Current Events > Communism has killed 100 million people

(+) Yeah! (+)

100 million is too high. It was closer to 85 million. Regardless, that wasn't even true communism, which in addition to not killing people, wouldn't cause climate change the way capitalism has.

did I miss any ib4s?
---

gunplagirl posted...

WhinyZach posted...

no one sane advocates for communism

Stephen Hawking said we're going to drive our race extinct under capitalism

So have plenty of recent economists

And that's not just because of global climate change but because of the allocation of resources dwindling for all but the ultra rich

Capitalism necessarily devours itself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ" data-time="
---

I don't understand why people blame communism for all tangential outcomes while in the same breath saying that any tangential outcome of capitalism doesn't count unless it's positive.

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't understand why people blame communism for all tangential outcomes while in the same breath saying that any tangential outcome of capitalism doesn't count unless it's positive.

It's not really tangental when every time the system is implemented millions die to genocides and starvation.

This is your typical communist leader: https://archive.is/legXg

This is the result:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XWieVWwPzE" data-time="
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

Irregardless posted...

Natural causes has killed even more.

Ban nature

Approximately 100 000 000 000 people have died due to the terminal condition of having been alive.

Birth: The leading cause of death

Our course of action is clear
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't understand why people blame communism for all tangential outcomes while in the same breath saying that any tangential outcome of capitalism doesn't count unless it's positive.

It's Proudclad logic. He'll eagerly attribute scientific and economic progress to capitalism but the climate change and Holocene mass extinction don't count.

> capitalism devours itself!

> we need a violent revolution to end capitalism!

*meanwhile global poverty is on a rapid decline, agricultural yields increased while required land-mass decreased, renewables and electric vehicles are going to take over, and people are happier than ever*

https://imgur.com/lRumtVm
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't understand why people blame communism for all tangential outcomes while in the same breath saying that any tangential outcome of capitalism doesn't count unless it's positive.

It's not really tangental when every time the system is implemented millions die to genocides and starvation.

It is tangential because things don't happen in a vaccuum. Recognizing the futility of implementing a communist system is different from understanding the moving parts that lead to tragedy.

Rexdragon125 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't understand why people blame communism for all tangential outcomes while in the same breath saying that any tangential outcome of capitalism doesn't count unless it's positive.

It's Proudclad logic. He'll eagerly attribute scientific and economic progress to capitalism but the climate change and Holocene mass extinction don't count.

It is literally not any economic system's fault that fossil fuels were the first type of fuel that caught on. No one at the time would've known the outcome of using fossil fuels. Even socialist governments used fossil fuels heavily. Switching over to renewables is a recent development. And it's thanks to the market that electricity and other renewables are the cheapest forms of new electricity even without subsidies.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

have you read the section labelled "criticism" on that page? because the black book of communism is pretty widely known to be badly researched
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't understand why people blame communism for all tangential outcomes while in the same breath saying that any tangential outcome of capitalism doesn't count unless it's positive.

It's not really tangental when every time the system is implemented millions die to genocides and starvation.

This is your typical communist leader: https://archive.is/legXg

People were starving in Russia and China before communism because the economies were shitty already before communism. The genocide part is inexcusable, but that's what fascism and totalitarianism does.

Then there's Yugoslavian communism which had neither mass starvation or genocide, but it did have a lot of authoritarian bullshit.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Rimmer_Dall posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't understand why people blame communism for all tangential outcomes while in the same breath saying that any tangential outcome of capitalism doesn't count unless it's positive.

It's not really tangental when every time the system is implemented millions die to genocides and starvation.

It is tangential because things don't happen in a vaccuum. Recognizing the futility of implementing a communist system is different from understanding the moving parts that lead to tragedy.

Violence and dictatorship and compulsion are core aspects of Marxism. Marx himself admitted as much - that there needs to be a violent revolution, that the "workers" will comprise the new governing body, and that anyone who does not want to comply must be dealt with via violence, threats of violence, etc.

So it is not tangential to say that Marxism causes economic collapse. It necessarily causes economic collapse because it's designed to do that much.
---

Kineth posted...

People were starving in Russia and China before communism because the economies were shitty already before communism. The genocide part is inexcusable, but that's what fascism and totalitarianism does.

The reason so many people starved is because they seized the means of production and people stopped producing food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
---

averagejoel posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

have you read the section labelled "criticism" on that page? because the black book of communism is pretty widely known to be badly researched

No it is not. A few aspects of it are disputed, like whether or not the author was overly generous with his estimations so that he could reach a whole 100 million rather than a figure like 90 million, but even the co-authors who disputed that portion of the book agreed with the over-all text.

