What are some legitimate arguments against communism?

What are some legitimate arguments against communism?

Anti-communism is so popular these days but you rarely see any good reasons for it.

>What are some legitimate arguments against communism?

it doesnt fucking work

It doesn't work in practice.

And probably never will either, unless we get a communist government run by Zen-Buddhists.

Destruction of family

People aren't ready.
There is no necessary technology.

The same family that was destroyed by capitalism faster than by communism?

>Anti-communism is so popular these days but you rarely see any good reasons for it.
Typical communist persecution complex. People today are more aware of the true definition of Communism than ever.

Then how do you explain the massive population boom in all socialist countries?

Jewish conspiracy.

Most socialist shitholes are poor and most poor people are traditionalists.

Was there ever any Zen Buddhist commie though?

>average_turk.jpg

>Anti-fascism is so popular these days but you rarely see any good reasons for it.
FTFY

The biggest flaw of Communism is that it tries to be okay for everyone, but great for no-one.

In a misguided attempt to ensure "equality" amongst his people, a Communist ruler will introduce high taxes and nationalise many public services such as healthcare and transport in order to create a universal standard of living. As a result of this, excess wealth used to fund business ventures can't be generated, which leads to stagnation and a lack of prosperity.

Communism as an is a destroyer of nations. So much so, that the vast majority of countries which embraced and collapsed because of Communism (Russia, China etc.) are now prospering due to them ushering in an era of Capitalism.

capitalism need the nuclear family

It's based on some really iffy economics; the notion that wealth will decrease for the proletariat not only on a relative basis, but an absolute basis, has no bearing on reality in the time since Marx wrote Kapital and today. To claim that use value has no real relationship to exchange value and that all exchange is some shell game based on superior pre-existing power hasn't really borne out. It seems to completely reject the notion that both parties can benefit equally from an exchange, even if said benefit isn't equal.

No it doesn't.

It just needs producers and consumers.

and who consumes more than the nuclear family?

dad need her golf club and cars
mom need the machinewasher and fridge
and the sons need toys

dude there was probably nothing else to do but fuck I mean you have to find some way to enjoy life in a socialist hell hole

Marx based his whole vision of future communist utopia upon the theory of alienation, that posited that "bad things" like violence and religion were a result of class society.

Modern archeology shows that religion and violence predate the development of agriculture and the division of labour. Therefore, there is no reason to imagine that "worker's council" in a classless society would work any differently from a barbarian tribal confederation or organized gang and engage in violent disputes for resources and territory.

Communism is too libertarian. A stateless society lacks the proper safeguards to prevent a regression to capitalism.

>who consumes more than the nuclear family?

Gays.

>What are some legitimate arguments against communism?

It doesn't work. You don't really need more that that.

The nuclear family is a creation of capitalism. Under communism, we would see a return to the traditional communitarian family, the basis of every pre-capitalist society.

You think it's natural to hardly know your neighbors and only see your cousins once a year?

But i am friend of most of my neighboors, and i see my cousins every friday, what are you talking about?

That quote is so fucking stupid, and i see every hipster """revolucionario""" posting it on Facebook

Is consumption wrong?

I have the right to enjoy my luxuries. A car is my luxury. A drink is my luxury. A nice shower is my luxury. If one man must beg to make ends meet; so be it that I am not that man.

>it hasn't worked
ftfy

Please tell me how communism would ever possibly work.

Then your family life wouldn't change with full communism

No political or social ideology does. Even the "successful" ones fall eventually or morph into something completely different.

We are at least few hundred years to few millennia away from technology levels where we might possibly try to implement communism.

>Please tell me how communism would ever possibly work.
If I could, I would be surely enacting the policies. Just because it hasn't worked, in no way means it objectively CANNOT work.

I simply do not see how communism could work without reverting to extremely decentralized agricultural communes. Even then it would still have problem because of the billions of people spread around the world.

There is simply no way communism could ever work past the invention of cities.

>There is simply no way communism could ever work past the invention of cities.
t. subjective reasoning.

For the record, I agree with you, but the way you are presenting your argument is flawed and so is the reasoning you use to back-up your argument.

I don't believe it could work today - people aren't ready/do not want it. But still, that doesn't mean communism cannot work. We are not going to stay in this same state forever (hopefully).

The thing which I know will bring communism about is huge amounts of goods and raw materials (space age) where it almost becomes idiotic and inefficient to control the flow of goods due to capitalistic and competition.

People don't like sharing and want to be given more for more work

The argument from pragmatism.

Post food scarcity
Fully automated work force.

>trying to make communism work before post-scarcity
This is why it never fucking works. Communism will literally only work in a society that has reached post-scarcity

>We want a classless, stateless society

>In order to achieve this, we have to put a small group of people in charge of running the entire economy

What could possibly go wrong?

