Any books that deal with the 'socialism has never worked' argument...

it's never worked though

Society will probably change gradually in order to adapt to environmental circumstances but I think power structures will remain intact, unless there is revolution (people are too comfortable for that, and most revolutions are backed up by hidden powers, genuine popular uprisings seem to be rare). Also you have to take geopolitics into account, If local events of destruction happen, other countries or powers will take over.

Kolakowski - Main currents of Marxism

the implication is that it will therefore never work. and a lot of people don't agree that it's never worked.

>Society will probably change gradually
People will point the blame on the oil companies and capitalists. Then people will rediscover socialism.

Capital volume one where Marx defines the value form and the wage labour / commodity relationship.

Vide: the presence of the value form, wage labour and the commodity in all “socialist” societies. Thus: these societies are capital societies as they are animated by the value forms transformations. Thus: comparing empirical results to a core definition these societies were not socialist.

Walks you into a “Socialism is impossible” argument though.

>The Chapo Guide to Revolution: A Manifesto Against Logic, Facts, and Reason
the authors are so dumb (anglos) they don't realize a manifesto against 'logic facts and reason' is the most facist name someone could come up with hahahaha bordel just how pathetic can america get, it feels like theres no treshold

delusional

Attached: 51Rhak+XouL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (326x499, 26K)

This doesn't deal with the argument. Socialism is good in theory and of course Marx is the primary theorist but I'm talking about actually putting it into practice. Stats, economic analysis, history, etc.

literally just take a class on corporate finance

elaborate please? How does corporate finance explain the socialist fiasco

That'd be nice but will literally never happen
The way people get information today is in prepackaged units from the top, meaningful dissent will never be presented to them as an option and westerners have no idea how rigidly locked into those presented options they are
Half of the masses will blindly say the corporations that killed the planet were entirely in the right and that nothing is actually wrong, and the other half will be angry but do absolutely nothing but posture and talk about how angry they are
Western man has been too domesticated for widespread revolution to ever realistically happen again for generations

I think you're too much of a pessimist. People may be too blind to see the blatant exploitation inherent in the capitalist system (perhaps because they feel content with what they have), but when climate change and AI actually start having serious material implications on people's lives I think they will definitely rediscover socialism. You say the western man is too domesticated. A better word would be too comfortable. Nobody wants to leave their homes and revolt, even if that means they have to hand over the fruits of their labour to the bourgeoisie. However when they are forced out of their homes due to climate change they will definitely direct their wrath to the people who caused it.

History books on the Soviet Union and texts on modern day China

Find out why. Read it.

Attached: D70D41E4-C03A-4821-B650-3F32C0A0DE77.png (1147x645, 461K)

Cockshott is a literal meme even amongst Marxists

The argument between socialism and capitalism comes down to this: to those who, when left to their own devices, naturally rise above the mean, and to those who fall below. The former will be proponents of capitalism, the latter of socialism. The former are talented and hard-working, the latter talentless and lazy. And all this is proved by the failure of socialism, and in particular that of communism: its ultimate manifestation — as if a group of habitual losers at the individual level would be able to create, by pooling together all their weaknesses and failures, a winning combination!
But it is plain that, as they lose on the individual level — as individuals — they will ultimately lose on the group level too. The only reason they temporarily succeeded at a few points in history is because they were facing even greater losers: a complacent and degenerate aristocracy.
The form of government depends on the strength of those who are on top — more precisely, on the power differential between the rulers and their subjects. Thus it was that all primitive forms of government were despotic — big gorillas lording it over smaller ones — and there were no socialistic fagotries in the jungle. As the mass of subjects expands, however, control becomes increasingly harder to maintain, and LIES are needed to supplement the spears and muscles. Finally, when the number of subjects approaches billions the usefulness of muscle completely disappears, and all that remains is lies, lies, lies, at which point democracy comes to the foreground. Communism, on the other hand, is an attempt, initially through lies, to reinstate the supremacy of brawn. Communism BEGINS with lies ("We are all equal!"), but it ends with gulags and execution squads.

If democracy's success then is a sign that the average person has become too strong to effectively control, communism's success is the opposite sign: a sign that the average person is a stupid peasant and that the gap between him and the upper class that's been lording it over him for eons is vast and utterly unbridgeable. That's why communism succeeded in such backwards nations as Russia and China, while failing miserably everywhere in Western Europe (even though the latter invented it via the efforts of a decadent middle-class intellectual). The crude enforced equality that Marx and his unhinged followers preached sounded like heaven on earth for the untold masses of Russian and Chinese peasants, but in the ears of the sprawling, multifarious European middle classes it sounded like the hell that it would indeed have been for them had they not risen up to smash it every time it tried to rear its ugly head. And of course, no one went as far at combatting the communist plague as the Americans. Just as they had rediscovered democracy before anyone else, the largest middle class the world has ever seen sensed the communist menace most deeply, and rose up to face it down. And the rest, as they say, is history. Modern history that quite a few people know, but that no one, besides me, knows how to interpret correctly, precisely because they only know history (i.e. random facts) and nothing else with which to interpret it.

>but when climate change and AI actually start having serious material implications on people's lives I think they will definitely rediscover socialism.
Or the powers that be in the west will give up the last facade of democracy and do us the China way.

