Pic not related

Which is more efficient: Capitalism or socialism? Which one will guarantee me that there will be trendies available for me in atleast a 5 minute drive?

It depends on implementation.

The primary advantage of socialism is that the surplus appropriated by owners can be put towards other things. They'd only get compensated equivalent to the value of their labor. It also means you wouldn't have a non-working leisure class in contrast to a working class. If the class of non-workers wants income, they need to work. Or on the other hand, if the automation is developed enough to support people not working, no one has to do much work.

Capitalism is efficient, but heartless. It will make sure that a large amount of goods are produced, but the poor might not see any of them. Socialism distributes goods humanely, but ironically can't produce enough to satisfy everybody's needs. Therefore, mixed economies are the best, whether its the nordic system, distributism, or fascism.

>centrally planned economy is the only form of socialism meme

What is it with socialism with you guys? It's like you won't rest until private property doesn't exist, even when perfectly fine alternatives are offered. What's wrong with distributism? What's wrong with peaceful fascism? What's wrong with the nordic system? Why venture off into an ideology that's never been successful in the 49 countries that have tried it, on the basis that you're special version will work because of "decentralization"?

bump

efficient at what you cocksucking brainlet

All these are immoral and coercive systems. Anarchism is the only way to go.

Which kind of anarchism? Ancap or ancom?

at guaranteeing he will have trendies available to him with a 5 minute or less drive you gibbering mouthbreather

Usually when someone talks about anarchism they are talking about the socialist type of anarchism.

But if a group of people decided to voluntarily use a currency and hierarchy system would you try to stop them? Or what if they voluntarily formed a government that only ruled over the people who voluntarily were citizens?

This is a stupid question.
Efficient in what? Production? Distribution? Mobilization? Diversification? Unification? Development/creativity? Communication? Social Progress?
What type of capitalism?
What type of communism?

How are they immoral? Just because a system is coercive does not mean it is immoral.

Confederalist/Communitarian Anarchism, following a some sort of P2P mode of production and property, i.e. Market Anarchism without complete private property rights. Basically, private owners would have to pay rent to the community for their privilege of exclusive use of the land and all enterprises would be publicly-owned to some extent.

Capitalism raised the standard of living for all and it's on it's way to erradicate extreme poverty

Socialism [collapse]'d

Okay, but if a group of people wanted to go off and voluntarily form their own government, or use a hierarchal capitalist system, and it consisted entirely of volunteers, that would be okay under your ideology right?

>Which is more efficient: Capitalism or socialism?
Why even make a shit thread like this? The largest economies in the world are all capitalist. Look up the Chinese economic reform.

M
I
X
E
D

E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

Of course, as long as they doesn't impose their own systems on others. Post-scarcity anarchism would not be a inflexible system, but a completely voluntarist system free of bonds and coercion.

Okay, how does ownership and care of children work in such a system? Who determines who gets to see the kids if a divorce happens, when can the kids leave the home, etc.

capitalism provides the tendies

socialism gives you the NEETbux to buy them

In my personal utopian society the governance would take place locally, through grassroots democratic assemblies. Such fundamental issues would be determinated by the popular assemblies through direct democracy. A large number of confederal administrations would be responsible, through delegations and a democratic process, for managing these issues.

You both sound like reasonable people.

So theoretically a fascist society could be raised from your system, from a group of fascist going off and forming their own government, indoctrinating their children to voluntarily stay and work for said government, then setting up a military and borders once they have enough resources and men.

Is Distributism only for Christian cucks?

No

Yeah, you got it.

But indoctrination implies coercion. We'll have failed if a large number of our children grow into such horrific and self-destructive spooked bastards.

But I don't believe in God, conservatism, family, tradition and all these spooky spooks. And all these things seem to be some of the fundamental principles of Distributism.

There are two fundamental principles of distributism, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Basically, government should always perform at the lowest level possible, so mayors>governors>presidents. Governors do not handle jobs that could possibly be handled by mayors, and presidents do not interfere in governors affairs except when absolutely necessary.

