Why doesn't communism work, Sup Forums?

I'm not really good at debates or arguments with leftists so tell me why communism can't ever work. Thanks.

Pic related, I'm the goat and the leftist has the gun to my head.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hu-GTj4slWw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

hey i recognize that goat!!

yeah that was abduls goat he would bring behind the shed.. great gal :^)

goat looks sad, get some help op

>Why doesn't communism work, Sup Forums?
Greed.

It's has the same flaws as capitalism. It let's a few people at the top be greedy. This time, it's not the free market, but the government as the system of corruption.

That's how I killed myself!

t. Suzanne Coleman

It's not greed, it's laziness.

Greedy people thrive in capitalism and don't want it to change. Lazy people want product without working.

>decide everyone should be equal
>take wealth from successful, productive people and give equal amounts to welfare queens
>productive workers realize there is no point to being productive
>go on welfare
>nobody produces anything
>lack of basic necessities, civilization falls apoart

Same reason welfare doesn't work.

Define what makes a society "work" and then maybe we can talk about it.

youtube.com/watch?v=hu-GTj4slWw

>why doesn't communism work Sup Forums?

Works just fine if you are jewish mate.

You don't need to prove that it doesn't work, you just need to ask for a case study showing it working.

If it were a more efficient system, at least one example would shine forth and be the envy of the world. There are none.

At the very least there should be something simple; something like a mass housing compound with obscenely cheap rent, or a video arcade set to free play on a $5 daily admission. (Free if you show a food stamp card)

Fact is that there aren't examples of even small scale communism working. Millions of socialists yet they can't make their dreams come true on even the smallest level.

It's literally impossible to implement due to human nature. The moment you have one individual taking advantage of the altruism of his fellows Communism is doomed to collapse

fuck sorry for linking a youtube rant video. The first lcip is the one i meant to show

this

Couldn't put it better

communism doesn't work because human nature

same with capitalism

but capitalism is more fair

there you go

The original problems:
> removes incentive to work and work hard because everyone gets the same even the worst slacker
> trying to abolish money gets you into the economic calculation problem of how to allocate scarce resources
> trying to abolish private property and replace it with public property gives you the tragedy of the commons as people strip the value but have little stake in preservation

From here they have continually re-adjusted themselves to the point where 95% of them have dropped trying to argue economic Marxism but now focus on the social aspects eg. PC culture, SJWs etc

Although you can see the "democratic socialism" meme as an attempt to re-label to get their Marxist goals through subversion and gradual erosion of the economy rather than revolution.

Communism doesn't work because it assumes human nature is altruistic rather than self-serving. Greed gets in the way of true communism. Communism is preferable to capitalism but actual communism and not bootlicking socialism faggotry will never be instated.

You're thinking of socialism. Material wealth like land ownership does not exist in traditional communism, the people, all of them own the means of production. Plain old communism is retarded anyways, if you must be a commie, anarcho-communism is ideal
This

Are you sure there hasn't been a case done? What if the media's been blocking these things?

Why is it more fair?

Never argue with a communist until they specifically define what communism means and how a communist society would be ran. The flaws are readily apparent, but only if you avoid the "not true communism" quote.

Don't Listen to He's completely wrong

In the Marxist sense, socialism cannot work because it will eventually lead to capitalism. That's the natural cycle of economic revolution.
Marx theorized once a global socialist revolution takes place, then government will become obsolete and there will be no threats to socialism, thereby creating communism.
In the Marxist sense, it doesn't work because you'd have to take over the world.


In a modern economic sense, it doesn't work because of the economic calculation problem. Socialism lacks a free market price system to effectively mitigate shortages and surpluses. It is empirically inefficient

>another "OP pretends to be curious but spends the whole thread acting retarded for (you)'s" thread

Fuck.

Capitalism rewards merit, it's a meritocracy. It's also more fair because it's based on voluntarism, at least not the crony corporatism parts. It helps lift people out of poverty rather than put them into poverty. Capitalism also turns greed into a productive force for society.

