Communism has failed ever single time its been tried

What an absurd false equivalency

Listen, communism itself is simple. It means the means of production are controlled by everyone. Sort of like how all capitalism really is is just private ownership of the means of production. These ideas can be attached to different forms of government and ideology, and don't function exactly the same in each instance. For example, the difference between social democracy and Chinese capitalism, both are capitalist, but are extremely different. The same can be said for different forms of communism. (I know I'm oversimplifying a fuck ton here but whatever)

I don't think so. If you have to be something to understand something as i was told by first post then someone who does know about a subject but rejects it would not know about that subject(somehow?)

Both statements are just as absurd and i was just pointing out his fallacy

No lad, thats socialism. Communism is also moneyless and stateless.

'communism' is not a socio-economic system on the market of such systems to be 'tried' that's ideological view.
All the leftist support social-democracy in the actual politics and oppose neoliberal cuts during last 20 years.

Who needs profit when everything is made for free?

That's not what I said.
What I said is that you make assumptiona as to the policies I want to implement, saying it's the same as in the Soviet Union and if I tell you otherwise you dismiss it out of hand like I secretly really want the policies the USSR implemented, because labels mean more than merits to you apparently.

...

Hey its not me assuming things willy nilly here. I'm actually the only one of us who posted a refutable argument (And you are free to tell me why you disagree)

All you did was tell me that im not part of your secret clubhouse so i cant have an opinion on your idiology.

Yeah and it already got refuted, you haven't said anything besides respond to the anarchist who rightly pointed out that you don't know what your talking about

You never posted an argument. You posted a question, a loaded one at that, and one that already disregards the notion that there are people who don't seek to implement the policies of the USSR.
Already there you've said that I must agree with those positions because you know what true communism is unlike communists who don't know what they believe in.

Fine, tell me then: how do you maintain this dudes grave without a state or money?

Easy right?

Under what criteria does capitalism fail? Most of the world starves and works to the bone, yet it's a success because shitposters like you can collect welfare to eat ramen and microwaveable food?

With the same thing that produces the state and gives money its value: human labour.

...

This. Labour and material resources are what get things done. The state, markets, money, etc are all just methods of administering and allocating labour and resources.

Depends on who you ask, but even Marx himself doesn't say that capitalism will "fail" as in collapse. He (and by extension many people here) simply argue that because capitalism is a system with inherent contradictions and inequalities, those at the bottom will simply realize their disenfranchised position and eventually overthrow those at the top.

With tools and people who voluntarily want to use them and uphold that monument.
I fail to see what this has to do with the USSR though

And when will humans be that selfless that they will work anywhere near what they do under a capitalist society?

Face it. Everyone would rather get the comfy white-collar jobs than being a grave maintenance man or a sewage cleaner.

You and your USSR. I'll agree on your terms to not mention them, ok? We cool?

You are positing that maintaing Marx's grave is somehow universally important to any working man. This externalizes the simple fact that there are people that will simply do it, because they want to. This is contrary to capitalism, where even the maintaining of Marx's grave is motivated by the fact that Marx's grave is now a treasure to be seen. People now repair it not because they want to eternalize Marx, but because they need money to survive. Do you masturbate exclusively when you are told to do so in return for a wage? When you cannot find a source of nourishment on the market, do you simply fall over and wait for death?

Yes; socialists recognize the importance of automation, because most work for the sake of it is menial and boring. But capitalists cannot fully automate, or even automate too much, for they would be articially creating unemployment and be shooting themselves in the foot.

Well that's certainly a complicated question, but just saying that it isn't really compatible with human nature at this point isn't really much of an argument. That's something that we and most left wing thinkers (apart from Anarchists at least) have already considered, and that's why the intermediate step of socialism is necessary before communism can be achieved.

These terms are often used interchangeably, but they are very different, and this distinction is essential to understanding leftist thought.

Socialism, put simply is social ownership of the means of production. That is to say, everything necessary to produce goods such as factory equipment, farmland, natural resources etc. Private property and money still exist in some form or another under socialism. Now this can take a number of forms ranging from worker running their own factories and competing in a free market (aka market socialism), to a collection of autonomous soviets (which is basically like a trade union), to centralized state planned economies (like the USSR).

