Name me one socialist state in history, please.
>>74189443
USSR
>>74189979
Let's see, in USSR, the state owned the means of production, wich is the definition of... State capitalism.
>>74189443
>Name me one socialist state in history
United states of america
>>74190201
United states of America is capitalist. A market economy with a rather small regulatory weight. Not socialist by any deggre.
Socialism hate thread? Socialism hate thread.
>>74190480
define socialism
>>74190411
Wrong. It's not pure unadulterated capitalism at all. People are taxed to through the nose to pay for other people.
>>74190411
>Not socialist by any deegre.
20% of the population lives with goverment money
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/aid-medicaid-food-stamps-census-bureau/2015/07/08/id/654041/
Successful or failed?
>>74190098
t. Trotsky
>>74190686
> It's not pure unadulterated capitalism at all
Market interfeence doesn't make it not capitalism. It's stops being capitalism when one does not have private property, when one cannot accumulate capital, and when the means of production are in private hands.
If it has state interference is of no consequence
>>74190918
Nah man is da fault of evil whitey fo colonialism n sheeit
>>74190869
You can meme all you want, but it doesn't change facts.
>>74190918
Tourism is the trade of colonies.
And a economy cannot function on one resource.
Also Venezuela is not socialism by any standard. The means of production are in capitalists hands and in state hands, ergo a mixed economy. What changes in Venezuela to USA, for example, is the deggre of state intervention and the effectiveness of said intervention.
>>74191051
State interference is a huge part of it.
It's the same way you nit pick how some countries aren't socialist.
>>74189443
Nazi Germany
Venezuela
USSR
>>74189717
The number of Cuban refugees is actually relatively small. Look at areas considered bastions of anti leftism in the Cold War. Haiti and El Salvador, for example, have or have had MUCH larger exoduses. Cuban citizens also have relatively good living conditions compared to those countries.
>>74191273
doesn't their capitalist neighbor have actually no resources at all?
>>74191273
>inb4 flood of LE NO TROO SGOTSMAN EBIN XDDDDD
>>74190574
The bastard child of communism that seems to think it could be something some day, but all it does is sit at home with all the countries that were born from it and collect government checks and handouts
Piece of shit system with no merit other than making people dependent on goverment for better and inevitably worse.
>>74191705
im sorry, just flying by, but socialism is a child of communism how
>>74189443
>Mongoloid noises.
Shame, OP. Shame.
>>74191273
You are like these Libertarians who say that the US isn't a capitalist country.To a certain degree you are right but only if you narrow the definition so much that it can't be applied on any realistic situation.
Germany circa 1933 to 1945 before we liberated them.
>>74189443
Sweden
>>74191334
But state interference is not a deggre of wether one state is socialist or not. state interference determines wether a economy is anarcho capitalist or state capitalism, or something inbetwen.
>>74191458
All of them were state capitalist, or mixed economies with a larget state intervention. None of them were socialistic.
>>74191544
Venezuela is capitalistic
>>74191705
>Piece of shit system with no merit other than making people dependent on goverment for better and inevitably worse.
That is happening in our capitalistic systems bro.
>>74191964
>You are like these Libertarians who say that the US isn't a capitalist country.
But it is.
>>74192374
No they were not
>>74192652
mixed economy
>>74189717
>Cuban government forces you to work
B-but I want to be a neet
I know!
I'll leave to the US were I can claim werfare and vote Rubotto
>>74190201
National Socialist Germany
>>74193680
You're just mad that socialism only works in a homogeneous white society. Go do something productive like bang an adufe.
>>74190729
my argument is so solid noone have replied
>>74193955
How is life in costa rica
>>74194016
Not socialist . The left wing of the party left with Strasser. They were capitalistic, with a huge gov intervention.
>>74194077
But socialism as never been tried. That homogenous population is a meme.
>>74194163
I didn't even watch your post, i will give you a (You)
>>74190729
That is not socialism. Welfare!=Socialsim
>>74194353
That "socialism has never been tried" meme is a meme that needs to die.
>>74193680
Not in it's broadest definition: "Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit"
Goverments can take you into prison an thus stealing your body which is a form of means of production.
Also: "Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets"
You do not have a perfect competitive market due to goverment regulation (for example the pharmaceutical market) or volunatry exchange because of monopolies enforced by the goverment.
>>74194521
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[7]
>Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9]
Name me one system with this.
Hey look is the tripfag portuguese moron who makes us all look bad. How are you doing atrasado?
How about you start the thread by defining "socialist" instead of doing mental gymnastics like always?
>unironically posting in portuguese leftypol thread
What am I doing.
>>74193424
So you're saying a capitalist country in which the state forces everyone to pay 100% of income in taxes is still capitalist? Come on.
Of course state interference is a huge factor. If we're comparing oranges and apples in terms of labels. The US has always been a republic, not a democracy or a capitalistic state.
You're willing to state that there are varying degrees of capitalistic economies/states but won't admit there are varying degrees of socialistic states/economies? Bullshit.
>>74190098
>USSR
>Union of Soviet <<<SOCIALIST>>> Republics
>not socialist
Jesus I knew pinkos were retarded but this is on a new level
Denmark.
Git gud.
>>74194872
>public ownership
How is ownership by the state not public ownership? You're thinking of anarcho-socialism. The communist states we've seen in history are all examples of socialism. Just because you have a warped definition of what the state is doesn't mean they weren't socialist nations.
>>74189443
Does social democracy count?
>>74194872
if it's so good then why hasn't anyone tried it
>>74190411
Venezuela is socialist, and they're doing fantastic. There's definitely not a complete societal breakdown happening.
>>74194849
>Not in it's broadest definition
In what way does USA is not capitalist?
>Goverments can take you into prison an thus stealing your body which is a form of means of production.
Ence why USA is a mixed economy. But mixed economies are still capitalistic.´
>You do not have a perfect competitive market due to goverment regulation (for example the pharmaceutical market) or volunatry exchange because of monopolies enforced by the goverment.
See above
>>74194967
Are you the same one that always post in my thread?
Como vai a vida?
>>74194968
>So you're saying a capitalist country in which the state forces everyone to pay 100% of income in taxes is still capitalist? Come on.
Probably not, because it wouldn't allow for capital accumulation, nor private ownership. But i don't know of any system in that existed.
>Of course state interference is a huge factor.
Not denying it. But it's got nothing to do with socialism
>but won't admit there are varying degrees of socialistic states/economies?
like?
>>74195006
Are you retard? Just because i put a sticker on my forehead that says god, that means you will worship me?
USSR was a state capitalism economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
>The economy of the Soviet Union was based on a system of state ownership of the means of production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
>State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e., for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises
>>74191273
>no true scotsman
Oh fuck off already. Until someone manages to do it, nothing will be socialism in your eyes.
>>74195048
Mixed economy, bro.
>>74195252
>How is ownership by the state not public ownership?
Do you own the means of production? Do you have a saying?
>The communist states
oxymoron
>Just because you have a warped definition of what the state is doesn't mean they weren't socialist nations.
You've yet to name me a socialist state All i've seen is mixed economies and state capitalistism
>>74195783
>USA
>a mixed economy
Seriously?
Don't they basically give an unemployed guy some pity money for a few months and stop caring afterwards?
>>74195783
>Wikipedia as a source
>>74195783
>Ence why USA is a mixed economy. But mixed economies are still capitalistic.´
We mix a dog with a cat. The creature isn't a a dog cat mix no it is still a dog....
>>74195487
>The rich will willingly give the means of production
>>74195459
It's not socialism.
>>74195551
Venezuela is not socialist. The state owns the means of production, and so do privates. That is capitalism.
>>74190918
Yeah, because when they went socialist, all the forests burned to the ground, the climate went to shit, and the oil evaporated.
>>74196283
>having difficulties fighting 1% of the population
laughable
>>74196080
So what is USA then?
>>74196081
point your critics, then.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
https://www.quora.com/How-reliable-is-Wikipedia-as-a-source-of-information-and-why
I know it's a little bad to point a wiki article as a proof of wiki reliability, but it contains numerous studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
>>74196518
>So what is USA then?
Cruel?
>>74194353
>Can't reply to his post stating the facts
>I know! I'll reply to his post that points out the post with the facts.
You fucking mong. State ownership is literally socialism. It's understood that through elections the populace elects how it works. This of course doesn't apply to non democracies.
Yugoslavia
>>74195954
Yes retard, representative say is still say.
>>74196278
No, we introduce cloths to a naked person. It's not like capitalism is possible withut a state. the existence of state intervention does not invalidate a system from being capitalistic.
>>74196456
Not when the rest 90% of population is so imensely brainwashed, and willingly goes out and fight for some rich fags.
>>74195783
> mixed economy with with capitalist aspects is still capitalist
> that mixed economy with socialist aspects? not socialist! nuh-uh!
>>74196708
then why don't you kill yourself if you have no chance
>>74196609
what post are you refering to?
>>74196670
>State ownership is literally socialism
Source?
And there is no need to insult. In real arguments, once you start to insult, you automatically lost.
>>74196671
Not socialistic. State capitalism, i think.
>>74196681
What do you mean?
>>74190098
Only after the revolution resulted in production declines of 90% and they needed at least some freedom to prevent the country from sliding into oblivion.
