/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11292195
>economics
>>>/x/

>>11292195

>>11292208
This but capitalism. It was just crony capitalism! It was Jewish influence! It was government interference!
Or the reverse when a socialist country does good. China is capitalist when they lift hundreds of millions out of poverty and socialist when they commit human rights abuses. When Venezuela's economy was doing well, it was because 70% of the economy was in private hands. The government being socialist is irrelevant -- Venezuela is capitalist! When the economy is doing poorly, 70% of the economy being privatized is irrelevant, the government is socialist. Venezuela is a socialist failure!

>>11292218
cope

>>11292218
>China is capitalist when they lift hundreds of millions out of poverty
Correct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

>>11292195
>>11292218
>In December 1978, eighteen of the local farmers, led by Yen Jingchang,[5] met in the largest house in the village. They agreed to break the law at the time by signing a secret agreement to divide the land, a local People's Commune, into family plots. Each plot was to be worked by an individual family who would turn over some of what they grew to the government and the collective whilst at the same time agreeing that they could keep the surplus for themselves. The villagers also agreed that should one of them be caught and sentenced to death that the other villagers would raise their children until they were eighteen years old.[5][6] At the time, the villagers were worried that another famine might strike the village after a particularly bad harvest and more people might die of hunger.[6]

>After this secret capitalist reform, Xiaogang village produced a harvest that was larger than the previous five years combined.[5] Per capita income in the village increase from 22 yuan to 400 yuan with grain output increasing to 90,000 kg in 1979.[6] This attracted significant attention from surrounding villages and before long the government in Beijing had found out. The villagers were fortunate in that at the time China had just changed leadership after Mao Zedong had died. The new leadership under Deng Xiaoping was looking for ways to reform China's economy and the discovery of Xiaogang's innovation was held up as a model to other villages across the country. This led to the abandonment of collectivised farming across China and a large increase in agricultural production. The secret signing of the contract in Xiaogang is widely regarded as the beginning of the period of rapid economic growth and industrialisation that mainland China has experienced in the thirty years since.[5][7]

>>11292218
>This but capitalism.
But capitalism works >>11292221

based and historical materialism pilled

>>11292195
Mods, do you stupid ass job

>>11292228
t. has no idea what capitalism is
A family owning a plot of land, being the ones who work the plot of land, and keeping the profits for themselves is not capitalism. That's socialism, because the people who work the MoP collect the profits from the MoP.

>>11292223
Great, then all the humans rights abuses are the result of their capitalist government too.
>>11292235
Capitalism killed 200,000,000 people last decade because it was deemed more profitable to let resources go to waste than to distribute them to the poor for lower prices.

/sci/ is a free market board. It really makes me think that all successful scientists and mathematicians ever were moderate liberals.

>>11292253
they were also religious freaks

>>11292253
Galois was a republican.

>>11292248
>keeping the profits for themselves is not capitalism. That's socialism

>>11292257
Based

>>11292251
>Capitalism killed 200,000,000 people last decade because it was deemed more profitable to let resources go to waste than to distribute them to the poor for lower prices.
What do you mean?

>>11292268
Yes. It would be capitalism if they owned the land, hired other people to work it, collected the profits, and returned a portion of the profits to the laborers while pocketing the rest. You do understand what capitalism and socialism are, right anon? You're not one of these people who thinks markets and trade are inherently capitalist?

>>11292274
probably something to do with the fact that 40% of all food produced in the USA is thrown in the garbage

>>11292278
>capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private INDIVIDUALS or corporations, especially as contrasted to COOPERATIVELY or state-owned means of wealth.
>socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
Reply to this with cope.

>>11292289
Capitalism is a system in which ownership over the means of production and distribution is privately held by an idle class who collect the profits generated by the labor of the working class, return a portion of the profits to the laborers in the form of wages and salaries, reinvest a portion of the profits into businesses to increase the rate of capital accumulation, and pocket the rest of the profits. Socialism is a system where the means of production and distribution are owned and managed by the laborers themselves who collect the profits and democratically distribute them. The system you described earlier involves workers controlling their own farms and keeping the profits for themselves, and is therefore a socialist mode of production. Please learn basic economic theory.

>>11292278
>socialists now have to pretend to be pro-markets and pro-trade
well, I guess it's a sign they're finally learning something

>>11292307
>source: my ass

>>11292307
>Please learn basic economic theory.
That's pretty rich coming from a literal socialist lmao

>>11292307
>the laborers themselves who collect the profits and democratically distribute them
I thought you said they got to keep it for themselves? >>11292248

>>11292308
>Market socialism is a recent invention
Please learn the history of economic theory.
>>11292314
Source: economists
>>11292318
Not an argument.

>>11292195

>>11292307
don't waste your breath on these lemmings, especially these two >>11292289
>>11292318 retards

>>11292320
Yes, the laborers keep the profits for themselves. They can decide how to distribute the profits to each individual laborer, how much to reinvest into the business, etc. Are you so retarded you think "keep profits for themselves" means they aren't allowed to spend the profits?

>>11292280
i think unnecessary production and indulgence are acceptable "cons" to capitalism. at least we're at a place to make some slight changes to only use what we need and not fuck the environment up as well as making life miserable everywhere

>>11292322
>Source: economists
Which one?

>>11292325
>socialism: workers own the means of production
>north korea: dictator controls everything
wow you sure found socialism anon

>>11292330
>Yes, the laborers keep the profits for themselves.
So do they keep it for themselves like in the Xiaogang village example, or do they have to distribute them like you claim here >>11292307

Come on, at least make a consistent story. I know consistency isn't a forte of socialists but you have to make an effort.

>>11292333
Anon, that's why they call it "actually existing socialism"... because any other outcome for socialism is a pipe dream

>>11292325
That's a photoshopped picture which is strange because the real version still demonstrates the same point. Still, even after we slaughtered a fifth of the North's civilian population and bombed all their infrastructure during the war, the DPRK still had an economy comparable or stronger than the ROK until about the 90s when increasing worldwide sanctions finally led to their economy declining. Turns out it's hard to develop in a global society when everyone else in power hates you.

>>11292341
I’m not even a socialist but you can’t just point to things that are bad and call them socialism

>>11292335
>So do they keep it for themselves like in the Xiaogang village example, or do they have to distribute them like you claim here
Are you slow or merely pretending? The laborers as a collective keep it for themselves. They do this by distributing it to the individuals in that collective.

