/lit/ - Literature

I guess that depends on whether or not you see socialism as synonymous with state capitalism.

The only one I can think of is that it only takes a few greedy men to fuck it up for everyone else, but I guess the same goes for capitalism.

There aren't any. Hoist the red flag, comrade.

>>4814759
There aren't really all that many "good" arguments against socialism in the sense of saying why it's bad/wrong. There are, however, reasons for why it cannot realistically work: these factors typically revolve around greed.

>>4814759

Against socialism in the broad, vague sense? None whose axioms I share personally. Try von Mises or Hayek or Rothbard.

Against socialism in the sense of nationalisation of all means of production etc? Just history.

>>4814776
History is more an argument against Soviet models of political organisation rather than economic ones.

>>4814759
Nietzsche

>>4814759
I guess because if done perfectly it would probably lead to stagnation. Human's are lazy fucks naturally and if we don't have some sort of outside pressure the majority of us are just going to shit everything up more then usual.

>>4814778
Workers systematically and willfully slacking off in order to protest state collectivization is a pretty good argument against it. So is the institutional resistance to innovation that might lead to higher quotas.

>>4814785
Surely the institutional problems with innovation were down to political conditions within the USSR?

>>4814788
Nah, innovation requires freedom, which is something rarely alotted to servant classes. After the counter revolution, the Soviets were super strict on what intelligentsia could say

>>4814788
>I have an idea of how we can get twice as much done!
>your guys' new quota is 200% of your previous quote
>good job, dumbass

Because the govt can act dictatorial, leading to totalitarianism.

There's no govt like no govt
Learn to anarchy

>>4814759
There are none except 'muh eighty billion trillion killed by Stalin'.

>>4814759
I want my family to have as much money, power and resources as possible, even at the expense of other families. I want that power to be fungible and hereditary. I want to have the best travel options available to a human, and I don't care if others do, that's their prerogative. I want my mating options to reflect my resources in addition to my looks and social circle, and I don't mind if poorer men lose out because of a lack of resources.
In addition to these things, I want to acquire these things in the most straightforward way possible, and not have to clothe my speech in a party line. I want to acquire resources not through a state apparatus or high-level party membership, but through a competitive (i.e. some people must fail and become middle class/workers/destitute so that others can gain great wealth) free market.
Those are good, logical arguments against socialism. However, it's stupid to put them that way when they can be associated with your name. If you want people to agree to your terms (the terms of how wealth is gained), you have to be more diplomatic about it

>>4814807
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQBW6G0hSrs

>I want my family to rule over yours
>this is a good, logical argument against socialism

>>4814785
>>4814761

>Feminister
I hope you know that most regular /lit/ posters have you filtered. You are childish enough to think you are some special intellectual snowflake on /lit/ that you felt you need to make a tripcode. >>>/x/ is where most females hang out, I think you should go there and come back when you grow up, stop watching the telly and start questioning your beliefs. I have seen your misandric posts, the literature you read and the shit you spew. Don't bother replying, I have seen enough so I will filter you. Don't be offended. One day I will clear you from my filter and see how you are doing in your maturing, I look forward to that day.

Now to answer OP's question. There is no 'logical' arguments against socialism. Socialism depends on the ideologies of the leader and government. Socialism can be a wonderland, but it can also be a shit hole. If the leaders share the flaws of human nature then it won't work out.

>>4814759
It's a bit like trying to put a football in your ass.
You know it'll feel great but you give up half way through and kill your wife instead.

>tfw no one will try international revolution

>>4814759
Its contradicting

>>4814814
I'll answer you in character.
I want to rule over your family only insofar as it guarantees wealth and stability for mine.
It is a good argument, but only if you value yourself and your progeny more than other people and their progeny and are willing to risk normal wealth and stability for huge wealth and stability. It is a good argument for a person who wants to advance their in-group rather than their out-group, which is anathema to socialism

>>4814807
lol, careful with that edge, son

>>4814844
I will dad :)

Logical? First, if you agree that initiating violence is always wrong aside from self-defense, its wrong from the start.

Second, if you believe that the bourgeoisie or whatever bogeyman is exploitative and greedy, then why create an even bigger bourgeoisie, but one that also centralizes violence?

Socialism and Nationalism run on blind faith in abstractions, which is dangerous. The capitalist factory owners are evil, but the state isn't. But there is no "state", it too is just a group of people working together to force the populace to do what they want, just like a factory is a group of people voluntarily working together to produce a good to be sold for their mutual benefit.

>>4814862
>Second, if you believe that the bourgeoisie or whatever bogeyman is exploitative and greedy, then why create an even bigger bourgeoisie, but one that also centralizes violence?

