/sci/ - Science & Math

Why aren't you awesome, like us capitalists?

Why are you a faggy socialist instead of a badass communist like I am?

>>2664443
Autocratic dictators with a taste for genocide comes in capitalist flavour too.

>>2664449

why do you hate individuality and free markets?

>>2664451
Yeah, but so does candy! I don't want the state making my candy!

sage for fullretard

>>2664455
Because it's stupid and adds unnecessary complexity to society.

Everything must be reduced to the least possible number of variables.

>>2664443
>I no socialism herpderp

I did not know that Nazis were communist/socialist/marxist. And here I thought fascists fought against "Socialists" (i.e. communists) in WWII....

Oh, and sage

'socialism works on paper but isnt practical'

this describes socialism. it should work perfectly. but people are 1) retarded and 2) greedy

capitalism lets the greedy exploit the retarded so it works out for everyone

>>2664451
I'm going under this trip.

It's partially related because I don't follow/admire any of them, but still they claimed to be socialists.

And of course capitalists love autocratic dictatorships. They implanted one in 1964 in Brazil with the help of CIA (proved), helped Augusto Pinochet to take power in Chile (proved) and even Mr. Hussein.

>hitler
>socialist
>21 million slaughtered

I have a couple of questions.

Firstly, do you realise how wrong and stupid that diagram is? Hitler wasn't a Socialist and none of these death tolls are accurate. This is ignoring that the unit of measurement "millions of people slaughtered" would imply that, in total, 132 million million people were murdered.

Secondly, why you find it necessary to seek attention by asking "Ask a Socialist anything"? I never feel this urge because I am comfortable with my opinion and don't need to tell everyone so that I can feel unique and, perhaps, rebellious towards society's conventional ideologies. The use of a provocative image is undoubtedly reinforcing my argument that you just want to feel as if your pathetic existence is of importance to us. I doubt you know anything that is of any worth and actually related to Socialism.

Note that this is >>>/sci/ and not >>>/b/

>>2664469
NationalSOCIALISM.

What's the secret plan to usurp the U.S. government and give everyone health care?

What country are you from, mr socialist?

national SOCIALIST party

keep thinking hitler was a right wing nutjob; truth is, he is one of yours, you lying liberals

socialism kills. all the time. everywhere it's implemented.

and capitalist countries FEED socialist countries, because socialist countries are full of AIDS and FAIL

>>2664480
retard
Capitalism has more in common to nazism than socialism.

Why don't socialists believe in fun?

>>2664492

>>>/b/

>>2664496
STATE capitalism, maybe. Which is a socialist doctrine.

Or are you going to claim the Soviet Union was capitalist as well?

And DDR was a democratic republic of course!

China is demcratic as well.

North Korea is as well.

Will socialism make a comeback as resource depletion, climate change and overpopulation destroys the economy and sends the natural state of socio-economics back to the levels seen in these parts of the world in the mid 20th century?

>>2664496
>HERP DERP
Capitalism and nasism can't mix.

>>2664512
Can't read.

>/news/ is gone
>all retards go to /sci
>makes no difference
>you know realize that /sci/ is as retarded as /news/
Sage in every field

>>2664504
Of course. That's why the Germans and Russians hated each other so much.
Nazi Germany = National Socialism
USSR = State Capitalism
Diametrically opposed ideologies.

>>2664455
I don't think society is ready for Communism right now. The idea of freedom very related with the modern history and some use it against any kind of authoritarian regime (even if it's not.)

China government, for instance is considered "Market Socialist" and is not the one making chinese citizen's candies. Actually, they're making your candies working for the multinational corporations.

Anyway, China is just another example of how every country, but the dominant one (US) should be. With obedient people, who won't complain if they get 50 cents/month unless they want to get beaten by the police.

>>2664496
yeah, because capitalism is all about state run businesses

dumbass

>>2664508
>implying the corporations wouldn't just buy small countries and do their own thing and monopolizes entire markets

>>2664508
Not successfully, no. Capitalism operates just as well on limited resources as it does on great.

The only thing to be wary of is monopolies, which without ethics (shitstorm forcasted) is a step away from oligarchic fascism anyway.

>>2664525
>implying socialism is about state run businesses

>>2664523
Yeah, it's not like Hitler hated the Russians because they were slavic untermensch sitting on a bunch of resources and a great source of slave labour.