>>11292342
>now resorts to making up history
KEK

>>11292223
Brainlet take, Deng is unironically the single world leader most closely aligned with Marx' ideas.

>>11292342
shit, 70s*
Source is "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective", OECD Development Studies Centre

>>11292346
>as a collective
Damn anon... you're really bad at reading comprehension, aren't you? That's what Xiaogang village used to do, like all other villages, when it was starving. It was ABANDONING this policy that caused their agricultural output to explore.
Try reading this again >>11292228

>>11292358
explode*

>>11292357
LOL now you've made your story inconsistent again. In the 70s North Korea was surrounded by other communist powers. "when everyone else in power hates you" my ass. Their economy was propped up by the Soviets and even then it was shit.

>>11292195
That's called technocracy

>>11292349
So North Korea is unaffected by any financial crisis or anything. Must be comfy to live there

>>11292372
Yeah I agree, starvation is better

>>11292195
>socialists getting btfo again and again every time they make a thread on /sci/
when will they learn

>>11292195
>Marx
Jewish socialism was never meant to work. It's whole purpose is to recruit an army of useful idiots with false promises, disarm and obliterate the wealthy and middle class to make sure no one has enough ressources to muster a defense and let everyone starve that doesn't comply, all in order to come into power.

The only systems with "socialist" in the name that are actually meant to work are National Socialism and Social Market Economy.

>>11292351
Ah yes, socialism with capitalist characteristics. Truly what Marx had envisioned.

>>11292195
Scientific Socialism isn't an "economic system."
What the fuck is this leftoid garbage

>>11292195
>socialism
>scientific

>>11292195
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_economic_program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

It's already been invented.

>>11292816
>protectionism

cringe

>>11292208
Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the community rather than private individuals. Humans have implemented socialism since prehistoric times.

>>11292845
the means of production should be owned by someone who isn't a complete retard. the community is a complete fucking retard.

>>11292195
national*
you sound like a green new deal faggot

>>11292195
I highly recommend you kill yourself

>>11292195
Still waiting for Marx's "scientififc" predictions to come true, I sure see that worldwide proletariat uprising happening at all.

>>11292218

>>11292845
If something is "owned" by everyone, it's "owned" by no one.

>>11292278
anon they basically set up family farms...family businesses are the literal bedrock of capitalism

https://fee.org/articles/how-the-myth-of-the-robber-barons-began-and-why-it-persists/

I'm going to be the one to piss onto parade, and say that I understood socialism as shared regulation over production and exchange laws ie. a more direct approach that what is currently called "representative" democracy, rathar than "everyone owns eerything" of communism.
~These thinkers put forward ideas such as a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, a sense of solidarity among the working class, better working conditions, and common ownership of productive resources such as land and manufacturing equipment. Some called for the state to take a central role in production and distribution. They were contemporary with early workers' movements such as the Chartists, who pushed for universal male suffrage in Britain in the 1840s and 1850s. A number of experimental communities were founded based on the early socialists' utopian ideals; most were short-lived.Marxism emerged in this milieu. Engels called it "scientific socialism" to distinguish it from the "feudal," "petty-bourgeois," "German," "conservative," and "critical-utopian" strains the Communist Manifesto singled out for criticism. Socialism was a diffuse bundle of competing ideologies in its early days, and it stayed that way. Part of the reason is that the first chancellor of newly unified Germany, Otto von Bismarck,stole the socialists' thunder when he implemented a number of their policies. Bismarck was no friend to socialist ideologues, whom he called "enemies of the Reich," but hecreated the West's first welfare state and implemented universal male suffrage in order to head off the left's ideological challenge.~

>>11292325
huuur not real socialism

>>11292195
>commie

You must have an iq above room temperature to post here.

>>11292349
not entirely related but I came across some numbers that gave me pause
let's look at the replacement rate
S.Korea
>0.96
N.Korea
>1.9
neither of them are at the balance state of 2.1 but
N.korea's population is at least relatively stable the south is falling off a cliff.

>

>>11292342
the North doesn't have a parasitic (((central bank)))

>>11293362
9 million deaths yearly by hunger related diseases, and hunger itself, that in itself is lower than the past.
The Earth produces more food than it needs, by excess of about 3 billion people worth.
Capitalism fails to distribute that.
10 years is 90 million, 100 years is nearly a billion.

>>11292218
Literally almost every Chinese Corporation and business is indirectly controlled by a the Communist Party via a committee. They do not have direct control, but they have a "represenative" in every corporation

>>11292343
From an economic perspective, as long as a public entity produces and owns goods, amd distributes them. This is considered a command economy. Communism is considered a command economy because even if the people control the means of production, they are now the new public entity.

Socialism would signify a mix of both public entities and private enterprise making/owning products and distributing them.

>>11293403
If you really want to bash capitalism for that, just realize many self proclaimed socialist states, and arguably communist states are responsible for a good chunk of those deaths you seem to be lumping with capitalism

Also, Capitalism is still more efficient at feeding people tham socialism/communism just based off of historical data. It isn't even close to perfect, but capitalist economies are still able to overproduce rather than underproduce.

You seem to be scapegoating Capitalism for having flaws, it isn't a perfect system, so of course it won't feed everyone and prevent deaths from hunger. Although it arguably does a better job, even if it still has losers in the system

>>11293463
>capitalist economies are still able to overproduce rather than underproduce.
bro, capitalism "may" be able to overproduce - more likely it's technological development - but the distribution of food is fucked.

>>11292849
>implying capitalists are competent
For all producing intents and purposes workers control the MOP right now. The capitalist isn't the one calling the shots.
Why not implement a system in which the most competent workers control it as elected by the rest of the workers while everyone maintains ownership of it?
>>11292888
>t. hasnt read Marx
We've seen that when the crisis of overproduction had major impacts you fucking retard. The crisis of overproduction hasn't yet hit a point to the necessary severity with an educated working class for what Marx predicted to come true. Read Marx.
>>11293362
>IQ
Radical leftists, statistically, unironically have the highest IQ.

