Why is communism bad?

why is communism bad?

Attached: 02f.jpg (655x527, 36.32K)

Other urls found in this thread:

jrnyquist.blog/2020/01/30/general-chis-nasty-wuhan-soup-a-recipe-for-biowar/
youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Inefficient allocation of resources

What If the resources need to be inefficiently allocated for the greater good? What if some of those resources must be held by the rich to build for the common good? You can argue that this is unreasonable. Then why doesn't the 1% who have the wealth hold the resources to build the roads? Why does the top 5% have exclusive rights to the water and other natural resources needed to live? Isn't it our duty to solve these problems? The argument is a reasonable one. If we do not take these very reasonable arguments into account, then we might have a system that's systematically biased towards the rich and advantaged, instead of the common good.

It's bad because communists throw capitalists off of helicopters.

SAGE

because goy, don't you want your individual freedom to shove a dragon dildo up your anus. well you won't get that under communism.

Attached: Screen Shot 2020-03-22 at 2.59.54 PM.png (154x214, 38.59K)

you can't change the outcome of your life, it's dictated to you by an authority.
You cannot accumulate wealth

its bad because it requires pure intelligence in all individuals and that is not the case in the world

What if a worse system is inherently better? At least when things go bad, people can blame the system and not themselves. That's why some people don't want a political system that penalizes people for being poor, but also rewards them for being successful.

A more accurate description would be, "If we don't take seriously how powerful and important this vote is in building public support for policies to improve the lives of the poor, the poor will take us for fools."

Not saying that the free market always works in every sector however communism does not make many sectors better and often times worse think mao china with government control of both agricultural and steel which led to famine and crap steel. Communist countries try and focus purely on equality of outcomes rather than opportunity

>The economic system and the economic needs in aggregate of the entire country are simply too complex for individual entities to engineer top-down.

That's only because human can't calculate such complexity, communism based on supercomputer might be a game changer, since it could theoretically overcome such flaws

selfish greed isn't some inherent human trait. people are taught this in capitalism because it's the only way to survive. go read an anthropology book. we can easily instill empathy and communal values in the next generation. and not just 'can', we must.

So capitalism is good at directing psychopaths towards making money rather than genocide?

agreed but its more so with communism.

people starved in communism because of war and economic sanctions, not because you need muh capitalism to produce food. stop being a brainlet.

Okay, well, call me when a supercomputer that can simulate the brains of every economic agent and the physical conditions of every possible economic factor exists, right down to the neurons of every trader on the NYSE.

Until then, I will safely disregard most human communists telling me they can plan the economy better than anyone else.

Why did people starve in China more than once?

You are greed, but it's not the same "level" of greed than those chinks who kill thousands by making gutter oil, you have other values than make you restrain your greed, even if it's a driving force

> tfw communism is basically as effective as an actively managed mutual fund or a hedge fund.

The Soviet Union intentionally starved its own citizens in order to genocide Ukranians.

Chinese Communists starved their own citizens because they did not understand agriculture and tried to centrally plan it.

exactly. imagine if a communist state had the power of amazon's algorithms and supply chains at its disposal. there would be no need it could not supply to everyone in the populace.

It disrupts price signaling. Prices provide valuable information about goods that allow us to adapt our production and consumption to be compatible.

>Most of the people on this website do not understand what it is and refuse to accept the reality of how most communists view it these days because they have constantly berated one another with reaffirmation over their myopic ideological preview.
The absolute irony of a marxist posting this.

I understand Marx perfectly and reject his ideas.

this is another critique that may have been valid in 1950, but not now.

Pure hubris. Amazon has a marketplace and price signalling information.

So why is Russia no longer communist? What even is China now and why did it change?

Yeah sure, it's just never worked and no communist nation has ever managed to compete against capitalist ones because, uh, reasons.

When and why did price signaling stop mattering.

So go ahead an give me a your definition of what it is then. Because I almost garunitee it is 100% different than how me and my contemporaries define it. We can bicker all day about long dead soviet states, but, there is no way you can tell me that opening up of production to autonomous and collective action and democratic measure is not more free than autocratic control of economic production and work places generally.

To say so is just being a brainlet. You are everything wrong with people in this community. I think it's time for an ideological shift again, here.

