Could anyone please explain the "Socialism goes against human nature" meme to me? Are they implying that human nature entails being selfish? Because from what I see being selfish is a much greater reason to support Socialism than any.
>>1156323
They're taking the reason the status quo is the status quo must be because that's the natural progression of being.
And in a sense they're right, capitalism is the logical progression of history, it's just not the last nor is it somehow totally consistent with "human nature".
>>1156323
>Because from what I see being selfish is a much greater reason to support Socialism than any.
Only if you are a retard,handicaped or a NEET. And I wouldnt be too sure about this either
>>1156332
>It is in my nature to exploit people and hold an abstract notion of property as sacrosanct.
You're a pretty shitty person then tbqh.
>>1156334
>It is in my nature to exploit people and hold an abstract notion of property as sacrosanct.
You just described socialism
>>1156332
>Implying any of those countries were Socialist
>>1156338
How does socialism exploit people or hold property as sacrosanct? As a matter of fact socialism holds private property as something that needs to be done away with.
I also don't get why class-traitors love to address legitimate criticisms of capitalism with
>hurr u looking in a mirror
tier non-arguments.
>>1156331
>capitalism is the logical progression of history, it's just not the last nor is it somehow totally consistent with "human nature".
Voluntary exchanges between people is not consistent with human nature? Please, explain how people trading with one another however they please to be against how humans like to act.
>>1156339
>not real communism
posters who regurgitate this meme, ironically or not, need to be put in a fucking gulag
>>1156323
We can only give a fuck about ~250 at most. Any more and they're strangers and not a meaningful part of our in group.
Also it's founded in the spook that is Man and depends good will from individuals with the receiver having no direct relation to them and becoming entitled welfare shits who demand more because humility doesn't have play in an anonymous beurocratic welfare state. See, black Americans.
>>1156352
Yeah okay kiddo. Explain how any of those countries were Socialist and not just authoritarian dictatorships that exploited their population for industrial power. Go on, humour me.
>>1156323
people who work harder then average want some kind of reward for their struggle.
If everybody gets the same, there is no motivation for people to work their asses off
>>1156348
You can, socialism doesn't do away with trade no matter how much class-traitors try to co-opt it as something unique to capitalism. Democracy also often falls victim to this.
However
Please explain how you can """"""""own""""""" private property without mentioning force?
>>1156357
>it's founded in the spook that is Man and depends good will from individuals
Welfarism and Socialism aren't the same thing.
>>1156363
>Socialist
>authoritarian dictatorships that exploited their population for industrial power
So you admit that they were socialist?
>>1156371
Tell that to Denmark. Or the UK.
>>1156357
Black Americans have lower unemployment than people in my country.
The idea that they're all lazy and on welfare is a mega-meme.
>>1156377
what is your country?
>>1156345
>How does socialism exploit people or hold property as sacrosanct?
Controlling how society is built is pretty exploitative if you ask me,and socialism is purely based around property and weird implications about it.
>>1156368
This is something that ought to be democratically agreed upon by the workers.
They can agree to pay each other piecemeal based on what's produced if they like.
>>1156379
Ireland.
>inb4 hurr micks are lazy niggers too.
>>1156332
GDP means nothing if concentrated in few hands
>>1156368
>people who work harder then average want some kind of reward for their struggle.
Exactly.
>If everybody gets the same, there is no motivation for people to work their asses off
That's the point I'm making. In Capitalist society, everybody get's paid by whatever fee the heads of the industry they work for decide for them, you have little say over what you think you deserve.
>>1156376
I doubt the Social Democrat parties of the UK or Denmark that made their welfare reforms identify as purely Socialist either.
>>1156381
>Controlling how society is built is pretty exploitative if you ask me
You assume a command economy is exclusive or inherent to socialism, it is not.
>socialism is purely based around property and weird implications about it.
You mean the idea that there shouldn't be any? That isn't holding it as sacrosanct, as a matter of fact it's the exact opposite.
>>1156382
so if workers democratically agree to capitalism, you would call it socialism?
>>1156387
Except Austria has much lower inequality than post-soviet states. In fact, it has some of the lowest inequality in Europe.
Oh boy ANOTHER Karl Marx thread.
>>1156369
Assume you built a cabin in the woods, but don't visit it for a few years. If somebody comes and lives there, they essentially "own" it. If you do not use or otherwise protect your ownership of your property, it is liable to be taken from you.
Your property is that which you are able to homestead, which is to say, whatever you regularly use and lay claim to is your property. You could hire a guard to protect your property on your behalf, which may be a show of force, but since nobody has any real right to the property, there is no actual force against anybody by denying access to it
>>1156394
How the fuck can you democratically agree to capitalism?
>Okay right, who votes to let one guy own this entire place and take a share of our produce then never let us democratically organize this place ever again just because of his magic claim of ownership. Once we've voted on this he's free to fire us if we change our minds.
That's like "democratically agreeing" to feudalism.
>>1156403
Yes, you own what you use.
Paying someone to shoot anybody who tries to use it is not using it, it's forbidding others access to it through force.
>, there is no actual force against anybody by denying access to it
Yes there is, if someone tries to use this seemingly abandoned cabin the guard is there specifically to use force against them.
This is like saying the police don't operate under force if no one breaks the law.
>>1156387
Kek. This meme argument again. The poorest percentile in the US would have been amongst the top 10% wealthiest class in the USSR
>>1156395
That's because they're post-soviet and just sold everything to the highest bidder a little over 20 years ago.
>>1156374
>"A high quality of discourse"
>>1156417
How exactly?
When the money they have that would inherently be able to purchase more in the USSR runs out what do they have that would set them apart from everyone else there?
>>1156391
>there shouldn't be any
No socialist defend this. They only apply it to the means of production,that is a totally arbitrary classification of property.
