The reason why communism didn't work is because the ideology of communism was to share everything...

the reason why communism didn't work is because the ideology of communism was to share everything. since only a select few countries shared their things equally, communism fell apart due to not having any access to the rest of the worlds resources. if we all came together and became communist, there'd be no problems in the world because all of the worlds problems branch from greedy capitalist.

I see you've started your highschool government class

>graduated a long ass time ago boyo
but am i wrong?

It's especially funny because there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating a socialist society within a capitalist nation. Employee-owned businesses are effectively socialist. At some point you find out that these socialists aren't as concerned with their ability to carry out their visions as they are with making everyone else as miserable as they are.

>history isn't true
>i know the truth
wew
the reason communism didnt work is because it can't and never will work.
the reason why we have easy lives in 1st world countries right now is mostly due to capitalism.

Hide slide threads.

>the reason communism didnt work is because it can't and never will work
dang. got me on that one. i guess it just cant work. oh well.
try actually considering my argument.

>communism fell apart due to not having any access to the rest of the worlds resources
lol no

it failed because of leaders like stalin. once you hand everything over to the government you are at the mercy of the government to do right. in every instance of a communist country the government NEVER did right. there are no checks and balances. the leadership reigns supreme.

that's the problem with communism. you except your neighbor to treat you the same way you treat them, and yourself.

interesting. so i guess what u're saying is human nature is the reason why communism cant work?

>It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn't know. We thought it was good. No, that's not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

>What's whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it's all one pot, you can't let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it's not right for me to own a car until I've worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth—why can't he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed?

>It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to 'the family', and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his 'need'—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that 'the family' would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it's miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother's. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

Communism didn't work at a fundamental level because value isn't derived from labor and because people will always want to improve THEIR circumstances to make for a better future.

And if the world became communist and everyone was forced to share everything cause >property is a spook, then good luck making anyone word harder than the next guy over because he's not going to see the results of labor benefit him in any tangible way whatsoever.

And if you were to define communism as every single person going along with your idea of sharing, communal property, capacity --> need and what have you, it would be as silly as saying 'oh well if there were world peace then the world would be peaceful.'.Yeah, no shit, but that's not the way things work and they likely never will until we upload our consciousnesses into the Great AI when we reach a singularity point.

>When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there's always ways to get the rotten ones. You don't break into grocery stores after dark and you don't pick your fellow's pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it's to get stinking drunk and forget—you do.

>Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel's worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn't marry, he wouldn't help his folks back home, he wouldn't put an extra burden on 'the family.' Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra 'disability allowance,' they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, 'the family' was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in 'need' than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.

>God help us, ma'am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it—for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got.

>The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue something that we'd be ashamed to admit otherwise. There wasn't a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn't a man rich and smart enough but that he didn't think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better's wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he'd get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who'd get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who'd rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss's, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted—that was the truth of it—but we didn't like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.

>What good would our need do to a power plant when its generators stopped because of our defective engines? What good would it do to a man caught on an operating table when the electric light went out? What good would it do to the passengers of a plane when its motor failed in mid-air? And if they bought our product, not because of its merit, but because of our need, would that be the good, the right, the moral thing to do for the owner of that power plant, the surgeon in that hospital, the maker of that plane? Yet this was the moral law that the professors and leaders and thinkers had wanted to establish all over the earth. If this is what it did in a single small town where we all knew one another, do you care to think what it would do on a world scale?

The Bolsheviks murdered hundreds of thousands of people; Christians, clergy, republican partisans, non-communist party leaders, homosexuals. Then, they committed regicide AFTER the Czar abdicated and was on his way into EXILE.

They had no means of production, so they had to borrow money from capitalist banks in London and New York, buy wheat from the United States, oil from the Middle East and so on and so on.

None of their "Five Year Plans" yielded anything of value except longer and longer breadlines.

I always found it extremely ironic that the peasants, the ones on whose behalf the Leninists were supposedly fighting for, vehemently hated communists and would regularly report them to the orpichniki or lynch them when they tried to propagandize in the villages. Even after the Communist revolution, the peasants still hated them and had to be coerced into joining the Red Army under threat of death and the murder of their families. The Red Army lost more men to desertion than it did to combat, but still managed to grow year on year because of the Red Terror.

There are orders that Lenin gave, in writing, where he would tell soldiers to go into the town square of 'XYZ', round up 100 "bourgeoisie" and execute them whether they were guilty of any crimes or perfectly innocent, just to make a point to the people. These types of quotas were the norm; the Cheka would roll into a town, execute a few dozen or a few hundred of the local "bourgeoisie", usually publicly in the town square.