In addition, the economy is to be based on the family and small business. The goal is simple, make as many people entrepreneurs as possible. They do this through protectionism, corporate taxes, trust busting, incentivizing small businesses and co-ops through tax breaks, etc.

That's it. There's no religious or conservative ideas in there. The reason the ideology looks so Christian though is because it is based on Catholic social teaching and is usually espoused by very traditional Christian people.

bump

Trendies?
Sounds like you just want to be entertained and not work
Bread and Carnivals OP

In a Distributism society could exist some kind of land value tax based on Georgism that guaranteed a universal basic income?

Theoretically sure. The important thing is that property is privately but widely owned but and most people work for themselves more or less. Sure, some people will still hire themselves out to others, but most will own their business or co-op. If a land tax still allows for what I just said to happen, then I don't see why you couldn't have UBI.

And that distributist society would be under the power of some sort of unconstitutional monarch or it could be an anarchist society?

Not anarchist, any government system as long as mayor>governor>president/monarch/dictator for most issues.

But why?

When your leaders are more localized it's better for solving local issues , because they live where you live and actually care about the area you live in and improving it, in theory at least.

But I don't want to be subordinate to any leader. The principle of subsidiarity could works without that hierarchical and inflexible structure; the decisions that directly affect people could be made locally in popular assemblies through direct democracy, and other important issues through delegation councils.

Then you're just going to be subordinate to the masses of democracy. Frankly I don't see how that's any different.

>avatarfagging
Leave

Non essential or controversial matters would be put to a popular vote, while important decisions would be required to go through a formal consensus process.

>weaaboo nazi
Really makes me think...

>Still believing in socialism vs capitalism.

Corporatism is the way to go, all classes working together for the good of the nation.

>Then you're just going to be subordinate to the masses of democracy.

History has shown it to be preferable. Less likely to get you abducted in the night and executed because supreme leader got a bug up his ass about something.

That's an easy line to preach when its primary preachers have been predominantly the guys that get to swing the sticks rather than the guys that get to receive the sticks.

Also
>nation
>existing
Pick one.

>existence
Nice.

Epic.

I like it.

Socialism, but it's harder to do right

Utopian Socialism > Utopian Capitalism
Real Capitalism > Real Capitalism
Future Socialism > Future Capitalism

Looks like socialism is winning out

>"Future" Socialism
>"Future" Capitalism

>19th century ideologies are the future
When will you accept the decay of your dated ideologies? You will all soon become the contemporary reactionaries.

The way I see it, socialism/comunism is ideological, utopian. It depends havily on the principle that once it's implemented everybody will instantly grasp it's beauty and accept it.... which they don't.
Captalism on the other hand, much like the opposite to what said, I think is more humane, though not on the "mercifull" side. It knows how people think, exploits it, encourages it and rewards it. People can be the dicks or angels that they want to be and it doesn't fuck up the system. It has major flaws but it's better than a system that has expiration date.

And the people advocating communism have generally never worked in a farm or factory a day in their lives.

Pretty much this desu. There's no problem that socialism or communism solves that mixed economy capitalism hasn't already solved, and with far less failures and deaths too.

Theoretically Socialism is more efficient, but practically Capitalism is more efficient.

>meme commies = communists

Socialism fixes the problem of financial non-working parasites.

Communism is the result of a communism of an economy that transcends scarcity for the most part.

You're probably one of those people that thinks socialism means centrally planned economy or a welfare state. You probably think the market is capitalism, and market socialism is some sort of not-real-socialism mixed economy when it isn't.

Markets are more efficient. Market socialism does okay in real life, but then capitalists go around saying that's not real socialism, while they pretend state capitalism is real socialism. The biggest advantage of capitalism in this stage of history is that capitalists, who own and can move capital, will move capital to places where they get to own the capital, thus depriving socialist states of much needed capital.

>Socialism fixes the problem of financial non-working parasites.
Can already be solved through distributism.

>Communism is the result of a of an economy that transcends scarcity for the most part.
So we can't have communism until we have Star Trek levels of technology? Then why do people keep acting like its just around the corner?

CHECKMATE!