Serious question

Serious question.

I get why religious fundamentalism and liberalism can't work together in the long run. That much is obvious. But why can't communism and capitalism coexist? Would communism work if there was a global communist revolution?

BUMP

The problem isn't that communism and capitalism are at odds with one another, the problem is that communism is fucking retarded and fails every single time.

Commies are subhuman trash. Worse than niggers. Nothing more disgusting.

But isn't there a theory that the only reason communism failed is because it was in competition with capitalism? I've heard multiple times from multiple sources that if there was a global communist movement it would have a good chance to work. The people saying this can't be saying this for no reason, I'm guessing.

I'd like to hear a leftypol chime in and explain this. Or anyone, really.

>But isn't there a theory that the only reason communism failed is because it was in competition with capitalism?
I don't know about that. The reason communism fails is that you kill any incentive to perform beyond what's expected of you, and eventually people realise that prohibiting people to voluntarily trade goods and services is immoral. This would be no different on a global scale.

Communism can only work after piggybacking on the successes of capitalism.
Only parasites want this.

if you dont like communism, you don understand it

Well then explain it. Or point me to a good resource so that I can do my own research. Cause the general consensus I have heard about communist systems has been along these lines
And while I'm sure their points are valid, I have a feeling that bias might anywhere from a lot to a little on how people in the west and people influenced by the west view communism

its all a fucking scam

it was funded by bankers to rape the world

it would work, but it is neither likely to happen nor it is good.

look at the long lasting countries like china for instance. based off of communism(until about 40 years ago) and similar ideals long ago. may not be the best country but in the long run it has been one to the most steady and successful. besides that though communism rarely does work for longer than a couple years. but i like the idea of communism really. but most things seem good until practiced dont they?

Of course I like the idea of communism. I think a lot of people do on paper. But like you said and like many capitalists are quick to point out, in practice is quickly devolves into a shitstorm.

I guess my question, boiled down to the bone, is that a prevailing argument seems to be that communism has failed due to there being a concurrent capitalist superpower. However, if this particular theory is true, why is it that capitalism is the one that ends up destroying communism in a global market and the reverse is never true?

Please feel free to contribute as well. I'd like to hear as much as I can on this subject.

The main problem from what I learned in uni (fairly unbiased and red pilled polisci/econ profs) is having a centralized state run economy. When a singular group of people are in charge of making decisions usually based on millions of tidbits of mundane knowledge there is no effective way to control anything. There are bottlenecks and warehouse surpluses and tons of overhead/possibility for corruption.

Yeah I've heard about the horror stories of shit like them only making one size of pants for 2 years straight cause it was cost effective. And of course putting the mean of production into (incompetent) bureaucratic hands is going to cause shit like that.

But you don't have anything about outside capitalistic systems influencing communist systems (aside from intentional sabotage)?

I'll be the first to admit I'm biased on the subject. I fucking hate commies. Despite that it's still a bad system and this is easily shown by its track record.

i think because in communism their is very little competition going on economically but then capitalism being so different its just like throwing a wrench in the gearbox. and of course just like any political system you have people that dont want to conform. and in communism conformity is important. everybody is a working piece in a very fragile strucure

No, never even considered that. Always assumed that capitalism was more effective but not sure why that would cause any effect on an independent economic system.

Really I think America covertly caused the downfall of the Soviet Union but I am just talking out of my ass

You don't seem to realise that private business doesn't exist in communism. There was no private business in USSR, everything was owned by the state. So what capitalism are you talking about exactly? Black market resale of foreign goods? Oh yeah, that can thrive.

Since Sup Forumsaks are largely uneducated and have common misconceptions about macroeconomics, let me say a few words -

Communism and socialism aren't the same. Communism is a system of governance in which the people rule through a political class composed of themselves that, theoretically, anyone should be able to join. In communism the whole economy is shared between the state and in practice everything is kept within the state. The state only trades at a high level.

Socialism is the focus on labour as the key economic unit. As Sup Forums thinks Marx is a guy that said we should be tolerant to blacks, I'll explain that this means socialism is the system where the state looks to improve living and working conditions for the individual and not the owners of capital, in order to achieve progress.

Communism and capitalism exist, in a way, because communism turns a state in a singular economic organism with the party holding the capital. In theory it should go against the basic principles of capitalism, such as using capital to achieve gains.

In practice, communism is just capitalism of the party elite. That is communism's biggest failure.

Socialism, on the other hand, coexists brilliantly with capitalism. As long as there is a balance. A moderate amount of socialism and a moderate amount of conservativism/capital oriented capitalism always achieve the best results, everywhere.

To be perfectly fair, the whole state was a private business of the communist party.

Centralised planning is pretty neutral. So is beaureaucratic control. When centralised planning fell, almost all communist countries experienced a huge drop of small towns and villages and a rise for their capital, because central planning was doing a better job. It's not good or bad, it's like FPTP voting - whatever you make of it.

