The basic premise of communism (publicly owned capital) seems pretty simple enough...

It's an ends focused ideology, rather than a means focused ideology. Capitalism doesn't promise a utopia, it just says "here's the rules, follow them". Communism does promise a post-scarcity wonderland though, which simply isn't achievable without altering Marx's vision.

Attached: 1519311777580.jpg (848x1200, 412K)

Because it relies on the newly dominant class (The Communist party itself) to give up all of their capital.

They aren't more capitalist in the sense that private property rights are more respected, no, but they do have a lot less labour protections, with labour unions being outlawed, as opposed to the capitalist west.

China did.

>Russia went from Africa tier to semi-industrialized in 15 years
Bit tired of this meme, Russia was rapidly industrializing before the magic of gommunism

because in the ends there's always somebody who has to be in charge, you can't just leave the capital on the streets

Because they needed NEP first.

Well as neither is actually doing anything it balances out

>rapidly

Not really. It was moving along at a snails pace, they didnt even have enough weaponry to equip their troops with after general mobilization in ww1.

They are more capitalist in that they allow their citizens to be more or less literal slaves as long as a foreign company pays them enough. They just don't let domestic companies do it.

You can't go social when USA (or other superpower) is policing the world. You'll get buttfucked - I'll give just one example: Lybia. You need to go full totalitarian and militaristic if you want to survive. You won't get 50% of your country's budget for armaments if you go for "power to the people".

If you don't want to see coup d'etat in your country, you'll need to open your market to internetional corporations and be a nice capitalist.

Only time communism actually worked was in Israeli kibbutzes. But they established US protection before that.

NATO = 1/2 of military of entire world. Hard to discuss with that.

Noiiiice

Because there is no state in communism, and for some strange reasons the people running the state don't really want to give up their own power.

Also do you know how insane the USSR would have been if they reached communism? No state, no authority, no currency? How long could that last until someone from with the "country" or without decided to take over?

Communism is a meme for high schooler living off their parents that was created by a jobless intellectual who lived off his friend.

Thats because they were in the process of totally reforming their armed forces. Ill totally agree that Russia got caught with its pants down in 1914, but I am so sick of Tankies who seem to think that pre-revolutionary Russia was some kind of pre-industrial dinosaur

becuase the only incentive to keep a man working under communism is "THE STATE"
so either the state will coerce, or tax itself trying to appease the man.
or the man will co-opt, corrupt or escape the state.

Communism= Virtue
Capitalism= Virtue + money

i hate retarded americans so god damn much

the reason it cant work because its not competitive, it wants to provide needs, not profit, for that to happen you need the global economy, or atleast having it the majority of it

otherwise your services will be targeted by pesky little jews, aka americans

> Why couldn't any ideologically communist states achieve it?

It ignores human nature.

Communist #1
Smart, hard working, goes to college to become a doctor.
Years later, gets a shitty apartment and stands in line for bread.

Communist #2
Dumb and lazy, fuck college, becomes a garbage man.
Years later, gets a shitty apartment and stands in line for bread.

Attached: lets kill the kulaks.jpg (730x1024, 174K)

If your communist country depends en the good will of your capitalist neighboor then it's flawed

A major problem is trying to run a modern economy in a nation-state area where the world is majority capitalist, incompatible, and ideologically hostile to you.

So you nationalized the tractor factory. Great. But where are you going to get the steel? The oil? The small engine parts? The steel plant machine parts? The raw ore? The latest technology and designs. Etc. Sooner or later you start feeling the need for materials and manufactured products from beyond your borders.

>muh communism means equality meme
Doctors got paid more than garbage men.

Because there’s little incentive to work in a system where nothing ever benefits you personally

That applies not only to the communist system though.

>It ignores human nature.

That's such a shitty simplistic and deterministic explanation.

Before WW1 Russia was fastest growing economy in a whole world.
Without communism Russians would have to have built a wall to keep Europoors out.

because human nature. whatever the political system or ideology, a small elite few will ALWAYS accumulate the most wealth, status and pussy no matter what. this always happens in any large population where there is lots of competition for finite resources i.e. mathematically follows the pareto distribution.

Same principle applies as above. A few members of the communist party control most of the wealth and power.

>Russia went from Africa tier to semi-industrialized in 15 years

Attached: 1501421292683.png (1600x1332, 469K)

It's very simple and works wonderfully

If you don't think about it...

