Socialist structures have been in practice for the past 150 years and current socialist-leaning countries are still holding their own today.
But eventually something like true socialism/communism will have to take hold as resources become more scarce. Capitalism banks on a plethora of major resources to accumulate, produce, and sell in a market, but that market goes into a full panic mode when the product becomes scarce.
Take whale blubber for example, as whales died, blubber for lanterns became extremely hard, forcing people to ration it and divide it among people so that it could still be used, until it was replaced with the rise of fossil fuels and oil.
Once major resources become depleted, rationing and dividing what's left among the people for common use becomes a necessity until a plentiful substitute is found.
but Capitalist markets have always survived because a substitute was always found to replace the depleted resource, I don't think we've come into a situation yet where a resource became scarce with no alternative methods to replace it. should be interesting to see when it happens.
>>685347 Something interesting to point out would be the tremendous waste endemic to the capitalist mode of production. Things are produced based on the law of value. Consumer base in the United States can demand a 400% increase in the production of cat calendars and they'll be produced despite not being valuable to society. Conversely, demand can go down 400% suddenly and then you have a bunch of shit that can't even be used - take the recent oil glut as an example.
One of the arguments for Socialism is that eliminating competition and eliminating production strictly for those with enough resources to purchase them is a saner form of economics. In a world where resources are becoming scarcer it's arguable socialism might be a way to avert crisis rather than function as a last resort.
>>685347 Countries that are economically isolated or in war could have this problem. In North Korea, a lot of stuff is scarce so there is a blackmarket among everyone who is not the absolute elite. This shows that even people who are in comfy positions for life are willing to work with the lower class even if their needs are as trivial as razor blades.
>>685355 There's already fuels like ethanol that could replace gas soon after the cost of making ethanol is cheaper than the cost of making gas.
>>685381 But the bureaucrats at the head of whichever communist party in charge would be just as likely to make the mistake of ordering a 400% increase in, well maybe not cat calendars, but something else.
I live in a Nordic country. Most of the economists and politicians around here agree that the model is perfectly sustainable if: a: people work longer (in years) as they live longer lives b: immigrants are educated and properly added to the work force
Essentially, it cannot work if too many people are on some degree of welfare. but that goes for every country in the West
>>685482 The nordic model is social democratic and as such capitalist. The fact that it is unable to mend the problems of capitalism long-term is an argument for, not against socialism.
Also socialism or at least Marxism is the opposite of idealist. Marx wrote Das Kapital to turn socialism into a science and develop it past the early so called "utopian socialist" ideas prevalent andd France and elsewhere. Historical materialism, ho!
>>685307 I live in a former soviet republic. As someone said, greed and corruption and human nature in general prevent this utopia from happening. Also alot of socialists are hipocrites. TLDR Look up Orwell's Animal Farm, he's right.
>>685822 > a lot of socialists are hipocrites For example Soviet Union comes with pretended to be retarded meme ages ago. Common joke of socialist times is that party pretends to pay you, while you pretending to work.
>>685307 There is no economic calculation in socialism. Any "price" is set up or governed by things different than personal choices.
>>685347 There is a discrete, limited, known quantity of Rembrandt paintings and they still sell on the market. Few countries now really have socialists in power and they are atrocious.
>>685309 People are conscious selves with their own circumstances. This is what socialism goes against. It is pointless to invoke the loaded word greed.
>>685482 Capitalism + parasitism is not the same as socialism. One could argue it is theoretically an opposite (though often called for by the same politicians) since it explicitly recognizes the superiority of capitalism but just extracts some gibsmedat instead of actually transforming the structure of production. Nordic countries are noticeably easier on doing business, owning property, drafting work contracts, control of government expenditure and even in fiscal policies than my country (France). Welfarism is undesirable but is a distant offshot of socialism.
>>685307 in a less typo filled version of my previous post. Communism is an advanced ideology, like national socialism, as such it faces large problems in that legislation is unable to solve the problems.
