Give me the most compelling argument on why socialism doesn't work. And no memes please.
People will have no motivation for working hard. Everyone will be lazy because everyone makes the same amount of money regardless of how productive you are.
>>77806519
This
>>77806419
It's never worked before
Marx never took into account scarecity , over population and the resulting competition for resources.
Most other critiques can be discredited or undermined
>>77806419
You eventually run out of other people's money
>>77806519
Not an argument.
>>77806625
this is quite literally an argument retard
>>77806625
Then why do all the marxists I know have shit work ethic?
>>77806419
Socialism stifles innovation and undermines an efficient free market. It's literally perpetuating a market at disequilibrium, which is why there's government intervention in the first place.
>>77806419
Define socialism. *National* Socialism, for example, seemed to be the perfect system.
>>77806625
Because it denies human nature.
/thread
>>77806519
"People are inherently creative producers if not undermined by capitalistic wage systems which alienate people from the things they produce"
>>77806588
"It's never been tried and has been subverted by capitalists (social democrats) or fascists (bolsheviks)"
See, for the socialist, the only weak link is the scarecity argument
Seize the means of production
do it
now
>>77806419
Don't liberals realize that in the U.S. you cant raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars on a national level because we have such vasts differences in cost of living from state to state.
>>77806710
>muh free market
>muh deregulation
>what is the dot com bubble
>what is the 2008 sub prime mortgage and CDO crisis
>>77806625
It is, get that bbc out of your ass Sven.
>guy drags me into a corn field, points to a pile of car parts dumped into a hole and then cemented into a single mold
>asks "Give me the most compelling argument on why this car doesn't work."
>>77806419
Because people don't have the psychic superpowers necessary to enforce socialist laws.
>>77807005
You asked for legit arguments, not meme responses.
It's been tried and it always ends in massive amounts of death that capitalism can only dream of.
>>77807253
Those are facts I gave. Deregulation and free markets lead to asset bubbles and unlimited immigration which leads to depressed wages.
>>77806419
no one man or group can ever claim to know exactly what needs to be done in order to ensure the best outcome for the population as a whole.
basically what socialism says is "we know for a fact that A is good and B is bad, and so we have to to C,D and E" and enforce that dogma on the whole of society.
it's analgous to saying that in order to reach the highest place on earth you just need to move up until there is no where higher for you to go.
what you'll end up doing is climbing the nearest hill, which would probably be thousands of kilometers away from what is objectivly the highest place on earth.
you need to cover as much ground as possible to ensure that there is no place higher than where you stand. saying that you are standing on what seems to be the highest place for now so it must be the highest place that exist is stupid as fuck.
when you let people choose for themselves what to do, some will stumble, some will fall, but many would rise higher than what you have ever dreamed possible.
>>77806419
governments just use it to keep the people dependent on them, and the more extensive it gets the more people they let fucking starve to death by the millions
>>77807005
>damn why does economy keep fucking up when the state interferes with it
>we need to give the state more control over the economy
>>77806781
>National Socialism
>Perfect
lol
>>77806419
because of human nature.
>>77806419
It creates a massive central bureaucracy holding all the power. And that bureaucracy would be at the mercy of its central bank. And we all know what kind of ilk is attracted to the banking sector like flies to shit. All the "end capitalist yoke" claims are just bollocks, and every educated socialist knows this. It's actually doing the opposite, it's giving the capitalists the tools they need to make their rule absolute. Communism is what we Germans call "Trickbetrug", roughly translated it means "trick fraud". Jews cannot be trusted and you know it.
>>77806419
It works if you want to be a slave
>>77806419
1. It's less efficient
2. People don't identify with what they do. Once they are assigned another job they just leave and don't care.
>>77806419
Checkmate, socialism is a meme
It's obvious that we can't use the resources of the planet like they would be unlimited.
>>77807005
The dot com bubble and 2008 crisis were market corrections. Sure sometimes we feel the effects of the free market at times but in the long run everything is at equilibrium.
The United States has never had mass starvation or people dying due to economic policy. I mean you can argue the Great Depression, but that was just a massive slow down of economic activity, there wasn't widespread famine.
Now look at your socialist paradises, like the USSR, China under Mao, North Korea... and see if you can say the same thing ...
>>77806419
Socialism is in conflict with human nature. Socialism destroys democracy, free association, free communication, self-ownership, and with it everything else. Socialism is a black hole that destroys everything, creates nothing. As if socialism hasn't been proven to be a catastrophic failure all through history already and still most places where it still exists is in chaos or failing.
VENEZUELA'S ELITE ENJOYING THEIR DECADENCE WHILE EVERYONE ELSE IN DIRE POVERTY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJTiAtCi6M4
>>77806419
- Information problems: millions of people acting on their own knowledge for their own good will work better than a minority of them acting on the behalf of the majority, provided they don't affect each other much. In the Soviet Union, the best sign that something was out of fashion was that it was the only abundant thing in the stores. Another example from the SU: buying used cars was more expensive than buying news ones;
- Ignores incentives: There is a tendency for socialist people to assume that people are way more altruist that they actually are. When you point out this fact, they argue that we have been socially conditioned to be selfish. This is bullshit. Humans are mixed on this regard. Ignore this, make people not gain from the value they create and you'll find they will create less value on average. For an example, look up on all the conflicts between "managers" and workers in Revolutionary Spain;
- Social determinism: this is related to the previous point. Socialism has an implicit assumption that reality is socially constructed: that to change social outcomes, you just need to change how social relations operate or how people perceive reality. This is only partly true but you act as if it was the single most important fact about the world. For this reason, you deny the existence of inherent biological differences, which makes you an ignorant implementing policies. For this reason, for instance, in the soviet union, politicians thought it was a good idea to free women from maternal obligations, creating giant childcare units where all children would be raised, and actually tried to implement it.
