Actual thread about why Communism is wrong

This tbqh

>implying that kulaks, traitors, bourgeois capitalists are innocent

>also implying that Pol Pot was a communist and not a CIA backed nationalist posing as a communist

Its pretty cruel to force bread to wait for people to come eat it don't you think?

Translation: If I were the dictator, things would've gone better.

Bullshit.

USSR beocratic class slowly gain power until revisionist liberal reformers give them legitamte power and then end ussr on 10% referendum after shelling congress and threatening military coup

yeah, ussr sure did collapse?????
stalin gave everyone right to vote
workers elected everyone even their own manager
2nd most powerful country on earth no one ever came as close to the USA

there was no taxes in communism

>Doesn't picture the countless people starving under capitalism

Really activates your neurons

Saying that if I were there doesn't make the argument bullshit, if a modern doctor said

"If I were back in the 1800s, I could save so many lives"

Would you say that's bullshit?

You're allowed to believe that you could've not made the mistakes of people who came before you. Not everyone is destined to do the same thing in the same position.

I understand your point, and it isn't totally flawed, but your reasoning seems to be.

>Capitalism
work get paid.
dont work get poor.
>Communism
everyone is poor permanently

Really makes you ponder.

>everyone is poor permanently
are you unaware of the massive quality of live improvements in ussr

>We are talking about the numerous members of overseas societies of friendship with the Soviet Union. Officially, all Soviet representatives regard these parasites with touching feelings of friendship, but privately they call them 'shit-eaters' ('govnoed'). It is difficult to say where this expression originated, but it is truly the only name they deserve. The use of this word has become so firmly entrenched in Soviet embassies that it is impossible to imagine any other name for these people. A conversation might run as follows: Today we've got a friendship evening with shit-eaters
>officers of both the GRU and the KGB have very much more respect for their agents than for the shit-eaters. The motives of agents are clear an easy life and plenty of money. If you take risks and lose, then no money and no easy life. To the end of his life the agent will not be able to tear himself away from this servitude as is the case in the criminal world. But the behaviour of the numerous friends of the Soviet Union is utterly incomprehensible to Soviet people. In the Soviet Union everybody without exception wishes to be abroad, to go absolutely anywhere, even if only with one eye to look at Mongolia or Cambodia. Oh! to be abroad, is the cry, led by the children of Brezhnev, Gromyko and Andropov. When Soviet people want to say that a thing is outstandingly good, they say, 'Really, this must be foreign.' It does not matter which country it comes from, or what its quality or age it has to be foreign. But suddenly one finds these friends of the Soviet Union, who enjoy all the fruits of western civilisation, and yet they praise the Soviet Union. No, these people are nothing but shit-eaters according to Soviet intelligence. The contempt felt for them does not prevent the GRU and KGB from using them whenever they can. They do everything free, and they will even come to meetings in secure places like the Soviet Embassy.

> Nobody was trying to overthrow feudalism globally

...

>There are 100 threads on pol a day about this topic
>gleefully does it on Veeky Forums
Reported out of spite.

lmao

Communism had global ideological enemies from day 1, Napoleon came about after 1000 years of Feudalism and absolute monarchy.

But you can't save lives right now, that's what we're actually on about. We're not talking about fucking time travel.

Virtually all of these are symptoms of autocratic regimes instated under regional variations of communism. They're valid things to bring up, provided they're brought up with intent to show that a communist ideological framework does not inherently create a democratic or ethical reality under it, but simply stating 'mass murder' as a reason why communism doesn't work is farcical.
As for the others.

>There's less incentive to work hard
Patently false. The regimes of the USSR and now the PRC (and they ARE communist, no matter how much people kick and scream that they're 'basically capitalists') would have been unable to serve as effective threats to the United States on both economic and military levels if there were no incentive to work hard. Much of that incentive, surely, would be from authoritarian 'suggestion,' but equally as much seems to come from a genuine want to work, whether for ideological reasons (see many of the USSR's state heroes) or value-based ones.

>Marx was wrong from the beginning
I'd genuinely like to know which papers they cherry-picked this time to at last put this 200-year-question about the labor theory of value to bed.

100 shit post, I want serious replies

Well this is because communism itself declared a war against practially everything.

USSR and PRC were essentially a collection of networked slave camps. Don't weasel around that.

USA could outproduce and outspend the USSR so much that the reds just couldn't take it anymore and collapsed.

>Communism had global ideological enemies from day 1
That's because Lenin had fetish of spreading his shitty system to other countries but thankfully they got btfo by based poles.

> labor theory of value

Bluntly, the Communist Manifesto came too soon. It fomented what had been a press to expand socialism and the benefits it could provide the working class into an ideological crusade whose explicit goal was the dissolution and reconstruction of pretty much every aspect of life from the ground-up. It struck right as early socialism and middle capitalism were dealing their final blows to the mercantile, colonial empires of the past, and rearticulating their appendages into themselves for future gain, and they were flatly unwilling to give up those potential gains so soon.

> collection of networked slave camps
This is pure memery user. Forced labor was less than 0,(0)1% of worked force i comlmlunist states.

communism is a stateless moneyless society where everybody works for pleasure and should be disregarded as a pipe dream. this is where most of the criticism goes.

socialism however in that workers own and control their business instead of shareholders and decisions are structured to benefit society as a whole instead of the ownership class is viable however and should be allowed to be explored more thoroughly.

there's no reason to structure society around allowing a tiny minority of people to horde billions of wealth while cheating on their taxes.

