SOCIALISM BAD

Socialism IS bad. It's a resort for stupid lazy people to larp as Soviets and disguise their envy for the rich that made a life for themselves as compassion for the poor

Attached: shit.png (675x808, 30K)

>he thinks the rich did it themselves
laughing_undergrads.jpg

Most of them did. Even if their parents helped them, this doesn't entitle you to their money. They don't owe you a single penny

>Socialism has authoritarian elements baked into
such as?

how the fuck are you going to manage a big economy without some sort of a central planning board?

Keep kissing ass bro, you might get ahead one day

Keep being lazy and waiting for rich people to pay your rent, weed and bud light

>book has extremely forced love subplot
>distracts the main character from central plot for half of the book
>mostly just filler between equally forced political/ideological passages
it should have just been a few pages long essay. garbage as a book

You can't be serious.

i don’t know what is un-socialist about the fact that most rich people do earn their money in a fair way. i am not even saying i support capitalism, but you can just do the research yourself and see most rich people did not inherit their wealth... they just learned to play the game. Why are you being such a fucking idiot? Is it because you are jealous of them for figuring out the game while you whine about it because ‘socialism’ is your complete identity. Faggot.

>Most of them did.
Nope
>Even if their parents helped them
They did nothing other than get lucky and born into the right family. There is no meritocracy. No social darwinism. On the contrary, the weakest, laziest leeches are right at the top. Even a right winger should be against the current system.
>this doesn't entitle you to their money. They don't owe you a single penny
And they're not entitled to participate in our society if they're not going to contribute in a way we consider fair. As soon as the working classes wake up and realize that they are the ones who hold the power and have been foolishly allowing this tiny minority to steal the sweat from their brow, the sooner we can move towards living in a just world.
>most rich people did not inherit their wealth... they just learned to play the game
Complete bullshit. This is like the people who say Kylie Jenner is a 'self made' billionaire when in reality it's solely due to the family she was born into. If she was born into an ordinary middle class family, she would be a nobody. Fact.

Luckily greedy immoral 'people' like you are on the losing side. We're in late stage capitalism with increasing dissatisfaction as the world burns, living costs soar and wages stagnate. Demographic change alone will ensure that the republican party will stand no chance of winning within a decade. And it all begins with President Sanders defeating the last republican president. And where America goes, the world will follow. Have fun.

Attached: 1575780293873.jpg (955x500, 146K)

>a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
So where exactly did you find the "authoritarian elements baked into it"?

It's a plagiarized version of We which is about communism being bad, so no, you're right.

how is any of that bad

CS Lewis took him to task for the weird sex message in the book. Based boy Lewis at it again.

so this is the power of the highest iq board. pretty pathetic fellas

I skipped Goldstein's book lmaooo fuck that woke shit I just need a good story

Cope poorfag.

Attached: bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-comic.png (1000x1000, 79K)

you let yoiur feelings get the wors of you user, such a pitty, just another sheep in the social decadence.

>What would non-authoritarian socialist be like?
It would look like regular socialism. "Authoritarianism" and "libertarianism" are categories that only apply to societies in which a conflict of interest between individuals is presumed, and where those individuals therefore figure as holders of rights -- a society based on private property. Socialism stands beyond that.

>It seems to be authoritarian by nature (USSR, China, and ETC).
USSR and China were capitalist. Capitalism is indeed authoritarian in nature, because it always involves the communal human essence becoming alienated and constituting itself as a state that controls the individuals instead of being controlled by them, for which it compensates them by granting them abstract rights.

user, socialism is bad. Authoritarian socialism is even worse. Anarchism is an unworkable fantasy land. What's left?

Sharia

Is is ultimately a tug of war between democratic socialism and corporatism, then? What are some of the more remote possibilities for the future of the American polity?

im actually starting to fantasize about this a little bit

>muh Sanders
Sanders is not a socialist, nor he is a radical or the chosen one to bring change to the world. His program is literally Europe minus UK.
You’re delusional if you think Sanders will ignite a worldwide socialist movement. First, he only seems revolutionary to you because you’re a fucking American. Second, he does more harm than good for socialism by association.
I’m fine with the dude and sincerely believe he’s the best for the US, but please, for the love of god, keep your Berniebro liberal-in-denial wannabe-socialism away from my ideology.

is for (you)
bourgeois-lite boi

>How the fuck are you going to manage the ocean without a some sort of a central planning board?
Is what you sound like.

>USSR, China, and ETC
all large, long term 'socialist' projects have been based on the politicals theories of Lenin and Stalin. The simple reason for this is the Cold War. Non-aligned countries were quickly invaded by the U.S. and their choice was either align with the USSR and adopt ML doctrine or be crushed. They did develop the ideas (MLM, Juche, Hoxhaism...) but were fundamentally based around things like Democratic Centralism and the cult of personality which have an authoritarian bent.

That being said most of socialist countries were/are not the hell holes that they are depicted to be in cold war and post-cold war propaganda from NATO aligned countries. In the USSR, for instance, calorific intake was higher than the US. Post-socialist Russia had a far worse quality of life for many, many years (search 'the Russian Cross'). Mao's so called '10 million murders' were the result of natural famine caused by tremendous drought. Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems on the world. Not that these disprove the accusations of authoritarianism.

And, although hardly relevant to your question, liberal democracies offer no more political enfranchisment to authoritarian countries, excluding the Islamic monarchies which are propped up by the governments and corporations of the liberal democratic west.

Wealth comes as a result of luck and ownership, not skill and work. If Jeff Bezos was the best parcel delivery man in the world he would be poor. He made a lucky decision and was able to see it grow into a leviathan of international exploitation.

Without rich people there would still be apartments, weed and bud light. Without workers there would not.