Could someone explain to me why socialism is a bad thing?

Could someone explain to me why socialism is a bad thing?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

it isnt if you put nationalist infront of it

Socialism heavily implies redistribution
Redistribution is always anti competitive
Anticompetitiveness is highly dysgenic
Dysgenic societies necessarily decline

Therefore socialism will cause the decline of the west. Prevent this by voting libertarianism.

Its only worth anything if you have an ethnocentric society and a strong national identity/culture. Letting in lots of 3rd world
immigrants creates a shitty welfare state

If socialism isn't the fundament of a society, but a side branch, it can work.

>pay lazy retards to breed like rabbits
>they quickly outnumber people who actually work
>economy colapses

i like to work and keep my own things, i dont want to share with people who dont want to work.

No.

Because then you're just as anticompetitive even if you favour the ethnic majority. You're still creating a weak culture reliant on big daddy government to step in whenever things get a little warm and wet. Nazism is as weak as Marxism. Only libertarianism is strength; build yourself up in the pits of equal and fair competition, it makes people stronger.

Only libertarianism (with a preference for small business ) creates eugenic societies.

nearly got me there, try better next time m8

socialism can work if you have close control over your borders. it should only be for your country man by your country man. which makes it national socialism.

giving out entitlements to new migrats in your country is plain stupid, since europe/us is made on the foundation of industry. you build your own future it isn't handed to you.

You mean how I promote a system with absolutely no benefactors that was tried exactly once in Chile for less than a decade, in which then Chile economically boomed?

All the "libertarians" are big market shills pretending they're not supporting laissez faire capitalism. Most politicians get too much money from big business to even try and make small business so easily accessible even Tyrone the now legitimate arms salesman can succeed. If capitalism doesn't present progressive difficulty as businesses grow, it necessarily favours the rich and necessarily leads to extreme income inequality.

Libertarianism really and honestly is the solution, but the left is scared of it and the right get too many bribes not to simply corrupt it.

Got a source for that or you just pulling it out of your ass?

Because it isn't your fucking money.

Kills economic incentive.

Requires redistribution, which requires social divisions, in which puts classes against each other.

Suppresses free speech to promote and maintain conformity.

western europe

It's a logical progression, either formulate a rebuttal or shut the fuck up because the onus is on you and not me.

...

>here's this unsourced claim
>burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong!1!
I don't think that's how it works buddy.

These are my things. Get your own things. No I will not make things for everyone for free.

Government is awfully inefficient. If we took all the money in the world and gave it to the government (i.e communism) everyone would starve to death. Government can't organize everything flawlessly and orchestrate a society that works. I think we can all agree that communism is bad.

Socialism is just a milder version of that. Instead of taking all your wealth they're taking a huge portion of everyone's wealth because people believe the government is going to use money better than the citizens.
To be a socialist you have to distrust citizens with money, but trust the government with money. It's to say ''fuck that billionaire, he isn't going to use the money in a good way, but these government guys, oh boy, they sure are going to be spending this money well''.
It's the same kind of mentality that trusts the police with guns while screaming at the citizens for being armed.

More than one hundred million dead.

tl;dr b8

It doesn't need source, it's a logical progression. If you disagree with my logic, fucking epic post your rebuttal because Sup Forums isn't an echo chamber and dissenting opinions are welcome here. If you don't have a rebuttal, shut the fuck up and stop actually shitposting.

Government is only inefficient like a 7 foot fat guy trying to manage a horde of 5 year olds is inefficient, as in only when it's so freaking massive it's an actual political accomplishment that it doesn't collapse.

Because you literally don't have the intelligence to fit in here.

He didn't make a claim, he followed a logical progression of events that are likely to happen. As far as "sauce" you only need to read any communist philosophy to see that it relieve heavily on redistribution. The things that followed are very simply the know side effects of redistribution.

>No price signal to determine what level of product to produce
>Chronic shortages of popular goods
>Chronic over supply of unpopular goods

>No profit incentive for any productive enterprise to be efficent/reach and exceed goals
>Inefficent economy = less goods for everyone

Read some Hayek or Misis on Socialism for the basics. It comes true in every planned economy, be it the USSR then or Venezuela now.

When there's nothing on the shelves you can't have economic activity.

