Alright Sup Forums. Let's settle this once and for all

Give me the most compelling argument on why socialism doesn't work. And no memes please.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FJTiAtCi6M4
spontaneousorder.in/robert-heilbroner-mises-was-right/
youtube.com/watch?v=5GoAGuTIbVY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

People will have no motivation for working hard. Everyone will be lazy because everyone makes the same amount of money regardless of how productive you are.

This

It's never worked before

Marx never took into account scarecity , over population and the resulting competition for resources.

Most other critiques can be discredited or undermined

You eventually run out of other people's money

Not an argument.

this is quite literally an argument retard

Then why do all the marxists I know have shit work ethic?

Socialism stifles innovation and undermines an efficient free market. It's literally perpetuating a market at disequilibrium, which is why there's government intervention in the first place.

Define socialism. *National* Socialism, for example, seemed to be the perfect system.

Because it denies human nature.

/thread

"People are inherently creative producers if not undermined by capitalistic wage systems which alienate people from the things they produce"

"It's never been tried and has been subverted by capitalists (social democrats) or fascists (bolsheviks)"

See, for the socialist, the only weak link is the scarecity argument

Seize the means of production
do it
now

Don't liberals realize that in the U.S. you cant raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars on a national level because we have such vasts differences in cost of living from state to state.

>muh free market
>muh deregulation
>what is the dot com bubble
>what is the 2008 sub prime mortgage and CDO crisis

It is, get that bbc out of your ass Sven.

>guy drags me into a corn field, points to a pile of car parts dumped into a hole and then cemented into a single mold
>asks "Give me the most compelling argument on why this car doesn't work."

Because people don't have the psychic superpowers necessary to enforce socialist laws.

You asked for legit arguments, not meme responses.

It's been tried and it always ends in massive amounts of death that capitalism can only dream of.

Those are facts I gave. Deregulation and free markets lead to asset bubbles and unlimited immigration which leads to depressed wages.

no one man or group can ever claim to know exactly what needs to be done in order to ensure the best outcome for the population as a whole.
basically what socialism says is "we know for a fact that A is good and B is bad, and so we have to to C,D and E" and enforce that dogma on the whole of society.

it's analgous to saying that in order to reach the highest place on earth you just need to move up until there is no where higher for you to go.
what you'll end up doing is climbing the nearest hill, which would probably be thousands of kilometers away from what is objectivly the highest place on earth.
you need to cover as much ground as possible to ensure that there is no place higher than where you stand. saying that you are standing on what seems to be the highest place for now so it must be the highest place that exist is stupid as fuck.

when you let people choose for themselves what to do, some will stumble, some will fall, but many would rise higher than what you have ever dreamed possible.

governments just use it to keep the people dependent on them, and the more extensive it gets the more people they let fucking starve to death by the millions

>damn why does economy keep fucking up when the state interferes with it
>we need to give the state more control over the economy

>National Socialism
>Perfect
lol

because of human nature.

It creates a massive central bureaucracy holding all the power. And that bureaucracy would be at the mercy of its central bank. And we all know what kind of ilk is attracted to the banking sector like flies to shit. All the "end capitalist yoke" claims are just bollocks, and every educated socialist knows this. It's actually doing the opposite, it's giving the capitalists the tools they need to make their rule absolute. Communism is what we Germans call "Trickbetrug", roughly translated it means "trick fraud". Jews cannot be trusted and you know it.

It works if you want to be a slave

1. It's less efficient
2. People don't identify with what they do. Once they are assigned another job they just leave and don't care.

Checkmate, socialism is a meme

It's obvious that we can't use the resources of the planet like they would be unlimited.

The dot com bubble and 2008 crisis were market corrections. Sure sometimes we feel the effects of the free market at times but in the long run everything is at equilibrium.

The United States has never had mass starvation or people dying due to economic policy. I mean you can argue the Great Depression, but that was just a massive slow down of economic activity, there wasn't widespread famine.

Now look at your socialist paradises, like the USSR, China under Mao, North Korea... and see if you can say the same thing ...

Socialism is in conflict with human nature. Socialism destroys democracy, free association, free communication, self-ownership, and with it everything else. Socialism is a black hole that destroys everything, creates nothing. As if socialism hasn't been proven to be a catastrophic failure all through history already and still most places where it still exists is in chaos or failing.

