Socialism falls

>Socialism-communism falls
>Gentlemen need more socialism to fix it.

t. Europe or south america

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/nov/22/behind-the-scenes-of-a-shocking-new-study-on-human-altruism
express.co.uk/news/uk/539611/Scientific-Study-finds-humans-selfish
healthland.time.com/2012/02/28/why-the-rich-are-less-ethical-they-see-greed-as-good/
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

this really did not need a 2nd thread

First for capitalism has publicly raped socialism for the past century and it looks like things are going to continue this way forever

Communism is good :3

you are trying to invade post soviet russia, and remove their soviet legacy and you are failing

It's never been tried!

>europe
>socialist

>you are trying to invade post soviet russia
In your next post, please cite evidence that the United States is actively trying to invade Russia.
>and remove their soviet legacy
They did that just fine themselves

socialism does not "fail" nor does communism for the matter

there are two very different goals in europe and SA

basically in europe the migrants are there to fill the labor need for the massive welfare system due to shortage of people

in SA they never had a proper labor union to demand things from the government anyway so there is a social discrepancy between ruling liberals and lefty underclass

socialism is just a seesaw action to keep the system in working order
and since proper proletariat revolution is made redundent by mass entertainment and consumerism the elites have nothing to fear as far as the stability of the sstem go

leftism was made powerless a long time ago

it's the way it was meant to be

FULLCOMMUNISM when?

Why do 4chaners insist on SJW being somehow related to marxists, when all they share is the flags (marxists - because of Soviet Union and Paris Commune, SJWs - because it looks cool and provocative)?
When will this meme die? Communism can't be tried, it's a historical formation, like capitalism now and feudalism before.

The nation capitalism-like than China is only the USA.

actual full definition communism is literally impossible to implement and to sustain because humans are humans. Unless you are able to reprogram the human mind to value the collective "we" more than themselves and to work for the faceless many's benefit with as much conviction as they do for themselves you will forced to utilize an oppressive government just to keep the show running

>muh human nature
Ah yes we never thought to consider that

>communism mean goverment programs
what

>but human nature
I'm convinced that Americans are brainwashed to start regurgitating this same argument every time someone brings up Communism

Actually, socialism is stronger than ever

Holy fuck Venezuela AHAHAHAHA HAHAHAGA
I am a socialist but still buddy not sure you're helping here

...

Progressivism and social equality are key tenants of both Marxism and SJWs. Marxists usually are sanctimonious assholes who berate everybody who disagrees with them as morally inferior, so it's no surprise that the ideology is so appealing to SJWs.

I don't think all SJWs are Marxists because most of them are quite comfortable with capitalist-sponsored identity politics, but the elimination of class and oppression coincides with their mewling quite nicely

Out of curiosity, when was the last time you purchased toilet paper? How much did it cost?

If by socialism you mean state regulation of economics.

no

>In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

what about the argument is invalid? How do you plan on making people work as efficiently as they do in a capitalistic society when the main incentives for working hard are taken away? Humans are selfish so expecting a society where everyone involved must be selfless to function is simply a pipedream

Viva chavez!

>I think I know a little bit more about human nature than the guy who literally invented sociology
-you

>Humans are selfish
says you

>obviously human psychology plays no role in the repeated failures of socialists because that's such a common criticism
Learn to argue, champ; the brainwashed Americans are lapping you right now.

Capitalism is not efficient as the market means inefficiencies with competition and wasted workers in advertising, PR, legal etc. Also why should everything be all about everyone working as hard and efficiently as possible, that is not the goal of communist society.

>Progressivism and social equality are key tenants of both Marxism and SJWs. Marxists usually are sanctimonious assholes who berate everybody who disagrees with them as morally inferior, so it's no surprise that the ideology is so appealing to SJWs.
>I don't think all SJWs are Marxists because most of them are quite comfortable with capitalist-sponsored identity politics, but the elimination of class and oppression coincides with their mewling quite nicely
i could say that even those ""CULTURAL MARXISTS"" are good, but this is not Sup Forums

TOP KEK
O
P

K
E
K

Can you prove him wrong?

