Redpill me on socialism and why it's bad for America

redpill me on socialism and why it's bad for America

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf
opposingviews.com/i/society/worlds-happiest-countries-take-most-antidepressants
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

read a book nigger. It has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions, from pol pot to stalin to hitler to moa and most recently chavez/maduro in venezuela.

Because resource is finite and human want isn't.

take a look at Venezuela

Because pol doesn't actually know what it is

>Venezuela

So did it get this shitty due to socialism? Was it ever good before than??

socialism could work in america since you have almost all the resources you need, but it would be catastrophic in europe

>It has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions
xDDDDDDDDDD

kill yourself faggot

Too many different groups in the U.S. that don't get along and don't share the same points of view.

Most of Sup Forums can't even define socialism and name an actual socialist country let alone criticize it.

Not that I support it, though.

Aren't you suppose to be committing Seppuku, senpai?

How many times does this need to be said before the idiots get it is the real question.

socialism only works in a very homogenous ethnostate, aka not the US

>Capitalist America is in a better state than socialist Europe? Sure let's ruin America too

Now you're onto something. How come nobody points out what those socialist and communist shitholes used to be before adopting socialism?

The answer is usually worse.

The other question is why no nation that is doing well or even fine ever adopts socialism? The answer is there is no need for it.

Supply and demand folks. Even applies in politics.

The only people who know less about socialism than Sup Forums are people who call themselves socialists.

pic related is part of why socialism fails, the other is the people pretend to work and the govt pretends to pay them.

Don't repeat our mistakes

this

It isn't


.This too

>caused the deaths of hundreds of millions
So has Christianity, and smoking, and alcoholism, yet people keep doing that shit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for socialism, I just think thats a stupid argument, and you should feel stupid.

Man you are some kind of retard, just look at all those "feel the bern" freebie lovers who live in the wealthiest country in the world

...

>redpill me on socialism and why it's bad for America

mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

It's bad for all countries. Even """""""right wing""""""""" advocates of socialism who like to say "if you do it in small, white, homogenous countries it works well" have no fucking clue what they're talking about. Both the Plymouth and Jamestown colonies were the world's most perfect example (tiny population, 100% white, same religion, goals, culture, etc.) of this and yet they had mass starvation, only 1 in 5 men actually worked, and stealing was rampant, because they decided to have a centrally planned economy and most goods produced were redistributed according to "need". After a few years of having literally half the population starve to death because no one wanted to grow food, they decided that people would have private property rights and get to keep (and sell) everything they produced, and all of a sudden they stopped starving to death and actually flourished.

brotip: all the governments which achieved something of note in the 20th century were socialist, or even further to the left
off the top of my head:
FDR's New Deal America
Hitler's Germany
USSR
compare and contrast to rightist governments which saw their countries MUCH worse off in the end:
Petainist France
Britain
Japan

The richest european country is not the medpack, as you'd think, but national-socialist Norway
the happiest is, you guessed it, national-socialist Denmark
it's just a winning formula - homogenous society, tight integration of state and industry, primacy of collective rights and interests over individual ones
some of the means for achieving homogeneity and support for the status quo are also tied to huge benefits of socialism, the most important being free schooling and free (or heavily subsidized) healthcare.

Bingo

TL;DR: you can't have communism without widespread robotics, news at eleven.

America could probably benefit greatly from a little more wealth redistribution.

Unfortunately, the country is never content with just
>take the money
>hand it out
Instead its obsessed with bureaucracy and huge regulatory burdens that swell out of control and do great damage to the markets ability to function.

Socialism isn't ever coming to America.

Social Democracy is debatable [and what Sanders campaigned on, even if he called it socialism. Calling yourself a rich man doesn't make it so.] but ultimately retains a free market economy in most sectors.

The USSR [and by extension, external socialism.] was good for America. It provided the illusion of a serious threat to her place in the world. It justified projects like the Apollo program.

The only thing socialist ideology has ever achieved is achieving a kill score that'd earn adoration from the Khan himself.

Bump, I have a response I'm working on

"feel the bern" crowd has a demand for something and Bernie is supplying. There are many thing wrong in western societies and some feel that the answer is socialism. I might not agree with the answer but I recognize the demand for change.

That's not why socialism failed in the USSR though.

The problem wasn't free stuff [which was overstated anyway.], it was a centrally managed economy. The USSR viewed work as a duty, the problem is that thanks to being centrally planned that work wasn't allocated to things people wanted and the rewards for doing it were usually meagre. [Oh, you've been paid. Hope you want to buy products nobody wants. Sorry, the ones people wanted are sold out.]