>>685828 I live in a former warsaw pact country(bulgaria). Today's "democrats" are actually the children of the communist party's higher echelon and most political leaders have had history with State security/secret police. Also if you oppose commies you're labeled a fascist or nazi until you show them some old party slogan for the molotov-ribentropp pact. The thing about the joke is that in order to have these "we do work for 5 years in 4 yet we steal and we're sloppy" 1st you have to have connections in order to allow yourself to "pretend" to work. 2nd its artificial. Bulgaria had to send all its gold reserves to Moscow in order to sustain this carefree way of life. TLDR: What's mine's mine, what's ours is mine too.
>>685847 nah. I just love the image of an entire building of workers doing nothing in cubicles but then over zealously pretending to work when the boss comes round, and then the boss over zealously and with grand sweeping gestures pretends to put pay checks in their pigeon holes.
>>685920 >and it's far from "crashing the safety net" http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/11/02/Sweden-facing-collapse-because-of-refugees-foreign-minister-says/6781446474063/
>Sweden's refugee crisis could lead to the country's collapse without European Union support, Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom said.
>"I think most people feel that we cannot maintain a system where perhaps 190,000 people will arrive every year. In the long run, our system will collapse. And that welcome is not going to receive popular support. I have to admit that there have been moments recently of very great disappointment. I have heard statements from [EU] member states that have been completely astonishing and very discouraging," she told the newspaper Dagens Nyheter.
>>685925 If a huge numbers of immigrants are expected to arrive to Sweden year after year there will be problem. I don't know what your native language is nut that's not the same as you claimed. It doesn't even mention anything about the welfare being the problem where it's a bigger chance it's about housing.
But this is getting into current politics and your own article didn't support your claim.
>>685815 The claim of communism being a science is honestly, a joke. It's as much of a science as atlantian armchair thinkers who find their "Inner Truths" and even Marx himself hated the "Bourgeoisie Sciences".
>>685969 > claim of communism being a science Marx tried to be more scientific than his predecessors and some of his ideas were adopted by branches of humanitarian science. Doesn't mean that communism is science itself. Close situation to that one of Sigmund Freud and his influence on psychology for example.
>ITT: Idiots that don't understand anything about Socialism
Do you fucktards really think that Marx and Engels, the founding fathers of SOCIAL SCIENCE didn't understand how humans work? Think there is a reason Socialist thought is popular in the HUMANITIES?
The reason Socialism works is because it's based on building a rational system that itself manipulates peoples self-interest. It is in the self-interest of workers to get the best deal for themselves, it is in the best interest for the Bourgeoisie to get the best deal for themselves, so over time, because the Porkies have all the power, wealth and power will eventually centralize in the ruling classes along with other inherent issues in Capital, causing the workers to unite and rise against that class.
Socialism is grounded on the idea that the people then will make the rational decision to build a society that tries to do away with these contradictions in both society and econo
Of course it doesn't have too, humanity might just implode on in itself and everyone might kill each other and resort to feudalism, but that is where the saying comes from "Socialism or barbarism" Capitalism's end is inevitable, Socialism may it come in whatever form, is the next step for humanity.
"Muh greed" Why would you be greedy in a society where greed doesn't benefit you?
"Muh centralization of power" already happening in Capital, many schools of Socialist thought make power centralization literally impossible (Syndicalism, Council Communism, Anarcho-Communism)
Seriously the "LOL HUMAN NATURE" argument is so retarded and a-historical.
>>685854 Low population, have to make the best of scarce resources + there isn't virtually an endless amount of rich, or even poor people, so no fundamental social divide between different classes has had a chance to take place (that would outlast the early 1900's).
Basically, no desensitivization to people in general due to oversaturation in sheer numbers.
>>685990 > Think there is a reason Socialist thought is popular in the HUMANITIES? Because it is a potent mix of semi-rationalism and slave-morality, infinitely appealing for an objectively best way of doing things, and the fact that it "just happens" to coincide with western morality sweetens the deal.
