Why do people still believe that communism can work?

Why do people still believe that communism can work?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/QnIsdVaCnUE
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-10-17#toc34
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Well it's not like we've tried it yet

Well it works well enough to defeat autism.

It forcibly brought russia and china into the 20th century
More important than survival is the creation of irreversible political states of affairs. It's ok for ones empire to crumble ignominiously, so long as most of europe ends up switching to the metric system afterwards.

bump

Same reason people still believe that fascism can work

>It forcibly brought russia and china into the 20th century

no it didnt asshate. Maoism was such a gigantic failure that only a complete retard would praise it. Its literally worse than stormfags in terms of delusion

They don't. They're lying to you.

Capitalism produces winners and losers. The losers hate capitalism and promote communism, where they can be on top and steal from everyone else.

Communists are liars, thieves and murderers.

Fascism has worked in one sense or another for centuries and centuries and produced some of the finest cultures and civilisations we've ever seen.

Communism didn't even make it 90 years, caused the deaths of upwards of 100 million people and did not produce anything of value.

t. doesn't know what Fascism is

>lost the only war they ever fought
>whole movement thorughly dead in twenty years
>"centuries and centuries"
this triggers the fash

Because they are lazy/stupid. Communism claims to be the ideology of the laborer because the average laborer isn't useful as anything other than just that, even if they want redistributed wealth. Anyone who knows themselves to be hardworking/intelligent will favor free markets.

The appeal of a planned society for the social class that would provide most planners, the intelligentsia, is irresistible.

It works in small tribes or villages but its impossible in civilization since its built on gibs.

Communism made China a shithole that wasn't fixed till it started adopting capitalist policies.

>did not produce anything of value
That's demonstrably false.

The fact that communism only pops up in feudal shitholes but not 1st world capitalist countries where people live great lives is proof we don't need it.

Because communism is a socio-economic theory that capitalism will eventually create a post scarcity environment in which competition is no longer necessary as the driving force of the market and the advancement of technology will eventually make it as such that even the common man can produce most of the items he needs effortlessly. If you'd read even a bit of Marx you know that communism is not an alternative to capitalism, it's the theorized end product.

The real question is why do people conflate Maoism and Leninism with Communism and feel like they can discuss a subject which they clearly lack an understanding of?

Most advancements in society, technology and living standards come from capitalist countries. If capitalism is such a failure why are the rare communist shitholes still around after the Cold War switching to it?

I'm not disputing the efficacy of capitalism. The idea that the USSR "not producing anything of value" is overtly wrong.

It only worked when they hashed up their own version,such as when Stalin took up Trotsky plan and Xiaoping said fuck it and only applied communism to only politics

If we ever reach post scarcity it will probably be some Star Trek bernietopia. A stateless society is impossible to ever accomplish past 3000 BC and even before then there were hierarchies.

>Anyone who knows themselves to be hardworking/intelligent will favor free markets
No, they'd favour an oligarchy where they can fuck over any competitor

Really that's just capitalism taken to the extreme. Even Greenspan has acknowledged that the market's ability to self-regulate is a meme.

>commies killing other commies


I mean as great as that is you're still wrong.

>asshate

bump

What am I seeing here

>Nazis
>commies
retard

Unironically because it wasn't real communism. You can call it whatever you want but it's not how the vast majority of commies want to organize society so its failure is irrelevant to them.

Does it matter? Underneath all the labels, what was the actual difference between the two? Nazis and Soviets were both led by power-hungry dictators.

I'm assuming he's on about Rome, and presidential dictatorships like Napoleon and Pedro.

normal communist foodstand

>Communal peasants
>Feudal

>The real question is why do people conflate Maoism and Leninism with Communism and feel like they can discuss a subject which they clearly lack an understanding of?
Because those two and their followers said they were Communists, as did their Western non-Communist liberal fellow-travelers?

