Why has it never worked?

Why has it never worked?

It has been of should never of tried

The fall of the Soviet Union was a mistake...

Wat?

slavs

(actually if you consider how backwards and barbarous slavs are today it actually worked pretty well)

Because it literally cannot work irl

>implying they invented it

Because if everyone is equal then you lose the will to improve yourself.

centralizing all the decision making isn't the brightest idea considering the human nature

>being a retarded idealist

what does it matter who wrote some books decades before?

it's not because everyone is equal. It's because you wouldn't see the benefit for youself, if you invest everything.

Nothing gets done under communism except at gunpoint.

The fall of the Soviet Union was a mistake....

No one is equal and that is main commie issue.

How did they reach space before capitalist america? Why was a state agency, and not a private enterprise, the first American entity to reach space?

People can never commit to the idea of "something bigger than themselves" without a payout they can see as a result because people are too different, some will always seek something more/different in some sort of way.

The entire idea of communism is about complete conformism, and without your actions having a direct effect on what you're working on, or what you're payed, people won't feel the need to conform without being threatened into it

Homo Sovieticus detected

Because it's communism.

It encourages personal irresponsibility, scapegoating and false entitlements.

Marx's theory of value is all wrong too. According to Marx, innovation is worthless, only manual labor matters. And only way to get rich is to steal.
Meaning all smart people are thieves according to Marx. Even if you never interacted with another person and built some sort of robot factory that builds cars or whatever without a single worker in sight, and even if you mined all the metals for the car yourself, by hand, you are somehow still a thief according to Marx and you should be hanged.

Which is why all the smart people just escaped and the thing collapsed. No appreciation for innovation, no personal risks, no investment into risky business, etc.
Just bureocrats telling everyone to farm potato, and telling themselves to have most of the potato.

In Soviet Union Poland and Litwa had many people....
Nowadays many people move to Western countries...

Calling something utopian/idealist is a meme.Economic democracy is the only way.Americucks should stay out of international politics because you're literally on the level of eastern europe when it comes to education/understanding of world history.

Marx's theory of value was held by every early economic theory, including Adam Smith himself.

forced equality =/= prosperity

Yes, because you were not allowed to leave my friend

Communism doesn't wor-

Indirect labour was a thing all classics and marxs agrred upon

Communism is feasi-

Yeah but Marx was a faggot for living as late as he did and not realizing that labor theory of value is going out of relevance.

Pic related. Workers #btfo. One engineer is more employable than 10.000 manual laborers today.

>How did they reach space before capitalist america?
Dumb luck. At that early point, you launched a rocket and just had to hope it wouldn't tumble back to Earth in flaming chunks. Sputnik 1 was only the fourth flight of an R-7 vehicle and the second successful one.

Communism can't succee-

Marxism was already obsolete as a theory by the 1920s.

Germans developed the rocket, for war purposes.
>how did the state get the rocket before the free market
The state taxed the free market to get its shit to put into war effort, and after that other states stole it from the German state.

Literally all of the money the state makes, it gets it at gunpoint from the taxpayers. If I was robbing millions of people for years, I'd have money to fund my own space program as well..

Yeah, Marxist economy was beyond retarded for its time, which is why today it only stuck as a cultural or whatever bullshit thing today.

Marxist economy literally cant explain robots or tools. If you are using mechanized anything, you are exploiting the machine (lol) and that's wrong or whatever.
And if you worked more than someone else, you actually didnt even if you did, and you gotta share because ??? and the state should kill you if you refuse.
>communism

It's an ideology of being jealous of people who work smarter or harder.

Automation is a meme anyway.

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

It was basically a capitalist market, like china nowadays. They had a few big corporation and they were free to do whatever they want. The state only distributed orders to them and the best offer got taken.

...

There currently is no reason compelling enough to justify the huge capitalist/private investment required to create an extensive manned presence in space.

>dumb Canadian/other shit leftist country talks about how good communism
>eastern Europeans come in to tear them a new one
Love you Slavs

Here's the funny point about that--the R-7 was way too fucking big to ever be a usable ICBM, and actually the reason for that was because Soviet manufacturing tech couldn't produce as small nuclear warheads as the American ones. This problem was resolved by the end of the 50s, but the R-7 ended up being much larger than any American rocket and had about 3x the lift capacity. Good for space launches, not so good for a missile.

its funny how even with the forced taxation, the state today is failing at space to a private self funded corp

It's oldest patron, the Soviet Union, didn't have free access to the world's oceans, highways to overseas resources and markets.

how so?

