Socialism is the belief that the wealth a society generates must be used first to benefit that society...

There were few states with slavery in the Union, lol

You realize that you aren't a capitalist, right? what capital do you own?

>We controled the nazis too
Hitler was funded by the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of England.
Jews literally funded the rise of Hitler.
Hitler was a Zionist.

tell me your understanding of the US Civil War.

>Communism is the belief that the wealth a portion of a society generates should be distributed BY THE GOVERNMENT to the whole of society at the expense of the people because no government can be trusted with the powers communism gives a government. period.

now you know you are naive

Socialism, Communism and Fascism is the belief that the needs of my neighbors justify the seizure of my means.

Capitalism is the realization that the only way to maintain wealth creation and distribution is to leave me alone long enough that my (and my competitors) overproduction reduces the value of the goods I produce until everyone can afford them. Denote here the absence of a state, red-tape preventing the competition and welfare.

Minimalism is the way a Capitalist starves a Socialist, a Communist or a Fascist.

Communism has to be one of the most retarded things ever thought of

>implying people are ok with equal economic outcomes for different work
>implying people care about the pride of their jobs over endless capitalist hedonism
>implying people are driven to take risks, innovate, invest and maintain productive competitiveness in communism

And this is why every communist regime becomes an oppressive police state.

Attached: A0C5980C-237F-49D6-9DCD-BEA52C4569B0.png (643x643, 122K)

What capital do I own? None, but that's because I've made $1.10's worth of bad choices for every $1 I made.

I've been working full time for 10 years now, 30-40k per year. That's 300-400k I've earned that I could have put away while living like a pauper. With that 300-400k I would have had plenty to start a business and employ other people who have 10 years could also have money to invest.

Instead I ate meals prepared by other people, smoked weed, drank, hung out with friends, and always had a car.

Is any of that the state's fault? Of course not, capitalism allows people to make their own choice. Some choose to blame the system for their own failures

>None
>I would have
>could also have
interesting.
How do you think advocating Capitalism helps you when you aren't one of them? you are advocating
another groups interests at the expense of your own group. You admit you aren't a capitalist because you dont own capital.

OH NO NO NO

Attached: what-did-you-tell-that-ow-much-do-you-425-a-25341048.png (500x1210, 205K)

I advocate for capitalism because even though I may not be someone who would spend the time and energy to become wealthy doesn't mean I want the government controlling who can.
>the workers built your factories and the machines they use
Why would they do that if the capitalist is evil?

>bread lines don't exist in capitalist countries
right senpai, we just call them food banks over here

Got a lot of government ran food banks around you?

Well sweetie, because grown ups are capable of having a non solipsistic, non-egocentric world view. Grown ups are able to capture which system provides the greatest net utility for society (capitalism) and altruistically support it because more people are better off under it than under delusional jewish ideologies

honestly, I dont mind you supporting capitalism, but you should at least educate yourself on what both Capitalism and Socialism actually are before you post your opinions online.

Oh man ya got me. How many of your professors were commies as well?

Canada has socialized healthcare. you must cry yourself to sleep overnight because every Canadian gets coverage.

Why is it wrong for me to want you to have more education. education is a good thing you anti-intellectual christian.

Because more education wouldn't change the fundamental ideals. You want more government involvement in people's lives, I want less.

What's your current situation? Do you have a job? How do you pay for food?

Some socialist programs in the right context are ok - healthcare is one of them. Even though we suffer from low quality and long wait times, it’s probably best that everyone chips just a little extra the pot there for societal access to medical care. This is different than going full out communism

what are you going to say when America is unrecognizable to you in 10 years? Did the Democrats do it? Capitalism is strongly supported in the US.

Attached: socialismisevil.jpg (700x668, 57K)

I assume your parents still pay for your food after they paid for your college as well.

>Even though we suffer from low quality and long wait times
Shill confirmed.
So why did Rand Paul of there to wait in line for his surgery? Why did he choose Canada over the US?
>politico.com/story/2019/01/14/rand-paul-canada-surgery-neighbor-attack-1099485

Why are you on this discussion forum if you dont want to talk to people with different opinions?