>>74196710
>socialist aspects
What social aspects?
>>74196814
>pic related
>>74195881
>LE NO TROO SGOTSMAN XDDD
Every. Fucking. Time.
>>74196708
>It's not like capitalism is possible withut a state.
Anarcho-capitalists would beg to differ.
Besides you could use your own argument against yourself: It's not like socialism is possible without a state, which will consist of egoistic individuals who will use their power for their own benefit.
>>74196518
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, from your average joe to the most fanatic tankie, thus the reputation for being biased. When a neo-nazi tries to spin his favourite skinhead in a positive light, he's shud down by a fucking mound of editors. when a tankies tries to edit Stalin's wiki page or whatnot, ther'es only a few people that edit back
the mods are pussies too
>NEVEEEEER TRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIED
>>74196941
No, socialism. There was social ownership. The name was socialistic federative republic of yugoslavia
There is nothing that is simultaneously more hilarious and pathetic than watching you lefty/pol/ nerds stumble over yourselves to prove you're not the same as SJWs and any other assorted liberals.
>>74197041
I'm not here to discuss the effectiveness of state capitalistic USSR. But my personal view is that it turned Russia empire into a superpower.
>>74197144
>Anarcho-capitalists would beg to differ.
Anarcho capitalism is a retarded concept. And unacheivable.
>It's not like socialism is possible without a state
True
>which will consist of egoistic individuals who will use their power for their own benefit.
Unlike our capitalistic gov?
>>74189443
The fat man in the blue is a Zionist Corporation
>>74197262
>Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, from your average joe to the most fanatic tankie, thus the reputation for being biased.
>HURR DURR, i once edited Hitler name to fggot, so wikipedia is dumb, xDD
You are free to keep being ignorant doe
>>74197291
It's objectively true. You guys don't know the kind of figures you make
Every attempt at implementing it has failed because it's proven to be impractical
>Ground up from nothing
>Top down from capitalism
From both sides, what would actually make pure socialism work? Is it feasible in this day and age? Is it the ultimate ideology?
Quite frankly, I think the world has been battered enough by all of it's half-assed implementations.
>>74191529
Idiot detected. The Cuban exile population is around 2 million when the island itself only has a population of 11 million. Castro literally created the largest refugee crisis in postcolonial American history.
>>74197782
Yugoslavia
>>74197382
>There was social ownership
Explain
>The name was socialistic federative republic of yugoslavia
So? If i call myself god emperor of makiind can i send you to fight the xenos?
Democratic Republic Of Kingo also calls himself democratic.
>>74197670
>B-but it w-wasnt REAL socialism, see? w-Wikipedia told me so!
>commie calling anyone else ignorant
>doe
>tripfagging AND making the same fucking tread over and over again
kys my boy
>>74198009
The factories were under social ownership, it was core socialism 45-80
>>74189443
Cuber
>>74197385
You can keep believing all you want. Disprove the facts.
>>74197782
I'm not here do discuss implementability of socialism. I just asked a small question.
>Quite frankly, I think the world has been battered enough by all of it's half-assed implementations.
The world has been battered enough from corporate greed and expoitation too. I don't see you complaining
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest
>>74190098
>the state owned the means of production
>the definition of... State capitalism
Kill yourself you fucking retard. That is the textbook definition of authoritarianism socialism.
>>74197506
>Unlike our capitalistic gov?
No, however, in capitalistic societies the gov dens't have as much power because the means of production are in public hands. Capitalism becomes the player hat keeps the gov in check (and yes I know that there is lobbying but it is is still not as bad as when one body holds all the power).
>>74189443
The UK
Venezuela.
>>74189443
>socialist
>state
Pick one
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Full Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
The USSR falls under all 3 definitions. What's your special snowflake definition pinko?
>>74198461
Not a counter-argument
OP are you just mad 1974-75 didn't turn out the way you wished it would?
>>74198097
>B-but it w-wasnt REAL socialism, see?
It's not about if it's real or fake. It wasn't socialism objectivily. All those states that have socialist in their name are, theoretically, states that were in process to become socialist states. We know how many of them ended.
>>74198131
Do you have anything i could read? I am honestly interested
>>74198293
I presented you the definition of state capitalism. You choose to ignore it. How can you claim that a country is socialist when the means of production are not in the hands of the workers?
And your link is what journalists called USSR and China. If you actually bothered to read the article, you would notice that lead socialist thinkers denounced such systems as bastardizations of socialism.
>>74198359
>No, however, in capitalistic societies the gov dens't have as much power because the means of production are in public hands.
You mean private hands. And what makes you think that stuff is better in private hands?
>>74199071
History proves it is better in private hands, government rarely does something better than the market.
>>74198983
>socialist states/on their way to being OP's definition of """Socialist state"""
>all failed
I wonder why
>>74198775
Definitions are racist and sexist.
>>74198543
Socialism stil requires a state, iirc.
>>74198775
Only place i foun d that definition. Every other place as a different one.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism
>>74198983
Unforunately none in english
>>74198899
Não, se tivessemos ficado isolados tinha sido pior para nós.
>>74199175
>government rarely does something better than the market.
then you wouldn't be hard pressed to name me one invention of the free market
>>74199071
>History proves it is better in private hands, government rarely does something better than the market.
^this
The reason is simple: We are all idiots in the end, but at least in a market economy, a lot of idiots decide,not a few.
>>74199181
Because they were all shitholes. Shithole fail no matter if they ae capitalistic or socialistic. It's crazy that one of the best caribean countries is one of your so called socilaist shitholes.
>>74199473
So the workers actually owned the mean of production?
>>74199573
>invention
>not innovation
But if you insist:
Smartphones
Instead of squabbling over what is Socialism or what isn't socialism. Why don't we talk about what programs you think work specifically you stupid faggots. All we are doing is deluding language and letting this Albert Barbarossa continue to twist his nipples. who cares about the niches.
>>74199650
>We are all idiots in the end, but at least in a market economy, a lot of idiots decide,not a few.
wat? what was your part in '08 crash?
You guys fail to know that market economy does not imply democracy
>>74199774
So it's that the best you can do?
State gave us internet
>>74198461
Hi Stefan.
>>74199573
>one invention of the free market
The smartphone, the car, the dvd...
>>74199573
>Não, se tivessemos ficado isolados tinha sido pior para nós.
It seems you don't even know I was referring to. Do you know what happened right after 1974? There was a counter-revolution. The plan (your plan) failed.
>>74199782
>Instead of squabbling over what is Socialism or what isn't socialism
It's a very important thing. We all see the word socialism plastered thousands of times here. And most don't have the slightest clue of what socialism is.
>Why don't we talk about what programs
What programs?
>>74199701
Yup, 'samouprava'
>>74199701
>best Caribbean countries
http://thecubaneconomy.com/articles/tag/infrastructure/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-17935769
https://iwpr.net/global-voices/hurricane-sandy-exposes-cubas-crumbling-infrastructure
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/19/world/fg-decay19
sure thing alberto
also,
>shitty 50's cars only option
>>74199956
Sim, e caso a revolução tivesse sucedido (Se os americanos não tivessem mandado um navio de guerra para a beira de Lisboa...), o nosso estado tinha se aproximado de Moscovo, e afastado de todos os nossos vizinhos. iria ser muito pior.
>>74199862
>State invention
Computer
Roads (well, a good road system)
most of the medicine
law
>>74200213
Define "pior".
And reply in English, other people are reading too.
>>74199852
>wat? what was your part in '08 crash?
I said "a lot" not all. The 08 crisis was caused by Americans who bought houses they couldn't afford and doing investments they didn't understand. I didn't say it was perfect but other than you I am not opposed to an imperfect world.
>>74189443
If you cannot claim a previous successful socialist state then it means your idea is unworkable.
It is your duty to prove to me that socialism is a viable and superior system.
>>74194872
You can see an example of what you're describing in france during the second industrial revolution, with the phalansteries, or right after the fall of napoleon III, when in paris the workers decided to collectively own factories, you can see that both of these systems failed.
So yes, it's been really tried, and yes, it miserabley failed
>>74200149
Tell me more about this.
>>74200155
>one of the best
It doesn't mean its good.
http://www.antillean.org/caribbean-ranked-uns-human-development-report-2014/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#America.2C_North
>>74200380
Tamos a falar de Portugal entre Portugueses, eles que se fodam. Isolar-nos politicamente dos nossos vizinhos é uma má ideia, pois um embargo era certo caso o nosso governo fosse alinhado com a uniao sovietica.
>>74200803
Eu só não sei o que é que tu queres de um governo "socialista" (continuas a refugiar-te em definições para evitar argumento).
Queres que a autoridade venha de onde, exatamente?
>>74200213
>Computer
>Roads (well, a good road system)
>most of the medicine
>law
Law isn't a government invention, especially here in Germany which is based an roman law...
And computers: Yes computers for a scientific purpose were given by the government but the reason why you are sitting infront of a PC is because of free markets. Computers back then were never intended to be for private usage and it was thanks to Bill Gates and Jobs that we all now have acess to a user friendly interface.
>>74200658
Hell there was even the agrar reform which redistributed most land from the germans and limited it to (i think) around 30 hectares max, later 50
>>74200515
>The 08 crisis was caused by Americans who bought houses they couldn't afford and doing investments they didn't understand. I didn't say it was perfect but other than you I am not opposed to an imperfect world.
