Can you explain to me why communism has never worked?

Can you explain to me why communism has never worked?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#LTV_and_the_labor_process
theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/18/millennials-earn-8000-pounds-less-in-their-20s-than-predecessors
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Marxism is not applicable to real world. For example in the real world, rich = powerful while poor = powerless. But in Marxism, the mom and pop store owner is a member of the ruling class, while the millionaire is a member of the exploited class just because he earns a salary and doesn't own means of production.
It's almost comical how detached from reality marxism is.

>DUDE, LIKE, CLASS IS THE ONLY DIVIDING LINE AND THINGS LIKE CULTURE, RELIGION, LANGUAGE AND SEX DONT MATTER!

>WHAT IF LIKE, DUDE HOLD UP, WHAT IF, WE CREATED A STATELESS SOCIETY BY CREATING THE MOST CENTRALIZED FORM OF GOVERNMENT EVER?

>IF YOU OWN SOMETHING, IT MEANS YOURE AN OPPRESSIVE ASSHOLE!

It's unnatural.

This. Messi would be le exploited proletarian according to marxism.

You can't redistribute unequal wealth. A million dollars makes one man rich, but it only gives one million people 1 dollar. If you could theoretically create everything a person needed to be happy, from food to goods to land to reproductive partners, then communism would be able to work. Otherwise, you're looking at a society that's forced to answer a question, "Are you willing to give up all your capital in order to redistribute it to everyone else equally?"

>DUDE, LIKE, CLASS IS THE ONLY DIVIDING LINE AND THINGS LIKE CULTURE, RELIGION, LANGUAGE AND SEX DONT MATTER!
I always found this to be the most autistic component of Marxism. It's idiotically shallow to reduce all of human relations and culture to a single thing like class.

It always ends with the attention whore leader that demands a communist revolution ending up as a self-centered dictator and all of his lackeys are incompetent retards that don't know how to properly run a country.

It worked, it just worked worse than it's main competitor.

That's a strawman, senpai. Marxism has so many flaws, there's no need to create strawmen.

I work in the lobster fishing industry.
We want to sell at a higher price, and our buyers want to buy at a low price. Each of our buyers are in competition with eachother; to make a profit, they have to be able to buy our lobsters in order to sell them abroad; if they can't buy them, then they can't sell. Let's say that everyone wants to buy 9$ (a pound) lobsters; but if one lobster processing plant wants to buy them at 10$, then that means more money for us, and more money for them; but the only reason they would offer that much money is because they know they can afford to risk that much to turn a profit.
In the end, we're happy, because there's a lot of competition.

If there's only one government subsidized lobster processing plant, then they're the only ones we're allowed to sell to; so we either keep our lobsters or sell at whatever price they make up in their heads. The price may inevitably be too much for someone to bother selling at, which would put us out of business, because nobody wants to work for free. Back then, my grandfather had to work to put food on the table; now we have the luxury of working to provide other things that we want.

I'm not a capitalist.. But Communism is just stupid.

Because nobody is going to bust their ass for the same fucking money as the guy who sleeps on the job all fucking day.

That's bullshit though.

It had only two real chances, in China and Russia.
They both failed because of the basic mistake of Marxism-Leninism, the institution of a bureaucratic ruling class.

In other cases, lack of communists is the reason, which can be explained itself by a combination of ideological, material and violent domination of the capitalists.

Communism isn't about sharing the wealth equally but about owning it communally, as the name indicates.

Okay, we all own the wealth communally. How doe we split the profits?

According to the needs as much as possible.

>Its ANOTHER communism thread
Almost as tedious and overdone as the Nazi “what-if” threads

Yes I can actually. It deals with the evolution of property relations. The reason why private property is more efficient than anything else, is because human beings care about things they own. Why they do, is irrelevant to this discussion, but Communism imagines a scenario where it is possible to work and use production without owning it, and still feel as though you are working for yourself. Which is ridiculous.

If everyone owns something, it actually means that nobody own anything.

Now, I'm going to predict that certain communists/trotskyites/anarcho-syndicalists will say that there is a difference between personal and private property, but in reality, there is not. If I own a bicycle, and rent it to my friend, I have essentially transformed my bicycle from personal to private property, according to them, and I have also made my friend working class, and I am exploiting him by definition.

Now this hypothetical, which seems ridiculous, begs the question, who is going to stop me from transforming personal property into private property? Men with guns? The state?

