Why doesn't socialism work?

Marxist socialism doesn't work, because it's full-out socialism/communism
National Socialism works because it combines some elements of capitalism while implementing the utopia Marxist socialism promises but doesn't deliver.

File: 1437686087982.gif (2MB, 230x175px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 230x175px

>>135196928
>National Socialism works

>>135196758
Because the bigger the government, the bigger the chance it can be corrupted.
The bigger the government the more powerful it is and harder to combat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKhR9i5CGkA

Merit and zero is real. There will always be a hierarchy and someone will always miss out on something.

>>135197171
Did it not get Germany out of the great depression and make life bearable leading up to the war in that era ?

There needs to be a lower class for social stability. If the dumb and lazy get an unfair share it will piss off the normal people.

>>135196758

Economics. When you have a capitalist system, you have prices. Really, prices are an agent of information. It tells you how much a given thing is worth at a given time.

Say you were to build a stretch of train track between two cities. And there were two possible routes you can choose. Route 1 goes through a mountain and requires a lot of engineering work, but much less unskilled labour. Route 2 goes around the mountain, so it requires a lot of unskilled labour but not much engineering.
Which route do you choose?

In a capitalist system, it is easy. You look at the prices for engineering labour and add it to the price of the unskilled manual labour.

In a socialist system, you would not have that information and instead, you would give your best estimate to which is better.

But lets say that an earthquake has happened in the other end of the country, and they really need engineers to rebuild all their houses, and at the same time, the planning commitee has made a decision to increase the production of coats, because the winter is expected to be cold. This requires more coat factories to be made, and in turn requires more engineers. This increases the demand for engineers, making their time more valuable. But the planning comittee cannot know every single little factor that increases or decreases the demand for engineers. But it is clear here, that under these circumstances, choosing route 2, with the much less engineering work is smarter, because it doesn't take up time from the engineers who have a lot of other important work to do.

So things that happen in the marked, which is very very difficult to foresee, has an effect on the value of things. Through prices, and thereby thousands of constant negotiations, the information of the need of engineers passes quickly through society. In this case, the wages for engineers would go up, because many people would demand their work.

Thus, a free market is much more efficient in supplying information.

>>135202402
This is but one of the many reasons, why capitalism outcompetes socialism as an economic system.

File: OBFAk2r.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>135202402
Then ofcourse there are incentives. When having an economy with 100%, you are in effect creating a skewed incentive structure. It may come as a shock to some socialists, but people care VERY little about how people fare outside of their immediate vicinity. They do however care a whole lot about themselves, their families and their friends.

So now you tell a guy: "It doesn't matter how much you work, you can do whatever, just have fun, work if you feel like it. The government will pick up the check."
Of course that is not actually what you would say, but it is what the guy will hear!

So he can either toil away in the fields or he can do fuck all. The result is the same for him. "Sure! some other poor fool has to pick up the tap, but there are so many people. If just one guy slacks, no one will notice in the broad scheme of things..." Well. Turns out everybody slacks, so the economy crashes. The commitees are going crazy throwing people in gulags, but because they have no clue about why the economy is failing (see my previous post), they throw all the wrong people in workcamps. So the problem continues, and a bad spiral has formed, which goes on untill people are eating each other or cooking soup on their old boots and belts.
In capitalism however, the more you work, the more you get. So people work a lot. They get richer. They trade with people who own less, so the poor idiots get a little richer too and on it goes until some idiot comes along, thinking we got it all wrong and want to reinstate communism.

>>135196758

Because it's not controlled by "the people" it's controlled by the state who use this massive leverage retards give them to keep control for as long as possible which is why it ends in millions dead every time it gets too big.

It's the exact same child-like idealistic logic as fascists who think "well the all-powerful government will make sure our people are strong since they will magically be really honest people unlike every other time someone got themselves into this position in world history and it won't end horribly for our people like all the other times someone had that much power".