But what did you do that caused that? Some fuckers messed in some numbers in some computers, then suddenly some fuckers noticed in those numbers and boom, suddenly there is a major crysis and millions lost their jobs, with many who do not understand what happened. I can't defend a system like that.
>>74200586
>If you cannot claim a previous successful socialist state then it means your idea is unworkable.
Not gonna argue that
>It is your duty to prove to me that socialism is a viable and superior system.
Not the right thread bro.
>>74200641
Failed becaue there was a massive power working agaisnt them. A system cannot work isolated. At least one larger then a tribe.
You will be hard pressed to find any system that succeded with such odds agaisnt it.
Any feudal state. Technically the king owned everything and just lent it to his lords.
>>74199701
>best caribean countries
Cuba is a shithole
>>74200658
So you're saying that the best example of socialism isn't even good by western standards?
what a shocker
>responding to a shill from 8/pol/ who's trying to sucker you into his kike ideology after the board failed to do so on their own site's /pol/
Sage, hide, etc.
>>74201069
>thanks to Bill Gates and Jobs that we all now have acess
That's just the market again.
I understand the development part gearing towards common folk being acredited to them but the motivation behind it in the end just boils down to "make more money by selling to more people."
2 choices at that point, either
>teach everyone to computer at an advanced level
Nope.
>make the computer so even the dumbest of people can use onee
Yep.
>>74201147
>But what did you do that caused that?
Nothing but neither did I vote for Merkel. Some things are beyond us. Not everyone can have their way. That's just how things work.
>Some fuckers messed in some numbers in some computers, then suddenly some fuckers noticed in those numbers and boom, suddenly there is a major crysis and millions lost their jobs, with many who do not understand what happened.
You don't seem to understand what caused the crisis. Besides a major crisis will accur everyn now and then and it doen't matter who is in charge.
Edmund Burke, anyone?
Where Democracy will inevitably turn to shit because humans as a majority are idiots; they become ignorant and lazy and abandon their political responsibility...
Reminder that anyone educated enough to read and understand Karl Marx's Das Kapital/Commie Manifesto...was someone of higher class, thus would obviously disagree with everything Marx said, or simply took his teachings and reverse-engineered them to suit their need.
Real socialism has never been tried, only off-shoots that pose as socialism but really are just methods of oligarchies to control vast amounts of resources and labor. If it were actually tried, someone would betray the system to take power for themselves, as was the case with the USSR. The October Revolution was a real socialist revolution, orchestrated by Trotsky, Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, Sokolnikov and Bubnov, and then immediately fell apart when Stalin seized the opportunity for himself.
We should be writing the future, not looking to the past. Technocratic party when?
>>74201051
O que é que te faz pensar que sou um socialista? Falar destes assuntos faz alguem um socialista?
E não tou á procura de uma discussão
>>74201069
>Law isn't a government invention
No? Are you retarded?
>but the reason why you are sitting infront of a PC is because of free markets.
Speculation.
>>74201122
That is not a unique thing. But where can i read more about it?
>>74201254
That is completely the opposite of socialism.
>>74201330
But it's one of the best of the area. God, you guys are so stupid.
>One of the best of particular area
is not
>the best of the world
>>74201887
>>teach everyone to computer at an advanced level
>Nope.
Which is not going to happen, because not everyone has the time to understand computers as well as IT-students. Which leads us to the greatest achievement of capitalism: Division of labour. Even Marx acknowledged that!
>>74202775
>O que é que te faz pensar que sou um socialista? Falar destes assuntos faz alguem um socialista?
Não sei onde é que te chamei socialista, mas ok.
>E não tou á procura de uma discussão
Eu sei, já te vi várias vezes por aqui, preferes não te envolver. Fazes bem.
>>74201366
Like i said, Cuba isn't socialist. But there are many critics you guys make to "socialist" countries that are undeserved.
>>74201606
Never been to cri+plechan, but keep on closing you eyes, covering your ears and singing lalalalalalalalalalla
>>74202423
The Commiefest was written deliberately so it could be read and understood by the average German worker at the time. It's irrelevant to today though.
Why are Americans brainwashed form birth to hate socialism.
Socialism worked fine in Spain before Franco took power.
Most of what /pol/ calls socialism isn't even socialism. It's just capitalism with a bit of state welfare.
The right to private property is the only true legislation that can be made to assure individual freedom.
This is a fact.
>>74202162
>HURR DURR YOU PLEBS WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND, IT WAS SOME REALLY COMPLICATED THIGS THAT HAPPENED
>Besides a major crisis will accur everyn now and then and it doen't matter who is in charge.
So you support a system that is doomed to fail?
>>74190411
>with a rather small regulatory weight
Hahahhahahahhhahahahahhahhahhaahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B-xjjNurU50
>>74203257
ORIGIN INFO FOR THAT IMAGE, STAT!
>>74202961
Most of the Caribbean islands are doing better than Cuba. You don't see people from Barbados, the Cayman Islands or Jamaica jumping on rafts to get to Florida.
And in any case, you ought to compare to what Cuba was, in the 1950s before the commies took over it had a GDP per capita on par with Finland. (And the third highest in Latin America after Argentina and Uruguay)
>>74191705
socialism existed before communism
>>74191273
>le it hasn't ever been dun befour maymay
Neither has true free market capitalism, but at least capitalism functions at some capacity.
>>74190686
Come to Europe and you'll pay through orifices you didn't even know you had
>>74203487
It's from an illustration book. Idk the name tho but it's a US author who also published stuff on other civilizations
>>74203085
>Não sei onde é que te chamei socialista, mas ok.
Li á pressa o teu post, desculpa
>>74203239
Cold war propaganda was strong in them. They see socialism as governemnt programs
>>74203308
Compared to the rest of western world.
>>74203491
>Most of the Caribbean islands are doing better than Cuba.
I showed it's not true
>You don't see people from Barbados, the Cayman Islands or Jamaica jumping on rafts to get to Florida.
Because those islanda are a fraction of the size and population compared to Cuba. And you can't make the raft voyage from these islands, unlike Cuba wich is a few hundreds(?) miles distance.
Haiti as a huge expat pop in USA. The same as Puerto Rican.
And USA was in a undeclared war vs Cuba up untila few years. SO propaganda is to be expected
>And in any case, you ought to compare to what Cuba was, in the 1950s before the commies took over it had a GDP per capita on par with Finland. (And the third highest in Latin America after Argentina and Uruguay)
Source? And for a country that was blockaded by virtually all it's neighboors, Cuba turned out fine
>>74203257
You can own property under socialism. Your clothes, home and its contents are your own.
You just can't own all the land thaat produces the food that everyone depends on. You can't own all the mines that produce wealth for the country. You can't own all the factories.
Sounds reasonable to me.
>>74203737
>le it hasn't ever been dun befour maymay
It's not a meme if it's true
>>74203737
So does socialism dummy.
Ex: the army, the police, the fire brigade, the schools, the hospitals, etc...
American education is so awful.
Socialism = baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
Capitalism = gooooooooooooooooood
>>74202775
>No? Are you retarded?
You stated just before that if you start insulting your opponent you have lost so please do yourself a favour and cut the insults thanks ;)
And yes if you see greek philosophers as part then fine the gov invented law.
>So you support a system that is doomed to fail?
I support a system that works and gives the individual the most ways to develop the way they want to be.
>>74203916
>For the record: In 1958, that "impoverished Caribbean island" had a higher standard of living than Ireland and Austria, almost double Spain and Japan's per capita income, more doctors and dentists per capita than Britain, and lower infant mortality than France and Germany – the 13th-lowest in the world, in fact. Today, Cuba's infant-mortality rate – despite the hemisphere's highest abortion rate, which skews this figure downward – is 24th from the top.
>>74203916
>>74204503
Forgot the link:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/29233
>>74204202
>So does socialism dummy.
When paid for by the engines of capitalism, sure. Do you think I'm arguing for anarchy or something? I'm perfectly okay with the idea of a government existing to maintain order within a society.
>hurr u americans r so dumb
Several US states have higher average IQs than your country muhammad
>>74203997
It's true with an absolute free market too. At least capitalism withstands the test of time.
Leftist ideologies don't work, so it's not uprising that we only find them in institutions that don't have to work to survive.
>>74191529
Cubans get shot for trying to leave, dumbass. Also there's a couple million Cubans in the US and Cuba only has a handful of a million people. I'd say it's more than 10% of their population that immigrated
>>74204229
>I support a system that works and gives the individual the most ways to develop the way they want to be.
Then you should be a communist.
In communism, the community will generally serve the role of the parents and try to strenghten all its members.
A group is no stronger than its weakest link.
>>74204202
>Socialism = baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
>Capitalism = gooooooooooooooooood
This is the best short descriptionof /pol/
>>74204229
>And yes if you see greek philosophers as part then fine the gov invented law.
It was a sumerian King that first codified punishments for certain crimes, i.e., the basis for our law.
>I support a system that works and gives the individual the most ways to develop the way they want to be.
And does it works if its dommed to fail to cyclical major crashs?
>and gives the individual the most ways to develop the way they want to be.
And you think other ways don't because?
