Talk about socialism. Does it work? Why or why not?

Talk about socialism. Does it work? Why or why not?

Socialism is predicated on the government being better able to provide service than the free market, which it is not

Socialism more like communisim amirite?

Even the alien whites (nords) couldn't maintain because eventually they felt the need to get #blacked

It's socialism when it does work, state capitalism when it doesn't

wrong

It works perfectly. Just look at Bernie's campaign. Its a perfect example of Democratic Socialism.

>Socialist leader asks for money
>thousands of voters send in their dona- I mean... taxes.
>wealth gets distributed to the rich in power

That's what socialism does.

wtf I hate chex mix now

Why the hell would you expect governments that go extremely corrupt extremely often not to just pocket tax money or give benefits to specific special interests or monopolies to them or etc?

Especially considering that in the free market thanks to competition it's very difficult to have a monopoly while in socialism it's easy as hell to bribe a politician and not only get a monopoly but also FORCE people to buy from it.

I laughed out loud

>Especially considering that in the free market thanks to competition it's very difficult to have a monopoly

possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Sup Forums

It's too legalistic.
The reason capitalism worked so well, is because it perpetuated itself. Tobacco industries fueled everything back then, and it got us to where we are now, but that's not justification for tobacco use.
I do like socialism on some level, but what a commie would tell me is that I don't like socialism, he'd tell me that what I really like is regulation, and that's true. The reason I don't call myself a socialist (and abstain from National socialist), is because I don't want to be lumped in with all the idiots who claim to be socialist yet are just progressive liberals. I try to refrain from idealism. Idealism is ironically what dehumanizes Jews as rats yet humanizes horses as people; it's unsustainable and leads to war. People should have no goal other than the present day we live in and the people in it. The word "Socialism" itself is a reminder of idealistic attitudes. I'm all for regulation and fairness, but some people should receive more money than other people. People have a misconception that wealth disparity is bad or that it even exists. Truth is, rich people don't wipe their ass with 10,000 times as much toilet paper as the common man, even though they may have 10,000 times more money than we already have; the rich live within their means; money isn't an accurate representation of wealth; people who obtain money fairly through business are not just more financially stable but are also more financially reliable and deserve that money for being financial reliable; it doesn't mean that they deserve to have the money to party every day; they are financially reliable BECAUSE they don't waste their money. The reason they don't spend their money, is BECAUSE they're not greedy; they don't splurge on big houses with drunken parties; donald Trump doesn't even smoke or drink. The 99%ers are ironically more greedy than the 1%, because they're the ones who truly care about the money.

>Does it work?
In it's intended purpose, yes

>Why or why not?
Socialism is a tool used by globalist elites to subvert governments that won't play ball with them.

Cont'd

Whether the wealth is redistributed or not, someone has to work at starbucks or mcdonalds; someone has to mop up the puke at school or work their asses off.
If minimum wage was set to 15 dollars, and all employers could magically pay the amount, nothing actually changes in the market; the jobs are still the same, because someone has to be the guy who serves you coffee in the morning; the prices are still the same (proportional to how much you get paid) which means that they're actually higher priced. It depends on other factors, like energy costs. There is nothing in the market that makes it harder for you to live. If you can't buy a loaf of bread, but someone else can, it doesn't mean that they aren't getting paid enough; it simply means that it's too costly for them to bake you bread, so they bake bread for people who are financially reliable as a fallback method so they don't go out of business. There's not enough energy in the market, not enough resources, not enough food and land for agriculture. People who want to regulate gas prices are what's wrong with the world, because fuel is what the market is based on. If it costs for you to go to work, it doesn't matter if you're being paid 7 dollars or 200 dollars an hour; if there's not enough fuel in the market, someone (you) is going to be shit out of luck.

WORKS ONLY WAR COMMUNIZM

National Socialism works.

