I've always been a libertarian but now I've been stumped and can see no reason why the bourgeoisie aren't the biggest blight to freedom known to man.
It seems clear that socialism is the answer to our problems. So why aren't you a socialist, /pol/?
>>71914590
>So why aren't you a socialist, /pol/?
Because I'm not a bumbling retard
>>71914691
>Not a bumbling retard
>He believes the capitalism meme.
Socialism can work in the short run but it will always fail in the medium to long run. The rules of supply and demand + human nature can't be manipulated for ever.
Help me understand.
Liberal Democracy is the product of the French Revolution right?
Marxists hate Liberal Democracy because muh neo-imperialism and muh capitalism.
Marxists awaken groups to their identity and oppression under Liberal Democracy (feminism, BLM, gays, trannies etc)
If Liberal Democracy were to collapse without the awakening of such groups the west would revert back to some form of authoritarianism like fascism, monarchy or some other shit like that.
Awakened social groups means that no one would ever go back to an authoritarian state without a fight let alone willingly. Thereby creating the social conditions that allowed the French to revolt.
This is with the hopes that after the collapse of Liberal Democracy humanity would go into some cooperative socialism and making of some sort of monarchy like before impossible.
How wrong am I?
>>71915079
Communism is enslaving robots while humans live like slavemasters.
Humanity is on the way to automation but the bourgeois class would never let the masses ever have power over the means of production. That would be a loss of status and privilege and their most sacred fetish (the means of production).
So instead they automate the means of production for themselves, layoff the workers who actually automate, build, design the means of production and then tell them
>it is a new "gig" economy
>just go get a higher degree
>keep working hard and apply to internships and work for free to get experience
This is why there is a push for more STEM degrees.
Why not collectivize the means of production and use them to serve man, instead of using man to serve the means of production.
pro-capitalist sentiment is a childish behavior that is an artifact of a child never learning that the world is not his property, and sometimes you have to share crayons.
Socialism has a terrible track record historically, not to mention its modern supporters are the very products of capitalistic consumerism.
In this day and age, the only successful forms of socialism have been welfare capitalism which has been dressed as socialism.
You must understand, you hate the SJW's and the black lives matter types right?
You hate them because they are leftists yet you do not see how.
Look at this, the Soviet Union banned the study of biology because biology is inherently anti-egalitarian. As such genetics was also heavily suppressed.
Many other fields were suppressed and controlled, but ultimately it is the same influence.
The same voice that cries out from the feminist and SJW crying out "equality! Destroy the powerful and give to the undeserving weak ones" is the same voice that cries out in socialism and communism.
The fact is, Marxism is also wrong on its historical model.
It has little but excuses on classifying systems such as Ancient Rome's, which was clearly capitalism.
No they must have a specific view of history that is completely linear and progressive with the better coming and the worse going.
This unrealistic view and way of dealing with things is all too common throughout the sum of Marxism and socialism.
>>71915425
Communism arose from the French Revolution - égalité
>>71916079
>Soviet Union banned the study of biology
no they didn't lol
>>71915425
Marxists don't hate liberal democracy, they just see it as a weak compromise to preserve bourgeois interests at the cost of trivial concessions to the working class.
Stuff like trannies and the massive agitation for ridiculously trivial things like gay marriage isn't particularly communist. It's more of a bourgeois subversion of the left. BLM is legit from an ideological standpoint though.
>This is with the hopes that after the collapse of Liberal Democracy humanity would go into some cooperative socialism and making of some sort of monarchy like before impossible.
Marx's view of history is that it's an eternal class evolution. From Roman slavery, to feudal serfdom, to capitalist wage/debt-slavery, then hypothetically to socialism and on to communism.
The idea is that this progression is inevitable and will occur naturally, as it visibly is with the industrialized world become more and more leftist every day. Marx put forward that revolutions exist to advance this process faster or even skip steps like going straight from capitalism to communism.
As far as Marxists are concerned it's going to happen, it's inevitable. You don't need to indirectly provoke reactionaries from behind the scenes to pave the way to communism. Automization and the organized workforce will do it anyway.
Leninists and such on the other hand are a different story.
>>71916079
and honestly all this SJW shit is born from individualism and isn't Marxist at all.
>>71914590
>I used to be libertarian
>Now I'm socialist
Still a pussy, though.
>>71916706
Don't tell me you're some kind of authoritarian stooge.
>>71915079
>human nature can't be manipulated for ever.
>>71916447
>BLM is legit from an ideological standpoint though.
This is why all leftists are total cucks. No consideration of human biodiversity. Africa will be shithole whether it's capitalist, socialist or communist.
>>71914590
Goddamn what's with all those shills lately.
No. Communism is retarded, marx was a kike and you are a shillbot
>>71916919
Not r-selected like you, that's all that matters.
Don't you have to be along? Gotta go prep some pig fuckers to rape your children, you know. Don't be late, sundown prayers start soon.
The best part is that now that you're socialist you don't have to feel bad about paying them to ruin your country. Just goes to show all the real men left for the New World.
>>71917137
>I don't want to get killed by cops
>Somehow this is the wrong opinion to have.
>>71914590
>bourgeoisie aren't the biggest blight to freedom known to man.
You do realize that freedom is a "bourgeois construct" according to the retarded kike in your pic, right?
>>71914691
FPBP
>>71917241
Why do you assume I'm pro-Muslim and pro-child abuse?
>>71917241
literally babble.
Marxists aren't liberals or for any of this shit hahha
Come back when you have some philosophers lad.
>>71917420
>Why do you assume I'm pro-Muslim and pro-child abuse?
Your libertarian-cum-socialist beliefs command it.
>>71915901
everyone is ignoring my post
>>71915425
Liberal democracy is the product of centuries of philosophical thought. It is the product of the enlightenment.
People remember the French revolution because of its brutality. But the french revolution wasn't really "classical liberal". It was a mish mash of different groups. And in the ends, the proto-communists (the Jacobins) ended up killing everyone who disagreed with them (commies tend to do that).
