So I've been wondering for a while now if socialism is actually a decent idea. I am American and I just kinda think that socialism is better than capitalism, I think originally capitalism may have been a decent idea but in general it fails miserably. Minimum wage isn't enough to cover a shitty ghetto apartment where I live so that's just one example the second is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer I mean very rarely does anyone get rich after living on the streets. We're so worried about producing more jobs because everyone wants to get a lot of money quick and easy. I look at socialism and think that with everyone getting paid at the same rate nobody really can get a Job that makes you rich quick. So am I right anons or am I just dreaming here?
Socialism can't work.
It will eventually devolve into a welfare state and more and more immigrants come over to take advantage of that, I mean wouldn't you come to a democracy that was giving you:
- free healthcare?
- free education?
- free money? (Benefits)
- free transportation?
- no necessity to get a job?
Of course NATIONAL socialism works great, no immigrants stealing your welfare, just hardworking common folk that pay into the state and in return get their needs paid for.
TL;DR: Niggers, spics and muzzies ruin socialism, national socialism's your best bet.
Devil's Advocate time: the issue may not be socialism, but the walking pieces of human garbage who flood to overwhelm such systems.
I don't know if you're being highly specific with national socialism there (as in espousing the literal economic policies of the nazi party or just "nationalism" plus "socialism").
dispute an opinion logically? what kind of fruitcake are you?
the fruitcake starting this thread doesn't even realize that all socialist systems increase income disparity at both ends of the curve and lower and flatten the middle of the income curve.
No one gets poorer. The rich get richer, but so do the poor. The poor now are in literally every way better off than the middle class of 50 years ago, and better off than the rich of 100 years ago. And in 50 years, the poorest people around will be better off than the richest people are now. Because of the innovation that comes from the profit motive that comes from the opportunities capitalism offers.
Psuedo-pure Capitalism, with a minimum income guarantee and bank regulations, would be the ideal system.
>all socialist systems increase income disparity at both ends of the curve and lower and flatten the middle of the income curve
>this complete and utter insanity
Thank you for having enough sense to realize the utter insanity of socialism and calling it for what it is. Most people here just don't get it, because they can't get beyond the edgy feels of thinking they are some kind of national socialists and believe the destruction of a healthy middle class won't leave a few rich party leaders at one end and a few miserably poor at the other end with the masses locked into state slavery, living in fear of one another and those above and those below.
Marx and Engels correctly said that socialism aims to alleviate the guilt of the middle class by curing some of the ills of capitalism (which are ills instituted by nature and thus inescapable, being rooted in natural inequalities of mind, will and capabilities)
Better in the long term.
Take this graph, where Capitalism is linear and Communism/Socialism is the exponential. on the X axis is time, on the Y is average living standards.
The cross over point is a point of contention, but it shouldn't take that long assuming there is no constant undermining of the state by outside factors, my guess is 50 - 70 years.
Socialism cannot work, it requires economic calculation, which cannot take place without a price system.
Economic calculation is also impossible with the information provided my a price system.
Given enough time,economic Socialism has been and will be the primary catalyst behind the stagnating economy wherever it is applied. It's all about the proper free market regulation.
I don't know if everyone in this thread is using the same definition of socialism. You seem to be using Soviet economies to describe what socialism is -- which isn't really fair to the idea.
Thing is, if we design a system as distinct from nasty things like human parasitism it might end up a nicer system on paper, though it's real issues stay unresolved.
The fact is that if somewhere people have a great living standards others will try to gain access. Leading into a wave of leeching people and a black market to get said people in.
Diminishing marginal utility = no superabundance
Predictions of rise of socialism = false; failed to account for self-stabilizing ability of Capitalism/Democracy
On both a logical and empirical level, Socialism is considered a failure.
If you any of you felt like not being idiots for the rest of your life:
Socialism works perfectly if you assume that everyone has good intentions and that power won't be abused. Truth is that power will always be abused and in that case capitalism is a more reliable system. It's not perfect but imperfect beings need imperfect solutions.
>Minimum wage isn't enough to cover a shitty ghetto apartment where I live so that's just one example
Minimum wage isn't enough to cover a shitty ghetto apartment where you live because the government has propped up asset prices (including homes) with low interest rates and shit like quantitative easing.
>the second is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer I mean very rarely does anyone get rich after living on the streets.
A part of why the rich get richer is because their assets are propped up by low interest rates, their companies/investments are 'too big to fail' etc.
In a nation with REAL capitalism, rather than crony capitalism, the only way people could get rich is by providing something that people want i.e. by benefiting others. The simple fact that capitalism is a system where the benefit of others is how you get richer should tell you that it is the superior system.
>I look at socialism and think that with everyone getting paid at the same rate nobody really can get a Job that makes you rich quick
Everyone isn't getting paid the same rate under socialism.
Socialism is basically like being paid in scrip (i.e. food vouchers you can only redeem at the stores of the same company you work for)
Ideally, you end up being able to get tons of food from the government stores and cover your bills for government-provided services, but in the real world that "money" is absolutely worthless.
You will be effectively restricted to what the government can provide, and if it fails to provide, you have nothing to fall back on but the monopoly money you duped yourself into working for your entire life.
Just to be sure, advocating for higher wage, higher government spending, and some government regulation of out-of-control, inefficient markets, is not socialism.
It's not communism.
It's Capitalism, and you can fuck right off if you believe otherwise.
>b-but muh chicago school, people can't be irrational because when they buy something it's always in their immediate best interest, and there are no consequences of it!
>government can't be good, because of this anecdote about government inefficiency that was caused by shortstepping in order to preserve the market instead of a full take down of it: see, the market is better!