International Socialism AKA Marxism is designed to destroy nations, and subject them to (((international finance))). This is why you hear these useful idiots shouting "state capitalism", they seek to destroy the nation's independent economy by nationalizing industries, and then go into heavy debt, so that the resources are "privatized" again and sold to large international banks.

The whole Capitalism Vs Socialism spectrum is inaccurate. There is little talk about whether that nation's culture or values are in play, and both Capitalism and Socialism allow people to be complete degenerates. This is an effort that uses the Hegelian dialectic so that Jews can either utilize their usury and gain control of a "free market" with Banks, but also control the rebellion against that system with Socialism. Tienanmen square was actually a PRO-MARXIST movement. Think about it - both of these systems ultimately give way to an International entity.

Nationalism is excluded from the spectrum, because if people knew the truth, Capitalists and Marxists would all be hanged by sunrise.

Private Property must be protected, and people must work for their bread. However, we cannot, and must not capitulate to Usury and International Finance which seeks to subjugate nations with economic hegemony.

A country must produce food to feed itself.
A country must produce more than it spends.
A country must defend its values.
A country must not rely on other nations.
A country must ensure peace among its people.
A country must serve its people, not rule them.

If a Nation fails to accomplish these goals then it is not a nation. Its authority has been abandoned, and it has voluntarily chained itself to Globalism.

bump

Sorry senpai, Fascism is just Capitalism in decay
Get yo fascist right wing idpol spooks outta here, can't you realise the simple truth of Socialism not being National Socialism? you sound like a feminist who preaches that their definition of Feminism is what feminism is as a whole despite the stupid things other feminists do. and of course we're against countries, why the fuck do you want a world where war happens constantly and thousands die in imperialist conflicts made litterally just to give more money to the banking clan's you despise so much?
and, a global state can easily propagate all these things because if a region is arid, a climate with a lot of food can send food their way, and the funny thing is that Private Property allows people to get away with never working, its funny how that works isn't it? how a rich kid can just inherit all his families money and slack around for the rest of his life? Yeah he really worked for his bread desu.

PREPARING FOR RIGHT WING REPLIES DESU

not a single argument

>>>/leftypol/

In the normal definition of "public ownership over industries"? Absolutely not, it failed miserably wherever it was tried - just see Venezuela for the latest example.

In the muddy, American definition of "government does some shit" there is no real answer because in the US this has been turned into some strawman that is selectively applied to certain government programs and not others.

this is a really good post. unironic upvote.

It's only good at keeping the tax base suppressed through a dependence on government programs. It doesn't magically put an end to greed or collusion and leaves your average citizen at the mercy of the lowest common denominator.

Ask Venezuela.

>the funny thing is that Private Property allows people to get away with never working, its funny how that works isn't it? how a rich kid can just inherit all his families money and slack around for the rest of his life? Yeah he really worked for his bread desu.

Most of his shit was just irrelevant talking, but anyone with half a brain realizes that that part is indeed an argument and criticism of private property

The calculation problem.

Socialism doesn't prevent that kind of behavior from happening.

Working to provide for your family isn't greed or anything, that money was earned.

If I had a daughter and I were saving up money so she could live nicely, and someone tried taking that money, I would kill them. Only a thief would justify banning the right to protect your family.

You run out of other peoples money eventually

I'd be willing to give it a go if it were run by a more hitler type rather than a cum faced open borders faggot type.

We already have a massive dose of socialism give that the private sector lobbies the government like fuck and it is also wholly owned by the banks.

Why shouldnt i work hard so that my kids dont need to? Why should he work for his bread and plow the fields for weeks when i can ensure my kid doesnt need to?

This whole argument boils down to being butthurt that ones parents didnt work hard enough to provide them the comfort another enjoys from what his parents gave him. Its the whole 'lol daddys car you didnt work 100 shifts at mcdonalds for it like me" taken to a new level.

Yes you do.