>>71914590
>I've always been a libertarian
Sure, sure you were.
>>71917403
When did he say that?
>>71917508
> (commies tend to do that).
dud everyone tends to do that, it is the history of warfare. disgusting capitalist post ebin pinochet helicopter meme, then cry about supposed communist abuse of human rights.
anti-communist dictators in the third world have killed many people with the support of capitalist countries.
>>71915901
This post is so full of marxist babble I don't even know where to begin
>That would be a loss of status and privilege and their most sacred fetish (the means of production).
Oh yeah I'm sure all the bourgeois have a little shrine dedicated to capitalism which they pray to every night before going to bed.
And what is a bourgeois exactly? Is a restaurant owner a bourgeois?
>So instead they automate the means of production for themselves, layoff the workers who actually automate, build, design the means of production and then tell them
I'm sure the workers can automate for themselves, thus bypassing the need for a bourgeois class, right?
>Why not collectivize the means of production and use them to serve man, instead of using man to serve the means of production.
Because collectivization is a meme which invariably leads to millions of dead by starvation. If you want to live in a totalitarian shithole you can always move to North Korea.
>>71917341
Their problems are a result of inherent genetic traits, not imagined social conditions.
>>71917485
They do?
>>71914590
Welcome to the Party comrade.
>>71917648
In the communist manifesto
>>71917697
> disgusting capitalist post ebin pinochet helicopter meme, t
Pinochet killed 3000 people over a 20 year period.
Stalin killed 1000 people a day for two years.
The key term here is "sense of proportion".
>anti-communist dictators in the third world have killed many people with the support of capitalist countries.
Yeah, they almost reach .1% of the communist death toll.
>>71916919
>socialism
>not authoritarian
shiggy
>>71917716
No, lots of cops are just scum that don't think twice about shooting civilians. Hence why they kill lots of white people in America as well. Or as the UK's own RUC is a case-study in.
Even if blacks are inferior, why does it matter? They can still live perfectly productive lives provided the working class don't get shit on.
>>71917446
>>71917734
Marxism and socialism breed r-selection. If you take the average person and shower them with free resources, you provide them with easy dopamine rushes that deaden their amygdala. They come to behave as a rabbit would in the wild: low sexual selectivity, decreased threat awareness, low in-group loyalty.
This is exactly the profile of your average supporter of "Syrian" "refugees". Further, most refugees are themselves r-selected. They chose a life of welfare over fighting for the freedom of their people.
Rape? r-strategy. Reproduction and dopamine rush for no effort.
So you see, Achmeds, the monster you've created is your own. By supporting redistribution, by supporting the "empowerment" of the proles, you've created a world of r-strategists who value free resources over competition. This sort of civilization doesn't last long, as history shows. Luckily for you, your American cousins will liberate our homelands during Trump's Tenth Crusade. You should repent now, or we might mistake you for one of the traitors on our way through.
>>71917978
>Even if blacks are inferior, why does it matter?
It matters because it would obviously skew the statistics you drooling retard
>>71917821
I've read it, I don't recall him saying that however.
>>71917825
It can be. But not necessarily.
>>71917821
>>71914792
You think the United States would be where it was today if it were socialist? Didn't think so, nigger.
>>71914590
>can see no reason why the bourgeoisie aren't the biggest blight to freedom known to man
Why are they?
Are you sure they even exist as Marx describes?
>>71918042
But that wasn't my point, I'm not saying cops disporportionately kill black people. I'm saying cops in general are a problem.
Capitalists believe that human nature prevents socialism, but then they manipulate human nature to create perversion. If human nature cannot be manipulated, then why do single mothers mangle their son's boy parts in order to "turn them into girls"? Or is this human nature? If Capitalism is built around adherence to human nature, then it's not a system worthwhile. If liberalism is the end result of human nature, then human nature isn't worth adhering to.
>>71917713
>I'm sure the workers can automate for themselves, thus bypassing the need for a bourgeois class, right?
they could if they organized and reappropriated their own labor.
>And what is a bourgeois exactly?
owner of means of production
>Because collectivization is a meme which invariably leads to millions of dead by starvation.
how so, ever heard of economies of scale?
No one has starved in post great leap forward china or vietnam. while the philippines has a gdp lower than some african countries.
>>71918105
>I don't recall him saying that however.
I'm not surprised, you don't come off as particularly smart.
>>71918114
t. /r/communism
Anyways you're aware that the NKVD archives have been open for the past 25 years, right?
>>71918127
No, it would be better.
>>71918331
human nature is a concept created to hand-wave away any criticism of capitalism. It cannot be rigorously proven.
the way society is is a by-product of how it is organized.
>>71918341
>Anyways you're aware that the NKVD archives have been open for the past 25 years, right?
then open them up and upload some scans
>>71918342
yes komrade glorous peoples republic of america, make college free komarade tax the poor as much as the rich komrade
kill everyone who dissents tovarisch
>>71918290
>I'm not saying cops disporportionately kill black people.
That's what BLM stands for you fucking idiot. By supporting BLM you support the nigger conspiracy theory of racist white cops killing poor innocent skittles eating dindus.
>>71918332
>they could if they organized and reappropriated their own labor.
Why don't they? It's a free country.
>owner of means of production
So a restaurant owner is a bourgeois?
>No one has starved in post great leap forward china or vietnam
Yes, because they reintroduced the market system and abandoned collectivization, you fucking idiot.
Ever heard of Deng Xiaoping?
>>71918463
jk you dont tax the rich people at all because those are the party leadership, everyone else is poor :^)
>>71914590
So you want to be free by forcing other people to pay for your shit?
Socialism and libertarianism are polar opposites.
>>71917978
Having grown up around working class people most of them need a firm hand to keep them in line. I'm not saying anyone is inferior, just that people have different traits and abilities and expecting blacks and East Asians to show they same level of productiveness is pure fantasy.
>>71918105
>((((Luxemburg))))
Good thing the Freikorps were around to stop (((Bolshevism))).
commies? on MY pol?
its more likely than yuo think...
