Why don't we have a socialist state? I understand the problems with initiating a revolution too quickly and having a fully socialist nation, but what about one state that is used as a testing ground for socialism. The population of that state will be given a 3-year warning that the state will become a socialist state, and each family will be given 10,000 dollars to pack up and move to a different still capitalist state in the country if they're not interested in that.
Build a wall temporarily locking in the population of that state so that they don't inadvertently or otherwise economically impact the rest of the country in bad ways, and every couple of months tweak the socialist system and see what improves and what causes problems.
>>75240315
People will only want to be a part of it if everyone else is involved.
>>75240377
>everyone else
Everyone else in the entire state will be involved.
Socialism has never worked, why is everyone so eager to give it another go.
On paper it might sound nice if you're a lazy piece of shit, but to anyone above the age of 20 with the ability to read it's very easy to see all the examples of socialism in the past and how magnificently it failed.
China only started competing on the world stage because they began embracing the free market.
Take your garbage system and get the fuck outta here.
>>75240315
You can't have a cohesive community with the vastly different groups that make up the U.S. population.
We're not some tiny little irrelevant northern EU country where everyone is White and lives in small towns.
>>75240453
>Never worked
It works in rich high gdp small majority white european nations.
>>75240453
>Socialism has never worked, why is everyone so eager to give it another go.
Socialism is very tricky business. Past examples are societies that had socialism FORCED on the population that wasn't entirely willing to become socialist. Having a small highly planned, highly regulated section of America that is temporarily separated from the rest of the nation so as not to have undue negative influence on the capitalist aspects of society that are working just fine. Worst case scenario, we learn that no matter how much you tweak socialism with a willing population, it's completely impossible, and the highly researched experiment will be excellent ammunition for the rest of capitalists for the rest of time.
>>75240568
>It works in rich high gdp small majority white european nations.
Source
>>75240661
Really? Just google highest Gdp country. It utilizes denocratic socialism. It's only a meme in the US because it obviously wont work here.
>>75240568
>rich high gdp small majority white european nations.
It clearly hasn't, the vast wave of mass immigration it invited has crippled it and made sure that the sentence you just used won't apply to any countries in Europe in the next decade.
Socialism always ends the same way, it breeds laziness among the native population and the job market collapses.
>>75240645
Nobody in their right mind wants socialism, you're never going to unite a populace behind it because nobody actually wants it - especially not Americans.
Only young people think socialism is a good idea, because they are completely ignorant of the past.
>>75240315
When trump reveals his national socialist plans and we all end up in re education camps i am going to laugh at you faggots so hard.
Be careful what you wish for trump nazis
>>75240834
So don't let anyone else in. Seems pretty simple.
>>75240315
Venezuela is smaller than the the state of population and look at it now. Socialism is unsustainable, a luxury of a rich-white capitalist society.
Too many niggers. Sucks too. We could have functional urban areas and killer train systems like old Europe. Not to mention a working space program.
>>75241284
Way to alienate the liberal children that are the only supporters of socialim.
>>75240315
Because eventually you run out of other peoples' money.
>>75241366
Nazis are liberal?
>>75240716
>democratic socialism
>>75241635
Nazis worked well with socialism because it had some sort of goal outside of just maintaining their own country. They waged wars and the people collected around the idea of conquest.
If you want a stable country you need a capitalist system in place.
>>75241635
Nope, exactly the reason why you alienated the entirety of the modern supporters of socialism.
The second you start disallowing people from your perfect socialist paradise, you are literally Hitler.
Good luck getting any support when both the left and the right have good reason to hate you.
>>75240645
And they still don't want it! Which is why no one is voting for it! And you still want to force it on them again just for a sick humanitarian experiment!
>>75240315
There's already lots of socialist states to use as examples: CCCP, North Korea, Cuba, Vensuala etc... Move down to Vensuala and practice hunting cats and dogs to feed yourself if you want a fast forward example
>>75240568
You look up any threads from people in these country's ever?
>>75240315
Because you don't experiment with peoples lives.
The USA already tried that. I forget what it was called but it was an entire town. Worked for a few years and then crashed and burned.
Check out this series (from PBS, no less) on the history of socialism, socialist movements and socialist states:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfWOF__ADqw
That should answer any further stupid questions.
>>75240315
>socialism
somebody link this faggot OP the newest video about socialism from based Memeux.
>>75240315
>Why don't we have a socialist state
because it's immoral.
>Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty. He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1, is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls's Difference Principle. Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popular basketball player in this society, and Nozick further assumes 1 million people are willing to freely give Chamberlain 25 cents each to watch him play basketball over the course of a season (we assume no other transactions occur). Chamberlain now has $250,000, a much larger sum than any of the other people in the society. This new distribution in society, call it D2, obviously is no longer ordered by our favored pattern that ordered D1. However Nozick argues that D2 is just. For if each agent freely exchanges some of his D1 share with the basketball player and D1 was a just distribution (we know D1 was just, because it was ordered according to your favorite patterned principle of distribution), how can D2 fail to be a just distribution? Thus Nozick argues that what the Wilt Chamberlain example shows is that no patterned principle of just distribution will be compatible with liberty. In order to preserve the pattern, which arranged D1, the state will have to continually interfere with people's ability to freely exchange their D1 shares, for any exchange of D1 shares explicitly involves violating the pattern that originally ordered it.
tl;dr - after a day of work in a socialist utopia, I myself assemble a chewing gum machine and begin selling chewing gum to others. we are all happy, since I can produce chewing gum cheaper and sell it for less than Statemart. Said machine is taken away from me the next day by Cleetus and Tyroneuishan, because it is a means of production and nobody can own a chewing gum machine by themselves only.