VENEZUELA'S ELITE ENJOYING THEIR DECADENCE WHILE EVERYONE ELSE IN DIRE POVERTY.
youtube.com/watch?v=FJTiAtCi6M4

- Information problems: millions of people acting on their own knowledge for their own good will work better than a minority of them acting on the behalf of the majority, provided they don't affect each other much. In the Soviet Union, the best sign that something was out of fashion was that it was the only abundant thing in the stores. Another example from the SU: buying used cars was more expensive than buying news ones;

- Ignores incentives: There is a tendency for socialist people to assume that people are way more altruist that they actually are. When you point out this fact, they argue that we have been socially conditioned to be selfish. This is bullshit. Humans are mixed on this regard. Ignore this, make people not gain from the value they create and you'll find they will create less value on average. For an example, look up on all the conflicts between "managers" and workers in Revolutionary Spain;

- Social determinism: this is related to the previous point. Socialism has an implicit assumption that reality is socially constructed: that to change social outcomes, you just need to change how social relations operate or how people perceive reality. This is only partly true but you act as if it was the single most important fact about the world. For this reason, you deny the existence of inherent biological differences, which makes you an ignorant implementing policies. For this reason, for instance, in the soviet union, politicians thought it was a good idea to free women from maternal obligations, creating giant childcare units where all children would be raised, and actually tried to implement it.

>"People are inherently creative producers
I'll agree, provided they are in an environment of scarcity. Because necessity forces innovation. A hunter gathererer developing farming to live an easier life, for example.

He's not going to be doing that if the leader of the tribe provides him with free mammoth every day and provides his tent.

>Socialism stifles innovation and undermines an efficient free market.

Bullshit. The majority of the technological advances of the last 50 years were almost entirely funded by the US Government through the military.

The private sector is excellent at exploiting ideas but is terrible at innovation because innovation requires time and investments into R&D which is in no way guaranteed to produce results, inherently very risky. One of the major issues observed in this late stage capitalism is that all this investment capital is so risk-averse that the only way they'll put money into anything is if it's guaranteed and hedged to all fuck. This gets reflected in retail and business banking and why there is simply no investment back into small business ventures, money just floats to the top and stays there.

This is also why the private sector simply cannot manage utility infrastructure and civic improvements on their own, the risk to investment is too large, it is difficult to monetise, etc. Even purportedly privatised industries are reliant on public subsidy for improvements or even some times just to keep them running (UK railways and telecoms are good examples of market failure being propped up by the state).

Law Of Production:
>X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of gold-money

The 'law' is a key foundation of all of Marx's work. It is supposed to explain capitalism.

Alright here we go:
>X quantity of product =/= Y quantity of average labour hours
If you produce product more efficiently, you can produce it in less labour hours. Two companies can create X product, but one company spends less time on making it than the other, hence Y of one is less than Y of the other. This is a flaw in the far left, as the idea of competition is destroyed because the government owns everything. Due to lack of competition and free market, inefficiency takes over and money is wasted everywhere where labour hours could have been reduced.

>X quantity of product = Z quantity of gold-money
This is so far out it's unbelievable anyone takes it seriously. Competition, time of year, interest in product (advertising/salesmen/marketing). So many factors affect the value of your product.

A worker is only payed what they are worth. If they are worth nothing, then they don't have a job.

Marx's lack of understanding of capitalism is astonishing. How can anyone take this clown seriously?

The ideas he proposed remove all selection pressures upon industry, which means inefficiency is allowed to thrive because there is no consequence for doing a poor job. With no selection of the good work over the bad, bad work thrives because it is easier. This is where the government has to start forcing civilians with military force to work - "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

People think that the leaders of businesses don't do anything - they think the person who physically makes the product is the only person who holds value. Without the business leaders, there is no organisation, no selling of the product, no efficient way of making money, which means significantly less money.

There is pretty good reason why the far left always fail.

On innovation:

Big, general things whose impact, albeit positive, is small and distributed to everyone: government does it better;
Small, specific things, whose impact is very concentrated: private firms do it better.

The latter are much more frequent and the former and they do add up. A great deal of the market power some firms enjoy is because of the amount of knowledge they have accumulated throughout the years. That knowledge spreads as people go in and out of the company, meaning it is very slow. You only know about big public innovations because private firms have no interest in telling you what they have achieved, just in telling you that their product is great.

than the former*

I don't think the internet or www are small developments. In fact they've changed business and social interactions completely and would never have been developed if it weren't for public investment in the research.

Private firms have every interest in telling you what they've achieved, having a proven track record for delivering results is of paramount importance to every publicly traded company. The main difference is that innovation is not a major area where business ever delivers results, apart from perhaps the pharmaceutical industry where IP is so important, and even then it's mainly just about the new and exciting ways they've found for flipping patents. What planet are you living on?

pic related, this is it

you can read it online for free if you want

you're late to the party, by the way. the last credible socialist holdout in the united states already capitulated to mises.

spontaneousorder.in/robert-heilbroner-mises-was-right/

>Implying socialism has to do with marxism

...

