How can I PROVE that Communism works?

[Nox]

Often when I am arguing with capitalists (it's fun believe me ;)), they always bring up the argument "prove communism works", and with my current level of knowledge all I can say back is "prove it doesn't work", but that is kinda contradictory seeing as when a religious person says "prove god doesn't exist" I lol at them...

Any ideas of how I can PROVE that Communism will work?

[hatzel]

Pretty much you do your bit to bring about communism and if it then works then that's proof. There is literally no other way to prove its viability...

"The secret of the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is to live dangerously!" - Nietzsche :)

[ComradeMan]

Often when I am arguing with capitalists (it's fun believe me ;)), they always bring up the argument "prove communism works", and with my current level of knowledge all I can say back is "prove it doesn't work", but that is kinda contradictory seeing as when a religious person says "prove god doesn't exist" I lol at them...

Any ideas of how I can PROVE that Communism will work?

You can't- it's a completely unscientific argument, by the same measure- ask them to prove that capitalism is working based on empirical evidence.
;)

[Octavian]

You can't- it's a completely unscientific argument, by the same measure- ask them to prove that capitalism is working based on empirical evidence.
;)
It's working but only for a very small percentage of people.

[Kadir Ateş]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon1.gif How can I PROVE that Communism works?


Read the Communist Manifesto backwards.

[Dr Mindbender]

If communism is the video recorder, technocracy is the instruction manual.

[ComradeMan]

It's working but only for a very small percentage of people.

...and it's from there you have to work.

It's a sad fact that most communist experiments, perhaps with the moderate exception of Cuba, have been failures. I suppose there is China- if you can really argue that there is anything communist other than name there. This is why I am against the whole scientific argument that the left puts forward.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Economically speaking, socialism did work.

http://charleskenny.blogs.com/weblog/files/russ6.pdf

[miltonwasfried...man]

Tell them to prove capitalism works. We are destroying the environment for short term profit. All products are designed to fail, to maintain consumption. We are bombarded with advertisments for shit we don't need. We have half of the world obese and the other half hungry. The top 1% owns more than the bottom 49%. The rich keep getting richer, leaving the rest of us behind in poverty. How well is this system working again? The wealthy individuals and corporations essentially run the government, the economy and the media. We are drones and wage slaves in this system, Communism would be a welcomed change.

[The Man]

You can't necessarily 'prove' that Communism works, due to it never being implemented before. Sure there has been some successful Communes that have almost reached true Communism, for example: Anarchist Catalonia and The Paris Commune. Communism is a theoretically sound system, but no one can predict the future. So I suggest that you look at some historical facts about the C.N.T./F.A.I. or the Paris Commune, and find out how their communities worked.

Also, I suggest that you learn something about States that implemented the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, such as Pre-1953 USSR, or Hoxha Albania, or Maoist China. I believe Albania had jump of life expectancy as much as around 30 years! At this point in time, we must argue for Socialism first.

Something to note is that a large majority of these reactionaries have their own systems that want to be implemented, so ask them (Depending on their theories): How do you know Corporatism works? Or Fascism, or "Anarcho"-Capitalism, or "Right-Wing Libertarianism", or Neo-Liberalism.

To finish this, I will say that this argument that is proposed about 'Prove to me that Communism works!' is an argument that is used by childish reactionaries, as we know (By them just asking this question) that they have no knowledge of any Marxist texts, systems, theories, or history.

EDIT: Also, these reactionaries HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what Communism REALLY is. They will think the China was Communist, or the USSR was Communist.. Tell them that Communism is a (I hate writing all of this stuff so, I will Copy & Paste):
Communism is a system which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

look at cuba:
Unemployment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment) 1.7% (2009 est.)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba#cite_note-cia.gov-0)
Inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) (CPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index)) 1.5% (2009 est.)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba#cite_note-cia.gov-0) Population
below poverty line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line) 1.5% (2006)
compared to the us

Inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) (CPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index)) 2.1% (February 2011)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#cite_note-2) Population
below poverty line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line) 14.3% (2009)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#cite_note-hhes-3)Unemployment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment) 9.8% (July 2011)

:thumbup1:

[Black Sheep]

You don't have to prove anything... you can't "prove" that political systems work, all you can is analyze their model,compare it to reality and decide.

