Tell me about Venezuela

NO!

That's for Venezuelan economists to figure out.

Firstly industries that meet the needs of Venezuelans so that they aren't so dependent on foreign imports that they go into crisis every time a warehouse "forgets" to ship their goods.

My fucking god, only possible with "socialism".

I find it funny people were complaining that capitalism made people starving on the street, then you have shit like this.

So mutch for that state socialism am i right?

...

It-it's the CIA's fault!

Why does this always happen to the left?

Why? Can't we have just ONE successful regime?

Either it's the CIA/bigwigs/porkies/whatever this month's boogeyman is, things aren't that bad, or it's not real socialism/communism.
Jesus, these people are like broken records, constantly repeating themselves.

Maybe we should just start hating jews.

Like everyone else, even Russia?

And Marx. He even wrote a fucking essay on them.

...

What industries?

That one regime that just open trades with the US?

They have large forests, they could make their own toilet paper for example.

Fucking commies need to accept responsibility. So what if it's a economic system built almost solely on oil and as such prone to the Dutch Disease, the free market would have invested in Venezuela instead of its cheaper neighbhors. If Venezuela would have followed Pinochet they'd be richer than the US right now.

The huge irony in this strawman is that it actually would have worked.

Not richer than US, no, but it would be a sustainable economy.

They'd probably be lobbying with the rest of OPEC against the transition to renewable energy at this point.

Not sure sustainable is the right word.

Power to do obfuscatory exploration of the economic capacity for the betterment of everything and Venezuelans in particular, of course.

It's the right word, because people aren't starving out of the streets and have money to buy toilet paper.

Why wouldn't they be starving user?

Yes, private entities would have acted against their interests and invested in Venezuela instead of its cheaper neighbhors. Lord Market truly works in mysterious ways.

Why do you talk like this?

Why would they be?

The Lord Market seems to favor pretty much everyone else except super special Venezuala I guess.

I asked first ;p

They don't need large forests to produce their own toilet paper.

How much investment are they going to require to become a world player in toilet paper supply?

Why are they not using their forest?

OK.

Because they wouldn't be under the shitty economy system that is plaguing Venezuala right now.

...

Why's it a shitty economy?

Because the forests aren't being turned into toilet paper.

Because people are starving in the street and have no toilet paper.

...

This.

Industrialization via Central Planning under Direct Democracy.

Build heavy industry. Collectivize farms. Kill nazies. Exile dissenters to Africa.

> NOT SUCCESSFUL ENOUGH

I get it. You need Jesus personally beating the shit out of all Capitalists around the world. Except you'll claim realistic holograms and special effects even then, because Socialism might mean that you'll have to lift your ass from a chair.

The USSR hasn't been socialist past Lenin's NEP.

Fuck off.

Why the fuck should we care? We're not the Venezuelan government.

What's the point you're trying to make? That Venezuela doesn't can't have a varied economy and must rely on oil?

Whoops, left an extra word in there, fuck.

That you have no fucking idea about shit. You don't even know what the fuck the venezualan can make money from, aside from oil.

Toilet paper you fuck.

Got anything to support this?

Or is this your religious belief?

Workers don't own the means of production, still batch of bourgeois.

Heh, you are right.

No, you are.

Yeah, you're just a dumb fuck.

Make the case that Venezuela can only make money off of oil.

They do.

Or do you believe only in petit-bourgeois ownership?

Make the case of other profitable Venezualan industries.

Were Lenin and Stalin workers?

Nope.
If there exists private property, there can be no socialism.

Bait threads.

You're the one making the claim, fam.

I did not say Venezuala can only profit from oil, but do try to name some other ventures that Venezuala can make some cash.

Unpaid wage labour.

The funny thing is that doesn't actually make cash lol

Alright. Paid wage labour.

Why should I? Why do I need to have an intricate list of possible industries that could be set up in Venezuela to say that it shouldn't depend solely on oil and then use the oil money to pump out the welfare state and buy foreign imports?

Because you are not providing an alternative, dumbass.

You can't say durr Venezuala can do something else, but refuse to name it.

Why not?

Why should I provide some specific alternative unless your claim is that Venezuela literally has no other alternative?

Because you are proving that Venezuala has no other alternative by not providing an alternative.

Isn't that the point. The Venezuelan crisis developed partly because of a United States sanctioned embargo on the nation's primary export. There really was no alternative at that time.

What's your point fam?

I'm not one of their fucking economists, I can speculate, like maybe some sort of lumber industry since they have so many trees, but I'm not one of their economists, I don't have access to detailed information where I could give you some detailed alternative economic plan.

But I find the claim that Venezuela only has oil and literally cannot diversify or attempt some degree of self-reliance to be rather extraordinary. Why do you think oil is literally all they can do?

The point is, if Venezuala can try something else, then what it is?

Even then, Saudi Arabia and Russia rely on export, but you don't see them lacking in toilet paper.

Because you are not naming anything else they can do.

You literally can't.

there are many food companies that are producing less (or are dead) after being handed to the government

pdvsa is barely producing oil

if competent people (not just a politician's brother's friend's cousin that got a high position in the company instead of a lower one because fuck you that's why) were in charge of those companies (especially pdvsa) they wouldn't be as fucked

...

Is the government adding something to the water?

Oh you mean the bourgeois?

I ask again, were Lenin and Stalin workers?

Did they work in factories when they control the means of productions?

No?

There's no embargo on oil you fucking illiterate retard.

Never mind, US based sanctions only targeted government officials; its financial decline followed that of the price of the dollar.

Aren't you mad.

petro-dollar*

They could leverage whatever they wanted for a comparative advantage. It doesn't have to be resource based. For example, Nippon is resource poor, so they leveraged consumer electronics. But it's logical for Venezuela to leverage oil since they have it. The problem with Venezuela is their reactionary top-down policy which is making their crisis worse.

Then evidently, the world should have starved.

But even in Somalia, people have toilet papers.

And I repeat: you are being retarded if you mean what it looks like you are meaning.

Write this chain of logic in full and I'll either have a good laugh or will give you a proper answer, if you somehow start making sense.

Socialism means workers control the means of productions.

Lenin and Stalin weren't workers, yet they control the means of productions and can even decide to sell the labours of the workers.

Thus their regime isn't socialism. No amount of namecalling can change that.

Both of those countries are actively bleeding money. Admittedly, they didn't mismanage their economies as badly as the PSUV did and have a bit more fat to burn through, but don't act like they're not suffering.

I just did, lumber.

My point is that it's a stupid, inane question.

Over 1/4 of the Venezuelan exports go to the United States of America, if they had a real embargo on Venezuela, you'd definitely hear about it.

They are not suffering, Saudi is currently bombing Yemen and Russia is bombing Syria, yet you do not see their civies go steal animals' food.
Is that a profitable industry?
Not at all, every claims need an example.

That assumption is incorrect.

It's not an assumption.

Let's not forget the arm trade Lenin and Stalin had with the world, the arms weren't produced by them, the guns were not their to give.

No they don't.

Why are you so focused on what Venezuela can and cannot export?

Whatever restructuring plan best captures the extraction of profit for the nation at this point.

Never to exist ever.

Because this thread is about Venezuala.

expatistan.com/price/toilet-paper/mogadishu
They actually have toilet papers to sell in Somalia lol

Then what is the point? State socialism where non-workers can decide to sell labours of the workers?

Then it is bullshit. Neither Lenin nor Stalin were feudal lords. Neither of them was owning means of production.

They among there several people were put in charge by voting.

What are you even talking about?

>They among other several people were put in charge by voting.

Toilet paper in Somalia works out at about 20 dollars. Somalia's PPP (to the year) is 400 dollars.

Venezuelan PPP (to the year) works out to about 16k. Assuming the same cost of toilet paper in Somalia, Venezuelans can purchase 40 times as much toilet paper as Somalians.

But Venezuala have no toilet papers to even sell, unlike Somalia.

Lenin and Stalin can approve selling arms to foreign countries.

The actual workers who make these arms cannot.

The Soviet arm trade around the globe, how the Soviet fucking makes money, you are telling you don't know this?

Then I guess it has nothing to do with the potential earnings of each worker, and more to do with the global oil price drop.