>government shouldn't exist at all, private property is private, businesses should be the government, but they won't be the government, because they'll only force you into decisions by threat of death, labor, or imprisonment, unlike the government, who forces you to pay them taxes by threat of fines and imprisonment! This means that it's better than the government!
>Minimum wage isn't enough to cover a shitty ghetto apartment where you live because the government has propped up asset prices (including homes) with low interest rates and shit like quantitative easing.
Or, I'll do you one better. You think deflation is good, right?
So, tell me, if something is going to be guaranteed cheaper tomorrow, would you buy it today? What if it'll be cheaper the next day, then the next day. When would you buy it?
For an economy based on consumption, the issue with deflation is that people WAIT to buy things, because they'll be cheaper, relative to your currency.
The result is crashed demand, which leads to layoffs, lowered expected(and real) investment, which further lowers demand, which means more layoffs, and so on and so forth.
Low interest rates make it easy to borrow, quantitative easing makes it easy to lend.
Their asserets are "propped up by low interest r ates," but if those interest rates weren't lowered, we would literally be in depression, right now.
You know, like Greece or Spain, or where the REST of the EU is headed? Because they decided that government spending would crowd out private investment...in a recession. Now they're deflating with predictable consequences.
OP capitalism works because speeds up the economic growth
economic growth will increse technological growth
Socialism just making sure that rich people dont let poor people in the shit (so if u tax the rich to give money to war vets/old people that´s socialism), the problem is when kebab get is hands on that money, he will use it to start drug business or related :)
If western contries started to harvest wind/solar/waves power we could stop giving kebeb shekels for oil.
they will have no money even for eletricity... all back to tent in the desert!
>So, tell me, if something is going to be guaranteed cheaper tomorrow, would you buy it today? What if it'll be cheaper the next day, then the next day. When would you buy it?
I've got to buy it at some point in time. Even though I know that if I wait a year then my computer with X specs will be far cheaper I still figure I might as well buy one now, since I have immediate needs.
>For an economy based on consumption, the issue with deflation is that people WAIT to buy things, because they'll be cheaper, relative to your currency.
Then why don't people wait to buy technology? I find it hard to believe that people will go without housing, food etc just because they believe it will be cheaper in the future.
People won't of course invest in just about anything because they hope it will increase in price (people won't buy houses on the hope they increase in price for example, but because they could use the house); People will however still invest in productive areas of the economy such as businesses.
>The result is crashed demand
But people will always have demand for houses, for trinkets, for food etc even if they are going to be cheaper in the future.
>You know, like Greece or Spain, or where the REST of the EU is headed?
Greece is heading towards further depression because they're going to leave the EURO and their currency will be worth shit.
Get this game and find out for yourself.
It's pretty neat.
>I've got to buy it at some point in time.
Yes, but this doesn't cover that much, does it? Computers, food, housing. What else is there? Services, bicycles or cars(European countries, larger ones, respectively), clothes, specialized luxuries even approaching stuff like fast food. When you need to make X per day to pay Y amount of staff, and deflation makes it so a certain amount of people just 'wait until tomorrow,' or 'buy it at SOME point in time,' your business will die. That is what happened in the Great Recession, and it's what's going on in Europe right now.
>People won't of course invest in just about anything because they hope it will increase in price (people won't buy houses on the hope they increase in price for example, but because they could use the house); People will however still invest in productive areas of the economy such as businesses.
People will always buy houses in the hope it will increase in price, and generally they do that because it's true. The problem with investing in anything is that deflation will actually mean it's worth...less. Its budget shrinks, it lays off people, it produces less, because there are fewer buyers.
>Greece is heading towards further depression because they're going to leave the EURO and their currency will be worth shit.
Further depression doesn't really matter here; it's irrelevant. The problem is making sure deflation and outright nation-state-wide depression is not a foregone conclusion. Cutting Greece out of the Euro might actually make it WORSE for the Euro, but I don't have any historical evidence to back it up. It's sort of...not happened before.
Yes, but this doesn't cover that much, does it? Computers, food, housing. What else is there? Services, bicycles or cars(European countries, larger ones, respectively), clothes, specialized luxuries even approaching stuff like fast food. When you need to make X per day to pay Y amount of staff, and deflation makes it so a certain amount of people just 'wait until tomorrow,' or 'buy it at SOME point in time,' your business will die. That is what happened in the Great Recession, and it's what's going on in Europe right now.
It covers everything. Everything that people need (services and goods) will be purchased even if they are going to be cheaper in the future.
What you are trying to do is create a bubble where people are afraid to save and instead have to throw their money into assets like houses that don't do anything to increase productive capacity.
>The problem with investing in anything is that deflation will actually mean it's worth...less. Its budget shrinks, it lays off people, it produces less, because there are fewer buyers.
Yet we have an entire technology industry where their products decrease in value every year yet through increasing their productivity / coming up with new designs they manage to increase the value of their businesses.
When things are worth less all it means is that consumers have more money to spend on other things. The human appetite for goods/services is insatiable and if things are sold at the right price people will buy them.
Why are you so concerned with there not being buyers? Hell, most of the shit that is being bought is being bought from China anyway.
Socialism isn't what you think it is tho
If you want socialism to happen you need to make real hard work the goal, the essence and your entire human existence.
Cities are the peak and fruit of capitalism
Basicly everybody is rich in the cities but it seems that none are getting any of the money.
This is why the rural sides never had a crysis in labour. Those places are where hard work is.
People want communism but don't realise that in a true communist world, cities would probably shrink to small sizes, or wouldn't exist at all, villages taking their place
Also you don't want national socialism
You want strong state intervention, like China.
National socialism will be an absolute catastrophy like it was in nazi Germany. Plus, your nation will not survive if it isolates itself and doesn't allow to evolve with everything around it.