If nobody stops me, the communist dream ends. If someone stops me with force, I no longer live in the supposed society that communists say will exist in the future, because force will no longer be necessary according to them, because class does not exist.

Yes, I am drunk, and I am ranting. Critique my answer if you will.

>That's bullshit though.
So this is the power of Marxist argumentation .... whoah

Works in what sense? State control of the economy results in breadlines and starvation for people the government doesn't like.

Are you asking why it didn't take off in developed economies and societies that might have been able to avoid the above problem by some means? The answer there is because the ruling class isn't stupid, and will part with some of their wealth in order preserve the greater sum of said wealth and their other assorted privileges.

There is no way for a marxist revolution to succeed against the modern state because the modern state can effortlessly bribe the better part of the revolutionaries with assorted wealth, goods and services.

Alright, what does that mean? If I'm healthy and don't need anything other than my daily allotment, I don't get anything? What is my daily allotment?

define communism
and give your standard for what an ideology needs to do to "work"

>"you just dont get it! Marxism seeks to create a stateless society!"

>marxist also HATE libertarians who seek to role back the reach of government, often telling them to go to somalia if they want a society like that

>a free market wont emerge in a completely stateless free society

>the vanguard of the revolution and strict government control of regulation will somehow just magically go away and create "real" communism

>"that wasnt real communism because it didnt work!"

>who is going to stop me from transforming personal property into private property?
At first, men with or without guns, then once things start settling, people you demand money from, and finally yourself when there's no more incentive to make a profit on other people's activities.

>Marxists and Anarchists think capitalism only survives because the state keeps it alive
>Ancaps want to abolish the state
>Marxists get mad at them
Never understood why. Shouldn't they see them as useful idiots for their goals at worst? Sounds like Marxists themselves aren't very convinced about the doctrines of Marxism.

Individuals needs should be identified by the community. When basic needs are met then surplus productivity is redirected to providing additional services and stuff.

>Individuals needs should be identified by the community
What if those needs aren't feasible? What if the community wants to have great education and great healthcare and iPhones for all?

Yeah but the motive for profit will never stop existing, because profit is simply the material reflection of the consequences of your creative production.

Everyone wants something in return for every action they do, else they wouldn't do it, it doesn't matter if it's going to the gym to lift weights, or if it is going to a factory job. Human beings seek an existence which is better than the one they had the day before. The surplus value(to borrow a Marxist term), of a human beings' actions isn't simply the material wealth accumulated, it is the consequences of goal-oriented behavior, which can be anything from affection with a spouse to the fact that the tree you planted in a garden is sprouting.

Marx has already won
Name a modern thinker who has had more influence on the humanities than him

Hegel. Influenced Marx too.

>Shouldn't they see them as useful idiots for their goals at worst?
We would if they had a shot at reaching their goal.
But as it is now they just give support to conservatives who cut down on the states' assistance to the workers and reinforce their assistance to the capitalists.
They're dangerous idiots.

The community defines its priorities.

Thales, if we're giving out retroactive credit. There wouldn't be Philosophy without him.

If not, then Socrates, whose philosophies influenced everyone from Jesus to Marx himself.

>while the millionaire is a member of the exploited class just because he earns a salary and doesn't own means of production.

He oisn't a victim, he's still benefiting from exploitation, just not exploiting himself unless he owns the MoP.

>DUDE, LIKE, CLASS IS THE ONLY DIVIDING LINE AND THINGS LIKE CULTURE, RELIGION, LANGUAGE AND SEX DONT MATTER!

Read Adorno.

>WHAT IF LIKE, DUDE HOLD UP, WHAT IF, WE CREATED A STATELESS SOCIETY BY CREATING THE MOST CENTRALIZED FORM OF GOVERNMENT EVER?

That's the Leninist System. read Lenin's 'The state and revolution' before you go off on shit you don't get.

>IF YOU OWN SOMETHING, IT MEANS YOURE AN OPPRESSIVE ASSHOLE!

Personal property =/= private property

Primitive Communism existed prior to communism.

Communism isn't wealth redistribution, it's the movement away from the concept of wealth itself to direct democracy.

There is truth in this.

This is such a stupid analogy I'll give it it's own response.

Google marx's labour theory of value. communism isn't getting paid the same.

>They both failed because of the basic mistake of Marxism-Leninism, the institution of a bureaucratic ruling class.

This is a meme. I'll explain why communism failed later on.

>Works in what sense? State control of the economy results in breadlines and starvation for people the government doesn't like.

