Why did Communism fail?

Almost all movements that ever referred to themselves as Communist where in fact authoritarian and statist movements that directed the masses and used their political power to take power away from corporations, but into their own hands. It invariably replaced the oppression by company-owned capital with state-owned capital. The individual was still trapped in the hamster wheel and powerless to improve their own situation.
Company-driven capitalism and consumerism is better at getting people on their side, waving a carrot on a stick in front of their faces and getting them to work 9 to 5 to support the system. You have TV, junk food, advertisements, cars and a career to keep you appeased. Not so much under Stalinism. There was the authoritarian state on one hand, and the viciously effective consumerist propaganda on the other side of the Iron Curtain. People only thought in those extremes, by and large. So, being so discontent with the conditions of the Eastern Bloc, people turned to the mirage that was western capitalism once it all came crashing down, and the terrifyingly effective machinery of global business claimed those new markets as its territory.
This user knows what's up.

Because while capitalism is tailored to the people, communism outright says it cannot function unless you have the right people. And the right people are either a pipe dream or something you can achieve only through systematic brainwashing, with limited results.

Unless you severely reverse the population growth, post-scarcity cannot exist since it literally breaks the laws of physics.

Please look up what post-scarcity means and then explain to me how it breaks the laws of physics

Communism is an ideal most likely an utopian one that is basically unreachable.

The socialist states that were run by communist governments failed fornseveral reasons.
A couple were
>need for support from Soviet Union to maintain power
>endemic corruption
>failure a governments to meet the propuction goals and quality they set thus undwrmining the centralized economy
>failure to incorporate the citizens into decision making process in any meaningful way, thus taking away the biggest check on local officials
>the growth of patronage networks that eclipsed state lotalty.

Resources are finite while population and consumption pretty much grows infinitely.

>population and consumption pretty much grows infinitely.
Population increases logistically. At a certain point it just caps. Just look at all the industrialized nations. It goes like this:
>bad conditions, people have many kids, only a few survive, slow growth or stagnation
>better conditions, people still have many kids, almost all of them survive, population grows exponentially
>people get used to good conditions (industrial lifestyle), have fewer kids, population growth stagnates or even reverses.

Consumption only grows infinitely under capitalism. It's one of its central problems, which may make communism absolutely necessary at some point in the future.

That only happens with white people and East Asians. The Turks and Pakis in the west keep breeding like rats even though they live in post-industrial societies.

>Turks and Pakis in the west keep breeding like rats even though they live in post-industrial societies.
Yes, but that too is gonna stop very soon.

More people means more consumption. I mean if you have a bus for 30 people and their amount suddenly doubles to 60, you're gonna need another bus and thus more fuel, more service parts, etc.

They've been there for 40 years already and it's not stopping at all.

False. I believe an argument used by Marx was that communism was used in the hunter gather lifestyle of our ancestors.

A system that tries to set rules while ignoring consequences to economic incentives can only go so far.

And it's a completely false argument that's been debunked by archeology. Goods were scarce and people were violent and warlike so the exact opposite of what Marx claimed, though I don't blame him since he relied on what was the scientific consensus back then. But unironically still following Marx in 2017 is the chief symptom of being a total brainlet.

>are we simply not ready for it yet?
Yes. Communism is only viable and sustainable in a post-scarcity society.

It wasn't tried. I'm not memeing, it might not work, but a bunch of vanguardists taking the power AWAY from workers is not trying communism in any way.

...

You are sort of correct. A communist society has never been achieved. It was always just a replacement of feudal and capitalist structures with authoritarian ones.
But the movements that led those revolutions were communist at least in name, meaning that their target was to achieve a communist society.

Stated intentions are meaningless.

Communism fails because it fundamentally misunderstands the relationship of antagonism between classes.

Marx, and pretty much all of his mainstream successors, envisioned a direct, simple relationship. You have a dominant class (the aristocracy in a feudal one, the bourgeoisie in a capitalist one, etc), who is pretty much in control, and they crack the whip, subtly or not, over the other classes. These classes are only not resentful of the dominant class if they are unaware of the class's extent of control, and if one can only make the lower classes aware of the phenomenon, revolt would pretty much take care of itself.

