Why don't you fascists know what socialism actually means? You might like it

Why don't you fascists know what socialism actually means? You might like it.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Parts of it we might not mind but we don't like the part where se have to open our borders and have every race overrun white countries

Who do you want to socialize with?

But scumanon, I do know what it means. I just don't agree that it's the best solution to Capitalism. It ends in half-assed dictatorships which worship "progress" every time, and almost every time they erode the dignity of the working class further. We agree a lot on the observation side. We just can't agree on solutions.

Become a strasserist then

I would have no problem living in a socialist country that was Orthodox and had a firm national identity (that was homogeneous ethnically). You see where I'm going here?

I can name about 30 places where it was successful.

Strasserism is stupid. Total nationalization of all industries can and often does end in disaster and abolishing private property across the board is degrading to the national community. Forced agrarianization has always ended in disaster because urbanites know nothing about planting and maintaining crops.

Tiny little irrelevant and short-lived communes don't count user. I acknowledge that ground has been won thanks to union movements etc but you're never going to convince me to become a left-socialist.

Why don't you socialists know what national socialism actually means? You might like it.

How about 8 million in Revolutionary Spain? I'll post the whole list in a second.

National Socialism isn't socialism.

We have a pretty good idea of your cults personal interpretation of that "socialism". We don't.
Why don't you kill yourself? You might be better of that way.

Do you really have nothing better to do than sit here and create bait threads all day?

Are you saying socialists don't know what socialism is?

Also how about debate instead of get angry.

It is, like it as not. It helps to understand Socialism for what it actually is, which is a large umbrella of various ideologies, economic theories and systems of governance. People who define socialism through the lense of Karl Marx are as ignorant and tea-party Recucklicans.

This isn't bait. I'm an anarchist looking to debate fascists.

Yeah yeah, I know you types like to point at CNT/FAI. The funny thing is that they were so comically incompetent and got crushed so easily by Francoists. It turns out that syndicalism isn't very efficient for wartime economic mobilization.

New Harmony, Indiana (1825–1827)
Oberlin Colony (1833-1843)
Utopia, Ohio (1844-1856)
Socialist Community of Modern Times (1851-1864)
The Paris Commune (1871)
Home, Washington (1895-1919)
Equality Colony (1900-1907)
Strandzha Commune (1903)
Saint Petersburg Soviet (1905)
The Soviet Union (1917-1918)
Alsace-Lorraine Soviet Republic (1918)
Spartacist uprising (1918-1919)
Free Territory of Ukraine (1918-1921)
Hungarian Soviet Republic (1919)
Bavarian Soviet Republic (1919)
Limerick Soviet (1919)
Bremen Soviet Republic (1919)
Biennio Rosso (1919-1920)
Ruhr Uprising (1920)
Kronstadt rebellion (1921)
Life and Labor Commune (1921-1937)
Anarchist Shinmin (1929-1932)
Revolutionary Spain (1936 – 1939)
Peasants Associations in Korea (1945-1950)
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–1992)
Rural China (1948-1950)
Hungarian Revolution (1956)
Kerala, India as led by the CPI (1957-Present)
May 1968 events in France (1968)
Czechoslovakia under Dubček / Prauge Spring (1968)
Chile during Allende's government (1970-1973)
Jamacia under Manley (1972-1980)
New Jewel Movement / PRG in Greneda (1973-1983)
Seychelles under René (1977-2004)
People's Republic of Kampuchea (1979–1989)
Marinaleda, Spain (1979-Present)
Burkina Faso under Sankara (1983-1987)
Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (1994-Present)
Oaxaca Commune (2006)
Democratic Federation of Rojava – Northern Syria (2013-Present)

>tiny little communities which are for the most part homogeneous can play games and experiment with different systems of governance and economic structures fairly safely

Wow, color me surprised. Now tell me how you're going to implement these systems in societies made up of tens of millions of people without being authoritarian. Also tell me how you're going to stop that community from fragmenting if you somehow manage to accomplish the former.

If socialism works so well, then why aren't a majority of those locations still under socialism?

They had to deal with Fascists and Soviet Communists. They did pretty good for the fighting working class but I don't think getting killed off is an argument against how they functioned as a society.

...

All these seem to last until the one or two people doing all the work say "fuck you". Might as well name these cities John Galitilvania.

Well pick some out and we can talk about it. It's usually outside forces that kill it off. Socialism doesn't fail because it's left alone. It's because a country doesn't want it succeed so and you have large militaries come and wipe out everyone or other things like CIA coups.

