Socialism and the 100% failure rate

Basically, how can Socialists and Communists even argue about it when they have such a horrible CV?

Capitalists can't do that because Capitalism is a success. National Socialism can't do that because it's a single entity which was destroyed by war.

But Marxist-Socialism was implemented in dozen countries, and each and every time it failed, spectacularly. Are you seriously going to argue that each and every one of those countries was somehow infiltrated by counter-revolutionaries who sabotaged it?

Funny thing is, they can't find any notion of this happening prior to the collapse. All the western useful idiots started yapping about "not true communism" only after everything went to shit. If somehow USSR existed to this day, they would still support it.

I love this meme.

Did good in Sweden until niggers showed up. I think facism and socialism that was practiced by the nazis is the right way to run an economy that's why we are not allowed to do it. The societal ills capatilism causes has made it a failure.

Because kikes are the teachers and kikes are the moderators and kikes are the media and they say it works.

That’s it.

dont waste your time

Because it's intuitive.

It's like when you ask a child:

top kek

Posted from my computer

they are communists not because they found some information but because of some mix of self-hatred and vanity. Until you teach them how to love themselves and ditch the cuckolding they will just perform mental gymnastics.normally they would be harmless to others, but here they are organized as useful idiots by.

the arguments they have are meaningless, as those are not their positions just steppingstones. There position is total destruction of everything, the family, the society and themselves. The ideology is societal suicide, and people who do not believe in the ideology use these people to put themselves in a position of power.


Simple Definition of socialism

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

wow Socialism can mean different governmental policies when it's used in different context then the communism context where it is just a stepping stone to communism

Jew, how are your pockets?

...

Toppest of keks

...

Get fucked. Even Hitler was going to drop socialism from the name after it wasn't necessary and simply make a "German Party," the way it should be.

Continue consuming.

sage

basically they go

and pretend that their delusional fantasy utopia is just around the corner, we just need to subjugate the able to be feed off by the parasitic unable (or rather, refuse to be able). Its the economic expression of the cancerous thought process that is Leftism.

but that wasn't socialism…Sweden is not a socialist country. They have a pretty damn free market. Their recently implemented socialism-esque qualities like the welfare state is bringing the countries economy down steadily though>>5830137

How can mutilated men claim they are women?
Mental Illness is one hell of a drug.

It's not capitalism that is bad. It's materialism

back to leftypol, povertyfag.

There are a lot of things wrong with being poor. You have to work all day long, you die early, you can't develop a high culture, you can't invest, you can't start a business, being poor is the ultimate control mechanism, because you are so occupied with staying alive and getting by that you have no time and energy for anything else.

People who are against the free market are either extremely stupid or extremely evil.

...

Neither does capitalism.
Just die

The reason why I hate this argument is because this only works when you have a country like the USA being the world's peacekeepers for decades. In a vacuum, socialism doesn't work, not even for Sweden.

Really. Show me one country where capitalism doesn't work.

You are something, aren't you? Of course socialism doesn't require any skills, just a desire and a willingness to take that which doesn't belong to you.

...

The whole capitalist world is getting near economical collapse because of the perpetual growth that is the main requirement of capitalist economics. At one point, it's mathematically impossible to achieve economical growth unless you rig the system (bailouts), destroy the whole environment and/or exploit people to the point of slavery, which is what we've seen in at least the past 2 decades.

Capitalism eventually fail in the long term, whereas communism fails really quickly.

It was the most successful socialist country, especially when you take into account that it didn't have natural resources, but at the same time it was decades behind all capitalist countries. They didn't have breadlines, but they had meat-lines and fruit-lines, etc.

Right, if you can't contribute one good product or service to society- you are either a child, a cripple, or an old fart.

The point of capitalism isn't to stay poor.

There's nothing impossible about trading.
Yeah, we're close a collapse, but that's because the government is stealing a trillion dollars every year and spends another trillion on fighting wars around the world. And what do bailouts have to do with capitalism? That's a government program. It's not capitalist to give trillions to failing banks. In a capitalist system failed banks go bankrupt and close their doors.

Immaterialist scum. Go run around the forest naked like a Navi if you hate it so much.

The only thing wrong with capitalism is that it’s too successful. We are the only country in the world with fat "poor" people. America is so rich that the people have become lazy, spoiled, self entitled assholes. Exactly like you, user. Because of capitalism, a useless idiot like you has the money and free time to dick around on the internet, bashing capitalism. You are welcome.

