Socialism

>that picture
You know when you train a dog to balance a treat on its nose?

what is national socialism?

Why has capitalism failed every single time it has ever been implemented in the history of mankind? What does that say about capitalists?

Those are not right wing policies user.

Op can you debunk this video from david pakman? Debunked: "Socialism Has Never Worked"
youtube.com/watch?v=k79wCaFgU40

Not right-wing lol, it's also retarded.

so a militarized state isnt right wing? With right wing on social issues.

real jewish subversion has never been tried!

is right wing to you libertarian?

Same way capitalism has, or any economic theory for that matter.
Because of the (((parasites))).

No, unless you think North Korea is right wing, or China, or the Soviet Union (was).

it is my understanding that socialism is a sort of preliminary communism, not fully a next step for humanity but rather a first step in that direction of a world moved past capitalism.

It's left-wing. How fucking dumb are you?

What was Nazi Germany?

do you consider right-wing only in terms of economics and denying any social programs? Would you consider hitler to be left wing?

pic related might be a new concept to you.

Attached: political compass.png (1280x1280, 450K)

ending social degeneracy in society in authoritarian society is left wing? But a libertarian free market degenerate society is right wing?

High authoritarian, moderate left / right. Basically just white socialism.

Is the US military socialist? Are cops socialists?

Are corporations whose entire or majority of revenue sourced from federal and state contracts funded ultimately by taxpayers a form of socialism?

We should come up with a new phrase. Democratic Conservatism. It's just plain old conservatism with a fresh new face.

That socialism is less about helping poor people and more about socialist politicians helping themselves.

why use a meme political compass?

Attached: crowdchart.png (400x400, 93K)

"Past capitalism"? What is capitalism to you? And in what way is socialism moving "past" it?

I'm just asking questions to try to get someone to truly define these terms before they make broad claims about them. Because I've seen people fight to the blood over if the German Nazi's at their height were "right wing" or "left wing" and if they were "fascists" or "socialists", and both were willing to fisticuffs over it. They can't both be right... can they?

It fails because it becomes authoritarian to maintain control over the millions of things it needs to do to maintain control over the millions of things it needs to do.

Why do good people die in car wrecks and fires but people like this piece of shit live long prosperous lives?

>why use a meme political compass
>Hitler right of center
why did you?

So is it "not socialist" or "less socialist" to instead delegate that authority to top-down authoritarian mini dictatorships (known as "companies")?

If I delegate authority to corporations in a market I construct and let them vie for power via market share, and the 'winner' is in charge of that vertical.... how is that fundamentally different from having 5 advisors and pitting them against one another? The lesser degree of visibility and oversight..?

Guy really thinks he stumped you...words actually have meanings and parameters in real life you fucking gay retard

politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Bush=6.0,4.0&Castro=-5.0,3.0&China=-2.0,5.0&Chomsky=-8.0,-10.0&Friedman=5.0,-3.0&Gandhi=-6.0,-3.0&Hitler=3.0,9.0&Jefferson=2.0,-4.0&Johnson=10.0,-2.0&Lenin=-10.0,3.0&Luxemburg=-10.0,-2.0&Mandela=-6.0,-5.0&Mao=-10.0,5.0&Marxism=-10.0,-6.0&Mugabe=-5.0,6.0&Obama=3.0,2.0&Pakistan=-3.0,2.0&Paul=9.0,-4.0&Pinochet=10.0,10.0&Proudhon=0.0,-10.0&Rand=10.0,-7.0&Reagan=8.0,7.0&Rothbard=9.0,-9.0&Rucker=-4.0,-10.0&Russia=1.0,4.0&Sanders=-5.0,0.0&Saudi=3.0,7.0&Stalin=-8.0,9.0&Stein=-3.0,-2.0&Trotsky=-10.0,0.0&Trump=6.0,6.0&Vietnam=-8.0,2.0&ec=1&name=Washington&soc=-2
this is from political compass .org so I will take it more as fact than ur meme chart. Either way the op question was if socialism worked the right or left wing part doesnt matter as much.

>Why has socialism failed every single time it has ever been implemented?
Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

Is China socialist today?