Marx assumed the revolution would come to the developed nations of Western Europe, he didn't think it was going to happen in backwards peasant societies like Russia. Also, the working class simply used the ballot box to vote themselves higher pay, social welfare, and better working conditions. He didn't anticipate this either.

So while socialists were bewildered as to why the revolution wasn't happening, Lenin came up with a new theory, that of imperialism. He suggested that the capitalist powers, by colonizing more backwards nations, created a new market for their goods to temporarily relieve pressure on the failing capitalist system, but in time it too would fall. This idea, while interesting, failed to attract much attention from his peers, as most were enamored of colonialism and the scientific racism theories of the day (even Marx himself was a rabid racist).

Automation is based on the meme idea that improved mechanization of industry will lead to a reduction in the workforce, failing to take into account the thousands of new jobs created by building and servicing machinery. It also assumes that machines can completely sub for the human laborer, which in many cases they cannot.

Private industry won't give you space colonies, no matter how hard you try. There's no point to manned presence in space based on purely economic reasons.

[spoiler]It was going decent in Chile before the coup d'état.[/spoiler]

It will come mate. I'm working in this sector. Predictions are that about 30% of all jobs will be going to "machines" or automation. There are things which were never prediceted in the past, like self driving trucks and trains, AI which can write programs themselves etc. It's becoming crazier than expected.

There is one good thing which comes with it. You can produce cheap everywhere. But you can expect that this power will be concentrated to a few states on this planet.

Because of the ugliness of human nature.

...

This.

>not investing your bitcoins into West India space exploration and mining company futures.

I dunno lad I work in IT and even our jobs are getting automated
sooner or later even high skilled people will be getting laid off in large numbers

nah, some people underestimate the effort which went into it desu. It was a huge thing. And it's not just like shooting something into orbit.

But I think, if humankind had this one big goal altogether, we could achieve much more. It just needs a big achievement you are longing for or something which makes it worth to give your best.

>caring what a butthurt Putinbot thinks
If going to the Moon is so easy, why couldn't his country do it? ;)

>hurr durr why do we need to find way to India through the see, we already know the path, just go to the east.

Not now, but there will probably point at the future where it will be economically feasible to gather certain resources from space. Probably not during our lifeties, but there will be. Earth capacity for human life isn't infinite.

...

It doesn't require humans to do it. Humans are terrible at space.

There are other factor things beside mining asteroids. At some point it could be cheaper to live in space/other planets than on Earth. Think of overpopulation or ireversible damage to the planet (either by us or some natural disaster like meteor).

>It was going decent in Chile before the coup d'état

Oh yeah, because it worked so well in China and Venezuela

Because it can't resist outside pressure. There is a reason the first response to the arising of any leftists state is to strangle it economically.

Without material incentives, why would the worker do a quality job?

/thread

Soyuz is a spaceship, not a rocket

The R-7 is often colloquially referred to as the Soyuz booster.

Oh, I've found it, there is also soyuz rocket but it has nothing to do with R-7.

Yep, lawyers and surgeons might be obsolete in 20 years time

so profound.

It doesn't take human nature into account.

>Why has it never worked?
How often will we have the same thread. Without getting into the details one should remember that Marxism came about when the idea of creating utopian societies was all the rage. Take a guess as to how many succeeded?

It's impossible because of incentives, calculation, competition, and the fact that climbing the dominance hierarchy for status and mates is bery important psychologically in humans

>How did they reach space before capitalist america?
NASA didn't exist till after Sputnik. Our whole goal with rockets untill that point was ballistic missiles.

Because you can't have a society with no classes, humans will always lean towards a system of hierarchy. Paying a plumber, a doctor and an umemployed person the same creates a situation where the worker asks, what is my incentive to work harder when I get paid the same?
Humans are not naturally equal. Forced equality does not produce prosperity.

Centralization isn't good for an organization that seeks profit, because you need to be mobile and agile, redraw your plans as frequently as possible. Governments around the world are notoriously unable to do this. The only way to make socialism feasible is by adding capitalist genes to it. Building the state like a corporation essentially. And at that point, you might as well give up and delve into capitalism. Even Lenin came to acknowlege this.

>It's an ideology of being jealous of people who work smarter or harder.

Well, Marx was sort of a NEET and from a priveleged background. I don't think he was capable of understanding the working classes and actual struggle. He was his time periods version of the Ivory Tower Liberal, completely out of touch with those they champion.

Because nobody understood how it should be built.

Communism can be achieved only after permanent World Revolution, which is impossible, or if we will evolve to communism peacefully, in our own way.

