Memes aside

How do you leftists believe socialism can work? Spare me the garbage moralisms brainless kids parrot in their universities--

how can you overcome socialism's inherit economic calculation problem?

I am sincerely interested in a mature dialogue, and I will attempt to respond to sound arguments, albeit, slowly.

Tomfoolery will be ignored. Save your memes for your echo chambers

...

Well, I'm never eating shrimp again.

Most leftist are on 'receiving' side of socialism (moochers getting welfare, students getting their meme degrees paid by others), best cure for socialism is to give them a job and then tell them to 'share' their earnings.

>niggers capable of fishing

top kek

It's a challenging subject honestly. It would be an enormous hurdle in America given how much of our economic system is reliant on corporate freedom, and how much of social budget priorities rely on corporate regulation.

Take for instance nationalized healthcare (an important point to make because basically socialism is a form of economic nationalism). To nationalize the healthcare system would be to launch an intense attack on private insurance companies, which are some of the largest organizations in America. If you were to give medicare to all, even if a lot of people still bought insurance from private companies, you would deal an enormous blow to corporate profits and the stock market. I was thinking about this the other day and honestly don't know how the US would compensate for this.

But even setting the impact to the insurance market aside, just look at one issue revolving around medication. If the government was footing the bill for $600 epipens, they would want to not have to pay the extortionate prices that consumers do now. So they would regulate the price of medication so that they could afford to provide it to their citizens. This would not only impact the profits of the pharmaceutical industries, it would require them to seek profits in other ways, such as compensating through adjustments in their work force (pay, hours, staff size). This would impact not just production but research as well. So either way the effects would be passed on to the consumer.

But the heart of the issue is the inflexibility of corporate motive around profit. It also has to do with the problem of having privately owned companies being the foundation stones that our economy is built on (to say nothing of the fed). I'm liberal on social issues (consider myself a national socialist, though naziism and identitarianism is just a meme) and so would like to see some form of universal healthcare. But I acknowledge there are monumental obstacles.

Probably work once we suck all the economically recoverable fossil fuel out of the ground and billions of people die and we go back to living in fragmented societies. Some will be communes.

You realize we are not living in a free market, but a mixed economy...right?

Venezuela tried the same shit and they went to hell in a hand basket quickly.

If you want to reduce prices you break up the monopolies and destroy the corporatism machine. Instill a value in the free market and allow massive amount of competition. With the right kinds of regulation, those $600 dollar epipens would go to twenty because there is so much competition. The reason we have the $600 dollar epipens is because of the fucking FDA.

Just thought of some counterpoints I thought I'd bring up. One of the difficulties in insurance and pharmaceutical companies responding to drastic changes in the market brought on by socialism has to do with their insane inequality in income distribution. We're talking about companies that regularly give their CEO's and senior officers multimillion dollar BONUSES. That's bonuses, not even the money they're already making in a bunch of different ways. The bonuses are kind of a symbol for the problems in America's corporate pay structure which makes changes and economic impacts so dire. If the compensation for loss of profits came from the insane amount of money the pour towards people that actually aren't so instrumental in the primary functions of a company (producing and distributing medication for instance) then it could be argued that the effect wouldn't be so dire. But that again is a huge attack not on the function of this corporate enterprises, so much as the CULTURE of American business itself. What is needed for budget priorities around society (what people mean when they say socialism in the modern day) to be successful is for the culture in American business to be addressed. And THIS is what people are really talking about when they talk about wealth inequality. They aren't saying that the people at the top HAVE to much money, they're saying that the people at the top are being GIVEN too much money, money that should simply be reinvested into the company.

Why is her hair photoshopped? The original is blonde.

That's a really good point. Would you care to elaborate more on what should be done around the FDA?

The black hair dehumanizes the porn blonde more.

How does a non-corporate free market exist into perpetuity? By the very nature of having a system that has both private wealth and laws, powerful organizations will use accumulated wealth to slowly modify laws to their advantage. There is not one capitalist society that's escaped this fate. It is inevitable.

Allow me to address the last point, that of profit being the leading motive!

It goes without saying, that the entirety of the products and services we (at least in economically advanced countries) is a direct result of profit! Profit leads to competition, which of course you have already heard many libertarians repeat, leads to higher quality for cheaper prices.

Admittedly I am not educated in the inner workings of the American economy, and thus my knowledge is limited.

