Why doesn't socialism work?

It does

Attached: image.jpg (439x306, 40K)

ok, just out of curiosity, could you tell me what you think socialism is? and what's the difference with communism?

>Theodore Burczak argues that it is impossible for workers to give the unbiased assessments of the "largely unobservable" characteristics of effort proposed as the basis for salary levels, and the absence of market exchange mechanisms likewise makes calculating social costs of production and consumption impossible

>the absence of market exchange mechanisms
who says there are no markets under socialism?

No single ideology works you idiot. Except pragmatism/realpolitik. Obviously socialism with no compromise will lead to many deaths and tragedies, the same has been true for capitalism. Zealotry often conflicts with reality, failure to adapt often leads to unnecessary deaths. The world isn’t a static place, it’s quite unpredictable and dynamic. It should also be said humans aren’t individualist but they aren’t collectivist either. True capitalism leads to imperialism, slavery, monopolies and the gilded age. True socialism leads to mass poverty, neglect, censorship and execution of dissidents.

There’s a lovely middle ground where most nations lie, we call them mixed economies.

Burczak doesn't imply that at all, he's saying that in a participatory economic system where the value of labour is determined by the workers, the exchange of labour between disciplines has no formalised base trade value.

>True socialism leads to mass poverty, neglect, censorship and execution of dissidents
how?
>There’s a lovely middle ground where most nations lie, we call them mixed economies.
no, countries with mixed economies are capitalist.

Socialism only works when your ingroup wants to help eachother
So socialism could work in a small collective or a tribe, but in a larger society there will inevitably end up people that hate eachother and then the system falls apart
I dont want to give 50% of my earnings to some bumfuck nigger who thought his country was bad and decided to come here for muh gibs but i would pay 50% of my income to help a poor friend back up on his feet

>the exchange of labour between disciplines has no formalised base trade value.
my english may not be that good, what does this mean exactly? that someone who works as X and someone who works as Y have no way of comparing the value of their labour with each other's?
because that'd be wrong.

You're framing the question the wrong way.

what do gibs have to do with anything?
I'm 100% sure you don't know what socialism is m8

Based and red pilled

You're not following. Reread everything I posted and then the hungarian's post.

You're right in saying that labour can be compared but there is no formal, scientific method to do so. The Hungarian is arguing that the worker is inherently capitalist (greedy) and will therefore overvalue his labour. I'm saying that workers valuing their own labour and the amount they are willing to pay for others' will never meet equilibrium and such a system is destined to fail.

Socalism bases itself off of redistributing resources ”equally” by taking more from those who provide more and giving more to those who provide less
So unless you’re just some altruist hero why the fuck would i bother paying for someone i have never met or dont care about?
The system is flawed on a basic ethical view

Socialism does work. At the moment around the world it is mainly reserved for the rich.

>but there is no formal, scientific method to do so.
yes there is, socially necessary labour time.
>I'm saying that workers valuing their own labour and the amount they are willing to pay for others' will never meet equilibrium and such a system is destined to fail.
what they think means shit m8
they don't decide what it's worth.

>what they think means shit m8
>they don't decide what it's worth.

>The worker doesn't decide the value of labour in a socialist society
So you're shitposting. Got it

>but there is no formal, scientific method to do so
Neither is there for every prominent capitalist economic system.

>the workers dont decide what the value of their work is
Yes they do

Owning the means of production is not the same as mandating the market, retard. You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

You are just as clueless as the other Australian user.

>Socalism bases itself off of redistributing resources ”equally” by taking more from those who provide more and giving more to those who provide less
nah m8, you're wrong, I know where this misconception comes from but first let me explain to you that this thing you're describing is social democracy, redistribution of wealth through high taxes on the rich and no taxes on the poor to provide state funded services like universal healthcare and free education, welfare checks, etc, this is usually refered to as "welfare state".
social democrats are capitalists because they advocate for the private ownership of the means of production.
socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production, or lack of private property of means of production (same thing).

social democrats have their origins in socialism, they were reformists, through social justice (welfare state) they wante to abolish capitalism slowly, until they reached socialism, but after the first world war they switched ideologies and now they don't want to abolish capitalism since they think the welfare state is enough social justice, that's why a lot of """socialist parties""" aren't actually socialist, but social democrats.

tldr: just google social democracy and then socialism since you don't know what they are.

t. no idea what a participative market is.

Why is Jow Forums full of such fucking retards?

It's about collective ownership over something that is worked upon by all parties dummy