Capitalism vs. Communism

[Frisivisia]

Observe those two words and the answer should become clear. If not, then how about we consult a dictionary?

Sure...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism?s=t

com·mu·nism   [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4.
communalism.





Seems fine to me...

Sounds more like Bolshevism than Marxism.

[United Dependencies]

Hmm...

Comitalism

[4years]

]

Observe those two words and the answer should become clear. If not, then how about we consult a dictionary?

Sure...
Do I have to... All right I will pick this defination apart.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism?s=t

com·mu·nism   [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. There is no state in communsim and personal property is not held in common.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. Kind of hard to have a totalitarian state without a state.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party. Democracy is the principles and practices of the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea. Saying something does not make it true.
4.
communalism.
Descriptive.




Seems fine to me...Ignorance is strength. Oh wait, that was only ever sarcastic...

Now then let us have an actual defination of communism... communism is a
classless
stateless
moneyless
society where
workers control the means of production.
Now for a source
Economic and social system in which all (or nearly all) property and resources are collectively owned by a classless society and not by individual citizens. Based on the 1848 publication 'Communist Manifesto' by two German political philosophers, Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his close associate Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), it envisaged common ownership of all land and capital and withering away of the coercive power of the state. In such a society, social relations were to be regulated on the fairest of all principles: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Differences between manual and intellectual labor and between rural and urban life were to disappear, opening up the way for unlimited development of human potential.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... z2744o02Fm
Not perfect. but still better then your horrible defination.

Now how about a couple examples: The Paris Commune and The Free Territory. and another source http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/c ... arxism.htm

and a quote from Marx
Democracy is the road to socialism.
Karl Marx

Edit: I'll add this http://www.marxist.com/ and http://www.marxists.org/

[Mavorpen]

I like how many communists capitalists don't realize how religious in nature their political views are in their dogma...

Fixed.

[Jassysworth 1]

I like how many communists capitalists communists don't realize how religious in nature their political views are in their dogma...

Fixed.

Fixed again. Thanks for your suggestion though Mavo...

[Mavorpen]

Fixed.

Fixed again. Thanks for your suggestion though Mavo...

How? I've yet to see you make an argument based on facts. You've just foamed at the mouth and attacked an ideology religiously without any reason or coherent logic.

[Jassysworth 1]

Fixed again. Thanks for your suggestion though Mavo...

How? I've yet to see you make an argument based on facts. You've just foamed at the mouth and attacked an ideology religiously without any reason or coherent logic.

Ah poor Mavo...

Your pro-communist sympathies have blinded you and prevented you from seeing the REST of the post you are fixing.

There's no disputing that all large-scale attempts at communism have all FAILED. AND there's no denying the fact that the entire mainstream tradition of a scientific discipline (economics) disavows communist economics.

Can you say the same about capitalism? No sir. There is evidence for capitalism, no evidence for communism. Therefore, capitalism is not religious dogma... tis communism that approaches this.

[Silent Majority]

And capitalism isn't like this?

No because plenty of capitalist countries have existed and have functioned and are still functioning. =)

Capitalism is also backed by an entire scientific discipline (economics).

Can't say the same about communism...

You misunderstand. How is capitalism not prone to dogma, or "like a religion"?

Given most people accept it without question, I'd say it's even worse.

[Mavorpen]

Ah poor Mavo...

Your pro-communist sympathies have blinded you and prevented you from seeing the REST of the post you are fixing.

Here we are once again: you failing to read anything I've typed.

There's no disputing that all large-scale attempts at communism have all FAILED. AND there's no denying the fact that the entire mainstream tradition of a scientific discipline (economics) disavows communist economics.

Prove that claim, please.

Can you say the same about capitalism? No sir. There is evidence for capitalism, no evidence for communism. Therefore, capitalism is not religious dogma... tis communism that approaches this.

No evidence for communism? Riiiight, your ignorance of history is amusing. Capitalism is a religious dogma. It screams to be the best system while only managing to do so due to a large state to back it up. It's akin to a religion claiming to be the one true faith, while using the state to kill all nonbelievers.

[Silent Majority]

There's no disputing that all large-scale attempts at communism have all FAILED.

Given much of early human civilization existed in a form of primitive communism, I'd say there is fact room to dispute this.