Please don't tell me you are one of those retards that think communism is equal division of "money"
>>74204503
> Today, Cuba's infant-mortality rate – despite the hemisphere's highest abortion rate, which skews this figure downward – is 24th from the top.
Abject lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
And you seem to be ignoring what i wrote. Dispite being blockaded by almost all it's neighboors, Cuba is doing pretty fine.
>>74195783
>mixed economies are still capitalistic
>>74198461
wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad
This
>>74204818
>When paid for by the engines of capitalism, sure. Do you think I'm arguing for anarchy or something? I'm perfectly okay with the idea of a government existing to maintain order within a society.
When paid for by the engines of capitalism, sure. Do you think I'm arguing for anarchy or something? I'm perfectly okay with the idea of a government existing to maintain order within a society.
Because it's capitalism.
>At least capitalism withstands the test of time.
Because it hasn't arise any other alternative
>Leftist ideologies don't work, so it's not uprising that we only find them in institutions that don't have to work to survive.
meme
>>74204830
> I'd say it's more than 10% of their population that immigrated
Not bad. Almost 50% of my country population is living outside of our borders. (I think it includes sons of immigrants
>>74205431
They are both capitalistic. One of them was ruled by a madman
>>74205452
Advances made due to technological advance
>>74205457
>I don't like it, therefore it's not true
>>74205536
>Because it's capitalism.
?
>meme
only the dankest
>>74205549
>He believes those nonsense
USSR was capitalistic too. Only instead of market capitalistic, it was state capitalistic.
>>74205431
our GDP per capita ($22,500) and HDI are higher than Chile's actually. Unless they are not counting us as part of "Latin America" in which case the pic would be correct, but that would be weird.
>>74205695
They are both socialistic too. They both employ government services.
Chile is much closer to a free market than Venezuela though.
>>74205807
>muh neva ben tried befour
Yes. Now your spiting hairs.
>>74189936
based quote desu
>>74195006
>North Korea
>DPRK
><<<<<<<DEMOCRATIC>>>>>> People's Republic of Korea
>>74205974
>government services.
>Socialism
>american education
Take it easy on your cold war propaganda Cletus
>Chile is much closer to a free market than Venezuela though.
And Sweden takes a more "socialistic" aproach then Chile. Your point?
>muh neva ben tried befour
It wasn't. Stop making a ass out of yourself
>>74206145
For a american level understanding of socialism, coupled with cuckservative religious fanatism, then yes, it's a good quote
>>74204987
>In communism, the community will generally serve the role of the parents and try to strenghten all its members.
No cheers for the invitation but aside from that being in a cult doesn't suit me and people like me generally get beaten down by groups. I know that I wouldn't be able to be myself in a socialist society. But thanks pointing that out in this comment.
>And does it works if its dommed to fail to cyclical major crashs?
Because it's not doomed to fail because something new will always emerge (creative destruction)
>And you think other ways don't because?
I think I made that clear already: If someone has too much power i.e. holds all the production of means he will always infringe is power, it might even be good to his mind and will slowly take away free will from people. This is inevitable and it even happens in capitalist societies but much slower because the gov doesn't have the full power over everthing that is being made.
>>74206412
Socailism != communism
>Because it's not doomed to fail because something new will always emerge (creative destruction)
Let me see if i get this. Capitalism will always have cyclical crashes, with some having disatrous consequences. But it's not doomed to fail?
I wouldn't want a game that will crash no matter what i do.
> If someone has too much power i.e. holds all the production of means
This is capitalism. In socialism the means belong to the workers, i.e. to many people
>it might even be good to his mind and will slowly take away free will from people.
you are describing capitalism
>This is inevitable and it even happens in capitalist societies but much slower
Because?
>because the gov doesn't have the full power over everthing that is being made.
And gov as absolute power in socialism because? Like i said, in socialism, the workers own the mean of production.
>>74199852
>state gave us internet
Are you really that ignorant?
corporations and standardization are the reason you're shitposting here.
>>74206393
>government provided services aren't socialist
>sweden is "socialist"
pick one escroto
>It wasn't. Stop making a ass out of yourself
Then neither was capitalism. All of your criticisms of capitalism would go away if it were just really tried. Stop making an ass of yourself.
>>74207123
Corporations brought it to the public. But it was the state that funded the development.
There is no reason to think that if the state took on it's shoulders the task to develop personal computers, that the state wouldn' be capable
>>74207050
>I wouldn't want a game that will crash no matter what i do.
Ever heard of the pork cycle?
>In socialism the means belong to the workers, i.e. to many people
In theory but someone has to manage it e.g. this person (body) holds all the power.
>Because?
I can still choose to make my own product and compete. This is not possible in socialist societies because you cannot buy the products you need for production. Entrepreunership is the problem of every leftwing idea.
>>74207200
>"socialist"
the "" is everything here.
And i pick the first, like i've always been picking itt
>Then neither was capitalism.
Are you stupid? Free markets is not the same thing as capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
>>74208211
>Free markets is not the same thing as capitalism.
Yeah but the people advocating for capitalism are in fact in favour of free markets and are finding your idea just more objectabe.
>>74207779
Sure, but there wouldn't be any need or desire for government to be making personal computers in the first place. Even if they did it would be one single development group yielding on type of product to offer to the public.
Under capitalism we all have super computers in our pockets of all makes and models because it makes people rich to make and sell them.
>>74208211
>Free markets is not the same thing as capitalism.
Are you functionally retarded, cabrão?
>>74207779
Computation is a result of many years of entrepreneurs, engineers, mathematicians, etc.
The government didn't just "create" them, they are a direct result of many people working together over thousands of years starting from basic mathematics, to the computer world we know today. If you cant grasp the fact that somehow people other than the state can create things, you have no thinking ability.
>>74207861
>Ever heard of the pork cycle?
Another aberration of Capitalism.
>n theory but someone has to manage it
The workers.
> this person (body) holds all the power.
Why is there a need for a all powerfull person?
>This is not possible in socialist societies because you cannot buy the products you need for production.
Why?
>>74189443
Canada?
Semantics, forget the words and definitions for a second and agree what it is that works and doesn't.
Call it whatever you want to but the bottom line, people Not working and reaping benefits shouldn't even be a vote on the table.
Everyone puts in, period.
Also, free college = Library
>>74208452
>but there wouldn't be any need or desire for government to be making personal computers in the first place.
Why not? What was the interest in making computers the first place?
> Even if they did it would be one single development group yielding on type of product to offer to the public.
And it's bad because? If you actually knew, most of the so called variety is just a different package.
>Under capitalism we all have super computers in our pockets
And you are one sickness away from bankrupcy. Home ownership in the 20s is a dream for many. Youth unemployement is in huge levels. Wages are being depressed. They are flooding our countries with niggers and muslims.
But we have Iphone, so we are ok
>Are you functionally retarded, cabrão?
Newark?
>>74190098
>State capitalism
Hi lefty/pol/,
Kill yourself right now.
Sincerely,
Someone with brain
No, I will not explain why Socialism is bad for mankind as you spam same thread for hundredth times.
Sweden had a socialist state that was pretty good for a couple of decades
>>74208682
you cant buy because you dont produce because there's nothing to grow because your system failed nobody has anything and shits going nowhere
>>74208682
>Another aberration of Capitalism.
Which normal people call reality
>Why is there a need for a all powerfull person?
Ever thought about why there are people working all day in companies to manage all kinds of resources? Because it is damn difficult and you can't have everyone decide over everything. It would neither be possible due to information asymmetries nor would it be efficient.
>Why?
Let me ask you this question: You are at the blink of a descion to give resources to a person who wants to make a phone with only one button? Would you vote for or against it?
>>74208590
>Computation is a result of many years of entrepreneurs, engineers, mathematicians, etc.
The Science behind it, yes.
But i am talking about the machine
But those people were funded by state money.
Without the state funding, there was literally no incentive for companies to invest large sums of money in something it might not even be anything. There would be no incentive to finance inicial computer development because they were worthless for 20 years
t. comp sci student
>>74209196
I never made this thread in my life, nor i seen any similar here.
Explain me then, because i've yet to see anyone trying to explain
>>74209258
welfare state inserted in a capitalist society. Not socialism
>>74190574
Workers ownership of the means of production.
>>74209177
>What was the interest in making (personal) computers the first place?
Making money. IBM, Xerox and Apple wanted to sell computers to businesses, eventually they went to regular people to increase profit.
>most of the so called variety is just a different package.
Sure, but occasionally you yield market defining products and features.
>Newark
New Jersey? No, if I lived on the east side of the US I would kill myself.
>>74190098
>state owned the means of production - state capitalism
You don't understand the difference between public property and private property. USSR's constitution stated that the sovereignty belongs to the people, so the state owning the means of production means that their people own them. USSR was by its essence socialist. However, the democratic decision making process is too slow and of low quality to handle the nuances of the economical evolution of each means of production. That's why the people trusted the state to take care of everything. Naturally, when you get to own almost everything in the country, the temptation is huge, so the power was usurped by the communist party. Thus, the fact that today you consider USSR state capitalism merely proves that the socialist system implemented there failed miserably, and worryingly. that is by far not the only case.
>inb4 Romanian - I am Moldovan, ex-USSR citizen.
>>74209401
>Which normal people call reality
Because you are still too young or brainwashed to think that there might be another possibility. Not gonna argue if it's better or worse.
