Communism only failed because people stopped believing in it

There's nothing wrong with a Centrally Planned Economy otherwise. Capitalism will also fail when people no longer believe that their actions make a difference.

kill yourself
sage

>kill yourself
>sage
Nothing else but sage. No arguments, no opinions. Just sage.

At least make sure you put sage in the options field.

So people just stopped believing in it even though it was working perfectly? What level of mental gymnastics are you doing you tard, fuck off

...

>So people just stopped believing in it even though it was working perfectly?
They stopped believing that their actions made a difference. Communism has been consistently proven to bring poor countries out of an economic downturn. Planned economies help rapidly industrialize nations. Yet, once industrialized, communistic planned economies fail. Why? Because people no longer feel their actions make a difference. It's ok if I don't work, someone else will kind of thinking - called the free rider problem in economics - becomes so prevalent that the economy no longer produces enough goods to sustain the population.

By the same token, the only reason capitalism works is because people believe their actions make a difference. Else, capitalism doesn't work either.

>communism is a religion

>communism is a religion
So is capitalism. All economic models work on beliefs of the people. If people believe their actions make no difference in the long run, then the economy collapses.

Capitalism is propped up by false advertising. You're always told that you need to be the best at everything. That drives people. Else, the U.S. system would collapse in a few months if all the false advertising were taken away. It would return to the 1800s era of agrarianism. Worse this time since there are no slaves as forced labor.

bump

>gobbunism only failed because people stopped believing in it
>didn't even go threw it
Consider suicide you mutt,but then again the rope might break with your bodyfat precentage.

Wow it's almost as if communism and the people who live in it are retards. I don't know whats worse, the retards who fall for it and believe in it in the first place and then want gibs after it fails, or that the citizens of said communist country have such little faith in their own economic/political system. Maybe because it's shit?

I know you guys got screwed over by Ceausescu. But Romanians this morning have no arguments really.

If communism worked, then people would believe in it. If it worked it wouldn't keep not working. Fuck off commie cunt.

Fail of communism was pretty funny, desu.
They protested for more and ended up with less, serve'em right.

>Wow it's almost as if communism and the people who live in it are retards.
Well it's not like people who live in capitalism are on an average smarter. Economic models cannot be correlated to the average IQ of a population.
> I don't know whats worse, the retards who fall for it and believe in it in the first place and then want gibs after it fails
You're a Nazi, so it's fairly obvious you'll hate all those on welfare since majority of the welfare recipients in the U.S. are black.
>Maybe because it's shit?
People didn't lose faith in the system. They just stopped believing their actions made a difference. The problem is not completely eliminated by capitalism.

Once a society reaches a certain standard of living - food, shelter, and education - only false advertising keeps it propped up. Nothing else keeps it going.

People talk about the virtues of capitalism. There are none except that you can keep people running like hamsters on a wheel by continuously perpetuating a culture of competition.

Look at the U.S., there's no longer a need to compete. We have enough food to feed twice the population. But we still keep going. Why? Because we have to? No, because we're told to by the media.

Who would have imagined we would become so lost as a species that we looked backwards for progress in terms of politics while shunning everything else that history detailed for us.

The future doesn't lie in National Socialism or Communism, we need something new.

>"you can't light a fire on a mountain"
>"lights fire"
>fire goes out
>"see, it just doesn't work"
>"it went out because you're peeing on it"
>"if it were possible to light a fire on a mountain it would have persevered through my pee"

>If communism worked, then people would believe in it.
Communism has shown consistently that it rapidly industrializes poor countries and brings them out of economic recessions. Believe believe in communism at that start.
>If it worked it wouldn't keep not working.
Communism can keep working with false advertising. The soviets got their propaganda wrong. The U.S. has the right attitude towards propaganda. Keep brainwashing people into being hamsters.