AND there's no denying the fact that the entire mainstream tradition of a scientific discipline (economics) disavows communist economics.

No. It disavows centrally planned economies.

Can you say the same about capitalism? No sir. There is evidence for capitalism, no evidence for communism. Therefore, capitalism is not religious dogma... tis communism that approaches this.

The validity of both systems is based on value judgements, the argument isn't about if one works or not, but if one is more desirable than the other.

[Jassysworth 1]

Ah poor Mavo...

Your pro-communist sympathies have blinded you and prevented you from seeing the REST of the post you are fixing.

Here we are once again: you failing to read anything I've typed.

There's no disputing that all large-scale attempts at communism have all FAILED. AND there's no denying the fact that the entire mainstream tradition of a scientific discipline (economics) disavows communist economics.

Prove that claim, please.

Can you say the same about capitalism? No sir. There is evidence for capitalism, no evidence for communism. Therefore, capitalism is not religious dogma... tis communism that approaches this.

No evidence for communism? Riiiight, your ignorance of history is amusing. Capitalism is a religious dogma. It screams to be the best system while only managing to do so due to a large state to back it up. It's akin to a religion claiming to be the one true faith, while using the state to kill all nonbelievers.

Mainstream economics supports the free market and private enterprise for profit. Communism is against both of those things... therefore mainstream economics is set against communism. Connect the dots. Furthermore, the econ textbook I have (from a 101 class) excessively rails against communism and former socialist countries while it emphasizes that there is NO alternative to the capitalist free market.

Economics = against communism. Use a bit of common sense. Is communism compatible with a capitalist free market? Hahaha. No sir.

My knowledge of history is very extensive but it doesn't take a very extensive one to know that all attempts to implement communism on a large scale have ended in failure and thousands to millions of people killed. I'm not talking about subnational experiments that ended in a few years/months like the Catalonian enclaves or the Paris communes, I am talking about all the big efforts. They have all failed.

WHEREAS... we have plenty of capitalist countries still prospering and standing today.

So who is religious (going against all the evidence in the name of dogma)? Capitalists or communists? Communists I say.

[Jassysworth 1]

There's no disputing that all large-scale attempts at communism have all FAILED.

Given much of early human civilization existed in a form of primitive communism, I'd say there is fact room to dispute this.

AND there's no denying the fact that the entire mainstream tradition of a scientific discipline (economics) disavows communist economics.

No. It disavows centrally planned economies.

Can you say the same about capitalism? No sir. There is evidence for capitalism, no evidence for communism. Therefore, capitalism is not religious dogma... tis communism that approaches this.

The validity of both systems is based on value judgements, the argument isn't about if one works or not, but if one is more desirable than the other.

Early human civilization? Do you want to go back to those times? No sir, we've moved on. Right now, there is no alternative to free market capitalism. We've already moved way past that point and will never return.

Economics doesn't just disavow centrally planned economies. Mainstream economics disavow ALL ALTERNATIVES to the capitalist free market economy (therefore this includes communism). I quote from textbook, ''There is no viable alternative to the capitalist free market system. One may vary the level of state intervention in the economy or the particular mode of regulation but...''

Find me one serious economist who would suggest and endorse an alternative economic model so radical that it's not called a form of capitalism.

Can you say the same about capitalism? No sir. There is evidence for capitalism, no evidence for communism. Therefore, capitalism is not religious dogma... tis communism that approaches this.

The validity of both systems is based on value judgements, the argument isn't about if one works or not, but if one is more desirable than the other.

Fair enough but for those who say it CAN work... they are basically religious dogmatists because there isn't a shred of evidence in support of that contention and a mainstream scientific discipline disavows them.

[Mavorpen]

Mainstream economics supports the free market and private enterprise for profit. Communism is against both of those things... therefore mainstream economics is set against communism. Connect the dots. Furthermore, the econ textbook I have (from a 101 class) excessively rails against communism and former socialist countries while it emphasizes that there is NO alternative to the capitalist free market.

So in other words, you don't know anything, despite me explain a ton of shit to you. Communism is not against free market nor private enterprise. What does your textbook have to do with anything?

Economics = against communism. Use a bit of common sense. Is communism compatible with a capitalist free market? Hahaha. No sir.

