Tfw barely understand what Marxism, Capitalism, and Socialism, or what the differences are...

Capitalism: The economic system that results when individuals control and choose their own production and consumption. Empirical observation is key and outright necessary for survival in this system.

Communism: An economic and political system in which "The workers" collectively choose the entire collectives consumption and production with individuals having no say in their own consumption and production. I say "The Workers" as every instance to date has "The Workers" decisions being made for them by a dictator and his committee of central planners, barring a handful of fringe cases that are closer to anarchy with hammers and sickles. Communism is notable for being based on the works of Marx and disregarding empirical observation.

Socialism: A system in which money and goods are taken from individuals and redistributed to other individuals as the state sees fit. While such a thing (Taxation and government spending) occur under capitalism, under socialism the amount taken is usually much higher and the amount given to individuals is also much higher. Whereas taxation and government spending under capitalism is generally used as a way to correct externalities or fund "unprofitable" things, taxation and government spending are under socialism done to correct ills (real or perceived) in a manner that the state "takes care" of individuals. Marx is not necessary for socialism and several forms of socialism are based on empirical observation.

Of course Marxists and Socialists have their own definitions of what is and is not """"""""true"""""" socialism/communism, but that's getting into autistic nit picking.

All you need to know that capitalism is freedom and liberty, something Marxism, Socialism, Communism and any other lefty-ism is not about.

You're a fucking idiot, and I'm willing to wager you're a Christcuck, too.

>socialism is theft
ftfy

where it says ""dictatorships""

>forced to rent yourself for most of your life or die starving
>freedom and liberty

>objective historical observation I don't agree with
>FUCKING PROPAGANDA

OP here
idk what any of you are talking about

not an argument

Be more specific with what you don't understand, user.

Not him but what's the problem?

what are words

>socialism is fairness

It is not.

As opposed to Socialism where you're forced to work in a gulag because your grandfather said something bad about the leaders daughters dog?

Please tell me of a self proclaimed communist government that did not have draconian attributes.

>the only two possible social systems are stalinism and capitalism

stalin did nothing wrong

>communist government
dropped it

Go back to gulag, comrade

No no no, I said self proclaimed communist government. I chose my words wisely. Do you care to answer that question?

>just trust me if we get this version socialism will finally work

The Khmer Rouge, for starters. Oh, and that whole "Mao" thing. Not that I'd expect you to know anything about either.

>i'll just mix a tu quoque fallacy with a false dichotomy, and put a little of newspeak into it, i'm sure to win this argument

This is not me. I'm triggered by reading "communist government", but considering you are discussing with tankies, i'm on your side.

Those have draconian attributes though.

go back to redit

>I'll just tell him that if we just modify socialism a little it will work, that'll show him

Mao, the Khmer Rouge, all followed the same Stalinist blueprint.

The Cambodians called the first year of the Khmer Rouges rule "year zero". It was one of the greatest humanitarian crises ignored by the west.
>cont

Go back to /pol/.

I don't give a fuck about the name really, it's a stupid discussion. Why don't you tell me why shouldn't workers own their workplaces?

the khmer rouge was supported by the US and her new ally china

I meant fairness in the sense that civilians get equal amounts of a good.

If you want to understand then just read the communist manifesto. This board will give you a terrible definiton of all three guaranteed.

Mao thought it would be a brilliant idea to shoot all the birds out of the sky. A year later the next crop died from insect infestation.

The nature of communism the passed 98 years has shown nothing but death, stupidity, and chaos.

Please tell how you plan to operate any workplace that way, should the workers stop working and vote on everything?

You'll be in bankruptcy before you even begin trying to work.

But that is not true in a socialist society, as we have seen repeatedly throughout history.

I do not know if this is true. However, the Khmer Rouge proclaimed itself to follow communist ideals.

I am not attacking the theory of communism, rather its practice and the failures it has gave throughout history

This is the problem I spoke about in . Communism and Socialism (except a handful of unpopular variants) are based almost entirely in utopian """""""reasoning"""""" and lack any ground in observation of reality. Thus every single advocate of them has their own special snowflake definition that has never been tried in real life.

Is that really your argument? Cooperatives have no organizational problems, really. In modern days, the capital owners have no actual incidence in management, so i don't see your point. The only difference in a worker owned workplace is the higher horizontalism, which i personally find very desirable.

Cooperatives are also a limited chunk of society that acts in order to bring about profit or better services to a given group.