>>77806896
>"People are inherently creative producers
I'll agree, provided they are in an environment of scarcity. Because necessity forces innovation. A hunter gathererer developing farming to live an easier life, for example.
He's not going to be doing that if the leader of the tribe provides him with free mammoth every day and provides his tent.
>>77806710
>Socialism stifles innovation and undermines an efficient free market.
Bullshit. The majority of the technological advances of the last 50 years were almost entirely funded by the US Government through the military.
The private sector is excellent at exploiting ideas but is terrible at innovation because innovation requires time and investments into R&D which is in no way guaranteed to produce results, inherently very risky. One of the major issues observed in this late stage capitalism is that all this investment capital is so risk-averse that the only way they'll put money into anything is if it's guaranteed and hedged to all fuck. This gets reflected in retail and business banking and why there is simply no investment back into small business ventures, money just floats to the top and stays there.
This is also why the private sector simply cannot manage utility infrastructure and civic improvements on their own, the risk to investment is too large, it is difficult to monetise, etc. Even purportedly privatised industries are reliant on public subsidy for improvements or even some times just to keep them running (UK railways and telecoms are good examples of market failure being propped up by the state).
Law Of Production:
>X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of gold-money
The 'law' is a key foundation of all of Marx's work. It is supposed to explain capitalism.
Alright here we go:
>X quantity of product =/= Y quantity of average labour hours
If you produce product more efficiently, you can produce it in less labour hours. Two companies can create X product, but one company spends less time on making it than the other, hence Y of one is less than Y of the other. This is a flaw in the far left, as the idea of competition is destroyed because the government owns everything. Due to lack of competition and free market, inefficiency takes over and money is wasted everywhere where labour hours could have been reduced.
>X quantity of product = Z quantity of gold-money
This is so far out it's unbelievable anyone takes it seriously. Competition, time of year, interest in product (advertising/salesmen/marketing). So many factors affect the value of your product.
A worker is only payed what they are worth. If they are worth nothing, then they don't have a job.
Marx's lack of understanding of capitalism is astonishing. How can anyone take this clown seriously?
The ideas he proposed remove all selection pressures upon industry, which means inefficiency is allowed to thrive because there is no consequence for doing a poor job. With no selection of the good work over the bad, bad work thrives because it is easier. This is where the government has to start forcing civilians with military force to work - "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."
People think that the leaders of businesses don't do anything - they think the person who physically makes the product is the only person who holds value. Without the business leaders, there is no organisation, no selling of the product, no efficient way of making money, which means significantly less money.
There is pretty good reason why the far left always fail.
>>77809148
On innovation:
Big, general things whose impact, albeit positive, is small and distributed to everyone: government does it better;
Small, specific things, whose impact is very concentrated: private firms do it better.
The latter are much more frequent and the former and they do add up. A great deal of the market power some firms enjoy is because of the amount of knowledge they have accumulated throughout the years. That knowledge spreads as people go in and out of the company, meaning it is very slow. You only know about big public innovations because private firms have no interest in telling you what they have achieved, just in telling you that their product is great.
>>77809601
than the former*
>>77809601
I don't think the internet or www are small developments. In fact they've changed business and social interactions completely and would never have been developed if it weren't for public investment in the research.
Private firms have every interest in telling you what they've achieved, having a proven track record for delivering results is of paramount importance to every publicly traded company. The main difference is that innovation is not a major area where business ever delivers results, apart from perhaps the pharmaceutical industry where IP is so important, and even then it's mainly just about the new and exciting ways they've found for flipping patents. What planet are you living on?
pic related, this is it
you can read it online for free if you want
you're late to the party, by the way. the last credible socialist holdout in the united states already capitulated to mises.
http://spontaneousorder.in/robert-heilbroner-mises-was-right/
>Implying socialism has to do with marxism
>>77806419
>>77807080
this.
God tier bait OP
>>77807080
It's not a CDO crisis. It's bad regulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GoAGuTIbVY
>>77810566
kill yourself...
>>77806419
Surely better you explain to us what your socialism looks like, specifically and how you plan to get there. Let's just start with what it looks like though.
>>77807647
he's obviously 12
>>77806419
Seems like having leftist parties in control for several decades has kinda made you the rape capital of Europe.
>>77810200
>>77810200
>
>I don't think the internet or www are small developments. In fact they've changed business and social interactions completely and would never have been developed if it weren't for public investment in the research.
Network infrastructure for the web was a military and university development. Private sector had very little interest in the creation of the early Web. Private companies certainly created it as we know it but there's no way it would even exist without public entities like government and education.
>>77806419
>Impossibility of economic calculation under centrally planned economies.
Only niggers and socialists don´t understand this basic concept.
>>77806419
>"It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn't know. We thought it was good. No, that's not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.
>"What's whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it's all one pot, you can't let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it's not right for me to own a car until I've worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth—why can't he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed?
>"It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to 'the family', and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his 'need'—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that 'the family' would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it's miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother's. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?
It goes against meritocracy and is therefore socially dysgenic. This is most true with its current application and easily argued as true for Stalinism.
