Holla Forumsack here

Communism has proven that the state simply cannot keep track of the ownership of money and resources, even with a gargantuan bureaucratic apparatus, decentralizing the means of production is the only efficient way.

so why not decentralized worker control?

But has communism proven to be any better?

...

Well that's the thing, they tried this in the USSR and what happened instead is that the state owned the MOP because the workers could not effectively manage the MOP.

Your gonna have to read some books; their is to much to cover in a single imageboard post.

Start here:

>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

then move to here:

>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

Both texts are under 100pp so you can knock it out in a couple of hours you were probs gonna waste anyway.

You will gain the barebones basics from the first text and an understanding of Marxist historiography and anthropology in the second; it will also introduce you to the Marxist 'world view'.

glhf

...

There are all types here; some will defend past socialist states, others think they betrayed their ideals, so you'll get differing answers to this.

One thing that I'll say for the marxist-leninists is that they instituted full employment and public housing, education and healthcare, removing some of the key stresses on mental health and family life.

Now obviously, you dont need to have a toothbrush moustache and murder your way into the history books to do those things, you could get a social democrat like bernie sanders to do it.

But will the capitalists enact full employment, allowing workers more bargaining power? Never.

National Socialism is the answer.

As harsh as it sounds, wouldn't giving people everything they need kill the drive for incentive?

I'm looking forward to seeing you idiots refactionalize into premodern European ethnic interests and then tear each other to pieces over who is "white" or not, after, of course, the Pagans and Christians kill each other.

I'm dead serious here. Economies of scale mean that large producers can force smaller ones out of the market (think wal*mart vs mom and dad's aspirational middle class corner store).

The end game for capitalism is a monopoly with one organization gradually absorbing the others.

In the end, it will probably co-opt the state itself, actually electing lobbyists instead of installing puppets and providing them with the text of laws to sign.

What difference is there, really, between a mammoth corporation and an authoritarian state?

Yeah but what about diseconomies of scale

Dumb polyp

The street and prison populations are already huge and costly and really are just universities of maladaptation and crime.

So much in the US is outright wasted (40% of food and 20% of housing) that it's just outright retarded to run things as they are run now.

No, because firstly you still need to work. You can be the guy who half-asses his job because he hates it, but capitalism has these as well, and can tolerate them.

Secondly, people have an incentive to improve social status. Do you want to be a small fry, or do you want to be Sergei Korolev, chief designer of the space program?

People will seek out positions that carry status and provide stimulation.

Multinationals get around those by using regional units.

People have had a lot of incentive to work out management structures that work on a global scale (and a state only needs to work on a national one)

...

Except it wouldn't, even though Walmart can make bread there are still niches in the free market where Bakeries can occupy and thrive.

Capitalism doesn't let these sort of people survive

That isn't communism, communism eradicates economic and social inequality, which includes social status.

Eradicating class distinctions still doesn't eliminate status. People get status for their hobbies, how they relate to other people (whether you help them or be a chad to them), and for their know-how in the workplace.

Its like saying, if everyone is equal, why should I bother being polite? It won't make me any better.

communism is inevitable, even Varg admits it

So glad you finally admit it, Holla Forums. 60 cents has been deposited to your account by Israel, your greatest ally.

What's the problem with Jews and government officials for you, then? You love the status quo, don't you? So much for political incorrectness.

Learn some basic economics. A welfare state is the natural antagonist of capitalist principles and will enforce the contradictions of capitalism, causing employees to lower the wages, investors to outsource, creating an artifical demand causing the trade balance sheet to deteriorate, etc. Social Democracy is known as "Social Fascism" for a reason.

Only public ownership of the MoP like in the Marxist-Leninist states solved these contradictions. You can not achieve the same thing with two entirely different methods.

CEOs only manage capital and are still slaves to the real porkies: the shareholders. CEOs are millionaires, but shareholders are billionaires.

Social Democracy doesn't solve the problems of capitalism but it can alleviate some of the symptoms.

A worker less dependent on porky is a step up from a worker enslaved to the company store.

No, they nationalised all the industry from the getgo, even if the workers were managing it fine.

Because without said factories the workers wouldn't be doing very much. Better argument would be this re: bankers, but I suspect most of Holla Forums would agree with you then.

Ronald Reagan wanted to fund terrorist groups in Nicaragua so badly that he sold arms to Iran to fund it even though Congress AND the UN had forbade him. For this crime he received no punishment. These same weapons he sold to Iran were used in the Iran/Iraq war some ten our so years later, the same Iran/Iraq war in which the US funded Saddam Hussein. In this war, US weaponary was being used on both sides. The US was fighting itself.