>t. benevolent communists

whoops, meant the okhrana* not the oprichniki, different time periods :^)

good read. gave me a lot more insight on a capitalist point of view.

Love these threads.

>but am i wrong?

Yes, very. Also naive and maybe literally retarded.

then what's your opinion on the subject, or are u just gonna come in and start off by calling me naive and retarded?

Always check the flag m80

New Zealand is Australia lite

irrelevant?

Communism is based on the assumption that humans will act in a way that is contrary to their nature

Capitalism is based on the assumption that humans will act in a way that is already known to be in their nature.

If people were willing to share all the work and reward selflessly, then communism would be the natural state of man rather than capitalism. People are greedy, so capitalism works because it utilizes this greediness towards the betterment of society.

Fucking Khazars!

...

>or are u just gonna come in and start off by calling me naive and retarded?

Exactly. Maybe you're only slightly retarded.

The reason why communism failed is because communists are collectivist fucks, who will immediately put their equally incompetent pals in positions of power.

can't really argue with that. very well said, and very intelligent. but when i think of an economic system, i want one that would ensure good living for all people. capitalism may work well with human's greedy nature, but it's not helping to create a perfect world. under communism, although contradictory to human nature, is still probably the better way to go about the economy. i trust we're on the same page?

This. Don't mean shit what your ideology is if you're criminally incompetent like most communist governments.

Collectivized farming has been around for centuries and is practiced today, but Soviet Union's workers were either unpaid or barely paid.

And last I checked, Venezuela had decided to slap a price ceiling on their agricultural goods.

yet you continue to comment without adding to the conversation. im ignoring u now, youve proven yourself an idiot

>communism goes against everything in human nature
>but maybe if we just try harder

In an ideal communist society, you don't really own anything, since everything is "shared."

That means no house or car of your own. Fuck that shit, I refuse to share what I have worked myself to the bone for, especially if it's leeches that never contribute anything useful to society.

I want remote acres of land far away from cities and other people, build myself a bunker of a house and shoot all trespassers on sight, be my own self-sustaining man - harnessing energy and water off the grid, and hunting/growing my own food. This is not possible in a communist society, so I'm against the idea.

let me just say, lets not compare communism to the one that was in war with the capitalist during the cold war. of course it's going to fail, it was war time and in competition. i mean if we were to just follow a communist economy, without the idea of capitalism even present.

>but when i think of an economic system, i want one that would ensure good living for all people.

I want to be the bologna in a Olsen twins sandwich, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. And yes, the crackhead one too.

human nature will see a ruling body form that favors cronyism over meritocracy and it will always burn down from there.

>when i think of an economic system, i want one that would ensure good living for all people. capitalism may work well with human's greedy nature, but it's not helping to create a perfect world. under communism, although contradictory to human nature, is still probably the better way to go about the economy

Luckily we have real world examples of both systems as they function so we don't even really need this to be a hypothetical.

Empirically speaking, which of the following is true:

A. Communism results in greater prosperity for all people
B. Capitalism results in greater prosperity for all people

Take into account the former Eastern Bloc, China, Vietnam, India, African post-Marxist countries, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc.

funny thing is that post is true, I took more than one Aleve once and holy shit i thought i was gonna die

and its not just at the tippy top, it will happen all over in govt, industry as well. you could argue it will happen to capitalist democracy too, and I'd agree.

I'm not a communist, and I'm not advocating communism but subhuman Americanism that worships "human nature" is the worst thing to happen to the west. Human nature is garbage, rejecting animal instincts is what makes a person better than a beast. I don't get why Americanists want us all to be fucking monkeys who are ruled by impulses.

>all of the worlds problems branch from greedy capitalist.
People actually believe this.

i just stated what im talking about, giving some context. we have all of existence to create a system to ensure good lives for everyone, why stop at "im happy in my good country, fuck the other shitty countries"

>these socialists aren't as concerned with their ability to carry out their visions as they are with making everyone else as miserable as they are
nice meme

For communism to work you have to completely ignore all of human history.

"Greedy capitalists" only own an extremely small portion of consumer goods compared to everyone else in society.

Why do leftists magically think capitalists are somehow exploiting people?

literally! we repress our human nature almost every second of the day, we've advanced, we're not fucking monkeys.

"We need real communism, everything before was pseudo-communism. We will do it right this time around"
Said every communist country on the fateful night their party won the election

See
Communism is awesome, however...
Communism is too fragile to be viable

Stupidest post I've seen all month.

