Capitalist here

markets are not unique to capitalism. markets existed in fuedalism, slavery, etc. the main idea of socialism is that the profit created by labor is shared collectively and the means of production is shared collectively.

some communists or anarco-communists will argue against markets by making the point that market forces can create economic pressure that will force syndicates to defy the common good by competing with labor unhindered by the morality/ethics of the collective, but my opinion is that this is only relevant when trying inject socialism into an existing capitalist economy. in an entirely socialized economy, i posit that markets would be driven by factors other than price.

also i forgot to mention that full blown socialism is less conducive to innovation than capitalism. necessity and competition are the sweat and blood of innovation, and when having a better idea and better product doesn't net you a better return, then there is no point or incentive. some people innovate purely for philanthropy, but the vast majority of innovations since the industrial revolution come from companies competing in a (at least relatively) free market for a larger income than their competitors. a lack of competition engenders technological stagnancy.

that is of course, unless the innovations directly benefit the government, in which case they'll pump plenty of money into it, but stuff like smartphones for example? if capitalism vanished from the face of the earth 100 years ago, there is no chance in hell we would have an internet or computers like we have now, to discuss all this shit across the world right now.

such as?

literally what. it's either socialism or capitalism. there's no in-between, and no, SocDem is not socialism.

muh human nature is not an argument. In fact, worker co-ops have been shown to make workers happier and more productive:

thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/

holy shit, socialism is not about equal outcome, socialism is about earning the 100% fruits of your labour as compared to having your surplus value stolen by your boss in capitalism

lul

you need to read my friend: here's a good introduction:
Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein: monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

Marx - School of Life:
youtube.com/watch?v=fSQgCy_iIcc

Do you believe feudal aristocracy is a form of capitalism?

Farm laborers, miners, slaves of various sorts, etc. Not executives, media moguls, businessmen, millionaires and billionaires.
Socialists only believe this in the broadest way, as in we will be able to access the fruits of all workers labor. Not that anyone will be able to get any amount of anything, do whatever they want, etc.

But the central point of literally all socialist and communist movements is that only WORKERS will be allowed to access the basic services. (food, jobs, housing, healthcare, education, transportation, etc)

There is no money. Everyone who can work will work, but it will also mean that jobs will have shorter hours. They will have better conditions and will be directed to produce for the food of society as a whole instead of the personal fortune of one or a handful of individuals.

Under the current society one man can produce enough to feed thousands but instead of making life easier it just lines the pockets of someone born with the land rights.

It's not that it doesn't exist to suck your dick, it's that it exists to grind you beneath the wheel until the end of time. The forms of property relations it rely on are theft, using tricks and coercion to make people believe a little is a lot and that they have autonomy.

How can the natural order return to something that's incredibly recent in human history? Primitive societies were not capitalist. Feudal societies were not capitalist. Nor were they nations. Nation states and capitalism are very new in human history. You will never have, and never see an animal engage in the "nature" capitalists talk about, but you quite often see different species engage in mutual aid, a concept used by anarchist and communist society.

There's no such thing as "some amount of socialism"
Read this

Socialism requires worker ownership of the means of production, this is not a sliding scale. Reconsider your entire political foundation if you're making mistakes of this level. Consider anarchism, and reading the Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin.

Communism is all you're left with if you revert to pure muh-nature mode. Hence the most hardcore environmentalists all being anarchist. Private property requires police to enforce, collective property does not, money requires a more artificial economic system than a gift economy.

Your "equality of outcome" stuff is sincerely just a meme. We're talking needs and you're saying the unambitious should have an unequal outcome. Needs m8, the stuff necessary to being a productive member of society. Punishing people by denying them necessities isn't going to inspire good working people, it's been said we want everyone to be born into this world, be able to learn a way to contribute to society, and be able to do so without needing to ask permission or leave of a boss.

It's entirely possible to get rid of corruption. Can you legitimately not imagine a world in which there are no people powerful enough that corrupting them would matter? That's possible with local direct democracy, a very important part of communism and anarchism.
The point is instead of only needing to corrupt a few people, to corrupt a communist society you would have to corrupt the vast majority of people. That's a lot more buffer space. As well as ultimate freedom and a good life for all people.

Communism works because things a little crazier than "sharing and not exploiting each other" have worked. Things like "all of you work for me for barely any compensation because I said so"

...

If you think that socialism is "regulations", then you are mistaken, as it's more proper definition would be workers'/societal ownership of means of production(companies and such), with the production for use in marxist case.
arguable. The so-called "primitive communism" of hunter-gatherer tribes had certain similarities to what communists think of, like the absence of non-personal property and a production completely devoted to use(but without our sweet robot technology that give us a chance to sit on our asses, so nobody gives a shit about it), so saying it is incompatible is pretty dumb.
This cannot be capitalism, as this system is based on the existence of private property, generating the class of workplace-owning capitalists capable of inheriting the ownership of those workplaces, thus screwing up the idea of equality of outcome, you might want to read up about ideologies like mutualism in that regard.
That's not communism as an economic system, but rather a type of socialism with a leninist political system, with many claiming it is not even socialism at all due to factors like vanguard beoming separate non-worker class controlling the state apparatus, but that's pretty muddy area and a common reason for shitstorms between leftists, so let's not go there.

Yeah, that would make sense except Marx kicked both Bakunin and Proudhon out of the international and surprise surprise, it all went to shit

Not an argument and not even something that exists, people respond primarily to the economic and productive system they labor under, before a man can produce any sort of work ethic or culture they need to get food into their mouths. Before you talk about this you should pick up any anthropology or history book and understand that humans have lived under a fuckton of different economic systems that were based on their material reality, like gift economies and mutualism, nothing that was inherent to some nature.