>>1156407
Shareholding, 401k's, Unions etc. You can make yourself heard in a capitalists system and, the vast majority of times, something will get done. Private industrialists have obligations to there workers in Western economies.
>>1156426
1. That's what I meant
2. It's not arbitrary at all, the means of production require workers to produce stuff, your toothbrush requires you to brush your own teeth. One is a means of great power, one gives you a clean mouth.
>>1156407
>How the fuck can you democratically agree to capitalism?
By not being a retard? Just look how the XXI century socialism has worked in Venezuela. The last stage of socialism is not having toiler paper. No sane person would want that
>>1156420
>to the highest bidder
If only. They sold it to their cousins for trinkets.
>>1156420
And they're better off for it as poverty, development, life expectancy, and education continues to improve. Poland has one of the best education systems in the world despite being far poorer than its neighbors.
>>1156425
>When the money they have that would inherently be able to purchase more in the USSR runs out what do they have that would set them apart from everyone else there?
I dont get your point. The poorest negro working at Wendys in America would be earning in terms of PPP the same as an aeroespace engineer in the USSR. That is why socialist countries have to lock the borders,so people dont massively flee their """"utopia""""""
>>1156428
That's all well and good. But that's a pittance compared to literally running the entire place democratically.
Why would you give up all the freedom inherent to the socialist means of organization to a master for literally no reason? Going from socialism to a social democratic system is simply a loss for the worker.
>>1156433
>An island that has spent the better part of a century totally blockaded off commercially from the rest of the world
>vs a tiny city state that's also a massive international trade centre
>"CAPITALISM IZ BEST GUIZE!!!"
>>1156432
Value is subjective. Objectifying value and giving it personal properties is a meme in itself.
>>1156398
(you)
>>1156445
Because workers don't know how to run distribution, marketing, sales, accounting, all the other areas that make a business actually work. They sacrifice autonomy for some efficiency, and the whole system benefits as a result.
>>1156433
1. Venezuela isn't socialist.
2. That doesn't answer my question, there is no human alive that is so much of a servile bootlicker to democratically agree to just give all their power over the private interests. So how the fuck in socialism would capitalism be enstated in the workplace?
>>1156398
It should be autobanned. Why do /pol/ threads get deleted but /leftypol/ shit is allowed to stay?
>>1156456
>1. Venezuela isn't socialist.
Have you tried telling them that? If Venezuela isn't socialist, who is? Next you'll be telling me that the USSR wasn't socialist either.
>>1156443
>They're better off for it.
lmao no they aren't. Russia has a homeless rate of fucking 3.5% of the entire population.
Even polls say they miss communism.
>>1156449
>totally blockaded off commercially from the rest of the world
Are you retarded? Literally just the USA embargoed Cuba. The rest of the world kept trading as normal with it. Thugs have improved but not nearly as much as socialists claim they have. There's a reason you still have reports of hundreds of people attempting to flee via raft each year.
>>1156449
>An island that was wealthier than Spain,and was 30 miles close to the greatest economy in the world
>vs a poor city that was twice as poor as Cuba
Communism workz guyz.
And not expecting an embargo when you put massive tariffs and expropiating companies is something that I will never get. How can retards be this delusional?
>>1156444
Here's my point.
The currency you get in the west is more valuable elsewhere in the world. Okay, that's all well and good.
But assuming you go to live there you aren't going to instantly become 1% because that money is going to run out and you have no private property to generate more for you. Just like everyone in the USSR you would still have to work to live even if you make more by virtue of living in an extremely developed economy.
>>1156456
>private interests
You know that most bussiness have 10 workers top,and most entrepreneurs barely make it to the middle class.
And again with "X is not socialist,eventhough the state is taking control of the means of production and planning the economy".
>>1156460
They miss the good old days of the USSR because it was a time when they were internationally relevant as a global power. Also,
>socialism was so great
>which is why it was crushed on its own economic terms and landed us in this shitty situation
>>1156455
Then they can democratically agree to hire someone else to help them. You do not need private property in order to hire accountants, salesmen and so forth.
They literally get the same results without losing any autonomy.
>>1156460
Russia isn't Poland, Czech, Estonia or Slovakia. The USSR directly gained from exploiting its satellites to its benefit. When it collapsed, so did the Russian economy, and Russia has yet to rebuild a stable one ever since due to corruption and mismanagement.
>>1156459
No, the USSR was socialist. If a very crude form of it.
Why isn't Venezuela socialist? Because the overwhelming majority of people work in the private sector with no control over the means of production. Calling Venezuela socialist is like calling Denmark socialist, it simply isn't true.
>>1156464
When did I say that? I was just claiming that an uneducated retard would be earning more in terms of PPP in the US than an aerospace engineer in Soviet Russia. Never said that he would remain that way if he lived in the USSR
>>1156407
>capitalism only has one meaning, which is one guy owning everything and forcing people into slavery
The state by way of taxes and regulations requires a large amount of capital to own and operate a business, and through laws takes your ability to organizing and protest. This generally gives the rich more power, but it is not capitalism's fault. The state has forced people into the system of exploitation.
>>1156413
>Paying someone to shoot anybody who tries to use it is not using it, it's forbidding others access to it through force.
>if someone tries to use this seemingly abandoned cabin the guard is there specifically to use force against them.
Again, nobody has any more "right" to the property than another. It is only by using or securing the cabin that one can continue to claim ownership. A guard may not have been the best example, but no force is applied unless violence is used on the person trying to use the cabin. Obviously shooting somebody for simply walking on your property is violent.
>This is like saying the police don't operate under force if no one breaks the law.
Police are inherently violent as they are funded via theft and enforce laws citizens don't agree to.
>>1156461
>The rest of the world kept trading as normal with it
Who?
>There's a reason you still have reports of hundreds of people attempting to flee via raft each year.