>>71918452
Have you ever heard of this internet research tool called "google"?
>It seems clear that socialism is the answer to our problems
Yes, National Socialism.
>>71918415
>>you can't prove humans have a nature, maaaaan
right, because nothing is true, isn't that right comrade? whose to say you're REALLY starving? you could be just being tricked by your senses!
>>71918341
>I'm not surprised, you don't come off as particularly smart.
Maybe that's the case.
But could you quote what Marx actually said?
>>71918592
>>internet research tool
lol
did you know that there is no objective google?
everyone gets results tailored for their thought-sector by the CIA to control their worldview.
>>71914590
>now I've been stumped
Oh, yes? Then please share what was it that "made you see" the truth! After all, wouldn't there be a reason for you changing your views? Or maybe you just randomly decided "Nope, that ain't for me no more"?
Go fuck yourself you brainless kike.
>>71918723
Are you serious?
>>71914590
>stumped why the labor theory of value isn't complete and utter trash
Let me know when you escape the 1980s
>>71918654
>And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
>>71918494
I'm not supporting BLM.
I'm just not taking issue with them.
>>71918494
>Yes, because they reintroduced the market system and abandoned collectivization, you fucking idiot.
LOL,have you ever heard of the cultural revolution, Mao went into FULLCOMMUNISM© oddly enough this period is the highlight of rural China, Deng's policy brought stagnation to rural China.
http://www.chinasmack.com/2014/stories/90-of-chinese-peasants-live-as-they-did-40-years-ago.html
Also if your theory that market oriented policies end famines and communist policies create famines is true, point to a period where communist Vietnam had a famine, but not market-policies
>>71915079
>Hij viel voor de Ayyyn Rand meme
>>71918592
>then get on it and do some research you make the claim that Stalin killed gabillions of people and that it is in the nkvd archives, you should find it and post it.
>>71914590
>>71914792
If you, at any time, had ever actually been a libertarian in anything but name, you would never have seen any benefit or logic in the concept of socialism.
>>71918723
>>71918947
>cultural revolution was the highlight of rural china
This may be somewhat true, but only because the red guards didn't attack peasants and because China was being held in the past.
>>71914590
It takes an average IQ of 90 to (empirically) sustain democracy.
I think it has to be even higher for socialism
>>71919043
C'mon man, it's a false flag already.
No one ever goes from being a real liberal to a commie.
>>71918643
How the fuck are you going to prove human nature exists?
You reveal a lack of braincells by equating an ethereal concept like human nature to the physical condition of the body wasting away due to malnutrition.
>dude, of course love is real, if that isn't real then fossils aren't real
>t.you
>>71915079
Ayn Rand is a fool.
I am socialist, by the way.
>>71918947
>LOL,have you ever heard of the cultural revolution, Mao went into FULLCOMMUNISM© oddly enough this period is the highlight of rural China,
If by highlight you mean civil war.
The cultural revolution was by far the most retarded policy ever put forth by a government. It nearly caused the collapse of communist China.
>http://www.chinasmack.com/2014/stories/90-of-chinese-peasants-live-as-they-did-40-years-ago.html
I don't care much for chinese propaganda.
>Also if your theory that market oriented policies end famines and communist policies create famines is true, point to a period where communist Vietnam had a famine, but not market-policies
I didn't say that it automatically creates a famine. But it creates a famine more often than not.
Vietnam and Cuba are exceptions for not having suffered massive famines.
>>71919039
I don't have to do it, since professional historians already have. It's called reading a history book. But I guess it surpasses the capacity of your tiny brain, which can only handle reddit infographics.
>>71918886
You left out the part where he explained what he means, and the typical reaction to this line of thinking.
>By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
>You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
>From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
>You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
>Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
>I have to follow a ideology uncompromising
>this thread
>>71918834
>>71919071
are you?
do you really fucking believe that a democratic voter and a republican voter gets the same results on google?
when its so easy, and so powerful and basic a tool of control?
you're probably automated responses anyways.
>>71914590
Because I'm not part of the elites and I can't rise up in power.
>>71915079
Is that why all the best countries in the world right now (US, Europe, Canada, Australia) have been mixed economies or social democracies for over 100 years?
>>71919308
>You left out the part where he explained what he means,
Because I thought it unecessary to quote.
You think his explanation makes it any softer?
>>71919214
how are you going to prove that a thing, much less a living organism, could exist without a nature?
jesus people are philosophically bankrupt nowadays.
>>71919394
>over 100 years
Try 50 years.
And it's been downhill from then on. Western civilization committed suicide in the 1960s.
Go back to middle school kiddo
>Not being a national socialist and enjoying the best of "liberal" economic policies and conservative social politics
>>71919131
not only that, but there were many rural schools built, and industry developed plus they extended healthcare into the rural countryside where 80 percent of the Chinese lived.
Then Deng said, fuck rural people and democracy. Party bosses are now supreme, and we should not waste resources on rural peasants. So party bosses dismantled the collective enterprises, and appropriated it for themselves, and then started manufacturing for foreigners and taking away peasant land to sell to foreign interest, all the while polluting the land so farmers can't even farm. Rural people lost their social safety net, means of production and the power to criticize and remove communist party bureaucrats. Capitalist hold this as a great "liberalization" by Deng.
>>71919394
>US, Europe, Canada, Australia
>mixed economies
Hardly, they're all the most free market in the world and most of their economies are in the vast majority run by the private sector.
The more a country drifts towards socialism the worse it gets, unless you're living in an AnCap society.
>>71916079
>soviet union
>banned biology?
Where did you get that? Libtard uni? Say what you want about the CCCP but science and art flourished under the commie rule.
>>71919437
Are you retarded? The US first started implementing socialist policy around the 1900s with the union uprisings, establishment of the fed, et cetera. Countries like the UK have been socialist for longer.
Also, 50 years ago was WW2, a time when all countries had HEAVILY socialist policies in order to support the war. After ww2 they starting turning industry back to private sector.
>>71919568
Yeah, China was so much better under Mao, it was a true paradise.
