Socialism

In this thread I will answer questions and respond to arguments on the topic of "Socialism"

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Why is it so shitty?

What is the difference between socialism and democratic socialism?

Why is nationalism the only form of socialism that works?

How do you know what to produce under socialism without price indicators?

At what point does the killing start?

Well in order to answer that, I must make the assumption that you are referring to what most people think of when they hear the word "Socialism": Marxism.

Marxist Socialism is one particular interpretation of the socialist idea. Socialism, as a word, as an idea, as a movement, predates Marx and Engels.

The idea of socialism as a whole (before any interpretations of how it is to be implemented) can be basically summed up as such:

>The needs and desires of the community must be held in balance with the needs and desires of individuals, and that an individual's reckless pursuit of capital can often damage the community, and such actions must be restricted for the integrity of the community

Marxist Socialism or Marxist-derived socialism (Maoism, etc.) holds that in order for this statement to be true, the state must intervene to ensure the community has power over the individual in all cases. This inevitably leads to inefficient bureaucracy, and various economic systems such as the Price Control system (the economic model used in the Soviet Union). That is why it is "so shitty" because it is completely inefficient and acts contrary to information gathering that holds that this is inefficient.

Socialism is capable of being non-democratic in nature. That control of the means of the production by a state actor (Marxist Socialism) doesn't have to be democratic.

Democratic Socialism can be interpreted in a number of ways: A democratically elected government that controls the means of production or socialism may in fact be nothing to do with a state/government at all. Worker co-operatives are technically a form of socialism: where the means of production are collectively owned (by the workers that work at said locations, not necessarily the entire community).

I could try and answer the question, but it is rather short and succinct, as such I can only give a vague answer.

If you ask more specific questions I can give a more specific answer.

A large number of reasons. Nativism and sticking to your own kind is a natural action. Read this and you will understand that statement better:

archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

Socialism is best in homogeneous communities, as linguistic, cultural and religious differences create conflict, which shatters or causes divides in the integrity of the community.

National Socialism is one interpretation of this. Nazism (despite what leftists say) is doubtless an interpretation of socialism, even if it does stand in stark contrast to Marxist Socialism

The Marxist price controls system is one interpretation. But not all socialism is Marxist in nature. Markets are not incompatible with Socialism. National Socialism used markets as it's primary form of resource and capital allocation.

The Soviet price controls system is inefficient. They only know what to produce by predicting consumer desires, and given the size of a state apparatus that does this, inefficiencies are rife. That is the reason for the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. It acted contrary to evidence that held it's system to be inefficient.

A socialist being vague / failing to provide the requested information.
whatasurprise.png

I gave the response that your question deserved friendo. Want a more specific answer? Ask a more specific question.

Was it evet tried? If yes whiy did it fail? If not, why should we try it?

ever*

Statist thief.

>in balance with the community
Negative. I might accept:
>Owned by the community
In either case, that is a base communist ideal, most notably because, even in fascist states, the only real way people have found to put the ownership in the COMMUNity is through the State, which inherently necessitates vast governmental economic infringement.

Because the socialist government ran out of toilet paper

antfaggot

What is the difference between national socialism and 'regular' socialism?

What? The fuck is an antfag?

You gave me word salad devoid of anything relevant.
You even admitted that your answer was vague.
This is why socialism fails.
You idiots can't even answer simple questions.
Christ, no wonder Commies line you up and paint walls with your blood.

Socialism + hierarchy without internationalism

I believe the leftist argument is in fact "Communism was never tried". And to the criteria that Marxists set for communism:

>A classes, stateless moneyless society where the means of production are collectively owned

Then yes, "Communism" has never been tried. The Soviet Union and those that borrowed it's system (all Marxist couintries led by communist parties) Had a State, still had money, and still had political classes. The issue lies with the path set to get there. Marx himself states that in order for there to be socialism, there must first be capitalism. But the nations that birthed Marxist "socialist states" never had a capitalist system. Tsarist Russia was still an agrarian Feudal country. Imperial/Nationalist China was the same.

Socialism has been tried, and failed most times, because the Marxist formula is broken from the beginning. Obliterating the individual and it's power to create knowledge and wealth is not a great start on the road to prosperity.

