Discussion Thoughts on Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism? [Megathread]

[YourNeighbor]

Yeah l don't get what that link is meant tell me, l mean you're communicating with me as if l have absolutely no idea of Jeremy Corbyn's views or his history, l know (and share) his personal views on NATO and yet his two manifestos made zero mention of withdrawal and were committed to membership. This has little to do with disbanding NATO as you stated above and I'm unsure as to how he can be described as soft towards Putin when he's one of a tiny handful of UK parliamentarians who have been consistently critical of the Putin regime, it certainly wasn't Jeremy Corbyn who received millions in donations from oligarchs and allowed them to buy seats in the House of Lords. I get that you don't like Jeremy Corbyn but this isn't the first time you've used the generic and lazy lib-brained criticisms which are actually pretty flimsy upon inspection and whilst I'm absolutely fine with you stating your preference for the Pragmatic Sensible Moderate Centre it does kind of grate when it's assumed that l need educating about the history of democratic socialism in the UK from the perspective of US liberal punditry.

You compared Sanders and Corbyn. I pointed out they're not the same, and that Corbyn pushed hare-brained views on disbanding NATO. You responded that that is drivel. I replied with direct quotes from Corbyn showing he espoused that supposed drivel, consistently and repeatedly. Now you're mad because you knew Corbyn was wacky on NATO all along and you support the wackiness, and that quoting Corbyn's garbage is liberal punditry? Or is his idiocy just too much to be confronted with? And why dissemble as if Corbyn is a stalwart on NATO and its obligations?

No need to respond, I get that this is a matter of religious faith and not empirics or logic.

 

[Chinaski]

You compared Sanders and Corbyn. I pointed out they're not the same, and that Corbyn pushed hare-brained views on disbanding NATO. You responded that that is drivel. I replied with direct quotes from Corbyn showing he espoused that supposed drivel, consistently and repeatedly. Now you're mad because you knew Corbyn was wacky on NATO all along and you support the wackiness, and that quoting Corbyn's garbage is liberal punditry? Or is his idiocy just too much to be confronted with? And why dissemble as if Corbyn is a stalwart on NATO and its obligations?

No need to respond, I get that this is a matter of religious faith and not empirics or logic.

You've literally faved a dipshit post in this thread suggesting twitter communists should take responsibility for the failure of Bernie Sanders punt for presidency whilst completely disregarding the fact that his campaign was strongly curtailed from within and he was not exactly given favourable press, l mean l know West Wing Box Set types can't get enough of punching left but ffs get real.

You're also falsely representing your own posts here, and my views on Corbyn are quite clear and l don't need them to be falsely ventriloquised from soneone so far away from understanding the Corbyn leadership he thinks Corbyn lost the election by not stopping Brexit, which is the least accurate assessment of the entire period that it's possible to arrive at.

Yes Corbyn is not a fan of NATO,the point remains withdrawal was never policy and the manifesto content made this clear. Something he said as a backbencher in 1991 is irrelevant, he is also a republican but never pledged to behead the Queen in either manifesto. I compared Corbyn with Sanders because there are clear similarities - they were left wing candidates who represented a challenge, an electoral threat, to the political establishment. Now you're saying this is false based entirely on some third hand American punditry. I was not an armchair observer of the Corbyn leadership, l actively participated to a significant degree, and everything you've said on it is pure bollocks.

 

[TotallyIsolated]

I was a supporter of Corbyn for a long time, I voted for him every chance I got, and I still believe he would have made a good PM, but his comments on NATO and the conflict in Ukraine are unacceptable.

To be fair to @Chinaski I think part of Corbyn's platform was that there was room for disagreement. I'm trying to politely say that he is a bit of a contrarian, which I respect a great deal. I do see value in advocating for peace. War *is* purely destructive, and NATO is undeniably a remnant of the cold war. Its just that, its also still necessary because the bloody Russians can't be trusted.

I think that Euromaidan and the invasion of Ukraine have shown the ultimate failure of oligarchy and that European-style progressive social-democracy is the way forward, not just for Ukraine but for all of us.