Thank god North Korea is still holding up against those evil capitalist-fascist oppressors. A true haven of peace and prosperity.
>>71919599
Ever heard of Lysenkoism, nigger?
>>71919580
>Hardly, they're all the most free market in the world and most of their economies are in the va
And yet people do nothing but complain about regulation.
All the best countries in the world are Keynesian mixed economies.
>>71919610
>Are you retarded? The US first started implementing socialist policy around the 1900s with the union uprisings, establishment of the fed, et cetera. Countries like the UK have been socialist for longer.
No they haven't. You probably don't know what the word "socialism" means. Kill yourself.
>Also, 50 years ago was WW2, a time when all countries had HEAVILY socialist policies in order to support the war
Not socialist, totalitarian. The workers didn't own "the means of the production" any more during ww2 than before, you stupid faggot.
>>71919610
Thats not exactly true. Post WW2, most countries were still very social, in fact, even the conservatives had some social democratic leanings. It was not intill the 70-80s when privitastion went crazy. Everyone knew that to not have a Hitler 2.0, or a commie revolution you had to keep the middle and lower classes happy, and the only way to do that is with social policisy.
>>71919695
>All the best countries in the world are Keynesian mixed economies.
Yeah, like Greece and Spain?
Meanwhile in Singapore and Hong Kong...
>>71919043
The reason I'm starting to think the libertarianism isn't the way to go is because free-trade economics seem to benefit absolutely no one but the ultra-rich while stamping all over the scant few liberties of the working class.
Yeah, sure you can say it's the free market to abolish the minimum wage and totally privatize healthcare and you'd be right. But it doesn't seem very free to the guy working for pennies unable to get a filling.
>>71915901
The big irony of this post is that commies hated agricultural mechanization because "muh unemployed feild workers will starve" but once again commies are always wrong because they operate on entirely false assumptions
Socialism can work if you could maintain proper checks and balances between state power and the citizens.
A socialist country with conservative nationalist tendencies would do well. In fact, it would probably end up being the best form of government.
Unfortunately it's not like you can go around saying "I'm a national socialist!" without retards and normies immediately associating you with Hitler and his NSDAP.
Fuck Hitler and Nazi Germany, they ruined national socialism for everyone.
>>71919568
The problem is that Mao incentivised keeping people living rurally. Mao's culture of anti-intellectualism effectively denied people the freedom to advance themselves.
Deng did right to incentivise people to move to more industrial areas, because there they could more easily gain skills and better living conditions.
Of course there was massive corruption involved in selling off collective land, but when governments move out of communism this inevitably happens. Like in Russia.
I don't support it, but it's impossible to go from socialism to a free market instantly.
>>71919395
No, I think his explanation makes him right.
Free trade is absolutely meaningless to everyone but the bourgeois.
>>71914691
this familia
>>71919340
Trying to argue with someone like you is like trying to tell a tranny that it still has a penis and that makes it a male. So deep in your delusion that you could become the CEO of google and still believe that your employees work against your will and orders.
I'll say just one thing; what makes you so significant to go to such lengths to deceive you? What makes you so important that they would make an entire system dedicated to you? No matter what you browse or whom you vote for, you always get "not terrorists" written on google after you type "muslims are".
>>71919715
>you probably don't know
>Kill yourself.
>stupid faggot
not an argument
You just can't admit you got BTFO
>>71919730
That's mostly true. However, a lot of countries did a 180, like the US. This is why you see all the companies in Europe and Japan that produced during the war still in business today, but all the companies that made stuff for the US in ww2 are mostly gone.
>>71919301
then post the history book.
>>71919247
> It nearly caused the collapse of communist China.
how so? 1970's china was very stable, compare it to 1970's india, middle east, africa, or any other third world and you will see it was peaceful, prosperous and advancing.
>>71919247
>Chinasmack
>propaganda
lol
>>71919426
>how are you going to prove that a thing, much less a living organism, could exist without a nature?
what is your definition of a "nature"? you are asking me to prove a negative which if you ever took logic 101, you would know is impossible.
you made a positive claim, that living organisms have a "nature." now prove it.
>>71919803
>But it doesn't seem very free to the guy working for pennies unable to get a filling.
Haaa, the eternal commie "le freedom requires money" meme.
I could go on hours about it, but I'll just summarize it: there is no such thing as "losing your freedom because you're poor". That is just marxist newspeak to appropriate the word "freedom" for their cause.
Because the only way to make wages "fair" is throught nationalization, price control and wage control, i.e. through the destruction of individual liberties.
Is it unfair that some people are poor? Sure. But we mustn't let passion for equality blind us into relinquishing our freedom.
>>71919695
I know, we should complain, because bad regulation is still fucking us up the ass.
Just like how Uber has been banned here because of the taxi lobby.
>>71919803
>isn't the way to go is because free-trade economics seem to benefit absolutely no one but the ultra-rich while stamping all over the scant few liberties of the working class.
Tell me about all of the Libertarians praising the neomercantilism we have today.
Protip
The most hardcore critics of the current protectionist system is libertarians
>>71919973
>1970s china was very stable
Like the red guard fighting each other and executing intellectuals?
National socialist, you mean.
>>71919836
I agree, tbqh.
Say what will about America but they do have the greatest counter-balance to state power known to man, the right to bear arms.
>>71920084
He means
>stable for Socialism
>>71919599
>banned biology?
not exactly, but genetics research was banned for decades, and biological and agricultural research was headed by an absolute retard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
>>71919993
I disagree with the concept but this is one angle of it I must say you've described in a good general way.
>>71919998
This post also describes a counterargument to yours, above. Regulation, on a state, not federal, level, is what creates said individual freedoms. Local economies work on their own terms. But no matter what political system your country runs, if it does it badly, the results will be bad.
>>71919858
>The problem is that Mao incentivised keeping people living rurally
how is that a problem, would it not be better develop all areas equally, instead of concentrating your population and creating huge, dirty, corrupt cities?
>Deng did right to incentivise people to move to more industrial areas, because there they could more easily gain skills and better living conditions.