The thinking is that socialist forms of organization and production will lead to a fundamental change in the psychology and culture of humanity, which will eventually allow people to engage in communism. That is to say, create a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

That depends though; It could either bring apon us my "false" communism scenario where nobody has to work because the robots produces everything for us (Seems great to me)

Or it could create massive unemployment where goods are still being charged for. Which to me sounds improbable because of the massive uproars and riots it would inevitably create.

In outcome no.2 at the very least we would all get living wages. Good outcome all the less.

The person you're responding to here.

Neither fails imo, it's like saying football fails.

They're just merely modes of production that yield patterns of behaviour and societal interactions. It's like saying slavery or feudalism failed.

It's easier for socialism to appear to fail as it does not survive political upheaval and is often difficult for socialist movements to seize power anyway whether it be through the ballot box or through armed revolution. Whereas pro-capitalist entities be it liberals, fascists, oligarchs and the like can play musical chairs through coups, revolutions and elections, yet no one applies the same logic to any of these.

Not to mention that the image of socialism is further tainted when we consider democracies, crises that would otherwise be palmed off like the oil crisis of the 70s are treated like an outlier with nothing to do with capitalism when analysing the US economy under Carter (who was the first neoliberal president, with Nixon being the last Keynesian, Reagan erroneously gets the dubious honour even though he was more reckless), whilst the same oil crisis causes turbulence in the United Kingdom but the blame there rests solely on the then socialist orientated Labour Party and the trade unions, not to mention it appears that everyone had forgotten that this crisis coincided with the gold standard crisis as well (in the UK).

And yes the global oil crisis of the 70s very much adversely effected the Soviet Union too but again it's conveniently forgotten when one discusses its economics as well.

Capitalists don't care about unemployment so as long as there are enough police to maintain order. They will automate so as long as human labour is more expensive.

How do you think a country like India grows many multiples of the amounts of food and clothes that it needs, yet over a third of their population starves and wear filthy rags?

Basically this. Somebody pls cap this.

Sure, literally billions of people will not have jobs and will therefore not be able to consume, but capitalism will still work somehow right?

They care about profit though.

Capitalists don't care about unemployment so as long as there are enough police to maintain order

are you talking about some dystopian robot slave nation? If so i have no argument to refute that.

...

...

...

I agree but you assume that all consumers carry equal weight or that it's necessary for capitalism to make every individual a consumer to serve capitalists optimally.

You can have a situation where productivity increases, the number of consumers decrease (due to increasing unemployment) but the rate of consumption still increases. It's akin to how increasing unemployment and stagnating wages in tandem with increased worker productivity has facilitated the increase in wealth and capital accumulation of the elite.

No I'm talking about the modus operandi of capitalist societies, poverty and destitution are permitted so as long as it doesn't come back to bite the ruling classes in the ass, the police are their counter-measure to their excesses and decadent behaviour.

Eh, I'm flattered but I don't think this should be reposted as is. It needs a lot of refining and editing.

If anything I hope someone can polish this up and make it more repost worthy and persuasive.

What?

Machines = Constant capital
Labor power = Variable capital

I'm honestly so glad you're here. Have you been on this board for long? Quality posters who know economics and theory are rare.

Leftypol is a shit show in economics, that's why we have market socialists and socdems here.
They don't even know the basics, like the falling rate of profits and its consequences to the, so loved markets and welfare state .

So why do you think the lange model is stupid on several levels?

Also what plans for socialism would you propose? What kind of socialist system?

Central planned economy(democratic or not, depends on the material and historical situation), maybe with some co-ops in the start,but latter they would be trasformed in public property addering to the central plan(like it would be in the USSR if its economist and Khrushev didn't abondoned Marx, and falled for the neo-classical theory memes).

if none of these socialist ideas can prove itself able to combat capitalism, then why bother? you're gonna get rekt over and over again. it's pretty pathetic.

not to mention half of these were fucked up by their own groups. fucking luxemburg and durruti got sold out by their own people. so not only you can't combar capitalism but you can't even control your own movement because they would rather turn capitalist.

what a shitload of a system.

you do know full automation would destroy capitalism from the inside out, right?