Well, was she right?

You were too lazy to even just Google socialism to know what it is….

Let's put on the glasses and take a look at this post from a less ideological perspective.
I wonder what OP looks like with the glasses on.

Oh shit, what a surprise.

Holy heck user, that's a million years of Gulag right there.

>yfw people tell you "capitalism made this"

why all socialist/communist country fail?

explain this to me Holla Forums

Did workers own the means of production in the Soviet Union?

see, there's a problem with your question
you're not asking it to get an answer
how can i tell?
you did no research on our works and sources that are plenty.
you wont accept any response here, you don't expect anyone to start give you a miles long explanation from whichever socialists branch perspective.

you're just trying to be a smartass. yet, the only thing you do is to look like a faggot who understands jack shit about the thing he's trying to be smug about.

yes

lol no

Read Marx
Read Zizek
Lurk moar

...

hahahahaha
faggot
>>>/gulag/

what did he mean by this

...

i don't hate mark
i don't even know who the fuck mark is

point is, that guy was putting marx next to zizek. just no. he's a fat dumb unshaved faggot and fraud.

...

That's economic illiteracy. All the money that is 'given' to the underclasses is being put back into the economy, because the lower end of the income spectrum tends to spend 100-110% of the income. People don't throw 'government' money into the incinerator, they fucking spend it.

The works did own it through people's democracy.

Well, Soviet Union failed because it stopped being socialist after Stalin died and Khrushchev scraped the plans to shift towards a product-exchange economy. Once it reverted to a capitalist state, shit went downhill for the countries that depended on their support. The USSR carried out (iirc is called) social-imperialism on the countries in the Warsaw pact, like veins to the heart but that heart doesn't pump blood back.

Yeah, it's not like that money ends up sitting in the books of the top capitalists in the form of annotated numbers. totally not the same as incinerating big part of it.

The problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people

And profit

youtu.be/a9xSVzdUNqo?t=2m59s

Which capitalist countries work?

Pol/ does an awful job disguising themselves

I understand your implications here, but most of them seem to work, Capital circulates, there is accumulation of wealth in some sectors and the relation of production-consumption is still evident.

One can't say "capitalism has failed" by accusing it of -for instance- leaving some sectors of society in missery, because capitalism doesn't concern itself with preventing this missery from occurring.

Related vid:
Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"
youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

She was right, if you change it to Democratic Socialism (aka Capitalism with a Human Face). The 70s revealed that particular dog couldn't hunt worth a damn.
Eventually the rate of profit collapses irrevocably, and the only choice is to accept the demise of the bourgeoisie or crush organized labor and roll back the welfare state. Since the bourgeoisie won't just let themselves die, the only options are revolution or the past 36 years of Hell (aka the 80s are 26 years over due to have ended, but no one has figured out how).

every
single
time

I realozed my mistake after posting. I am drunk. Cut me a break, dammit.

No, you've been duped by the Right.

The neoliberals used the crisis created OPEC to institute a paradigm shift.

Hey I didn't vote leave, I ain't changing it, they can come force me

not my mandate

worst b8 I've ever seen

The crisis was underway before the oil shock. Worker militancy, strong unions, and a robust welfare state was resulting in worker compensation growing faster than productivity.
From the perspective of a Marxist, or the proletariat, or just about anyone who isn't a bourgeois shitbag, there was nothing wrong with this, but the bourgeoisie are the ones with the guns so they put a stop to it because they were losing the class war.
Social democracy can't work, and Thatcher was (mostly) right about why. The surplus value of labor must be maintained if capitalism is to sirvive, and this means that reformist movements will inevitably crash into a wall.

But they did. The Bureaucrats in the Soviet union ran the military, not the means of production.

money-less economy will never work in the modern world.

This doesn't make sense… How did he make those products without the machines?

...

That's factually incorrect. Productivity began outpacing compensation after the first shock. And then again even greater after the second shock.

Less machines, cruder machines or cruder methods of creating the product.

...

That doesn't happen NOW though… If I tried to enter the market, I'd have to do about as good as the current competing brands, which means I'd need roughly equivalent equipment from the start.