Leninism isn't communism.

>marxist also HATE libertarians who seek to role back the reach of government, often telling them to go to somalia if they want a society like that

Because Private Corporate power has no differentiation from state power.

>a free market wont emerge in a completely stateless free society

Why would anyone choose to work under a private business over a coop in this society, and be paid less?

1/2

Okay, that's great, but what if people want something that isn't physically feasible? What if the Community was America?

Fair point, actually, though I might contend that Marx has specifically influenced the field of History more than Hegel.
Was expecting someone to reply something edgy and blatantly false before something reasonable.

Yeah Socrates is a Big Deal to this day but I qualified with "modern".

Oh, that's garbage then.

were gladiators apart of the proletariot?
Careful, Marx said they were...

>read equally retarded neo-marxist bullshit
how does turning marxism from class struggle to the SJW shit we have now any better user?

David Hume

Literal fascist empires from the US to UK to Germany waging war to stop it.

2/2
>the vanguard of the revolution and strict government control of regulation will somehow just magically go away and create "real" communism

Understand the theory of post-scarcity and automation. Lenin didn't need to ensure the State would dissolve, technology ensured it.

Essentially, the only form of Socialism applied has been Marxist-Leninism, AKA The planned Economy, state control model most see as Socialism.

It's very good at industrializing societies because the high degree of centralism allows fora stunning coordination of resources, quickly. There's a clear need 'i.e. 50,000 tons of steel', and a clear goal i.e. 'A Skyscraper'.

Unfortunately, it all collapses at the consumer Market. You can't predict the actual needs of the people, the consumer goods required,a nd thew ages needed to ensure those consumer goods are adequately consumed in any way without insane calculations. This in turn leads to an inefficient market system. hence why the USSR was fucked after the 50's, the expansion promised so much. And it gave so little.

Fuck off Idpol

For most workers, under a socialist or communist system, the return they get from their production is greater than they do in a capitalist system.

The fact that capitalism works proves that humans aren't so keen on individual profit.

It only works in very small communities. As soon as you get large industrialized societies the you need more centralized governing along with some measure of economic freedom in order to properly allocate resources.

>He oisn't a victim, he's still benefiting from exploitation, just not exploiting himself unless he owns the MoP.
He's on a salary therefore selling his labor to the capitalist, therefore he's the exploited class alienated from the fruits of his labor. In a communist world, Lebron James would be a worker-owner of the NBA, in a capitalist work he owns nothing and is being paid by Dan Gilbert who rakes in hefty profit margins.
This is how it works in the Marxist framework.

>The fact that capitalism works proves that humans aren't so keen on individual profit.

But capitalism is literally reliant on either extreme social democracy, keynesian new deal economics that it might as well be socialism, or exploitative liberalism, you bonehead.

>For most workers, under a socialist or communist system, the return they get from their production is greater than they do in a capitalist system.
>
>The fact that capitalism works proves that humans aren't so keen on individual profit.

What in the actual fuck is this revisionism I am reading?

>But capitalism is literally reliant on either extreme social democracy, keynesian new deal economics that it might as well be socialism, or exploitative liberalism, you bonehead.

You're outright retarded. Castrate yourself for the sake of humanity.

>Primitive Communism existed prior to communism.

I don't know much about cavemen societies but anprim is a relatively new invention. Hierarchies were always a thing. Pre-marxist communism like the one supported by Robert Owen failed horribly for predictable reasons and it wasn't even bothered by anyone.

Wow, clever response.

>literally create ID politics
>tell others to fuck off for calling it our RIGHT AFTER you shilled it
amazing

They die trying I guess ? At least they made the decision themselves.
But I don't see what you are thinking of.

Where?

>expecting a normal response to his completely retarded comment

Jesus christ the state of millennials.

A 15 second google would actually explain hat Marx meant by Primitive Communism, in that he referred to the original hunter gatherer societies of common ownership, as seen in Native Tribes.

Because you don't know what you're talking about.

>For most workers, under a socialist or communist system, the return they get from their production is greater than they do in a capitalist system
That's true in old style feudalist systems like Russia, where 75% of the populace is a class of poor as dirt serfs. Yes, they get more individually if they get to keep all their turnips than if they had to donate 65% of them to the Tsar. It's less true in post industrialized societies that have compromised and adopted socialist conventions, like minimum wage and social security. In those societies, you get more from working for a company than your menial labor would materialize in and of itself.

