Could anyone please explain the "Socialism goes against human nature" meme to me...

Yeah okay kiddo. Explain how any of those countries were Socialist and not just authoritarian dictatorships that exploited their population for industrial power. Go on, humour me.

people who work harder then average want some kind of reward for their struggle.
If everybody gets the same, there is no motivation for people to work their asses off

You can, socialism doesn't do away with trade no matter how much class-traitors try to co-opt it as something unique to capitalism. Democracy also often falls victim to this.

However
Please explain how you can """"""""own""""""" private property without mentioning force?

>it's founded in the spook that is Man and depends good will from individuals
Welfarism and Socialism aren't the same thing.

>Socialist
>authoritarian dictatorships that exploited their population for industrial power
So you admit that they were socialist?

Tell that to Denmark. Or the UK.

Black Americans have lower unemployment than people in my country.

The idea that they're all lazy and on welfare is a mega-meme.

what is your country?

>How does socialism exploit people or hold property as sacrosanct?
Controlling how society is built is pretty exploitative if you ask me,and socialism is purely based around property and weird implications about it.

This is something that ought to be democratically agreed upon by the workers.

They can agree to pay each other piecemeal based on what's produced if they like.

Ireland.

>inb4 hurr micks are lazy niggers too.

GDP means nothing if concentrated in few hands

>people who work harder then average want some kind of reward for their struggle.
Exactly.
>If everybody gets the same, there is no motivation for people to work their asses off
That's the point I'm making. In Capitalist society, everybody get's paid by whatever fee the heads of the industry they work for decide for them, you have little say over what you think you deserve.

I doubt the Social Democrat parties of the UK or Denmark that made their welfare reforms identify as purely Socialist either.

>Controlling how society is built is pretty exploitative if you ask me
You assume a command economy is exclusive or inherent to socialism, it is not.

>socialism is purely based around property and weird implications about it.
You mean the idea that there shouldn't be any? That isn't holding it as sacrosanct, as a matter of fact it's the exact opposite.

so if workers democratically agree to capitalism, you would call it socialism?

Except Austria has much lower inequality than post-soviet states. In fact, it has some of the lowest inequality in Europe.

Oh boy ANOTHER Karl Marx thread.

Assume you built a cabin in the woods, but don't visit it for a few years. If somebody comes and lives there, they essentially "own" it. If you do not use or otherwise protect your ownership of your property, it is liable to be taken from you.

Your property is that which you are able to homestead, which is to say, whatever you regularly use and lay claim to is your property. You could hire a guard to protect your property on your behalf, which may be a show of force, but since nobody has any real right to the property, there is no actual force against anybody by denying access to it

How the fuck can you democratically agree to capitalism?

>Okay right, who votes to let one guy own this entire place and take a share of our produce then never let us democratically organize this place ever again just because of his magic claim of ownership. Once we've voted on this he's free to fire us if we change our minds.

That's like "democratically agreeing" to feudalism.

Yes, you own what you use.

Paying someone to shoot anybody who tries to use it is not using it, it's forbidding others access to it through force.

>, there is no actual force against anybody by denying access to it
Yes there is, if someone tries to use this seemingly abandoned cabin the guard is there specifically to use force against them.

This is like saying the police don't operate under force if no one breaks the law.

Kek. This meme argument again. The poorest percentile in the US would have been amongst the top 10% wealthiest class in the USSR

That's because they're post-soviet and just sold everything to the highest bidder a little over 20 years ago.

>"A high quality of discourse"

How exactly?

When the money they have that would inherently be able to purchase more in the USSR runs out what do they have that would set them apart from everyone else there?

>there shouldn't be any
No socialist defend this. They only apply it to the means of production,that is a totally arbitrary classification of property.

Shareholding, 401k's, Unions etc. You can make yourself heard in a capitalists system and, the vast majority of times, something will get done. Private industrialists have obligations to there workers in Western economies.

1. That's what I meant
2. It's not arbitrary at all, the means of production require workers to produce stuff, your toothbrush requires you to brush your own teeth. One is a means of great power, one gives you a clean mouth.

>How the fuck can you democratically agree to capitalism?
By not being a retard? Just look how the XXI century socialism has worked in Venezuela. The last stage of socialism is not having toiler paper. No sane person would want that

>to the highest bidder

If only. They sold it to their cousins for trinkets.