Has it 'failed'?

Did the USSR 'fail' because it ultimately imploded due to its struggles with the US? Was it failing when it beat the US into putting a man in space? What is 'failure'?

Why has every ideology ever employed failed?
Name a nation/empire/government that hasn't failed?
Go ahead, i'll wait.

Is the US going to run out of other people's money in its funding of its military? It is, after all, taxpayer dollars (other people's money) that funds it. Is that socialist, then?

Use the dictionary you pompas twat! Its how we define things mutually...not objective truths or speak your truth..fucking child

The people who don't want to work want socialism. So socialism, by definition of the people who make up its constituents, cannot work.

well to me capitalism is a strawman patched together. but essentially capitalism is supposed to be sort of the way our economy and society works now, with wealth inequality and unfair and inhumane working conditions and economic reality. communism is when things get so bad the "workers" and stripped of everything and finally sperg out and take it back and build a society where everyone just cooperates and shares everything. essentially a community or communityism, communism.
it was clearly written before macro economics, pareto distribution, game theory, unions, overtime, health and safety laws. it really shows it's age now.

Even the dictionary has multiple definitions for 'socialism' and 'failure'. Which does OP mean? Is 'failure' defined as "eventually was superseded by some new state", because under that definition, name a single state under any ideology that hasn't 'failed'?

I think socialists approach it from the idea that everyone thinks like they do. Because really, that is the only way socialism/commieville can work.
Otherwise you spend all of your time trying to please every type of human in your society, getting no where quickly, and then just resorting to straight up authoritarianism.
The End

Attached: 1566009043355.jpg (250x206, 7K)

All socialist countries in their peak best are in northern europe with a homogenous population of white people

>wealth inequality
>bad

>Is China socialist today?
Not really. China suceeded by using mercantilism and by opening up the special economic zones and abusing the free trade ideology of the west.
The USSR wasn't really socialist. It was actually state capitalism.

And lucking out with massive oil reserves to fund their schemes... until they run out.

well it's far left so it needs to have loose and vague definitions otherwise it can't be thrown about and used to ostracized people and prove points at a whim.

Do CEO's work? Do they work harder then their workers? Do investors work harder? To me it seems like capitalism is a bunch of lazy twats not wanting to work and wanting to take the profit generated by others' labor for themselves.

>right-wing
>believing the meme about right/left wing
Open your eyes leaf, its all about the power scale. Left/right is the bullshit they feed you to keep you fighting with your fellow citizen.

Attached: Society-Power-Scale.jpg (800x480, 87K)

Fair point..but i tend to think he means economicly or that the quality of life decreases to a very bad level or a criminal governmental take over

that's not socialism that is social democracy

I honestly hope you live to see the day when this country collapses under the weight of the communist bullshit you espouse. Watch as your friends and family are murdered by someone who claims they are talking about how bad the government has become or maybe just call you a racist. But, not many of you will make that far.

>Left/right is the bullshit they feed you to keep you fighting
True. But this is more of an American problem since u only have 2 political parties.

The most vocal proponents of capitalism are the ones with the most capital, who do the least actual labor, instead using their capital to incentive others to do the work for them. How is that not literally the definition of lazy?

well not just that but they also never even stopped to think that it's something natural and happens outside our control. nobody actively controls who has how much money. so if it is natural (it is) and you don't want it (you do). then it needs to be controlled. which means an authoritarian approach everytime, you need to control all wealth to artificially make it "fair"

Attached: AE16A6C2-07DC-4899-A8DC-E421A644A603.jpg (618x770, 79K)

But the US tax code does literally decide who has how much money in a very real sense. And the US tax code is largely a product of the legislation writing it. And that legislation can be made up of people who are pro-labor, or pro-capital, and write to suit.

Attached: 4842a457080eb9b45d2df17900823131633884d1f804588ba70c8c59b0b24a9b.png (500x500, 295K)

The US is currently skirting with full-on fascism. It bailed out the banks and corporations in 2008, instead of the people. Is that not pretty much the polar opposite of going communist?