“This is a private, world-renowned hospital separate from any system and people come from around the world to pay cash for their services,” a spokesperson told POLITICO”

>private
>paid out of pocket

Literally the second paragraph

>using a private hospital as a evidence of the success of their socialized system
wew
Why are you avoiding the question? I can easily say I've been completely responsible for my own finances since I was 18. Have you ever even had a job?

why didnt he choose the best hospitals in the world in the US?

>For over 70 years, we have been the only licensed hospital in the world dedicated to repairing hernias.
I don't know bro, what were his injuries?

how long is your penis?

You’re using apples to oranges in attempt to compare apples to apples. You see the logical fallacy here I hope?

Where can I move to to avoid these police states?

6", how do you afford your food?

oh damn, the US doesn't have hospitals for hernias?

Maybe not as good of ones as that one that is private and specializes in hernies. Sorry you're having to hold the weight of those goalposts for so long though

You do realize people die from those long wait times, right? That said the idea is a nice one. The problem is socialism and communism rely on people being good and not free riding opportunistic assholes. The same problems we find in capitalism are the same problems we find in the other two. Fucky people making a fucky system. I argue that at least capitalism can give a financial incentive. The problem is it HAS to be restricted at some point, because the free market inevitably eats itself as people work together to dominate the market. And it is there the corruption fucks everything up.

lmao. as if. I want it in millimeters.
I work at a concrete plant. I live in an apartment. does that help you judge me? you are looking for irrelevant context so you can dismiss me. classic fool.

Could you have more money in savings if you didn't spend on frivolous things?

>resulting in a few wealthy Elites at the expense of many destitute and struggling commoners.
False. Inequality is the norm, not the exception. And it's not at the cost of anything. Someone having a billion is not the reason someone else doesn't have a billion.

An outspoken senator for The US healthcare system goes to Canada for treatment. Do you see this hypocrisy?

>This senator that claims to love America went on vacation in Europe. Do you see this hypocrisy?

>Why would they do that if the capitalist is evil?
because most of the population has no other choice than to sell their labour
in capitalism you can either be exploited or exploit others

Can you point out a time in history where people didn't have to work?

I like how MrSoi (love your ID) glossed over the canadian at explaining that he went to a private hospital.
Why did you refuse to acknowledge the point?

Not anymore that would die from private healthcare. If someone is in life threatening condition, they get instant priority. It’s the people that have non-urgent ailments that suffer from rushed service and long wait times.

Healthcare is just about the only realm in which I agree with socialism. I don’t agree with it as a holistic economic model (especially for corporate) because I think any sort of communism/socialism is essentially life on demoralization mode for the average person

Socialism is inherently dysgenic. It amounts to a constant wealth transfer from the high IQ population to the low IQ population. Even if everyone is the same race, it's still not good because lower IQ people already have a propensity to breed at a higher rate. Giving them more money doesn't lift them out of the hole they are in because they can only rise as high as their intellect allows. It just means they will have more kids, and then those will have more. Natsocs are just a little bet less bad than communists because they don't want to redistribute wealth to other people groups, but redistributing it to the low IQ white population is still not good, especially with all the progress that's being made with automation.

I see. Makes sense. My issue with most socialist systems is more that I think society is not ready for it, mainly because people the way they are now will exploit it for free stuff and devolve culturally over time without the need to work as hard or be as responsible.
A great example of this is how some of our civil rights acts and the welfare system (forget the actual act, but Lyndon B Johnson reportedly claimed it would have black people voting democrat for the next 200 years) destroyed the black family unit within a few generations, leading to the age old meme about black fathers never staying to raise their kids.

Capitalism is a term invented by socialists. It doesn't refer to anything but their criticisms of the market economy in collective format. That's why people who end up defending capitalism have to excuse exploitation, part of capitalism is exploitation, and that's by design because opponents of the market economy needed a way to argue against without bringing up the fact it's objectively increased standards of living. Many communists legitimately believe that we'd all be happier if we were still living in caves. How are they going to be able to sell that nonsense to most people without inventing a derogatory term and forcing them to defend it?

