ITT: What is the inherent problem with communism?

*being a counter

> I could say the same about fascism.
Well, fascism is just communism under other name anyway. No surprise here.

Communism works perfectly fine in local level i.e. in actual commune of people.

bait

>Is communism a post state society, free of hierarchy?
You got it.

>Must nations centralize their economies in order to make a transition to communism?
This is where it gets messy: it depends who you ask, and Communists spent most of the 20th century arguing about it. Those who said yes were the extreme minority, but were most inclined to seizing control of the state apparatus. Once they had that, it was a huge pulpit that allowed them to present their views as the only ones. The Soviets didn't just spend millions, if not billions trying to subvert western states, they also spent an equal amount of time trying to subvert communist critics. Once they crashed their economy with no survivors, and the dollerydoos stopped flowing, there was a lot less Bolshevik shills all of a sudden.

The hominid jew strikes again

>state existing
Not Communist.

The USSR was not Communist.

>Must nations centralize their economies in order to make a transition to communism?
No, there have been tons of different theories over the past 150 years about how to achieve a Communist society. Some believed the way to do so was by doing a revolution and taking over a government to centralize the government, and others have believed that violent revolution and not taking over the state is the way to go. But Communists are not for reformist governments.

Communism is doomed to fail because the slave/master dynamic is literally encoded into our genes, and more intelligent people will always want to lord over less intelligent people in any way they can, and I say this as a person sympathetic to the tenets of communism.

Core of a problem is communism not being well defined enough concept to implement. Even the Marx himself barely hints on what it must to be.

>muh human nature

Defined in what way? Because the definition of Communism has always been a society where there is no private capital, no class, no money and no state. These have been defined clearly since it's inception more or less.

>Communism has always been a society where there is no private capital, no class, no money and no state.

Behold! A society with no private capital, no class, no money, and no state.

Communism can't compete with capitalism; many (idiots) see this as a flaw of capitalism, but it's really because communism is fucking retarded and shouldn't exist.

>muh blank slate
Humans are slaves to their biology, I'm sorry modern day communists still have a 19th century mindset of how humans work.

Every community experiment has followed an authoritarian top-down model

>humans are slaves to their biology

Ah, so then I suppose we're all determined to be fascists then? Or feminists? Or right wingers or left wingers?

To say it's all biology and nothing to do with your environment or your experiences is fucking retarded

The USSR collapsed because it couldn't keep up with American military capabilities, losing all their satellites in the process

China and Vietnam became capitalist because career politicians would often rather get wealthy than liberate their countrymen

North Korea turned into a fascist state because the Kims liked power

Cuba is cool

In the constructive way. Mathematically speaking. If you define communism as no state society then I guess COLLAPSE is the success because state is totally kill forever, am I right?! You should define communism by what it is, not by what it isn't. The political system is always set of practices. World without money, state, capital and class becomes a failure automatically if you didn't replace niches and functions, all of a necessities that they serve.

Because stupid crapitalists keep trying to destroy it

This isn't true communism. Everyone knows, that under communism there would be lack of sand in Sahara

> Humans are slaves to their biology
You can change biology with technology. Humans done it from beginning of times.

> The USSR collapsed because it couldn't keep up with American military capabilities
Because it collapsed in military defeat? It is clear that it isn't true, user. North Korea still exist even without hope to compete with USA, same for The Cuba. I am sure Soviets could still exist even in a form of second tier state... Like Russia exist now basically.

>essentialist definitions
>2016

Daily reminder that communism != equality.

well except your theories say proletarian self interest should overcome the efforts of the bourgeois to suppress it, so the very fact they win proves your ideas wrong

>Not Communist.
no, it's not your autistic specific idea of what communism is. goods are pooled and then redistributed as the primary economic system of a nation. that's communism.

>goods are pooled and then redistributed as the primary economic system of a nation. that's communism.
That's literally not socialism or communism.

> goods are pooled and then redistributed
Like in literally every economy ever?

>goods are pooled and then redistributed as the primary economic system of a nation. that's communism.
I kindly invite you to google communism, friend.