Once again, that is the Marxist interpretation. In Wiemar Germany, the core voter base of the NSDAP was middle class business owners. In National Socialist Germany, (relatively) free markets and private business was the core element of capital and resource allocation to the public. The government only intervened to reduce poverty (which the market system seemed incapable of fixing on its own at that time) and to build the nation's military capability. That does not mean they obliterated the private economy.

Why did proletariat dictatorship's leaders never gave power to the people and always had centralized power? I thought it was supposed to be the bitcoin of power?

Marxism>>>Lennism>>>National socialsm>>>National Bolchevism

Will it ever work, when faggots like you still draw breath?

Marxism

You forgot the part where Commies are shot like the animals they are.
Shit.
I just remembered that California wants to do away with the Commie ban.
Dammit.
Legit traitors in our midst.

What gives you the right to redistribute wealth?
Without perfect knowledge you cannot guarantee that your redistribution is either fair or equitable.
Given this the system is bound to have flaws, granted this doesn't make it evil, but still a flawed system is a flawed system.
Given that, and granting that capitalism is also a flawed system. Why should we trade a flawed system we know for a flawed system we don't?
I could argue that socialism is bad on principle, but I don't even need to.
It is not better than capitalism, which is reason alone not to bother with it

National socialism and Socialism(Marxist interpretation) are completely different.

National Socialism utilized free markets to generate wealth, and deliver goods to the public. Small business owners were the largest source of economic activity in Germany until the last few years of the war when the government had no other choice.
Socialism(Marxist) destroys free markets as it's inherent egalitarian nature finds that free markets let one person get ahead of another person. National Socialism empowers the individual and creates a moral and ethical system that has the strong individual lift up the community beneath it, rather than in Socialism (Marxist) the weak community devours the strong.

There are a large number of elements that I could list until I run out of post space, but the basic difference: National Socialism supports the fundamentals of nature. Marxist Socialism attempts to fight it and inevitably lose.

>Le invisble hand fix everything faggot

What kind of Socialist are you? Marxist? National? Democratic?

Why do workers prefer the profit-interest system over any more socialized methods?

Lennism and Nat soc are not so differents

Let's say you've taxed all the rich and redistributed the wealth, but society is still fucked with not enough housing, schools and facilities. Where does socialism go from there?

what is your ideal level of socialism?
none?
public property?
complete wage/salary/equity redistribution?

Socialist AMA == Constantly moving the goal posts.

Socialized systems always suffer from a parasitic beurocracy which drains wealth purely by existing.
Traditional systems benefit from the money multiplier effect of increased total circulation.
While this may not always allocate wealth to those who need it the most, it does generate the most total wealth, which translates to a higher average wealth, and a higher average standard of living

National Socialist Germany was a resounding economic success. Until it was torn apart by the foreign elements that it opposed.

>What gives you the right to redistribute wealth?

The right of evolutionary power. It is strength, not morality that creates power.

Asking that question is like asking: "What right does the free market have to redistribute wealth?"

>Given this the system is bound to have flaws, granted this doesn't make it evil, but still a flawed system is a flawed system.

All human systems are flawed because humans are flawed. Despite what libertarians and other small government people have to say, Markets are inherently flawed. But they are the most efficient source of resource and capital allocation. So we use them. "Redistribution of wealth" is just another evolutionary factor of strength, the same as free markets. If the strong are not able to enforce their rights, then what rights do they actually have?

Mostly National Socialist with a small number of differences.

One could argue that no human system is radically different. Depends on what you are comparing them to.

>national socialism is great. Germany is the prime example.

Germany was stopped barely a decade in. DPRK as been at racially pure closed-borders socialism for 70 years, and it's a feudalistic hellhole.

nat-soc is still shit. capitalism is the only way. the only industry that government should be involved in are those that are both socially necessary and woefully unprofitable.

What is a purpose to work hard and achieve for man who knows that what he earned will be redistributed?

antifa faggot
nazbol is jewish. bolshevism is completely jew run, practiced and centered.

>le my version of communism works
oh yeah, did I mention bolshevism is jewish? you fucking kike

Because people have preferences towards themselves, and think that is the best way to gain? Maybe they're stupid, who knows? That's not exactly the question I had in mind as it is more about asking for a person's personal preference than the broad topic at hand.

Can;t give a solid answer on that one, it's more about one's personal preferences than the basic facts. My answer would be that I wouldn't do any of that to the extent that that situation is caused? I'm not a marxist.