Doing that,your opponent will reduce his/her position to questioning wether the X component of communist is applicable (either in the communist model itself, or in the relation of the component to reality - or what he/she thinks is reality),and you can go on from there.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I believe Albania had jump of life expectancy as much as around 30 years! At this point in time, we must argue for Socialism first.

I don't know about Albania, but under Mao, the average life expectancy went from 32 years of age to 65.

[Napoleon Winston]

Point out that, for most of humanity, Communism was the norm.
Larger cities and large-scale class structures are a fairly recent invention.

There is also quite a bit of debate over if the Inca Empire was socialist or not (h-t-t-p:/-/castle[/url][dot]eiu[dot]edu/~historia/archives/2007/Harris[dot]pdf). If not, it quite certainly was close, and it functioned quite well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is not necessary to prove that communism "works" (whatever that is supposed to mean); most if not all currents of communist thought have a "theory of power" that is, a methodology and praxis to achieve their aims. Some theories of power succeeded in some or all of their goals but were overwhelmed militarily (Anarchist Spain and Paris Commune), others failed due to structural and material conditions (all Marxist-Leninist or similar revolutions). Others have yet to be tested.

The cappie sympathisers can point at the theories of power which failed, but all that shows is that the theories of power were wrong, not the overall goal served by it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It is not necessary to prove that communism "works" (whatever that is supposed to mean); most if not all currents of communist thought have a "theory of power" that is, a methodology and praxis to achieve their aims. Some theories of power succeeded in some or all of their goals but were overwhelmed militarily (Anarchist Spain and Paris Commune), others failed due to structural and material conditions (all Marxist-Leninist or similar revolutions). Others have yet to be tested.

The cappie sympathisers can point at the theories of power which failed, but all that shows is that the theories of power were wrong, not the overall goal served by it.
Precisely, and to add to what one could say when faced with that argument, respond by asking about war, poverty, etc. and explaining that every nation of the world is capitalist, to an extent, and this is precisely how capitalism is supposed to function.

[L.A.P.]

Using the Soviet Union and other failed socialist states as proof of socialism not working is like using the French First Republic and Commonwealth of England as proof of capitalism and liberal democracy not working.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Precisely, and to add to what one could say when faced with that argument, respond by asking about war, poverty, etc. and explaining that every nation of the world is capitalist, to an extent, and this is precisely how capitalism is supposed to function.

I'm not sure that capitalism is "supposed" to have any function - I would rather say that obscene inequalities in material wealth, the absurdity of people starving in one country while people overstuff themselves in another, the frankly callous disgregard for our collective natural environment demonstrated by sociopathic corporations, and a veritable litany of fuckups are all the natural consequence of a system that has monetary gain, rather than human welfare, as the prime motivating factor.

OK, it's nowhere as snappy, but I think the use of "supposed" can lead one down the primrose path that paranoid conspiracy theorists already find themselves well along.

[Tim Finnegan]

Tell them that communism is, by definition, what works; it's not a set of blue-prints to be implemented, but the form of social organisation that grows organically out of the revolution that capitalism, if we are to believe Marx, is leading us towards. Any given model, beyond the very basic principles, can not and, if pursued sensibly, will not be anything more than hypothetical.

[ckaihatsu]

The proof that communism works is easily seen when compared side-by-side to the "system" we know all-too-well -- capitalism.

Capitalism *doesn't* work -- in the sense of functioning according to a plan -- because there's not even a plan! (!!!) It's *not* a society-made co-participatory organizational method. Rather it allows the *non-conscious* chance and randomness of the markets to flail about this way and that so that those parts of the supply and those parts of the demand just *fortunate* enough to match up to each other's pricing expectations, will, while everything else is just shit out of luck due to a lack of participatory planning.

This patchwork Frankenstein is allowed more life and leeway by those in power than if people decided to coordinate their own labor in common and direct machinery according to plans they *consciously* created.

That's the proof right there.