 

[Chinaski]

Well NATO is not great frankly and anyone giving it full-throated stanning at any given time is to be looked at with suspicion, it's absolutely impossible to expect a socialist of honesty, integrity, courage and principle to be as slavishly uncritical of USA imperialism as the Sensible Pragmatic Moderates are. As for his quotes which you find beyond the pale I'd love to know what they are because throughout the Corbyn years there was shrill white noise along the lines of "I'm as left wing as they come, but corbyn refusing to fuck the flag on live TV makes it impossible for me to vote for him" kind of shit every time he so much as farted and this was usually from people who didn't want to be seen as supporting something so unpalatable among their peer group. To reiterate, in the last election Corbyn was the only candidate to have been consistently critical of Putin and to have not received financial backing from the oligarchy but hey, if empty macho posturing is preferable to integrity and principle there's not much l can say really.

 

[YourNeighbor]

You've literally faved a dipshit post in this thread suggesting twitter communists should take responsibility for the failure of Bernie Sanders punt for presidency whilst completely disregarding the fact that his campaign was strongly curtailed from within and he was not exactly given favourable press,

You're so emotionally wound up on this topic you're becoming unhinged. I didn't "fave" any such post. No such post exists on this thread. Bernie's press, by the way, was not at all unfavorable in the states except for the far right propagandists, who these days in any event call everyone who doesn't want a nationalist dictatorship Marxist. Bernie is a likeable guy, and he was covered pretty favorably.

l mean l know West Wing Box Set types can't get enough of punching left but ffs get real.

Not sure if you're writing English here.

You're also falsely representing your own posts here, and my views on Corbyn are quite clear and l don't need them to be falsely ventriloquised from soneone so far away from understanding the Corbyn leadership he thinks Corbyn lost the election by not stopping Brexit, which is the least accurate assessment of the entire period that it's possible to arrive at.

Never wrote that Corbyn would have won had he campaigned on an anti-Brexit platform, though he would have had a better shot. Only pointed out that his failure to campaign against Brexit (and his past consistent opposition to NATO) showed Corbyn to be woefully uninformed about basic economics and international relations. He's an ideologue. Smart policy does not derive from faith. I stated that Labour had to try hard to find a leader more ridiculous than BoJo and that such a clown could beat, and they succeeded.

Yes Corbyn is not a fan of NATO,the point remains withdrawal was never policy and the manifesto content made this clear. Something he said as a backbencher in 1991 is irrelevant,

You're dissembling again. Corbyn spouted garbage on NATO from the 90s on through the early 2010s. Don't take my word it, it's all on video and other quotes at the link I shared above.

he is also a republican but never pledged to behead the Queen in either manifesto. I compared Corbyn with Sanders because there are clear similarities - they were left wing candidates who represented a challenge, an electoral threat, to the political establishment.

Not sure how closely you follow American politics, but the challenge to the American political establishment in 2020 was (and remains) from the neo-fascist right, not Bernie. Bernie respects constitutional norms.

Now you're saying this is false based entirely on some third hand American punditry.

You write in a code only you understand. I guess that's one way to make your claims unfalsifiable. Kudos.

I was not an armchair observer of the Corbyn leadership, l actively participated to a significant degree,

I get it. You have a personal emotional investment in Corbyn, and your views of him are based on faith. That's fine.

and everything you've said on it is pure bollocks.

Except for the point re Corbyn being a threat (not because of his bloodlust but rather ignorance, lest you mischaracterize my posts again--I'm sure he's a sweet guy) to long term peace in Europe and supporting a destructive economic path for the UK.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming that NATO has been a tremendous source for peace within the bloc and in Europe, and that the EU has driven tremendous economic growth in Europe, and supported peace and democratic institutions as well. You want to rail against those institutions on ideological grounds, fine, everyone is obviously free to base their politics on religious fervor. It's all the rage these days, if you'll pardon the pun.

 

[Chinaski]

I'm not reading any of that impermeable wall after the offensive first sentence (no gaslighting please), it's already been made clear that you know absolutely fuck all about the Corbyn period beyond the generic half-baked fag packet analysis you've picked up from liberal columnists and so there's little reason to read further but l will state here that it's an absolute insult to the intelligence of anyone who was involved in the Corbyn project to have American Sensible Centrists make absolutely inaccurate, provably wrong claims about what the project represented in that patronising way. You've overreached here, l appreciate it's not uncommon for the liberal centre to huff their own farts as they try and pass regurgitated groupthink as Premium Politicks Understanderer but there is literally fucking nothing about the Corbyn project you can educate the British left on.

