Dear communists, socialism has never once worked in history. Give up

Пyтин пoкyпaeт мнe Биг Maк бecплaтнo

Capitalism isn't working either.

Fuck you I'm tired of Democrats trying to turn this place into North Korea.

reply or mom die

Attached: 02-CPAC-Trump-Hugs-Flag.w700.h700.jpg (700x700, 113K)

Бecплaтныe Биг Maки вкycныe
oни нa вкyc нaмнoгo лyчшe, чeм тoт хoлoдный бopщ, кoтopый я eл

look you shut up faggot

I know but you shut the fuck up faggot. I'd fucking pound you irl

OK the next poster who makes an anti-Trump comment will be referred to the proper authorities.

Trump fucks kids

Capitalistic democracies with generous welfare systems yes. But socialist? Absolutely not.

Sweden tried to embrace socialism more and now the entire economy is taking a deep dive (Especially due to the strain that immigration put on the welfare system).

Capitalism is the method that has worked the best across the largest amount of countries of any type.
Is it working 100%? Nope, but its the "Best possible option" that has given the largest amount of people the best possible quality of life so far.

>dear communists, socialism has never worked
Socialism is using taxpayer money to fund something. If socialism "never works" than the US military does not work and should be dismantled.

Prove me wrong.

I want living wages and UBI though in case I decide to take a few months off.

yeah socialism doesnt work, thats why we're communists retard xD

We are communist. We used to worship this skinny ginger dude and now it's this japanese faggot.

Are you a fucking sped?

If there was one and only one rule of socialism; it would be; "taxation is theft"

Socialism makes a hell of alot less sense than you think it does bud

The root word of commumism is commune. A family could even be a small example of a commune. Everyone in the household contributes according to their ability, and receives according to their need.

When this cooperation happens on smaller scales, the scales of neighborhoods, or small towns, and everyone voluntarily agrees to participate, leftist ideas like socialism and communism can work.

When they're forced on an entire nation and millions are slaughtered, as you said, it's despicable and stupid and it always fails.

Socialism works well in Scandinavia party because they have very homogeneous society. I'm sure there are other factors involved, though. When there's a shared cultural narrative and a sense of group membership, it seems like these kinds of systems tend to work better.

There is such a thing as grassroots socialism, and I strongly believe that you can even be a "Conversative" and still support it. Examples are communal green power companies some small communities in Europe (and likely elsewhere) are experimenting with. Community members agree to pay for the shared infrastructure, administer it themselves, and they're also the owners, so their energy bill doesn't include profit going to some guy on the other side of the country wearing an Armani suit,

I know there's one guy on Reddit who detailed his experience moving to a nice part of the country, close to nature, but the internet speeds in his small town near the mountains weren't the best. So he decided to launch his own small internet company. In this particular case, I believe it was one businessman who owned the company, but being part of such a small community, most of his customers were also his neighbours, so he had no incentive to charge them much more than enough to cover the operational costs.

I think Libertarians and Socialists can both agree that devolution (de-centralization) of power is desirable, and perhaps we can work together based on some shared goals.

Do you speak english Nigger?
>muh taxation is theft me-me
Got any real argument or nah?

No idea what you're talking about, you must be from a different board, here's a link back to your cave

Dear OP,
You've spent so much time sucking cock that you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Sincerely, real white people

Forgot the United States.

tl;dr

Attached: 820EA27D-211A-4E56-AAAA-8FF68BB7B081.png (540x432, 274K)

>I'm tired of Deocrats trying to turn the place into Trump's paradise.

Attached: AEB2775D-C034-434A-9856-E94CA1831C67.png (524x499, 89K)

(2/2)
I strongly believe that increased self-reliance and increased cooperation with the people around us will be the solution to our problems. Megacorporations and governments are really just two sides of the coin. We need to learn to work together to solve our own problems and build the things we need if we want real change. Meaningful change cannot, and will not, come from politics and debates. Action is the key.

>gives self participation trophy
Fucking kek.

Brevity faggot look it up

Attached: 703C92FE-C235-448F-93B4-D8124C2ACC0F.jpg (400x547, 79K)

>When they're forced on an entire nation and millions are slaughtered, as you said, it's despicable and stupid and it always fails.
Not to mention it becomes right-wing.

you can read it. it's not that many words. I believe in you

Attached: thumbsup.png (1797x2399, 165K)

So communism works as long as millions of people all agree on a common interest and work together to ensure everyone prospers. And the last time this happened was....never?

