Help

Red pill me, also why is socialism bad?
I'm new to this.

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

redpill us on where it's ever worked. Let's start there.

Europe seems to be mostly socialist, counties such as Finland seem to be doing pretty well with it. Though of course despite that, we can clearly see it's negative effects on Venezuela but before it went to shit, it seemed to also be doing pretty well.
Based off what I know (which is limited, i'm a newbie), it seems socialism is pretty good at first but later on cannot sustain itself. But is that really the case?

You're fucking retarded if you think Finland is socialist. High taxes and social security =/= socialism. Having a welfare state isn't socialism. Socialism is the government seizing private property, private enterprise and the means of production. What Finland has is a social democracy or welfare state capitalism where the tax money collected from capitalist prosperity is used to better the lives of the nations citizens.

Belgium, Finland, Canada, Denmark. Off the top of my head.

>socialism

That's communism, brotenheimer. There's a difference. Learn it.

NI conflict

It's not economical systems that eventually fall on themselves. Ultimately, it's an ideological manifestation, how a country chooses to define its economical system. If the people are less involved in the ego, what Ayn Rand always considered the most important, the "I", then you'll find something a little more akin to socialism, and, often, a nationalist patriotism.

There's no one system that works, these are tools that are to be used by the ruling cultural and social laws that find themselves being shared.

The economic calculation problem. Socialism is the collective population simultaneously saying
>Fuck the free market, we can do bad all by ourselves!

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they truly know about what they imagine they can design
Socialism is the epitome of hubris and has caused the downfall of everyone who espouses it

>Thinking those countries are socialist countries and not Capitalist countries with some socialist policies granted through heavy taxation

None of those countries are Socialist countries because there is still private ownership of land and businesses and the socialist policies (Universal health care for instance) is only funded through heavy taxation of the government on the populace.

Next countries you want to try?

Some of these arguments seem to be scattered already. If I sound dumb on anything, i'll say what I said again but i'm new to this stuff. Like as in, new to politics. So in other words, i'm just going off random things I may have seen which obviously is very limited and my opinion doesn't hold much value. I wish to learn more about politics and I intend on looking into this in several places not just here.

Communism has no government, eejit

What are the benefits of a free market. And, by free market, I mean the 'conventionally' spouted free market. No market is truly free, because of social conventions, laws, culture, morality, ethics etc. etc. In this case, I'll assume by free market you mean minimal state regulation.

Also; give me a free market that is currently in practice.

Communism is just the antithesis of socialism in Hegelian dialect. The only difference between the two is that communism no longer requires a state to attack capitalist nations.

If you think government spending = socialism, then you're retarded. That's Keynesianism, written by a guy who hated socialism. Say what you will about Marx, but at least he wasn't a Keynesian

>Political and economic theory of social advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the COMMUNITY as a whole.

>Community

Not state.

How else, other than privatized ownership does a community regulate anything? You're foolish and ignorant.

Right....

Over the course of 3 months start giving 1/4 of your paycheck to one homeless person. Report back here and tell me if the person improved their life or not.

>They will squander all you give them

Don't count on our words for your own education is all I can say. Read/watch documentaries about the origins of these things, and form your own opinion, and then listen to people who understand it properly.

Sup Forums isn't a place for political discussion, it's more a hive mind.

Right

If you properly understand the hegelian dialectic, an antithesis isn't just the opposite, but the next logical step.

State ownership being communism, privatized ownership being socialism.

My argument against him was towards this.

>Socialism is the government seizing private property, private enterprise and the means of production.

Being a description of communism, not socialism.

Marxism is bad because Hegel's philosophy was just a fancy way of defending feudalism.
Schopenhauer is where it's at Senpai.

Marx did not invent communism,
Marx invented socialism.

that's the point.

The community uses the state to accomplish these goals

individual private ownership does not accomplish this, as the community has no power, only the private owner(s).

>Being a description of communism, not socialism.

No.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

As a nutsball I can say that planning economy cant support tiny everyday wishes of people. Plan cant predict fashion or smth like that.

