[quote=@Kratesis]
You know, I'll be totally honest. I think communism [i]could [/i]work in the future. With automation and AI I think it's [i]possible[/i]. But I certainly wouldn't support it now. Communist regimes have killed too many people and the communists around the Guild talk about violence against their political enemies so much that it makes me feel violence is a feature of communism, not a bug. Plus there's the fact that communist economies often do so poorly people end up starving to death and I have to eat.

Even if communism is theoretically possible with some major advancements in technology I don't see any reason to risk being killed by an oppressive regime or starved by a failed economy. Nobody in this thread has even proposed answers to the failures of communism. 
[/quote]

Here lemme give you some piles of bullshit because its 4 AM and I'm an insomniac.

First off, communism has never been achieved. Tried? Yes. Achieved? Not even close, at least not since that one bastard went and figured out how to grow plants. Fuck that guy. He screwed it all up.

Communism isn't "Big government taxes everyone" or "Daddy Stalin owns you" or even "Free everything duuuuuuuuude", its dozens of different systems that all share the same heritage from Marxism and simply state that the workers should own the means of production. Most every state that has had the stated goal of achieving communism has at some point said "We'll have an intermediary stage between capitalism and total communist anarchy, and we'll channel the worker's power through an authoritarian government to avoid democracy fucking things up." and then someone inevitably comes along and fucks everything up (the USSR after WWII is a good example, since its system during the war was excusable since it was facing an existential threat and needed to function as a well-oiled machine, but the fact that it continued to operate as such after the war was fucking pathetic tbh).

China is the saddest example. Almost had a functioning vanguard after the inevitable crash-industrialization famine (combined with all the local leaders acting like it was still feudal times and reporting higher harvests to make the central government happy, resulting in all their people starving to death), then a big line of fuckheads comes along and makes it capitalist but still fairly authoritarian. Thanks Deng, you piece of shit.

The main problem is that communist revolutions usually tend towards authoritarianism as an intermediary stage, since its perceived as a more solid defense against capitalism. In reality, it's more like putting all your eggs in one basket. If the central government suddenly goes "you know, that whole 'letting the USA build sweatshops here' thing was pretty alright" then the party's over. Honestly, if the USSR had just structured its government after America's after WWII it probably would have avoided its slow descent back into capitalism.

As for violence, are you REALLY going to make an argument against an economic system by saying that it used violent revolution to come about? Would you be opposed to a revolution in, say, Iran? Do you support moderate rebels in Syria? Would you have sheltered minutemen during the American Revolution? Would you have supported the war effort in WWII? Or would you have written a witty opinion piece about Hitler missing a ball while he slaughters millions across Europe? Would you have turned revolutionaries into the British, knowing they'd get beaten and their information would be used to kill others?

Violence is not an inherent evil. You should know this by now. The only reason you see it as a valid argument against communism is because you see communism as bad and don't think you'd shoot someone else. Every political ideology has used violence to achieve its goals, as has every nation. Violence is necessary to defeat that which cannot be defeated through peaceful protest, which is a whole hell of a lot of things I can tell you that right now. 

"Communist" economics don't do poorly, the economic conditions communism appears in do poorly. China wasn't some nice happy land of plenty before Mao came along. Famines happened and people died. Russia wasn't full of fat people and McDonald's on every corner before Stalin came along, famines happened and people died. The famines in China and the USSR don't display the problems of communism, they display the problems the intermediary systems set up by both the PRC and USSR FIXED. Famines started to be seen less and less going further into the 20th century.

Honestly, these famines are just another example of how you're selective with where you apply arguments. I doubt you care about the 21,000 people that starve to death every day (7,665,000 or so a year) beyond liking facebook posts and maybe sending 20 bucks to some charity that takes 15 of them for itself. When 7 million people die under communism because of a famine, its a "failing of the system" and "proof it can't work". When 7 million die under capitalism it's just a fact of life, it's inevitable, there was no way around it.

We have enough food to feed everyone in the world. I'm sure you know that by now. And the problem ISN'T that "it's hard to transport", it's that our economic system prevents it from getting to where it's needed because it wouldn't be profitable to the people selling the food. And no, your 20 bucks a month isn't helping.