Can you robots sell me on communism? Why is communism viable and why should I be a communist?

How exactly did it not work?

Attached: 5edcd91f78033ce7bc378c3b5847ad03-imagejpeg.jpg (2267x8334, 1.44M)

communism is horrible. not only do you have to work very hard but everyone died from starvation at the same time.

You have to be sold on socialism first. Communism hasnt been figured out yet. Any country that is called a communist country is just a country trying out different forms of socialism. China isn't even communist, it's a capitalist country.

That's capitalism lmao

it never made sense that a stateless society would be the next step after the state becomes the most powerful part of society, controlling literally what you can buy or where you live.

>the soviet union was not even communist during the years that it had to industrialize.
Nobody claimed it was. That's why marxists make the distinction between socialism and communism.
I suggest you read this: marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm

Attached: 02bdb6f4335087b7a2ebe73ffb0f1ec9-imagepng.png (1080x2000, 662.03K)

>How exactly did it not work?
Don't expect a real reply to that question, they don't have it.
It'll be "something something motivation, people need X to feel Y".

Most dumb people only work hard to have more shit than their rivals.
If they couldn't fluff their shitty egos with doo-dads and trinkets that their neighbor couldn't afford they wouldn't work at all.
And they assume everyone else is that stupid too because they're non-empathetic and have never read a book they weren't forced to.

>Nobody
I'm not sure how young you are but calm down bud.

Is sure he meant nobody as in nobody in the Soviet Union. Only americans call things communism that aren't.

Are you or your parents workers?

Fuck off with your nihilistic political shit that always ends in mass suffering

Yeah, like capitalism was not introduced by force kek

It won't let me post it otherwise, the board caps any attempts at higher resolution.

Yeah, and the competition was cash for like a full century. But the competitions is not over yet you know. 95% of workers with no money or instituions vs. 5 % of the most rich, politics with all the money properties press and army. And anyway the workers survived this competition for almost a century. We well succed again.

Unrelated but your post reeks of projection. Most people don't behave like you said they do. Like... I don't know anyone that behaves like that. Most people work to live.
I have no pony in this race, btw.

are you refering to capitalism?

It's more about having a choice and agency.

The soviet farmers who all got murdered didn't want to be told where and how to do their jobs and that everything they had was now property of some bighead in Moscow. The same thing happened in Korea.

That's not really why communism failed, it's more to do with self cannibalizing leadership and having better alternatives. Violence and starvation motivated people for thousands of years, they didn't necessarily need to have more than their neighbors. And that's not a defining trait of capitalism either.

you are referring to the kulaks, who held most of the agriculture propierties for centuries starvating the majority of the poor farmers. When the revolution happened the poor people could not stand anymore the explotaiton and hunger from centuries because some rich farmer wanted benefits.

yeah but in fact there onlly exist two types of people in this world: the ones who have to work to live and the ones who live from other ones work (owners and landlords)

The thing is: when the whole world lives in the dictatorship of the proletariat for decades (if not a century or two), with comunal access to resources and a high industrialized and high tech infraestructure (key part in Marxism: its science and tech that allows us the choice of this system), with a society educated in the importance of solidarity and with the common good put at the highest pursuit, its natural the state will start to loose meaning.

Communism was bad but the paranoia surrounding it did just as much damage. Fearing of a Bolshevik uprising pushed a lot of nations very far right, which did nobody any good.

it was years after the revolution but you make it sound like there was only a few elite farmers who controlled the food supply. do you know how many farmers were killed and how many people later died to famine? it wasn't over benefit negotiations, it was over Stalin wanting full control over the land.

>everything they had was now property of some bighead in Moscow
Except that wasn't really the case Kolkhozes were owned by those who worked the land and not the State, those were called Sovkhozes and were only a very small part of agricultural output. The only thing the State owned on the Kolkhozes was the machinery. They were also given quite the autonomy, primarily under Kruschev, who reintroduced the profit motive.

Attached: image.png (472x435, 309.98K)

Even if they were much people they were still a very little minority compared to the number of poor farmers. And what famine are you refering too?

prols are part of society and the irony is that people started to be more suspicious of each other and divided when that "common good" shit was imposed on people. people have no real frame of reference for what is an objective common good. any tradeoff or conflict can be spun either way for what common good means.

revolution was inevitable, killing rich people was inevitable, "stateless society" was always a meme. it assumed that if you destroyed the "prol" families you would only have naive egalitarians, but it learned very quickly that hierarchy is about social cues and not genetics or culture.

Common good in a clasist society is imposible because each class (proletarians and the burgesois) have oppositve interest. But if in a society everyone works the same hours and maybe even different works depending on the needs everyone have a same very clear common interest.
I don't get the thing about destroying the proletarian families.

They were killed before Kruschev was in but kolkoz's had their own problems. owning the land on paper didn't mean they had any decisions to make about it.