Who would be exploited? What do you mean "centralizes violence"? Socialism doesn't have to be achieved through violence. I don't see your comparison of Socialism with Nationalism

I don't think so.
The only one I can think of at the moment is that:
Socialism may never exist as a viable concept for as long as there is money. As long as money exists, there will be at least one greedy person who can fuck up the system one way or the other. When money is put aside and a new system without it emerges, then a perfect correlation of the state's actions and the people's needs can be achieved.

a society of a certain size will naturally tend to establish over time some sort of hierarchical social structure because it's the most effective way to keep things organized.

and the larger it is, the easier it is for the powerful to exponentially extend their power.

so socialism isn't necessarily impossible but highly unlikely.

it can only truly exist in an anarchical, disorganized society; but that makes it very vulnerable against any hierarchical society because hierarchical societies work as one, while a disorganized society works as a thousand fragments.

or so i believe

The thing about socialism is that it's not anarchy.

>>4814878
wouldn't any kind of socialism that's not anarchy be an authoritarian dictatorship and ultimately not really socialism?

>>4814870

>who would be exploited

The workers and the population in general. Workers have their bargaining power and freedom taken from them.

Centralization of violence is key to Socialism. If the state cannot force people to be socialist, naturally the hierarchy of the workplace is possible again and will in all probability crop up.

Socialism does have to be achieved through violence. Socialist ideas and methods don't, but Socialism as a economic system does. It cannot sustain itself without robbery through tax, without forcing the socialization of key industries and without a state.

Socialism and Nationalism are very similar. Both take an abstract idea, like "the nation" or "the state" and holds it as sovereign.

You could argue that everyone has the right to be selfish and egotistical. That they have no obligation to assist their fellow man.

>>4814879
Yes. But I think any socialism that's anarchy will ultimately be weak enough for a man born violent to penetrate and destroy, and ultimately lead to authoritarian dictatorship, which will not be socialism.

>>4814895

Any state is violent in the first place, and if such men exist, the state is what they're going to be attracted too. Peaceful men do not need to force others to do anything.

>>4814895
which was my point
>>4814876

>>4814906
Peaceful men belong in monasteries, not interacting with the world at large.

>>4814906
peaceful men don't exist, not in the way you picture them. neither do peaceful women.

hierarchy builds out because it is useful, not as a tool of oppression. it just tends to become one quite inevitably.

>>4814912

Don't be retarded. I assume you're a peaceful person. Dave in bakery store is a peaceful person. Anyone who does not initiate violence is peaceful. I know I am, I haven't hit anyone or forced anyone to do something since I was a small child. Maybe you're just projecting.

>>4814913

There's nothing wrong with hierarchy, in fact, hierarchy is important. Its important to understand your role and responsibilities in the work place, in society and in the home. These are all peaceful hierarchies. A hierarchy maintained by violence however, is inefficient and wrong.

>>4814917
inefficient in some cases, wether it's wrong is subjective. a hierarchy will likely at some point be maintained by violence, because violence spreads. there's not an area of the world that hasn't at some point been ruled by violence, in fact, most areas of the world are ruled by violence to some degree right now.

>>4814917
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, man. But I do think a lot of workers are peaceful. When I said not interacting with the world at large, that was harsh, but I'm a bit angry at these monastic-seeming people lately.
I just fear them being unjustly harmed. Peaceful people should be left at peace, warlike people should be free to war. I just think the war lifestyle is more generally attractive when people are exposed to both ways, and think it'd be best if we made places for peaceful people like communists and monks and nuns and that peace type of buddhist to stay and be happy and make wine and talk about their favorite things and love each other in the way they think it's best to love each other. But they have a tendency to be too open, and I fear they'd be too nice and let somebody devious into their midst.

So maybe there should be open ones and closed ones, for the more and less daring of peaceful people.

>>4814921

Inefficient in all cases bar the purpose of violence. No-one hires bakers, footballers or CEOs on the basis of how strongly the can force people to do things.

A hierarchy may crop up based on violence at some point in the future in a stateless society. I'd contend that its more likely to just continue within the state, but so what? Violence is wrong, allowing one group to be violent in order to stop violent groups forming defeats its own purpose. Whether its wrong is not subjective if you agree with the non-aggression principle. "Violence in all forms except self defense" is not a subjective statement, just as "The existence of seals on Pluto has not been scientifically proven" is not a subjective statement.

I agree violence spreads violence which is why its important advocate and live non-aggression.

>>4814923

Its got nothing to do with "monasticism", I'm not even a pacifist. If someone is using violence, there's nothing wrong with fighting back. Its simply that initiating violence is wrong, and I'd wager 99% of people agree with that statement. If you steal, abuse or harm others, you're a bad person. Its just that people don't extend this concept to the state, when there's no reason not to.