Of course, after total defeat (fall of the Union), it's necessary to change the standards, and thus, No True Scotsman.

Mostly: "never tried" and "when everyone convert to my own special snowflake brand of socialism/communism all the problems of the world will go away".

Source: /leftypol/

So, what have they produced?

They somehow improved German rockets and they made Tetris.
Anything else?

Because Marx is one of the most influential philosophers, economists and intelectuals of the modern age who noticed the flaws of capitalism which are yet to be disproven (the Austrian meme school of economics doesn't count), so naturally people will try to get his ideas in practice, despite all the failings.
>Inb4 I have never read Marx but I hate him so much, he was a juuuu xDxdxdxd

No one pretend the shareholders lend money to a company for free not that the big bosses don't pay themselves too much money, but they just milk 10 to 30% of the value workers produce, not 90 or 95% like commies sometime pretend.

We still have to find an economical system using the will of the people to improve their life as a motivation for hardwork and without bosses. The closest thing we get from that are small capitalist company owned by the workers, but because the workers don't feel a need to make the company grow, it is doomed to stay marginal.

Is this bait?

The have to believe in something.

It's almost as if the real murderer is authoritarianism, and any dictatorship, be that of a man, mob, or proletariat

>my utopia is better than your utopia!
>nuh uh, my utopia defeated your utopia in the 40s!
>yeah, but your utopia couldn't distribute bread properly!!

Fucking ideologists and their warmongering and revolutions.
Just do what works. Small steps wherever the stats lead.

Except it doesn't change the standards and calling something communism doesn't make it so.

Marx's theory of communism and what developed in Russia, China, etc. are very, very different. Marx's model was very specifically built for Western Europe.

This is why the terms Leninism and Maoism are used to describe their respective movements. They were inspired by Marx and used a lot of Marx's rhetoric to define their own movements but they are very distinctly seperate from communism.

>Hey look at me, I'm a fucking retard!

A communist uploaded this video a few hours go, incidentally:
youtu.be/QnIsdVaCnUE

Every leftist I met so far had a different definition for the words "socialism", "communism" and a few others.

How can you expect to come to a consensus this way?

It would probably work pretty great if currency wasn't a thing.

How do you make a large country work without using money or any kind of universal exchange good like rare metals?

Serious question, I always see commies blaming everything on money but they don't tell me how things should be instead.

>lost the only war they ever fought
Couldn't be more wrong.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
I mean, I don't think it's good, but it turned out way better than a communist Spain would have.

Marx mixed the definitions of 'communism' and 'socialism' and even 'social democracy' very casually, so maybe Uljanov among others was confused?

But nonetheless, why large majority of Western people calling themselves Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats and those fellow-traveling liberals accepted the system and theory in Russia after October 1917 coup as being Communist? This was even amplified in the 80's when perestroika started. And until the very end (when no archival documents depicting his reign was yet available), Uljanov was described by these very people as the true Communist, whose system Dzugasvili 'perverted'? (same thing was said for him until it was no longer possible to deny the atrocities). That if Bronstein ('insert a Comissar with a Nagant to left and right side of Tsarist Officer' fame) or Kamenev had followed Uljanovs work (which was impossible, since neither wanted to do the ungrateful job at Secretariat, which the Georgian did) everything would have worked much better?

So, post-WW2, there you had your Eastern German proletariat and yet, it didn't work so good either.

Bolsheviks intentionally inflated their Monopoly money and tried to do the same thing to 'Kerensky' and 'Tsarist' money and the result was a 'shadow of centralized economy', that is, black market.

Welp, in communism you give away your freedom and in capitalism you give away your money .
nothing is perfect ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Choose between the evil you know best.

I live in Lithuania, and as a post-soviet country we have a lot of old people grew up during communism. My brother works as a paramedic, he told me that a lot of old people are trying to commit suicide because they don't have enough to support themselves.