And even if Communism was an honest system it wouldn't work even practically beyond a small community of a few houses because it's impossible to know what every person in an entire country needs without them managing their own resources and a nations resources are going to get allocated poorly and people will suffer since centralized planning simply isn't efficient for millions of peoples needs.

>>135204610
Good explenation. Socialism cannot work because it doesn't take into account the nature of humans is what I got from it. I wouldn't be very incentivised to work for the community if I could see the effect off it.

>>135196758
capitalism is an idea that is derived from nature and as such is pragmatic
socialism is an idea derived from human mind and imposed upon man and nature and thus is ideal
guess what happens when you put the ideal and the pragmatic to test?

Corruption is the root cause of the downfall of all socioeconomic systems.

>>135196758
>we produce more than enough food to feed the world
But do we have the resources and infrastructure to feed the world?

>>135196758
Because they think that everyone that work is "labor" when a majority of the working population in western world never touch so much as a product and it's where everything fall apart.

File: into the gulag it goes.jpg (21KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x400px

>>135197366
>PragerU
>Brazil
>socialist

>>135206011
>capitalism is an idea that is derived from nature
People literally said the same thing about the divine right of kings, and both ideas actually come from the same place: the ruling classes.

>>135206796
Except you can join the ruling class in capitalism.

>>135206929
It's pretty unlikely that someone from Appalachia or an urban slum will become a millionaire congressman or business magnate.

>>135207187
If they have the drive to do it then they may not be millionaires but they can be so much better. In socialism, if you work the hardest, what are you rewarded with?

>>135207463
>what are you rewarded with?
Probably a 'good worker' medal.

>>135196758
other countries won't sell to them

>>135196758
Because the labor theory of value (which is the cornerstone of marxism) is... simply wrong. To communists, the value of a good is determined by the amount of labor put into it. A capitalist selling said good for more than he pays his workers thus exploit them. This would imply that labor has intrinsic value, which of course isn't true. This is where marxism falls apart. You don't need to read more than the first few chapters of Das Kapital to see this.

>>135207463
Depending on the type of socialism. In social democracy, you'd be better off to begin with, and it's very possible that you could move upward even if there isn't room to be rolling-in-gold-coins rich. In a Marxist-Leninist society like Cuba, you'd probably get some benefits like priority for luxury goods, higher pay, or better housing, but the overall wealth to be gained isn't huge, and even the Party leaders don't usually live like millionaires.

>>135207463
Irrelevant. Capitalism does not reward those who "work the hardest", unless you honestly have talked yourself into believing that some kid who inherits his daddy's wealth and spends the rest of his life "investing" in his pajamas works harder than a guy who lays concrete, in which case there's no hope for you.

"From the viewpoint of social
usefulness the street cleaner is the professional colleague of the doctor: the
latter treats us when we are ill, but the former helps us keep well. Yet the
physician is looked up to and respected, while the street cleaner is slighted.
Why? Is it because the street cleaner's work is dirty? But the surgeon often
has much "dirtier" j o b s to perfo r m . Then why is the street cleane r
scorned? Because he earns little.

In our perverse civilization things are valued according to money
standards. Persons doing the most useful work are lowest in the social scale
when their employment is ill paid."

-Alexander Berkman

>>135196758
Because eventually you run out of other people's money.

>>135196928

How about an example of national socialism working?

venezuela is what socialism looks like

>>135208312
>spends the rest of his life "investing" in his pajamas works harder than a guy who lays concrete, in which case there's no hope for you.
If he is bad at this, his money will be redistributed among other people, capitalism punishes foolishness.

Capitalism may not reward those who work the hardest, but it surely does reward people with talent. My starting salary is higher than those of my 2 brothers (currently combined) and higher than what each of my parents earn.
My 2 brothers grew up with me at the exact same conditions but neither of those 2 went to a university (one might though, he is thinking about it atleast).