Those are lovely and all, but most would still prefer to work under a cooperative. Since they receive more for their hours.

Interesting that you skipped from feudal societies to post-industrial
What about industrial societies?

>lay out precise contradictions within marxism and point to its numerous pitfalls and failures and why it always has, and always will, fail
>"hurr read [insert marxist shill]" instead of any actual counter argument
leftypol cant argue at all and in all likelyhood, they have no fucking clue what they are shilling. They always just respond with "read marx!" even though they clearly havent themselves since they cant articulate any of his points to defend it from criticism

If he's making millions, then the high likelihood is that he's making more for his labour than he should, and another worker is paying for it. he's still benefiting from exploitation.

Because your points are always 'le real communism hasn't been tried xddd throw leftist cucks from helicopters'.

You are rarely, if ever, able to debate economics.

>extreme social democracy
Extreme in your skewed frame of reference. Trump, Merkel, May, Macron and the rest are not social democrats and neither were Obama, Schroeder, Blair, Hollande.
And still capitalists accumulate personal wealth from other people's work.

>What about industrial societies
They organize strikes to secure those socialist policies. Marx was right when he said that people in industrialized societies would rebel, but they didn't institute Communism, they instituted Unions.
Only the dregs of the world, where the bulk of people are desperately poor, see the ruins of Communism as a boon, because living in a shack is better than living on the street

That didnt happen user. You are the one and only person to even mention helicopters now. Like I said, youre all idiots who have no real idea what you even pretend to believe which is why you cant articulate any argument to save your life. This is why you can only respond with "read marx!" as if this answers the question and it also shows you, at the very least, lack the cognitive ability to digest what Marx was saying and then argue it back at those who criticize it, in your own words.

stop engaging in sophistry

I'm not referring to Neo-Liberal politicians such as them. The welfare state hasn't expanded since 1973.

>And still capitalists accumulate personal wealth from other people's work.

Doesn't mean their system will continue to function, increasing pay and unionization in such a society essentially means the capitalists are at the mercy of the workers.

Marx died a bit early but I'm glad Engels lived long enough to see how wrong he was and how his predictions failed.

There hasn't been a legitimate criticism in this thread though,w hich hasn't been responded to.

>stop telling me to read the central framework on a theory before I criticize that theory!

You are dumb lol

How, lol?

No, he isn't. That's not Marxist theory you're talking right now, that's your ad hoc feelings about it.

No, it's simple theory.

>One guy is making above his labour value
>Meaning another guy is making less

How exactly do you determine what his labor value is in this case? Socially necessary labor to win an 3 NBA titles and 4 MVPs? In that case he's seriously underpaid.

>There hasn't been a legitimate criticism in this thread thoug
yes there has. Proof of this is your deliberate ignoring of said arguments and instead strawmanning. Just like Marx, you havent even read the thread itself.
>You are dumb lol
This proves my point of marxist being completley helpless in defending their meme ideology from criticism. The fact that it is such a completely horrid ideology to begin with already makes such a task near impossible, but most marxist being spoiled middle class idiots makes it actually impossible. This is why "marxist" such as yourself can only respond in one of two ways

1.) "read marx!"

or

2.) "youre just stupid!"

>In those societies, you get more from working for a company than your menial labor would materialize in and of itself.
I suppose some people on minimum wage can receive more than they provide, but on average workers produce more value than they receive. Especially if you don't count the salaried managers and administrators among them.

But if his Labor moves billions or trillions of units of capital across the world, should he make millions? At the end of the day, a shit shoveler is only moving shit, even if he breaks his back more than the Wall street Investor or CEO

Workers were getting richer not poorer and less likely to rebel. His successor Eduard Bernstein addressed those mistakes as well. Further evolution did the rest. Communist ideas weren't just killed by capitalist progress but by time itself.

>workers exploiting other workers
You're just making shit up on the fly.

>Hierarchy is natural
>Oligarchy is inevitable
>Until AI takes over there needs to be enough economic freedom to weed out inefficiencies
>no, an AI dictatorship is not communism
>statelessness is a meme, people naturally desire leadership and government

based on the general work he puts into his profession. The usually agreed method is this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#LTV_and_the_labor_process

It's still hotly debated. But what you'e using as an example isn't a marxist contradiction, it's simply a complication in achieving Communism from Socialism that can be debated in the method used.