>So is it "not socialist" or "less socialist" to instead delegate that authority to top-down authoritarian mini dictatorships (known as "companies")?
It's "not socialist".
If you have the opportunity to dissent, then it's not authoritarian.
You cannot dissent against the social collective in socialistic countries.

Democratic socialism is just Bernie sanders rebranding social democracy

Those are not right wing policies.
>Canadian education

Is "dissent" just vocalization without the ability to impact state direction, or do you mean to imply that I can vote and that my vote matters?

Does my vote matter in a district the GOP gerrymandered to the point it looks like a retard took a pen to a map? Do I still have the ability to dissent?

It's more like plutocracy. It's still wrong, the free market said fucl you to those companies and the US government said oh dont worry well save you. They should have let them fail.

So do you agree with that Princeton study that suggests the US is an oligarchy? Is an oligarchy not just socialism, but for the wealthy?

And I would be wrong to suggest it should instead be socialism for the poor?

Bruh that's full blown socialism. I just want to burn the rich man's home and hear the lamentations of their women. Lets eat the rich. Socialism just makes all the rich people run for the hills and your country slowly get fucked. Communism gives you starvation faster than you can say 5 year plan

You mean communism, and more specifically Leninism. The form of socialism, or more accurately social democracy that people like AOC and Sanders support is modeled after the Danish system, which has actually been pretty successful. You'd have to be low IQ not to understand that.

What about anarcho socialist Catalonia?
youtube.com/watch?v=k79wCaFgU40
10:26-11:25
>socialism worked in this instance
>society functioned efficiency
>quality health care its inhabitant
>growth in wealth and production
>absent of poverty
>More schools were built

>Is China socialist today?
It has a socialist political regime, but people are allowed to own and operate private property.
So no. It's crony capitalism.
>Has it 'failed'?
It will in the future. Governments (and all of forecasting) have zero ability to predict the future by looking back into essentially rear-view mirrors.
The only people capable of this are the individuals specializing within the society.
New markets are created - not found.

No, socialism for anyone is bad. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Stalin and Lenin had similar ideas and the dead were counted in the millions.

Because socialism is antithetical to real world human behavior; it only makes sense on a theoretical level.

At the end of the day, human beings operate in a largely tribal and selfish manner. Just as water flows downhill, human beings are eternally flawed. This is why the western philosophy (the philosophy that’s produced more wealth and progress than any other in human history) has its roots in the concepts of eternal sin, of individual rights over collective rights, that rights are innate and government exists solely to uphold them, etcetera

The saddest part about socialists, like I believe of AOC, is that they don’t really comprehend the nature of the system they’re espousing. they imagine they’re going to be someone important in the regime they helped usher in, as opposed to one of the millions of people lined up and executed by a more powerful and conniving despot. I would actually have more respect for them if they quietly imagined themselves as the despot, as at least they would be honest with themselves about the system they’re espousing.

Attached: 9E5997EC-4707-4238-A277-4531A6B778FC.jpg (1024x813, 125K)

you kind of prove my point nature is unequal when it comes to wealth. you can't change that without man made intervention making it unnatural, artificial. and ultimately, authoritarian.
whether this is good or bad, moral or evil, is not the point. the point is that it's natural and can only be changed with authority and human intervention. which means a communist society where their are no ultra rich capitalists is a state of human society that need that aspect to be heavily controlled by man to prevent nature.
this means anarcho communism is most assuredly not possible.

Eventually you always run out of other people's money. However you never ever run out of niggers expecting more of it.

Attached: 1568242249151.jpg (640x891, 85K)

>Do CEO's work? Do they work harder then their workers? Do investors work harder?
When they own and operate their very own business, yes.
They manage the risk of their business failing - not the workers.
They should be rewarded for taking that risk.

It would serve the best interest of the household mice to have a bell on the house cat. The first mouse to take that risk should be rewarded.

Would you prefer there be more, or fewer, worker cooperatives operating in the United States today?

If the business fails the workers are out on the streets far more quickly than the owners. So your premise that they "manage the risk of their business failing" is somewhat ludicrous. They get to "manage" a bigger monetary safety net for themselves at the direct expense of their workers having the same.