Germany was "stopped" because it got involved in a war with the world's three super powers. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the social-economic system.

Both Germany and North Korea implemented systems of Autarky (self reliance). The difference between the two is that German leaders weren't brain damaged. They knew they didn't have the natural resources to be entirely self reliant. So what did they do? Created an insular economic community between several nations (Germany traded it's industrial power in the form of trade goods and the likes in return for the natural resources required to make them. Oil from Romania, Iron ore from Sweden, etc.). North Korea shut of it's borders despite not having the means to be entirely self-sufficient, and then followed a Marxist-derived ideology of "socialism" that obliterated the individual and thus the entire country. The two aren't really comparable.

In a Marxist socialist system: virtually none. Some people are more than happy to support their community through their labour, but most aren't. In non-Marxist socialist system (National Socialism, etc.) Taxes on the individual for most of it's existence were no more than 20% (business owners ended up with a corporation tax that by the end of the war was about 40%, but a severe wartime shortage of resources creates of that). Socialism is a rudimentary idea, not a guidebook. Would you work for 80% of your labour profits?

How can you talk about socialism as an ideology of strength when it's very purpose is so that the weak may steal from the strong by overwhelming them with sheer numbers.
Surely any individual or group which was strong enough to enforce socialism would be strong enough to muscle their way into a position of power in a capitalist system.
In this case the only difference is what the person or group in question does to the other members of society.
In capitalism the ultimate goal is profit.
The weak need only fear the strong if it is profitable for the strong to harm the weak.
To protect themselves the weak need only make themselves not worth it for the strong to subjugate them.
In socialism the motivation is control.
The strong control the weak because control is the goal itself, profit is largely ignored.
In this case the weak must always fear the strong, for to be left alone is to be outside of control

leninism is about killing the russian middle class and replacing the tsar with jewish elites to gouge the country for all the resources it has while practicing any form of degeneracy you can think of to subvert and uproot any sense of community the true russians had

>antifa
You're wrong. Libertarian.

claiming connection error now so here's a picture of my reply

Do you agree that guild socialism is best socialism?

No, not a good enough answer to what is a fundemental question (), let me rephrase:

How does a Socialist society create wealth once existing avenues have been exhausted?

>any form of statism is bad
you're not a libertarian, you're anarchist trash. bet you aren't even a race realist.

Oh, fuck off faggot. I'm libertarian and don't like faggots using the state to steal wealth.

how's the state going to run? off donations? get real nigger. taxes can be shit but they are necessary.

Not a fan of redistribution of wealth. Have no problem with taxes to maintain infrastructure and all that. I think you're reading into things in my posts that aren't there. Kind of annoying.

Why do natsoc deny the soc in natsoc?

I would say that it is far from the worst, and that it can be apart of a successful system, but it isn't my preference.

Yeah I had connection problems as well

Having no option but to form the most powerful military machination you can as a result of a world that wants nothing more than to carve up and enslave your country (which is what actually happened) isn't what would happen in a system where Germany isn't threatened by outside forces, ideological or material in nature. A National Socialist system would succeed in a Germany in the position it is today, if of course foreign elements would let it.

It may seem like a moving the goalposts scenario, but we're dealing with hypotheticals here.

>How does a Socialist society create wealth once existing avenues have been exhausted?

The question is answered in the same way one would answer "How does a Capitalist society create wealth once existing avenues have been exhausted?". Through expansion of scientific knowledge to create new industries, through the labour of workers and business owners, through extraction of new natural resources.

If your question is purely about Marxist-derived socialism, then: Pretty much the same answer, but with less business owners, less scientific advancements, lazier workers, and less efficient systems of resource allocation. The same way, just slower and less efficient.

how is maintaining infrastructure not a redistribution of wealth? also if you don't want people thinking you're an anarchist degenerate then don't use 'statist' as an epithet for an insult.

I myself am a type of NatSoc and I do not deny it, nor do most of the people I have seen talk about it in depth over the last few years. I am a socialist, but I stand against Marxism. That is the general position held by virtually all National Socialists.

Good thread mate.

>looks good on paper
and we're back to one of my original points

humans are the most important piece of infrastructure a nation can have

without a nation of happy, healthy, and willing people, your nation is nothing.

people = taxes and labour
happy, healthy people = more of those

Since socialists believe in stealing someones private property rights they should be killed. What would happen if you tried to steal someones property? You would be killed and for good reason.