>They stopped believing that their actions made a difference.
because they didn't make a difference, good observation.
>Communism has been consistently proven to bring poor countries out of an economic downturn.
whereby economic downturn = being an economic disaster area since the Younger Dryas. name one developed country that turned communist. it's all third world or eastern europe, where you cannot distinguish between economic downturn and business as usual.
>Planned economies help rapidly industrialize nations.
there's a natural speed of industrialization, and pushing it harder leads to fearsome inefficiencies.
>Yet, once industrialized, communistic planned economies fail.
no, that's a coincidence. industrialization and failure both take time, that's all.
>Why? Because people no longer feel their actions make a difference.
which, again, is true, but it is true because communism makes sure there's no point in striving. you can't go visit Hawai'i or buy a good car anyway, and once you have your commieblock apartment, why bother? you are happy if you have toilet paper.

It failed because it removes incentives you dipshit. Like it or not, mankind is motivated by self interest and once you take away the reward, nobody will be motivated to work hard. Abstract concepts only motivate people so far, people think with their wallets first.

> communism relies on the same success mechanism as santa claus

cont'd
>It's ok if I don't work, someone else will kind of thinking - called the free rider problem in economics - becomes so prevalent that the economy no longer produces enough goods to sustain the population.
actually I think this was only a secondary problem, because the generation that still found pride in sustaining themselves and their families by work hasn't died out before communism failed (maybe in Russia it did, but then russians lived under communism for almost twice as long as the rest of us). the primary problem was that certain things were artificially made achievable by state control of prices and supply - ugly car, own flat, university education - while others were completely out of reach except for the nomenclature.
>By the same token, the only reason capitalism works is because people believe their actions make a difference. Else, capitalism doesn't work either.
communism does not work even if everyone believes in success. capitalism works as long as one single person believes in success.

t. guy over 50 who has seen some commie shit and is seeing it again, unfortunately.

What proof do you have to back up the claim that people stopped believing in communism? I'm pretty sure it happened because people got tired of being bullied by a shitty government that made everything worse by not being able to provide for your average citizen while wealthy high-ranking officials still went around in their luxury cars in large cities buying from "totally open to the public and not privately owned," stores/markets/whatever you want to call it.

>The future doesn't lie in National Socialism or Communism, we need something new.
Communism is the best because it advocates for a classless society. The human race has advanced so far technologically that there no longer is a need to segregate society based on race. There's only a need to segregate society based on those who follow the law and those who don't.

In addition, Communistic economies are centrally planned. They process vast amounts of information and have the ability to allocate resources efficiently, and most importantly - minimize externalities - something that capitalistic markets repeatedly fail to do.

Centrally planned economies are sound. In fact, the great debate in economics from 1910s up to the 1940s was on whether communism was better than capitalism. The conclusion was that theoretically, there's no difference between communism and capitalism and any difference that arises is so only due to implementation issues.

Stopped believing is a euphemism for murdered by kikes in a gulag

>>They stopped believing that their actions made a difference.
>because they didn't make a difference, good observation.
No, this is a gross mischaracterization of what I said. The actions of the people still made a difference. They just stopped believing that it did. That is why the Soviet economy became weaker and weaker and more dependent on their oil trade - just like the modern day U.S.
>Why? Because people no longer feel their actions make a difference.
>which, again, is true, but it is true because communism makes sure there's no point in striving.
There is no point in striving in the U.S. economy either. We have sufficient food and resources to feed and keep the entire population in comfort. Why don't we do it? Because of false advertising. You need people to work. You can't give them stuff they earned. You have to skim a huge portion of their earnings.

Counter what I said above, and I'll explain my side in more detail.

>Capitalism will also fail
Still waiting on that one

I think the idea of class separation is rooted in the belief (or fact depending on how you look at it) that less successful people are just lower quality on every facet and cause problems beyond their lack of economic or productive output.

That's possibly evidenced in the fact that lower income areas are less safe, more polluted, experience more traffic accidents, business losses, and the list goes on.

I know that communists and probably all modern liberals are stubborn in the belief that inequality is not inherent and is only caused by a lack of opportunities. in any extreme instance this is demonstrably untrue.

>it's fairly obvious you'll hate all those on welfare since majority of the welfare recipients in the U.S. are black.
my family hates those on welfare with a vengeance simply because that's the general attitude back in the village where I'm coming from. I'm not sure my father has ever seen a black person other than on TV. you might be like the other commie I've encountered a few years ago who thought deconstruction of ideas means asking stupid questions and therefore he started musing about whether it is really human nature to expect fair recompensation. you just don't seem to understand that there are lots of people for whom living on welfare is the worst kind of cheating. it has nothing to do with cladistic placement of the welfare recipient.

kek

Under communism who gets the beach houses?

