Refute communism

Central planning is light years behind market economies in resource allocation. It also creates a powerful bureaucracy that halts progress even further.

Real talk, Squidward is obviously NatSoc

It doesn't work.

>that pic
how edgy can you get?

Economic determinism has poor predictive value and cannot be the basis for any sort of accurate widespread social predictions.

Communism is based on a notion of economic determinism leading to class struggle and eventual worldwide adoption of a certain economic system, which will supposedly end most if not all social ills.

Given that Communism is based on a poor foundation of economic determinism, it is not accurate.

It's completely unfalsifiable. It's a prediction of Capitalism that either comes to pass or "possibly could in the future bro"

>communist
>nation

pick one and only one

and how do you trigger the "global revolution"?

>shows you pictures of starving people

Cuba.

Spook

Computers are personal property, not private property

What if I work with it, isn't it a mean of production then? What about if I want to use my car in system like Uber, it has to be socialized too?

Mate they recently legalized private property and small business. If the embargo is fully lifted they will have "socialism" with cuban characteristics within a decade

pipe dreams stacked on pipe dreams stacked on pipe dreams stacked on shiggidy diggy doo dah

might as well be posadist tbbbhh

>below-average Caribbean nation into a now average Caribbean nation

Cuba wasn't below average lol.

I DONT LIKE IT

Communism is self-refuting. You dont need to ask civilized people to refute some barbarian desires.

[COLLAPSE]
China isnt even communist anymore
t. Chinese investor

Who will win, 1000 Communist countries or one supermarket?

Historically there were two ways of trying to implement communism:

1. Anarchism/Internationalism etc. : Essentially the non-authoritarian way. Historically most of these ended curb stomped by fascists or more authoritarian socialists. The ones somewhat successfull mostly had mixed ideological influences with other ideologies being stronger factors. Look at the Kurds for example, their ethnic nationalism is the driving force behind their successes. YPD etc. accept other nationalities but it is about their emerging state Kurdistan in the end.

A system that is so unable too compete just isn't something worth pursuing. Liberal democracies for example were able to prevail against vicious and despotic Regimes.

2. The authoritarian way Marxism-Leninism/Juche etc.:

Lel lets give all the power to a small elite cadre of party bureaucrats. They are totally going to stop exercising that power once everything is redistributed and then the highly authoritarian state is just going to vanish and everyone is suddenly a good communist and no force or authority is needed.

Yeah its wishful thinking. The authoritarian approach just leads to a bloated bureaucracy, oppression and a state with even less participation or power for the people than the ebil capitalist democracies. Oh and its also shitty and uneffecient and most of them damaged the environment really hard despite producing much less than the liberal democracies.

Greed and ambition cannot be rooted out of human behavior however much you try, attempting to quash them only makes people miserable and creates stagnation. There's absolutely no future wherein Communism becomes sustainable, or even possible to form. It requires a fantasy where nobody desires more wealth, more possessions, more power for themselves. You go back far enough in human history, before cities and agriculture, when people were just small bands of hunter gatherers roaming around Africa or wherever, and sure this might've worked. But you know what? It didn't last. Here we are today. Hunter gatherers are a tiny minority living on the fringe of the human world. Somehow all over the world there arose civilizations based on ownership, on accumulation of wealth, possessions, and power. Even though in virtually all cases such societies were less equal and happy than those small bands of hunter-gatherers. Greed and ambition, and the will to coerce obedience, to use violence to assert dominance. Communism doesn't have any answer to these in principle, which is why all would-be revolutionaries can only respond in kind with their own violence. And is it any wonder that their vision of a more equal society doesn't pan out when it starts with bloodshed no different than the tyranny that preceded it?

It's a farce. A farce without even the illusion of success or the modicum of happiness that satiated greed can give you. The only bitter reward of communism is knowing you made the rich and powerful as miserable as you are.

