Socialism

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

Other urls found in this thread:

investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Was it real Socialism?

What is socialism?

Socialism is shite because it disincentivizes hard work and success. Without incentive to succeed and higher taxes while we do, human will prefer to freeload

read that as satanism

Explain the process of ownership of companies. Does the elected leader get payed more? His work isn't techically productive so where does his money come from? I'm also wondering how new companies or new factories would be created.

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

"Socialism" is a rudimentary idea that emerged from the Industrial revolution that attempts to address the shortcomings of the economic system that is now called "Capitalism".

Best described as:

>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

Now the different interpretations of the term socialism (most that hear the world in the west consider "socialism" only my it's Marxist interpretation. But Socialism as an idea actually predates Marx and Engels, and as such the factors to determine what are socialist and what are not are rather ambiguous and can actually oppose Marxist socialism, such as National Socialism.

The meme is "It wasn't REAL communism".

Until the later stages of WWII(when it had no other option), Nazi Germany had a tax rate of only 20%. National Socialism is still Socialism. Would you work for 80% of your total work value?

why is free market capitalism far superior in every aspect to socialism?

Yes, it was.

>disincentivizes hard work and success

No, it does not.

>Does the elected leader get payed more?

Yes, most of the times.

> His work isn't techically productive so where does his money come from?

He does mental work and takes responsibility for organization, one of the key goals to achieve communism is getting rid of difference between physical and mental labour.

>I'm also wondering how new companies or new factories would be created.

What do you mean?

why do you think it is acceptable to steal money from others?

how is it falling from a helicopter without a parachute?

>why is free market capitalism far superior in every aspect to socialism?

What exact aspects?

>why do you think it is acceptable to steal money from others?

I think it is unacceptable. This is why I am a communist.

>Explain the process of ownership of companies.

That would depend upon the interpretation of socialism you're asking about. There are many, National Socialism (Most companies and businesses privately owned, only state owned businesses were those of strategic interest to the state), Marxist Socialism (Total state ownership), etc. etc. Including: Guild Socialism, Anarcho-socialism.

>Does the elected leader get payed more?
In a state-owned business it would probably be set by the state itself, but may be allocated by market means (if it has markets)

> I'm also wondering how new companies or new factories would be created.

Socialism isn't inherently anti-market. Just the Marxist and Marxist-derived(Maoism, etc.) interpretations. In National Socialist Germany, new companies wpould mostly be formed by private individuals, or as a combined effort between individuals and the state.

Socialism as an idea that attempts to reign in the excesses of capitalism. How that is achieved can vary.

A crime.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how retarded would a person have to be to unironically utter the phrase "Denmark is a fairly Socialist country"?

I'm not sure how to respond. How's degeneration of social values, mass immigration and multiculturalism working for you? How is it that the multinationals and big corporations are paying little to no tax, while the middle class and small business owners are squeezed? That's the result of your capitalist experiment. I'll take a National Socialist society and economic system thanks.

Probably a 2. It's not a Marxist socialist country, so if you asked "...Denmark is a fairly Marxist socialist country", I would say about an 8.

6-8/10

LOL, I know right, even the president of Denmark himself told Bernie that Denmark isn't a Socialist country and he needs to shut the fuck up. LMAO.

investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/

It's so funny how retared Socialists are saying that Scandinavian countries are socialists.

>falling for the national socialism meme

we've been seduced by corporate capitalism and supply side economics. we passed too many legislative policies protecting them. like i said free market capitalism.

why does socialism always fail?
>inb4 it wasnt real socialism

I just assume the creation of a new factory would most likely have to be centrally planned, because you can already create employee owned businesses under capitalism, but nobody does it since it's much harder to find people willing to invest than it is to find people willing to work wages.

Also:
>socialism doesn't disincentivize hard work
We were both there dude, we know it does. "The boss pretends to pay us and we pretend to work".

Socialism violates basic human rights because it requires workers to "donate" their wages with the threat of violence (theft) and is unsustainable because any undocumented immigrants, disabled people, sick people, and the very old are a net drain on society.

Socialism is predicated on the concept of positive rights, which don't actually exist. Negative rights compel inaction and thus are natural rights (I.e. You can't kill me or steal my shit that I bought). Positive rights compel action and can only exist when set forth as part of a contract (I deserve healthcare because I pay you for it). Because socialism forces you to enter into the contract at birth (the myth of a social contract) to support positive rights which you have not agreed to, it equates to slavery.

Do you support: To each according to his need?

If yes, tell me why anyone will be willing to work.

Do you support: From each according to his mean?

