Remind me again why Communism is bad

>it will work this time goy

>this time

but it hasn't been tried yet

USSR was state capitalist.

Requires post scarcity. Post scarcity requires socialism. Capitalists don't like socialism, and pretend socialism means welfare state or centrally planned economy.

...

sucks if ur not the lowest common denominator

or the hypocrits holding the stick

sucks for everyone else

Killed more people than any other ideology in a relatively very short timespan

3d printers and sheeit

>a political theory that has only existed on paper killed people

>you will never be an international communist terrorist in the 70s, fucking bitches and killing innocent people because of "propaganda of the deed"
why even live

min wages rise at least, price of labour, sustainability of agrarian egalitarianism have most fulfilled and comfortable lives, security through uniformity also increases, if ur allowed guns

Privileged bourgeois bastards came up with it.

Cue proles dying all over the place.

exactly because every time they tried they ended up as an oppresive dictatorship

You can only reach post scarcity after achieving socialism. And post scarcity doesn't mean infinite amounts of anything. It just means there's enough of most stuff to go around where monetary exchange is not the basis of distribution.

Think Netflix subscription or all-you-can-eat buffet, even though those have to be paid for, in other words you need to contribute in some way, there's enough for everyone to have as much as they want, and you aren't paying per single piece. They don't determine how much you get base don how much you spend.

ideology can function as a lodestar but not as a template

Every time people have tried to implement it, it's ended in disaster. The redistribution of wealth at such an exteme level requires a strong state mechanism to enforce it under threat of violence.

Pic related seems more of a Slavaboo than a communist

I was thinking more Star Trek.

As long as people have to actually work to create goods, there will be scarcity. Capitalism derives value from labor. As long as you need laborers, communism is an unreachable ideology.

But of course, if you ever reach a point where goods can be gathered, processed, created, shipped and used without laborers then the value of labor becomes exactly 0. At that point, capitalism is a dead ideology, and would be actively harmful to society to continue implementing.
Until we do not need labor, we do not need communism.

>workers in Poland in end of regime where ones who were most openly opposing (and were repressed by it) current rule
If ideology designed for working class end with working class rebelling and being abused, you have some problems.

>post scarcity
a communist meme to lure anarchists into state socialism

Because it collapse, and collapse is not good.

We already live in such a world. No-one in the West starves to death or dies of easily prevented diseases, welfare and public health procedures are universal features of modern states, it is entirely possible to live your whole life in such a state without ever working a day. And what do the thus-liberated underclass do with their leisure? I'll give you a clue: It ain't "they work simply for the love of it :^)"

Okay, LARP'ing as communists has killed more people than any other ideology in a very short timespan

Post scarcity is post work. We're not in a post scarcity society, we still have to work to create everything.

120 million people killed.

seconding this.

It doesn't work

Why the fuck do people still cling to this? Communism has never ever worked for a government ever.
And don't give me this "it's never been tried" bs because it has and it resulted in a tyrannical corrupt dictatorship every fucking time. It suppresses human nature and desire instead of taking advantage of it like capitalism. Not saying capitalism is perfect, but it's sure better than communism.
Answer me this communists: if everyone is paid the same and there money is redistributed to the poor and to those who do less work than others, why on earth would anyone work or strive to be better? Why would I try to be as good as I can at my job if I don't get paid more and can't use that money to buy better cars and a better home?

>How will we ever achieve a post scarcity society?
Three technologies will be combined to create a post scarcity society - 3D printers will make anything possible to create with no effort, intelligent AI will be capable of replacing humans in ~99% of all jobs and robotics will create strong, durable and movable bodies for the AI to take.

These three technologies combined will create a post scarcity society where absolutely anything can be made with 0 human effort, engineering, planning or labor.

There is nothing wrong with communism. It's just that the countries where it has been tried were genetically inferior. Slavs will always live in shit, no matter what system they're under

How do you imagine a world where no one works? How is that possible? Robots?

Why does /pol/ always sneak it's way in?

>Increasing automation of production intensifies

The most successful examples of communism that I can think of are the ones that didn't try to be governments. Communes and stuff. (The ones that failed are the ones that had no rules).

Communists should just focus on creating communes to live in, rather than trying to change the current system.

Anarcho-communists could have succeed. But every experiment with that has ended in fascists or Stalinists wreking shit. Except the Kurds, who are fighting ISIL right now, we will see how well that goes.

And the Zapatistas, but they and the Mexican government aren't really doing anything, just hanging around I guess.