And they're better off for it as poverty, development, life expectancy, and education continues to improve. Poland has one of the best education systems in the world despite being far poorer than its neighbors.

>When the money they have that would inherently be able to purchase more in the USSR runs out what do they have that would set them apart from everyone else there?
I dont get your point. The poorest negro working at Wendys in America would be earning in terms of PPP the same as an aeroespace engineer in the USSR. That is why socialist countries have to lock the borders,so people dont massively flee their """"utopia""""""

That's all well and good. But that's a pittance compared to literally running the entire place democratically.

Why would you give up all the freedom inherent to the socialist means of organization to a master for literally no reason? Going from socialism to a social democratic system is simply a loss for the worker.

>An island that has spent the better part of a century totally blockaded off commercially from the rest of the world
>vs a tiny city state that's also a massive international trade centre
>"CAPITALISM IZ BEST GUIZE!!!"

Value is subjective. Objectifying value and giving it personal properties is a meme in itself.

(you)

Because workers don't know how to run distribution, marketing, sales, accounting, all the other areas that make a business actually work. They sacrifice autonomy for some efficiency, and the whole system benefits as a result.

1. Venezuela isn't socialist.
2. That doesn't answer my question, there is no human alive that is so much of a servile bootlicker to democratically agree to just give all their power over the private interests. So how the fuck in socialism would capitalism be enstated in the workplace?

It should be autobanned. Why do /pol/ threads get deleted but /leftypol/ shit is allowed to stay?

>1. Venezuela isn't socialist.
Have you tried telling them that? If Venezuela isn't socialist, who is? Next you'll be telling me that the USSR wasn't socialist either.

>They're better off for it.
lmao no they aren't. Russia has a homeless rate of fucking 3.5% of the entire population.

Even polls say they miss communism.

>totally blockaded off commercially from the rest of the world
Are you retarded? Literally just the USA embargoed Cuba. The rest of the world kept trading as normal with it. Thugs have improved but not nearly as much as socialists claim they have. There's a reason you still have reports of hundreds of people attempting to flee via raft each year.

>An island that was wealthier than Spain,and was 30 miles close to the greatest economy in the world
>vs a poor city that was twice as poor as Cuba
Communism workz guyz.
And not expecting an embargo when you put massive tariffs and expropiating companies is something that I will never get. How can retards be this delusional?

Here's my point.
The currency you get in the west is more valuable elsewhere in the world. Okay, that's all well and good.

But assuming you go to live there you aren't going to instantly become 1% because that money is going to run out and you have no private property to generate more for you. Just like everyone in the USSR you would still have to work to live even if you make more by virtue of living in an extremely developed economy.

>private interests
You know that most bussiness have 10 workers top,and most entrepreneurs barely make it to the middle class.
And again with "X is not socialist,eventhough the state is taking control of the means of production and planning the economy".

They miss the good old days of the USSR because it was a time when they were internationally relevant as a global power. Also,
>socialism was so great
>which is why it was crushed on its own economic terms and landed us in this shitty situation

Then they can democratically agree to hire someone else to help them. You do not need private property in order to hire accountants, salesmen and so forth.

They literally get the same results without losing any autonomy.

Russia isn't Poland, Czech, Estonia or Slovakia. The USSR directly gained from exploiting its satellites to its benefit. When it collapsed, so did the Russian economy, and Russia has yet to rebuild a stable one ever since due to corruption and mismanagement.

No, the USSR was socialist. If a very crude form of it.

Why isn't Venezuela socialist? Because the overwhelming majority of people work in the private sector with no control over the means of production. Calling Venezuela socialist is like calling Denmark socialist, it simply isn't true.

When did I say that? I was just claiming that an uneducated retard would be earning more in terms of PPP in the US than an aerospace engineer in Soviet Russia. Never said that he would remain that way if he lived in the USSR

>capitalism only has one meaning, which is one guy owning everything and forcing people into slavery

The state by way of taxes and regulations requires a large amount of capital to own and operate a business, and through laws takes your ability to organizing and protest. This generally gives the rich more power, but it is not capitalism's fault. The state has forced people into the system of exploitation.

>Paying someone to shoot anybody who tries to use it is not using it, it's forbidding others access to it through force.
>if someone tries to use this seemingly abandoned cabin the guard is there specifically to use force against them.
Again, nobody has any more "right" to the property than another. It is only by using or securing the cabin that one can continue to claim ownership. A guard may not have been the best example, but no force is applied unless violence is used on the person trying to use the cabin. Obviously shooting somebody for simply walking on your property is violent.