He who hates capitalism among you, let him cast the first iPhone.

The DDR wasnt as bad because it bordered at the BRD and soviet russia not allocating ressources there so it didnt had to go cambodia mode was a matter of saving face and stability at the front, not socialist ingeniuty.

I'm talking about putting material possessions above all else. That doesn't mean that you need to be poor but for example to spend more money on helping the community and not just buying villas and Ferrari's

It was the best of the commies, but pretty bad for western standarts, specially if you copare it to the BRD with about the same ressources and the same people.
You could argue it more ore less worked in the DDR, but it didn´t work nearly as good as the capitalist BRD.
t. German

Socialism fails immediately because it is the end of natural selection. Capitalism is failing because it has slowly ended natural selection.

The problem I have learned is that there is actually no such thing as 'Socialism' anymore and really, very few people actually identify as Socialist anyway. It is impossible to tie-down with anyone want Socialism is and I think that, in part, is deliberate.

For example, in a previous discussion I pointed out that I believed that the current government of the UK was Socialist, because of punitive and excessive taxation, the National Health Service, Nationalised Education, wealth redistribution to an underclass of single mothers and 'immigrants', constant intervention in industry by the government etc. but was curtly told that such a government is not 'Socialist' because 'Socialism' is the 'democratic control of the means of production'.

I search for Socialism on Google and the first thing I see:

Socialism: the radical idea of sharing

What the fuck does that mean.

I believe that 'Modern Socialism' is more like an 'Anti-Capitalist' sentiment which is not openly described as Socialism. I also believe that Conservative ideology is a form of 'proto-socialism' which in recent years both old school socialism and modern socialism have given way to.

The welfarestate is the most dysgenic System imagineable.
My point of View is, we need a national-libertarian goverment, if only the better people coul afford kids the problem would be gone.

Because "Communism didn't work in these 50 million countries, but it will work THIS time". That is all you need to know.

Communism has many faces. Consider technocracy: You have an awesome computer who calculates everything and makes all the economic decisions. Lots of people today are still technocrats, even though the concept has fallen out of favor because nowadays, everyone is intimately familiar with computers and knows how fucking retarded they are. In the 60ies when the "Computers rule everything" meme was big, even sci fi writers only knew computers as those perfect machines that don't make calculating errors.

The argument from computers being retarded is a big one against communism, because it shows you can't just eliminate the problem of a power hungry, parasitic administrative class in a socialist system by replacing the party functionaries with computers.

The core of the failure of communism is that information is spread out asymmetrically. The uneducated farmer standing on his plot of land that he inherited from his father knows far more about how to work it efficiently than some university-educated genius planner a thousand miles away. And the same is true for literally every conceivable business decision. Information asymmetry is why communism fails. It could only work in an universe that literally has no dimensions, so every entity would be the same distance from every other entity (zero) and thus there are no people vastly better informed to make decision than another.

As long as our fucking UNIVERSE has at least spatial (and temporal) dimensions, communism can never be as efficient as a free market driven by rational self interest.

The USSR was state capitalist, not socialist.

state capitalism IS socialism

Oh, for sure.

That's one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
>>>Holla Forums

Guaranteed Replies.

Big difference between giving tax money to businesses to employ extra workers and giving away NEET bucks

Capitalism is the reason why we can't have nationalism. Capitalism by definition destroys borders and cultures to make the flow of goods, services and labor as free as possible. It by definition encourages consumption, whatever form that consumption takes, even if it's selling sex-reassignment surgeries to pre-teens.

Lets say you're white, you love white people, but you got a business to run. If you let your principles triumph, you'll be pushed out of market by someone more pragmatic.

Capitalism is cancer, but it's very efficient.

Don't forget about the DPRK and Khmer Rouge. Also capitalists!
Never been tried, and so forth.

So add the word "National" in front of the word "Capitalism" and adjust the doctrine from there.
See?
Easy.

Hard mode: Add the word "Ethnocentric" before the word "National", and adjust further.

You people are so short sighted.
Probably because your dumb and/or autistic.

*You're

Won't fool me devil


Lets say people do that. What is to stop people from seeking that extra edge and slowly chipping away at the definition of National or Ethnocentric?


It is not ideologically backed and vague enough to exploit is it not?