Fpbp

Within first generation the hardworking will stop seeing the reason to work hard while the lazy will become even more lazy. Second generation and onwards no hardworking people appear and everyone does just enough to not be jailed. But since there are no more rich to blame, government starts adopting more and more strict laws to make people work harder using threat of violence, for example instead of welfare they adopt a big fixed tax for jobless people, like here last year.
>t: current citizen of a socialist country.

This is why inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing, people love selling shit to Australians because our cost of living is so high that we pay at least 50% more than Americans. We are literally a more profitable market.

Meanwhile, when the people can't afford to pay the Australian price for shit and aren't American, you'll find that no one wants to sell those people any shit at all. Congratulations, in an effort to make life affordable for your precious proletariat you've made it impossible for everyone.

Socialism!

I feel you Belarus. One day you will be free, you only need to believe.

>only when it's so freaking massive
That's the problem.
A government can't be in charge of EVERYTHING. Our society is regulated by hundreds of thousands of people. There are people in charge of charities, there are CEOs, there are people in charge of producing food etc.
When you are taking money from the people and trusting the government with dealing with everything you're essentially handing out the responsibilities to a much smaller group of people. Like instead of having small charity organizations in every country you are making a small group of people organize it. It doesn't work, so you have to expand the government. You have to expand and expand so much that you end up with a government so big you have to wonder why you couldn't simply trust the citizens to do it without the government.

>It doesn't need source, it's a logical progression.
It's an opinion, I was wondering if you had anything to back that opinion up. You basically state
>1+1=2
>thus e^ipi=-1
While it might be true, you are missing steps in between.
> If you disagree with my logic, fucking epic post your rebuttal because Sup Forums isn't an echo chamber and dissenting opinions are welcome here.
I'm not refuting shit buddy, I actually somewhat agree, I'm pointing out that "post unsourced claims, claim logical progression between them" is shit arguing skills.
>If you don't have a rebuttal, shut the fuck up and stop actually shitposting.
If you don't have a decent argument, maybe try to write a good one before shitposting yourself.

>He didn't make a claim, he followed a logical progression of events that are likely to happen.
Yes, but he's pulling the axioms out of his ass. I essentially agree, but come on, if you are claiming cause-effect between two things, at least give some fucking insight into why. Otherwise our argument is "is so, is not, is so, is not" etc.
>As far as "sauce" you only need to read any communist philosophy to see that it relieve heavily on redistribution.
We are talking socialism though, there are differences.
> The things that followed are very simply the know side effects of redistribution.
>known
That's what I'm talking about, you can't just say something is known and take it for a fact and draw conclusions from premises that might be faulty.

Economic calcularion problem, labour theory of value abd violation of the presupposition of argumentation meabs socialism BTFO itself before even getting off the ground.

Why would his statement need a "source" you illogical cretin?

If socialism is a good thing, why don't you implement it first in metropoly? Why it`s always anglo-colonies and anglo puppet-tyrants, who are implementing this shit?

Fuck off please.

Utopia.
Like democracy.

its not, by itself. but humans ruin everything. seriously, everything. nothing works with humans. they want too much and think too little of the ramifications of their actions.

We're not equal. Some people aren't as intelligent or are lazy compared to others and don't deserve the prosperity of those who are willing to use their brains or work hard.
I don't believe in total capitalism though. Everyone should have the oppurtunity to succeed on their own regardless of their economic or social background.

Because Fox News says so.

Look at the past of middle/eastern europa

The objective of socialism is for the fortunate to subsidise the disadvantaged to narrow the gap in living standards between the wealthy and the poor

In reality, the hardworking end up subsidising the lazy while the very rich hide their wealth in investments and offshore accounts and the genuinely disadvantaged (the disabled and the sick) are used as an excuse to increase taxes and expand state control of the private sector. The end result is lower living standards for everybody, economic contraction and large quantities of wealth leaving the country. In the modern world it also leads to near-constant currency inflation as governments can use it to increase spending without arousing the ire of their population (as most people don't understand the effect prolonged periods of inflation have of them individually).

There are two types of Socialism: International, and National.

>International Socialism

Focuses on creating a one world Government. Some might ask why they aren't content with staying in their own country, and that is because we've seen what happens when Freedom fights International Socialism. During the cold war everyone from KGB agents and Scientists, to Ballerinas and Chess players defected. Even a so called equal nation, would have its own intelligentsia, and they'd be inclined to defect.