>>11293463
That's just empirically wrong. Socialism has a higher physical quality of life by far, and it's only more impressive when you analyze the individual cases and the extreme circumstances working against them.
it just werks
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2430906/

>>11293403
without capitalism food production would be a fraction of that and not enough to feed everyone

one of biggest problems with capitalism is bosses(dictators) who's only goal is making profits irrelevant of the damage they cause, see for example the latest Boeing fuckup with the 747MAX, all the workers knew that airplane was crap and hated working on it, but they had to in order to keep their jobs
now imagine if the workers actually had power and a voice, they would have never made that plane, instead they would have worked on something they could be proud of
capitalism is deeply flawed and ideas on how to improve and change it exist, but they are seen as kind of a taboo because those with real power see it as a threat and will try to squash it using any means; "it's chugging along just fine, don't touch it or we'll all die xd"

>>11293522
Correct, and this is where scientific socialism comes in. Liberals tend to argue against utopian socialism without a real understanding of what Marxism, or scientific socialism, is. Capitalism as a mode of production is necessary to develop the means of production to the point we are at now. When we come to a point, as we have reached, that we are able to produce so much, we can, should, and more than likely will move on to a mode of production which better utilizes the increased productivity and increases productivity further at a better rate.
This is where socialism comes into play, and also why it has run into so many issues in the past: the countries "experimenting" with socialism were not even industrialized, let alone capitalist economies, yet still reached incredible success as shown by >>11293509
>>11293537
based
Capitalism is as great as at is better than feudalism, as feudalism is as great as it is better than slavery. This does not mean capitalism is the best we have.

>>11293509
You morons confuse the economic system of socialism woth the socio-economic variant. Economically speaking, almost all of Europe is capitalist. Governments do not own factories that produce cement, bricks, pencils, hospital equipment, etc. for public facilities. They are usually dome via private businesses or partnerships, which the government funds. Stop confusing basic terms.

>>11293544
governments should not own those factories either, the workers should, the state in its current form owning those factories is just capitalism with extra steps

>>11293537
>now imagine if the workers actually had power and a voice, they would have never made that plane, instead they would have worked on something they could be proud of
The US government literally has a whistleblower program in place that protects those individuals and allows them to speak up, it even offers a monetary incentive. So that isn't a fault, since what you are suggesting should exist, already does exist, it would have not made a difference if the workers didn't speak up in the first place.

Again, you make no sense, if the goal is profits, then having your airplanes be faulty and cause accidents isn't profitable you retard. If anything Capitalism would spur competition for a safer alternative, which is currently occuring as we speak.

You have reddit-tier reasoning

>>11293544
>economic system of socialism woth the socio-economic variant
What the fuck does this even mean
Socialism (in short) is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by the workers. This means you can have privately owned businesses or partnerships under socialism, first of all.
Second, you're simply wrong about much of Europe: Western Europe in particular, although having a capitalist mode of production, has massive nationalization, and where it doesn't, has incredibly powerful unions, and is a decent example of what society can look like when workers have power and the entire world isn't trying to stop them from succeeding.
Further, that study is testing PQOL of socialist nations, not social democratic ones.
Why am I not surprised the pro-capitalist /sci/ users are stupid

>>11293552
And if the workers owned the government then appointing ownership to government still leaves it in the hands of the people!
It’s all semantics and a moderated system will almost always require arbiters

>>11293552
>the state in its current form owning those factories is just capitalism with extra steps

I honestly don't what words to use to describe your stupidity. Either you are in some echo-chamber where you manipulate basic termonology to benefit your views, or you are just genuinely stupid.

Capitalism cannot be state-owned. From my understanding this is a common Marxist talking point, since the believe in state sponsored capitalism, which contradicts the classification for capitalism. That by its economic definition is socialism, not capitalism. China is more socialist than communist because of this.

When you can determine who owns, produces, and distributes goods, the answers to these questions will determine if an economy is a command economy, mixed, or a free market. Which these are roughly translated to communism, socialism, and capitalism with a spectrum between socialism/capitalism.

A public entity would include "the people." You are just replacing one public entity with another. Both government and "the people owning the means of production" are the same thing in the sense they are a public entity. It doesn't matter how much you cry, that isn't capitalism.

May I ask how old you are?

>>11293558
>has incredibly powerful unions, and is a decent example of what society can look like when workers have power and the entire world isn't trying to stop them from succeeding.
That isn't relevant to determining if it is capitalism or socialism

>Socialism (in short) is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by the workers. This means you can have privately owned businesses or partnerships under socialism, first of all.
You just do not know basic terms, that isn't the economic definition of socialism

>Why am I not surprised the pro-capitalist /sci/ users are stupid
You are literally twisting the definitions of words, misidentifying economic systems with socio-economic systems, and then complaining that other people are in the wrong.

>>11293553
>You have reddit-tier reasoning
>gets his arguments from /r/anarchocapitalism
Once you get to university take some good philosophy classes to teach you how to think.
When the incentive is profit, as history has proven, you get mass dishonesty and manipulation.
>So that isn't a fault, since what you are suggesting should exist, already does exist, it would have not made a difference if the workers didn't speak up in the first place.
That's not what he's suggesting. He's suggesting absolute worker control in which workers are held accountable directly by other workers. Even the most flawed socialist experiments like the USSR didn't have problems like this post industrialization.
>if the goal is profits
Are you implying it isn't? What do you think the goal is?
>then having your airplanes be faulty and cause accidents isn't profitable you retard
You're right. Producing them to a point where they are barely functional is, however, as every company on earth does. Corners are cut where possible. Boeing is one of the very rare companies which has gone too far, as VW was one of the very rare companies to get caught in huge fraud and actually get hurt. There's a reason Amazon isn't paying taxes and shitty business practices have existed for as long as capitalism has without the market stopping them. You're an idealistic child, and it's clear where you came from, newfag.
>If anything Capitalism would spur competition for a safer alternative, which is currently occuring as we speak.
In your vacuum, sure. In reality, not at all. Competition leads to certain syntheses of contradictions within the economy, an example of this being competitors settling for equally shitty practices, organizing mutually beneficial arrangements, etc.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.

>>11293553
the higher ups, who were put in charge by shareholders, had no idea what they were doing and made retarded decisions, that's because they were completely disconnected from the workers, the workers should be always be democratically in charge
>it spurs competition
yeah, just a few hundred people had to die

>>11293569
>That isn't relevant to determining if it is capitalism or socialism
>t. redditor with no reading comprehension
You literally quoted something you obviously didn't read:
>and is a decent example of what society can look like when workers have power and the entire world isn't trying to stop them from succeeding.
I'm not saying they're socialist you fucking autist, I'm saying they have similar characteristics to that of a socialist economy. Holy shit, is this how the critics of socialism unironically think?
>You just do not know basic terms, that isn't the economic definition of socialism
Define socialism me
>You are literally twisting the definitions of words, misidentifying economic systems with socio-economic systems, and then complaining that other people are in the wrong.
you unironically don't know how to read and are either a /pol/ crossboarder or some sort of reddit alien, read Marx before criticizing Marx

>>11293563
when the government only cares about profit, "the economy", it's the same thing

>>11293553
>You have reddit-tier reasoning
>uses reddit spacing
projecting, newfag?