Ditto for beaureaucratic control. In most communist country the privatized industry did worse than the previously state-run one. The state has more resources and cares less about immesiate profit, so it can run businesses more sustainably, more future-oriented and many other benefits. In my personal opinion, the state runs big production business better. But again, it's not a case of good or bad.

Where communism fucking crashed hard is twofold - the complete isolation and killing of competition led to a severe lack of quality. Some things you cant produce in your own states. Sure, there were communist shoes, but no one in the east invented Adidas. The stupid closed market meant you could never have access to a luxury like that. On the other hand, no competition meant a shit economy. Competition is good. Competition is the best thing ever. I won't go into detail since you should know what I mean.

The other reason is horribly corrupt and incompetent party members. Komsomol's needed party loyalty before intellect. Everybody was greedy and power hungry as shit. And the unclear way of ruling and power led to the most malevolent, creative bastards to influence things, install leaders and fuck everything up.

It's funny when I see that Dutch people hate communism more than everyone, including those that died from it, and yet your country is communist as fuck and you owe your high living standard to that.

Hating an economic concept over emotions installed in you at school.

Brainwashing can be damn good.

When you say that free markets were worse for towns/villages than state run markets is it possible there was simply a lack of general capital to get things going?

IE give every citizen a thousand dollars to jump start things and the market would look better? Or are these countrys still not doing well under capitalism?

>yet your country is communist as fuck

If you truly believe that you don't know what communism is.

Why do we have to go to such extremes? Why not democratic socialism? Works fine here. And don't mention the immigrants, that's our government's fault. Being forced to sit in a camp, without being able to go out and get a job, kinda gives you no other choice than to sit around. our government is creating the leeches

No, it was just that our small towns and villages were fucked and central planning plugged the gap. It's eastern European mentality, mostly. It's just what I'm trying to say, it can be good. Can be bad.

No, lack of capital is nothing. Because as soon as someone gets capital he leaves/wastes it/tries to become the feudal overlord and fuck everyone else over. As I said, it's mostly a mentality issue in small towns.

A mentality issue that, admittedly also comes partly FROM communism, because adjustment to capitalism takes time and being babysat by the state never allows that to happen.

Still, central planning had many benefits. Like sports, it was fucking amazing for sports, that's why every communist country has hundreds of medals and achievements during communism. But then isolation strikes again, they compete only against each other and what's the point.

It's funny how I've lived in communism and yet every Dutch person I meet always says "YEH, WELL YOU DONT KNOW WHAT COMMUNISM IS". Your attitude towards communism is a marvellous case study how innocent brainwashing (who cares what the DUTCH think about communism) can be so complete. You all hate communism more than the fucking polish who got fucked in the ass royally by it and you're absolutely 100% sure, argue against common sense, unable to even comprehend another view for a second.

In terms of the economy, communism and socialism are the same thing. You live in 100% pure socialism. Ain't a bad to have high pay, sure pensions and tons of benefits, is it?

A type of communism will work once capitalism has become obsolete - that is when there is genuinely plenty to go around for comfortable lives and robots can do everything.

>I've lived in a communist country so I'm an expert
Kek. According to your logic I should also be an expert then
>in terms of the economy, communism and socialism are the same thing
When will this meme die? Second, we're not socialist you cuck.

You're not an expert because you're so brainwashed. Look at how fucking subjective you are.

>We're not socialist

Literally every aspect of your system is socialist as shit, from pay to pensions to taxes to government regulations.

The fuck do YOU think socialism is anyway?

>The fuck do YOU think socialism is anyway?
It is characterized primarily by democratic, collective ownership of the means of production. Corporations in the Netherlands are privately owned. This is an important difference. I'm 100% with you that our taxes are too high, but just because that is also on the left side of the spectrum, does not mean it is socialism
I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive. It doesn't make for an enjoyable debate. Try making your point without insults.

Socialism IS redistribution of wealth first and foremost.

This is achieved by many means, one of which is state control of the means of production.

You achieve it through high taxation and moreover progressive taxation.

Your schools teach that certain symptoms, that funnily enough the Netherlands doesn't have, are the sickness, instead of the essence of the issue.

>I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive. It doesn't make for an enjoyable debate. Try making your point without insults.

I live in Flanders, I've had this debate with dozens of dutch (flemish, whatever) people. You ARE all very brainwashed, it's a statement of fact. Most people get heavily insulted when I say this country is socialist as hell and then twice as insulted when I actually prove it. Then they refuse to admit I've proven it despite empirical evidence that they cannot deny.

>Would communism work if there was a global communist revolution?

>communism has never worked on a country scale
>comrades! What if we try it on the whole world? That would surely work

Commies are retarded. The reason communism doesn't work is humanity. Unless you're willing to turn everyone into cattle by stripping them of everything that makes them human, then go ahead. If not, then you'll realize that communism is a neets pipe dream and is worthless as an ideology.