What you want is not capitalism, but interventionism
>Minimum wage isn't enough
Minimum wage is imposed by the state. It's origins was the state coming in and forcing the market to pay this for your interest. It actually devalues the dollar. After the minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $8 everything shot up at least .50 cents
>It's origins was the state coming in and forcing the market to pay this for your interest
Sure, let the corporate fatcats have their way and treat you like shit as if you're nothing but a robotic slave to them.
I'm sure you'll like it then.
Your daily reminder that....
Socialism =/= Welfare Statism, and socialism does not necessarily imply State control of the economy.
Socialism, at its most basic, describes organizational structures within an economic system, namely, self employment and cooperatives. This organizational structure can exist within a free market, within a State controlled economy, or anything in between.
>be a shithole agrarian economy, poorest in Europe
>fight a syria-level civil war for a few years, country in ruins
>all your allies destroyed and dominated by your ideological enemies
>introduce unadulterated fascist economics
>8th largest economy in the world in a decade and a half
They're both exploitative shit, but at least capitalism had its moment in the sun while socialism is a misconstrued ideology that can be interpreted in a million ways then from what it actually means, which is that workers own the means of production, which then becomes "the government" because elected governments always represent the best needs of the people, r-right guys? Mutualism/Syndicalism is the way of the future, where competition can exist without being exploitative and without giving a single entity too much power.
If you want "humane living conditions" then find someone else to work for. If the only person that's offering you any job at all is someone that is only offering inhumane conditions then you should be thankful that at least they're there to offer you that shitty job.
If they weren't there then what job would you have? You wouldn't have a "humane living conditions" job, you wouldn't have an "inhumane living conditions" job, you would have no job and would have to beg on the streets.
Any structure can exist within a free market. If people wanted to form a socialist collective within a free market then they could do so - provided that the members of that collective all agreed to those conditions as a part of a contract.
Don't bother, Anteater, most of /pol/ are illiterates when it comes to basic things like the difference between capitalism/socialism/communism and most of them talk about shit they were taught in highschool and documentaries.
Socialism means empowering yourself in the work force, giving you the power to influence the market the way you want.
But appearently they all want to be slaves of the system and just slave off for their entire life till change pops up from nowhere
Take into account the context of the modern market, though. We're not discussing bargaining power in a vacuum. We're discussing bargaining power in an economy in which the State grants legal and economic privilege to incumbent capital, which, in essence, fucks workers and small start-ups.
We shouldn't be thanking the "benevolent" capitalist who is willing to feed us his scraps. We should be tearing down the institutions that bring such disparities in power to bear on the market in the first place.
Exactly. I just want to make it clear that socialism does not imply State ownership of productive assets or Welfare Statism. Historically, a non-insignificant portion of socialist thought has been centered on free market principles.
Knock knock, it's the 21st century
Said you need to look up what's the standart of living compared to the standart of working.
But if you want to slave off in an era where everyone has basic things and is entitled to a rich life for working in average conditions, go right ahead.
I mean, that's not inaccurate. Socialism can refer to extremely specific forms of economic organization, but when it comes down to it, it's about creating an economy in which bargaining power isn't artificially siphoned from workers and towards incumbent capital.
Socialism where the power is decentralised in the hands of the workers where they can directly act in the influence of the market, like free market capitalism allegedly preaches.
>grants legal and economic privilege to incumbent capital
Whether I agree with you depends on what you mean by this.
I do not at all see a problem with people who save up money, invest that money into a business (buy the machinery or in the case of a services company, create the brand name) receiving a greater share of profits than workers who do work for the capitalist's venture.
At the same time the current system is rigged to prop up business structures that should not exist.
It's all the same modernist shit. Be it capitalism, communism or socialism, it's all materialistic, globalist, anti-national, anti-tradition dehumanizing enslavement schemes. Do you want to be a capitalist drone or a communist drone, that's the question modern political discourse has devolved to.
>Socialism means empowering yourself in the work force, giving you the power to influence the market the way you want.
Except you need the government to do it for you. It's trading one exploitative. provider for anouther. No, the only people who can empower the workers are the workers themselves through trade unions. If they can't do that and stand up for their rights themselves then they have no buisness trying to demand that their employers accommodate them. Syndicalism is Socialism done right, that truely empowers the worker instead of relying on government muscle.
Socialism actively destroys wealth, decreases incentives for innovation and work, and has no means of economic calculation. Absent of a capitalist pricing system in a free market, there is literally no economic calculation and means of pricing and determining value. The only reason any of the socialist states of the 20th century didn't implode in the first 10 minutes was because they leached off the pricing mechanisms of the free world. Regardless history shows that those places were utter shit holes..
While that may be true, but at least capitalism and socialism can be defended, yeah they're still shitty as all fucking hell but they still work. And at least in capitalism you have the option to get the fuck away from businesses and industrial society and just go Unabomber style shack up in the dead fuck middle of nowhere
Mises btfo socialists who wanted the State to literally own all productive assets. The very, very large group of socialists who think that markets are awesome and that the price mechanism is a pretty cool guy remain un-btfo.
>socialism inevitably ends up being implemented/maintained at gunpoint
Various attempts at socialism certainly have. And what has that taught us? If you want to work towards an economy in which power is decentralized and special interests aren't granted artificial privilege, you sure as hell shouldn't be using the State to get there.
>Whether I agree with you depends on what you mean by this.
I mean your latter point. When I say "capitalism," I'm generally referring to "actually existing capitalism," and not "hypothetical free market capitalism." The history of market development in the West is the history of the State granting legal and economic privilege to incumbent capital at the expense of worker and smaller firms.
>National socialism will be an absolute catastrophy like it was in nazi Germany.
