/b/ - Random

Having everyone take part to look after each other is a good idea. However, it only works if producers aren't given the treatment of the workers in John Galt's old factory, so everyone is fairly contributing and benefitting, which does not always come out that way in practice. This is especially true where service jobs too greatly outnumber production jobs. Goods have to come from somewhere in order to be given to someone else. Also, making the government a big powerful hub that determines and regulates absolutely everything is just asking to get fucked over and also invites corruption in. Centralization just means one big, fat concentrated point of failure. Capitalism is fine as long as it's reined in morally and applied intelligently, without unfairly loading things in big corporations' favor (which big gov likes to do).

Most of the problems we're having are from debased fiat currency, which fucks over anything it touches in the long run by stealing future value to use in the present. We're in the years that were stolen from. What system you're under is kind of a secondary detail.

I just don't have faith in the government to be in charge of all distribution and I quadruple lack faith in computer programs picking up the slack. Especially not this government.
Socialism is just a Beach Boys lyric to me.
>Wouldn't it be nice if we had free health care
Yeah it would but that's not gonna happen. Our military and intel sector only became as big as it did in an effort to stomp out people who think that way globally.
I will say I agree that the West needs to consume far less and the third world is entitled to far more of the world's resources, but thats more commie shit than socialist sentiment.

I just don't have faith in the government to be in charge of all distribution and I quadruple lack faith in computer programs picking up the slack. Especially not this government.
Socialism is just a Beach Boys lyric to me.
>Wouldn't it be nice if we had free health care
Yeah it would but that's not gonna happen. Our military and intel sector only became as big as it did in an effort to stomp out people who think that way globally.
I will say I agree that the West needs to consume far less and the third world is entitled to far more of the world's resources, but thats more commie shit than socialist sentiment.

>Why couldn't we just replace those kinds of businesses with a state-run monopoly with computers predicting & dictating the supply?
because the moment power changes to someone who does not know how to use it or will exclusively abuse it for their own profit you will suffer ten times more than you would have beforehand. see also russia

I will never get why people see capitalism vs socialism in a strict binary system.
i want the state to intervene way heavier, i want stronger consumer protection laws, i want heacy taxation of wealthy people, i want key industries and public infrastructure in public hand. i want strong unions and works councils in every job.
but i dont want any little workshop and every little store to be nationalized. i dont want planned economy. i just want a way stronger public hand in how things are handled.

>>309881
Why couldn't we just replace those kinds of businesses with a state-run monopoly with computers predicting & dictating the supply?
corruption
>Why do we let people gain so much power that they can lobby the government into lending itself to their interests only??
corruption

youtube.com/watch?v=hDfdCzbAyLE

kill yourself.

>>309881
The Khrushchev-era Soviet Union was the height of human civilization

All functional forms of socialism are predicated on the belief that the freedom of the individual is built on an obligation to the state. My social contract is with the rest of society; not with a bunch of government functionaries.

>>309881
the answer to most of our problems, the only issue we have is how to organize ourselves as an effective group to implement it.
tbh i think ennacting communism/socialism is much more viable outside of USA. we are too brainwashed to do anything to help ourselves, but thats just my nihilism speaking. don't mind me.

>>309938
>I will never get why people see capitalism vs socialism in a strict binary system.
Because the ruling class is against all forms of wealth equality by design. There is always a nonzero chance any socialized benefits you have under any capitalist system will go away. There was a time when The UK didn't have free healthcare and there's a growing possibility they'll lose it again. Same with many of the Western Europe countries.
It can only be an either or because at the end of the day it can only ne either owners OR workers who control our system.

>>309938
Because any power you allot to the state to rein in corpos will instead be immediately poisoned with loopholes by Corpo A that they can use to get the advantage over Corpo B and small business. Really there's not much point in any national political discourse while corporate influence in politics is allowed at any level above 0.