It has to do with the whole fucking country cannot even stocking enough goods to even sell to people.

I'm not a commie, and I believe in the merits of motivated individuals to obtain goals long before bloated government organizations do. Therefore, take what I say with a grain of salt.
Take a look at this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Employment_by_sector
The US is widely considered the most successful economy in the world. Why? Take a look at the graph. If the global oil/industry/agriculture economy takes a hit, the US has several other sectors to back it up. This didn't happen overnight. This happened do to a concentrated effort of individuals to find new avenues to make money, resulting in successful people doing successful things in every field in that nation.
Can Venezuela, or any other nation on earth do the same? Of course. Can they do it based on what they have now? Absolutely not. They do not have the culture or government to promote diversifying their economy

Why are you so ass blasted about Venezuelans being able to afford toilet paper? Can't your family afford it?

Because it's fucking hilarious that even somalians can have toilet paper but Venezualan can't.

Like I said, their economies weren't as badly mismanaged as the Venezuelan economy. No one's arguing that the Venezuelan economy is good.

Yes. In fact, lumberjacks in Oregon and Washington nicknamed it "green gold"

You realize that it's a much, much bigger claim to say that Venezuela only has oil and can't diversify, right? Really, it should be you making the case for your argument, not me.

And neither can you?

I actually have some, want to share?

No thanks, I live in a first world country.

That's in US.
Not really.
If you claim Venezuala can diversify its economy, you better provide example. If you can't, I can say you claim bullshit.

And not a socialist one, am I right?

No, I live outside America.

Come on fam. We've got a good thing going.

So as said, not a socialist one.

A what?

Yes, a socialist one. Why?

What? Venezuelan trees not worth as much as American trees?
Yes really. Why the fuck do you think Venezuela is physically incapable of diversifying its economy. Why does the concept of a Venezuelan economy not based entirely on oil exports sounds absurd to you?

There is no first world socialist country.

Yes, considering american toilet papers worth much more than Venezuelan toilet papers.
Because as said, you unable to provide example.

Any claim that the claimant cannot provide example is absurd.

Every first world nation which isn't America is socialist.

There are no socialist countries at all, fam. In any "world".

Heh, no.

What's the matter commie. Been found out?

Haha oh god.

Do workers control the means of production in any of them?

No, there are no socialist countries, currently.

Even "Rojava"?

They control public bodies and institutions dedicated to the provision of goods through government taxation on economic surplus.

Sorry if that violates your specific "Not Socialism Socialism".

Wrong.

Rojava isn't a country. At least at the moment.

Here you go, fam.

It violates the workers control the means of productions part.

Confirmed for troll. You have to go back to Holla Forums. Okay? Bye now.

>>>Holla Forums

...

Taxation is a form of the public ownership of profit and the redistribution of wealth from private ownership.

Democratically elected bodies.

By who? The workers?

Cuz they are also voted by non-workers.

That's the premise of democracy boyo.

hello Holla Forums

Then it's not socialism.

so the state runs and operates it and not the workers.

sorry, not socialism.

Socialism isn't "public ownership of profit" or "redistribution of wealth".

Though I would disagree that taxation by a bourgeois state is "public ownership of profit" because the bourgeois state is hardly a public institution.

fucking bourgeoisie "socialism" or humane capitalism.

What is North Korea

Socialism only exists in the head, bra

A Juche palace economy.

currently, we only have "socialist" countries and socialist "countries"

...

Venezuelan here. It fucking sucks.

Chavez created a retarded sense of ethnic nationalism based on the country's history of racial mixing, which means that us "white" folk (read: Ethnic Iberians and to a lesser extent Italians and Slavs) are considered invaders that must be purged -despite the fact that we built the whole fucking place from the ground up. This worked to his ideological benefit because more often than not white=money in Venezuela. However, it should be obvious that declaring de facto war on the most productive group in your county is fucking suicide.

It is worth noting that before the 🍀🍀🍀revolution🍀🍀🍀, whites (defined as those of European and Christian Levantine stock) represented roughly 30-40% of the population. Within only fifteen years of leftist rule the white population of the country has dropped by nearly a third. These people constituted the bulk of professions like engineering, architecture, manufacturing, banking, education, medicine, and most importantly the petroleum sector. They also contributed greatly to cultural affairs like the arts, radio, television and film. As these middle and upper class people fled en-masse to places like South Florida, Texas, and to a lesser extent Europe (as anyone who gets the chance does), the industries and institutions that they ran were either seized by the inept government or just outright collapsed.

This collapse wasn't only economic, but also cultural. The cultural vacuum left by the departing Iberian elite was quickly filled by niggeresque Caribbean shit (thanks, Fidel Jr.). Now the radio is plagued with reggaeton, rap, trashy caribbean trap music, and people whining about muh gibs. It also implies a significant blow to the Catholic tradition in the country, which may come as a surprise to many as Venezuela is reportedly a Catholic country. However, there is a growing number of non-whites who call themselves Catholic but practice a form of African-influenced satanesque paganism called "Santeria" (surprise surprise, the eternal Cuban strikes again). It's similar to Cuban Santeria (burning candles to made up saints, animal sacrifices, etc), but also includes the idolatry of modern day dindu gangsters. Video related is a decent introduction, but by now it has morphed further into a much nastier and bigger cult.

youtube.com/watch?v=lsJtiAVKIDc

This also means that nearly all atheists and Jews have left the country. Make of that what you will.

BTW I don't mean this in any racist way. I myself come from a lower-middle class mixed-ish family. Most of the good mixed people are also fleeing the country, mostly to other places in South America like Colombia and Chile.

Now, I had originally written a summary of economic and political fuckups by the Chavez and Maduro administrations, but I know this is Holla Forums and there will be retards trying to defend shit like bans on currency exchanges (which resulted in hyper inflation and a black market for USD and Euros), price-setting for all basic necessities regardless of market forces (which resulted in shortages of things like rice, milk, flour, soap, toilet paper, and several others due to smuggling, hoarding, and major companies simply leaving the country because they were operating at a huge net loss), mass-expropriation of companies and factories by the government (which as I previously mentioned is now mostly run by illiterate satanists), etc etc.

is partially right, the oil sector was always corrupt beyond belief and is now run by fucking retards who have never had money in their hands. However, reducing oil production in any way means cutting off the only remaining source of income for the socialist government. It's game over either way, they're fucked no matter what they do.

youtube.com/watch?v=OrfM5UD-Azk

This video is mostly correct, although it fails to mention to corruption and inefficiency that led to the rise of Chavez in the first place. TBH we haven't had a single good government since the pseudo-fascist Perez Jimenez presidency, which the decadent 4th republic labeled a "dictatorship." I'm glad I left that shithole. I'd love to see you fist world Marxists from developed, capitalist countries trying to survive there. Capitalism obviously has its problems but if you fags genuinely believe that Marxism in any of its forms is the answer you are beyond delusional.

was arguing in favour of diversification, not necessarily throwing away oil entirely, I'm pretty sure. You can invest oil profits in other industries, you know.

Are you going to try and substantiate this claim in any way? Because what you have just told is the story of a nominally Socialist state that is corrupt and incompetent seizing industry, nominally on behalf of the workers, and running it into the ground. What is the takeaway? Was I supposed to reach the conclusion that because they called themselves Socialist, then Socialism must ultimately be at fault? Is this what you did? Why can't I blame the incompetence or the corruption or the very involvement of the state?

if the system failed because flawed people didn't implement it well enough, that's a problem with the system, not with the people. what kind of a crappy system is it if it's not robust against the kind of idiots and assholes that are all around you? however much capitalism sucks, it at least doesn't do this.

any old thing, communism, anarchocapitalism, etc. would work if people could just all be nice and get along right? if everyone acted for the greater good, and nobody followed incentives to help themselves at the expense of others, and there was no violence. but wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up faster

wew~`

since this thread is basically /VenezuelaGeneral/
I should post this here
theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/27/daniel-cabellos-venezuela-opposition-leader-imprisoned
Opposition leader just got arrested

How can you claim the system is busted because flawed people failed to even implement the system in the first place? That's like blaming IKEA because your retard cousin was too dumb to operate an Allen key. Except in this case, you actually grabbed an off-brand shelf from Wal-mart and yet you still insist that this somehow discredits not only IKEA but in fact all of Swedish society.