The only people pretending that it's "badly researched" are the Marxists that are afraid of the information in the book and want to damage control against anyone reading it.
---

But here's the thing. People seem to widely recognize that Communism as it's stated in the Manifesto is a very liberal and decentralized take on the economy. The reason that people say that Soviet Russia and CCP China weren't communist is because they were very authoritarian and centrally planned. It's why people question the knowledge of those who are still quoting McCarthyism.

I mean, for fuck's sake, at least McCarthy was accurate about calling them godless.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

gunplagirl posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

thronedfire2 posted...

didn't poverty kill them?

It was a combination of poverty, starvation, and outright killing of people who didn't want to be part of the communist State.

Funny you ignore starvation death rates in capitalist countries or all of those people killed over economic (resource) acquisition. Striking workers getting killed by the police? All the people killed over oil. Banana republics being propped up by *le gasp* Western interests.

The difference is that under capitalism, the vast majority of people don't starve. Whereas under socialism or communism everyone starves once the rationing systems fail. See: Soviet Union, Venezuela, Romania, etc.

We have a massive surplus of food in America thanks to capitalism. So much that we end up throwing food away because our supply chains and logistics technologies are still primitive due to how fast the globe developed. That'll be solved eventually too.

When the workers "seize the means of production" there's no food for anyone.

We waste food and throw away food while the farmers in the country the plants originated from can't afford them. We also pay farmers in the US to underproduce crops, dairy, etc and fine people who produce too much.

We let people starve and not because there's a lack of resources but because our premise for doing so is based upon if we can profit or not, in spite of the ability to do so. For less than the net worth of Jeff Bezos 5 years ago, we could end world hunger by fulfilling that monetary expectation for businesses.

But hey, I know you're like a broken record and will keep repeating the same contrived bull shit lies about capitalism raising people out of poverty while ignoring that most Americans are one medical emergency away from financial ruin. Oh, but somehow plenty of third world nations have found some way to try and provide medical care to everyone in their nation. Again, it isn't because we lack the supplies to do so but because of the economic interests. It's more profitable to keep treating the same sick person instead of curing them. It's also more profitable to raise the cost of insulin to such a high amount that the profits the manufacturers would make in the few years before the diabetic patient dies from lack of insulin will equal the profits they'd have made simply increasing the prices at the standard market rate of inflation.
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

Kineth posted...

People were starving in Russia and China before communism because the economies were shitty already before communism. The genocide part is inexcusable, but that's what fascism and totalitarianism does.

The reason so many people starved is because they seized the means of production and people stopped producing food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

Yep. And genocide, aka killing people who are financially successful or not compliant, literally is a part of what Karl Marx wrote. The Communist Manifesto is not a long read and it's in there.
---

Kineth posted...

People were starving in Russia and China before communism because the economies were shitty already before communism. The genocide part is inexcusable, but that's what fascism and totalitarianism does.

what genocide are people even talking about here? the only one I've seen mentioned in this topic was the holocaust, which was stopped by communists
---

Marx is not the end-all-be-all of communist ideology, and the fact that so much of his ideas stem from resistance to the status quo is exactly what I mean when I say that things don't happen in a vacuum. But that doesn't mean that every communist must inherently desire a violent revolution.

Rimmer_Dall posted...

Kineth posted...

People were starving in Russia and China before communism because the economies were shitty already before communism. The genocide part is inexcusable, but that's what fascism and totalitarianism does.

The reason so many people starved is because they seized the means of production and people stopped producing food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

Are you sure it wasn't the flooding in the early 1900s that were fucking up all the Chinese farmland and thus creating a lot of starvation? You know.. the stuff that Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao were using as calls for revolution? Never read The Good Earth?
---

averagejoel posted...

Kineth posted...

People were starving in Russia and China before communism because the economies were shitty already before communism. The genocide part is inexcusable, but that's what fascism and totalitarianism does.

what genocide are people even talking about here? the only one I've seen mentioned in this topic was the holocaust, which was stopped by communists

I suppose you're right that it's incorrect terminology. Massive slaughters would be the right label I guess?
---

Kineth posted...

The reason that people say that Soviet Russia and CCP China weren't communist is because they were very authoritarian and centrally planned.

Uh no, they say that they weren't communist because they want to damage control. It's not a good look if a communist's worldview is put into practice in the Soviet Union or in China and things just end up collapsing into cannibalism and starvation and death. So they damage control.

Both governing bodies were very clear in what vision for society they were pursuing. It was Marx's vision, where the workers own the means of production and profit is prohibited and private property is prohibited.

