Aren't Socialist policies just efficient Capitalism? Why does it need to be under a different label?

There are people that, get this, make a LOT of money doing things that negatively affect society. Crazy right? Not productive people, exploitive people. Those that carry out functions that distort markets and create inefficiencies. If nearly all houses and land were purchased by those who only wanted to rent them out in perpetuity, is that desirable? If the foundation for your system is profit>people, you are in for a bad time. The accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, exponentially and not necessarily based on merit,is not something that i think makes for a great society in the long run. I do believe in hierarchy and natural inequity, more productive people should be better off than less productive people, The difference is that at the CENTER of my worldview is people, a particular people. Not profit and not hedonistic pathologically extreme individualism that ignores effects on society or sustainability.

In the capitalist world view, all profit is good profit ultimately. It is one's duty to make all profit possible and this is a service to humanity. Selfishness a virtue. Billion dollar yachts while people starve or cant get get medical care is a sign of a well functioning system. It's designed to create extreme winners and extreme losers with a shrinking middle class. Nations are now markets. Politicians made to court financiers and whore out the their nations as best they can. The " invisible hand of the free market" is infallible and unquestionable. Their new god. No thanks, we have gone far enough down that road.

>is not something that i think makes for a great society in the long run
>I do believe in hierarchy and natural inequity
>the CENTER of my worldview is people
You are not really different to a marxist. Your utopia requires a totalitarian middle man, state, to force your ideology upon humans so they work for your believes. I agree, if your goal is a potential utopia, you have to believe this and there is no way around. But reality is, human nature is tribal, not made for a global society, I would say not even made for a national society. In the end even if you would manage to build such a state it would be corrupted to serve a very small minority compared to the greater mass, as it is human nature. Your idea of people not starving and getting medical care is just because your goal is not feasable without a mass of slaves

when you have 34% unemployment, it is more efficient to kill 34% of your people than it is to create jobs for them.

To have control of any system, there must be an authority. In this case you choose to call that totalitarian, but your opinion is only that. I do not care about labels or sentiments when choosing an economic system, I care for results.Is a thing good? Then promote it. Is a thing bad? Then restrict it. The use of force is not inherently bad, the question is "to what effect?" Seeking to improve conditions is not utopianism. I am 100% supportive of anti-globalism and supportive of tribalism. My system is not tenable without those conditions. Capitalism is against these concepts. Capitalism ultimately seeks to dominate all other considerations. The economy is all important, profit the basis for everything and the measure for what is "good". Ultimately no room in the equation for moralistic concerns or loyalty to tribe or nation. Everything must be pitted against everything if it advances the capitalist's self interest. Self interest, a good summation of capitalism. Yes, all systems must be safeguarded to prevent them from serving the few rather than the many. This is not possible with the "free market". The more free the market, ultimately the more enslaved the people. If you support any restrictions on the market then you have already conceded this point and are arguing about degree. You argue that a nation can not feed it's people and provide healthcare without a mass of slaves, it seems baseless to me. I am not arguing that ANYONE should work for free. I'm not arguing that everyone should get paid the same. I'm arguing for a reasonable balance and a system based on merit and outcome to the extent that it can be. More important than anything is designing a system which advances a nation while respecting the individual. That restrains harmful motives and exploitative practices while supporting legitimate self interest and virtue. An "anything goes" model is harmful, as is a system that does not provide motivation and reward for hard work.

okay sorry I can't take you serious in any way if you refuse labels and then start to use terms like good and bad. Maybe somebody else can take something from this. In my eyes you are a brainwashed ideologist

>Billion dollar yachts while people starve

The only people who starve in this country are those too dull witted to feed themselves. Any place in the USA you could dumpster dive for more good food than a person could want to eat, go to a church or soup kitchen for a hot meal, or simply panhandle a few dollars to buy a tin of beans and a loaf of bread.

Attached: proletariet 3.jpg (1680x1050, 298K)

I've already given a label for my views in a previous response to one of your posts. I am "natSOC", national socialist. That stance is authoritarian, I would argue that it's not totalitarian. My point was that i don't care about these concerns anyway. You end with more labels after admitting that you didn't even get anything from my posts and don't seem to know where I even stand.

You do not have to take everything so literally, but sure. Productive people do not literally starve in America.

>Aren't Socialist policies just efficient Capitalism?
Oswald Spengler already criticised Marxism under the premise that it was just capitalism of the working classes, with Marx' solution being to expropriate the system rather than overcome it.

There are different concepts of Socialism however that were proposed during the early 20th century that differ quite a bit from the Marxist variant.

Socialism isn't efficient. No system under the control of a central planner is efficient, because they simply haven't got the information necessary to make the myriad of decisions in an economy.

As an individual, would you trust your needs like food and shelter to politicians and powerlusters? Do you think they would know better than you?

On the subject of inequality, it is actually a well known fact that the poorest, most unequal nations are also the most socialist. Consider the case of Venezuela, whose elites gorge themselves in gourmet Turkish restaurants while the proles eat their cats and dogs.

this is an intelligent analytical post
this is a response that would barely manage to hold off a small child in a debate over why eating vegetables is good for.
please gys