Mao made it possible so rural people could have a higher quality of living.
Having party bosses shut down factories, remove the social safety net and tell you to fuck off while the remove all form of rural income, is a pretty shitty way to incentivise people.
>>71919897
>Free trade is absolutely meaningless to everyone but the bourgeois.
Is free trade meaningless to the starving ukrainians who weren't allowed by Stalin to trade or even flee their villages during the Holodomor?
>>71919952
>not an argument
meme
Look kiddo, you're quite obviously some high schooler. Google the word "socialism" and then only engage with me in a conversation. I can't possibly argue with someone who believes that America has been socialist for over a hundred years...
>>71919973
>then post the history book.
black book of communism would be a start.
>>71919973
>how so?
Are you fucking serious? The red guars started forming autonomous armies and taking over whole cities. In the end Mao had to order the red guards to be killed. There was almost a civil war.
Have you read like a single thing about this event?
>>71920193
>I disagree with the concept
Why?
>>71920029
But libertarianism dose not get rid of the problem, in fact without outside interference we will always end up with coporationism. It was Marx who said it best, the biggest enemy of capitalism is not a communist but a capitalist, because every capitalist wants a monopoly and is working twords it. Without state interference there is no chance of a fair fight for most people because once there are a few big players on the feild, they will make absolutly shure not to let anyone in on their teritory. Capitlaism is a system riged to fail.
>>71914590
Stop false flagging this hard asshole
Economic liberty has improved the standard of living for more people than anything else in history
>>71920157
Was he the guy that told peasants in China to plant seeds twice as deep so their crops would grow twice as high?
>>71920193
Regulations do not create freedoms at all.
How am I more free now that I can't choose between a taxi and an Uber?
>>71920218
America has been a mixed economy for 100 years.
As I already said, the rise of unions in the early 1900s brought about a lot of socialist policy in the US that we still have today, like a minimum wage, 40 hour work week, and child labor laws. After people got tired of bank speculators, we established the Fed in 1913.
Either you don't realize what mixed economy means, or what socialist policy is, or you're just to butthurt to admit you're wrong.
>>71920084
less than one percent of china were in big city universities that had red guard problems. yet it was this one percent that had the ability to go overseas and shitpost entire books about how mao was evil for making them spend a summer in rural china, As if that was a punishment.
Life in rural china was life for the majority of the Chinese, yet these guys act like a couple of years in rural china was a second holocaust.
This is the narrative of the cultural revolution in the west created by privileged cry-babies.
How many intellectuals were killed by red guards, can anyone come up with even a couple of scientist killed by the red guards?
>>71919993
>Because the only way to make wages "fair" is throught nationalization, price control and wage control, i.e. through the destruction of individual liberties.
No, the only way to make wages fair is to democratize the workplace so the workers can control the distribution of the resources they earn.
In such a system there would be no need for wage-control or price-control, it would simply be self-regulating.
>>71920202
It is a problem, because urbanisation creates weath far more than farming does.
Why did people flock to factories during the industrial revolution and why are they doing it now in the third world?
It is because they are offered a higher wage and better working conditions there.
Sure, some people were forced off their farms, but the vast majority of people went voluntarily, even against the rural farmowners' wishes.
socialism is overly hyped, in reality its just helping dindu's who won't work and sending a shitload of cash to people who don't need it instead of hard working citizens actually contributing to shit
>>71920414
You're conflating work regulations with socialism. You are a braindead nigger retard who should read a book for once in his life.
>>71914590
>I've always been a libertarian
If you truly were, you'd know the real problem is when people hold power. It doesn't matter if you give power to a nice guy from a poor family, for example, he's always going to be an asshole in the end. The real problem is the state.
>>71919803
>free-trade economics seem to benefit absolutely no one but the ultra-rich while stamping all over the scant few liberties of the working class.
Read Jesus Huerta de Soto, you stupid bastard. The vast majority of population is away from real capitalism, excluding those "ultra riches" you are talking about, free market is the only way to include them.
>>71920218
>Is free trade meaningless to the starving ukrainians who weren't allowed by Stalin to trade or even flee their villages during the Holodomor?
Are you implying that Stalin is a perfect paragon of Marxist ideals?
>>71920218
>Are you fucking serious? The red guars started forming autonomous armies and taking over whole cities. In the end Mao had to order the red guards to be killed. There was almost a civil war.
you fail to keep things in perspective, 80% of china was rural, a couple of cities having problems does not mean the country was collapsing.
>Is free trade meaningless to the starving ukrainians who weren't allowed by Stalin to trade or even flee their villages during the Holodomor?
sauce?
the black book of communism has no source in it all.
>>71920526
Workers already control the wages they earn. Employment is not forced, then can always leave for another job.
In a "democratized workplace", no one could show private initiative, there would no enterpreneurship, not a single decision would be taken, it would be pure stagnation.
The self-regulation you're yearning for already exists. It's called the free market.
>>71920526
If you 'democratise the workplace' no entrepreneurs will open businesses they can't control and will move out of the country with all their capital.
Socialism is becoming more and more difficult to implement by the day due to globalisation and it's impossible to stop it all over the world at the same time.
>>71920647
He was a pretty good marxist, yes.
>>71920681
>the black book of communism has no source in it all.
Literally every sentence in the book has a citation.
But why do I try, you'll just dismiss it, since you're intellectually dishonest. You can't be intellectually honest and be a communist because communism doesn't agree with facts.
>>71920298
Except that through taxation and legislation the government sets up a lot more permanent monopolies than anyone could ever hope to have on the free market.
>>71920597
>real capitalism
This is real capitalism.
Unless you're implying "true capitalism" is going to make everything better when it's capitalist systems that are the problem to begin with - expanding them to somehow rectify them is retarded.
>>71916434
Lynsenkoism was a USSR campaign against Mendel Gendtics which is taught in e ER school in the west.
>>71920889
Let me try with socialism:
>real socialism
This is real socialism.
Unless you're implying "true socialism" is going to make everything better when it's socialist systems that are the problem to begin with - expanding them to somehow rectify them is retarded.