>It failed because it removes incentives you dipshit.
Incentives are an illusion. Even in capitalistic economies companies try their best to give the lowest possible money to employees.

Instead of money, you have houses and resources in communistic economies.

Incentives exist in both types of economies. What the communistic countries were never good at was propaganda. They got it wrong, whereas the capitalists got it right.
>Like it or not, mankind is motivated by self interest and once you take away the reward, nobody will be motivated to work hard
And yet you're here on Sup Forums shitposting. What great reward do you receive by shitposting on Sup Forums?
>Abstract concepts only motivate people so far, people think with their wallets first.
What's the difference between paying you in $$ or in bottles of Vodka? You have to trade bottles of Vodka to get what you need, whereas with $$ you have an easier time getting what you need. Thus you think more with $$ than with bottles of vodka. There's no difference otherwise.

Soviets never forbade their citizens from internal trading. What they got wrong was not using proper propaganda.

>capitalism will fail
Isn't that what was said in the original teachings by Marx and other marxists? Communism was supposed to be the next step after capitalism failed, except it never did, so the Bolshevists went to the least capitalist country in Europe, hijacked a revolution, and installed their shitty ideology through the use of force instead?

National Socialism only failed because people stopped believing in it

>actually I think this was only a secondary problem
No, this was the primary problem. As time went on, Soviets relied more and more on their oil trade to prop up their economy. Just like the modern day U.S.
>because the generation that still found pride in sustaining themselves and their families by work hasn't died out before communism failed
The same problem here with the golden generation, boomers, and millennials.
>while others were completely out of reach except for the nomenclature.
With good propaganda, the soviets could have made their people believe that anything they didn't have, they wouldn't need.

We do this perfectly. We have so many materialistic items, but no spiritual peace. Why? Because our media and advertising never gives importance on these. It's more important to have a good body and be fuckable with a 9-5 job than grow spiritually.
>communism does not work even if everyone believes in success.
It does. It's been shown to bring nations out of poverty consistently. That's when people believe their actions make a difference.
>capitalism works as long as one single person believes in success.
What about the rest? You see if only one person believes in success, then it's not capitalism. It's communism because the one person is now planning the economy for the rest - central tenet of a planned economy.
>guy over 50 who has seen some commie shit and is seeing it again, unfortunately.
I'm not arguing on how big Stalin's dick was vs Trotsky's dick. I'm arguing for the idea of a centrally planned economy, and after much research, I find no difference between communism and capitalism except in the areas of propaganda.

>Incentives are an illusion. Even in capitalistic economies companies try their best to give the lowest possible money to employees.

And why would companies do that? I'll give you a hint, it's a word that starts with the letter I and they're not illusions

>What proof do you have to back up the claim that people stopped believing in communism?
The soviet economy relied more and more on their oil trade as they progressed. This was because the internal productions declined. Instead of correcting it with propaganda, the soviets incorrectly imported supplies by selling oil. That was their mistake.
> I'm pretty sure it happened because people got tired of being bullied by a shitty government that made everything worse by not being able to provide for your average citizen while wealthy high-ranking officials still went around in their luxury cars in large cities buying from "totally open to the public and not privately owned," stores/markets/whatever you want to call it.
That's what the western media told you.

>>Capitalism will also fail
>Still waiting on that one
What are you talking about? It's already failed for us. We run trade deficits with 20 of our top 30 trading partners. The only reason our economy is alive because of the petrodollar. Not because capitalism works.

>The actions of the people still made a difference. They just stopped believing that it did.
I LIVED THERE. IT DIDN'T.
you could buy certain stuff at 'prices' adjusted to the 'wages' 'paid', and not others. you could easily attend university, buy a flat in a commieblock or a Trabant, and that was that. everything else had no sponsored price, therefore was unattainable, therefore was not even offered for purchase. all the 'you can be whatever you want' did not apply except for Party officials; other than that, the whole self-made man stuff, the 'create a successful company despite dropping out of high school' romantic did not exist, people entered castes based on their education and STAYED THERE.

so yes, that's not what you said, but it was the way to twist it to become true.

