How come millennials today favor socialism that has failed every time it has been tried throughout history...

So it's just stupidity then.

>capitalists to dominate our politics and life

But that is not the case.

>need job to eat and not be homeless

As opposed to when you don't need a job, food or a home?

>not guaranteed a job

When have you ever been guaranteed of anything in life?

>republicans

Wut?

>So it's just stupidity then.

what?

>socialism
>failing

People believing that capitalism is failing and in believe that Marx ridiculous theories are true? I'd call said people stupid.

The communism box is false. Communism, by definition, has no government.

capitalism made them stupid. in any case, i don't think you know that much about marx (and post-marxists) because otherwise you'd have a lot more to say other than 'no' in every post. enjoy your meme history, i'm going to do some actual reading of books.

Our policy is entirely dominated by the interests of capital. Over half of American legislators are actual millionaires.

Capitalism is fucking barbaric.

It's wrong to keep hundreds of millions in inescapable poverty just because Mr. Moneybags wants to privately own a factory that everybody relies on.

Because capitalism lead to globalism and globalism led to the wealth of the middle and working classes fleeing to the third world.

As usual, National Socialism is the answer.

Oh really? Find a purely capitalistic natio state where this isn't the case.

You'd be hard pressed in the firstplace to find a purely free market state because then itd be nearly impossible for the government to enact any form of economic control.

Millennial don't even know what socialism is. See OP pic as example.

>how come these people I think are stupid are super stupid?
>they all believe in this strawman that I disagree with
>fucking millenials

>Implying any of those states listed weren't giant fucking failures.

Capitalism made more people get out of poverty than socialism got into poverty, that's a fantastic achievement considering what socialism does to societies.

As opposed to the elite in socialist nations that live on bread and water sleeping in a shed.

Capitalism does not lead to globalism. Globalism is the wet dream of socialists.

Exactly, socialistic policies makes capitalism suffer. Capitalism needs freedom to work properly, there is no freedom to be had in socialism.

>n-no, it can't be capitalism's fault because I said so
>Capitalism does not lead to globalism. Globalism is the wet dream of socialists.
Capitalism drives larger corporations, which unless controlled expand internationally.
Stop trying to blame everything on the evil socialist boogieman

"Globalism" is the result of all of those free-trade deals and removal of tariffs that economists have universally agreed upon since the 60s.

In capitalism and free markets you have competition which means more companies around. The government creating regulations and implementing high taxes on businesses makes it harder to start new companies thus eliminates competition. And so the rich corporations can expand everywhere

>In capitalism and free markets you have competition which means more companies around.
Oh, you're one of those people.
The rest of us will be waiting for you in the real world if you ever want to join us.

>How come millennials today favor socialism

They don't? Communism hasn't been taken seriously for almost 40 years. Maybe like 10% of millennial university students are actually communists and I l guarantee you the rest of the student body considers them obnoxious just like I did. Mixed economies are supported by virtually everyone except anarcho-autists

I think op thinks socialism means universal healthcare and an increased minimum wage

not an argument

Less regulation would lead to incredibly rich and large companies stomping out the smaller ones, actually.

>Mr. Moneybags wants to privately own a factory
it's not the 1800s mate, that's not how Capitalism works in our century...

this

This is incontrovertible. No serious economic historian or econometrician will try to refute this. Free trade and capitalism are good for society materially; spiritually and psychologically? not so much..

that's not because of Capitalism, or oligarchy, or the 1%. Put down the Guy Fawkes mask and pick up a book, kiddo.

a platitude. If you think that the existence of business cycles is evidence of the failure of capitalism you have seriously misunderstood how capitalism works. If you think that crises are inevitable in a market, and that markets fail, then you have correctly observed how capitalist markets work. Crises, being endogenous, are not evidence of the failure of capitalism, but evidence of its working. Marx believed that crises were necessary and good because the weak and inefficient businesses are culled every once in a while. Where Marx was wrong was in believing that the crises would become closer together, creating a mass class of poor and oppressed proles (capitalism has almost eradicated poverty in the developed world) and these proles would seize the means of production in a revolution. Marx was a product of his time. His critiques were mostly sound, but his predictions were almost completely wrong.

tariffs are almost insignificant. The "Globalism" of TTIP, CETA, EU etc is about "harmonizing" non-tariff aspects of trade: regulations, currencies, and laws.

just to let you know: Socialism (non-marxian) operates in a state of perfect competition, Capitalism operates though imperfect competition and monopoly. See pic related for more on that.