Yes, but you'd still have to buy new machines eventually as technology advanced, and you'd get the money to buy those machines from selling products.

...

facebook.com/declasscucked.memes/photos/a.1609722849303920.1073741828.1609720659304139/1705230593086478

people are still replying to this dumb meme shit?

The worst is when liberal "left" parties by into this trope and then use it to defend "socialism" as not that bad.

SO MUCH WIN!!!

It was the Raygun years. We all know it to be true.

We were told all through them that the 70s was proof that we were living "beyond our means" and that there would have to be a period of "adjustment". They didn't say anything about it lasting thirty-five years, but working class Murkins swallowed hard and gulped it down anyway and have continued to do so since then

check em my friends

...

He doesn't do any of those things either. He hires people to do those things for him

As the poster before me pointed out, he barely lists anything that could actually be considered "labor" and, even then, capitalists tend to hire people like accountants and lawyers to handle that. They basically get paid for existing.

Had wages not been forced down productivity would have declined severely. The falling rate of profit is real.

stop shitting up our board

And?

It's called competition, not communism.

Do you even economics?

I still want the source on this.

...

I can tell it's the same posters time and time again. Autism at it's finest.

Who was talking about communism? The poster I was responding to was trying to justify social democracy (at least that's how I interpreted it… maybe I shouldn't post when tired).

Check the PDF attached.

look i get that you're butthurt but the least you could do is check my trips

What I don't understand is, who would replace the job of the 'coordinator' under the system of communism? The government? The workers don't organize themselves, and there is always a hierarchy or organization in successful societies. Take away the leader and the whole thing falls apart.
Now's the part where you give me tons of examples that contradict everything I just said.
Fundamentally, advocating for class warfare will get humanity nowhere.

...

You still need to appoint highly capable individuals to perform those split-second decisions

sage cus its not related to the thread topic

Fuck your randomly generated number.

And fuck your ideological notion that people can't just elect someone from themselves to oversee operations. That is essentially what socialism is, democratization of all aspects of society including the workplace.

So yeah, workers oversee themselves through a democratically elected leader. Workers produce, workers reap, and workers are the only class left to exist making class non-existent in totality.

EDIT: Fuck your sequential, but still very random unless you have a bot doing it for you…number.

Ok. Then you have those too. But they do not receive anything that the common worker doesn't.

I actually wasn't expecting a 'get' at all, but I checked it in just in case. Looks like the supremacy of my ideology has been proven by this entirely coincidental occurrence. Better luck next time, bud.
Tell me, does leftypol find 'national' and 'socialism' to be two contradictory ideas?

But those machines were only designed and made with the prospect of profit in mind. If people could only benefit financially from their own manual labor then progression of technology would halt.

People don't work for free and bottom feeders can't work on their own.

I managed this and I come from a piss-poor family. Some people are more capable than others that has nothing to do with the system.

If don't don't like working under the capability of other people, work under your own.

M8.

Workers unions. They're a thing outside of america, mainly because we dont ban them.

...

What about the people that want more power?

Make sure they can't get it.

What about the people who want to murder people? What about the people who want to rape children?

My niggah!
But more seriously, working for yourself is fine.
Working with others is sweet.
Exploiting the labor of others while you work is less good.
Exploiting labor of other while doing fuckall yourself is bad, and this will become the logical outcome of capitalism as owning is further distinguished from working.

Still I don't get what is your beef with WORKERS owning the means of production.

Tell me the secrets of self-employment.

How is it exploitation if they are free to quit and do what I have done any time they want? They made a deal to work for someone in exchange for money. If they don't like that deal, they can end it any time they want to.

Find a thing you can make money doing, then do the thing.

Some people are unable to do that, which is why they NEED employers.

Well I'm fluent in english, but I have no formal training whatsoever I wouldn't know how to teach it proper to anyone.

Other than that, I've no skills other than maybe redacting and making a bitchin' Napolitan Sauce.

The internet is a better teacher than any university. You're limiting yourself.

Why is this thread still up. I don't want to see Thatcher's dead disgusting disgraceful face more than one time per day

IT sector is a-booming in ole europe.