Only some variant of leftists would even advocate handing all of this over completely to a governments and bureaucrats and even then they would advocate democratic methods of oversight like worker's councils and assemblies chiming in, things that capitalism completely lacks right now, the 1% are not accountable to anyone and that is just because they have accumulated lots of capital. Under socialism the material incentives to be corrupt would be diminished by a lot.

Capitalism is the system that maintains itself trough violence and the state, one man and one man only claiming the right to profit over vast productive forces like land in which he does not work on but claims ownership over is not normal, it only exists because that man can enforce himself unto others.

How about… you get the full products of your labor?
Capitalism is not a meritocracy and it never was.

Theory without action is akin to trying to get your sock pregnant.

this is a valid point, but there's a lot of things to consider that surround it.

first, let's talk about the illusion of scarcity - that there's not enough to share. if resources were shared more equitably, we'd all be fabulously wealthy compared to our current state. beginning with automation/mechanization of every sort of labour possible, there would no longer create problems by wiping out jobs because the resources/services created by that improvement in efficiency would benefit the whole of society, and reduce the amount that anyone had to contribute to keep things working.

as far as lazy people go, i would also argue that it's better to pay these people off and let them be lazy rather than create more problems trying to police them or force them into gaming the system to remain lazy.

concerning the hardworking folks, wll we can't completely irradicate the human drive to get ahead, although I don't think that many people would find they really need or want a private jet or multi-million dollar mansion once they had a relatively comfortable life. let's imagine a world where everyone gets a guaranteed basic income, education, housing, etc. a certain amount of work from them is required to keep this system humming, but anything else above that is profit that can be spent on life improvements, thus furthering economic growth. to keep the playing field level over generations, encourage spending, and disocurage hording of wealth, there could be laws where unspent funds are regularly wiped out, so in a sense money would be a "use it or lose it" kind of thing. that's only one idea, but let's use our imagination! a better world is possible…

Action without theory is akin to kicking down trashcans for the sake of it.

meant to

quality of goods/services, fasion, new advances in technology, etc. pretty much the same as it is now but without the cult of consumption that we currently have. it's my presumption that such behavior is a result of past traumas. as an anecdotal example, my grandparents were poor as hell in the Great Depression, and horded a great deal of commodities that they could never use. How many electronic stereos, fans, toolboxes, etc. do you really need?

That's why I want both.

Most socialists think of production for use, which was also a dominant mode of production the last two-three centuries.

what the fuck is welfare then?

then you're referring to anarcho-communism, which isn't the only kind. if a government exists, then it needs funding. this comes in the form of taxes. who enforces laws and socialism if there is no government? if there is no government, then things quickly devolve back into capitalism. you view capitalism as organized theft, correct? if there is no government (which requires funding via taxes, in order to operate), then who is going to stop a bunch of conspirators from shooting you and stealing your shit? if you are being taxed to keep your government afloat, so that it can enforce laws and prevent anyone who wants to, from murdering you and stealing your food, then you are not entitled to 100% of your earnings.

If you look into it, you can see that a ton of technological development research (for example the iPhone) was actually also funded by the government. Markets in capitalism do not create innovation. A new competitor in the market can scare powerful companies very much, so they will do everything to preserve the status quo. Also the research of computers and internet were also funded by the government. The funny thing is that many technological devices before entering the market were used/researched by the US army. Also why do you think that most of the scientists were motivated by money?

Welfare is not socialism dumbass

What the fuck do you think Capitalism is?
Just people trading with each other?

not him, but
Welfare is welfare, it does not change the economic system, as things like relationship of production between the classes remain the same. If Lincoln started giving welfare to slaves, then said slaves would still be slaves, except with free shit, similarly workers selling their labour power to the capitalists on the market do not cease to be workers selling their labour power to the capitalist on the market if you gave them free shit.

OP here. i just want to say that even though my economic beliefs probably align closer to pol, you guys are way more civil and polite, and just willing to discuss things with laymen than they are. i've posted there a few times and have only been met with hostility and snarky dismissal. it seems they don't want to discuss anything, they just want to circle jerk.

so basically, even if i don't agree with you guys necessarily, i just want to thank you all for the hospitality you've shown me so far as an outsider.

You're welcome.

Now post arguments:DDD

The point is instead of only needing to corrupt a few people, to corrupt a communist society you would have to corrupt the vast majority of people. That's a lot more buffer space

i see what you're saying, i suppose i just have far less faith in humanity than you do. people will always find a way to unfairly take advantage of others and fuck them out of their fair share. people with like beliefs and habits always inevitably collectivize, and not everyone in a communist society is going to agree with the system. i don't understand how you do not see this as serious threat. what is your solution to this problem? what's stopping a band of capitalists from growing and posing a legitimate threat like antifa is trying to do in the US right now?

The simplest answer would be getting rid of the ability to become a capitalist, in this case private property. Let's go with Proudhonian mutualism here: how would a capitalist class overthrow anything if the companies were ran in a cooperative manner and therefore whoever leading a coop could not be a capitalist on the basis of being merely in charge of a coop rather than actually owning it?

If people are easily corruptible, a system where only a few need to be corrupted seems like it would actually require more faith in humanity than one where you'd need to corrupt most people.
Not everyone agrees with capitalism but we still live in it.
The best thing to stop a band of capitalists is to be in a communist society, making the entire thing require convincing an extreme amount of people to give you all their time and labour power, similar to convincing people to name you king and live in a feudal society today, it would be a bit impossible.

Green bill me on capitalism.