The workers seized the means of production, killed the "bourgeoisie" and imprisoned the ones they didn't kill, and then they became the new dictatorship that Marx wrote about. And that dictatorship directed the economy how it saw fit so that no one would profit, no one would own anything, etc.

And of course there's a lot more nuance to it than what can fit in a single post, but they undeniably were definitely moving towards communism.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Marx is not the end-all-be-all of communist ideology, and the fact that so much of his ideas stem from resistance to the status quo is exactly what I mean when I say that things don't happen in a vacuum. But that doesn't mean that every communist must inherently desire a violent revolution.

There are some Marxists who don't think the revolution has to be violent, citing how Marx and Engels eventually admitted they were wrong about that (some 25 years after they published the Manifesto). But those are far and few. Most Marxists don't even know that there is such a thing as a non-violent revolution.
---

Kineth posted...

Are you sure it wasn't the flooding in the early 1900s that were fucking up all the Chinese farmland and thus creating a lot of starvation? You know.. the stuff that Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao were using as calls for revolution? Never read The Good Earth?

Am I sure events that occurred at the start of the century didn't cause the events that occurred in the 60s when Mao told all his farmers to stop farming and create shitty iron instead? Are you seriously asking that?
---

Kineth posted...

averagejoel posted...

Kineth posted...

People were starving in Russia and China before communism because the economies were shitty already before communism. The genocide part is inexcusable, but that's what fascism and totalitarianism does.

what genocide are people even talking about here? the only one I've seen mentioned in this topic was the holocaust, which was stopped by communists

I suppose you're right that it's incorrect terminology. Massive slaughters would be the right label I guess?

I still don't know what you're talking about
---

gunplagirl posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

gunplagirl posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

thronedfire2 posted...

didn't poverty kill them?

It was a combination of poverty, starvation, and outright killing of people who didn't want to be part of the communist State.

Funny you ignore starvation death rates in capitalist countries or all of those people killed over economic (resource) acquisition. Striking workers getting killed by the police? All the people killed over oil. Banana republics being propped up by *le gasp* Western interests.

The difference is that under capitalism, the vast majority of people don't starve. Whereas under socialism or communism everyone starves once the rationing systems fail. See: Soviet Union, Venezuela, Romania, etc.

We have a massive surplus of food in America thanks to capitalism. So much that we end up throwing food away because our supply chains and logistics technologies are still primitive due to how fast the globe developed. That'll be solved eventually too.

When the workers "seize the means of production" there's no food for anyone.

We waste food and throw away food while the farmers in the country the plants originated from can't afford them. We also pay farmers in the US to underproduce crops, dairy, etc and fine people who produce too much.

We let people starve and not because there's a lack of resources but because our premise for doing so is based upon if we can profit or not, in spite of the ability to do so. For less than the net worth of Jeff Bezos 5 years ago, we could end world hunger by fulfilling that monetary expectation for businesses.

But hey, I know you're like a broken record and will keep repeating the same contrived bull shit lies about capitalism raising people out of poverty while ignoring that most Americans are one medical emergency away from financial ruin. Oh, but somehow plenty of third world nations have found some way to try and provide medical care to everyone in their nation. Again, it isn't because we lack the supplies to do so but because of the economic interests. It's more profitable to keep treating the same sick person instead of curing them. It's also more profitable to raise the cost of insulin to such a high amount that the profits the manufacturers would make in the few years before the diabetic patient dies from lack of insulin will equal the profits they'd have made simply increasing the prices at the standard market rate of inflation.

Most Americans, including the ones who make six figures, have no savings because they don't feel like they need the savings. "I'll just find another job." Etc. We have a spending problem, not an income problem. Someone not saving money for emergencies is a problem, but the root cause is a lack of discipline and an obsession with spending.

The rest of your post was a bunch of borderline conspiracy-theories that looked at government over-regulation like with insulin and farming subsidies and somehow blamed capitalism for those things, even though those are consequences of what happens when there's too much red tape for new medicines to enter the market, too much government meddling in farming, etc.

There is no capitalism if monopolies are able to do away with the proper dynamic between supply and demand.

Btw communism solves none of those problems you mentioned, so not sure why you're attacking capitalism as if your worldview would do those better. Everything would be worse under communism.
---

Anytime there are topics like this there are lots of assertions made without evidence. Now part of this is a lack of available data from countries who didn't report how bad things are, but I rarely see anything but the estimates in the Black Book of Communism cited.

People also frequently throw around death counts with no regards to the populations of the countries. Pol Pot killed fewer people than Hitler, but killed 25% of his population. A famine that hits China kills far more people than a famine that hits Ireland, even if proportionately the famine in Ireland is worse.