This argument happened and is now over. Your side lost it. Catch up
also sage

>>it's fairly obvious you'll hate all those on welfare since majority of the welfare recipients in the U.S. are black.
>my family hates those on welfare with a vengeance simply because that's the general attitude back in the village where I'm coming from.
That statement was a digression. But I do believe that if you don't get the propaganda right, you'll have a lot of free riders. The soviets got their propaganda wrong.

>National Socialism only failed because people stopped believing in it
Yes.

okay, you are just parroting yourself at this point. I'm stopping responding.

OP BTFO

>We have sufficient food and resources to feed and keep the entire population in comfort.

And how do you think all the food and resources come from?

>You need people to work. You can't give them stuff they earned. You have to skim a huge portion of their earnings.

>Counter what I said above,

What's there to counter? You pretty much reaffirmed his argument that people felt like their actions meant shit.

Fpbp

>>Incentives are an illusion. Even in capitalistic economies companies try their best to give the lowest possible money to employees.
>And why would companies do that?
This is a starwman argument. I said that communism did not fail because of the removal of incentives. In addition, with my example of capitalistic companies, I meant to convey that there are no "MORE" incentives in a capitalistic economy than a communistic economy. Both economies will try their best to pay as little as possible to the workers.

The difference is, in a capitalistic economy you can falsely advertise competition - you're good if you become the CEO, you're good if you have a sexy body, you're good if you have a Ph.D. - the point is, it's no different in a communistic economy. Commisars get the same benefits as CEOs, Ph.D.s are just as intelligent, and people want to be just as sexy.

The difference is, the soviets got their propaganda wrong. They never convinced their people to strive for better. Capitalists, through their advertising, do that very very well.

ITT general gist of argument from insufficient propaganda: we weren't successful enough in telling people that they are doing fine, and somehow, mysteriously, they came to the opposite conclusion.

Greed is pure and never fails. The love of total power always fails and that's why communism ans socialism always fails. The communist utopia in your mind will only work if you kill half the world's population, junior.

What if I told you that my parents and my family lived in a communist country, what if I told you that I have visited that very same currently communist country and told you that it isn't western media lies but it's actually quite the opposite and the absolute truth that communism does not work, fails to provide for it's people, and that the wealthy high-ranking few live luxurious lives, much more decadent than middle class Americans do. Ah it must be my eyes lying to me, it must have been some huge western media operation to hide how shitty communism is, I must be living in the truman show. You have no idea of what communism is or what it was, it always has been shitty and it always will be shitty, enjoy living in complete ignorance.

Hard to believe in something when you are in a bread line or looting a store or eating your dog or being malnourished and so on.

No, a free-market will never lose the belief of the populace because there's money to be made.
But in communism, where a fucking store cleric gets paid the same salary as a cardiac surgeon, no one ever has any drive for/believe in the system to begin with.
You dumb shit commies need to understand that money drives the world, and it always will.

>The communist utopia in your mind will only work if you kill half the world's population, junior.

and only if you crush and oppress the remaining half of the population

then yeah Communism works flawlessly. But then it'd seem you end up with a funny definition of "working"

>>The actions of the people still made a difference. They just stopped believing that it did.
>I LIVED THERE. IT DIDN'T.
You lived in the soviet union? or it's satellite state? Also, why do you say your actions didn't matter?
>you could buy certain stuff at 'prices' adjusted to the 'wages' 'paid', and not others.
I thought I already dealt with the topic of not being able to buy certain products in a communistic economy. Was it not with you? The point was, even in a capitalistic economy you can convince people not to buy certain stuff. I don't eat caviar everyday even though it's available in abundance in the U.S. This point is related more to propaganda than actual weaknesses.
>that was that. everything else had no sponsored price, therefore was unattainable, therefore was not even offered for purchase.
I can't buy a property in Manhattan if the Jewish controlled real estate doesn't want it.
>all the 'you can be whatever you want' did not apply except for Party officials; other than that, the whole self-made man stuff, the 'create a successful company despite dropping out of high school' romantic did not exist
It doesn't exist here either. The only reason that idea of high school dropout turned millionaire worked was because the U.S. came out of an economic depression by participating in WW2, and after WW2, it was the world's leading economy - tons of jobs and no people to fill them. Have you heard of this romantic story in say England or France? Why? Weren't they capitalistic? It's because their economies were shit after WW2.

