What's wrong with Socialism, Sup Forums?
It worked in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union went from dirt-poor to being able to fight in a world war. Even today many older Russians think back fondly towards Joseph Stalin.
Seems like Socialism will happen eventually, as more and more jobs get replaced by automation.
People will inherently do as little as possible when they know someone else will continue to work. Nazi Germany did well in spite of socialism, not because of it.
>t's wrong with Socialism, Sup Forums?
Doesn't work like that, it is always instead.... about appropriating the least well off's voice and holding them there while somebody else coins it in off their misery.
Socialism only works if everyone tows the line and cooperates, something completely impossible when you consider the nature of humans. People are always looking to get ahead and compete and will exploit any system if it means they get more. The only way to stop this is through a governing authority with strict punishment and the subsequent fear.
And the Soviet Union was a Leninist/Stalinist state who "pushed" socialism with the party at the front of the proletariat.
SO went from being dirt poor to fighting in a world war..
So did Imperial russia, dumdum!
The difference is that the soviets were willing sacrifice half their male population to win the war at any cost.
It was still shit poor.
To quote Margaret Thatcher, "eventually you run out of other people's money"
I am a socialist. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that the state should have full autonomy over the means of production.
Any action which does not benefit should not be permitted. The protection of the nation state is the sovereign impertinent of the proletariat. Radical nationalism is the ultimate goal of socialism.
I guess I should be more specific then and call my self a socialist nationalist.
Saging painfully obvious bait thread
>Socialism only works if everyone tows the line and cooperates,
I've never known socialists to be sharing people, you have to keep giving them things till you yourself have nothing, and even then the fucking jipos are passing round a begging bowl, so you're like, ok, been socialist all my life, then it's like they're fucking rolling in money and don't give a 0 damn about the people they've hoodwinked and profited from all the time as I have seen evidenced in my life.
Sharing
=/=
Being forced to support something you may not want to through stealth taxation.
>worked in the Soviet Union
>"""""worked"""""
>went from dirt-poor to being able to fight in a world war
It is better than autocratic feudalism, I'll give you that. Although the US did most of the supplying
Socialism only works when the people are willing to share with one another. Thus the smaller and more tightly knit together the unit is, the better socialism works. Family units and close friendships work extremely well. It only works well enough at the national level where there is shared culture and kinship of people of approximately equal wealth, such as Scandinavia before they started importing the third world.
Socialism in nations without kinship and shared culture is destined to fail as happened in the Soviet Union due to tribalism and corruption. It's unholy alliance with globalist neoliberalism is an abomination.
>sharing
once your yourself create something, it belongs to everybody. This ideology is most popular among the people who don't create much but want other people's wealth to just handed over to them.
Soviet Union had planned economy. It works when you're at war and mass-producing tanks, it doesn't work at maintaining a working civil society. Plus, they used labor camps for political prisoners, who had to work like slaves. Looks like a large part of "soviet industrial strenght" comes from slave labor.
>Retard commie speak
>It worked in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union went from dirt-poor to being able to fight in a world war. Even today many older Russians think back fondly towards Joseph Stalin.
So basically, it does what capitalism does, but with tens of millions of people starving and mass poverty. Capitalism still sounds better to me user.
>Seems like Socialism will happen eventually, as more and more jobs get replaced by automation.
This is going to be the biggest meme of 2017 apparently.
Working as intended.
Socialism strips drive to succeed from many people when they find that strong efforts produce marginal gains when compared to those who do not even try.
What happens over a long period is that society degrades to the lowest common denominator with very few innovators rising to benefit the greater populace.
Capitalism, the radical idea that people have a right to do whatever they want with the money they earn through work, rather than having the government seize it all for who knows what reason.
>be a good Marxist
>be dead
Go ahead, OP, be a good Marxist now.
You seriously need to do some reading user. You obviously have no idea what happened in soviet Russia. My grandfather escaped and what you may think happened vs the reality experienced by people who lived through it is way off
>Socialism: The radical idea of forced sharing
Now give me a free room to live in your house comrade.
>Socialism
>the idea of radical sharing
Fixed it for you, shitlord.
>worked in the Soviet Union
kek
>Socialism worked in the Soviet Union
Thats why so many starved to death I guess.