If yes, tell me your opinion on slavery.

crime =/= self defence

So what about a free market with minimal taxation and no wealth redistribution but with a dictator or King with the power to act against immoral business?

when are socialists gonna try REAL SOCIALISM? because it hasn't worked in ages

Can you do the following.

1) Read about first principles of philosophy and logic
2) Read a critical thinking book
3) Build an argument for socialism (but make sure you define it first - simply define it, don't need a 5 paragraph definition) using first principles.

k thx,

love you

>No, it does not.
Yes it does.

Thanks guys. Just quit off-topic, I admire both of your countries a great deal.

Nigger, just refusing to acknowledge people are using money is not a valid excuse to take by force what others have built.

Thats a pity that you say "there" regarding to post 1965 revisionist socialism.

Yes, there was such thing, just like deficite, but this was the result solely of a step back to capitalism.

>A Russian commie
Have you not seen what that did to your country? How can you look at statues of Lenin and Stalin and not be sick?
Communism killed millions of your countrymen. Planned economies killed millions of the Chinese. I'm first-generation polish and I remember my father paying the communists off to let us travel to America; we had to leave everything behind because my fathers company was "owned" by the communists, as were all of our possessions.

how's the fifth grade going?

Marxist Socialism always fails because it stands in contrast to human nature and basic evolutionary factors. It demands that the strong be brought down to the level of the weak, strips individuals of their personal strengths and wealth/knowledge generating ability, then proceeds to implement a highly inefficient state bureaucratic system that miss-allocates resources and cannot modernize to meet new standards and technologies.

But, socialism does not always fail. National Socialism in Germany was a resounding economic success until international elements intervened/threatened to intervene to destroy it.

Market based systems need a state actor in order to protect the function of that market. As such there will always be a state that has it's power used by the wealthy and powerful to make itself more powerful and richer.

And if you pull out the Anarcho-capitalism card, then it is simple: you don't need a state actor to step on your toes when you have a privately created non state actor that is even worse.

Your taxes are heavier than ours and we are often seen as an example of socialism theories applied to a capitalist country.

>But, socialism does not always fail. National Socialism in Germany was a resounding economic success until international elements intervened/threatened to intervene to destroy it.
That's bullshit, the very system you speak of was built on the war industry.

>National Socialism in Germany was a resounding economic success until
They just didn't lasted long enough to fail.

You mean: "socialism works great, until you run out of other people's money"? You didn't address my first point either, that socialism will always be centrally planned.

>Mostly free market system, very low taxes by modern standards (eg. 20% on small business owners)
>State responsible for defense of the country and for basic social welfare policies

Everything that western European countries are today but with lower taxes, higher R and D spending, no mass immigration, low degeneracy and high social cohesion and economic prosperity.

Thanks for responding with the "It didn't last long enough to fail" meme though, been waiting for that.

When the whole world is denying your people sovereignty (Germany minorities in Czechoslovakia, Polish Germans being ethnically cleansed, Soviet Union invading and subjagating countries with populations it has no moral right to integrate). Yeah, building the strongest military to fight off everyone in the world was a mistake. Would've been better if they had've just let the Soviets come in and take them over. Thanks chief.

...

What are you talking about?

"Other people's money" - what is this? Soviet gold reserve fell to miserable lvls AFTER the reforms.

>will always be centrally planned

Yes, what does it change in my words?

>nazis didn do nuffin

If the state controls the market and most of it's citizens income then what is stopping them from using the military to seize the market and enact fascism and start killing off people and keeping everything for themselves?

Communists killed nobody in here.

That was just cold blood murder.

>basic social welfare policies
Like universal, free, total healthcare coverage?
Like extended veteran and retirement funds?
Like all the insensitive for large families?

it wasn't even that they didn't last long enough. It was that they took shit from all the countries they annexed, and they were also bolstered by a war time economy where things were consumed almost as fast as they could be produced, until the production couldn't keep up and they lost the war.

wherever communists take power they kill thousands if not millions

>Like universal, free, total healthcare coverage?

Because investing in the future is bad.

>Like extended veteran and retirement funds?

Because looking after the soldiers who fought to keep ungrateful shits safe is bad.

>Like all the insensitive for large families?

Because ensuring that your country has above population replacement so your country doesn't have to use foreigners, is bad.

Those things aren't basic social welfare policies, but common sense. I guess I should've put that in there, to be fair.

What's stopping the United States army from doing the same? Same answer/s applies.

>Communists killed nobody in here.

As of that point in time: Yet.

Don't you say?