>>71920682
>
In a "democratized workplace", no one could show private initiative, there would no enterpreneurship, not a single decision would be taken, it would be pure stagnation.
Co-ops already exist and they function pretty well.
This isn't one of the hypothetical suggestions of communism, it is a clearly visible fact that co-operative labour works perfectly well and has been doing so for some time now.
>>71920528
you do know it is possible to develop small rural industry and raise standards of living, urbanization is not necessary.
>It is because they are offered a higher wage and better working conditions there.
>Sure, some people were forced off their farms, but the vast majority of people went voluntarily, even against the rural farmowners' wishes.
So Deng turning the countryside to a shitty place was a great thing because now people could go work in the city producing trinkets for westerners, and being worked so hard that factories install anti-suicide nets. Thanks Deng I sure enjoy working a ton of hours for low-pay and having no ability to set my hours or work environment, because criticism is not allowed anymore.
let's not forget Mao also gave the people the ability to voice criticism and choose their leaders. He told people to run out the corrupt bureaucrats in the communist party.
>>71921096
If co-ops already exist and function pretty well why don't you just create some in a capitalist society?
You've effectively just told us that socialism isn't needed.
>>71920798
>Literally every sentence in the book has a citation.
post a scan or something, you have not posted one source.
>>71921096
>Co-ops already exist and they function pretty well.
Where? Some rural area in spain with 50 people?
Show me a cooperative oil company.
>>71914590
Marxian socialist states get thier finances from international banks. Czarist Russia had almost no ties to international finance. It was not until the communists took over when internationalist banks controlled Russia's finances.
The hierarchy of socialists states.
Internationalist banks own the nation
The nation owns all property
Therefore all property is owned by internationalist banks.
The USSR had lots of debts to those banks.
The only socialists that got free from the banks where the rightist socialists. While the Sicial Creditors were throwing brings at banks Windows the left were fighting against them. Even Lenin said big banks were important for socialism.
>>71920889
I'm going to say it again: power corrupts. Real capitalism is free people dealing with free people, nothing more than this. No regulations, no one better than anyone. If this is what you believe, you should read more about anarchocapitalism instead of "I'm a socialist now, capitalism is bad woo". You've never experienced a failed socialist state.
>>71921276
Jesus Christ google it you mongoloid retard.
Here are some documents
http://www.kgbdocuments.eu/index.php?244582505
>>71921048
Except here's the thing, capitalism as a term was invented after the fact to describe the present economic system.
You can try and do the "not true ideology" thing, but it doesn't work with capitalism for that reason.
>>71921289
then why did the U.S.A and the U.K oppose the USSR so much? Were they fighting against the international banks?
if you believe they did, you are an idiot, New York and London are the centers of international finance.
>>71921379
What is socialism but a description of state centred economy?
It seems now the socialists want to establish outreach everywhere.
>>71921359
There is literally nothing on this page that supports any claim you made.
>held a political ideology for a while
>become the complete opposite instantaneously
Real fucking believable, shill.
>>71919924
you mean, "why would the cia and other elite agencies create a system to help control what everyone thinks"
if you even have to ask that question, this is the wrong place for you
>>71921542
Are you brain damaged? Serious question.
>>71914590
Socialism always results in mass poverty. Government is far too inefficient to manage an entire nation's economy. There will always be shortages of certain goods.
Capitalism, if executed properly, can at least save those willing to work from this fate.
>>71921229
Because you still have to pay taxes to support the capitalist-statist system. Smashing the state as it presently exists is another important aspect of socialism.
>>71921286
Why do you want that kind of company specifically?
>>71921155
>people could go work in the city producing trinkets for westerners
I know! How dare they go and be more productive with their labour and make something that people want to buy! And they're getting paid more for it! Shocking!
The thing you don't seem to understand is that factory made products are worth more to people than farmed products. Thus if Mao was paying farmers as much as factory workers he was artificially raising their wage.
That can't go on forever because someone has to pay for that, and if the manufacturing sector has to bear the brunt, you then have a large underproduction in manufacturing.
Rural manufacturing simply cannot work as well as urban manufacture, because you have massive transportation costs and you don't much at all take advantage of the economies of scale that you get in larger factories.
>Mao also gave the people the ability to voice criticism and choose their leaders
Mao only did this because he wanted to kill of opposition to him in his party. I wonder what happened to the peasants who criticised Mao.
They must've been all reactionary infiltrators!
>>71921301
>Anarchocapitalism
Anarchocapitalism is a newer idea than the simple term of capitalism.
No Burgher was sitting around in the middle-ages writing a book entitled "The Capitalist Manifesto" describing hypothetical capitalism as stateless as happened with communism. The term was created to describe the contempory system, states, regulations and all.
Socialism is a cancer that destroys initiative for hard work and innovation. Capitalism is a beautiful system that is the framework for our success as a nation. God bless the free markets.
Also, fuck those who can't make it in our system. There will always be winners and losers, make sure you're a winner
>>71921542
You are a very special kind of retard.
>>71921833
>Because you still have to pay taxes to support the capitalist-statist system
Most taxation goes towards welfare and healthcare in western nations.
Also, co-ops are able to appeal for the same tax benefits that other large firms get if they got large enough and could thus remain competitive.
Just because a company is publically or privately held doesn't mean it suddenly gets more tax benefits.
>>71921474
Socialism is a democratic system for all society. State and labour alike.
If the state runs everything and neither labour nor the state is in any way democratic then clearly something has gone wrong.
>>71922176
Socialism is so thoroughly undemocratic.
Either force is used by a minority to overthrow a majority. Or when socialism is voted in, there is no economic mechanism to maintain opposition.
If all industry is owned by the state, how do you make any money to promote your political cause in opposition without getting fired?
>>71922170
You entirely missed the point.
My counter-argument to you saying "socialism is pointless" because you can have democratic labour in a capitalist system, is that you've only solved half the problem. The other half being the state.
I mean sure, in a pure stateless vacuum you could just open co-ops all over the place and let history decide how labour will be organized. But that's not the case.
