Question time!

Does Socialism REALLY work? If so, provide an example.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9cuQrL6cexA
youtube.com/watch?v=afkN9H9aLow
orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Germany 1933-1945

this. Nazi neckbeards hating communism is the most hypocritical thing in existence. Hitler provided free healthcare

fpbp

i have never had a job, yet I am upper middle class because i get gibs from successful family members. why shouldn't society operate the same way?

Yes

Only example.

Libya was going strong in Gaddafi days

it only works in homogeneous societies on small scales that happen to be white

Ok, I was wondering why Germany and Russia were allies in WWII. I was under the impression that nazis hated communism. That’s why we had to Cold War. We never defeated all of communism. Just Germany’s communism.

That’s how autistic your post is.

No

that's not socialism you stupid leaf.

Socialism is what all south america has.

>hurrr durrr cause National Socialism is the same as Gommunism
lol get fucked jew

>free healthcare is comunism

That's not how socialism works you idiots. Nazi germany was a dictatorship, not a socialist state you morons.

"give something free = socialism" then by that definition liberalism. capitalism and communism are socialism.

Idiots

>YES
Redistributing wealth by the people works.
Compare Left column to Right column.

You can include Nationalist Socialism to the list... which is basically Socialism for twats with small-penis complex.

You will be spared the day of the rake

>works for 5 years
>shit we're running out of money, time to declare war on the rest of europe and steal their money
>socialism """worked"""

>to early
>to
I blame american education since I see more than 50% doing this wrong here. Same with the correct use of "its"

140 char limit

No.

Its not the kind of socialism the left means, also I doubt it would work in the long run. It would be like fucking modern china.

>Nazi germany was a dictatorship, not a socialist state
Not every dictatorship is socialist state...

But every socialist state is a dictatorship.

>giving something for free
it's forcefully taking wealth and redistributing it to others

Okay faggots listen up becouse i will explain what is socialism:

>Be a tard leader who cares only about staying in power
>leftist as fuck, censor and punish those who don't support you
> Give everything you can for free, leave country in debt
>when it comes the election start to pretend to do some shit.

>If socialism wins the elections, the goverment continue the shit show goverment.
>If socialism lose the elections the other parties gets to blame for the shit debt and poverty, next time socialism wins again the elections


Why socialism is popular?
>Niggers love "free shit". everyone else loose with taxes

why many stupid people support socialism?
>it makes easy to install and spread corruption, to steal money and destroy a country while doing it

>what the fuck was madura and hugo chavez
Nigger detected, you know shit about it.

Come to argentina faggot, come to south america and look what socialism is. You piece of shit faggot.

Read that post again and actually think about what it says...

Because I am most assuredly not a socialist.

>madura
*maduro

Social security and medicare in the US

how about this, barack obama is socialism.

socialist*

Obama presided over the greatest economic recovery and stock market boom since the depression

I GAVE MY DAUGHTER A FUCKING PALLET OF CANDY AND TOLD HER “THIS IS THE CANDY THE LIBTARD’S CHILDREN WOULD HAVE GOTTEN BUT THEY ABORTED THEM.”

That is a lesson she will learn. Encourage the libtards to keep murdering their children. Win/win.

so true this image

You can tell your kid that in exchange for a couple of her Milky Way bars she can have libraries, fire dept, police, military, social security, the interstate highway system, air traffic control, the EPA, NASA, all the museums and postal service.

It's a good deal. America IS a Democratic Socialist Republic!

no, south america is just a corrupt shithole

the netherlands, finland sweden denmark etc are all doing the best in all indicators of health, wealth, happiness and low crime

>National Socialism isn't socialism

>Our social welfare system is so much more than just charity. Because we do not say to the rich people: Please, give something to the poor. Instead we say: German people, help yourself! Everyone must help, whether you are rich or poor! Everyone mut have the belief that there's always someone in a much worse situation than I am, and this person I want to help as a comrade.

Why is healthcare and education for the purpose of providing the Volk with the capacity to advance themselves and therefore the Race a bad thing?

You don't like socialism because it's anti-property and denies people the right to be successful
That is not socialism. That is communist/Marxism.


Herr Hitler hated Marxism.

More like South Korea or Singapore

Fascists don't like Socialism because fascists want Cheap Labor.

Look up Cheap Labor Republicans on Google and everything will be revealed.