Also I stopped reading at "I know there's one guy on Reddit" because obviously you just believe anything that's put into text and fits your preconceived notions.

I hate the whole left/right label. Yes I know I used it in my earlier post.

Could we maybe both agree to replace "right wing" with "authoritarian"? (The opposite of authoritarian of course being libertarian.) Then I would agree with that statement.

That was a real argument. Obviously you can't even comprehend the point.

orange man bad.
jutube / E01PRjmln3g

>unironically thinks taxation is theft

Well, you should found your own country where taxation doesn't exist. Let me know how you keep all them illegals out without a defense force xD

"yeah fuck people who dont want to give their hard earn money to a state which they didnt want or choose, learn to share you shill!!"

Attached: 1AC4957F-01C7-4CDB-9F1E-563B0D807BB0.jpg (666x960, 101K)

I come to you every fortnight and take a certain percentage of your paycheck you’re just going to hand it over to me right?

As long as I promise to “build roads” yeah you’ll just hand it on over?

At that scale there become problems with the very concept of "common interest" and "work together." How do you organize the work of millions of individuals without using a hierarchy? Which... if you're a Communist, you can't have hierarchies, people above to rule and people below to be ruled, so then you've automatically become what you hate. A communist society of millions has to basically be, by definition, the exact opposite of what it claims it wants to achieve. Unless that society is made up of many smaller, self-governing groups who have the autonomy to make their own decisions. These groups can then interact to coordinate the running of a larger society. But the consensus, the root of real power, has to come from the bottom up, not the top down, that's the only way it can work.

dear faggot,
please die

Attached: descarga.png (205x246, 8K)

Authoritarian/libertarian is up/down on the scale

Stay mad, kid.

Depends. Did I elect you into public office?

>"yeah fuck having responsibilities within my society, I don't consent to being taxed!"
Then move, retard. The US was literally founded on the idea that people should be taxed and taxpayers should be represented by the government. And we are. We don't need your hippie ass, vegan deodorant wearing freeloading here.

(2/2)
People have to be free to associate with whichever group(s) they want, or to even go out in the woods and live off the land on their own. If people voluntarily come together to work on a specific project as a group, I think there's no reason why it can't work. But millions of people deciding that one group is going to have supreme authority over everyone, and this group is going to be given power over life and death, then that is problematic.

I'm aware

yeah lets replace a label with another one, great job idiot

Attached: REEEEEE.jpg (654x698, 91K)

What about the Democratic process makes you certain I am going to keep my promise? What about it makes me made of finer moral grain than if I wasn’t elected?

Especially when politicians are well known for not keeping promises, your question seems idiotic.

It depends, do you provide:
-medical research
-defense research
-infrastructure
-judicial system
-legislative system
-technology research
-a vote-based representative system
-education
-a voice on the geopolitcal stage
If so, then yes, because I can vote against your fees any day I so choose. It's how democracy works. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk for children who don't read very good but are good at other things

what I'm actually suggesting is that we replace a line with something like this

it's completely stupid, this whole idea that all political views belong on this one-dimensional spectrum in either the "left" the "right" or the "centre"

Attached: poli_compass.png (220x239, 3K)

>What about the Democratic process makes you certain I am going to keep my promise?
What is a recall election?

>What about the Democratic process makes you certain I am going to keep my promise?
Who said anything about a promise?
>What about it makes me made of finer moral grain than if I wasn’t elected?
The moral grain of representing a constituency which can, at any moment, remove you from your position of power
>Especially when politicians are well known for not keeping promises, your question seems idiotic
Individual politicians do not control the whole governmental promise. Obama promises federal healthcare? That requires the consent of representatives from every state. The promise is now contingent upon other areas to elect similar policies to power.

Do you really need someone to explain how the US government functions? We should really start at the constitution, then.

tf you talking about bitch, the US was funded on the idea that the gov. wont be jumping on it civilians dick, "a goverment made by the people for the people" are you disable? The gov. was not created to gain cash you stupid bitch

Attached: pussy slay.png (502x595, 190K)

k cool

Obama promised to close Gitmo too, and had two years of Democrat Geld Senate and house to do it. What’s the status of Gitmo?

