*a wild fat cuck appears infront of you*

*a wild fat cuck appears infront of you*
>I am a socialist and real socialism works. It just hasn't been tried. If you think something else just debate me
Whats your first response?

Try to debate him in a peaceful and friendly way like a civilized person.

Real socialism cannot exist, just like real capitalism cannot exist, just like an ideal gas cannot exist. They are abstractions.

"It doesn't, I'm Venezuelan"

If he says
>not real socialism

I laugh and leave, no point in arguing.

>It's ok when capitalism kills
>b-but that's crony capitalism, real capitalism hasn't been tried yet!

Turn around 360 and walk away

The only winning move is not to play

"Alright. Have a good day."

Real socialism has been tried (USSR, Eastern Block, Venezuela)
Real communism has not

Say "Light cream, 2 sugars".

This though I wouldn't call the USSR socialist, and would argue it was communist, and that it was in fact real communism.
I would how ever argue true Marxism hasn't been tried and it is impossible for such a system to ever be tried because for it to truly work you have to eliminate the government all together.

This is the contradiction of Marxism. In order to have common ownership of everything, the government really owns and controls it all. By chasing the fantasy of everyone owning everything, the make sure that no one owns anything, and are in fact property of the state.

>Real communism has not
Then you should read Marx

The common saying is that Communism is a "Classless society where workers own the mean of production" and since that never happened, so did communism
But Marx say a bit more than that, he understand that this cannot happen naturally hence why he theorize the path : A society where a totalitarian state enforce communism by seizing the mean of production and essentially all power, with the objective of installing real communism

That is the first phase of communism, and it's been tried plenty
It just never fructified into the second phase

Poofter.

talk him into blaming the government for everything going wrong just like I do

>Implying the means of production was fully seized in Venezuela.

Venezuela is state capitalism. State capitalism can take on many forms, like the USSR under Stalin, or many aspects of the market in the USA.

How the fuck was the USSR communist? They had a government, by definition you cannot have a government with communism

>Aha, Have a nice life. See you on the battlefield

>It's ok when capitalism kills
Who is this Capitalism?

Capitalism cannot kill, as "capitalism" does not exist. No ideological indoctrination is required to convince people to voluntarily exchange goods and services, therefore the exchange of goods and services cannot be an ideology.

A "capitalist" is just someone richer than a communist that the communist doesn't like and wishes to rob.

Tell him
>no, I won't debate you, and here's why
>I'n my experience debating leftists of any kind, it's completely impossible to penitrate their thick skull with any idea they don't like, even If they know fuck all about said idea
>when a leftist says "debate me" he is actually saying "let me waste your time trying to push my retarded beliefs on you while I completely ignore every argument you make"
>Furthermore every socialist/communist has a very flexible definition of their ideology that magically changes to convenience them in a "debate," What's the point in arguing with something with no solid definition? It's like trying to grip water.
>so no, I will not debate you unless you assure me your going to be fair and honest, and if you go back on your word I will close the debate and declare myself the winner.

>I'n my experience debating leftists of any kind, it's completely impossible to penitrate their thick skull
*tips fedora*

>Furthermore every socialist/communist has a very flexible definition of their ideology that magically changes to convenience them in a "debate,"
Funny, I've noticed that people, when discussion socialism and communism, continually misunderstand what it is, and even when you correct them, they just ignore it.

>>no, I won't debate you, and here's why
>>I'n my experience debating leftists of any kind, it's completely impossible to penetrate their thick skull with any idea they don't like, even If they know fuck all about said idea
>>when a leftist says "debate me" he is actually saying "let me waste your time trying to push my retarded beliefs on you while I completely ignore every argument you make"
>>Furthermore every socialist/communist has a very flexible definition of their ideology that magically changes to convenience them in a "debate," What's the point in arguing with something with no solid definition? It's like trying to grip water.
>>so no, I will not debate you unless you assure me your going to be fair and honest, and if you go back on your word I will close the debate and declare myself the winner.

