Without using memes like Bernie supporter or Cuck, can someone explain why Socialism doesn't work?
Please note I'm a massive Trump supporter and feel Socialism is inherently wrong and plain old thievery, but is there any reason its actually unstable? I'm not talking about cuck socialism like in BLM, I just mean fiscal socialism.
>>68018907
You've pretty much answered your own question there anon, it's thievery and unhealthy for a free market.
Socialism can work in a homogenous country that has a strong work ethic... like Sweden was before they started importing a bunch of third world muslims. The more diverse a country, the more likely you are to have people who aren't invested into the success of that country and those are the people who are going to be parasites.
>>68019361
As long as you have net population growth. And it's hardly actual socialism. The government doesn't own and distribute all the fruits of labor.
>>68018907
>can someone explain why Socialism doesn't work?
People are selfish assholes.
>>68018907
In my opinion the far extremities of both capitalism and socialism are disastrous.
If you leave things completely unregulated then there will be widespread pollution, faulty or crap products, labor abuse and other problems.
If you put too much government in the market then you take away all incentives. Incentives basically make the world go round and drive people, so without any of them the economy collapses.
>>68018907
Somebody has to actually produce all of the goods we consume. Producing is a pain in the ass. If you can consume without producing, why not do it? And the more people who do it, the less that gets produced and therefore, the less we can each consume.
No one knows why. Places just turn to shitholes.
Because why work if someone else pays for my shit, dude!
>>68019903
I think 4chan has something to do with that. Humans either way.
>>68019361
So the absences of multiculturalism makes socialism viable or is that for ALL forms of government?
Mostly that people are selfish. Liberals are hypocrites and want everybody else to abide by their rules but when the chips are down they won't follow those rules themselves.
>>68018907
You tax private business that generates real wealth too much and you end up with what happened in France not long ago, a flight in capital.
Public sector jobs are paid for by the private sector, it's recycled cash from real wealth. Your taxes that you pay in the public sector, it's just recycled cash which goes back to the government and then given out in the form of welfare and cocaine to scum in parliament.
Now let's imagine you have a business and you employ over 1000 people. You face a corporate tax rate hike which will dent your profit margin (used to reinvest in the business to keep it going and keep those 1000 people employed). Both can't be achieved, to cover the losses and keep the business afloat, a cut would need to be made and unfortunately that cut would be the lower workers.
Or that business is well within its legal right to move away to another nation with low tax rates to keep their business flourishing.
Tax away, but don't cry when real wealth disappears, like it did in France. Oh and you can't keep borrowing money from the Central Bank either.
So whilst socialism may be noble in your mind, it won't ever work in its full scale, aspects of it for sure and in mild doses yes and we see this.
People mock "trickle down" but we already have trickled down, it's called the public sector, paid for by the private sector.
Deal with it, you know I'm fucking right.
>>68019833
>>68019941
>>68019734
This is what I try to tell my family over dinner (they're Corbyn supporters)
They always come out with shit like 'It's just the Daily Mail saying the poor live on benefits!' and 'The rich deserve it, they got their money through exploiting the poor!'
>>68018907
It doesn't matter if socialism works or not. Consequentialism is a bunk system of ethics.
Socialism can't work in countries with a lot of leechers like America. All the niggers will still sit at home and chimp out instead of working but will get a bunch of free shit at the expense of the taxpayers. Socialism makes the working people pay for all of the shithead nigs and white trash fucks that sit at home and do drugs all day.
>>68019788
>faulty or crap products
people won't buy shitty products
problem solved
>>68019561
You're thinking of communism.
>>68020531
this desu. that's why free college wouldn't work either. we can't have everyone be doctors and lawyers. we need some people to be waiters and trash collectors or those jobs won't get done
>>68020555
Have you ever even met people? They're stupid. They buy shitty, ugly, poorly made products all the time that they have no use for.
>>68018907
The problem is that welfare doesn't fix poverty, its just masks it. A truly wealthy society doesn't involve the rich giving to the poor, but rather all the people being productive contributors. The socialist model just creates dependency and indolence.
>>68018907
>meone explain why Socialism doesn't work?
It does work.
It works very well. Unfortunately, those who oppose it have the power. They have the money. They own the media. They own the Government.
If Socialism is attempted anywhere, the powerful (international Capital) close it down.
Same as it ever was.
>>68018907
Think of it this way, why should i bother to work very hard at my work place? Even if I did get promoted and got a bigger salary, a socialist government would just take more money from me with their higher taxes. Socialism burns down the ladder of opportunity. Workers who lose their motivation leads to a weaker economy. Foreign companies will less likely set up offices in your country because they could find another country where the staff are enthusiastic and willing to go the extra mile
>>68018907
It was done 70+ years ago and socialist still have yet been able to address these arguments. Before this work socialist would actually address counter arguments but they have never been able to address this one which is why over the last 70 years you never see socialist having open honest debate just shouting down/shaming opposition into silence.
https://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited
>>68018907
it doesnt promote competition or motivation to work
also its been tried countless times and continues to fail.
