Discussion

Is communism always doomed to fail or is it possible to create a stable communist state?

Other urls found in this thread:

econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Sure, if you can figure out how to turn men into ants then communism will work. It fails otherwise.

It isn't possible to create ANY form of stable state with this many people. Humans need to start disappearing.

> doomed to fail
> Implying communism was created to "work"

user...

Don't forget to plant some glass comrades.

>or is it possible to create a stable communist state?

Try to come confiscate my property and you'll get your answer.

I'm cool with this.

Gay poofs thread, sage the fuck out this gay thread, OP is a faggot etc etc

communism exists for one reason and one reason only: to destroy western civilization and subjugate humanity.
all that idealism is just a tool they use to get you useful idiots onside with the plan.

eloquently put, jao

So long as human nature applies communism is doomed to failure. Greed, laziness, inefficiency, and disagreement are all part of human nature, but are all incompatible with communism. It is, at best, a boring and unfulfilling theory on paper, and in reality it reduces any society it is attempted in to economic despair and ruin. Contrary to the parroted saying, men are not created equal and there will always be a class of poor, uneducated, and suffering people.

Communism is only possible if every single government in the world decides to adopt it, since it can't compete with other systems in the long run as proven many times in the last century.
Which means it's feasible only on paper and not in real life

i have some news for you:
marxism has infected almost every government on earth. they just realized how repulsed people were by soviet bloc communism and changed the look.
the marxism is the same.

Communism is impossible because it contradicts the iron law of oligarchy and conservation of sovereignty.

Straight up from Communist Manifesto:
#8 "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
> Equal obligation
How can a stateless and non-hierarchical society enforce this?
> Your worktime is equivalent to everybody else's worktime
Am I forced to sit and drawn hentai pictures for as long as others work in factory, if I don't want to do manual labour as an artist?
How can a collective deny me my part of produced goods, even if I produce only hentai drawings?
How can one cultivate and harvest crops to personal use, when there's no personal property to be used for farming in cummunism?
How can there be a state in society without hierarchy?

there can't. that's why "real" communism exists on paper only and when it's attempted in real life it just results in anti-human barbarity and violation of basic rights.

Good luck convincing tribal third worlders to adopt communism. Even if the West gets infected by it, it's doomed to fail in the long run, just as the USSR failed

Communism was a Jewish experiment to create a workforce willing to work for peanuts.

>communist
>state

Guess how I know that you don't even know what communism is.

>le state will magically wither away meme
It never happened on a significant scale, why would it happen now, even with an hypotetical communist revolution?

I imagine robots can do it.
People thinking communism can work fail to realise something simple. Human nature will never allow it.

>magically wither away
Where exactly did you read about the magic part?

>good luck
>even if

wake up, you halfwit. tribal third worlders HAVE been convinced to adopt it, whether they know what it is or not. and the west has long since been infected by it as well. are you blind to what is happening in the west and all over the world? the prevailing worldwide political mentality is based on marxism now.

You can create a stable communist state but not a sustainable one, as soon as you stop repressing/controlling its over.

Trust us goyim, the state will whither away eventually. In the meantime you need to be slaves or go to the gulags.

it was an experiment to see what system was better for demoralizing a population and eradicating their culture and history.
the reason why the soviet union "fell" is because the powers that be (who control both the "capitalist" and "communist" sides) realized that degenerate marxist socialism disguised as capitalism stripped a people of their identity and morals much faster than hard iron fisted communism.

Dialectical materialism is a form of magical thinking.

>communism
>production

Why has it never happened? Why des communism always led to either utter failure of small communes or the creation of a state?
Why would the state wither away nowadays when it never did anytime communism was tried? What is different?
Debatable. We in the West are definitely poisoned by marxism, the third world really isn't.
You think Saudi Arabia wants Marxism? Or India? Or any shithole in Africa that has to deal with religious ands ethnic conflict?
Nah, communism will simply never succeed because it needs to be global and is therefore impossible. Some nations might go to shit due to it, it already happened in the past. But it will never succeed in the long run

tell me then, you useless tosser

The concepts of private property and ownership are what separate us from animals. In order for communism to work, the population would have to give up a large portion of their sentient thinking while still retaining the advanced knowledge needed to operate machinery and the systems they would be working in. Communism also relies on a government that is willing to dissolve itself and that is why it will literally never work.