It's not. Of course it's not compatible with a capitalist free market. A non capitalist free market? Yep.

My knowledge of history is very extensive but it doesn't take a very extensive one to know that all attempts to implement communism on a large scale have ended in failure and thousands to millions of people killed.

Lovely. What does this have to do with anything?

I'm not talking about subnational experiments that ended in a few years/months like the Catalonian enclaves or the Paris communes, I am talking about all the big efforts. They have all failed.

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

WHEREAS... we have plenty of capitalist countries still prospering and standing today.

You do know "prosper" is a relative term, right? You do know that no communist country has existed, so they never stood in the first place, right? You do know that capitalism includes a slew of economic philosophies ranging from Keynesian to laissez-faire, right?

So who is religious (going against all the evidence in the name of dogma)? Capitalists or communists? Communists I say.

Nah, still capitalists.

[Mavorpen]

Right now, there is no alternative to free market capitalism. We've already moved way past that point and will never return.

China would like to have a word with you.

Economics doesn't just disavow centrally planned economies. Mainstream economics disavow ALL ALTERNATIVES to the capitalist free market economy (therefore this includes communism). I quote from textbook, ''There is no viable alternative to the capitalist free market system. One may vary the level of state intervention in the economy or the particular mode of regulation but...''

No, it doesn't. Your textbook is idiotic.

Find me one serious economist who would suggest and endorse an alternative economic model so radical that it's not called a form of capitalism.

Make up your fucking mind. Free-market capitalism=/=capitalism in general.

Can you say the same about capitalism? No sir. There is evidence for capitalism, no evidence for communism. Therefore, capitalism is not religious dogma... tis communism that approaches this.

Blind?

Fair enough but for those who say it CAN work... they are basically religious dogmatists because there isn't a shred of evidence in support of that contention and a mainstream scientific discipline disavows them.

Try again, and this time with facts.

[Silent Majority]

Early human civilization? Do you want to go back to those times? No sir, we've moved on. Right now, there is no alternative to free market capitalism. We've already moved way past that point and will never return.

But it would seem to completely smash the idea that only capitalism works.

Economics doesn't just disavow centrally planned economies. Mainstream economics disavow ALL ALTERNATIVES to the capitalist free market economy (therefore this includes communism). I quote from textbook, ''There is no viable alternative to the capitalist free market system. One may vary the level of state intervention in the economy or the particular mode of regulation but...''

Textbooks are not infallible.

Find me one serious economist who would suggest and endorse an alternative economic model so radical that it's not called a form of capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Kantorovich

Fair enough but for those who say it CAN work... they are basically religious dogmatists because there isn't a shred of evidence in support of that contention and a mainstream scientific discipline disavows them.

Not really. There isn't any economic reason why workers cooperatives wouldn't work, or why economic planning in a post-scarcity economy wouldn't work. And for the former, there is evidence to show that they do.

[Jassysworth 1]

Mainstream economics supports the free market and private enterprise for profit. Communism is against both of those things... therefore mainstream economics is set against communism. Connect the dots. Furthermore, the econ textbook I have (from a 101 class) excessively rails against communism and former socialist countries while it emphasizes that there is NO alternative to the capitalist free market.

So in other words, you don't know anything, despite me explain a ton of shit to you. Communism is not against free market nor private enterprise. What does your textbook have to do with anything?

Economics = against communism. Use a bit of common sense. Is communism compatible with a capitalist free market? Hahaha. No sir.

It's not. Of course it's not compatible with a capitalist free market. A non capitalist free market? Yep.

My knowledge of history is very extensive but it doesn't take a very extensive one to know that all attempts to implement communism on a large scale have ended in failure and thousands to millions of people killed.

Lovely. What does this have to do with anything?

I'm not talking about subnational experiments that ended in a few years/months like the Catalonian enclaves or the Paris communes, I am talking about all the big efforts. They have all failed.

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

WHEREAS... we have plenty of capitalist countries still prospering and standing today.

You do know "prosper" is a relative term, right? You do know that no communist country has existed, so they never stood in the first place, right? You do know that capitalism includes a slew of economic philosophies ranging from Keynesian to laissez-faire, right?

So who is religious (going against all the evidence in the name of dogma)? Capitalists or communists? Communists I say.