I dunno, maybe because it has a shit economy?
>>1156463
>An island that was wealthier than Spain,and was 30 miles close to the greatest economy in the world
Yeah genius, when it was a trade centre in the Caribbean and wasn't embargoed from the US. Where have you been for the past 80 years?
>And not expecting an embargo when you put massive tariffs and expropiating companies is something that I will never get.
You're not seriously implying Cuba was embargoed because of that are you? And by the way when did they ever "put massive tariffs and expropiate companies"?
>>1156470
When are they going to find the time to all democratically vote if Larry the Accountant gets a promotion? Or if there need to be cutbacks in the companies benefits? Or exactly how many people they need to lay off to save the buisness, if they should lay them off, and so forth? That sounds incredibly inefficient and not something, especially a large company, is capable of.
>>1156491
>Yeah genius, when it was a trade centre in the Caribbean and wasn't embargoed from the US.
Why was it embargoed idiot? If you start declaring economic and political war on your biggest trading partner you also share some blame. And if you dont know that Castro expropiated companies you are totally lost
>>1156486
>capitalism's fault. The state has forced people into the system of exploitation.
Capitalism and the state are totally co-dependent. You cannot have capitalism without state force, you cannot have states as they presently exist without the bourgeoisie.
>violence is used on the person trying to use the cabin.
So what was your point? Violence is the only thing here that seperates the man trying to enter the cabin from the """"owner""""
>Police are inherently violent as they are funded via theft and enforce laws citizens don't agree to.
You could say the same thing for rent, or your boss.
Your landlord extorts money from you based on his abstract claim to ownership of the house just as the state extorts money from you based on their abstract claim of ownership over the country. Likewise your boss can fire you for arbitrary rules that no one agrees with. All through their nonsense notion of property.
>>1156493
They have been doing it slowly. They started with oil and little by little they have started to expropiat farms and private industries
>>1156493
>National Socialism wasn't crushed on its own military terms, it was crushed under its shitty bureaucracy.
>PROPER National Socialism hasn't been tried, we should give it another shot.
>>1156491
>Who
Literally every single country traded with Cuba but the U.S., and even the U.S. is now beginning to trade with Cuba
>It has a shit economy
And why do you think this is? Could it be because Doctors in Cuba are forced to live in the same communes as everyone else and make absolute pittance compared to doctors in other countries?
>>1156506
>promotion
Promoted to what? When power comes from the bottom up you can't promote someone as you do know, he would simply remain an accountant.
>Or if there need to be cutbacks in the companies benefits?
Such a situation wouldn't be common enough to be so time-consuming that it would be problematic. In the event it was the workers would notice in their own lives due a glaring shortage of money.
> Or exactly how many people they need to lay off to save the buisness, if they should lay them off, and so forth?
No one would get laid off. In the event someone was so amazingly incompetant or unwelcome that everyone else wanted them gone that would also be a rare situation and wouldn't be particularly time consuming to handle.
Not to mention we have the internet now so you can hold votes virtually instantly.
> Or exactly how many people they need to lay off to save the buisness, if they should lay them off, and so forth?
Yes, that's exactly what kings and monarchists said when bourgeois democracy began to take root.
>>1156515
I'm not denying socialism has been tried. I'm just saying if you're going to point at Venezuela and say "Ha, socialism doesn't work!" Don't be surprised when dumb liberals in the future keep calling Scandinavia socialist.
>>1156513
Maybe in like 20 years they'll be socialist then, but in the mean time they are still very much capitalist.
>>1156352
I agree
>>1156369
How does it not do away with trade? Are we talking about bartering without money? Because the times that has been attempted all failed spectacularly.
>>1156537
>still very much capitalist.
How,if oil is 90% of the economy and the goverment controls it all?
>>1156508
>Why was it embargoed idiot?
Calm down now kiddo, you're getting ahead of yourself. And seeming as you clearly don't know the embargo was because of it was a Socialist country right next to the US during the Cold War and after the bay of pigs they were obviously gonna do anything they could to keep Cuba under their control.
>>1156520
>Literally every single country traded with Cuba but the U.S., and even the U.S. is now beginning to trade with Cuba
Do you have a single fact to back that up? Or are you just pulling this straight out your ass?
>And why do you think this is?
Because of a major embargo. 2+2 makes 4 by the way.
>>1156511
>Capitalism and the state are totally co-dependent
I think we have different definitions of capitalism.
>Violence is the only thing here that seperates the man trying to enter the cabin from the """"owner""""
Is it violent to simply hire a man to keep up a cabin you built? Putting another human in the problem makes it messier; a lock is a much better example. Is locking up your cabin while you're away violent?
>Your landlord extorts money from you based on his abstract claim to ownership of the house just as the state extorts money from you based on their abstract claim of ownership over the country. Likewise your boss can fire you for arbitrary rules that no one agrees with. All through their nonsense notion of property.
The difference is that renting a house and getting a job involves explicitly agreeing to a contract while the state legitimizes itself by some pretentious, implicit social contract.
>>1156549
>Denmark
Is not socialist m8. Socialism requires property of the means of production. They just have social programs.
>>1156552
Of course if you choose to side with the rival of your biggest trading partner, and expropiate their companies,sanctions cannot be expected...
>>1156558
That was kind of the point I tried to get across.
Denmark has always been a capitalistic country.
>>1156532
Those were just small examples that are just a couple of the hundreds of decisions that need to be decided each week.
Larger companies have whole DEPARTMENTS that are required to keep track of every single expenditure. They
>No one would get laid off
And now you've just sacrifices efficiency for the sake of a single workers welfare, that further renders said industry uncompetitive and ultimately results in the situations you see in Soviet bloc countries where people would go into work and play chess all day because they couldn't be fired. If you think that's a healthy economy than you have a very different notion of healthy than I do.