>inb4 nuh huh not my speshul snowflake socialism
Yeah, probably that too. Actually, any system that refuses to accept inequality is a natural part of the game is dysgenic. Everyone should only be treated the same, but never expected to have to same outcome.
>>77806419
>>77811520
>"Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel's worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn't marry, he wouldn't help his folks back home, he wouldn't put an extra burden on 'the family.' Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra 'disability allowance,' they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, 'the family' was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in 'need' than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.
>"God help us, ma'am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it—for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got.
>>77806419
>>77811520
>>77811617
>"The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue something that we'd be ashamed to admit otherwise. There wasn't a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn't a man rich and smart enough but that he didn't think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better's wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he'd get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who'd get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who'd rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss's, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted—that was the truth of it—but we didn't like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.
>"What good would our need do to a power plant when its generators stopped because of our defective engines? What good would it do to a man caught on an operating table when the electric light went out? What good would it do to the passengers of a plane when its motor failed in mid-air? And if they bought our product, not because of its merit, but because of our need, would that be the good, the right, the moral thing to do for the owner of that power plant, the surgeon in that hospital, the maker of that plane? Yet this was the moral law that the professors and leaders and thinkers had wanted to establish all over the earth. If this is what it did in a single small town where we all knew one another, do you care to think what it would do on a world scale?
>>77806419
My shit is mine, neither you nor the government should have any right to it. The only argument needed.
>>77810200
The Internet is a big thing, not a small one. The creator of the Internet, if it were private, would not benefit much from it.
Come on guys, this is easy. Its legalized plunder. As soon as the law allows some to take money from others in order to promote "equality" the law has legalized the plunder of some for the benefit of others.
The result being that every class and special interest group will lobby and beg for subsidies. Because as soon as one class is plundered to favour another, all the other classes start seeing legalised plunder as an advantageous way to benefit themselves.
Bastiat destroyed Socialism in 1850, why are we still arguing about this retarded project?
>>77811955
>that quote
Don't care if it's true or not, this is some very smooth BTFOing
>>77810200
Private firms do not tell the public about the process of innovation, how it works and how you can replicate it. They only say that it is great and show you its specifications (to the extent that the public cares about them). You think there's only innovation when there's a big department in a firm actively trying to create something new. Fact is, everyday people working in private firms have to make decisions and these, through trial and error, produce a lot of knowledge. Firms also have "experience", which is composed by the culture of the company which is transmitted from old to new workers. These new workers will then face new problems or have new tools to face the old ones, improving processes or decisions slightly. Most innovation and efficiency gains come this way, not through concentrated effort.
>>77806419
It all works in theory, so no debate is necessary.
Government is like a car, a tool to move people. The left end of the political spectrum (communism, socialism etc) is like a Mexican work van. It's not perfect but everyone gets where they need to go(comfortably) and as long as it's properly maintained, it could last a long time.
The right side of the spectrum(capitalism, fascism, conservatism, etc) is like a sports car. It can get a person to their destination very quickly, but it only can carry a few people(and can be very uncomfortable). It is more prone to breaking down but when it's working properly it can lap the Nurburgring is less than 7 minutes.
The obvious choice is the middle ground(moderatism) , like an SUV or crossover. It can carry a decent amount of people where they need to go(and most are moderately comfortable) and can last longer than both a work van or sports car with an oil change every 3000 miles.
Keep in mind, this analogy falls apart if you use American vehicles for it.
>>77811952
You said that big things have small impacts on individuals, when the opposite is true. Big things change the mode and method of living and provide opportunity and prosperity. Water infrastructure stops you having to walk 2 miles to the well every day, roads give you transit lines to move goods and yourself, etc.
Companies commodify and retail existing technology, they're not particularly inclined to innovate in areas that objectively benefit anyone, only their profits. they are just as likely to innovate in a way that reduces the quality of their goods if it means they can reduce their bills on production, or innovate in aggressive legal tactics which gives them the ability to monopolise a market.
There is so much corporate cock sucking on this site just because people think that being pro-corporation is being anti-left. It's ironic that although most alt-rights are the ones who have been failed most by our current systems they're still the biggest cheerleaders for their supposed successes, just to stick it to the lefties.
>There is so much corporate cock sucking on this site just because people think that being pro-corporation is being anti-left. It's ironic that although most alt-rights are the ones who have been failed most by our current systems they're still the biggest cheerleaders for their supposed successes, just to stick it to the lefties.
No doubt. I was just thinking the other day that conservatives are so quick to denounce the government as evil yet never mention how hard corporations can fuck people over, as if muh free market has ever prevent companies from taking advantage of people and subverting democracy
>>77812978
I used small and big as relative to the cost. The benefit of the Internet is very small to a single individual when compared to its cost. The same applies to water infrastructure and roads.
Private firms don't give a fuck about people and they shouldn't have to. They should only care about profits. As long as the incentives are aligned, this will achieve the best outcomes, as they will act on the information they have in a way that benefits them the most. There are possible issues here but that's why you have regulations, which are imperfect ways of solving them.
Firms do innovate a lot, whenever it benefits their profits. Guess what: most innovations due. You insist on not acknowledging this. Most of them, however, do not have nearly as big of an impact as the Internet, for instance.
>>77806419
No market prices equal to no information on what to produce.
Can someone tell me the difference between socialism and national socialism without memes?
>>77806625
Underrated.
>>77806419
Private Property is an inherent right
>>77806519
Those who dont work dont get any bread.
