Mfw people believe that socialism is where no one works and gets subsidized by the government.
Mfw people don't realize that Socialism is where the government basically nationalizes its industry and resources and where the government puts tighter regulations on the economy so it benefits the whole population.
Weird to think how Marx was writing Das Kapital at the time of the American Civil War
Venezuela.gif
The problem is that nationalisation and more regulations don't work very well in general.
Sure have universal healthcare as markets aren't good at healthcare.
Sure regulate natural monopolies such as railways etc
Sure regulate for food standards and force companies to provide information about their product on the label.
Nationalisation tends to wind up with a lot of cronyism, unions demanding more and more, inefficiencies across the board.
It's better to have industry in private hands but tax them to pay for the state/welfare. Competition is key here.
It's better to have few regulations as most are hijacked by special interest groups ( zoning laws for example ) for sometimes hurt the people they are trying to help ( I.e high minimum wage ).
It's better to regulate in the case of a market failure (eg taxes on carbon dioxide emissions which actually improve the market as it now reflects the cost of the harmful emissions ) and not have many regulations beyond that.
If you follow the Nordic model, that is to say free market capitalism with a welfare state you tend to have a happy people.
>Inb4 Scandinavia is socialist
Socialism is when the government does stuff, roight guys?
Fuck off.
>Muh communes
>mfw op is retarded
>mfw i have no faec
>puts tighter regulations on the economy so it benefits the whole population
>Expecting corrupt spics to make socialism work
Socialism requires white people. Soviets made it work, but everyone else couldn't.
...
>Mfw people believe that socialism is where no one works and gets subsidized by the government.
That's because any socialist state eventually degenerates to that, or the "socialists" that led the revolution are only on it for the gibs, do not underestimate human laziness and greed.
oink for me piggy
Isn't it weird how every "socialist" revolution somehow never ends with workers controlling the means of production.
Its almost as if their is something flawed about the premise...
>falseflagging
Are you talking about the soviet inspired revolutions that never intended to give workers control or about the not soviet inspired ones that did intend to give them control and were crushed by capitalist states? How do any of both support your claim?
I'm reading a lot of excuses
Great argument.
Not an argument.
this has to be bait, right?
That chart might work better with communism. Technically, you can have a central government in control with socialism, unlike communism.
Socialism is supposedly the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism, where the central government is finally broken down into a series of independent communes based on areas of production and workers indeed control the means of production directly.
But yes, that never happens, because "communist" governments merely use it as a ploy to take total control. There's no motivation mechanism for those in power to surrender it to what essentially equates to an anarchist collective.
Further, it'd be suicidal for any nation to do so, as no nation so fragmented could hope to compete with a more traditional centralized one.
It's true, communism doesn't work, save on very small scales, such as IT startups like the early days of Microsoft, Google, etc. It simply can't compete on a larger scale, and will inevitably be swallowed up by something larger and more centralized, unless it abandons its own model to do the same.
>Soviets made it work
>20 million dead, widespread poverty, people sent to gulags for minor crimes or dissent
Where the socialist government appeals bends over backwards to the international liberal economy by trying to integrate with it as a trade partner and by allowing free markets with free speech and gets paid in kind by having its capitalist class act as saboteurs by selling all subsidized goods on the colombian black market causing extreme and artificial shortage crises to make the working class suffer, just to make their American bull happy.
That's a problem with socialism in the sense that the socialists should be going full revolution and putting these cunts to the wall, I guess.
>Socialism is where the government basically nationalizes its industry and resources and where the government puts tighter regulations on the economy so it benefits the whole population.
That's Keynesianism.
No...
...and stop.
You can have a government with socialism, but the workers in some sense must still control the means of production.
Having a government centrally plan the economy like a business isn't socialist at all, but having state ownership of private property but managed by the workers would be socialist.
>puts tighter regulations on the economy so it benefits the whole population.
This doesn't work as well as you think it should. In fact, history generally shows it does the opposite.
Socialism is by definition the control of the means of production by the workers. Any time a state has been formed as a revolutionary vanguard the means of production has simply passed from the hands of private owners into the hands of the state, leaving the working class in a similarly oppressed situation. The term was later appropriated by tankies and the American right, turning it into a synonym for nationalisation which continues to serve as a means of demonising nationalisation at home and justifying imperialism abroad.
t. an actual socialist, not your ML tankie trash
The real problem is people refuse to accept it is a failed ideology.
Just fuck off an die, all of you leftist trash.
FDR NO REAL
WWII NO REAL
>MFW OP thinks state capitalism is socialism
>failed ideology
>implying socialism has been tried
>implying socialism isn't going to succeed capitalism
>implying the capitalist system is stable enough to function eternally
wew
>Keynesianism
>nationalising industry
>ever
Keynesianism merely demands reducing of interest rates and increasing infrastructure spending during times of recession, while privatizing and raising them during times of surplus. It both requires and demands a competitive market, so nationalizing industry is straight out.
And, outside of the Great Depression and the interest rates, we always do the opposite, so...
That's what I was thinking. Socialism means workers should own the means of production not the state.
Then what differences socialism from anarchism?
Socialism says an active democratic socialist government can lead the world to communism whereas anarchists see the state as an inherent block to a communist society and has no business existing if communism is to be achieved
but doesn't that mean that workers then become the state?
>Implying the state isn't controlled by those who control the means of production
Keep telling yourself that as President Hillary Clinton is being sworn in.
what?
isn't that what I just said?
>whereas anarchists see the state as an inherent block to a communist society and has no business existing if communism is to be achieved
This sounds paradoxical
Kys.
Why the fuck is this board so shit.
...
>implying any important countries are going to adopt the socioeconomic system that has resulted in complete failure every single time
>the system endorsed only by madmen, 15 year olds, and /leftypol/ jizzbags
>2016
>even being remotely socialist
off yourself for the better of humanity
ebin my mane!xd!! postin this r/4chanxdxd
>transformed an irrelevant backwater into an industrialized giant and world superpower in only two decades
Go back to pol u barbaric ape
Well then there is Yugoslavia. A country where it actually worked until Tito died and all went to nationalistic shithole
One word ignorant alt right fag: yugoslavia
And to make it clear, it had its own version of it that actually united the people, kinda even westernized it, made decent standard and gave jobs right to everyone, turned small meaningless nations into one superpower. You don't learn in schools about Yugoslavia and what that country actually was, with all its flaws