>>11293563
>reddit spacing
>Capitalism cannot be state-owned
>China is more socialist than communist because of this.
This is bait, right? Are these actually the critics of Socialism?

Questions for socialists:

1. In the event of everything being free, what incentive do you have to work?
2. In the event of no one truly owning anything, where do you live?
3. In the event of no one being in charge, who is held responsible when things go south?

>>11293598
>1. In the event of everything being free, what incentive do you have to work?
>He who does not work, neither shall he eat.
- Lenin
>2. In the event of no one truly owning anything, where do you live?
It depends on whether or not society wants to consider housing personal property or not. If it is, housing would hardly be different. If it's public property, it would work similar to the way public housing works now all over the world. Mixed housing is also easily an option.
>3. In the event of no one being in charge, who is held responsible when things go south?
Those who are in charge because people are still in charge. Stop watching Peterson, hierarchies exist under socialism. The difference is that they are democratic.

>>11293562
yes, of course it would require arbiters, and the best ones for the job would be chosen by the workers to do just that

>>11293602

1. So why do you want to do away with currency if the system is practically the same? From feudalism to capitalism, you'd have a hard time feeding yourself if you aren't productive. Seems more like grandstanding while you still get weighted based on your production output.
2. Society will never reach a consensus on something which is meant to encompass literally billions of people. Some thing will have to be enforced by someone, with unenviable dissatisfaction across the board. Who gets that right?
3. So how are we "classless" if hierarchies still exist?

>>11292195
>this reddit thread again
kill yourself please

>>11293614
>1. So why do you want to do away with currency if the system is practically the same? From feudalism to capitalism, you'd have a hard time feeding yourself if you aren't productive. Seems more like grandstanding while you still get weighted based on your production output.
"Practically" it isn't. Currency as we know is to be done away with because it's a commodity. Here's a short article on it: https://mronline.org/2017/09/18/the-significance-of-marxs-theory-on-money/
As far as practicality it goes it makes a massive difference removing the use of currency as we know it and valuing labour directly, actually serving to incentivize consistent and valuable work.
>2. Society will never reach a consensus on something which is meant to encompass literally billions of people. Some thing will have to be enforced by someone, with unenviable dissatisfaction across the board. Who gets that right?
To me, the one who produces is the one who deserves that right. Engels said revolution is inherently "authoritarian" for just that reason: the capitalists are being imposed on in the same way the aristocrats were imposed upon by the liberals. If we're talking ethics, that right comes from the ones who produce deserving the products of their labour. If we're talking practically, that right comes from the workers being the only necessary human component to production.
>3. So how are we "classless" if hierarchies still exist?
Classes don't represent groups of society in the same way they're often portrayed to, but rather, groups and their relations to the means of production. Society becomes classless when everyone is of the same class in relation to the means of production, i.e, everyone is working. Today, the McDonalds worker making minimum wage is in the same class as the corporate manager managing corporate employees: the working class.

>>11293636

1. But it doesn't remove the value aspect of labour at all, as Marx himself has stated "time + effort = value". You can stop people from hoarding money but then people will just assign that importance to something else, i.e. a person's relation to the means of production, meaning what he does for a living. Ergo, true equality remains unrealised, have and have not's are transitioned into the influential and those without influence, which is practically the system we have now and historically have always been present, only under different names and with varying circumstances.
2. In that case those who produce more have a better say, than those who produce less. Why change the system at all, when it's pretty much how things work right now. You could argue that owners aren't "truly" those who own the produce but all argumentation in that regards hinges on Marxist dogma and with automation just around the corner, removing the human element would kill absolutely all left leaning talking points.
3. So then again, nothing changes. We just get Capitalism with extra steps.

>>11293669
1/2
>1. But it doesn't remove the value aspect of labour at all, as Marx himself has stated "time + effort = value".
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Noone is trying to remove that.
>You can stop people from hoarding money but then people will just assign that importance to something else, i.e. a person's relation to the means of production, meaning what he does for a living. Ergo, true equality remains unrealised, have and have not's are transitioned into the influential and those without influence, which is practically the system we have now and historically have always been present, only under different names and with varying circumstances.
If you're interested in Marxism I'd recommend reading Critique of the Gotha Programme as in it Marx addresses this exact question and many others: Scientific Socialism has no interest in "true equality", whatever that actually looks like. So that is fine.
>2. In that case those who produce more have a better say, than those who produce less.
No, not necessarily, and not even likely. Those recognized as leaders get a stronger say, but the ultimate say is from those who elect them, hence the "Soviet" (or bottom up) model of democracy.
>You could argue that owners aren't "truly" those who own the produce but all argumentation in that regards hinges on Marxist dogma and with automation just around the corner, removing the human element would kill absolutely all left leaning talking points.
Owners are those who own the produce, anon, so I wouldn't argue about that. Marxist dogma is not a thing -- what I'm arguing is simply that those who own own.
Automation poses the biggest threat to capitalism we've ever seen and it's simply naive to think that the working class will be removed because of it. You're echoing the same concerns serfs and workers had at the beginning of the industrial revolutions. Workers are what produce value. for automation to exist, we need workers.

>>11292262
This, /sci/ should take the republican pill

>>11293669
>>11293682
2/2
Automation and the economic losses we take because of it will not remove the need for socialism but rather magnify it. People will have property and value taken from them en masse with a much smaller working class needed to maintain things. Necessarily, we're faced with a dichotomy: revolution or cushioning. UBI and social service based solutions will inevitably fail, and we will be faced with the need for a new economic system.
Automation is one of my favourite arguments for socialism. Under capitalism there is a profound fear of it, yet under socialism it would be the best feasible thing to happen as all it would mean is everyone's work days would be reduced and we can turn to forms of labour we enjoy: art, philosophy, etc. and experience a similar situation to that of the Greeks in which those forms of labour find a greater place in our society, but because of an extremely developed mode of production, that place can be society wide.
Instead we fear automation and struggle to come up with bandaid solutions and desperately attempt justify the hyperwealthy in owning the means of production and convince ourselves things work out. They don't, and they won't. Under capitalism, a massive shift in productivity comes with massive human suffering as history has proven time and time again.
>3. So then again, nothing changes. We just get Capitalism with extra steps.
No, because capitalism is not a system based solely in hierarchy, it's a system based in private ownership of the means of production. When that goes, everything changes, as how we produce and who owns how we produce is the basis of how we live and survive.

