Really?

That was your solution to the problem.

That you told me, at least.

>implying that there isn't more directly democratic or more authoritarian versions of capitalism

@Seedle wrong. I said that would be a start to addressing Zionist subversion

inb4 it's "kill the jewish bourgeoisie but the white ones are okay"

@Deleted User exactly

@Seedle fucking retard, when did I ever imply that?

Democracy is a means for the working class to exercise ownership and not a goal in it of itself.

@Seedle ah, I guess I'm poor and weak, perhaps *FUCKING COMMUNISM* is my only hope, zero alternatives! I'll sit here and wait, Heh.

Revolution any second now

Aaaaaannnnnyyyyy second

Comrades? Guys?

Uh.... Any second, yeah.

>taxing the rich and regulating the money into poverty stricken communities won't help

Hmmm

Never heard of this welfare thing

>paying the poor more won't make them less poor
HMMMMMM

As for college, it shouldn't be free.

Bernie supporters want all this and it's bare bones, is this to mock them? @Deleted User

minimum wages make it less affordable for companies to hire people, so they need to fire a few, increasing unemployment and thus reducing the market value of a worker, increasing poverty

Who is the meme targeting?

>socialism is just welfare

there's only a small amount of people who actually profit from minimum wages and people usually work their way up the hirarchy fast enough so that they get a better paying, middle class job

@Seedle did I say that?

@Seedle amazing straw man arguments, comrade cumguzzler

That's what you kept screeching about, am I right?

so as for ">paying the poor more", that's a very shallow understanding of wages

@Seedle uh, no

@Deleted User who is the meme targeting? Answer the question

But anyway, he's a proposed democratic socialist model that was introduced in wake of the welfare state's failure to deliver the actual intended results https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/21/tackling-wealth-inequality-like-a-swede/

@sleeping zzz a few questionable socialist opinions

which are very popular among leftists

they're stereotypical

>destroy all "subversive" "activity" by eliminating the boogeyman to save our capitalist culture and government

Reminder Hitler purged the left wing elements of the NSDAP because he was in bed with german industrialists and petit-bourgie

capitalism actually works pretty fine as long as the government doesn't cuck itself to corporations

@Deleted User yeah

>when you're apparently socialists but have the actually socialist leaders of your party are killed

Hitler was sympathetic towards capitalism

At some point

@Deleted User Where has that been the case?

Hitler was a massive shill for capitalists.

Well, America's rapid growth in the early 20th century before large scale corporate consolidation and larger corruption.
I don't think there's any examples of "pure capitalism" historically, that's more of an Ancap theory.

And I wouldn't exactly call Hitler a capitalist, but he allowed his market to grow fairly freely and focused on creating a powerful worker's union with worker's rights in terms of socialism.

all citizens of germany at that time were also given socialistic benefits

including women who are child bearing

Hitler was a darwinist, a naturalist and that's a big reason why he didn't like to go full socialist after the fascist revolution in Germany

its also pretty difficult to be a capitalist when your economy is nationalistic

There was major nationalist portions of the KPD.

what capital is there to maximize when u are trying to individualize the german economy

I mean you're pretty wrong on that.

In reality Hitler had to appeal to industrialists and capitalists as apart of consolidating his power.

what power

he was already dictator of germany

Military buildup, unions, just generally aligning people with him.

You can be a dictator and still be on a sinking ship.

but it wasnt

It was though.

so that wasnt a requirement, he was idolized and the economy was booming, if he is the result of it then thats why the german people praised him

just like you see with russia and putin

He wasn't idolized, he was seen as the only option to a lot of ordinary Germans.

That's revisionism.

You have to have the support of your generals and -to an extent- the upper class if you want to stay a dictator

idk seeing footage of the sheer amount of people praising him doesnt seem to be revisionism

Hitler was definitely idolised

Idolized by the "german people"?

No.

Yes

He absolutely was

I've seen all the videos and pictures

99.7% of the whole Reich supported Hitler and his decision to annex Austria in a plebiscite

And personal recounts

And well, he was seen as superhuman by the masses

Exactly

they adored him

Over 12 million ETHNIC germans had been under some sort of criminal investigation or trial by the Hitlerian police state during his rule.