>This is like saying the police don't operate under force if no one breaks the law.
Police are inherently violent as they are funded via theft and enforce laws citizens don't agree to.

>The rest of the world kept trading as normal with it
Who?
>There's a reason you still have reports of hundreds of people attempting to flee via raft each year.
I dunno, maybe because it has a shit economy?

>An island that was wealthier than Spain,and was 30 miles close to the greatest economy in the world
Yeah genius, when it was a trade centre in the Caribbean and wasn't embargoed from the US. Where have you been for the past 80 years?
>And not expecting an embargo when you put massive tariffs and expropiating companies is something that I will never get.
You're not seriously implying Cuba was embargoed because of that are you? And by the way when did they ever "put massive tariffs and expropiate companies"?

It wasn't crushed on its own economics terms, it was crushed under its shitty bureaucracy.

1. What's your point?
2. The state didn't take control of the means of production in Venezuela.

When are they going to find the time to all democratically vote if Larry the Accountant gets a promotion? Or if there need to be cutbacks in the companies benefits? Or exactly how many people they need to lay off to save the buisness, if they should lay them off, and so forth? That sounds incredibly inefficient and not something, especially a large company, is capable of.

>Yeah genius, when it was a trade centre in the Caribbean and wasn't embargoed from the US.
Why was it embargoed idiot? If you start declaring economic and political war on your biggest trading partner you also share some blame. And if you dont know that Castro expropiated companies you are totally lost

>capitalism's fault. The state has forced people into the system of exploitation.
Capitalism and the state are totally co-dependent. You cannot have capitalism without state force, you cannot have states as they presently exist without the bourgeoisie.

>violence is used on the person trying to use the cabin.
So what was your point? Violence is the only thing here that seperates the man trying to enter the cabin from the """"owner""""

>Police are inherently violent as they are funded via theft and enforce laws citizens don't agree to.
You could say the same thing for rent, or your boss.

Your landlord extorts money from you based on his abstract claim to ownership of the house just as the state extorts money from you based on their abstract claim of ownership over the country. Likewise your boss can fire you for arbitrary rules that no one agrees with. All through their nonsense notion of property.

They have been doing it slowly. They started with oil and little by little they have started to expropiat farms and private industries

>National Socialism wasn't crushed on its own military terms, it was crushed under its shitty bureaucracy.
>PROPER National Socialism hasn't been tried, we should give it another shot.

>Who
Literally every single country traded with Cuba but the U.S., and even the U.S. is now beginning to trade with Cuba
>It has a shit economy
And why do you think this is? Could it be because Doctors in Cuba are forced to live in the same communes as everyone else and make absolute pittance compared to doctors in other countries?

>promotion
Promoted to what? When power comes from the bottom up you can't promote someone as you do know, he would simply remain an accountant.

>Or if there need to be cutbacks in the companies benefits?
Such a situation wouldn't be common enough to be so time-consuming that it would be problematic. In the event it was the workers would notice in their own lives due a glaring shortage of money.

> Or exactly how many people they need to lay off to save the buisness, if they should lay them off, and so forth?
No one would get laid off. In the event someone was so amazingly incompetant or unwelcome that everyone else wanted them gone that would also be a rare situation and wouldn't be particularly time consuming to handle.

Not to mention we have the internet now so you can hold votes virtually instantly.

> Or exactly how many people they need to lay off to save the buisness, if they should lay them off, and so forth?
Yes, that's exactly what kings and monarchists said when bourgeois democracy began to take root.

I'm not denying socialism has been tried. I'm just saying if you're going to point at Venezuela and say "Ha, socialism doesn't work!" Don't be surprised when dumb liberals in the future keep calling Scandinavia socialist.

Maybe in like 20 years they'll be socialist then, but in the mean time they are still very much capitalist.

I agree

How does it not do away with trade? Are we talking about bartering without money? Because the times that has been attempted all failed spectacularly.

Denmark is capitalistic socialism. There is no way in hell we could build the funds for our welfare through socialism alone.

>still very much capitalist.
How,if oil is 90% of the economy and the goverment controls it all?

>Why was it embargoed idiot?
Calm down now kiddo, you're getting ahead of yourself. And seeming as you clearly don't know the embargo was because of it was a Socialist country right next to the US during the Cold War and after the bay of pigs they were obviously gonna do anything they could to keep Cuba under their control.