 

[CowsAreCool]

Capitalism is simply the way the world works. Privileged upper middle class americans can complain about how the world isn't fair all they want (thats the demographic of basically all "socialists"). They can regulate, redistribute welath, and oppress people. At the end of the day, those who work hard succeed, and those who dont wont. Hierarchies will always exist.

Capitalism isnt a choice. It just is

 

[YourNeighbor]

... l will state here that it's an absolute insult...but there is literally fucking nothing about the Corbyn project you can educate the British left on.

Don't take it personally.

Re educating the "British left," it's obvious that anyone still infatuated with the "Corbyn project" (wtf kind of cultish term is that lol) is not going to be educated by anyone, not even the British voter.

Corbyn was drubbed by someone as ridiculous as Johnson, and still Corbyn's true believers gaslight Corbyn's extensive history and prattle on as if he's a policy genius. It's a project in mass delusion. Good luck with it.

 

[TotallyIsolated]

At the end of the day, those who work hard succeed, and those who dont wont.

This is demonstrably untrue. If anything there is a negative correlation between how hard someone works and how "successful" they are. Wealth and power are mostly inherited, not earned. Those who accrue wealth do so by corruption and a willingness to exploit others - thats why psychopaths are hired as CEOs. One can't become a billionaire by rolling up one's sleeves and putting in the extra hours.

On a wider note, I dont think its fair to call our current system capitalism. We don't truly practice capitalism, because those with power and wealth cheat. This is the mistake Marx made; to assume that capitalists would play by their own rules. For a start, markets must be regulated, which means they can never be truly free to begin with. Furthermore, laissez-faire is only applied to the poorest in society, but the wealthy are given lease to fail without consequence. Its not uncommon for large corporations to pay less tax than their workers, and enormous taxpayer-funded subsidies and bailouts are paid to car makers, airlines, and banks just to name a few.

What we have is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

 

[YourNeighbor]

On a wider note, I dont think its fair to call our current system capitalism. We don't truly practice capitalism, because those with power and wealth cheat. This is the mistake Marx made; to assume that capitalists would play by their own rules.

Agreed with pretty much everything you wrote, but to be fair to Marx, he accurately pointed out that those with capital will use it to control political power absent safeguards.

On this point though, he wasn't original (Adam Smith pointed out as much). It's really Marx's prescriptions that were the most problematic parts of his reasonings.

On a broader note, we should all recognize the absurdity of debating desirable economic and political systems based on the conceptions of theoreticians from the 1800s and before. We have access to almost two centuries of more data, and almost a century of the scientific study of economics and politics that was not used then. We have far more information at our disposal now than ever before. Smith and Marx make for good history lessons, not much else.

Anyone who takes a position on economics/politics based on centuries-old philosophies, as opposed to years worth of scientific study and objective evidence, is as silly as someone who would explain physics, biology, astronomy, or medicine today by relying on the state of knowledge from the 1800s.

 

[Krieger]

I hate all three haha
Although I like a select few socialist policies

 

[motel rooms]

At the end of the day, those who work hard succeed, and those who dont wont.

JFC...

 

[Foresight]

I don't know jackshit about economics but I find I usually would rather hang out with a commie than a capitalist.

 

[Chinaski]

Don't take it personally.

Re educating the "British left," it's obvious that anyone still infatuated with the "Corbyn project" (wtf kind of cultish term is that lol) is not going to be educated by anyone, not even the British voter.

Corbyn was drubbed by someone as ridiculous as Johnson, and still Corbyn's true believers gaslight Corbyn's extensive history and prattle on as if he's a policy genius. It's a project in mass delusion. Good luck with it.

As someone who has spent nearly two decades within the UK trade union and Labour movement l will take umbrage whenever an American liberal starts giving me the lowdown on it from a purely NATO AND ALSO BREXIT perspective. Corbyn was elected as party leader *because* of his history, not in spite of it, please consider the distinct possibility that you have an obviously very limited understanding of what went down and how it played out.

 

[CowsAreCool]

This is demonstrably untrue. If anything there is a negative correlation between how hard someone works and how "successful" they are. Wealth and power are mostly inherited, not earned. Those who accrue wealth do so by corruption and a willingness to exploit others - thats why psychopaths are hired as CEOs. One can't become a billionaire by rolling up one's sleeves and putting in the extra hours.