>>77806896
>See, for the socialist, the only weak link is the scarecity argument
This is extremely true.
>>77814941
Socialism: We have to take away your rights, because muh equality.
National Socialism: We have to take away your rights, because muh degeneracy.
>>77815010
Hahaha. Inherit right? Is that so?
Inherit rights have never existed. You aren't guaranteed the ability to own property just because you exist
>>77806419
Sweden is a living example that Socialism is fucked.
>>77806419
There isn't. Socialism and then communism the future of humanity.
>>77815083
That would only make someone work just enough to not get fired.
>>77814888
And like allays it will get buried, it's easy to argument against the "no motivation for work" meme.
>>77806419
economic calculation problem
>>77815309
Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark aren't.
>>77815295
>on /pol/
>derives rights from the collective
Protestantism was a mistake
>>77806625
Yeah, the Molly meme only works when you do not have an argument
i.e.
Anarchism doesn't work becaues it is retarded
>not an argument
Anarchism doesn't work because you need a centralized government to take care of law, order, defense and infrastructure. If not the world would collapse into chaos
>an argument
>>77806519
>>77806588
>>77806622
>>77806842
>>77807095
>>77807910
>>77808146
Just scrolling through here I see strawman after strawman or complete misunderstanding as to what socialism even is.
Social democracy for example is a great system for places like Massachusetts or Washington.
>>77806419
reality
>>77815780
Could you explain what socialism is and how it works? I've asked a couple of times here and I never got a good answer, if any.
>>77815718
The only place to derive rights from is a sovereign government.
>>77815885
Workers controlling the means of production.
NOT the state.
>>77815885
A. Why are you trusting the edgiest 4chan board with political information
B. It's public ownership of the means of production. That's it, anything more people tack on is to strawman or shows they don't know what they're talking about.
For example, in Nordic nations they have bargaining on wages with the businesses, unions and the government.
>>77806419
>Give me the most compelling argument on why socialism doesn't work. And no memes please.
Because people are greedy. The people at the top (who shouldn't be "at the top", if socialism actually worked) will always take more than whatever socialism dictates to be their "fair share".
>>77815885
The state can be the controller of the means of production, it's called state socialism or democratic socialism.
>>77806419
>>77806419
A man creates a way to live in what on the surface seems viable. He never works a day in his life. His whole ideal is to justify why everyone around him should pay for him to jerk off all day and live for free. Derp
>>77816074
You don't understand what socialism is.
>>77816081
or Marxism-Leninism (Maoism).
>>77806419
>Give me the most compelling argument on why socialism doesn't work.
All the practical evidence we have collected?
>>77816074
>>77815885
It's when the working class owns the means of its production, so pretty much any social service that uses tax dollars to provide services. Police, EMT, fire and rescue, public education are all examples of socialism
>>77816108
You don't understand what socialism is. Our system is more like this than actual social democracies and socialist nations.
>>77815780
>Massachusetts is a social democracy
Massfag who worked in state government here. It's not and you're a retard. There are high taxes and a pre-Obamacare state health exchange and that shit isn't close to social democracy.
>socialist fags whenever the government subsidizes anything
"SOCIALISM SEE ITS ALL AROUND YOU YOU DONT EVEN KNOW IT"
>socialist fags when socialist governments are executing people and causing famines
"See that's not true socialism. True socialism has never been tried."
>>77816177
It could be done democratically as well. No inherent need for authoritarianism.
>>77816257
I said could be, I didn't say it is fuckbag.
>>77816011
This image is just made up nothing there is at all factual why even post it yes I am triggered
>>77816011
In a democracy, the workers are considered a part of and represented by the state
>>77816011
>>77816026
>>77816081
>>77816247
(the idea is to discuss it)
Yes, I know the definition. But how does it work?
For example, lets begin with a factory. Disregarding the details as to how the workers acquired the factory and property rights (which I think don't exist in a socialist system): who decides what to produce? Why produce it? Who decides how much to produce? How do they acquire the inputs? How do they redistribute profits (if such thing exists in the first place)? How do they specialize their labor?
These questions, and many more I can easily answer them with a system of well defined property rights, but a socialist system? Maybe its because I don't really comprehend it.
>>77806419
all this people thinking socialism is the same thing of communism.
>It's a socialists define socialism as "Government = Socialism, Not Government = Capitalism" thread
>>77816429
Property rights do exist in socialist lands, you're thinking of Communism.
In Social democracies it's just business done with a lot of state involvement in wages and regulations.
>>77815371
Just like now in wage work.
>>77816429
>For example, lets begin with a factory. Disregarding the details as to how the workers acquired the factory and property rights (which I think don't exist in a socialist system): who decides what to produce? Why produce it? Who decides how much to produce? How do they acquire the inputs? How do they redistribute profits (if such thing exists in the first place)? How do they specialize their labor?
Ideally, it's decided democratically with every worker getting a vote on the issues. Another way of doing it is democratically electing representatives
>>77815371
Yeah you know this happens now right?
>>77816588
I don't see well defined property in the definition of "public ownership". If everybody owns everything, nobody owns anything at all, from my POV.
>>77816715
Public ownership as in factories, not your houses.
>>77806419
Replaces one upper class for another beaurocratic upper class that controls all factors of production to an even greater extent that the previous upper class controlled due to the increased centralization of resources that occurs when socialism starts to occur.
>>77806625
You are using memes, therefore i can use memes.