>in a communist society the state controls all
>people are given money by the state and this money is likely a fixed amount based on the profitability of the state
>some jobs are harder than others but all are necessary. even those that require special training
>a doctor makes the same as a burger technician because muh fair society
Fuck off. Who would want to be a doctor when they could make the same doing shit all? Greed is the greatest motivator for progress. The only people that want Communism or socialism are lazy fucks that already work shit jobs. Start paying taxes and your mind might change.

In socialism/communism there's nothing preventing people from improving the world.

Maybe you should look at your own posts then. Are you filtering your countrymen?

because the system is built on exploitation, there's a weak and a strong. rich and a poor. im saying in our day in age, it doesnt have to be this way. we're better than this.

>you don't own anything
You haven't learned the distinction between private property and personal property.

it's not stupid, you're just not considering what im trying to relay to you. ignorance.

>we have all of existence to create a system to ensure good lives for everyone, why stop at "im happy in my good country, fuck the other shitty countries"

Here's why:

>of course it's going to fail, it was war time and in competition.

Here we arrive at the crux of the leftist delusion. It's not about higher quality of life, or overall wealth, or any normal metric of intrinsic happiness or fulfillment we know.

The problem is that the leftist detests competition, because he fears its results, fears being proven inferior to a rival, and the inevitable consequences of that defeat.

...

>Be communist
>Say we could all get what we need if we all work
>Work shitty job as a farmer collecting a standard paycheck
>Can never move up or change proffession
>fml.jpg
>All progress halts because nobody is allowed to succeed further than anyone
>Stalin bangs your wife

apart from there being no incentive to work and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. communism is a jewish scheme, shill. gtfo my board faggot, and kill yourself after that.

Oh I know the distinction between both.

Though I know there is a group of delusional extreme communists that don't even believe in personal property beyond a toothbrush and the clothes on your back. The though of any such people getting any power is frightening.

>Apart from there being no incentive to work
>Money is the only incentive in life
Another neo-con lie

>Eastern Bloc
>China
>Vietnam
Communism turning those countries to shit is a meme. Living standards in the USSR rose under Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev. Similar story in China and Vietnam.
>India
Not communist, but has an active socialist movement
>African post-Marxist countries
Most of them were "Marxist" while the country technically didn't exist because it was in a state of civil war. See: Angola.
>Singapore
State-supported capitalism.
>Taiwan
>South Korea
Until relatively recently, both of them were right up next to their neighbors in terms of political repression and tyranny. South Korea also used to be literally Africa-tier poor.

wtf i hate money now

Hierarchy is natural. You can't make people equal without a judge to make the decision on what is equal. Where there are rules, there is hierarchy.

>greedy capitalist

Power and resources always become concentrated in the hands of a select few elite people. This happens without fail in every society that has existed, is existing, or ever will exist, including our own.

It is even worse under communism, because the state is set up to seize all property, wealth, and labor for itself under the guise of "equality." To accomplish this, the government must not only be allowed to do this by law, but it must also have the ABILITY to do this, which means they must have the means to compel cooperation and compliance by FORCE. This is where communism fails, because a communist government is ultimately still a small body of people in whom all authority has been vested, and therein, all power to compel compliance by the use of force. So, ultimately, authority and the means to enforce it rest in the hands of the elite. Since this is the case, they have sole control over how the resources, property, and wealth are to be spread.

The point?

Communist governments, run by the greedy elites, seize all of the money and resources for themselves, leaving everyone else poor, broke, and destitute. What's more, since the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the communist system is to create a government designed to strip every citizens of all power, autonomy, authority, wealth, and resources so that the state can then reallocate these to the government... the people have then set up a government whose sole purpose is to keep them permanently disenfranchised so that the greedy elite can hoard all of the resources for themselves.

Communism sets up the very system that communists claim needs to be brought down. The wealthy elite disenfranchise the poor to line their own pockets, only this time, they did so through the most efficient means possible... the will of the people.

>Greedy capitalist pigs are hoarding all of the wealth!

>I know, let's create a government designed allow the greedy elite to seize and hoard all of the wealth!

Morons.

Let's put your plan to action on a smaller scale Krinkov. Let's say McDonald's functioned in a similar way to communism. Everyone who walks in to buy a burger has to work as a fry cook there, but it's all good because at the end of the day a big buffet table feeds everyone. Oh, and you can never quit. Hmmm sounds fun!

i worded that bottom one wrong, i meant if u try to have a communism in a world with capitalist, it's going to fail because communism cant work with the idea of capitalism present. the fact that there were two economic systems in competiton did nothing but delay progress anyway

>Said every communist country on the fateful night their party won the election
Maybe if you took a look at actual policies and economics you'd see that there's a world of difference between Salvador Allende and fucking Pol Pot. There's even a big difference between Stalin and Pol Pot.

you just gave me cancer

>doctors make the same amount of money as cheap cooks
that's total bullshit.
>start paying taxes and your mind might change
nice meme.