This type of failure occurs under Capitalism as well, as a matter of fact. Individual firms fail constantly due to mismanagement. Entire legitimate economies seldom do, but this is a matter of having a great deal of baskets rather than anything else, meaning that this robustness arises from decentralized economies rather than the fact that porky can steal away 99% of the value you produce and that this somehow keeps the store shelves resplendent with toilet paper.

Furthermore, the true threat to your freedom and happiness under Capitalism is simply that the hard-earned concessions that we enjoy today, paid for mostly with blood, will be eroded to the point that nothing at all will protect us from the unflinching, self-serving cruelty of the capitalist class except their interest in keeping us controlled. And so long as they are able to leverage their ownership of capital into social and political influence, the bourgeoisie will be pushing for the erosion of labour's rights simply because it is in their interest as exploiters to do so. They've gone from using Pinkertons and newspapers to super PACs and think tanks, but class warfare is still alive and well out in the world.

Ultimately, the problem in Venezuela is not human nature or people not playing nice. Failure in this case occurred because the state rather than labour controlled the means of production, and the state made decisions that were against the interests of the workers. The idea that private property is wrong has nothing to do with the idea that the means of production should be administrated by a corrupt and inefficient central bureaucracy.

How many present capitalist countries with modern technology have people starving on the street with no toilet paper?

This sounds worse than the fucking Great Depression.

Nigger, do you even economics? Venezuela's ultimate failing is that they failed to build infrastructure to be self-sufficient and suffering from the predictable Dutch Disease that comes with a specialized economy, not social democracy. There's no reason why it would be any different if it was freemarketland because there was no special financial motive for investment in anything but tapping into the oil reserves(especially considering you could do tp production somewhere else for cheaper) and private businesses are not immune to oil prices dropping.

This whole thread is a fucking shitshow.

Why weren't they using flawless people then? Where are they going to find the right people for the job?

What heavy industry? Shipbuilding? Mining?

How can they compete against somewhere like Korea?

This has worked out to be a very bad idea in Zimbabwe, Ukraine and .

What makes you think this is a good idea?

Shoutout to the anarchos in Venezuela

youtu.be/tkBLx05ZIvw?t=496

You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You barely understand the word "industry" nevermind having the slightest clue about how it is implemented in the real world.

You can't put something forward as a solution if you have no idea how it actually works.

Why are you so lazy? Why do you refuse to do something that looks like a little work?

No one said you need an intricate list, just anything at all that shows you understand the problems and your proposed solution in any depth.

No one is saying "literally cannot diversify". You're not providing a workable mechanism for this diversification to happen because you are clueless to the subject matter and the real world.

You seem like the type who wants to implement political policies that will have a severe impact on industries. You have no idea what this impact will be or why it will happen because you don't understand the industries in the first place.

Something is only worth whatever someone else is willing to offer you for it.

Someone in Moscow isn't going to buy trees from Venezuela. Shipping costs effectively make the trees worthless because they have much cheaper alternatives nearby.

Policy could be implemented to favor Venezuela e.g. All lumber purchased by someone in Moscow must come from Venezuela. But why would you do this? Venezuela will have a customer until that customer decides they just don't want lumber at all.

What should happen now? Should more policy be implemented that says the customer must continue purchasing lumber?

What baskets? Where do baskets come from?

Split this up a little

What concessions? What blood?

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is an example of a concession implemented without violence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_at_Work_etc._Act_1974

I put forward that you are implying this so-called "capitalist class" is a synonym to capitalism and using it to come to the conclusion that all capitalism is cruel.

No even Venezuala's 3rd world neighbors aren't suffering this bad.

Face it, Venezuala is just shit, and socialism harms it even more.

Who is this "Labour" you speak of?

This rock tied to a stick is a means of production. Who owns it? Who controls it?

So they had money and instead of preparing for the long-term future they blew it all on something in the short-term.

What did they spend it on? Why did they do this?

Thanks for the post. Very interesting.

lol'd

Yes.

Various socdem programs that granted Venezuelans better living conditions temporarily.

I don't know, but it was retarded. They should have planned for a drop in oil prices and built a more self-sufficient economy.

Yes they are, they've been living in squalor and starving for a long time. The only reason it doesn't look as bad is because they never had a moment of temporary prosperity like Venezuela to compare it to something better.

Who are you even kidding?

It's not the Bolivian who are flocking to the border to buy toilet paper every weekend.

Look at the living conditions in south america, they're complete shit and have been for a long time. Are we going to completely ignore that because a petroeconomy predictably crashed? Or are you so obsessed with toilet paper because you're full of shit?

Don't fix prices! Don't do it!

Ok.

Let's look at the hypothetical scenario where Venezuela gets a second chance where oil prices go back up and everything is peachy for them.

What should they do this time? Let's go back to the "means of production" and the rock-tied-to-a-stick.

Who does the rock-tied-to-stick belong to? Where did it come from? Who gets to use it?

>Who does the rock-tied-to-stick belong to? Where did it come from? Who gets to use it?

If someone ties a rock to a stick and someone else wants to use it for something, are they compelled to let that person use it?

I'm going to ignore all that shit because people in other South America have toilet paper, and Venezuala can't even have.

It's special of special case here.

I have never quite understood why rightists are so quick to turn to dictionary definitions, as if a compact primer on how words are used was actually some kind of ultimate prescriptive authority on the world.

Legislative concessions that occurred throughout the 20th century are very much built on the power and influence of the labour movement, which during the 1970s had yet to completely crumble. The right to unionize in the first place, as well as the 8 hour work week and the end of child labour were won through strikes and demonstrations, which were met with fierce opposition by the unholy union of state and capital.

The capitalist class is integral to Capitalism. You cannot have private ownership of capital without private owners. The goal of these owners above all else is to maximize profits - when profit is obtained through the labour of working people, this means that the owners as a class have a vested interest in cutting benefits, cutting pay, skimping on safety and increasing hours, to spend as little as possible in order to obtain the greatest profit, regardless of the cost to the workingmen's health and happiness. This is cruel. When the central aspect of your political system incentivizes cruelty, it is fair to say that the system itself is cruel.

The rock on a stick is not comparable to the means of production. It is more akin to personal property, something like a pocket knife. For one, almost everyone can own a rock on a stick - there are enough sticks and rocks in the world to meet the global demand a thousand times over. Secondly, rocks on a stick are not a feature of an exploitative economic relationship. If you were able to create this relationship by hiring someone to use your rock on a stick to make and sell chairs, while you pocket most of the profits using the justification that the state recognizes your ownership of the rock on a stick and is willing to use violence to back it up, then the rock on the stick would be comparable - you contribute nothing, but take most of the profit. However, this is not possible in the reality we live in, due to the specific nature of the rock on a stick.

The impossibility of this sort of relationship is the central feature of Socialism. That's ultimately all there is to it - if you've got a big loom that you can't operate by yourself, the Socialist property rights regime would deny you the ability to claim exclusive ownership over the cloth being produced simply because of your tenuous claim to property over the loom.

In any case, your lines of argument are so nonsensical that I'm starting to doubt whether you're even writing sincerely and in good faith. Saying that Venezuela's economy failed because they failed to diversify does not require the sayer to come up with a detailed economic plan for the diversification of the Venezuelan economy - the fact that they cannot do this does not turn into an incontrovertible proof against Socialism through some convoluted linguistic alchemy.

Likewise, property rights and property law are complicated and obtuse even under Capitalism - that's why we have courts that can decide things on a case by case basis, taking the specific facts of each case into consideration. Whether X specific thing is private or personal property doesn't matter one fucking whit so much as the principles that guide us in how we make the distinction.

It's like saying "Socialism can't work! you haven't even decided what's logo is going to be printed on toothpaste tubes under Socialism!"

I'm reading and I'm writing therefore I'm going to use a dictionary.

The way you seem to use words is, to borrow the word from your socialist friend (>>888093
), obfuscatory.

You want to give the impression that a significant amount of reading is required to understand what you're saying.

It gives you a quick escape from criticism from the less sophisticated; If they're arguing with you it's because they haven't done sufficient pre-reading and there's a misunderstanding.