Almost a month ago. $0,10

based venezuela
>pirate """""""socialists"""""
kek, go watch more TV

Capitalism has only been around for about 350 years m8. Somehow people managed to form functioning economies based on other systems. The human nature thing is a meme. One would expect self preservation to be human nature, but people still blow themselves up for the glory of Allah.

theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/nov/22/behind-the-scenes-of-a-shocking-new-study-on-human-altruism

There are a lot of studies on human altruism

express.co.uk/news/uk/539611/Scientific-Study-finds-humans-selfish

nigga is just common sense that someone is much more likely to work for themselves or their family than some faceless jerkoff they will never meet. Humans are not robots

>sanctimonious
How does marxism support sanctimony?
>who berate everybody who disagrees with them as morally inferior
Doubt. The morality arguments are touched when the self-proclaimed marxist doesn't even know the theory.

I hate both capitalism and communism.

Can we invent something new? Something that involves robots and cool stuff? Please?

>nigga is just common sense that someone is much more likely to work for themselves or their family than some faceless jerkoff they will never meet.

That's literally what capitalism is lmao. It's simple m8, people's selfish instincts sill work in favour of communism if you can get them to see that working for the collective ultimately benefits them by enriching everybody.

No

What does this even mean?

Why do you think that social equality is a goal of capitalism? You don't realize it, but this image is reinforcing capitalism's success

75% of 100 major social psychology studies published in top-ranked journals in 2008 could not be replicated according the journal Science. It's one of the least rigorous and least falsifiable sciences in the world, and I doubt literally every social psychology study I see because more than half of them are empirical failures.

this is off-topic, but is funny that Sup Forums support russia, and likes Putin

>Owner of the business they make profit for isn't a faceless jerkoff they will never meet
Lol

They still blow themselves up because of what they believe they will receive in the afterlife. Its why they tell the guy with the bomb vest that he gets 72 virgins if he blows himself up in an airport, otherwise he wouldnt do it.

Capitalism is not perfectly efficient. I never even implied it to be. This still doesnt change the fact that without incentives to work hard people simply wouldn't work hard. Yes people do work because they enjoy what they do but they are the exception and not the rule

How can you hate something that haven't even existed?

>Why do you think that social equality is a goal of capitalism? You don't realize it, but this image is reinforcing capitalism's success

It depends on how you define success. Most people would define a successful economic system as one that provides people with the means to live rich full lives, not one that just enriches a handful of people at everybody else's expense.

Not to mention that this kind of inequality is ultimately bad for capitalism because it undermines the consumer base.

>le socialism vs capitalism

didn't know we were on a relatively small American forum with an early 2000's layout filled with pseudointellectuals

>Its why they tell the guy with the bomb vest that he gets 72 virgins if he blows himself up in an airport, otherwise he wouldnt do it.

Right, so you just have to convince people that working for the collective good will benefit them, which it will. Of all the problems faced by socialist states, this actually wasn't one of them. Humans are motivated by plenty more than just material self interest.

The vast majority of workers do not work hard because hard work has little reward beyond the minimum required of them, unless you mean working ridiculous hours for a pittance to earn enough to survive, which I would rather people were not incentivised to do.

they are not working for them though they are working for their paycheck. This is especially true in the case of human capital like education. Why would you spend the better part of a decade studying to become a doctor if the guy down the street who decided to major in meth taking in college will be just as well off at the end of it all?

no. People work for themselves. Even if a business owner takes most of the pie it doesnt change the fact that people still work for their own personal advancement over everything else

socialism supports capitalism

you're kinda right

>But is it even worth asking the question of whether “true” altruism actually exists? >Stanford neuroscientist Jamil Zaki argues not:

In other words people are altruistic because they feel rewarded in some way. If it's something innate to human beings or something socially constructed it is not known.

>people still work for their own personal advancement over everything else

If this were true then how do you explain concepts like charity, self-sacrifice, nationalism, religion, or even the fact that communism became one of the most influential ideologies on Earth? Studies have proven that humans are both selfish and altruistic, and history has proven that the power of ideology can motivate people to work towards goals greater than their individual self interest.

Don't know about you, but I would certainly rather receive training and do a challenging job than do whatever he would be doing.

Even if that's technically true, self interest can still motivate altruistic behaviour, which essentially makes the statement that humans are selfish meaningless since it isn't an accurate predictor of behaviour.