Nah, still capitalists.

If you read the original post at which you jumped in, you will see how the things I have said but you have marked as irrelevant are in fact relevant. But I am not here to teach you how to read...

And on the point of reading...

Have you noticed that I have said that mainstream economics disavows all alternatives to the CAPITALIST FREE MARKET? So what's with all of your irrelevant corrections above?

How can communism be compatible with the free market or private enterprise?



Congratulations.

If you can't keep most of your profits for yourself or own private property, then it is not a free market in any substantial sense LOL. If that is news to you, it is no wonder you can't understand my contentions...

Communism = stateless, moneyless, classless society.

How is that compatible with any form of the free market? The exchange of goods between people is hampered because money is banned. You can't be allowed to make a profit or owe and acquire a ton of property because that goes against the classless part. Also, you can't even sell your labor to others (because somehow that's been marked as a category of ''exploitation''.)

Free market and communism are incompatible. Economics disavows all alternatives to the capitalist free market system, so economics disavows communism.

Get it now?

[Sanctus Pacis]

Capitalist societies have proven to be more free and more prosperous. It's a hands down win for capitalism.

Of course, the communists will claim that no true communist society (at least on a national scale) has ever existed. While it is true, it is also true that the leaders of those societies, for the most part, did believe in communism, and did attempt to establish it. Through force.

[Jassysworth 1]

Right now, there is no alternative to free market capitalism. We've already moved way past that point and will never return.

China would like to have a word with you.

Economics doesn't just disavow centrally planned economies. Mainstream economics disavow ALL ALTERNATIVES to the capitalist free market economy (therefore this includes communism). I quote from textbook, ''There is no viable alternative to the capitalist free market system. One may vary the level of state intervention in the economy or the particular mode of regulation but...''

No, it doesn't. Your textbook is idiotic.

Find me one serious economist who would suggest and endorse an alternative economic model so radical that it's not called a form of capitalism.

Make up your fucking mind. Free-market capitalism=/=capitalism in general.

Can you say the same about capitalism? No sir. There is evidence for capitalism, no evidence for communism. Therefore, capitalism is not religious dogma... tis communism that approaches this.

Blind?

Fair enough but for those who say it CAN work... they are basically religious dogmatists because there isn't a shred of evidence in support of that contention and a mainstream scientific discipline disavows them.

Try again, and this time with facts.

China would like a word with YOU. It's a capitalist country (except it's socialist in name) hahaha!

I love how all of my sources are supposedly ''idiotic'' while yours are never. Shows some serious level of intellectual hypocrisy (let's call for sources first and once they bring them up, guess what? The sources are idiotic because they disagree with what I say)...

[Mavorpen]

If you read the original post at which you jumped in, you will see how the things I have said but you have marked as irrelevant are in fact relevant. But I am not here to teach you how to read...

They aren't. No one cares if Stalinism failed. Everyone knew it would. It doesn't have a monopoly on the umbrella of communism anymore than laissez-faire has a monopoly on capitalism.

And on the point of reading...

Have you noticed that I have said that mainstream economics disavows all alternatives to the CAPITALIST FREE MARKET? So what's with all of your irrelevant corrections above?

I noticed it. I also commented on that.

Economics = against communism. Use a bit of common sense. Is communism compatible with a capitalist free market? Hahaha. No sir.

It's not. Of course it's not compatible with a capitalist free market. A non capitalist free market? Yep.

Try reading.

How can communism be compatible with the free market or private enterprise?

A market is a system or procedure where parties exchange something. Private enterprise is a privately owned business that is free of state control. Communism is compatible with both of these, just not the capitalist interpretations.

If you can't keep most of your profits for yourself or own private property, then it is not a free market in any substantial sense LOL. If that is news to you, it is no wonder you can't understand my contentions...

There are no profits in the first place in a communistic society. No sensible person would end a system where profits don't exist just to appease one individual that wants to make a profit. If you want to make a profit, leave the society and make your own. It's that simple.

Communism = stateless, moneyless, classless society.

And?

How is that compatible with any form of the free market? The exchange of goods between people is hampered because money is banned. You can't be allowed to make a profit or owe and acquire a ton of property because that goes against the classless part. Also, you can't even sell your labor to others (because somehow that's been marked as a category of ''exploitation''.)