I use the dictionary because words have meaning. With the dictionary you can hold people to account for not being accurate with their language.

Yes it is. It's exactly what it is.

At what point does something change from being personal property to not being personal property?

What you're saying is that rocks and sticks are plentiful and cheap.

But there's time involved in making a rock-tied-to-stick; that's called labour and that's significant.

I contributed my rock-tied-to-stick. If my employee breaks my rock-tied-to-stick then it's up to me to replace it.

Lol, moving on.

Going back to the start, defining what personal property is.

What if I design and build a loom out of several rocks and sticks and I'm making acres of cloth with it, is it my personal property?

I know a lot right wing people who know the Marxist ways of thinking but your knowledge is cold war propaganda meme tier m8

Says you.

I'm trying to work through your arguments in a thorough way, investigating them at their most basic.

And in your train of thought every single private owner is cruel.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. There's complexity inherent to capitalism and there's complexity inherent to whatever you're talking about.

Right now I want to know about what you're talking about, not capitalism.

You have a lot of knowledge, tell me about rocks and sticks.

>>Who does the rock-tied-to-stick belong to? Where did it come from? Who gets to use it?

Dictionaries offer very basic definitions of terms, that often fail to capture the complete meaning of words. Words have different meanings in different contexts, and dictionaries generally only catch the most general, broadly-applicable ones. Furthermore, dictionary publishers have long since moved from a prescriptive mindset (laying out how language should be used) to a descriptive one (laying out how language is used.) A dictionary is not an authoritative source regarding the concepts referred to using the words within. Where I live it's barely even admissible in court for this very reason, to be used as a last resort when there is absolutely no other definition to fall back on.

You should think of it more as a resource for people with poor English skills. Even then, you could just as easily go and ask 'what do you mean by X? to what physical object or abstract concept does the word X refer to? can you describe them to me?' if you were actually intent on understanding your opponent's position and not just throwing out gotchas. Marxist and Anarchist argot is in common use here, this being a leftist board, and you're not going to get satisfactory definitions of such terms out of dictionary.com.

I'm really trying to put things in the simplest, most specific terms possible, here. My intent is to educate. Your failure to understand is entirely on you. Given you saw the need to look up and clarify such basic terms as 'concession', 'capitalism', 'labour' and 'tenuous', I'm not really surprised. (fyi: labour can refer to both work and to working people as a class.)

When I say
I mean that this sort of relationship would be made impossible under the Socialist order, and that this state of affairs, this prohibition, is the central feature of Socialism. Read it slowly.

If you were to build a loom out of bamboo and coconut husks without exploiting the labour of anyone else, and that you operate entirely by yourself, then I would say that it is indeed your personal property. When you begin to use that loom to exploit the labour of others, it becomes private property. Clearly you're entitled to the value of the work you put in building it, but beyond that, your entitlement to the output ceases the moment you stop working that loom yourself. As with all matters of property rights, this stuff needs to be decided on a case by case basis and continually revised as new precedents are set. This is the case under Capitalism, and it shouldn't be any different under Socialism.

Don't blame me because you have a hard time processing language. Read a book or two.

Anyway, my train of thought does not judge individual business owners at all - they could be perfectly nice people, but if they want to remain business owners or managers, the nature of unrestrained capitalist competition encourages and incentivizes cruelty, because those who practice cruelty earn higher profits than those who do not. Managers are encouraged to be cruel for the benefit of shareholders, and the system insulates those who do harm from having to see the consequences of their actions. It is not the people that are cruel (although there are certainly some cruel people, it is more common to be callous) it is the system itself that is cruel.

venezuelan here

very good post

i would argue that the state was filled with corrupted people and when they got their hands to all that production they stole them for themselves. whch honestly is not that different from an old 19th century capitalist company
also, the government in venezuela has hired many think tanks too m8

way worse m8

you were doing so well, but now its going downhill so stop.

I agree with you, but my point about think tanks was that labour was still under attack even if we don't see as much of the overt repression that we had in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There's nothing inherently wrong with think tanks just as there is nothing inherently wrong with dudes and dudettes with guns.

It's not a detailed economic plan I'm looking for. We're running into problems at the very fundamental aspects of starting an industry.

You can't decide who owns a basic rock-stick tool. How on earth do you expect a multi-million dollar production facility to be built and operate smoothly? This is a serious problem.

With my loom I'm earning 100x what my neighbour is without a loom. I have no incentive to voluntarily share the fruits of my loom with my neighbour, I have no incentive to let my neighbour use my loom during the time I'm not using it.

Is the state going to come after me?

what do you mean when you say that labour is under attack? dont they all profit from it?

Your rock on a stick example is retarded. So is everything else you've posted, as a matter of fact.

This business you're going on about has absolutely no bearing on the case of Venezuela - over there, the the way you diversify could be as simple as taking nationalized petrodollars and putting them into loans for people who come at you with a good business plan. If you also wanted to transition to Socialism, I'd add a caveat that those loans be given out to businesses that would be communally owned and democratically operated. You could also give tax incentives to non-petrol industries or use any of the other tools at the state's disposal for keeping things steady. Your oversimplified hypotheticals have nothing to do with this. Real life is not Minecraft.

As for your loom, you built it out of bamboo, rocks and coconut husks, resources that are either renewable or massively abundant. Your neighbour can do the same.

Labour is under attack in that the rights and protections that workers have earned thus far are under attack. This benefits capitalists because it eliminates legal barriers to their taking money that they spend on labour and pocketing it instead.

Now you should probably stop posting. You sound like a bad strawman of yourself.

Great posts, gomr8.

Sorry the guy you were responding to was too retarded to appreciate them.

in this case, the government politicians.

im
not the other user

Daily reminder this is Obama's plan to cause a civil war, swoop in, privatize Venezuela's.

Soros will be among the buyers.

Saw it in Eastern Europe.

You got cucked by Soros too.

Just so you know, that nose speaks…

All of the above and more.

Why not?

> This has worked out to be a very bad idea in Zimbabwe, Ukraine and .
Worked fine in Ukraine. They had famines for centuries before collectivization and had none after (well, not including wwii).

It's not retarded. It's logically sound and you're still avoiding real life.

Do you even own a hammer? Do you know what it actually means to do some work? Do you know why it's good to have your own hammer and not have some other cunt taking it off you?

I can build my loom because I'm smarter and more capable than my neighbour. With some training he might be able to use it but it's unfair to say that he should be able to make his own. In your world it's oppressive for me to offer a share of my profits in order to grant him the muh privilege of using my machine.

Everything you say leaves grey areas and it makes being productive impossible.

Grey area 1

Who makes the definition for when something can be declared "massively abundant"? If that definition were to change, does that make it morally just to come and take my stuff for redistribution?

Grey area 2

What does this mean? Everyone in the business has an exactly fair cut? Everyone in the country has an exactly fair cut?

Everyone has the same cut of ownership of the business and the machines and therefore the running and maintenance costs.

Who gets to make these votes? Everyone in the country?

This is just awful. These are decisions that need to be made by a business itself; And not by the prole, it needs to be made by competent managers and leaders. The average worker doesn't understand what decisions are made within their company or why.

But you are not offering a share. That would be establishing a co-op. Socialist mode of production.

You are buying his time. I.e. he is essentially temporarily selling himself into slavery.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Because they're world leaders. Shipbuilding is very difficult and very expensive.

You need billions in cold hard cash and then you need the millions of manhours in experience and expertise.

Socialism/Communism fails at the first step of managing an efficient business and will never be competitive on the world stage.

Yes. I'm temporarily earning some money and can temporarily fund him to give me some of his time. He doesn't deserve a permanent fixed % of whatever profit my company makes.

It doesn't work like that.

Yes. Precisely which is why you need to be producing it.

Which is why Soviets were unable to win WWII, even when they've took out half of Axis' industry. Oh, wait. It was the other way round.

So, what are you trying to prove then?

It's still a share.

They were competitive in WW2 because of the total war situation, absolutely everything was invested in the war effort.

Post-WW2 they failed to compete and suffered in relative poverty for 50 years.

And don't forget the massive difference in population numbers. Less efficient processes can sometimes have the same output as a more efficient process if you throw a lot more resources at it.