Your position on currency?

NS believes in property rights

Sorry, just realized I missed your second post.

>How can you talk about socialism as an ideology of strength when it's very purpose is so that the weak may steal from the strong by overwhelming them with sheer numbers.

I do not say that all socialist positions or types are ideologies of strength. I merely state that socialism is capable of being such. In a National Socialist system, it is not about the weak devouring the strong to achieve equality, it is about the strong lifting up the weak to create moral compassion.

The main voter bloc of the NSDAP was small business owners. It is unlikely they were "the weak" attempting to steal from the strong.

>Surely any individual or group which was strong enough to enforce socialism would be strong enough to muscle their way into a position of power in a capitalist system.

Any person who has enough strength can get to the top of any hierarchical system, including market systems from which capitalism comes from. Socialist systems can use markets too.

>In capitalism the ultimate goal is profit.

And that is where the ethical issue lies in the argument aginst capitalism. Reckless consumerism is damaging, not helping to society, in the eyes of a socialist. It depends upon what interpretation of the Socialist idea that how that is dealt with.

>The weak need only fear the strong if it is profitable for the strong to harm the weak.

Which in all reasonable analysis is virtually all of the time.

>In socialism the motivation is control.

In capitalism the motivation is also control.

A thread full of people who think socialism is authoritarian when it is inherently libertarian

What is your preferred socialism then?

a dictator is the end boss leader. Your system is a shit.

In a national socialist system, private property rights were protected in most cases. Even in "capitalist" western countries, the private property of individuals is sometimes forcefully bought out by the government in order to provide for the community or otherwise pic related would happen.

Socialism isn't inherently anti-private property. That is Marxist socialism, only one interpretation.

You're confusing (((marxism))) with real socialism.

Question again on currency? Where are you at?

Currency is necessary in a modern system. It is effectively the physical tradeable representation of labour/work. Nobody with a brain has a problem with currency.

A type of National Socialism. Basically: a system where the community and the individual are reconciled as political forces. Where it is the duty of the individual to lift up their community, rather than for the community to destroy the individual (Marxism) or have a free for all, allowing for the individual to exploit and take from the community (capitalism). A system where the people of a country come first, and that for that to be realized, there must be strong individuals. More or less.

I'm typing out several responses at a time, please be patient, I responded in earlier in this post.

people should have incentive to work harder, the best way to do this through allowing the accumulation of purchasing power. currency is currently the best method to supply the private rights of purchasing power.

socialism debunked

this is through**

I've always favoured a time-based currency. The state creating new units based upon the birth of a citizen.

same shit moron, only National Socialism is completely different

Oh, my mistake, I thought you were asking for a general answer, not an in depth answer.

I am opposed to the current system of irrelevant fiat crap. Currency does have to have a basis in something, eg resources or labour. But when a central banking system creates new capital out of thing air as a result of nothing, that is unacceptable. Your system of a time-based currency would be similar to my in depth view on the topic. For instance I think that new currency should be issued something along the lines of number of people x numbers of hours total worked for the year. I am honestly not sure on the entire formula, but I think it would be slightly more flexible in terms of inflation and issues with recessions.

Truthfully however, I haven't thought much on the subject.

I disagree with Hayek on pretty much everything. Any system in which one person or small group of people are allowed too much control over the economic power of a country creates a system that could descend into serfdom. This, however, includes a laissez-faire free market capitalist system. If enough people are able to absorb enough wealth from any location, they become a state in their own right, theoretically more powerful than any statist system.

Reckless individualism leads to serfdom. reckless communalism leads to serfdom. Finding the balance, where the two are reconciled is necessary for the economic, social and moral prosperity of a nation. National Socialism represents this.

Hayek is critical of what he is viewing, without being self-critical of the system he advocates in it's place, where the results can be the same.

>doesn't even know the difference between utopian and scientific socialism
You're the moron here.

How many different types of socialism are there? Can you give a quick rundown on what they are?

Exclude marxist and national, you have spoken of these already.

OP here, it seems the thread has come to a stop. I'm off to do other things and won't be able to answer any more. Might come back another day.

What are we going to do when robots automate all labor?

why did you fail

Can you give examples of it working.