File: 1425434192758.png (140.22 KB, 846x944, 423:472, socialism_explained_by_par….png)
No.512[Last 50 Posts]
ITT: We discuss why socialism is the only way forward for a better society.
>What is socialism?
An economic system by which the means of production are collectivized, which means
1) Productive enterprise is owned collectively by the employees that work there
2) Workplace democracy is established
3) The wage system is abolished
>What is communism?
A stateless, classless, moneyless society where civilization is broken up into small, autonomous communities called "communes" (hence "communism") organized linearly by voluntary organizations and workers' councils.
No.517
File: 1425434407697.png (1.22 MB, 1724x1633, 1724:1633, workers of the world unite.png)
>>515
>Identity politics
>Socialist
Nope.
No.524
>>517Class politics is an equally backwards form of bigotry.
No.531
>>517If no niggers/mudslimes were in your country it would objectively be a net positive by far. Why lie?
No.536
>>524Class politics are the only form of politics.
Unlike identity politics, it's based on material relations, rather than subjective social relations.
>>531Slaves that bicker among themselves will never overthrow their master.
No.546
>>536And that's one of the reasons their master sought to import wholly incompatible people, to divide and conquer.
No.570
Inherently inefficient. The profit motive is a terrible thing to waste.
No.576
>>536
>Slaves that bicker among themselves will never overthrow their master.In all seriousness I'm inclined to agree that at the moment we have bigger fish to fry, but thinking that it's simply a battle of class is idiotic. I don't give one iota of fuck about material gain, and if I thought the upper echelons of society were actually doing something beneficial, instead of willfully steering us toward harmful behaviors I wouldn't care if they were only Jewing me out of my cash.
The grand majority of my issues are social. Money doesn't solve anything for me. I just don't want to be outbred by foreigners, and I don't want to celebrate mental illness, or victimhood. I just want a society of strong, proud, and generally happy, optimistic people. I want a society with a future I can look forward to, and I assure you what you advocate isn't going to foster that, because the problem isn't only economic.
No.577
>>546They aren't wholly incompatible. They can be MADE incompatible via identity politics.
>>563No. The proletariat give their labor to the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie only give back a small fraction of the product of that labor in return. That's how the bourgeoisie make "profit" and get rich, off of the surplus labor of their workers. Nothing subjective about it.
>>570There is such a thing as market socialism. The bourgeoisie are unnecessary parasites.
No.586
>>577No, they are incompatible because they are.
I'll tell you what more is incompatible, reality and your MADE up ideology.
No.589
>>576>because the problem isn't only economicThe only reason why foreigners are coming to your country is because their own country is impoverished, and because the bourgeoisie need to saturate the labor market to keep wages low
The only reason why social justice bullshit is pushed is because it fosters false consciousness, causing the masses to vent their anger at their material conditions in a way that doesn't harm the bourgeoisie.
No.593
>>582I know, but "MUH MARKETS" is no reason to reject socialism.
>>586>They are because I said so.kek
>your MADE up ideology.Versus all those ideologies and political theories that sprung from the earth.
No.597
>>591
Homogenization will come, in time. It's nothing to lose your head about.
No.601
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>595
Once again, socialism doesn't necessarily entail a rejection of markets.
But, in answer to your question, computers. And the labor theory of value.
No.603
>>598
>genetic stain
pls
No.607
>>598
no, it takes takes only a few months to send all the spics back to mexico.
No.610
>>589Yeah, you're right, but then what actual solutions are there? In hardly more than 2 decades I will be a minority in my country, and you think people are just going to snap out of generations of social engineering?
No.611
>>606
>What is the Human Genome Project
No.614
>>610What's the alternative?
Killing all of them? Deporting them?
No.616
>>613http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_ProjectLong story short, they found that people of the same "race" could be as different from each other as with people of a different "race." As far as genetics is concerned, race is really only outward appearance.
No.622
No.624
>>614Ideally both depending on necessity. Realistic best case scenario is we cut our losses and secede. Cartels are already carving out territory in the south west with law enforcement too afraid to deal with them. Aztlan is more than a mere pipe dream.