>>4814936
I don't think it's "monasticism" either. I think the monasteries rose to suit those people, I don't think the monasteries made them.
I think in a post-scarcity society, there's no good reason not to initiate violence.

The totalitarian problem - people who control who produces and consumes what will essentially have absolute control over lives of others that even absolutist monarchs of 17-18 century could not imagine, without any checks and balances.
The incentive problem - there is no reason for anyone to work hard or efficiently since all are remunerated in accordance with the amount of time they spent working.
The calculation problem - there is no way for subjective utilities to enter into the centralised planning system unless bureaucrats who manage it arbitrarily assign those.
Well, and of course eventually you run out of other people's money.

>>4814962
>Well, and of course eventually you run out of other people's money.

Neoliberal please go.

>>4814946

Monasteries rose to suit monks, I am not a monk. In a monastery, I would not be free to pursue my own objectives through appropriating property. I don't agree with non-consumerism, I don't agree with anti-materialism, I don't agree with religion. I just say "initiating violence is wrong". That's all.

Hopefully there never is a post-scarcity society. The only point scare resources will stop needing to be distributed is when humanity peaks. Post-scarcity means we will have stopped expanding, and we will have exploited all we possibly can exploit. At that point, we will consume enough resources to go back to pre-scarcity, except knowing that someday soon it will all have run out.

>>4814936
>No-one hires bakers, footballers or CEOs on the basis of how strongly the can force people to do things.
violence isn't necessarily forcing anyone to do anything. anyways i'd disagree, CEOs are definitely forcing people to do all kinds of things, it's kinda their job. not in a perfect world, but you know. footballers too, to some degree; but it's just aggression rather than violence. what is winning but dominating. bakers, idk, but those are very far down the food chain.

violence is natural - it's there all throughout nature. i think it's not very useful to say that it's wrong when morality in general is so heavily debated. "violence in all forms except self defense" isn't a subjective statement, but how you apply it is. "violence in all forms except self defense" is just a description of a behavior, there's no moral judgement involved per se.

i used to agree with your stance but let's be real, when you look back at history there's always been people like you and they've always said the same things and it seldom changed anything for long, or at all. makes me think these people are just there to have that one opinion while the other people are there to have the other opinions. just an opinionated society in homeostatis. what worth is the opinion "violence is wrong" if it can neither be completely proven nor is ever thoroughly applied on a broad basis.

i say, violence is natural and inevitable. it's something that occurs because we're human beings and it's within every one of us, just like love, just like greed, just like compassion.

>>4814977
Oh, you're capitalist. You do know money itself is nothing but a threat of violence, right?
Are you a Jew or an American or what the fuck is wrong with you? Money is what matters? Numbers on a piece of paper? Fuck yourself.

>>4814997
>is you the jew
oh boy

>>4815005
Why did that stand out and not "American"?

>>4814759
meritocracy

>>4815015
because it's obviously the more blatantly incendiary one. why did you have to bring it up at all? how is it helping your argument?

and i'm not the guy you've mostly been replying to, i'm >>4814992
i'll just namefag for the rest of the thread for some clarity

>>4814992

They all use aggression to motivate a group, but the individual does what he is told of his own free will. My boss has shouted at me before, but I didn't "have" to do what he told me. I could of called him a cheeky cunt and walked out at that moment. Your boss won't follow you to your home and put you in McPrison or execute you for refusing to flip burgers. The group of mass robbers known as the "police" will if you don't pay them x amount per year.

I disagree with the "violence happens in nature therefore we should accept it" stance. Violence may be natural, but so what. I don't deny they won't be people like Anders Breivik in a stateless society Brievik, but they exist within the state anyway.

Just because what I or other ancaps say may be ignored someday doesn't mean it shouldn't be said. Everything people say may not be listened to in long run, Hitler certainly isn't taken seriously by most people anymore, neither are the founding fathers.

>>4814997

Its always nice to see a Socialist see red. Money is not the threat of violence. The dollar is, but the dollar is not money. Gold is money.

I'm not a Jew or American, I'm British and I'm probably whiter than you ever will be, being a basque Englishman and not a saxon. Not that me being a Jew or an American would have anything to do with what I'm saying. Money is not what matters, scarce resources being distributed is what matters. Pull your head out of fairy land, of course resources going where they need to is the most important fucking thing, a plant can't flower without its stem.

>>4815025
I think an American would've taken exception to American. I should have said "You filthy American piece of shit, choke to death on a burger, faggot, and fuck your fat wife who fucks niggers while you vote for a nigger president", as that would certainly have been less incendiary than the word "Jew". In the future, I'll refrain from using such ugly words as that.