Then they read the demons and realize how silly they were

Remember when he got a talk shut down by trannies for a gender critical blog post? Get back to me when the left stops running counterintelligence against itself.

Ever thought that the efforts to integrate socialism in Europe failed not because the gap between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was smaller, but because the Western bourgeoisie simply had more power to choke the revolution? Although you do acknowledge the backwardness of Russia and China before socialists had seized the power in them you ignore the reason of their economic backwardness - absence of worthy colonies in the case of Russia and being the colony itself in the case of China. So, basically, loss of the imperialist game, which means that both these countries a priori couldn't have as well developed bourgeoisie as the West did. So, the fact that revolutions succeeded in these countries rather tells us that it happened due to the incapability of the local bourgeoisie to resist it, whereas in the West it was already powerful enough to surpass put down all the efforts to revolt

Totally silly. Primitive societies aren't "despotic", any actual "primitive government" you have in mind that scares you? Despotic governance arises first with agriculture and fixed labour positions and classes of workers and appropriators. There are more losers who support capitalism today and blame their failures on an "illuminati" or lizard people than support socialism, maybe it's pathological but that's how it is. Obviously the "middle class" of modern/post-modern societies will defend the formal equality of liberalism instead of attacking it like in largly agrarian societies like early 20th century China and Russia. The mass movements there exploited Marxist language but they made no actual sense.

Or maybe orthodox Marxism is just wrong and the development of productive forces doesn't lead to any form of revolutionary consciousness. The peasantry might have been more revolutionary than the working class and with its disappearance also the possibility of revolution.

When has it worked?

Your view of capitalism is laughable my friend. The owner of a game development company is no more intelligent or conscientious than the programmers who toil away for his gain. A simple thought experiment you can do to determine the worth of these overmen you speak of is this: imagine a company without workers and then imagine one without owners. Which one prospers? In case you haven't figured it out yourself I will spell it out for you plainly: workers don't need owners; owners need workers.

Imagine being a socialist

Attached: 9780226320557.jpg (200x302, 35K)

If I were a commie I would definitely view 'intersectionalists' as some kind of nefarious capitalist plot.

Not him, but why aren't all the programmers starting their own companies then? Is there a prosperous game company that has no hierarchical structure with management, decision makers and owners?
It appears you live in some sort of fantasy land.

Unironically start watching Parenti lectures on Youtube. Start with the earlier 80s ones. Parenti goes into the problems with this argument a few times in his early talks.

youtu.be/FUWrgLpazwE

If you're interested in reading any further, read Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds. It's the best way to get into Parenti, and you'll also find a much more indepth argument against the "never worked" argument that liberals make, from an actual Marxist's perspective.

Attached: daddyparenti.jpg (480x360, 7K)

>Not him, but why aren't all the programmers starting their own companies then?
That's impossible. There are multiple worker-owned co-operatives though.
>Is there a prosperous game company that has no hierarchical structure with management, decision makers and owners?
Just because everyone has equal ownership does not mean that there can be no management or hierarchy. Managers are workers too. Is it not conceivable to you that there may be a hierarchy in a company without it necessarily meaning that the hierarch then keeping the fruit of the rest of the workers' labour?

>workers don't need owners; owners need workers
workers need work because they aren't intelligent enough to BUILD THEMSELVES UP to become owners. Rewording your response, it becomes:
>followers don't need leaders; leaders need followers
But then why are there so few sesmic leaders throughout history, and why are they so powerful? And your clumsy response is exposed for what it truly is.

>The peasantry might have been more revolutionary than the working class and with its disappearance also the possibility of revolution
But it wasn't? Before the Russian Revolution child labour in Europe was legal, 8 hour day wasn't introduced, minimal wage wasn't introduced, etc. Hence revolts occurred in Germany, Hungary, Italy and few other countries, not to mention more modest strikes that occurred during the Great Depression. The literal full fucking revolution could have happened in France in 1919-20 if it wasn't for yanks. Workers from all over the Europe were consciously scrapping ammunition and weapons that Entente was supplying the White Movement with. And all these revolts happened under exact same scheme as the similar ones happened in Russia, with approximately the same amount of people. But since the European bourgeoisie was much more prosperous than the Russian one, it could afford putting down all these strikes with more ease than the Russian bourgeoisie did. So, in the end, the success of revolution in some country pretty much solely is a question of its bourgeoisie's power level

*with approximately the same amount of people taking part in them initially

>thinking the CIA still gives a fuck about Communism

Future socialist endeavors without a strong traditionalist (read:nationalist) element will always fail.

>Primitive societies aren't "despotic"
but the most primitive society of all is the most despotic, nature itself. And why do so many "primitive" animals act in a pack with the leaders being the most powerful? Shut up loser lol.

The worker/owner dynamic is not to be broken down to leader/follower. It is a very specific dynamic that entails the workforce producing everything and the owner(s) keeping -- and then selling -- what the workforce produced.
>workers need work because they aren't intelligent enough to BUILD THEMSELVES UP to become owners
There are many intelligent people who are workers. Engineers and scientists for example. Even if everyone were as intelligent as everyone else, not everybody could become an owner (I mean 'owner' here in the capitalist sense wherein the ownership is concentrated into the hands of a few people.), because the production process relies entirely on workers.

