Why do people unironically still believe in socialism when it hasn't stood the test of time...

>List of cooperatives
Is that link supposed to prove anything other than "cooperatives exist"?

>implying it's just in the US
you fucking pleb lol
>the workers aren't rational beings t-they're just brainwashed!

Don`t you know user if they exist that means they are successful.

Ask any worker to define what socialism is and they'll tell you it's things like welfare and obamacare

You didn't present a point so I assumed you were tryng to say cooperatives don't work

Another example, 80 fucking dollars for a few flexible rulers

You said cooperatives are superior to private and they simply aren't. What is their share in the Fortune 500?

>Ask any worker to define what socialism is and they'll tell you it's things like welfare and obamacare
Socialism in the US has been around for a long time m8. Look at Europe nobody has gone full socialism here either. China realized socialism is such a shitty system that they LITERALLY flipped camps and became capitalist

>implying it's just in the US
>you fucking pleb lol
cute memeing but there's socialist workers all over the world user. I'm sorry if this hurts your reddit "socialist = welfare supporting college kids" narrative.

I wasn't talking about profitability, coops are better for humanity

They are quantifiably less effective.

>cute memeing but there's socialist workers all over the world user.
Not enough to seize the means of production obviously. Let me guess, there's an evil and omnipotent bourgeoisie conspiring to keep the proletariat from having a revolution?

When there were two state sanctioned red scares it's no suprise people don't think about it

In what way

Less profit means less reinvestment, dumbass.

...

>implying the American working class didn't think about it when voting for Trump
Truth is that socialism has no legs to walk on

>only using the measurement designated by capitalists to measure non-capitalistic systems
Wow it is almost as if workers in cooperatives don't overwork themselves for surplus value

you sound like a fundamentalist arguing that you can only use the bible to disprove God lmao

So how are you going to invest in new technology and expand your company if you barely make enough to cover living expenses? This is basic math you cretin, it has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.

Not when they barely understood what socialism is.

Hint: it is not big gov doing big gov things

Because they'll jump through hoops to explain why it failed, and why it's not the fault of the system itself.

are you only pretending to be retarded ?

Do you know what profit is? That is the money after all expenses including R&D goes to the shareholder.

If you think 150 years and 5 generations of humanity isn't enough time to convince people that socialism is the way to go then you are a lost soul my friend

The owners of the means of production work in their class interests, yes.

Is this unthinkable for you user?

Any conception of socialism in its detractors right now is some abomination of what socialism actually is so no I am not susprised.

Yeah, in Europe they hate socialism even more.

Socialism works but it has to operate on a national/racial basis. Rassenkampf and klassenkampf are the same thing.

>n-no true scotsman!

Because crippling retardation and abject sub 70 IQ stupidity is a pre-requisite for being a socialist.

but user, I live in a nation with many socialist programs, like the school system, police, fire department, healthcare, courts of law, postal, and more!

>courts are a socialist program
I've heard it all now

Who are the owners of the means of production? Are they an evil jewish cabal? Can you prove they exist and are conspiratorial? Why don't the proletariat rise up? Surely they outnumber them? Or is it more likely that it's all hogwash?

>governments providing government services is socialism now
gee wow what a world we live in

>socialism means whatever I want it to mean instead of its definition
I have seen or heard too many people unironically think this to see otherwise

how is it not? The laws are made by the people, the system is funded by the people. It's completely socialist. You could have a private system of law where a corporation has its own jurisdictions which they delcare and enforce their own law over :^)

>You could have a private system of law where a corporation has its own jurisdictions which they delcare and enforce their own law over :^)
Too much Ayn Rand has take its toll on society

>socialism is when the proletariat own the means of production
>every time this happens in a society it stagnates economically and hemorrhages people until it collapses

you are a special kind of retard

>implying
Even Marxist-Leninists wanted to bypass the capitalism stage between feudalism and socialism

Whats your point? The end result has been the same every time

>Who are the owners of the means of production?
The bourgeoisie.

>Are they an evil jewish cabal?
No

>Can you prove they exist
It is the title given to those who own and control private property i.e. factories, companies etc (not to be confused with personal property)

>are conspiratorial?
I never said they are conpiratorial

>Why don't the proletariat rise up?
They do.

>Or is it more likely that it's all hogwash?
Given these basic questions I'm guessing have you literally never read Marx.

My point is that MLs were the only ones capturing the state. But they took over fedualistic countries and they tried to skip the capitalism stage.

I swear Lenin was the worst thing that happened to the Left

>I never said they are conpiratorial
>The owners of the means of production work in their class interests, yes.
>They do.
when was the last time there was proletariat uprising in the West in the Marxist sense?
>Given these basic questions I'm guessing have you literally never read Marx.
I have actually
Protip: Marx isn't infallible and using his writings to justify his theories is a very very weak argument

150 years later and still no socialist revolution in Germany as Marx predicted

>when was the last time there was proletariat uprising in the West in the Marxist sense?
None.