Because everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Same as it ever was. And will be.

Human flaw.
And system flaw.

People tend to blame the humans, though.
Capitalism can be compared to Churchills statement regarding Democracy.

"It is the worst form of Government. Except for all the others."

That really goes with everything now doesn't it?
No one defines their terms anymore, which is why this place is so retarded.

>implying I'm not new to Sup Forums
But I am a newfag to Sup Forums , I can prove it!

Ask me anything.

Yes.

It's also based on the massive assumption that ALL people in the government are and always will be altruistic.

because capitalists lie about subverting government as a business model

>I'm not really good at debates or arguments with leftists so tell me why communism can't ever work. Thanks.
Communism, as Marx and Engels described it, was a fantastic utopia where, after a period of compulsory, government-mandated indoctrination and social engineering (the "Communism" we all know and love, which is more accurately described as Marxist Socialism than Communism), the government itself would be abolished and the whole of society would forfeit their own self-interest and human nature, and voluntarily and exclusively behave and act towards the benefit of the collective. I'm not kidding - that's what "communism" technically refers to. Not hard to see why it can't ever happen in actual reality, except perhaps in small-scale, short-lived communes (think Jonestown, but before the Kool-Aid).

Pretty much, but there's a lot more to it than that.
Capitalism is a mixture of the following market types:
Perfect competition
Monopolistic competition
Oligopoly
Monopoly

It's impossible to perfectly achieve one while abandoning the others

It's based on lies. Marx's critique of capitalism is garbage, but for some reason the lowest common denominator in every society latch onto that crap.

The easiest argument is simply the economic calculation problem. No centralized planned economy can have a rational pricing mechanism. Thus, resources will be allocated inefficiently.

First, it destroys incentive systems to produce efficiently because why should you work as hard as you can if you are compensated according to your meager needs while someone else is incompetent or lazy and gets more produce because they popped out 5 kids or something to justify having greater needs than yours.

It also has problems with the price system of intermediate goods. Presumably there would be central planners and there would be no profit motive among suppliers of say raw materials, but how do you allocate those materials efficiently to produce final goods. With the final goods at least you could allocate them by guessing and then adjusting price based on shortages or excesses of that product. However, while in a capitalist economy the producer of raw materials would simply sell to the highest bidder, but there is no way for central planners to know how much those materials are worth to the producers of final goods and thus the efficiency of the system is undermined.

Also the system is totally immoral. While capitalism is based on voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges between people, the government of a communist system is not simply there to protect people from aggression on their person or property, but the government of a communist regime has to force economic interactions with guns to its constituents heads.

that's not how the USSR collapsed, though people losing incentive after 50ish years was part of it.

...

because in a capitalistic environment, you have the capacity to change your economic standing within the confined rules by your own merit and will.

in communistic societies, your worth is already pre-determined. you're a worker like everyone else, which sounds good in theory if everyone is getting the same piece of the pie, but they aren't. The rulers of communistic societies get so much more of the pie, that in some cases there isn't any pie left. It is human nature to want more, to fuck over others, to deceive and lie for your own benefit. This is where communism always fails.

In America, you can make your own pie if you want, but you have to work for the ingredients and do it yourself. The quality of that pie may be good or ban depending on how hard you work. This is human nature. To strive for more, to improve our lives. This suits the economics of capitalism, which is based of people striving to improve their life standing.

Of course capitalism isn't perfect, sometimes you do everything right and still can't even get the ingredients, or your pie is stolen from you, or you just plane can't make the pie no matter how hard you try. This, again, is human nature. It's not fair, and it doesn't care. It's unequal and unapologetic, and with the inclusion of other races, the idea of a homologous society under a communistic approach is laughable. People would be complaining from day 1.

The main reason you see so many people come from other countries to america is for opportunity. To work FOR THEMSELVES, and to reap the benefits of their own will to work.

This is why capitalism will always be superior to communism, even if capitalism is a really shitty mode of economics.