>without it necessarily meaning that the hierarch then keeping the fruit of the rest of the workers' labour?
It's a voluntary transaction. The workers get paid for their work. Again, if they think it is unfair they can just start their own company along your ideological lines. But they don't. Why not? Because those people at the top own and distribute things of value. Money, IP, vision, connections. Most workers don't want to, or can't deal with these things, so these things become valuable. In fact so valuable that the people who handle these things get paid vast sums of money more than regular workers. The system works, the company prospers. Short sighted fools like you come along and think the guys who screw together the car are worth as much as the people who envisioned, funded and designed the car.

Not him, but I agree. There are very intelligent workers, but they lack the capital to not be absorbed immediately by higher capital. Intelligence is hardly what leads to success, it's your class background.

>people who envisioned, funded and designed the car.
Those people are not the owners, they are also workers, even if they're well paid workers. The owners of industry are not creative workers.

They decide where to invest their money. Money invested poorly is money lost. Money invested well creates more wealth. That is why people who are good at investing should have most of the money. And that is why capitalism works and socialism doesn't.

Before dealing with the socialism has never worked argument, you first need to burn down fields of straw men and get all involved to agree on the definition of socialism.

This
Read Capital and see Marx's path of reasoning

>There are many intelligent people who are workers. Engineers and scientists for example.
"intelligent" as in the ability to think relatively abstractly, so not true intelligence. Most scientists aren't well adjusted outside of their discipline. Consider that most are socially retarded, physically unhealthy, and ill, and you will learn all you need to know about the intellgence of most scientists. But you view these people as intelligent because you don't know what intelligence is.
And it is leader/follower. The LEADER tells FOLLOWER what to do. The LEADER benefits off the FOLLOWER. The FOLLOWER gets rewarded by the LEADER. This is the nature of the leader/follower relationship. You are running away from this key point because it makes you uncomfortabe.
And for your last point, on the fact that not everyone can become an owner, I agree, because you get your power by it being given to you. I am glad that not everyone can become an owner.

Under an ideal socialist society there would be committees comprised of intelligent individuals which would decide how to invest material. The only difference is that a) they act in the interests of society instead of themselves and b) they have equal ownership of the means of production along with everyone else.

Yes in bumblebee flower land magic fairies will handle the economy.

Also I should add c) they are accountable to the public

>they act in the interests of society instead of themselves
and this is where the descecration of the will begins - and ends - in socialist society.

Not really. The army and the police force and public education and public healthcare is run like this. I don't see these things degenerating. There's no reason to think this would be different when applied to one of the most fundamental experiences of human life -- labour.

Attached: 51ifMENZiuL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 31K)

As if capitalism isn't already building up the infrastructure for it's own destruction. You act like we're still entering data into punched cards. We have incredibly complex systems capable of handling these things, even in the 70s there were already cybernetic socialist projects looking towards this, but it was smashed by Pinochet.

Attached: Cybersyn_control_room.jpg (387x258, 16K)

>military, police force, state-run public education, state-run public healthcare
Aren't all of those poorly managed and huge money drains? And constant cause for complaint on the left?

Will socialism finally work once we have AI overlords?

Has capitalism ever really worked?

The left is effectively a meaningless word now. It's been bandied about to describe everyone from neo-libs like hillary, to moderate socdems like bernie, to anarchists, to tankies, etc. I literally don't know what left anyone is referring to, the neo-libs, the "centrists" the progressives, the full commies.

Unironically I hope so and it's why in recent years I've started to lean heavily into left accelerationism. I think accelerationist theory is the most exciting development for the left in a long time. It's fucking refreshing to see the left updating theory, embracing technology, and even shifting aesthetically to something more along the lines of "post-capitalism" like Fisher.

I have food, water, shelter and endless entertainment, freedom to educate myself and gain status, find a mate, contribute to society. What more would you need?
Oh wait, I forgot you need a nanny who tells you what to do. Because you can't find meaning in your life yourself. Freedom is scary, better become a consumerist or larp radical.

>The army and the police force and public education and public healthcare
all of the people are getting paid, and so acting in their own interest. In fact, those that want a raise HAVE to benefit others to do their job better.

The irony is so deep in this post.

Accelarationism is literally "sit back and watch". It's the product of a worldview which was once important and even hegemonic and now has become anemic,
lost. It's an implicit acknowledgement of failure.

>those that want a raise HAVE to benefit others to do their job better.
The meritocracy has failed, professional improvement is 90% connections 10% being able to fake it.

Even without mentioning your definition of intelligence, you basically left out the first part of the post you replied to that explained why owner-worker relation isn't the same as leader-follower

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

You forgot about the intelligence it takes to fake it, the intelligence it takes to create connections, AND you ignored my point that people who work better, or improve their workplace, naturally rise in a company. Not to mention the intelligence it takes to do even that, not to mention genetic lineage, not to mention the will to acquire, not to mention the will to will, not to mention the intelligence to will, not to mention the creativity to acquire, not to mention the intelligence to creativity, not to mention the ability to conduct yourself, not to mention the ability of charisma, or the will to charisma, or the intelligence to charisma, or the intelligence to abstraction, or the intelligence to rationale.
But no, please ignore all of this so you can feel better. Keep on saying it is all "luck" (AKA magic), and that nobody can do anything to justify your own shortcomings.