>CAN'T YOU SEE IT, GUYS? THE SUN IS A CAPITALIST INVENTION TO SELL US AIR CONDITIONERS! :D
>>77816821
Yeah except for they aren't making those profits. Their wages come from their jobs as politicians, not factory production.
>>77816932
Absolutely no one in this thread is being dramatic or using hyperbole except for you.
>>77816555
I gotta love it when the socialists are the ones who don't know what the fuck they're talking
about, to which they just go around telling everyone that their shitty make-believe versions
of what is effectively the same thing are all different.
>>77816932
hhahahaha top kek
don't even bother with this cunt, he blatantly shifts the burden of proof in the original post
>>77817005
Second perspective. You're so ignorant and stupid that you can't wrap your head around the idea that socialism is a broad concept including several different manifestations. You're getting different answers because there are several different answers. What you're saying is as stupid as someone asking "What's a capitalist government like", getting a multitude of answers and not getting why that makes perfect sense. Read a book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dAmroKyzGY
>>77816682
So a cooperative? Also, who are these workers, and why would workers in the cotton industry not have a say in the resource management of the steel industry? They are part of the public ownership, too.
>>77816804
That's pretty arbitrary. Why can't I own a factory and live in it? Why can't I turn my house into a mini-factory? Its much easier to think about it as simply property, property that you can use however you like.
>>77817162
I mean this is pretty simple man, there are homes and apartments, there are factories, businesses and industrial buildings.
>>77806419
Socialism works locally though
Neighborhoods feeding each other and sharing.
It doesnt work on a larger scale because it's already perfect. The system can do nothing but degrade.
>>77816897
CLASS C U C K
>>77815780
>the "YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TRUE SOCIALISM REALLY IS" argument
>>77817144
>>77806419
Look at England, France, and Germany.
>>77816011
Why do you socialists have to lie so much?
Some form of socialism/communism is inevitable considering how many jobs automation will replace in the future. Either that or mass starvation and genocide. 21st century is going to make the 20th look like a cakewalk.
>>77817241
You didn't answer my questions. How far does public ownership go? Why are houses off limits? I'm not sure Marx even explained this.
>>77817279
It perfectly applies. If you clearly don't understand the concept you're arguing against I will state that.
>>77817315
Grow up, let me know when you have anything except japanese children cartoons and memes.
>>77817144
Christianity has many sects, yet in the end they're all about believing in god.
Socialism is similar in that they all believe in a fairytale of equality, despite their inherent differences.
Yet, you're so ignorant and stupid that you can't wrap your head around the idea that socialism
is infact a very basic idea that has been adapted various times, and that despite this, it
is still in the end... socialism.
Democratic socialism is still socialism as you're literally getting the same result, despite that the democratic version is focused around including democracy within the ideology (go figure).
>>77806419
>Give me the most compelling argument on why socialism doesn't work.
It's incompatible with human nature.
History shows it always results in disaster.
>>77817277
I think Stalin was a great leader, he teached those capitalist demons who's boss!
>>77806419
All you need is one cunt at the top and it falls apart. Politicians are notorious cunts, so your fucked from the start.
>>77817445
Because socialism is about the means of production, not all property. Your house isn't a factory.
>>77817461
Equality is not necessary in socialism, nice try.
>>77817510
Yeah Denmark and Finland are total hellholes.
>>77817144
>socialism is a broad concept that includes governments that are capitalist in every conceivable way but have a lot of gibs and maybe a 20% stake in the oil industry
>none of the communist governments were socialists tho that was just muh state capitalism
>remember socialism gets to take credit for everything successful and deflect everything bad!
>>77817549
I think Stalin is a fascist and you are fascist bootlickers to Hitler.
>>77817277
>someone drew this
>>77816011
What happens when the means of production are so large and complex that one worker decides to specialize in controlling the means of production?
Relying on workers to efficiently set production targets is simply retarded.
>>77817618
>"Ha! he said 'equality' in his argument, of which he is incorrect! therefore his total argument is invalid!"
Your argument is invalid.
>>77806419
Because about 50% of the people will not work. After 25% of the rest see they're getting fucked, they'll stop working too. That leaves only 25% of us to support the rest of the population. Which is how it is at my job and that sucks.
Capitalist Society: 10,000 people expend $10,000 worth of resources each prospecting for metals for a total cost of $100,000,000. One of them finds a deposit worth $50,000,000. This is considered a success by capitaiists.
Socialist society: 10,000 expend $10,000 worth of resources each prospecting for metals for a total cost of $100,000,000. One of them finds a deposit worth $99,000,000. This is considered a failure by capitalists.
>>77817618
Why does means of production = factory? Do you know what are the means of production?
You can't produce if you don't have a place to stay. You can actually produce from your home if you wanted. And if you did, this would be private property, not acceptable.
>>77817690
You just simply don't know what you're talking about. There's no argument to be made because your statements have no basis in reality. Do some research and then get back to me.
>>77817735
His whole thing was based off of that.
>>77817162
>
>So a cooperative? Also, who are these workers, and why would workers in the cotton industry not have a say in the resource management of the steel industry? They are part of the public ownership, too.
Sort of like a co-op except with more over sight. Cotton workers and steel workers would get much say over each other's industry when it came to work, but everyone would get a share.
For example. Say a government owned a cotton and steel mill. The profits of the steel and cotton industry would go towards everyone. Unlike pure capitalism, where the profits from a steel mill, stay with the owner of the mill.