No.626
>>624That's nonsense. People will move to wherever is economically necessary for them. Even if you were to secede and create some kind of pure white country, they'd continue to immigrate in.
The real answer is to get rid of the reason why they're immigrating en masse in the first place, by ending the drug war and repealing NAFTA.
No.633
>>512Fixing this for you
>What is socialism?>An economic system by which private enterprise, responsibility, and hard work are discouraged at all costs. Favorite pastimes of socialists include shooting golden geese and genocide.
>What is communism?>A totalitarian, involuntary society organization where political classes substitute for economic classes; civilization is broken into small, inoperative communities where the delusional insist that any failings of their society is due to the fact that their brand of communism hasn't been tried (hence "communism"). No.642
>>633>I, a person who doesn't like your political theory and know nothing about it, am going to tell you what your political theory is all about.
>private enterprise… is discouraged at all costsI see nothing wrong with that.
>responsibility and hard work are discouraged at all costsBut these ARE encouraged.
>Favorite pastimes of socialists include shooting golden geeseWhat golden geese? The bourgeoisie? KEK
>A totalitarian, involuntary societyNope
>political classes substitute for economic classesNope
>any failings of their society is due to the fact that their brand of communism hasn't been triedYou mean communism hasn't been achieved. And Revolutionary Catalonia actually had a good run of it before they were betrayed by Stalin.
No.649
>>626
>People will move to wherever is economically necessary for them. Even if you were to secede and create some kind of pure white country, they'd continue to immigrate in.Not if we actually enforce our boarders. Do you not believe in free association? All in all it isn't that likely, but I'm betting it's a lot more likely than most think.
>The real answer is to get rid of the reason why they're immigrating en masse in the first place, by ending the drug war and repealing NAFTA.Too little too late wouldn't you say? You think their country would just turn into a paradise? You think they'll want to go back after being here for a few generations?
This is all hypotheticals anyway. Nothing major is getting repealed anytime soon, and we sure as hell aren't approaching economic socialism. I forgot how much I hated these kinds of discussions. It's not living in the now and concentrating on practical politics. That's the problem with taking ideologies and running with them, no one has any solutions beyond their mantras. At least by simply being politically incorrect on the internet your average /pol/ack spits in the face of adversity if nothing else.
No.655
>>649It's not like you have any control over your country to begin with.
We talk about this shit because we want to start the beginnings of a mass movement. Revolt and revolution, now as ever, are the only real forms of control you have.
No.688
>>512how can any group of people be classless?
you would have to abolish "culture" as we know it and create a "monoculture"
fucking terrible
No.695
File: 1425449520699.png (86.42 KB, 893x875, 893:875, Base-superstructure_Dialec….png)
>>688>how can any group of people be classless?Because they all have equal ownership in the means of production
>you would have to abolish "culture" as we know it and create a "monoculture">muh cultureCulture is just a part of the superstructure of the modes of production. Creating a classless society is as easy as creating an equitable economic system.
No.709
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>512Socialism was tried in pre-colonial America. It failed horribly.
Vid related.
No.713
>>643The lesson of the story is that socialism inevitably leads to hostile takeover and stalinism.
Muh Free Markets don't have to be perfect to work, besides, why do you need to redistribute what I've rightfully earned? Do I not provide a service that benefits the people? Do I not allow others to live off of my productivity when they would otherwise be useless plebs?
Just saying, you can have voluntary socialism all day long, but the moment someone tells me to hand over what I've earned or to only make so much money in order to make things "more fair," they can rightfully go fuck themselves. Human populace is too big as is. Survival of the fittest, m8.
No.714
>rejecting the natural and efficient system of private ownership and hierarchy
>promoting the unnatural and inefficient system of democracy
Something being natural doesn't make it inherently good, but every single ideologically driven system is in the end going to transform into the natural state of things with time. So fighting the natural is usually pointless and, most importantly, costly.
Abandon your silly ideals. Ideals only works in an ideal world. Our world is not ideal and will never be. Give it up you manchild.