And you know, since we are going to face automatization and robotization soon and many working places will be lost, it is inevitable. Monetary system is going to die out.

>never worked
>what is Cuba
>what is North Korea

They are jokes.

Cause anglos didn't do it. Anglos are literally the only people able to do anything political or economic successful. I'm not even anglo

wtf, I hate free market now

Norkland is worthless. They flatlined on trade and innovation decades ago. They will be poor for generations, and if their regime dies they will degenerate into addiction and obesity very rapidly.

Not Communism. Communism means that where should be no state and no dictatorship. And nobody should be stuck with outdated ideologies.

That's anarchism, Dimitri. Communism means full state control over the individual.

>t. never read Karl Marx.

Closed borders is what has kept North Korea and Cuba 'afloat'. If NK opened its border, there would be a mass exodus to the South. Cubans can't just walk to Mexico or Florida; boat people.

ummm sweetie, we're talking about the real world here, not commie santa's utopia

>We need 60.000 cars Ivan
>Of course Boris, let's make exactly 60.000 grey square cars

>Ivan, where are the cars?
>eh, i don't know. I thought you was responsible?
>No ivan, I'll report that the cars will be ready soon. I don't want to be send to the gulags

>dimitri, we need 100.000 breads this year
>sure nicolai, what is the easiest bread to make?
>just warm up some dough dimitri
>okay, but I have to make some breads for myself first because I need some because my cousins nephew is getting married and I promised him some breads
>good do that first dimitri, but pass me some breads as well. Because my grandma's auntie was having a baby and she needs to be well fed
>maybe we can also trade these breads Nicolai, I heard my cousin would not mind trading his sweater for five breads
>ok give him five breads

I've read nearly every communist piece of literature there is. What you mentioned is anarchism, not communism. If you're against the state you're automatically against communism because communism can never be achieved deliberately without coercion, and such coercion can only be implemented en mass through the state, its police force and the military.

No, because communism isn't a form of government. It's a revolutionary change in our economic paradigm, from private bourgeois ownership of industry via a market system to public worker ownership of industry via a distributive system.

Communism as practiced by a poor and isolated country like Cuba will be at best, slightly better than liberal capitalism. As long as most of the world's capital is held by private industrialists in other countries, who can withhold resources from socialist states, they will not be able to complete this revolutionary paradigm.

20th century socialist states were a grotesque half-born creature, not resembling communism in the slightest but clinging to the communist dream even though everybody else was still capitalist.

And I repeat once again, there never was communism in a real world. Even Soviets didn't call their regime communist, it was called "advanced socialism".

Marxist communism is by nature anarchic, one of the many reasons why it wouldn't work.

Wrong, you're thinking of Marxist-Leninist governance as laid out by Stalin.

A communist society, better known as just "communism", is a society in which production is socialized, or controlled by the workers. This doesn't mean wage labor under nationalized industry. This means direct social control by the working class.

Such a society would eventually be stateless, or have nothing like the states which exist today. The purpose of the state is to protect private property and defend from foreign invasion. Under communism, these roles are no longer as necessary.

Lenin has like tons of works. Moreover his thoughts can be categoriezed in two groups before the revolution and after

what real world

From the perspective of Marx, the man who outlined communism as we understand it, no extant society has been communist.

this.

...

No, it was not. Anarchy isn't the complete absence of government, it's the absence of illegitimate authority. "Anarcho-communism" doesn't exist, because anarchy, by definition, denies illegitimate authority and coercion. You simply don't understand what anarchy actually is if you unironically associate anarchism with communism.

>"[...] and anarchism has covered quite a lot of ground, but the mainstream of it has just been the basic principle, which I think comes straight out of classical liberalism and the enlightenment, that any form of authority and domination has a burden of proof to bare, and has to demonstrate that it's legitimate, no matter what it is, whether it's inside a family or a global economy. If it is a form of authority and domination and coercion, it has to show that it's legitimate. If it choose that it's legitimate, okay, if not it will be dismantled. That's anarchism."

— Noam Chomsky.

>is a society in which production is socialized, or controlled by the workers
Today classified as "anarcho-communism", which was to a large extent implemented de facto by the Aragonese and Catalans during the Spanish Civil War.

What about people who dies because of lack of free healthcare? Should we consider them killed by capitalism?

This is correct. NASA's first launch was in October 1958, a year after Sputnik.

In the Netherlands we have a saying:

"One man's bread is the other man's death."

What happens if they die from waiting in line six months to see a doctor in a government hospital, or die because the hospital has no drugs and rusty, unsanitized equipment?