[Tifosi]

Also, I suggest that you learn something about States that implemented the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, such as Pre-1953 USSR, or Hoxha Albania, or Maoist China. I believe Albania had jump of life expectancy as much as around 30 years! At this point in time, we must argue for Socialism first.

But for the most part, people that argue politics on the Internet don't live in Tsarist Russia or tribal Albania. They don't care about how Hoxha improved live expectancy in Albania by 30 years because they don't have a life expectancy of 40. Why should they care about Stalin or Hoxha's policys in backward countries?

They live in a different situation and so don't need to go down the same route as people living 80 years ago. All this stuff is obsolete if you live in Europe or North America.

[Napoleon Winston]

The proof that communism works is easily seen when compared side-by-side to the "system" we know all-too-well -- capitalism.

Capitalism *doesn't* work -- in the sense of functioning according to a plan -- because there's not even a plan! (!!!) It's *not* a society-made co-participatory organizational method. Rather it allows the *non-conscious* chance and randomness of the markets to flail about this way and that so that those parts of the supply and those parts of the demand just *fortunate* enough to match up to each other's pricing expectations, will, while everything else is just shit out of luck due to a lack of participatory planning.

This patchwork Frankenstein is allowed more life and leeway by those in power than if people decided to coordinate their own labor in common and direct machinery according to plans they *consciously* created.

That's the proof right there.


Lack of planning doesn't, in itself, doesn't mean a system doesn't work.
And one of the main ideas behind it is that when there is demand, people will have incentive to meet that with a supply. Not that it will "magically" match up.

[ckaihatsu]

Lack of planning doesn't, in itself, doesn't mean a system doesn't work.


Lack of planning means that one is willing to leave a significant portion -- if not *all* of a project -- to the vicissitudes of chance and randomness. It's like walking out of your home without making up your mind where you want to go or what you want to do -- it *could* work, and *some* people may even improvise good experiences doing this kind of thing -- but we shouldn't be running the *whole world* this way.





And one of the main ideas behind it is that when there is demand, people will have incentive to meet that with a supply. Not that it will "magically" match up.


I didn't imply that anything happens "magically" through use of the markets. What I *am* saying is that a market-based economy and society gives rise to social relations predicated on endless series of discrete exchanges over commodities, including labor power. We are far from "grabbing the reins" in a *conscious* collective way to organize the best use of the earth's resources for our biological, personal, and social needs.

[Book O'Dead]

Often when I am arguing with capitalists (it's fun believe me ;)), they always bring up the argument "prove communism works", and with my current level of knowledge all I can say back is "prove it doesn't work", but that is kinda contradictory seeing as when a religious person says "prove god doesn't exist" I lol at them...

Any ideas of how I can PROVE that Communism will work?

Personally, I've given up trying to prove that Utopia works. I'm more interested in demonstrating that capitalism is outmoded, does not work for the majority of people and must be overthrown in favor of economic democracy.

IOW, I will not discuss my politics in terms framed by the enemy.

[RedMarxist]

try explaining to skeptical friends/family that Cuba has better healthcare, a higher literacy rate, and much less poverty then the "Richest" Nation On Earth.

I HATE when people assume not only that "communism"(ITS SOCIALISM DAMMIT) failed, but that Stalin and Mao and others killed more people then Hitler, despite the fact that Hitler, if he won the war, would have killed way more people then ALL those communist leaders combined.

If Socialism is such a shitty system/communism can't work, then explain the Paris Commune, Barcelona etc. briefly delve into the history of those experiments to explain better the flaws in your friends' logic. explain how East Europe/USSR economies were somewhat better then many equal capitalist nations.

Explain how the Black Book of Communism lies.

[RGacky3]

but that Stalin and Mao and others killed more people then Hitler, despite the fact that Hitler, if he won the war, would have killed way more people then ALL those communist leaders combined.


How the hell is that an argument?

[Ingraham Effingham]

Any ideas of how I can PROVE that Communism will work?

Create a functioning, fully communist society.

[Napoleon Winston]

but that Stalin and Mao and others killed more people then Hitler, despite the fact that Hitler, if he won the war, would have killed way more people then ALL those communist leaders combined.