Explain how would that happened then

Are there actually people who believe this? Jesus christ.

Yeah, so globalism is succeeding, and is leading much of the world into prosperity.

Neither is yours, you stated an unsupported fact and I denied the validity of that fact. The burden of proof lies on you.

Capitalism has shown itself to be a scam in recent years, behaving exactly how Marx said it would immediately prior to its collapse.

Millennials are fishing around for an alternative. If socialism holds their attention now, it's only because it's not capitalism. If something bigger and better comes around they'll flock to it.

One company will eventually win out in a given field. Monopolies are inevitable, and I seriously hope you don't need to ask how those work.

>Socialism (non-marxian) operates in a state of perfect competition

How exactly when the state has a monopoly on certain services. Socialism means a lot of taxes and regulations. These regulations and high taxes don't help to guy in the middle class to start a new company, they're discouraging them.

When you're thinking of capitalism you're thinking of modern crony capitalism.

...

>capitalism works everyday
This hás to be bait
>has giant crisis that ruins countries every 20 years
>free market ideals are ridiculous and are impossibel to achive there isnt a single tue FreeMarkets in the world
>has created 10 times more failed States then any other ideology

>capitalism has shown itself to be a scam

Wrong.

It's by far the best economic system we have.

If a company manages to have a monopoly in a free market, isn't that one of the best things that could happen to you as a consumer?

friendly reminder that "crony capitalism" is code for "capitalism doing things I don't like"

That's not socialism, that's an intellectually dishonest conflation of Marxism with slightly center-left Keynesian policies as part of a welfare state. It's a typical tactic for polarizing issues used by conservatives with no political education; just like distinguishing between a "republic" and a "democracy" as if they're mutually exclusive, when really, a republic is any state that isn't nominally a monarchy, and the vast majority of democracies are republics.

You guys are all trots and idiots

You do realize every single of marxs predicitions came true and his

>giant crisis that ruins countries every 20 years

False.

>free market that are ridiculous and impossible

Freedom is neither ridiculous nor is it impossible.

>created 10 times more failed states

Please elaborate.

How many socialist nations do we have today? A few which are doing so bad they are considered literal shitholes.

All prosperous nations today were built on capitalism, they're all capitalist.

It's easier to start a business when you don't have to pay a large amount of taxes and go through thousands of pages of regulations therefore since more people are going to start new businesses there's going to be more competition

Friendly reminder that you should read a basic economics book.

Zero (0) of his predictions came true, hence why marxism is nothing today.

>monopolies are good for the consumer
Do you just suck corporate cock for a living or do you live in a fantasy land where companies won't use that to abuse their customers as much as possible while shutting down any competition?

Yeah, I'm sure if it wasn't for regulations and taxes we'd all be owners of gold mines.

Great argument there.

>no competition, company can set prices to whatever level it wants
>no room for innovation, promotes complacency

How is that good?

You would be a lot wealthier than you're now since you wouldn't have to pay a large amount of taxes.

He predicted major faliures in capitalism
>the whole of the fuck 20th century
He predicted a leftist revolution in a major industrial power
>1917
He predicted the worker movements for rights and large scale strikes against the highr classes
>the whole of the fucking 20th century
If you are going to talk shit atleast get informed first

Do you even read the posts you reply to?

In a free market, the company having a monopoly would have to be the best company in order to have a monopoly, how is that not good for you, the consumer, if a company manages to hold on to a monopoly in a free market?

The problems with socialism aren't inherent in socialism, they're problems with any revolution. Violent revolutions always ensure a chaotic, tyrannic bloodshed and socialism has always been established through revolution.

>Today
This is politics. Keep it to/pol/

>company A has a monopoly
>decides to raise prices by 500% because le monopoly xDD
>company B is started, has normal prices like company A before
>company A now either has to lower prices to the levels of B or B will take over

Have you heard about epipens?

Probably not. Because you're a moron.

>/pol/
>board about politics
PIck one

Not to mention, communists supported violent REVOLUTIONS. Gradually reforming the capitalist system through existing political structures is not communism, it's almost exclusively the domain of liberals. Marxists generally consider such reforms to be regressive, just ask the tankie faggots on leftypol.