Considering it early on was victim of international boycotts by nations who didn't want a third position weaseling its way in to the prevailing economic duopoly, we cannot reliably say NatSoc is a failure as economic policy.
>If you want to work towards an economy in which power is decentralized and special interests aren't granted artificial privilege, you sure as hell shouldn't be using the State to get there.
and that is why your theory remains nothing more than a nice thought!
The pricing mechanism isn't magically exclusive to capitalist models on the free market. Many socialists are still in favor of market mechanisms. They just posit that non-capitalist organizational structures should or would be preeminent in the marketplace.
Most socialists think markets and prices are pretty fucking neat.
>and that is why your theory remains nothing more than a nice thought!
It's worth noting that the attempts to move towards socialism/communism that didn't involve State power were actually internally successful, and only failed because of hostility from neighboring States.
>It's worth noting that the attempts to move towards socialism/communism that didn't involve State power were actually internally successful, and only failed because of hostility from neighboring States.
Not necessarily doubting you but source?
>at least in capitalism you have the option
You only have what options capitalist oligarch allow you to have, just as in communist societies you only have what options communist oligarch allow, and the same in socialist nations with socialist oligarchs. Economic ideologues are all the same.
Do you need government so you can go on the streets and demand more administrative power for you as a worker?
Do you really need any sort of external influence other than your worker conscience to demand your real position in the markets?
You don't need anyone to do it for you. Calling for state intervention for your rights will end up exactly like in the Warsaw pact countries.
So rise up and demand what is yours!
The one that sticks out in my mind is the Ukrainian Free Territory. They actually achieved communism (i.e. a Stateless, classless, and moneyless economy). It quickly became apparent to the Bolsheviks that it's a PR problem to have an actually communist society sitting right next to you when you're stuck in a degenerate workers' State, so they decided to teach the filthy Anarchists a lesson.
As a rule of thumb, state run economies never survive in the longterm see USSR
It's not national socialism that did that, it was the accumulation of resources by the state in a short period of time.
When you collectivize everything from everyone, you'll wake up that you have alot of capital in your hand.
I'm actually friends with a lot of market socialists so I'm pretty familiar with the left libertarians. and I don't disagree with their ideas on a moral Level like I do with statists, however I disagree with them on a value level (which is of course entirely subjective) and also because I don't like unions. But it's mainly because I'm a staunch Christian individualist, and to reduce people to act as collectives destroys mans individual spirit
I think that the state has it's purpose, but it's not within directing what can and cannot be produced. An economy in which companies are managed democratically instead of by CEO's in their ivory towers would be preferable Imo. The workers syndicates still need to be competitive in to the market while maintaining certain standards of living amount its constituents. It democratizes industry directly from the bottom up, rather than relying on bueracracy. It's still socialism, but one in which the workers must think for themselves to survive and thrive. I don't agree with An-caps on a lot of poits but I think that the need for a de-centralized economy and competition is essential. I'm probably more partial to mutualism in that regard that straight syndicalism.
The issue is, you promise workers they will hold and control all the capital, and yet stay mum about the responsibility that comes with it.
When you are a "wage slave" you get paid for your work no matter what. It doesn't matter if the company has sunk heavily into debt and all your work over the last 6 months has been a net loss - you are owed your agreed wage and the evil capitalist and the fat cat shareholders act as a buffer between your paycheck and the realities of the market.
In the Soviet republics the capitalist and shareholders were replaced by the State, which mopped up the messes, subsidized factories producing useless uncompetitive shit, kept jobs by taking from one basket to fill another until it all fell apart.
When you remove both those parties - all the responsibility falls to the worker. If the business he's in has been operating at a loss for the last 6 months under the expectation that "it would get better", he doesn't just lose his job, he has to eat the loss. Very few people would be ready to handle that sort of stress their entire lives, and would opt in to get guaranteed pay instead, returning us to the worker-capitalist relationship or "untrue" Soviet-style socialism.
National socialism involves giving the means of production to your own fellow conationals, and being restricted only to members of your ethnicity
What you think national socialism is, is just pure fascism. Nothing "socialist" about it
>But it's mainly because I'm a staunch Christian individualist, and to reduce people to act as collectives destroys mans individual spirit
I think there are two claims here that need to be evaluated.
1) That market socialism is inherently collectivist.
2) That market capitalism is the pinnacle of individualism.
I don't think either of these statements hold much weight. The early American Individualist Anarchists (Warren, Tucker, Spooner, Greene, etc.) were all self described socialists or anti-capitalists, yet individualism was their bread and butter. Tucker went as far as to say that, "The most perfect socialism requires the most perfect individualism." Their position was that, for individualism to be meaningful, individuals had to have the ability to make choices in their lives. Under socialist organizational models, namely self employment and cooperatives, you have the ability to do this.
The second statement is related to the first in various ways, I think. Capitalist organization, to me, does not imply individuality, especially not in the workplace. Setting aside the debate of whether or not workers SHOULD be in charge of the capital they use, it is a verifiable fact that wage workers do not get to make meaningful choices in the workplace. Not only are they alienated from the capital they work, but they have other people within the firm explicitly directing them at any given point in the work-day. Having the entirety of my actions dictated by another human being for eight hours a day, five days a week, to me, is not consistent with individualism.
CEOs don't control the economy, consumers control the economy based on demands which stem from their values.. "Democratizing" the economy 1 is vague and relatively meaningless 2 if it's what I think it would be the worst possible thing to happen. Democracy is literally the worst system ever devised. It's worse then monarchism
>The issue is, you promise workers they will hold and control all the capital
Actually, not necessarily. I don't think wage labor will completely disappear from free markets. I just think that, in general, wage remuneration and stratified hierarchical firms will see a sharp decline in popularity due to market selection. I think traditionally organized firms will be uncommon, but probably not non-existent.