Why would you want to? Even if it were stable, it would still be hellish.

communism has evolved. you are imagining eastern block style expansion all over the world. while that was the initial plan of communism, they have changed their methods and appearance. i am getting the feeling that you don't recognize the neo-communism all around you because you're only looking for hammers and sickles. (though you'd have to be blind to not see the many instances of them all over the west today - at "antifa" rallies, universities, demonstrations etc.)

everyone should read the book "the anti humans" by D. Bacu if you think communism is an honest, fair and sincere ideology.

>is it possible to create a stable communist state?
no

have you read Brave New World? Unless people are indoctrinated from the birth and constantly drugged they are going to oppose this shit. Or you can have Soviet Russia/commie China -like government that will force you to do what they want or you'll be killed/imprisoned.

Communism only works with ants.

There is overwhelming evidence that it does not work, but the best explanation of *why* it does not work is probably this one:

econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

>Paid armed guards shoot trespassers
>"Fucking rich people!"

No, you misunderstand. Communists have indeed changed their approach and are now doing their "long march through the institutions". All I'm saying is that while they are gaining ground here in the West (as you said Antifa, unis and other leftist shit), they are unable to do so in a meaningful way in third world countries, and thus are doomed to fail again like they did in the last century.
We might see some communist states (and yes, communism can only exist within a state and even then for a short period of time since it easily gets outclassed by mixed economies and capitalist ones) in the future, but they are doomed to fail and get rid of commies just like Eastern Europe and many other did. Even China, an allegedly communist state is moving away from communism (and is now improving after getting rid of it)

yes, but thanks to the american military presence in every country on earth, the third world countries can do whatever the fuck they want - they're still going to do what world communism tells them to - enforced by the usa, the enforcement branch of world communism.

communism is now deeply ingrained in the west, and the east. it already rules the world, just not as dictatorially as it would like to - yet.

you fail to see that communism and capitalism are two branches of the same tree, and as great men have observed in the past, these two branches "ultimately bear the same fruit"

you have fallen for the social engineering of "east vs. west"

Are you disagreeing on the dialectics or the materialist part?

It has never happened for two reasons:
a) communism can never be achieved so long as enemy capitalist states exist. The top-down organisation of the capitalist state is more efficient than the down-top organisation of a communist society, especially regarding military and political issues. The american government can go to war without asking its citizens, a communist society can't do that obviously. In order for communism to be achieved, the socialist state must remain to be defeated.
b) Bureaucracy. But this happened mostly due to historical circumstance and the high chance that a big state turns bureaucratic.

>Why would the state wither away nowadays when it never did anytime communism was tried? What is different?

Capitalism has given us more tools that we can use to achieve a better socialist state, so a revolution in the present time will probably give a better socialist state.

There's a communist general posted often in this board. There's suggested reading on marxism there. You can begin there. I'm not going to explain a whole economic system to you by posting.
The post you cited is a genuine problem of Marxist economics, however it is poorly elaborated on.

*must remain to defeat capitalism

>possible to create a stable communist state?
No. Work is done based off of rewards. Communism offers no rewards for work, simply negatives for not working. This drives people to continuously find new ways to avoid working rather than ways to work more efficiently. I suppose it could last a few decades as softcore communists like Russia did but workplace innovation would stagnate and economic growth would be non-existent. Culture would be destroyed if you went too far though and you end up with no soul chinks. Therefore it is never really a stable system.

you fool, communism needs capitalism. these two systems are two hands of the same beast. without the other, one has no raison d'etre.
the two systems were conceived by the same people to take control of the world - one way or another. it takes both an initial and an opposing force to re-mold something to a new shape. the same is true of society.