As a general rule, "Free stuff paid for by taxes" is social democracy. Most socialists don't want to tax the factoryowner, they want to take the factory off him and give it to the state ["on behalf of the workers"] or turn it into a worker co-operative [run and managed by the workers]
Britain never really went full socialist. For good periods her capitalism was seriously regulated, but state ownership of the commanding heights of industry was always limited. [Hence why Britain went "from nationalization to denationalization to renationalization to privatization."]

From the 60s to the 80s [and to some degree until today] Britain has always been about redistribution via taxation. The 1945-51 Labour government's socialist measures shouldn't be overlooked as an example of "Socialism done sort of right" though

Although we end up conflating a lot of things - not every form of socialism requires a command economy, and command economies are not always inefficient [when you have predictable needs, as in the case of WW2, a command economy is very efficient for making tanks, planes and bombs. When rebuilding after the war as Labour did postwar the same is generally true. It's during peacetime when consumers have unpredictable demands that things start getting silly.

Although the fact that Labour governments willingly gave up power every time even during the periods where they held genuine socialist ideology should say a lot about how not every form of socialism is doomed to be soviet-styled dictatorship.

>Mises

Your just like a Marxist quoting and explaining Marx. Mises offered us nothing but ideology masquerading as science.

You know that the quote that you posted is cut dont you?

>all the governments which achieved something of note in the 20th century were socialist
Pretty subjective, but you also left out Space program, technical and industrial revolution which reigned in the Golden age of Medicine, all brought in due to The rise of capitalism. without Capitalism as the great engine of ingenuity that it is, These things wouldn't happen.

You statement couldn't be argued if you said "socialist country have done great things, some can be said to the best", but you didn't and so you statement is erroneous.

>The richest european country is not the medpack, as you'd think, but national-socialist Norway

Perhaps In a close minded view, Liechtenstein, though a very some nation of Europe actually wins, and though having social security programs, it is a capitlist country with a free market.

on a related note, the richest country in the world, Qatar, is also a free market.

>the happiest is, you guessed it, national-socialist Denmark
Cough

opposingviews.com/i/society/worlds-happiest-countries-take-most-antidepressants

But the statement is true, more to it, but you're right

>it's just a winning formula - homogenous society, tight integration of state and industry, primacy of collective rights and interests over individual ones

Mostly true, but a primacy of collective right is a sack of shit. the loss of individual rights leads to a populace that refuses to advance as they, as a whole, just survive.

I think you have a good brain, so do some reading of why Nazi became Socialist, and the reason Karl Marx conceptualized Communism.

Yeah I know but what I said still stands.

Although it must be said that most economists are nothing more than ideologues trying to act like scientists.

>The rise of capitalism. without Capitalism as the great engine of ingenuity that it is, These things wouldn't happen.
What's interesting is that Marx held similar views [obviously not space program, etc, but generally "capitalism = necessary innovation"]

Capitalism is [in the Marxist view] a necessary step in the evolution of society towards socialism and eventually to communism. Capitalism displacing feudalism is a necessary step in the process. While the flaws of capitalism are to be recognized, it would be inaccurate to hate capitalism wholesale from a historical standpoint because it was a necessary step in creating the machinery [quite literally, in the case of factories..] for socialism.


Though ultimately it would seem that Social Democracy, not socialism, is the preferable system. Capitalism with the addition of socialist-inspired [but not socialist] welfare systems and healthcare free at the point of use has the advantages of a competitive free-market economy while mitigating suffering at the bottom.

socialism only works in small society's with small populations.

Sweden and Denmark succeed with this sort of ideology, whe you apply this to a country with huge population and landmass it fucks up greatly and becomes communism.

last country that was enormous and communist was USSR and look what happened.

applying socialism in the United states will be so fucked up you cant even begin to imagine the consequences. a country like the united states with such power and economy will destroy the planet if it falls apart, the world is to interconnected with it for it to fail and if it does well prepare for WW3.

Bernie is more destructive than Hillary, god help us all if he wins, thank god he wont

Eventually you run out of other people's money because you stole it all.
Thus begins the starvation, the riots, the mass executions against the populace and the gulags.

Socialism, not even once.

>Socialism has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions,

Socialism hasn't. Famine and wars did. Mostly cause by capitalist countries putting up sanctions, destroying transport rutes and forcing countries to spend 50% of their budget on defense in order not to get "liberated".