See where I'm going here?

Capitalist sabotage.

Communism requires the loss of private property. Your 'stuff' is only yours as long as the state allows you to have it. Carl Marx spoke about 'seizing the means of production' but in reality that is just private property. Some people owned factories and other people did not. But why stop at factories? Some people have houses and some people do not, some people have food and some do not, some people are educated and some are not.

Communism is the only the promise that the state will take away everything that could be held unequally and then lend it back to the most deserving.

In order to believe in Communism you have to believe that nothing owned is earned (people who have money ALWAYS got it through illicit means). You have to believe that the state's bureaucracy will be just (no corruption, no malice no incompetence). And on a personal level you have to believe that you yourself are of so little worth that if everyone was forced to be poor you personally would be better off.

Communism only offers a collective good that seeks to standardize misery. It is a collectivist philosophy that does not care for individual merit or dive. It assumes that the world is a feudal kingdom with peasant-slaves owned by wealthy and cruel land lords. That is the world in which it was imagined and that is the only situation in which communism could be an improvement. In any other situation communism is simply a way to surrender rights and property so that the government will be able to tall you what to do.

What is communism?

Even if there wasn't a case that exists, I can assure you that the vast majority of proponents wouldn't know about it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

You can just click on the top 25 and see that they all operate under capitalist markets.

If they do have a good example, just take the information and learn to counter it. Bring it here and if I see it I'll give my insights, and surely others will too.

If they have an example, you can be gracious and collect as much information about it as possible. You cannot expect to win a debate on an example you know nothing about, so just learn from it.

Funny how you don't show the starving people in Haiti or parts of Africa.

It would work, true communism just hasn't been tried yet.

Yes.

Communism is a stateless moneyless form of global socialism

Those people are incapable of civilization.

Simply put, Communism does not work because when a few people are put in charge of a large economy, they simply cannot manage all the resources efficiently and balance a market on their own. Instead of letting consumers decide what to produce or not produce, the leaders of a communist state create surpluses and shortages of goods leading to inefficiencies which ultimately results in people not being able to have access to the things that they need the most and in the end everyone gets screwed and sits around with warehouses full of stuff people either cannot use or do not need. Thus a country becomes bankrupt and broken and instead of everyone being happy because they are looked after by the government, they end up poor and worse off because the government tried to control supply and demand.

In theory anyway

>why communism can't ever work.
Communism is utopian. Most "leftists" who actually know what they are don't spend too much time thinking about it.

...

>laziness
That's still a form of greed though.
If I know that I don't have to work to get a product, I choose to not work for it.

Laziness implies I really don't to do the work or want the product.

Right now, I am too lazy to do my laundry but I know that I have other clean clothes so I don't need the laundry done. If I knew that my laundry would be done regardless if I did the work or not, knowing that I could avoid doing the work and still get the laundry cleaned, then that's greed, not laziness.

>pretend that global capitalism has no effect on people
>those people we just fucked over wouldn't be doing anything otherwise lol

What fucking retard thinks that that double action is a 1911

Communism promises to permanently solve problems which are actually innate human characteristics, by implementing impossible states of affairs, based on misreadings of anthropology. It cannot work for the same reason your neighborhood squirrels will never rotate your tires for you.

This is spot on right here.

All government or economic models fail due to inefficient allocation of resources as the people living under that system perceive it to not be what they expect.

The cause can come from many starting points, but in the end the distribution of the "have's" and the "have not's" gets to a point where the citizens start to act irrationally - stealing, sabotage, killing, or rebelling.

any large population of people cannot simply rely on a militia and volunteers to protect itself
therefore it stands to reason that an army of dedicated, professional career soldiers are needed
this means there will inevitably be at least two classes of people (the military/police class and the worker class) and possibly more (policies dont make themselves) which entirely defeats the purpose of communism because you are right back where you started with classes, just not necessarily defined by rich & poor (but still likely and possible to divide into have and have-not)

intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy; idleness.