Something tells me you don't actually have any arguments. Other than "LOL YOU SAID THAT ISN'T SOCIALISM WOW NOT REAL SOCIALISM DUDE LMAO"

>Whats your first response?
Some things, can't be cured - like a horse with a broken leg.
That's your answer right there.

>>>no, I won't debate you, and here's why
>>>I'n my experience debating leftists of any kind, it's completely impossible to penetrate their thick skull with any idea they don't like, even If they know fuck all about said idea
>>>when a leftist says "debate me" he is actually saying "let me waste your time trying to push my retarded beliefs on you while I completely ignore every argument you make"
>>>Furthermore every socialist/communist has a very flexible definition of their ideology that magically changes to convenience them in a "debate," What's the point in arguing with something with no solid definition? It's like trying to grip water.
>>>so no, I will not debate you unless you assure me your going to be fair and honest, and if you go back on your word I will close the debate and declare myself the winner.

Alright here, I'm going to be fair and honest, in return you can't just go "OOOPS HE WENT BACK ON HIS WORD" the moment I bring up something you don't understand, because I GUARANTEE that is what you will do.

Kick him in the nuts and take his wallet.

How is that for redistribution of wealth?

i can grip water. freeze it and then grip it

There's this faggot who flits from topic to topic pushing the outlandish idea that Communism is this strange, anarchic classless society. This is the only thing they'll agree is true Communism.

All the failed Communist states mean nothing to him, because none of them reached this fictional utopia state.

So in essence, by setting the bar impossibly high for what Communism is, they prevent all the failures of Communism from being attributed to Communism.

But that is misguided. The definition of Communism is: "radical social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state."

In case you missed it, Communism DOES NOT EQUAL the ultimate goal, like "no true Communism has ever been tried" guy would tell you. Instead, it's a political ideology and movement that has the goal of creating this allegedly perfect society.

But as we all know, it never ever succeeds, and often fails horribly with many casualties.

So fuck you "no real Communism" guy. You can't change the definition of Communism to deflect all the failure.

It is absolutely the fault of your ideology that the process of converting society to your ultimate goal has the unfortunate side-effect of super-concentrating all power, which combined with the ambition of the people in the Communist parties has so far inevitably led to ruin and death and zero utopian societies. The Communist ideology simply does not work on a large scale.

Socialism will never work for the same reason it's "never been tried"
Human beings are not adapted to live in equality. There will always be people who are just a bit more exceptional than others, and they will usually rise to the top of their social group. Furthermore, there will always be lazy good for nothing niggers. These two people, the exceptional and the lazy, should not be treated equally on any grounds but death's.

Socialism is a fundamentally bad idea. When the mean of production are handled by the "community" (which always ends up just being a government) and tax-backed, you start getting wastefulness and sloppy work. Why is this? When a company, let's say a lumber mill, is backed by tax dollars, it can assure itself of not failing, especially if it's the only local lumber mill. Much like tapayer projects everywhere else, the lack of risk mean they don't have to produce quality goods and they do it behind schedule.

>pushing the outlandish idea that Communism is this strange, anarchic classless society
The very definition of the word Communism is that it is Anarchist Socialism. Socialism is an economic idea, not a political one, this is what Bernie Sanders means when he says "democratic socialism", the government is democracy, the economics is socialism. Communism is anarchist-Socialism.

>But that is misguided. The definition of Communism is: "radical social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state."
No. You're mixing communism and communism. They are homographs, they have the same spelling but different meanings. I feel like 90% of the debates on the subject of communism get hinged on this one point because they miss it totally. One is the goal, and another is a method of reaching the goal. All countries that have called themselves "communist" have focused on reaching the goal of communism, and typically they did it through the means of communism (the USSR tried through state capitalism and a planned economy, for the most part). This does not mean that the only way of achieving communism is through communism. Your argument hinges on that, and it is foolish.