It's not like Nazi Germany had a highly planned economy like the Soviet Union.

No, you are right, they were completely different! I don't know what I'm thinking!

socialism works but only when you put the people under psychedelic drugs to remind them that we're all one.


Make them all take Ayahuasca or Mescaline in some sort of temple with music and and stuff


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7yKpvBQhTw

>>2664534
>implying it isn't
>implying privately owned business isn't the opposite of socialism

>>2664469
>>2664475
>>2664477
>Firstly, do you realise how wrong and stupid that diagram is? Hitler wasn't a Socialist and none of these death tolls are accurate. This is ignoring that the unit of measurement "millions of people slaughtered" would imply that, in total, 132 million million people were murdered.

The diagram was made by some douche I don't know.
I don't even agree with the picture, I hope you can read and if you do, please read my previous posts.

In Hitler's first four years of government unemployment dropped from 6 million to 900 thousand people and inflation was reduced drastically. He's not an exemple of how a leader should act, but he's done his part and that's why germans stood with him.

>>2664550
>implying socialism isn't about the workers owning the businesses
>implying nazism isn't about the government owning the businesses
>implying capitalism isn't about the businesses owning the government

>>2664564
>implying workers and state are not the same thing

Why are you trying to send Grandma to a death panel?

>>2664569
So the workers were the state in Nazi Germany?

>>2664574
The German workers, yeah. You might notice how their living conditions improved drastically from what they were during the capitalist-run Weimar republic.

>>2664559
Hitler reduced the unemployment rate by using every available citizen in his military development. It wasn't a lasting solution to unemployment.

>>2664584
After the war the demobilized army and military factory workers would have been given stretches of land in Russia, to settle and cultivate and replace the slavs who would be exterminated.

>>2664559

My first question tied in with the latter. You're an attention seeker who doesn't actually understand Socialism very well, that's why you use provocative images instead of the vast reserves of decent ones. I typed up that question before the other replies came in.

On a Leftist question:

Socialism serves best as a "stepping stone" to Communism. Socialism in itself still has elements of other ideologies that defeat the purpose and can only be considered a transitional stage. So how does one transition to the point where the society is fully Communist? Marx suggested the employment of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" but such a dictatorship would limit freedom amongst individuals and a situation, also existent in a democratic transition, where those in power would be unwilling to give it up. In the process of transition, weakening could also happen without the correct leadership (a la Soviet Union). Others, taking the last points into account, would claim that a revolution would need to plunge the state straight into Anarchy, but this would cause instability. So how does a state make a successful transition?

>>2664528
>implying socialism isn't pretty much the same thing
>>2664530
From ideological view socialism may not be succesful in many countries but from the pragmatic view many countries will return to centralized state capitalist or centrally planned models which will predominately support the military and effectively project force, the same as all those 20th century totalitarian dictatorships.

None of these are socialists. You have 2 state capitalists and one racial nationalist.

>>2664643

This is correct. When it doesn't work out the way we thought it would, it's not real socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

This means that we can continue to argue that socialism hasn't been shown to be flawed, because it has never been tried.

>>2664610

>>2664610
>Marx suggested the employment of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" but such a dictatorship would limit freedom amongst individuals and a situation, also existent in a democratic transition, where those in power would be unwilling to give it up.

The answer is right there. Search for your heart.

>>2664654
I am aware of that fallacy.
Surely this is a straw man fallacy though by using people from proclaimed "socialist" authoritarian regimes to discredit socialism in general.

>>2664663

You can't read three lines? Wow, you're more stupid than I've already assumed.

Here, let me break it down for all the dumb dumbs out there:

Socialism is a transitional state to Communism since it's co-existence with non-Communist traits undermine it's integrity.

To transition, Marx suggested the employment of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", but such a dictatorship, like any other gradual Socialist transition, would need strong leaders. Strong leaders will not be willing to give up power. Any weak leaders may lead to a reversal of the transition, a la Soviet Union.

Others may suggest that an immediate transition through a revolution plunging the state into Anarchy but this will lead to grave instability.

So how do we form a reliable transition?

>>2664654
You're sarcastic, but it's true. Some revolutions were flawed and did not achieve either socialism or communism. Socialism and communism themselves have not much to do with it.

