Is communism viable? Why or why not?

Yes, and wealth and resource is naturally disparate on the Earth, making it the driving force of evolution, user.

Some have, and some don't.

I guess there may be enough food for up to, what, 12 Billion people, but what does that actually entail?

What does one get when one gets enough?

If I go off citing other examples of failed communist states, are you going to weasel your way of that one as well?

meant for

While Capitalism is bound to become obsolete or diminished in one form or another, by no stretch of the imagination does that guarantee communism to be it's successor

But, user, all of THOSE countries* were always politically unstable, or at least as long as they've had western style governments; if a thriving Western Nation, or one with access to enough wealth, were to adopt communism, it could totally work.

*Excepting Russia, who was subject to a rapid onset of political instability following the First World War-although, disdain for the Tsardom was already present by the time Nicholas II took the position.

You can't prove that it wouldn't :DDDDDD

these are troll threads user
just sage it gay man

>Communist/Capitalist amalgamation
Is that so wrong? I see people bringing up market socialism and mutualism over and over, which is pretty much that.

It's more of a is China really the model anyone wants to follow?

Would you really want to be a Chinese Plebeian?

If that's the model of a successful Communist State, I'll stick with the evils of Capitalism.

>yfw you realize capitalist economies can't exist without exploitative macro-shitholes like china and bangladesh

China just took the shitty aspects of Maoism and applied them to capitalism.

I don't think any of the few extant Marxist-Leninist states will implement communism. The elite of Cuba and Laos and Vietnam are more interested in preserving their own power, and none of those political climate is suited for even the proposal of a transition to communism.

Unless shit goes atomically south, we'll probably see communism emerge in the world's most developed and expensive communities after full automation does away with both employment and scarcity.

We're going to see a world in which not only workers in a Toyota factory are replaced by machines, but designers, supervisors, and executives find themselves supplanted by cheaper machines. When careers no longer exist, the bourgeois will implement economic changes to protect themselves, slowly replacing marker dynamics with non-competitive systems.

While this won't be the kind of global anarchy Marx envisioned, collective management of resources by a central automated authority is the most efficient way to prevent starvation and unrest.

Congratulations, you've discovered the fuckery Globalism.

But, hey, at least we don't have to pay 5 dollars for a pack of Oreos

Marxist communism can really only succeed in statist frameworks in the most prosperous and developed states, which benefit most greatly from international and national capitalism.

Because the proletarians of Russia, China, and essentially every socialist country were desperately poor and uneducated, well-meaning but patronizing elites decided to evolve worker control of industry to the state. Lenin started this, with the belief that central management was the best way to distribute resources.

This policy, codified into Marxism-Leninism, failed to create communism because politicians are more concerned with immediate results than long-term goals. Because the USSR and China were frightened of capitalist invasion to the point of paranoia, building communism went on the back burner during the Cold War. Stalin and Mao both directed their efforts on state-building. Mao's cultural revolution was meant to set the groundwork for communism, but the state confiscation of resources without democratic collectivization proved disastrous -- capitalists within China, rather than outside it, used their domination of the economy to transition toward more profitable capitalism.

We better fucking figure out communism, because the alternative is mass starvation paired with economic migration of a scale not even suggested by Europe's ongoing trouble with refugees.

>Is communism viable?
no
>Why or why not?
you have plenty of factual cases

>inb4 real comunism was never tried

Literally none of those men would have called their states communism

Even fucking Stalin and believed that his nightmarish authoritarianism was just a transitionary period necessary to pave the way for the libertarian utopia of stateless communism

The only innocents Lenin had killed were Makhno and the black army

>this is what anarchists actually believe

+1

Given that according to marxist theory the dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessary step towards communism, you don't really disprove his point. If you can't ever reach communism because the dictatorship of the proletariat always degenerates into a shithole, then it's logical to conclude that communism is not viable, because it is impossible to implement.

Right, but "communism cannot be implemented" is incredibly different than what that memepic implies

It argues that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol fucking Pot DID implement communism... and that their authoritarian statism was the desired end goal.