Allende had a goverment for 3 years and no one got killed by it.

state socialism is the only acceptable form, national socialism is going too far, revolutionary socialism has an expiration date, an-soc would end up as straight up anarchy aka rule of the strongest, internationalists are just fucking retarded.

>socialism is great until you run out of other's people's money (or something like that)
-Margaret "islands merchant" Thatcher

But the 1965 reforms were successful. Exact same story when China began to privatize.

The point is that "anarcho-communism" is complete bullshit, that communism will always be centrally planned and central planning will always be bad.

do you suck cocks ?

I think he refereed to what happened before the war, when Hitler turned what was basically like Greece today and turned it into the second most powerful economy in just 5 years.

When you don't give a shit about investment bankers in London and New York and you can force bumers to go to work, this kind of thing happen.

Keeping old people alive longer is not an investment in the future.
Just because someone did a thing for you once, it don't mean they deserve everything for free until the end of their life. The veteran thing was used for propagande needs so the Nazis would gain popularity and people would be more willing to join the army.

I agree making kids should be considered like creating an asset for the country and treated as such.

ITT: a bunch of retards who don't understand that most "capitalist" societies are State Capitalism and would very quickly shatter without massive amounts of government contracts and public works construction

Millions have been ground into dust by capitalist enterprise. Weird that an ex-colony wouldn't think of this

do you think us liberals can utilize these bogus ideas like climate change in order to redistribute the wealth? also this is something i've been thinking about for a while, two questions:

if the government gives everyone a UBI, are the homeless now assuredly dregs that should be killed?

also, if the government redistributes the wealth, and poor people end up poor again, will we embrace the class system?

I think these questions are geared to socialism but sorry if not

What is stopping them from doing it now is that the government that controls them isn't actively trying to steal everything from it's people you fucking retard. How exactly do you think they enact socialism? You are really retarded enough to believe everyone just goes with it? They will have to use the military to forcefully steal what they need to fund it.

Why socialism so-called critics always so retarded and appeal to emotions only? Because they knew they lose all arguments?

should clarify, if there's a UBI, the new homeless should be killed
this is part of my new liberal identity, equality among everyone, punish the rich and the poor

...

I mean still a ton of that can be attributed to the military build up. Suddenly tons of men have military jobs and military hardware manufacturing jobs.

Why is it that you scroll through the entire thread and pic out the 3 non arguments ignoring the rest of the unanswered arguments? Is it because you're afraid you'll lose them?

Show me a country running on pure socialism that isn't a shithole or a halfassed "socialist democracy"
You people are very benevolent with other's money

you cant have open boarders and socialism

you need national socialism,look after your own and fuck the 3rd world

the point of capitalism is to maximize the profits, the point of socialism is to protect the populace from exploitation, somehow, capitalism indebted the entire world and socialism exploited the populace, maybe it's just that humans are retarded

>Keeping old people alive longer is not an investment in the future.
Just because someone did a thing for you once, it don't mean they deserve everything for free until the end of their life. The veteran thing was used for propagande needs so the Nazis would gain popularity and people would be more willing to join the army.

Something free marketeers constantly have a problem with marxist socialism is that there isn't an "incentive" to work hard.

Showing the people that those who work hard and sacrifice for the future of the country will be looked after modestly by the state is creating incentive, much more of an incentive to me personally than capital accumulation.

I disagree. State Socialism (even nationalist-oriented in nature) creates large amounts of bureaucracy and inefficiencies. The only areas that the state really needs to intervene in is those areas in which there isn't an incentive to the private individual to enter that area (National Defence, social welfare, education, etc.).

>What is stopping them from doing it now is that the government that controls them isn't actively trying to steal everything from it's people

And who says that's what all interpretations of socialism intend to achieve?

>With marxism socialism there's no incentive to work hard.

The soviets gave them pretty medals.

Besides that making a thing that's actually helpful it's incentive enough.

do you think US liberals can utilize these bogus ideas like climate change in order to redistribute the wealth?

The leftist who uses emotions to determine policy is capable of anything. They could theoretically say that those who have more money pollute more (I dunno if it is true, but they could say it), and use that as an excuse to tax more.

>if the government gives everyone a UBI, are the homeless now assuredly dregs that should be killed?

I perhaps wouldn't go so far as to say they should be killed. If you have mental health problems that stop you from being able to function (a large percentage of homeless people), then giving them more money won't help, they'll just drink/drug it away. I would say the best way to deal with these people is put them into self-contained communities, where in exchange for basic labor, these people would get basic accomodation, drug rehab, etc.

>also, if the government redistributes the wealth, and poor people end up poor again, will we embrace the class system?