In france, democracy took three tries and a lot of massacres before it reached a stable, functional state. It doesn't mean that the failed tries and the initial forms were testimonies of the true nature of democracy.

>>2664654
Let me ask you a question:

Do you really believe the current system of crony capitalism and pseudo-democracy we live under cannot be improved?

What would you think would be a better replacement?

>>2664680
>It doesn't mean that the failed tries and the initial forms were testimonies of the true nature of democracy.

True, real democracy is run by corrupt plutocrat, not by the common men.

>>2664679
I'm relatively anarchist, and I think that the dictatorship of the proletariat in its marxist/leninist version is flawed and should not be implemented. But the other option is not an immediate transition : it's a long, maintained state of revolution. As someone put it, we must organize the revolution in everyday life so as to not lose it. We must keep up a non-institutionalized revolutionnary force that is not at the orders of some self-styled avant-guarde.

Trotsky's error was to believe that soldiers could lead a social revolution.

COMMIE SCUM

GET OFF MY AMERICAN BOARD!!!!

>>2664720

That was a mass of self-contradictions and a display of how little you actually understand the subject.

As an Anarchist, if that's a term that makes you feel cool, you ought to believe in a quicker transition that would result in the immediate dissolution of government.

What you described in your elaboration was closer the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". The issue with this, and a leader, is that we can get weak leaders and strong leaders. Weak leaders will reverse the transition whilst strong leaders will implement systems that limit freedom (which goes against your Anarchist beliefs) and it's unlikely that they would wish to give up power once they have obtained it.

>>2664679
>OP is going under a trip
>implying it was op

>>2664679
Please respect yourself, you're getting trolled like a bitch by the commie.

CAPITALISM FUCK YEAH!!!

SUCK MY DICK COMMIES!!!

>>2664766

beep beep.

AHAHAHAHAHA.

>>2664672

And how else can we assess how well socialism works in the real world? It seems to me that socialists just want to deny anything was ever socialism so that they can continue to make the claim that socialism is viable and ignore any evidence to the contrary. No political ideology has ever been tried in its purest form, in the form the ideologues envisaged. Every single one has made some kind of concession or has been slightly warped by the governments that enacted it. By the logic socialists use, we could say that fascism has never failed either; all we need to do is point out some difference between the ideology of fascism and the policies of proclaimed fascists.

>>2664680

Socialism has had far more than three chances, and democracy had already succeeded in other countries long before the French tried it. That's hardly a valid analogy.

>>2664683

And here we have the politician's syllogism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this.

No, the current system isn't perfect, but it's better than anything else that's been tried. Have a PROTIP:

Human society is incredibly complicated. Far too complicated for anyone to understand at the moment. It is absolutely retarded to assume a superior political system can be conceived a priori, which is what socialists seem to believe. It is pointless for me to try to think of an improvement, because my hypothesis would inevitably turn out to be wrong.

>>2664766
UAHUAHUAHAUAHUAHAUAHUAHAUHA

>>2664766

>>2664766
>>2664766
I agree that private space is the way of the future and I will renounce my socialist idea because they impede progress In space

Worker collective is a legitimate form of business in capitalist countries. You can start them - why don't you do it? It seems you want to pass laws that prevent private enterprise. Why would you need that. We already have a system, that allows private enterprise and worker collectives.

>>2664794
>>2664797
Yes NASA sucks

Thats why I posted an image of Elon Musk a private space entrepreneur and libertarian.

Fuck you commies

and fuck you you Australian commie I hope you get raped by a kangaroo

>>2664793
>It is absolutely retarded to assume a superior political system can be conceived a priori, which is what socialists seem to believe. It is pointless for me to try to think of an improvement, because my hypothesis would inevitably turn out to be wrong.
How can we figure out what's better or worse if we don't try things out?
Dismissing any new ideas because you think they won't work is just reactionary.

>>2664816
>I hope you get raped by a kangaroo
You could've stopped at 'Fuck you Australian commie'
But no, you had to go full retard.
NEVER go full retard.

>>2664826

>>2664819
We do try things out, just not the pipe dreams of 17 year old hipsters.

>>2664826
I'll add another fuck you.

fuck you commie scum. why are you enjoying life in capitalist australia instead of your native bosnia where their semi communist past has made them poor

>>2664852
ok

>>2664846
Who said anything about hipsters?
U mad.