>it's going to fail because communism cant work with the idea of capitalism present.

That alone should tell you something about the viability of your delusion, and the fact it doesn't should tell you even more about yourself.

This thread smells like b8.

What is your argument son?

That if everyone was the perfect communist, then communism would work?

Because that seems pretty weak to me.

We can go one step further and see why it is weak if you like.

As soon as you start trying to mold people into 'new men', some (usually most) will resist and you must inherently use violence to try and achieve said aims.

However, according to the dialectical method, such violence will inevitably lead to the creation of some backlash, in this case embodied by what you would call counter revolutionaries.

And the only response to these counter revolutionaries is to attempt to suppress them through increased violence, leading to increased resistance and so on, until you either have a system of near total control (A la Stalinism), or bloody anarchy (as embodied by so many African revolutions).

This is the inevitable consequence of attempting to reform man by reducing him to an object to be molded, as opposed to a subject to understood and considered in his own terms.

>Living standards in the USSR rose under Stalin
maybe for the people that survived, what millions didn't

That's kind of hard to imagine because you'd have to do away with the 'if I work harder then I will be able to improve my life' thing that humans have ingrained in them. If we were a hivemind, sure, we could all be like ants and everyone would become instantly and deeply aware of all other humans on earth and be able to respond to them and care for them as such, but we're not like that.

Everyone focuses more on their own lives and seeks to improve themselves (and their families, communities and nations, to a progressively lesser degree) which is simply more efficient than having a central commission somewhere or some sort of governing body, commune or what have you to divvy up goods across a specific area. If you're running a bakery in Ketchum, I guarantee that you know the needs of yourself and your bakery better than the Idaho State Commune, even if the Idaho State Commune was made up of the nobel prize winning economists. Multiply this times several billion for all the different vocations and different people in the world, and it's easy to see why capitalism works a bit better than communism does, aka why central planning always fails. It's essentially crowd sourcing economic knowledge and planning among several billion people rather than a few thousand sitting in an office somewhere.

>but imagine if that wasn't a thing and if we were somehow devolved back and disconnected from one another so that people lived in autonomous communities like Gandhi wanted

Capitalism would still arise. If you know how to make glass windows better than all your neighbors and they ask you to make them some glass windows for all their homes, let's say you do it, but now those people owe you something, a favor, and so they might give you some new clothes they made and everything's fine. You get a bunch of clothing from everyone, start exchanging it for other goods/services, you realize you can improve your life/town with all the new stuff and now we're back in capitalism

>greedy capitalist

...

its not even that, some people are just not cut out to lead or be independant.

I used to work for myself running a small computer repair shop, over the years I had a few different guys working for me. Some of them, you could give minimal instructions and they would do a 10/10 job

other guys you had to tell them explicitly what they must DO and NOT DO.

they did not have the nous or initiative to make a decision on something and get the job finished, they would always come to me to check if its OK or ask what to do

the reason communism fails is because it assumes the workers can be self-directing, which is often NOT the case, they often have the brain-pan of a stagecoach tilter.

>people will work because feels

Standards of living rose in the entire world. The first world grew faster than the Soviets did. They grew embarrassingly slow

>Here we arrive at the crux of the leftist delusion. It's not about higher quality of life, or overall wealth, or any normal metric of intrinsic happiness or fulfillment we know.

>The problem is that the leftist detests competition, because he fears its results, fears being proven inferior to a rival, and the inevitable consequences of that defeat.
Not only are you conveniently setting up a generalized leftist strawman, but your characterization is full of shit and you know it.

>yet you continue to comment without adding to the conversation.

Correct.

>im ignoring u now, youve proven yourself an idiot

Says the guy who thinks global Communism would work. That's pretty funny mate.

Most communists and socialists aren't at that tier.

Being unemployed sucks. Psychologically, it's not good to do nothing. That's why even retired people get jobs even when they don't need the money. Sitting around all day doing nothing gets boring really fast.

hahaha that's exactly right, NZ would be a third-world country if it wasn't for Australia's welfare system.