Venezuela wasn't socialist. The government protected the right to own private property and the workers didn't own the means of productions.

None of those are pre-requisites of being socialist. You're referring to radical, revolutionary or Marxian socialism. You yourself don't know what Socialism is.

You tell me, faggot

Nice argument

Source?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Stop playing dumb to advance your own particular side. Unless you're only pretending you know full well that socialism is an umbrella of ideas.

What is your point here?

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

It says it right there on wikipedia. Are we agreeing with each other?

Read it. That's real socialism, actually functional unlike the Marxist pipedream of "dude everything is free lmao, nobody has to work bro." The Nazis achieved true "socialism" while every other state that has tried has inevitably fucked it up.

1. I'm not a marxist.
2. You didn't make a point.

What Hitler said there is like if Kim Jong-un said "Americans don't have real democracy. We have true democracy "

You fascists suck at debating.

youre not worthy of debate, youve proved this time and time again, kys, sage

Fascits are commies. They'll get a heli ride like of you scums

go back to facebook, faggot

You're just saying I'm not worthy of debate because I destroyed all of your points so I'm just going to call you a jew and leave.

We're the real anarchists.

Go starve somewhere else commie

Like Somalia?

Somalia is a nigger theocracy, it's not really communist. He should go to zimbabwe or some other nigger commie shithole like that
>anarcho-communism
>anarchism with communism
I never understood this meme tbqh famalam

whatever makes you feel better

Socialism is not good dude. The idea of socialism is that all people deserve to pay the same, which is retarded. Do you think a doctor should be paid the same as a trashman. Similarly, a man controlling business finances is going to be paid differently than one of the laborers because the jobs have different importance. More to the point, under socialism, those who have no job, whether by choice or circumstance, get paid the same as those who do. I would rather give 50 dollars to the bum fuck on the side of the road than have the government taking money from me that I worked hard for to give to Bum Fuck. This system also tells people not to spend their money frivolously, which means the economy goes to shit. Socialism has been tried and has failed. It has brought countries to ruin. It has fallen to capitalism. If you can admit this, then we can begin discussing the economy. Otherwise, I recommend you get out of mamas basement and ask for a promotion at Arby's.

Yes like Somalia, the failed state with warlords that violate the NAP that garner support through violence and socialist promises.

...

everybody here knows what socialism is and there are no fascists here

gtfo

>
No you're mistaken. Somalia is ancap

I mean it's not hard. Communism is a stateless society. Anarcho-communists believe destroying the state as soon as possible while Communism believe in using the state to dismantle capitalism before destroying it.

I'm not an ancom though. I'm a normal anarchist.

Is this copy pasta or did you actually write this?

I know that's what happens every time with Anarcho-Capitalism. You have warlords.

I don't see how "normal" anarchism is not ancap. Capitalism is what happens in economy when there is non state to interfere
Also Somalia is ruled by chababs and sharia law, it's not ancap

Fuck you, fascism for life. We just need the right kind with the right guy

the part where you create a weak society of weak men and weaker women i understand pretty well you can only have so many parasites if everyone is a parasite chaos will ensue and only the strong survive

Anarchism was created by socialists. Capitalism goes against everything Anarchism is about. You guys need another word for it.

Nice argument

it wasnt meant as one just a observation of past and current tries

You were btfo in 3 minutes right here but you only chose to reply to the weaker replies, I wonder why

Source?

Germany,united kingdom,Sweden,france just throw a randow dart at a map of europe

The reason I don't like it is because I actually know what it means.

>socialist anarchism
>you can do everything you want, except if it's against the opinion of the local tyrannical leftist militia :DDD

>enezuela wasn't socialist. The government protected the right to own private property and the workers didn't own the means of productions.

Yet, you list Kerala, India and a socialist success story when that state too allows private ownership of the means of production.

You're inconsistent and stupid. Go away.

>tiny little communities which are for the most part homogeneous can play games and experiment with different systems of governance and economic structures fairly safely

You were calling small communes tiny and when I bring up Revolutionary Spain with 8 million people you then call that tiny. Where else do you want us to try it with a large population? America? I gave you a list of 30 places of successful socialism. You can't automatically say it's a failure.

Wow, color me surprised. Now tell me how you're going to implement these systems in societies made up of tens of millions of people without being authoritarian. Also tell me how you're going to stop that community from fragmenting if you somehow manage to accomplish the former.

Again just look at Spain and the rest of the places on the list. They did it without being Authoritarian. No dictators. Just democracy.

