Why didn't it work out?

Because communism is based on some wrong circumstances, both economically and philosophically
[spoiler]use the pic related advice, u commie faggot[/spoiler]

This.

As we're now finding out capitalism doesn't really work either.

prime got dubs run

communism sounds like the perfect system right? well , even if it is , people are far from perfect . now aren't they ?

It didn't work because some people are always going to be cunts.
If you have a system of sharing equally, some people will inevitably make sure that they are "more equal" than everyone else.

Humans are dick bags and many people only find happiness when they have more than anyone else.

Socialism as a roadmap to achieve communism is a bad idea. Karl Marx should have listened to the anarchists.

All the soviets did was take over the old government and switch titles. Good luck getting people to just "give up power."

It sounds counter-intuitive, but it is my belief that Anarcho-Capitalism will be the political philosophy that naturally leads to Anarcho-Communism.

Some people deserve to have more than others, equality for all is a fucking naive dream. Communism literally seems to have been thought up by a fucking child.

Because it's impossible for any government to set the prices of everything.
Prices are set by offer and demand.

Communism isn't really a bad philosophy. It's not really "equality for all" in the sense of the distribution of resources.

Communism was supposed to be a philosophical work detailing a new orientation of society, where no no government exists, and the use of money as a means of exchange is abolished.

Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" was intended to be the roadmap that people followed to *achieve* a stateless, cashless society.

Unfortunately, Marx favored a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Basically, the proletariat rise up, kill the current officials in power in government, take said positions, and switch titles. Create laws favoring communist ideals, and when a critical threshold has been reached--to completely abolish said government and "achieve communism."

Anarchists, such as Peter Kropotkin and Michael Bakunin, completely disagreed with Marx's authoritarian vision of achieving communism. They knew that, switching who is in power and changing titles would do nothing in the long run. A "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be just as tyrannical as any government that has ever existed. The anarchists' and their predictions were correct, what happened after the Russian Revolution and rise of the USSR proves it.

Communism is actually an interesting philosophy, it has many aspects that I think are absolutely workable, while there are some aspects that need to be thought out better. I would recommend Peter Kropotkin's book "The Conquest of Bread" as an introduction to Anarcho-Communism for anyone who is interested.

Personally, I think that Anarcho-Capitalism is going to be a better roadmap for achieving Anarcho-Communism, even if it is counter-imtuitive.

So why not just stick with Anarcho Capitalism?

Personally, I do just stick with Anarcho-Capitalism.

What I mean is that, if we were an Anarcho-Capitalist society, such a society would wind up achieving Anarcho-Communism without anyone actively trying to do so. It would be a natural progression of society.

Anarcho-Capitalism would unleash the productive capabilities of human beings to a degree that has never been seen. The snowball effect would be such that, the banach tarski paradox would be implemented with an engineering solution, allowing resources to be created in a very post-scarcity type manner.

Russia hasn't shown an ability to have a government that isn't horribly corrupt and self serving. Corruption is an inefficiency.

Having your movement hijacked by someone like Stalin doesn't help, either. If you can't disagree with government policy, you can't adjust things when things go wrong.

As far as communism itself goes, the Chinese still seem to like it.

This is an interesting article titled "Who Owns the Benefit? The Free Market as Full Communism" by Kevin Carson at the Anarchist Library:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-who-owns-the-benefit-the-free-market-as-full-communism

I really like this article:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-austrian-and-marxist-theories-of-monopoly-capital

Kevin Carson does a really good job of bridging the gap between Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Capitalists

From the article:

A great deal of right-libertarian boilerplate is written on the theme of Bill Gates as John Galt, when he is in fact James Taggart. All too often, the real modus operandi is to use libertarian rhetoric in defense of a predetermined set of "good guys," defined by standing the Left's list of god-figures and devil-figures on its head: "Two legs good, four legs baaaaad." In some cases, the motivation seems to be a visceral affinity for big business as "our sort." In others, it seems to reflect an almost Stalinist level of cynicism in treating big business as an "objective ally" to be defended regardless of the truth. In both cases, the corporate liberal views of Art Schlesinger are simply mirror-imaged. The real fault line between genuine libertarians and "vulgar libertarian" apologists for big business seems to be defined by how closely they view the present system as an approximation of a free market.

But if both facets of our understanding of the present system (that corporate capitalism is exploitative; and that its exploitation depends solely on the state) were sincerely held by libertarians of left and right, it could serve as the basis for an alliance against state capitalism. The Left must be made to understand that their proper grievance is not against private property (properly understood), or markets (in the sense of free exchange between equal, unprivileged producers), but with the state. The Right must be made to understand the extent to which Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and GM are parasitic outgrowths of the state, and not products of "good old American know-how" or "elbow grease." If both sides are sincerely motivated primarily by an oppostion to statist coercion, rather than a reflexive sympathy for big business or aversion to market exchange, the potential exists for coexistence on the basis of something like Voltairine de Cleyre's "anarchism without adjectives."