XD

this.

God tier bait OP

It's not a CDO crisis. It's bad regulation.
youtube.com/watch?v=5GoAGuTIbVY

kill yourself...

Surely better you explain to us what your socialism looks like, specifically and how you plan to get there. Let's just start with what it looks like though.

he's obviously 12

Seems like having leftist parties in control for several decades has kinda made you the rape capital of Europe.

>
>I don't think the internet or www are small developments. In fact they've changed business and social interactions completely and would never have been developed if it weren't for public investment in the research.

Network infrastructure for the web was a military and university development. Private sector had very little interest in the creation of the early Web. Private companies certainly created it as we know it but there's no way it would even exist without public entities like government and education.

>Impossibility of economic calculation under centrally planned economies.

Only niggers and socialists don´t understand this basic concept.

>"It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn't know. We thought it was good. No, that's not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

>"What's whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it's all one pot, you can't let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it's not right for me to own a car until I've worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth—why can't he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed?

>"It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to 'the family', and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his 'need'—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that 'the family' would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it's miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother's. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

It goes against meritocracy and is therefore socially dysgenic. This is most true with its current application and easily argued as true for Stalinism.

>inb4 nuh huh not my speshul snowflake socialism
Yeah, probably that too. Actually, any system that refuses to accept inequality is a natural part of the game is dysgenic. Everyone should only be treated the same, but never expected to have to same outcome.

>"Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel's worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn't marry, he wouldn't help his folks back home, he wouldn't put an extra burden on 'the family.' Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra 'disability allowance,' they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, 'the family' was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in 'need' than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.

>"God help us, ma'am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it—for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got.

>"The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue something that we'd be ashamed to admit otherwise. There wasn't a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn't a man rich and smart enough but that he didn't think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better's wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he'd get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who'd get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who'd rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss's, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted—that was the truth of it—but we didn't like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.

>"What good would our need do to a power plant when its generators stopped because of our defective engines? What good would it do to a man caught on an operating table when the electric light went out? What good would it do to the passengers of a plane when its motor failed in mid-air? And if they bought our product, not because of its merit, but because of our need, would that be the good, the right, the moral thing to do for the owner of that power plant, the surgeon in that hospital, the maker of that plane? Yet this was the moral law that the professors and leaders and thinkers had wanted to establish all over the earth. If this is what it did in a single small town where we all knew one another, do you care to think what it would do on a world scale?

My shit is mine, neither you nor the government should have any right to it. The only argument needed.

The Internet is a big thing, not a small one. The creator of the Internet, if it were private, would not benefit much from it.

Come on guys, this is easy. Its legalized plunder. As soon as the law allows some to take money from others in order to promote "equality" the law has legalized the plunder of some for the benefit of others.
The result being that every class and special interest group will lobby and beg for subsidies. Because as soon as one class is plundered to favour another, all the other classes start seeing legalised plunder as an advantageous way to benefit themselves.

Bastiat destroyed Socialism in 1850, why are we still arguing about this retarded project?

>that quote

Don't care if it's true or not, this is some very smooth BTFOing

Private firms do not tell the public about the process of innovation, how it works and how you can replicate it. They only say that it is great and show you its specifications (to the extent that the public cares about them). You think there's only innovation when there's a big department in a firm actively trying to create something new. Fact is, everyday people working in private firms have to make decisions and these, through trial and error, produce a lot of knowledge. Firms also have "experience", which is composed by the culture of the company which is transmitted from old to new workers. These new workers will then face new problems or have new tools to face the old ones, improving processes or decisions slightly. Most innovation and efficiency gains come this way, not through concentrated effort.

It all works in theory, so no debate is necessary.
Government is like a car, a tool to move people. The left end of the political spectrum (communism, socialism etc) is like a Mexican work van. It's not perfect but everyone gets where they need to go(comfortably) and as long as it's properly maintained, it could last a long time.
The right side of the spectrum(capitalism, fascism, conservatism, etc) is like a sports car. It can get a person to their destination very quickly, but it only can carry a few people(and can be very uncomfortable). It is more prone to breaking down but when it's working properly it can lap the Nurburgring is less than 7 minutes.

The obvious choice is the middle ground(moderatism) , like an SUV or crossover. It can carry a decent amount of people where they need to go(and most are moderately comfortable) and can last longer than both a work van or sports car with an oil change every 3000 miles.


Keep in mind, this analogy falls apart if you use American vehicles for it.

You said that big things have small impacts on individuals, when the opposite is true. Big things change the mode and method of living and provide opportunity and prosperity. Water infrastructure stops you having to walk 2 miles to the well every day, roads give you transit lines to move goods and yourself, etc.