No, you're thinking of capitalism

Communism is pretty much inevitable once the capitalist system finally collapses in on itself. Also fuck off bigoted reactionary scum.

Can't we abandon historicism already? In fact, can't we abandon every vestige of the cancer that is hegelian thought in the left?

No one with a history degree could possibly take this chart seriously

>inevitable once the capitalist system finally collapses in on itself.
Any day now. kek

I'd love to see the look on your face when you finally grow up and just vote social Democrat because you realize it's as good as it's gonna get, like everyone else who spent their teens reading Marx and Proudhon.

>China
>Capitalism

>FOXCONN
>not a Capitalist entity
???

Not if humans develop interstellar colonization first so there will be new frontiers for millions of years to come.

Also, just because capitalism collapses doesn't mean the proles won't collapse with it. As wages become depressed, and capitalists no longer need growing numbers of wage laborers to expand the economy, it may become economically nonviable for proles to maintain a fertility rate of 2+, dropping to around 1 or less, halving the population of proles every generation, until they're eventually bred out of existence.

it's too good for this world

>China
>not capitalist

Is this nigga serious?

It works as long as immigration and population growth is controlled.

epic falseflagging, /pol/

that's american education in action

>ussr
>in b4 gommies say not real gommunism

>prc
>its not real gommunism gaiz

>gapitalist logic

>immigration

spotted the racist

Actually any kind of space mining of asteroids will essentially lead to a post scarcity situation making capitalism obsolete.

>dprk
>people say it's not republican and democratic
Those idiots! It's on the name, can't they read?

>not this not that etc
This is still a denial judgement. It can be a definition if it's an affirmative judgement.

Communism didn't fail, it did for the russians and chinese exactly what they wanted it to do at the time.
A lot of third world communist movements went very liberal at the end of the cold war without losing too much momentum, because communism was something that would then not deliver what they wanted of it. the CPP-NPA put out a statement cautioning Duterte on his move towards China, not out of ideological reasons but for want of national control of resource extraction, to keep it domestic instead of foreign owned. Very big about-face for a group that got significant backing from the chinese in the last few decades.

...

>post-scarcity
But will the people with the dank asteroids share their limitless resource? Or will they just sell it to people for profit?

I imagine the "limitless" vastness of the New World in the 18th century, when there was more wood, beaver, and whale than you could chop, trap, or harpoon. We all know how that turned out.

If history is any indication....

>Communism didn't fail, it did for the russians and chinese exactly what they wanted it to do at the time.

Cause famines?

Communism relies on a benevolent state that has perfect information.

Both things don't exist in the real world.

t. Economist

It is explained though. It's explained that if you want full world communism, you need to be very close to post-scarcity. Only socialism can make that final push to post scarcity where automation fully benefits society, because society becomes the owners of automation. Socialism is more accurately described as a prerequisite to communism. Historical dialectics shows a likely eventual trend. Socialism is not meant to be a blue print for communism.

>Communism relies on a benevolent state
Stopped reading.

A famine is only bad if it hits people in the cities. Capitalist or communist, if you want an industrial economy you gotta fuck up townies en masse.

OP interchangeably uses the terms communism and socialism.

That's why he asks why it keeps failing.

>If history is any indication
You mean how the new world went on to be an agricultural powerhouse that currently feeds half of Africa for free because the land is so productive? Or how corn farmers cash cheques from the US government to not grow corn to ensure that they don't completely crash corn prices?

Future is looking good if we can replicate similar success with metals and rare earth materials. I mean as long as we don't allow some Corp to claim ownership of the asteroid belt just because...

Free market capitalism relies on perfect information, otherwise you get investment and speculative bubbles.

Markets would function better if wealthy institutions were not too big to fail, able to manipulate markets and information, create artificial economic barriers, produce unregulated externalities, have diseconomies of scale, charge unproductive rent, demand large amounts of profits from entrepreneurs for them to be able to attempt to succeed, and so forth.

Clearly socialism is the answer.

It fails because a stateless, classless society cannot work in a world full of states and classes. Prove me wrong.

>Prove me wrong.
You're not wrong though. This is a perfectly natural conclusion for a strict Marxist who isn't Iosef "socialism in one country" Stalin.