If you aren't willing to act for it, you don't have intense desire. You're no longer greedy, you are lazy.

Tell me how global capitalism keeps Africa down today.

MUH WIFE

Communism itself is a political theory...

>those people we just (((((((((((((fucked over))))))))) wouldn't have such a high standard of living otherwise lol

fixed

Well there are people that tried out some aspects of it before.

Have you not heard about the Chinese investment in Africa?
China is spending billions on extracting African resources.
Several African politicians are coming out and saying that "at least when the white people colonized us, they built infrastructure. These Chinese are just bleeding us dry"

Marxist standards of communism required a global level of socialism. What individual states have tried out is socialism which, as Marx predicted, eventually failed and reverted back to capitalism.

Communism can only exist after capitalism is dead

furthermore I would go on to say that not only was communism unviable - it is literally impossible to attan;
as an informal class structure will inevitably arise from either the military or the party itself, or any other part of society whose work is objectively more important than others (power, water, healthcare etc)

Why didn't African countries build their own strong economies and military after decolonization? They had half a century to do so. The Chinese are merely tapping into resources Africans never used to begin with.

Basically its shit but we're too lazy to come up with anything better even though we all see that the current system is shit

There is more problems other than just laziness and greed.

Corporations start to be inefficient as they grow in size beyond a point.

Now think of what happens when the effective corporation is the entirety of all industry in the entire nation, on top of this the people you have in charge are politically appointed.

No one is capable of planning the entire economy from the top down its an impossibility, just go to the grocery store and look at how many products there is, and then consider the state can't even get the things it does already right and your expecting it to make all those products and 1000x more?

Because no one wants it...at least no one besides entitled college students living off of their parents money who know no different.

>Why didn't African countries build their own strong economies and military after decolonization?
corruption. Exploitation. You should really learn a bit of the decolonization process.

The same reason any unanswerable power doesn't work. People suck.

Plus evolutionary algorithms beat dumbass human brains every day of the week.

Corrupt and exploitation by who? Their own democratically elected leaders?

>They had half a century to do so.
Half a century is barely any time to develop an economy. Half a century ago, China was as poor as Africa. The only reason China is rich now is because china is an outlier. They've built a house of cards in order to stimulate growth

>Communism promises to permanently solve problems which are actually innate human characteristics
this, also known as "human nature".

there is no incentive.

>Half a century is barely any time to develop an economy
>what is Singapore, China, South Korea, etc.

Come on.

>democratically elected
Nigeria alone has had more coups in the past century than any European country has had in its entire history

>Their own democratically elected leaders?
>in africa

like i said, you should really study more before making a ass out of yourself. Luckily for you the majority of Sup Forums are retards, so they would agree with you.

>pro-tip check how many civil wars and coups there were in post colonial govs

>>what is Singapore
fiscal paradise, also a major port for the British.

>South Korea
Massively propped up by USA

>Can only list Eastern Asian Cities with huge ports
Gee, I wonder why they got so rich so fast...

filename.jpg
thats clearly a cat

Depending on how you define today, there are several answers.
The USA and other such countries spent about half a century until the 90s funding nutcase dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko. Such dictators stole millions or billions from their countries and generally caused misery.
Secondly, international institutions such as the IMF leave African countries in a state of chronic dependence and debt. The IMF tries to act as the Chief Financier for every country on Earth, and developing countries are often hit the hardest.
Additionally, when markets and industry do emerge, as is the case in countries like South Africa and Nigeria, they work for the benefit of a small elite class and a burgeoning bourgeoisie. Privatization and neoliberal economic polices in such countries have led to increased inequality, collapse of social services, and widespread squalor.
That's part of the issue.

>1911

I'm from /k/ and this image name triggers me.

How does the existence of coups invalidate what I said? Their own people instigated those coups. It's their own fault.

>successful examples of fast growing economies don't count because muh feels
Why didn't African countries build their own ports? Plenty of countries have started in the gutter and worked their way up to be respectable. Why can't Sub-Saharan Africa do the same?

