Ask a (non-Marxist) socialist anything

Ask a (non-Marxist) socialist anything.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_in_the_Socialist_Commonwealth
youtube.com/watch?v=kcxal9VAFww
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

When did you become so confused?

Reminder that all socdems are good for is inviting in brown people who, once constitute a large enough minority, will splinter off and form their own party dooming their ideology to irrelevance
We already see this happening in Europe

I ask you to leave

About when I was 16 or 17 I became disillusioned with centre-right liberal conservatism but I still remain more right wing than most socialists on social issues.
I'm not only a social democrat, I am some kind of a democratic socialist, so my aims are directly about worker control of the means of production.

Well, the folly of youth can be excepted I guess. Do you subscribe to Marx's notion that socialism is the antithesis to Capitalism inevitably leading to the synthesis of Communism?

I don't really care about Marx. Yes, socialism is antithetical to capitalism, but I do not think it needs to lead to communism at all. I am against the private ownership of the means of production, and against state ownership of the means of production.

>Claims to be nonmarxist
>Posts logo of Socialist Internationale
>SI comprises of tons of marxist/communist parties
>South African ANC included

Pls leave

I don't care if it has Marxist parties. It has many mainstream social democratic parties too, including the African National Congress, which isn't Marxist or communist. What a useless post you just made.

I find it interesting that you believe that Socialism is not a gateway drug to Communism. What makes you think that Socialism is stable enough to persist over time without reslulting in full blown cancer, I mean communism?

To be made into communism it would need to be controlled by people who have that as its aim. I really don't see a reason for a market economy where companies are owned by their respective workers to somehow degenerate into something else. Can you give me a reason?

Oooh now I get it, this is what my parents meant when I was being stupid rebellious cunt. Socialism is not a real solution for any country, some cultures wouldn't simply work with a socialist economy. As for Scandinavian nations, well at first it's great, it gets worst over time. Socialism doesn't even work on paper.

Scandinavian countries aren't socialist, they're social democratic. Capitalism is not a solution for any country either.

When did you decide to abandon your intellectual potential?

First - communism needs post-scarcity, intil then it's crap.

Socdem is the ultimate cuckening - combining the worst from both capitalism and socialism.

To work socialism needs a driving idea - be it ethnic or civic nationalism. Real enemy of socialism is not capitalism - it's hedonism and degeneracy.

Never forget, never forgive

Socialism is just the path to communism. You're just a useful idiot for (((them)))

I'm not talking about communism or social democracy. I'm talking about the workers controlling the means of production, it's as simple as that.

...

Sure. The degeneration and disintegration from Socialism to Communism occurs for the following reasons. Shared ownership of companies has no conceptual difference to shared ownership of all property. Practically speaking, once companies are held in common the coneptual leap to all property being held in common is an extremely short one. It becomes inevitable when combined with the self-propagative nature of governements.

In a socialist system, once all property is owned by the people, in practice it is owned by the governement. This will quickly become unpalatable to the people as corruption sets in. Therefore, pressure is exerted for the people to own all property directly, not through a government proxy. This leads to full blown cancer, sorry Communism, because when all property is owned by the people, no property is owned by the people.

This creates the conditions for segregation and exclusion based on class which leads to some groups being designated as outsiders that are excluded from society until it simply becomes easier just to kill them. Hence my assertion that Socialism is a gateway drug to Communism.

Then explain to me how Chile became one of the best countries to live in America after the socio economic change in the 90s after a socialist regiment, even calling it a miracle, all because of capitalism. Hong Kong, China are other great examples, add hard work and organisation, for these day and age it's still the best solution. Obviously I know it's not the best, but I prefer capitalism over any other.

Why would personal property be shared then? To clarify, I do not support social ownership by all workers, simply the common ownership of each company by the workers of that company. I have no idea why you want to talk about the corruptive nature of when government owns industries, because I simply don't want government to own most industries. I do not believe in anything being owned by "the people", or any concept of society.
It's not capitalism that makes those things though. It's the enterprise of the executives, the labour of the workers, and the protection of rights, freedoms and social investment from rational governments. It is simply not capitalism that has created Hong Kong or any other paradise.

go go go

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged?

What were your thoughts?