Social democracy>>>>>>/…/>>>>>>>Socialism. Social democracy is why much of Europe has workers rights and a relatively good life despite being capitalistic, it's really the best of both worlds.

At its core, Democracy is built on the principle of equality: the idea that each individual has an equal say in the political process. But this notion is fundamentally at odds with how human societies naturally function. Societies were historically hierarchical, organic entities where individuals were bound by duty, rank, and purpose within a larger whole. Once Democracy shattered this traditional order with the onset of the French Revolution, it set in motion a series of events that inevitably dragged society into progressively more radical forms of egalitarianism.

Perhaps my most "Reactionary" take is that far from being an antidote to Marxism, Democracy and Liberalism are the very forces which enable it. In a Democracy, politicians have a high-time preference and practically zero incentive to think about long-term planning. Even worse, Democracy incentivizes politicians to cater to the lowest common denominator because they have as much political sway as everyone else. Inevitably, the political system simply becomes a mechanism to redistribute wealth (which is what the overwhelming majority of the Federal budget is now geared towards). This sort of feeds upon the impulse that exists within the underlying premise of Liberalism itself: that inequality is unjust and must be eradicated.

As the entire political system gets dragged down to the lowest common denominator, the logic of Democracy inevitably demands further leveling of society. After all, if all individuals are equal, why not extend that principle to all areas of life? Why stop at political equality? Why not enforce economic equality too? And why even stop at equality at all? “Equity” now enters the picture. This is where Marxism (and particularly Cultural Marxism) emerges as a natural extension of Democracy’s core premise. Marx's call for an international revolution among the proletariat is not a break from Democracy but its fulfillment in a system that abolishes all remaining hierarchies.

So what happens over the course of decades and even centuries is that Liberalism enables Democracy, which enables Socialism, which eventually enables Marxism. They're all part of the same process of decay, just different steps in a continuous march toward destroying the traditional and hierarchical societies that had existed prior to the 19th century.

And this more than anything else is why I constantly criticize “Liberal Democracy.” Because the real issue is that so many people—even on the "Right"—believe that Democracy can somehow stop Marxism, when in reality it paves the way for it. The fact that Liberal Democracy, by its very nature, fails to uphold any higher authority or principle beyond the "will of the people" means it is easily hijacked by those who push for more extreme forms of egalitarianism.

>>310065
social democracy only exists due to the threat of socialist revolution though

>>310068
I agree with everything you say, as a socialist. I love democracy and I think socialism is its truest expression. Monarchism is a failed ideology and the product of people who can't think cybernetically..

>>310068
"Liberalism actually enables marxism" is exactly the type of thinking that keeps socialists from getting anywhere. Lol.

>>309938
Because Marx was open about the fact that socialism is a transitional form of government that exists solely to help capitalist societies convert to communism.

communism or nothing.

>>310083
This.

>>309881
Socialism is a political system invented by someone who don't understand that nobody is going to work if he isn't rewarded by something worth his time and efforts.
It died in 22 when Lenin grew tired of the never ending famines (in the agrarian Russia and even in the most fertile land in the world: Ukraine) and he created the new economic policy instead: opening the country to capitalist investments. That's how Ford opened factories in the Soviet union.

This flaw originate from the root of socialism and can not be addressed without reworking the ideology so deeply that it end up a completely new ideology.

Socialism can only work on small communities where everyone know everyone and social pressure is strong. Anarchists are right on one point: if a country try to make solidarity mandatory, then frauding this solidarity will be seen as an act of rebellion.

>>310070
Social democraties only exist in Scandinavian countries. It fit their particular culture and those countries never had a treath of a socialist revolution, except Finland who managed to survive it.
Anyway, only Norway is still a social democracy today.

Perhaps you wanted to talk about reformism, which is the ductile side of capitalism throwing some reforms to the workers so they can get a fat and easy life, cancelling the need for a revolution and ensuring the survival of capitalism.

What is often branded as social democracy is just some politicians buying votes with public money, which is also called clientelism and is the end of democracy.