I never left it out. His reasoning was "because the owner sells what the worker produces". My response to this was showing that the leaders benefit off followers the same way. I really gotta spell this out for you don't I...

and please do mention my definition of intelligence, because my guess is you can't respond to it. You left out all of my post, and didn't even refute anything I said.

>doesn’t know what a meme is
>Zizek where are the Marxist.jpg
And why am I supposed to respect tankies opinions?

>ha, capitalists are literally communists bro, trust me
Not us materialists fault people are born into bodies they don’t like. Fuck em

Attached: 995D5943-6391-4B2A-AD90-F3240567ED86.jpg (1300x649, 65K)

The EU is socialist and the economie is doing fine, we survived spain and greece
it's pretty comfy not having to worry about paying hospital bills, dentist bills and having a security net when you loose your job.

nb4 not socialism
it's just americans that think communism= socialism

Attached: 1529073244835.png (789x750, 18K)

>t. larper

Leaders don't (at least in the eyes of followers themselves) really benefit off followers unless the followers allow them to. Even in the non-democratic societies authoritarian power exist only due to the fact that subordinates consider it to be surrounded by a halo of some sort of sacredness or untouchableness, so even if the power carrier objectively benefits off his followers they themselves don't think so and consider this kind of power being beneficial to them as well, and as soon as they realise they are being ripped off the power institution changes to the more democratic one. So, to sum up, the leader-follower relation exist ONLY as long as both leader and the followers find it beneficial. And the owner-worker, on the other hand, is a one-side reltion because owner benefits from workers, and workers don't. Owner doesn't commit any sort of labour - because if he did he would be the worker himself - and neither does he offer anything the workers can't get on their own since job vacancies are a product of society's needs and not the owner. So, the existence of owner in its nature is fully parasitic, and therefore owner-worker cannot be considered to be a leader-follower relation, at least a fairly long-term stable one. And as for intelligence, the capacity of being in a leading position isn't intelligence, intelligence is, in fact, the capacity of advanced abstract thinking because that's the primary difference between a human and an animal, whereas even animals have leaders. And I guess there's no doubt that some workers can have good leadership skills

>trying to provide a counter-argument for facts

Attached: what2.gif (200x200, 494K)

>The EU is socialist
the EU is left neoliberal and social programs aren't in antithesis with capitalism, despite what both left wing and right wing burgers would want you to believe.

>Facts
Well, before "failing" socialists did take most countries they had been in charge of to the higher level of prosperity than it was before

the socialist parties have gained almost everything they've wanted over the years. if security net, pension,sickness security aren't socialist what is?

Abolishment of capitalism

yeah well leading a race and then falling to the ground doesn't mean you fucking won

Attached: venezuelan socialism.png (2441x2362, 1.54M)

>capitalism
Meant to say free market

it isn't though that's communism

None of these are socialism, they are socdem or generally center left. Funfact: Mussolini introduced obligatory pensions in Italy.
This, basically.

Muh great in theory platitude

Is capital in the hands of the people? If not it's capitalism. Not hard to understand

it isn't though that's communism

Yeah but it means you could've won it, also don't embarrass yourself with implying there was anything but state capitalism in Venezuela

depends on what you do

Attached: belle delphine estimated monthly earnings.png (1120x262, 47K)

Communism is basically the stateless and classless society, socialism on the other hand is definitely a form of state

socialism can and has been coexisting with many systems, it's so engrand you think those very socialist policies aren't socialism
you're just thinking about communism

>Yeah but it means you could've won it
history doesn't care about what "could have been", it only cares about what happened
how many fucking people have to die for you blockheads to understand that this shit doesn't work

aight, I don't want to argue about this so let's just we have different definitions for socialism and call it a day

emplying the ussr didn't have a state, emplying the peoples republic isn't state, emplying cuba didn't have a state

>muh tankies
Isn't Cockshott an ML? Anyway they are the only ones who got anything done. All you do is make universally reviled posts on the shithole of the internet.
>fuck em
Pretty mean to a exceedingly vulnerable group from a supposed leftist, especially as many of them proclaim to be Communist, but according to you they're frauds and not your comrades, fine, but the point is they fucked your man over IRL for being the wrong kind of feminist and can do so again at will, and you're totally impotent against them.

Nowadays China is the last bastion of the immanentization of the eschaton. Once China fucks off, if it ever fucks off, we will finally have respite from this madness.

history doesn't care about what "could have been", it only cares about what happened
True, and what happened is the proof that socialism works
>how many fucking people have to die for you blockheads to understand that this shit doesn't work
Implying more people didn't die and are still dying because of capitalism

They all did and that's why they all were socialist states. It's not like I give you my personal definition of communism, that's literally what the Marx himself said

Yer tankies. I don’t care what Cockshott is, he wrote a book about non accumulative currency that we need to implement ASAP
>the point is
Clearly moot.

if toilet paper shortages means socialism works then i'll fucking die before i let it come to my country

Well, there are lots of capitalist countries in the world whose native population has never ever heard of what toilet paper is, so I'd die to get the capitalists out of my country knowing that my country can be next one day