What do you mean by fragmenting?Give me an example.

Happy?

Nice argument

>You can't automatically say it's a failure.
HAHAHHAHAHHA why not

National Socialism can work, but not in Multi-Culti Diversity pushing, global sludge nations.

No, I actually took the time to write it up.

The guy who wrote it was on the fence about including it but decided to include because of some examples of cooperatives and worker ownership which what the list is about.I should of put a notice on that. Sorry.

As if to prove the meme to be accurate.

> "it fails everytime"
> "here's 30 places where it worked"
> "that doesn't count"

You didn't prove anything I said wrong. Come on man. Learn to debate. I'll be waiting.

>I gave you a list of 30 places of successful socialism.

The majority of your list lasted very briefly. Unless success is measured as "ending quickly" those are not successes. Kerala, India has rile party that calls itself socialist, but Kerala is not socialist.

About the only places it's been successful is small communes, usually religiously oriented, such as kibbutzes and the Hutterites. And the Hutterites are have to bring into local farm boys to impregnate their wives to get genetic diversity. Too much risk of inbreeding in insular communities.

your definition of "worked" must different than mine but since you are talkative one enlighten me how the socialist welfare system "works"

I already wrote about India above. The successful socialism part of India was the places that were worked owned or cooperatives. I should of put a notice on India

I know it's hard to survive when you have CIA coups and large militaries that bomb you out of existence. Has there been an actual socialist place that this didn't happen to?

A number of places on that list had millions of people. That's not small communes

>it "worked" for 6 months
wew lad

Socialism isn't welfare. Learn the definition and then we can debate.

I literally gave you the list of places where it worked. Do you want to post the definitions for you?

But revolutionary Spain was a failure because they were not united in the face of a common enemy. They were destroyed because they got BTFOed by the Stalinists, then finished off by the fascists. I dont think that you guys are necessarily wrong, but they are right as far as anarchists keeping their shit together. (PS the Anarchists in spain did some really fucked up/ oppressive shit, not sying they ere all wrong, but they were pretty authoritarian. you have to be to be a revolutionary-also a lot of those other guys are pretty authoritarian)

>Again just look at Spain... places on the list. They did it without being Authoritarian. No dictators. Just democracy.

They murdered the owners of the means of production. They constantly bickered over goals and strategy which led to disorganised meyhem ending in their own destruction.

For society to function you need few chiefs who are competent and many Indians who follow instructions. You're an Indian who thinks he deserves to be chief.

Stay in your lane, Tonto.

nobody said it was if you look back you will see this but is it not true that socialist parties advocate for it now stop dodging and answer the question how does the welfare system in a true socialist utopia works

The Paris Commune would of lasted more than 6 months if they all didn't get slaughtered by the goverment. I gave you a huge list of places that lasted for a lot longer than 6 months.

big if

"Debates" with socialist are pointless. For a debate to be productive, both sides must be willing to argue within the realms of pathos, ethos, or logos. Socialist can't articulate the moral reasoning behind socialism, they can't produce logical answers to problems presented towards their system, and it's entirely pointless to debate past outcomes of socialism, and non-socialistic systems.

so if hitler and his gang werent slaughtered by the allies you would have no problem with them ?

Nigger faggot nigger faggot
SUCK MY DICK BITCH

HASHTAG EPIC Sup Forums 2017 ECKS DEE

ideologically speaking

The Paris Commune was honorable and it was not anarchist, only some of the leaders were anarchists.
If your system can't defend itself against external pressure, it's shit. And "working" for 2 years is not much better than for 6 months

Success includes the ability to defend oneself and defeat adversaries.

If you can't do that, then your socialism is simply filling graves.

I live in a partially socialist shit hole. It's fucked.

>I gave you a huge list of places that lasted for a lot longer than 6 months.

The measure of success: lasting more than six months.

My sides!

also i assume youre american right ?

Shit I fucked up. You got me there. I used the wrong line for Spain. The copypasta I study gets mixed up sometimes.

I was supposed to say sometimes you need to be Authoritarian if you want your fair society. We didn't get to Capitalism from Feudalism by voting.

Ohhhhhh I know what it means faggot, doesn't make it any less bullshit

>Name one place where Nazism worked
>Nazi Germany
>But they got beat and lost, doesnt count!
>What about socialism?
>Heres 30 places that lasted shorter or marginally longer as Nazi Germany
>These are sucesses based on abrbitrary conditions stated by me, a biased supporter
Wow, you showed those guys user.

Can you name me 30 places where it was long lasting?

...