Because like with any idealistic system of governing it relies on a leader that has his shit together and can make things happen.

Things may be great for a while but it is all going to go to shit once that leader dies and his power hungry successor takes power.

It doesn't matter how good your leader is. He cannot somehow make the world into a stateless society. If the end goal of communism is to have an egalitarian society with no government, then it has no real-world application. It can't happen. It's no more credible than the oft-lampooned anarcho-capitalism.

>post-scarcity

The Universe is finite, human greed is not.

And how is that possible?

You'd have to reach a point where your production is sufficiently high to allow everybody to live a fulfilling life.

It certainly turned the Soviet Union and China into two global powers and industrialized them almost over night.

How didn't it work?

If you made this thread hoping to hear anything other than the same 10 outdated cold war arguments, I'm sorry, you aren't going to find it here.

How do you explain Japan or South Korea? Both industrialised as fast or faster and both achieved far higher living standards. It's almost like industrialisation is inevitable, and happens no matter what government you happen to have (except really anti-technology ones like feudalism or islamism I guess).

Why not adopt monarchism instead?
At least an absolute enlightened monarchy only requires one man to be virtuous and selfless rather than an entire population.

Communism is "no individuals allowed" the religion. Apart from the totalitarianism it breeds just look at what those bastards did to their architecture.

It doesn't work.

There are no incentives to work, since you get taken advantage of and don't get anything for it.

It requires so much central planning and co-operation that it can simply be hard to implement.

I think the famine in China is probably the best example.

>People produce food
>Goes to central distribution
>Central distribution diverts it to where most needed

People essentially produced the bare minimum they could get away with.

Dengy Boy rectified this with a soft injection of capitalism;

>Must produce quota
>Above and beyond that you can keep what you produce and take it to market

All of a sudden the people were producing excess food supplies.

I kind of think of it in terms of the opposite of what goes wrong with capitalism - You introduce an incentive, and people will game the system and exploit it until the river runs dry, leaving you with nothing.

This so much.

Communism thinks it's possible to erase humans attraction to incentives. People are self interested no matter how many re education camps you put them in. This doesn't mean selfish. I mean self interested.


Other reasons communism is fucking stupid is this constant talk of the workers when I've never met a single commie who's ever met a 'worker'. Try actually talking to those stupid Le freedumb rednecks and niggers who loot. These are the workers and nobody who espouses communism actually is one of these people let alone knows any of these people. They usually despise these people.

When the revolution comes, you faggot idea guys will be the first to be lined up and shot

Human nature.

Organic.
Composition.
Of.
Capital.

The currently Dalai Lama say politically, he's a Marxist and a communist.

Socialism is better at dealing with scarcity. Communism is for post scarcity

"Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us."

You're a fucking idiot if you believe that

Russia began industrialization under the Tsar, halted for twenty years and then eventually nearly resumed its previous trajectory under Stalin.
The Russian Civil War and the Communist takeover caused a twenty-year break in Russian industrialization.

It's filled with people who want to get rid of White people

Communism shuns all luxuries (by philosophy) in favor of standardized living.

If you have a luxuryless society next to a society with luxuries it doesnt work.

If new communism where to spread it would have to allow luxuries or no one would want it. A neo communism of state mercantilism where the currency would inevidently become those luxuries. Tovarisch uas car? Trade me 50 cases of coke. I have blue jeans? I would like a gameboy for them.

A state without luxury for its main governors (in a republic or a communist state being the people itself) it will not last because they will always percieve something better. And crave for that something better.

Communism is weaponized Judaism.

It only works in small intimate communities, like the Israeli Kibbutz

> human greed is not
Just give everyone some chill pills.

When sex is the only thing that brings happiness = lots of kids.

Didnt they get massive help from the US to prevent them from turning communist and to have a powerful ally in the region?

Even if Reinhard von Lohengramm led the revolution, workers overthrew their oppressors and achieved true communism it still wouldn't be desirable.

Communism pits the individual against the collective, you have to beg a committee or some bureaucrat for permission to make changes or use the "means of production", anything you build yourself that qualifies as capital might be "redistributed", interacting with the material world around you is one of the most basic facets of existence and freedom, yet apparently it is heresy. If you share a culture or viewpoint with millions of people your needs and what you want from the material world might be catered to, but where you differ as an individual you basically have no freedom, you can't say "don't like me? fuck off then" and go it alone, your "needs", even if they are reasonable, are determined by "the people", they will trample your sandcastle over a difference of opinion and delude themselves into thinking they were stopping the rise of an evil capitalist. Your only choice in life is to be a normy like everyone else.