All of those states got wealthy by being extremely fiscally liberal and added socialist reforms once they were already wealthy. Denmark in particular is living on borrowed time now and has the highest household debt of any nation on earth. Swedes are dying out within the century. And the Dutch are just fucking Jews.

Socialism can only work in a society that is culturally and ethnically homogeneous. Since very little states with 90+% cultural/ethnic homogeneity exist, it cannot work.

youtube.com/watch?v=9cuQrL6cexA

The She-president of argentina dancing while riots and killings where happing in the country.

I placed barbed wire, broken glass around the street to stop the motorized roaches to kill my family and steal.

go out with neighbours carrying a machete to slash those fuckers. It fucking sucks to live in a disarmed country

Fuck off, retard.

Sir Oswald Mosley, in his book Fascism 100 questions asked and answered, stated that Fascism is the name of the New Movement, and that National Socialism is a synonym of Fascism.
This is a man who knew Hitler and his sister-in-law MAY have carried Herr Hitler's child. Miss Unity Mitford.

If Fascists don't like socialism they don't understand Fascism and they don't understand Socialism,

Socialism is also entirely pointless in those states and leads to population decline

>calls people retarded socialists
>enjoys free universal healthcare and college
>but too retarded to learn

they're not sending their best and brightest.

It’s not free you stupid fuck

>Does Socialism REALLY work?
It depends what you mean by socialism.

If you mean the redistribution of wealth, yes it does, and socialist policies have greatly increased the living standards of many countries, particularly in Europe.

If you mean heavy government investment in the things that make the country more productive, then again the answer is yes.

But if you mean government ownership of the means of production, the answer is generally no, Where there are exceptions they usually involve extremely capital intensive industries and/or provision of services that the government would otherwise have to subcontract.

That too, Marx in general should have realized that living during the industrial revolution was going to greatly impact his ideology rather than trying to create a 'my idea is good forever' ideology

Socialism in Russia lasted from circa 1680 to 1992, which is a pretty good run.

Our education system is based on the Prussian model you autists developed. It’s only concern is training good soldiers and factory workers for the war effort in case of a Total War

You are burden of your family and there is no point you even existing

>Tsardom until the late 1910's
>"hurr durr its socialist because one or two laws!"

Socialism didn't exist until the late industrial revolution

youtube.com/watch?v=afkN9H9aLow

Increased living standards for all lead to decadency, which leads to civilizational decline. It’s how all great powers fall. Tell me why retards and lazy shits deserve a higher standard of living.

Scrolled down to see if somebody posted this already. A homogenous culture composed of Germans could make anything work.

Socialism doesn't work as advertised.

Even in Denmark and Sweden there are people who are homeless despite the state giving away money for nothing.
It's the wrong answer.

Because your kids will end up poor because your parents didn’t raise you properly. 70% of rich families lose their wealth in 2 generations. You’re advocating for a policy of civilizational decline.

Certain areas that are socialized doesn't make it socialism. Things like welfare and healthcare only work if you have a nation full of people who are all contributing to their country, like Nazi Germany, in fact they were better then any other way.

They were out of money before they even came to power you fucking retard.

Welfare should be given only with sterilization. Otherwise it creates multigenerational dependence.

You don’t understand economics. Command economies are shit tier. Hitler just basically defaulted on German debnts so of course if you default on a 1,000,000,000,000 credit you get 1,000,000,000,000 richer

>in exchange

It's not even voluntary exchange. You have to pay up.

Thats only if your some retard who just gives out free welfare to anybody who asks. I know you Americans are stupid but cmon. You obviously put laws and procedures in place to stop things like this happening. Such as work for welfare, only people who have had a job within a certain frame of time can apply for it, you cannot be on it for more then a one year. Most of you guys are sheltered and don't know what it's like to hit rough times when you survive week to week and then lose that job, you'll be evicted, become homeless and have an even harder time finding a job or the government could just support you for a few months you then find a new job and everything works out.

Here's a better example.

There are 100 kids who want to go trick-or-treating. Each child trick-or-treating is expected to get 20 lollies.

One kid is blind, one kid has stumpy legs, and one kid is otherwise healthy but bedridden over halloween due to sickness. These children represent the disabled.

In addition, the maximum trick-or-treating capacity of your neighbourhood can only support eighty kids. That means that twenty kids will not get candy regardless of if they trick-or-treat or not. These children represent the frictionally and structurally unemployed.