>Ever thought about why there are people working all day in companies to manage all kinds of resources?
Do you work?
> Because it is damn difficult and you can't have everyone decide over everything.
No one said anything that the workers might no decide hierarchies amoung themselves. Or even assign administrative tasks to some.
>You are at the blink of a descion to give resources to a person who wants to make a phone with only one button? Would you vote for or against it?
I don't really understand what you meant with this. Give resources?
>>74190098
That's the definition of Socialism you fucking idiot.
>>74191458
not real socialism
>>74209943
>My special brand of socialism hasn't been tried
How many fucking failures of Socialism being tried do we need before you psychopaths are satisfied that is is a horrible economic system?
it is only fair to call a state socialist or communist if the owners of the means of production effectively represent the people. communism's predicated on the communal ownership of all means of production, so it only makes sense that we can call communist states communist if the 'people' as an abstract group have complete control over the means of production.
the USSR would be an example of communism if it were true that the state who controlled the means of production effectively represented the interests of the russian populace and were completely accountable to the russian populace at every point in time. this was not the case. as a result, the USSR was not communist.
it claimed to be communist, and lenin certainly wanted communism to come about, but as it existed in history, it doesn't satisfy the absolutely vital condition for a country to be called socialist or communist.
>>74209612
And tell me a country that had this.
>>74209619
>Making money. IBM, Xerox and Apple wanted to sell computers to businesses, eventually they went to regular people to increase profit.
They took a idea after decades of development and made money out of it.
>New Jersey? No, if I lived on the east side of the US I would kill myself.
Adivinhei que estarias lá. Em que cidade?
>>74209788
>USSR's constitution stated that the sovereignty belongs to the people
And my country constitution states that deficit is forbidden. But they spin it out and claim that by borrowing money from other countries, the budget is not deficit.
> so the state owning the means of production means that their people own them. USSR was by its essence socialist.
Now let's look at reality.
>>74209889
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Google it before you post crap mate
>>74210268
>My special brand of socialism hasn't been tried
We are not talking about "brands of socialism". We are talking about plain and simple socialism.
Read the thread, because every fucking thing you are about to say as already been said and answered
>>74209869
>Because you are still too young or brainwashed to think that there might be another possibility.
Because being young invalidates any argument. Either way I am a finance student.
>Do you work?
I have worked (even minimum wage)
>I don't really understand what you meant with this. Give resources?
You don't understand entrepreneurship, do you?
Every industrialized country on earth has socialist elements.
>>74210530
in what sense?
>>74190098
You're looking at the end result of socialism dipshit, when shit goes south and things stop working. Stop making threads if you can't form an argument.
>>74207050
Srsly, kill yourself.
>>74198293
Oh yes, you use textbook in colleges in the US. Fucking retards.
>>74190098
Spain, why didn't you annex these niggers ?
>>74210627
If only the "Muh Socialism" faggots could reinvent the human animal to be more like...Ants. Yeah, little, obedient ants, above any manner of greed or corruption.
>>74189443
You're mother
Every worker got a share of her
>>74210453
This is what i was trying to reach.
>>74210491
>Because being young invalidates any argument
I wasn't trying to refute any argument. But being young normally reflects in a very different way of thinking. You will get wise as you get older. I did.
>I have worked (even minimum wage)
And did most of your managers did?
>>74210589
>>74210530
He thinks gov programs is socialism. Another retard that only know socialism by 2nd hand and /pol/ memes
>>74210477
I can think of none that explicitly had workers ownership of the means of production. I'm sure there are some communes like Rojava which may be close to it.
>>74190098
This is probably the most retarded thing I've read all day.
>>74210627
>Stop making threads if you can't form an argument.
>literally no argument presented
So are you actually going to try to refute that USSR wasnt a state capitalist economy or will you act like a good old
>american education?
>>74210702
My teaching was always unpolitical. Try again
>>74210793
They tried, but they failed hard.
>>74210919
>And did most of your managers did?
No because I was less qualified and I was ok with that.
>>74210820
I mean it would work then.
In fact light amounts of socialism can work in homogeneous society as the desire to contribute and support YOUR people is a driving force. Systems like these still use capitalism though; socialism is not a viable form of an economic system. Sames goes for communism for similar reasons.
>>74193424
State capitalism is a Marxist oxymoron made to obscure debates. Capitalism is when the state does not intefeer or control the economy. If all industries are managed by the State as opposed to the "workers" or the proletariat then that is not capitalism and calling it state capitalism to hide the failure of the USSR is simply dishonest.
>>74210838
kek
>>74211015
A croatian poster said Tito Yoguslavia was socialistic, and the workers owned the means of production.
Catalonia during Spanish Civil war?
>>74211101
So it won't be hard to refute it?
But we both know you can't, or else you would have done it
>>74211015
yeah, rojava is a decent example. ocalan is a true communist, and the kurdish operate under his ideas, such as democratic confederalism. they're a fair example of a group that actually is striving for some outcome resembling communist ideals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Confederalism
there are some small places in mexico as well that could satisfy the worker ownership condition. i can't remember the name offhand, but true examples of communism exist. they're just rather small, since we live in a world dominated by capitalism. the ruling class who live off the labor of workers will certainly do everything in their power to prevent communism from becoming popular, because then the present day ruling class will lose their ownership rights and have to actually work to receive the means of subsistence. you'll never see communism get large without a popular revolution that occurs simultaneously in many countries of the world.
you can bet that if rojava ever takes off the united states will be there to crush it to pieces.
Great, it's that autistic Manuel again
>>74211138
>Portugal.
>Muh Socialism
>Teachings.
Trifecta of fail in one post.
>>74211308
Then you had luck. I don't work, because i am a student. But most always say that most managers are a complete fuckwitts worthless guys.
Tell me why should managers and those guys receive a cut of other people work?
![[DESS]Nichijou_18_1080.BD.FLAC.Underwater-Commie_[ECCDC772].mkv_snapshot_05.38_[2016.04.09_23.05.32]cropped.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aBFJ2vC.jpg "[DESS]Nichijou 18 1080.BD.FLAC.Underwater-Commie [ECCDC772].mkv snapshot 05.38 [2016.04.09 23.05.32]cropped")
>>74207050
>In socialism the means belong to the workers, i.e. to many people
Stop embarrassing yourself. This is retarded.
>>74211346
> Systems like these still use capitalism though;
Then it's capitalism
>>74196081
Do you prefer the american college textbooks? Might as well cite fox news as a source.
>>74189443
Portugal? I love how you people live in denial. Shit you have been ruled by socialist parties since the end of the dictatorship. You have been ruled so long by socialists that you don't even realise anymore that you live in one socialist state. Hell, even your "Conservative" party is socialist in essence (Social Democratic Party).
>Until the constitutional revisions of 1982 and 1989, the constitution was a highly charged ideological document with numerous references to socialism, the rights of workers, and the desirability of a socialist economy. It severely restricted private investment and business activity. Many of these articles were advanced by Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) representatives in the Constituent Assembly, but they were also advocated by members of the Socialist Party (PS), who at that time, for electoral reasons, were seeking to be as revolutionary as the other left groups.
>The resulting document proclaimed that the object of the republic was "to ensure the transition to socialism." The constitution also urged the state to "socialize the means of production and abolish the exploitation of man by man," phrases that echoed Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. Workers' Committees were given the right to supervise the management of enterprises and to have their representatives elected to the boards of state-owned firms.
> The government, among many admonitions in the same vein, was to "direct its work toward the socialization of medicine and the medicopharmaceutical sectors."
>Despite the 1982 amendments, centrists and conservatives continued to criticize the constitution as too ideological and economically restrictive. Hence, the constitution was amended again in 1989. Many economic restrictions were removed and much ideological language eliminated, while governmental structures remained unchanged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Portugal
>>74211695
explain why.
>>74211644
They aren't. They're also working which is why they're getting paid for their work.
>>74210919
You still haven't provided an argument.
You've circumvented mine though.
Why do you think the USSR became a "state-capitalist based economy"?
>>74211362
>Capitalism is when the state does not intefeer or control the economy.
Then we literally never had capitalism in our history. Are you retarded?
>If all industries are managed by the State
I don't think that all industries were managed by the state in USSR. Only the large. There was small companies in private hands. I would like that someone who knows more to clear up this for me.
>and calling it state capitalism to hide the failure of the USSR is simply dishonest.
Speaks the same people that call Venezuela socialism, kek
>>74189443
* USSR
* Cuba
* China
* Vietnam
* East Germany
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/communism.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html
>>74211713
no shit that's why they work
socialism isn't a viable replacement for an economic system, proven time and time again every time people try to make socialist societies.
>>74211833
link me to your post please. I am getting many (you) i can't keep track of them
answer to your question is the last part of this post
>>74195783
>>74211644
>But most always say that most managers are a complete fuckwitts worthless guys.
Most people that say that have never been managers. Being manager is very stressful and requires more overtime hours. Its also hard, not every idiot can do it. And yes, there are some times where managers can be idiots, but those are the minority, a company can't survive if all their managers are idiots.
>>74211920
More a feudal system I believe
>>74211956
>aynrandlexicon
>>74211920
>Then we literally never had capitalism in our history.
So? Doesn't change the nature of capitalism.
