Find a flaw

Stalin.

It has no flaws, i.e., it's not compartmentalized, so when the ship you build under its plan inevitably strikes an iceberg, the entire ship floods and everyone dies. A flawed system, with multiple escape valves or failure points, will outperform a perfect system, because it fails in a predictable manner, and not catastrophically like the perfect one.

Some people will impose their wills on others no matter the economic system. Any economic system except for some sort of extreme distributism can be used as a method of social control.

that's not an argument

the capitalists were the first to deploy heavy machines in production, but the communist revolution in russia showed us what feudal factories look like...essentially the whole communist movement was really a reactionary movement trying to bring agricultural values to industrial production, and not surprisingly it was shit, likewise the anarchist movement wasn't a progressive movement, but a regressive one longing for the days before nations when city states and tiny kingdoms were all over europe

anything above hunter gatherer level production is going to involve "social control" and "oppression", hell, even hunter gathers might have a beef over who gets to hunt and gather were and have a battle with the loser being summarily slaughtered with no regard for capitalist "human rights"

>"oppression"
What are you quoting? I never used that word. Otherwise, you are just repeating what I said.

Cool rhetoric, I like you.

I told you a little while ago I'm a capitalist these words are nearly meaningless right what is socialism so there's socialism in Europe and capitalism and socialism in reality are NOT THAT FAR APART in fact I would argue that they're indistinguishable why ok cuz they both agree that government should do some things and private industry should do others— COMMUNISM SAYS... no there should be no private industry the government should do everything... I guess extreme libertarianism says the government should do almost NOTHING right EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN ZEE MITTLE so for example in capitalism in America as we know it Nike makes shoes uh the government doesn't guess what in socialist Europe Nike makes shoes the government doesn't

G8 b8 m8, i r8 8/8

It's romanticized, a pretty Utopian theory that cannot be apply to the real world.

das not argumint

>he believes in a real world

The Labour Theory of Bullshit.

Or is that Capital?

Holy shit that's a cute pepe

The cover is too asiatic

It's in English.

If the Labor theory is wrong, then capital is arbitrarily distributed. If value created doesn't correlate with work done, then why should anyone make more money than anyone else?

>Scientific Socialism
>the literal opposite of Utopian Socialism

You didn't read it did you?

Slow down. Europe isn't socialist. You have a really superficial understanding of capitalism. Please come back when you know what you're talking about.

There is no such thing as inherent greed. Human nature is constantly changing and differs immensely from person to person. A murderer might say that murder is a natural human action. But most society never murders.

yeah? I'm talking about the design
too third world, more fitted for a maoist text

It's pure ideology.

They risk their surplus capital. They invest of the excess that they have in hopes of getting more. That's your big argument for capitalism?

How much do you think your average worker can afford to invest? The same as someone who started off with a lot more? Billionaires can afford to lose a few million dollars here and there. Most people can't afford to lose even 1 thousand dollars in an investment.

The hammer and sickle was a symbol developed by the Soviets. The USSR was at least 1/2 in Asia, so yeah, you're partly right.

He's likely referencing want Marx said rather than your comment

Because of the demand of certain goods. It doesn't matter how much labor you put into making shit, if no one is willing to pay for it, then you aren't gonna make any money. There are millions on little nuances to this, but labor alone isn't what dictates the value of a certain good

Fwiw I agree with you on the point of human nature not being inherently greedy.

Minority or majority aside, there is still a subset of greedy people who would exploit the system to consolidate power. Eventually this would snowball and break pure communism.

Its kikes invention.

It's spooked.

>progress only moves in one direction always
PURE LAD

>let's give all our property to the bankers and let them distribute it to us as they think's best

hmmmmmmmm

>every human is greedy
>no wait you're right but some humans are greedy
>they will ruin communism
this is a sam-harris tier hypothetical.

I feel like it's just something you either agree with or don't. The reasoning in it is mostly sound, but it starts from certain assumptions that I just can't bring myself to agree with. If you agree with those assumptions, you'll probably agree with most of the manifesto. If you don't, it comes across as an interesting mental exercise, but not directly applicable to the real world.
Even if you are a capitalist (as I am) you should definitely give it a read, if only to understand where the other side is coming from. Hopefully this will help you see communism as less of an evil threat, intent on taking away everyone's fun, and more of a mis-guided ideology, based on assumptions that aren't necessarily true (but are at least somewhat understandable).

It's funny that the communist manifesto was written for the urbanised factory working proletariat but most of the most famous attempts at communism happened in places that were still transitioning to that state from serfdom/ agrarian economies.
Also the state of capitalism at the time, was still in that transition even in western Europe when Marx was around, most poor factory workers were descended from poor peasants who worked the land.
Many of the assumptions about the direction the world would take because of capitalism made by Marx turned out to be completely false.
Ironically people claiming to follow his ideas were closer.

what assumptions did you disagree with?

Not enough freedom.

Let's say someone sets up their own custom sex toy e-business without exploiting anyone and paying all their dues for use of natural resources, paying workers a decent wage with bennies and so forth.

