Why has the attempt to reach communism always lead to mass murder, mass starvation and/or mass poverty?

Communism is evil

I hope this is bait

Because it generally coincides with a war either civil or international

Not the peaceful one taking place in every government on Earth, only the violent ones that tried to replace those governments instantly.

because war is almost always followed by famine, photo you posted is from 1921 during the civil war you nigger

>Why has the attempt to reach communism always lead to mass murder, mass starvation and/or mass poverty?
Because communism is a flawed oppressive system that ignores Human nature. You can't force people to produce at gunpoint.

When you remove monetary incentives from the equation, production stagnates as the farmer harvesting record amounts and the one putting the bare minimum effort are rewarded the same way.

>that means doubling down on fucking over the developing world.
Factually untrue, both the relative and absolute numbers of people living in poverty worldwide have been steadily falling since the 1970s thanks to free market capitalism.

>Communism goes against human nature

communism is what your human ancestors lived among for a far greater time period than any written economic system has existed. Of all the commonly trotted out arguments against communism, the "human nature" one is perhaps the dumbest - but this is to be expected, you dont even know what it is, just keep repeating memes. An education? pfft infographics are more fun.

> People shouldnt be paid the same no matter what job they do

people were not paid the same under socialist systems, both former ones and current ones. What socialist systems intend to do is to make sure everyone has their basic needs met, irrespective of their ability.

ah yeah this is how the soviet union went from an entirely agrarian society to putting the first man into space in 50 years - by being non productive.

> production stagnates as the farmer harvesting record amounts and the one putting the bare minimum effort are rewarded the same way.

again, this is not what happened, under former socialist systems nor current ones.

Is it so fucking much to ask that people actually research the things they think they have opinions about?

Because people don't fit into their utopia. Also autistic leaders who hate their people

because REAL COMMUNISM WAS NEVER TRIED
:^)

Professionalization of the avant-garde and cult of personality is apparently inevitable in lieu of democracy. The taking of power secured by everyone disallows the completion of the communist dream.
Communism puts too much faith in people, what it needs is a religious component that morally precludes people from abusing power, and some form of checks and balances. I can only think of democracy.

real communism was never tried. You cant have communism while having a state.

Of course, it is lost on most commies that the 2nd step never arrives, because absolute power will do absolutely anything to maintain it.

That, and the prerequisites for communism being sustainable is effectively that it needs the entire world to have a communist revolution, because otherwise stateless people would simply be annexed by the much greater organizing power of people with states hungry for expansion and slave labor.

>When you remove monetary incentives from the equation, production stagnates

Pure ideology. Read recent econ papers.

have to hunt down all the left overs of those who fought against you in the civil war or communism wont work apparently
you have to keep doing this you never know if some are left

>communism is what your human ancestors lived among for a far greater time period than any written economic system has existed.
Tribal societies were not "classless", they were even more regimented that today. They did not share in the spoils equally, like modern chimpanzees the alpha males had their pick of the food and women.

If this is your idea of communism it is very lacking to say the least.

>infographics are more fun.
I haven't posted any infographics.

>people were not paid the same under socialist systems, both former ones and current ones.
Farmers did during the Soviet War Communism economy which resulted in collapsing production and a moderate reversal to small-scale capitalism during Lenin's New Economic Policy

>what socialist systems intend to do is to make sure everyone has their basic needs met, irrespective of their ability
That is actually accomplished by social democracy. Communist systems have claimed to want this but in practice it has led to famines (like the Holodomor or Mao's Great Leap Forward). Capitalist social democracies have been more successful than communist regimes in this respect.

>ah yeah this is how the soviet union went from an entirely agrarian society
It wasn't "entirely agrarian", Tsarist Russia had the fastest-growing industrial sector in Europe in the run up to WW1.

>ñ> production stagnates as the farmer harvesting record amounts and the one putting the bare minimum effort are rewarded the same way.
>again, this is not what happened, under former socialist systems nor current ones.
Yes it did, Russia went from being the world's #1 exporter of grain and wheat by 1914 to having to import food and suffering massive famines during Stalin's time.

>Is it so fucking much to ask that people actually research the things they think they have opinions about?
Ironic statement.