That's very different from running an entire society on this principle.

It was a question, if the workers truly own the company, then they all must decide on what said company does, no?

So if you run a grocery shop every single worker needs to vote on who works where, who does what, how long you open, when you close, what type of food you should sell, how much blablabla

Enjoy working there.

You can't compare them to cooperatives because that's a very small minority surrounded by normal companies.

There is one definition that you can find with google in about five seconds. The problem is not the existence of special snowflakes definitions, it's that the regimes that you associate with communism for propaganda reasons objectively do not fit said definition. Which makes you wrong.

I was responding specifically to his point.

How does that minority work?
On the other hand, if democracy in the workplace is too bureaucratic to be preferable to an autocracy (which is what capitalist companies basically are), why would democracy be preferable in a political system?

Some of it works because it is just that, a miniscule minority surrounded by, and carried by, normal companies in a capitalist environment.

>capitalist companies are autocracy

gr8 b8

And when did I ever argue for democracy to be preferred in a political system? The current "democracy" is merely the rule of the majority and rarely if at all is true democracy allowed to exist.

>gr8 b8
I don't see how this is bait. If you have ever worked in a multinational you have probably seen that there is even a cult of personality around whoever is on top of the scale.

>And when did I ever argue for democracy to be preferred in a political system?
Just wanted to see if your beliefs were consistent.

>The current "democracy" is merely the rule of the majority
I wish. It's not though, see the famous gilens paper.

Yes, there's a hierarchy in most companies, hierarchies are natural.

When I said that, I mean on paper of course, as long as you get the right amount of votes you're in the clear, and why would the crooks who schemed their way to the top ever willingly give that up.

Markets aren't necessarily exclusive to Capitalism though. Market variations of Socialism exist.

Mutualism, the social anarchism of Bakunin, and individualist anarchism, are all examples of market socialism.

As opposed to Socialism/Communism where you have to work 12-hour days in state-owned factories or die starving.

At least in capitalism, if you're not a retard, you can choose what you'll do while renting yourself.

I didn't imply they were.

see

Contending is a strong word to use. It's more like 1 obvious winner handily whips two crippled children. The winner being Keynsianism, of course.

>the khmer rouge
>not draconian at all

I mean I've seen some stupid shit on here, but are you for real?

>a high level of discourse

I see, you believe in the meme that somehow anything resembling a communist system can exist without a central authority i.e a state

I guess you could work it out if you redefine "state" as something like just another word for the "capitalist establishment", but then you'd be doing that thing a lot of radicals do where you use a different definition of key terms than is common in order to confuse people about the true nature of your beliefs.

Most people will get behind ending and opposing "rape" until you reveal that you define all consensual heterosexual sex as "rape", as an example.

Khmer Rogue did literally nothing wrong.

>"_____ anarchism"
>socialism
wew,

>not understanding the history of anarchism or its socialist underpinnings

All of them aimed to abolish both capitalism and private ownership as we know it, with the aim of establish worker-controlled enterprise as the default norm of society.

Wew indeed, lad.

>Most people will get behind ending and opposing "rape" until you reveal that you define all consensual heterosexual sex as "rape", as an example.

>government
>state

capitalism: system in which the means of production (the stuff involved in work and industry) are owned privately (as in, by one person, a family, shareholders, etc.) and workers are then hired to perform the work to keep the company running. products or services are exchanged in a market format for money, and the resultant profits are funneled back into the system to create more stuff and provide profit to the owners.

socialism: a wide ranging term that basically means any kind of system in which the workers own/control the means of production instead of private control of the means of production. the industry/company/whatever is democratically run by all the workers. this could be in a market format, a state socialist format (in which, theoretically, the government should be democratically controlled so as to represent all the workers), a non-state and non-market format like anarchism, etc.

marxism - not an economic system (there are plenty of systems based on marxism like marxism-leninism however) but an analytical method utilizing historical materialism, dialectics, and so forth, which is fiercely critical of capitalism. marx believed that capitalism would implode in on itself eventually because of the class struggle between the employers and employees caused by capitalism's inherent contradictions. he believed that the working class could then (not WOULD then, because he did not believe in teleology like detractors claim) set up a democratic "dictatorship of the proletariat" (which just meant "a government run by the working class"). it is possible to be a marxist without believing in every orthodox/classical marxist idea (like the labor theory of value) because marxism highly values criticism and self-criticism and understands that as the material conditions change, the theory must change with it. so while maybe some things were accurate back in the 19th century, they may not be accurate in the 21st.