>The most successful examples of communism that I can think of are the ones that didn't try to be governments. Communes and stuff. (The ones that failed are the ones that had no rules).
That was a legitimate form of communism called Anarcho-Communism supported by a guy called Proudhon, a Frenchman. He strongly disagreed with Marx and others that felt there needed to be a strong centralized state to own property for workers and instead wanted workers themselves, each individual worker, to own his or her own means of production.

It never really took off, though.

When I come up with a bad idea it doesn't kill 100 million people.

Stalin's USSR was a good example of a socialist economy. (Ignore the Trots and anarkiddies who say "state capitalism", they are the ones also saying "not true communism" and "it's authoritarian!!!")

The socialised economy accounted for everything significant in terms of production and distribution within the USSR. Socialism was said to have been built in the USSR by the mid-30s as a result of this, hence the 1936 Stalin Constitution.

>Don't forget the 60 gorillion comrade

>communism
>stateless, classless society in which the means of production are collectively and democratically owned

Yup, sure sounds like the USSR

This.

Communism is blamed as a failed system when the real blame lies in the slavs.

You just can't put slav monkeys in charge of working out a highly scientific and intellectually advanced system like communism. And advanced system requires advanced people.

Let us remind that whole ideology was scientifically developed by german intellectuals and meant to be applied in the western civilization.

>user is better able to define communism than the communist party
inb4 if it isnt a perfect utopia it isnt real communism

>not sending inmates to workcamps so they can contemplate their wrongdoings and do something useful

Let me guess, you're either "every crime = death penalty" kind of guy(in which case you may be right) or you consider the situation where criminals go to welfare resort of sorts as a "punishment" to be "the right thing"(also known as "idiot")?

Because human nature.
Hence, Capitalism.

>be in Veeky Forums
>agree that Slavs are inferior
>get out /pol/

Disagree and say that communism doesnt work
>get out /pol/

Here's a colored version for that extra immersion. The girl was cute in butch sort of way.

B-but /pol/ is always wrong!
This post is w-wacist

I don't know is it exactly in the same location but here's the same woman as an old woman now holding the picture of herself from Spanish Civil War. She fought on the Republican side, btw.

>Three technologies will be combined to create a post scarcity society - 3D printers will make anything possible to create with no effort, intelligent AI will be capable of replacing humans in ~99% of all jobs and robotics will create strong, durable and movable bodies for the AI to take.
That's a load of horseshit

>t. computer sci student with a minor in engineering

>That's a load of horseshit
Why? Are you going to argue your point or just be petulant about it?

are you?

Dear commiefags; PROVE to us that it works. Prove it in an actual large scale environment, don't just give us a bunch of ivory towerlings waxing idiotic. then come back and tell us it's a good idea

Until then, kindly fuck off

Your scope is too narrow.
The next logical step in your evolution of labor is machine intelligence.
They will then hold the power, and we will serve and ultimately become dependent upon them..until we are no longer needed.
Roddenberry's vehicle is useful, but assumes a "great leap forward", provided by an altruistic outside influence (post reset).

(I'm not a robot - LOL)

...

...

Slavs hate communists.

I genuinely hope she got raped by Franco's Moors

>German intellectuals
Marx was Jewish silly

There is no such thing as "cute butch". She's ugly as fuck and probably inbred as well, but this is expected considering only the ugliest women become communist.

>real blame lies in the slavs
>East Germany is Slavic now
>Hungary is Slavic
>Cuba is Slavic
>North Korea is Slavic
>China is Slavic
>Cambodia is Slavic
>Venezuela is Slavic

lmaoing @ ur life commie

>I'm so fucking ignorant about communism I can't even formulate a counterargument so I'll just post this reaction image and hope somebody maybe thinks this means I won

Yes let's not forget communism killed seven hundred thousand trillion billion million innocent kulaks, and that's just Stalin!
Never forget.....

The North Koreans are all in bed resting for the next day of hard honest work for their country instead of staying up all night being degenerates like the south koreans.

She legit looks like a dude. It's a shame she didn't get killed by the Nationalists tho.

>thread is entirely about a political subject
>perfectly fine
>someone posts stormfront-tier racism
>"REEEEE YOUR VIEWS BELONG ON THE POLITICS BOARD!"

Welcome to Veeky Forums, idiot. There is a variety of beliefs on every board and you may find much of it offends your sensibilities, because the anonymous dynamic of this site attracts social rejects (eg. racists).

Just because you're offended by something doesn't mean you get to banish it to a "containment board" to maintain Veeky Forums or any other board as your little safe space. Go talk history on Reddit if you want to see PC rules being enforced, otherwise, suck it up.

This entire thread is /pol/, communism is politics. If you're okay with economic politics being discussed then don't start crying when identity politics rears it's ugly head.

tl;dr
;)

Not him but reported.