Do you believe the need of a worker is greater than the talent of the worker?

How could that work in reality?

Socialist Alliance are fucking idiots and degenerates.
I haven't read anything of Ayn Rand, who simply wasn't a philosopher but really just a mediocre author who is popular with very few people.

I don't really care about need being greater than talent. Maybe morally, but I wouldn't know. My ideology isn't primarily about morals, it's simply about achieving the highest amount of prosperity for the most amount of people through people owning their own workplaces.

How can you be so fucking decided on this shit without reading the counterarguments.

I have read other arguments, and I agree with many different ideas and views from people all across the spectrum, most of whom do not identify as socialists. You're more than welcome to tell me what arguments you think I have not considered.

Whats your view on immigration

Definitively not 'many ideas' if you haven't read a single book of Rand's. You've deceived yourself.

and stop using my flag to push socialist bullshit. Socialism hinges on Marxism.

So, if the workers control the output - then the workers control who receives the output, right?

So, if the least talented worker needs a new car, does that worker receive enough to buy a car?

Considering the workers will often number the most in the least talented jobs, won't those workers always award themselves all the pay?

Your ideas are fucking retarded, user.

You are poor, it's obvious.

So you're a Prussian Socialist?

That's how the German workers party described themselves. Disgusting bigot.

Yeah, I don't care about Ayn Rand. I care about people like Milton Freedman and Friedrich Hayek much more than some irrelevant writer.
Yes, the workers control the output. If a worker is not contributing enough to the company, the company would no longer employ them. The highest paid workers would be the executives, as the workers have a vested interest in the company being run as efficiently as possible. This is not a revolutionary idea, it already works in many places around the world.

No, I support nationalism on a cultural and linguistic basis, but I'm left wing.

You are unbelievably retarded. Atlas Shrug is the second most sold book in history behind the Bible.

Irrelevant writer.. fuck me.. stay in Melbourne.

You're missing a bit.

Who STARTS the company, knowing that the workers could simply sack them from what they created?

Why would someone invent something, spend years perfecting it, then hand control over that to random fuckwits?

You're a fucking moron.

That's a lie.
The workers would start a company. I do not favour a socialist takeover of capitalist owned companies.

To you and to everyone else, please ask me about what I believe before making assumptions like this.

> It has many mainstream social democratic parties too, including the African National Congress

It even lies like a marxist.

I smell a SA faggot

>Milton Friedman

You realize he's the opposite of your ideology, right? He probably explains it best how """democratic socialism""" is really just as shitty as regular socialism.

Tell me, how does putting democratic in front of something make it any different? At the end of the day the government still robs you at gunpoint

Socialist Alliance are complete turds, I just vote Labor.
Yes, I do realise he is the exact opposite of my ideology. That was the point of me saying that he has influenced my ideas, because he does have good ideas.
>At the end of the day the government still robs you at gunpoint
I don't want the government to own companies, I want the workers of each company to own the company that they work for.

Can I fuck your girlfriend?

Again i ask whats your view on immigration m8?

It has to be for the good of the nation in economic terms. Open borders is really just a capitalist idea. I support the idea of nation states based on culture and language of nations, regardless of socialism.

sage and hide commie threads

Then why are you voting labor a welfare state cannot work with open borders

Ah, okay, I see what's going on here.

So if you say you're not in favor of a takeover of capitalist companies, what do you plan to do when they inevitably out-compete the less efficient "socialist" companies and run them out of the market?

And what's to stop the "workers" from just selling their shares of the company for some quick bux?

I'm voting Labor because they are the closest in terms of protecting the interests of the workers. I am very pleased with Labor's policies reducing the amount of foreign workers that can enter. A welfare state could still work with open borders, it just can't be given to the immigrants.
Socialist companies are inherently more efficient, as reality shows. I favour the mutualisation by purchase of currently established companies, and the creation of further co-operatively owned companies. In these enterprises, shares are not transferable, and are technically not actually shares.

This is a non-communist thread.

Were you dropped on your head at birth?

Do you mean after birth?

australia is a socialist country tho

I don't want the country or the government to be socialist, I want the economy to be mostly socialist.

Get out of my country you piece of shit

What do you mean by

>I want the economy to be socialist

When will you get off my board?