>b-but it wasn't REAL socialism that was tried! c-communism isn't muh marxist democratic socialism :^)
no true scotsman fallacy makes you look like a faggot so don't even bother
oh and you think its working in those cuck countries in europe? think that has anything to do with their oil reserves that cover their citizens' laziness? keep deluding yourself.
>>68019361
Welfarism has failed in these nations anon and actual Socialism fails harder than welfarism because it doesn't have a capitalist sector to leech off of
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/21463-debunking-the-myth-of-socialist-success-in-scandinavia
>>68018907
It can fail because the people working for government, even if they earnestly try to gauge what people want, can still make mistakes. And when they make mistakes, little competition exists to fill in the gap.
Secondly, the old adage that power tends to corrupt. The govenment may over-reward itself for the function it is carrying out, and again, without the market there will be no alternative to the government's overpriced work/product. The people in charge might see that the public is suffering, but they don't want to take a pay cut, or lose support of the government workers by cutting wages.
It goes something like this:
Socialism reduces incentives. You ever played a game with no objective? Chances are it gets boring. People stop working and rely on "other people", the government ends up as the sole functional body of people... because they stand to profit regardless.
It leads into a decay whereby more socialism is needed to fix the socialism you already have; until there's nothing left to replace, and you have communism.
Use the classroom example
I'll paraphrase it:
Teacher makes class take a test.
Stusents who work hard do really well and get A's. Lazy useless fucks get C's and D's. Teacher then says to make it fair and so everyone can get good grades that they will redistribute the grades more evenly so that everyone ends up with a B.
Kids that worked hard are pissed because they lose a grade and all the shitheads are happy because they got good grades by doing nothing.
So the hard workers stop giving a shit and everyone's grades eventually suffers in the next test since there is no incentive for the hard workers to work anymore.
And the class fails as whole.
I'm sure there's a more detailed analogy than what I just wrote but that's the jist of it.
It will help your retarded family members get it through their thick skulls.
>>68020929
OK you go work, get taxed so I can sit on my arse all day playing vidya.
Okay praise Socialism!
>>68018907
Look at my flag
Look up what happened after the commies took over
>>68020805
>They're stupid.
Are you saying the regulator's aren't equally stupid (add greedy corruptible self serving etc etc)?
>>68020929
No, it doesn't. Because it is predicated on spending other peoples' money.
Unsurprisingly, an ideology based entirely off of jealousy is unsustainable.
Why should it be that all means of production are owned and managed by the workers?
And then, wouldn't the managers or whoever the workers elect to lead them be the de facto owners anyway?
>>68020555
What I mean by this is that without any kind of regulations, corporations will hawk a lot of garbage. For example, credit card companies might sell "protection fees" against credit card theft without actually intending on doing anything to help people against it. Drug companies may make "medicines" that don't work and have such bad side-effects they kill people, or perhaps food industries might keep their products in rancid "The Jungle" like conditions.
I feel like things such as federal agencies designed to protect consumers against fraud are helpful. IMO it's not so simple as "well if it's shit just don't buy it." Sometimes it's unclear if you are being defrauded.
>>68018907
Every example of socialism ever implemented.
I think national socialism would work fine. I'm not talking the white pride kerbstomping racist bullshit the media's brainwashed you about. But national socialism for every nation on earth, Homogenous cultures and borders with no immigration. Vacationing would of course still be allowed and encouraged. You don't want to take the soul or humanity out of the world, but you do want to preserve all races, heritages, and cultures. Something the elites like the rothschilds want the opposite of, and things are going finely to their plans...
>>68021486
>against credit card theft without actually intending on doing anything to help people against it
This is called fraud anon. If you sign a contract that says x company will do y for you and they refuse to do y you get to sue the ass out of them for breach of contract. This doesn't require any regulation at all
>>68021534
Division of labor is why this fails.
As well as geography access to natural resources and the like.
It has been shown over and over again that when trade stops war starts.
>>68021662
I don't completely agree. Legal fees can cost a lot and the courts may not uphold justice. The credit card companies might be more capable of hiring better lawyers that argue they did their best trying to uphold their end of the deal.
I think it is better to have some regulations to protect consumers than to rely on consumers having to protect themselves by going to court.
As with everything else, I think the key is some kind of balance. I do believe that some regulations should exist to protect consumers but too many can obviously be cumbersome.
Because all socialists are lazy
>>68021823
Then wars are acceptable. Literally anything is better than globalism.
>>68019361
It only survived there due to the country already having become rich through capitalism. But their system is degrading fast.