You could give it a try, it's not that hard but you will be a prole nonetheless, unless you manage to get some CCIE grade stuff and work by yourself

And then if we design machines with the prospect of not needing to work because machines do work for free?

You can divide and distribute any industrial production literally to the grams/centimeters.

leftism only works as long as theres capitalism supporting it.

You forgot to capitalize and punctuate your sentence properly.

But you don't understand what socialism is Holla Forums so how can you rethink it? Of course if you're a fucking moron who thinks socialism is tax and spend by a bloated central government it might not seem sustainable but the quote is completely irrelevant to employee owned business and organised labor.

One day technology will advance to to point that no one has to work at all and the only ones that do so will be doing it because they enjoy it. No doubt at that point will get the hippies complaining about MUH ROBOT RIGHTS!!

I mean fuck, remember the comments on that robot video where they kick it to demonstrate its balance?

Filthy anthropocentrist, you're just as bad as the bourgeois if you exploit robot laborers who have advanced AI.

don't you have a photo of Reagan to go masturbate to?

They work under the threat of starvation. It's not really a free choice.

The problem with Thatcherism is you eventually run out of state assets to sell.

Yes, because people have no interest in reducing their labor time or increasing their income. Only capitalists want to increase their income. Hurr.

The point is that we live under a corrupt system where a small number of "owners" profit from the work of the many. This small group of people end up commanding huge amounts of power and wealth, none of which they actually worked for, to the general detriment of us all.

In fact, cooperatives are a way of working for yourself. One that's more realistic on the macroeconomic scale.

this is worst than the idpol bitchfit threads

please delete this thread

Hoy, it's cavalry user again
How you been, son?

...

the capitalist ran outta other ppl's money too in 2008.

oh, and in 1929.

in fact, there's a great depression about every 80 years. just long enough for most ppl to forget the last.
but the richest never go broke. it's almost like it's rigged to work that way

butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/history-of-economic-downturns-in-the-us/

youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

I need a bunker, daddy

...

I've seen it

not really even the point. it's not the working class that comes up with these banking schemes that always seem to crash and loose small time savers their savings.
or a couple generations the business they've built up

The second one is even worse lmao

it happens over and over and it seem like no one ever catches on

communism fails once in 80 years, dustbin of history

capitalism every 30? it just the business cycle. disasterly every 80 years? capitalism just need a bit more tweaking

In the suggestions is a video "Hayek on Keynes's Ignorance of Economics" uploaded by…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Malthus0"

vaughnlive.tv/endprivatebanking

...

usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/

Only works in small societies with high IQ populations like ancient Greece.

Everyone back then was superstitious as hell, and to say there was no hierarchy is asinine.

You don't need to be brilliant to have your heart in the right place. Ability to empathji

Why didn't they also become self-employed like the user you replied to? The answer is simple, it's much safer to work for somebody than it is to be self-employed. When you work for somebody even if the capitalist doesn't sell anything that month he is forced to pay you as it is written in the contract. If he doesn't, then you as a worker can sue him or go on strike. If you are self-employed and haven't sold anything for a month that means you didn't get any money that month, plus if you also have workers, working for you, you need to pay them as well.

go back to 4chan you Holla Forums shit

How naive are you? Ever heard of "cash in hand"? People do work for less than minimum wage all the time in the UK because the short term gain in recovered lost pay is not worth losing employment to go back onto paltry welfare, especially in areas where unemployment is high.

My dad as a former factory owner went weeks without paying his workers because of credit issues and problems. And it never bit him in the ass, what was his undoing was 3rd world imports but that's another issue altogether. As a side note, he's gone into property development and genuinely believes he's doing people a favour by being a landlord in a similar vein to how he used to believe he was a philanthropist by giving people work in his previous business venture.

The most infamous case I can recall that happened relatively recently was where some Greek farm owners shot their illegal Bengali workers after they weren't paid for 6 months and got away with it, both with not paying them and for injuring them.

workpermit.com/news/2014-08-05/greek-farmers-acquitted-after-shooting-migrant-fruit-pickers