>>71922477
>democratic labour
please elaborate on that, i could use a laugh
>>71922477
You're not telling me what the problem is though.
You said that people have to pay taxes to maintain the 'capitalist-statist system'. If you don't mean government subsidy to large corporations, what do you mean?
>>71914590
I don't want murderous idealists telling me what to do.
>>71914590
>being a commie on /pol/
>>71922380
All industry shouldn't be owned by the state. It should be run directly by the relevant labourers.
How do you make money to promote your political cause? If you're wondering how you could make such an insane amount of money to promote your ideology Soros style you probably couldn't since you can't just harvest money from the working class through private property. If you were to bring any issues to light you would need to, you know, campaign and make persuasive arguments.
>>71922716
There's a large number of problems with the state. The chiefmost among them being it's very existence and the law it maintains.
It mainly exists to protect and enable the system of capitalism even if it's in ways as blatantly artifical as intellectual property. Or as potentionally dangerous as the police.
Ideally the government should be as neutered as possible, that's something even hardline capitalists can agree with.
I used to support capitalism, but then I realized it can't solve every problem in the world.
I am now a #MarxMissile
>>71922777
>All industry shouldn't be owned by the state. It should be run directly by the relevant labourers
Co-ops do perform well in a small setting, but companies need entrereneurs to actually be majorly successful. All large corporations have been run by entrepreneurs.
>harvest money from the working class through private property
Woah woah woah. How does someone owning something mean that someone else can't own something else. Economics isn't a zero-sum gain.
>If you were to bring any issues to light you would need to, you know, campaign and make persuasive arguments.
Yeah, and in the modern world, when has that ever happened?
Marx only managed to get his ideas out because he was subsidised by Engles and Sanders has only had the platform that he's had through labour unions.
If you had to promote your politics at the cost of being able to earn money and actually be able to feed yourself, most people wouldn't oppose the state.
You could say however, with co-ops not being controlled by the state, they could still employ disadents. I am however, extremely sceptical about how a socialist government could resist keeping its hands off them, especially after all the coercive power that it would have to use to rob society's most productive citizens of their capital.
When governments' main employ is taking people's assets at gunpoint (which is pretty unsavoury), absolute cunts like Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky are all too happy to abide them and become successful within their ranks.
>>71922001
>Capitalism is a beautiful system
Us Marxists aren't saying it isn't, in fact it's a fucking great system! It's just Utopian to think that capitalism is the end of history and no more systems will come from it.
You've just been shilled by anti-commie propaganda that your dear ol' pa told you or whatever you yanks say.
>There are people on /pol/ that are unironically not fascist
>>71914590
>the bourgeoisie aren't the biggest blight to freedom known to man.
>why is the economic group that keeps the elite in check while giving the poor a reason to live not the biggest blight to freedom
THE MIDDLE CLASS IS LITERALLY WHY WE HAVE FREEDOM YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.
>>71923394
>It mainly exists to protect and enable the system of capitalism
In the west under the rule of law, it exists to protect the property of all citizens. Have more unlawful abuses occurred towards the poorest of citizens in socialist or capitalist countries historically?
>in ways as blatantly artifical as intellectual property
I agree with you, intellectual property is bullshit that holds back the free market. We can at least agree on one thing.
>Or as potentionally dangerous as the police
The police are highly dangerous in some cases, I agree. They are a neccessary evil to enforce the law though and even socialist societies have laws, however shakey.
>Ideally the government should be as neutered as possible, that's something even hardline capitalists can agree with.
And I consequently completely agree.
>>71923735
Well current capitalism isn't the end of history, no.
There's so much more freedom and liberalisation that needs to happen!
And as a result of the free market there's innovation on the way that we haven't even dreamed of coming soon!
>>71923831
The middleclass are still proletarians mate. Do they own means of production? No. Unless they own like a small shop or some small style service - then they'd be petite bourgeoisie.
Mad caps mate.
>>71923797
Ever ask your ancestors how fun Nazi Germany was?
My grandfather had a great time being locked in a gulag for 5 years because he was pressed into service and captured!
Of course you're so hardcore that you would've shot yourself in the head to avoid being captured because you're just such a committed fascist!
>>71918947
china was not allowed to have any kind of economy until mao and his successor literally died. The cultural revolution was disasterous for china and china didn't get to have an economy until reformists started to unfuck everything in the 1980s. As far as the long term effects... to this very day over 10 million people still live in CAVES in china.
http://www.molleindustria.org/to-build-a-better-mousetrap/
this game is about communism, there are too many people in the world to give everyone more than a meager life. Some have to suffer so others can enjoy a better quality of life.
>>71917485
DO YOU SUPPORT ME BEING SHOT?
>>71923980
You say this like there's no social mobility at all.
People who you regard as middle class may one day own vast amounts of capital and those who are middle class today may have been failed capitalists.
>>71923580
Large corporations don't need to exist. If McDonalds went out of business you wouldn't starve to death because there's plenty of perfectly fine local businesse to get food from.
Yes, if you are one man and you own the business then of course it's in your interest to spread it far and wide for the biggest profits possible. However if you are a labourer making as much as you can from what you can produce, there would be no point in expanding. You've done your part.
However, as often happens with co-ops. Co-ops from different areas can collaborate with each other, which removes any kind of need for one solid corporation controlling all facets of the industry.
>How does someone owning something mean that someone else can't own something else. Economics isn't a zero-sum gain.
That isn't the issue. I'm not trying to steal the toothbrushes of the bourgeois.
The issue here isn't redistributing ownership of the means of production from one person to another (or several), it's abolishing it and letting the workforce manage what they produce themselves.
>Yeah, and in the modern world, when has that ever happened?
Almost never, parties generally only succeed with the backing of powerful lobbyists. Which is a problem created by the bourgeois using their wealth to absolutely control the state.
>You could say however, with co-ops not being controlled by the state, they could still employ disadents. I am however, extremely sceptical about how a socialist government could resist keeping its hands off them, especially after all the coercive power that it would have to use to rob society's most productive citizens of their capital.