>>11292195
>Be farmer
>Have plentyful harvest
>Socialism kicks in
>Comrade McCuck comes along and takes everything except enough to feed my own family
>No incentive to work hard anymore
>next harvest is just enough to feed my own family
>People starve all over the nation because almost all farmers did the same thing and food production went down
Marx either didn't understand human nature, or he understood very well but deliberately fucked over everyone.

Socialism is a totalitarian ideology
National Socialism is the only one that got it to work prove me wrong.

>fucking tankies invading /sci/

How many industries does a socialist government attempt to control? how many actually work?

https://fee.org/articles/8-industries-hugo-chavez-nationalized-besides-oil-on-venezuelas-road-to-serfdom/

who among has read Adam Smith?
https://b-ok.cc/book/550861/3cf9eb

I'm a globalist capitalist libertarian

>>11293970
>starting wars with everyone is sustainable

>>11293773
Then why are millennials starving in capitalist america

>>11294185
Kek. How about you look at the statistics of how many people are starving in the U.S. and then compare it with how many people starve and have starved in socialist/communist countries.

>>11292199
keked and checked

>>11292195
whatever it is called, it'll look something like this.

No.

>>11293509
>Socialism has a higher physical quality of life by far
LOL

>>11294185
America isn't properly capitalist any more, it's state socialist for the rich look at the fed

>>11293562
>pic
Wrong and stupid

>>11292195
How could it be otherwise? At least in the Malthusian sense: Once the demographic transition to an affluent society is attained, the weight of moron loafers for whom the margin of fun-money is inoperable, hardly matters compared to the power of rewarding ways to spend on the less necessary. For similar reasons, the hypocrisy of rent-seeking owners of intellectual property conjured long ago and by the long-dead, always far exceeds that of pirates on the smaller scale.

No it's post-scarcity. Advances in AI and nanotechnology will eliminate the need to exchange money for goods and services as the workforce will be made up entirely of fully-autonomous robots and any material goods can be produced by nanoscopic scale fabricators that can convert waste products back into useful items, ie turning piss and shit back into food and drink and converting trash into whatever object the user decides, rearranging the raw materials atomic structure into the necessary configuration.

That said, the only things still worth money in such an economic system will be land and things of sentimental value (i.e. the pocket watch your grandfather gave you before he died) or historic value (i.e. Abraham Lincoln's pajamas) since they cannot be fabricated so we'll still have homeless people but they will be well-dressed and well-fed homeless people because they can just fabricate all those things on their own.

Reminder that Marx put forth no actual example of how Communism was suppose to work besides stating "seize da meme of production". He is literally a con artist and for that same reason it is pointless to debate with his fanatical supporters. There is no model for communism, it is literally a fictional ideology. Socialism is state owned production that is suppose to lead to communism, yet with no model to move to what the fuck is socialism? Answer: just a dictatorship. The thing that Marx himself thought the french revolution had overcome, was monarchy dictatorship. Yet in the end socialism is closer to monarchy than capitalism.

>>11292845
Yes, and it didn't work. Those societies either stagnate in isolation or are wiped out by more capitalistic ones.

>>11293463
If we are talking "Communist states", in the past 30 years, we are talking China, Laos, Vietnam, DPRK, and Cuba; and we are also talking semi private economies.
Almost all malnutrition deaths like these are from Africa, India and the like.
Also, somewhere over 4 million yearly deaths are caused by preventable diseases such as Dengue or Meningitis. It isn't profitable to vaccinate for them, it's a human need (Socialism).
That's more to add for the toll.

Socialist economies are able to overproduce. You just haven't actually looked at conditions. The reason for "underproduction" in Communist economies is because they were already producing microscopic industry beforehand and take time to industrialize, and then form a robust consumer economy. This was indeed occurring in the 70s and 80s in the USSR/DDR to a level that was rivaling the United States, the number one superpower with vast resources, allies, an industrialization headstart, countless debt tributaries and triple ocean access.

>>11294662
His ideas of how things would enviably turn out make some sense in the economic paradigm he was working with. However that paradigm was already dying when he published Das Kapital and today sits in the dustbin of economic history.

>>11294740
>His ideas of how things would enviably turn out make some sense in the economic paradigm he was working wit
He literally had no model of how his system would work to beg in with, it was in the dustbin as soon as he wrote the dam thing.

>>11292218
Ok but even crony capitalism isn't starving it's own people.
Also yes about Venezuela, the argument is that the government got in the way of business. Price controls only work long term if you can control costs, and Venezuela doesn't have that much clout.

I'm curious what other people think - Capitalism works better than Socialism based on human psychology that can be seen when translated into market principles. But what happens if we fundamentally change the way humans behave? Can anyone really say with certainty that a transhuman person (not transgender, a person with say many neural links in their brain) would not adjust and conform to socialism market principles?

>>11294900
>Capitalism works better than Socialism based on human psychology that can be seen when translated into market principles.
Simply an incorrect statement kek. The slaveowners said the same thing, as did the feudalists. Why is capitalism the end of history to you? Because it's the most recent system? Has human nature just evolved and shifted rapidly over these past few thousand years? It's almost as if human psyche is malleable and changes based on material circumstances, and once the producing class of society, whatever that may be, reaches a certain point of widespread education and productive power, changes the system.
Libs are so fucking retarded.

>>11294183
When your defined enemy controls foreign powers and can manipulate them into attacking you then you need to get defensive.

>>11292218
Im venezuelan, still living here and my country IS 100% a socialist failure.

>>11295332
Hola
https://fee.org/articles/8-industries-hugo-chavez-nationalized-besides-oil-on-venezuelas-road-to-serfdom/
so this and the video at the end are fairly accurate?

London used to have a Mayor called Ken Lingstone aka Red Ken who often touted how great a friend he was with Chavez, guy is an insufferable fuck
I remember him on some hignfy episode and trying to use it as some sort of accolade.

>>11295349
Chavez nationalized pretty much everything he could.

He still is infamous for his "EXPROPIESEEE".

the dude would basically rob you of your company under the pretext that you were being expropiated, but the government wouldn't pay you a dime for your company and then run it to the ground in record time.