Get a bidet

I'd read about places with function and nonthreatening socialism that got sacked by the west and examples of certain groups excelling under socialism to show the "worked vs failed" to be a largely compromised framework. Also keep in mind most of these countries developed from very little, often without the west's favor like post-war Japan.
>Harsch - Burkina Faso
>Sankara - Thomas Sankara Speaks
>Ghodsee - Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism
>Medina - Cybernetic Revolutionaries
>deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/40198/wp812.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

dont reply to me you maggot

Based

Attached: 0_nA3iCMzWgBJjlzXx.jpg (600x401, 82K)

If it was really so urgent you'd summarize his proposal for us instead of continually shitting out white noise just to be a nuisance.

i was under the impression that thomas sankara was assassinated by a rival, not the west
is this not the case?

Read it Or a review or watch his YouTubes, I don’t care. It is urgent, but disingenuous of you to think I could get it implemented by summarizing it for a bunch of mules

>not my job to educate you
Typical combo of lazy, pompous and impotent. If you weren't so tedious it'd be a good satire on the absolute state of the Left.

>Hello, I have not yet deduced that the USSR was state capitalist as said by Lenin himself yet I will go into this thread with full confidence as I have watched atleast 4 hours of Jordan Peterson videos.

Capitalism only works in the west due to the constant exploitation of the third world. This is why social democrats are called liberals by the far left.

This post is projecting hard

>emplying
>thinking any of those are communists
What a fucking retard

They’re called liberals because the import individual subjectivity into their ideology and aren’t historical materialists.

Its scary to think white people will end up eating bugs and being shuttled around in electric dumpsters in a vain attempt to save the world as India and China's CO2 emissions grow exponentially and the population of Africa grows massively.

I once had a fairly liberal History prof say something along the lines of "anyone who talks about global warming without addressing massive human population growth in third world countries is not serious about the subject"

and this was a guy who had a hay/earth dome house in Taos

almost as if those in power care more about third worlders than white people.
social media was bombarded with those fucking "eat bugs or else" articles that Coincidentally™ all went up at around the same time. almost as if it was an attempt at conditioning.
haha wouldn;t that be crazt lmao like could you imagine haha lol

Attached: 1549585082648.jpg (1200x928, 183K)

>giving people money is exploitation

Aight what is socialism then

>being so retarded you misinterpret irony bros

There is a working Communist society today: Cuba. Cuba is your model if you are a Communist.

>Nowadays China is the last bastion of the immanentization of the eschaton. Once China fucks off, if it ever fucks off, we will finally have respite from this madness.

It will never go away.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachimites

Communism. 12th century.

Its weird to me that even anticommunists treat communism as if it where some unique idea. Egalitarianism, abolishing private property and the dissolution of hierarchies have been idealist cliches since Ancient Greece.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculturalism

I don't think it's just that they care more about the third world but that they have realized that the third world provides a better system to centralize power and safeguard corruption.

The president of my third world country is running circles around public opinion and genociding the presumption of innocence because decades of anti-politician propaganda has been spread through media and people believe all politicians are crooked with no exceptions; when a politician with a clean record steps up to denounce collusion and bribes nobody cares unless it can be shoehorned into an anti-opposition narrative, which is ironic because the president always likes to talk about how Venezuela is a totalitarian state and shit.
If you're an elite, a shithole like Lula's Brazil is the best system to keep yourself in power and don't fear the possibility of a revolution; the people will be too busy calling each other racist and fighting for the bread crumbs to turn against you.

>a lot of people don’t agree that it’s never worked
A lot of people are fucking morons, what’s your point?

is there an article or something that elucidates on this particular topic in greater detail?

>Socialism
The workers owning the means of production (usually in the form of the state). This implies the abolishment of private property and central state distribution of economic resources.
People get rewarded proportional to their contribution to society.
Socialism is supposed to develop into Communism eventually.

>Communism
A society without state with flat hierarchies. Resources are shared with the community. Also no private property. Only limited personal property.
People all get the same, which is whatever they need.

>"Nation X is socialist"
>"Nation X is communist"
Usually means the country is run by Socialists who wish to establish Socialism, but they did not manage to do it yet. Prime example being Venezuela. There were very rarely any actual Socialist states, usually it only works for a short period of time and then degrades to state-capitalism. But there were quite a few states run by Socialists.

damn thats disgusting if you need to share your toothbrush with neighbours just because they need it too. communism is for stupid nigger's

I am so sick of people conflating socialism and communism. Thank you for this post

:3

No. When the left complains about these things it's usually along the lines of "we need more funding". Except for the military of course.

Please ignore everyone here and read or listen to Michael Parenti on this issue. A ray of light in the darkness of history i swear.

Nice.

Attached: 48a9ca0f0e2c34a05be335f4299ddac9e916f23b.png (1139x690, 1.08M)

I'll bite, private property != personal property

.

Attached: greek assemblywomen.jpg (867x1000, 375K)

>to the public
This here lays is a real reason the communist system fails no one every talks about
Worker ownership is just a silly way of saying Public ownership is just a fancy way of saying state ownership. Oh, You think your boss is bad now? Image your boss is now the State with the power of the police if you dare to quit or slake off. Now your boss is 1000x worse. You are literally a traitor if you cross your boss.
Communism entails a centralism of powers that is necessarily brutish to be effective. Worker ownership in any country bigger than 100 people is a mirage and all that really means is state ownership.