Second part of this post is a reply to

I have a degree in Economics.
Please provide links to these "papers".

Communism is a ridiculous wet dream in my estimation. It expects too much to make it functionally achievable.

On the other hand, socialism is workable. It has worked. If it hadn't, it wouldn't have scared the west into spending so much money and energy into trying to disrupt and destabilize socialist efforts around the world.

Unfortunately, socialism is attracts authoritarianism like flies attract shit. Which is why any would be burgeoning socialist movement must insist on having the right to bear arms as inalienable. The Kurds would do well to realize this, if they want their socialist project to thrive.

Because every attempt is instigated by a revolutionary guard that is inevitably more radical than the rest of the country while also suffering from an unfortunate combination of "I know how the world REALLY works" and an ends justify the means mentality.

Because communism prevailed in poor shitholes. And when it prevailed it killed off the old elite and made economical plans based not on expertise, but on ideology.

>I will never ever fuck Rosie in the ass

That isn't what communism means

Because it was led by the Russians. True communism hasn't been tried and if real Marxists and Western Europeans tried communism it would work.

>On the other hand, democratic socialism is workable

Fixed it. Every non-democratic variant of socialism is cancer.

>Subsistence farmers earn less money than sweat shop workers forced to work 120 hours a week just to feed themselves
Rly maeks u tink

(((Russians)))

you piece of filth, rose is too pure for your comments

>On the other hand, socialism is workable. It has worked. If it hadn't, it wouldn't have scared the west into spending so much money and energy into trying to disrupt and destabilize socialist efforts around the world.
Your operating on big assumption there, the fact that the west saw it as a rival does not mean it actually was. That's like saying the us invasion of Iraq proves they had WMDs, because the us said it did. If they didn't then obviously the us wouldn't have invaded!

I'll point out that the US, Australia, and a handful of other countries are practically immune from large-scale invasion. Location matters quite a bit for these things.

That doesn't make any sense. If the graph is in real and not nominal wages, then the purchasing power of those factory workers is going up no matter how many hours they work

It's per capita. Historically, most Chinese earned no wages since they were serfs and subsistence farmers who worked the land in exchange for food and shelter. That graph doesn't represent an explosion in wealth for the average Chinese person, it represents an explosion in urbanization and the requirement to work longer, harder hours to earn money to buy things they would have just made themselves previously.

>That graph doesn't represent an explosion in wealth for the average Chinese person, it represents an explosion in urbanization and the requirement to work longer, harder hours to earn money to buy things they would have just made themselves previously

But if that were true, the urban working class would be roughly at the same level of wealth as the rural farming class.

But they aren't. Wealth inequality in China is characterized by a growing gap between the inhabitants of cities and the inhabitants of the country, with the urban population getting the upper hand.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_China#Current_state

If the purchasing power of the Chinese working class was stagnant, then consumer spending wouldn't be rising, and China would not be such an important market.

thediplomat.com/2017/04/chinese-consumers-will-change-the-global-economy/

>But if that were true, the urban working class would be roughly at the same level of wealth as the rural farming class.
Why would they be? There is no measure of wealth by which subsistence farmers are considered wealthy.

>If the purchasing power of the Chinese working class was stagnant, then consumer spending wouldn't be rising
I'm glad those sweat shop workers can toast a slice of bread in their chinkshit toasters before they go to work in a factory surrounded by nets to keep people from committing suicide. Truly a success for capitalism.

>Why would they be? There is no measure of wealth by which subsistence farmers are considered wealthy.

I never said they were wealthy. I'm saying that if the urban workers were working as much as they did only to achieve the same material wealth that they'd have as subsistence farmers (which is what you are asserting), then there would be no wealth gap in China between urban workers and rural workers, but there is.

>I'm glad those sweat shop workers can toast a slice of bread in their chinkshit toasters before they go to work in a factory surrounded by nets to keep people from committing suicide. Truly a success for capitalism.

It sounds like you are fixated on an image of China where everyone who isn't an autocrat is laboring in a sweatshop. I'm not saying that horrible working conditions don't exist and that one FOXCON factory you're referring to is a good thing, but for the most part, those workers and their children are getting wealthier, as per my previous arguments.