>there is no benefit to hard work
this state of mind is dangerous and toxic. working hard is still incredibly beneficial. Otherwise there wouldnt be so many indians/chinese/kebabs coming to western countries to become doctors

>Right, so you just have to convince people that working for the collective good will benefit them
which again, as I originally said; would require you to reprogram how people think and to value the betterment of a stranger the same as the betterment of themselves

>would require you to reprogram how people think and to value the betterment of a stranger the same as the betterment of themselves

There are already highly influential and widespread ideologies that promote this kind of thinking. Christianity and Nationalism are examples. Christianity promotes the idea that altruism, charity, etc benefits you, and nationalism makes the argument that the individual is less important than the good of the nation. Ffs m8 look at what the Japs got their soldiers to do in WW2, blowing their brains out rather than be captured and dishonour their country. You are seriously underestimating the value of both ideology and the human desire to conform to the group.

lets see if you somehow still hold this opinion after 10 years of toiling over books the size of a microwave while the guy who bagged groceries and smoked weed all day is just as well off as you after the whole ordeal is done.

>charity, self sacrifice
personal image, intangible religious rewards
>religion
eternal bliss in the afterlife if you do what they say. eternal damnation if you dont
>nationalism
historically not as strong as money as a motivator

I'm literally paying to go to uni now, ofc I would rather be educated for free than bag groceries, it isn't some kind of punishment

>historically not as strong as money as a motivator

Are you serious? It has literally motivated millions of people to out their lives on the line for what they believed was the good of their country. People didn't flock to the recruitment offices in the world wars because they were paid to.

If religion was purely about selflessness and altruism why do they even bother to include the heaven and hell bit?

Nationalism is true to an extent but its something that needs to be programmed into you. People are not naturally nationalistic but rather become so because of conditioning. You would need to do something similar for communism and find a way to show that giving your stuff to other people somehow benefits you in the long run. Its one hell of a tall order

>eternal bliss in the afterlife if you do what they say. eternal damnation if you dont

Wealth and prosperity if you work for the collective good, poverty and misery if you don't.

> Its one hell of a tall order

I don't think so, if nationalism can motivate people do die for their country I'm pretty sure that another ideology can motivate people to show up for work.

Even as far as religion goes, the main issue with both that and nationalism is that you have to convince people that altruism will benefit them in the long run, which both have effectively done. If they can do it then I don't see why communism can't.

>Are you serious? It has literally motivated millions of people to out their lives on the line for what they believed was the good of their country.
which again is a programmed belief
>People didn't flock to the recruitment offices in the world wars because they were paid to.
actually in many cases this was the case. In america during WW2 for instance the economy was in the deep shitter and many were without jobs. The war gave both the average person and industry incredible opportunity to get money; its a big part of why america is top dog today.

I define success as capitalist countries having a lot more wealth than half of the poor world's countries.

Thats what the picture is really saying m8.

>which again is a programmed belief

Exactly. Program communistic attitudes, history shows that it can be done. After all if you think that capitalism isn't at least partially programmed then you are fooling yourself.

Half of the poor PEOPLE m8, that includes people in wealthy countries. Not to mention that those poor countries are also overwhelmingly capitalist, yet it hasn't enriched them.

When are we just going to admit that most people don't even know what socialism or capitalism means and just associates socialism and capitalism with the USSR and America respectively?

which again, for the 9th time at least, would be reprogramming people to fit a certain mindset which is literally the main point of my very first post in the thread . Im not saying that it literally cant be done (the first sentence is a hyperbole as obvious by what follows) but that it would be very, very hard. In the meantime you will need people in power to force matters in a ham handed way.

which was my main point in the first place.
>After all if you think that capitalism isn't at least partially programmed
capitalism is far more natural because it works based off of human greed. Take 2 starving people and drop food in between them and see what happens

>True communism has never been tried! That's why all the nations that have attempted it have failed!

This Implies that communism only works if it is done in one very specific way, which means capitalism already blows it out of the water in that aspect.

Wealth =/= income.
Most people substitute wealth for current pleasures. Especially in America where we love to take out loans for items.

Hell, if wealth is distance than income is speed. Even the fastest runners can go in circles and effectively not move at all.
I'd say the trade off is fine and people could accumulate wealth if they really wanted to.

>Take 2 starving people and drop food in between them and see what happens

Actually the poorer people are, the more altruistic they tend to be.

>Im not saying that it literally cant be done (the first sentence is a hyperbole as obvious by what follows) but that it would be very, very hard.

I think you are seriously overestimating how hard it would be. In practice this wasn't really even an issue in socialist countries, most of their problems came from corruption, political repression, and logistical issues of a planned economy.