Not true, if Hitler had won the war, he would have brought back all the people he killed with his NAZI magic and deported them to a moon-base on flying dinosaurs where they could live for the rest of their life.


Lack of planning means that one is willing to leave a significant portion -- if not *all* of a project -- to the vicissitudes of chance and randomness. It's like walking out of your home without making up your mind where you want to go or what you want to do -- it *could* work, and *some* people may even improvise good experiences doing this kind of thing -- but we shouldn't be running the *whole world* this way.

Not at all, it just means that each individual plans for themselves.
Historically, it works fairly well.
And of course, it allows people freedom that isn't present in most other systems, which is why I support it.


I didn't imply that anything happens "magically" through use of the markets. What I *am* saying is that a market-based economy and society gives rise to social relations predicated on endless series of discrete exchanges over commodities, including labor power. We are far from "grabbing the reins" in a *conscious* collective way to organize the best use of the earth's resources for our biological, personal, and social needs.

Yes, but how do we collectively grab the reins? Will people have the right to what they produce? If not, who will? Why should I create something if everyone will take it away from me? What makes it any different from slavery?
How do we know some bureaucrat will know better than me what I should and shouldn't do?
What if said bureaucrat makes a mistake? In a capatalist society making a mistake means you starve, in a socialist one, it means everyone starves.

I support socialism and communism, but not on a world wide scale, and not when its achieved through violence.

[Kiev Communard]

And one of the main ideas behind it is that when there is demand, people will have incentive to meet that with a supply. Not that it will "magically" match up.

Except that this "main idea" ignores the simple fact that under capitalism the effective demand is generally lower than supply, thus leading to over-production crises.

[ckaihatsu]

And of course, it allows people freedom that isn't present in most other systems, which is why I support it.


I won't defend what the Russian Revolution had to become (Stalinism), due to coordinated Western foreign invasions right after 1917.

I also won't defend the U.S. empire, either then or now, any more than for the former U.S.S.R. -- both are / were decidedly *not* democratic, do / did *not* result from mass cumulative decision-making, and neither has / had industry in the hands of its working class.

'Freedom' should include the freedom to co-administrate the capital gains and industrial machinery derived from past labor efforts, free of interference from private ownership interests.





Not at all, it just means that each individual plans for themselves.


Yes, I won't deny that a certain individualism is enabled from the use of private property -- *but*, this kind of individualism is outmoded and obsolete. We have an improved method for accomplishing the same, in a way that would be better for labor, and for usage of assets and resources.





The most important difference with a socialized means of production would be that -- *outside* of whatever formalized system of labor-hour compensation might be enacted -- *no one* could *privately* lay claim to the available *surplus* from society's mass production.

So while there would no doubt be comprehensive administration over outstanding humane needs and available liberated labor that could be applied to fulfill such need, we could -- for the sake of argument -- envision a "surplus" of productive "excess" produced that escapes comprehensive administrative planning.

Normally, under capitalism's violence-enforced laws of private property, if an orchard happened to produce an excess of apples, that excess of unsold production would just be considered as part of the private orchard, and the orchard would probably just write it off as a financial loss.

With *socialized* production, however, a surplus of apples (or whatever), *not* required by those with first claim to it -- the liberated workers who served to bring them forth -- would be a surplus available to *anyone* -- anyone who should happen to want to consume apples (or whatever). The surplus could *not* be privatized, for the sake of ownership itself, because there would be no markets anymore, and the very method of market-based exchanges would be too *bothersome* a practice to bring back from history for it to be of any usefulness to a society that simply produced and distributed, en masse.

In this way *consumption* could be highly individualistic, but *production* would be very *socialized* since no one could make any *private* claims as to its functioning. (This is distinct from capitalism in which *costs* are socialized while benefits are *privatized*.)





Historically, it works fairly well.


But it's a *monopoly* situation -- people don't get to *vote* for their choice of economic system, so this point is moot.





