Would you consider socialism idealistic?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
pri.org/stories/2016-04-10/us-dropping-bombs-quicker-it-can-make-them
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

> Would you consider socialism idealistic?

Not the marxist type

No, I would consider it just plain greedy. That's it.

Than what do you think would be the perfect governmental system?

A limited government. You don't tax me and I won't tax you.

Who manages the factories in socialism? Why do they get to not be a worker? Why would anyone study medicine or law when they get paid the same amount to be a worker?

>I'm too stupid to know what Socialism is, the image

...

You can have collectively owned businesses in capitalist countries, except they all fucking suck for the workers because not all workers deserve to have a say in the business.

Also, most workers can't/don't want to have their own business where they own their own means of production.

...

It's the future either way, sad but true. AI will replace literally every job within 20 years.

There should be something better than capitalism, but current "mainstream" socialism definutely snt.

no. use capitalism(aka the most successful system), take advantage of what it offers while using what morals u see fit; then make ur own world/castle/Eden by reaping what u sow

> workers run factory
> it somehow suppised to be efficient

Capitalism is fine, it makes people the richest out of all systems, it helps them get richer over time, it rewards the successful while still bringing up the poor, etc.

What's not to like? It's a meritocracy that still helps those who aren't very meritful.

>I'm building a boat
>It would cost me 1500 dollars because me am dumb factory worker
>Ask someone who studied boat building to help me
>He says he can reduce its cost to 750 if you pay 250 dollars for the service
>One million people take this great deal
>Socialists: Oh my god that guy swindled 250 million dollars out of those boat builders because he didn't build a boat
>Socialists literally don't think this is a legitimate way of earning money and helping others.

see
We're in late capitalism. There's no long-term future for capitalism.

>IT WASN'T REAL SOCIALISM GUYS
Uh huh.

It promises utopia

People were saying that in 1880. Capitalism will not go away simply because automation takes over most jobs, the economy will simply shift.

>I literally don't know what the word Socialism means, so I'll just follow the strawman the capitalists made of it! Herp le derp!

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

on that note....
if u can explain the difference between socialism & communism, thatd be just swell!
my relative, who is a history teacher didnt know how 2 explain it

Democratic socialism

Communism:
a totalitarian system of government in which a singleauthoritarianparty controls state-owned means of production

Benevolent Dictator or Monarch

In communism there is no state

i never really understood why/how national socialism is economically different from a social democratic society.

:x
now define socialism so i can contrast more clearly please if u can b so kind?

One leading party to have full control during their term, elections every four years so it's still semi-democratic. But at least shit will get done.

Sounds like fantasy.
There has always been leaders and followers.

Income taxes aren't the only taxes.
WWI fucked everyone over.

I think it will be the future if all the nogs are gone. A society where people all collectively work for each other is utopia. Sadly humans in general are shit so its a terrible idea. Hard workers are abused by that system.

>Sounds like fantasy.

I guess, its the theoretical end point of communism. (this is were the argument that communism has never really been tried comes from)

Some crap about a transition period from capitalism to communism.

Put "fiat money" on the right and you have the capitalist reserve

no but income taxes r a wealth-based(%agae) tax, making it the most significantly bogging tax, while also having no designated purpose other than 'giving $$ to the government 4 generic allocation'

>Some crap about a transition period from capitalism to communism.

Depends who you ask. For some a socialist state is the end point. Marx believed it would move on to communism with no state

Also there is democratic socialism etc.

I know Japan isn't socialist.
But the homogenous nature of their society results in collectivism. After Fukishima there was 0 looting for example and volunteers went into the radiation willingly to try and stop it.

Late buzzword faggot

Live within your means.

Stop buying shit you don't need
Stop wanting shit you don't need
Stop missing work because of made up medical and depression memes.

>while also having no designated purpose other than 'giving $$ to the government 4 generic allocation'
The purpose is to pay for WWI, the great depression, WWII, the Cold War and the debt generated by those events, but even after those are over the debt can't be paid off.
If the US remained uninvolved in European affairs then it could have probably avoided most of those expenses.

FTFY

Yes. It would be pretty idealistic of them to think that it will ever work.