I wonder how many more times communism has to fall for people to realize that it's a failed experiment

>muh human nature

Socialists/communists don't understand economics.

>Why has the attempt to reach communism always lead to mass murder, mass starvation and/or mass poverty?
Propaganda.

This is like asking an Islamic theocracy why Christianity always leads to decadence and immorality.

Famines and economic growth are a bit more tangible than morals.

...

oh look it's the old "everything not commie is capitalist" meme. Even then, most of those famines listed that did take place under capitalist regimes weren't the direct result of pants on head retarded economic policy.

And nice of you to include the Marxist Derg in Ethiopia as "capitalists." They received record amounts of aid from the West to fight the famine, but Mengistu used aid as a weapon and worsened the famine by deliberately worsening conditions in areas where rebels operated and withholding aid from areas where rebels operated.

communism has historically been used as a bait-and-switch by dictators who promise a new era of change and progress and deliver a cabinet shuffle of old demagogues and oligarchs for new

Associating famines with concepts you want to blame however starts to make things much less tangible.

You could say there was a famine caused by Chinese Communists, or you could say the Chinese Communists ended the tradition of cyclical famine forever. Both are potentially correct. You could look at a famine and go over its horror or you could look at exploding population numbers, declining infant mortality, unprecedented rising of life expectancy during Communist rule of the same time. It's a choice.

>fascism is don't true capitalism

Let me guess, nazis are socialists, amrite?

>despotic/fascistic countries can't be capitalistic even if capitalism exists within their borders and the state defends private property
>receiving aid from the West means a country isn't capitalist
wew laddo

>famines occur roughly every other year for several centuries in Eastern Europe
>they finally end in the 1930's with industrialization of agriculture
>hurr even though the Soviets ended the famines they didn't do it right away after taking power so that means they were evil and failures

libertards are crypto-fascists

The core of communism is kill a lot of people in a violent revolution. Why are your surprise see people die

>receiving aid from the West means a country isn't capitalist
Derg Ethiopia was Marxist, and the rebels it was fighting at the time were different flavors of commies (ELF/EPLF was Maoist, IIRC). Literally everyone involved in the killing was some flavor of commie.

>libertards are fascism
>fascism literally born from socialism

lowest common denominator is low

Because central planning simply doesn't work. Read some Hayek and then you'll understand the intrinsic flaws of all collectivist ideology, socialism included.

>fascism literally born from socialism

And they loved private property

No you ant-Semitic shit, because it was led by the Russians and given how communism in Russia was just Orthodox Christianity with hammer and sickles and red stars, it failed in Russia because it was led by Russians. Instead of praising the church in Moscow, they replaced that with Lenin.

If communism was led by Jews, it would be more successful because Jews are very intelligent whereas Russians are not, they are stupid and they are backwards culturally and morally as well.

Karl Marx and Marxists today would have been more successful in building communism in Europe instead of in Russia where the Russian mindset and the Mongolian nationalistic aspect still runs Russia to this day.

So not to sound like that guy but communism hasn't been tried yet. Real communism works.

>russians are stupid
stop talking about things you know absolutely nothing about, please

They are though, if communism carried out in more liberal educated countries like in Germany, the UK, and the United States, France etc. communism would have succeeded. But Stalin and the Russian communists were stupid and incompetent and dictators that have tried to ruin communism.

They can't really do that because communism hasn't been tried. The Soviet Union was communist, it was Russian fascism with hammer and sickles. They weren't communist. They were anti-communist since Lenin and the Bolsheviks took power in 1917.

Wasn't communist. They weren't communist. They were anti-Marxist fascists.

Mate, a liberal education does not make you any less susceptible to wanting to rule people with an iron fist. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Actually being liberal and being educated and also studying Karl Marx in order to understand today is what is going to prevent "communism" or so called "communism" being russifized. Afterall, I disagree with Bloomberg saying that Trump and Russia are using "Marxist" style tactics in order to divide the West. I'd say that they are using fascist tactics which is anti-Marxist and anti-communist in nature.

We need college educated Marxism, not Russian communism or so called "Leninism" which is just fascism in disguise.