Money is banned? No, money is diffused. It is eradicated voluntarily and democratically by the society. You're allowed to make a profit, no one would simply buy from you. Why would they? You can sell your labor. The question is, why would you?

Free market and communism are incompatible. Economics disavows all alternatives to the capitalist free market system, so economics disavows communism.

Free markets and communism are not incompatible. Economics doesn't disavow anything. Individual economists may disavow something, but economics does not.

Get it now?

Yes, you don't know anything about the subject at hand.

[Mavorpen]

China would like a word with YOU. It's a capitalist country (except it's socialist in name) hahaha!

You can't even read your own posts?

Right now, there is no alternative to free market capitalism. We've already moved way past that point and will never return.

China does not fit that description. You stated there is no alternative to free market capitalism. I gave you one, state capitalism. And it does wonders for China.

I love how all of my sources are supposedly ''idiotic'' while yours are never. Shows some serious level of intellectual hypocrisy (let's call for sources first and once they bring them up, guess what? The sources are idiotic because they disagree with what I say)...

Your source is a textbook, something that is not published in a peer-reviewed journal subject to criticism. Even more pathetic is you don't seem to understand it isn't tangible. Unless I can actually see the textbook and read its contents without buying it myself, it's useless.

For more information.

[Jassysworth 1]

If you read the original post at which you jumped in, you will see how the things I have said but you have marked as irrelevant are in fact relevant. But I am not here to teach you how to read...

They aren't. No one cares if Stalinism failed. Everyone knew it would. It doesn't have a monopoly on the umbrella of communism anymore than laissez-faire has a monopoly on capitalism.

And on the point of reading...

Have you noticed that I have said that mainstream economics disavows all alternatives to the CAPITALIST FREE MARKET? So what's with all of your irrelevant corrections above?

I noticed it. I also commented on that.

It's not. Of course it's not compatible with a capitalist free market. A non capitalist free market? Yep.

Try reading.

How can communism be compatible with the free market or private enterprise?

A market is a system or procedure where parties exchange something. Private enterprise is a privately owned business that is free of state control. Communism is compatible with both of these, just not the capitalist interpretations.

If you can't keep most of your profits for yourself or own private property, then it is not a free market in any substantial sense LOL. If that is news to you, it is no wonder you can't understand my contentions...

There are no profits in the first place in a communistic society. No sensible person would end a system where profits don't exist just to appease one individual that wants to make a profit. If you want to make a profit, leave the society and make your own. It's that simple.

Communism = stateless, moneyless, classless society.

And?

How is that compatible with any form of the free market? The exchange of goods between people is hampered because money is banned. You can't be allowed to make a profit or owe and acquire a ton of property because that goes against the classless part. Also, you can't even sell your labor to others (because somehow that's been marked as a category of ''exploitation''.)

Money is banned? No, money is diffused. It is eradicated voluntarily and democratically by the society. You're allowed to make a profit, no one would simply buy from you. Why would they? You can sell your labor. The question is, why would you?

Free market and communism are incompatible. Economics disavows all alternatives to the capitalist free market system, so economics disavows communism.

Free markets and communism are not incompatible. Economics doesn't disavow anything. Individual economists may disavow something, but economics does not.

Get it now?

Yes, you don't know anything about the subject at hand.

How can communism be compatible with the free market or private enterprise?

A market is a system or procedure where parties exchange something. Private enterprise is a privately owned business that is free of state control. Communism is compatible with both of these, just not the capitalist interpretations.

If you can't keep most of your profits, there is a cap on how much you can keep, there are too many rules about how trade is done (no money, no selling of labor), then it is not a FREE market. Also, it is not a private enterprise if you can't keep most of what you make (this is like ABC). If my enterprise creates products but I am not allowed to buy and sell them at my own discretion then how do I owe that enterprise or anything it creates?

I know that ''capitalist'' countries right now are not 100% capitalist but they still earn the label of free market because you keep most of what you earn, exchange is mostly unrestricted, private firms run for profit operate relatively unfettered etc. Calling communism a free market is too much of a stretch because they are too many rules to stifle individual market freedoms...