Source needed

Also communism requires a dictatorship to consolidate power behind the party after the Chaotic collapse of capitalism occurs.

>democratically elected leaders
wew lad

Communism works just fine
It only has one problem: it's repackaged feudalism, and we no longer live in the medieval era
People want to have freedom of choice and freedom of movement, not be locked into one path for life by society
People want leaders who are responsible to them, not a landed aristocracy or bureaucratic culture of nepotism that functions as an aristocracy
Other economic and political systems are better and more efficient because more freedom, more choice and more innovation makes for happier and more prosperous people
A true free market is the modern way
Now if we could only burn out the crony capitalist parasites who are enslaving our current free market system and get our lives back :/

Communism has created the most successful (in many ways) species on the planet... in ants.
Ants are selfless and will sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony and each does their specific job.
Humans are too selfish to be selfless and do things for the greater good. Hence it will never work unless in small homogeneous groups like families.

Because as edgy as it sounds not everyone is worth the same or are equal.

Because it doesn't follow any objective standards.

In a communist country, it would need a large government to operate the public ownership of the means of production. As everything is owned by the government, you get a cult of mortality that focuses on the party.

If you don't support the party, you are evil, you are disgusting, greedy capitalist who hates the proletariat. This means that the government is allowed to do whatever the hell it likes, because it then operates under subjective standards.

To clarify what this means exactly, would be to point out that objectively, slavery is immoral, but as a communist nation acts subjectively, this slavery becomes a good thing as it works for the party.

Furthermore, this ends up justifying the murder of millions of people and mass subjugation. You can have Stalin order the arrests of civilians to fuel his god awful work camps in Siberia, or have Mao kill millions out of sheer arrogance.

On top of all this, having a government that large attracts sociopaths and intellectuals who insist on ruling people.

Communists are the absolute bottom rung on the ladder of political ideologies. If you are a communist you are deserving of death.

>How does the existence of coups invalidate what I said? Their own people instigated those coups. It's their own fault.
yeah, it's totally not the fault of USSR vs USA backed dictators, or a badly handled process of decolonization.

>Why didn't African countries build their own ports? Plenty of countries have started in the gutter and worked their way up to be respectable. Why can't Sub-Saharan Africa do the same?

1.st because they are blacks
2.nd you are ignoring the context of african nations.

Also african colonization was not the same as asian colonization

>Why can't Sub-Saharan Africa do the same?
>Why couldn't they just build a port in the middle of one giant landmass?
Are you seriously retarded?

You do know that there are several coastal African cities which do have fast growing economies. But Africa is fucking huge, and not everyone can live by the water.

>Their own people instigated those coups
Do you even understand what a coup is? Holy shit you are retarded

No it's more like in America you make the pie and and then your boss takes it to sell but only gives you a dollar for it. You only think you own that pie and the blueberries but the farms, trucks, and pie itself are all owned by the business man. The only thing you own are your hands, which are stuck making someone else's pie.

Also define human nature you capitalist cuck

IS THE SHEEP OKAY?!

Singapore is probably one of the most developed places on Earth (it's like rich areas of Manhattan, but cleaner and more Asian), but it's not comparable to the economic potential of other areas of the world. It's a large port city with many business owners, located in a part of the world with many potential foreign workers willing to work for chicken shit wages.

Holy shit you are completely economically illiterate.
I doubt you could even define how wages are determined in order to maximize profits

>the populace instigated those coups
Are you fucking retarded?
>le epic feels meme
There are some areas of Africa that are developing rapidly.

He thinks the middle of Africa should have just as successful ports as Singapore and Hong Kong. He is in fact retarded

Accurate except for the part where you forgot to mention that capitalist countries have these issues too.

It's funny how Leftists for Communisim when one of the fundelmental reasons why Capitalisim works is because of diversity and one of the fundamental reasons why Communisim fails is because of the lack of diversity.