>So, post-WW2, there you had your Eastern German proletariat and yet, it didn't work so good either.
Which in your opinion probably was not imposed on people already living under (National) 'Socialism', but on capitalist far-right government - the very pretext on which Marx's Social Democracy should have worked.

This question was, once more, left unanswered.

and that's why the suicide rate is so high here

Honestly, suicide rates are probably the most objective way to evaluate if a society is doing well or not.

>this fucking thread

yeah i guess

You produce, drop it in the warehouse, and take what you want.

Not an argument.

Bolsheviks did this, and it produced black market - and left the peasants starving to death (after which, obviously, the Muscovites and Peterhoodians starved to death too).

People on the lower end of the bell curve will always exist, thus, beliefs in leftism will always exist.

It has never been tried

No, they didn't, at all. Did I mention central planning, directed production objectives or centralized distribution?

Its funny, because communism always has been the intelligent man's fetish, and an academic toy.
Its biggest tragedy is that the people its meant to help, the common people, never accepted it.
The USSR had to implement nationalism along it to get the poor stupid russians involved, since its nationalism thats low Bell curve stuff.

By using the terms defined by Marx to, you got it, discuss Marx's socio-economic theory.

And I'm not a "leftist". I actually think Marx's theory was wrong though he did correctly predict a few things.

I'm just pointing out that there is a difference between communism and "communism" as it applies to the revolutions of the 20th century. And if people could stop mixing those up we could actually have a productive conversation about. The problem is you have the people who have read Marx's shit, whether they agree with it or not, and those who haven't but criticize it anyway because they believe it's the same as the ideologies used in the 20th century and when corrected resort to memes like >muh not true communism

Criticize Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc. all you want. But at least know the differences between them all before you do.

Don't /pol/tards love iq tests? Because I'm pretty sure iq tests say the exact opposite. Smart people left left almost always.

lean*

Communism isn't something you try. It's a stage of development.

>workers steal
>factory owners take most of profit despite doing less work in better conditions.

>this is your average leftist

fucking brainlets

No. Not going to happen.

If I am free to loot the warehouse, I take whatever I need. Everyone would. Warehouse would be forever empty.

The first step here is to force people to work to take something in the warehouse. Forced labor is called slavery, but still, how do you measure how much "things" someone add in the warehouse? How much wheat are needed to take a hammer? Do you measure in time? Then everyone would just pretend to work while they do close to nothing. And what about hard or dangerous jobs? It should give more.

At the end, you have an unit made to measure the input and the output of people and they must collect it before they can use it.

This is why we are currently using money in the first place.

So, you want a central planing forcing people to do jobs they don't necessary want to do and distribute the output the way they think would be best?

I don't specially like capitalism, but when I meet people like you, God, I am glad I live in a capitalist country.

>Smart people left left almost always.

laziness, greed

Hayek vs Keynes Round 2 on youtube is fuckin hilarious

>No. Not going to happen.
You asked a question and I answered. I'm not even a commie, nor do I particularly care if you think the scenario is realistic. There's a fiction book called The Dispossessed if you want a quick read about how such a society would work according to some commies.

>If I am free to loot the warehouse, I take whatever I need. Everyone would. Warehouse would be forever empty.
Then communism would be impossible. Although I don't think you are necessarily right. For example in catalonia:
>In many areas money was abolished. People come to the collective store (often churches which had been turned into warehouses) and got what was available. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share. But it was usually the case that increased production under the new system eliminated shortages.
But there's also the case of unmanned stores in first world countries where you pay what you want. Why would people that willingly pay for stuff that could be free in stores deplete warehouses for no reason under another system?

>The first step here is to force people to work to take something in the warehouse.
Then it wouldn't be communism.

>So, you want a central planing forcing people to do jobs they don't necessary want to do and distribute the output the way they think would be best?
I don't want anything, I was answering a question. But I don't know where the fuck you got that, I said the exact opposite.