What he failed to understand is that the relationship is much more akin to that of a cuck and a bull, not a master and a slave. The upper classes didn't claw their way to the top against opposition of other people who also wanted to be in control; they were PUSHED there by the lower classes, in order to spare themselves the stress and burden of ruling. The overwhelming majority of people want to have someone rule over them, and if nobody is going to take power themselves, they'll put power in their hands.

You can't have communism because ultimately, the proletariat do not want to rule, and they certainly don't want a system where nobody rules.

This. Nobody had a problem skewering a neighboring group with spears in the event that resources were scarce and your people were starving. People are tribalistic, nationalistic, and have a nature of forming in-groups. They have no problem killing, robbing, and pillaging out-groups both out of necessity and sometimes simply for material gain.

Mind you, this was even an occurrence within Communist societies. People in charge of distribution for food and goods had no problem skimming from the top -- robbing their neighbors -- in order to better the lives of themselves and those within their little social ecosystem.

>the proletariat do not want to rule, and they certainly don't want a system where nobody rules.
But I am a proletariat and I want nobody to rule. This is also true for all libertarian communist and anarchist movements.

Human nature won't allow it. If someone has more success than you, you are fully permitted by law to yank that person down, solely on the grounds that all should be equal. Any bitter jealous less qualified individual is now an empowered individual.

Capitalism can bring out the worst of man as well, but at least you can grow freely and be charitable if you stumble upon a successful formula.

What about Capitalism, but with laws against monopolies and laws against getting into politics? Of course you can just cleverly move money around to push agendas.

I don't know, world is a strange place famjams

Communism never failed because the real communism never begin.

Because the market is a much efficient way to distribute the goods and determine the production

And who died and made you representative for the masses? Sure, you get a few outliers, but the overwhelming majority of people do want a dictator ruling them, and the more remote and unapproachable theirs is, the better.

If there is anything to be safely said about human nature, it's that it is incredibly flexible. We have heroes and mass murderers, supermarket cashiers and physics professors, fundamentalists and atheists and everything inbetween.
Communism doesn't mean you can "yank [a] person down" because they have more success than you. Everything is shared, so if a person is more successful, everyone around them and perhaps the whole world benefits from that. There are much higher incentives other than monetal gain to motivate people to do things they love. Furthermore, personal property under communism will not be touched. Everything that you need and use every day, everything you have created by your own work for yourself, is yours to do with whatever you please.
Under capitalism, a "successful formula" is a springboard for your own egotistical gain. There are tons of laws and regulations in place to protect homes, factories, intellectual properties etc. from their potential users.
>What about Capitalism, but with laws against monopolies and laws against getting into politics? Of course you can just cleverly move money around to push agendas.
Sounds like social democracy. I would be all in favor of laws that prevent parties and representatives from accepting donations.

But you just stated the exact opposite of what I said. Are you prime representative of the thoughtless masses now?
Sure, tons of people don't really care about what's going on and who is or isn't ruling them. Then there's a ton of people who want no hierarchies: no masters above them, no slaves below them. And there are tons of people who think they have the right idea, and the masses should all conform to their leadership. Telling yourself that the "thoughless, submissive masses WANT to be oppressed" surely helps with that mindset. But I believe that these people are evil. Nothing can give you a right to decide over other people's lives, or to make loads of money off of their work.

energy for all intents and purposes is infinite, the earth and sun will provide it so long as nothing obstructs them. with infinite energy you can recycle matter infinitely, and so long as you keep consumption sustainable everything will be fine. of course millions of years down the line we'll have to secure humanity's existence by finding new planets with new energy sources desu

look at bangladesh, central asia etc. etc. only africa and parts of the middle east are really growing precipitously. even south americas population is plateauing and that seemed improbable decades ago when they were growing like mad

No fucking one needs communism.
Deal with it.

So you starve and shoot your family?