>Socialism is the belief
no
youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA

wat
you think "working" equals "being employed" or something?

in case you dont know:

capitalism is that there are two classes:
owners of means of production (bourgeosie) who get wealth simply for having wealth beforehand.
workers who sell their labour to bourgeoisie (proletariat), receiving less wealth than the worth of their work (otherwise the bourgeoisie wouldnt buy their labour)

and no - managers who run the companies are not bourgeoisie, thats still proletariat.

socialism is that workers own the means of production they use for their work, thus only workers exist without the parasitic bourgeoisie

I assume everyone in positions of management rotate out with those in the lowest positions?

hey commie, we heard it all before
you're a middle class jew, kys

there are many kinds of socialism, differing how it would work
there are ideologies such as market socialism.

you could have the workers select managers democratically for their company, while ensuring economical productivity through market forces between competing companies (lazy workers voting for lazy rules => company goes under and competitive company with smarter workers takes over their position)

sorry, meant for this post

hitler was a bolshevik as well
youtube.com/watch?v=M6UF9-7o4bE

Can you explain how workers will own the means of production when under socialism the government entity is responsible for everything?

>socialism is that workers own the means of production
no
it's the state which owns the means of production under socialism
it claims to represent the people which it eventually starves and exterminates every fucking time

shhh, don't feed them the answer I want to see what explanation they can give me.

>when under socialism the government entity is responsible for everything
thats not necessary under socialism. this is one of many kinds of socialist ideologies, in such case "state socialism", which was practiced in soviet union. some socialists disagree it being socialism at all, since workers had little power over their means of production (and say state became a new centralized capitalist). some other socialists support it.

in other words, "socialism means state runs everything" is not true. just like capitalism isnt necessarily mercantilism, altough it can be somewhere.

>it's the state which owns the means of production under socialism
read books before making such foolish claims

ie >real socialism has never been tried

Transforming.

You didn't read Karl Marx (The father of socialism) very well then did you?

I wonder why this is still allowed on jewtube hmm.

Under socialism, for everyone to chip into a group contribution that is then distributed to everyone equally or however you need a centralized system. That system will inevitably be the government, or have powers equivalent to a government in some way. Can you explain a socialist system that does not fit into this?

libertarian-reactionary pipeline is real

No they didn't at best he was funded by henry ford or a random german dude that I forgot about.
>a zionist
Okay why did these same zionists assassinate his ss officer pissing him off?
Why is it that hitler nationalized the banks pissing off the jews?
Lets not forget the part where jews did admit for claiming other people to fool retards such as your self.

Attached: 1563484415677.jpg (400x254, 39K)

No you didn't kike.
Or else you wouldnt have kvetched when hitler allied with al amin.

>capitalism is that there are two classes:
>owners of means of production (bourgeosie) who get wealth simply for having wealth beforehand.
>workers who sell their labour to bourgeoisie (proletariat), receiving less wealth than the worth of their work (otherwise the bourgeoisie wouldnt buy their labour)
So post-industrial economies are not capitalist then.

No. I don't want to just dismiss their rational like that. They will reject your generalization of their arguments the same way many of us reject media characterizations of us. I want to actually argue/debate with this person, if they have the guts to do so, that is.

thats not what i said at all. nice strawman
>You didn't read Karl Marx (The father of socialism)
marx isnt a father of socialism in any way, socialist ideologies are older. seems like you didnt read karl marx. he primarily wrote analysis of capitalism (das kapital), like many other socialist authors, his just happened to become the most famous.

fun fact - marx was influenced by proudhon, who was a mutualist - market socialist

Fine. Can you then put a counter to
since that user is not replying then?

explain

Both Socialism and Communism involve the seizure of private property and fruit of one's labor.

Neither Socialism nor Communism have ever worked anywhere at any time.

>for everyone to chip into a group contribution that is then distributed to everyone equally or however you need a centralized system
yes, if you want "global" equality of wealth, then youd need some centralized agency - state. that is correct.

however many socialist ideologies dont require global equality of wealth. thats more of a communist domain. its an additional requirement you decided to put on top of the socialist requirement (worker-owned/managed MoP).

I would very much like a response to my assertion here You claim that socialism doesn't mean the state controls everything, but didnt provide an example of such a system. I would like to hear a basic example, and/or a counter to my earlier mentioned assertion that surely any socialist system by its nature would be like a government in its own right.