"the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves"
-lenin

You don't have to explain me the economic system, just answer my questions.
There's no need to elaborate more, since that's the core question that show how retarded and childish the whole ideology is

Communism is fine on a micro level. Your household is likely communist for example.
The problem is once you include outsiders, strangers, people out of your tribe, it falls apart. Because they will fuck you over to get ahead or be lazy, while the state limits how you can produce to catch up.
It also centralizes power, whereas capitalism spreads power around to competing business owners.

it is not intended to be. it's sole purpose was to destroy the existing social order, and it has done an effective job.

Communism is not meant to work.
Think of it as selfish meme, the ideology that only evolves to spread itself.
All utopian ideas suffer from losing steam as they achieve their partial goals, some people will inevitably just say "this is good enough" and downgrade from true believers to normies.
Commies solve the problem by their endless cycle of building something, and then fucking it up.
Since the goals were self contradictory from the get-go, you can always say it wasn't real communism afterwards.
E.g. you used state to abolish private property, but then there was state, so it wasn't real communism.
The meme is thus eternal.

I don't see communism being prevalent in the East (which is where the power balance is slowly shifting towards, along with our industry. Thanks globalization!).
If we talk about Europe, modern day East Europe and Russia are not communist, both in terms of socail and economic policy.
If we are talking about Asia, it's the same. You only have North Korea which is still somewhat communist, but they are just a Chinese puppet state to be used as a buffer to American interests in the area.
And while the world is becoming more socially liberal in the West, it's not doing so in the East, at least not at a sufficient pace for a synchronized communist revolution imho.
I might be wrong, but I hope I'm right
>communism can never be achieved so long as enemy capitalist states exist. The top-down organisation of the capitalist state is more efficient than the down-top organisation of a communist society, especially regarding military and political issues. The american government can go to war without asking its citizens, a communist society can't do that obviously. In order for communism to be achieved, the socialist state must remain to be defeated.
But even with a socialist state communist countries where unable to defeat capitalist ones in the past. I fail to see how a socailist state would fare better now than in the past, especially considering that one of its key tenets, siezing the means of production, is now obsolete. Indutrial and agricultural equipment are no longer expensive and are not even relevant to modern economies anymore, since 90% of western economy is service base and you can hardly sieze that. Ironically communism could happen in a third world country still dependant on manufacturing, but there is no social climate to accomodate for it, while in the west there is social climate but no economic condition.

>being this obtuse

it's not only iron curtain, hammer and sickle countries that are marxist in today's world. you can not see the forest for the trees because you're looking for the wrong things.

I imagined you where talking about the social decay (social liberalism/cultural marxism/whatever you want to call it) that accompanies marxism. Am I wrong? Did you mean something else?

Let me tell you a secrets only us autists realize. don't tell anyone! You'll reveal your power level to savages.


The ism's are all a fraud. They are an ideological matrix to keep the intelligent chasing their tails. The only ism that actually exists in practice in government is satanism.

I can make any ism into any other ism with a clever argument. I can make fascism into anarchism and capitalism into communism, and then when the system fails, I can just claim that real ___________ has never even been attempted.

The continuum of political thought is not a line, it's a circle. Go far enough left and you'll find yourself on the right, and vice versa. "Left" and "right" are just a matter of perspective. A cup in front of me to the right on a table is to the left of the guy sitting across from me on the opposite side of the table.

The only legitimate political subject is how laws are made and who enforces them. and if you want to read about how government works, read Machiavelli's The Prince.

If you don't internalize every word I just said as infallible and eternal truths, you're an asshole and I hope you die in a fire.

> no one is alive
> technically stable

...

>marxism has infected almost every government on earth.

yep. they just threw postmodernism into the mix and started calling it neoliberalism

The equal obligation question is retarded. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means that wealth is distributed regardless of how much someone works. The obligation to work exists in the socialist state.
The question "What if someone is able but doesn't want to work" which you are thinking right now is also retarded, in the communist society nobody will see work as an obligation. Lenin commented on this really nicely.

Regarding the worktime question, I said it's a genuine problem that results from the LTV. I didn't claim Marxism is perfect.

What are you trippin on my dude?