No, Many leftists who create the idea of egalitarian redistribution will always find a way to blame someone else, usually the most productive. The best you can do is present the facts, and those that refuse to see them will be fought in the eventual wars that they create. You had best be prepared for that personally.

I agree, I am personally a National Socialist and stand opposed to Marxist Socialism.

He won't hold power if there is low taxes, then the power will be most concentrated in the richest businessmen (this actually happened in America during the gilded age, people like j.p Morgan had more political power than the president, until fdr at least)

Besides that making a thing that's actually helpful it's incentive enough.

To the egalitarian idealist perhaps. But people want to see the results of their labor directly benefit them. Utopian Marxist Socialism would work if everyone was a mindless drone, but we aren't. Marxism has that fatal flaw (the same fatal flaw as Anarcho-capitalism actually): it isn't compatible with human nature. All it takes is for one to be lazy, one to not want to work, but to get paid for not working, and it sets off a chain of dominoes that ends with total collapse of a working-charity based system. Not everyone is willing to be a self-chained slave.

>And who says that's what all interpretations of socialism intend to achieve?

Whether or not it is the intent it is ultimately the result. You are either extremely naive or just really that retarded to think people will just hand over their companies and wealth.

m8 I pay 27,7% on income tax alone
If you think a 20% tax is socialism, you're delusional.

>You are either extremely naive or just really that retarded to think people will just hand over their companies and wealth.

Yeah, sorry, I shoud've highlighted it in my first response to you: Not all Socialism is Marxist in nature. Socialism as an idea predates Marx. The whole "State taking over all the means of production from the evil individual" is entirely a Marxist idea.

Socialism began as a critique of capitalism, that held that the laissez-faire economic model leads to degeneration of social value, the removal of the worth of a human being beyond it's ability to generate wealth. Marx's interpretation of the socialist critique was that the state should take everything from the individual. Not all socialism believes this, even if most socialists are marxists.

National Socialist Germany was Socialist too, even if it standed in stark opposition to Marxist socialism. It ended up privatizing several parts of the economy, and the private business owner was the key method of providing goods and services to the public.

Why does Sup Forums complain about Jewish control of the world but love being wageslaves to corporations mostly owned by jews? Why can't they accept that they were indoctrinated into believing socialism is evil but then they cry about having no sense of community?

>ignoring the rest of the unanswered arguments?
For example?

>If you think a 20% tax is socialism, you're delusional.

Well it certainly isn't Marxist socialism. But as I keep repeating in this thread: Not all socialism is Marxist in nature and socialism as an idea predates Marx, who therefore does not have a monopoly on deciding what is socialism and what isn't.

Socialism as an idea is essentially summed as:

>>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

Marxists believe that the state has to have a monopoly on the individual to ensure it's compliance to that idea. National Socialism believes that empowering the individual and directing it to lifting up the community. it might not be Marxist socialism, but it doesn't have to be to still be socialist.

When did you realize socialism isn't possible with natural human instincts and you'd have to indoctrinate everyone for it to actually work well?

>inb4
>100 million killed by jew communists
>muh starvation
>never tried jokes
not an argument

Marxist socialism certainly isn't, as I addressed earlier in the thread. But not all socialism is marxist-derived.

Everything on that list is just nonsensical buzzwords, though.

You could make an identical cartoon with the stated goals of the bolsheviks before they took power. It would be filled with the same feel-good cliche liberal crap, and it wouldn't change the fact that the practical application of those ideas were a complete disaster.

It's also pretty funny that you're even worse that Holocaust revisionists, at least they believe lot's of Jews starved to death, you deny even that (with absolutely no evidence counter to Aleksandr Sołżenicyn, I might add).

You keep using Nazi Germany as an example as if it didn't entirely fail in the end. Their "socialism" was propped up by a military build up and ensuing war economy and a large amount of slave labor, theft of neighboring countries wealth.
>privatizing several parts of the economy
so capitalism ?

Are you a national socialist? How did you become a socialist and in this regard, which materials most influenced you?

It doesn't fucking work. Sage

>privatizing several parts of the economy
>so capitalism ?

No, market economics. Capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on markets.

>You keep using Nazi Germany as an example as if it didn't entirely fail in the end.

Being at war with the world's three superpowers, none of which wanted your state to exist, generally does that to a nation.

>Their "socialism" was propped up by a military build up and ensuing war economy and a large amount of slave labor, theft of neighboring countries wealth.

Their labor programs in occupied territories contributed to the wealth of Germany in the National Socialist period. Cannot be denied. But here we enter the area of heresay without either side having the evidence to prove the other wrong. I would say the high levels of productivity within Germany's industries, and the reliance on small business to be the equal first place key sector for wealth creation(the other being the military industrial efforts), Germany would've been prosperous, even if not quite as prosperous as without it's expansion.

