Has classical socialism ever been tried?

But if you bought a house from the product of your labor, and then somebody seizes that house, then they are literally seizing your labor, thus making you a slave.

It would only be a house that you already chose to rent out to someone. Socialists lose sympathy at that point as you are engaging in immoral 'exploitation'.
I still have sympathy for the person losing their house, but maybe I'm a classcuck

What if you use your labor to purchase a 2 story house, and then rent out half of it

Yes, but they do not pay for the materials nor do they have much experience on setting up deals. A hierarchy will emerge amongst who actually can do the logistics and push the product and as a result they will most likely get a larger share. Then begins the process of wealth inequality and going back to square one.

What's going to stop the next group of socialists from seizing their means of production if they decide they don't like that the existing group of workers is profiting from the use of machinery?
Who enforces that anyway?

>mfw those workers decide they need to specialize and that some people are better at certain roles than others, and some roles are more vital than others, and those people should be paid more

lol just said the samething.

Why shouldn't you profit on loaning out what you brought with your resources and effort? The people who own the property usually contributed in someway, being a landlord is not an easy job at all.

They could take the part you rented out

Logistics is a pretty decent point, maybe they would hire the capitalist as a worker earning substantially less than he did before. He would still make a lot less money. If there wasn't a difference in return from being a capitalist vs being a logistics person, nobody would become a capitalist in the first place.

>They could take the part you rented out

What if you physically built the house with your own labor?

Socialists don't believe in equal wages for everyone. They accept differences in wages based on skill.

(((Classical)))

Communism needs socialism in order to become stateless. Other it wouldn't become stateless with out socialism. It also requires a world to unite together.

The difference between the two of them is the skilled worker who makes more than everyone pools his money and then buys the equipment and opens another factory and hires people to work for him. Literally he gets rewarded for risking his savings on opening a factory and expanding the economy.

literally anyone in this very country can start a worker-owned business at any time. the only reason it doesn’t happen more is because it doesn’t work for anything but faggy artisan vegan coffee shops

How about this I think we can agree on the National Socialist concept of profit capping where businesses can only have so much profit a year ie 10%.

>what is private property used for
But I have private property and I use it for none of those things.

Excess wealth sometimes comes from working harder than other people or saving more. But often it's just because you earn a higher wage. That means a) you can save the same proportion of your income while generating more savings than other people, and b) you can save a higher proportion of your income as your basic needs are already met.

Private property has an esoteric definition which is different from personal property. It's characterised by absentee ownership

So basically as we established before that some workers will be paid more, that socialism is practically impossible and we haven't dealt with what happens when a person wants to make a business.

Economic value can only exist in the context of a market. Workers create value only insofar as their labor is appreciated by other humans willing to trade. No one values your self-portraits made of feces in any meaningful sense. Please, end your life now.

>But often it's just because you earn a higher wage.
Earn being the operative word.

The line separating them is easily blurred.

>I don't mean communism where everything is owned by the state.

For Communism to be implemented the state needs to have complete control of everything. The leaders of the worker's rebellion become the government of said state. See the Russian civil war. It's pretty much impossible for old school Communism to come to the west due to demographic reasons.

worker owned co-opts exist and communal farm ownership and also kibbutzs
so on small scales yes

>you have more so you have to give me
>or I'll take it

Jesusfuckingchrist can you people stop with your meme ideologies? Just imagine that you have to democratically vote at 6 o'clock in the morning about what to do, with the rest of showelheads, I would go on a stabbing spree with a hammer by the end of the week.
This is why I hate socialists and communists - every single point of their ideology just scream 'I am not of the working class'. If they were they would know that the more professional and efficient the team is, the more of a tyranny it is.
I knew of three communes in my life where people decided to work for themselves as a community and EVERY.SINGLE.TIME it ended up the same - two people would do all the work and if they told the test to pull their weight, they would start badmouthing and backstabbing them. I don't understand how can you live in a human society, interact with people and think it will end in any other way

>private property is characterized by absentee ownership
No, it isn't. My private property would be considered private property by Marx and other socialist economists so you can take that hand wave and fuck off. Personal property is movable. Land is not movable. Ergo, my private property is private property.

>Communism is stateless
nice fantasy, nerd.

>The capitalist is external to the production of value - all value is generated by workers, working with capital.
>capitalist is external
>working with capital
Good thing communists can just generate capital out of thin air!

Here's what always happens when some flavor of Marxism is tried: a dictator seizes control and varying degrees of famine or government-sanctioned extermination of wrongthinkers occurs before the nation outright collapses. Any attempt at "true" Marxism is benevolent in nature and run by some idealistic fool who catches a bullet by someone who understands what all that control can do for him.