The leader

The fuhrer

Furthermore, he was quietly opposed by those who had been alive during WWI.

Didn't JFK love him

He totally did

>unironically buying into nazi propaganda

so did several other nationalists and patriots

You can't blame them, they wouldn't want to go to war after having experienced one already

Reminder he got this support due to anti-communism.

But that doesn't say anything about him as a leader

i mean u cant just use fallacies like that you have to attack the concept of national socialism itself

http://people.com/politics/jfk-diary-auction-fascination-hitler-legend/amp/

which is economically left wing is it not

"legend"
-JFK

There is no separation of the economic and political.

but there is a seperation of economic and cultural

National Socialism was envisaged as an expressly anti-socialist response

Because if that wasn't the case, German industrialists would have been fucked.

There was already one revolution in Germany, and there was about to be another if the KPD organized more power. Their natural instinct was to support Hitler and keynesian policies.

i dont get it

so the name just contradicts its own meaning by definition

whether or not hitler precisely used the concept of national socialism isnt really relevant but the actual meaning of it

Hitler had his own definition of socialism, that wasn't economic related at all

"National Socialism" is still capitalist, natsocs don't like to admit it

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/245083066266025984/363710937808502794/sryfam.png

in what way

good night

define 'national socialism' then

>it says socialism so it must be socialist

I guess the DPRK is a democratic people's republic then

so then two feet means three feet?

National socialism supports people as a community, as cogs in a machine. It isn't 100% comparable to actual socialism, but it's against this idea that corporations can shit all over everyone

Iirc there were some socialistic measures

Earlier guy mentioned pregnant women and so forth

They support their people, they don't just let them starve, etc

>they still think socialism is the government doing stuff

Can't read German

By this logic socialists may as well bow to the feet of FDR.

Don't know that image, don't know who drew it, don't know if it's legitimate, don't know how it's even remotely relevant

It's a political cartoon showcasing what national socialism really was.

Also

"National socialism thinks that corporations shouldn't shit all over people"

This is basically the nazbol approach

That's why they shut down every independent union am I right?

>DON'T MENTION THE CAPITALISTIC JEWS MAAAN

>literally whatabout duh jews

i mean thats kind of another fallacy u have to actually research it first before dismissing it like that

Nah just mentioning that it's the nazbol approach

I do my research.

Because you were raging about it earlier

That's why I became a socialist, literally.

"1. The right to employment

The foundation for solving the social question is the realization of the right to employment, which can only happen through our job creation program. A law on employment will lay down the rights of the worker. Freedom for creative labor will be assured, freedom for capitalist exploitation abolished."

from the nsdap economic program

If you did your research you wouldn't be a communist

if communism worked in any case but a utopian society where it is an arbitrary concept in that regard id be a communist

Nobody says it's going to be utopian

@styles That was a program in many capitalist nations at the time. They name drop capitalists and exploitation in there but it's pretty much a bastardization of the term.

Exploitation refers to the extraction of surplus value.

This argument is really just a bunch of semantics

@olev good because it wouldn't be

Lol

thats not only definition i think

It isn't a bunch of semantics.

It's literally "what is socialism" in a different context.

Socialism has a scientific definition in relation to economics, not some idealist bullshit.

Marxists will define it differently than NS, in the end they're all just words.

'scientfic definition'

what do you mean by this

National Socialists have their own special snowflake definition because they're not actually socialists.

These arguments never really achieve anything, because we have completely different worldivews, not just political differences.

Didn't USSR shut down the unions too

They approve of private property, private ownership, capitalists, surplus value extraction, capital accumulation, etc.

socialistic economics is a measure i would take it

They aren't socialists.

@National Trotskyist Yeah.

For different reasons though.

High taxes, universal healthcare, welfare, isn't socialism

You heard it right here folks

welfare is socialistic

1950's america was literally socialism.

It isn't

taxes is not on the basis of socialism

Welfalre is not socialist

@styles Socialism is about ownership.

An effective argument, wouldn't focus on the material differences and policies of past states, but rather on the worldviews that these ideas belong to

Welfare is not ownership, it's a way to make being poor less shitty.