It is not a share. Share if he get a part of product produced.

How does this even work?

One word: Sputnik.

What are you even talking about? Reich (with allies) had absolute superiority. And then Soviets lost something like 30% of the population during Blitzkrieg to occupation.

This is what you get.

Not even the dumbest tankie here has argued that we should collectivize hammers, which is why your example is absolutely retarded.

You couldn't even conceive the concept of a loom until I came along. Until then you were still operating with a rock on a stick. If anything, you owe me for shamelessly plundering my intellectual property.

Right… What exactly do you know of Marxism, buddy?

A hammer is a "means of production"

A welding machine, conveyor system or rock crusher are nothing more than advanced hammers.

Why should the rules dictating their ownership be any different?

...

Product produced goes to the customer. Company receives whatever they sold it at which is divided into covering the cost of production and profit. In the normal world an employee's wages will be considered as part of the cost of production, the remainder is written down as profit for the company.

It sounds like you don't want to see companies hold onto any profit; you'd rather see it divided up equally to all the people rather than see a company hold onto and manage it privately.

More spending for the war effort.

See picture related en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Economic_resources
2.7 to 1

See massive population difference. It's sufficient to be militarily competitive (temporarily) because you're just throwing cannon fodder at them. When it comes to manufacturing and selling products then being effiicient makes all the difference when it comes to the living standards of your workers; An efficient company, with efficient machines, having to deal with efficient government policies can offer a product at a much lower price than somewhere having to deal with micromanaging communist-related bullshit.

Yeah, Venezuela is completely fucked and there isn't anything like WW2 going on.

Full stop. No need to read further.

Product produced goes to the owner, who decides what to do. If owner wants to hoard - he will hoard. Or consume product himself. This has nothing to do with the wage slave.

Go fuck yourself. Everything is reducible to "war effort".

>See picture related en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Economic_resources
That's 1939, you peon. France and England against Reich. Do you even history?

We were talking USSR in 1941. Against Germany, Italy, Hungary, Finland, Romania, and all the occupied and allied territories (France, Poland, Spain) that were sending supplies out of wazoo to the Germans.

And don't wave Lend Lease - first major supplies were sent only in 1943 (and Soviets were sending supplies back too - British demanded no less than 100.000 rifles from Soviets in 1941). And even then Soviets got only one fifth of the Lend Lease. Apparently, it wasn't that important, since British, who were gobbling up it's lion share, didn't do shit.

There was no population difference. It was you being a moron.

If you want to compare numbers, look at Soviet economy. Especially after Blitzkrieg.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP
Reich GDP in 1942 - 1150 billion dollars circa 1990 (1318 billion with Italy)
USSR GDP in 1942 - 274 billion dollars circa 1990

Glorious Aryan race had the whole of continental Europe working for them, took out a third of USSR with Blitzkrieg, and Soviets still were able to throw cannon fodder to achieve unfair victory?

What kind of enormous resources do you think they had? You think Russia is big enough? Well, then, explain how Russian Empire that was bigger than USSR (and was not embargoed by the world, nor had 7 years of non-stop war not too long ago), still got destroyed by the Germans during WWI - despite said Germans fighting on two fronts. Which was not the case in WWII.

Just admit it - Reich's economy sucked balls (just like any Capitalist economy, in fact).

So … being efficient means that you are efficient. Good god, what a groundbreaking idea!

Except micromanaged communist-related bullshit ripped apart someone with GDP 4-5 times larger. "Efficient", my ass. How hard is it imagine, that "efficient" policies that boil down to "we will throw money at things" are not necessarily efficient?

Because a hammer can't be used to exploit others, unless we take a trip to the magical hypothetical fairy land where economists' models are born or the distant future after the anarcho-primitivsts took over, where there remains only one hammer owned by a rugged individualist who pays others a flat fee to break open nuts so he can trade the shelled nuts to his primitive neighbours for fresh meat and caveman pussy.

We all have hammers already, retard. And if someone turns up who doesn't own one, it's way simpler to just produce new hammers per the expected demand rather than subject a random person to the injustice of having their hammer taken away and given to the less needy.

Think of it this way an individual man can and did produce his own hammer entirely from scratch

This was a neccesary skill for the ancient smith. In fact they would also construct their anvil from scratch through a process of bootstrapping. It is not for nothing that the wetland smith was such a legendary figure

By from scratch we mean here entirely from raw materials such as ore and stones, perhaps even coal they dug out of the ground by their own hand. Which is to say in economic terms the only inputs were land and labor.

These machines you speak of however are not individual but rather social processes. They add a third input which is capital. What this capital adds to the modern mode of production is machinery as first a force multiplyer and eventually a replacement for labour. This fixed capital first accrued as later Smith's instead of building smithies from scratch acquired their hammers and anvils pre-made, but still the primary inputs in agrarian society, the dominant mode of production was the combination of land and labor producing food. But with the coming of capitalism, fixed capital primitively automated with steam engines, that no individual man could make from the wild even theoretically that Marx speaks of when speaking of the means of production, for it is this capitalism that built the wonders such as the Eiffel Tower that outshone the wonders of the ancient world with such little labour in comparison

Socialism is capitalism in this sense fully conscious of itself through workers control of these means of production, the individual worker of course already controls the hammer on his belt making your claim absurd

For the reason for this conscious control over the means of production over such unconscious control such as the markets animal spirits is the goal of communism in which work is abolished through automation and every human being gains the dignity and grace of the archetype of the free Athenians

Drop thine trip and rejoin the stalinstache collective comrade

that the newfriends think we are all one person enhances the quantity and thus quality of General Intellect through rendering their petty personal banter and sniping futile demonstrations of new faggotry

After all we are merely agents of historical neccesity

A hammer is a seemingly simple tool.

It is not simple to produce 10 million of them.

Fuck the both of you because you're taking for granted the real work involved in producing anything.

These machines you speak of however are not individual but rather social processes. They add a third input which is capital. What this capital adds to the modern mode of production is machinery as first a force multiplyer and eventually a replacement for labour. This fixed capital first accrued as later Smith's instead of building smithies from scratch acquired their hammers and anvils pre-made,(…………SNIP…………)

Do you have to talk in memetic communist language constantly?

Your logic is wrong and you're talking nonsense.

What do you mean? That to build these machines requires collaboration and cooperation?

...

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP

USSR was producing ~1/5th of the Reich despite the massive population advantage.

ggwp

The point about the hammer was to highlight how inappropriate socialist ideologies are for being applied to the real world.

You're providing an exception to hammers when it comes to dictating who is entitled to own one because you believe them to be so mindnumbingly simple and widely abundant.

What happens when it comes to slightly more complicated tools? At what point does a tool become capable of exploiting others?

What are you? Thirteen?

You can get a hammer for as little as ten bucks, and that's in our expensive-ass money. Even the world's poorest people could save up for a few weeks to pay that, but they could probably pick up a locally-produced hammer for a fraction of the cost. It is not only that easy to produce 10 million hammers, but we have managed to produce enough of them that even the remotest hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers can acquire mass-produced modern hammers for a comparative pittance. Hammers are ubiquitous and abundant. There is not, has not, nor will ever be a movement for the redistribution of hammers.

The only reason you even brought this up is so you could deploy the tired old 'the socialist hibernian conspiracy will have the commissars take away your clothing and children's toys for redistribution' meme. So why don't you just get it over so we can laught at you and be done with it?

At the point where its only relationship to its private owner is that he sits on his ass and collects a fat check for the work others do with it.

You personally have no idea what it actually takes to produce 10 million hammers and fail to recognise it's not very possible under communism/without capitalism.

Bullshit. The only way this is possible is if the locally-produced hammer happens to be in the middle of absolutely nowhere and shipping is astronomical.

It's rarely economical to stand and forge your own hammer from scratch.

USSR had a standing population of over 2x Nazi Germany
Nazi Germany had a GDP 5x greater than USSR

Where are you trying to go with this?

Who decides when he's just sitting on his ass and collecting a check?

Socialists are often the biggest culprits when it comes to sitting on their asses doing nothing useful.

Show me your hammer.

I'm not trying. I've already explained everything. It is you who is trying to run away into the land of denial with the goalposts.

The numbers on my screen right now say you're being wrong.