And the point wasn't to aid my "argument", friend. It was to give me an answer. I threw some guesses out, and wondered if they were right. They apparently were not, otherwise you two wouldn't have gotten so annoyed! But I have to go to class now, I'm already going to be late. See you later, my ambiguous friend

>>4814883
This is an issue of any utopian ideal, what to do with the people who don't want your conception of utopia

>>4815038
>British
Yeah, American, like I said. Enjoy your Hollywood language, pal.

>>4814972
look mom i used the word neoliberal!! that sure got him11!

>>4815045

There's no such thing as "utopian ideals". Hitler had utopian ideals, and I'd wager he would have succeeded if he hadn't invaded Poland. Stateless society won't be a utopia, nothing ever will be because humans have a diverse range of behaviors.

>what to do with the people who don't want your conception of utopia

So violent people? I already said self-defense is justified. Various dispute resolution groups and private defense groups could arise, I can't predict the future however. Somalia never had a state, its law was xeer, which was a voluntary form of law where the two parties and a chieftain talk until a natural agreement is made. That's just one example, but not everything is, or I'd wager can be ultimately, solved by just forcing people to do things.

But all of this irrelevant. Initiating violence is wrong. Slavery was wrong, we abolished it, no-one asked "who would give the slaves jobs? We shouldn't abolish slavery because they might end up homeless."

>>4815047

Are you going to fuck off to class or what? Its obvious you can't defend your position against my super-efficient capitalist mind.

>>4815042
>But I have to go to class now
you do that while i filter you

>>4815038
>McPrison
lul

>They all use aggression to motivate a group, but the individual does what he is told of his own free will.
idk mane. if you refuse to work, lose your job, get evicted, move into public housing and end up with a crack addiction, four kids and on reality TV, isn't that violence? and don't even get me started on free will.

i think if violence is natural the question is not if we accept it - it's always gonna be there, right? - but how we deal with it. i actually think of the breivik thing the other way around. breiviks are avoidable. it's a very specific manifestation of a very unspecific phenomenon. we could surely avoid it or reduce it to some degree by creating more social cohesion, stricter gun laws, etc. but violence will always find a way to pop up again. humans are creatures of habit, not just the single person but the whole lot of us, all throughout history. if there's a defining factor in how much violence occurs, it's probably the size of a population, maybe the resources available. i don't have much faith in free will or will of any kind.

also i had to type this whole thing twice because i hit the backspace after typing it out the first time, fuck me

>>4815063
>Somalia never had a state, its law was xeer, which was a voluntary form of law where the two parties and a chieftain talk until a natural agreement is made.
on a sidenote, this is actually how law worked in china for the most part of the later 20ieth century.

>>4814815
>I hope you know that most regular /lit/ posters have you filtered.
Woe to them
>You are childish enough to think you are some special intellectual snowflake on /lit/
She sure is. Did you know she also posts anonymously?
>>>>/x/ is where most females hang out,
Stopped reading there.
>Most badass high schooler
>anons idol

>>4815125
>>>/x/ has quite a big female audience compared to every other board, with the exception of /soc/ I guess.

Females tend to prefer the lower intellect boards on 4chan. Is this your new trip, feminister?

>>4814759
Depends which socialism.
As much as I have a soft spot for Nozik, Hayek and Revel, I simply have to admit modern social-democracies are the best form of government we ever had.

>>4814759
It doesn't work.
The poor are poor because the are low quality people, giving them the means of production will only ruins things.

>>4815438
I'm gonna go ahead and say that EvolaKid is the worst trip on /lit/

Absolute dribble

>>4815452
I don't like evolakid either but communism is retarded and only creates regimes. Nature abhors a (power) vacuum and just because you can call things you don't like a "social construct" doesn't negate their reality.

>>4815457
It might not negate their "realty" but it certainly undermines their necessity

>>4814783
This. Read Francis Fukuyama's arguments.

>>4815463
Okay well when stronger tribes decided to rape weaker tribes I'm sure that failing to recognize the legitimacy of the take over was a key defense asset, you fucking braindead commie faggot.

>>4815468
Non sequitur

>>4815474
No, it isn't. If you eliminate power structures someone will just create one, your feelings on the matter are moot because it -will- happen. I am not at all surprised you failed the see the abstraction though because as we've discussed, you're a retarded pinko faggot.

>>4815438
oh boy another trip to filter

>>4815485
You seriously think socialism is "eliminating power structures"?

>>4815452
>I'm gonna go ahead and say that EvolaKid is the worst trip on /lit/
>Absolute dribble
>>4815491
>oh boy another trip to filter