No.717
>>695not true. culture is complex and goes beyond monetary standing. you can't wipe out all aspects of discrete cultures and subcultures in order to artificially create a 'level playing field'. there will always be people who are more creative, more talented, more intelligent, who create new 'cultures' and rise above others. unless those people are eliminated or sequestered in order to sustain some false sense of 'classlessness'….
culture and class is far more nuanced than you realize.
No.718
>>709>PuritansIt wasn't the Puritans, it was the Pilgrims. Yes, they were two different groups. The Pilgrims thought the Church of England was shit and took the first boat to the New World to create their own religiously pure colony. The Puritans wanted to "purify" the Church of England, and stayed in England until they got their wish in the form of Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate. After the death of Cromwell, and the subsequent fall of the Protectorate, Cromwell's Puritan supporters fled to the colonies.
Holland wasn't "liberal", they just practiced a form of Calvinism similar to the Pilgrims and therefore the Pilgrims were tolerated there.
And Plymouth was the victim of poor planning, not "socialism". I've heard this one before, but it's nonsense. Socialism wouldn't even be a concept for centuries after the Plymouth Colony was established. For instance, simple labor vouchers could have saved the communal Plymouth Colony, but of course labor vouchers weren't even a concept yet, which is why this whole analogy is dumb.
No.719
>>718ok but the Owenites pwned themselves a few hundred years later, and they were backed by a utopian idealist tycoon
No.720
>>717Nignog, do you understand the difference between class and culture?
If people want to be more creative, more talented and more intelligent than others, good for them, and they should receive just compensation for all that they do. The point is that no one should receive monetary compensation they haven't labored for.
No.721
>>719>Utopian socialistsWell, there's your problem right there.
No.723
>>714>naturalistic fallacyNice try.
>Something being natural doesn't make it inherently good, but every single ideologically driven system is in the end going to transform into the natural state of things with time. So fighting the natural is usually pointless and, most importantly, costly.Humans are more flexible than that and, besides, there have been multiple communal societies that have worked already, so your naturalistic fallacy doesn't even work on its own grounds.
No.724
class and culture are inherently intertwined, sweetie
I'm saying there is no such thing as classlessness, it's an impossibility
I think you're talking about something else cutie. You're talking about exploitation or something, and the means to generate profits based on ownership of the means of production? that isn't class based though.
that is to say, the bureaucrats of a so-called classless society would be exploiting the masses anyway…
>>721all socialism is utopian whether it admits to this by name or not, lol
Definition of UTOPIAN
1
: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2
: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3
: impossibly ideal : visionary <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>
4
: believing in, advocating, or having the characteristics of utopian socialism <utopian doctrines> <utopian novels>
No.725
>>723small, regional communes are a far cry from something like technocratic world socialism
important distinction
No.726
>>725And?
Naturalistic fallacy is naturalistic fallacy. Think of something better than "muh nature".
No.728
>>726different anon, friend. just pointing out that scale is extremely important here. :)
No.729
so much absolutist, adversarial/reactionary thinking here. yall need to diversify. the world exists in shades of gray.
No.730
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>724>sweetie>cutieGetting a bit salty, are we?
Anyway, I'm afraid it's YOU that has the bizarre definition of "class". Tell me, in your own words, what you think class is.
Regardless, here's a video explaining what class really is.
>all socialism is utopian whether it admits to this by name or not, lol>Doesn't know what utopian socialism is"Utopian Socialism" was the name given to early forms of radical socialism before the development of libertarian socialism and scientific socialism, coined by Marx and Engels.
These forms of socialism rarely had much in the way of theory or real plans on how to achieve their utopias.
No.732
>>730>can't into the quirks of languageall socialism is based on impossibly ideal conditions of social organization
truth is that a group of people in central planning will stand to gain from making special relationships with certain producers, etc
class is not just about money. your video is myopic.
here:
Social class refers to a group of people with similar levels of wealth, influence, and status.
this refers to LOTS of social markers, money and ownership is one of them but certainly not paramount. for instance, impoverished bohemian artists, intelligentsia chatting in a salon, or religious devotees… these are elevated classes of people, separate from monetary stratification. there is no such thing as a classless society unless culture is somehow wiped out.
it's not nice to call someone you disagree with on the internet a nignog, I thought I took a better approach personally :( No.733
>>713>The lesson of the story is that socialism inevitably leads to hostile takeover and stalinism.>implying Russia was a unique case. The economic isolation, civil wars and foreign invasions they had to weather in the wake of their revolution allowed the bureaucratic element of the Communist Party to rise to prominence.
