Socialism/Communism Thread

Thread to discuss economics and politics about socialism, anarchism, and communism.
Also I'll be responding to any arguments, but they must be arguments.
Ask away.

Kill yourself

Capitalism forever.

Why do you think capitalism will last forever?

Socialism is statism and is evil. So fuck it.

How can socialism be statist? Economic democracy is diametrically opposed to a bureaucrat controlling things.

Because workers were too moronic to compete with the aggressive trade market.

If a Communist government gets elected in the US how they going to deal with the tens of millions of dissidents and actually do something in the 4 years they would have? As a matter of fact, what would they even do?

>be communist
>still be smart enough to realize that the only to achieve true communism, is by making most labor automated
>still smart enough to realize capitalism is the fastest way to get to such a state

I'm all for taxpayer funded education and healthcare, to provide a basis for all individuals to contribute to the global market. Ultimately, even if it's a hard pill to swallow, what's good for the economy is good for the people.

I in love with the idea of communism, but I just don't see it being viable anytime before labor has become sufficiently automated, and capitalists NOT sharing the fruit of their labor would would hurt them more, than just sharing it.

Well, so far it's lasted longer than any communist society I've ever heard of.

>aggressive trade market
What do you mean by this?

Any elected party in the US will be constrained by the political and economic climate. Assuming they're Marxists like social democrats, they'll probably try to implement some welfare state policies like universal health care and infrastructure spending and maybe some economic democracy measures like promotion of workers cooperatives. It will be watered down policies, though, not much more "radical" than FDR. I'm not sure how dissidents will be treated, but they'll be left alone as long as they don't try to overthrow the elected government.

And monarchy had lasted longer than any free-market capitalist society.

I think market socialism and economic democracy are much more realistic and achievable than full communism, and they do not sacrifice socialist ideals.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Once the Addiction to worthless crap starts, there's no stopping it. The market propoganda and employee routine will be ingrain in every society, and it'll be impossible to remove. Everything will be privatized and soon all of the none contributors will be used as food for the slaves.

What is your argument?

It's unsustainable.

Why?

Pretty much the same but with national socialism. Also not in a hurry to get there.

To actually enact Socialism we have to have a way to commonly own both the resources and the means of production.
The enforcement of this common ownership must be done through some agency/vehicle that has both the authority of the people and the means of enforcement.
Some people are inevitably going to take more than they need because it's human nature.


If there is common ownership of the means of production (i.e. factories, offices, art studios, restaurants, farms, etc...) then all people have equal ownership of those facilities and hence can equally benefit from them.
But, if all of these people need equal access to the means of production and the means of production are incapable of growing at the same rate, everyone will simply begin to lose their access to the means of production.


There is no motivation for someone to work harder. Inherently, humans don't want to do more than they have to do unless there's a reason.
People don't work hard because it's "good for the country" - they work hard because they want more money/praise/material/power

I don't think Socialism have anything to do with the Economy.

That's entirely what socialism has to do with.

The benefits/welfare have to come from somewhere, no?

Socialism is a style of productivity in which those who produce their own goods gets to decide what to do with said goods. They own what they produce and they decide how they produce them.

The problem is that it's not compatible with mass production of goods and services; but that's a good thing, because that means that they can only produce what is necessary for their own survival. Only food, clothes, and shelter will be made, with instructions passed down from generation to generation. Goods will be produced from those who got their own resources. They will be truly free from the rulers that seek to compete in the Trade Race. A true, self sustaining society.

>To actually enact Socialism we have to have a way to commonly own both the resources and the means of production.
>The enforcement of this common ownership must be done through some agency/vehicle that has both the authority of the people and the means of enforcement.

No. In the US for example, all it would take would be to roll back the state's interference in markets to defend industrialists and private property holders. Repeal of right-to-work laws and regulations of unions (like the Taft-Hartley Act 1947) would be good reformist moves. Working-class people form groups naturally to protect their interests, as history shows. Their collective bargaining power accomplishes them shorter working hours and more decision making in the workplace.

>If there is common ownership of the means of production (i.e. factories, offices, art studios, restaurants, farms, etc...) then all people have equal ownership of those facilities and hence can equally benefit from them.
Individuals are not equalized under socialism because they control the means of production. Those who work harder or smarter are compensated more. Of course, policy will vary according to each cooperative. But generally, any group of voters will not abolish a meritocracy where doing so would ruin the enterprise, because they are self-interested. See cooperatives.
>But, if all of these people need equal access to the means of production and the means of production are incapable of growing at the same rate, everyone will simply begin to lose their access to the means of production.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, "equal access to the means of production." It is not a necessary condition for socialism.

>There is no motivation for someone to work harder. Inherently, humans don't want to do more than they have to do unless there's a reason.
I don't think this statement can be justified. Just by experience, people do things where there is no profit motive or power to take.

Why is not producing more than what we need a good thing?
Wouldn't that end innovation and progress?

And what happens if there's a bad year for, say, food production? China had mass starvation in the early communist years.