There is a difference.

The market gets that information by looking how prices change, reflection the response of each individual.

The state would have to be omnipresent to get the same information. Which is impossible.

Not that guy, but variation of quantities/inventories gives you that information. Also, market information is partial, it rather reflects the response of each individual weighted by their wealth (for example, someone without wealth doesn't influence prices through demand, so his preferences aren't reflected in production).

are you joking

industry is held privately

Marx confers a lot of power to a group that is supposed to represent the workers, but little is said about the group's checks and balances against corruption. In a regular democracy people have the power to nationalize industry, increase taxes and generally assault capitalism, the reason they don't go all the way is because they start to run into corruption and inefficiency problems at the Venezuela level.

A stateless classless society sounds just swell, but there are about 500 other things that would be pretty neat too.

I agree. Full atheism sucks for any society and cult of personality will only get you 70 years before they throw your staues down

>The market gets that information by looking how prices change, reflection the response of each individual.
Which leads to speculative bubbles and volatile markets because they stop looking at the actual worth of the commodity they're trading in, seeing the commodity's value not as it actually pertains to usefulness and demand for the product itself, but the usefulness for the product to be traded to other speculators.

>The state would have to be omnipresent to get the same information. Which is impossible.
Which is why you have socialism, with markets. Wow. Problem solved.

We need more consumer's unions.

You're not wrong, but your post is more of a criticism of Marxism-Leninism than it is of Marxism itself.

>Marx confers a lot of power to a group that is supposed to represent the workers
No he doesn't. The German Marxists (Marx was German by the way), got butthurt over the undemocratic Marxist-Leninism in the Russian Revolution. It's Lenin, Bolsheviks, Stalin, and the CPSU, and people who followed in their footsteps, like Mao and the CPC, and the satellite puppet states that did this. What you're describing is the Marxist-Leninist model, not Marxism.

>Marx confers a lot of power to a group that is supposed to represent the workers
Please quote marx saying this.

>in b4 dictatorship of the proletariat being misinterpreted

>visit my grandpas village farming town
>wahey mfw im in a communist society

The world doesn't want it, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

Communists are idealists. They don't think realistically. Everything about communism sounds pleasant, and a little practical here and there, on paper — in reality it's like trying to enforce the concept of equality. Fact is, nothing is equal; nothing actually works according to your idealism. It will only work for brief periods, among a rare group of people, who are all idealistically foolish enough to sustain it in their heads, which is enough to make them think it is being sustained in reality.

Communists should stop hating class distinction. It's a petty hatred. Class is natural and we owe all our art and technology to inequality.

the inherent problem with communism is that it is undemocratic. time and again history shows us that a people will only tolerate tyrants for so long, and now that self governance has become such a widespread ideal, authoritarian regimes struggle even more so to hold on to their power

Communist isn't equality. That's retarded. Equality is a bourgeois concept based on inequality in capitalism. Communism is not about enforcing equality, it's about transcending the need for people to want equality by giving every person the ability for self-actualization without feeling the need to blame it on inequality. Socialism is more egalatarian than communism, but the goal of socialism is not equality, and still ultimately relies on some inequality (to each according to his contribution), which is explicitly acknowledged and accepted by Marx.

Stop falling for the marxism = equality meme. It has no basis in Marxism. Yes, there are naive people who support full equality in everything, but they aren't actually Marxist even if they think they are.

That's a problem with bolsheviks. The German communists were complaining about how undemocratic bolshevism was since the beginning.

because goverment central planing is garbage pseudoscience.

>comunists can't solve the central planning efficiency dilema
trash.

>no state
how do you defend your people from external forces, like an enemy state without a trained big army?

>no class
how do you stop the inevitable class diference because of job skills, or is an engineer the same as a janitor?

how do you solve the motivation problem if there's no profit or greed motivation to become rich that capitalism have?

people feel motivated by greed, and capitalism rewards the people who work harded to innovate, while comunism punishes the people who create innovation in capitalist countries.

What is NK? North Korea?