>Protip: Marx isn't infallible and using his writings to justify his theories is a very very weak argument
He is not saying. He is just saying that all your simple questions have already been answered by Marx and you are welcomed to dispute what he said but don't waste time asking such simple questions in a condescending tone

RIP Rosa.

Fuck SocDems.

>Heathens! Burn them!

>I never said they are conpiratorial
>The owners of the means of production work in their class interests, yes.
>They do.
It's like I'm speaking another language, or more likely, you've never read Marx.

Individuals working in their broader material class interests does not mean all capitalists are working as a hive mind. Are you under the impression Marx didn't believe competition existed under capitalism.

>when was the last time there was proletariat uprising in the West in the Marxist sense?
The various Marxist revolutions brought about as a consequence of WWI (a product of capitalism) in Russia, Hungary, Italy etc alongside the various workers strikes and movements (which would persist throughout the century)

>I have actually
There's no need to lie user. Your question and so-called "critiques" of Marx are burger meme tier. Read Wage Labor and Capital. It's fairly short and a good intro.

Tbh the conflict is more askin to Christians and cultural Christians

>Individuals working in their broader material class interests does not mean all capitalists are working as a hive mind.
And how does splitting humans into either proletariat or bourgeosie not do this? It exactly implies that there are not truly individuals working towards their individual interests
>The various Marxist revolutions brought about as a consequence of WWI (a product of capitalism) in Russia, Hungary, Italy
And yet here we are able to say with hindsight that they all failed
>Your question and so-called "critiques" of Marx are burger meme tier.
This is the level of delusion you'd expect from a fundamentalist

All Marxists should read the three volumes of Main Currents of Marxism. It is the toughest critique of Marxism that I am aware of and any Marxist should take the time to see if their beliefs remain unscathed by the time they finish the books.

Hope they're boiling for eternity in piss and cum in the depths of hell, like all communist filth deserve to.

>And how does splitting humans into either proletariat or bourgeosie not do this? It exactly implies that there are not truly individuals working towards their individual interests
Those aren't solid identities that are immutable. The former can be the latter and vice versa. The labels are just to describe the relationship between the individual and the MoP

And yet they can 'work in their class interests'

>It exactly implies that there are not truly individuals working towards their individual interests
Indoviduals do not exist outside their material conditions user. The worker does not sell his labor because he has "freely chosen to do so" but because he is compelled by his circumstances. Are you trying to argue "classes" don't actually exist and that there is only individuals?

I don't think you realize just how radical a position you are taking.

>And yet here we are able to say with hindsight that they all failed
Doesn't really "disprove" Marx's theory. He correctly anticipated WW1 and the proletariat's response. He sided with the proletariat but they lost. Of course this doesn't mean class struggle stopped.

>This is the level of delusion you'd expect from a fundamentalist
Again, cute, but indicative you are more interested in preserving your pre-established beliefs rather than actually investigating the topic.

So? Nobody said they are only working in their class interest and nothing else. I really fail to see why you think a class-based analysis only looking at people's class is wrong.

>Indoviduals do not exist outside their material conditions user.
This is a sad view of reality that you have and a false one as well.
>The worker does not sell his labor because he has "freely chosen to do so" but because he is compelled by his circumstances.
Proof of this?
>Are you trying to argue "classes" don't actually exist and that there is only individuals? I don't think you realize just how radical a position you are taking.
I think your position is the radical one my friend. You say this and then you can only explain away the fact that people don't vote their 'class interests' with conspiracy
>Doesn't really "disprove" Marx's theory.
>He correctly anticipated WW1 and the proletariat's response
>he sided with the proletariat but they lost.
>they lost
This does actually disprove Marx's theory, and that's assuming that something like a proletariat even exists

>I really fail to see why you think a class-based analysis only looking at people's class is wrong.
Because there's no proof that it's right m8

>This is a sad view of reality that you have and a false one as well.
I'm glad to see you've transcended laws of the physical world.

>The worker does not sell his labor because he has "freely chosen to do so" but because he is compelled by his circumstances.
>Proof of this?
This is the level of discourse we're at. People need food and shelter to live. For the majority this can only be easily achieved by selling their labor.

>I think your position is the radical one my friend.
In this instance, not really. I'm not some card-carrying commie - I just see his analysis of capitalism to be most likely correct and, in this specific instance, the idea that people operate in the class interests is not exactly a radical position. A worker pushing for a higher wage is working in his class interests. A CEO cutting wages to increase profits is working in his class interests. It's a to and fro thing.