Which never happens. Democratic accountability is as existent as a pink univorn in orbit around Mars

>tf you talking about bitch, the US was funded on the idea that the gov. wont be jumping on it civilians dick, "a goverment made by the people for the people" are you disable? The gov. was not created to gain cash you stupid bitch
It had nothing to do with government, it had to do with a lack of representation in the monarchy system you simple-minded mongoloid
"No taxation without representation" was the rally cry in the time period. This didn't mean "no taxes", this meant that taxes are only moral under a representative democracy.
Guess what form of government America has? Give you a hint, it rhymes with prepresentative dremocracy

please watch this, he explains what my reply was going to be much better than I can: youtube.com/watch?v=2fvGasiOkBY

ok then stop calling socialized health care, rehabilitation, and public education socialist.

>but reee that's socialist !

>Because Obama is a democrat, and the democrats held power for 2 years, he should've closed gitmo
Where's the border wall? Why wasn't that passed in the last 2 years? Maybe because the president isn't the only person representing a constituency you fucking civics class dropout

Huh? Trump declaired a national emergency and funded the wall. They building it, even though studies have already shown it will have almost 0 effect since like 95% of illegals come in via the border and airports lol

Very well put. I don't at all believe communism can be a viable option, but if things were actually run how you say there, and everything remained peaceful, I see where people can find communism appealing. I just don't believe it can be sustained. The greedy, the power hungry, the bloodthirsty, and the needy will always manage to throw that kind of system off balance.

>deflecting to hurr durr Donald Trump bull shit because they don’t have anything left

Yuuuuuuuuup

Attached: 0C680F81-7AA8-414F-AF8F-031460D68B8F.jpg (500x500, 48K)

>watch a 30 minute video from the Cato institute
Yeah, sorry, I'm not watching Charles Koch propaganda for 30 minutes. If you don't understand how a representative democracy works, that's fine, but don't send me to a literal Koch Brothers sponsored video to explain to me how democracy should work according to people paid by the 8th richest man in the world.

Political Science major spotted. Enjoy your career in fast food. Maybe you'll get some actual life experience there.

>deflecting
It's the same situation, retard. The president is not the only voter in the legislative process. In fact, the president doesn't get a vote. Jesus, read the fucking constitution

Trump declared a national emergency instead of passing a bill in the first 2 terms. Same situation. Also, the national emergency won't build the wall, there's going to be a fuckton of imminent domain court cases that go long past President Trump's tenure. Learn how our system works, for the love of god.

>Sincerely, intelligent people

I'll take the compliment, but also kek

They do have a tendency to do that. Hopefully one thing that would help guard against that, is to have it be easily for one individual to freely move between groups, whether that means actually moving to a different geographical location (e.g. different city) or just associating with different people in the same geographical area. Here I'm defining a group as any organization that can exert its will over others. Hopefully the other groups can then act as an immune system if one of them becomes cancerous. And the fragmentation of the power structure and also the direct local ties of each group to the people it actually affects, so there should be less ability for self-serving psychopaths to take things over.

I hope I'm making sense, I'm about to pass out here.

Ants tho

>Which never happens
Guess you've never heard of Gray Davis.

I don't feel like the government represents me at all. The United States is nothing like what the founding fathers had in mind.

>it rhymes with prepresentative dremocracy
Oligarchy doesn't rhyme with that at all.

Also there were no federal taxes until the 1900s. Fuck the feds and fuck you.

>I don't feel like the government represents me at all
This right here is the fucking problem. You just said it. We don't need some 3 hour long debate on what the problem is, we don't need to write a fucking book about it. This is the problem. There is a power structure that you are a subject to, that in theory, you (and your other fellow citizens, of course) are in charge of. Most of them feel the same way. Most of them feel powerless to do anything about it. I think this is probably the founding fathers' worst nightmare

JOIN OUR RAIDING SERVER

discord.
gg/vnESCJW

THE RIDE NEVER ENDS

Dear Ivan, you're not influencing anyone. Give up.

Sincerely, anons of Yea Forums

That honestly sounds a lot like my preferred system of government. I'm pretty conservative (but open minded) and I'd really like to see the country go back to the states governing themselves. Possibly even break it down to the city level. I think that would allow of these communist ideals to actually take place, without switching to communism. It would also allow people who don't agree with those kind of ideals to find a home in another state that might govern in a way the prefer. I don't know if I'm really making sense either. I've been drinking.