And a company can't, or won't change it's practices once it has established dominance for what reason, exactly?

A company with a monopoly no longer has any reason to do anything other than wring the people who have no other option for every cent they have.

>leftist revolution
>1917

kek

>muh worker movements and rights

kek

Then it's not a monopoly... That's competition.

What makes leftists think that the bigger the government the better? Humans are prone to corruption so what makes you think your big government isn't going to get corrupt, and not going to work for the advantages of rich corporations?

I guess if eighty thousands pages of regulation don't work then maybe eighty thousand and one will work?

So you are not reading the posts then, what are you even doing here if I may ask?

>muh commies suported violent revolutions
Are you retarded what ideology didnt

Exactly, so company A wouldn't be able to set whatever price they want because then they wouldn't be in a monopoly.

You just destroyed your own argument.

>is faced with an actual argument
>replies with kek
Top notch arguments there newfag

They're retarded.

Big bad rich companies and people are dangerous and ruin us!!1

But hey, let's have a big bad rich government instead, they're nice and give us free shit.

>1917
>leftist revolution

k e k

Instability caused by Germany to get an upper hand in the war.

Or they could just buy out Company B.

Leftists want to eliminate corporations and the profit motive. Full stop.

No companies are good for consumers.

Consumers are suckers and buy shit they don't need with money they don't have.

Because it's better to have a corrupt but at least somewhat guided force controlling things than groups that don't need to be corrupt because they're openly working in their self-interest.

Yeah, big government is exclusively a leftist domain, which is why Bush oversaw the expansion of paramilitary police, higher military spending and the USAPATRIOT act.

And that has worked so well before hasn't it?

Stop bitching about socialism and realize you're unimportant in the grand scheme of what people want.

Your wants are irrelevant. Get used to it.

I expect that is supposed to be sarcastic. "Globalism" doesn't really mean anything. Global free trade makes everybody richer in the long term, read a few books on economic history.

From Walras, Jevons, and Marshall, to the modern Marginalist school, perfect competition has only ever been an abstraction. It has never been assumed to emerge in even an anarchic society, it is a model that was used because it is simple. Capitalism operates in a state of imperfect competition. Austrian economics is mostly nonsense, and the only serious aspects were absorbed into the mainstream by the 1970s.

Socialism ensures perfect competition because the state adopts the role of organizer of economic activity. If you take the simple (and wrong) model of static equilibrium, classic econ101 supply-demand cross, then there is absolutely nothing in the theory that denies a state from producing that equal to the demand of the population. Your socialism is "taxes", but in socialism you don't have taxes because there is no profit.

Monopolies don't operate like this. Also, monopolies, due to their size, have the benefit of research&development, large legal departments, and are more able to innovate. It is very hard to remain a monopoly anyway.

It's more popular with the left though.

Communism needs to stop being an unacceptable position to have.

I feel like we both agree that "globalism" is a straw man, but what is actual Globalism if not the elimination of economic barriers between nation-states?

Communities take care of people.

Capitalists compete with each other and hunt consumers.

Royalists in France? Capitalists in the 19th century? Modern day liberals and conservatives in the democratic establishment? You're a fucking idiot.

>because they're openly working in their self-interest.
What's bad about that? Everybody more or less works for their self interest.

They could, if all company B wanted was money. But then there is company C, D, E, F etc

that's globalization

>company A buys out company C, which is distributing the product or an element of it to company B, and refuses to sell to or massively raises to price for company B, preventing them from selling at a reasonable price at a profit

Non of those were revolutions dumbass

I honestly can say for certain I hate high educated dumb fuck midwest nit wits who couldn't argue what communism even is aside from the black book.

They're cancer, let's be real. They're total cancer.

As if the government and it's employees have anything in mind but their own self interest?

It isnt tho

>How come millennials today favor socialism that has failed every time it has been tried throughout history,

What are Northen European countries, you fucking retard?

>what's bad about the people running your life working for their interest instead of yours
Shit user I don't know. Why could I possibly be opposed to that.

You are, very retarded

Capitalists de facto have to take care of people or said people won't give capitalists their money.

I'm sure it seems that way when you're a right-winger who focuses solely on expansions of government by the left.