Attached: EFEC7550-FC6D-4245-A8BB-37CA7B4A06C8.jpg (570x867, 65K)

GDR was pretty functional. It just relied on 500,000-2 million snitches.

but you still need to hand over your personal laptop if there's a specia situation and government needs it more right? stupid system for stupid people. only a nigger or same sort would support a system that ridiculously stupid

>please give me an argument for my failed ideology!!

>GDR
that place will NEVER catch up, economically, to west germany and is considered a parasitic part of the country

Wow its almost like they tried real communism but it always ends up a totalitarian dictatorship because thats the only way the theory can function

thinking.jpg

Attached: 26c069720259bf2baf1a6ea0578de8677674a678.jpg (1285x2777, 552K)

>you still need to hand over your personal laptop if there's a specia situation and government needs it more
According to whom?

communism

Does Cockshott's argument ammount to much more than "computers will do it this time"? Does he ever adress why Allende's "cybersocialism" failed HARD?
I used to somewhat care for Paul, but the general non-sphistication of his arguments and him really pulling some full retard moments like "the problem with marginalist economics is there's too many variables therefore the LTV is right", and also the fact that he doesn't seem to be taken seriously by anyone outside of his 300 tankie youtube followers pulled me away

Ever heard of that little game company called Valve?

Attached: 1557158807096.jpg (638x1000, 61K)

>checks those numbers on the bottom axis
oh shit nigger

No?

>derr computers
Woh dude, cheap shot.
Wtf

are you the butterfly chick from /g/?
if so, post legs again.

Never been to /g/
Post her legs

don't got em, that's why I am asking :(
I assumed you were as you were talking about computers
The butterfly ID must be a popular one then.

I mean, Pipes does everything OP is looking for in about 100 pages. I think it’s a pretty clear intro to arguments against communism and its basic tenants.

I knew you were a shitty poster but I didn't expect you to be completely unable to have a real discussion

Ah yes they haven't released a finished product in years because they can't seem to focus their efforts upon a single goal. Would you look at that.

How much of that is communism vs growth from industrialization, like in other capitalist countries?

Attached: 1556442442201.jpg (1021x1200, 269K)

In reply to

Yes? The chart is presents relative growth, not absolute values. West Germany had initially more than double the GDP per capita when compared to the East, but the latter was on a course of eventually catching up.

Have you read that piece of shit called communist manifesto? They want a world where *private* is a thing one wouldn't even wonder about. It simply wouldn't exist.

The distinction between private and personal, check it up.

I'm talking about private. Your backpack is in your possession but not your privately.

Btw the private vs personal meme is just damage control of victims of failed system.

That's because backpack is your personal property as you don't use it to make money off exploiting proletariat. I don't even know what the fuck are you arguing for, the distinction between private and personal is given in Kapital

>The gommunists want to steal your toothbrush

Capitalist countries never grew out of industrialisation, they just partially moved the industry to the third world countries while preserving capital in their respective homelands

Backpack is my personal property but when the need comes, government can take it from me and I cannot (and wouldn't) do anything about it because that's how it is. You can have it in your possession as long as it's not needed for the greater good. I wasted month reading the shittiest manifesto ever and found out that you basically own nothing.

That implies to any authoritarian regimes, not exclusively socialist ones.

Maybe, but at least I could cry and yell how unfair that is. A communist cuck would just agree with it as everything is done for the great ideology (religion) he has committed to. Cuckest ideology there is.

>A communist cuck would just agree with it as everything is done for the great ideology (religion) he has committed to.
Once again, that's what would any enthusiastic supporter of any authoritarian ideology do

what a bunch of cucks

Ikr?

Even a collections agency can grab your backpack, or a thief. Your point is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with socialist or communist theory.
You're struggling against a strawman that's in your head.

oh my god i would actually fucking kill myself if that meant i could be bullied and sexually teased by nagatoro

thief != government. your ideology is a total failure and will always be. suck it down.

This copy/pasta?

The dude thinks pulling the computer card discredits the man. I disagree. I guess there’s no response.

>worked
yes, an incisive and scholarly book that deals with whether a political ideology "worked". fucking hell lad, cringe and bluepilled

Another answer for OP

Attached: B6BA8D12-8AC7-4538-8AE0-8FDF9968FE67.jpg (445x600, 54K)

Did Dore actually feature Cockshott's book on his show? I've seen this meme picture a million times but I wouldn't put it past him to be sent it on Twitter and throw it up there.

What do you mean? He is a meme on places like /leftypol/, but I think still largely a nobody for the mass of Bernie fans and DSA twitterati that listen to podcasts like Chapo. And his meme status is endearing, people who know about him love Cockshott for being a weird old Marxist academic who posts shitty powerpoints on youtube.

It’s just a shoop. He’s had Wolff on a couple of times, but no Harvey or Cockshott.