If you can't keep most of your profits for yourself or own private property, then it is not a free market in any substantial sense LOL. If that is news to you, it is no wonder you can't understand my contentions...

There are no profits in the first place in a communistic society. No sensible person would end a system where profits don't exist just to appease one individual that wants to make a profit. If you want to make a profit, leave the society and make your own. It's that simple.

I really like the part where you say there are not profits in a communistic society. There are ALWAYS incentives to make profits. ALWAYS. And there are always people looking for profitable exchanges with people who want to make profits. Once again, the only way you are going to keep people from trying to amass profits is through communistic laws that say you can't. Once you do that (prevent people from amassing profits), your market is no longer free in any substantial sense... You've already regulated it too much.

Communism = stateless, moneyless, classless society.

And?

And so to keep it stateless, moneyless, AND classless you are going to need a LOT of rules. Too many to earn the label of free market...

How is that compatible with any form of the free market? The exchange of goods between people is hampered because money is banned. You can't be allowed to make a profit or owe and acquire a ton of property because that goes against the classless part. Also, you can't even sell your labor to others (because somehow that's been marked as a category of ''exploitation''.)

Money is banned? No, money is diffused. It is eradicated voluntarily and democratically by the society. You're allowed to make a profit, no one would simply buy from you. Why would they? You can sell your labor. The question is, why would you?

Money is banned because it says ''moneyless.'' How else are you going to prevent people from developing money again if you don't keep it banned?

Sell my labor? Why would I? Because it's a mutually beneficial arrangement (someone makes a profit and so do I)? Once again, how do you prevent this basic human instinct? By banning the practice and forcing anyone who does it to LEAVE or be imprisoned. Hence... to call it a free market is a joke when you can't even engage in basic market practices...

Free market and communism are incompatible. Economics disavows all alternatives to the capitalist free market system, so economics disavows communism.

Free markets and communism are not incompatible. Economics doesn't disavow anything. Individual economists may disavow something, but economics does not.

Economics is the work of economists. Most mainstream economists today disavow communism, so that's how it matters.

Get it now?

Yes, you don't know anything about the subject at hand.

At least I understand that you simply can't call a communist economy a system of free market enterprise LOL. You on the other hand, seem to believe in communist free enterprise.

[Socialdemokraterne]

MAYBE it's not such a good idea to give communism another shot since the idea has actually killed millions and millions of people already... MAYBE it's time to recognize that communism doesn't work because not a single communist state remains functional today?

...OK. All the Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, and advocates of Juche have been soundly beaten by the data. I don't think anyone in the entire thread is saying that the USSR succeeded, or that its methods were appropriate for advancing the goals of socialism. Nor do I see anyone coming to the aid of Fidel Castro or Kim-Il Sung. You've won that battle uncontested. It's over. Stop beating the horse, it's dead already.

Can you at least recognize that if you extend this proclamation of doom to other, yet untested methods of implementation you're expressing a hypothesis rather than a fact?

I like how many communists don't realize how religious in nature their political views are in their dogma...

I like how you keep drawing hasty generalizations.

[Dracone]

Capitalist is much much better... I think the goverment has waaaaaay to much power as is anyways.... *shudders at the thought of giving them more*
but even if it werent for that, it seems to me that if you didnt get to keep any of the wealth you earned and what not, then why would you work hard at all? if you cant better yourself, then why not do the barest of bare minumums and skate by? where as in capitalism, there is an incentive to atleast try and make your life better....

[The Mizarian Empire]

Capitalist is much much better... I think the goverment has waaaaaay to much power as is anyways.... *shudders at the thought of giving them more*
but even if it werent for that, it seems to me that if you didnt get to keep any of the wealth you earned and what not, then why would you work hard at all? if you cant better yourself, then why not do the barest of bare minumums and skate by? where as in capitalism, there is an incentive to atleast try and make your life better....

This is why Communism will never work, there are too many people with this mindset.

Now before you go attacking me sir/madam, I do not mean this in an offensive manner. Far from it, I agree that Capitalism is the more sustainable system, however Communism is genuinely (in my own opinion) the better of the 2.

People need to understand that there IS NO GOVERNMENT in a true communist state. When people look at the United Soviet Socialist Republic (Soviet Russia or Russia, "Reds", pick your cold war poison); China or any similar "Communist" nation/state, these are shams. Both of these examples are about as close to a communist state as the USA is referred to as "Fascist".