Of course we haven't even mentioned other forms of socialism like market socialism, which actually keeps the profit motive intact.

>Actually the poorer people are, the more altruistic they tend to be.
lol

>I'd say the trade off is fine and people could accumulate wealth if they really wanted to

So then are all those people living in mud huts in Africa and dying of AIDS doing it by choice?

Also inequality is still bad for the economy because if there is no consumer base there is nobody to buy products.

I like social democracy. I am a bit skeptical of actual socialism though. I think classes will still form no matter what. I think social democracy is the best we can realistically do. I still feel pretty sympathetic to actual socialists though.

healthland.time.com/2012/02/28/why-the-rich-are-less-ethical-they-see-greed-as-good/

>While stereotypes suggest that poor people are more likely to lie and steal, new research finds that it’s actually the wealthy who tend to behave unethically. In a series of experiments — involving everything from dangerous driving to lying in job negotiations and cheating to get a prize — researchers found that, across the board, richer people behaved worse.

>Actually the poorer people are, the more altruistic they tend to be.

Stopped reading there.

Literally the opposite, there is a reason Marx described hunter gatherer society as "primitive communism"

>Actually the poorer people are, the more altruistic they tend to be.
again, you can test just how far this quality goes quite easily. Simply give 100 families in poverty $100,000 and count how many of them spent more than half of it on themselves and how many kept a small portion for themselves and distributed the rest equally to their neighbors.

>Of course we haven't even mentioned other forms of socialism like market socialism, which actually keeps the profit motive intact.
at this point you have moved the goalposts so much that its gone from discussing how true communism requires reprogramming, to human psychology, to you actually agreeing with my first point, to now bringing up that it has worked for socialistic entities in the past (which are not the same as true communism)

I could link you "study" after "study" that says the exact opposite.

Sociopaths will be sociopaths, regardless of their place in society, the same applies for good people.

I haven't moved any goalposts m8. You said that human greed would be too much of an obstacle to overcome for communism or socialism to function. I've just pointed out examples of ideology easily trumping basic "human nature" like greed and self preservation, and that even if it didn't there are forms of socialism that are perfectly able to conform to the limitations of human selfishness while at the same time achieving economic equality.

this is not the same case in a society where you dont need to fight to survive. In a hunter gatherer society it was mutually beneficial to work together because there were tangible threats and they were your only safety net. Today there is no tangible benefit to giving the guy who does no work money because what he does with that money has such a small chance of benefiting you that its not worth the investment from your perspective

Agreed desu. Human nature seems pretty mailable. Greed could be a part of it but cooperation is also a big part of it. Was civilization was built off of cooperation or greed? I'd bet a bit of both but mostly the former.

The whole welfare leech argument has been used to argue against policies in America that have successfully been implemented all over the world. Even in socialist countries during the Cold War this wasn't really an issue.

>i havnt moved any goalposts m8
>for communism or socialism to function
see? you just did. From the start I wasnt talking about socialism I was talking about true communism which are very, very different things. For the last time I was saying that in order for communism to work you need to change how people think. Everything after that was people changing the subject to fit their misguided arguments.

> I've just pointed out examples of ideology easily trumping basic "human nature" like greed and self preservation
you mean like religion which provides other incentives or nationalism which requires propaganda and conditioning to instill?

>there are forms of socialism
which I wasnt talking about. This is starting to get tiresome

Honest question: What would ideally happen during a famine in a socialist country and there's just not enough food to feed everyone? Does everyone just starve? Does food only go to those who work the most?

>its another socialism gets torn apart thread
I dont know why you people still try

Even under classical Marxist theory communism is something that is supposed to be an evolutionary process, so just saying that it isnt possible without ideological conditioning is pointless because that's exactly what the idea is, to condition people to think in a communistic way.

I really enjoy arguing with commies and zeitgeisters.
Most of the time with regular liberals it just devolves to link spamming (which no one has time to read) and retarded memeing.
But because communism lacks empirical evidence it mostly comes down to philosophy and logic which is quite enjoyable.

im not saying anything about welfare leeches im saying that giving my money to someone in an advanced society provides me with no tangible benefits whereas in an ancient hunting party keeping the guys who hunt with me alive has easily understood and concrete benefits. This is why saying that humans are not naturally greedy because of the concept of "primitive communism" is outright incorrect.

you have changed the subject so much that you agree with me

bump

>saying liberals are communists
fuck off