>the pursuit of happiness doesnt matter
when a society no longer has to worry about basic-survival-needs, 'wants, become 'needs'

u misunderstand. if that were the case it would be specifically titled and called/known as a 'WW1 tax, WW2 tax or 'X specific event tax', etc. it wouldnt be given a generic name that can b applied to all or 4 any 'X future conflict/debt tax'

>Never ran a complex organization with moving parts you had to manage
>Never earned more than an average person

c-c-comrads!

>The Gilded Age was great!
Congratulations on being retarded.

That's capitalism.

pri.org/stories/2016-04-10/us-dropping-bombs-quicker-it-can-make-them

>Because it's democratic it's not coercively achieved at gunpoint

Absolutely not. It's resentful, a tool used by entitled people who feel like they've been denied some birthright with the intent to destroy the system that makes them feel bad for their personal limitations and petty refusal to take responsibility.

Borderline AnCap.

State exists to command the military, maintain the courts and Law enforcement system; ie the very few things that cant have competition within a nation.

Do the workers own the means of production or not? What are you doing? Forcing to own factories?

Well if people start refusing to work what happens to them? They still get a fair share of resources and products? How many people can quit working before nothing gets done, before forced labor becomes a necessity?

Well I'd imagine if they don't work, they're not "workers" so they don't share ownership of the means of production.

So by the way, how is your "dread" outcome any different from capitalism? If you don't work in capitalism, you have nothing and you starve to death. Not sure why you morons think that's different than what you claim is happening in socialism.

nah just acknowledging what is; its all perspective

Nothing is stopping you from starting up your own hippie co-op.

Well socialists always love to proclaim that college, health care, food, etc are human rights, so I'm just wondering who works for no compensation so that those who don't produce receive goods and services.

Also the confiscation of privately held land and resources is coercion regardless if its the will of the majority or not, and may even require violent force to achieve.

They already exist. I'm surprised you grasped the concept though.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "right". And secondly, if there ARE such things as human rights than shit like food, water and education would top the list, dumbfuck.

>so I'm just wondering who works for no compensation so that those who don't produce receive goods and services.
>If you don't work, you're forced to or you die!
Again, you're describing CAPITALISM, you fucking retard.

>Also the confiscation of privately held land
This is only partly related to Socialism. How property is first attained didn't seem to bother you capitalists too awfully much.

>any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

>collective or governmental
>governmental

So it WAS real Socialism, and it sucked!

I'd consider that image simplistic.

This is great though and that Gilded Age...oh man, Heaven on Earth.

>First of all, there is no such thing as a "right". And secondly, if there ARE such things as human rights than shit like food, water and education would top the list, dumbfuck.

Nope. Go read The Rights of Man. Your low-information ignorance is comical.

Objectively better than the USSR. Better than any Socialist country.

This thread made me realize something fucking hilarious. Capitalists hate Socialism because they literally think it's Capitalism.

>B-b-but someone will force you to work or you won't get things!

>They already exist. I'm surprised you grasped the concept though.
Yes and not on a large scale. It's usually because those types of organizations aren't very efficient.

Actually, Capitalists hate Socialism because it is objectively theft.

Your definition of "force" is also laughable and retarded. That's like saying that someone is forcing you to eat or you'll starve to death.

That's nature. Your problem is with being alive, not with Capitalism.

>they all fucking suck for the workers because not all workers deserve to have a say in the business
Not true. If someone is being problematic in a co-op, they can be shifted to a different position or kicked out.

>Nope. Go read The Rights of Man. Your low-information ignorance is comical.
Refute what I said. Rights are a fiction of human minds. This is by definition not in dispute.

>Objectively better than the USSR.
Not in technology or industry. Also, let's not forget that the USSR fought the majority of WWII while America simply profited off of it, as usual. If America ever entered a real war it'd be destroyed like it nearly was during the Civil War.

>Yes and not on a large scale
Yep.

>It's usually because those types of organizations aren't very efficient.
No, it's because they're intentionally decentralized. Few people want to live in them. They're generally only for dedicated people.

>Your definition of "force" is also laughable and retarded.
In a true capitalist society you either work or you starve to death and go without shelter, medical care, clothing, etc. Hell, in a REAL capitalist system, you might just work AND go without.