>>77817696
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953. Holding the post of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he was effectively the dictator of the state.
So you going to crow on about how he wasn't a real communist?
>>77817833
Anon you're getting into semantics. The idea is that industry is heavily regulated and controlled by the state, but you still have your own home and private property. No one will take your house.
>>77817785
>implying capitalists would consider anything found in a socialist society to be a failure
No, capitialists consider any EARNINGS they get in a socialist society to be a loss, because
they are LOSING money that they otherwise WOULD have gotten, were it not socialist in the
first place.
>>77817940
Yes im going to tell you he was fascist dictator and one of your guys.
>>77817461
By you're argument, Christianity is no different than Judaism or Islam, because in the end, it's all worship of the same god
>>77817948
So nobody will take part of your property through taxation, or control it with regulations? Exactly what is the difference between a factory that produces steel watches and is run by a cooperative, and me producing steel watches at my house?
>>77818076
>>77817833
Their whole economics idea came from a time in which the only places to work were either the factory or the farm.
Since that's largely not the thing anymore, socialism seems to have largely expanded to
include taxes to which all those pesky entrepreneurs with their profits can have their
money sucked back into the furnace of the community fire pit.
>>77818161
Anon you're going to be taxed in literally any form of government.
>>77806419
niggers
>>77818161
And this is about exploitation of workers, so what happens with your home watchmaking business really doesn't have much to do with this system.You would just be taxed like any other form of government.
>>77817887
>Cotton workers and steel workers would get much say over each other's industry when it came to work
Isn't this chaotic?
>The profits of the steel and cotton industry would go towards everyone.
Using what criteria? What if the cotton industry is running low?
>>77818113
Im not talking about Judaism or islam.
I'm talking about christianity.
Allah could or could not be considered the same god, however Catholics and orthodox Christians all literally believe the same god, as in from the same book.
Nice try, but you need to keep applying more effort
>>77815295
>)
Stirner says: might makes right. My ability to force property means it is my right.
Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.
>>77818058
there are obvious problems with restricting the definition of communism to a 'classless, statetless, moneyless society', as such a society has only ever existed in Marxist theory, and every socialist economy inevitably becomes what you would call a state capitalist economy. almost like... a kind of trend...
>>77817768
>25% of the rest stop working 25% of 50% is 12.5%
>only 25% works
what does the other 12.5% do
>This thread
Read Pic related.
>>77818202
>the money dissappears or is completely wasted when its taxed fallacy
God /pol/ just give up. This is sad.
>>77818189
Just a reminder for the conservatives.
>>77818461
That's why there is socialism
>>77818249
>>77818319
I don't see how me, making steel watches at home and eventually growing and expanding, coexisting with public steel watch factories are compatible. Why is that property public, and mine private?
>>77818263
You are confusing /r9k/ with /pol/.
>>77818555
>the government isn't inefficient and wasteful
gas yourself
It does work. You're a swede, you should know that.
It only doesn't work if it's too generous and you import too many shitskins
>>77817768
Literally a strawman propaganda perpetuated during Containment.
That's not how it works and never was.
>>77818438
>>77818461
There socialism and "socialism".
>>77818263
I wonder who says women should stop going after alphas besides atheist redittors?
>>77807384
True.
>>77818563
Holy shit that's such a childish/leftist view of the political spectrum. Should be athoritarian on the left, anarchism on the right and everything else in between.
>>77818563
Do you relate to these people comrade?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5zmFV3-fAc
>>77818620
Oh who is paying for the military, highways and FDA,?
>>77806419
If you eliminate the free market, you won't know the value of things. This would make it impossible to equally distribute resources.
Many Socialists claim that the labor put into something qualifies, but 70 hours of work into a painting doesn't feed as many people as 20 minutes on a farm.
People will try to divert from this by saying "to each according to his needs!", but this leaves a large surplus that needs to be distributed, and giving it to the government would just lead to tyranny.
>>77818202
Communism explicitly excludes private enterprises such as artisans and craftsmen.
>>77818838
The americans yes please tell me more about those right wing liberals.
>>77818881
>the government is paying for things therefore it isn't wasteful or ineffective
Our infrastructure is amazing isn't it? How about that F-35? Monsa- I mean the FDA sure is helping out our farmers.
>>77817834
>'people ignoring the failures of socialism in favor of its successes have no base in reality'
Of course they don't. If socialists weren't always insistent that their ideology dindu nuffin, then frankly it wouldn't exist, as they would realize that they're literally lying to themselves
>>77817446
>On 4chan
>Tells me to grow up
Nice try, Marx cock sucker. Stop being a fgt
>>77818868
>Property is theft
t. Proudhon
>Property is liberty
t. Proudhon
>Property is impossible
t. Proudhon
There's always enough for everyone except when there isn't
>>77818998
So your argument is about corruption, not government in general.
>>77819074
Wow so profound, I never thought of it that way.
>>77818920
we're not talking about communism, are we?
>>77818145
An example of a country with a socialist government was the Empire of Russia, according to Marxist theory.
All the gold in the ground, discovered or undiscovered, belonged by law to the EoR. All the gold mines belonged to the EoR (most of them were operated as part of the Gulag). After the ore was mined it was transported on roads, tracks, canals, etc. that were the property of the EoR. the smelters and refineries were owned by the EoR. The mint where the gold as converted to coins and ingots was owned by the EoR, and the Bank that used the coins for investments was owned by the EoR. Costs were carefully controlled, and each stage was meant to be profitable to the EoR. mining was a socialist enterprise in the EoR.