>comunists can't solve the central planning efficiency dilema
That's why you should have market socialism instead of centrally planned socialism. It's not some sort of fancy newfangled oxymoron. Ricardian market socialism predates Marxism, and Marx himself didn't completely discount market socialism, he just didn't like markets very much, especially in conjunction with the private ownership of capital. There's a reason his book is about Capital and not Markets.

>how do you defend your people from external forces, like an enemy state without a trained big army?
This is why you have a socialist state before communism, until it's safe to transition to communism because everyone else is socialist too and also wants to transition to communism.

>how do you stop the inevitable class diference because of job skills, or is an engineer the same as a janitor?
It doesn't matter, because with automation you only need to put in a token amount of work to meet your personal needs. You wouldn't have to work full time or be expected to. You seem to be stuck on the idea of equality, like equal wages, which is a anti-marxist idea.

>how do you solve the motivation problem if there's no profit or greed motivation to become rich that capitalism have?
He's working under the assumption that humans have a desire for self actualization, because internet porn hadn't been invented yet.

>people feel motivated by greed, and capitalism rewards the people who work harded to innovate
It also rewards people who own things because they own them. It sounds like your ideal is socialism, not communism. "To each according to his contribution" instead of signing a contract to an owner of a company that says all your ideas while you work for him are his intellectual property (this is standard language in most contracts for R&D engineers in capitalism) and you have no choice but to do this because he had the money to sponsor R&D and you don't.

>muh system is perfect, it's those fucking humans who are the problem!

my point is that communism can only be successfully implemented by a willing and conscious majority. there is no room for dissent in a communist system and because of that, it is inherently undemocratic.

This is like asking why Lysenkoism failed. It a less accurate descriptor than the competition, and you cannot force reality to bend to your ideology.

>Historical dialectics shows a likely eventual trend.

There is no historical trend towards a state-less society.

>market socialism
how is diferent from state capitalism?

>everyone else is comunism
how do you get to the point where everyone wants to be socialist.

I don't want to be a socialist.
capitalists and millionaires don't want to be socialism.

how do you force a millionaire to become a socialists?

>We'll force him
and he hires a private militia and shoot you faggots the moment you start rioting.

>automatization
Capitalism won't die.

Capitalism will be succeeded by descentralized local comunities that have a welfare system powered by universal income, machines and the internet, meanwhile the big national decisions will be done by big corporations.

>own things
I want to own things, having things are nice.
private property feels good.

>each acording to his contribution
how bout niggers who live in welfare, what are their contribution?

>muh worker explotation
kek, another usefull idiot brainswhased by economic pseudoscience of the XIX century.

>my point is that communism can only be successfully implemented by a willing and conscious majority
The same could be said of any democratic polity. If people vote in a tyrant that abolishes democracy then that's what happens.

>there is no room for dissent in a communist system and because of that, it is inherently undemocratic.
Yes there is. Any revolutionary government is going to crack down on dissent though for the beginning of it's existence, and bolshevism, which you seem to think is representative of all communist thought, was particularly bad in suppressing dissent. But it's not like democratic USA didn't have it's own milder forms of cracking down on dissent too.

>The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism built on Lamarckian concepts of the heritability of acquired characteristics.[2] Lysenko's theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the "gene"; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[3] Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that "natural cooperation" was observed in nature as opposed to "natural selection".[3] Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.

Jesus fucking Christ.

explain to me why post scarcity means a stateless society?

Capitalist propaganda.

>explain to me why post scarcity means a stateless society?

I've asked this many times as well. There is no answer.

Because it's enlightenment ideology, one which is predicated to internal failure, taken to it's very extreme. It's no wonder it fails so spectacularly in every instance. You don't force reality to bend itself to your will. You bend yourself to reality.

there's post scarcity of paper, does this mean paper isn't controlled by capitalists?

you're right on some points, in any power structure there will be suppression of dissent, but i was under the impression that communists sought a state-less society free of authoritarian power structures.

>Any revolutionary government is going to crack down on dissent though for the beginning of it's existence, and bolshevism, which you seem to think is representative of all communist thought, was particularly bad in suppressing dissent.

are you attempting to excuse the use of force to suppress dissent or are you implying that a different school of communist would more effectively do so when compared to russian bolsheviks?