I don't get the point of your answer. Services are just another form of labour. The fact that production has been outsourced from the West to Asia doesn't mean much, capitalism creates inequality everywhere, whether we are talking about an industrial nation or not. If a western country goes through a revolutionary phase, then an industrial defragmentation process is bound to take place. The real question is if it will retain its ability to create new technology.

you just need to think of communism in a more abstract and fluid way. its masters became well aware of how hated it is and changed its image completely. however the core ideologies are the same. but the problem with this is that while everyone is on guard for the iron curtain, they didn't realize the noxious marxist gas seeping quietly in the back.

have you seen the documentary "communism by the backdoor?

exactly. and because of this, people can't recognize it even though it just put on a thin new mask.

Communism is a method to seize power, not a method to arrange society after.

a fact that you can not refute, apparently.

seize power and emancipate a people from their history, identity and traditions

I don't have the time to refute conspiracy theories, you can see how much time it takes for me to reply to the other posts.

It isn't possible as long as scarcity exists and human labor are required.

> means that wealth is distributed regardless of how much someone works
> The question "What if someone is able but doesn't want to work" which you are thinking right now is also retarded, in the communist society nobody will see work as an obligation.
So I can literally sit on my arse, drawn hentai all day by side of a lake, come back to collective and go around demanding my share of food, clothes and electronic gadgets.

a literal WE WUZ KANGS tier society

Always doomed to fail.
And these third world shithole latin countries are perpetually doomed to have commie governments spring up because they promise free shit and brown mestizos sure do love free shit.

It's doomed to fail.

It's been around for what 100 year's now, and every attempt has failed (But hang on Venezuela I sure REAL communism is right around the corner! KEK!)

hahahahaha
a direct quote from one of your faggot commie idols is not a conspiracy theory

you'll have to do better than that, shill.

>you just need to think of communism in a more abstract and fluid way.

Communism is the green curtain behind which the wizard is hiding.

Why do you guys think no new ism has been developed in over 100 years? Why are people still debating Capitalism, communism, anarchism, socialism, and fascism?

In order for any of these ancient ideologies to still retain validity, the idea of human societal evolution has to be discarded.

We aren't all still driving a horse and buggy and lighting our homes at night with kerosene lanterns, why are people incapable of realizing the obsolescence of the 18th century ism's?

Because satanists have society under a spell and arguing horseshit like the ism's they invented does nothing but strengthen that spell.

The stable communist state, according to the manifesto, is supposed to "whither away". So communist and state is an oxymoron.

What comes before it is "socialism". It's not the cuddly Bernie Sanders style socialism though, it's a brutal system of Eugenics that darwins off all people who aren't fit for a stateless communism until the only ones who remain are adaptable to assume any job, and industrious enough to keep working with out expecting anything in return. This is justified by our use of "selective breeding" on animals, which is just a sugar coated way of saying we use eugenics on our farm animals. The methods used by communists to achieve this end goal are so cruel that to implement them on animals in a capitalist country would be illegal.

You may found it absurd, but people 1000 years ago found it absurd to not be ruled by a king that has been chosen by God.
Every individual has different material needs. Communism means that society has progressed so much that aknowledges that and provides accordingly.

I've tried to look into it unobjectively and approaching it as a 'new' idea and it just doesn't work because it requires people to run the system which means it would become socialism and slowly as I worked through the systems economic forecast everything could only be saved by capitalism otherwise it turns into a poverty stricken system with dictators having to step in.

It is possible to have a stable communist state.

Everyone would have to be dead, but it would be stable.

>The stable communist state, according to the manifesto, is supposed to "whither away".

Which is the red flag that should turn anyone off to communism.

A smakll group of people are going to seize all power and wealth and then just allow it all to slip[ away so they can have solidarity with their buddies while working in a factory?

Anyone who believes that has never had any experience with either power or wealth. It's like claiming that a heroin addiction will just fade away once you have mountains of heroin.

>provides accordingly

KEK!
I know when I think of every attempt of communism I think "those people sure are being provided for accordingly"

Lenin said that not in the context of "We are the establisment and we also control the opposition", but as in "We should be the leaders of a wide range of political organisations and ideologies that form the opposition, to control it against the establishment".