Rather forever poor

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More

'welfarism'

freikorps a correct argument is about using objective reasoning so therefore subjective interest is fallacious in any argument

"the principles or policies associated with a welfare state."

>google definition

"means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

The means of production is not owned in a welfare state.

owned by who

By the community or society, or specifically in Marxism, the working-class

Meanwhile in the news

Would maket socialsim be socialist then?

the means of production just means the production industry i take it and that would be owned by specific individuals

but the welfare system is controlled by the government

which is voted in by the people in a democracy

ultimately being socialistic

Styles, I have a pretty good article about social democracy and democratic socialism you could read.

lets see it

Welfare isn't a means of production

https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/21/tackling-wealth-inequality-like-a-swede/

Also that's public ownership, which is very loosely even socialist

It was a proposed system that expressed ownership over welfare, and was resisted by the employer class of Sweden.

You see, in the Swedish welfare state, the working-class had a much more equal distribution of wealth and had benefits, but this failed to address the underlying problem of ownership and in this specific case *who was still accumulating the most capital?*

Despite the working-class creating that through their labor.

but that goes under the idea of putting in place a full 100% socialistic society

where everything is equally owned by everyone

but we all know that doesnt work (unless in a utopian society)

Everything, no. The economic decisions, yes.

What do you mean it doesn't work?

As we can see through this swedish case, the biggest hurdle against it working was actually the resistance from the capitalists.

Resistance from capital in general, really.

because 1: it is a primary human instinct to put themselves above everything else

and 2: most of them are smart enough to get in such economic power in the first place they know it wouldnt work

you cant just 'equally' give the wealth of the economy to everyone

I disagree. Read the article, it's actually very interesting.

there is too much exploitation involved

You realize for most of human history, wages didn't exist?

if a wage didnt exist it was either slavery or they were in a family

The point isn't to "give" it to them, it's to make a system where that wealth can be distributed on the society's own terms, or even where wealth is not a primary factor in many life decisions.

Like I said

Ownership

Communism is basically like mutual aid societies

But instead the input is the work provided by everyone, and the output is what is derived from their work

so what happens if one person doesnt work

and another person sees that person not working, getting free benefits, and then everyone stops working?

You'd be pretty fucking bored out of your mind not doing anything with your life

This depends. Is the society automated?

You can't automate everything

the society is a normal society with the concept of communism applied

if it is automation then it isnt communism because the people arent in control

So basically the level of automation we have now?

'a machine' is

yea that would work the same

our current state of automation still requires people to work

the machines just wont handle things correctly if they dont have ppl working

Wrong. Automation would still be communist. It just wouldn't be people in the factories.

I don't mean automation as in "machines make some of the decisions"

I mean automated production.

ye then thats the same situation

someones still gotta flip the switches

and whoever does that is whoever can control the production

https://discord.gg/MAmJc7

if it requires effort, then ppl will just choose 'not to do it'

if it doesnt require effort, people will just choose to 'take more for themselves'

plus as the other guy said someone will probably just start killing people out of boredom

The point of production will be use though.

You're not producing for the sake of possibly selling some of the products like in capitalism.

It's hard to talk about because detailing exactly how a socialist society will organize itself is like predicting the future.

but at a point of the second definition i put then it would have to be socialistic economy with no choice

because capitalism wont work in a society where there is no way to make money

its just the fact that it would be inherently more chaotic because people would have no work and no purpose

Marx proposed labor vouchers. Non-transferable, tied to the amount of time you worked (job dependent I believe), and directly tied to you.

but how would you work

if the machines did everything

But weren't those eventually to disappear? @Seedle

Yes, as scarcity became irrelevant

That's what they had in catalonia

And some other factors, I haven't read Gotha Programme yet.

But some places got rid of money altogether

@styles You could be any number of things.

That's the difference between anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism

im saying in a society where the concept of working is completely demolished by the fact machines can do everything a human can

the former supports having labor vouchers until there is no need for money

in that scenario capitalism cant exist, there would be chaos, and several other bullshit

in the part where it is like now (machines make things easier) then that still is based on reality

Yeah I agree, capitalism ends when automation progresses into not needing people anymore.