>I don't feel like the government represents me at all.
Your community makes up a single constituency, the entire federal government is not made to represent you, specifically. It is made to represent as many people in the country as is possible. This is not a valid "taxation is theft" argument. You have sway in yout local elections, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got elected by a couple thousand votes, and she's on the federal level. You want to change the government? Participate in and understand the process. Or choose a different society to live in, but quit trying to tear this one down because you don't understand congress' constitutional authority to levy taxes.
>The United States is nothing like what the founding fathers had in mind.
Yeah, the founding fathers had slaves and women were property. Also, Lincoln changed things to where the federal government has the ability to usurp state governments.

>federal taxes
You said taxation is theft, not federal taxation. Maybe learn how to make an argument, instead of being a retard. Fuck you, as well, retard

>Possibly even break it down to the city level.
I think you're on the right track, but I am going to point out that so-call "sanctuary cities" are doing exactly that.

False.

It absolutely is their worst nightmare. The warned about this. Time and time again. From the day we became a nation, they warned that this would happen if we didn't keep things in check. They hated this system of government but it was they best they had. So they put a billion safeguards in place to slow down the inevitable takeover of the people. But ultimately it fell on the people of America to keep things in check, and to start a revolution if things started getting out of hand. We failed.

>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got elected by a couple thousand votes, and she's on the federal level.

You say that like it's a good thing. A couple of thousand people made the decision about who represents her entire district. So over 49% of people in that district wanted somebody else. And even the people who voted her in sure as shit aren't going to agree with every decision she makes as their representative,

The whole system is outdated. We can do better.

The founding fathers would've had a fit the second women and blacks were allowed to vote. America was never about the people having power, it was about property owners having power. The system is largely functioning in exactly that way.

If we had no federal government, sanctuary cities wouldn't bother me. Its the idea of bringing in a huge number of people, legalizing them, giving them voter rights, and thus expanding the democrat voter block so much that no other party will ever win again, that's what scares me. If we had no federal government though (or at least if they had VERY little power) it wouldn't even be a problem.

Lol cyuka blyatt.

and the 22 trillion in debt ? IN A CAPITALISM ECONOMY. lol

Republics always fail relatively quickly.

God save the Queen.

People always fall back on modern day social issues to attack the founding fathers. Had the civil rights movements started back then instead of the 1900's how the hell do you know they wouldn't have changed things? When you were born, lived, and died in an era where things like slavery and sexism were common place, literally globally, what do you expect? If millions and millions of people changed their minds about it in modern times, how do you know they wouldn't have changed their minds too, had the same events happened back then.

>>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got elected by a couple thousand votes, and she's on the federal level.
>You say that like it's a good thing.
No, I say it like it's a favt, because it is a fact. Whether it's "good or bad" does not matter, there are enough non-voters that your local politics can be influenced by your involvement. Instead, complain about taxation on some loose, nonsensical grounds.
>A couple of thousand people made the decision about who represents her entire district.
Not voting is a decision. It's not her fault people chose not to vote against her.
>So over 49% of people in that district wanted somebody else
Then they should've acted on that want
>And even the people who voted her in sure as shit aren't going to agree with every decision she makes as their representative
Yes, this is called being human, all humans will make mistakes. Theres is no such thing as perfect representation
>The whole system is outdated. We can do better.
The system is outdated, it has no safe-guards to protect against the influence of campaign donations and the environment of mass media, which allows for the purchasing of votes via advertisement. This has nothing to do with taxation being theft, so we're far from the mark at this point.

I like you guys

Even though we don't all agree, maybe because we don't all agree... otherwise this would be a massive circlejerk. It's been a while since I had a nice intellectual discussion on the internet

I'm gonna go get some sleep, take it easy Yea Forumsrothers

Attached: love_post.png (500x653, 213K)

fuck you !, good night

In my country we have mandatory universal healthcare insurance, mandatory universal disability insurance, great social security, free higher education, etc. also direct, pure (real) democracy, and to top it off all the guns I want just without any gun deaths. We are all rich and happy here. Also our flag is definitely a big plus. Don't know if this is socialism but in your book it probably is, and it certainly works.

>a 30 minute video by TYT is totally legitimate and not propaganda though

Attached: 9574F672-02B6-4577-BE26-0DE9104A7F1E.jpg (1242x358, 82K)

Yeah. Like Venice. The Dominican Republic. Brazil. Argentina. All colossal failures.