Fun fact, chavez expropiated venezuela's kellogs back in the day and fake froasted flake boxes are still being produced with tony the tiger and the froasted flake label, even tho kellogs hasnt been in the country for years.

Obviously the governments froasted flakes taste like shit and their boxes dont even have coloring lmao.

I can't think of a single instance of a company that was nationalized by chavez actually being competent

>>11292218
(Still venezuelan anon)
You also have an absolute lack of understanding of the venezuelan situation.
1) The venezuelan government under chavez was a totalitarian paternalist socialist government and still is under maduro.
1.1) the goverment implemented a shit ton of socialist policies, such as nationalizing fucking everything, implementing price control, currency exchange control, tons and tons of welfare programs they labeled "misiones' and bunch of other shit I cant think of atm.
1.2) the goverment was politically socialist as it allied itself with socialist powers and did a shit ton of socialist propaganda on the tv, on the radio, fucking everywehere. The chavista propaganda was basically the "supreme leader" shit the north koreans did but instead of kim ill sung you had chavez and bolivar. They also changed the name of a shit ton of places like the commies usually do, they changed all the national symbols, heck they changed fucking bolivars face from white aristocrat to that of a working class nigger.
1.3) venezuelas government was the embodiment of Marx's dream, as it saw the rise of the working class to power (chavez was a soldier out of bumfuck nowhere from poor and uneducated origins and so were most of his cronies, maduro is a literal truck driver without highschool education) the psuv (chavez party) represents the working class. Also, both the upper class and the great majority of the companies and land they owned were robbed of their property by chavez as explained earlier. Chavez literally fulfilled the communist manifesto.
(1/2)

>>11295401
(2/2)
2) the economic prosperity under chavez wasnt because of capitalism or communism, it was because oil (about 80% of venezuelas total economy btw) was at an all time high for barrel price, effectively pumping the state owned oil company full of cash. Chavez used this money to get himself and his cronies massively rich (his daughters net worth is estimated at the billions) and started giving away a ton of shit on his "misiones" thus producing a mirage of prosperity, in truth, it was just a very badly managed economy diseased with dutch syndrome and with a kleptocratic, paternalist regime.
3) maduro is failing because oil, the number one source of money for the goverment has dried up, the barrel is much cheaper nowadays and the socialist administration of the national oil company has crippled it to the point that we import our gasoline nowadays when theres refineries here and we have the biggest oil reserves on the planet.

Im actually omitting some important details such as our debt to china and russia and how chavez and madure quite literally sacked the country and gave away money, oil and even gold to foreign nations.

>>11295403
yeah that's one consistent pattern with socialism, those in charge or connected to them get stinking rich while everyone else starves or lives like a slave,
the beauty of the free market is that potentially anyone can rise to the very peak if they have the ability to do so and social position and wealth tends to be on a gradient reflecting work done.
it's not perfect but it has flexibility.

>>11295411
>Its not perfect but it has flexibility
Inequality directly follows from freedom, but that's not a bad thing, the opposite actually.

>>11292195
>scientific Socialism is the economic system of the future.
can we just get it over with and rename /sci/ to /söy/ already

>>11293602
>>11293636
>>11293682
>>11293693
Great posts, comrade. I'm sure it got a few people here thinking.

>>11293988
Marx was a big fan of Adam Smith, as Smith also criticised capitalism. Smith pretty much warned us that the way capitalism is now is the worst case scenario. It is capitalists and liberal economists who haven't read Smith. Ask a modern economist about Smith and they'll tell you it's outdated garbage. Why? Because accepting that Smith wasn't useless would be admitting Marx had a point. They throw all classical economists into the trash, because that's the only way liberal capitalist economics can survive -- if it's the only economics around. It's similar to how Flat Earthers have to deny whole swathes of science for their theories to make sense to their followers.

>>11294228
40 million Americans live below the poverty line. That's the power of 200+ years of capitalism.

>>11294662
>Reminder that Marx put forth no actual example of how Communism was suppose to work
Reminder that Bohr didn't give us a sketch of the atom. That fucking hack!

>There is no model for communism, it is literally a fictional ideology.
And what is the "model" for capitalism?

>>11294807
>He literally had no model of how his system would work to beg in with
Because he was a social scientist. How could he predict the future? That's like saying people who built the Mars rover didn't do it right because they didn't tell us what the rover would find on Mars before it got there.

The whole point is that once the relationships of the productive base of society have changed so will society's superstructure. If Marx wrote some sort of model in 1844 that didn't include AI, supercomputers, solar power and electric cars/trains you'd be here saying how ridiculous and outdated the theory is. As it stands, it is applicable today as it was a hundred years ago. This is why socialism is so scary to the ruling bourgeoisie, it is just becoming more relevant than ever.

>>11295963
>40 million Americans live below the poverty line. That's the power of 200+ years of capitalism.

Pic related, power of capitalism.

>>11295963
>And what is the "model" for capitalism?

Pick any of the most succesful countries on the planet, be it US, European countries, east Asian tigers.. all are capitalist.

Socialism has no such examples because it does not work.

>>11295972
So China is capitalist now? I love how when China does something good it's capitalist, but when they do something bad it's communist. Make up your damn mind.

>>11295973
You want a model predicting communism, but you're happy with a model describing capitalism? The poster said Marx didn't even construct a model or communism. Show me models of capitalism from a pre-capitalist era that were then implemented successfully. That's right, you can't, because they didn't exist.

Every couple of decades capitalism goes into depression/recession that results in shortages. Only thing that revived it was the destruction of capital in WWII and subsequent rebuilding. US thrived because of its steel industry and the global demand for steel. Even this was fucked in the 1970s with the oil crisis and *gasp* fuel lines in the United States. In the 80s you had the "dotcom" boom that was also followed by a bust. In 08 it was the housing bubble, followed by a recession and the US government had to use $700B of taxpayer/worker money to bail out the corporations and banks.
>working
You've been brainwashed.

>>11295963
>Reminder that Bohr didn't give us a sketch of the atom.
False equivalent.

>And what is the "model" for capitalism
Mercantilism and the industrial revolution.

>>11296137
>How could he predict the future?
You tell me, he sure seemed like he thought he could.