>socialism will fix the climate

Attached: B469614A-B512-493D-86B2-70DCFDBCD743.jpg (1200x1465, 260K)

>He pretends not to know what neolonialism is.
You sound like you'd argue that slaves should be given small wages to make it 'fair' if you'd have lived a century ago.

Heh, you think you've got me, but have you considered??? Their cars aren't cool?!?!?!?!?!?!? t. turning point USA gang

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Cuba is the best-developed Marxist-Leninist state today.

How come the private sector in Cuba is steadily increasing (8.1% in the 80ies to 22% now)?
And how come Cuba has a trade deficit of 4.5 billion USD (2.4exp, 6.9imp).
And how come Cuba has a debt as high as 38% of its GDP?
How come Cuba recognized the buying and selling of private property?

This is a vile pro-imperialist screed against the success of the proletarian revolution in Cuba.

No, the
>Allende tried computer-run central planning and it failed
>His stupid dismissal of the subjective theory of value which noone should accept
>His general unpopularity amongst academics and anyone outside of his cringy youtube followers who are all tankies

>Allende
>Died: September 11, 1973
>computer

>Towards a New Socialism
>1993

Attached: 8BFBCCCB-6501-4FA4-9336-5648A5B88FAC.jpg (1280x720, 93K)

So it's a "oh we have better computers now, trust me it will work"
Is there any reason to believe that the reason Allende's socialism failed BECAUSE of the potency of the computers and not because of the impracticability of central planning?

Is there any reason to believe the CIA didn’t fund a coup in Chile? No? Thought not.

>central planning is bad
I don’t even advocate state socialism, tweaker

Do u actually know anything about it, or are you just under the vague impression that Cybersyn ran Chile, and Allende got coup’d because Cybersyn was bad?

They didn't fund it so much as give a green light. The military did the rest on their own.

The economy was already tanking hard when the military took over, it literally doesn't come to the case that the US was involved, which it was.

I'm a literal far-leftist, but this fanboyism is embarrassing
I'm simply asking why the economy of chile failed and what's the difference between cybersyn and paul cockshott's cybercommunism.

Also I wanted someone to defend his stupid opinions on the LTV's validity but noone seems to want to

>I'm simply asking why the economy of chile failed and what's the difference between cybersyn and paul cockshott's cybercommunism.

It failed because, similarly to Venezuela, Chile's access to foreign currency for vital imports was based largely on resource exports, mainly copper. The price of copper collapsed in the mid to late part of Allende's short presidency, and hyperinflation set in. Unlike Maduro, Allende even attempted to cutback on spending to not bankrupt the country. Which is just to say, he was actually quite moderate.

But his economic policy, which was effectively only in action for a year before the downturn in export revenue, was modestly successful. In the downturn years he had to also contend with the normal sabotage and capital strikes that happen everywhere else a socialist gets democratically elected. Cybersyn was only really used towards the end of his presidency, and it was basically a bunch of fax machines. However, they assisted in communication, as could be expected of a bunch of fax machines. The country's economy was still dominated by a private market with a couple of nationalized industries that are typical of many nations today. Allende probably had more vision than somebody like Chavez, but practically he wasn't very different. He took control of the big resource extraction industries, the international market tanked and he weathered a recession that persisted well into Pinochet's administration. The economy didn't really surpass its former heights until the late 70s, which means Pinochet presided over a period of recession longer than Allende was even in office.

>Also I wanted someone to defend his stupid opinions on the LTV's validity but noone seems to want to

I don't know what this means tho

Do you realize that most of the issues we have with the climate are due to rampant unchecked capitalism/lack of proper regulation?

>Any books that deal with the 'socialism has never worked' argument?
Yes; they're called HISTORY BOOKS.

>this is what college commies actually believe

Attached: 1ABBE99E-7DD8-41FA-AEFA-8BEFBE44B891.jpg (1024x943, 89K)

>tho

Allende opposed the Anglo-Zionist axis, that's why he got memed on, dumb amerilard.

Why are lgbt entities so prone to socialism/communism do they see themselves as the intellectual elite that will lead the masses or something?

I have no interest in your bourgeois norms of how to spell words

It has never been attempted though.

>the Western bourgeoisie simply had more power to choke the revolution?
Were do you think power comes? The bourgeoisie is just as powerful as people let them be and if people are comfortable enough they will let the bourgeoisie reign over them.

>I'm a literal far-leftis
UBI or non accumulative currency?

Born and raised a Christian conservative, I peeled that all back to something less hostile to my very being. It’s pretty obvious in hindsight, but I took my time doing it mind you

Socialists should argue more about how materialism isn't all there is. Socialist economies were overall an indefensible shitshow.
I would love to be born in cuba or north korea. at least I would have a job and a gf

Attached: bxe1gg7nk4t21.jpg (901x901, 74K)

The central contradiction of state communism, that it seeks to undo power inequality in society by concentrating all power in the state, thereby incresing power inequality, is a given.
But with regards to you closing line, have you ever heard of Mondragon?

>Socialists should lie
>and capitalist media never lies btw

You’re awful. I’m sorry. What the hell man

Hanging chapo commies is going to be a future pleasure of mine. Try it faggot.

The largest polluter in the world is the US Department of Defense.