This leaves 80 kids to trick-or-treat, 3 kids too unwell to trick-or-treat, and 17 kids whose trick-or-treating will return a haul of zero lollies. These 80 kids represent the workforce.

The total haul from trick-or-treating is 1,600 lollies.

To split the total haul equally among all kids means you would need to take 4 lollies from Chloe, or less than 25%. But we don't split the total haul of lollies equally in real life - people on unemployment benefits here receive barely half the minimum wage. The median single person wage in Australia is 54k, and the minimum wage is 33.6k, or 62.2%, and unemployment is half that, or 31.1%. So the unemployed child should receive not 16 lollies, but 4.9 lollies - let's say 5. The disability pension is closer to unemployment benefits than minimum wage, so I'll include them as receiving the same amount as an unemployed person.

5*20 = 100 lollies to pay for entitlements. 100/80 = 1.25.

For the sacrifice of 1.25 lollies Chloe protects the human dignity of the temporarily or permanently disabled, provides the unemployed a liveable income that gives them the opportunity to rejoin the workforce, and supports a society of mutual reciprocating benefits that ensures that she isn't going to get mugged by jealous kids who don't have any lollies, see no opportunity to get any, and have decided why the fuck should they abide by the laws of a society that treats them like dirt.

>Implying your spawn will be able to get gibs from you
>If they did, it would be a grossly reduced amount from which you received
>Either they, or their kids, will be impoverished

>Taxes are a form of socialism.
We basically have a mixed economy

He used Keynesian economics you tard. They War wasen't planned either, atleast not in the way it panned out with Britain and France, they weren't even in a war economy still 1943.

>Command economies are shit tier
Hope you enjoy no end of degeneracy then

To a degree, yes. Just like capitalism works while regulated, socialism works while limited. It also depends on your definition of socialism. Schools, roads, police, firefighters, bridges, military, post office, are largely seen as socialist. They're "owned" and give services to the tax payers.

The problem with socialism is it promotes welfare leeches, corruption, civil war, revolution, authoritarianism, etc.

Ancient tribes probably worked well with socialism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The men went hunting, women made food/clothes/picked berries n sheit, the elderly were cared for by the young and able bodied.

I think socialism can work quite well on a small scale. There's plenty of weird off the grid hippie communities out there. But when you introduce countries with millions of people, trillions of dollars, militaries capable of destroying the planet, socialism is not compatible.

Why is it all socialists think that they are Robin Hood? Thinking that they get to take all the billionaires money for themselves.
Makes me laugh that if their rules are enacted i will come and take their house. Low class as soon as came out of the womb here, i out rank you. So your Ipad becomes my Ipad, that is a fair system right lefties?

>Does Socialism REALLY work?
No, I pay out the ass for it. That said I gave out a shitload of Areo bars and Smarties tonight, but the kids didn't kick over my pumpkin or egg me

>provides the unemployed a liveable income that gives them the opportunity to rejoin the workforce
*an incentive not to
>and supports a society of mutual reciprocating benefits
>mutual reciprocating
"take from Dave and give to Steve" is not in any way reciprocative.

Communism is a form of socialism. Socialism usually just means any economic system that involves the heavy redistribution of wealth (like in Scandinavia).

That's completely wrong you retard.

>*an incentive not to
Yes, because half the minimum wage is truly a lifestyle that the average person would be content with for their entire life.

Have you ever been on Newstart payments? The discretionary income (i.e. after rent and utilities) amounts to about $15 a week. Nobody is sitting at home refusing work because they're living it up on the dole. Anybody who is - is supplementing their income through drug trafficking.

t. currently a lawyer who has been on Newstart in the past and who represents a lot of indigent clients

>"take from Dave and give to Steve" is not in any way reciprocative.
Steve is under no obligation to obey the laws that Dave imposes through the parliament. Take from Dave and give to Steve, so that Steve doesn't take from Dave directly.

If you expect the poor not to fight to better their situation, you need to provide them a means to better their situation without having to fight.

>Yes
Glad we agree. Half's more than nothing.
>Steve is under no obligation to obey the laws that Dave imposes through the parliament
Paying tribute is not a reciprocative arrangement.

There, their, they're, your, you're, to, too, two. It's pretty annoying seeing fully grown adults fuck these up. "Too" was the only one that confused me when I was a kid because it can mean also/in excess. Homonyms/homophones/homographs/whatever they're called can be annoying.

