I mean sure it failed in Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan...

Just admit it Holla Forums, socialism doesn't work.

Read a book or back to Holla Forums.

...

Nope. Everything is as fine as it is.

nice try faggot

When will this meme die.

...

kys

do you think this is a game?

user, meet the sliding scale. Answers to this will vary greatly.

(Me in the center btw.)

...

Tell you what. How about we let a socialist country go about its business without American interference. If it collapses then you can tell us it doesn't work.

wrong again, kiddo

Socialism is in the first instance not a personal vendetta against le porkies (they are just capital personified) nor some scheme; it's the reaction labour on the whole tends to have when it is faced with its antagonizing position in the productive relation to capital. The capitalists come into the picture when they do everything to stop the way where this reaction can only truly head to truly change anything: the complete eradication of the present state of things as they pertain to the capitalist mode of production.

every single one of those countries were horrible to begin with.

Which brings me to my next question. If Marx hadn't outlined these fundamental mechanisms, and no one else did for some time… How do you think the revolutions, arising as you say automatically from the logic of the system regardless, yet lacking a program based on the understanding of their fundamentals from Marx or someone like him, would have fared? If you follow.

Capitalism failed in every country where people make less in a month than western workers make in a day which is like half the world. What's your point, Holla Forumsflake?

They might have followed an anarchist (Proudhon/Kropotkin) model

But if Marxism is correct then they would be doomed as well as these theories and programs do not actually fully capture and illustrate the total dynamics of the system as Marx did.

We cannot say for certain what is to be done. What we do know is that the past appears, in one form or another, in the present, before our eyes, and from this appearance of dead forms we can identify what we think is counterrevolutionary. For example we see that consciousness is a concept that has been consistently deployed in past revolutionary attempts and because those attempts all failed the concept of consciousness and its role must be questioned. Our critique of consciousness begins with our understanding of the failure of revolutions: we see that consciousness, as an organising principle, has always been deployed by a certain section of the bourgeoisie which seeks to use working class muscle to gain political power for itself.

In short, Socialism hasn't worked, yet and we admit this. The difference is that you continue to believe that Capitalism does work despite evidence to the contrary.

Define consciousness.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

Karl Marx, The German Ideology

But he did, and so did many others. Marx never claimed to be the birther of some holy science nobody else could access. His project was one of demystifying reality beyond its ideological pretenses. Anyone can read Marx and get it, because Marx just chronicles their daily conditions of existence as such.

They could not. As I said, communism for Marx is in the first instance but this movement that arises out of antagonisms. What humans do with this is up to them. As Marx pointed out, humans have a "species-being"; a trait unique to them. The species-being of man is his ability to perform complex and creative activities AKA labour. Man, at least on earth and in our known collection of species, is the only only to have this trait at levels so high.

But species-being; this trait, is not synonymous to some human nature. No, it is precisely the fact that man is a creative actor that he may choose how to confront his problems or even his very biological realities. In other words, the communist movement may start as following the tendency to react as such when face with antagonisms, but the way it will try to go further depends beyond obviously the moment and situation he finds himself in, also very importantly on what his notion of going further should be, and what would truly constitute a real change from it all. Marx looked for example at the communard uprising and saw a certain type of form labour took, but did not say "this is what it will always be like".

I suggest checking out that text I posted above real quick before much else:

Getout pedofaggot

And usually got ssignificantly less horrible under socialism. If you would pick being a peasant in the Russian Empire over being a worker in the USSR then you are delusional.

Also dont ruin alunya plz

...

The risk of what?
Having to be a labourer

the risk of losing or wasting it in of the trillions possible unpredictable ways that cause costs or losses to every form of business every day you dork?

i.e. the risk of having to pack it in and become a regular wage labourer to survive.

we want a better world for visionaries too, so they can make their great ideas come true even if they don't happen to sit on a mountain of money and don't feel like prostituting themselves to venture capital.

And who bears the blunt of the risk backfiring?

The labourer, who is first to get the axe should the business not be profitable, as is always the case. If a business is not going well, it is not the CEO that gets his earnings reduced, but rather the low-wage labourer that loses his job and has to content with having to find a different job in tumultious job market, all while being expected to be able to afford living and food.

The old man that has made the investment and took the risk. Which means the employer.
Its just as simple as that.

You egocentric dorks cant even defend the infantil claim that you "deserve" all benefits of an enterprise simply for playing "some" role in it, while utitlizing and wearing off others tools, others knowledge, others investment, others security, others infrastructure and even their labour and lifetime and loading off the full risk off to others who pitched in all the things you use, in such a simple process. Now you are just trying to complicate it like always to dodge the real argument and fabricate a loss, with unrelated emotional sobstories and anecdotes, where there was none, just to victimize the little dumbfuck who doesnt know how even "work" works. Try to defend the dumbfuck kids position you seem to agree with first, before you jump to big business.

Always the same with you, skipping over basics you fail to comprehend and escaping into obscurities of advanced shit with less people around to refute dumb and ignorant claims.