Part of International Socialism is the elimination of Patriotism, the Family, Ethnic identity, and useful discussion. It is an inherently destructive system, and is designed purposely to destroy nations, so that they may be controlled.

If you've ever heard people talk about the Middle Class; like the middle class is some thing we must bow down to, it's because they're right. We came out of Serfdom through the rise of Specialized labor, and the middle class.

Something important to realize is that the majority of taxes will always be paid by the middle class, so "progressive" taxes are much for corrosive to them; because rich people would be able to foot the bill better, whilst middle class people would lose money to start their own enterprises. Without the immense wealth the upper classes have, the middle class has no reason not to protect the lower classes, and thus they gain hegemony in a society.

In order to enforce Marxism, an entire nation must be submissive, and a middle class would never allow this to happen. So Cultural Marxism, and many other Socialist policies were introduced to destroy religion, the family, and economic opportunity, and force the middle class to merge with the lower classes. This would allow the elite absolute control over the nation.

Suppressing the educated is important too. It's why Engineers and Doctors in the Soviet Union could hardly afford shoes.

it's made up bullshit

Raises up the worst people at the expense of the best.

>While it might be true, you are missing steps in between.
For the sake of intellectual honesty I do want your opinion, but did you notice how every line (except the first) starts with the same term that ended the preceding line? I literally did not miss a step.

And on the first line: Whilst I'm sure there are some socialist theories that don't require redistribution, to be honest I can't think of any and I only wanted to discuss Marxism in this thread, which I wanted to wreck.

Then the first post slipped in whilst I waited 5 minutes for a captcha and it was about Nazism, in which I don't actually know Hitler's opinions on redistribution.

My entire point is that any redistribution or attempt to "correct" natural "inequalities" is ultimately dysgenic. For an anecdotal example, if I hired a 1.5 GPA woman instead of a 3.5 GPA man for the sake of diversity, I'm probably going to end up with a weaker worker and thus a poorer quality product. Therefore, this job redistribution based on the classist Marxist interpretation of the pay gap is dysgenic. I have literally shot my company in the foot for the sake of virtue signalling.

Is there a reason you believe pure capitalism doesn't promote equal opportunities regardless of economic or social background? I'd be equally corrupt if I hired that white man before a 3.9GPA impoverished black Muslim transsexual.

IMO (oh... Here's the opinion... Do you want source?) meritocracy is heavily tied into actual libertarianism. If the job market is truly fair, the strongest worker will always get the job despite who they are.

See Western Europe.

>subsidized defense from the U.S. creating no need for a real army, freeing up money for welfare
>Foreigners looting country coffers
>dumb retards and pathological altruism (this is the big one)

Socialism is by far the best system for a post-scarcity civilization. But you need Capitalism to get to that point.
Since we have not achieved post-scarcity, we should not use socialism.

>cont

If you've ever read 1984. Have you ever wondered why Winston - a man with a good education, a spot in the party, and a nice Government job is so oppressed? More so than the Proles? Because the middle-class needs to be kept down, and International Socialism is designed to do just this.

>National Socialism

Have you ever noticed that Fascists, Conservatives, and Libertarians get along so well together, even though leftists with those differences would murder each-other in the streets? Because they all ultimately have the same principles. To strengthen a Nation, a Religion, the Family, and the economy.

Each ideology approaches this from a different perspective, but achieves the same thing.

>Fascism

By banning leftism, and using authoritarian means to promote the Nation, and its people strengthens the values of that Nation. There is no Utopian scheme, and that's why Fascists like Mussolini and Franco have such a low head count, as opposed to Stalin and Mao. By creating an environment that demands people be strong, and eliminating any subversive behavior the Nation becomes incredibly strong.

>Libertarianism

Instead of using the Government to enforce its means of promoting a Nation; Libertarianism uses the Fascism of nature to promote the country. By leaving people the feed themselves, and only calling on them to defend the nation. People are forced to stay close to what made those powerful-primitive values in the first place. With no secular state to undermine Religion, Religion grows, and the family is strengthened as people have to work together.

>Conservatism

Is simply a blend between the two. It tries to leave people to fend for themselves, but also tries to fight subversive behavior. The danger is that this ideology is harder to pin point, and thus is the most subvertable.