You keep saying this, but you don't provide a clear example. You simply say these ideologies exist but don't name them.

look at all the fluoride toothpaste using morons arguing on a cia psy-op board

i have already named a term for the entire category of them - market socialism.
i also mentioned one of them specifically, mutualism.

Looking over the wikipedia entry, I have trouble seeing how mutualism is a form of socialism. Its seems entirely about the individual. To me it seems more tied to anarchy.
looking into market socialism now.

Socialism is the belief that the oligarchy is all powerful and no rightS for the people

You already knew

NEWFAGGOTS STOP BUMPING SHILL THREADS

Although mutualism is similar to the economic doctrines of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists, it is in favor of large industries.[7] Mutualism has been retrospectively characterized sometimes as being a form of individualist anarchism[8] and as ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism as well.

You either support state control of the economy or you don't. There is no "third position".

I see. China is what you meant with market socialism. That is a mix of capitalism and socialism, a hybrid that requires the capitalism part to work, which they created after their communism attempt failed. I will admit to not knowing enough of the problems with China's system there to criticize it, especially as most of the problems come from the chinese people.

But then again, you are talking about a system china uses to exploit its workers harder than ANY modern capitalist society has...

also, syndicalism would replace capitalism with hierarchical workers organizations, that would decide the production "planning"
im not sure if you could call it state, thats debatable. im not a syndicalist.

>I have trouble seeing how mutualism is a form of socialism
in mutualism, there is no private property, only personal property. it is therefore impossible to own means of production for which you rent others labour, therefore capitalism is impossible, only socialism is. you cant rent out MoP, you cant rent out land etc. but you can own what you use for yourself (your house, your car, ...)

>Looking over the wikipedia entry
regarding wiki, it also says
>Mutualism is a libertarian socialist economic theory
>As libertarian socialists, they have distinguished mutualism from state socialism and do not advocate state control over the means of production. Instead, each person possesses a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market.[1]
many socialists dont like mutualism though, usually the kind that wants everyone to be equally wealthy.

>To me it seems more tied to anarchy.
anarchism is almost exclusively socialist. anarchocapitalism is generally not considered as anarchism due to its vertical power structures, except by ancaps themselves.

>china
china is a very special case. sorry but its not market socialism because you still have the classes - poor workers and billionaire company owners. workers dont own the means of production.

china is really difficult case to judge - its a mixed economy, where capitalists own the companies for personal profit but the state has massive influence over the economy, often directly influence how much of what is to be produced.

china is brands itself communist rather because of its state power structures that originate from communist movment but decayed into this ungodly mutant that it is now, which is neither one or the other.

Attached: 51081e9ccd5ead9eaeae7c816f2c32a9.png (500x636, 253K)

A fair point with the first response.
As to the second, just because the wiki calls it such does not mean I will believe it as such, but with your first reply I concede the point. Mutualism seems like a kind of weird system.
It feels odd that anarchy is almost exclusively socialist. Normally anarchy is a lack of system, while socialism is considered a form of system. But then you do have the hybrids. Ancaps are a weird sort that in some cases do not care that their system will guarantee its own demise the moment any corporation grows big enough. It is little more than resetting the clock on the evolution of kingdoms that already occurred, and waiting for it to happen again, only faster.
I see, I got twisted around in my search. Looking at it though it doesn't seem to really have been put in practice beyond small places like yugoslavia and cuba. I can see Italy has some things that are touted as good examples of it working but those are within the greater scope of Italy's government. I concede that one can argue that such forms of socialism have NOT been actually tried, but I remain doubtful they can work in modern society.
That said, if people had the moral fiber and culture they had half a century ago, maybe it would work out fine.
Excellent internet argument. This is why I did not want to stop at the point where the other user generalized your argument to a simple "real socialism has never been tried"

Isn’t this ocean of piss so nice when people actually communicate?

Indeed. I like to learn from arguing/debating. Bring my ideas and beliefs forth and test them against another's, and see what comes of it. How will my ideas stand up? How will theirs? Will mine change? Will theirs?

Report back with a detailed list of all the things you consider frivolous. No shorter than 200 pages.

gotta be 18 to post here kiddo.