>Literally every single country traded with Cuba but the U.S., and even the U.S. is now beginning to trade with Cuba
Do you have a single fact to back that up? Or are you just pulling this straight out your ass?
>And why do you think this is?
Because of a major embargo. 2+2 makes 4 by the way.

>Capitalism and the state are totally co-dependent
I think we have different definitions of capitalism.
>Violence is the only thing here that seperates the man trying to enter the cabin from the """"owner""""
Is it violent to simply hire a man to keep up a cabin you built? Putting another human in the problem makes it messier; a lock is a much better example. Is locking up your cabin while you're away violent?
>Your landlord extorts money from you based on his abstract claim to ownership of the house just as the state extorts money from you based on their abstract claim of ownership over the country. Likewise your boss can fire you for arbitrary rules that no one agrees with. All through their nonsense notion of property.

The difference is that renting a house and getting a job involves explicitly agreeing to a contract while the state legitimizes itself by some pretentious, implicit social contract.

No, socialism still has money. Communism however doesn't, but it's also post-scarcity so money would be pointless.

If I'm not mistaken ~80% of the population are employed in the private sector.

>Denmark
Is not socialist m8. Socialism requires property of the means of production. They just have social programs.

Of course if you choose to side with the rival of your biggest trading partner, and expropiate their companies,sanctions cannot be expected...

That was kind of the point I tried to get across.
Denmark has always been a capitalistic country.

Those were just small examples that are just a couple of the hundreds of decisions that need to be decided each week.
Larger companies have whole DEPARTMENTS that are required to keep track of every single expenditure. They
>No one would get laid off
And now you've just sacrifices efficiency for the sake of a single workers welfare, that further renders said industry uncompetitive and ultimately results in the situations you see in Soviet bloc countries where people would go into work and play chess all day because they couldn't be fired. If you think that's a healthy economy than you have a very different notion of healthy than I do.
>You can vote online instantly
So you are going to have your workers stop what they're doing, get a laptop if they have one, wait for EVERY SINGLE ONE to vote (keep in mind, this takes hours in normal industries for big decisions, imagine how long it'll take in this environment) before you can go ahead with a single decision? What if one of the workers has no fucking clue what they're even voting on? How in the fuck would you make this work in a large industry with absolutely 0 corporate buerocracy?

The private sector are mostly farms or grocery stores there. Which have not being expropiated there. But oil sustains all the economy(90% of it) and is controlled by the state. The Venezuelan private sector currently is just an extemsion of the state,and soon,it will be part of it. Maduro is starting to expropiate factories right now.

>I think we have different definitions of capitalism.
Yes because you're clearly an ancap, but even ancaps have states in their own way.

>Is it violent to simply hire a man to keep up a cabin you built?

If you hire a man and give him license to attack anyone who tries to enter then yes.

> Putting another human in the problem makes it messier; a lock is a much better example. Is locking up your cabin while you're away violent?
No, but equally it's not violent if they take a bolt-cutter to it.

>The difference is that renting a house and getting a job involves explicitly agreeing to a contract while the state legitimizes itself by some pretentious, implicit social contract.
Except you literally have to sell your labour to survive in some way, you cannot participate in society otherwise unless you are very lucky. This is where the term "exploition" comes in, capitalists use the near-infinite bargaining power vs. the proletariat (given by their claim to private property) to exploit the natural weakness of man into working for them.

More importantly how do they legitimize their claim to private property? Through force.

Thus why the state is necessary to capitalism, the police and such exist largely to protect private property.

>Do you have a single fact to back that up
"At present, the embargo, which is limited to American businesses from conducting business with Cuban interests, is still in effect and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history."

so isn't it possible to establish private property through democratic voting?

Yes, thus why if need be they can just hire more people to handle administrative affairs.

>And now you've just sacrifices efficiency for the sake of a single workers welfare,
No I haven't, I mentioned if they're a useless or unwelcome worker then it would be possible to fire them I just don't reckon it would be a common problem. Additionally how the fuck does having more workers make somewhere uncompetitive? They produce their own value rather than being subject to people that claim their produce on the basis of property - as long as they're pulling their weight there would simply be no reason to fire anyone.

>So you are going to have your workers stop what they're doing,
It would be as simple as this.