>What's wrong with Socialism, Sup Forums?
For current examples, see: Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea.
For historical examples, see: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Belorussia, Benin, Cambodia, Congo, Ethiopia, East Germany, Mozambique, Somalia, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Guyana, Guinea, Tanzania, Libya...
They're all very good examples of why Socialism is awful.
Also sage
Forcing someone to give you shit isn't called sharing.
>many older Russians think back fondly towards Joseph Stalin.
No they don't. Very few do. And those are the people who benefitted.
>it does what capitalism does, but with tens of millions of people starving and mass poverty.
Except Capitalism also results in tens of millions of people starving and mass poverty. Just, instead of Stalin and his cronies looting the Czar's vaults to get rich while dangling a carrot to the people telling them it's Communism saving them, it's a small group of elite looting continents and cultures to get rich while dangling a carrot in front of people telling them this is totally Capitalism, and it works for everyone.
The postulated inevitability of Socialism is also a meme already. A lot older than 2017. Crack a book for Christ's sake.
>it's a small group of elite looting continents and cultures to get rich while dangling a carrot in front of people telling them this is totally Capitalism, and it works for everyone.
It works for the people who are under capitalism. Sure, some 3rd world juntas and corrupt dictatorships might get the short end of the stick, but that's their fault for not also embracing capitalism.
>The postulated inevitability of Socialism is also a meme already. A lot older than 2017. Crack a book for Christ's sake.
I know, heck, people have been saying that all of our jobs are going to get taken away since the Agricultural revolution I'm sure.
Being forced to share is not sharing.
Sharing requires consent.
Like rape.
Sharing is consensual. Socialism is not.
If people want to give their wealth away they have every opportunity to do so in a Capitalist society.
>It worked in the Soviet Union.
It did not.
It was a terrible system that killed many millions and further caused the imprisonment of innocent millions.
The USSR was together with Mao's China the worst thing that ever happened to the world.
Socialism failed so drastically that east Germany had to build a wall separating Berlin to stop people from leaving.
>It worked in the Soviet Union
No, it did not. Finland was poor outskirt in Russian Empire, in Soviet Union Finn tourists who came to drink and fuck cheap whores were rich as fuck and considered demigods.
Communism is a plan concocted by banks to get people to voluntarily give up their property to the government.
I'll make you a deal.
You get socialism in the US, I get to rewrite the immigration code and only allow Christians from Europe to come in.
Would you take it?
don't fall for the bait, sage this /leftypol/ cancer
...
>It worked in the Soviet Union.
Hahaha. You really believe this don't you my basement dwelling virgin friend?
Radical nationalism is the ultimate goal of socialism.
Uh you misread the entire communist manifesto you incredible idiot.
>It worked in the Soviet Union
Kek, my sides are in orbit you uneducated fag, also SAGE
> be braindead
> think socialism is anything other than virtue signalling lefty populism
>The radical idea of sharing
Are you ready to give away 60% of your salary for stupid government decisions such as funding abortion for women who had too much sex, and funding for african immigrants who prefer to have freetime over work, and funding trannies who are crazy in their heads and want to convert their penis into a hole in their body?
You now then keep 40% of your salary.
Are you ready to multiply that 60% tax with another 25% sales tax, so your 40% salary effectively becomes 30% salary?
Are you ready to pay 5 times as much for electricity in your house, and 2-3 times as much on gasoline on top of all the above as well, so in the end your tax pressure is effectively 75-80%?
Well good luck, because that's the real face of socialism.
the issue is that the supposed benefits of socialism don't actually work.
If people actually wanted to share, the government wouldn't force them to share at gunpoint.
Most people CAN survive the way they're living right now, so they don't need other people's money to stay alive.
They did well because they were motivated by their nationality. They wanted to work hard to make their volk more prosperous.
It's not sharing, it's stealing and rewarding those that do less than you and punish those who do more.
how is nobody recognizing that kek gave me amazing digits? praise kek
"""sharing""" by force always works out, perhaps that's why virtually half of the globe collapsed under the burden
as long as there are people there will be tax evasion, the greater the tax the stronger the black economy
>the radical idea of being forced to share with people who don't deserve it
Get this nation-destroying kike bullshit outta here.