>communists think capitalism is an ideology

Capitalism is the ownership of "capital" and the mean concept has been around since the invention of money. Capitalism doesn't have doctrines or utopian goals like socialism or even liberalism. leftypol truly is retarded

Examples of this are seen everywhere, but this is one I know of very well.
This is a picture of antler bridge, over lake Shasta in Califonia
This bridge has been being worked on for almost 10 years now, and has made very VERY little progress. Why is this?
The bridge is 125 million in taxpayer money, actually more than that at this point. The first comany to work on this did nothing, just took the money and sat on the bridge getting paid. They had to fire them, and bring in a 2nd company WHO DID THE EXACT SAME THING. Then they brought in a 3rd company that is doing the job as slowly as possible.

Why is this relevant? I'm trying to show you that when companies are tax-paid, they have no incentive to do well. The California department of transport just keeps throwing money at it because that's all a government (or a "community") can do

forgot pic

>Human beings are not adapted to live in equality
Yeah I agree, but that doesn't really matter.

>There will always be people who are just a bit more exceptional than others, and they will usually rise to the top of their social group.
Yes, but people will not always be more exceptional than robots. You cannot carry a 1-ton load as well as a crane can, and you never will. You cannot play chess as well as a robot can, and you never will. Soon, you will not be able to drive as well as a self-driving-car can, and you never will again. And then you won't be able to be as good of a lawyer as a lawyer-robot, you won't be as good of an office-worker, you won't be good at anything in comparison to a general purpose robot. "Human Nature" is irrelevant in the face of automation, because it is human nature to create something more efficient than ourselves.

>These two people, the exceptional and the lazy, should not be treated equally on any grounds but death's.
The problem is that EVERYONE will be lazy in the face of automation, we will all be equally useless in comparison to our robot counterparts. You are just as useless as I am at carrying a 1-ton load up hundreds of feet.

>When the mean of production are handled by the "community" (which always ends up just being a government) and tax-backed, you start getting wastefulness and sloppy work.
Well hold on, what happens when the means of production is controlled by a single corporation, who holds a monopoly? Monopolies start out good, because they provide the lowest prices and the best service, but this leads to more and more mergers, until eventually all production can be held by a single corporation. At this point you can get some of the most wasteful and sloppy work, because there is nothing you can do to stop this.

On your lumber mill subject, yes, in an industrial society, having the risk of failing makes for the best product. But what happens AFTER an industrial society?

>You're mixing communism and communism.
Thanks for the laugh.

But you know, in reality, YOU'RE the one mixing up communism with communism. We're all talking about the ideology and how it doesn't work. You know, the only form of Communism that actually exists.

And then you barge in and yell "Communism has never been tried!" and you're talking about some fucking fairy tale of a perfect anarchic society that has never happened, obviously.

Well no shit! Of course no one tried that, that's the specified end goal of an entire ideology that has spent all its time on Earth crashing and burning.

That's like we were all talking about how a specific way to become immortal and the general consensus is that it doesn't work and being becoming immortal isn't possible, and then you ran into the room and yelled "no one has tried being immortal!"

It just doesn't make sense. But you seem to think it's a valid fucking defense.

>automation meme
Ok then this is gonna suck.

Full automation will not happen under socialism. Automation would start in a capitalist society because, yes robots do shit better than people do, and any businessman with his shit is going to jump on that. Soon after you would see working-class revolts, and the government would have to rush to fix things in one of two ways: make everyone a welfare slut or put restrictions on automation. I'm not smart enough to know which is the better answer, because I oppose welfare and gov restrictions. Anyway in a socialistic society there is not reason to automate a company, your getting paid either way.
So iff you want full-luxury socialism, you have to let capitalism run it's course

I am a fascist and real fascism works. It hasn't been tried. If you think something else just debate me.

alo
>Soon, you will not be able to drive as well as a self-driving-car can, and you never will again.
This i the meme I hate the most. self-diving cars are the wore idea to ever spawn from technology. No car will ever be able to drive like human can. It might be aable to go from point A to point B, but what of off-roading? what about when I want to take my sweet ride for a spin and maybe a race or two?