For a whole plethora of reasons. The key reason why it can't work is related to productivity. The near absolute majority of jobs will never be enjoyable. Capitalism is supposed to provide an incentive to do hard work for a just reward, whereas communism is supposed to provide an equal share to all. The reality is that monopolistic/oligopolistic practices inevitably lead to globalist suppression of the workforce, for the benefit of those at the very top.

Fine, I'll give you a fair shot.
>You achieve it through high taxation and moreover progressive taxation.
So what exactly constitutes 'high' taxes? Is there a percentage cut off point? Is any form of progressive taxation by definition socialism? Progressive tax has been around for ages with examples dating back to the Roman age. Was that socialism?
I would argue that as long as it's possible to start a business and acquire seemingly unlimited wealth from that, we're not dealing with socialism.
>Your schools teach that certain symptoms, that funnily enough the Netherlands doesn't have, are the sickness, instead of the essence of the issue.
What do you mean by this?

>So what exactly constitutes 'high' taxes? Is there a percentage cut off point? Is any form of progressive taxation by definition socialism?

Marx's single biggest mistake was getting bogged down into math and I'm not about to repeat a widely known historical mistake.

As long as the government is geared towards labour and not towards capital, we're dealing with socialism.

52% taxation on high income is adequate to call it socialims.

>I would argue that as long as it's possible to start a business and acquire seemingly unlimited wealth from that, we're not dealing with socialism.

You would argue that, but it is completely incorrect.

And can be disproved very easily -

It is very easy and possible to start a business and acquire seemingly unlimited wealth within socialism.

>What do you mean by this?

You yourself are currently arguing about socialism basically being an ideology that prevents wealth and progress.

This is taught in your schools, alongside communism being the root of all evil.

It's a remnant of the US outreach attempt towards Western Europe to prevent communism to take over during the cold war. The USSR had the same program in eastern europe. That's why we still can't be objective about it. The thing is, most countries acquired a measure of objectivity, such as France that will readily admit it's socialism. Just, no one really gives a damn about the Netherlands ahving an objective view and neither do you dutch. You're merchants. You're never changing. And it always benefits the elite and ""THEM"" to discourage critical thought, so why the fuck not?

>52% taxation on high income is adequate to call it socialims.
So you can't define it? You just point at things and say 'Uhm I guess that's socialism'?
>It is very easy and possible to start a business and acquire seemingly unlimited wealth within socialism.
Then explain how.
>You yourself are currently arguing about socialism basically being an ideology that prevents wealth and progress.
But it IS an ideology that prevents wealth and progress. There's empirical evidence all over the place and it can easily be explained by basic human psychology.
>This is taught in your schools, alongside communism being the root of all evil.
This is complete bullshit. It really isn't. On the contrary. Left = compassionate, peaceful, good and right = selfish, greedy, bad is the mantra of any form of history or civil education in this country.

>So you can't define it? You just point at things and say 'Uhm I guess that's socialism'?

No you can't. Because it's not a mathematical formula. It's an economical philosophy.

So yes, your second assumption would be more correct, except there are basic principles that can easily define socialism, such as:

>policy at the expense of capital and benefit of labour
>state interference in the economy
>redistribution of wealth

All 3 are present in the Netherlands.

>Then explain how.

Big business works perfectly fine under socialism. Most russian billionaires made their wealth during communism, ditto for postcommunist eastern European billionaires. Politics becomes significantly more profitable. Skirting the law is where you transition into wealth.

>But it IS an ideology that prevents wealth and progress. There's empirical evidence all over the place and it can easily be explained by basic human psychology.

Glad to see that US programme still working.

>This is complete bullshit. It really isn't. On the contrary. Left = compassionate, peaceful, good and right = selfish, greedy, bad is the mantra of any form of history or civil education in this country.

We're not talking left and right culturally, we're talking economicaly, there is a very significant difference.

Liberal values don't go hand in hand with a socialist economy, neither do conservative values go with rampant capitalism.

If you're just going to dismiss any disagreement as brainwashing we may as well end this discussion now.

I've presented dozens of arguments you haven't answered to and you continue to change the subject and strawman everything, so yes, we may as well end it if you can't handle the redpill.

You claimed that the Netherlands are communist which is a ridiculous claim. You then altered your claim to socialist instead of communist which going by the fucking definition isn't true. You then made up your own definition of socialism to perpetuate your claim. Any rebuttal from my side was met with 'lol American brainwashing' even though our educational system, which you've obviously never seen from the inside, heavily praises ECONOMIC left wing policies as compassionate and peaceful.

>I'm going to label my opinion a 'red pill' so that if you disagree you're uninformed or a shill. Tough luck pal
You're right. We're done here.

You've yet to answer any of my arguments or even face them.

You're talking about my style of rhetoric rather than rhetoric itself.

Communism/socialism is semantics, communism IS socialism and socialism IS a minor aspect/form of communism.

There have been no rebuttals presented.

Nowhere have you argued about whether socialism is represented by the three aspects I presented or whether they are present in the Netherlands.

My kids study in a dutch school.

Good day.

(also, for the future, that is how you argue and disprove arguments, by taking each argument and answering it with a counter-argument)