We see the same situation with the Taliban and numerous other places around the world.

Besides funding Islamists through arms dealing, the capitalist oligarchs of the central intelligence agency have been known to sell cocaine and heroin in Latin America and The Middle East in order to fund their illegal paramilitaries, who invariably exist to protect some business interest against the local people and the environment.

8 people control half the wealth on earth. You are telling me they work a billion times or more as hard as anyone else?

also, google MEFO bills. Not Socialism was a jewish ponzi scheme by another name with a white guy in charge. Nothing more.

You're confusing modern usury-based capitalism and the system that people on the right, like Hitler, wanted. You can't get that kind of concentration of wealth without exponential returns, which only comes from usury.

I doubt you're genuinely conservative to begin with, so I'll put it this way: you'll find much more personal fulfillment taking control of your own destiny and analyzing society and being as it actually is than in the right-wing LARP.

You totally can, though. Usury gives you exponential returns through compound interest. Capitalism gives you exponential returns through reinvestment of profits.

In fact in the long run, equity investments outperform debt investments by a significant margin (though in the finance sector you're holding equity in banks).

read my second post

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills

Are you really going with "it wasn't real Capitalism" Ronald Reagan wasn't a Capitalist, in your opinion.

There has never, ever, not one time, been capitalism without usury, because capitalism is usury.

Private property is usury is theft.

If you hate usury so much, why do you protect property rights? Usury is impossible under anarchist communism, where absentee property relations are abolished entirely

Hitler was in no way a socialist or a man of the people, he was interested only in protecting the ruling class against Socialism. This is why he pursued policies of privatisation and delegation to cronies + social programs, so, the crony capitalism we see today

and just for the record, you are saying you were on the side of Daniel Ortega and not the Contras?

Nobody's changing anybody's opinion in this thread. People innately respond differently to different values.

Answer these questions.

This tbh

Also

Answer these and I'm a fucking leftist

wew lad

yes, in nazi germany

VERY nice post

watch kaptialism101
They are fairly short videos

He explains how much of the problems of our society stem from the contradiction between use-value and value

And you shouldn't be left-wing (read: the various forms of social democracy), you should be communist.

Here they come…

Globalism is merely the natural state of Capitalism, and we don't want to destroy nations, we just don't really care about them.

But why do you want to throw away great cultures and traditions?

Can I reccomend this video by contrapoints?
Please actually watch throught it instead of calling him a faggot and stopping there.
youtube.com/watch?v=a3XjRO4-kGk&t=

What part of "we just don't really care" did you not understand?

Czech'd

We don't go in for identity politics.

Its a distraction from the economic issues that unify everyone in their porkery.

A wedge to splinter the movement.

no. plenty of people are somehow incentivised to do complex work (open source software is a flagrant example but there are others) without there being a monetary reward for it. There's plenty of innovation and hard fucking work done by people who won't starve and be homeless should they not do it.

also "work or starve to death" is an awful degenerate way to run a society, and plenty of people would be able to do better, more socially useful things (that dont have an immediate profit motive for their employers) if they're freed from having to survive "work or die"

Conservatists say they hate 'socialism'. Fascists attack 'marxism'.

Obviously because they're a bunch of radically materialist degenerates that think 'muh perfect economic system'(that Marx never created) goes above their race, culture and heritage.

I totally agree, I don't give a fuck about race, culture or heritage, you racecuck.

Not to mention the only reason people don't do more of this is that they need to work for porky to stay alive.

There are loads of people who would do great things if all their material needs were met, simply because they would have the energy to do something creative.

Because the government bureaucrats can fuck them up just like capitalists does

I don't have any strong opinion on them

Majority of the citizens are workers

distribute what

Because all "communist" nations were Stalinists.

Paris commune

It's not. Any form of imperialism is bad.

there's so much of what we'd consider essential to modern society and technology that was built on fundamental research that was done at places like Bell Labs where some scientists could dick around and do basic research (and not just work meant to help create some marketable product or service)

it's legitimately difficult to read all the "if you let people have their material needs met they won't do anything and lack incentives to do anything and society will grind to a halt and degenerate and who'll build the roads anyway" posting given how so many elements of modern society depended on innovations and inventions and research made by people who had their material needs squared away and thus had enough freedom to be able to tool around doing research or inventing computers and shit.

corporations are FAR more efficient than any state, they actually care about how resources are spent

Reminder that "radically materialist" means "radically subjective idealist" today.
Darwinist warriors, hitchensian atheists and other fedoras with thought paralysis need not apply.

too much stigma around the name, it could never happen in the west.

national socialism needs a rebrand, perhaps something along the lines of 'identitarian socialism'.

honestly i think many people would be down for a similar system under a different name, they probably wouldn't even know, 99% of the population hears nazi and thinks evil without even knowing what they were about outside of muh racism.