>I think socialism can work quite well on a small scale.

It doesn't work even on a small scale. Look at NEETs for example.

>Glad we agree
We don't, and if you insist on being pointlessly obstructive I will just stop replying, and you will be deprived of further opportunities to be an asshat.

>Paying tribute is not a reciprocative arrangement.
If Steve breaks the law men with guns are going to come around, rough him up, and then lock him in a cage.

How do you justify that?

The answer is simple: society, and all the force and violence that supports it, is a necessary evil to preserve the greater goods that it delivers. But if it doesn't deliver those goods for Steve, why is it justified the nevertheless enforce the law on him? It's simple - if Steve can't meet his basic needs inside the framework of the law I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to break it, because any law so structures is unjust.

You still haven't answered my question about when the last time you were on Newstart or unemployment benefits was, by the way. I hope you're not forgetting or ignoring it to avoid providing an embarrassing answer that reveals a crippling lack of first-hand knowledge of this subject.

There is zero reason why it can't be done on a small scale using the capitalist production engine.

If you had 100 people living and working together they could share expenses. They could negotiate group rates and avoid taxes by posing as a religious charity.

Nobody can manage to pull it off. You can't even do things like subscription model coffee shops or restaurants. You can't get people to commit, they will eventually stiff you on contributions.

There's a sign for a real estate agent on a bus stop on my route home:
"I live and breath [neighbourhood]."
Drives me nuts, but also amusing.

10/10 parent
My kid is a socialist in the works and she(preferred pronoun) is going to give all her candy to less fortunate children.
You guys could afford to learn something from all this.

No. And no.

jesus christ this fucking cunt cant spell at least have a smart person look it over before you tweet

jesus christ, he just missed an o, go back to plebbit peasant

>covfefe
ok fine checked fuck you

>We don't
So half isn't more than nothing?
>if Steve can't meet his basic needs inside the framework of the law I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to break it
You're deflecting, the morality of it is irrelevant. It doesn't have any bearing on whether paying a tribute is a reciprocative arrangement or not. It isn't. "Give me your shit or I take it" is not reciprocative, nor is it mutually beneficial.

You were wrong. You made false statements. If you want to move on to discussing something else, own up to that first and we will. No point talking to someone who can't.

orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

Read this and then never post again.

checked

First of all socialism in nazzi germany worked becouse of nationalism, people need resons to work if it is not greed like in capitalism then it has to be something else like nationalism same with soviet union comunis worked preaty well while at first stages of it and while at war when nationalism was on the height, but in the long term it failed in soviet union just like it would fail in long term nazzi germany if hitler had won the war.

this
and
this also

>If so, provide an example.

I see what you did there.

fuck first one was ment for this guy (ignore first ''this'' it was ment for this guy

National Socialism is True Socialism. National Socialism cares about society and the well being of its own. Marxist Socialism cares about redistributing all your money into politician pockets and wasteful consumers' pockets.
THIS:

Where the fuck did these Latvians come from?

Socialism is the most effective system until retards like americlaps subvert it with capitalaustism

Latvia...

>So half isn't more than nothing?
That was not your original argument. It's an irrelevant attempt at a gotcha and I will not indulge you.

>paying a tribute
Steve's commitment to Dave extends to far more than refraining from stealing his things. Steve can also be drafted for war, and is required to vote, for example.

You are attempting to frame this such that Steve's only obligation is that he refrains from stealing Dave's shit, and that he only does that because Dave already gives him it. This is not true. This is, in fact, wrong. Steve may very well have to cough out his last breath on some foreign battlefield surrounded by shit, mud, and disease - that is one of the obligations imposed upon Steve by society. Steve might have to surrender his children to the Public Guardian. Steve might have to close his profitable business selling methamphetamines and lose a significant source of income and see his standard of living drop. These and more are the commitments that Steve makes to society in search of that greater good.

Not to mention that the existence of unemployment entitlements is mutually beneficial in at least the sense that they exist also for Dave's use, it being the case that life is never so sure for any of us that we can guarantee we will not need central services.

There are compelling arguments against the "states as a scheme of reciprocal benefits" model but you're not making them. Your arguments are bad, and you should feel bad.

No shit smartass, go back to your liberal haven of Stockholm.

...

We don't say to the rich 'Give to the poor', we say 'German people, help each other'. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there's someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman.

This is the only way "socialism" can work

RARE

RARE

>Spot the newfag