>socialism only works in a very homogenous ethnostate, aka not the US

Libertarianism only works in a very homogenous ethnostate, aka not the US

Dysgenic, rewards failure or blind authoritarianism (for Stalinism) and punishes over achievement, this is especially true for corporate socialism or Marxism applied in capitalism.

Affirmative action is both a moral hazard and inarguably socialist.

/thread

Reddit is down the hall and to the left.

Taxation is not socialism.

it has always failed and lead to suffering

You realize that Denmark is perhaps the most socialist country in the world, right? Who do you think is the biggest stock holder in the country?

I've read the Communist manifesto, I know what he believed.

You don't see a problem of thinking that something you wish to dismantle needs to be put into place since your ideas can't achieve even a part of what it needs. This is a HUGE red flag for the system. the Government can't progress, and Marx knows that, he states over and over again the the system is essentially the end all of progress, it just keeps humans alive and a nation on life support.

That's not a good systems, human don't just survive, we progress towards advancement, both in social progress and in Technology.
No socialism did. You can blame other people for the internal problems of the governments, but it was a plague that almost consumed the world (well communism). A Blind Majority voted in dictators that wanted power and used Economic strains to enslave it's people and those that opposed it, the fact you do not see other nations wanted to free nations under these rules shows how blind you are to the horrible effect of Communism on a nation.

"My idea sounds good, it must be" it wasn't sorry.

and liberalism is also a pipe dream, just less so than socialism.

>Bernie is more destructive than Hillary
Bernie is a meme. Even if he had powers on the level of a UK prime-minister he would have very limited effects on the US in the long term. He would take power in a fundamentally capitalist economy and leave behind a fundamentally capitalist economy with a single-payer healthcare system and higher taxes.

Once you bring in the reality of him needing to get policies voted through by congress, his hopes look even bleaker.

[Not that it matters because he'll never beat Hillary.]

>Eventually you run out of other people's money
This is such a fun misunderstanding of where it goes wrong for all systems.
The USSR's fundamental problem wasn't socialism, it was that it was a society that emerged from a revolution. While their radical economic policies didn't help matters, even non-socialist societies tend to engage in mass brutality after a revolution to ensure the revolution isn't subject to a counter-revolution. [See: French Revolution, Iranian Revolution.]

Hahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>Socialism only works in small societies
yeah, of less than 50 people if all able (At least 90%) work.

Don't be fooled, Denmark and Sweden are not going to last, like america since we keep moving towards Socialism.

>That's not a good systems, human don't just survive, we progress towards advancement, both in social progress and in Technology.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree. It's doubtful we'll ever see such a perfect system emerge.

Cutting into your reply to Denmark, the existence of socialist and semi-socialist governments [such as Labour in the UK after WW2] in developed countries who gave up power in accordance with their election systems would suggest that socialism alone doesn't account for the deaths in USSR/PRC aligned states.

The USA has quite possibly regressed in many ways from "socialism" since the end of Bretton Woods. The UK certainly has. [And as globalisation marches on, Sweden has also made moves towards marketising things.]

It's quite amusing that the left has fallen for globalism so comprehensively when it's actively damaging to socialism and to components of social-democracy.

>So has Christianity, and smoking, and alcoholism, yet people keep doing that shit.
To themselves. Socialism is something you force onto others.

Those were caused by unscientific policy making and political oppression though. They literally supported some pseudoscientists and buried their crop seeds meters into the ground, thinking this will make them grow super big.

>A Blind Majority voted in dictators
That's not how socialism works. They are rarely ever elected through votes.

> other nations wanted to free nations

Or, you know, other nations wanted to defend their first place in the international order including primary rights to natural resources and trade.

Gaddhafi wasn't killed for being a bad ruler, he was killed for being a threat to other the western hegemony.

>Eventually you run out of other people's money because you stole it all.

This one common and consistent misconception about socialism. I socialism everybody is paid by the government thus there is no taxation on individuals.

Imagine if all the corporations and businesses now belonged to the government so it would be the government that paid you your pay. But because they also own all the housing you don't have to pay them rent since since what would be the goddamn point. Money is only used to give you some freedom of choice when it comes to buy things but that's pretty much it.

Now is this system a good system? I can't answer that. Is it ripe for abuse and corruption? You can bet your ass it is but so is the crony capitalism we live in now. Corruption and abuse of power seem to be constant in human societies the only question is how to minimize their effects on the society as a whole.