>putting a bus driver in charge

CRASHING THIS COUNTRY

WITH NO SURVIVORS

Never said it didn't. I wasn't posting in direct support of what he said, there was just some retard saying it wasn't an argument. It was.

>that money was earned.

By who?

But I don't disagree, it was earned. But there is great hypocrisy in someone saying that people on welfare are leaches (anyone who is right-of-centre), meanwhile their child/ren are literally the exact same.

>Why should he work for his bread and plow the fields for weeks when i can ensure my kid doesnt need to?

You are literally being a welfare operator. You are making your child a nigger.

Pissed on local degenerates.t. radical socialist

Because one person voluntarily giving something to their family, to ensure their security. Is different from using Government force to pay money they didn't earn?

see
How can you equate someone using their own money to provide a comfy life to their kids to someone who has money given to them from a government who forcefully takes it off everyone?

If someone wants to make their kid a lazy bastard why should they not be able to? if someone is able to provide so much for their kid that they turn out as dumb as a rock why shouldnt they?

>Because one person voluntarily giving something to their family, to ensure their security. Is different from using Government force to pay money they didn't earn?

Oh so you're one of these "capitalism and markets are NOT coersive systems, governments are" kinda libershitter. k.

You force people to take transactions in the marketplace that given an actually reasonable option they would not take. Those with money tell those without "take this shitty option or STARVE". That is not good. That is coercive. That is stealing.

Oh you're one of these kids too I see? Ok.

Socialsm doesnt allow exploitation of working class and gives rights to the poor. This makes it impossible to make money like in capitalism.

nope, dad came to this country broke as shit with my mum and they had me, i grew up studying my arse off while my parents worked hard. Now i have a successful business and they are comfortably retired. I plan on raising my kids with the luxury (an actual study desk, maybe a videogame console) i missed out on and making sure they dont go through the same shit i did.

Keep hating on people who want to provide for their kids though, im sure your kids will love ya

Ask Venezuela

How is that a response to anything I said in that post?

Literally the entire point of socialism is to prevent that kind of behaviour.

you implied that i am a lazy child of affluent parents and the reason for me defending this. This is what i took away from your post and i refuted it by explaining that i am not.

Either way, what you posted in response to me wasnt an argument at all, the simple implication that i am i child of affluence and therefore having a shit opinion isnt an argument at all. If you could refute the false equivalence i and the american pointed out or what you issue with someones child living a relaxed life due to the fruits of his parents labor it would be nice

You are.
Earn your own damn keep, You didn't even spend a minute on that business,this country has too many people who only care about thier own success, what about the homeless guy who got caught under the system? or the hard working proles who give you everything you own? I bet you exploit proles too ya damn porky.

>wasnt an argument at all
>isnt an argument at all

Libertarians, never change. Love hearing this every time something is said against you that you can't handle.

Also: What? Your entire post previously was therefore a pile of text typed over a completely incorrect assumption.

Socialism has never worked in a large scale capacity.
When you get to a certain scale it just doesn't work properly.
Government controlled economy also does not give competition, meaning sub standard products are produced.
You can implement certain aspects into a country and have it work completely fine but modern "socialists" (by that I mean the type of people who support Bernie) have a completely skewered point of view and typically don't know how economics work. Redistribution of wealth on a deeper scale to "balance" the classes punishes success and forces people to live in the exact same circumstances, which are not middle class level, but low class level standards.
Even if government gave us all these services people claim we could have the quality of these services in question would be incredibly low. Free college would be terrible, and free internet would be slow. Taxes would be incredibly high to the point nobody would be better off. The US in particular would regress so much under that type of system that it is unimaginable.
Having zero control of the economy isn't a great idea either, as regulations usually prevent depressions and financial crisis from happening.
If you think we can trust bankers and other economic controllers to not fuck everything up just look at what happened in 2008. Greed is only natural in the business of money, so it is necessary for the economy to have some form of regulations in order to insure its safety.
Pure Socialism can't work due to mostly scale and the need of competition, but pure capitalism leads to economic chaos. Best for the people is usually a mixture of the two.