Attached: rg3erg4r5g.gif (500x281, 635.43K)

It's not "bad" just like feudalism isn't bad. Communism is just another stage of human society. You have to look at it from a materialist view rather than an idealist view.

Attached: Historical Materialism.png (2880x2020, 757.34K)

> Religion is an outgrowth the capitalist system
Stopped reading there. Capitalism is only half a millennium old.

>What Marx and Lenin described isn't real communism!
>me and my revisionist contemporaries are real communism!
This is why nobody takes you fucks seriously. When pressed to defend the ideas of Marxist-Leninism, you state "w-well my specific ultra uncommon brand of communism has never been tried" while defending the very premises that make Marxism a failed, contradictory system based on faulty 19th century economics (LTV)

>You are everything wrong with people in this community. I think it's time for an ideological shift again, here.
Yeah too bad this isn't your bunkerchan safe space and you can't censor people who disagree with you.

>communism based on supercomputer
>set reduction of human suffering variable to optimize
>computer kills all humans to reduce human suffering to zero

>everybody's chill
lmao

More like Party Members vs Everybody else.

> just another stage of human society
What is the historical or anthropological basis for this claim?

>we have to make a stateless society by first making the state as huge as possible and giving the state control over every aspect of life
Do communists really believe this?

Attached: 1573310844229.jpg (400x400, 13.84K)

>The Soviet Union intentionally starved its own citizens in order to genocide Ukranians.
There was no genocide brainlet. Kulaks resisted collectivization and decided to burn the food in protest. This wasn't such a bright idea in hindsight because it means you can't eat. Greed got the better of them. It didn't help that there was also a drought.

>NOOOO YOU CANT JUST GROW AND ADAPT YOUR COMMUNIST BELIEFS. YOU HAVE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT MARX SAID DESPITE HIM LIVING OVER 100 YEARS AGO IN AN AGE BEFORE COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY AND THE INTERNET

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-11-13 at 6.06.41 PM.png (117x146, 23.67K)

Your pic was made by a fucking troglodyte

>Kulaks resisted collectivization
aka they didn't want to give the state their food

you're a disgusting human being defending the intentional starving of people by their government.

>This is what apologists actually believe

So why take Marx seriously at all if you can just pick and choose which ideas you want to take seriously? Why take your ideology seriously at all?

So what did marx and lenin discribe? See you keep trying to drag the conversation back into your nonsenical understanding of the term and even strawman me; You are free to define communism as whatever you want, but, the reality of the situation is marx actually had very little to say on the subject.

We can, however, extrapolate that communism is what capitalism lacks; Communism Lacks private control of production, a market economy, and autocratic control of the work place. It lacks wages and surplus value extraction. You are free to contiune to argue that a state monoply on production is communism but the fact of the matter is no one, not Marx or Lenin agree that is the case.

No go ahead and cherry pick out of the communist manifesto Marx's ten planks; the planks were about how he foresaw a future in which society would be crafted around a world not totally under the dominion of communism as was defined above. Marx also would recant later in life, after the french revolution and the establishment of the Paris commune that the paris commune more adequately reflected his ideas of any "transitory period" between communism and capitalism.

It's so annoying to have to constantly argue against brainlets who just want to cherry pick everything rather than form a rational coherent thought; to argue the same tierd points over and over again. Think for yourself for gods sake.

Attached: erg3rf3rf34f34f.gif (500x265, 754.68K)

The ideology itself is based on change and development. That's where the whole notion of Marxism stims from: Hegelian dialectics.

>surplus value extraction.
No such thing. Made-up Marxist concept based on the faulty labor theory of value.

Marx did not understand time preference.

>It's so annoying to have to constantly argue against brainlets who just want to cherry pick everything rather than form a rational coherent thought;
Yeah, it must be really irritating when people get hung up on the details and actual facts instead of accepting your /leftypol/ propagandizing of a pseudo-scientific ideology wholesale without thought.

Yes, it unironically is part of Marxist theory, a step in the ultimate "plan" of full collectivization. In order to have no need for government and everyone be treated equal, first you need a privileged class (and although they hate that word, they are "selfless" enough to be that class) to guide the proles to such a success that eventually that class will not be necessary and everyone will be fully equal in a utopia without government. But that requires an authoritarian ruling by the privileged few who know what's best for the proles (Obviously! They are too stupid otherwise!) and then willingly and graciously they will give up that power when it is no longer needed.