And since we're attributing most of the communist deaths to causes that ARE proportional like living conditions, the result we get should be expected.
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

uhh p sure hitler murdered at least 11 million not to mention everyone that died in ww2 was because of him warmongering and starting the war

Stalin's Holodomor started in 1932. Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.

that doesnt have anything to do with the holocaust or ww2

It is weird to blame all the deaths in WWII on Hitler when Stalin and other Axis powers had already started genociding people before the war started. Unless you feel the people they killed during the war should be credited to Hitler because they happened during the war.

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

no one said stalin and his ilk didnt murder people but hitler initiated ww2 so obviously he is the most responsible for all those that died during that war
---

averagejoel posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

have you read the section labelled "criticism" on that page? because the black book of communism is pretty widely known to be badly researched

You mean just like communism itself?

Oh snap!
---

Anteaterking posted...

Anytime there are topics like this there are lots of assertions made without evidence. Now part of this is a lack of available data from countries who didn't report how bad things are, but I rarely see anything but the estimates in the Black Book of Communism cited.

That book is a collection of evidence. Hence why it's an easy citation to make. I also recommend Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. The abridged version is sufficient but the full three-volume set is much more in-depth.
---

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.

You're on CE. There are several people in this very topic who have openly posted that they believe in a violent revolution where the financially successful and non-compliant are executed.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.

You're on CE. There are several people in this very topic who have openly posted that they believe in a violent revolution where the financially successful and non-compliant are executed.

Oh look Proudclad making things up about other users.
---

also, communism is objectively evil but somehow not as evil as fascism. it isnt hard to call a spade a spade, constantly deflecting from the atrocities of literal hitler is p despicable though
---

andel posted...

also, communism is objectively evil but somehow not as evil as fascism. it isnt hard to call a spade a spade, constantly deflecting from the atrocities of literal hitler is p despicable though

They're both horrific. We don't even need to play the Oppression Olympics in order to say one is worse. We can just leave it at that.
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.

nah, communism sucks but you are doing your best to try and make fascism seem not that bad. those of us without an agenda can easily call out evil for what it is
---

Anteaterking posted...

Anytime there are topics like this there are lots of assertions made without evidence. Now part of this is a lack of available data from countries who didn't report how bad things are, but I rarely see anything but the estimates in the Black Book of Communism cited.

admittedly I don't know much about China, but records from the soviet union are readily available.

there's a great book about it called Fraud, Famine and Fascism by Douglas Tottle. a lot of it is about the famine in the Ukraine often called the "Holodomor", but it addresses many of the issues that are being parroted in this topic
---

andel posted...

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.

nah, communism sucks but you are doing your best to try and make fascism seem not that bad. those of us without an agenda can easily call out evil for what it is

No he's not. He already explained his perspective. In this topic there are literal communists defending communism. On all of CE I think I've seen one or two fascists and they had the neo Nazi number in their username leading me to believe they were troll or fake accounts.

Hence why he isn't going to qualify every single damn post with caveats about fascism.
---

The only good commie is a ____ commie.
---

averagejoel posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Anytime there are topics like this there are lots of assertions made without evidence. Now part of this is a lack of available data from countries who didn't report how bad things are, but I rarely see anything but the estimates in the Black Book of Communism cited.

admittedly I don't know much about China, but records from the soviet union are readily available.

there's a great book about it called Fraud, Famine and Fascism by Douglas Tottle. a lot of it is about the famine in the Ukraine often called the "Holodomor", but it addresses many of the issues that are being parroted in this topic

Tottle's critics regard him as a "Soviet apologist",[3] or a "denunciator" of the famine.[4] Tottle has been defended by the Stalin Society, author Jeff Coplon, the Swedish Communist Party, which insists that his book is a solid piece of historical research that exposed the "myth of the famine-genocide ... once and for all".[5]

lmfao but of course
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

andel posted...

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.

nah, communism sucks but you are doing your best to try and make fascism seem not that bad. those of us without an agenda can easily call out evil for what it is

No he's not. He already explained his perspective. In this topic there are literal communists defending communism. On all of CE I think I've seen one or two fascists and they had the neo Nazi number in their username leading me to believe they were troll or fake accounts.

Hence why he isn't going to qualify every single damn post with caveats about fascism.

there was a guy in a topic last week who openly embraced being a fascist. those people exist here and there are many lurking on the internet
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

andel posted...

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.

nah, communism sucks but you are doing your best to try and make fascism seem not that bad. those of us without an agenda can easily call out evil for what it is

No he's not. He already explained his perspective. In this topic there are literal communists defending communism. On all of CE I think I've seen one or two fascists and they had the neo Nazi number in their username leading me to believe they were troll or fake accounts.