What will the communists do? Step in and say "put down the bad dragon, you are not permitted to make transactions like this, it is capitalism which is bad"?

If not then they will continue to accumulate capital, as will many others, and commmunism will collapse.

The crime here, it seems, is that the people involved are working outside the system and the commies don't like that. It is the same as the government trying to crack down on the black market even though no one did anything wrong.

Worst Marx desu.

behavioral uncertainty
outliers

It exists.

Maybe they would say, "how many people want a dragon dildo", ok make that amount, give the inventor their fair grand share, produce the amount, maybe some taxes involved, maybe make a few extra incase some more people who didnt speak up will want one, keep the mould around for the future.

Communism couldnt possibly work, because dragon dildos

Losers can tend toward desiring collective unity to ease their struggle toward lively power

Those who are not in such a situation, obviously would not want to risk any change to their non loser situation

Flaw #1 based off of extremely wishful thinking
Flaw #2 Related to flaw 1. Idea works if everyone has the emotion and work ethic of a robot blah blah, the usual, etc...

All governments that have followed it were failures (muh it wasnt implemented correctly), thats part of the flaw. If its that hard to implement its flawed

I'm not into fantasy books

The problem of the expoitation of workers is more than a simple wage problem. When starting a buisseness, the boss is capturing the desires of his empolyes to satisfy his own desire. If everyone in that company wanted to produce dragon dildo (although knowing what people really want is kinf of tricky), then I don't see why commies would have anny problems with it .
versobooks.com/books/1602-willing-slaves-of-capital

While presenting plenty of valid criticisms of existing systems, the proposed solution is impractical and contrary to basic human psychological drives.

>basic human psychological drives

What if everything that exists now would exist under communism (with private property, the concept of abolishment of private property seems to much to far unnecessary, and the biggest glaring point of detraction), but also more and better too?

how the fuck are you going to have communism with private property you fucking mong? read a god damn book asshole

Everyone has their private property, that state (the people) owns the rest of the land. So that 1 or 1,000 people cannot come to own 89% of land.

Everything would be the same as it is now, besides less power in few hands, and a more direct pure representation of supply and demand of goods and services, and the assurance of enough human necessities being created

would make moving from one house to another really big deal. not all private property is equal house in NY is worth more than one in ohio and how do you pick a size limit. are you are going to have is artificially limited house sizes in bum fuck nowhere. also what of farming land?

dude, complaining about rich people owning all the land in a post-agrarian civ is pointless...the united states economy has a lot of structural problems but a land reform distributing land to all the non-existent peasants isnt something that's needed

>pure representation of supply and demand of goods and services
so no brand mark ups?
>assurance of enough human necessities being created
how? will you force the production companies to work? What is in this list of necessities? What of farmers who get by on mild price bump that comes from scarcity of potatos in that year, will you subsidize them? Given how poorly thought out all this is I think you would be better of subscribing to an even stupider ideology like anarchy or libertarianism

doesnt work

i feel like admitting that communism failed is part of becoming an adult. communists are people who are still mad that life isn't fair.

>relying on experimental data

You aren't some kind of positivist, are you?

He underestimated Capitalism's ability to adjust itself and political/economic interest to manipulate workers.

Your fry cooks at McDonalds still do not relate to their Burger King counterparts and this is even worse when relating burger franchise to chicken, or Mexican, or pizza, etc.

>he thinks most people are going to work if given the chance not to
>"dude let's force them to work lmao"
>he thinks people will want to live in an authoritarian society

Communism is a meme. Let it die already.

the people who work at mcdonalds aren't the kind of people who are going to rise up in revolution, since if they really cared they would just go to school and get a degree and get a better job.

...

You're confusing two different demographics that work entry level labor jobs.

1) Part timers who have other commitments and are in transition between work. IE students working over the summer, while in highschool, or working their way through college

2) Part timers who work multiple jobs but their current employment at an entry level labor position is out of necessity.

The former are no interest to rise up since their position is temporary. The later however have every reason to rise up since their work has become who they are.

I feel like admitting that communism failed is a part of admitting you don't care about accuracy or truth and just want to fall back on simple statements that don't challenge your world view.

Ask yourself, was their a state? If the answer is yes then it wasn't communism. It's that fucking simple.

and how pray tell do you plan to stamp out free trade without a state to regulate everything to death?

>Part timers who work multiple jobs but their current employment at an entry level labor position is out of necessity.
>The former are no interest to rise up since their position is temporary. The later however have every reason to rise up since their work has become who they are.

but again, if those people had the wherewithal to to rise up and overthrow the federal government in bloody revolution, don't you think they would just go to community college and get a two year degree as an x-ray tech or something instead of risking their life to appropriate a deep frier and some cash registers with 1980s level tech?

By have the world recognize that humans are not their labor and are equal and so deserve equal treatment within all aspects of their life. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability is not a hard concept user.

But the inherent difficulty within Communism is that it only functions on a world scale.

communism works for a limited time when you can turn unfairness into part of it. exploit the landowners,etc to feed the majority but once its clear that being in X profession is a thankless job then everyone starts avoiding it or being corrupt as fuck

"""free""" trade as we know it is dependent on a state

> but once its clear that being in X profession is a thankless job

But this is not the case as their position does not limit what they have access to.