>>2664843
>China
Chinese do what Chinese do.

>>2664860
No anon. You are the hipster!

>>2664852
>instead of your native bosnia where their semi communist past has made them poor
Wasn't born the...
Wait a second, are you that fascist guy that wanted to take over Eastern European countries to make massive moonbases with only a few hundred thousand people to fix the world if a cataclysmic war broke out and started going OH I AM SO SUPERIOR?
Also, not that poor before that war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#Economy

>>2664843
Meanwhile, in China...

>>2664745
>As an Anarchist, if that's a term that makes you feel cool
It doesn't. Please avoid banalities.
>you ought to believe
Anyway you take it, no.
>What you described in your elaboration was closer the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
Huh. No anarchist thinks that communism can be achieved overnight, and no marxist thinks that a lengthy revolution takes necessarily the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Your bullshit about leaders is bullshit.
A multitude of movements is necessary to complete a communist revolution, each with several leaders of various influence. The first cause of the failure of the russian revolution is the elimination and/or domination of the other movements by the bolsheviks and of the competing leaders inside their own party. I think that a balance can be achieved between the various revolutionnary forces to avoid the defeat against external forces, the elimination of the n-1 factions, and the defeat against internal apathy, that would all stop the revolution before its completion. Both the half-hearted and the would-be tyrans can be set aside by the sole momentum of the revolution.

>>2664878
Not a fair example because Tito was a benevolent dictator.

>>2664878
and you want to create a technocratic republic in Tasmania.

No you are the batshit insane

>>2664878
no i am not a moonbase looney ... he is a commie of different variety from you

yugoslavia was poor and shitty ... it was slightly richer, than other socialist countries because it was semi capitalist

>>2664896
Maybe, maybe not. I want to, now specific events and technologies need to come out otherwise I won't be able to do so. Your point?
>>2664890
I don't see how this disqualifies Former Yugoslavia from being a relatively successful socialist state.

>>2664908
Because a benevolent dictator is a dime a dozen

>>2664917
Still not seeing it. Being a dick dictator isn't a prerequisite for socialism.

>>2664935
No but most dictators are dicks

This will make the socialist state very unstable

>>2664941
Largely agree.

>>2664793
>Socialism has had far more than three chances, and democracy had already succeeded in other countries long before the French tried it. That's hardly a valid analogy.
No. Actual revolutions led by socialists and communists were rare. There was the russian one, which failed because of lenin's theories. And the spanish one, which failed because of a military defeat, and numerous other aborted tries, like in 1848 and 1871 in france, the spartakists in germany, etc.
The communist party of china was inspired by marxism-leninism and made of their revolution mostly a question of conquering the state, and not creating a new society. Cuba 1959 wasn't really concerned with communism. I don't know enough about the viet and cambodian revolutions.

>>2664935
When going by the "ideal world" then many believe enlightened dictatorship would be the best form of society.

Of course the power structures you'll build for a country ruled by a dictator can be used by benevolent dictator or an asshole dictator.

Also there would be a power struggle for the top spot so much of the effort usually starts to go to ensuring the power of a clan loyal to you and fighting against clans not loyal.

Tito was at legendary status and enjoyed great support. This allowed him to use less "twisted measures", but he was not forever. You can see how well succession went when mortal men competed for taking control of these ruling structures.

How should we help Putin to restore USSR

>>2664886
>A multitude of movements is necessary to complete a communist revolution, each with several bloody-thirsty dictators who care about nothing but power
fixed it for you

sage

>>2665001
Why would that be good? Why would you want to see people enslaved again?

for all intensive purposes socialism could work

Socialism is the best form of government. You won't know if it works or not unless you've tried it.

>>2665025
It's a low price for getting to starve the Chechen scum to death.

I too am a socialist. :-)

socialists are a diamond dozen

>>2665043
we can, in fact, know if it works or not through praxeology.

economic calculation without prices in a non-static economy is impossible

Social democrat reporting in.

>>2665501
It would appear that socialism works best when you slaughter around 50 million people. Slaughter too few and you get slaughtered yourself, slaughter too many and you cease to exist.

HEY GUYS? HOW ABOUT THAT SCIENCE TODAY? SURE WAS ALL SCIENCY AND STUFF!

>Nazis
>Socialist
>Mfw i dont have a face
I laugh and cry every time i see this troll or not.