How come Communists always let power run amok?

Just make the countries smaller then.

Exploitation is a meaningless word when you use it to describe every single consensual labor-for-wages relationship.

>consensual
>Submit to my state-enforced claim to private property and sell your labour to me or starve.

Brilliant, voluntary as fuck.

A fanatical devotion to ideology, Russian tradition of autocracy, and Also central plan economies give the state the ability to use hunger and scarcity as weapons.

>so submit your labor to the government instead!

indeed it is, considering that scarcity exists, the tragedy of the commons is a documented phenomenon, and there isn't any type of economic system in which the majority of able-bodied people don't have to work for a living.

No, submit it to no one.

There isn't, this is true.
However there is an economic system where they aren't exploited on the imaginary notion of private property.

...

>exploited

there's that word again.

YOU alone choose who to sell your labor to and for how much. YOU make conscious decisions that determine your labor's value such as education, location, and career choice. Companies aren't paying you in scrip and forcing you to buy from the company store and there are lawyers chomping at the bit to sell their services to you if your boss violates a law. It's the 21st century, you have more choices than ever to do what you want to do and work for who you want to work for.

>he still thinks tragedy of the commons is a good argument
>who is ostrom

>Thinking now more than ever that people will be willing to cut ties with their private property.

The time for that idea has long passed and better suits people in shit hole countries with no claim to anything but a pissing bucket and a tin shack.

Again you aren't getting it, to quote myself from earlier responding to the exact same argument

>consensual
>Submit to my state-enforced claim to private property and sell your labour to me or starve.

The problem is not having to work, the problem is not having to buy things. The problem is the abstraction of private property exploiting the natural weakness of man, and the inherent need to produce to overcome this in order to produce profit for a landed class.

It is exploition, of the highest order for that matter. You are literally taking advantage of a something for personal gain. And what's more is it does not need to be this way, it only is this way because the state protects private property by force of arms.

Employment is not the exploition. Private property is the exploition. This is something capitalist-sympathizers always seem to fail to understand.

You could argue that. There's a reason why Maoism is a thing.

>there is an economic system where they aren't exploited on the imaginary notion of private property
Not really.

>ostrom
>an anarchist
please stop posting

>savings = investment

Yes, it's called communism.

Communism isn't an economic system.

Why is it not?

>nobel prize winner
>disagreeing based on political affiliation, not quality of academic work
Wew.

How is Communism an economic system?

Ostrom is not an anarchist. You're fucking retarded. Kill yourself.

You're allowed to leave, nobody's stopping you from joining a commune where you can live in your own fantasy land free of private property. You should try it out and see whether or not a property-less, classless society is all it's cracked up to be. Here, take a look a these.

ic.org/

Now shoo, away from polite society!

Don't answer a question with a question, it makes you look like you don't know what you're on about.

>fantasy land free of private property.
>Private property isn't the fantasy.

>ITT 14 y/o ancap windowlickers

You claimed communism was an economic system. The burden of proof is on you.

Okay, definition of economic system
>An economic system is a system of production, resource allocation, exchange, and distribution of goods and services in a society or a given geographic area.
Communism structures production with worker control of the means of production and the rest flows from there just as in capitalism economics rests on private control of the means of production.

Now you try.

Where does it do any of that?

>You claimed communism was an economic system

This is some next level piss taking

Do you want me to just spoon feed you? Are you really the kind of person who enters arguments without any clue what they're arguing against?

Do you not even know what communism is?

I'm asking you where Communism does any of that.
Or has done any of that.
Can you provide me with an instance of Communism managing allocation/distribution and production?
It's an economic system, so you should be able to.

>Can you provide me with an instance of Communism managing allocation/distribution and production?
Communism manages production by the workers managing production democratically as opposed to it being privately controlled.
In terms of communism the state of affairs resource distribution is managed on the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his need. However in communism as in socialism under a communist party there's multiple ways in which resources can be distributed.

>Lenin lived
>Lenin lives
>Lenin will live
Wtf?

That's nice. You didn't understand what I was asking.

Where does it do that?

>Where does it do that
I don't know what you're asking or what point you are trying to make.

>Where does it do that?

Not him but it did that in the Free Territory, Catalonia during the 1930s and Yugoslavia under Tito. Whether you think these were effective at producing economic growth is a separate question to whether communism is an economic system

I didnt say she was, i thought you did. She simply showed that the tragedy of the commons was not necessarily an issue when central leadership is absent

lenin is love, lenin is life

What a lot of people seem to forget, or not even know in the first place, is that there has never been a truly "successful" Communist state. The Soviet Union never claimed to have created one because the first step in creating one was to create a socialist system. The argument that a Soviet Communist would give you is that they need a strong centralized government (a dictatorship in many cases) to institute a socialist system in order to build Communism. In theory, once the government has done this, then you can begin building a Communist system until the government isn't needed anymore and then it's dissolved and everyone basks in the glory of their utopia.

Now, granted, the entire idea of Communism is inherently flawed and there's a reason why the Soviet Union was never successful, China has been heavily reforming especially in concerns to their economy, and no still-existing Communist state is doing too well. Because it's flawed from the beginning and because of how people don't like giving up power, it generally pretty much always turns into, and remains, a dictatorship. But hey, "it's just never been tried before!" according to all the 15 year olds and middle aged pseudo-hippies.

>What a lot of people seem to forget, or not even know in the first place, is that there has never been a truly "successful" Communist state. The Soviet Union never claimed to have created one because the first step in creating one was to create a socialist system.
only their critics say that

>Communist state
stopped reading

Communism requires a revolution.
a revolution requires a leader.
the leader then takes over and comes to power.
Communism is supposedly everyone has equality of power and control of market, this leader smashes that by controlling the market himself and having great power over the people.
it takes very little time to turn from communism to a dictatorship.

If you're deriving more from something than you're putting into it, you're exploiting that thing, whether it's a coal mine or a human being. That is the very definition of exploitation.

Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. A council or an anarchist confederation is still a state.

The reason the state was to necessarily "wither away" was that states are determined to be tools of whatever class happens to dominate a society. If there's no classes, there's no class interests, and the state is irrelevant. Under the Marxist-Leninist model, the Party forms a new social hierarchy based around its own bureaucracy, so of course the state retains its permanence.

States are hierarchical and rely on violent coercion. That's the primary distinction.

As if that didn't happen in Revolutionary Catalonia.

The anarchists in Catalonia were forced to cooperate with various other socialist and communist organizations that all had their own methods of operation. The areas under the direct control of the CNT-FAI actually did manage to adhere quite impressively to their principles in spite of the external pressures of both their enemies and allies (the two were often indistinguishable). In context, even if you think they were ultimately fighting for a pipe dream, I think it can be said that they conducted themselves admirably.

I want the commies to leave

Too bad you lost at Stalingrad.

...

>Hurr private property is a social construct :-D

Daily reminder that commies are literally cultural marxists. Everything is a social construct, except for the perfect god-tier communist utopia that we will all have if you just turn your freedoms and your rights over to me of course, all those other times in history where it DIDN'T lead to a utopia and instead ended in massive wars and blooshed? Na, those weren't real communists you see.

Pretty much.

Not to nitpick, but I don't think they'd argue that their beliefs aren't social constructs.

> there has never been a truly "successful" Communist state

>Who is Josip Broz Tito

>lol still complaining about capitalism eh dont you know its current year?

le ebin memer

Lol /pol/acks trigger so easy.

...while Tito was pretty decent, I don’t think you understood that guy's post. They were referring to this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
which Tito objectively did not achieve.