90 million people vs 196 million people

$1,150,000,000,000 vs $274,000,000,000

i.e.
$12,777 per person vs $1,397 per person

What numbers are you thinking of?

Our ability to forge large amounts of hammers is due to mechanization, not capitalism. Porky being able to take his cut has nothing to do with our capacity to maintain mass production, and when he goes away it's not like our drop hammers and giant tumblers will just vanish away into the ether.

Anyway, I'm assuming that the local hammer will be cheaper in poor as fuck bumfuckistan because of the lower cost of labour there.

As for who's in charge of sniffing out porky, that depends on what authority the workers will elect to handle that stuff. Even then, it's not rocket science - I bet even you could do it, if you put your mind to it. The criteria is extremely simple.

Anyway, here's my hammer. Now how about you? Bet you don't even own one, fag.

So when are you going to get around to killing yourself?

Also, shitposting thread

You think large factory buildings, the machines inside them, the customers for the hammers; Just popped up out of no where?

The capacity to maintain mass production is dependent on the incentive for and motivation of the people who actually work together to make something happen. Socialism/Communism does a really bad job at this.

Put it back in your dad's unused toolbox before you scratch it

It's time, user.

...

...

More like kill retarded reactionaries who just spout the same bullshit talking points over and over again even when they're given high quality, serious posts.

I'd hope you're more productive in the workplace than you are in a conversation.

Fuck off. You're resorting to shitposting now and trying to devolve this into an irrelevant argument.

I'm the one who actually knows what a workplace is like. I know what it takes to motivate people and get work done.

Socialism/Marxism/Communism/etc are theoretical constructs that fail to take observations into account and adapt to form something that's actually tangible.

No, the buildings and machines were put together by workers, designed by workers, made from materials that were processed by workers, and pulled from the earth by workers, who were in nearly all cases supervised and directed by fellow workers.

The only involvement that the rentier capitalist class had beyond appropriating the hard work of others was in directing the state to violently disenfranchise the traditional peasant class and enclose their lands, in order to rob them of their livelihoods and force them into the private fields and factories owned by those with the wealth and influence to buy the state's allegiance.

The only difference between the private firm and the workers' commune is that in the commune, everyone has an interest in working hard helping the business succeed, because the success of their business correlates directly to their material well-being.

Why should workers put in the effort when they know that all that will happen for it is some guy out there will get a little bit richer and you'll suffer for nothing?

The Marxposter wasn't even the guy you were arguing with, you ding dong. But I agree with him, please kill yourself.

Oh, you have a job? Congratulations, fuckboy, so do I.

It pains me to see good posts go to waste like this. This fuckwit doesn't deserve it.

At what point does someone become the rentier capitalist class? Most of the giant multinationals you see today were started by workers going above and beyond with their jobs to create something special, for that extra reward.

Upward mobility is a huge, absolutely essential, incentive to drive innovation and progress.

I don't get upset when someone who is more capable and puts the effort in to work harder than me, then happens to get rewarded more than me. I applaud them and deal with my own situation as best I can. I don't need workshy imbeciles crying that I'm oppressed and need some insane policies that will ruin my existence.

12 hour grafts with your hammer and sickle?

...

When you own the productive forces of society. Trains, factories, infrastructure, resources, land, etc.

[citation needed]

"Most" was a little generous of me and it's a little hard to pin down.

A more accurate statement would be that these multinationals were started as small independent private companies rather than national/socialist initiatives e.g. NASA.

The whole reason you're able to enjoy a job that you can come home from totally intact and still have time to shitpost on a Marxist-Leninist festive quilt weaving forum is because of the efforts of workers who fought and died for the right to unionize and to enshrine the rights and protections for workers that your ungrateful ass now enjoys. And now, to boot, you're repeating lies and propaganda concocted by the very people responsible for murdering and exploiting your fellow workers throughout the ages.

You are a disgusting, slimy coward and a shameless bootlicker. Tongue porky's asshole clean all you want, but he'll still toss you aside when you're no longer profitable, and as much as you try, you will never rise to his station yourself.

Completely fucking irrelevant. Kill yourself.

and? so what? What they started as, they still only continue to exist only because of the increasingly brutal exploitation of their workforce. Thousands are made poor in order to make them rich, taking the rewards due to the efforts of thousands of others for themselves only.

EVS at a hospital.

Whoops, forgot my sage

People need freedom to innovate and make deals. If you're constantly facing the threat of your state calling you a "cruel capitalist" before confiscating your work then you're not going to bother putting that extra effort in.

Can you name any businesses that have thrived through communism and we use their products every day?

Bullshit. I'm not ungrateful and I'm not unrealistic. Screaming for Marxism is not the same as providing anything useful for the people you claim to represent. People want job security and want to see the fruits of their labor, they don't rhretoric about class warfare.

How often do you go to work and have to think "Whoa, this situation could have literally killed me if something went wrong."?

Despite the remarkably better working conditions that continue to improve?

The capacity to maintain mass production is dependent on the incentive for and motivation of the people who actually work together to make something happen. Socialism/Communism does a really bad job at this.

Advanced cleaning technician?

You're wasting your time.

...

...

I knew you were shitposting the moment you used google dictionary images, but if you asked this question seriously, please do the following:

1) Read a fucking book
2) Administer lead to the head at high velocity

Maldito mamaguevo estupido, devuelvete a hispachan.

>No

If you can't see why that question is stupid, you probably should just go ahead and kill yourself.

not an argument

It only appears to be stupid because there aren't any answers for it.

You're not driving around in a car that was manufactured by a company who thrived throughout the Soviet Union.

they're not listening

<

But if you mean "things invented under USSR we use today":
Spatial stations
Fucking satellites

...

Good job picking and example that doesn't breach the top 7 you fucking retard.

Just kill me

Russia gets number 3.

Statement retracted.

Good job picking an example that doesn't breach the top 3 you fucking retard.

N.B. Everything space was war funding.

Do you have genuine reading comprehension problems?
I said thoses things were created in the USSR, will you deny it?

Talking about business under communism is nonsensical anyway, that's like talking fiefdom under capitalism.

They may have been created under the USSR but nothing of great significance surived the transition into the rest of the world because they were so inefficient.

You're likely familiar with Coca Cola, McDonalds, Colgate, Tampax, Samsung. They're great companies that have done great things.

"Ivan's fizzy brown water" will never compete with coke.

Because communism doesn't let business thrive. You wouldn't be sitting here shitposting against me without your CPU because there is no competition thriving under communism.

MODS!

USSR wasn't socialist. Besides constantly moving the goalposts with every reply, your arguments have been based entirely on your inability to grasp or comprehend the meaning of Socialism, so you come up with this caricature in that exists only inside your head and that you can make easy arguments against.

You are legitimately one of the dumbest people I've ever argued with. I don't even think that it's because of some intellectual deficiency, just sheer obstinacy - you refuse to even engage with the arguments presented to you, and instead just refer to the version of Socialism that lives only inside your head, not bothering to verify whether that's what other people are talking about when they use that word.

Selectively processing and responding only to what you perceive as the weakest part in your opponent's argument is something I've come to expect given the intellectual dishonesty of the right wing, but you take it to a whole new level. You only respond to what you wish the opposing argument was. Are you capable of learning? Do you even realize how badly you have lost the argument? Or are you going to keep going on in smug indolence?

I do not blame you, Holla Forums is full of well-read, but western proles.

the only thing you need to understand is that
in capitalism, work is everyone's right
in socialism, work is everyone's duty

"""socialist""" country, in which is not everyone working, is not socialist.

there is no spooky meme magic behind. just ask yourself, what does people need? Do they need eat? Kulaks into gulags, collective farms into every village.
Do people need toilet paper? Make factory on toilet paper. Do people need clothes? Make factory on clothes.
Need natural resources/technologies to make factry? Use anything you can export to buy it.

It's simple economics, really. But no wonder that venezuela is mess, weak connection between university and state is always disaster.

i think i need to look again at english grammar book

I think you need to look at many book, comrade.

I sure do, most things i know about USSR are first-hand stories, but it's not like USSR's transformation wasn't complete mostly because they destroyed anyone who didn't agreed with party leadership in moscow on every single thing.