>>77819112
Communism comes right after Socialism... So, yeah?
>>77818344
Uhhhh, my apology applies just fine
You stated that all definitions of socialism have the same goal, so the means to that goal are irrelevant. In the same way that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same goal of worshipping the same God. So by your own logic, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are still that same bullshit just like all different forms of socialism is bullshit.
So you seriously not understand my point?
>>77818563
That spectrum doesn't really make sense. Socialism is incorporated in Fascim and Nazism.
And Nazism IS Fascism. Who the fuck made that picture
As much as I'd love to argue against ignorant and strawmanning shitposters I need to see my dad.
Enjoy your anti-intellectual circlejerk.
>>77819081
I mentioned one specific instance of "corruption" in that post and how is that not an indictment of big government in itself? The government makes a mess of out of everything without fail and spends way too much every time. Obamacare?
>>77806419
True socialism™ cannot work because a minority of intelligent political minds will eventually form a group and regain the power and the cycle starts all over again. It can only ever be a phase, like emos.
>>77806419
I would only accept any form of socialism as long as it was only for nations people and there people alone. Socialism for Germany for Germans but not the god damn foreigner who is not German.
>>77818588
>>77818319
OK, let's backtrack a bit, because now I'm confused as fuck.
In your socialist system, factories are publicly owned, whatever that means, but people still get to own houses and produce goods and services there, and the profit they get from the selling of these is of their property, too
Am I correct?
I honestly think this isn't socialism at all.
>>77806419
>i have a right to what you produced
>i have the right to tell you how much i can take
>i can do with it whatever i think is right
>should you oppose, you will be punished
People don't like that.
>>77807633
this
BTFO
>>77819281
I like to think of it as primordial socialism; it's all bullshit in the end anyway
NEVER
BEEN
TRIED
>>77818113
>Christianity is no different than Judaism or Islam, because in the end, it's all worship of the same god
Literally called Christianity (or messianism as equivalent) based on Christ.
Besides it doesn't respond to other anon. When socialism is btfo because of the impossibility of economic calculations based on preference, it goes for all the special snowflakes denominations of Comte, Marx, Rousseau, Trotsky, Lambert, Lasalle, ...
>>77819107
>I never thought of it that way.
This is literally true for liberals
Centralize the power which usually leads into corruption.
Finish with competition, meaning (Less quality products, cheap products and innovation)
Combines financial and political power, in this case the referee of the game becomes the player.
I am from Venezuela ask me anything. And please don't get confuse with social democracy.
The most hilarious, but at the same time sad thing here is despite the overwhelming points people have come up with OP will still take his childish views on society and economics to the grave h is that retarded.
So much for requesting an explanation.
Is it possible for a socialist state to compete with a majority of capitalist states? I've always wondered if, lets say the USA, became a socialist state whether they would be able to compete with other capitalist states.
>>77818438
Which good for you as long as you can fight the government.
>>77815780
Social democracy is not socialism. Please go to read a book and study the definition.
>>77818113
>it's all worship of the same god
Are you trying to trick people? Do you think people here are that uninformed? Or do you actually believe that they worship the same God?
>>77819545
See post 7785.
>>77819612
Looks like you're the idiot. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all follow the God of Abraham. How do you retards not know this? Same God, different prophets
>>77810844
Wow, what a convincing argument.
You really blew everyone away with those insane, cold hard facts right there
/pol/ btfo
really makes you think
People aren't machines
>>77816011
>capitalism uses technology in detriment of people's jobs
>socialism and communism uses technology to free people from menial and heavy jobs
the same phenomena described under different discourses
>>77819208
I 'seriously understand your point,' however I am not talking about Judaism or Islam.
I'm literally talking specifically and only about Christianity. Why? Well, because I know jack shit about any other particular religion.
>>77806419
Would you like your money being taken away from you for some freeloader scum?
>>77819475
It is a matter of morals. Conservatives feel that there is nothing wrong with tyranny and exploitation and communist feel that there is.
>>77817729
That wouldn't happen. Control doesn't mean operating the machinery, it means private property, which needs to be abolished as it allows for parasitic capitalists to sit back and do nothing. Workers know what is needed, they can co-ordinate production horizontally across society through trade unions and syndicates. Capitalism creates its own grave diggers.
>>77816380
We comprise the overwhelming majority of the population and yet have had to struggle in order to have minimal representation. The bourgeoisie still hold power.
>>77817389
We don't. We aim to spread scientific socialism in order that capitalism might be abolished, allowing for a more sustainable and equitable world for all.
>>77806419
Socialism try's to break down the boarders between the low/middle/high classes to creat on super massive working class. However these people still need a government to orginize them. In doing so they accidentally create an elite class of people that run the government in which the power corrupts them. If we did anarchy what's to protect the country from foreign influence/take over? As well as what is stopping a might makes right society? Plus the social contract won't hold well over a vast distance.
>>77820081
Well then all forms of socialism are similar the same way that LDS, Mormons, catholics and fundamentalists are the same.
Go a heard and ask a Catholic if their faith is the same as someone from Westboro Baptist
In socialism, there is no incentive to become better skilled, to work harder, or to compete. We become placent, and the harder working individuals pay a higher toll than their counterparts specifically because they work harder.
In capitalism, the harder you work, the more skilled you are, the better your life circumstances become, and you prosper. The more successful you become, the easier it is to stay successful, given you make good fiscal choices.
