Real socialism has never been trie-

pick one nigger

...

is meant for

He didn't win the majority of the vote you blithering idiot.

(x) doubt

thank you have you any other simillar things like that?

I'm pretty sure votes appointed him, God does not appoint unmoral, unethical and ignoble people.

succ

yeah all of them 3 historically relevant examples

The majority of ancient economies were almost exclusively state-run and planned.

That doesn't make them fucking socialist for a million different reasons, not the last of which being that the work was done by fucking slaves.

yeah, he's bad because he didn't won majority.
next time when he or some other far righter will win with better result you'll be happy

There's not a huge difference between a divinely-appointed monarch and the chairman of the Communist party representing the will of the people due to historical necessity.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy
This is interesting but too obscure
Try remaking this thread like in a month with this link in the OP and see if this go better

And in automated luxury communism, AIs/robots will be our slaves.

I wonder if this a thing back them

You still have elections in a democracy for the executive branch, just not the legislative one

Sometimes I think that we would be better off with a constitutional monarchy, where the King has real power, instead of bourgeois democracy. Assuming that the technology does not yet exist for proper socialism, having a King as opposed to a bourgeois government could make the development a lot less painful. The King is not strictly aligned with the bourgeoisie, after all.

There was a Karl Rothbardus and some german count that was a "socialist" but not much else.

This but unironically
Haha, well meme'd, my dude!

And those same reasons apply to why the USSR was not socialist, even that of slave labor!

Get out.

I'm not being ironic either. I'm not sure whether that should be regarded as a criticism of the USSR or a realization that overthrowing the monarchies was a mistake.

At least it shoes you can run a fairly advanced civilization without a market economy. Seems to me an empirical refutation of the calculation problem.

Yeah, it does have that going for it.
Nevertheless, lolberts still rehash it regardless in this book while claiming that the Inca empire was socialist (hey, another similarity with tankies!):
mises.org/system/tdf/A Socialist Empire The Incas of Peru_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
They hold that in-kind calculation is possible in an economy as simple as that of the Incas in terms of number of inputs and products, but impossible to manage for an industrial society. Seeing as they lived before linear algebra and the ubiquity of computers, I actually would have probably agreed with them at the time. The argument is, of course, untenable today with even a cursory glance at surroundings (this old laptop could plan an economy with 10s, even 100s of millions of products in less than a minute given Cockshott's algorithm when aided by the neural net which he proposed in 1989).

A criticism of the USSR and nothing more. If you're ever in doubt, go back to the beginnings of (scientific) socialism and read Proudhon.

Not if we're smart and don't program consciousness into them. The whole concept of consciousness and self-preservation may seem like something universal, impossible to escape and imagine something beyond, but this couldn't be further from the truth - we are (along with other intelligent mammals like, I don't know, dogs and kangaroos and elephants) only a very specific outcome of an evolutionary process which took billions of years. We give ourselves way, way too much credit when we imagine AI spontaneously approaching our characteristics out of the blue. Maybe self preservation will arrive if given an objective function to complete a single task without string attached, but that can easily be avoided.

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
Contre nous de la tyrannie,
L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis)
Entendez-vous dans les campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras
Égorger vos fils, vos compagnes!

Aux armes, citoyens,
Formez vos bataillons,
Marchons, marchons!
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!

Bumper

(Reposting from which I suspect is the same poster as OP and he fucked off after my reply.)

They did have commodity production, because they had capital. The way commodities are then processed to complete capital circuits and accumulate capital is irrelevant; what matters is that they do.

The notion of "gift economy", as you'd want your palace economy to qualify as non-capitalist, is entirely misled when you realize that a "gift" is just the delayed exchange of commodities. Reciprocity as such is a two-entity exchange relationship that we call a "gift", but isn't. The commodity arising from the existence of capital is merely a form of indebting the giftee with the law of value-driven need to then in turn produce capital and exchange it once more. If this wants to go, there must be a time lag between the gift and returned favor of a gift, meaning one must always be in debt of the other, or there is no relationship. Gift or generalized reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services without keeping track of their exact value, but often with the expectation that their value will balance out over time. Balanced or Symmetrical reciprocity occurs when someone gives to someone else, expecting a fair and tangible return at a specified amount, time, and place. Market or Negative reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services where each party intends to profit from the exchange, often at the expense of the other. Gift economies, or generalized reciprocity, occurred within closely knit kin groups, and the more distant the exchange partner, the more balanced or negative the exchange became. Your palace economy is effectively this third type of gift under the assumption that it is the second with a hint of the first.

It is furthermore retarded to imagine the possibility of socialism without the agrarian revolution which forces the universalization of the proletarian condition. Palace economies existed within their respective class societies as specific modes of management, all within the antique slave society mode of production.