Hint: it's always needed and never goes away.

Karl marx got debunked by another dinasaur boomer a long time ago.

Attached: images - 2020-03-24T081341.818.jpg (807x380, 36.72K)

Way to miss the point.

A lot of discussion pre internet still applies. Old ideas at the very least through time, newer ideas are more likely to be fads.

If you constantly change the basis of your arguments for the purpose of debate it demonstrates weak principles.

Human beings are not equal and the only way to make them such is to pull the best down to the level of the lowest pigs.
It has little to do with economics and everything to do with an aspiration to comfort and mediocrity.

FUCK CAPITALISTS!

Attached: 107-1078157_pepe-punch-hd-png-download.png (860x599, 48.12K)

Kek

Attached: kulak.png (680x798, 256.48K)

So if surplus value extraction doesn't exist how is it the case that some one who works producing something can never make enough to buy back what he has produced:
In Das Capital. Marx describes exchanges in a market as taking place upon two equal measures. In order for an exchange to happen to things must be equal: 100 Bags of Rice for 100 Bushels of Wheat, 1 tooth brush for 2 batteries; The must be of equivalent value to be exchanged.
They can have different use values, but, in order for any exchange on the market to take place these exchange values must be equivalent.
So, if we are to assume under a capitalist mode of production that Market exchanges between employer and employee are to take place under capitalism we must assume they are of equivalent value.
But wait, if I work at a bike shop producing bikes then why is it the case that I can never buy the bikes back? If my exchange for my labor and the compensation for money are of equivalent value then I should be able to pay my wages to buy a bike from the bike owner I produced them for, but, that is not possible. Why is that? The reason is is because I get a kick down for my labor and the owner pockets the difference with out doing any labor of his own. It is just economic slight of hand; the same as slavery or serfdom just hidden behind smoke and mirrors.
Or, to put it more plainly, a worker produces the value of X^2 yet only receives X for his labor. The remainder must go somewhere and that place is the pocket of the employer.

This relationship leads to all kinds of fuckery in the economy as, to anyone with a brain, an in-equivalence of value would. To deny the existence of surplus labor just shows you actually don't really understand much about economics or politics of business. Take any finance oriented class in college today; hell, take econ 101 and you will learn this simple fact.

Attached: 19ec1fa20f32cc2a97175d2a6c096438-imagejpeg.jpg (888x1024, 101.29K)

What facts? They do not pertain to the discussion about an economy of democracy and an economy of autocracy.

>So if surplus value extraction doesn't exist how is it the case that some one who works producing something can never make enough to buy back what he has produced:
ignores capital as an input to production, good job retard.

>Take any finance oriented class in college today; hell, take econ 101 and you will learn this simple fact.
LOL what shit school did you go to?

>The must be of equivalent value to be exchanged.
This is hilariously wrong.

If two things were of "equivalent value" in their exchange in the eyes of the traders, exchange would never take place. If I trade my toothbrush for 2 batteries, obviously I value 2 batteries more than the toothbrush.

And where do you think capital comes from? Do you think it just falls out of the sky? All, and I mean, all economic relations are predicated upon this simple metric.
You can run all the way down to the first man whole was paid to mine copper ore out of the ground with his bare hands and the result is still the same. It took the same process to accumulate capital in the first place. You just don't see it because commodity production is hidden behind a thin veneer of alienation.

Attached: 1585006193558.jpg (600x600, 42.33K)

Because people are shit and communism only works when people aren't shit, and that will never happen, so it simply will never be viable. It's extremely idealistic. Capitalism with restraints is the best model, as it's the most balanced in the real world we live in. It's not perfect, but nothing ever will be. Unrestrained capitalism is shit as well.

Reread what I said: You are discribing two different things; Exchange value and Use value.
Again, you can desire something for its utility but no one is going to give it too you with out something equivalent; Rice, Screwdrivers....money?
Whatever, exchanges must be equivalent or they don't happen. Unless I am missing the part where X Barrels of oil are worth less than X Bushels of wheat?n Austrians omit much of this in their understanding of economics and that is where they falter.