>and yet stay mum about the responsibility that comes with it.
Hardly. That is the trade-off. When you're an owner, you take on a certain amount of risk. That being the case, I think people tend to underestimate the risk one takes on as a wage worker. It's not the same sort of risk that owners take on, but it's still significant. As a wage worker, the entirety of your well being depends on your relationship to your boss, as he is the source of your income. You likely don't have meaningful capital of your own. You likely don't have very large savings. Your boss, because he has the power to fire you, is always, always, always right. Every day you go into work and think or do anything independently, you're risking losing the entirety of your livelihood. You have to go into work with the assumption that you will do everything your boss says, regardless of if it is rational, beneficial, or any other positive attribute.
And this, actually, is where traditionally organized firms run into a lot of efficiency problems. When you're listening to somebody because they have they keys to your paycheck and not because they're giving sound direction, you're begging for irrational decision making. If I work at a bakery, and my boss tells me to throw out all the bread, I'm going to do it. It is, objectively, a terrible decision in terms of the health of the firm, but my boss provides my livelihood, so I'm going to do it, because my interests, my boss's interests, and the interests of the firm aren't always one and the same.
>Very few people would be ready to handle that sort of stress their entire lives, and would opt in to get guaranteed pay instead, returning us to the worker-capitalist relationship or "untrue" Soviet-style socialism.
This is why people are not conditioned by the environment to take this responsability and change, and ultimately why socialism cannot be possible in the near future. Unless of course, the proletariat simply woke up, started getting their act together and developed a better awarness of their material condition in relation to the markets.
Then hitler made a poor decision to put the "socialism" in the name. I guess he just went with what was popular back then in the germany society
Also, it's worth noting that cooperative businesses tend to weather times of economic downturn better than their traditionally organized counterparts, and are less likely to fire employees outright. 
If the economy was in a downturn, I'd rather work at a cooperative and take a pay cut than work for a wage and be fire outright. In this way, the risk of losing your livelihood, in its entirety, is less at a cooperative than at a capitalist firm.
 I'll try to find the study on this. It may take me a little while.
This is why i come to /pol/ for the good meaningful debates (i switched to my comp so my ID probably changed).
First off the description you give of a capitalist work environment occurs 1 only in minimum wage, low skilled jobs which are only a minority of the problem, and 2 are only that way because of minimum wage laws, and people are there for long periods of time again because of only minimum wage laws.
The market has spoken and companies that promote freedom and individuality in the work place thrive and yield better products and better profits. Companies like google and other companies that provide comfortable work environments are able to get more utility out of their employees. we are currently seeing a market trend toward non hierarchical businesses, however the capital is still owned on an individual basis. I think you are confusing hierarchical business structures with inherently capitalist structures.
as an anarchist both of these systems should be allowed to exist in unison and compete in the market. I cannot say which is "best" because best is a measure of value which is subjective. I can firmly say that a purely capitalist society promotes maximum material prosperity and progress. However as a christian i know that material prosperity is meaningless. But collective ownership of capital does not lend itself to risk taking, which leaves no space for innovation or entrepreneurship. It is entrepreneurship that drives the economy forward, and with collective ownership of capital, this is next to impossible.
And yess im a big fan of those guys, spooner especially, though Thoreau is my real nigga. Regardless of how the free society turns out i know ill end up innawoods. Do you attend any anarchist events/conferences?
Capitalist, competition and using human drive for competition and ambition.
Communism, it don't matter what you do, you will all be payed the same! well gosh darn it what the fuck is the point of working? how the fuck or why would anything improve?
Pure socialism and pure capitalism is bad... and neither of them exist anyways.
Can people stop being so butthurt and just look at what works... a mixture of a free market and government provided services. Capitalist welfare or whatever you want to call it. Basically all of every developed country we have today.
Businesses are free to provide whatever... your free to spend your money whereever... in the meanwhile government provides a safety for the people.
Healthcare, free education, a public transport system etc.
Essentially the government provides the security for you to become an active member of society and leaving it up to you if you want to even build up more wealth.
Scandinavian countries have one of the freest markets in the world and they also have a great government system. The market is free to operate without needless government intervention and the government actually helps people out of shitholes.
We are in a financial mess due to bailing out and baby sitting large corporations instead of helping smaller companies out compete the retarded monopolies, also the federal reserve without gold standard is a fucking parasite and deadly.
So why doesnt capitalism and the markets kill off the fatcats by creating more competition and simply running them out of buisness?
If what you said would be exclusive to capitalism, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's not.
> I think you are confusing hierarchical business structures with inherently capitalist structures
This is actually a fair point. Kevin Carson, one of the more prolific modern market socialists, has actually explicitly stated that "his socialism" has more to do with general worker empowerment than anything as specific as cooperative enterprise. I think, at least economically, it's definitely the case that flatter firms will be selected for, even if that doesn't imply democratic ownership. At the same time, I personally place value on cooperative run enterprises that are extra-economic in nature.
>But collective ownership of capital does not lend itself to risk taking, which leaves no space for innovation or entrepreneurship.
The article I linked actually has a section about innovation in cooperatives. In some instances (like banking) risk aversion is often desirable. Cooperative banks weathered the Great Recession significantly better than their corporate counterparts specifically because they didn't engage in sub-prime lending and other relatively risky practices. That being the case, cooperatives do have various comparative advantages in innovation relative to capitalist firms that are outlined in the article.
>Do you attend any anarchist events/conferences?
Not really. I live on a rural commune, but apart from that, I'm not very engaged in anything one might consider a valid pursuit of praxis.
Compared to the rest of the western sphere?