On a wider note, I dont think its fair to call our current system capitalism. We don't truly practice capitalism, because those with power and wealth cheat. This is the mistake Marx made; to assume that capitalists would play by their own rules. For a start, markets must be regulated, which means they can never be truly free to begin with. Furthermore, laissez-faire is only applied to the poorest in society, but the wealthy are given lease to fail without consequence. Its not uncommon for large corporations to pay less tax than their workers, and enormous taxpayer-funded subsidies and bailouts are paid to car makers, airlines, and banks just to name a few.

What we have is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

It is further stratified by intelligence. People who are dumb can work tooth and nail and be less successful than MIT-Grad hedge fund managers who work one day a week.

My point is hierarchies are natural because inequality is natural. Some people are smart. Some are dumb. Some are motivated, some arent. Some are competitive, some are passive. Some have parents with those traits, and inheret that wealth. Some don't.

Sure, some wealth is inherited. Time corrects that. Did you know nearly 12% of Americans enter the top 1% at some point in their life? Wealth inequality exists, but wealth mobility is also extreme. The 1% changes, frequently.

Also, "markets must be regulated". No. They most certainly do not. Regulation is how the monopilies in our country came to be. Bribing the government for beneficial regulations against opponents. Thats the basis of our pharmeceutical monopolies through the FDA. That's why Epipens cost $1000. Unregulated markets equalize. Competiton lowers prices. They prevent corruption. Every monopoly in US history was a direct result of regulation and government intervention in the free market. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, JP Morgan Chase... All a direct result of corruption through regulatory agencies.

I agree with your last statement. Corporate welfare is disgraceful. The solution is deregulation. More free-market capitalism, not less

 

[motel rooms]

Sure, some wealth is inherited. Time corrects that. Did you know nearly 12% of Americans enter the top 1% at some point in their life? Wealth inequality exists, but wealth mobility is also extreme. The 1% changes, frequently.

Even if it wasn't a hilarious lie that 12% of Americans enter the top 1% at some point/that the 1% changes frequently (who sold you on that fairytale, btw? Reagan's decomposed talking asshole?), in what universe would that mean that wealth mobility in the US is extreme? Do you know how much 88% is? Please contact me, there's this iron tower in Paris I'd like to sell you.

Regulation is how the monopilies in our country came to be.

The solution is deregulation. More free-market capitalism, not less

Your "thought" processes are fucking frightening.

 

[YourNeighbor]

Sure, some wealth is inherited. Time corrects that. Did you know nearly 12% of Americans enter the top 1% at some point in their life? Wealth inequality exists, but wealth mobility is also extreme. The 1% changes, frequently.

The US ranks 27th on the Global Social Mobility Index. Not very well compared to the most developed economies. Guess who the top 5 are? The Gini Coefficient indicates wealth distribution in the U.S. is comparable to that in Peru, Bulgaria, Haiti, and the Ivory Coast -- not economies known for equitably or efficiently allocating resources or rewarding people based on capacity. The U.S. is not very good at rewarding talent or hard work compared to other advanced economies--one's starting point matters much more. We know this is true because it can and has been measured in many ways. You're basing your statements here on faith, not evidence or science.

Also, "markets must be regulated". No. They most certainly do not. Regulation is how the monopilies in our country came to be. Bribing the government for beneficial regulations against opponents. Thats the basis of our pharmeceutical monopolies through the FDA. That's why Epipens cost $1000. Unregulated markets equalize. Competiton lowers prices.

Are you arguing for abolishing patents and other intellectual property rights? That's one implication of a radically deregulated market, but one doesn't see it argued often.

They prevent corruption. Every monopoly in US history was a direct result of regulation and government intervention in the free market. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, JP Morgan Chase... All a direct result of corruption through regulatory agencies.

Start with Econ 101. Don't skip the lectures and readings on market failures, negative externalities, private goods, and public goods. Then get back to this thread.

 

[CowsAreCool]

Even if it wasn't a hilarious lie that 12% of Americans enter the top 1% at some point/that the 1% changes frequently (who sold you on that fairytale, btw? Reagan's decomposed talking asshole?), in what universe would that mean that wealth mobility in the US is extreme? Do you know how much 88% is? Please contact me, there's this iron tower in Paris I'd like to sell you.

Your "thought" processes are fucking frightening.

The 12% figure has been confirmed by multiple economic studies. Done since the 80s.

The Life Course Dynamics of Affluence

Social science research finds that the only group to have experienced real economic gains over the past four decades is the top 20 percent of the income distribution. This finding, along with greater awareness of growing inequality, has renewed interest in mobility research that identifies how...

journals.plos.org

Its almost common knowledge among economists.