>why do you need to redistribute what I've rightfully earned?You don't.
As Karl Marx said "The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another." If you are indeed working for your money, then you get that and nothing more. The problem arises when you attempt to claim ownership over the means of production and, in doing so, attempt to exploit the labor of others for your own gain. If you disagree with others taking your money for the common good of all, you'll surely disagree with others taking your money for the common detriment of all, as the bourgeoisie do.
No.735
>>733all this does is make it so that the state is exploiting the masses by owning the means of production and that no private citizen has the ability to change their own status
if some people are fucked by capitalism, everyone is fucked by socialism… ya dig? it forces everyone into a false egalitarianism
No.736
>>732>all socialism is based on impossibly ideal conditions of social organizationNot really.
>truth is that a group of people in central planning will stand to gainMost modern socialist theory revolves around either there being no central planning or the central planning being done automatically by computers.
>class is not just about money. your video is myopic.It is. That's all it is. Anyone who tells you different is selling you something. Probably capitalism.
>for instance, impoverished bohemian artists, intelligentsia chatting in a salon, or religious devotees…So you're conflating social cliques with classes? I think you're confused.
I was saying nignog in jest No.738
>>736computers only operate subject to their programmers' whims and desires. I recommend you watch "all watched over by machines of loving grace #2", I think you will enjoy it (I'm not recommending this to "win an argument" or anything like that, it is truly an enriching and thought-provoking film)
I respectfully disagree with your definition of class. I've studied this with dyed-in-the-wool marxist professors so don't get the impression that I am milton friedman trying to sell you pencils or something.
No.739
>>735>all this does is make it so that the state is exploiting the masses by owning the means of production and that no private citizen has the ability to change their own statusWho said the state would own the means of production. It would be owned collectively by the people. In the case of centralized planning, like with computers, the state might be more directly involved, but this is discounting the many socialist theories that don't believe in a state at all.
Also, "an authoritarian state owning everything and exploiting the workers for their own gain" is state capitalism, not socialism.
No.740
>dyed-in-the-wool marxist professors
What brand of Marxism? Some self-proclaimed "Marxists" are not nearly as Marxist as they claim.
No.743
>>738>computers only operate subject to their programmers' whims and desires.Also, I am aware of this, which is why it is important to have well established workers' control of the government. People only get away with that sort of nonsense when they're entrenched and largely unaccountable in the government. Every official should be directly accountable to the people he or she serves, and immediately revocable by them.
No.744
>>739hey, I think you should watch this film too
>>738also never forget that those who hold power would certainly not willingly give it up or promote a new system that requires them to. remember that many wealthy globalists are in favor of enacting a version of socialism. in this reality, it likely wouldn't turn out the way you are hoping (and I can't blame you for your hopes, they are nice)
>>740well they were being objective, ya know? these weren't classes ABOUT marxism, they were sociology/comparative politica economy classes, but they were definitely communist-leaning, and so was I, at the time. anyway class really is nuanced and it is not strictly about money or ownership, though they play a role. I promise.
No.745
>>733So what you're saying is that if I'm willing to risk my good fortunes on the line and pay a factory worker $20/hour, but he could be making $50/hour by selling the product he builds directly, I'm somehow in the wrong for giving him a guaranteed $20 that he may or may not have made?
I'm keeping men and women alive and off the streets through my theoretical company and theoretical charity, and happen to make a profit off of it. They value a stable income more than they value that $30/hour they've handed me with the uncertainty of if it will see a return or not. Meanwhile I have valued the cheap labor costs as being worth less than producing it on my own/via machines. It's a win-win and mutual profit has been generated. How is this wrong?
No.747
>>745to play devil's advocate:
if the state controlled the market the company wouldn't need to spend money on advertising because it would be the only option :^) is this good or bad?
marketing is unethical but does that make capitalism unethical?