>Show me models of capitalism from a pre-capitalist
Capitalism was a natural evolution caused by the industrial revolution, mercantilism was it's basis and evidence. Communism on the other hand is an artificial ideology that literally has no basis in reality. The complete abolishment of power structure and hierarchy has never existed in the history of mankind. This ideology would not only be completely antithetical to human habits and history, but also have literally no model to base itself on. What a laugh!

>>11296137
>So China is capitalist now? I love how when China does something good it's capitalist, but when they do something bad it's communist. Make up your damn mind.

China is state capitalist, has been since Dengist reforms. Do you think all the big corporations have their factories over there because they love Marx so much?

>>11296137
>Every couple of decades capitalism goes into depression/recession that results in shortages

And yet capitalism maintains economic growth on average. So fluctuations on small scales are not relevant when the overall trend is clear.

>>11296580
>False equivalent.
Then on what basis do you require that scientific socialism give you a model? Just because there isn't one?

>Mercantilism and the industrial revolution.
If that is your criteria for "model", then co-operatives provide that model.
Marx:
>But there was in store a still greater victory of the political economy of labor over the political economy of property. We speak of the co-operative movement, especially the co-operative factories raised by the unassisted efforts of a few bold “hands”. The value of these great social experiments cannot be overrated. By deed instead of by argument, they have shown that production on a large scale, and in accord with the behests of modern science, may be carried on without the existence of a class of masters employing a class of hands; that to bear fruit, the means of labor need not be monopolized as a means of dominion over, and of extortion against, the laboring man himself; and that, like slave labor, like serf labor, hired labor is but a transitory and inferior form, destined to disappear before associated labor plying its toil with a willing hand, a ready mind, and a joyous heart. In England, the seeds of the co-operative system were sown by Robert Owen; the workingmen’s experiments tried on the Continent were, in fact, the practical upshot of the theories, not invented, but loudly proclaimed, in 1848.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/10/27.htm

Co-operatives exist all over the world. Both producer and consumer cooperatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

>Capitalism was a natural evolution
And scientific socialism is the next step. Do you think capitalism is the ultimate, perfect form of economic organisation? There can never be an improvement or change in it?

>>11292251
>implying letting useless people die off is somehow unethical

>>11296580
>Communism on the other hand is an artificial ideology that literally has no basis in reality. The complete abolishment of power structure and hierarchy has never existed in the history of mankind. This ideology would not only be completely antithetical to human habits and history, but also have literally no model to base itself on. What a laugh!
This alone shows how dumb you are. You talk about human history, when it is clear you're the one who doesn't know about human history. You don't know about "primitive communism", because you're educated by memes and television. You don't know that Marx based his theories on the EXPERIENCE of the Paris Commune. Scientific Socialism is literally an ideology that came out of OBSERVING society and history. Go read a fucking book, you drone.

>>11296595
>Do you think all the big corporations have their factories over there because they love Marx so much?
Yeah, they figured out that global capitalism was still growing. And they could either provide the labour while some foreign capitalist takes all the bucks, or they could actually be the ones who own the factories and reinvest the profits into China.

>>11296600
>And yet capitalism maintains economic growth on average.
For how long? >>11292242

>>11296679
>>11296695
>Then on what basis do you require that scientific socialism give you a model? Just because there isn't one?
I'm not running down your rabbithole because you wish to argue logical fallacy.

>If that is your criteria for "model", then co-operatives provide that model.
The model was the preexisting world, capitalism is a natural evolution of mercantilism. Perhaps more accurate would be to say that capitalism was merely the expansion, rather than evolution of mercantilism. Communism has no existence in the pre-existing world, and is a made up idea by a singular man. It requires a model since there is no existence of it in the real world. Your quote is sweet nothings about virtue, why you would think it would be a good idea to post it beyond me. Really pathetic.

>And scientific socialism is the next step.
Having no power structure or hierarchy is not a "step", it is a galaxy long launch with no basis in reality.

>"""""""""""""""primitve communism""""""""""
>literally just hunter-gatherer societies
>thinking there was no leader or hierarchy in hunter gatherer societies
>basing any model on literal stick throwers

>Paris Commune
A besieged city with daily trauma, that was socialist (not communist) and fell within months is the "model" for communism? So the model is failure? I suppose that does make sense lol.

>>11296695
>Trying this hard trying to define value as something other than "arbitrary"

Why are you so dumb? Its made up as it grows along. That is the true fallacy of socialism/communism, it tries to define "value" and work and using this false foundation it builds itself up then collapses once everyone else figures out that value was arbitrary the whole time. Rather than let the self-sufficient define and use it by their own means, it assumes that humans are not self-sufficient and forces them to become collectivized.

You literally destroy a persons ability to become self-sufficient which is why the entire system is always doomed to fail.

>>11296874
>You literally destroy a persons ability to become self-sufficient
Pray tell, in what way can you become "self-sufficient" in capitalism?

>>11296883
>>11296874

>the self-sufficient define and use it by their own means(value)

There are many ways one can become self-sufficient and the best part about it is that I can't dictate to you what that would be. You have to be smart enough to figure it out on your own, being the self-sufficient individual.

>>11296897
Nice mysticism bro.

>>11296948
Pray tell, what do you think "value" is? How do you think it can be defined?

>>11297033
"Value" in what context? Value of a commodity?

>>11297056
>"Value" in what context?

Something of worth, A need or a want. The thing that will control the reason behind the implementation "scientific socialism"? The thing that will also determine what the "economy" is based off. Does "value" just become a meaningless term?

>>11295488
Actually this isn't even necessary in capitalism. Scandinavian countries are very much capitalist and have some of the lowest GINI coefficients in the world. They have free market economies as well as an efficient and fair system of redistributing resources and wealth to those who are temporarily down on their luck.

>>11296695
>Go read a fucking book, you drone.
HURRR DURRR read the books I read because I'm a faggot retard who doesn't understand basic aspects of sociology and history

>>11296695
>Yeah, they figured out that global capitalism was still growing. And they could either provide the labour while some foreign capitalist takes all the bucks, or they could actually be the ones who own the factories and reinvest the profits into China.
Yes you fucktard. China, India, and many other countries realized that socialism was a fucking failure and that free markets were necessary to the survival and success of any nation. In India for example, the economy was heavily regulated by the government which led to very little growth and overall stagnation. Everyone was equal - equally in poverty. After liberalization we see the emergence of India and China as regional and eventually global powers, with China already taking over Asia and the pacific in terms of trade and politics. After reforms, literally billions of Chinese and Indians were lifted out of starvation.