>Are you retarded?
Not an argument.
>I don't think that all industries were managed by the state in USSR. Only the large.
Eventually yeah, because it doesn't work unless private enterprise is there.
>Speaks the same people that call Venezuela socialism, kek
How so? What would be your definition of socialism then? Why doesn't it fit to Venezuela?
>>74211958
>socialism isn't a viable replacement for an economic system
This is not being discussed here
>>74201606
why would jews wan't communism? they do so well under the current system
>>74210477
>>74210268 this.
Trying to control the means of production democratically on a centralized level leads to the situation where everything is controlled by the institutions of the state, which are themselves controlled by a single party where the higher ranked are friends and share all among themselves. Hence OP's illusion that it would be state capitalism, which it can't be, as de iure the state is socialist, while de facto...
>Now let's look at reality. I'm answering this here, pay attention faggot
...it is capitalist crypto-oligarchy, the crypto-oligarchs being the ones close enough to the leaders of the party, or leaders themselves, to be trusted with managing state corporations that kept their wealth hidden with the complicity of the ruling party because otherwise a declared socialist state would have to confiscate it.
The only kind of socialism that seems viable is the one where the means of production are still under private ownership, but the state applies progressive taxation to get money for welfare (Such as the scandinavian countries), or gives the corporations certain social tasks (Natsoc Germany or today's Belarus). Here the state adopts a passive role of regulating the wealth (as opposed to the communist-wannabe type, where the state has to control every aspect of the economy)
>>74212421
?
Then you agree that we should have capitalism in all societies?
What do you mean?
>>74212368
>What would be your definition of socialism then?
Not mine. I am talking about a very wide definition accepted by almost all scholars for socialism.
That the workers own the means of productions. The rest isn't very important. Just this.
Venezuelan workers didn't own the means of productions, the state and privates did.
>>74189443
OP is right, There has never existed a system with democratic control over the means of production.
All OP is proving is most people are ignorant in these topics.
>>74211761
Because it can go 2 ways:
*Either someone owns it (government or private) and they will keep the means of production running. Government will obviously be more inefficient than private.
*If "everyone" owns it, then its like if no one owns it. "Everyone" will expect someone else to do it, and no one will. Just try it, assign a responsibility to "everyone" in a group, and see how no one does it because everyone thought someone else would do it.
>>74189717
sure totally.
>>74190411
It was very socialist
>>74190411
USA was communist.
>>74212689
No, people have tried this and it just never works.
That's why it never happens. It can't happen.
Good fucking luck when you want to try it again btw.
>>74212646
>That the workers own the means of productions.
If you don't have a government or a private owning the responsibility of the means of production. Who will have responsibility to keep things running? Or when something goes wrong? Or to decide in what should they invest?
>>74202423
>real socialism has never been tried
aaaaaand it's Canada
>>74212646
The current system in the US is socialism then. The people who own the means of production work at their companies so the workers do own the means of production.
>>74212616
>Trying to control the means of production democratically on a centralized level leads to the situation where everything is controlled by the institutions of the state
Ence state capitalism. It's not that hard to understand
>which are themselves controlled by a single party where the higher ranked are friends and share all among themselves.
Dictatorship is neither a requirement nor rules out capitalism.
>it is capitalist crypto-oligarchy
If it's corrupt or not is of no concern. Its still capitalistic. But do teel me why it's not state capitalism.
>The only kind of socialism that seems viable is the one where the means of production are still under private ownership
It's not socialism, because the means of production are still not in the hands of the workers
>as opposed to the communist-wannabe type, where the state has to control every aspect of the economy
Communism is a stateless society. God you are clueless
>>74212888
>People have tried it.
>Names no country
Thanks for proving my point. Just look around this thread, each person insulting OP has a whole different "definition" of socialism.
99% of you guys don't know anything.
>>74197963
thats rich coming from a croat
if it was so successful why did you guys leave the party so early
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence
>>74189443
>americans in charge of understanding political systems
>>74213244
>swedes in charge of anything
don't you have a bull to prep sven?
>>74206412
>No cheers for the invitation but aside from that being in a cult doesn't suit me and people like me generally get beaten down by groups. I know that I wouldn't be able to be myself in a socialist society. But thanks pointing that out in this comment.
What would you like to do and why do you think you wouldn't be able to do that in a communist society?
>>74189443
The territory controlled by the CNT-FAI in 1936 and 1937 in Barcelona and the surrounding areas.
>>74213175
Capitalism is when stuff is own by private people, not by the state. Therefore state capitalism cannot exist. You need to make up a new word and stop blaming capitalism.
>>74212646
Okay, the workers own it.
Do you imagine them taking informed decisions regarding the behaviour of their corporation on the market?
No, they'll elect someone intelligent enough to do it. You'd also want something to control him - say a college of experts. The statistic shows unanimously that the director and the experts share everything among themselves, getting rich as fuck, the workers understand that something isn't right by looking at the director's car, but they don't have the intelligence to understand how they have been robbed, they read the anual raports of activity and understand nothing, they ask the controlling college for an opinion, but they say it is alright. But the dividends (of the workers, since they are owners) don't cover their expenses anymore, they need to sell the unprofitable shares. Guess who will buy them?
>>74189443
BREAKING NEWS MAN SEEN WITH GUN AT CAMPUS MORE TOO FOLLOW
>>74211723
>>74211723
>>74211723
>>74211723
>>74212624
Personally i believe in some sort of capitalism. I don't trust the markets to handle vital aspects of the economy. I'm not a socialist maybe because i haven't read any of Marx works.
>>74212689
thank you
>>74212705
> Government will obviously be more inefficient than private.
Because?
>*If "everyone" owns it, then its like if no one owns it.
lol
>"Everyone" will expect someone else to do it
kek
>Just try it, assign a responsibility to "everyone" in a group
There is no reason to think that the workers couldn't assign some sort of hierarchy or different jobs amoung themselves.
You have socialism understanding of my unalfabet grandfater
>>74212705
>If "everyone" owns it, then its like if no one owns it.
this is in fact precisely the point. no one should own the means of production exclusively. those who produce goods at a means of production should own their labor completely.
at the same time though, it is obviously true that though nobody in particular owns a means of production, humans will still have to USE that means of production to produce the necessities of life after the revolution. there will need to be some sort of enforcement of labor so long as that labor is necessary. as you said, we can't have every body sitting around waiting for someone else to handle it. capitalism enforces laboring by requiring money to purchase the necessities of life, and money is concentrated in wage work. thus, you need to work to live. communism will do this in a similar manner- a community of producers will be able to acknowledge that yes, some work needs to get done, and we can't just sit by and wait for someone else to do it. we'll need to do it ourselves. as such, someone who wishes to be a part of our community and enjoy in the fruits of the community's labor will need to contribute to the community with their own labor, or they won't receive the fruits of the community. in this way, we'll be able to guarantee that people are working. there will be no freeloading, presuming that you're able to work and wish to have some part of the community's product.
the communist ideal of 'every worker who uses a publicly owned means of production and owns the product they produce their completely and fully' will need to be put on hold until it's no longer necessary for humans to work in groups to create the necessities of life. until then, we'll need to work in communities, and communities will have to have some sort of baseline expectation on an amount of labor being required in order to have access to the community stockade.
>>74212912
>Who will have responsibility to keep things running?
The workers, you retard.
>If you don't have a government
You do have a gov in socialist society.
>Or when something goes wrong?
The workers
>Or to decide in what should they invest?
The workers. You know, the ones that actually have things to loose?
>>74213133
>he is wrong because of his flag
>>74213384
>i can only argue with memes
>>74213434
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
>Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
>Therefore state capitalism cannot exist.
Give this man the Nobel prize for economics. He proved us all wrong
Why don't you people at least google before posting crap?
>>74213384
what is your average American going to say about the society they live in? good old fashioned capitalism freedom hasn't existed there for a while now
>>74213610
>'every worker who uses a publicly owned means of production and owns the product they produce their completely and fully'
...they produce there* completely and fully'
silly typo.
>>74213520
> Government will obviously be more inefficient than private.
>Because?
The state can simply tax people rather than use capital effectively.
>lol
>kek
Not an argument
>You have socialism understanding of my unalfabet grandfater
Still no argument and you should explain rather than ignore theories people bring.
>>74213939
Your quote proves my point. The state is not a private entity, it is public. Therefore still no state capitalism.
>>74213448
>regarding the behaviour of their corporation on the market?
There are no corporations in socialism. But i'm not really sure about it because i never read Marx works, nor am i a socialist.
And like i said many times, i'm not here to discuss wether socialism is better or not
>>74214206
>The state can simply tax people rather than use capital effectively.
This is not a argument
>explain rather than ignore theories people bring.
What?
>Your quote proves my point. The state is not a private entity, it is public. Therefore still no state capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
>>74214206
>The state is not a private entity, it is public.
right, the state claims its a public organization, and in some facet it does represent the people, but we both know that the state isn't totally representative of the people at large.
we know this because we're both dissatisfied with the state, because we know it serves the interests of capitalists (jews for you guys, right?) first and the people second. the state is not really as good a representative for the people as the people could be for themselves.
in the USSR, the bolsheviks were a party who failed to adequately meet the demands of the people in russia in many ways. similar to the states of first world countries today, the bolsheviks failed their citizenry. the bolsheviks failed to create a better place for the citizens of russia (well, anything is better than feudal monarchy, but still, communist russia was no land of happy rainbows).
yes, the state is a public entity, but it's one we can barely trust. it's better to have ownership of production taken by smaller groups of worker councils than handing over ownership to some large centralized government like the bolshevik party. not to say we SHOULDN'T have a centralized party- there's obviously some use in having a government where representatives from many locations congregate together and deliberate on how to best serve the people- we just shouldn't let them control economics. let them legislate, sure, but don't let them control production.