Because nations don't exist in a vacuum, and while capitalism remains the dominant global ideology no communist society could possibly sustain itself in isolation

wild how the dip in that graph coincides exactly with the start of WWI, bottoms out shortly after the end of the civil war, and then shoots right back to pre-war levels in about as long as it took to fall

>but no hakenkreuz symbol?
There is though: 卐

that's just a normal swastika, rotated 45 degrees makes it the hakenkreuz and by extension a symbol of the NSDAP

It's fun to post similar graphs when people meme about some sort of nazi economic miracle

Attached: 1499444445711.gif (450x415, 6K)

Hakenkreuz doesn't actually refer specifically to the rotated Nazi version.

Yes and no.
A better statement would be:
If ANY country depends on the good will of your neighboor then it's flawed.
But then almost all of them are.

I think it is important to notice there is one world bully that shits into any socio-economical experiment. "Either you're our bitch or you're our enemy". It's not about communism, it's about world dominance and status quo is hard to break. World will not move anywhere if we'll keep feeding the crocodile.

Attached: Usa_Venezuela_Ukraine-400x288.jpg (400x288, 36K)

>Ukraine

>youtube.com/watch?v=bmUNCsT8TjU

Also this
hannenabintuherland.com/uncategorized/snipers-in-maidan-ordered-by-american-instructors-to-shoot-both-policemen-and-demonstrators-newdaynews/

>Communism does promise a post-scarcity wonderland though, which simply isn't achievable without altering Marx's vision.

Attached: It hurts.jpg (360x261, 35K)

Wanna know how I know this pic is bullshit? I'm venezuelan

Attached: 1495122102433.png (342x444, 96K)

how's the house in florida?

I actually live in Puerto Ordaz. An industrial broken city in the east

And I'm Polish. The Solidarity movement that my country is so proud of (some say it destroyed Soviet Union) was actually a CIA operation.

I don't doubt venezuelian govt is shit and the problems that country is in are partly it's responsibility. Nevertheless US is actively trying to overthrow the govt. Most visible part is probably the Obama embargo on venezuelian oil. Embargo which US tried to make global. Don't know how successful they were.

Now tell me how wrong I am

>Before WW1 Russia was fastest growing economy in a whole world.
>Without communism Russians would have to have built a wall to keep Europoors out.

That's not what contemporaries of the time were saying. Russia is frequently mocked as an old, backwards, empire groaning under the weight of social unrest, of the same vein (or probably even worse than) as Austria-Hungary was.

Attached: Cartoon Map.jpg (640x548, 80K)

>Obama embargo on venezuelian oil
What embargo are you talking about? The USA is the biggest economic partner of Venezuela, it buys literally 80% of our exported oil.
The government is straight up corrupt and lazy. They're just stealing all the money to enrich themselves. They just label it as socialism to earn points with the common man and some intellectuals in the exterior, yet they haven't created anything new. Venezuela has been a center-left country since 1958 after the fall of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. With social security, free health care, free education from all levels and subsidized sectors all over the place. If the USA really wanted to overthrow this fuckers, they would had done it already. Either by a real embargo, like the fanfic that you said, or by a crude military invasion

No state was ever communist in history.

No state was ever liberal in history.

Sorry, looks like the embargo is still just under consideration.
local10.com/news/international/eu-joins-us-in-considering-oil-embargo-on-venezuela

But hey, they tried to fuck you before:
theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

They can try again:
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-venezuela-crisis-government-mike-pompeo-helping-install-new-remarks-a7859771.html

So no worries.

I don't question the shittines of your government. What matters to me are external influences.

>England wearing kilt

Because the calculation problem has horribly inefficient solutions.

How does a man, accurately, predict the needs and wants of millions of people? Just scale that horrific centralization problem to government and it gets worse.

CONT

And humans treat "public" things like garbage most of the time. Humans treat things they own a lot better than things they don't own. A politician does not see the public treasury as "his" treasury, he sees it as "their" treasury and thus is free to squander and waste it for the period of time he's in office.

No hard feelings. I have nothing against left lenient ideologies, just want to show that the current situation is almost completely the fault of the gov ineptitude

Because people are people

Ideals and propgaganda can't change millions of years of evolutionary forces

Broader picture: do you think people of South American countries are retarded and can't create a proper, uncorrupt government or is it because you're the backyard of USA? Or something else?

Because of a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.