Yes, but how do we collectively grab the reins? Will people have the right to what they produce? If not, who will? Why should I create something if everyone will take it away from me? What makes it any different from slavery?
How do we know some bureaucrat will know better than me what I should and shouldn't do?
What if said bureaucrat makes a mistake? In a capatalist society making a mistake means you starve, in a socialist one, it means everyone starves.

I support socialism and communism, but not on a world wide scale, and not when its achieved through violence.


You're referring to several *Stalinist* practices here. Not being one, I won't defend such practices, like elitist bureaucratic control, forced collectivization of labor output, and lack of worker control over production.

Socialism / communism, by definition, is only possible at a global scale -- otherwise its liberated-workers mode of production inevitably comes into conflict with the capitalist labor-commodifying one.


[8] communist economy diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/

[Baseball]

Socialism / communism, by definition, is only possible at a global scale -- otherwise its liberated-workers mode of production inevitably comes into conflict with the capitalist labor-commodifying one
http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/

While that is a nice goal, the reality remains that unless there is to be a simultaneous worldwide communist revolution, socialism/communism has to accept the above problem as given reality. Hiding behind slogans solves nothing. Blaming capitalism for socialism inability to solve their problem (and it is THEIR problem) is rather ridiculous. Socialism has to deal with the reality, not with the theory. And the reality is that socialism, in all its manifestations, is constantly routed by capitalism.

[Flying Trotsky]

Look, there are plenty of arguments you can use to support Communism, but I'm guessing you're looking for an example of Communism having worked in the past.

In this case, you need look no further than the Native Americans (or indeed, most primitive societies). Among Native Americans, private property did not exist, the state (as we'd understand it today) did not exist, and everyone used their talents to meet the needs of everyone else.

If primitive Communism worked, why wouldn't Communism in a modern day an age work just as well?

[Baseball]

Look, there are plenty of arguments you can use to support Communism, but I'm guessing you're looking for an example of Communism having worked in the past.

In this case, you need look no further than the Native Americans (or indeed, most primitive societies). Among Native Americans, private property did not exist, the state (as we'd understand it today) did not exist, and everyone used their talents to meet the needs of everyone else.

If primitive Communism worked, why wouldn't Communism in a modern day an age work just as well?


So socialism sees the world of Fred Flintstone, and not of George Jetson, as the great ideal?

[Nox]

So socialism sees the world of Fred Flintstone, and not of George Jetson, as the great ideal?

No Baseball. Now you're just being very blunt, did you even read what he posted?

[Baseball]

No Baseball. Now you're just being very blunt, did you even read what he posted?

Yes.

The stone age is the new ideal.

How does this square with the idea of "scientific" socialism?

[PolskiLenin]

Often when I am arguing with capitalists (it's fun believe me ;)), they always bring up the argument "prove communism works", and with my current level of knowledge all I can say back is "prove it doesn't work", but that is kinda contradictory seeing as when a religious person says "prove god doesn't exist" I lol at them...

Any ideas of how I can PROVE that Communism will work?
Hey,

If they throw the usual "prove it works" at you. Economically, bring up the years 1917 - 1920 in Russia. If you work out the math and examine Soviet surveys and records from the Commassariat of Food and Central Statistics Board, you'll find that public, nationalized (under the proletariat state) communist production was able to, in the 3 year time period) produce 3 times more grain for ten times less the cost than private capitalist production. I did the math myself, and if you email me, I can even send you the math, including the table and charts found in Lenin's Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Russia from the October Revolution to before the rise of Stalin's Kulak Bureaucracy in war torn Russia, is pretty much the best example for proving communism. Soviet Russia brought freedom and democracy to everybody, began the stabilization of a successful economic structure, and even defeated the U.S. and White Army invasion during the Russian Civil War. The only thing that actually caused Communism to fail was the extremely unique and peculiar characteristic of Russia's backwards situation. It was really only a one in a million chance that what happened to bring communism down, did.

[Tim Finnegan]

So socialism sees the world of Fred Flintstone, and not of George Jetson, as the great ideal?
The point was that human beings originally organised their societies in what is known as "primitive communism", a demonstration that communism can at the very least function at a tribal scale, not that the level of technology determines the social formation. That's primitivism, an ideology which is, much like your own, restricted on this board.

