meme here?

No, they weren't. They belonged to the state and the CEO became the Chairman and the citizens became workers under lifelong labour contracts

China went to shit long before the war with Japan, the Northern Expedition was pretty much the beginning of the end because Chiang was a retard; he's the one who caused the civil war in the first place, and he is quite disregarded even in Taiwan.

>They belonged to the state
And the state belonged to the people.

Again, were the means not ceased?

>Yeah, you get paid the amount your service contributes to the final sale value, you don't get a set wage
Wtf are you saying? Stop disgracing yourself and go open a book.

>What are the negatives of communism?
Nothing. Giving into your lowest impulses is totally fine as long as you don't start questioning any of it.

>81% of Serbs support Titoist socialism
>Serbia is in the shitters
>''take a look''
>''negative aspects''
top kek

But every single time communism has been tried it has not served the common good. It has led to people becoming poorer and mass oppression, starvation and murder literally every single time it's been tried and inevitably will if it were ever tried again. The objective, unalterable laws of economics and human biology/psychology dictate that it will fail as described by Marx.

Marginalising and even murdering the highest average IQ group (and most aesthetic, since qts are attracted to wealth and intelligence) from society does not serve the common good. The bourgeoisie are the most productive and creative group per capita and also the least replaceable. It is why Eastern Europe have a lower average IQ and seem uglier on average than Western Europe. Their genepool has been ruined for all time because of communism.

Do you really think this horde of bumbling idiots is ready to hear about labour theory of value?

Horseshit. Anyone who even thinks this is a fucking retard. Pull up the interviews that were given by some North Korean defectors, and you will learn of really cool things like cannibalism that has gone on. If it were not for the West, more would be starving, but the food we send them tends to go to cronies and military first.
Communism is a completely failed ideology, and its obvious the OP is just trying to start some kind of fucking discussion because the normal commie lefty pol bullshit is not working.