Once you start peeling the onion, you see that the core is the same for all onions.

...

>What if I told you that my parents and my family lived in a communist country
Nevermind.

Literally everything you said is wrong.

Top kek. In planned economy bureaucrats tell you what you have to produce and what amount. You will have stores full of products that no one buys or shortage of products that everyone want but cant buy because stores are empty. This ineffectivnes to satisfy customers is reason why communist economies failed.

Wtf do you mean "Communism failed bc people stopped believing in it"? There are reasons why it left a bad impression on people asswad.

>Hard to believe in something when you are in a bread line or looting a store or eating your dog or being malnourished and so on.
I don't know why people on this board are such amateurs are argument.

You're going to focus on one facet of a communistic country and then extrapolate it to the entire ideology?

Your argument is akin to me saying capitalism sucks because it gives rise to porn which is degenerate and reduces the reproductive energy of the population.

See the problem? Porn does not define capitalism. It's a facet. Similarly, poor management of state production facilities and abuse of power does not define communism - it's a facet.

Besides, are you telling me that no one is hungry in the U.S.? So the 4 million people on welfare are all imaginary?

>No, a free-market will never lose the belief of the populace because there's money to be made.
Money is to be made only due to planned obsolescence. This gives rise to the need for producing the same goods again and again.

Without planned obsolescence, communistic economies would be much better because they would be more efficient at reorganizing their labor than capitalistic economies.
>You dumb shit commies need to understand that money drives the world, and it always will.
Money is a superficial instrument. What is being traded are tangible goods and services. When you say money drives the world, you mean goods and services drive the world. That's the same with communism as well.

>Cites a propaganda graph and doesn't realize it
>Literally everything you said is wrong.
Communism does not advocate for an abuse of power. It just so happens that communists abuse power. It's no different in capitalistic countries.

>it gives rise to porn which is degenerate and reduces the reproductive energy of the population
It’s a broad claim to say that’s necessarily a bad thing. After all, it requires a degree of intelligence as well as impulse control to resist frequent masturbation and porn consumption. By that token, porn is going to most negatively impact the lower IQ portion of the population, who you’d want to have reduced fertility.

>In planned economy bureaucrats tell you what you have to produce and what amount. You will have stores full of products that no one buys or shortage of products that everyone want but cant buy because stores are empty. This ineffectivnes to satisfy customers is reason why communist economies failed.
That just means the bureaucrats were inefficient at planning. But since you're a Swiss, why would you accept that?

>Wtf do you mean "Communism failed bc people stopped believing in it"? There are reasons why it left a bad impression on people asswad.
Because people stopped believing in it.

>By that token, porn is going to most negatively impact the lower IQ portion of the population, who you’d want to have reduced fertility.
And yet they reproduce more than the higher IQ population.

What exactly makes it propaganda? The data comes from a peer-reviewed journal authored by highly successful and well-respected economists. You don’t have any data whatsoever to support the notion that planned economies lead to any kind of economic growth. That sounds awful propagandistic to me.

Then maybe your thesis that masturbation to porn reduces feritlity is wrong. You’re the one who made the claim.

>Because people stopped believing in it.
Very thoughtful and productive answer, comrade.
>What exactly makes it propaganda?
>everything I disagree with is capitalist and fascist propaganda.

>trying to have a serious debate on pol
Soyboy detected. Kill yourself

It also has nothing to do with abuse of power. Central planning is woefully inefficient at resource management and fails to reliably extract productive energy from its population, generally due to a lack of market incentives.

Competition is one of the main drivers of innovation. Central planning, by definition, reduces that element of an economy drastically. You will never strive to innovate harder than in a situation where your livelihood is on the line.

Everybody knows that the pay never suffers in a planned economy unless its falling apart. They have no reason to try harder than the bare minimum.

those who really need it

I was telling you this is a habit of edgy communists. When you try to use data against socialism, they seem to always dismiss it as propaganda instead of responding to it.

>Communism does not advocate for an abuse of power. It just so happens that communists abuse power. It's no different in capitalistic countries.
I've lived in both kind of countries, and it is wildly different.