>People always fall back on modern day social issues to attack the founding fathers.
Slavery is not a modern day social issue. Questioning its institution was not unheard of in the 1700s.
>Had the civil rights movements started back then instead of the 1900's how the hell do you know they wouldn't have changed things?
I'm sure slaves were killing the slave owners because they liked the way things were.
>When you were born, lived, and died in an era where things like slavery and sexism were common place, literally globally, what do you expect?
I didn't say the founding fathers should be different. I said if they'd be aghast at our current morality. Their morality was not about representation for everyone, and they recognized the need to subvert representation for women, blacks and the poor early on. It's not like they didn't think these things through. Living in a different time is no excuse for literally attempting to destroy others.
>If millions and millions of people changed their minds about it in modern times, how do you know they wouldn't have changed their minds too, had the same events happened back then
(1) the same events couldn't of happened back then because history is linear, it takes a ton of precedent for a social movement to gain traction
(2) It's not like when you fucking kill or enslave people they don't make it known that they're suffering. It's not like when you say "women can't vote" you don't know what you're saying.

I am profoundly unsettled at how you think the founding fathers so ignorant to what they were doing and simultaneously so wise that what their governmental beliefs should be replicated for the entire history of the nation.

Oh hey, I totally said that, and I totally linked a 30 minute TYT video

For the record, I'm a far lefty and TYT is garbage, too. Cenk and Ana, in particular, get tons of praise by lefties when they both have the same rhythm and cadence of the average media reporter. Sorry to break your narrative of left stereotypes, but I don't like TYT or Charles Koch. You want to try to make a valid criticism?

Venice while technically a republic for a while, in practice alternated between despotic effective monarchy and oligarchy for most of its history.
Dominican Republic is a shithole. It's also been a client state for most of its history with only theoretical sovereignty, and the core requirement of a republic is that sovereignty rests in the people.
Argentina and until very recently Brazil aren't exactly resounding successes. They're pretty much shitholes too.

>I am profoundly unsettled at how you think the founding fathers so ignorant to what they were doing and simultaneously so wise that what their governmental beliefs should be replicated for the entire history of the nation.
Well that's putting some serious words in my mouth. My only point was that it took thousands of years for civil rights to finally work and now that it has (ignoring the fact that slavery is still a huge issue) you want to disregard the ideas of anybody who governed or led before civil rights? Or am I misunderstanding? I never said they were "ignorant". When your way of life is "accepted" there's no reason to change. They'd still pull the same shit now if they could. Republicans and Democrats. Hell when the Republicans put an end to slavery to Democrats retaliated by shooting the president in the head. That's just how power works. But to completely disregard their entire idea for a stable and free government based on how society worked back then is downright silly.

>Sweden
>Finland

Nope.

>Well that's putting some serious words in my mouth.
You were claiming that, if civil rights happened during their time, the founding fathers would have probably been cool with it. They most certainly would not have been, or they wouldn't have designed a system specifically against the groups that were liberated via civil rights.
>My only point was that it took thousands of years for civil rights to finally work and now that it has you want to disregard the ideas of anybody who governed or led before civil rights? Or am I misunderstanding?
You're completely misunderstanding. I've spent this thread defending representative democracy, despite the fact that I don't, personally, believe in it. I responded to comments about how the founding fathers' greatest fear was government that didn't represent "me" ("me" of course meaning "the people"). In reality, the founding fathers were actuvely against the majority of people having a representation in government. At least half the people, women, were excluded, and that's not even touching on slaves.
>I never said they were "ignorant". When your way of life is "accepted" there's no reason to change. They'd still pull the same shit now if they could. Republicans and Democrats. Hell when the Republicans put an end to slavery to Democrats retaliated by shooting the president in the head. That's just how power works.
You are actually trying to splice modern political parties into Lincoln's time? You realize the party system was vastly fucking different back then, right?

Also, this is a pretty minor point, but civil rights is "working", now? You realize american society is still segregated, right? Repealing segregation laws doesn't change the fact that the populations of blacks and whites have housing and neighborhoods in difrerent areas. A huge fucking point of modern leftism is hey, we still have a fuckton of inequality and leftovers from racist eras, we should get rid of all the discriminatory shit.

Not socialist, but even then, they are gradually moving to the economic right because their policies were not sustainable.