Sorry it doesn't enforce your demented worldview that the 1% are a secret cabal of billionaires out to get you.

Also, the 1980s (under Reagan) had the fastest GDP growth of any decade since the 60s. His economic policy ended the incredibly high inflation rates of the 70s.

If you're going to try and rebuke what I've said, at least try to sound intelligent, instead of saying my figures are wrong without a source, and rambling incoherently about Reagan.

The US ranks 27th on the Global Social Mobility Index. Not very well compared to the most developed economies. Guess who the top 5 are? The Gini Coefficient indicates wealth distribution in the U.S. is comparable to that in Peru, Bulgaria, Haiti, and the Ivory Coast -- not economies known for equitably or efficiently allocating resources or rewarding people based on capacity. The U.S. is not very good at rewarding talent or hard work compared to other advanced economies--one's starting point matters much more. We know this is true because it can and has been measured in many ways. You're basing your statements here on faith, not evidence or science.

Are you arguing for abolishing patents and other intellectual property rights? That's one implication of a radically deregulated market, but one doesn't see it argued often.

Start with Econ 101. Don't skip the lectures and readings on market failures, negative externalities, private goods, and public goods. Then get back to this thread.

I do not believe in most intellectual property laws. They are good in theory, but they are often abused by large corporations. These corporations can afford better patent lawyers, and abuse patent law to keep smaller businesses out of the market.

Google "Apple's Patents", and you'll see what I mean. They at one point had a patent for "swipe to unlock feature", and a patent for "phone with one button on the face". A clear abuse of patent law meant to stifle competition. Patent law reform is needed now more than ever.

I argue most of our lack of social mobility is due to regulation. It's incredibly difficult to enter any industry without licensing and regulation. It's illegal to cut hair without permission from the government. Want to start a hair cutting business? You need to go to barber school. Most regulation acts as a structural barrier to new firms entering the competitive market. Although good in their intention (keeping people safe), their result has been to keep poor people poor, and to keep the rich rich.

Econ 101? I'm in my senior year as an economics major. I am going into engineering, but I also study economics as it's relevant to my field. Not to brag about credentials, as I dont believe they matter. I'm just noting that I have studied advanced macro and micro-economics.

 

[YourNeighbor]

I argue most of our lack of social mobility is due to regulation. It's incredibly difficult to enter any industry without licensing and regulation. It's illegal to cut hair without permission from the government. Want to start a hair cutting business? You need to go to barber school. Most regulation acts as a structural barrier to new firms entering the competitive market. Although good in their intention (keeping people safe), their result has been to keep poor people poor, and to keep the rich rich.

You miss causal inference by a mile, and you're not really presenting any argument so much as stating your beliefs. Why are the economies with highest social mobility those that most would argue have more regulation than the US? Why was wealth inequality greatest in the US before any sort of economic regulation was in effect? Think the Gilded Age, etc.

Econ 101? I'm in my senior year as an economics major. I am going into engineering, but I also study economics as it's relevant to my field. Not to brag about credentials, as I dont believe they matter. I'm just noting that I have studied advanced macro and micro-economics.

You should ask for a refund of your tuition, based on what you write here. My point wasn't about credentials (in either case you have none yet), but about knowledge. You apparently have learned little or nothing about how truly unregulated markets behave, or how on a social scale, a lack of regulation impacts market failures, externalities, or the provision of public and private goods, as just very elementary considerations. What assumptions are necessary for models of unregulated markets to work efficiently? Which of those assumptions hold true in the real world? In what contexts?

You would serve your education better by recognizing your personal beliefs about economics and striving to learn concepts that don't align with your preconceptions.

 

[Superdeterminist]

Socialism appeals more to me than does capitalism. But I'm pretty sure there are big problems with both systems and it's really just a 'pick your poison' scenario. A big part of my socialism bias stems from my disgust of inequality. I don't like it when others have more than me, and I would even say this aversion is a significant reason for my wanting to ctb. Socialism, properly instantiated, supposedly promises to wipe out inequality completely. But ultimately, I'm cynical about economics no matter how it's managed, and I think a switch to the socialist paradigm would end the sufferings of capitalism only to open new realms of socialist suffering. I think the universe will not let us get a utopia so easily, it always has ways of tormenting us, it only lets us choose between different flavours.