Did I hurt your fee fees with my request :(

>For the sake of intellectual honesty I do want your opinion, but did you notice how every line (except the first) starts with the same term that ended the preceding line? I literally did not miss a step.
See below. Again, I essentially agree with your point, which make it somewhat hard to play the devils advocate, but I think your argument is lacking the strength you think it has.

>Socialism heavily implies redistribution
Okay
>Redistribution is always anti competitive
>always
[citation needed]
>Anticompetitiveness is highly dysgenic
>dysgenic
In what way? Are you talking about literal genetics here, or metaphorically about the quality of human beings in general? Economy? What? Every socialistfag and UBIfag will tell you the opposite (of what I assume you are arguing), that giving everyone equal opportunities will benefit everyone, give people free time to benefit the society yadda yadda. They will disagree with what defines anticompetitiveness. You get what I'm saying? There are arguments against you here and you address none.
>Dysgenic societies necessarily decline
Do they? What empirical research substantiated that claim? What source do you have? If you bring up the Roman empire (or any other country) , you have to argue against all other causes of the decline.
>Therefore socialism will cause the decline of the west. Prevent this by voting libertarianism.
As long as your premises are completely true, this is true. Your premises however will be attacked. If you want to understand what I mean, post it wherever socialism is discussed on plebbit. Nobody will say "oh boy, I've been wrong my entire life", they will poke holes in the logic.

>Zionism and Bolshevism

Is a good example of the differences between International and National Socialism. Churchill wrote a paper on the topic, and you might find it informative. : en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism

The overwhelming amount of Marxist leaders during the 20th century were Jewish, but they had abandoned their religion. It's unsure why the Jews in particular gained such strong hegemony over International Socialism - some attribute it to the Sabbatean-Frankists, but it's completely up for debate.

If you've ever seen how people like George Soros and Hillary Clinton, two very good examples of modern International Socialists, hate Israel. Or at least don't like it as much as Republicans, it's because Israel is the anti-thesis of what they want.

Think about it Israel wants to be a homogeneous, free, educated, society. This is more Right wing than the left would like. And it's why organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union sanction Israel.

Some people try to add this to a conspiracy of Jews trying to subvert all other races, but this is false. Zionists and Bolsheviks are two different camps of Judaism. While all nations have blood on their hands, it would be in the Fascist, Conservative, or Libertarian's best of interests to try and prop Israel up as a means of combating the left.

Lets even throw Socialists a bone, and say that Race is just a "Social Construct". We've seen that mixing these "Social Constructs" leads to increased crime. So we should focus on keeping each race in a certain country, that would foster true diversity.

Choose your ideology as you will, but understand that Socialism is designed to enslave nations. This failed in the Soviet Union, but it's being just starting in the west.

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”

― Mikhail Gorbachev

Redistribution as anticompetitive is kind of a given to me, if opportunities or money are being taken from me not because I require the extra difficulty (ie I'm already that successful and established) but because I happen to be a class or demographic that those doing the redistribution wish to prevent from being successful, I think it becomes extremely clear that I'm not on the same playing field. Keywords, they wish to prevent them from becoming successful. Don't you think that's a little unfair?

I don't know, it seems like a given? I don't mind taxation, especially if it's progressive (again, I have a huge hard on for small business), but if you're disadvantaging people or companies based on the demographic of the owners or workers...

Kind of feeling like Sargon ATM, how is it not obvious this isn't fair?

As for dysgenic, it's just the word I use for anything that promotes mediocrity over superiority, or basically outright rejects meritocracy. I'm not really talking about actual genetics, although if such a society that actively promoted racial/sexual tall poppy syndrome was able to sustain itself for the long term, I do believe that promoted mediocrity would cause sexual selection to also prefer mediocrity. Yes, it is ultimately dysgenic biologically as well.

Lastly, I can't imagine how a dysgenic society wouldn't decline. Again, I'm bewildered, if the way you judge people ceases to be from merit and then becomes racial or sexual instead, how could you not realise this would cause inefficient distribution? How could it not be obvious that actual merit isn't rewarded with success? Bosnia, do they teach positive conditioning at your high schools? This is literally the opposite.

Bosnia, I'm trying. I really am. But there aren't as many flaws as you believe.

>desperate bump for a (you)

Don't worry friend, I've screenshotted your posts and put them into my "informative posts" folder to look back on at a later date

>mfw it's all worth it

fdsdfsdf