That pic is so beyond stupid I can barely work up the energy to refute it. But refute it I must.
It take someone to create the enterprise in the first place or the two guys working wouldn't have any work to do.
So naturally the person who creates the enterprise, and in doing so creates the jobs for these two guys to do, deserves the lion's share of the profits.
>"How dare you prosper by building a company that provides us with employment and a steady wage!!"

> i want one that would ensure good living for all people.
He literally explained to you in the post you replied to you why it wouldn't work. Communism is a house sticks. It only takes one wolf to blow the house down and after that you're fucked.

Now if the world didn't have wolves it would be great. BUT THAT LITERALLY CANNOT BE YOU DENSE DUMBFUCK

The reason why Communism didn't work is because

1. we don't live in a unitarian world where there is one ultimate good that can be rationally derived, so Marx's theory about the state withering away to be replaced by the New Soviet Man wasn't just unlikely, it was impossible
2. Stalin

However, that isn't the death knell of Communism. It just means that Communist ideals must shift to the pluralist landscape, and this is accomplished by industrial democracy, which seeks to change the structure of firms, not the structure of markets.

>Living standards in the USSR rose under Stalin
HAHAHAHAHAH LMAO JUST JUUUUUUUUUUUUST

Jesus christ man. My grandparents fled USSR you dipshit. They were literally starving and saw many families killed.

reiterate

>hierarchy is natural
If you mean differences in status based on things like intelligence, physical prowess, and various skills, then yes. If you're suggesting that economic stratification and classes are the inevitable result of those differences, that's completely wrong.
>you need a judge for equality
You need authority and power to uphold hierarchy of classes and authority.

Sorry bud, but the thing is, most people out there can't and won't cooperate under communism because high level jobs such as doctor, dentist, and physicist get as much credit as janitors, garbage men, and gender scientists. I have to admit that being a surgeon and finishing a whole 23 hours at a hospital only to come home to a check the same size as pajeet the janitor next door would piss me off. Also I don't want to carry lazy assholes on my back.

Tl;dr:
Ur hard work in communism is for nothing

Correct, that circles back to this: Of course, they are in denial about their limitations, as shown below:

>Not only are you conveniently setting up a generalized leftist strawman, but your characterization is full of shit and you know it.

You're all r-strategists, just dumb rabbits, feeding on free resources and low threats. Nothing is anyone's fault and everyone gets a trophy.

Name one leftist policy that derives meaningful consequences from a lack of ability.

Unfortunately for you the very concept of life is predicated on competition, exhibited by every living being from single-celled organisms right on up to homo sapiens, save for those of you who think you can hide your defects behind oppression.

>Communism turning those countries to shit is a meme

Living standards rose but were clearly, CLEARLY outpaced by practically every single western bloc country. China only became prosperous after abandoning Communism, living standards only rose under the Commies because they were coming out of decades of civil war followed by war with the Japanese followed by WW2 followed by more civil war and their economy/living standards only began taking off after they abandoned Communism. Vietnam loosened things up along a capitalist line to improve living standards because their economy was rapidly going down the shitter with huge inflation, trade imbalance and stagnant growth.

>India not Communist
They had a centrally planned system with heavy business regulation + price controls, point is their economy shot up only after they abandoned most of their socialist policies and implemented capitalist ones.

>the rest

The point is that they became prosperous as a result of capitalist-oriented policies, not socialist ones. Singapore in particular is now a first world island surrounded by shittiness. You're right about Taiwan and South Korea, they started off absolutely dirt-poor, especially South Korea, but have become some of the most advanced economies in the world (looking more at South Korea here) as a result of their economic policies. What works and what doesn't is pretty clear. I doubt that China, Taiwan, South Korea etc. adopting liberal economic policies and suddenly having massively increased standards of living/infrastructure a few decades later is just a big coincidence.

I'm going to guess Ukrainians living standards were not recorded in that study.

Also who the hell is going to record living standards in the USSR with any accuracy?

>How are things in Ukraine Ivan?
>Is good, no more question.

Correct, it just removes the largest incentive for doing so.

Going bigger would increase the risk.
If anything, communism would be easier to implement within a smaller community.

The MW2 ost part always kills me

You need authority and power create equality.
There are classes of men beyond money and it is these skills that make them superior to others. You can't expect people to have different levels of superiority and not use it for their benefit.

>If you mean differences in status based on things like intelligence, physical prowess, and various skills, then yes. If you're suggesting that economic stratification and classes are the inevitable result of those differences, that's completely wrong.

Why?

good points.
not gonna lie, u may have actually changed my mind user.

Is that really what communism is like? Does a surgeon literally get paid as much as a bin man?

Yes, and I could win them gold medal in the olymics if nobody runs against me.