With what, government intervention and law enforcement? That means large government, taxes and regulations. Rich people will see it and fuck right off. Foreign investment will decrease. Economic growth will slow down. Degenerates will be rioting in the streets because they can't buy their purple dildos.

And this is textbook socialism by the way, - using government power in a way that restricts the economy to promote social health or some virtue.

Retards in this thread enshrine capitalism, when it's the source of everything they're probably pissed off about.

user that very short sighted of you, you are probably dumb and/or autistic. :')

:^)

It still failed.

This is out of the question.

None socialist "miracle" country survived. I find it ludicrous, mentally retarded, absurd beyond the confines of current existence, to claim each and every of those countries "didn't know" how to implement Socialism, but some dickhead from r/Socialism knows the real way and it will work this time.

I'm a professional cowboy and I use catheters. Been cowboyin' for 25 years. I've had 14 broken bones, 2 concussions and a punctured lung. I know pain and I don't want any more of it. Especially when I cath.

So you say he was going to drop socialism at one point? More info pls.

Cuckservative D/C

and it never will be, because it's just a disguise for feudalism. There are no private banks in socialism, and there are no private military industry to push for profits at any cost.

socialism "fails" because capitalist oligarchs make sure not to end like a russian czar family 100 years ago. With USArmy, CIA, debt and such.

Hitler's government spent 15 billion a year, much of it on gibs. Taxes totaled to 10 billion a year.

If war hadn't been declared, the state would have collapsed under its financial insolvency. The ability to raid conquered nations for lucre propped up the Nazis for years.

15 billion what? 10 billion what?
where is your source?
Didn't Hitler create a new currency with actual backing (physical labour)? Why would he do all this just to spend at a deficit when that was the whole problem with Germany's economy after WWI aling with crushing debt. Why would he do just that?

Socialism fails due to human frailty and individuals failing endlessly to take responsibility for themselves and their actions/mistakes.

Your post blaming capitalist oligarchs for the failures of socialism is an excellent distillation of precisely this phenomenon.

Socialism fails, because the system itself is only attractive to failures, con artists and hapless dupes.

Socialism will always fail in a multicultural multi-ethnic nation.

Source please and it better not have a jewish name attached to it.

He's full of shit.

The new currency removed the Federal Reserve equivalent middle man. The value was not backed by debt, and debt was handled differently. Not to mention the means the Reich worked its way around what would normally be crushing sanctions by trading goods and services with a barter system internationally.

Sweden was comparatively the richest country on Earth (6th on world's GDP with a population of just 6 million people) when it became "socialist" in the middle of the 20th century. It achieved that amazing wealth with trade and a capitalist economy.

The socialist economy of Sweden just fucked them up, slowly. They are losing their accumulated wealth in exchange for a great quality of life for everyone in a couple of generations. If current economic trends continue, Sweden will become a eastern european tier country in about a generation, or even worse, a nigger infested third world shithole in two.

Marxism is a religion

so what you're saying is you need a child's mentality to be a socialist?

There is a difference between Socialism and Communism you retard. Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same Shekel.

A theory or system of socialism organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Sweden is not an example of socialism.>>5830137

...

Its rare earth, not raw earth. Just shows how stupid socialists/communists are.

...

USSR
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
These lefties are so fucking brain dead its unbelievable. Yuri Bezmenov would be amazed.

NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY

These neo-liberalist capitalists are so fucking brain dead its unbelievable. Churchill would be amazed.

Socialism will always fail because it destroys incentive by redistributing wealth.
Other incorrect assumption in socialism are:
People are fungible/equal, they are not.
Society only required material inputs to function.
Only labor has value and enough labor will produce a result. no amount of labor will make an apple tree without an apple seed.
An economy can be planned to be efficient, actually an entire economy cannot be even properly modeled let alone planned.

Socialism can only work in a homogenous and moral society.

Take the lollipops and throw them away because they are bad for the baby's health.

You can't end natural selection. Natural selection is always happening whether you realise it or not.

that wasn't real communism since they hadn't abolished the state and werent living in a classless society with worker ownership of the means of production. its great because if your a lefty you can always move the goalposts

…but socialism and gov takes some/most of that responsibility from people, so what you say doesn't influence it. You could argue that that happens under capitalism, but…


…it doesn't work that way. You need "small loans of millions of dollars" to get anywhere. Whether it's from your parents or from your religious/ethnic pals. No capital - no win. Sure, some can win in "hard" mode, but they're just individuals, it's not a general rule.