No.754
>>743here's a link, seriously watch this, it is super interesting and you in particular will enjoy it
bear in mind power structures, throughout, and how power endures and sustains itself
https://vimeo.com/groups/96331/videos/80799352 No.758
No.759
>>744>also never forget that those who hold power would certainly not willingly give it up or promote a new system that requires them to.Hence the need for revolution.
>remember that many wealthy globalists are in favor of enacting a version of socialism. in this reality, it likely wouldn't turn out the way you are hopingWhich is why, in this reality, we should throw them in jail like the thieves they are and not allow them to have any input into the creation of the new society.
No.760
>>759unfortunately it has been demonstrated that throughout history revolutions have been controlled by these very globalists
controlled opposition and all that
they're a tricky bunch
it is a nice idea though.
watch this!!!!
>>758 No.761
No.762
No.763
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>761>>762>implying we support asshats like SorosWe see through his bullshit.
Real socialist parties don't take donations from corporations or billionaire capitalists.
Though, I am all too aware that these people have been attempting to insert their agendas into the Left.
No.764
>>763You may see through globalist ploys, but I wouldn't assume that others do…
How do you feel about global carbon tax? just curious. not instigating.
>zizekgross, man… No.766
>>764Others may not, but that's a part of the struggle.
I don't know what they hope to gain from a carbon tax, but other forms of energy ought to at least be put on the same playing field as oil.
No.778
The problem with socialism is…
/thread
No.780
>>536>Slaves that bicker among themselves will never overthrow their master.And if they weren't amongst themselves, there would be no bickering. Racial tensions will exist as long as there are discrete races.
No.781
>>763>real socialist parties don't take donations from corporations or billionaire capitaliststhis.
Hitler was almost entirely grassroots funded.
the Rothschilded started funding him because of his plan to deport the Jews to Israel(then British Palestine) , they stopped when the realized he was actually aware of them their satanic rites and their infection of the media and banking to control democracies.
No.853
>>780That's nonsense. There weren't even racial tensions before the colonial period. Come off it.
No.857
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>778The problem with capitalism is that eventually capitalists run out of their workers' money… and then they have to turn to credit.
No.861
>>858
How about a system where there are no parasites that get rich off the labor of others?
No.863
>>862
You can. Give everyone an partial ownership in the means of production and ban absentee ownership.
No.864
>>753>people who don't understand what running a business is likeMarx himself thought that running a business was a trivial and insignificant skill, which is why they concluded that all capitalists do is oppress their workers and laugh all the way to the bank. Obviously, this is not the case.
Not surprising though, because Marx was a deadbeat parasite who lived off everyone around him and never held a real job in his life, just like many socialists.
No.866
>>861>How about a system where there are no parasites that get rich off the labor of others?The workers are free to pool their own capital (or take loans/pitch to investors, which is what the capitalists do) and start enterprises that are wholly worker owned. Why don't they do this?
No, "muh evil capitalists are keeping them down" is not a valid answer.
No.869
>>864>B-but running a business is haaaardBusiness Administration and marketing majors are the laughing stocks of college campuses. Do you happen to be one, because only a BA could think management is hard.
No.876
>>869If it's so easy, why don't you do it?
And it's not that it's especially difficult. Being a proprietor is also far riskier. At least, unless you can get your friends in Congress to bail you out.
No.882
>>865
>But don't they already own their own means of production in themselves?
That's not what the means of production are. The means of production are the things used to produce things, IE - land, factories, machines, "intellectual property" etc.
There have been cases, for instance, of factory owners attempting to shut their factories down and ship their business overseas, only for the workers to show up to the factory and attempt to continue on anyway, only for the owner to call the police and have them all arrested, and promptly demolish their factory and sell the property. People very much willing to do productive work are stopped from doing so because they don't "own" the means of production.
No.885
>>876>If it's so easy, why don't you do it?Because I'm not already rich, and I don't have rich friends/family.
No.890
>>874
It requires the same skill set. The point is, you don't have to be a superman to run a business. It takes know-how that may not come naturally, but don't go around with the pretense that businessmen are these ultra-competent super humans when they're not. If anything, they're just far more invested in their business because, of course, they own the property and it holds the promise of maybe, one day, giving them tons of money.