>That's like saying that someone is forcing you to eat or you'll starve to death.
Nature's not intentionally withholding necessities from me until I suck off Mr. Moneybags who bought the town water supply and then dumped shit into it.

There are co-ops that work fine. If you're thinking of factories in the Eastern Bloc as your examples, there are other reasons why those factories didn't function well. For example, in late Brezhnev-era Russia, workers sometimes put effort into not doing their jobs because the government had stopped moving people out of jobs they did badly in, and the highly centralized system was controlled and run by the aging, corrupt political class.

Strawman much?

...

>In real life you either work or you starve to death and go without shelter, medical care, clothing, etc.
FTFY

It depends on the exact structure of the Co-op but usually they have some kind of weakness. If it's something simple like a normal business except everyone gets some stocks in it, then yeah that's fine and not really a problem market-wise. But if we're talking about one of those workplace democracy things, those usually have issues since democratic decisions are not always efficient decisions. That's not to say management always gets it right either (hence why companies fail), but a well-run company will get it right more often than not.

Yes in capitalism you have the right not to work and to starve to death, someone may voluntarily choose to take pity on you and charitably donate some food, but you'll likely starve to death if you chose to remain a bum for too long, that would be the case if we were in fact living in a pure capitalist economy. Should you chose to work though you could keep the proceeds of your labor, which you can use for instance to buy a house and some land or even *gasp* buy or build a business and make more money to buy more things, how horrible and exploitative, voluntary working arrangements, and purchases and sales and association.

Is idiocy an ideal?

A fair amount of the country back then still lived and worked in the countryside, where dirt roads were common, trains were restricted to trade routes, and college education was rare. The country was nowhere near as developed.

No

I love how nobody will reply to this post because it contradicts their idea of socialism as inherently a Soviet-esque totalitarian system.

I get that you believe in a friendly form of socialism, but it's basically utopian nonsense since capitalism and hierarchy is more efficient.

>Refute what I said. Rights are a fiction of human minds. This is by definition not in dispute.
It absolutely is in dispute, but there's no point arguing with a dumbass solipsist. Constructivists should be dropped out of helicopters with the rest of the degenerates.

>better than the USSR or any other socialist country
lel
Look at a third world country like Haiti, where there are little to no regulations and foreign businesses regularly fuck the country over. Compare that to Cuba, which even as a totalitarian state has some indicators on the level of first-world countries like the US and Canada.

>le no stepu on sneku

Opinion discarted

>thinking a low IQ society like Haiti can ever be functional

Regardless, Gilded Age America was absolutely a better country to live in than the USSR by far. Don't sidestep the point.

This.

All forms of Marxism have, at their core, a fundamental conceit: that one single person, in theory the greatest of all his/her kin, must be given absolute power to control all aspects of society, to prevent all other less great people from making mistakes that might have tragic consequences.

The only way the competing schools of thought differ is how the Great Leader should be selected. Fascists believe in meritocracy, Communists believe in democracy, and Socialists believe in autocracy. Each hates the other two for the same reason they hate all non-Marxists... those who disagree with their One True Perfect System are not just wrong and stupid, but evil saboteurs that are blamed for any failures of the Great Leader to be perfect in every way.

>except for our rulers, they get to be rich

So basically capitalism in the 21st century?

Socialism is the natural progression of humanity. All those who stand in its way will be dealt with.

In a capitalist system, the powerful get rich. In a Marxist system, the rich get powerful.

If you know the difference between money and power, you'll know what I'm talking about.

this post is completely semantic. Money = Power

Image is not accurate OP/

Nope. People can refuse to accept your money. Money can be stolen and counterfeited.

Power can't be faked, and bluffing never works for long.

>Nope. People can refuse to accept your money

But they wont, so this is a retarded thing to say.

> Money can be stolen and counterfeited.

This doesn't refute what I'm saying

>Power can't be faked, and bluffing never works for long.

Can you define power? Or are you going to sit here and pretend that you have an education beyond high school?

This entire post is complete horse shit and doesn't even indicate what these systems are about. At the core of marxism (and communism, and socialism) is a command economy that lacks markets. You are completely ignorant of the things you speak of.

>socialism only works effectively in a homogeneous society with one national identity and culture...globalist kikes want to destroy this.