I think the biggest problem was the authoritarian political structure of communist states, rather than their economic policies. Then again China's authoritarianism outlived its communism and most people are apparently really happy there despite the extreme corruption and environmental degredation, so who the fuck knows.

it's amazing how you can BTFO people with ease on the internet
i bet this only took a few minutes

>we eat for you
this one always seemed so dumb to me, everyone fucking eats

>communists
>dumb
Woah, say it aint so!

it served its purpose establishing Israel and no longer was needed because it started threatening Israels arising dominance in middle-east

>viciously effective consumerist propaganda
Oh no the evil capitalist state tricking the population with high standards of living, greater personal wealth, and access to better commerical goods. They all fell for it and now they're trapped in this hellhole of a comfortable lifestyles

Communist systems are much easier to abuse if you are in a position of power.

>We're all in this together comrade, death to the bourgeois!
>*retreats to golden palace for the evening*

No its just that it doesnt work and was thought of by a bum who relied on handouts from friend and family and never held a job in his life.

In practice its the most bloodthirsty facist doctrine to ever grace the earth.
So fuck communism and fuck all you 20 somethings who think its cool.
i grew up in the soviet union before coming to europe. ive seen some shit.

I knew that the Serbian painting was going to be from Paja Jovanovic, but off the top of my head i can think of 6 of his paintings better than the one the creator of the image picked.

Thank you for your contribution for this thread.

Stories?

>Why did Communism fail?
Efficient allocation of resources too circumstantial.

>Are we simply not ready for it yet?
There's no linear progression of history toward a certain goal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate

Stalin purges,not taking too many risks after the Cuban missile crisis and gorbachev being a sell out

youtube.com/watch?v=fgm14D1jHUw

If by communism you mean "the 20th century communist movement", it lost once its two vanguards/authoritarian directors China and the USSR called it quits. But first, let's talk about what this communist movement actually was.

In 1917, the Russian revolution stupefied the world. Leftists across the world watched in awe but had no idea how to respond. Many socialist parties found the Bolsheviks too authoritarian, and some opposed the very concept of revolution. Eventually, the pro-Bolshevik coalesced into the Comintern, or "Third International", a Soviet foreign policy front claiming to represent the world's communists and, by extension, the world's proletariat. While the communists of the Third International believed that the 1920s would be a decade of constant revolution, communist uprisings in Germany and Hungary would be stamped out. The only communist state, for nearly 30 years, would be the Soviet Union.

During this period the Soviet Union naturally came to dominate other communist parties. By their understanding, the Comintern WAS the communist movement. Essentially every communist party supplies the USSR to the letter (except for the Italians under Bordiga in the 1920s), because the USSR gave out tons of cash in exchange for loyalty. This was incredibly important because the Soviets were very heterodox Marxists! Basing their ideology on Lenin, they disagreed with Marx himself about Marxism. While socialism traditionally meant a classless society without wage labor, the Soviets saw socialism as any society run by a socialist government. While Marx talked about worker power, the Soviets just nationalized industry.

Stalin's foreign policy demanded complete subjugation of foreign communist parties regardless of ideological difference. He organised coups within parties to put his supporters in charge. While this strengthened the communist movement initially, it bound their fates to that of the Soviet Union.

Biggest problem with the Soviet Union was that it was surrounded on all sides by bourgeois capitalist powers. Stalin was convinced that a utopian communist future was only tenable under global Soviet dominance, possible through pro-Soviet parties winning elections around the world. The Great Depression throwing millions into abject poverty made communist electoral victory seem inevitable. This victory almost happened in Germany, then the Nazis stepped in. In France, communism as an ideology was banned by the government.

World War 2 happens, allowing the Soviets to push back Nazi aggression all the way to Berlin. This creates a dozen new socialist countries completely beholden to Soviet policy. Meanwhile in China, communist forces under Mao had seized the whole country. So in 1950, the world looked very bright for communism! Then the splits happened. The communist movement was fractured when Yugoslavia, China, and Albania broke away from the Third International citing Soviet imperialism.

At the same time, postwar prosperity crushed communist organizing in much of the West. The new Cold War led to communists being arrested or sent into hiding across the world. American communists got it easy compared to the millions murdered in Indonesia and Latin America. By the middle 1950s, it seemed clear that the Stalinist strategy of spreading communism had failed. Communist governments were breaking away and communist parties were collapsing. A new strategy was necessary.