REAL COMMUNISM WAS NEVER TRIED

JUST READ THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF IT

WAS FUCKING EVERYBODY IN USSR EQUAL? DID STALING GET THE SAME MEAL AS SOME PEASANTS IN SIBERIA?
NO BECAUSE IT WASN'T FUCKING COMMUNISM

IT WAS FUCKING TOTALITARIAN STATE USING COMMUNISM AS IDEOLOGICAL EXCUSE

REFUTE THIS FUCKERS

Pick your preferred utopian vision:

Communism end: Product of everyone's work gets shared equally
Communism means to above end: Destroy motivation to work whilst killing or enslaving anyone who doesn't want to work

Libertarianism end: Free people trading freely
Libertarianism means to above end: Free people trading freely

For total deaths see scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/

>Global Revolution
read: unworkable fantasy utterly detached from reality

>global revolution
Wow... just imagine.... the entire planet as a festering authoritarian shithole....

truly a utopia

>full commuism
>authoritarian

It's almost as if capitalists just call everything they don't like communism

By creating globalist communist state

top zozzle

>From everyones capability to everyone acording to there needs.
Is impssible.

That guy is just as much of a faggot as some hipster communist desu.

Can't have a classless society with a government
Can't have an advanced society without a mass pooling of resources, which a government best facilitates.

Libertarianism is just as much of a delusional utopian fantasy as Marxism, kill youself.

>Can't have an advanced society without a mass pooling of resources, which a government best facilitates
There are many private organizations which are proven to be more efficient just by being faced with with natural selection mechanism of markets. Governments are a monopoly on violence over land.

Have you ever thought that because maybe it is incompatible with human psychology? At least in contemporary times.

Marx entire notion of how communism would be superior was based on the "theory of alienation" that considered everything he considered flawed in human society and that would disappear under communism, such as religion and violence, were the result of the division of labour and class society that began with the Neolithic Revolution.

Modern archeology has shown us that this is wrong. Religion and conflict not only predates civilization and the rise of class society, but it actually creates it. It wasn't the base that created the superstructure, it was the superstructure that created the base.

With this information, and the writings of Italian political scientists (Pareto, Michels and Mosca, if people read these three instead of masturbating to Marx the world would be 100% less naive on politics), it's clear that even if communism happened exactly as Marxists desire, with worker's councils owning the means of production and being the only venue of political, cultural, social and economical power, there would still be conflict between these councils, charismatic authorities would still rise to the top, bureaucratization for the sake of management would still create internal conflict, and in the end there would be consolidation with a single council ending up ruling over the other ones.

So, basically, the history of the last 1000 years, but instead of kingdoms, with worker's councils. Just as much blood. So why would anyone want to throw mankind in a new dark ages of division and descentralization just for the sake of an outdated ideology?

Capitalism is exceptionally barbaric and unsustainable

>So why would anyone want to throw mankind in a new dark ages of division and descentralization just for the sake of an outdated ideology?

People aren't attracted to Marxisms solutions itself. They just see problems and suffering that capitalism has caused and come to the conclusion they want to get rid of it, and Marxism just happens to be the most widely known and meme anti-capitalist ideology.

Capitalism with proper regulation and reform is the ideal imo. It's just hard to get that done.

Nah. Case and point: antibiotics research in the US.
Good luck finding any funding for it. Ever.

Private postal services have been able to outcompete the public option, if it's a service people want they'll pay for it and if they won't then it shouldn't exist. People shouldn't be forced to pay for terrible ideas through taxation when that can be done voluntarily in a market.

Still not sustainable. It's incredibly easy for social democracy to roll back to a more brutal capitalism. Look at Neoliberalism.

There isn't a better solution. We simply put Social Democracy back. Everything else has been far bloodier and destructive.

When the public regulators fail and the private options are illegal. If one bank ratings agency has a terrible track record there are alternatives.

That boy looks quite happy.

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, they also used to be dominated by sweatshops. It turns out you can't develop from agricultural shithole to modern industrial nation without them. If you try, you just end up in the middle-income trap like Latin America.