>Marxism
Marxism is an analysis of history and sociology on a materialistic basis somewhat inspired by Hegelian dialectics
>Capitalism
Capitalism is a system of economics characterized by private property, wage labour, markets as a means of distribution and capital accumulation.
>Socialism
Socialism is a largely theoretical economic system chiefly based on worker control of the means of production. That's the gist of it but there's a lot of disagreement on what other features would be necessary and/or preferable in a socialist economy.

also, when you hear "marxism" you probably think "marxism-leninism". they're not the same thing. marxism-leninism is a political program drawn up by the soviets who were trying to create a society based on marx's ideas. marxism-leninism is a revolutionary movement that aims to overthrow governments and install socialist-controlled governments in which the proletariat (the working class) controls the levers of power by electing delegates from the "soviets" (workers councils) to the government (rather than the kind of elections that we have in the west). there would be no need for markets because the people would direct the economy themselves to produce for their needs rather than for the profits of a capitalist. in reality this ended up leading to a one-party state because after solidifying power the bolsheviks banned opposing factions and then made it so that only members of the communist party could be elected. so the state ended up simply taking on the role of the employer and the workers stayed workers, although they had more of an opportunity to influence things by joining the party. i think the initial idea is pretty good but flawed because it didn't include enough checks and balances to make sure that other parties could survive or that a sole individual (like stalin) couldn't rise up, and also because i don't think technology was advanced enough at the time to properly have a centralized, planned economy without really brutal force directing it. that may be simpler to do in the future with advanced AI, automation, etc. it's a shame that the soviets didn't survive because they could've really showed the way if they had embraced computers

Neoliberalism is good for the rich, Keynesianism is good for the middle class, and socialism is good for the poor. This arises a question though, is there even such a thing as a middle class? Are there three classes based on wealth or is the only class division, as Marx teaches, based on ownership of capital, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat?

there are differences between economic class and social class, yes. an actor making a ton of money may technically be a proletarian because he or she is selling their labor to the studio, but realistically, come on. who do they identify more with and what kind of lifestyle do they lead? and then you've got the petit bourgeoisie.

it's kind of like race. race doesn't actually biologically exist (here come the /pol/tars to argue against that) but it certainly exists socially, and we can't discount that in the way that people interact

neoliberalism is factually good for the poor worldwide compared to what they had before. that said, that doesnt mean that globalist capitalism is the BEST thing for them, and moving up from being destitute to working class still keeps them exploited, and it would be better if they controlled their own economic destiny rather than becoming wage slaves

They dismantled fighter jets for scrap metal
how are you gonna fight imperialism and vietnam without fighter jets

Capitalism is the natural system of economics given to us by God

Socialism is a nonsensical degenerate bastardization of this system by Jewish "intellectuals" who really just want to destroy the economy.

Socialism and Marxism are the same thing

Socialism sounds breddy gud

(you)

Marxism is the theories about economics, and the material world in general that Marx talked about in his books Capital, The German Ideology, and The Communist Manifesto.

This includes ideas such as historicism, class struggle(dialectical materialism), and the sociological effects of capitalism, such as alienation.

Capitalism is an economic system where individuals can own and operate the means of production, i.e any one single person can own a factory or a business for the express purpose of generating profits in a market by creating commodities.

Socialism is, definition-wise, where the workers own the means of production collectively. This is supposed to be an intermediary step towards Communism, which is a system where private property in general is abolished, and people are free to work and produce what they want democratically and collectively.

This is clearly just the theories about them though. In practice they might not look like this at all.

Capitalism is so natural that Marx had to invent a word for it. Who could imagine taking property rights and self determination and things so innate away from people but this Jew?

Everyone on the entire earth to the most remote African village uses currency and has property rights. Don't even use this word Capitalism, they just pick a word and stick "ism" on the end when they want to destroy it. It's just called "commerce", and the alternative is called "Yiddish enslavement"

Marx just pointed out that with capitalism, the worker will always be exploited and fucked up the ass by the boss and he predicted that eventually the workers will start a revolution and take control of the means of production, this is socialism, worker control of the means of production, this will eventually lead to a stateless classes society with robots and shit and people will be free to do as they please, this is called communism.

Kek
I think we've all done this at one point