>He thinks automation is a meme.

>Full automation will not happen under socialism. Automation would start in a capitalist society because, yes robots do shit better than people do, and any businessman with his shit is going to jump on that.
Why do you think Marx spent all that time talking about Social EVOLUTION, and not just social REVOLUTION? The point is that there are logical steps in progress in human society. Capitalism is great in an industrial society, it is the most efficient way to do things, but eventually that efficiency will be it's downfall. This is where Communism is supposed to pick up. Why do you think the USSR was a state-capitalist society? Because Capitalism will lead the way to communism.

> I'm not smart enough to know which is the better answer, because I oppose welfare and gov restrictions.
Do you not see the flaws in your ideology then? You've even pushed it to the point where there are 2 possible solutions, and neither of them are good. The government will not be able to restrict automation, because corporations will simply go elsewhere, or, also, unions and government are always outpaced by technology. The only other solution is making everyone a "welfare slut", but where does the money come from? It would come from the few that are rich and have the ability to produce, it would go through government, and then return to everyone else. There's numerous problems with that, there's not enough wealth in the USA to support such a structure.

> No car will ever be able to drive like human can. It might be aable to go from point A to point B
That is what a car IS, it is the form of transportation from Point A to point B, that is why they are so important to society.

>but what of off-roading
Most wealth in America is transferred on roads, and automated construction vehicles will be designed for a construction site.

>what about when I want to take my sweet ride for a spin and maybe a race or two?
Yeah that's for personal fun, that's not the main use for cars. Racing doesn't generate wealth the same way transportation does.

>Why do you think Marx spent all that time talking about Social EVOLUTION, and not just social REVOLUTION?
Then why are you advocating socialism NOW? We don't have automation. When we do, I might accept socialism into my heart, but their literally no point in trying to push or it at this time. I we adopted symbolical now, we would never get to automation without a capitalist revolution and a new industrial boom.
>The only other solution is making everyone a "welfare slut", but where does the money come from?
I don't know, man, but I know goods would be very cheap. Who knows with machines making everything we might abolish currency as we traditionally know it.

>Yeah that's for personal fun
and the car is my personal vehicle
furthermore I don't want hackable electronics controlling my steering and engine

>im a socialist
>cars are for generating wealth for the upper classes by transporting the proles to and from approved work areas

>Then why are you advocating socialism NOW
Because I'm afraid that society isn't preparing for this, and that when it comes, no one will be ready and we'll reject the best solutions, because our societal perception of Socialism is so far off.

>Who knows with machines making everything we might abolish currency as we traditionally know it.
And then we have communism, because that's the point, machines make everything, so make whatever you want with them. The reason the USSR was so interested in going into space is because, obviously Earth doesn't have infinite resources, so there would be a need to expand to more planets.

>and the car is my personal vehicle
Another huge definition issue with Socialism is that when people talk about "the abolition of private property", people interpret that as the abolition of their possessions. There is a difference between possessions and property, in that property is used to make money/ used to produce and possessions are just used for fun/personal needs, like a toothbrush.

Although I actually hate this part of socialism, because it's so vague and non-specific. Who gets to decide what is property and what is a possession? A very attractive woman could probably make money off of her toothbrush, is that no longer a possession and only a piece of property? What about a camera? Cameras can be used for hobbies, but you can also make money off of them. For these reasons (and the fact that I hate the government) I tend to just consider myself a communist.

>furthermore I don't want hackable electronics controlling my steering and engine
Yeah, but to be fair, convenience always beats our risk. There is risk in having you personal information online, yet millions of people have their phone numbers and a personal information just public on facebook and whatnot, because it's so convenient.

I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make.

This isn't a "not an argument" thing, but a "what is the argument?" thing.

>>Whats your first response?
Ask him to define what "socialism" is and cite his sources.