>>11292195
based and REDpilled
godspeed make tards seethe

>>11297798
>>/pol/

lets pitch the commies vs the austrian economists what would happen?

>>11297838
>lets pitch the astronomers vs the astrologers what would happen?

>>11298401
The astrologers probably wouldn't go broke

>>11298405
Astrologers aren't broke because there's a whole bunch of people without critical thinking skills that believe their shit.

>>11298406
oh so they're actually more similar to the commies then

>>11298414
your silly dichotomy got turned on you. too late to cry about it now.

>>11298417
cry? I don't understand? you changed the question to astrologers vs commies and I noticed that both are effectively ways to enrich a priestly class while others starve or resort to black market dealings.

I don't see how it's relevant to my original question.

>>11298471
>you changed the question to astrologers vs commies
changed it to astronomers vs. astrologers. communists arrive at their conclusions through science, austrian economists try to justify what is already going on. astronomers arrive at their conclusions via science, astrologers just hand-wave and write horoscopes.

>>11298478
yet the austrians and those inspired by them are still the better predictors of success and catastrophe

>>11298525
>yet the austrians and those inspired by them are still the better predictors of success and catastrophe
For example?

Refute this: http://en.granma.cu/cultura/2018-05-16/ten-marxist-ideas-that-define-the-21st-century

>>11298995
How about instead of me refuting a shitty blog opinion piece, you provide evidence of communism working even a single time without mass famine, genocide, economic failure, or political failure. I'll be waiting.

>>11299247
>you provide evidence of communism working even a single time without mass famine, genocide, economic failure, or political failure.
Mass famine, genocide, economic and political failure has happened in capitalist countries too. Why do you judge capitalism and communism by different standards? But if you want an example -- Cuba. Despite the embargo that has been going on since the 60s, they've never had mass famine, genocide, economic failure, or political failure. And in fact, have lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy than the United States. They are also leaders in sustainable development:
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/cuba-found-to-be-the-most-sustainably-developed-country-in-the-world-new-research-finds
http://www.coha.org/cuba-a-model-of-sustainable-agriculture-towards-global-food-security/
https://www.tremr.com/environmental-politics-uga/sustainable-development-and-food-security-in-cuba-a-mystery-to-the-rest-of-the-world
>pic related
Castro btfo'ing your dumb "argument".

>>11299268
>Mass famine, genocide, economic and political failure has happened in capitalist countries too.
Thus you have admitted you cant. Also there is no need to move to your shit system that lost to our shit system. Overall capitalism is shit, but less shit than the communism.

>>11299364
>Thus you have admitted you cant.
Can't you read?
>But if you want an example -- Cuba.
Are you unable to read a full paragraph?

>>11299443
Actually I didn't read your post, because I had assumed you had read the ideology you are trying to spread. The fact that you did provide an example only worsens your state. It was a trick question because in reality there has never been a communist country period. Cuba is not even socialist because it shows no advancement towards communism, which is the main purpose of socialism. The countries that were actually socialist ended up with famine, genocide, and all the rest. It is a failure on every level.

I suggest you go learn what ideology you are actually spreading.

>>11300220
>Cuba is not even socialist because it shows no advancement towards communism, which is the main purpose of socialism.
That's not what socialism is, fool. You just admitted to not having the attention span to read a paragraph, and you want us to believe you've read anything more than a meme on the subject? Get out of here.

>The countries that were actually socialist ended up with famine, genocide, and all the rest. It is a failure on every level.
More memes. You have to be 18 years or older to post here, kid. And if you are older than 18, then I feel sorry for you. You show such a tragic lack of critical thinking skills by parroting what you heard from someone else.

Reminder that scientists have never even tried to refute dialectical materialism because they know its right, they're just not allowed to admit to it otherwise the government will harass them them like they did with Jay Gould.

If you agree with these three concepts, and believe in the concept of materialism (the idea that people's will or spirit doesn't make the universe, the universe makes people's will or spirit) you agree with historical materialism:

1. The determination of the concept out of itself [the thing itself must be considered in its relations and in its development];
2. The contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon;

3.The union of analysis and synthesis.

>>11298478
>communists arrive at their conclusions through science

HAHAHHA

>>11299268
Cuba is a shithole

>>11300874
Dialectical materialism is science.

>>11300874
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf
Start reading, if you dare.

>>11300876
>Cuba is a shithole
It has higher literacy rate, lower infant mortality rate and higher life expectancy than the United States. If Cuba is a shithole, what does that make the US?

>>11300834
>no counter argument beyond "no u"
Ill take the win thanks.

>>11300932
>Ill take the win thanks.
cringe

you have to post an argument for there to be a counter-argument, baseless claims don't mean shit, peabrain

>>11293563
>"you manipulate basic termonology to benefit your views"
>"state sponsored capitalism That by its economic definition is socialism"
>"Both government and "the people owning the means of production" are the same thing in the sense they are a public entity."
I can't even begin to count how many layers of irony are in this post.
This can't NOT be bait.

>>11292333
>>north korea: dictator controls everything
The dictator is the representative of the government. In a socialist system the government represents the people or the community. Lokal consensus based enterprises like
>>11292228
>...signing a secret agreement to divide the land, a local People's Commune, into family plots. Each plot was to be worked by an individual family…
are clearly of capitalist nature, and interference in this business by the community (represented by the government) would be of socialist nature.
(Natural)Capitalism = voluntary market actions performed between fully consenting parties
Not Capitalism = any kind of unwanted forceful third party involvement in the business transaction between two consenting parties. (e.g. taxes, regulations, etc.)

>>11293598
>1. In the event of everything being free, what incentive do you have to work?
You get what you work for
>2. In the event of no one truly owning anything, where do you live?
Um... do you realize this question directly contradicts question 1., yes?
>3. In the event of no one being in charge, who is held responsible when things go south?
The people

Please don't tell this guy >>11294334 Orwell was a socialist

>>11294662
Reminder that neither socialism nor communism were invented by Marx.
Countless people both before and after Marx gave very detailed models of socialism.

>>11300878
>Dialectical materialism is science.

HAHAHAHA

>>11295411
>the beauty of the free market is that potentially anyone can rise to the very peak if they have the ability to do so
You can do that in """socialism""" too: just lick your government's boot hard enough and you too can rise to the very peak.
So, what are you complaining about?

>>11301168
At least Dealectical materialism is reliable enough in describing actual reality, even though it fails spectacularly in giving solutions.
Capitalist economics fails on both fronts.