>You can vote online instantly
So you are going to have your workers stop what they're doing, get a laptop if they have one, wait for EVERY SINGLE ONE to vote (keep in mind, this takes hours in normal industries for big decisions, imagine how long it'll take in this environment) before you can go ahead with a single decision? What if one of the workers has no fucking clue what they're even voting on? How in the fuck would you make this work in a large industry with absolutely 0 corporate buerocracy?
>>1156557
The private sector are mostly farms or grocery stores there. Which have not being expropiated there. But oil sustains all the economy(90% of it) and is controlled by the state. The Venezuelan private sector currently is just an extemsion of the state,and soon,it will be part of it. Maduro is starting to expropiate factories right now.
>>1156554
>I think we have different definitions of capitalism.
Yes because you're clearly an ancap, but even ancaps have states in their own way.
>Is it violent to simply hire a man to keep up a cabin you built?
If you hire a man and give him license to attack anyone who tries to enter then yes.
> Putting another human in the problem makes it messier; a lock is a much better example. Is locking up your cabin while you're away violent?
No, but equally it's not violent if they take a bolt-cutter to it.
>The difference is that renting a house and getting a job involves explicitly agreeing to a contract while the state legitimizes itself by some pretentious, implicit social contract.
Except you literally have to sell your labour to survive in some way, you cannot participate in society otherwise unless you are very lucky. This is where the term "exploition" comes in, capitalists use the near-infinite bargaining power vs. the proletariat (given by their claim to private property) to exploit the natural weakness of man into working for them.
More importantly how do they legitimize their claim to private property? Through force.
Thus why the state is necessary to capitalism, the police and such exist largely to protect private property.
>>1156552
>Do you have a single fact to back that up
"At present, the embargo, which is limited to American businesses from conducting business with Cuban interests, is still in effect and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history."
>>1156407
so isn't it possible to establish private property through democratic voting?
>>1156572
Yes, thus why if need be they can just hire more people to handle administrative affairs.
>And now you've just sacrifices efficiency for the sake of a single workers welfare,
No I haven't, I mentioned if they're a useless or unwelcome worker then it would be possible to fire them I just don't reckon it would be a common problem. Additionally how the fuck does having more workers make somewhere uncompetitive? They produce their own value rather than being subject to people that claim their produce on the basis of property - as long as they're pulling their weight there would simply be no reason to fire anyone.
>So you are going to have your workers stop what they're doing,
It would be as simple as this.
Put up a notice that everyone should vote on X by the end of the week.
Make a groupchat on commiebook.su
Everyone takes a second to vote in their down time.
Simple as that.
>>1156573
It might make most of the money but it doesn't sustain most of the employment.
Thus it's irrelevant to discussion on whether something is socialist because the workers control the means of production, because the overwhelming majority of them don't even if state industries make more money. As a matter of fact that's a very capitalist way of viewing it.
>>1156591
Theoretically I suppose it is, it's just that the situation to allow it would be so retarded it's like a modern republic electing in an absolute monarchy.
>>1156604
Employment=/=means of production. Most jobs are in the service sector where little capital or means of production are needed,unless you consider having a grocery store to be a means of production. The means of production per say,oil and refinery,are mostly goverment owned
>>1156611
Yes, a grocery store is a means of production.
The "production" in that term doesn't just mean literal industrial produce and natural resources, it means value in general which extends to the service sector.
>>1156614
But they produced nothing. That is why the definition of means of production is so fucked up. The XIX century rethoric just doesnt fit with the XXI century one
>>1156597
>Additionally how the fuck does having more workers make somewhere uncompetitive?
Because you have less efficient workers than if you hired a more efficient worker as a replacement. Realistically, workers would be hesitant to fire someone they know who's a friend of theirs even if they are extreamly unproductive, and the USSR was a perfect example of this. When the management is the workers, the workers will never work against there interests in favor of the industry.
>Put up a notice that everyone should vote on X by the end of the week.
Make a groupchat on commiebook.su
Everyone takes a second to vote in their down time.
Except taking a whole week to make a single decision is unbelievably inefficient. You still have to coordinate with your suppliers, your distributors etc. and those decisions take time and a lot of calculations to determine the ideal rate of output to fulfill demand. Plus, you basically are requiring your workers to do even more at work instead of just focusing on the one job they do very well, which is more mentally taxing and takes up more of their time than before.
You're very naive at the amount of effort, and how difficult it is to run a successful industry and coordinate every single department as an executive. Sure, you have some you just hire other people to do it for them, but the most efficient and successful ones are those that have active oversight on all levels of management.
>>1156629
They did, the dude putting cereal boxes on shelves is producing value when he puts them there, just like a maid is producing value when she hoovers the floor or a waiter is producing value when he takes your order.
It sounds odd, but western-style service economies are very odd in themselves.
>>1156629
What is the bank producing? Like they literally just give people loans and jew them with interests, what the fuck is the product?
>>1156636
>the dude putting cereal boxes on shelves is producing value when he puts them there, just like a maid is producing value when she hoovers the floor or a waiter is producing value when he takes your order.
But to create value you dont need means of production. If I suck a dick I can get a wage too. That doesnt make my mouth a means of production
>>1156644
Banks produce nothing. They just control assets.
>>1156635
>Because you have less efficient workers than if you hired a more efficient worker as a replacement
That's not true though, you may have more workers but you still have the exact same workers that would be employed there in a capitalist system. The fact that they can democratically decide their own work hours as opposed to working 9-5 every day 5 days a week means that you can have a more fluid system of production when you can virtually have someone working there at all times.
There are more workers, this does not mean there are less very efficient workers, and the system of production itself favours this high-volume employment.
> When the management is the workers, the workers will never work against there interests in favor of the industry.
That's the whole point of socialism, it's a good thing that that would happen.
>Except taking a whole week to make a single decision is unbelievably inefficient
It isn't, it's called planning ahead. It's something every successful organization and individual does so they don't have to rush things at the end.
>You're very naive at the amount of effort, and how difficult it is to run a successful industry and coordinate every single department as an executive
This is the great thing about socialism.
Because all the power comes from the bottom up you can subdivide things as much as you like for the sake of efficiency. You do not need to gear the entire system towards how to most efficiently exploit workers and consumers, you simply need to gear the system towards everyone there getting paid.
Additionally for this reason massive mega-corporations that warrant executives would not be necessary, you are not trying to maximize profit and expand but rather you are trying to put some food on your table and beer-money in your wallet.
>>1156606
its more like privatization, which does happen in our modern democratic system
>>1156657
Ah, but it is.
Prostitution is not immune from the capitalist system, my friend.
>>1156589
Where did you get this from? And how does it prove that every other country on earth actively traded with Cuba during the embargo?
>>1156563
How did Cuba side with the Soviet Union after the Cuban missile crisis? They agreed with the US to cut ties with the USSR after that and still got embargoed.
>>1156667
It does, because governments control public means of production rather than the workers.
Not to mention bourgeois democracy isn't really democratic at all.
>>1156670
Marx cosidered what you are describing alienation,and there can be prostitution in socialism.
>>1156690
I know there can, I'm just saying it can also become a capitalist thing.
And recognizing the value of service industry workers isn't alienation.
>>1156323
Marx understood that to be precisely the main contradiction in society, that in one hand we're pretty selfish but on the other we need to cooperate just to produce the basic necessities of life. How we organize ourselves to produce said necessities might not be the most rational way of doing it, much less the most fair one, it's just one mode of production out of many, and because of this contradiction one part of humanity screws and exploit the other, even though they have a need of each other. Even though capitalism is the mode of production that industrialized the world the most efficient way possible, it goes full retard when allocating the surplus in material wealth that results of said industrialization, right now most of us could work 20 hours a week or whatever, but because we're dragging along this mode of production that corresponds to a previous stage of world history, will continue to be exploited by the rulling class, overworked and unable to afford all the things capitalism produces.
That's not even getting into all the other problems capitalism-imperialism causes in the global scale, but it shows the historical need for socialism.
>>1156665
>The fact that they can democratically decide their own work hours as opposed to working 9-5 every day 5 days a week means that you can have a more fluid system of production when you can virtually have someone working there at all times
Unless they decide they don't want to work, in which case they produce nothing in all those hours of "working". Again, the USSR and Soviet bloc are perfect examples of this. Guess what had to happen when the workers decided to not produce enough to meet the governments demand in those economies?
>That's the whole point of socialism, it's a good thing that that would happen.
Becoming a joke industry with no accountability among its workers is a good thing? Are you memeing me or do you not understand how this is a bad thing?
> you can subdivide things as much as you like for the sake of efficiency.
The fact that you think having a decentralized industry is a good thing tells me you have no clue how they're run in reality.
>Additionally for this reason massive mega-corporations that warrant executives would not be necessary, you are not trying to maximize profit and expand but rather you are trying to put some food on your table and beer-money in your wallet.
So you won't produce any more than fits you. If people (I.E. the government) wants you to produce 20,000 more tons of steel to help them build a bridge, yet you're already making enough money and decide not to ramp up production to meet their demand, do you think that is going to go over well? Because if I was the consumer, by that point I'd want to look for a more efficient industry to buy my products from.
And look at that, it sounds almost like a capitalist economy or something where you have two industries competing for consumers. Funny that.
The kind of model of ownership marxism wants us to move towards is not possible in large, complex societies
>>1156665
>Subdivide for the sake of efficient
Sounds like a free market economy to me senpai. That's straight libertarian right there.
>>1156698
So a human being a means of production isnt alienation? Because prostitution is basically that
>>1156717
>Unless they decide they don't want to work, in which case they produce nothing in all those hours of "working".
Yes but why would they do that?
In the USSR they would get paid anyway as their system was to tax everything at 100% and then just pay everyone a set wage. In a proper democratic workplace this would be different.
>Becoming a joke industry with no accountability among its workers is a good thing? Are you memeing me or do you not understand how this is a bad thing?
I'm saying if the workers wish to operate that way then more power to them. And ultimately looking out for each other is indeed more important than maximizing profits.
>The fact that you think having a decentralized industry is a good thing tells me you have no clue how they're run in reality.
And I take it you have years of experience as a CEO?
>So you won't produce any more than fits you. If people (I.E. the government) wants you to produce 20,000 more tons of steel to help them build a bridge, yet you're already making enough money and decide not to ramp up production to meet their demand, do you think that is going to go over well?
If the workers decide to vote on whether or not to ramp up production and they decide against it then yes, fuck the government contract. Let them go somewhere else.
>And look at that, it sounds almost like a capitalist economy or something where you have two industries competing for consumers. Funny that.
Yes, you can have competition in socialism. This is another thing that class-traitors try to pretend is inherent and exclusive to capitalism.
>>1156733
Well they are a means of production are they not? It's just a matter of whether or not they decide selling their own body is worth it, and there's not really anything wrong with deciding to do so.
It's a matter of whether or not they own the value produced. If they do then fair enough, if someone else does then they've been alienated from the value of their own body.
>>1156657
So bankers are not capitalists?
>>1156733
>prostitution is alienating
No shit.
>>1156323
People will not work twice as hard as their counterpart for the exact same reward for very long, or God forbid, for the exact same reward as someone who doesn't work at all.
>>1156736
>Yes but why would they do that?
What's stopping them? They have no demands or quota's to realistically meet. The USSR had the system they did because nothing would get done otherwise. Where's the guarantee?
>I'm saying if the workers wish to operate that way then more power to them
That's all fine, you have plenty of industries that operate on that principle actually that are owned by the workers, but these are not major industries, and for good reason, because they can't compete with more efficient ones.
>And I take it you have years of experience as a CEO?
I've worked in management within Pharmaceuticals yes. These aren't dumb people, they have to coordinate with suppliers and distributes across the planet to make their industry work.
> yes, fuck the government contract
So you're denying to participate in a project that would improve the quality of life of many people, that was presumably voted for by the people democratically, and you expect that to go over well? wew
>Yes, you can have competition in socialism.
Except Marx explicitly states that cooperation, not competition, would be the lifeblood of a Socialist system. In your scenario, the industry that chooses not to produce steel is not cooperating towards the benefit of the proletariat. They've essentially assumed the same exploitative role as the Capitalist did, in that they are now working towards their own benefit at the expense of everyone else. The only way a system like this could exist is through threats of force and coercion by the proletariat towards said industry, and that's exactly what happened in say Maoist China, where people were executed if quota's weren't filled on time.
And so the cycle continues.
>>1156762
I've always found this a bad argument against socialism.
Why not just use the better one that its not respected at all as an economic system by actual economists and mathematicians that work in this area?
>>1156791
The demand that they need to work in order for them to have money. It is that self explanatory.
>That's all fine, you have plenty of industries that operate on that principle actually that are owned by the workers, but these are not major industries, and for good reason, because they can't compete with more efficient ones.
They can compete, some of them put private industries to shame. However they are inherently at a disadvantage because of the exploitive nature of private industry. Whereas rightly in a worker run organization the goal should be getting everyone paid, the goal of a private industry is maximizing profit. Having this growth of profit allows you to further expand and further accumulate wealth.
The greater efficiency is not a virtue of the system, it's a sympton of the exploitation of the workers.
>So you're denying to participate in a project that would improve the quality of life of many people, that was presumably voted for by the people democratically, and you expect that to go over well? wew
Did the workers vote for it? Fair enough
Did they vote to turn the contract down? Also fair enough.
They get a say in what contracts they accept and that's a good thing.
>They've essentially assumed the same exploitative role as the Capitalist did, in that they are now working towards their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.
"Everyone else" (in this case the state masquerading as a voice of the people) expecting the workers to do their bidding contrary to their own wishes is the exploition here. Not the workers exercising their right to choose what they want to do.
>The only way a system like this could exist is through threats of force and coercion by the proletariat towards said industry, and that's exactly what happened in say Maoist China, where people were executed if quota's weren't filled on time.
Yes which is why command economies are bad and you should use this system where people are free to tell the state to fuck off.
>>1156811
I get what you're saying, and you have a couple of points and I suppose we can agree to disagree, but until we see a successful example of stateless socialism actually working on a large scale, I'll be holding my breath and remain skeptical.
>>1156832
I'm not advocating for anarchism, it's more like a minarchist socialist system.
>>1156837
So basically libertarian socialism?
>>1156803
>>1156762
That was meant to quote the OP. Not sure why I quoted you.
>>1156803
On this I should elaborate. use the reasons why actual economists and mathematicians don't respect socialism as an economic system. Not these imo poor reasons.
Socialism from the very beginning had a big problem of making up its own functions, definitions, and equations and telling other systems they were wrong because they don't pass these made up functions, definitions, and equations.
Capitalist greed is actually woven into capitalist philosophy. From Adam Smith, we've known that in some cases, everybody in a group being greedy benefits the whole group more than everyone being cooperative. Its not something that is a bad side effect to capitalism as socialism posits.
>>1156745
Yes they have capital,no they dont produce anything with it other than loaning it an investing it.
>>1156837
Personally, any minarchism is rather naive imo. The state has a purpose and can often serve the people better than the industries can. The federalist/anti-federalist debate in US history for example highlights the benefits of a centralized government.
>>1156786
Jesus, it's surprising just how little /his/ understands about Socialism even though they talk about it constantly.
>>1156865
And Switzerland is one of the least centralized countries in Europe,and they are doing great. Minarchism can work pretty well.
>>1156458
Because we're discussing the philosophy of Marx's politics. That's not cause for a ban.
Do threads on right-wing thinkers like Evola get deleted? No. What gets deleted and banned is racebaiting and nonsense /pol/ meme spouting. Just look at any of the 5 or so threads on Africa that we have at any given time to see an example of the shit I'm talking about.
I'm not a commie or socialist either, but if you think this thread is comparable to /pol/ shitposting I don't know what to tell you.
>>1156889
Switzerland is a tax haven that exists to store Europe's Jewgolds and rake in the interest. It's kind of hard to fuck that up.
If you believe that humans aren't cooperative or compassionate, why would you choose to implement a system that enables destructive greed rather than counteracts it?
That's the real mystery in my opinion.
>>1157215
Because its been studied to show that greed isn't inherently destructive and actually can be very constructive.
>yet another thread where marxists get BTFO
When will they ever learn?
>>1159537
>learning from a Jewish market worshiper
Marxists and hypercapitalists, not even once.
Stupid people tend to be inductivists. Generalizing the modern capitalist man as seen in current societies leads them to "naturalize" it, even though a minimal anthropological or historical knowledge obviously refutes this.
Why did peasants think the feudal order was natural?
>>1156334
>You're a pretty shitty person then tbqh.
You are too though. You're just in denial.
>le class traitor meme
>implying commies have ever done anything good for the lower classes anywhere
>>1159588
>>1159606
I'm not marxist and i didn't say anything particularly controversial.
I'm sorry if your entire view of humanity is based on generalizing your own immediate social reality and you got butthurt.
>>1159619
You spouted a Gramsci muh noble savages meme which is demonstably wrong.
Just study indigenous history of the Americas for Christ's sake. The ones who were the most greedy did the most raping and pillaging and were the most successful.
>>1159630
I don't see your point. I'm saying that humanity is not inherently capitalist nor greedy, not that it never is. Example don't prove universal statements, counterexamples refute it.
>>1159654
Pure altruism has been proven as just a meme by psychologists.
>>1159674
Cool.
>>1156363
We will never see "muh true gommunism" as long as capitalist society exists and remains dominant. Trying to achieve a stateless society by giving the state absolute control over means of production is the most retarded and backwards thing that I've ever heard in my entire life.
I really dislike marxists, it's like saying that breathing through your asshole is the best way to breathe and that people who attempted to do so only to end up suffocating haven't really tried breathing through their assholes
>>1159823
>this is the average antimarxist level of argumentation
>>1156323
Because socialists want you to share. Seems pretty obvious to me.
However it is still a meme. Under socialism you are not merely asked to volunteer at the soup kitchen and treat employees fairly, an übermensch scientist who wants to undertake some great task has to ask a bureaucrat for permission first. Even if they intend to do all the work entirely on their own they are not allowed to control the "means of production" they themselves created.
Is it really immoral or "unethical" to choose your own destiny over that of the state?
>>1159892
>Is it really immoral or "unethical" to choose your own destiny over that of the state?
This has been repeated a million times already but communism is by definition stateless, and the vast majority of socialist/communists, including marx, aren't statists. Anticommunists argue as if communists defended a position which they don't, then proceed to get mad at the "not true communist" argument. So you're basically strawmanning: almost no one defends a society in which "a scientist who wants to undertake some great task has to ask a bureaucrat for permission first".
There's actual a whole board for political discussion, believe it or not.
>>>/pol/
>>1156331
Ad-hominem falacy
>Social Evolutionism
Pls
Plebs
>>1159917
If they allow a corporation like Monsanto to be privately owned then it will essentially be a mixed economy. If they want Monsanto to be redistributed they need a state.
That is what people assume.
>>1159931
sociology intersects with economics and politics
>>1159981
It's a thread about a political ideology, it belongs on the politics board. If /pol/ is too retarded to properly discuss it then tough shit, I don't get to make threads about the HRE on /mu/ just because I don't want to get Voltaired to death.
>>1156323
obligatory
>>1156323
also obligatory
>>1159992
Political theory and political economy belong here.
>>1160149
>It's almost like this topic is too complicated for meme format.
There's a decently-sized community of anarchy ball comics and they do a good job portraying arguments with one another.
>>1160149
>>1160153
No, they do not. If you want to know what "belongs" here just consult the sticky that is right there when you arrive. The closest thing allowed here that this comes to is "law", and it falls short of that.
>>1157125
The banking sector is only 6.2% of the GDP, while it is an 8% in the US. You should inform yourself before you write crap like that
>>1159864
You have a whole thread in which that meme ideology has been destroyed.
>>1160185
>implying
>>1160177
It's /int/ leakage, just ignore it.
>le jewgold xD it's just like my countrysphere comics!
>>1160175
Yes, they do. Discussing the tenants of socialism isn't the same as discussing, say, how Democrats are socialists.
One is a discussion on political theory or political economy, the other is a discussion on politics.
One would belong on a humanities board, the other on a politics board.
>Could anyone please explain the "Socialism goes against human nature" meme to me?
History agrees with "Socialism goes against human nature". Every socialist revolution started with socialistic intentions, but somewhere down the line all of that went down through the drainage. Socialism (communism enabled through the state) requires a authoritarian state. This isn't bad unto itself, but when greedy and ambitious power players gain control of this authoritarian state things get bad.
As i don't know what type of communism you support, i can't really argue with you on anything
But the communists who use small "egalitarian" tribes as an example that communism work are sort of arguing against themselves because good luck creating a community (that is of the same level as a small tribe, i'm not talking about some facebook group) between 6 billion people.
Communism is a fine-ish idea, (the only problem with the core idea is anti-innovation) unto itself.
Capitalism is shit.
Socialism is shit.
People go to extremes to try to demonize or make one or the other seem laughable or impractical because they're afraid their society will be taken over by either and they'll lose their nice stuff. Prove me wrong faggots.
Socialism is fine in theory, the problem is when things get too ideological and you start worshiping the state's cock. Centralized planning for some things is a decent idea but extremely abusable and prone to collapse if the people running things aren't fucking saints without ambitions of their own.
>>1156377
unemployment only represents people who want to work
otherwise phillips curve models would make fuck-all sense
>>1156323
The ruling ideology of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. The ruling ideas about human nature under capitalism—that it is static, and for the most part awful—greatly benefit the capitalists.
They suggest that because of traits inherent to human beings like greed, ambition, and a tendency towards violence, capitalism—which rewards greed and violence—is the best and most efficient economic system, and the most natural also.
However human nature is flexible and multifaceted. The behaviors of human beings are also heavily shaped by their social circumstances. We are all capable of greed as well as generosity; which one gets expressed has much to do with the values of a society rather than with the inborn tendencies of the individual. As Karl Marx put it:
>“the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations.”
The problem really with socialism isn't a matter of human nature, its a problem with the limits of central planning. As Friedrich Hayek put it:
>"the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what the imagine they can design."
A centralized state that tries to plan and dictate such a system is incapable of making every decision everywhere correctly. Individual actors are simply more efficient at facing those decisions, which is guided a great deal by their own self interest.
Problems also arose with brutal regimes due to dysfunctional political systems.
Socialism was always seen as a system for a more advanced and industrialized society. Social democracy is the idea of working towards the socialist ideal gradually and slowly, through realistic reform rather than social revolution. The countries with the highest standards of living practice this idea. The countries that are on the rise (Brazil, China, India, etc) also adopted similar mixed systems of varying degrees, and with varying degrees of success.
>>1156323
>Socialism goes against human nature
No, it doesn't go against "human nature", it goes against NATURE.
There are people that are shitbags, and refuse to put for the effort to support themselves, and they should be allowed to die. By propping those shitbags up, and worse yet, allowing them to reproduce in massive quantities, we lower the standards for not only the gene pool, but your society.
There's a reason poverty is generational with some families, and that's because they're fucking morons and should be allowed to starve to death.
![Thomas_Robert_Malthus[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PC3igB4.jpg "Thomas_Robert_Malthus[1].jpg")
>>1160639
t.malthus
>literally the intellectual justification behind not helping the Irish during the potato famine
You should be ashamed of yourself if you're Irish.
>>1156374
Did the workers own the means of production? No? Then it wasn't socialist.
Another thread where commies get BBTFO
>>1160407
>History agrees with "Socialism goes against human nature".
False. You mention "communist" tribes yourself, if those naturally existed then your argument isn't that communism goes against human nature but that it can't work in a large scale, pretty different arguments.
>Every socialist revolution started with socialistic intentions, but somewhere down the line all of that went down through the drainage.
False. The biggest "communist" revolution started with a vanguard party that believed workers were too dumb to rule their own lives, and took the power from them immediately. Practically all of the following revolutions were based on this experiment, except the spanish revolution and some few exceptions.
>>1160639
So? Primitive societies used social pressure instead of economic exploitation to guarantee effort. The latter isn''t even efficient, since there is an entire proprietary class that lives from rent, leeching off workers.
>>1161468
>if those naturally existed then your argument isn't that communism goes against human nature but that it can't work in a large scale, pretty different arguments
Not him, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite.
>>1156323
>equating cooperation with socialism
Without cooperation, you don't get socialism, or capitalism or feudalism or monarchism or pretty much any form of government. Cooperation is the bedrock of all societies, even the retarded Aynrandistan ones.
literally any ideology goes against human nature
>>1160639
when you allow people in your own society to die you lower the standards of your society.
>>1160120
Who gives a fuck what it's called? We need to care less about what, exactly, these sorts of theoretical political/economic systems are called; I'm pretty sure we have people on opposite ends of the "spectrum" fighting for a similar outcome.
>>1159937
>he never read hegel
>>1156323
>implying that you won't kill your neighbour to steal his goods once you can
untermensch, everybody
>>1162101
I doubt you have either.
>socialism has never been tried
true socialism would lead to instant bankrupcy...
>>1161586
Socialism doesnt require competition or cooperation because politicians control the competition and cooperation, by force...
>>1156403
> wat is law
>>1156874
Put down the papers on socialism and look at actual socialism for a change.
>>1162184
cuba is pretty cool.
>>1162169
>wat is law
A illegitimate structure built on, funded by, and enforced by violence.
>>1162184
What is "actual socialism"?
Lol where do you think we come from? Selfishness and survival of the individual is the whole drive of evolution. Even mutualistic symbiosis is really mutual exploitation of the other. The microbes in your gut couldn't care less about you if they were sentient. They are little self replication machines.
Having worked at IBM, a company with 350k+ employees, I had hearthy keks reading the teenager proposing democratic voting for all employees.
Thanks /his/
>Read thread
>Capitalist sympathisers still do not understand anything Marx ever said.
>Leave thinking they """"won"""" the argument.
Every single time.
>>1156323
Its not your innate selfishness you need to worry about.
Humans are selfish by default. Is in our nature to be like that. It's only about survival
>>1160639
> they're fucking morons and should be allowed to starve to death.
t.malthus
t.britain
>>1162289
Why is violence or force illegitimate? Do people actually believe that the world operates on a perfectly fair and logical system where humans make actual rational choices?
>>1156323
>Could anyone please explain the "Socialism goes against human nature" meme to me?
Man is an animal who desires to own himself.
>>1166101
I did not imply that violence makes anything illegitimate.
>>1166119
Well, then I guess wage labor will never take off!
If it didn't work at a time when Human rights was fucked, poverty was wide-spread, technology and luxuries were non-existent to the average person and where everyone was indeed part of one group: dirt poor then how could Socialism work now when people will pay for iphones worth almost a thousand dollars, where food is cheap and easy to get, welfare exists in all first world places and where narcissism is rampant and easy access to all information and technology phones, computer etc. further press the idea of individual?
You can try this shit again, in places like Africa and South east Asia and the Muslims shit holes but do you think anyone in the West is going to be fine with the idea that everyone gets the same for different levels of work?
No one is scraping the barrel any more. I am content with my cheap but effective smart phone while someone else is fine - and a retard - for having a phone that costs five times as much but does the same thing, just a bit better. Point is, the line between poor and rich isn't so bad any more. I can get a take-out form a fast food joint or a good shop from a store for a reasonable price whereas rich people can eat out every night at the best places but the point is, we've both got full bellies and are content, only a greedy fuck or a jealous fag would complain about not having the same shit as a rich fag and this is where the bitter smelly commie fucks come in demanding we all be equal and that rich fags share their wealth.
I have no problem with rich people; push them hard enough and off they go to a tax haven and you lose another millionaire in your economy. JUST OUTSOURCE MY SHIT UP
>>1166165
>do you think anyone in the West is going to be fine with the idea that everyone gets the same for different levels of work?
Never advocated by communists.
Seriously, if this is what you think Communism is, than the Soviet Union never even advocated Communism, nevermind tried to implement it.
>>1156345
Pinko, did you ever think maybe most people don't share your warped view of 'muh class'?
>Class traitor
Jesus Christ.
>>1162731
>Having worked at IBM, a company with 350k+ employees
So what?
>>1166184
Read the rest of the post
>>1166304
I did.
>>1156323
If you'd let people to be really free the supermen would kill each other and steal their shit, and it would be great in this way.
t. Ayyy Random.