Companies commodify and retail existing technology, they're not particularly inclined to innovate in areas that objectively benefit anyone, only their profits. they are just as likely to innovate in a way that reduces the quality of their goods if it means they can reduce their bills on production, or innovate in aggressive legal tactics which gives them the ability to monopolise a market.

There is so much corporate cock sucking on this site just because people think that being pro-corporation is being anti-left. It's ironic that although most alt-rights are the ones who have been failed most by our current systems they're still the biggest cheerleaders for their supposed successes, just to stick it to the lefties.

>There is so much corporate cock sucking on this site just because people think that being pro-corporation is being anti-left. It's ironic that although most alt-rights are the ones who have been failed most by our current systems they're still the biggest cheerleaders for their supposed successes, just to stick it to the lefties.

No doubt. I was just thinking the other day that conservatives are so quick to denounce the government as evil yet never mention how hard corporations can fuck people over, as if muh free market has ever prevent companies from taking advantage of people and subverting democracy

I used small and big as relative to the cost. The benefit of the Internet is very small to a single individual when compared to its cost. The same applies to water infrastructure and roads.

Private firms don't give a fuck about people and they shouldn't have to. They should only care about profits. As long as the incentives are aligned, this will achieve the best outcomes, as they will act on the information they have in a way that benefits them the most. There are possible issues here but that's why you have regulations, which are imperfect ways of solving them.

Firms do innovate a lot, whenever it benefits their profits. Guess what: most innovations due. You insist on not acknowledging this. Most of them, however, do not have nearly as big of an impact as the Internet, for instance.

No market prices equal to no information on what to produce.

Can someone tell me the difference between socialism and national socialism without memes?

Underrated.

Private Property is an inherent right

Those who dont work dont get any bread.

>See, for the socialist, the only weak link is the scarecity argument
This is extremely true.

Socialism: We have to take away your rights, because muh equality.

National Socialism: We have to take away your rights, because muh degeneracy.

Hahaha. Inherit right? Is that so?
Inherit rights have never existed. You aren't guaranteed the ability to own property just because you exist

Sweden is a living example that Socialism is fucked.

There isn't. Socialism and then communism the future of humanity.

That would only make someone work just enough to not get fired.

And like allays it will get buried, it's easy to argument against the "no motivation for work" meme.

economic calculation problem

Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark aren't.

>on Sup Forums
>derives rights from the collective
Protestantism was a mistake

Yeah, the Molly meme only works when you do not have an argument

i.e.
Anarchism doesn't work becaues it is retarded
>not an argument
Anarchism doesn't work because you need a centralized government to take care of law, order, defense and infrastructure. If not the world would collapse into chaos
>an argument

Just scrolling through here I see strawman after strawman or complete misunderstanding as to what socialism even is.

Social democracy for example is a great system for places like Massachusetts or Washington.

reality

Could you explain what socialism is and how it works? I've asked a couple of times here and I never got a good answer, if any.

The only place to derive rights from is a sovereign government.

Workers controlling the means of production.

NOT the state.

A. Why are you trusting the edgiest Sup Forums board with political information

B. It's public ownership of the means of production. That's it, anything more people tack on is to strawman or shows they don't know what they're talking about.

For example, in Nordic nations they have bargaining on wages with the businesses, unions and the government.

>Give me the most compelling argument on why socialism doesn't work. And no memes please.

Because people are greedy. The people at the top (who shouldn't be "at the top", if socialism actually worked) will always take more than whatever socialism dictates to be their "fair share".

The state can be the controller of the means of production, it's called state socialism or democratic socialism.

...

A man creates a way to live in what on the surface seems viable. He never works a day in his life. His whole ideal is to justify why everyone around him should pay for him to jerk off all day and live for free. Derp

You don't understand what socialism is.

or Marxism-Leninism (Maoism).

>Give me the most compelling argument on why socialism doesn't work.
All the practical evidence we have collected?

...

It's when the working class owns the means of its production, so pretty much any social service that uses tax dollars to provide services. Police, EMT, fire and rescue, public education are all examples of socialism

You don't understand what socialism is. Our system is more like this than actual social democracies and socialist nations.

>Massachusetts is a social democracy

Massfag who worked in state government here. It's not and you're a retard. There are high taxes and a pre-Obamacare state health exchange and that shit isn't close to social democracy.

>socialist fags whenever the government subsidizes anything

"SOCIALISM SEE ITS ALL AROUND YOU YOU DONT EVEN KNOW IT"

>socialist fags when socialist governments are executing people and causing famines

"See that's not true socialism. True socialism has never been tried."