>interacting with the material world around you is one of the most basic facets of existence and freedom
And yet in Capitalism the material world around you is private property of someone who will demand payment for the interaction.

checked

wtf I love Jews now

True communism wouldn't have any bureaucrats

Read Evola. The best critiques of communism come not from a capitalistic standpoint but from a completely anti-materialist one.

Lack of faith based on history. No one will know what I'm talking about but if we lived in a communist society and we knew it, someone would react negatively.

but I can do whatever I want with my private property.

Even if I am completely destitute (bear in mind we are comparing abject poverty in real life to utopian true communism) I can still deal with private property owners 1 on 1 without anyone else interfering. I might not get free powdered milk and budget noodles, but I can sell a bit of cannabis and get a hamburger.

Basically you have to be anti-human capabilities. If you view economics as emergent and not possibly fully understandable, you preclude the ability to fully control things as a communist would want. But that also precludes capitalism ever working and not collapsing.

Basically, you have to accept that humanity has no "final place" of perfection where it will end. All perfection leads to communism, because it's the perfect system. No perfection, no communism.

Retarded anti-Soviet memes from people cucked by capitalism and probably think Japan is a nice place to live.

Japan has a low birth rate, and also the highest suicide rates. So what you just implied is completely false.

Lots of people are picking one specific conception of communism and running with it, the others are memers and rightarded children who would vote for Trump if they could get an ID.

what if I defy the will of the people under communism by building a windmill and not sharing the leccy

Has literally nothing to do with what I said..?

I still need to read Hayek, but he offered a critique.

And I would persuade communists to look into complex systems science. Nassim Taleb sort of introduced me to it.

Since then I cannot see how communism is supposed to work.

Hayek the Hack is not really worth reading.

Hayek offered a great political critique, but Mises provides the economic argument against with the calculation problem.

And before someone accuses me of being an Austrian, I'm not.

How come?

Also, cycle man Peter Turchin shows that history is cyclic.
Marx had other ideas, which are wrong (historical determinism).

>Also, cycle man Peter Turchin shows that history is cyclic.
*tips fedora*

And you're just old enough to buy a copy of the New deus ex

Hot opinion there faggo!

Leftism is traditionally the ideology of children.

The only people who never grow out of communism are bums like Bernie Sanders who've never held a real job in their life.

>*tips fedora*
You should read what he has to say. He uses mathematical models.
From reading him, you could state that class conflict is a reoccuring phenomenon.

Elite overproduction, inequality and so on and so on cause decreased cooperation and, how else could it be, conflict.

Have you literally ever seen a far-right person like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson? Fucking way worse losers than Bernie, a bunch of ineffectual weak whiners.

>Gary Johnson and Ron Paul
>Far right
Is anyone right of Lenin "Far Right" to you?

>And in capitalism people can't just take what they want from you
Ftfy

Ron Paul:
>Paul earned a Doctor of Medicine degree from Duke University's School of Medicine in 1961, and completed his medical internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.[17][18] Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. Paul and his wife then relocated to Texas, where he began a private practice in obstetrics and gynecology.[18]

Gary Johnson:
>While in college, Johnson earned money as a door-to-door handyman.[17] His success in that industry encouraged him to start his own business, Big J Enterprises, in 1976. When he started the business, which focused on mechanical contracting, Johnson was its only employee.[18] His firm's major break came when he received a large contract from Intel's expansion in Rio Rancho, which increased Big J's revenue to $38 million.[19]

>Overburdened by his success, Johnson enrolled in a time management course at night school, which he credits with making him heavily goal driven.[19] He eventually grew Big J into a multimillion-dollar corporation with over 1,000 employees.[20] By the time he sold the company in 1999, it was one of New Mexico's leading construction companies.[21]

Bernie Sanders:
>Sanders studied at Brooklyn College for a year in 1959–60[34] before transferring to the University of Chicago and graduating with a bachelor of arts degree in political science in 1964.[34] He has described himself as a mediocre college student because the classroom was "boring and irrelevant," while the community provided his most significant learning.[35]

Bernie Sanders is a fuckin loser.

Hayek didn't critique communism, but Marxist-Leninist states that use planned economies in hopes of establishing communism

>being this fucking triggered by the truth

I'm not a bernout but it's a pretty big achievement to have attended Chicago, user.

Can't speak for the rest of his life though.

>the traditional communitarian family, the basis of every pre-capitalist society.
>this is what commutards actually believe

Is anyone left of Ayn Rand a communist to you? How stupid can you be?

A good argument I think is if a smart scientist or inventor creates amazing technologies or machine, he will never gain or loose anything because of it. He will be given the same amount as Dimitri, the onion and onion accessories producer, even though he had done more in comparison.
If you work hard you should be rewarded in kind, and many people would agree with that statement

>being this fucking triggered by the truth

When did i say they were?