Put up a notice that everyone should vote on X by the end of the week.
Make a groupchat on commiebook.su
Everyone takes a second to vote in their down time.

Simple as that.

It might make most of the money but it doesn't sustain most of the employment.

Thus it's irrelevant to discussion on whether something is socialist because the workers control the means of production, because the overwhelming majority of them don't even if state industries make more money. As a matter of fact that's a very capitalist way of viewing it.

Theoretically I suppose it is, it's just that the situation to allow it would be so retarded it's like a modern republic electing in an absolute monarchy.

Employment=/=means of production. Most jobs are in the service sector where little capital or means of production are needed,unless you consider having a grocery store to be a means of production. The means of production per say,oil and refinery,are mostly goverment owned

Yes, a grocery store is a means of production.

The "production" in that term doesn't just mean literal industrial produce and natural resources, it means value in general which extends to the service sector.

But they produced nothing. That is why the definition of means of production is so fucked up. The XIX century rethoric just doesnt fit with the XXI century one

>Additionally how the fuck does having more workers make somewhere uncompetitive?
Because you have less efficient workers than if you hired a more efficient worker as a replacement. Realistically, workers would be hesitant to fire someone they know who's a friend of theirs even if they are extreamly unproductive, and the USSR was a perfect example of this. When the management is the workers, the workers will never work against there interests in favor of the industry.
>Put up a notice that everyone should vote on X by the end of the week.
Make a groupchat on commiebook.su
Everyone takes a second to vote in their down time.
Except taking a whole week to make a single decision is unbelievably inefficient. You still have to coordinate with your suppliers, your distributors etc. and those decisions take time and a lot of calculations to determine the ideal rate of output to fulfill demand. Plus, you basically are requiring your workers to do even more at work instead of just focusing on the one job they do very well, which is more mentally taxing and takes up more of their time than before.

You're very naive at the amount of effort, and how difficult it is to run a successful industry and coordinate every single department as an executive. Sure, you have some you just hire other people to do it for them, but the most efficient and successful ones are those that have active oversight on all levels of management.

They did, the dude putting cereal boxes on shelves is producing value when he puts them there, just like a maid is producing value when she hoovers the floor or a waiter is producing value when he takes your order.

It sounds odd, but western-style service economies are very odd in themselves.

What is the bank producing? Like they literally just give people loans and jew them with interests, what the fuck is the product?

>the dude putting cereal boxes on shelves is producing value when he puts them there, just like a maid is producing value when she hoovers the floor or a waiter is producing value when he takes your order.
But to create value you dont need means of production. If I suck a dick I can get a wage too. That doesnt make my mouth a means of production
Banks produce nothing. They just control assets.

>Because you have less efficient workers than if you hired a more efficient worker as a replacement
That's not true though, you may have more workers but you still have the exact same workers that would be employed there in a capitalist system. The fact that they can democratically decide their own work hours as opposed to working 9-5 every day 5 days a week means that you can have a more fluid system of production when you can virtually have someone working there at all times.

There are more workers, this does not mean there are less very efficient workers, and the system of production itself favours this high-volume employment.

> When the management is the workers, the workers will never work against there interests in favor of the industry.
That's the whole point of socialism, it's a good thing that that would happen.

>Except taking a whole week to make a single decision is unbelievably inefficient
It isn't, it's called planning ahead. It's something every successful organization and individual does so they don't have to rush things at the end.

>You're very naive at the amount of effort, and how difficult it is to run a successful industry and coordinate every single department as an executive
This is the great thing about socialism.
Because all the power comes from the bottom up you can subdivide things as much as you like for the sake of efficiency. You do not need to gear the entire system towards how to most efficiently exploit workers and consumers, you simply need to gear the system towards everyone there getting paid.

Additionally for this reason massive mega-corporations that warrant executives would not be necessary, you are not trying to maximize profit and expand but rather you are trying to put some food on your table and beer-money in your wallet.

its more like privatization, which does happen in our modern democratic system

Ah, but it is.

Prostitution is not immune from the capitalist system, my friend.

Where did you get this from? And how does it prove that every other country on earth actively traded with Cuba during the embargo?
How did Cuba side with the Soviet Union after the Cuban missile crisis? They agreed with the US to cut ties with the USSR after that and still got embargoed.

It does, because governments control public means of production rather than the workers.

Not to mention bourgeois democracy isn't really democratic at all.