Attached: 1504310801147.png (1784x1766, 284K)

Many exist, if workers get (real) stock options, then they share in the profit. You can always invest your earnings into more company stock, plenty of people have done this.

It is, we tend to use the terms incorrectly. Of course, Marxists in the west are fully aware of that.

>be a socialist state
>take over the means of production
>lose so much money you have to shut down half of your factories because individuals are far less effective at marketing, distributing, deadlines, economic projection, budgeting, and staffing.
>large scale society implodes.

>Earn being the operative word.
Yeah they earned it but again, aren't earnings based mostly on IQ, education, personality traits, and so on? There's probably a connection with effort but it's not as strong as we like to think it is.

Your house is personal property regardless of whether it's movable or not. No socialist says someone can just come in your house and annoy you.

>Your house is personal property regardless of whether it's movable or not
The house is. The land isn't. So what good is a house if I do not own the land it stands on?

How is the land not personal property?

>No socialist says someone can just come in your house and annoy you.
Are you fuvking memeing right now? For a century they said and did exactly that.

>Yeah they earned it but again, aren't earnings based mostly on IQ, education, personality traits, and so on?
Debatable, and even if it was, that wouldn't change the fact that it was earned. Also
>education
That's not something some people just get for free and some don't. You have to put effort into your education.

>Your house is personal property regardless of whether it's movable or not. No socialist says someone can just come in your house and annoy you.
There are socialists right now who are in favor of redistributing houses.

I think it happened to a big factory in Spain once.

What if I built a two story house and rent out half of it? And what if I'm the one paying all the bills and making repairs, and they're just living in it and paying a "taking up space" fee?

The land contains resources and would be considered private property under socialist and Marxist economics. The realistic alternative is that it is personal property which demands public access meaning it isn't personal property at all. There cannot be any land ownership in a Marxist or socialist economy because it is the very definition of private property, whether the owner is absent or not.

I would class them as communists, not socialists

>that wouldn't change the fact that it was earned
But part of the argument behind the relevance of 'they earned it' is 'they earned it by working harder than other people'. If they earned more just by luck then I don't see what entitles them to it.

Usury is bullshit but these other two complaints are childish and stupid.

The reason your mean old landlord charges you rent is to give him an incentive to come and fix the toilet or patch a hole in the wall whenever you fuck something up, because you didn't do anything to earn it and don't give enough of a shit to take care of it. Left to your devices, it would fucking fall apart because you're a moron who think houses appear out of thin air.

And your mean old boss pays you a wage instead of letting you keep every car you screwed a plastic wheel well onto because without him, you'd have no idea how to obtain supplies to build the car, you wouldn't have any money to pay for supplies, you wouldn't have access to the millions of dollars worth of specialized equipment used to make it, and you wouldn't know how to do your job because your evil boss wouldn't have created the item you're building in the first place and taught the people who taught you what to do

Catalonia

Just because it contains resources doesn't exclude it from being personal property. As far as I'm concerned its personal property because you're putting it to personal use, in the form of a house.

This is why determinism and materialism are fucking cancer.

>The reason your mean old landlord charges you rent is to give him an incentive to come and fix the toilet
Then why is he a landlord rather than a professional toilet fixer? Do these groups really make comparable income?

I already mentioned logistics in
I agree that's part of what they do but the capitalist / landlord essence, the distinct part of the relationship, is what's mentioned in OP

>As far as I'm concerned
Yeah, well, it's unfortunate that your beliefs don't match your ideologies professed views on the matter.

If it ain't broke, why fix it? I get that you guys are fixated on people with unearned wealth as opposed to legitimately self-made people (which you don't seem to deny exist, unlike a lot of other commies I've talked to before). But if someone retards their way into a position of great wealth and power by luck of birth, there's a good chance that they'll fuck up big time and destroy their family's legacy, pumping that money back into the economy as a result. I don't understand why you think you'd be better at correcting this imbalance than the natural consequences that would occur as a result of the idiot son's ineptitude would.

Isn't that just Syndicalism?

>rich bastards
>rich bastards
>rich bastards
holy shit, i hate money now.

Marxism is ignorant of the Pareto principle | Jordan Peterson & Bret Weinstein
youtu.be/i0iL0ixoZYo

Attached: Dr Peterson.jpg (900x1200, 233K)

workers are intrinsically less capable

that's the most retarded idea i have ever heard in my 28 yo life. Congratulations you win the "Most retarded commie who doesn't understand what communism actually is" award. Just so you know, in all socialist countries the state controls the economy and thus all the means of production and the idea of private property is null and void.