In the EU there's corporate influence too, i don't deny that, but they do it within the boundaries of shame, and fear from people revolting, since european workers arn't boiled vegetables that big companies can simply toy with.
If your working class all stud up to the injustices in the work place, you'd all have better lives and things like the FED wouldn't exist.
Socialism (please note: Decentralization of economic power) would actually benefit the USA the most since everything is in the hands of a couple of guys. But unfortunely you've been indoctrinated by the same people to think that the system they promote is the paradise which people need to aspire to, and that all negative aspects of live are slammed to the USSR
>If your working class all stud up to the injustices in the work place, you'd all have better lives and things like the FED wouldn't exist.
>tfw wildcat unions used to be effective
>tfw slow-downs, walkouts, and general word of mouth opposition to corporate control effectively crippled the just-in-time production model
>tfw Wagner and Taft-Hartley legislation, often touted as pro-worker, was actually written by automotive execs and only served to domesticate unions and bring them neatly into the corporate hegemony
I'm really curious if the american working class ever had a class consciousness, or if that class consciousness was destroyed, by who and how, got any study on that?
It would be better for the first 10-20 years but would start to fall apart after that.
Nationalizing industry reduces innovation. It also puts the burden on politicians to have perfect foresight since failure has a higher cost. Both for their career and people's livelihood.
A benefit of capitalism that is regulated to prevent monopolies is that it spreads out decision making and reduces risk. Failures do not have a large societal cost.
If you fuck up with socialism or communism, people starve. If you fuck up with capitalism, people lose their luxuries.
>The great CIO organizing strikes of the early '30s were planned the way a
general staff might plan a military campaign.
>The Railway Labor Relations Act was passed precisely because of the tendency of large-scale strikes to turn into regional or national general strikes when backed by transport workers
Damn, so the workers indeed organised themselves for their interests, but were ultimately defeated by their bosses.
Yup. It's the history of every radical movement in America - those in power see it as dangerous, so they domesticate it and de-radicalize it while adopting it into the existing system in a way that isn't threatening.
Yes indeed I am a fruitcake, to tell the truth I know very little about how socialism works I was led to believe that it was a system where everyone got the same treatment and close to the same amount of pay but I'm sure that there is a little bit of preferential treatment that goes on, I'm not sure if it's as bad as America though. I am op but my ID changed because I am on mobile
Never said minimum wage was an example I was saying that the minimum wage is to minimal to actually be worth two shits there are tons of jobs available for minimum wage but it isn't enough to live on so if that was not clear to you then you are fucking retarded as well
Interestingly enough, Bakunin rephrased the old communist motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution," specifically because, in socialist economic systems, if you aren't working, you aren't being remunerated.
The government screws everything up by letting every piece of service be done for profit. This leads to increased cost and reduced quality in the services you can't live without or you're obligated to use.
You're right, I know little else besides what I've read on the internet and in highschool so please tell me what you know, I never claimed to know anything if I knew then why would I start a thread on /pol/
Classically, socialism describes an economy in which productive assets (i.e. capital) are owned in common by those who work them. This would manifest in the form of self employment and various cooperatives.
That is socialism in its most basic form. Various socialists propose different methods of achieving this, though. Some socialists want to use the State as a tool to achieve a socialist economy. This State Socialism is only a subset of socialist theory, even if people who generally criticize socialism like to pretend that it's the entirety of socialist thought. Some socialists want to use free markets as a tool to achieve a socialist economy. Others take a middle of the road approach.
Regardless, it's important to note that, regardless of praxis, all of the different subsets of socialism fit the bill only because they advocate common ownership of productive assets by those who use them. Socialism doesn't necessitate State control, or free markets, or anything else. It's an organizational model that can, theoretically, be achieved through any number of means.
Capitalism, similarly, describes a form of economic organization; namely - one in which productive assets are owned by a small(er) group of individuals, and are labored upon by others who don't own those productive assets.
Classically, this mode of organization was understood to be a result of State granted legal and economic privilege. More recently, various free market proponents have suggested that capitalist organizational models should or would exist in a free market, even in lieu of State intervention.
>This State Socialism is only a subset of socialist theory, even if people who generally criticize socialism like to pretend that it's the entirety of socialist thought
That's because it's the only form of socialism that has been applied on a broad scale for an extended period of time and thus can be measured.
Of course socialists want to debate theoretics wherever they can.
>That's because it's the only form of socialism that has been applied on a broad scale for an extended period of time and thus can be measured.
The issue being - those who tend to pigeonhole "socialism" as "State socialism" are often among the libertarian right, and the argument you just made equally applies to everything they espouse. The history of market development in the West is a history of State intervention. Stateless capitalism is as historically rare as Stateless socialism.
>Of course socialists want to debate theoretics wherever they can.
Once more - the same can be said of libertarians on the right. We all talk a lot of theory, and none of us have much historical precedent. That being the case, what we can do is say, "if our (libertarian) economic assumptions are correct, then involving the State in the economy in ways x, y, and z will result in negative consequences a, b, and c." Libertarians across the left/right spectrum happen to do this quite frequently and quite accurately.
>Better then what?
I recognize that non-state forms are largely an unknown quantity, as are non-state modes of capitalist organization, but looking at the two models that have actually been implemented (on large scales for substantial periods of time), I think it's clear which has been superior in most respects.
Socialism is the best system.
Capitalism concentrates to much money on few hands.
Communism leads to too much state debt.
Socialism promotes a fair distribution of income. If the people have more money they can buy more stuff (thus increasing the income of companies too).
If people have more money they can access higher education thus increasing the capacity for people to create new knowledge which will lead to more available jobs.
I know literally nothing about socialism (please enlighten me), but I don't like the idea that someone with years of experience gets paid similarly to someone with none. That seems unfair to me.