All in all you will have to wait 5 years untill party makes a plan on producing orange dragondildos for you and your rightwing friends

Any 'free market's is composed of a combination of 4 basic market structures. Each of these structures operate in their own way, and our economy is a culmination of these 4 structures:

>Perfect competition
The only markets with this structure are agriculture. An apple is never worth more than the market dictates
>Monopolistic competition
This is where the public gets products with brand recognition. This structure is iPod vs Zune, it's Chevy vs Ford, it's Coke vs Pepsi. It gives the economy distinguished name brand products
>Oligopoly
Antitrust and anti collusion laws made these a lot harder to create. They still are being naturally churned out, but our economy is designed to ensure that they never last (see game theory)
>Complete monopoly
The only examples of this market structure are through government mandates. Think of your utilities company. They have no competition, because the government made a law that says there can't be any competition.

The benefits of the free market are increased standards of living. It's advanced humanity leaps and bounds.

...

I meant to say synthesis.
Thesis is capitalism
Antithesis is class warfare (ie socialism)
Synthesis is communism.

There is no government in communism. They already seized your property in the socialism part of the revolution. Communism is just unfettered socialism

Aren't the majority of these accomplishments in technology provided by army spending? Sort of like IBM did with state funding?

He is right, you and that quote are wrong. You can't have large-scale communism without state body regulating it. That's actually one of the main problems of communism (i'd say the second main problem, behind the fundamental flaw of it) - that it will always result in state having huge amount of power over the citizens.

That's Keynesian capitalism, not socialism
The debate about governments role in the economy is a debate between capitalists. Socialism isn't part of the equation

ITT: people not realizing all systems of governance are inherently corruptible and are ultimately dependent on the integrity and character of those who are sworn to serve the greater society at large

...

No. Socialism is intended as a precursor to communism, during which the state regulates and redistributes the wealth of the people and prepares them to integrate into a communist society.

Communism is well-meaning, but ultimately fails to realise that the only way to make people content with what they have is by having them undergo lobotomy.

>Not state
A state is nothing more than a representation of the community that dictates law and has a monopoly on legal violence. Socialism is predicated on the means of production being violently seized from the bourgeoisie and redistributing its value to the general populace. You can change the name and call it whatever you want, its fundamentally a government program and no amount of semantics will change that.

socialism is just communism by vote.

socialism is suicide and communism is murder.

>Sup Forums isn't a place for political discussion, it's more a hive mind
Nice non-argument, bud.

It encourages everyone to be equally poor and hungry. Everything great about individualism is just destroyed.
It didn't work. Ever.

It's an atheistic and materialist philosophy that reduces all of humanity to a mere "homo economicus", bio-robots who have no goal or purpose in life outside the amount of "stuff" they consume or produce for the state. Eventually people become like those liberals opposed to Brexit who literally cannot comprehend the fact that people find value in things besides money.

Also, socialist countries are notoriously shitholes, and are terrible at achieving even the goals they set for themselves.

Lol it's so easy to spot someone who's never read Marx but wants to talk about communism.
Dude, the Manifesto is like 20 pages. Fucking read it before you talk about it.

You mean all the countries with the highest densities of white people?

That's Leninist socialism.

I'm confused what you have a problem with. Or do you actually arguiing it's possible to have large-scale communism without the state (strong state at that)? which is frankly stupid.

Of course it's impossible. That's why communism is stupid.

Socialism has its ups and downs. Take Sweden as an example. We're taxed to high heavens, but if we get injured or sick we won't go bankrupt. I'm getting a university education and receiving money for it (loans also, which outweighs the free bux). Everything isn't free though, medicine still costs a chunk, going to the dentist is fucking financial suicide and so on. It also comes with a big of smugness.

Or Norway, which statistically is one of the best places to live. It's also expensive as fuck, because of taxes.

Fucking this.

Fucking bullshit, jesus christ.

Marx was sociologist and philosofer first.

He knew about
>muh human nature
More than you, amerifat.

Read at least some of his works to critisize

Is the open borders policy a cause of socialism or would there be as much mudskins without socialism?

Currently there are five socialist countries. China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam. There are a few others that have constitutional references to socialism but none are the ones you mentioned.

Based on the five countries above that are socialist.

>Which one of those would you like to move to?
>Which do you think has a better standard of living than the west?

Sweden is not socialist, they are socdem retards.

Flag related

>inb4 some reddit cuck says its not real socialism

Of those I can judge china and north korea are ok, tho china is revizionist af

I would better move to dprk than some western gay country