 

[Superdeterminist]

At the end of the day, those who work hard succeed, and those who dont won't.

The hardest workers are probably slave labourers. I don't think they're succeeding very much.

 

[PPEcel]

NATO is awesome and fuck communism

 

[Dysgenic Pup]

Dang… this thread is more successful than I initially thought.

 

[whatevs]

Socialism appeals more to me than does capitalism. But I'm pretty sure there are big problems with both systems and it's really just a 'pick your poison' scenario. A big part of my socialism bias stems from my disgust of inequality. I don't like it when others have more than me, and I would even say this aversion is a significant reason for my wanting to ctb. Socialism, properly instantiated, supposedly promises to wipe out inequality completely. But ultimately, I'm cynical about economics no matter how it's managed, and I think a switch to the socialist paradigm would end the sufferings of capitalism only to open new realms of socialist suffering. I think the universe will not let us get a utopia so easily, it always has ways of tormenting us, it only lets us choose between different flavours.

Biology gets in the way. Inequality starts in the womb. What could be done is some kind of flexible caste system where virtues and talent determine your wealth and therefore your power, in which the less privileged by fate (genes and environment) have a minimum of comfort guaranteed.

 

[Superdeterminist]

Biology gets in the way. Inequality starts in the womb. What could be done is some kind of flexible caste system where virtues and talent determine your wealth and therefore your power, in which the less privileged by fate (genes and environment) have a minimum of comfort guaranteed.

I agree that inequality is something that the universe forces, it runs deeper than economics, and it does manifest in our biology. The trouble is that even having a minimum of comfort would still leave some people unhappy. I personally have a minimum of comfort in my day-to-day l life, but when I see other people living richly it still bothers me because I don't enjoy the same. I'll personally never be happy with any caste system because hierarchies are just anathema to me. Sure I would be happy if I were at the top of such a hierarchy, but saying that just feels cheap and morally bankrupt.

 

[Loaf of bread]

Communism is Communist.

 

[HangmanCH]

For the good sake is there anyone from a "communist" state? (I hate this term because there has never been a country calling itself "communist" except Khmer Rouge.
The stereotypical "communist" states, to be more accurate, should be called Marxist-Leninist countries. And the highly centralized economy in these countries is something borrowed from the German War Economy organized by Rathenau during the Great War. To be more specific, the state itself becomes the only capitalist in this region. Similarly, state interventions were common in East Asian economies, contributing to their economic boom (Japan, South Korea, China mainland, and Taiwan).

 

[Enigmatic Sailor]

Socialism leads to more corruption which leads to communism which leads to collapse. The poorest in a thriving first world capitalist country still live better than a king in medieval times. Capitalism is the way, truth, and light. God bless.

 

[obafgkm]

I think there are two forces in human. On one hand we want to hold on to stuff (capitalism). On other we want to take things from others (communism). Capitalism tends to explore new areas because they can own it. Communism seems to base on a gloomy view of the world that all the things we can have are already known. The problem is distribution. What ever the name is the result is as history shows always a small group of people controlling most resources and other people, whether it's in the form of slavery or employment. In reality communism ends up just a form of authoritarianism. The shameless surveillance is annoying wasting a lot of time and resources putting people against people. Why not just leave people alone. They really won't care who's in power as long as they have air to breathe and room to move around. But again people always want to control other people's behavior, take things from them including freedom. That's human nature.

 

[Siterfau]

I'm not convinced that communism is actually possible, but I will say that the saddest thing about communism (IMO) is the fact that its reputation got permanently shafted by a lot of factors outside of its control.

Capitalism is a very old economic system compared to communism. Communism is something that really only picked up traction in the early 20th century, while capitalism has existed anywhere from pre-16th century to the 18th century. Communism also picked up traction in the 20th century in really bad starting conditions. Most communist nations were products of coup d'etats and revolutions, which don't have a good track record for functioning and stable governments. Additionally, most communist nations in this period based their governance or were governed indirectly by the Soviet Union, which we can all hopefully agree isn't the hallmark for countries with good living conditions.

Of course, communism in and of itself is a radical ideology, which makes it that much more unlikely to be practiced by a democratic country. I just think it's sad and kinda stupid how capitalism gets a free pass for a lot of shit because "Look at all the authoritarian communist countries!", even though making those countries capitalist probably wouldn't have made them less authoritarian.