The USSR looked to the third world. The 1959 revolution in Cuba inspired communists everywhere and pumped life into the communist movement. Communists played vital roles in decolonization movements. While the Soviets were convinced that decolonization would create more socialist allies and give the socialist world access to African and Latin American resources, only the former Portuguese colonies and Zimbabwe pivoted toward Moscow. Everywhere else, capitalism reigned.

While the failure of American imperialists to subjugate Vietnam was seen as a great success, this victory didn't stop the increasing gulf in standard of living between the West and the socialist world. The Soviet Union during this time recognized that they had to trade with the West to keep the support of their citizens. There was no other way to keep up with Western standard of living, which had nearly full access to the resources of the Third World.

Politicians in China decided that internal development and quality of life improvements were more important than building a utopian future, so they opened their economy to the Western market and slowly abandoned the economic trappings of Marxist-Leninism, like state control of industry, without abandoning its political trappings like a one-party state. Deng Xiaoping, most notable Chinese liberalizer, coordinated between the Maoist left and the liberal right to create the modern state of China. He told the communists that market reforms could make China more able to liberate the world's poor in the tangible future, and then told the liberals that these reforms could last "60 years or 600" years.

Despite what you may have heard, Chinese politicians today still study Marx and talk about socialism. But they all agree that market forces are a good "temporary strategy" to develop Chinese industry and raise the standard of living.

In the 80s, a costly war in Afghanistan crippled the USSR. Eurocommunist Reformers talked about integrating with the capitalist West and the Berlin Wall came down. This led to a domino effect as Soviet puppet states all left the flock, leading to the USSR itself being dissolved and replaced by a capitalist government. This was nearly as shocking as the revolution back in 1917.

Communist parties abroad sloughed membership. People really thought liberal capitalism was the way things had to be. Only very recently has this started to change.

False, transhumanism and AI will help us overcome selfish behaviors and allocate resources more impartially.

Communist posthuman societies will have an overwhelming advantage over individualist, non-bioengineered traditionalist ones.

Communism's victory is inevitable. Communists will colonize the solar system.

>human nature argument
Die

It was funded by loans. The commies don't understand economics so they couldn't pay back what they borrowed + interest rates. Pic related, Lend Lease Act, etc.

Karl Marx's dad was a Jewish lawyer who converted to Lutheranism and raised Marx Christian

Wrong.
The family is modeled after feudal monarchy, not communism.

Or is feudal monarchy modeled after family?

Socialism doesn't work.

Marxism doesn't work.

Communism doesn't work.

Whenever tried, they result in millions upon millions of dead humans and overall misery.

The absolute same is true of capitalism, which continues to kill millions every year.

The only path forward is a socialism based on libertarian and socialist principles.

t. sociopath

>capitalism doesn't work
>is literally the dominate market force on the planet and actually works
>meanwhile only a fringe group in Syria practices libertarian socialism and it doesn't work
woah

Capitalism is predicated on millions suffering. It works for some.

Capitalism is predicated on millions suffering, particularly in the third world. It works for some.

Socialism requires a paradigmatic change of production. One country alone can't pull it off, because the forces of production have been globalized by capitalism.

Grain and Oil.

aei.org/feature/the-soviet-collapse/

Collectivization by Stalin collapsed grain production in the CCCP. Then the Holodomor and WW2 hit it again. Then Stalin's forced urbanization, industrialization, and exporting grain to sell for money to pay for heavy industry really fucked things up.

The CCCP could not feed it self. They had to export oil and import grains. This worked for a while, especially during the 70s.

Then, thanks to President Carter and western reaction to Oil Crisis, there was an oil glut in the 80s. oil prices were rock bottom and the CCCP could no longer import food and have money left over to pay for communism.

food lines returned and the CCCP went broke.

gorbachev tried to reform the economy to avoid total collapse. he was overthrown by hard line communists. meanwhile china started reform to state capitalism. leveraging cheap everything to become the west's factory.

Jewishness is about race, nto about religion.

I didn't realize you could convert to a different race

A jew who converts to christianity is still a jew.

Brainlets

Nice try Juden.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano
haaretz.com/jewish/news/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664

Ironic.

A Christian who converts to Judaism is no longer a Christian

Yeah but Christianity isn't a race unlike jewishness.

If I study the Torah and learn Hebrew and formally convert to Judaism, have I changed from the white race to the Jewish race?

No.