Marx was able to identify several of humanity's maladies correctly (i.e. that the pursuit of wealth (and, by relation, power) will always be a source of strife and subjugation, and that the resulting class dynamics will always exploit someone, somewhere), but his prescribed cure suddenly ignores human nature, in effect suggesting fixing our circumstances is enough to fix us, as a people, for all time.

Marx advocated revolution, but revolutions are breeding grounds for the cruel and opportunistic to rise out of obscurity. Even presuming you got someone level-headed and truly dedicated to upholding Marxism as an ideal, you'd need to ensure their whole power base assisted and perpetuated this ideal, and that no later leadership would go back on any of their gains.

Even if Marx's end goal of a classless, cashless society were realized, people would still find other things to come between them, and to ultimately undermine whatever short-lived harmony might exist.

Capitalism is flawed, but it's been comparatively more successful because it works with human nature rather than against it.

Because Communism thrives on Totalitarianism
and Totalitarianism creates Dictatorships
and Dictatorships give a small group of people power over an overwhelming majority of people.

When you have a small group of people running everything, corruption will exist, and the ideas of the party will surpass the good of the nation, leading to collapse.

tl;dr
When too little people have too much power, bad things happen

Attached: download.jpg (277x182, 15K)

Mostly has to do with culture. It's like a 80/20. Venezuela, for example, has always been a warlord era tier shitshow since it's independence. See "caudillismo". That was long before the USA had any influence in the region. Obviusly, in the future they messed some times. But it's mostly our fault

>Mostly has to do with culture.

Yeap, that's essentially the main issue. Even Miranda, Bolivar and Bello figured it out long before the Americans left their "isolationist" stand on their foreign relations, to quote Miranda himself: "Bochinche, bochinche, sois puro bochinche".

In fact, if it wasn't for the gringos we would've been a Guyana-tier British outpost. So, for better or worse, I would say we owe our sovereignty to the Americans.

>In fact, if it wasn't for the gringos we would've been a Guyana-tier British outpost. So, for better or worse, I would say we owe our sovereignty to the Americans
No exageremos, sí jodieron. Solo que está representado de una manera muy fatalista, cuando no fue ni una centésima de lo que pinta la media de izquierda

If it has a state it's not communist.

>Ideals and propgaganda can't change millions of years of evolutionary forces

What? Humans have always worked against their nature or coiopted it or their own gain. Fucks sake we have tons of laws going against human nature because said laws lead to a better society rather then one at the whims of the people. You want a place where human nature reigns go to some rural ass developing country with no modern social structure and infrastructure.

>And humans treat "public" things like garbage most of the time.

They won't if trashing it hurts them and there's a lot of countries where their public things like public transportation are in top condition such as the obvious example of Japan.

>Fucks sake we have tons of laws going against human nature because said laws lead to a better society rather then one at the whims of the people.
And in the stateless society that Marx envisioned, creating such laws is nigh impossible.

Attached: 1520201224629.jpg (960x720, 152K)

Equality is the most stupid concept in human history the very nature of humanity being random biochemical reactions shows that equality is the most alien concept in the universe.

>Fucks sake we have tons of laws going against human nature because said laws lead to a better society rather then one at the whims of the people.

I'm not arguing about Marx I'm just saying as general thing. Also other are smaller stateless societies that have rules within it's people to keep them in check using various measures such as tradition, spirituality, religion and more.

It has entirely to do with IQ and race. The wealth of a nation is directly correlated to the race of its inhabitants, with a correlation of 0.733, making it the best predictor of a nation's sucess.

lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

Attached: sftfi1{image0} (1).gif (462x347, 5K)

Attached: sftfi1{image1}.gif (462x347, 5K)

Attached: IQ_by_Country (3).png (1800x820, 138K)

Attached: DQvsgLVVwM7-GlXKs1ixA4OFXIJ5kB7lLCiR8b6Lq4I.jpg (1024x559, 93K)

Because there is no difference between government and private entities

/thread
/board
/political philosophy

>they didnt even have enough weaponry to equip their troops with after general mobilization in ww1.
This was true for literally every country in the conflict. France almost ran out of artillery shells during the first month of the war. If not for the BEF, they would have been toast.

But I'm not exaggerating, I'm merely stating a fact. If you were to look at the British-Venezuelan historical relations, you'd see that, since the first incursion of Sir Raleigh in the Orinoco River the Anglos had special interest in this god-forsaken land. That, of course, led to a series of armed attempts to take land from us, to the land grab of el Esequibo after our independence, and of course, it had its climax during the Anglo-German blockade of our coasts during 1902.