It can be stable. A small group of people with a single purpose will always use it. A group trying to set up a new town will divide resources logicaly as needed.

Ten thousand people all vaguely against each other will not willingly share, unless they are united in purpose. Pretty sure Hitler said something like 'it is not the rich helping the poor, but Germans helping germans'

American Dog, Venezuelan Dog, North Korean Dog hanging out...

American Dog: When I bark they bring me meat.

Venezuelan Dog: What's meat?

North Korean Dog: What's bark?

Retarded frogposter. Take your time to read the rest of the posts in this thread.

>what are semantics

...

So by literally providing absolutely zero worth of productive or scientific improvements to my collective's development, I can go around and demand others' manual labour's products and still get the same reward than every one else does.
How can you call that development?
Besides, if everyone has different material needs, who allocates the goods to the collective?
What can collective do if I come over to demand that I need to take 70% of some goods, because I consider to have such great need for it (say grain for example)?

...

>Post in meme flag
>Believes in meme ideology
>CALLS OTHER PEOPLE RETARDED!

But do you mean actual communism or just not being pants-pissingly afraid of taxes and social programs? Not really down for another edition of "Venezuela is what literally any socialism will get you but all the first world countries with nationalized healthcare don't count"

>A smakll group of people are going to seize all power and wealth and then just allow it all to slip[ away so they can have solidarity with their buddies while working in a factory?

Closest thing to that happening was Pol Pot. He was the most consistent communist and probably the least corruptible. He was also the evilest and killed 25-33% of his own people off during his time in power. He actually sacrificed a lot of power and wealth to send his people back to the stone age.

The only way it could possibly have any way of succeeding is if the entire world commited to it and there was loads of transparency and horrible corporeal punishment for corruption

It's not semantics when the clarification entirely changes the meaning that you proposed.
The Bolsheviks didn't earn power, they fought for it. That's why some 12 capitalist nations invaded their country to overthrow them after the revolution.

it is possible. all you need is a feared secret police, enough labor camps to accomondate any opposition and a nuclear bomb (to keep freedom loving democratic aggressorstates from raining on your parade)

>The only way it could possibly have any way of succeeding is if the entire world commited to it

I actually don't know why people keep saying that about various ideologies. The bigger the country, the LESS stable it is, not the other way around. If the system is so incapable of surviving competition, then it loses. Natural selection folks.

It's not that difficult to plan the distribution of goods inside the population, install fail-safes to avoid corruption, automate it and update it every now and then.
>How can you call that development?
It's a development from people not having equal opportunity.

And an endless supply of money, resources and for things to magically happen all by themselves!

>the bolsheviks fought for power

lol

and who financed this fight?

you should watch the documentary "under the shadow of hermes" or read the book "under the sign of the scorpion"

your knowledge on this subject is a joke. it has probably all come from some brainwashed official public education textbook.

your knowledge of this subject is the equivalent of what a fast food burger looks like in its commercial vs what it looks like when you actually order it. that is what you think communism is, vs. what it actually is in real life.

Communist state is an oxymoron

I thought the USSR was not real communism?

The Russian soldiers that returned armed from WWI used those weapons to conduct the revolution.
The Germans may have also played a part, but there are only suggestions, it's not certain.

The USSR was not communist by definition. Read the other posts in the thread.
The October revolution was socialist in nature because it was led by the Bolsheviks, who were communists, at least at the time.

yeah you can plan all you want, but if I still come over and say that I need that 70% of the goods, how can a collective tell me that I can't have it?
You literally just told me that I can have goods according to my needs

How was the revolution marxist if it took place in an agrarian rather than a industrial society?

That's a nice question.
The answer is that it wasn't by orthodox marxist standards, but Lenin just didn't care about that.

>the russians that returned from WW1

so where did all those heebs from brooklyn fit in?

you really need to watch "under the shadow of hermes"
for your own good
you sound like an idiot, spouting the falsified and whitewashed "official" "history" of these subjects.

and perhaps you need to read some solzhenitsyn as well:
>You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.

woops, there goes your shitty make believe argument