The reason communism is bound to fail is because all of its serious proponents believe in some variant of the Internationale, which is to say, they accept the argument that communism can not succeed in competition because of the “inconsistencies” in the extra-communist systems. This is a crybaby loser argument, which is embarrassing, but not harmful.
Unfortunately, it’s often the back-door through which some proponents smuggle a justification for violence.
Many people say that “communism isn’t violent”, but that doesn’t stop them from rationalizing violent revolution in order to achieve it. They may argue that history has proven it impossible to establish communism without a revolution, but once the chains of oppression have been cast away (a justifiable retaliation, IMO), once the exploiters have been vanquished, there should be no more violence. One problem is determining exactly who is an exploiter, and who has been exploited. Communists just use a lot of colorful language to describe those who disagree with them as “exploiters” or “bourgeois”.
This is problematic in its own La Terreur-like manner. In the history of the world, many otherwise justifiable revolutions have devolved into gross miscarriages of justice in the end.
More important though, especially at the Internationale level, is the question of how such a rule is maintained. This is likely going to be a violent process. Consider the person doesn’t believe in teh communism, how will he be treated? What if it is a group of men that don’t believe in teh communism? Maybe they form an alternative “commune” somewhere — a competing commune, if you will. What about them?
- Are they allowed to “own” and work their land?
- Will they be allowed to trade with the communists, if any are willing?
- Will they be systematically shunned and persecuted?
- Will they be attacked as a “threat” to the communist way of life?
If these men, unwilling to acquiesce, are in-fact the cause of those “external inconsistencies” which have hitherto caused communism to fail, I see no reason why a consistent communist wouldn’t propose their extermination. Real-world examples of socialism often (always) won’t even let their captives leave. This is violence, and it is ultimately this violence which is the most damning element of communism, as it is for Statism alike: both of them view my mere existence as a threat to their own, and they are willing to kill me in order to keep me from realizing freedom.
Communism says, in effect, “Our goal is impossible unless everyone agrees, and we’re willing to kill you to if you disagree with us.” (Interestingly enough, many communists favor some form of rule by the popular tyranny of democracy to deal with disagreements.) Agorism says, “We’re going to do this, no matter WTF you do, and for the most part we’re not worried about you, because you don’t even know who we are.”
Communism coerces a “community” by casting out dissidents. Agorism creates a community between individuals on the basis of mutual aid, mutual trust, and cooperation. The term “comrade” is applied to everyone as co-equals, in order to instill confidence. An agorist’s word and reputation are his bond.
Communists believe that a world of abundance can be created, if only nobody owns anything, and all things are “free”. Agorists understand that the only people who believe in the metaphysical impossibility of “everything is free!” are those who are unwilling to work in order to provide for themselves. Communism abhors the black market, where people engage in mutually beneficial trades that hurt nobody. The black market, or the shadow economy is an integral part of practical agorism.
Of all “revolutionary” ideologies, Agorism has the greatest chance of success because its proponents accept piecemeal victories, but primarily because agorists don’t succumb to the same loser-mentality as other econo-political ideologies.