>Ask a (non-mammal) dog anything
Why haven't you taken a free helicopter ride yet?

I want the workers to own the companies that they work for, by default as a condition for the operation of said company. I should specify a purely market form of socialism, probably more market based than the current capitalist system.

fpbp

Also what happened here, Sanders got BTFO because of the diversity vote.

For real he got BTFO by the voluntary nature of voting. The actual working class obviously aren't going to take the time to do some caucus shit.

You are a fucking moron. Read "The Impossibility of Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" and get back to me.

Okay, do you have an email or something?

Do you like the Schulz?

Socialists don't support the EU

OP is a class cuck

Schulz killed Luxembourg

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_in_the_Socialist_Commonwealth
Fucking Mises, I should have known.
>It is based on a lecture Mises gave in 1919 as a response to a book by Otto Neurath arguing for the feasibility of central planning.[3] Mises argued that no prices for capital goods could be obtained in a socialist economy if the government owned the means of production, since all exchanges would merely be internal transfers rather than "objects of exchange", setting the price mechanism out of order.
I don't see how this is relevant to me since I don't support government ownership though.
Sure, at least ironically. I don't really care about the election yet, but my family used to be SPD members.
I'm not one of those retards pls, I would kill Luxemburg again m8 :^)
But yeah I'm a soft Eurosceptic

Where do the workers get the capital form to form the factories etc?

From the rich of course.
From where do they get the intellectual capital IDK.

I was waiting for OP to answer, I had a string of leading questions hoping that OP could learn why what he is saying is retarded

That's a completely separate question to whether or not a worker owned system is better, but I am glad you are asking it.
The answer is banks, at least conventionally. We don't have to re-imagine everything here, we already have financial institutions that exist to finance companies, and such financing would also go towards the employment of intellectual (entrepreneurial) capital, to answer this:

...

You omit one thing - intellectual capital gives you a finger at one point going self-employed.

Self-employment is fine, since those aren't companies. Non-company businesses are not really able to be socialised or mutualised.

Going self-employed like forming a company to further my prosperity.

Humans are an highly adaptive species and the level of adaption is directly linked to intellect.

That's not self employment then, because you would be employed by a company. Self employment is where you are the entity that generates the revenue. A company is a separate entity.

FUCK
OFF

I will be employed by my company.

How many cocks have you sucked?

Why would a bank loan 1000 people money for a factory ? What benefit do they get? There is just more risk. Remember these are just workers, they have no capital for the banks to take, these are unsecured loans, spread out over hundreds or thousands of people for one project. Why would any bank take that on ? Where is the upside on that loan ?

WE ARE BEING RAID. ALMOST ONE WEEK! AND NOBODY DOES NOTHING!

THE FUCK /LEFTYPOL/ THE FUCKING SHIT OF /LEFTYPOL/ RAID US!

Almost everyone biting damn baits, right fighting against right, /ourguys/ being attacked...

FUCKING SHIT! Sup Forums are looking like a bunch of cucks. Let's fight our battle here on our board, Meme Jihad.

youtube.com/watch?v=kcxal9VAFww

LEFTIST LOSERS GET OFF MY BOARD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

None, I'm straight.
The same reasons that they would (or wouldn't) loan anyone else money. If they have no capital to secure the loan, then they aren't going to get a loan. They would have to find some other source of financing, like a non-equity alternative to the share market, or some sort of trade union enterprise fund. I am not really envisioning new socialist companies, but rather just mutualising existing capitalist companies.

So you need new boss because you hate the current one?

In an enterprise market-based socialist system, the boss would be in place through a vote by the workers, so it's completely up to them.

Once you give out an equity loan what is stopping the owners from forcing the company to make losses whilst paying themselves huge director fees? Because the equity loans you are talking about would be so small in the workers favour it would be near non existent.

With the equity loans shaped that way why wouldn't the people lending the money just open that factory by themselves? You would need laws against it, in which you would have a socialist government.

> vote
kek

This is how you lose your business to the competitor.
It takes brains to lead a successful economical entity and there are unpopular decisions.