Funny how they took the citizens passports and stopped them travelling pretty quick, so they couldn't see that the state kool aid they were getting fed was horseshit.
Of course. The attempts that have been made at State socialism have followed a relatively authoritarian streak. Modern State capitalist nations, though authoritarian in their own right, are often less so than State socialist counterparts, and, therefore, generally more prosperous.
Socialism is simply an organizational theory. Those socialists who are in favor of markets don't see an issue with market forces determining pay rate.
Libertarian socialism (the original libertarianism, which was anarchy) was practiced in Spain. Three years is not a long time, but it was an improvement over the previous government.
Notably both communists (ie. Bolsheviks) and fascists were opposed to it, leading to its downfall.
Unfortunately for us, State socialism grew in popularity relative to its libertarian counterparts over the course of the last two hundred years. There are only a handful of examples of libertarian socialism (Ukrainian Free Territory, Anarchist Catalonia, parts of the Paris Commune), but, even though they were internally consistent economies, they were generally short lived due to neighboring aggressive States.
That's not what socialism is.
There's also market socialism
While any Anarchist territory is likely to have a smaller ability to just throw money at a military budget then, say, a Statist territory with the ability to tax, America's recent forays into the Middle-East show that funding doesn't necessarily imply victory.
I need to head out, though.
>I know literally nothing about socialism (please enlighten me),
>but I don't like the idea that someone with years of experience gets paid similarly to someone with none
It's clear you don't know anything about socialism otherwise you wouldn't say that.
What it's meant by fair distribution of wealth is avoiding things like this: http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/05/top-10-charts-2014/
>- free healthcare?
Why shouldn't any medical procedure (besides the cosmetic ones) not being free for tax payers?
From a human point of view it's what's correct. And from a financial POV it's also the best since a citizen who can't pay for the procedure will stay at home doing nothing and not contributing to society since he can't work
>- free education?
This is an investment. It's been more than proved that countries with more citizens with higher education have a lot more of technological development, technological companies and their productivity is much higher.
>- free money? (Benefits)
Benefits should be highly controlled, and only given to those who trully deserve it.
Or can be employed as an incentive for citizens, like discount on taxes on solar panels, an help for people that have two or more children (this is quite common in countries with low birth rates)
>- free transportation?
That has nothing to do with socialism.
>- no necessity to get a job?
Where the fuck have you been reading all this? Fox News?
The thing is that Goverment is bad at providing all of these services and has a tendency to utilize its monopoly over them as a form of increasing and maintaining social control.
>What it's meant by fair distribution of wealth is avoiding things like this: http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/05/top-10-charts-2014/
But how exactly are you going to go about this fair redistribuction? by wishing really hard? or by creating a powerfull and centralized state that will repeat all the mistakes of previous socialist experiments?
Equal pay in all honesty looks like a better system than what the US has, mainly because it means that not as many people are looking purely for high paying jobs but am I wrong to think that?
>But how exactly are you going to go about this fair redistribuction?
Dat dere free market.
Are you saying that it would be better if engineers, doctors and others received less money so that less people would look for these kind of jobs? Do you believe that there is a surplus of these high skilled workers and that society would benefit from having less of these professionals?
But the most important of all, how do you guarantee equal pay for all people? I think that the implementation of this system would require the kind of centralization and concentration of power that will surely bring about corruption and exploitation.
Also, it should be pointed out that in that quote, Bastiat was specifically criticizing Marxist style socialism. Bastiat and Proudhon were very well acquainted, so there's no doubting that Bastiat was intimately familiar with the anti-State side of socialist theory.
Any kind of Anti-statist is fine by me, I don't really believe there will be a truly free market or the end of the state but the pursuit of these goals can improve our condition.
To answer the first question, it wouldn't be being paid less it would just be being paid the same. In a better explanation of my post, doctors do a lot for us yes, I get that, I also get the fact that the person who is making your food at a restaurant also has to do a lot, frankly there are a lot of jobs in America that involve a lot of stress and even physical labor but those same jobs are some of the lowest paying jobs here. Do doctors deserve to be paid about $250k per year, I don't exactly know on one hand they save lives sometimes and end them other times which deserves a decent amount of pay but on the other hand a lot of jobs in America have just as much stress maybe not in the same exact way but stressful nonetheless
They would have to be paid less because it wouldn't be possible for everyone to receive the same that they do now, the salary is subjected to the same mechanisms that any other good or service in the market is, mainly the relation between supply and demand, the demand for doctors is a lot higher than the supply when compared to the demand and supply of cookers, it doesn't actually matter how hard or stressfull is any of these jobs; now this might sound a bit unfair and, arguably, it can be sometimes, for instance when you compare the income of artists and athletes to other workers, but the fact is that trying to artificially control the market mechanisms that bring about these results will have all kind of uninted consequences, like shortage of a critical service or good, which did happen in socialist countries.
Socialism can not work unless you have a constantly growing full-employed population, and yes this includes national socialism.
Times changed, the average pensioner pays into the system for 30-40 years and then lives for 20-30 years on the public's dime.
If this wasn't bad enough people get less and less children so the ratio between workers and welfare leeches gets worse and worse with every generation.
So yeah, unless you limit the life span of the average person to 70 years it's not going to work in the long run.
It's clearly not a capitalist state if you have a minimal wage there.
Soclialism proved to be one of the most inefficient systems ever made, and it's one of the reasons that Europe is on it's knees today. European Union is simply a friendlier copy of Soviet Union.
You see my country for instance, according to statistics we have more cellphones than people, acess to computers and internet has increased dramatically and basic consumer goods can be found easily, even with all the interference from the government, the industries and the people still manage to produce and distribute all these through the market system.