>>74213520
>Because?
Because government are always more inefficient. They don't have competence, they have nepotism most of the times, they steal because its not their money, etc.
>lol
>kek
>I have no arguments so I'll laugh
>There is no reason to think that the workers couldn't assign some sort of hierarchy or different jobs amoung themselves.
Just try it man. You will see how chaos ensues. You have clearly never worked in teams. At my work some times when the boss says "someone do this", everyone will try to avoid it until the boss assign it specifically to one of us.
>>74213654
>The workers, you retard.
You are the retard. If there isn't 1 person responsible for the means of production, like usually a boss in the companies that owns the responsibilities of delivering something, who will keep things running? When 2 of the workers decide to take off the week for no reason and cause a crash in the company who will reprimand them? If the production fails for some reason, who will have to take responsibility?
So if your answer is that the workers will put a boss democratically or some shit, then you agree that he will need to be paid more right? Because its harder. And you agree that people are usually retard and will "democratically" elect a faggot that can't do the job just because he is funny or something? Or will simply elect no boss because everyone wants to be boss and be paid a lot, and everything will crash.
Thread is about to die. I will make another in a few days. Hope you guys learn anything until then
>>74190098
>state owned the means of production
Actually, that's the exact definition of socialism.
>>74213175
state capitalism would be when the state owns the production means for itself. Not when it just controls the production means in the name of the people, which elect certain persons to represent them - the latter case is democracy and true socialism.
Thje only way state capitalism can exist is when the sovereignty belongs not to the people, but to smaller numbers (aristocracy/oligarchy) or to one (absolutist monarchy), as only then the state owns everything for itself. And no, controlling something for someone else and actually owning something isn't the same thing, otherwise the words to borrow or to represent wouldn't exist.
>But do teel me why it's not state capitalism.
Cause their power is illegitimate. The state is ruled by the law, and if the law says the state is socialist, it cannot be capitalist. At most it can fail to become socialist, that's the part where they all succeed.
>It's not socialism, because the means of production are still not in the hands of the workers
I know, it is still regarded as an element of socialism by some scholars, if you are an old school socialist and don't agree, it is fine, that is not what we're debating.
>Communism is a stateless society. God you are clueless
I said communist-wannabe. the states that strive to become communist societies.
>>74214569
Why not? I bring forth an idea, why is it not an argument? What is invalid in what I said?
>What?
You say lol rather than address what he says and say he's ignorant rather than educate him.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
More Marxist rethoric ignoring the nature of capitalism. You can call a flower a "still mammal" it doesn't make it a mammal.
>>74214705
Just because you don't like it or don't trust it doesn't make it a private entity and doesn't mean state capitalism is a rational term or idea.
>>74214795
>Because government are always more inefficient.
Why?
>They don't have competence
USA gov supplies basic needs to virtually all 350 million persons. That is something.
> they have nepotism most of the times
And capitalists don't?
>they steal because its not their money
And cacpitalists don't? Have yyou forget the bank bailouts in '08?
>Just try it man. You will see how chaos ensues.
Why?
>You have clearly never worked in teams. At my work some times when the boss says "someone do this", everyone will try to avoid it until the boss assign it specifically to one of us.
That is basic human nature. I don't see what you are trying to say with that.
>If there isn't 1 person responsible for the means of production, like usually a boss in the companies that owns the responsibilities of delivering something, who will keep things running
The workers. Im sure Marx addreses it in his works. My guess is that the workers would elect a leader amoung themselves.
>When 2 of the workers decide to take off the week for no reason and cause a crash in the company who will reprimand them?
Then they wouldn't be able to acess the fruits of the labour. And in a socialist society there is no welfare (iirc)
>If the production fails for some reason, who will have to take responsibility?
The workers
>then you agree that he will need to be paid more right?
Why? It's not like the job is harder. Especially if its a factory job.
>And you agree that people are usually retard and will "democratically" elect a faggot that can't do the job just because he is funny or something?
Why do you think most people would joke about their lives?
>Or will simply elect no boss because everyone wants to be boss and be paid a lot
Why should the boss be paid more (if there is such a thing as a boss in socialist society)
Like i said, i haven't studied Marx works, so i don't really know
>>74214909
Are you pretending to be retarded?
>would be when the state owns the production means for itself. Not when it just controls the production means in the name of the people
Tell me what is the difference.
>Thje only way state capitalism can exist is when the sovereignty belongs not to the people, but to smaller numbers (aristocracy/oligarchy) or to one (absolutist monarchy)
The state always claimed to be working for the people, since pre historic time, to roman times (For the senate and people of rome), to Middle ages to ancien regimes to today.
It's a way of getting legitimacy. But the difference betwenn claiming and actually being is large.
Stop acting like a retard please
>And no, controlling something for someone else and actually owning something isn't the same thing,
The difference is scrabbles in paper.
>The state is ruled by the law, and if the law says the state is socialist, it cannot be capitalist.
Wonderfull. Marvelous. But it doesn't change the fact the USSR was state capitalist
>>74214331
I made the corporation - totality of means of productions analogy for obvious reasons. You will have to organize the means of production under the form of corporations.
>And like i said many times, i'm not here to discuss wether socialism is better or not
Then don't, as I don't discuss it. I'm arguing that when you let the workers own the corporation, you tried socialism. Then it failed. So don't say socialism hasn't been tried before, it has been tried in every state that declared itself socialist. That it degenerated into something else - be it even your state capitalism, though it isn't the case here - of course it did, it is doomed to fail. I don't know why, I fundament my statement on statistic - every time it is tried it fails. Miserably.
>>74215023
I don't understand what you are trying to say. You guys follow your argument with me, but i don't, since there is many people arguing with me
>More Marxist rethoric ignoring the nature of capitalism.
So do tell us your nature of capitalism.
And don't forget, it has to be completely unsourced
>Just because you don't like it or don't trust it doesn't make it a private entity and doesn't mean state capitalism is a rational term or idea.
Just because capitalism doesn't fit your idea of capitalism doesn't mean everyone else is wrong but you
>>74215495
>Why should the boss be paid more
Ok I'm talking with a retard that has never worked in his entire life.
>Why? It's not like the job is harder.
Ok faggot, have you ever been a manger? A lead of a team? I'm leader of a small team and its fucking stressful, nothing like the days I was a simple worker. If they don't do something or mess up, I have to do it myself or take the blame from my boss. If they didn't pay me more, why the fuck would I agree to do that? Why wouldn't I just sit back and let the company crash, after all I can just say "yeah, those 2 didn't do their job, so go and scold them"?
>Why do you think most people would joke about their lives?
Really? Because most people don't see long term. Everything will be giggles and fun until the company crashes and then they will blame someone else.
I won't even answer the rest, your arguments are those of a high school student.
This fucking nigger has replied almost 80 times. I'll give it that, pinkos sure are determined.
If the point of this thread is to highlight socialism and how it has never been tried, then the amount of arguments and their counters should be enough evidence for a reader to make a valid conclusion.
All Communists are socialists, but not all socialists are Communists. This is like Islam and the terrorists. It is coming from the horse's mouth, but you won't listen because it runs counter to your bias. The subversion is real.
>>74215961
> So don't say socialism hasn't been tried before
So when did the workers got the means of production and failed?
> it has been tried in every state that declared itself socialist
No, because the workers never had the means of production. God, it's like talking to a fucking wall
If i put a script spaming "No, because the workers don't own the means of prodution" i would be answering 90% of you fags
>>74215495
>>Because government are always more inefficient.
>Why?
Because the cost of being inefficent to govement is almost zero. There is no incentive for goverments to strive to have the higher efficiency.
>>74190098
>State owning the means of production is the definition of state capitalism
This may be the most retarded thing I've heard in a long time.
>>74216103
Let's use the definition you sent a few posts back.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
>>Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Now, the state is a public entity, not private so if the state (public remember) owns the means of production then it is not capitalism because capitalism is "an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production" so if you (or marxists) come up with state capitalism because the means of production must be owned by private entities under capitalism, not by the state because as we remember the state is a public entity.
>>74216157
>Ok I'm talking with a retard that has never worked in his entire life.
So why should he?
>I'm leader of a small team and its fucking stressful
Poor thing. He gets annoyed, so he desetves more then the people that actually get the work done.
> If they didn't pay me more, why the fuck would I agree to do that?
You wouldn't and no one would care
>Why wouldn't I just sit back and let the company crash
Because you would starve if you did.
Basically the same reason you don't do it today.
And i am not saying i don't aggre with a boss earning more, i'm just asking why should he.
If it is because it's stressfull, then it's not very good.
>Because most people don't see long term.
And how is choosing the best amoung ourselves to be the leader a long term decision?
>>74216316
>All Communists are socialists, but not all socialists are Communists.