>personal wealth from other people's work
Buddy there's this thing every work place in a capitalist society has, it's called getting monitary compensation for your labor, also known as getting paid

>yes there has. Proof of this is your deliberate ignoring of said arguments and instead strawmanning. Just like Marx, you havent even read the thread itself.
Quote a contradiction not adequately responded to, like I asked.

>This proves my point of marxist being completley helpless in defending their meme ideology from criticism. The fact that it is such a completely horrid ideology to begin with already makes such a task near impossible, but most marxist being spoiled middle class idiots makes it actually impossible. This is why "marxist" such as yourself can only respond in one of two ways

Hahaha, I was taking the piss you autist.

And that's the tragedy of a currency-based society user. The shit-shovellor should make more, morally.

Well, that number is now increasing as of 2017 in relation to your graph.

Marx and Engels didn't expect a socialist revolution to happen in their life. A higher standard of living is necessary for workers to achieve class consciousness and take control.

>that number is now growing as of 2017
Broofs?

Oh, and I do laugh at you calling me a middle class idiot. My parents had to both work, making only around 50k pooled together and I've had to hold a job since I was 16 to pay for uni. I'm part of the working class.

>The shit-shovellor should make more, morally.
While that is true, a shit shoveler would make nothing in a socialist society, because he doesn't produce anything.

>Hahaha, I was taking the piss you autist.
>I was only pretending to be retarded
Its nice to see you try and straighten up after you realized you childish petty bullshit wasnt going to work and you were only making an ass out of yourself, but its too late user. You already expressed your true colors as a moron

>Understand the theory of post-scarcity and automation. Lenin didn't need to ensure the State would dissolve, technology ensured it.
too bad this never happened and the soviet union imploded on itself user. Its almost as if marxism is bullshit

>For most workers, under a socialist or communist system, the return they get from their production is greater than they do in a capitalist system.

You cannot possibly know that, and it is purely theoretical, and there are examples like the Mondragon Corporation to prove you wrong in any case.

>Well, that number is now increasing as of 2017 in relation to your graph.

Bad policies, periods of violence, temporary economic problems. What is important is the drop from almost all of humanity living in poverty to complete reversal of the situation and what caused it.

>A higher standard of living is necessary for workers to achieve class consciousness and take control.
Instead a higher standard of living solidified the market system while the people "take control" in the only correct way. By actually starting their ventures themselves if they so desire. If they don't then they trade their free time for work under the employer investing his money in his training.

>My parents had to both work, making only around 50k pooled together and I've had to hold a job since I was 16 to pay for uni.
in other words, youre middle class.

>wikipedia scholar
I figured out I'm once again debating an intellectual heavyweight. Have a nice day.

>And that's the tragedy of a currency-based society user. The shit-shovellor should make more, morally.
Marxism claims to be amoral though.

In the west, this generation is the first to do less well than their parents. things are getting better in Industrializing nations like India, Ethiopia etc. But post-industrial societies, things are actively getting worse.

theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/18/millennials-earn-8000-pounds-less-in-their-20s-than-predecessors

it's not a production question, he's still got a boss in a socialist society who pays him. And they in turn provide a service, which acts effectively as production.

Nope, you really are just bad at social cues.

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

Because The soviets didn't operate computer based planned economies, seeing it as bourgeois science.

>Because you don't know what you're talking about.
Coming from the commie, how ironic.

Never understood the idea that communism is "inevitable". What the living fuck makes it inevitable? Most people don't even find communism desirable, let alone possible.

>he's still got a boss in a socialist society who pays him
How is this any different from capitalism?

>IF YOU OWN SOMETHING, IT MEANS YOURE AN OPPRESSIVE ASSHOLE!
Private property =/= Personal property

>Nope, you really are just bad at social cues.
No user, you got called out for being retarded and are desperately trying to change gears to save face.

I don't know what the fuck country you live in.

>Bad policies, periods of violence, temporary economic problems.

That's a meme. The country experinecing this in the study, the UK, grew 3.5% in 2016

>What is important is the drop from almost all of humanity living in poverty to complete reversal of the situation and what caused it.

Obviously, Capiatlism is better than Feudalism, but the good times don't keep getting better under a post industrial society.

>le wikipedia argument

In what sense? It's a science, really.

Class conscious workers = Cooperated economies.

Only Marxists are enough to make autistic distinction. If you own something, it's your private property, so einfach ist das.

>What the living fuck makes it inevitable?
Its a borderline religion at this point and they see its inevitability in the same way evangelist christians see the inevitable return of christ. Marxism is on the same scale as dianetics