All the government provided sevices like security, health (we have free universal healthcare, the best in the world as they like to say), education and even basic infrastructure are low quality and can't reach a satisfactory number of people.
Daily reminder that socialism is extended Marxism, and Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He knew nothing about economics and wrote about how capitalism doesn't work without actually knowing a single thing about how it works.
Well that's what I've heard is that many people like socialism due to the benefits such as health care, retirement, free education etc etc but I have also heard many bad things about it, A lot in this thread alone
Why do you think socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive?
Obviously the best system involves some mix of both.
The government should provide basic necessities but the free market also needs to be there because it keeps prices now and gives us choice in what we consume.
If anybody thinks either part of the system is "wrong" they're a moron.
funny things happen when you fund services with public resources, there are places with quality public hospitals and schools where people that have the means to pay enjoy these services, while in someplaces people that actually need don't have acess, it is impossible for bureacrauts to coordinate the aplication of resources efficiently, even worse when you take into account the corruption that inevitably takes place.
you mean indocrination? What do you expect from a curriculum devised by government apointed workers to be teached by workers that benefit from maintaining the government? Like a public university professor that receives six figure salaries to teach humanities, or someone whose research is directly dependant on state funds, how can they be impartial in their teachings?
>The thing is that Goverment is bad at providing all of these services and has a tendency to utilize its monopoly over them as a form of increasing and maintaining social control.
why is it bad at providing them? The state works as any other company? Is the company enforcing good quality control, has high standards and only hires capable people? Things will work, otherwise it won't.
There's only a monopoly if it's a crime to create private schools.
The only reason why the state has a monopoly of schools is that the vast majority simply can't afford to put their kids in private schools.
>But how exactly are you going to go about this fair redistribuction?
By paying a fair salary. That's as simply as that. If you concentrate the income of companies on the fucking CEO, and having companies abusing low minimum wage you won't have enough people with enough income to spend on anything that isn't really essential.
Most of the communist countries economies failed because they were run by tyrants. And instead of allowing research on economics they simply followed their ideology instead of actually seeing what the number say.
This even happens in countries like the US where republicans only care about lowing the taxes for the rich, democrats the opposit, but they don't even look at what the economists suggest.
That's what I mean with fair distribution of wealth, pay your employees a fair salary.
I don't know what do you mean with this but assuming you mean every profession with the same salary, it just doesn't make sense.
You have to take into account the responsability of the job, the technical and education requirements for it, you can't have a guy at CERN earning the same as a waitress in a restaurant.
And there's other factors like supply and demand. If you have 40 jobs but you have 100 people applying to it then they would earn less than if there was 100 jobs and 40 people applying for it.
Much like the Free Market, Socialism served its function in the 20th century. Now its a de facto part of the modern regulated economy.
Talking economics in a communism-capitalism sense in the 21th century is silly.
has anyone read it?
>why is it bad at providing them?
The state doesn't work like any other company at all, the fact that it is funded by taxes changes everything, how can't you see it?
1 - for example, if an area of a regular company isn't doing well, it might get cut off and people might lose their jobs, this tends to promote efficiency, meanwhile the government will invest even more money to save a failing state company or program, rewarding incompetence.
2 - If there is some kind of corruption scheme inside a private company the only people that stand to lose are those direct involved with it, corruption inside the government affects all of society.
3 - private entrepreneurs can better allocate the resources of society because they directly respond to the needs of consumers, unlike government that acts based on ideology or political reasons, like exchange of favors, influence from lobbies and groups of interest...
You answered yourself, the CEO earns more because good CEO's are highly demanded, if they feel that they aren't earning enough in one company they will go to another, so his current company has to pay more than the concurrence if it doesn't want him to go away, something like this happens all the time with other high skilled or trusted workers as well.
>Most of the communist countries economies failed because they were run by tyrants
The fact that it always happens is telling, the only way towards implementing socialists measures like wealth/land redistribuction is through the centralization and concentration of economic and political power, this inevitably leads to exploitation of said power.
>>It would be better for the first 10-20 years but would start to fall apart after that.
>Nationalizing industry reduces innovation. It also puts the burden on politicians to have perfect foresight since failure has a higher cost. Both for their career and people's livelihood.
Right, so you have no idea what national socialism actually is, then.
>A benefit of capitalism that is regulated to prevent monopolies is that it spreads out decision making and reduces risk. Failures do not have a large societal cost.
>If you frick up with socialism or communism, people starve. If you frick up with capitalism, people lose their luxuries.
You're very bad at this.
>National Socialism is perfect, prove me wrong
>Just provides opinions
Why even post if you aren't going to make counter points or provide a decent position? You have already lost the argument since you cannot counter anything that has been said.
North Korea had great growth at the beginning. Germany did too. We didn't get to see the after effects of National Socialism on Germany, but it likely would have been something like North Korea.
When you put economy second to national interests, you reduce your competitiveness, because that requires that you restrict commerce and trade on principle. You can have great gains at the beginning due to efficiency, but you lose in the end because it is a winner-take-all approach, and the world is going to cock block you like they did Germany, like they currently do with North Korea.
The truth is that socialism is not an alternative to capitalism. Socialism is built UPON capitalism. Because in order to finance socialism you must have capitalism in order to blow the massive inflationary bubbles in debt based currency, borrowing it into existence from thin air, otherwise you are producing nothing and just taking, which is unsustainable. Few socialists or college teacher know this or will admit to it, but the truth is you cannot have socialism without have capitalism as well, though you can have capitalism without socialism. Socialism is an extension built off of capitalism, not an alternative to it.
It makes sense when you put it that way, but even if you have to have capitalism to at least start a socialist economy most socialist countries seem to be a lot more different than capitalist countries.