China is the only country that pollutes more than the US per capita but they are enacting extreme reforms which seem to be reaching Paris Agreement goals well ahead of their agreed-upon date. That shouldn't be surprising, considering how powerful the state is, and how inescapable the pollution is.

It is really interesting however to think about the ways that different ideologies are responding to the climate crisis. Neoconservatives and fascists who aren't in flat-out denial seem to be developing new forms of colonial narratives. Because subjugating poor non-whites has solved every problem the West has ever had, with no unforeseen consequences at all, right?

Chinks, pajeets, and niggers account for the vast majority of pollution. You know this is incontrovertible, right.

>Socialism is good in theory

Attached: D0902F37-5080-4F7B-9D31-C0ED5296091F.png (645x773, 11K)

Wrong and fuck off back to /pol/

Ok pal, you are going back to r*ddit soon? Why can't you just be an insufferable faggot there?

Off my board, piggy

>being this retarded

You're a tranny, aren't you namefag.

No.

Aren't all of the socialist 2nd and 3rd world countries the worst polluters?

No.
It’s the first worlders. The US primarily. The military contributes a sizable chunk of it

No their movements just got subverted by academic marxists and now they play useful idiots for the cause

You have to prove that faggot.

Not lying. Socialist countries (maybe not the modern ones) had decent living conditions for it's citizens without the alienation of capitalism - but they had crappy economies.
URSS had a lot of strong points and their economy wasn't one of them. I genuinely believe that their citizens were happier than most westerners living in ultra consumerist economies.

Attached: Screenshot_65.png (936x587, 169K)

>eat a shit ton of grain to be healthy
>reduce fat and protein
That nutritional info sounds outdated.

Read seriously, let the professor explain it.

>A CURE FOR CAPITALISM
>from the author of CAPITALISM HITS THE FAN

Is this a parody or a real book?

None of that shit will do anything for emissions. If anything it would increase. That's just people trying to sell you shit and using whatever excuse possible, as usual. They're trying to create markets and have done so. China pollutes a lot because it is the world's factory, though through economic changes and reform to combat it, they will end up being a leader on this matter despite the huge population. While dumb Westerners play with their social trends induced by companies looking to sell wasteful shit, and ultimately do nothing but virtue signal.

You dumb cunts always blame the third world, thinking killing or subjugating them would fix it. No, your existence is dependent on theirs, and you individually live a life of glamorous waste in comparison. As the presentday and history shows, it would only get worse under the hand of the Western, rather international, elite. If Western countries were destroyed or subjugated, China would head the world and with their centralised (and permanent) authoritarian government they would absolutely do something about climate change, as they already do. The Western world will not, regardless, the Western world is unloyal multinational corporations and international interest groups with Westerners as their puppets. The only aim is profit and breaking down society into one of maximised profit and consumption, hence why people are isolated even from their own families. Everything is subordinate to the state in China's case, and the state and nation are embroiled as one, with the myth of both promoted above other modes of thinking. They are fascist and in a good position, and so extremely powerful and dangerous.

A professor of economics who writes books for people who don’t necessarily want to study economics

Oh. So a retard.

No, he writes for your retarded ass. Learn something

>shilling this hard for China

If you wanna learn about Marxism read Capital Vol 1 (at least) and use David Harvey's lectures if you need help. Ben Fine's book "Marx's Capital" is also very useful. If you read these you will understand why the "socialism has never worked" argument misses the point and convinces no one.
Give up on learning about socialism without taking on Marx, you'll get lost and/or wind up more retarded than when you started no matter where you are politically.

Kek

Marx is the one to read, but if you want something easier to read and less steeped in 18th/19th century classical economic thought, check out Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: a Defense

Is China playing 4D chess and their ultimate goal is actually communism of what?

never underestimate the chinese

Thier goal is to keep the party in power and make a great empire, idoloolgy is illrevelent

No they’re just a bourgeoisie reliant on party-nomenklatura but riding a bigger NEP. So exactly like the Soviet Party.

Truth.
KYS retard
KYS retard

>To say that socialism doesn't work is to ignore that it did work for 70 years.

Utterly based, will cry when he dies.

It's 18D backgammon, anyone who disagrees is ignorant and racist (srs).

You HAVE to go back. You HAVE to. China, India and the USA are the biggest polluters. That’s chinks, pajeets and niggers. You HAVE to go back, chapofag.

This is a play, fiction. Nothing to do with reality.
Also the play is a parody of PLATO's ideas.
In The Republic, SOCRATES says women should've power just like men do, and also SOCRATES says there should be no private property.
Maybe you should study some political philosophy and then come back to Yea Forums to talk about politics, possibly avoiding retarded memes like this.

imagine relying on non-methodologically based early- to mid- 20th century socio-political analysis grounded in (scientific) positivism to address geopolitical realities of an entirely different period of that civilization's progress

>That's impossible.
Found the lazy, talentless socialist hack.

Those were failures at Communism -- that's the ONE THING you idiots are right about. It was going towards the Marxist ideas of "a authoritarian regime to take the power away from the rich and give to the poor" .... EXCEPT it never got to the "give to the poor" and never wil get "give to the poor" because the kinds of people who have the gumption and strength of will/mind/personality to achieve that goal ARE THE VERY PEOPLE YOU NEVER WANT TO HAVE THAT KIND OF POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE.