![5028401[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/MZ1EN4E.gif "5028401[1].gif")
is Socialism really that bad?
>>66869361
Yes.
>>66869386
how?
Only in countries who haven't had a century to figure out how to make it work with the current socioeconomic circumstances and don't like learning from other countries' mistakes.
>>66869361
>gulags for dissidents
>KGB / FSB enforcements of ideals
>and ussr still failed
>>66869361
I'm sure it will be better this time
>>66869395
1. Fails to give people proper incentives. You can not run an economy off the concept of duty.
2. Its massively inefficient due to the inability to central planners to predict the needs and wants of their people in advance. This leads to shortages and surpluses.
>>66869432
>KGB / FSB enforcements of ideals
you cant really run a good economic system with people constantly trying to cheat the system for personal gain behind the governments back
>USSR failed
because shockingly enough, trying to run an economy from the top down using post cards and fucking surveys turns out to be a bad idea
worse than you can imagine
Baltic ethnicity here
>>66869361
Yeah it is pretty bad, especially since all the countries who practiced socialism got destroyed like the USSR and Communist China.
You have to understand too that both the governments of Commie China and USSR were purely socialistic. The whole world needs to be socialistic before it can become communistic. And even if it got that far with its global domination it would destroy countries at a huge cost due to a decline of incentive, equal pay no matter what hours, anything else that's retarded about socialism, etc.
It's a nation destroyer, OP.
Also pic related, if you're going to shill for socialism you might as well leave. This isn't the place for you and we would kill you on sight if this was a real forum with actual people talking. /pol/ would have concealed firearms to shoot you libcucks if you even attempted to talk about socialism.
>>66869524
1. Fails to give people proper incentives. You can not run an economy off the concept of duty.
You most definitely can, in fact a concept of duty is hardly necessary. Just provide a better standard of living than countries that cant provide jobs for their citizens due to corporations automating their workforce or sending jobs to other countries.
2. Its massively inefficient due to the inability to central planners to predict the needs and wants of their people in advance. This leads to shortages and surpluses.
sure, in a world without the internet, or any form of digital information you would be right. But we are in an age where information (and most importantly money) can be transferred thousands of miles within a fraction of a second.
>>66869361
Yes and no. Its good in the form of Democratic Socialism, where you take care of the very weakest in society (those that really cant compete and as such suffer) in the form of providing them with basic human rights such as food, clean water and overnight shelter is great. Rich socialist countries should provide a healthcare system as well, as it can largely prevent people falling from the society train and even becoming homeless altogether, which in the end results in less required police and maintenance to the public space so such programs pay for themselves.
Socialism in the form of anti-capitalist parties is retarded, a totally state controlled (which is more communism anyway) system is ineffective and inefficient.
True socialism has never been tried ;^)))
>>66869855
I mean, im not even approaching the topic from a humanitarian perspective, I dont give a fuck about other people.
the only bad thing about people falling through cracks is the fact that they lose the ability to contribute to the economy by not having enough money to buy shit. It doesnt matter how much money your top corporation rakes in, if nobody can buy your product you are doomed to fail.
I guess i should revise my question to is socialism such a bad idea with todays technology.
the technological strides made in the field of automation and information technology are soon going to be pushing people out of jobs, and what is going to happen when over the course of a few decades, enormous swathes of the population loses the ability to sustain themselves?
is complete nationalization of private industry really that far fetched of an idea? The primary waste of tax payer money right now comes from the mixture of public goods with private companies, a complete removal of the private sector would not only eliminate the waste that is inevitable in a system that lets people exploit government, but allow a more lean government to govern more effectively in other areas
Yes and no. It only works in homogeneous nations like Sweden before they opened their borders, or Nazi Germany where most had the same mindset. It would fail miserably in the Anglosphere because of multiculturalism.
TL;DR only if it's NatSoc
>>66869361
The correct slogan for a socialist party should be "Poverty for everyone!"
>>66869855
>Democratic Socialism
b8
No. Socialism works wonderfully. Just look at all the enlightened socialist countries. Wouldn't you want to live in any of them?
>>66870285
and therein lies the problem, the reason NatSoc will never be properly instituted.