>You say this and then you can only explain away the fact that people don't vote their 'class interests' with conspiracy
I haven't attempted to explain why workers will often not work in their material interests.

Although it is amazing you seem to think things like education, media, the red-scare and so on have played no part in people's ideology. Once again, people are are a product of their conditions.

>People need food and shelter to live. For the majority this can only be easily achieved by selling their labor.
Is this somehow a new phenomenon? Do only the prols face this dilemma? This has been an issue since the beginning of humanity people need to live so they do what it takes to live it doesn't mean that a fucking highwayman in 11th century Armenia was part of the proletariat and was working in his class interests
>A worker pushing for a higher wage is working in his class interests. A CEO cutting wages to increase profits is working in his class interests. It's a to and fro thing.
So how do you explain the many many people who don't fit that mold? The poor fucks who hate the welfare state? The rich fucks who support raising the minimum wage? The ones in the middle who support either of those positions?

>Is this somehow a new phenomenon? Do only the prols face this dilemma? This has been an issue since the beginning of humanity people need to live so they do what it takes to live it doesn't mean that a fucking highwayman in 11th century Armenia was part of the proletariat and was working in his class interests
Holy shit user just admit you've never read Marx.

>the history of all hiterto society is the existence of class struggle
It's the first fucking line of the most basic thing he put out. Capitalism is merely a mode of production that determines the manner in which class struggle occurs.

>So how do you explain the many many people who don't fit that mold? The poor fucks who hate the welfare state?
Ideology. “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas"

>The rich fucks who support raising the minimum wage? The ones in the middle who support either of those positions?
Giving capitalism a human face will hardly bring about the abolition of class society so I'd hardly call that "working against their class interests".

But again, if you really want to understand the bare basics of the topic all you need to do is read him. Like I recommended before Wage Labor and Capital is an easy read.

I've read Marx senpai. Like I said, citing Marx to justify Marx is fucking stupid and shows your intellectual limits

>I've read Marx senpai.
Based on everything you've said and lack of understanding of even the most basic of points, I do not believe you.

>Like I said, citing Marx to justify Marx is fucking stupid and shows your intellectual limits
Half of my content has just been me trying to explain Marx's points to you. Citing Marx is necessary to do so.

Come on user. Just admit you've never read him. Better yet, read him. More knowledge, even if you disagree with it, isn't a bad thing! You might actually be able to provide a solid critique.

My point is that Marx is wrong you stupid shit lol
>of course God is right! Haven't you read the bible user? He says he's right in it!

Let me break it down for you. Many of Marx's fundamental points are wrong. We can OBSERVE that they are wrong. There's literally 0 evidence that suggests that he was right. This fact won't change no matter how many times you go back to Marx and leaf through his booklets looking for an answer. How dense can one person be?

Look outside. All the proof you need

see

I am not a Marxist, but repeating one time after another that somebody is wrong without providing a more developed analysis about why they are wrong is not a very good way to convince someone

I mean, you have in all your posts played the Fundamentalist card: "Marxist is based in faith not in reason". I am too convinced that applying a final cause (classless society) too humanity automatically dismisses the science status that Marxist say their theories have (see Popper) but you have limitted yourself to insults and not arguments and that is a sad thing to do.

This user also raises valid points. You can´t accuse someone of being irrational if they are trying to explain somebody´s theories (Marx´s ones) by using arguments that Marx supplied. Imagine if you had to explain Plato without using the arguments he used at his works. The best you are going to end up with is a distorted version of the author.

Continuing this:

I am contrary to the motion of revolution and I think that Russia´s coup the etat exemplified an antidemocratic sentiment in Lenin (as while his party was very popular among urban workers, the majority of Russia was living in the fields, who voted otherwise), but even I can identify that Communism has influenced positively the world, along with anarchism.

From the establishment of unions, to the conquer of social and workers´rights by strikes and protests those were iniciatives which without a theory to support them ( its accuracy is in question, no its use) and a ideological justification of their brutal fights with the status quo, would have slowly banished.

Also, I have yet to read more about Marx´s moral justification of communism, based on the work as a creative activity by humanity and not as a God´s punishment, which clashed positively with the religious views of work of the moment.

I've provided plenty of evidence that the theories of Marx haven't withstood the test of time. Responding with "ah but marx states this and that" despite there being evidence that what Marx and his theories are no longer relevant. It should not be treated as a difference in philosophical opinion because it is not. When something is debunked it is debunked you cannot resurrect it

I attempt to clarify that in . The accuracy of Marxism as an interpretation of history is debunked and it cannot sustain itself on a economic basis if applied in a purist sense, but it still has been useful for humanity as a whole

>$80 for 100 rulers
>paying less than $1 for each ruler

Doesn't seem that bad, what's your point?