Alas, It befuddles me, why people hate the notion of egoism so much.

Every action that we do, revolves around our personal gain. The philosophy of utilitarianism that I'm echoing right now, states that personal gain, does not exclude non materialistic goals. We do not expect of our child, to return us the favor, when we change it's diapers, when we enroll it to a good school and so on.

Anything that brings us pleasure, to put it simplistically, is included in said notion of personal gain.

1/2

Instead of enforcing an ideology, it is far more practical to educate society, into understanding the consequences of their actions.

For example, it is of subsidiary importance, whether you choose not to litter, because of respect to the environment, or simply, because you find the littered streets ugly, as long as you do NOT litter.

For this point, I consider the idea of people turning their backs on personal gain, an impossibility. Instead, let us thrive in it, let us make the most of our resources

How do you manchildren believe Spider-Man can work? Spare me the garbage moralisms brainless kids parrot in their basements--

how can you overcome Spider-Man's inherit very long penis?

I believe a big share of the leading companies in America, are being subsidized from the government correct? (I think it was Chomsky's book "Profit over People that extrapolated on that, it's been a long time since I read it)

Unfortunately, though again, I'll admit my lack of knowledge in the American economy, a big problem in USA , and the culture of the American businesses as you named it, is that the current system (as in, how the government works) allows for great indirect impact from big corporations, to ultimate decision making.

Simply put, the real problem, is that corps, are allowed to be in bed with politicians too too much.

Keep in mind, that monopolies, and higher prices in general, are an effect of that. There is nothing that a wealthy company does want more, than more laws. It's accumulated capital, allows it to support quality checks, regulations, taxes, whereas a new small business cannot.

The Native American had it right all along, morals are but one of the many key ingredients, don't make the mistake of brushing morals aside so easily, that'll eventually lead to a dead end. Calculation problems exist in world views that lack imagination and cohesion. Abundance is the natural course of the world, it's just a matter of achieving a basic equilibrium from which others can expand as they see fit, this would require much effort and dedication the likes of which the human being hasn't seen since the great pyramids were built most likely.

Since you're looking for the short answer, I've gathered over the years that the best way forward is to dismantle entire cities and build them up again with a focus on renewable energies, having fruits and vegetables grow in redesigned streets etc. This new society would function with psychedelic and scientific/spiritual dimensions for the willing...etc. etc. The problem isn't lack of resources, it's lack of cooperation and education/proper upbringing in many aspects.

Then correct if I misinterpretate , but you are calling for a almost anarchic society in which people sustain themselves.

Allow me to pose a number of questions.

Firstly, how is it guaranteed that people help each other? Would this state of affairs, lead to some people working harder, expanding their "businesses", and producing more? Do you consider this inevitable inequality unacceptable? And if so, who is to enforce equality?

If not, who is to make sure, that despite the inequality, the less fortunate, enjoy the fruits of the labor of others?

Socialism, in it's pure form CANNOT work baring an absurd surplus of resources or an inhumanly skilled entity to oversee the whole system, as most sub-systems require a much more precise top to bottom economic feedback loop than our current (or foreseeable future) infrastructure could hope to provide
Now socialistic aspects within a larger system can work, typically the sorts of things which are not best optimized by encouraging for profit behavior and/or benefit heavily from economies of scale, but they require sufficient surplus in money/taxes and necessary infrastructure for the central government in charge of it (whether it be federal, state, ect) to actually maintain the system and keep it functioning as intended
Once such systems are in place they usually cost less on a whole and without the focus on profit can better focus on the long term as well providing the optimal service per cost even if it's not necessarily the most profitable
Now as noted this requires a surplus and structure to actually support it which limits what it can be applied to depending on the costs involved in whatever socialized aspect you intend to include

>Instead of enforcing an ideology, it is far more practical to educate society, into understanding the consequences of their actions.
The primary problem with this is that the human brain is to a degree, hardwired towards short term gain, proper education can somewhat alleviate this, but humans will still reflexively weigh short term benefits (within a year or so) to an action MUCH higher than long term ones (more than a decade), this leads to several unfortunate emergent behaviors within corporations and society as a whole a la the tragedy of the commons or simply ignoring the opportunity cost or a more long term focus simply because as a knee-jerk reaction they did not consider it

>the opportunity cost or a more long term
Should be
the opportunity cost of a more long term