Reminder that you will be shot the minute you disagree with the regime that you will put into power...

WTF is this shit?

sorry, that's capitalism

PRIVATE PROPERTY IS NOT PERSONAL PROPERTY
I DON'T WANT YOUR TOOTHBRUSH

...

Communism is about abolishing the state and centralized government and giving control over to the people in direct democratric communes where everyone contributes, but because everyone contributes and the product of their labor goes directly to them instead of big corporate warehouses elsewhere, you either end up with a vast surplus or incredibly fewer hours.

HOWEVER, in the USSR, for example, Lenin died before the state could be abolished, and Stalin used this as an opportunity to sieze direct control for himself, plunging the nation into suffering and death.

Pre-Stalin Russia was booming, communism had transformed a country of illiterate agrarian peasantry into well to do industrialists with high fashion, quality shopping, stunning cinema and plentiful food.

One man's terrible greed for power changed all that, and a success story turned into a tragedy.

Boo hiss tankie get out

Even without the gulags you're still forgetting all the people he killed during his purges

Reminder that Stalin killed people who suggested there was a famine going around instead of owning up to it and trying to find a solution for it

Stay mad.

What did he mean by this?

We're talking about private ownership of the means of production.

The failure of the revolution is what made Stalin the man he was, not the other way around.

We are preaching a different society altogether. How could we "practice" it on our own? This makes no sense.

Thanks for your explanation. It's not surprising that some good can come from communism but it is much too fragile. This is what you faggots do not understand. Communism is incredibly vulnerable to corruption and random events due to its top down approach. A bottom up approach isn't immune to failure but services die for the good of the collective, like weak offspring of a species – the species becomes stronger as a whole every time selection happens. Top down organization is inherently fragile because the assumptions made when they were designed do not always hold and this yields failure on a national scale. Humans cannot forecast these random events. Recently, Venezuala crashed after oil dropped. I know you faggots are in the business of pretending an example of a communist government is "not real communism" because YOU, with special hindsight and magical abilities would have designed it differently! Rubbish. They will all fail eventually.

Tell me, why has Chile outperformed Latin America for the past 50 years?
How come South Korea has such a high living standard for the average person?

Capitalism is inherently top-down, you retard, we want to get rid of that. You're another burger that believes Cold War propaganda.

This is my self-interest.

You don't know what communism is, but that much was clear when you suggested that petrodollar dependence would exist therein.

ecks dee upvoted

You're not paying attention to what anyone is telling you.

Can you even define communism

Communism =/= top down approach

Also, Venezuela is state-capitalism coupled with a nanny state that makes people depend on it. And before you say "isn't the latter what socialists want?": No, it's not. Genuine Socialists want the workers to own their own destiny by controlling the means of production, without a state that hands them breadcrumps to make them content or capitalists who "generously" give them jobs.

You are fucking retarded. Like shamefully retarded. You are vomiting liberal ideology all over the place.
Please try to justify calling a country with markets, and private property, an example of communism.
Also read this
" If a society, a city, or a territory, were to guaran tee the necessaries of life to its inhabitants (and we shall see how the conception of the necessaries of life can be so extended as to include luxuries), it would be compelled to take possession of what is absolutely needed for production; that is to say — land, machinery, factories, means of transport, etc. Capital in the hands of private owners would be expropriated and returned to the community.

The great harm done by bourgeois society, as we have already mentioned, is not only that capitalists seize a large share of the profits of each industrial and commercial enterprise, thus enabling them to live without working, but that all production has taken a wrong direction, as it is not carried on with a view to securing well-being to all. For this reason we condemn it.

Moreover, it is impossible to carry on mercantile production in everybody’s interest. To wish it would be to expect the capitalist to go beyond his province and to furfil duties that he cannot fulfil without ceasing to be what he is — a private manufacturer seeking his own enrichment. Capitalist organization, based on the personal interest of each individual trader, has given all that could be expected of it to society — it has increased the productive force of work. The capitalist, profiting by the revolution effected in industry by steam, by the sudden development of chemistry and machinery, and by other inventions of our century, has endeavoured in his own interest to increase the yield of work, and in a great measure he has succeeded. But to attribute other duties to him would be unreasonable. For example, to expect that he should use this superior yield of work in the interest of society as a whole, would be to ask philanthropy and charity of him, and a capitalist enterprise cannot be based on charity.

It now remains for society to extend this greater productivity, which is limited to certain industries, and to apply it to the general good. But it is evident that to guarantee well-being to all, society must take back possession of all means of production. "

Ebin

The venezuelian state never attempted to hand over the means of production to the workers, but nice try.

Not necessarily true, have you ever heard of a "restaurant crisis"? Unlike North Korea's ration system, it is so decentralized that individual restaurants can fail without drastic consequences. The restaurant business is akin to individual gamblers who make up a stable and predictable whole despite individual variations.

The petrodollar is an example of extortion on an international scale. Unfortunately your political ideas won't solve it, and if anything, have helped it. Decentralization is a much more realistic answer.

Okay, so the public decides to control the means of production. Who will enforce this on a national scale? The Party! Sorry, but this is a top down approach. Someone has to make the rules. What if you elect a party and the next official leader decides your laptop is a means to produce software and confiscates it?

Tell me, why has Chile outperformed Latin America for the past 50 years?
How come South Korea has such a high living standard for the average person?

...

No, the workers who work at a particular factory get to run that factory themselves, with nobody "on top" ordering them how to run it. There is no more state, everything is organized on a local grassroots level, by direct democratic concensus if needed.

What happens if there is disagreement between workers?

So the venezuelan state created a couple collectivization projects, which were planned out and organized by the government to meet its needs.

Yeah, that's not the same as giving the means of productions to the workers, the collectives were still acting in the context of a state-capitalist society with markets, utterly depending on financial input of the state.

There are no markets in communism, there is no money, there is no state. Venezuela isn't communist, as much as you'd like to believe it.

Read fucking books on the topic you're interested in learning. Nobody here is going to convince you and answer every question you ask because of it.

what kind of disagreement do you have in mind? But in general, democratic consensus.

I read about a co op somewhat recently that was an employer run restaurant. It took them two years to get an awning installed on their deck because the vote had to be unanimous and a few people wouldn't approve the project until certain changes were made.

And eventually they got everything worked out and their deck got the awning it needed and their business improved because diners had a shady place to eat in the afternoon.

There are multiple different models for a socialist economy ranging from central planning to localized planning to markets to syndicates to any combination of these. So no, the party wouldn't control everything.

That's why you have division of powers, an upper and lower house, a constitution, a judicial system, and an armed populace. A government becoming tyrannical is not a unique problem to socialist modes of production.

Because it got caught up in a copper boom when computers became popular in the 80s (its copper industry was nationalized btw) and they implemented socdem reforms to spread the wealth they got from copper among the population.

South Korea doesn't have as high standards of living as socdem countries.

You are completely unwilling to see things from someone else's perspective so all you can imagine are these USSR pop culture caricatures. Not much we can do to help you, and rest assured you are saying nothing we have not heard a hundred thousand times.

That's just authoritarian socialism.

Guys guys guys
Can't we just agree that authoritarian socialist governments on purpose and also capitalism inherently have both killed shit tons of people because that's what happens authority and hierarchy?

Nobody will enforce it as nobody will need to, everyone will directly benefit. It is individual ownership of these things that must be enforced, this is why the police came into being in the last few hundred years.
Hope this isn't too late I was playing vidya