>Their "socialism" was propped up by a military build up

State spending to get a country out of recession, while creating a deficit, is, despite what small government faggots say, a viable economic option. The USA has obscene amounts of public debt and 3x worse private debt, but their inflation is under control and the economic system, even as exploited as it is, still functions. If they can do that, there is no reason as to Germany not being about to do that, it of course being at the head of a number of nations who traded with each other (Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Sweden, etc.).

If socialism is so great why dont more people join communes?
Why does it need to be mandatory?

>but their inflation is under control
no its not
It has just been kept in check by massive productivity
I would rather have normal housing prices than cheap junk from china

Yes I am a National Socialist.

I was a left-leaning socialist in my youth. But after using some anecdotes to realize the myth of "diversity being good", coming across several studies that show migration and diverse communities reducing social cohesion and the lack of left-socialist's ability to create a viable state without significant compromise, which dilutes the socialist idea to not being able to meet it's own criteria, I became disillusioned.

I attempted to branch out, and began to read "Democracy: The God that failed" by Hoppe, and found that it was only surpassed in grotesque self-denial and lack of consistency by Marxist and Marxist-derived ideological writings.

So I channeled myself into finding out the truth about the basic functions of the world. I came to the conclusions that a powerful international elite (in a large amount, but not necessarily limited to, Jews), controlled the banking systems, media, political apparatus' and economic productive capacity, and in an attempt to create a more viable underclass, began importing low IQ shitters from poor countries, I realized that Hitler was right after all. I've been a National Socialist ever since.

Shitty failed concept rifle with constant collapse or the countries going fuck this and going back to capitalism like china and vietnam. marxism is a ponzi scheme

>no its not

Yes, it is. I didn't say it is ideal, certainly not, but it is under control.

>I would rather have normal housing prices than cheap junk from china

Housing prices being what they are isn't anything to do with the money supply relative to the population. House prices are what they are because of the inherent problems with a free market housing market. If we live in a world of infinite size, then the ever growing populations would be able to always move out and find new land. By having a limited amount of land, those who buy up property are basically guaranteed a greater return on their money in the long run, assuming the regulations stay relatively the same. This doesn't however, have anything of note to do with inflation.

>Yes I am a National Socialist.
White people have always been able to take care of their own communities without the government
All socialism does is decrease birth rates

>Housing prices being what they are isn't anything to do with the money supply relative to the population.
housing prices are 90% do to cheap money

You are correct, to an extent. If Marxist socialism was the only form of socialism, then indeed, your statement is true. But socialism predates marx, and as such not all socialism is Marxist in Nature.

Also: Capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on market economics. National Socialist Germany was socialist, and utilized markets. And although it stood in stark opposition to Marxist socialism, it was definitely socialist in nature.

The birthrate in National Socialist Germany increased over previous years. That statement is factually incorrect.

I don't want to go right out and insult you, but that's not how it works friend. A housing market is like any other market: supply and demand oriented. If supply is lower than demand, then prices increase. If people had less money, then they money would have more value, but that money for the most part is just a representation of their labour. Less money, means that there would be less money in the system, meaning that the money that individuals did have would be worth more and we would be right back at the original problem.

Came to shitpost found my job had already been done

So you use market economy to only supply as much as needed? What happens when you over/ under supply (much like what is happening in Venezuela right now) ? When you give your government control over all the wealth corruption is inevitable. Your model is failing to take human nature into account and that is the real flaw of socialism, where as capitalism plays into humans greed and uses it as a strength.

>The birthrate in National Socialist Germany increased over previous years. That statement is factually incorrect.
and look what it did to western yourpe
>but that money for the most part is just a representation of their labour
No its cheap money they are borrowing

>When you give your government control over all the wealth corruption is inevitable

National Socialist Germany did not attempt to monopolize control over all wealth and wealth-creating industries and services. Vast majority of businesses were private, the state privatized several industries. Venezuela is a false equivalency.

National Socialism understood basic concepts of nature and evolution. It did not drag down the strong like Marxists do, it elevated the strong and used it to lift up the community. Egalitarianism is incompatible with human economics in the current age, National Socialist Germany was not egalitarian in it's application of socialism. Taking care of the weak in society isn't egalitarianism, it's ethics.

>and look what it did to western yourpe

Can't change the argument midway through friend.

>No its cheap money they are borrowing

Seems like I'm not getting through to you, I can't relay any more basics of market economics, so any time spent arguing over this will likely fall on deaf ears.