Collectivism will destroy the Earth

Think of how Mao's shitty collectivisation policies killed tens of millions of chinese people in just under a decade. Think of the Holodomor, fucking communist faggot. But, i do have to concede that Ayn Rand is a hypocrite for taking gibs

Yeah because capitalism isn't already doing that or anyting. There are certain words that a person uses that just let you know they're a fucking retard. Collectivist is one of them. Papist is another.

You doing your anime villain impression OP

Mao was a piece of shit and a tyrant. His narcissism and systematic violence is responsible for his legacy, not being a Marxist. Nowhere in the Communist doctrine does it say "kill tens of millions of your own people."

Attached: cm.gif (180x200, 1.08M)

Every time there's a communist dictator he kills a shit load of people though. Communism is an ideal that's not feasible.

>dictator
yeah no shit, dictators are bad. capitalist dictators aren't better.

Some problems can only be overcome with collectivism. Look at Europe being swarmed with Arabs and Non-whites. That isn't going to solve itself, it requires urgent collective action.

Communism is better at putting dictators in power than Capitalism though.

BEST FUCKING Yea Forums DISCORD THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN JOIN NOW!! (JANNIES HATE US)

discord
.gg/dERcSSB

h4

Attached: ewGqbN2.jpg (918x874, 186K)

t. juden peterstein

Communism according to Marx has never been achieved by a nation. It's only ever gotten to the socialism stage at which point a tyrannical dictator seizes the opportunity to obtain absolute power and ruins it for everyone. Did you know that in Communism the means of production are owned by everyone, not by the state and there are no social classes? The failure of "communism" is invariably human error not the ideology.

collectivism is pretty great when white people do it

and no, Jews are not white

>"Muh not real communism"

Yes, it's a pipe dream that disregards human nature. That's why it fails every time and it will fail every time.

>"Muh not real communism"

So you're just accepting that people are garbage at their core, and that's your answer? Maybe instead of putting one person in power we have some equanimity. Has that ever occurred to your tiny brain?

Prove it wrong then champ.

I didn't say that humans are garbage at their core. I correctly noted that Marxism and its bastard offspring communism don't take into account human motivations and nature.

Humans are complex creatures and almost everyone is different to some extent. Before posing your retarded question you should have tough of how you would implement such a thing on a national level and how you would direct such a change without concrete leadership at the core. Let me fill you in genius.
It's impossible.

And afterwards, how do you try to maintain such a society and what kinds of laws do you implement and how do you enforce them.

Humans evolved to be part of hierarchical structure believing otherwise is stupid.

A pipe dream that thinks that it's possible to implement a large change without a cohesive leadership at its core is not only retarded but dangerous. It's anarchy ready to happen. The opposite was already tried everywhere else. And look at what happened. It immediately reverted to a hierarchal structure.

You must think you're special saying "Well that wasn't real communism". But if we look at history we would see that same thing was said in Venezuela and South Africa so what gives?

>If I was the one to implement communism it would work because I'm perfect

>this thing that I've never even considered is impossible
How fucking dumb are you? That sort of thing is exactly how they rule in countries like Great Britain. It's called a Parliament dumb shit.

Are you retarded? Parlament is a part of a hierarchical structure of the overall government. Not everyone is equal, and not everybody gets in. Its creation wasn't part of some leaderless endeavor, but concrete action put forth by the government.

Again, show me how you get from point A to point B and then point C without forming a hierarchical strucuture of some sort.

>Humans evolved to be part of hierarchical structure believing otherwise is stupid.

/thread

I didn't say zero hierarchy, I said no one person gets to call all the shots. Checks and balances. There's no reason why democracy can't be involved in Communism. You're creating a false dichotomy wherein Communism and Democracy are mutually exclusive.

So you think it's possible to implement communism without a singular vision and coherent leadership? If one person isn't calling the shots than who is? How many?

And for the record communism in Russia wasn't founded on a singular individual but was a collective effort of the many. Yet in the end, the other people with power were disposed of and the movement change in merely 1 year.

You're also thinking that everything can be simply agreed upon and everything will be sweet and dandy. Not much luck, there might just be more interpretations of communism out there than interpretations of the bible.

And remember that everything is up for change, you might be promised one thing but get another.

This. Thinking you have a golden answer doesn't mean you can or will ever implement it. Reality is not fantasy.

>Yet in the end, the other people with power were disposed of and the movement change in merely 1 year.
[citation needed]

The fact is that not once has Communism in its pure form even been tried on a national level. So to say that it's always failed is completely meaningless.

Also, singular vision? That's just conflating communism with dictatorship as you've been taught. Communism isn't as complicated as you're making it seem. You just need a group of people to agree on that particular goal, which is common ownership of the means of production. Yes, base human nature inhibits that goal, but since when are we just slaves to our base nature, and incapable of overcoming it for the betterment of civilization? It's not like Capitalism is "working." It's slowly draining the world of its resources, and dividing the populace in the haves and the have nots, which creates constant internal strife teetering on the brink of revolution. At the very best Capitalism is somewhat "stable."