Normal people don't need bureaucrats breathing down their necks to raise their children properly, take care of the old and infirm in their family, or contribute to their local community.
It's not sharing when one of the people doesn't want to share. Then, it's called "theft."
You're a thief.
>The Soviet Union went from dirt-poor to being able to fight in a world war.
This is what actually happened in the Soviet Union. Able to fight a war is being sovereign. The USA baffled Soviets. Economists knew a controlled economy was impossible.
The problem was not that particular planners made particular mistakes in the Soviet Union or in other planned economies. Whatever the mistakes made by central planners, there are mistakes made in all kinds of economic systems— capitalist, socialist, or whatever. The more fundamental problem with central planning has been that the task taken on has repeatedly proven to be too much for human beings, in whatever country that task has been taken on. As Soviet economists Shmelev and Popov put it:
>No matter how much we wish to organize everything rationally, without waste, no matter how passionately we wish to lay all the bricks of the economic structure tightly, with no chinks in the mortar, it is not yet within our power.
This lesson proved hard for many others who lived in a centrally planned economy to accept. Mikhail Gorbachev was not the only leader raised in the Soviet Union who found the market’s operations and results in the West baffling. During the last years of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin, later destined to become Russia’s first post-Communist leader, was equally struck by what he saw in a capitalist economy:
>A turning point in Yeltsin’s intellectual development occurred during his first visit to the United States in September 1989, more specifically his first visit to an American supermarket, in Houston, Texas. The sight of aisle after aisle of shelves neatly stacked with every conceivable type of foodstuff and household item, each in a dozen varieties, both amazed and depressed him.
>For Yeltsin, like many other first-time Russian visitors to America, this was infinitely more impressive than tourist attractions like the Statue of Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial. It was impressive precisely because of its ordinariness. A cornucopia of consumer goods beyond the imagination of most Soviets was within the reach of ordinary citizens without standing in line for hours. And it was all so attractively displayed. For someone brought up in the drab conditions of communism, even a member of the relatively privileged elite, a visit to a Western supermarket involved a full-scale assault on the senses.
When he returned to Moscow, Yeltsin spoke of the pain he felt after seeing in Houston the contrast between American and Soviet living standards. He described what he had seen in America to what was described as “a stunned Moscow audience.” Yeltsin’s aide said that the Houston supermarket experience destroyed the last vestiges of Yeltsin’s belief in the Communist system, setting the stage for his becoming the first leader of post-Communist Russia.
The significance of free market prices in the allocation of resources can be seen more clearly by looking at situations where prices are not allowed to perform this function. During the era of the government-directed economy of the Soviet Union, for example, prices were not set by supply and demand but by central planners who sent resources to their various uses by direct commands, supplemented by prices that the planners raised or lowered as they saw fit. Two Soviet economists, Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov, described a situation in which their government raised the price it would pay for moleskins, leading hunters to get and sell more of them:
>State purchases increased, and now all the distribution centers are filled with these pelts. Industry is unable to use them all, and they often rot in warehouses before they can be processed. The Ministry of Light Industry has already requested Goskomtsen twice to lower purchasing prices, but the “question has not been decided” yet. And this is not surprising. Its members are too busy to decide. They have no time: besides setting prices on these pelts, they have to keep track of another 24 million prices.
While markets coordinated by price movements— “capitalism” as it is called— may seem like a simple thing, markets are misunderstood more often than some other things that are considered much more complex. Although a free market economic system is sometimes called a profit system, it is in reality a profit-and-loss system— and the losses are equally important for the efficiency of the economy, because losses tell producers what to stop doing— what to stop producing, where to stop putting resources, what to stop investing in. Losses force the producers to stop producing what consumers don’t want. Without really knowing why consumers like one set of features rather than another, producers automatically produce more of what earns a profit and less of what is losing money. That amounts to producing what the consumers want and stopping the production of what they don’t want. Although the producers are only looking out for themselves and their companies’ bottom line, nevertheless from the standpoint of the economy as a whole the society is using its scarce resources more efficiently because decisions are guided by prices.
This book is required reading before you can speak about any economy, marxist, capitalist, or whatever.
The socialism is NatSoc is not the same as the marxist ideology. Get It right.