I work for a major corporation, their bureaucracy is just as broken and clogged as any government.

I doesn't work like this, fam.

Do it fucking now, so the world knows you're nothing but yet another authoritarian special snowflake SJW movement whose greatest concern is the skin color of movie actors and what kind of porn is acceptable.

you've obviously never worked for any government…

inefficiency = waste, the difference is, in a corporation your performance is directly related to eliminating waste to make more money for the corporation.

in government, the money comes from the people, and they have no real way of keeping you the government employee accountable outside of elections every few years.

the only government which seems to overcome this problem well is the swiss, as they have a direct democracy and people have a say over more mundane aspects of government decision making.

There is plenty of waste in corporations.

Refusal to keep a steady stock of replacement parts, forcing the company to buy new parts through rush shipping(paying more), leaving machines down for days on end as a result(downtime).

Having TWO productions managers because one is an asshole that has to be kept in check by the other, resulting in a bizzarre two-headed monster of a production department

Absolute failure of the management team to follow the chain of command, resulting in constant miscommunication. Which often leads to things never getting done, or worse, things getting done twice.

Corporate structure is a mirror image of governmental structure, the difference being that no-one is elected.

i can't, that's up to you

boy you really showed me user

anecdotal at best, of course there are shitty cogs in a system occasionally, this is why people are fired in a decent business.

also it is incorrect to say that management or staff within a corporation are not elected, they are simply elected via committee and process, it's actually more similar to the chinese communist party elections than any democratic system.

Tell me how what I say isn't true.

This a poorly worded question. The workers don't really get to decide what they do with the shit they make. They can't sell the shit they make, for example. They can keep part of the shit that they make, but they must share the rest with the communities. That is how the communist economic system works. They do get to manage the production of said shit, simply because they are the ones that work there, and there is no state.

There is no money in communism.

We're not idpols. We are indiferent to the refugee question. Also, if you really wanted to stop imigration and "anuddah shoah", you should adopt an economic system that tends towards the equalization of quality of life everywhere, thus stopping the need to emigrate in the first place (C O M M U N I S M).

What?

The same way capitalism distributes goods today. Literally no difference besides there being no money.

why is every Holla Forumstard a cuck?

Spain. Spain. SPAIN.
And other countries also had limited experiences with communism.

Nice implication you made there.

Because the worker's produced it and therefore should get to decide, democratically and collectively, what they should do with the products of their labour. Having the government tell them what to do is no different from having a capitalist tell them what to do

We don't believe in that, if one worker owned factory makes more than another for whatever reason that's fine and under communism there won't be money because it is post-scarcity and thus no need to ration anything

Umm… I don't explicitly like them a great deal I just feel sorry for them. Many have had their countries and ways of life destroyed by capitalism and imperialism

>If workers seize power, how would they be able to use it for the entire country?
By rebuilding a state to suit there interests, states are loyal to whatever gives them power and if a state was funded by the output of worker owned factories it would be loyal to the socialist mode of production in the same way states now funded by capitalism are loyal to the capitalist mode of production

Well I believe in market socialism so consumer goods that aren't needs would be left up to a market of worker co-operatives whereas needs such as food, water, electricity would be distributed by the worker-owned state

They aren't, evidence: Me

Worked pretty well in SFR Yugoslavia until nationalists, the US and the IMF fucked it up.

burden of proof etc

CEO's are only a part of the problem. The real issue is the stock holders, who the CEO serves often at the expense of the company, stockholders who have no real relation to the company and offer no labor.

reuters.com/investigates/section/the-cannibalized-company/

wow you guys really are just tumblr inverted.

hmmmm

...

You can be an anti-semite , a racist and a mysoginist and still be a leftist.Just don't sperg out like an autist and stop getting your education from shitty jpegs instead of dedicating your time to arduosly studying political
theory,society,history and economics and then lie to yourself that you GET IT when all you're doing is posting good goiym memes everywhere.

Just ask yourself everytime.Would I talk so much crap if this wasn't an imageboard and I had to present my ideas to people I genuiley respect and care about?

That should pretty much keep you away from LARPING like an autist.

That usually helps me not turn cancerous .

arduously

Simple: here is Nazbol stuff.
institutenr.org
niekischtranslationproject.wordpress.com
disintegrationofthesystem.wordpress.com

TLDR: you can be proud of your Volk/country and be socialist (a Sorelian that is).

Wrong. Hitler's retarded capitalism ruined the country.