True Communist state:
THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT
(I cannot stress this enough, The Vanguard party organizes the standards everyone lives under/with, then disbands, decision making is limited to influential members such as mayors/educated/elders etc.)
INDIVIDUALS ARE PAID DEPENDING ON THEIR OCCUPATION
(while generally everyone is paid the same more or less, important members of society such as heart surgeons are paid extra for their precise art and training)
YOUR EFFORTS ARE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL
(Everyone does their part to ensure everyone is safe and overall stability is ensured)

Why a True Communist State will never happen (in my opinion)
Personal wealth is too treasured in today's society
Look around you right now, seriously, stop reading and just take a moment to consider what you have over the average person in poorer countries across the world. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the wealth of your country. I for one agree as above that capitalism is the more stable system and therefore value my right personal property and wealth. However these urges to hoard personal gains, rather than sharing them with the community is one of the main reasons Communism will never work.

We despise hard work
Stop, before you click on "Quote" or start your snappy retort, consider this. When was the last time you saw someone in the process of getting ready to move out of their home and offered to help? when was the last time you offered to help the baggers or stockboys at your local grocery store because you were feeling in that kind of charitable mood? Communism demands we all put forth extra efforts than our usual daily toil to help our fellow man, it demands much more than the average person in a 1st world country would want to put forth unless it was for his or her next paycheck. This lack of drive to assist your fellow man simply because you just want to do the bare-bones minimal and get by is what would make you the loose link in a communist state. As soon as one person decides he doesn't want to put forward the effort, everyone else has to pick up his slack or worse, it starts a chain reaction of other people taking his example. Once again, this is not a bad thing, this is human nature. I'm not saying everyone here is lazy. I'm sure there ARE people who go out of their way to go the extra mile and be a genuinely nice guy and do their good deeds every day. However in a communist state, EVERYONE has to be wired that way, and it simply isn't possible, human behavior simply makes us that way.

We crave individuality
This is the last leg of my rant, dig deep! Think for a moment, why do you dress the way you dress? why do you act the way you do? use the products or eat the food you do? Perhaps its because someone's opinion drew your attention to it? Or, more likely, maybe you just like it. Maybe you look at that new T-shirt or that car and go "I like that, it fits who I am and who I want to be"? Entirely reasonable. Humanity as a whole is full of hundreds (if not thousands) of different religions, nationalities, dialects and cultures. People like sticking out in the crowd, they like having an image that makes them memorable and fits their personality. As with the other parts, this isn't a bad thing, especially when your single, it leaves a memorable opinion of you in the mind of anyone your dating or even just new friends. In a communist state however everyone must drive for the same goal, everyone must work for the better of the person, the individual is far less important than the whole of the community. This urge to ensure the community's well being takes precedence over individuality and makes it harder for you to instill a lasting impression with your peers, or worse yet, your potential lover. It also obviously takes away from your ability to express yourself and therefore is clearly not the normal standard, but thats a totally different story...

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

So every attempt to implement "true communism" has ended horribly, and the only examples that communist really point to, as a user in this thread has said are subnation states that have been a tiny bleep on the radar and have made no substantial(if any) contribution to human progress or increasing the standard of living.

By the Communists own admission, a true communist state has never existed, and if a true communist state has never existed there is no evidence to suggest that it would actually work, thus communism is faith-based. Communism being faith-based, is no better than Christianity or any other religion.

Based on this logic alone, though, one can correctly assume that Communism is inherently flawed and impractical.

Communism - Economic and social system in which all (or nearly all) property and resources are collectively owned by a classless society and not by individual citizens

Anyone with even an elementary understanding of human nature/biology as well as a shred of common sense knows that the very definition goes against human nature. Class is natural occurrence, and the development of money and private property made trade easier as well as allowed wealth to accumulate. Considering the advantages of capitalism in regards to human nature, no wonder communist governments are known for their draconian laws, tough punishments and horrible living conditions. As human nature will naturally rebel, so persistent will the Government become in pursuit of its idealistic goals that it will natural expand to suppress the very people it ironically sought to free.

In laymen terms Communism is immoral, idiotic and as faith-based as religion.