Announcing your reports is a bannable offense kiddo ;^)

Too bad SK is a shit hole with high suicides and feminist terror groups :^)

Suits me as long as your shitposting ass is also banned.

>"innocents"

lmao erry thyme

>3D printers will make anything possible to create with no effort
The results produced by 3D printers are of poor quality and have next to no longevity. This is especially so for tempered materials that need sturdiness (IE metal, dense plastic and polymer). Sadly this is a property of matter, not something that can be cured by 3d printers "advancing" and is a total deal breaker for anything item that is needed for rugged and continuous use (tools, moving parts, engines, machinery, etc.). Furthermore, the raw materials needed for 3d printing do not simply fall out of the sky and themselves must be extracted (IE, minerals) and/or processed (plastic)

>intelligent AI will be capable of replacing humans in ~99% of all jobs and
AI, nay computers all together, have been stagnant for 10 years. There has been next to no dramatic increases in power since windows 7 (and don't even get me started on the stagnancy of operating systems). Anybody who had a computer in in the 80's and 90's remembers the absolute necessity of cycling out better hardware/software/entire rigs every 2 years. That is not the problem today as the technology has become mature and advancements has virtually grinded to a halt. Most advancements of this decade have been in handheld devices (tablets and smartphones) have not been advancements in actual raw capability of the device, rather just the convenience and compactness of it. And this convenience is traded for a drastic sacrifice for longevity and a total sacrifice of customizability.

The next groundbreaking advancements in computers are to be Quantum computers, Trinary languages and Diamond replacing Silicone for chips and circuit boards. Unfortunately those are still almost entirely theoretical concepts at this point and will not see widespread commercial availability until the closing hours of the 21st century. Such a time is FAR too distant and intersected by so many variables to even give the slightest guess as to what the world will look like by then. A post scarcity society is a possibility but so are many, many, many other outcomes

>robotics will create strong, durable and movable bodies for the AI to take.
Robots are a logistical nightmare, just the currently existing Automated machines we have today cause only slightly less problems than they solve. A manufacturing machine costs tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands just to purchase. Then you must salary multiple mechanics and engineers just to keep the things running continuously. You also have to worry about wear and tear; while the massive industrial machines are built sound, they still where out after continuous use (8 hours a day or more for countless weeks on end) and must have parts replaced. This being a highly specialized machine with very intricate moving parts, parts are both expensive and time consuming to produce (More tempered materials that 3d printers can't replicate for shit) and could take weeks or even months to arrive from the manufacturer. For this reason, many manufacturers have already purchased back up machines (oh boy, time to spend more Time, Money & Manpower!) in case their main machines are incapacitated for any reason.

Now bear in mind that this only applies to machines made for manufacturing. Due to the rise of the assembly line, each of these machines generally only need to make one monotonous motion (stamping, drilling, pressing, sawing, etc) but they still have many intricate moving parts that need to be constantly serviced, maintained and replaced. If you are talking about a full blown android that attempts to mimic all the limberness, articulacy, flexibility and versatility of a full grown human, Get ready to whip out more time, money and manpower to produce, service and replace HIGHLY intricate parts that take even longer to replace when they break.

See this pic? This is the Diagram of a table saw. Notice how many parts it takes to create such a simple motion (a spinning blade)? Now rise your right hand, roll your wrist around, make a fist, a pinch, stretch your index finger, give a thumbs up. Imagine how many intricate parts you're going to need to give an android that range of limberness, articulacy, flexibility and versatility. And since you are making a machine who's internal mechanism all need to be compact enough to fit into your casing, said parts need to be extremely well made as to give them the best longevity possible and to avoid jams and other mishaps (there goes more Time, Money, Manpower)

Now here is the punchline of it all. You've spent likely hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get this android out of the box and will likely have to spend a couple ten thousand a year just to keep it serviced and maintained.
Now further consider that human labor can be hired for only about $15,000 to $30,000 annually in the first world (depending on the country). Now further consider that human labor can be outsourced to the third world for only a few dollars if not less.

Machines replacing human labor is not the sentiment of people who build and design machines, It is the sentiment of Marxists; people who either don't work and/or don't want to work

Anybody who firmly asserts that machines will replace human labor I ask you this; Do you make such a statement because you genuinely believe that to be the case or because you WANT it to be the case?

Anybody?

Anybody gonna take a shot at this?

If I knew such a long winded rant was enough to bring such an insipid thread to a standstill, I would have done just that countless threads ago

Here, have a (you)

I didn't read your whole thing but I think I got the jist.

I have two points:
Machines are more cost-effective and energy efficient than having a human do the same job. Usually by a huge margin. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist. And the jobs these machines do are usually unpleasant, their existence saves a person from having to do it and lowering his/her quality of life.