No.895
>>885>Because I'm not already rich, and I don't have rich friends/family.Yeah, the typical cop-out. Entrepreneurs are very middle class, and many of them don't even have college degrees. They raise capital by taking loans and/or pitching to investors.
No.897
>>886
>But how do you objectively define productive work?
Any work which produces things of value.
>How do you demonize outsourcers without appealing to a nationalistic populism?
Because their whole purpose for doing so is using what amounts to slave labor in developing countries.
No.898
>>890>It requires the same skill set. The point is, you don't have to be a superman to run a business. It takes know-how that may not come naturally, but don't go around with the pretense that businessmen are these ultra-competent super humans when they're not.Okay, so if it's not that hard, then why don't the workers go into business themselves, using the techniques the evil capitalists do, and run their own worker-owned enterprises?
No.901
>>894
>I don't agree here, managing people and making smart investments of time and finances
Which is what the BA major is supposed to train you to do.
>has very little to do with being a skilled craftsman for example
Which the BA major doesn't train you to do.
No.906
>>895>Yeah, the typical cop-out. Entrepreneurs are very middle class, and many of them don't even have college degrees. They raise capital by taking loans and/or pitching to investors.The petty bourgeoisie rarely rise very far, and I wasn't really talking about them, even though liberals tend to get all hung up about them like they're the standard business owner that we're all talking about because muh American Dream or whatever. I don't think progress should be slowed or stopped because the hardships of the petty bourg.
No.910
>>899
>According to your own first-world bourgeois sensibilities?
According to anyone's standard, including theirs.
And I'm not bourgeois, I don't own any part of the means of production.
No.913
>>910You are basing this entirely on your perceptions of what manual labor in a developing economy is like. Consider for a second that not everyone has the disdain for blue-collar work that you have.
No.935
>>913No, I'm basing this off of the fact that we have a system one class profits off the labor of another class. We have a class of people who make money without necessarily having to do an ounce of labor to get it, like a modern landed gentry.
No.945
>>937
Yes, by collectivizing the means of production, like I've been saying.
No.955
>>948
They should be compensated and treated accordingly, so long as they're doing actual work
No.958
>>957
So? It's not about that level of equality, it's about putting everyone at an equal playing field and ending exploitation.
No.972
>>959
It wouldn't be a race, and there wouldn't be "social status" by birthright.
No.978
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>974
I don't think the differences there are that drastic. The extreme inequality you see today is due to private capital ownership and absentee ownership.
Nor do I think people are completely motivated my the acquisition of material goods.
No.986
What are your favourite socialist dictators?
No.998
>>980
Yes, but people like doctors, engineers and scientists are proletariat, if very well paid proletariat, and don't consist of the ultra-rich, at least the ones that didn't use their positions to start acquiring capital, anyway.
No.1002
>>996
Take a closer look at that image.
No.1010
>>1000
Nice GET
Also, that's some screwy logic you have there. Getting rid of economic classes increases social inequality because... Some people are more competent than others? What does that have to do with class exploitation, or are you just hung up about semantics?
Also, the super compotent people you're talking about are motivated by way more than just money. Give them a higher pay grade and get out of their way and let them do their thing.
No.1020
>>1012
>I don't know how human psychology works
Well it's good that we got that out of the way
No.1021
>>512It's better than the economic anarchy that capitalism would endorse. I don't want to say it's good though, as that might encourage the AnarchoSoc.
It is good though. No.1061
>>643
>ChávezFaggot, thanks for ruining my country.
No.1063
>>1012
The fuck are you on about?
No.1067
>>1061>implying Venezuela wasn't already shitAnd capitalist imperialism wouldn't have made it better. Chavez at least helped lower poverty, despite the imperialists best efforts to fuck him over.
No.1068
>>1067
>MUH EMPIRE>MUH BOURGEOISIE Goddamnit you faggots are cringeful, always blaming someone else for your own fuck ups, these including exchange control, which has ruined the economy completely.
Poverty is worse than before, idiot.