MORE CO-OPS GOD DAMN IT WHY DON'T GIVE TAX BREAKS N SHIET TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO START CO-OPS

>everyone is poor permanently
Only if the Country is poor to begin with.
And don't bring up Venezuela, capitalism wouldn't have solved anything either as the Country is deeply fucked from over relying on oil

Communism requires power to be centralized before it can be done away with (in theory), otherwise you'd just balkanize your country and never get to the socialist utopia at the end of the rainbow. You basically have to legislate capitalism away step by step, first to introduce socialism and then eventually to get your commie llamapalooza. Now socialism in the Communist sense always fights against human nature, for example requisitioning 100% of a harvest is going to get you much, much less food than taxing a portion of a harvest, leading to widespread failures all over the place; problem is, this goes contrary to results that should be expected when implementing socialist policy according to Marx and his buddies, everyone should just be a huge altruist and work super hard for the common good etc etc etc., and so the people in charge see these failures, find them to be ideologically incompatible and so try to do away with them usually through bloody repression. For example during the early years of the USSR when Soviets would requisition 100% of grain harvests for redistribution, grain yields plummeted and led to famine + emergency aid reliefs. Is this because there are zero incentives at all for peasants to work hard and grow food, seeing as how it's all going to be taken away if it's 500lbs or 3 tons? Nope, that's not possible because this is isn't what's supposed to happen according to Marx and co., can't be that, it's because those greedy peasants, the kulaks are hoarding grain and hiding it from the authorities. So we're going to make an example of them in order to ensure no one does this again. Factories not producing enough? Class enemies are trying to sabotage socialism, it's purge time. Basically happened across the board.

Combine that with power hungry assholes who always rise to the top in a system where power is entirely concentrated within one opaque political body, and you can see how things get out of hand.

>tfw poland can defeat glorious soviet liberators but is conquered in a week by fascists

Weasel around what? Gulags and their PRC equivalents were too busy harassing and tormenting their occupants to be the productive segments of society.

You don't field the world's largest land army, with space capabilities and a massive nuclear arsenal, just by using 'networked slave camps.' These were things worked on and paid for by people who knew what they were doing and did it as needed.

why didn't they invest in their oil infrastructure instead of buying every household a new model microwave oven and flastcreen tv

Marxism is wrong on pretty much everything it tries to be scientific about: LTV, radical environmentalism/egalitarianism, historical materialism, decreasing margins of profit and so on.

It's no wonder that something which is almost completely wrong doesn't produce good and long-lasting societies.

Which is the real criticism of Communism and why we ought to become Democratic Confederalists instead.

Just look at the places where it's been tried. Underdeveloped hellholes that have no respect for democratic rule. They skipped way too many steps, they tried to jump straight to the finish line.

I mean there's a good argument to be made that "true" communism is impossible, but there has yet to be an ideal case.

Ideology is a spook anyways, policies should be evaluated on their own merits, ie their effectiveness, not how they fit into some convoluted orthodoxy crafted by autists hundreds of years ago.

The Peoples' Republic of China is the second largest economy in the world.

>""""people's republic""""

In spite of Marxism and Mao, yes. They only took off after abandoning Marxism is all but name. The CCP are basically just nationalists with hammers and sickles who pay lip service to Marx and Engels.

They aren' marxist, the are maoists.

>china
>marxist

>china
>communist

Because you need socialism first, but everyone is obsessed with using socialism as a stepping stone to communism instead of actually trying to make socialism work. Not only that, third world shitholes that haven't even had fully developed and industrialized capitalism think they can skip the capitalism step too.

>be china
>be maoist
>absolute shithole
>come deng xiaoping
>start the switch to a capitalist model
>decades later, china leads the way in several sectors, secound country by gdp, first by gdp ppp

pure coincidence I guess

It was marxist capitalism, retard.

Deng confirmed most based authoritarian in modern East Asian history

I'm going to start using this

>marxist
>capitalism
>marxist capitalism

10/10 made me chuckle

>

>Deng confirmed most based authoritarian in modern East Asian history

This man is the undisputed champion desu

Daily reminder that anyone pushing for communism on Veeky Forums is from Reddit trying to "fight /pol/ influence".

National Socialists fuck off.
Communists fuck off.

This is a Christian, Libertarian, Conservative board. We like freedom and small government.

That's Lee Kuan Yew, you absolute pleb

See? This user gets it

You don't get to tell other people what to think, this isn't your board, and you don't get to say what values an inanimate board has.

You can have your beliefs, but let others have theirs.

Fug I almost forgot about him.
Didn't he pass away last year?

communism advocates for the complete dissolution of the government and state

Seems like it could work in a small group where everyone feels that they are accountable to everyone else. But in a society where this doesn't exist it doesn't stand a chance in hell because humans are greedy.

Unfortunately yes, he was extremely based.
His biography "The singapore story" is great, although pretty long.

Yes, unfortunately. Great tragedy desu, he was one of the only politicians on the planet who I truly admired and looked up to. He's one of the reasons why I'm studying law.

I'll have to check it out sometime, thanks user.

...

Commies have been here along with /pol/ since day 1 of Veeky Forums. Stop trying to treat Veeky Forums like old /pol/ just because you got overrun by Trumptards.

>Libertarian
Left or Right?

Communism is wrong because it ends in mass murder and oppression.

Read the Gulag Archipelago.

Good thing they're countless so you don't have to have an argument based on facts.