>>135208449
Nazi Germany, the collapsed because of the war not because of their system, USSR on the other hand...

>>135196758
>free stuff for everyone
that's where it fails, no one works for free

>>135208312
That quote is so retarded that it hardly deserves a reply. Value determines price, not the other way around. And neither is fixed. The value of a doctor is higher than that of a street sweeper in pretty much every way imaginable. If it turned out that street sweepers that had obtained some secret street sweeping knowledge could diagnose and cure cancer you'd see their pay go up as well.

>>135196758
Because it's a waste of resources to prop up failing and dysfunctional groups. It's a basic rule of economic policy that anything you subsidize, you get more of. Subsidize small business: get more small business. Subsidize first time home-buyers: get more first time home-buyers.

But it also works socially. If you subsidize poverty, you'll get more poverty. But it's not just about the problem of welfare-niggers. If you flood ANY market with free, government money, prices explode through the ceiling. That's why education and healthcare is so expensive (because of the trillions of dollars in free, government money that has artificially been pumped into those markets). Socialism hurts the poor and strains the middle class.

It's a bullshit vote-farming scheme.

File: 16cabbaedaf7cabef0ba74574264258d.jpg (53KB, 343x395px)

53KB, 343x395px

>>135196758
because there is no such thing as "free stuff". socialism does not work because it uses coercion and force against human nature.

the real questions are:

>with all of the socialist failures, how are you not learning, and
>you are free to move and go to a socialist country anywhere you can find one, why are you still here?

>>135197171
It's more just public spending and mixed economies, which do work. They ramped up for military spending. That would be like saying capitalism doesn't work because the US went to war in Iraq and bankrupted themselves.

>>135208864
Nazi Germany required war to keep it's socialist economy going, if they hadn't started a war with Poland they would have collapsed soon. Socialism doesn't work, it's a complete fraud and anyone who says otherwise lacks a basic understanding of economics.

>inb4 b-but it's okay to have welfare as long as it's only white people and we live in an ethnostate

Do you know how much white trash degenerates and herion addicts there is in my 90% white city? It's not the chinks and poos in B.C begging me for money and doing drugs and using welfare, it's whites. Socialism is shit and I shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of degenerate filth just because they share the same race as me.

File: Thomas-Sowell.jpg (36KB, 498x348px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 498x348px

>>135208312
that stupid quote, that you read, identified with, and wasted our time with, does not take into account the doctors years of training. it also assumes everyone gives a shit, which they dont.

i dont value a doctor more than a street sweeper because of the difference in money that they earn, which is a key word, I value the doctor more because there are fewer people that can competently do his job, and he has shown the ambition, dedication, and intellect to earn (that word again) a degree. the street sweeper comes a dime a dozen in the american southwest and in home depot store parking lots everywhere. they have no special features other than they failed at life in a system that gave them every opportunity to succeed.

you commies are backwards and fucking stupid. im glad that you are not spreading your low iq bs ant further than whatever antifa hags are accepting low t beta male sperm donors, and even then only the ones that make it through without being aborted.you people are scum.

>>135207187
socialism/communism
>be guy who invented Kalashnikov
>be in USSR at time
>get nothing for it

>be in capitalist country
>invent anything
>get patent
>rich as shit

File: 120483310248.png (271KB, 920x511px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 920x511px

>>135207187

Jeff Bezos became the richest man in the world today. Do you know how he started his company Amazon? By selling books out of his garage.

This would be impossible if we lived in your commie/natsoc utopia. The only people who could live in a nice house or get rich would be Hitler, Stalin, and all their friends while we would live in shit tier slums and work 80 hours a week with no upward financial mobility.

>>135208445
I love this explanation because it works on two levels.

1 - Socialism doesn't create wealth. Instead it creates a system that removes all incentives to create wealth and thereby pay taxes.

2 - Eventually everyone comes for your money and you are funding everything. Socialism stops being fun when that happens.