ill ask my parents to be more broke next time so i can earn my keep harder next time

so if you could just explain whats wrong with a parent working hard for their kids or why this is equivalent to welfare it would be great

>jewish tricks to keep nationalism out of the argument
10/10 couldn't have said it better myself

National socialism= socialism

Oh it works alright

>so if you could just explain whats wrong with a parent working hard for their kids or why this is equivalent to welfare it would be great

Because it creates a cycle of dependency. You talked of "luxuries" being a desk and a gaming console. Those aren't luxuries. Not in the west. Never having to work a day in your life, driving expensive cars they didn't earn the money for, just being a useless cancer on society. That is what the "leftists"or whatever the fuck you want to call them are arguing against. Not some guy earning a few thousand dollars a month with a personal business.

>people finally wake up to the fact that DA JOOS aren't behind everything
>people realise that its actually just the corporates

3/10

pol/ Liberalism (free market) is the best path to development... but Liberalism lets niggers, indians and asians enter the country... How we do solve the problem without killing them? I like the idea of Liberalism only between western societies

This.
Literally this
It's surprising how well i get along with fascists nowadays, i mean you're anti feminist and anti corporate, but you still aren't leftists desu

And when this kid blows his cash on stupid cars he will need to get a job and his kids will again know what struggle is. There is no dependency on the government here unless you go from lamborghinis to food stamps. If people are stupid enough to squander all they have been given and end up at mcdonalds what is wrong with this?

What would you have this kid do? Send him to the gulag because his parents were smart enough to invest wisely?

Making you kids lazy is counterproductive. You can do damn well whatever you please but consider that your children will never be as successful as you were unless they get their own drive and determination.
This whole idea of attempting to give your kids a better life based solely on what material goods they have is stupid. Material goods do not make us better or worse off. You cannot value a person by the items they own. By giving your children a game system for instance, you are not helping them nor hurting them. Video Games may define your child's ideas and give them more experience but at the end of the day it will not make them a more valuable member of society.
The definition of luxury is largely arbitrary.

There is a balance between capitalism and socialism

Say im a prole
say i work every day
say some fucking porky treats me like shit and never promotes me
say people are so apathetic they still buy from this company when i release a report.
WELCOME TO THE TRUE NATURE OF LIBERTARIANISM MOTHERFUCKERS

i agree, to provide for your kids is one thing but a smart parent will teach a kid to provide for itself while also helping them. When i said game systems etc i meant small luxuries. A proper investment for example would be sending them to a better school, more money on tuition etc. The issue i take with the other bloke is he seems to be against a parent deciding they want a dumb as rocks kid. One should be free to give their kid a ferrari and let them drop out of school. Its their choice and if they can support them in this stupid endeavor why not? Its ultimately their choice, a stupid one but theirs.

so what do you propose?

well it works in Austria, Switzerland, Denmark and to some extend also in Germany and France.

It depends which parts are offered by the goverment like healthcare or education. These countries all have such things provided but you can get these services also from the private market if you want to.

possibly one of the smartes things i ever read from a australian

pretty based

a classless system in which the people democratically control the means of production whilst maintaining a democratically elected party to manage state affairs, in which all jobs are paid equally and education, healthcare etc is free, but everything is maintained to a biological definition to avoid degenerate tranny feminists arguing against science (EG Man has a dick woman has a vag, Trannys are a mental illness (Though i'm fine with gays as long as they aren't promoted as the norm)
I thought i made this clear guys

In Australia most banks float around an interest rate of 2.5% to 3%. 3% of a million dollars is $30,000 dollars.

Imagine if his parents got lucky and bought a couple of investment properties in Melbourne. The prices for housing jumped so fucking high in the last decade and a half as to be obscene. Example: my grandmothers house was a 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom, shoebox, with the bedrooms being little more than glorified cupboards with just enough room to fit a bed. It sold last year for $940,000. And was a piece of shit.