>Let's make it easier to the elite to steal everything, by streamlining and centralizing all the power.

>What exactly makes it propaganda?
The graph ignores the petrodollar. The U.S. economy is rich not because it produces things of value that others want per se, but more because it controls the oil trade.
>The data comes from a peer-reviewed journal authored by highly successful and well-respected economists.
I'm an economist. Haven't you heard? On a table of 6 economists, there are 7 opinions.
>You don’t have any data whatsoever to support the notion that planned economies lead to any kind of economic growth.
Planned economies have consistently brought poor countries out of economic recessions. That is why they were used by many Asian countries after WW2 to prop up their economy.

However, planned economies stop working after a while because of poor propaganda and the lack of the people's belief in it.

>Then maybe your thesis that masturbation to porn reduces feritlity is wrong. You’re the one who made the claim.
You said waiting in line for food is bad and therefore communism is bad. I said that's just a facet and doesn't define communism. Food shortages arise due to poor planning, not because communism is wrong.

In order to counter you, I said porn is heavily propagated in capitalism.

I can't have a discussion with you if you're more interested in nitpicking rather than discussing. But then again, you have nothing of value to contribute other than nitpicking.

>Central planning is woefully inefficient at resource management
This is not true. The great debate in economics raged from 1910s to the 1940s. Economists finally agreed that there's no theoretical difference between centrally planned economies and capitalistic economies. In capitalistic economies, prices help allocate resources efficiently, in centrally planned economies a planning committee helps allocate resources efficiently.

If you're serious about your claim, then it's because centrally planned economies had poor computational power to compute the optimal resource allocation.

Now, we have such power.
>generally due to a lack of market incentives.
Not related.
>Competition is one of the main drivers of innovation.
And yet the soviets innovated greatly in aerospace and mathematics.
>They have no reason to try harder than the bare minimum.
1 billion of the world's population is engaged in agriculture and can support 9 billion more even though there are only 7.6 billion of us. There is no longer a need for Americans to work because we've advanced so far technologically that we can just stabilize our system.

We work not because of incentives, but because we are addicted to it. Due to the media, due to peer pressure.

In addition, due to the petrodollar, our economy barely produces anything of value. All valuable items are produced outside the U.S.. Most U.S. jobs are in the service industry and are useless because there's no difference between majority of american jobs and Soviet government jobs. They exist only for the sake of existence.

Yeah because human nature fucking exists and people won't work for free

>>Communism does not advocate for an abuse of power. It just so happens that communists abuse power. It's no different in capitalistic countries.
>I've lived in both kind of countries, and it is wildly different.
I thought you didn't want to reply to me anymore? Also, your opinions on power are subjective. Most industrial sectors in the U.S. are monopolized and it is the capitalists that control the government. There is no difference between our system and a soviet system. You may think you're the only one who's lived in two communist countries, but I also came to the U.S. from a communist country - just that our people weren't as bad as Romanians.

Capitalism falls when people stop wanting money. This makes it immortal.

>stopped believing in it
Hmmmm...I wonder if there is a good fucking reason as to why that is dumbass.

Communism:
strong central bank owned by Jews (namely the Rothchilds)
Jews hold most white collar positions of privilege
everyone is equal (as slaves under Jewish hegemony)
Antisemitism is outlawed
authoritarian rule (with lots of purges)

Communism:
Take private property (aka the means of production, or factories)
from the individuals that own them and give them to "the state"
(a small number of people in positions of privilege filled through nepotism)
turning the entire country into private property owned by them with the people still
working in factories they don't own and now will never have an opportunity
to own making less than they did before with a lower standard of living. Or
to make it simple basically a return to feudal serfdom only the lords will
now all be Jews instead of natives that basically consider the gentiles subhuman livestock

Marx was hired by the Rothschilds bankers and the communist manifesto was written solely for the purpose of ensalving mankind.

In John Robisons Proof Of a Consipracy the goals of the Illuminati are documented as
1. Abolition of all Monarchial Government and patriotism to it
2. Elimination of private property and inheritance
3. Destruction of the traditional family
4. Eradication of all religion

I don’t think I need to point out how these goals were later echoed in Marx’s (Jew) communist manifesto and implemented in the Zionist Soviet Union.