Second, robots may one day be advanced enough to maintain themselves, to become self-sufficient, even self-replicating. When that happens, a post-scarcity world will be within reach. This would create the only acceptable conditions for communism: If the communist world was run by a benevolent AI.

You get killed.

>tfw no communist latin waifu

but she a cute

>Machines are more cost-effective and energy efficient than having a human do the same job.
Not always. I'll tell you what is cost efficient; outsourcing jobs overseas. That killed many jobs in the first world quicker than automation ever could. It did not result in wealth redistribution (entirely) people simply got into other fields; Self employment, service industry, medicine and so on. The result was evolution, not revolution

>Second, robots may one day be advanced enough to maintain themselves, to become self-sufficient, even self-replicating. When that happens, a post-scarcity world will be within reach.
It's not a issue of robots being advanced enough, it's an issue of them being logistically feasible. No matter how you look at it, it is still going to cost drastically more than having a human do it. I imagine some upper/upper middle class might fancy having an android to do their housework just for the novelty and status symbol, but it will still be drastically more expensive than simply having a maid; Indeed, with the ever growing population, the cost of human labor can only become cheaper and cheaper

As somebody educated in this field, I find the merger of human and machine to be the more likely outcome from this moment in time but that's going to need other theoretical ideas (nanotechnology and biotechnology to name a few) brought to life first

>This would create the only acceptable conditions for communism: If the communist world was run by a benevolent AI.
Sounds horrible desu. People don't handle complacency and stagnation well. It leads to unrest and corruption. Why would you even want to live in such a world? What would be the purpose? Why would humans even need to exist? I'm sure you (much like the rest of Veeky Forums) may find this appealing to your nihilistic side but how would you feel after 10 years of living in such a world? 20? 40? Your entire life? I'm sure you've read Brave New World, so you probably know where this rant is going

...

Post scarcity won't kill Capitalism in society. It might kill it at the lower levels of soceity. But:
Frontier technology would still be a thing, which is even more important because it still retains the industrial base.

Even something like Star Trek places great importance on this. Just working in the Federation gives you some extreme benefits in Star Trek, no matter how shitty that job might be.
Said benefits increase as the person stays in the Federation.
The same trend is seen in other No Scarcity fiction. Generally there is no scarcity of smaller items.
But the higher ranks of those societies are written, to have more. If they have more central land, storage, spices, or access to high level 3D printing is irrelevant.

I get that a lot of writers want to mirror the entire USSR policy, where top of society is super rich from being that. But there is often more to it than that.

In a post scarcity, you could move to the middle of nowhere with no funds, claim land, and build something amazing there as a hobby.

Today, your land mobility in terms of developing land is limited to the economic activity and infrastructure of the area.
I think of things like Swedish Dragon Gate.
The example is a Chinese Castle Palace, used as a Hotel, built in Sweden. But it wasn't built isolated. Its built with full connection to local highways, shipping, and rail road. And said Project is only possible due extreme funds, from insane Chinese Billionaires.

Another example is agriculture. Theoretically you could buy livestock, buy a gigantic swat of land, build a fence, and do farming there.
Realistically, you are limited to having a access road. And you are limited to funds for clearing the area, just for building fences.

Another example, is "Living outside of the Grid". A common concept.
To live in society, you are bound by earning money & purchasing goods. You are bound by the limitations of roads and transportations.
Even if you where to work a few months a year, and then live as a forest hunter for the rest of the year, it still show cases all the limitations of current scarcity society.

Going there sounds amazing for Stare Gazing.
Since its roughly 100km to the Horizon at sea, and Best Korea is roughly 300km long(border to border), going on some of their tall mountains for stare gazing sounds amazing.

If you came to Veeky Forums expecting a serious discussion of communism I have bad news for you.

This board is backed with neo-feudalists, liberals, and outright fascists who skimmed the preamble of the Communist Manifesto.

Post-industrial economy is based on incentive. Communism kills incentive.

It isn't
t. Communist

what does it mean then?

...

yes, this board would be better if it was filled with pinko faggots

>If I knew such a long winded rant was enough to bring such an insipid thread to a standstill, I would have done just that countless threads ago
Responding to such a pointlessly long winded rant is just pain the ass. I'm not one for cutting down the conversation to its bare minimal level of acronyms and made up words like "woke" but there is such a thing as knowing time and place for everything and Veeky Forums is NOT the place for ~10,000 word argument.

You could have said everything you said across five comments in a single comments but you chose not to, probably out of some desire to be seen as intelligent. Great but I won't bother reading or responding to it.