Provide me an argument for socialism/communism that doesn't

>>39001204
That's literally impossible to do.

>>39001296
So what reason is there to support socialism if you don't care about other human beings that you've never met, and you don't care about morals?

>>39001204
China, nuff said.

>>39001318
There is no reason, that's my point.

>>39001333
China is a capitalist dictatorship run by a quasi-communist bureaucracy. Not really socialist in any meaningful sense.

File: 1501688238371.png (820KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 640x640px

>>39001351
So what you're saying is there is no practical argument for socialism? There are no reasons to support it other than sentimental ones?

>>39001204
Humans are not smart enough to incorporate communism, so some form of right libertarianism is the best we can do.

>>39001400
So your argument is communism is the ideal, but humans are not ideal enough to achieve it?

What is your argument for this? What does communism have in your eyes that makes it the unattainable but ideal system?

>>39001373
Pretty much. Capitalism has always been a better alternative to socialism/communism.

>>39001204

It has good but misguided intentions.

Thats about all i can think of.

>>39001204
Give an argument for ANY ideology that doesn't involve any of those. You can't.

>>39001204
Workers build and maintain society. Capitalists own the vast majority of society's resources, resources that are acquired and processed by workers using tools built by workers. The capitalist performs no productive work. Why do we need the capitalist?

That's the essence of socialism. If you're a worker, it's in your interest to live in a society managed by workers. If you're a capitalist this is already your ideal society and you definitely shouldn't be supporting communism. If you're somewhere in the middle it could go either way.

Capitalism isn't about morals, feelings, or compassion for others. It's in the self-interest of the working class to overthrow the system that exists to keep the capitalist class in power.

>>39001204
>moral progress is bad and should be overlooked in favor of material progress
If everyone thought like you we'd still have slavery. (and you won't be on the side of the slave-owners)

>>39001591
*Communism isn't about...

I mean capitalism isn't either, but it's not what I meant to write.

Not a commie, but I think the most compelling argument is about artificial scarcity.

Capitalism works as a way to allocate limited resources; the more you want/need something, the more you are willing to pay for it and the more likely you are to get it. But there are some things, like books, films, software and to an extent medicines and vaccines where although there is a high initial development cost, the cost to reproduce those goods (e.g. print more books, send a file) is closer to zero. Furthermore, someone else can usually copy those goods just as easy as you can.

Under capitalism, we've invented the ideas of copyright and intellectual property to create an artificial scarcity so that people can still make money from these goods; their inventors can set a price for them like any other good and people who want them can pay for them. However, there is lost value in this system in that if I you are unable or unwilling to pay the price for these goods you don't get them, even though the actual cost to give you them is near zero. You could potentially have got those goods at a near zero cost for the original producer yielding some gain for you, which would have been an overall gain.

In the past this wasn't such a problem as the vast majority of goods were physical goods produced in limited qualities, and intellectual property was a way of ensuring these non-physical goods are still compatible with the rest of the system. But as we move towards a more digital economy where more and more goods have ever smaller production costs, we might need to start thinking about a more socialist/communist system where the producers of intellectual goods don't NEED to charge a set price for their goods as their needs are already met, so more people are able to benefit from their work.

>>39001373

Yes. The only people arguing for communism are hyper agreeable radical SJWs.

hey have no idea how privileged they are in the current modern western world. Even today in 2017 only about 10% of humans live in a free democracy.

If they lived in a communist state they would have been lined up against a wall and shot or sent to starve to death in a gulag already.

>>39001204

Well if you believe these things to be worthless then why have a lawful civilization at all. If you dont see any problem with letting people starve to death while you have enough resources to feed them all then why care about murder.

Im not a communist but any political ideology involves some degree of ethics or morals

Greed is a trait found in every human. People are not smart enough to make communism work, because communism assumes that we want everyone to prosper. Every time communism is implemented it fails because there is always someone wanting power. These aren't isolated cases, and no matter how many times you try communism it will always fail because of our own greed.

File: 1501769706905.jpg (31KB, 590x578px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 590x578px

>>39001730
>Well if you believe these things to be worthless then why have a lawful civilization at all.

You can't have a productive society without some form of law and order.

I'm just asking if communists/socialists truly believe that massive state ownership and the elimination of the capitalist class is TRULY the MOST efficient way to run a society, or if they simply think it is the most moral way.

>>39001591
Business owners are there to decide how the business should run, if that's what you mean. Without CEOs, there wouldn't even be a business.

Also, it's totally possible for a common man to start a successful business. Bill Gates didn't come out of the pussy owning the Microsoft Corporation.

File: 124817456784.png (417KB, 1188x540px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1188x540px

>>39001204
You might be interested in some of the arguments Max Stirner, a self-interested individualist anarchist, has made.
Everything is commodified and bastardized under capitalism. We feel free under capitalism because we tend to lack the very language to describe our own unfreedom, but even our love for each other is cut off because that is commodified, degenerated too and feels insincere...

>>39001204
lenin realized communism wouldn't work and pushed for state capitalism. he had plans unfulfilled before his death, but his economic policies are arguably why russia didn't collapse after the war. similar policies were used post mao to prevent china from imploding, and the most powerful socialist economies understand the value of competition and foreign trade incentives

when vladimir lenin himself fucking considered the alternative, you really gotta start activating your almonds

>>39001804

But why do you care about having a productive society if you argue from OPs point of view? The strong and capable can easily survive on their own without a society to support them. A society for the most part supports the weak and less capable and provides them with security.

>>39001866
>But why do you care about having a productive society if you argue from OPs point of view?
Maybe he doesn't find the prospect of being a hunter gatherer that appealing.