During that crisis, the only thing that prevented the British from seizing Caracas and installing a puppet government were the gringos and their big fucking fleet in the Caribbean, who came to our aid. So, yeah, we kinda owe them.

Attached: dc5692e6e6a332e357838c9e9e2910a7.jpg (522x329, 67K)

The USSR was extremely reliant on oil and other raw resources to fund the state. And for a period it could tide over an inefficient system but the foreign wars and funding for terrible allies as well as the oil price crash did more than any CIA plot to hurt the USSR.

Labour unions aren't outlawed in China, they just are state run.

Both the Russian Federation and the USSR before it were state capitalist (even Lenin himself recognized this).

You don't even know what the words being used mean and yet you have the gall to call someone an idiot.

This is the best answer to be honest.

Marxism will never work because whoever has a way to get power will try to get it, and who ever has the power will try to maintain it for their own profit. It doesn't work for the same reason every other system (including capitalism) doesn't work.

Haven't you stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, it's the other way around?

Wealthier countries can ensure their population is well fed, well educated, healthy, and all in all well raised. Poor countries can't.

Oh, but I'm sure looking at the possibilities for an apparent correlation is a fool's errand when you can find an easy answer that agrees with your worldview.

>overthrow the state
>create dictatorship of the proletariat
>seize and redistribute capital
Gommunism fails here
>dissolve the state
>achieve gommunism

Humans with power historically have almost never given it up once they have it.

Attached: 6b15becd4748ffd9d1b34494aaa2879a.jpg (480x360, 19K)

Not like dissolving the state would have actually accomplished anything.
Communism isn't just unachievable, it's a dumb goal in the first place.

Oskar Lange has already solved the economic calculation problem.

Who?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_model

I'd say it's whoever gets on top first screws the rest. Maybe that's why the graph does not look like a line, but like an exponential function.
Because countries dont't exist in vacuum. Because if you're smart you can take the oil and shit onto what's left preventing any development. Because if you're really smart you can create a lobby inside another country and manipulate people into thinking they are free.

Not to mention that the smartest people will invariably leave their shitty countries and make new lives in the better countries where they have a better standard of living and where their abilities are appreciated.

Giving everyonea bajiillion dollars seems simple to the simple minded, too.
Communists aren't the brightest people though.

You're the stupid one here if you can't see the difference.

>When too little people have too much power, bad things happen
That is somewhat true, but the rest is bullshit.

Ideological communism is actually the opposite of totalitarism. Have you heard of "power to the people"?
Lenin or Stalin said they bring communism, but that was a deception like when catholics used to say we "turn the other cheek" and then they forced their ideas with fire and sword, or how USA brings democracy all over the globe. It's just nice propaganda to cover up all the shit.
Calling stalinism a communism is like calling Putin's Russia a democracy, or a two party (but the same goal) USA a real democracy. Any political system is prone to fall into totalitarism. It is not just an intrinsic part of communism.
It's actually the other way around - you have to have somewhat equal society to get a stable democracy, or the rich will corrupt the govt and go full totalitarian.

You're saying US saved you from the British, but it's like praising the guy that fucks you less than others. Colonialism / imperialism is still shit, even if they use lube.

In other words - aren't British also gringos?

Attached: 1512676601122.jpg (1218x1015, 212K)

>USA *is* a real democracy.
Yes, the U.S has a comparatively better democracy than communism under Lenin, Stalin or Gorbachev. However, the average citizen votes for another person to supposedly vote for the majority of people. This makes perfect sense, but the people who do the actual voting don't necessarily have to do this.
This has happened before where these members do not vote for their people.

I currently live in Denmark, but have lived in the US before, and I can say that the ignorance of average Americans has a real impact of their choice of president compared to the rest of the globe. This wouldn't be too bad unless you keep voting presidents that just undo everything the last one has done.

I personally think that the US actually has one of the worst democracies of the western world.

A socialist economy is the one in which workers hire capital and manage the workplace. Under socialism, there are no differences between employers and employees. The Soviet Union didn’t transfer the capital and the workplace into the hands of the proletariat, it merely transfered them into the hands of the state. The US was actually more socialist than the USSR, since in the American economy employers had less power of their employees than in the Soviet one.