Hence why he isn't going to qualify every single damn post with caveats about fascism.

uhh he has constantly deflected from hitler and fascism itt
---

andel posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

andel posted...

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.

nah, communism sucks but you are doing your best to try and make fascism seem not that bad. those of us without an agenda can easily call out evil for what it is

No he's not. He already explained his perspective. In this topic there are literal communists defending communism. On all of CE I think I've seen one or two fascists and they had the neo Nazi number in their username leading me to believe they were troll or fake accounts.

Hence why he isn't going to qualify every single damn post with caveats about fascism.

there was a guy in a topic last week who openly embraced being a fascist. those people exist here and there are many lurking on the internet

Proudclad is on a witch hunt for communist. He's off flaming people who he suspects to be communist, not that him believing they are communist makes them communist.
---

andel posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

andel posted...

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.

nah, communism sucks but you are doing your best to try and make fascism seem not that bad. those of us without an agenda can easily call out evil for what it is

No he's not. He already explained his perspective. In this topic there are literal communists defending communism. On all of CE I think I've seen one or two fascists and they had the neo Nazi number in their username leading me to believe they were troll or fake accounts.

Hence why he isn't going to qualify every single damn post with caveats about fascism.

there was a guy in a topic last week who openly embraced being a fascist. those people exist here and there are many lurking on the internet

I'm sure they do, but here on gamefaqs they are far and few. Whereas here on CE they are far outnumbered by Marxists including actual communists who have posted support for a violent revolution where people are executed in the streets in broad daylight.
---

andel posted...

uhh he has constantly deflected from hitler and fascism itt

No. Read through the topic. I'm not the one here outright denying genocides.

While I do think Communism is worse than Nazism, it's because of the kill count and the fact that people still insist on trying it over and over and over again. Not because I think Nazis are less evil than Communists. I have friends who grew up in Communist dictatorships who have told me stories about how they were indoctrinated in class, had giant speakers on street corners spewing Communist propaganda 24/7 and how people who criticized the regimes tended to disappear. And yet it is still considered socially acceptable to be a Communist, when obviously it is not socially acceptable to be a Nazi.
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

uhh he has constantly deflected from hitler and fascism itt

No. Read through the topic. I'm not the one here outright denying genocides.

While I do think Communism is worse than Nazism, it's because of the kill count and the fact that people still insist on trying it over and over and over again. Not because I think Nazis are less evil than Communists. I have friends who grew up in Communist dictatorships who have told me stories about how they were indoctrinated in class, had giant speakers on street corners spewing Communist propaganda 24/7 and how people who criticized the regimes tended to disappear. And yet it is still considered socially acceptable to be a Communist, when obviously it is not socially acceptable to be a Nazi.

It's socially acceptable to be a Communist because of the amount of indoctrination happening in the education system. The hippie generation was a scourge on many young impressionable minds.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It's socially acceptable to be a Communist because of the amount of indoctrination happening in the education system. The hippie generation was a scourge on many young impressionable minds.

It's socially acceptable to be a Communist because the Soviet Union was part of the Allied powers at the end of the war.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

andel posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

andel posted...

Rimmer_Dall posted...

andel posted...

why do you people always deflect from hitler being evil to muh stalin?

Because for some insane reason being a Communist is considered a good thing.

nah, communism sucks but you are doing your best to try and make fascism seem not that bad. those of us without an agenda can easily call out evil for what it is

No he's not. He already explained his perspective. In this topic there are literal communists defending communism. On all of CE I think I've seen one or two fascists and they had the neo Nazi number in their username leading me to believe they were troll or fake accounts.

Hence why he isn't going to qualify every single damn post with caveats about fascism.

there was a guy in a topic last week who openly embraced being a fascist. those people exist here and there are many lurking on the internet

Proudclad is on a witch hunt for communist. He's off flaming people who he suspects to be communist, not that him believing they are communist makes them communist.

No offense man but averagejoel and gunplagirl are pretty open communists. Topics like these are just low energy controversy, but theyre by no means whatsoever witch hunts.
---

You can't have true communism irl because it's impossible to accurately measure the demand and potential of every citizen, and it's difficult to have an unselfish governing system that will adhere to what communism would originally set out do. It's obviously an idealistic frame of mind that makes sense in theory but is impossible to execute without absolute information. And it doesn't take into account what people would feel on predetermination, where even if one advice would outweigh one's ideals, the ideals outweigh the ideal, if that makes sense.
---