Socialist doesn't entail totalitarian.
Of course if you let the state control everything from the supermarkets to the TV, you are going to have a big problem. Which is why I say in another post the state shouldn't be any more powerful than is totally necessary.
>>71924118
Thank you for telling me you retarded colonial.
You want to know what is bad? In 1941 the Soviets send my German ancestors of the Volga away following the German preventive strike against Russia. The Women and Children were send to Central asia and the adult male population was send to Siberia being worked to death for no single reason.
The fact that you grandfather was sent to the Gulag wasn't even Germany's or Hitlers fault.
Nor was it Italy's fault or Mussolinis
>>71924201
That's all well and good, but real wealth? I'm talking penthouses, manors and more fingers in pies that a tard in a cafeteria queue.
This grand illusion that you can get there if you try hard enough is plain wrong. Not to mention that it gets very chummy up there at the top, why should they allow outsiders in to their class?
>>71914792
Communism would be alright if we had STC's or something. But we never will, and it will never be achievable, as it relies on the goodwill of man, something in very short supply.
Socialism, on the other hand, sucks donkey dick.
>>71923870
In both systems there have been some serious abuses of power. And state power is exactly the problem, whether in the USSR or in central America. Were the state to have a general policy of leaving people alone mass-murders and such wouldn't happen.
>They are a neccessary evil to enforce the law though and even socialist societies have laws, however shakey.
The police, ultimately, should be treated more as a civilian militia than an arm of the state. And as such should only ever be as armed as the people they're supposed to protect. I would say that's the best way to enforce the law.
>>71914590
>>71914792
>>71915901
>>71919235
t. 19 year old
OP please tell me you aren't this stupid. Socialism is extremely fragile. An unplanned for common cold outbreak can send your entire economy into a dangerous downward spiral. That is not how you manage a country. You need a society to be retard proof, to be naturally occuring. Like capitalism, you see, even the most communist fucker will eventually pay for something with money. You cannot avoid capitalism. It is the natural order.
I wonder what you guys understand under socialism.
Is the social market economy in germany or social democracy socialism to you or are you especially refering to marxism?
>>71924323
>Large corporations don't need to exist.
Yes they do, they need to exist because of economies of scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
Sure, some supercorporations don't have to exist and some only do because of regulations working in favour of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
>it's abolishing it and letting the workforce manage what they produce themselves
You can't just make property rights disappear. If there's no legal owner of the factories, people are free to walk in and steal anything. People won't just suddenly respect that it's fair for someone to use something when there's no legal enforcement behind it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
>Almost never, parties generally only succeed with the backing of powerful lobbyists
Of course, and when government becomes the only powerful lobbyist, no one has a chance to oppose them.
>Socialist doesn't entail totalitarianism
Yes it does. Taking away private property by force is pretty totalitarian. Robbing people if they choose to open a business because they've chosen to save after working for years sounds pretty totalitarian to me.
Thanks for the argument, it's 2AM and I'm going to bed.
>>71924331
No worries, I don't mind talking some sense into you.
Sure the Soviet Union was worse than Nazi Germany, but it's incredibly unlikely that my grandfather wouldn't have been sent into service to fight a genocidal war if daddy Hitler hadn't gotten into power.
Just because the Soviets were bad, doesn't mean the Nazis were much better.
Oh and yes, the Nazis treated non-Soviet PoWs really nicely didn't they?
>>71915425
Totally. Try reading some books and not basing your knowledge on fox news.
>>71924918
I'm chiefly talking about democratic socialism as a variety of Marxism.
Being socialism that is democratic, not Bernie's capitalism with noguns and welfare.
>>71917821
>Stalin killed 1000 people a day for two years.
[Citation needed]
You sure it wasnt a million or a gorillion, filthy uneducated gook?
>>71924584
Even Star Trek level of tech still would not end capitalism, but cause a shift in the market as a previous want and need becomes almost completely satisfied, allowing us to focus on other things.
Because socialism is unobtainable in our current circumstances.
We have a booming population with a large amount of people on government handouts. We'd need a nation of workers like Third Reich Germany had, and an unshakable national identity.
However, globalism and leftist ideology has taught us that we can rely on the government for handouts indefinitely, which really is a tragedy.
National socialism is the only socialism that works, and even then you need everyone to work together and be united in making only THEIR country great.
>>71921096
>This isn't one of the hypothetical suggestions of communism, it is a clearly visible fact that co-operative labour works perfectly well and has been doing so for some time now.
Nearly all the pilgrims starved to death because they initially adopted a co-operative labour strategy. Co-operative labour strategies only function when there's enough people with the mindset to do work for others, and that mindset dies out pretty quickly once others realize they are being taken advantage.
>>71921359
don't play the source game with socialist shills. Demanding a source so they can attack the source is a common derailing strategy. You'll notice this pinko faggot hasn't provided any real sources for his bullshit either and he never will. What he is trying to do is get you into an appeal to authority pissing contest where you debate sources rather than continue your real debate, because its clear you've already beaten the shit out of him and his garbage ideology.
>>71914590
Because every example of instituted socialism has been a failure and is on its way to become one.
Soviet Union requires no explanation.
New Zealand used to have the same social services as Sweden. Used to, because they went bankrupt in the process. They're doing fine now, having traded their socialism for less nannying ideas.
Sweden is dying. Lurk enough and you'll learn that it's for the same reasons as New Zealand + immigration.
The state can't fix anything.
>>71915901
>>71914590
I think that the richest portion of the population manipulates everyone under them, carefully controlling what information is readily accessible and that many of the major recent "wars" have been influenced by the bourgeoisie.
Within the US, I think they need to be regulated much more harshly than they currently are, and I think decreasing regulations will negatively effect everyone that isn't ultra-wealthy. I think that the federal government is, largely, in the pockets of wealthy corporations or individuals, and therefor can't be trusted to regulate those entities.
What am I /pol/?
>inb4 a fag
>>71925658
Fortunately we're not living in the wilderness of colonial America.