No.1089
>>1082I'm not going to watch an one hour video.
Yeah, the CIA might have done shit in SouthAm before, but every single time the CIA is or was mentioned, it's accusing them on backing the opposition, which is fucking bullshit, and has never been proven. Funny thing is, the accusation have become extremely retarded, with Maduro recently saying that the dead kid in Táchira was recruited by a CIA sect.
Anyway, got something to say instead of rants on muh ebil empire, cia and bourgeoisie?
No.1097
>>512>>>/leftypol/ is that way, kiddo.
No.1101
>>1067>helped lower poverty>HELPED LOWER POVERTY>CHAVEZ>leftypolVenezuela here, you're so full of shit it isn't even funny, also the "imperialism" is just a weasel-way to blame every bad business he has made to north america, like neutering and killing 60% of the private business in the country which is causing the HUGE sudden drop in our money value of the stock market and the lack of products on stores to the point where the government has to set a fucking ticket system where people can only buy a certain amount of food, that is if there's any on the store at all.
Seriously, go eat shit, people like you is why this country is so shit.
No.1110
>>655The thing is though, and naturally this isn't only in regards to socialists is that it seems to me like you're picking an ideology and trying to shape society to it, rather than taking the issues at hand and fostering something realistic and contemporary. I'm a fan of he NSDAP, but they didn't cling to the German aristocracy. Even I'm guilty of this, but it's probably counter-productive to think this way. Many people have similar issues with society that I have and it makes a lot more sense to appeal to those to the best of my ability than to expect some kind of awakening to my way of thinking and a revolt.
No.1111
>>1101
>rationingI'm sorry, at least you have cheap gas. Kike professors and hipsters really love the shit out of Chavez in the US by the way.
No.1121
>>1111I'm not the same guy, but that shit happens everywhere, and with the propaganda you guys are bombarded with it wouldn't come as a surprise.
Sadly gas is cheap because the government keeps selling it at the same price. It should cost many, many times more than it does, but I think there would be big consequences considering how expensive everything is right now.
No.1149
>>1100The problem here is that you (I'm assuming that you're OP. Correct me if I'm wrong) aren't trying to foster civil discourse, you're just shitposting.
>We discuss why socialism is the only way forward for a better societyThat isn't discussion. It's trying to make a fucking circlejerk. So please, fuck off back to your commie hugbox. You can come back when you're willing to have an open debate.
No.1181
>>1152
>reds that can handle the banter
That settles it. /polidicks/ confirmed for best political board.
No.1384
Anyone else a Technocrat/resource based economy /sci/entist?
>Fund science to build machines to take most jobs (like they are already doing)
>Both production rates and human free time increase
>Most items are extremely cheap to free
>Government basically non existent since economical scarcity doesn't exist any more
No.1401
>>1097We're allowed to disagree here, anon. Go back to /pol/ if dissent triggers you.
No.1430
No.1440
>>1395
Great argument anon.
No.1456
>>1149>>1430>The opening statement was too assertiveDeal with it, faggot.
No.1465
>>1456>people don't want a communist circlejerkDeal with it, faggot.
No.1494
>>1465Who said anything about a circlejerk?
No.1546
>>1494>We discuss why socialism is the only way forward for a better society>I'm right you're wrong, lalala I can't hear you No.1661
>>1546>Can't handle the bantRightists
No.1663
>>1661>oh no! Someone disagreees with me! I'd better call them conservative, because there's no way a left leaning person could disagree with me!<inferring that you're a faggot No.1689
>>1663>there's no way a left leaning person could disagree with me!Why the fuck would a socialist disagree that socialism was the way forward?
No.1696
>>1689
>hurr durr the left is formed by a single ideology>Helmets required No.1716
>>1689Maybe it's because I'm not a fucking socialist? Just throwing that out there.
No.1748
>>1696>>1716Socialism is the only Left ideology in the modern day.
Any pro-capitalist ideology is going to be centrist at best.
No.1780
>>1748
>Socialism is the only Left ideology in the modern day
It's like you're trying to be a parody on liberalism.
No.1787
>>1748
Some communists like Bob Black reject socialism.