If you fall for the communism meme you are a mentally retarded half wit and should neck yourself.

>I thought you didn't want to reply to me anymore?
it was my mistake, yes.
>There is no difference between our system and a soviet system.
that's right, there's absolutely no difference. why do you imagine you know what is it like to live under 'a' soviet system?

>my ponzi scheme only failed because people stopped believing in it
>my religious cult only failed because people stopped believing in it
>my election campaign only failed because people stopped believing in it
>my nation-state only failed because people stopped believing in it

Kys

>Kys
everyone or just OP?

I could agree with you to an extent, but if an economic model is more susceptible to an erosion of consumer/producer confidence than another, doesn't your argument work in capitalism's favor?

>why do you imagine you know what is it like to live under 'a' soviet system?
North Vietnam. Escaped to the U.S. in the 1970s during the war.

wasnt real gomunism i swyuh!

>>my ponzi scheme only failed because people stopped believing in it
I'm not sure why you think centrally planned economies are ponzi schemes. Or do you even know what a ponzi scheme is?
>>my religious cult only failed because people stopped believing in it
As will capitalism when people stop believing in it.
>>my election campaign only failed because people stopped believing in it
This is true. I'm not sure if you're trolling or stating facts.
>>my nation-state only failed because people stopped believing in it
Ok, I thought you were trolling, but 3 out 4 of your implications are true.

>wasnt real gomunism i swyuh!
Real communism is applied when leaders want to bring nations out of poverty. Once they're out of poverty, communism fails due to those in power abusing their power.

It's the same with capitalism. It works as long as there is a need for everyone to raise their standard of living. Once that happens, the corporatists influence politics.

What's the problem here? When our country falls, won't you say that capitalism failed because too many corporatists seized power and thus it wasn't true capitalism anymore?

>not stepping over class resentment
>not becoming the aristocracy yourself
>believing in a democratic workplace

Overthrowing democratic-republic systems is the only good thing about you goobers

>but if an economic model is more susceptible to an erosion of consumer/producer confidence than another, doesn't your argument work in capitalism's favor?
Both communism and capitalism are susceptible to erosion of consumer confidence.

The only difference is that in capitalism the burden of propaganda is delegated to multiple corporations who keep running ads day in and day out to get consumers to consume products giving people the false illusion of choice. Communism failed because it didn't delegate propaganda. Everyone shilled for the state. All the counters came from outside.

However, if the communists had paid actors, like it is in the U.S. to defend capitalism and lose more often than win to communists in arguments, then the people's faith in communism would be intact, and communism would be alive.

The soviets failed by killing dissenting opinion. Just like capitalists, if they had paid actors who would defend the opposing side in a controlled manner, then it would have been fine.

Child sacrifice failed only becouse people stopped beliving in it

>Child sacrifice failed only becouse people stopped beliving in it
Isn't that correct? If people believed in it then it would be the norm.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

As long as your actions makes a difference in your bank account, the system will do just fine

>gommunist only failed because gommies stopped believing in it
Isn't that the best argument against communism? If a system sucks so much that no one "believes" in it anymore that proves it's a shit system. If it was any good the people would still believe.

Central planning has potential to be best for an economy, yet fails astoundingly in a commie-kike government, mainly because it keeps the interest of the worthless parasites from the previous government at the forefront---this leads to 0 industrial competition mainly because all companies are seized by the government instead of controlled by them (and there is a difference). In fascism, however, centralized economies would give provisions on how funds should be distributed so everyone -namely, worker and owner- can get their fair share in true corporatist fashion; this sort of centralization was deemed "bourgeois socialism" by your cult leader, Rabbi Marxberg.

>involved greatly in aerospace and mathematics
Look up Operation Osaviakhim, and you'll see why the sciences magically manifested itself post-WWII...

>we work not because of incentives
Objectively wrong; there's more than enough incentive to not become homeless, or a leech, or any other sort of attributed title that comes with being a worthless sponge that contributes nothing to the economy. The Soviets knew this, which is why they """encouraged""" people to, regardless of the profession they chose, to "dedicate" 2-3 years to the state by working in their factory at the ultimatum of a one-way trip to the gulag.