A big part I think would also be that they attempted to determine demand for goods by sending out dudes with pencils and papers to the provinces to go count how many goods were on the shelves and then take the train back to Moscow to tell them what needed to be produced. I still think that relying entirely on a central bureaucracy is one of the worst things for socialism, but even the Soviet system might have worked if they had internet. And less purges.

That's not how central planning works.

Needing a hammer sounds like a good motivation to make a hammer to me.

The Venezuelan government subsidizes its gas and oil industry and gives tax breaks to "the 1%." The Left doesn't want you to know this.

Needing toilet paper sounds like good motivation to make some toilet paper.

Venezuelans aren't doing it though.

foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17/this-is-why-there-is-no-toilet-paper-in-venezuela/

www.cato.org/blog/venezuela-reaches-final-stage-socialism-no-toilet-paper

theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/venezuela-is-falling-apart/481755/

Looks like the toilet paper shenanigans aren't due entirely to the recent oil crash.

venezuelan government*

there are capitalist who tries to, but gets attacked by the state

How can they make toiler paper without the means of production? Should they do like the classcuck user above and just make it out of sheer individualist grit, rocks and coconuts?

Welcome to capitalism, the only system where you produce things for their value (ie: to sell them) rather than for their use-value. Thank you for advocating for communism, tbh.

You take some sticks and pulp them with rocks.

But they're communists. Why aren't they practicing communism and enjoying toilet paper right now?

They would still need food, water, shelter and stability in the meantime while they bootstrap the toilet paper infrastructure from nothing. Not to mention rocks and sticks. Someone probably owns those, under capitalism.

Communism is failing to provide this, why?

Why are you being facetious? They're communist right now, why are you saying a capitalist owns them?

can you give any example of communist commune?

Weak b8 m8, have a pity (You).

It's called "The United States."

No they're not, retard. Have you ever read a line of Marx?

Not actually true.

Starvation is actually almost eliminated in the USA.

Were the Soviet communists?

The ruling party in Venezuela isn't communist?

The Russian society was obviously never communist.
The Bolshevik party stopped being communist by the mid-twenties.

What?

What?

I'm going call to call some Stalinists over.

No it isn't. It may come as a shock to you, but in various parts of earth, calling oneself "communist" is actually appealing for the masses. So socdems call themselves communists.

Is North Korea communist?

Is North Korea popular?
Was East Germany democratic?
Have you ever read a line of Marx?

Here we go, communism has never been tried.

See, you prove again you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Communism is a type of society. A type of society cannot be "tried". For a Marxist, "trying communism", or capitalism, or feudalism, whatever, doesn't make any fucking sense.

Thread Highlights

The Venezuelans are still without toilet paper.

So a type of society can be what?

Appear out of a thin air?

If it's impossible to actually implement Marxism/Communism then why do you think it will save the world?

Appear out of the previous one, as a result of its internal contradictions.

And you know what? If you study said previous one, you can predict what comes next. In our case: communism.

The previous what?

The previous thing that didn't exist?

Oh boy, because the feudalists actually predict that after slave era, they would rule the world.

Well that can be part of it, ever heard of feedback?

What is feudalism?

Feudalism still exists today.

Communism can't exist without returning to feudalism first?

You want to destroy the world?

That's not what either post was about.

user's "dudes with pencils in shops" were not only factually wrong (it is shops themselves that sent reports, for that matter), but missed the whole point of planning - it is not reactionary, but proactive.

I.e. this representation not only oversimplified things, it oversimplified them wrongly.

You're right, I based that on something I read a long time ago that may have been complete bullshit. That's on me. I'm still against the idea of a centrally planned economy on the basic principle that it is too much power concentrated in too few hands, but I grant that you might have a point about my oversimplifying things. Do you have any good readings on how Soviet central planning worked, then, my tankie friend?

How about you learn to read?
If you understand of how slave trading societies evolved into feudalism wich evolved into capitalism, it becomes possible to deduce what will come out of capitalism.

Or Marx is wrong and your "understanding" based on his theory is just another wrong prediction.

Your sentence is a string of nonsense.

You don't even know how to make toilet paper.

The previous society, genius.

Bat Stalin-signal received.

Okay, what the fuck are you even arguing about?

Socialism is process of building Communism out of Capitalism.
Communism is post-scarcity economy.

Neither Slavery, nor Feudalism, nor Capitalism, nor Socialism, nor Communism are chemically clean states of society. They are processes within society.

You can have dominant process that determines most of social functions, but you don't get 100% perfect state of society. Ever.

That's also not too correct. I.e. it might be right, might be wrong.

That's a loaded question. I have some books. The problem is that post 1961 Soviet books on planning are no good (apparently, Khrushchev went full-Inquisition of planning then).

For example: first pdf is 1978, so it's mostly about destalinized USSR, when backbone of Planning was very different and economists didn't have much of an understanding of it; second is 1948, but it doesn't have much on topic.

No but we predict that after the capitalist era, humanity will rule the world.

Communism will happen; all your whining and your pretension to "choose" capitalism won't change that.

...

And apparently it fails every single time.

What are you talking about? The whole 20th century was non-stop onslaught of Socialism throughout the world.

Absolute majority of population are mostly Socialists. Even you are (unless you are some rabid ancap).

Venezuela is failing right now because of socialism.

If communism is invetiable, I have nothing to fear, because it's like dying of old age.

But if your prediction is wrong, then good luck.

What led you to that conclusion? Backbone of their economy is Capitalist.

And Bolivarianism is not Marxism. Learn to read, FFS.

Socialism isn't the process from capitalism to communism. The revolution is the process from capitalism to communism, while socialism is communism (the first stage of it, to be precise).

Now, there has been one attempt of a communist revolution in history that reached the dictatorship of proletariat, which is still capitalism. This revolution couldn't get completed and then, as a result, eventually failed.

It is not "inevitable". We can nuke the planet and die before Communism happens.

It is inevitable historically - if we continue technological progress, within Marxist definitions.

For example, if 1000 richest families exterminate or enslave the rest of the mankind and live in luxury, surrounded by robots, it could be said that they've built Communism - for themselves.

Why would you have anything to fear from communism in the first place?

Because every places that have tried "communism" are brutal shitholes?

I'm not sure why, but when there was a thread going about Communism anons were declaring that they will commit suicide.

I have no idea what is going on in their heads.

Too triggered by gulag jokes, perhaps.

The silly people.

Nah. It was more like existential horror of "what would I do there?"

This thread is shit but I wanted to give props to this poster for making some really good posts in the face of a fucking dullard.

Your presence makes Holla Forums better. Keep up the good work.

Thanks, I'll give them a read when I have a spare moment. How is it a loaded question, though? I just want to better understand the USSR economy.

Whoa, that sure convinced me.

There's plenty to do in communism.

How are these good posts?

*props to this poster in particular

How is that an opinion? They spent all their money on socialist programs and didn't invest enough diversifying their manufacturing sector.

They had the chance to get some "means of production" but instead they were too busy with the socialism thing. Now everyone is starving.

No, they spent all their monies on socdem programs and also making connected politicians bank.

They didn't do the socialism thing at all. This has to do with resource dependence and corruption. Venezuela still operated under the capitalist mode of production.

Once again: you do not "try communism"; you try to get to communism. And yes, it is authoritarian and violent, just like getting to capitalism (how many beheaded nobles?) or getting to feudalism (ever heard of the sac of Rome?) were.

And once again: even this has only been tried once in history. The "shitholes" you're talking about are no more attempts for a revolution than Venezuela.

The sac of Rome and the French revolution was seriously small-scale compared to the russian revolution and the Great Leap Forward.

Is this what it all comes down?

Calling socialist policies socdem policies, and ignoring them and that's it?

That's a retarded idea.

They're not socialist.

Read it again:

VENEZUELA OPERATED UNDER THE CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION

Well, the quality of books depends a lot on what you want to get from them. I don't consider either book good, for example.

Nope. See above: Socialism is movement towards Communism.

They did neither adopt Socialist mode of production (turning economy into co-ops at least), nor did they start developing industry.

They simply used the money to keep population content.

Relative numbers, please. Not absolute.

We are talking about millions vs hundreds and hundred thousands.