...

The failure rate of socialism is actually 101%

...

You can win you lazy nigger you just don't work hard enough and you're not in it for the money.
My family is very well off and my dad started washing cars for a living.
Small loans of any amount go nowhere if you don't work with it

Reminder that Marxism is incompatible with classical reasoning.

Socialism fails not because of it's unrealistic ideals but because of the blatant bullshit it sells.

Socialism was shit out by the jews in order to destroy the old elite class, only to place themselves as the new elite. The threat to it is of course the productive people of society ( industrial middle class). Those people usually produce more than they need, so (((they))) used the poor, lazy and criminal elements against the productive people to basically enslave them.

Now post industrial capitalism is trying to accomplish the same thing, ( establish a ruling elite, destroy the middle class) but through a different weapon. It's not the state, but money.

Now why do they fail eventually?

This type of government isn't new but practiced even before ancient times. They fail because they breed parasites ( elite that don't defend anything more than themselves, and welfare queens) and the productive elements are almost exhausted.
A working system needs productive elements. So in order to keep people productive you need to encourage them to work. Not promise them gibs me dat.

>>>Holla Forums

Socialism is not two-dimensional. Politics are not two-dimensional. This reeks of D&C.

National Socialism was an attempt to recover from the kikery of Wiemar and rebuild a culturally crippled nation. The position Germany was in was precarious, struggling under the weight of the post WW1 Treaty of Versailles (1919-1933). The amount of internal cultural conflict (inflamed by severe economic pressures), combined with Britain and the Soviets positioning themselves as dominant economic adversaries made it very important that Germany recover as quickly as possible. The thinking was that strong central (governmental) leadership was necessary for this recovery take place.

It was historically a reaction against globalism and economic exploitation. The reactionary part against Globalism was the "National" portion of National Socialism, in which culturally German heritage was emphasized and pride encouraged. The reactionary part against economic exploitation of the country was mislabeled, I think. Germany's economic problems weren't simply "capitalism" but globalist wealth extraction, and having no defense mechanism to fight against it. Hitler acknowledged that "Internationalists" were at the root of the economic exploitation of Germany, but labeled the exploitation a result of "Capitalism."

The problem is people don't really think about "Socialism" in terms of an economic platform, but a vague cultural statement of "I think people ought to care for one another" which is fine… until you try to turn that into an economic system of forced wealth redistribution and capital controls… or finance social programs with deficit spending as a substitution for prosperity.

The crucial line to be drawn conceptually to realize a proper Political / Economic framework for a nation are it's physical borders. The people inside a nation being genetically, culturally, and historically distinct, cannot be expected to operate on the same rule-set internally as the nation operates externally. Capitalism has demonstrated that it is the greatest engine of economic growth because it unleashes the creative potential of a people to innovate… and allows for the single thing which is necessary for improving quality of life… which is capital accumulation (i.e., savings). Obviously people who are given the ability to directly better their situation (and their children's situation) will devote considerable effort toward that end… and those around them benefit in the process. The error arises when globalists attempt to extend this freedom internationally, beyond the nations borders, and subject their own people to wage and labor pressures of immigration and artificially low wages.

I think most people here promote a vaguely similar political order, but we really can't call it National Socialism.

I've used the phrase here before and people misunderstand it in the same way they misunderstand "National Socialism." These are not just labels for a political party, but labels that speak to a nations cultural arrangement even more so than its political order. I call it "Anarcho-Nationalism" and I think it speaks to the same overall societal arrangement Hitler wanted for Germany.

"Socialism" is too bagged to save, and the reality is as I discussed already… it's more a vague statement of caring for others. That tendency is in-built in higher functioning races, as empathy and our natural values in family and folk. Culturally, we only need to be left unmolested for these values to be naturally expressed. All government interference with this, including government aid programs, allows people who would otherwise have a natural tendency to extend aid… to delegate those tasks to government. The natural order would dictate that people who are worth a shit get helped by those that love and care for them; the people who do not get help do not deserve it.

Anarchism, or Voluntarism, is the core essence of what people who are "Pro-Capitalist" are really driving toward. As a higher functioning pan-european Race (in America), our ability to cooperate voluntarily within our borders doesn't require a lot of policing. Common law naturally evolved throughout Western Civilization for dispute resolution in the pursuit of Justice in the event that conflicts emerged. The transition between common law (decentralized, dissimilar) and case law (centralized, subject to a few kike judges) is where the kikery took place… and our naturally occurring system of laws has been subverted.