You are literally retarded.
> It is coming from the horse's mouth, but you won't listen because it runs counter to your bias.
I'm not even socialist. I'm still somewhat capitalistic. But suit yourselves
>>74216609
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
Read the whole article
>>74216564
So tell what is wrong with it
>>74216905
Why don't you summarize the important parts that counter what I said?
>So tell what is wrong with it
Why would he? I just did and you ignore the rebuttal.
>responding to poverty-Paco
>ever
>>74190098
>wich is the definition of...
Socialism.
Now if the means are privately owned but controlled by the government that's called Fascism.
It's a distinction without a difference
>>74216789
>retarded
not an argument. not molyposting, literally emotional blabber, not a valid argument. how do communists, like the USSR, not demonstrate socialist ideals?
Also, you are not the horse's mouth. I was not referring to you.
>>74189443
They never made it to socialism. See, the idea is so shit that after the revolution, you can't even manage to transition to socialism, you just end up in a shitty state dominated dictatorship.
>>74217001
>Why would he? I just did and you ignore the rebuttal.
I told you to read the whole wiki article. He addreses it.
>>74217122
You arrived late
So you nut to lolis or you like adult anime girls?
>>74190686
>if a place has taxes it's socialist
>>74217322
Why don't you tell me directly what's wrong with what I said rather than try to drown me with Marxist idiocies?
>>74217147
Check the thread for wiki links.
>>74217270
Of course it's not an argument. I call you retard because i already aswered to your question here.
>>74216789
>Poor thing. He gets annoyed, so he desetves more then the people that actually get the work done.
Not because I'm annoyed, but because I deliver what its expected. And to deliver that, I get more stressed than the rest of the team. Also I'm not a manger, so I still get work done.
>You wouldn't and no one would care
Everyone would care when the company crashes because idiots didn't do their part.
>Because you would starve if you did.
So you are saying I should do the work of other people because if not, I would starve to dead. And should be paid the same than those 2 guys, that know they won't starve to dead because I will be forced to do it? What a joke.
>If it is because it's stressfull, then it's not very good.
The stress is a consequence. The boss ensures things get done.
>And how is choosing the best amoung ourselves to be the leader a long term decision?
Do you even watch the news? Do you think the best politicians are elected as leaders? Or can't you see that its more a popularity contest?
>>74217431
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU SAID! I DON'T FOLLOW EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I'M HAVING. LINK ME YOUR FUCKING QUESTION SO I CAN ASWERE IT FOR THE 10TH TIME TODAY.
you made me write with Caps Lock.
>>74217270
>how do communists, like the USSR, not demonstrate socialist ideals?
because the USSR was an authoritarian state where the workers were subjected to the whims of the party.
a true communist/socialist/whatever the fuck you want to call marx's ideas state would be the opposite dynamic. the state will be completely subjected to the whims of the many. the whims of the workers. this is the dictatorship of the proletariat. the proletarians will have complete domination over the state and any extraneous bourgeoisie elements that wish to tear down the new order that the workers have inherited from the revolution.
it's through the dictatorship of the proletariat that the people have power, rather than the party. in the ussr, the party of the bolsheviks formed a new ruling class that ruled over the proletarians rather than the proletarians ruling over it. thus, it's not a communist state. simple as that.
Instead of debating the ideas of a system, let's think about the people who would live inside that system. Two main points about human psychology to consider:
1) Physiologically, it is hard-wired into the very being of organisms, humans included, to obtain resources at a lower energy cost than it takes to obtain them.
I.e. if I burn 50 calories to pick 100 calories worth of berries, that's fuggin smart.
2) Once our needs for subsistence is met, our next biological imperative becomes reproduction. Over millions of years of being apes, one thing became clear: Not everyone gets to have babies. It's the strong men, and the women who choose strong men as partners, who breed. This is the primary driver behind sexual hierarchies (idealized in the typical 4chan beta/alpha dichotomy).
Not everyone gets to fuck, so bust your ass to get ahead, and you might get to sew your seed.
So when we stopped being neanderthals and created society, money became this resource. So imagine a system where you have zero reward for your behaviour, where all of your efforts are met with the same reward as everyone else. This clashes with the two points discussed above:
1) This is an inefficient use of my energy
2) This does not help me get ahead
Ergo: I'll just work less, and get the same reward!
TL;DR: Humans are hard-wired to be reward driven. Every species of primate on the planet organizes itself hierarchically. The #1 driver of economies is the inherent desire to get ahead.
Socialism is contradictory to humanity's millennia of evolution and is the pipedream of cushy fucking liberal arts cucks who have never worked a hard day in their lives.
pic related: Leftypol
>>74217591
Why do you answer then? Why did you even link that article? How do you know it refutes what I said if you don't even know what I said?
You asked me to define capitalism, I used your wikipedia definition of an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, and since the state is a public entity not a private one the state owning anything is counter to capitalism which is why state capitalism is an oxymoron.
>>74217444
I'm not asnwering you because, like i said, i'm not arguing wether socialism is good or not
>>74210714
>mexican intellectuals
>>74217825
Your questions will be answered in the state caoitalistic wiki. It adresses your secific questions there.
Why are you playing dumb?
>>74218069
I don't have any questions, you make an assertion, I disprove it and you call that a question.
Why don't you address what I said rather than dismiss it and insult me?
>>74217930
Okay, keep thinking that humans are amazing perfect altruistic beings that will all strive together to build a perfect society.
also
>starts an argument
>refuses to answer when someone approaches same argument from a different lens
Stay mad leftycuck
>>74217644
>imagine a system where you have zero reward for your behaviour, where all of your efforts are met with the same reward as everyone else. This clashes with the two points discussed above:
this doesn't represent communism, actually. if you work more under communism, you're gonna get more. if you don't work, you might get some bare minimum needed to survive, but not much more than that. you will have to work to receive more than that.
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
this is from critique of the gotha programme, by marx.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
>>74218180
I asked to name me a socialist country. Nothing else
>>74217871
Kek. What I'm saying is unsustainable, because there is no one incentivized to be responsible. Defining "good" or "bad" is subjective.
>>74218307
and then disintegrated into a shitshow of
"well that's not TRUE socialism wahhhh"
>>74218380
just because it is a common argument doesn't mean it is a wrong argument.
>>74218377
I don't care about that. it's subject to another thread.
>>74218380
And none of you actually disprove that i was wrong, only spameed a meme
>>74218473
Was pointing out more that he derived from his original question a while ago, so refusing to answer counter arguments on the basis that they aren't direct answers to the original question seems tenuous at best.
Wasn't saying it was a wrong argument. It is logically true that pure socialism hasn't really been seen, but I think that the counter arguments in this thread offer a lot of insight as to why such a state hasn't been seen.
>>74218587
>none of you actually disprove that i was wrong
Maybe because you haven't proven anything you just say vague generalities and when we point those out you ignore what we say.
>>74218693
I can't follow arguments. You see, i had over 10 people arguing with me at the same time. It's hard to keep up with everyone at the same time.
>>74218587
>I don't care about that. it's subject to another thread.
But it is completely related to this thread. No country has tried it because it doesn't make sense. For a society to work there is always a responsible for keeping things running, either a government or a private or a warlord, etc.
>>74218756
>vague generalities
True, yet you didn't disproved. Only pointed /pol/ memes of what socialism and capitalism is, and called me retard when i said it was wrong (always with sources)
>>74218844
Sure mate. Have it your way.
>>74213977
Free market has neva ben dun befour
>>74213939
>i can only argue with memes
ur just mad cuz u got memed on hard in this thread kiddo
good night everyone
>>74219019
Sleep tight friend
>>74218693
i do not give a shit as to whether 'pure' socialism has ever been tried. i don't think it especially matters as to whether communism hits every mark that marx has written.
however, it's important that communism hits the marks that one could consider the basic tenets of the thing. you wouldn't call something capitalism if it didn't have private property as its founding right. i won't call something communism if the workers don't own the means of production and dominate the state.
no one cares about the purity of an economic system, they care it satisfies some basic tenets so that it can fit the definition. we both know that pure capitalism if followed to the logical anarchist conclusion is going to be absolutely catastrophic for anyone not in a higher rank of a corporation or a member of a corporation's private army. so we have a state that does some regulation to prevent corporations from completely controlling society.
now, i'm sure you think that even the basic tenets of communism are unfeasible and unrealistic. i disagree. they can be done, they just haven't been done yet. the world isn't ready for a proletarian revolution, not yet.
>>74218798
So just answer my original comment: How do you reconcile socialist ideals with the fundamental biological urge to get ahead, at the lowest energy cost possible?
>>74219260
>fundamental biological urge to get ahead
citate this.
>>74189717
is that milo
>>74219131
>now, i'm sure you think that even the basic tenets of communism are unfeasible and unrealistic. i disagree. they can be done, they just haven't been done yet. the world isn't ready for a proletarian revolution, not yet.
You're right, I do think the fundamental tenets are unfeasible and unrealistic.
I think the fatal flaw in the concept of a proletarian revolution is that masses inevitably develop leaders, which, as history has shown multiple times, deviates into chaos rapidly.
Until the proletariat is a self-leading hivemind, yeah, we won't see a revolution.
![1455787571003[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xSFPQeW.jpg "1455787571003[1]")