Yeah, it's not like population being larger and technical means are counting in increasing slaughters's size.

More deflection I guess.

This is why leftists always win, they can always say not socialism/communism, look away.

Care to explain how the socialist mode of production is better than the capitalist mode of production?

ok

How can Just-in-time Manufacturing operate under communism?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_manufacturing

So were the corresponding societies.

When I said there has been only one attempt of a communist revolution, I wasn't talking about China.

By the way, the Russian revolution was over in the mid-twenties. You understand what it implies about Stalin's era's deaths, right?

Socdem policies are socdem policies. Words have a meaning and it's not up to Stalin, Mao or Chávez to turn it upside down when it suits them.

Yeah, right…

You get to keep the value you produce without porky stealing most of it.

Nope. You are talking about feelings.

If you want numbers, please provide:
Victims of French Revolution / Population of France in 1789
Victims of Russian Revolution / Population of Russia in 1917

Gives better control over situation to the population.

Explain the question. Begin by clarifying what do you think "communism" is, because you bear all the hallmarks of the trolling polyp.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_manufacturing
Occurrences of "money": 0.
Occurrences of "profit": 0.
Occurrences of "trade": 0.

Yeah sure, it couldn't work without capitalism.

Care to explain how the socialist mode of production is better than the capitalist mode of production?
You have a say in what you produce and how you produce it, rather than an executive saying let's do that shit that will sell :DDD. You're making what you like and earning your life with it rather than trying to squeeze the maximum profit at the expense of everything else.

Thank you for your firsthand account. We should listen to people like you instead of those that can only discuss the conditions there in theory.

Please don't stop posting here, we need actual experienced people to give a reality check for the betterment of us all.

That's pretty much what people in this thread have been trying to say. That article looks like it's from a rightist perspective, but people here have been saying that Venezuela's woes are due to over-reliance on oil and lack of diversification of its economy.

This isn't reasoning for why one is actually better than the other.

In Venezuela they have a human need to eat and to wipe their ass. The socialist mode of production says they should start production of food and toilet paper.

They even seized the means of production

businessinsider.com/venezuelan-government-seizes-toilet-paper-factory-amid-shortage-2013-9?IR=T

Why is it not working?

They had the money to diversify but they didn't. Why not?

Production facilities are unable to function effectively when following the rules of socialism. It just doesn't work.

You can't get blood from a stone.

...

Nice try porky, but I'm on to you.

The government, an extension of the workers, literally went to a toilet paper factory and claimed all of the physical machinery and equipment as their own.

They literally seized the means of production.

Toilet paper production today is not at an all time high.

businessinsider.com/venezuelan-government-seizes-toilet-paper-factory-amid-shortage-2013-9?IR=T

What are you? Some sort of capitalist?

...

Where are the workers? Why aren't they working?

Sure.

You see,

• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not
necessarily less capital intensive
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have
more stable employment
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses,
with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more
efficiently
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other
business models
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker
co-operatives than other firms

Because state capitalism is a bad idea, just like regular capitalism.

I asked about the workers. What are the workers doing?

Doesn't say much more than some co-ops have worked and they inexplicably hire more people than their counterparts.

Co-op applied to manufacturing is rare.

Doesn't say why one is supposedly inherently better than the other.

Ask the state.

You know, there was an easier way to leave Venezuela.

Suicide. You should still consider it, fam.

Yeah, nah.
Also
wew

The workers are doing nothing and it's the state's fault?

Have you ever read a line of Marx?

Workers democratically elected the government.

Yes.

If the state owns means of production, and the means of production aren't being used or are being mismanaged, it's the state's fault, since they're the ones who control the means of production.

It's not just the workers who get a vote.

And Venezuela operates with a very loosely "democratic" top-down bourgeois republic.

Why is the state so bad at managing the means of production?

I don't know, you'd have to ask the Venezuelan state.

Have you ever read a line of Marx?

jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/

Nazi comes from a better advantage because they have the 2 Reich industry when Nazis took a nearly feudal country then it will comparable

Tell me about the teachings of Marx

The best answer they could come up with was that the ideology is inconsistent with itself.

Tell me about your aversion to books.

Or, at the very least, ask precise questions.

Give me some examples for what is happening at the toilet roll manufacturing facility for why it's not producing anything.

The state seized the means of production.

The workers are there.

The workers need what the means of production can produce.

The workers aren't working.

So what's happening? Does the government need to tell them to make a few rolls? Do the workers not want to work? Are the workers fighting oppression?

So what's happening?

lol

Do you commie retards really not see how retarded you are?

How do you hope to achieve your communist utopia if you don't have anyone to do the work?

Piss off.

...

Because a private ownership of these facilities as opposed to a communal (or state) ownership of them somehow makes the function different? No, it makes the people in power different. Either it's the people, or it's only "some people" who comprise a class… an economic class.

You might as well make the "argument" you made in defense of monarchy, you fucking retard.

In private ownership the facility is functional

In state ownership the facility is non-functional

Venezuela begins electricity rationing after blackouts
2011
bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-13356586

Venezuela declares a 2-day workweek because of dire energy shortages
2016
washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/27/venezuela-declares-a-2-day-workweek-because-of-dire-energy-shortages/

40 days of blackouts hit Venezuela amid economic crisis
2016
money.cnn.com/2016/04/22/news/economy/venezuela-blackouts-40-days/

The workers also need money. If they really had everything they need to do the job, like you claim, they could produce and sell their products. But they don't.
So what is it, genius? Isn't money incentive enough for work?

...

Hold up there, I hope you don't think these workers are some kind of wageslaves.

Tell that to the Israeli kibbutz or Mondragon.

Anyways, we want to abolish the working class and with automation on it's way, we're getting closer.

Ah, so you're studying engineering.

I don't like that expression. But having to work for a wage in order to survive is pretty much the definition of proletariat.

Mormons

Private multinational corporation

wat

Owned by its workers. Literally socialism.

Something off. I can't put my finger on it…

Literally not socialism! Socialism is the abolition of property, not its extension to "the workers" in some kind of reactionary petit-bourgeois fantasy.

What's the difference?

...

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Progressives make sport of rewriting history and pretending that fascism was never a socialist tendency. Fascism "went viral" in its time and only became stigmatized after Germany's falling out with the Soviet Union.

How's the brain damage treating you?

How's post-statism treating you? Oh, still living under a state authority, aren't we?

Tell me, fam, why do you figure tha abolition of private property is improtant?

In addition, why do you think that the fascists, who expanded private property through extensive privatization were socialist in any sense?

I fucked that sentence up, shit.

Why do you figure that abolition of private property is important?

It's not. In fact, it's a bad thing.

Oh, you're a reactionary, my bad.

Socialism isn't merely the abolition of private property, it's a radical reorganization of society starting at its economic roots, the primary features being worker control of the means of production and, usually, abolition of the commodity form.

It's the post-statists who hate private property.

The fascists referred to themselves as socialists – I think this at least holds some weight. Control of the means of production was still held in common and the State could take back an underperforming business. The State had complete control of international trade. Private property was an incentive for workers to produce quality work and innovate, but the State still planned out how land was to be exploited.

What do you mean by "post-statist"?
To get elected. The socialists were incredibly popular in the interwar period and the fascist moevements borrowed on their symbolism. In terms of content, the fascists couldn't have been further from socialists.

No it wasn't. Fascists used a capitalist, top-down approach to their economics.

Irrelevant.

That doesn't make any sense, nor are the fascists supposed reasons for having private property relevant. The point is that they had it and expanded it.

The state deciding "how the land should be exploited" isn't socialism either.

Are you that retarded?!

So if i say i'm an attack heliopter, i'm actually an attach heicopter?

...

what fascists are you talking about? the nazis? you realize there is a lot more fascists in the world than just them.
sure, nazis were somewhat socialist which is why we had some working infrastructure until they ran out of money, food and people, but most fascists are national capitalists, especially today.

That was a bourgeois state! The one we communists want to destroy!
Everything their state did (which, as the other user said, was far from what you claim before the war) was for the sake of German's capital's profit!

You want to destroy the state but you also want to form private multinational co-op companies for profit?

...

You could argue this is an intermediary step on the way to real communism

>Owned by its workers. Literally socialism.