History

No.
You have ever hear about The Soviet Union?

[citation needed]

[collapse needed]

Collapse

No, socialism is

collapse

>implying Venezuela is Communist

Hey that's my graphic! Haven't seen it in a while. Good times.

>governing a nation
>with an ideology about destroying all nations

what did you mean by this?

...

Of course

When did Lenin talk about the middle class or white people?
How is National Socialism not capitalist?

>is the comunism the best way to govern a nation?
Refer to pic and kys

t. Finance-user

...

I love this meme

Less than 10 years ago Venezuela was the beacon held aloft by communists and socialists in America, once it crashed they fucking backpedaled on it.

>It's not communism, it's State Capitalism

Please tell me someone has the gif of the SpongeBob Wallet scene

Marxism is, in practice, state supercapitalism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapitalism_(concept_in_Italian_Fascism)

It's true tho. I'm an ex-communist, but now I realize that the only way to provide maximum fairness is libertarianism.

What we currently have however in the west is cronyism. Cronyism needs to die.

not an argument

t. someone who has never read kapital and thinks communism means a hippy commune where everyone works for the common good

Mussolini really looked like a reasonable guy. He shouldn't have went full retard and allied himself with the eternal Kraut.

I have read the Kapital and I know workers are supposed to own the factories and work for their interest, but people generally have no interest. 80% of people just want a job and chill. They don't care about innovation, production efficiency, product range, etc., only 20% of people do. What he currently have is a system where 0.1% of those, shit on the 19.9%, because they have connections in politics.

Neither was your picture bub.

Well in the olde days I used to type a wall of text, explaining how your system is flawed from its very conception (giving the State absolute power in order to dismantle the State as per the Communist Manifesto seems pretty fucking retarded and self-defeating), and how it led to Eastern Europe stagnating and ultimately collapsing, as well as the deaths of more than 110 million people to Communism worldwide specially in Africa and Asia, but in time when Communist idiots would simply reply "tl;dr" or "that's not real communism" to my carefully written wall of text, it just became easier and less infuriating to post the MS Paint version.

he posted it on his tumblr

>national socialism
>citizens armed

...

>Communism
>State
Choose one.

>Libertarianism
>Fairness
You literally cannot make this stuff up.

Only "undesirables" are disarmed under national socialism.

>They don't care about innovation, production efficiency, product range, etc.
But they care about what kind of work they do, who is allowed to give them orders, and perhaps most importantly, their wage/compensation. Because these are the decisions that directly affect themselves, and therefore I think they should have the possibility to have a say in them, meaning they should be decided via direct democracy. If wages were determined by internal democratic vote by all participants instead of the upper levels in the corporation or shareholders, that would instantly solve the Managers-receiving-millions problem.

Did you write than? Neither the part in the upper right nor the part in the lower left is accurate to my understanding of socialism. Looks more like social democracy.

Untrue. His was.

You're talking about Marxist-Leninist socialism. Under communism, the are no nations.

How does direct democracy work in politics, today?
You really think it would work in say, a factory of 2000 workers?
What if they all want $10,000 monthly for their manual labour? What happens then?

Oh, I know.
[collapses]

>'murican style national socialism

>How does direct democracy work in politics, today?
Where there is actual direct democracy (which is hard to find) it works fine. Here municipalities (usually the size of a city/village and the area around it) have a meeting once a year where the people living there can come and decide by vote what things to do. If the municipality wants to build a dam to prevent the village being flooded and finance it with 100$ additional tax from every citizen for a year or if they want to close down and sell a school because there's only 10 students in it and the teacher is 65 years old, they need a majority at that annual meeting. And obviously there's long discussions during that meeting.

>You really think it would work in say, a factory of 2000 workers?
Sure. There's an annual meeting, and in preparation for that meeting the guys in accounting have to produce a budget for next year, working with predicted sales, and splitting up the profits in some fashion. This contains numbers regarding who's paid how much, how much goes into R&D, how much money goes into saving so the company can sustain future crisis, etc. The wages need not go into extreme detail, you can allow some leeway for managers later. The budget made by accounting gets published inside the company a whole month prior to the annual meeting. During the meeting, anybody who wants to propose changes should be able to do so, everybody should get the opportunity to bring themselves into the discussion and then you vote on those. Yeah, might take a whole day to get a budget everybody's more or less happy with.

>What if they all want $10,000 monthly for their manual labour? What happens then?
If they can get a majority in the meeting for that, then they should receive 10'000$ a month. But the money obviously doesn't materialize out of thin air, accounting will very quickly point that out. And obviously the managers who now only receive 6000$ a month might quit. Or maybe the factory collapses next week.

[cont.]
But if the managers want to leave because the factory next door is paying them 12'000$ a month, or if the factory is at risk of collapsing in a week because they don't have enough savings and they can't pay the raw materials they need to manufacture their goods, the people who are aware of these things should point that out during the meeting, and if the point is legitimate, they ought to find a majority for it. If they know that the enterprise will go down the drain when the participants make a certain decision and they don't stand up in the assembly to warn them about it, they've got no one to blame but themselves when the disaster arrives. If they did warn about it and the majority still decided in a harmful manner, then I say let things go their way and prepare to take on a we-told-you attitude later. The people will lose their jobs and face misery, but maybe they'll learn something from it. And at least they themselves were responsible for their misery, not someone else. Better to be free and hungry than to be fed but coerced. That's also why I have little sympathy or empathy for people voting away their own rights.

How so?