>tfw I will never be as smart as an alt right anime poster

>tfw people think you can only be left wing or alt-right

1 is better. 1 is always better.

I will take a look at this book, but what you proposed would lead to everyone starving. I wish it does not happen.

Catalogna lasted only two years and even they had to watch for the warehouse looters.

>The Dispossessed
Waitaminute....

This book is a fiction. The characters are not real. They don't act like real people.

>There's a fiction book called The Dispossessed
>Waitaminute.... This book is a fiction
Are you some kind of private investigator?

Do you have something more... realist about running an economy without money?

What are socialist/communist even fighting for? I know hat they don't want, they are very vocal about it but what is their end game?

You can either read about catalonia or other small experiments, read political theory, or read fiction. If you are looking for big historical examples, you won't find any. The anarchist faq is a good read if you have the time.

>what is their end game
A stateless, classless, moneyless society, by definition.

the dispossessed is Guin's semi-utopia, and utopic writing is only valid in sci-fi these days, not political theory.
The "endgame" is born out piecemeal, here and there, according to whatever writers scant interpretation.
It's for a simple reason: the idea is that once you get enough folks in a room who want something called socialism and have a working definition, the particulars can be worked out as a matter of political proceedings.

>small experiments
I want to know how my country would work if communist ideas were put in practice, not learn about some friends chilling in the wood. Catalogna lasted only two years and you pretend everyone was happy to work for the greater good and no one tried to take more than what he need. It's not even believable.

>A stateless, classless, moneyless society, by definition.
This is a progress. Now, what would it look like?

>Catalogna lasted only two years and you pretend everyone was happy to work for the greater good and no one tried to take more than what he need. It's not even believable.
Jesus Christ, stop being retarded. I'm not pretending anything, I'm not even a commie. You asked how would a communist society work according to communists and I answered. And yes, the distribution system kinda worked.

>This is a progress. Now, what would it look like?
Already answered. Again, I don't care if you don't consider it realistic, it is the answer to your question.

Here's the part of the faq that answers your question, read away:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-10-17#toc34

Nice link, very informative.
>a socialist society would have to force people to do certain jobs
Slavery, here you come.

>It is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism.
Even better.

>so the argument goes
They are expressing the opinion of their opponents. If you are going to purposefully misread whatever you disagree with don't even bother wasting your time.
Also, I linked to that specific section by mistake, the entire page (which is a small portion of the faq) is relevant so you should start from the beginning.

Yeah, I figured that only after sending it.

Now, let me quote it properly.
>In a collectivist or communist anarchist society, such an outcome would be avoided by sharing such tasks as fairly as possible between a community’s members. For example, by allocating a few days a month to all fit members of a community to do work which no one volunteers to do, it would soon be done. In this way, every one shares in the unpleasant as well as pleasant tasks (and, of course, minimises the time any one individual has to spend on it). Or, for tasks which are very popular, individuals would also have to do unpleasant tasks as well. In this way, popular and unpopular tasks would balance each other out.

As you can see, it is totally different than what the opponents of anarchism say.

It is. In fact, the next subsection is called "What about the person who will not work?". Again, start from the beginning (or look up the index) and stop misreading on purpose, or you're just wasting time. It's not about agreeing with them, it's about understanding what their position is without strawmaning the fuck out of them.

The more I read, the more I understand anarchism.

Companies are called syndicates.
Money is called labor notes.

I am looking for the word used for "person responsible for the direction of the syndicate" and "global authority solving the conflicts".

Bat'ko and "temporary military leader", or hetman if they are feeling old fashioned.
If there are any anarchists here, how is the mexican guy that always wears a mask, the one from the south thats doing a sort of revolution, called?

do you know what nazi means?

Sub commander Marco.

If someone kill/rape someone else, what happen?

The sub-commander Bat'ko temporary leader hetman will convince you (via savage beating) to change your rapist ways.

Isn't that a centralised decision?

No, we voted on it.