>t. never been a CEO or executive of any sort

> created successful hosting company in the early 00's
> sold for a couple hundred grand (not bad for zero employees beside myself; was >6x annual revenue of the customer base at the time)
> bought house currently trolling Jow Forums from

You were saying?

I mean you have the ability to change things by going your own way and bearing the risk in creating a business in the market which could lead you to potential fortune and glory.

Dictating allocations of society by democracy, however, is forever doomed to failure. You will always have people left disappointed as they cannot dissent against their political rivals. The government holds a monopoly of force.
This is why social democracy always ends up sucking for those who wish to dissent. Because they cannot.

I know many CEO's. They mostly think they are very hard workers. They mostly are not actually very hard workers. They put in "long hours", which is not the same thing as hard work, nor is it necessarily the right thing to do (ever hear the phrase work smarter not harder).

Socialism fails because they try to run everything on one balance book. People lie in the book and it all goes to shit.
In a Republic there are multiple balance books, so if one becomes corrupt the others will rise.

There are minorities in our present system who think it sucks and that they cannot dissent. Are we, the USA, a social democracy today?

>If the business fails the workers are out on the streets far more quickly than the owners.
No they are not.
If they own the business, they will be put into bankruptcy. Whereas the workers will be out of a job.

You clearly have not owned a business in your life. You are probably underage.
You must be at least 18 to post on this site.

>Why has socialism failed every single time it has ever been implemented in the history of mankind?
Because it's an ideology that was funded by Roths, back in the 19th Century, to destabilize countries.

Nailed it right out of the gate. Socialism seems to require too many to be too selfless for it to function for any length of time. With smaller groups it seems more viable, but the more people you add the more likely you are to add people too selfish for the system. People take advantage. Especially within the power structure, which seems to require a certain level of authoritarianism.

Capitalism seems like it works better for a longer period, but eventually the greedy start centralizing more and more wealth, and power. Until eventually they ruin the system by creating monopolies which go unchecked because they have the wealth and power to buy a lack of oversight.

Some hybrid form of economy is likely the best bet... or just use either system and mercilessly kill the trouble makers that arise to harm the system?

and everyone clapped.

... you think when a business fails the owners are put into PERSONAL bankruptcy?

I do believe that you, sir, are the one who has clearly never owned a business in your life and are probably underage. Nice projection on your part there.

I have no preference, I dont think it makes a difference in the grand scheme of the macro economy and natural distribution. I think socialism and "communism" has shown wealth distribution is outside our control. even with a government able to pump up teenage girls in East Berlin full of steroids for decades, to show them off for a single Olympic competition to, make themselves look a tiny bit better in the eyes of the world, they were still unable to make wealth more evenly distributed.
nature wins this. life is unfair and always will be.
And i'm willing to bet even in a worker co-op, natural leaders will pop up and they will be a minority of the total employee roster.

>what is the purpose of an LLC
It's in the name fuckwad: Limited Liability

you get it

What kind of self-respecting fascist capitalist "republic" would we be running here if we didn't reward capitalists even in failure?! /s

>you think when a business fails the owners are put into PERSONAL bankruptcy?
correct.
You put risk on the line, you pay for that risk.
You seem to think every business is publicly funded. This is natural for those who are young to believe this.
All they see is what the media tells them.

If you really wanted to be a socialist in North America literally every other country but the USA is a card-carrying member of the Socialist International

Get out

see

And seriously? Business owners and executives regularly make off with significant millions even as the corporations they created/founded/funded flounder and die under their watch. That's... that's every single day. That's the Sackler family right now, arguing they shouldn't even have to give up any personal wealth as part of their role in the painkiller drug crisis, they think they're being unfairly targeted because of the nasty politics around it, as so many of their fellow elite wealthy people regularly declare corporate bankruptcy without forfeiting any private assets they had accumulated along the way. Many end up personally profiting even when the business they personally funded in the beginning ends up failing. Their personal investment early on is often far outstripped by how much they clawed back over the years.

You have no idea how businesses work if you think this. That or you've only ever dealt with extremely low-end, small mom & pop shops.

Mostly, and yes.