"Anarchism with a Central Government, State, and Borders" seems to most a contradiction… but the context that is relevant as I said in the previous post changes as the people change. You cannot consider it consistent to promote Anarchism inside and outside a nations borders, because the people, their history and culture are distinct. You cannot consider it realistic to eliminate national borders, because the world is still populated with uncivilized apes who have demonstrated that they are willing to flood a country and exploit its resources and rape its women if given the chance. This is where most anarchists fuck up severely, is they believe in the annihilation of the state and a nations borders. The "Nationalism" component of "Anarcho-Nationalism" clearly highlights the conceptual marriage that must exist. A Nationalist government, funded by voluntary taxation of a people left internally economically free, is the only method of government that would work for any European race (or pan-european mixture, i.e., Americans).

It took 100% of the western world + Russia to stop German 'socialism' [sic]. I'm pretty sure that's a resounding success.

Also;
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE

...

There have been quite a few threads recently about reconciling Capitalism and Nationalism, or questioning why it seems like most pro-capitalist thinkers happen to be Jews. This is cherry picking, as I'll explain.

Ex.


Economics isn't primarily a prescriptive discipline, but a descriptive discipline. Economics is the attempt to understand why markets work the same way they do, with respect to their level of management and control. Nationalism being the overarching construct under which a society can be organized, doesn't even necessarily need to adopt an economic component in order to work. It could very well be something left to the individual states to sort out, the overwhelming majority of which would adopt a free market model.


What you're seeing is a lot of more recent Jews (Rand, Mises, Rothbard) who were first influenced by Europeans, and are attempting to expand on their work. Some of it is subversion, which is where you get into the entire "no national borders" crowd of anarchists, but the original "fathers of capitalism" (i.e., Adam Smith) were descriptive in their attempts to understand markets, not prescriptive in trying to push public policy.

Adam Smith: Scottish
Carl Menger: Austrian
Jean-Baptiste Say: French
Frédéric Bastiat: French
Friedrich Hayek: Austrian - British

Lepic breddit meme XD

Do you really think so, especially when the workers are there just because of surplus money, and not because they contribute?

freemasons=jews

how much economics do you know?

the distinction between capitalism and socialism is a market economy vs a planned economy. planned economies fail because it doesn't respond to supply and demand as efficiently as a price mechanism does. This is all of it. Try socialism and it will always fail for this reason.

As well-intentioned as anti-child-labor laws may be, this is what they produce. A slave mentality that work is some awful thing our backwards society makes people do, that our first instinct should not be to create our own prosperity as we each envision it, but to appropriate the prosperity of others.

At best, socialism is an effective emergency mitigation strategy. "Oh fuck, our ship sank and we're going to be on this life boat for a few days… let's all gather our water supplies and ration it". Or for example inter-war Germany, where things got so bad children were starving in the streets while high rollers were buying up industry and real estate on the cheap.

Absent such an extreme impetus, socialism is a bad fit for a society. It is entirely contrary to the natural law of cause and effect. "Make a ton of money running a business that makes things people want to buy… only to have your riches taken from you under threat of force?" Makes no sense, except to the apparatchiks (who are operating with the first half of their OODA loop surgically removed). Don't be surprised when you wind up with a country where "everyone steals" because they were legally forbidden from owning their own business or working at their family's business for wages and could only ever get something by holding their hand out for gibs.

The people who WANT socialism in (current year) should be viewed with the same skepticism as people pushing for circumcision, and for the same reasons. They don't just want to mutilate their dick in pursuit of dubious safety, they're coming for yours, too.

Nice flag. Too bad socialism isn't the root problem.

There were historical conditions that led to child labor laws, namely that kids were being endangered and robbed of youth.

No greater good is served by having a white child work for 10 hours a day in a mill, competing against adult labor.

Wage slavery is real. It's the reason the Southerners who didn't own slaves joined in the war.

Because that's what GM, Chrysler, Fanny Mack and American Airlines all did with there government money
How can anyone still be this naive?

This thread is hilarious.

national SOCIALISM

There's nothing wrong with racial nationalism. But the socialist part (welfare state, regulations etc) needs to go.

Germans did make it work you fucking faggot.

But the Rothschilds defeated them in WW2.