>The reason Socialism works is because it's based on building a rational system that itself manipulates peoples self-interest. Socialism is not rational, no ideology is, it is simply materialistic and appeals to the lowest common denominator of people, i.e those motivated solely by material goods. It is a mistake to think that appealing to the lowest common denominator is the same thing as rationalism.
>Socialism is grounded on the idea that the people then will make the rational decision to build a society that tries to do away with these contradictions in both society and econo Any such society would collapse in upon itself, not because of any structural failings, but because the people will revolt from the status quo under a new banner, for grievances that socialism will be unable to fix. Even if you gave the people a "perfect system" they would find something they didnt like and react against it.
>"Muh centralization of power" already happening in Capital, many schools of Socialist thought make power centralization literally impossible (Syndicalism, Council Communism, Anarcho-Communism) Such ideologies are for those too stupid to realize that marx was originally right in the need for an authoritarian state. The ideologies rely on what is essentially a hive mind of no individual thought due to the "libertarian" aspects making the system so incredibly unstable.
>>685953 >I was specifically replying to your claim that Sweden was not struggling. I never claimed this, I claimed It's more than a few thousand people seeking refugee in Sweden and that it's far from crashing the safety net.
>>685990 > Marx and Engels > Founding fathers of Social science
>>685990 > the founding fathers of SOCIAL SCIENCE didn't understand how humans work Yes. Human brain is most complicated object in known world. Newton couldn't even figure more simple stuff about movement of matter by himself in all important details. Can you name one of original Carl Marx prediction that comes to be true in the end? I don't see communist future from my window for example. Checkmate.
>>685990 Socialism fails when brought into the reality of the capitalist system. How do you exactly predict cost, and then there's the fact of the socialist calculation problem. How would you calculate the value of something without the private exchange of goods to facilitate the marking of said cost?
>>685990 >Socialism is grounded on the idea that the people then will make the rational decision to build a society that tries to do away with these contradictions in both society and econo Transferring control of the economy to a "people's republic"? How is that rational?
>>685990 >Do you fucktards really think that Marx and Engels, the founding fathers of SOCIAL SCIENCE didn't understand how humans work? No. >The reason Socialism works is because it's based on building a rational system that itself manipulates peoples self-interest. Such is also the claim of capitalism. >It is in the self-interest of workers to get the best deal for themselves, >Socialism is grounded on the idea that the people then will make the rational decision to build a society that tries to do away with these contradictions in both society and economics You are making the mistake that humans are homo economicus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus > "Socialism or barbarism" Heh, so that's where that old faggot took the paradise or oblivion title. >"Muh greed" Why would you be greedy in a society where greed doesn't benefit you? Because it's an evolutionary constant. >"Muh centralization of power" already happening in Capital Tu quoque. >many schools of Socialist thought make power centralization literally impossible (Syndicalism, Council Communism, Anarcho-Communism) And those schools got swiftly eliminated by people like the Red Army and Franco, so it's proven they cannot defend themselves from outside threats. That's the problem with communism, it exists in a state of unstable equilibrium.
>>685990 >social """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""science""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" - contradictory, vague, and unfalsifiable claims - reliance on confirmation instead of refutation - jargon that mimics scientific language but lacks the rigor and consensus which characterizes natural science - interest in promotion of personal beliefs rather than the acquisition of knowledge - reliance on assumed moral truths and ad hominem attacks - total lack of universal consensus on almost all major theories - refusal to allow other fields to comment on said theories
What's the difference between socialism and ufology again?
>>685979 Not entirely. Freud based his ideas at least, off trial and error. Marx based his "Scientific" ideals purely off whatever came to his head, and maybe a few observations here and there if he really gave a shit.
>>686079 >le STEM vs Humanities meme xD It's time to grow up. I'm sorry that physics was too hard for you but this resentment is hurting your argument; both fields have value but when morons start pretending that socialism is a science, somebody has to point out that it meets almost every single requirement for a pseudoscience. If you're not concerned that social science theories and ideologies are being treated as FACTS rather than rational arguments, maybe you're on the wrong board.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.