>what is stopping the owners from forcing the company to make losses whilst paying themselves huge director fees?
The workers, who are the actual owners, decide who the managers are, and would typically decide on some structure of management and allocation policy, so it is the workers who have the responsibility of stopping the demise of their workplace.
>With the equity loans shaped that way why wouldn't the people lending the money just open that factory by themselves?
Banks exist to lend money and not to open up their own factories, which they could, but they don't.

>my aims are directly about worker control of the means of production
>non-Marxist socialist

Riiiiight.

>It takes brains to lead a successful economical entity
Yes, those brains would be sought after by the workers since it is in their best interests to be lead by someone who has the knowledge and capacity to manage a successful enterprise.
That's literally the definition of socialism. I just don't happen to subscribe to Marxian theories.

So nothing changes?

>control of the means of production
Kek

>Atlas Shrug is the second most sold book in history behind the Bible.

The silent majority really loves this book and it's adaptions.

>The film was met with a generally negative reception from professional critics, getting an 11% (rotten) rating on movie review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes,[93] and had less than $5 million in total box office receipts.[94] The film earned an additional $5M in DVD and Blu-ray sales, for a total of about half of its $20M budget.[95] The producer and screenwriter John Aglialoro blamed critics for the film's paltry box office take and said he might go on strike, but ultimately went on to make the next two installments.[96]

>On February 2, 2012, Kaslow and Aglialoro announced Atlas Shrugged: Part II was fully funded and that principal photography was tentatively scheduled to commence in early April 2012.[97] The film was released on October 12, 2012,[98] without a special screening for critics. It suffered one of the worst openings ever among films in wide release: it was 98th worst according to Box Office Mojo.[99] Final box office take was $3.3 million, well under that of Part I despite the doubling of the budget to $20 million according to The Daily Caller. Those figures should be treated as tentative as the Internet Movie Database estimates Part 1 budget at $20 million and the Part II budget at $10 million, while Box Office Mojo says Part 1 cost $20 million and Part 2 data are "NA".[100][101] Critics gave the film a 5% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 21 reviews.[102]

>The third part in the series, Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt?, was released on September 12, 2014.[103] The movie opened on 242 screens and grossed $461,197 its opening weekend.[104] It was panned by critics, holding a 0% at Rotten Tomatoes, based on ten reviews.[105]

I don't think you understand how the equity loan works son. Whoever has the most equity is the owner.

Equity loans for projects are offered by banks, this is where your lack of knowledge is showing. Not all banks are like anz or commonwealth. I'm su're you've heard of investment banks, they would supply the loan for the equity, they would then sell the equity to their other clients.

However lets go back to the first point, why would a capitalist lend money to a multitude of workers, just to have no control over what is done? There is once again, no upside for the lending party.

The change is simply who holds the managers accountable. In any system it is the owners who hold them accountable, so if we want workers to get the most out of a profitable company, they should be the owners.

>it is in their best interests to be lead by someone who has the knowledge and capacity to manage a successful enterprise

You're assuming that the workers (or more generally, the people) usually know what their best interest is ; or, if they know what it is, that they act in order to defend it. Which is simply not the case.

See, this is why socialism is bound to fail. In order to work, it requires people to know what their common interest is, and to work actively to defend it, which almost never happens. In a perfect world where people would always behave perfectly, sure. But in this world, this is never going to work.

>"non-marxist"
Your whole party is based on marxism, so you are blatantly just trying to deceive people.

So start your company, workers, and start competing. There are no hurdles to do so.

I'm not talking about equity loans, because obviously selling the company or parts of it isn't an option here, but this could be substituted by a debt obligation, or really any other possible form of financing. As for why they would lend, it would really just be the same financing as any other business, and subject to those conditions.
>You're assuming that the workers (or more generally, the people) usually know what their best interest is ; or, if they know what it is, that they act in order to defend it. Which is simply not the case.
I don't make the claim that they know what is in their best interests, which is why they would defer the operation of the company to the management. Really though, it's just about wages.
I agree.

Let me remind you that robbing previous owners at gunpoint leads to disaster.

>non--marxist

>I don't make the claim that they know what is in their best interests, which is why they would defer the operation of the company to the management.
Oh, so you do agree the workers don't know what their best interests are, and that managers who know better should be in charge. How interesting.