Why is communism superior to capitalism, scientifically speaking?

Why is communism superior to capitalism, scientifically speaking?

Communism is cancer.

It's not. Retarded libcuck. Without capitalism how else are you going to pay men to fuck your cow of a wife while you watch.

It's superior on paper because of a presumption that the people's work output is going to be a constant and growing self-sustainable value as well as a presumption that the people in power would eventually vanish after the equitable systems were culturally enforced rather than lawfully enforced. It didn't work out in practice for several reasons.

I personally believe that communism would work in a post-scarcity economy wherein our survival needs are completely provided for by technology, because this would allow for all people to pursue their passions, making them overall more productive. This, however, also assumes that there would be enough people intrinsically interested in maintaining the necessary technology, unless the post-scarcity also includes a technological singularity. Technocratic communism might well be the answer that was missing in the past and is still missing today. I just don't see it ever arising because in such a world where even the poor are well-provided-for, no one with the power to make the revolution happen would even see it as necessary.

Back go /pol/ fag

Because it is designed to only work properly in a post-scarcity society and is likely the only economic system that could work under such conditions.

Strange of you not to mention socialism since all of the problems you described come directly from it.

Socialism is a transitionary government towards communism (which Marx, Bakunin, and others all agreed ought to be anarchist). Socialism is described as a "dictatorship by the proletariat" and is precisely the sort of governments that people have established/attempted to establish. Not all communists agree with the idea that a socialist government is necessary as a transitionary phase to communism. Bakunin for instance called Marx an authoritarian and (rightfully) claimed it would never transition to communism.

I think you're definitely right in that it would work in a post-scarcity society, but I don't think calling for technocratic communism really addresses any of the problems with a socialist transitionary government.

Communism is the most expensive way to grow potatoes, requiring the death of millions. And when your slave laborers in the gulags die you'll have to arrest innocent people so that you still have enough laborers to grow crops. And when your inept government allocates its resources poorly and the famine begins you'll have to abolish church property, seize said property, and sell them on an international market, in return for imported bread, which you will then prevent the people from eating because if they ate the bread you would have to buy more.

communism is superior because whenever there's a problem it naturally just starts killing the idiots who fell for this failed ideology, which is why 100 million people died unnecessarily under it in the last century alone

Natural disasters are included in that number. If you do a similar body count with capitalism you'll get a similar number, if not larger.