That being said, the system should stand on economic prowess alone, the contribution to the state should be all that matters. Im going to get flamed for saying it here, but I dont really care what shade of shit your skin is, if you can pay taxes and contribute to the nation, even if its by doing something as simple as buying fat rims for your coup deville, you are inherently adding to the wealth of the nation.
multiculturalism isnt exactly poison to socialism, its just a mental barrier that needs to be broken
>>66869630
Im a (kiwi) Trump enthusiast, and your dismissal of socialism is shortsighted.
If you think that the interests of the majority are best seen to by a superwealthy, non-national-loyal few, your misunderderstanding is on par with the thinking that led to Mitt Romney, one of the wealthiest men in a CLUB of multi-millionares, being in charge of looking out for the interests of the common worker.
Socialism isn't the answer, but -International- socialism offers actual solutions to the problems inherent in capitalism.
Private ownership of the worlds wealth, AND the means of GENERATING further wealth leads inexorably to the conclusion of a single, tight-knit group of superwealthy, with no interest in sharing power, and a minumum of that collossal fee going to bread, circuses and the strong right arm of state-endorsed violence to silence dissent.
I get that you'd use guns rather than arguments to silence dissent, thats exactly what you'd expect a useful idiot to say, but the reality is that you have more in common with a factory worker in a 3rd world shithole than you ever will with the interests of Mitt Romney, and decisions factory - tard would make, given the reigns of power would be far more in your common interests than any decisions Romney can sneak past the people.
Get beyond 'liberal' and 'democrat'.
Workers rights are fundamentally democratic, and at odds with capitalism.
This being the case, capitalism has an interest in silencing and subjugating the workers rights by any means nessicary. If you're reading this message, that means we're talking about YOUR rights.
Do you think the war in Iraq was in your interests? Do you think the war in Vietnam was in your interests? OR the interests of the Vietnamese workers?
Who profited? Who lost?
I have some basic fondness Trump because he's closer to democratic representation than Romney ever will be.
>>66870204
>what is going to happen when over the course of a few decades, enormous swathes of the population loses the ability to sustain themselves?
^^ This nigga gets it. It is imperative to the interests of the elite that the international proletariat are divided by issues of race and identity politics, divisions of nation and fighting over the scraps left for them.
Further, in order to leverage value from the ENORMOUS sums of wealth already accumulated, it will be VITAL to implement further austerity, war and authoritarian measures to reduce rights and standards of living on the working class, to prevent further tension as more of the proles become aware of how MUCH in their interest revolution would be.
I don't even want to tear it all down, I'm just talking about the facts.
>>66869361
Nah, unregulated Socialism is bad, same as unregulated Capitalism. Not everything is/should be fixed by the invisible hand of the market, nor should the Nation be fully responsible for the individual.
>>66870689
>multiculturalism isnt exactly poison to socialism
But it is. Forever people will have different cultures, beliefs, and general behavior from DNA and such. Race is more than just skin color and bone shape, but the DNA also affects hormonal levels, which affects people's ways of thinking. For example, blacks and Latinos tend to think more on emotions rather than logic due to hormone levels. With all the different races and different DNA affecting behavior, there's conflict.
>>66871956
I'm gonna need some sources on this information, because this sounds remarkably like pseudo science.
racially homogenous, 0 immigration socialism is a wonderful dream
>>66872040
I figured you'd ask. I just fucking KNEW it.
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456570
>http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm
>>66869782
>Just provide a better standard of living
>Just
the people must do it themselves
it amazes me how westerners have access to review the standards of living in any socialist country and honestly say that it is not bound to be an absolute disaster
>>66869570
you cant really run a good economic system with people constantly trying to cheat the system for personal gain behind the governments back
yeah but the proles ought to have been the good guys who were never wrong. why would a member of the proletariat want to cheat the system after centuries of oppression?
>>66869782
>Just provide a better standard of living
Government doesn't have anything of value to provide. All it can do is take some people's wealth and give it to others(themselves) and when your whole system is based of wealth redistribution, then the only path to wealth or success is going into to government and leeching off the people.