With a bank level of $4,000,000, you are earning with interest over 100,000 dollars/yearly. And that's just from owning a pile of building materials on a tiny stretch of dirt at the right time. Shitters don't have to do ANYTHING to live in relative luxury.

This is literally why we have a housing crisis here in sydney lmfao, because cucks who care about themselves buy property and make it impossible for new people to buy property.

What do Chileans think about Pinocheto and its liberal economic policies? Didn't he create more inequality?

Socialism does indeed work.
Until 5000 Mississippi Democrats show up
then the system collapses

this is complete and utter bullshit. In socialism working class is the most exploited one because of huge amount of taxes, which leaves them with barely no money left.

>Didn't he create more inequality?
No, studies has estimated that GINI in chile before Pinochet was like 57. Now Our GINI is 50, inequality is slight better. But with internet the poverty is a LOT more noticeable (smarthphones, tv, radios, notebooks, socials media, etc) Chile has improved IN EVERY SINGLE STADISTIC, but chileans are stupid, they think we still are living like Bolivia or african country... Chileans leftist always are talking shit about companies even If the Majority of taxes are paid for them... Leftist are always MUH Humans rights... MUh evil Pinochet kill communist ... but at least 25% of chile think Pinochet was the best president of history, another 35% said he did good (economics) and bad things (communist killed) and the rest fucking hate him. I HATE LEFTIST they're everywhere...

Actually people go out to ask THE END OF AFP (private pension) muh state only aport 1% of PIB. But people only aport 10% and leftist are telling us muh europe developed country.. they even don't know europeans country contribuited with 20% of they salary and THEY GET PAID 2 times more than us (CHILE PIB percapita 24000, european countries 50.000)

the AFP system was created by José Piñera, they even sweden are using it today. But people here are just too ignorant. NOBODY knows even what is austrian economics. I even fight with a beloved friend because of this (he's a reddit faggot)

A state capitalist/socialist system with a mixed economy would be best. No government could plan an economy efficiently for millions of people, and the people speculating with life essentials like water, shelter, food and healthcare.

Another issue is Intellectual Property. A necessary evil and a gross inefficiency required for capitalism to function.

whats the difference your fucking the ass of all your citizens or the ass of the whole world?

nice meme
Not true.

Meh, it can work if you plan ahead for it (something that Sanders didn't do). It's just empty promises beyond that.

In Venezuela the workers don't control industries.

Nice meme.

>taxes
>punishing success
>making people live the same
wew lad
Even at their current high levels, taxes don't put rich people that much lower. You're full of shit.
Also, the reason countries like the Soviet Union had widespread but often rather poor services was because the government owned literally every single service and business and was too large and centralized to handle it. They also weren't allowed to fire workers for substandard work at some points.

If you don't have a government filled with sand niggers and niggers in general it works.

...

Neither total socialism nor total capitalism are good ideas.

China is, ironically, one of the freeest market on the globe and it's a massive shitfest of loophole scams and fraud.

Meanwhile, well, we all know what comes out of total socialism.

Industries which can be monopolised to exploit the people should be made public sector. Lest I remind you, road used to be privately owned and maintained.

While the government may do an overall rougher, slower, and kinda shittier job, it does it affordably and makes sure everyone gets a piece of the pie. Mainly, this is stuff like infrastructure, healthcare, education, possibly food.

The free market makes sure people stay productive with minimal effort on the government's part and provides a powerful force to keep the government in check.

Over time, we will have to migrate to a more socialist system as machines replace more and more of our workforce.

...

sorry about my english, I don't read my comment before lol :P

yeh i heard they are doing the same in Canada, indians and chinks are a plague

Pinochet did nothing wrong

Except he's right dumb fuck
Monopolies only exist through corruption. A monopoly is something that inherently stops competition, but just because you have 90% of the market doesn't mean you're a monopoly.
>flag