More like find a merit

>Ask yourself, was their a state? If the answer is yes then it wasn't communism. It's that fucking simple.
Than it is as retarded as anarchy. There will be no neo humans with endless spirit and love for each other. perpetual transitional state is simply proof of the unachievable. only a fool wishes to go from a state to a simplistic communal existence, to wish it is to deny human complexity

>But the inherent difficulty within Communism is that it only functions on a world scale.

how is it going to function on a world scale? what happens in some dickheads in sudan decide to start a hot dog stand? are you going to have the UN send in a drone to blow them up? what if a farmerin vietnam decides not to eat his chickens but sell their eggs? are you going to beat him up and kill all his livestock to teach him a lesson?

Revolution has never been achieved by the elite alone. It's the peasant, the farmer, the poor who fill the front lines and tear down buildings, structures, and governments.

What you think it was the 20+ guys at the Constitutional convention that defeated the British?

The people have the ability to rise up. The fact that labor unions ushered in such profound changes to the Capitalistic system in the 1920s proves their ability and power. The current system however has seen fit to drive wedges between everyone making such unification harder

yet they can get the same amount from an easier job. maybe they will go to a job they enjoy more but realistically society always needs more people working crappy jobs than comfy ones

lol exactly

>oh boohoo some smart guy figured out how to make a lot of money and now poor ppl who watch tv all day and never read a book are jealous, yes, let's throw away all of civilization over this!

>maybe they will go to a job they enjoy more but realistically society always needs more people working crappy jobs than comfy ones

really? is that why all the "poorly educated" in middle america can't find any work? because there's so much demand for labor?

Because human culture is still of the mindset it was in back in the stone-age amirite?

Why is it that the critics of Marx and Communism fail to grasp that Marx's theory wasn't just a snap of the fingers boom communism but detailed out the changes needed within society in order to achieve its end goal?

Read Marx before you criticize Marx champ. Makes you look less retarded.

The truth is ugly my friend.

No defined Metaphysics, Epistemology, or Esthetics to speak of.

Barely has a half ass semblance of Ethics and Politics.

Shit philosophy 0.5/10

>But the inherent difficulty within Communism is that it only functions on a world scale.
That is the biggest lie ever told. there is literally no reason why you could not make a small scale proof of concept in Temperate Zone with land that can grow almost everything and has all the metals/oils

>The fact that labor unions ushered in such profound changes to the Capitalistic system in the 1920s proves their ability and power. The current system however has seen fit to drive wedges between everyone making such unification harder

wrong. labor unions rose in the 1930s because FDR passed the Wagner act which gave private sector unions recognition by the state, you want to argue communism but don't know the first thing about labor history? kill yourself

marxism is just a misreading of the french revolution, you are stupid and marxism is stupid, good day sir

globalism is a joke, it destroys diversity and makes needless bureaucracy. obviously the world government is going to have sector leaders who will equal country leaders and region leaders who will equal state leaders,etc ,etc. basically the same shit with extra layer of shit but as the other user said the "dream" is that there will be no state. how can society function without a state of any kind, by evolving into new beings who can do it

>The people have the ability to rise up.
I think you mean people have the ability to be useful idiots. yes it is often the rich and the idle who have time to sachem and money to buy weapons be those actual weapons of political tools .
>The current system however has seen fit to drive wedges between everyone making such unification harder
international mobility is what makes such unification harder

What is your point? also that is another interesting aspect, what does communism do when there is no job but too many idle people, does it hire 4 people per parking space as they did in china at one time or do they tell them to show up anyway like in NK? just shit out a random contraction project? if labor is not needed why did Subbotnik exist?

>Because human culture is still of the mindset it was in back in the stone-age amirite?
human culture has only changed thanks to advancement of technology, nothing in humans themselves has changed.
>changes needed within society
well that is not how any of it works, thus his suggestions are shit. its like outlining how people should paint in ultra violet spectrum without any tools

>By have the world recognize that humans are not their labor and are equal and so deserve equal treatment within all aspects of their life

Humans aren't all equal. Some are smarter than others, some are more ambitious, some are more hardworking. Some are very ruthless. Without the strong hand of a socialist state on the tiller a hierarchy would inevitably arise. You're asking for an impossible utopia, and every attempt to create a utopia ends in disaster.

DAS KAPITAL IS OUT OF DATE

>human culture has only changed thanks to advancement of technology

Gee wilikers. And what was it that Marx thought would introduce the radical transformation of human society? Something about an Industrial revolution which reduced the individual down to the singularity of their work which in turn would unify them?

Dumb ass you just made my fucking point.

>radical transformation of human society
unless you start putting micro chips into peoples brains to force them to act X way the Marx type changes are not going to happen.
>something about an Industrial revolution which reduced the individual down to the singularity of their work which in turn would unify them?
except those people got filtered out and dependents of ex switchboard operators work other jobs. it was Industrial revolution that eventually birth not the unified worker but simplified jobs and need for less jobs.