Then, the fascists aren't capitalists too cuz they are against free market.

No fascism and capitalism along with Russian style oligarchy like what we have in the white house along with corruption which is a right wing phenomenon not a Marxist or left wing thing, is inherently against communism and against liberalism and socialism.

Leninism, Stalinism, and Sovietism is anti-communist, fascist and capitalistic in nature.

so, what is true socialism according marx?

You can have Capitalism without a free market. Are you a lolbertarian by any chance?

This is real communism. Fighting against fascism and supporting social justice.

And this as well. Ignore the Infowhores nutty alt-right conspiracy logo.

Wasn't Pol Pot educated in fucking France?

And didn't he also cut people's eyes out because having glasses was a sign of intellectualism?

>Social justice
>real communism

Stupid liberal

They are doing a better job attacking capitalism and racism and other forms of oppression in this society and besides most of the "working class" are middle class bourgeoisie who are racist and white trash privileged scum that never attack capitalism. This is real communism. And its not bait either.

Yes but that wasn't real communism so Pol Pot is not a good argument against communism.

>This is real communism.

NO, this is just fucking idpol bullshit and this is why the western "left" is a sad joke.

If capitalism always wins doesnt that make it the better system?

Pol Pot abolished currency and private property, and violently ended the class system. Prove how he's not communist

Slavery works too, maybe we need to return to the slavery system.

The American Civil War proved industrialization is superior to slavery as well just mechanization in general

CIA backed commies are the best commies, amrite?

>implying the CIA didn't back them as a FUCK YOU to Vietnam

Because communism is against violence and dictatorship which is why we are protesting Donald Trump and his fascist agenda. That's why I say that real communism hasn't been tried yet.
If multibillionaires as you referred to them and yet you won't condemn the Koch Bros. or Donald Trump for their status with money, but I digress. If you multibillionaires and Star Bucks supports socialism, addresses economic inequality, and goes against the white oriented structure, they are comrades against the patriarchy.

So Polpol was a "comunist" backed by america to destroy vietnam comunist?

>They are doing a better job attacking capitalism
lol

The enemy of the enemy is my friend. The CIA was just thinking how can we fuck over Vietnam for revenge. By this point Indochina was lost to communism

>communism is against violence and dictatorship
>dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the steps to communism
>communists support violent revolution to gain power
My almonds, they're activating

Because they are though. Haven't you been watching antifa attacking capitalism and smashing the property of the racist white imperialists?

>they are comrades against the patriarchy.

HAHAHAHA you are a living meme, multi billionaires just care about profit, they just want to please drones like you to get money, why do you think are will support communism?

I should have been more specific, its only a dictatorship for Nazis, racist white supremacists, white trash working class (who are bourgeoisie btw) but for liberals, progressives, and Marxists, it is a democracy. So unless punching Nazis or speaking out against racism, capitalism, homophobia, misogyny, sexism, Islamophobia, transphobia is a dictatorship, Marxism/communism by definition is against violence and dictatorship.

lel

These are memes.

The US ignored Pol Pot to keep their new alliance with China going.

Only after Vietnam invaded and deposed the Khmer Rouge did the US begin to support them.

This is for the simple reason that an active insurgency in Cambodia against the Vietnamese harmed Vietnam and therefore limited Soviet power in the region.

>beating up random right-wingers hurts capitalism
But it doesn't and that's not the point of what antifa does. Antifa aims to disrupt fascists' ability to organize and therefore prevent them from seizing power when liberal capitalism has a crisis. Nobody thinks that beating up aut-righters and smashing a few Starbucks windows has any effect whatsoever on the capitalist system.

Listen well liberal brainlet, maybe you are just a sad troll but, all this identitarian buzzword salad bullshit is NOT related to communism or socialism. marxism is about class consciousness and workplace democracy, and all those progressive liberals are just burgoise in red disguise.

>assimilate into my culture

This is such a small thing to ask. Why do people have a problem with this?

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAHAH!!!! KEK my sides! My fucking sides. Did you actually think that I was being serious? Oh man, holy shit guys you feel for bait post. You fell for a fake antifa supporter. Fuck man. My sides.

...