[Nox]

Yes.

The stone age is the new ideal.

How does this square with the idea of "scientific" socialism?

http://i.qkme.me/eb6.jpg

[Flying Trotsky]

Keep it civil comrade- just because Baseball misunderstood me doesn't mean you have to insult the guy...

[ckaihatsu]

If primitive Communism worked, why wouldn't Communism in a modern day an age work just as well?





So socialism sees the world of Fred Flintstone, and not of George Jetson, as the great ideal?


The underlying political point / argument of that statement is that we can't use "human nature" as any excuse for the modern-day excesses of capitalism. As long as we can show *some* point in historical time where human beings lived in a harmonious collectivist way, then we know it's *not* ruled out for any inherent / genetic / biological reasons. We are left only with the element of *social organization*, or economic and political society, as the cause for a society or civilization looking and behaving the way it does.

Technological developments can certainly *impact* daily life -- people have more access than ever before for learning about a variety of world cultures, thanks to our present-day technologies, for example -- but our technological "appendages" are still merely tools and do not substitute for our own kinds of social organization and aggregated decision-making.


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

http://postimage.org/image/1d4ldatxg/

[waspman]

Often when I am arguing with capitalists (it's fun believe me ;)), they always bring up the argument "prove communism works", and with my current level of knowledge all I can say back is "prove it doesn't work", but that is kinda contradictory seeing as when a religious person says "prove god doesn't exist" I lol at them...

Any ideas of how I can PROVE that Communism will work?

Simply point out the past and present countries that have used communism and show their quality of life and history of benevolence towards their people

[Nox]

Simply point out the past and present countries that have used communism and show their quality of life and history of benevolence towards their people

No country in the history of the world has even come close to Communism, in fact what I just said was an oxymoron seeing as a Communist society is stateless

[Nox]

Keep it civil comrade- just because Baseball misunderstood me doesn't mean you have to insult the guy...

Sorry comrade :(

I got annoyed at the fact that he wasn't taking in anything you/I said:crying:

[Flying Trotsky]

It's fine, we just (all) have to remember to stay cool.

[Nox]

It's fine, we just (all) have to remember to stay cool.

:cool:

Cool as a cucumber

[ComradeMan]

No country in the history of the world has even come close to Communism, in fact what I just said was an oxymoron seeing as a Communist society is stateless

Okay, then people on the left should drop their fetish with Mao, Stalin etc.

You can't have it every way. You can't claim that communism is positive citing examples from "Communist" regimes and then suddenly backtrack and say they weren't communist when the negative stuff comes up.

Not everyone on the left does this, but there are plenty of Stalin, Mao, N.Korea and Pol Pot fetishists around.

You see the problem?

[Nox]

Okay, then people on the left should drop their fetish with Mao, Stalin etc.

You can't have it every way. You can't claim that communism is positive citing examples from "Communist" regimes and then suddenly backtrack and say they weren't communist when the negative stuff comes up.

Not everyone on the left does this, but there are plenty of Stalin, Mao, N.Korea and Pol Pot fetishists around.

You see the problem?


Yes, that's what I need answers for, you can't use history as an example because there hasn't ever been a communist nation

[Thirsty Crow]

The proposition in iits entirety is absurd.
How could you prove that somethng which never existed "works"? And what does "work" here even mean" Does it imply "social stability and an effective management of production"?
But, most importantly, the process of providing proof, or evidence, in the scientific sense, cannot be applied to notions of an entire social organization which would take form once a radical transformation of relations of production, an ensuing wider social relations, takes place on a global scale.

Sure, you can point out certain things easily. You can point out that the productive potential would in communism ensure that not a single person goes hungry and homeless, you can point out that chldren being born in total destitution would be a matter of past, and you can sure as hell point out specific mechanisms of capital accumulation which will undoubtedly keep these phenomena occuring in our world.


Simply point out the past and present countries that have used communism and show their quality of life and history of benevolence towards their people
Communism isn't something to be "used", it isn't a set of policies handed down to the people by their benevolent representatives up high within the party-state apparatus.