Basically, socialism reinforces irresponsibility, capitalism reinforces responsibility.
>>77806419
Read solzhenitsyn's commencement address you fucking commie jew.
http://www.tjed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/world_split_apart_eng2.pdf
This shit is more prophetic about America's future than nostradamus predicting 9/11
>>77819368
I think the guy couldn't define well how the system works. I think socialism works this way:
1) There is no private property, everything is publicly owned, meaning everything is owned by everybody. This is the ideal Marxian stateless, classless, moneyless society.
2) Of course, this is a chaotic organization of property compared to private property: who the fuck takes the decisions over every resource of the national territory? Under what criteria?
3) Enter the state to take these decisions. Decisions are taken by a "ruling elite" ("b-but this is supposed to be a classless society!" "Don't worry citizen, we'll get there eventually") and are done for the common good which, of course, is subjective to them and thus it is not common at all. Latinamerican style = the ruling elite is blatantly corrupt and steals in front of you; European style = the elite steals but it is more secretive
4) Enter economic calculation problem: the lack of well defined property rights means there is no rational way of allocating resources. How can the ruling elite determine whether to produce more beds? at what price?
5) Social collapse Venezuela-style
Rinse and repeat.
Here's a nice read too:
http://austrian-library.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/books/Ludwig%20von%20Mises/Economic%20Calculation%20in%20the%20Socialist%20Commonwealth.pdf
>>77820312
>Socialism try's to break down the boarders between the low/middle/high classes to creat on super massive working class.
That's actually communism. Socialism's goal is to even out economic disparities and prevent the type of uprisings that come from a purely capitalistic society
>>77820096
I hope youre being ironic. Read marxism first and then be my guest to criticise it.
>>77818058
>moneyless society
even ancient mesopotamians are smarter than gommies
>>77820590
This is factually wrong, how hard you work is in noway directly related to how much you make
>>77820590
>In capitalism, the harder you work, the more skilled you are, the better your life circumstances become, and you prosper. The more successful you become, the easier it is to stay successful, given you make good fiscal choices.
Don't forget the most important factor of capitalism, knowing someone.
>>77819435
>And please don't get confuse with social democracy
social democracy is what started retardation in Venezuela. CAP was a social democrat hardliner, check out this: >>77816011
>>77820698
Do you know that the econommic calculation problem has already been solved by computers right?
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46407-economic-calculation/
http://www.sfecon.com/
and were in the world Venezuela is socialist
see>>77818058
>>77820590
Nah, you've got it backwards. The hard workers are the working class, not the CEOs and shareholders.
Capitalism was born when land was forcibly enclosed in 16th century England and the peasants were made landless.
>>77806625
Just look at your birth rates before importing niggers and mudslides
>>77820821
What a retardy cartoon.
>>77818838
>Anarchism
>On the right
murican is strong in this post
>>77806419
The problem with socialism is that it's basically living daily life on easy mode. Everyone gets the same, but is doing different roles. While yes, this will work for some people the rest of the populous will probably abandon you the first chance you get. You need to keep people happy and preoccupied. If all the countries right now opened their boarders for 24 hrs you can bet that that you will be left in the dust.
>>77821220
CEOs do work hard, but id agree the shareholders don't.
>>77821383
When has any socialistic ideology claimed that everyone makes the same. I always see this counter point but it's not based on anything that represents socialism
>>77821383
Where did you get this memes from?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&index=7&list=FLxgJ0vK112MRHzFqHgPKAhw
>>77821182
Currently reading that link, pretty interesting but I have my doubts, will keep reading.
How is Venezuela not socialist?
>>77821464
Some CEOs work hard, others don't. I love the assumption that poor people are lazy and rich people are hard workers when I've met several hard working poor and several lazy rich people that inherited their wealth
>>77820821
>well then i gotta ask why can't the workers just sell their products directly to the market,huh?
they can do it as long as they own their machines...
>>77821464
CEOs earn over 300 times more than the average worker today
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/22/news/companies/ceo-pay/
Nobody is capable of working that hard. Back in the post-war Keynesian world it was around 20 times. More realistic but still high.
We need some form of wage ratio. In the Spanish Mondragon corporation the top earners can only earn 9 times as much as the lowest. In France, the labour protests going on suggested that a 4:1 ratio be implemented. I think that's fair.
>>77821220
>>77821464
>what is investment risk?
>>77821611
The workers don't control anything, and capitalism structure still working just fine.
and more on the economic calculation problem
>[First revision: Thanks to Brad-Lee Greasy Nichols and Keith Elliott Peterson for their contributions]
If you advocate any kind of socialist economics, you are sure to have heard the "economic calculation problem" argument from advocates of the "Austrian school" of economics. In the 1920 article "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth", the former economic advisor of the Austrofascist Engelbert Dolfuss, Ludwig von Mises, argued that without private ownership of the means of production and without a competitive market for capital goods, it would be impossible to determine the value and "rational price" of those capital goods as they would not be "objects of exchange" but rather internal transfers. While Mises originally applied his "calculation argument" to centrally planned "command economies" in which the government owned the means of production, some Austrian economists have tended to overuse and exaggerate this claim - believing it to be applicable to all schools of socialist economics. They often do this regardless of how libertarian the socialist economic model, and while neglecting the central planning within capitalist firms and countries - whether in the form of an executive board of directors or the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970.
>ctrl + f
>"economic calculation"
>4 results
I'm impressed /pol/.
