That way the state can readily reallocate resources and account for externalities in business decisions, because in every decision the state eats all the externalities whether positive or negative.

cause it wouldn't be driven by capital interests but by social interests

it would be fundamentally different

people wouldn't have the same motivation to work for a livng

Not currently but I have somewhat read up on that, right now its Carlo Michelstaedter, he partially inspired Evola @Ϻ14ᛟ

@Reprehensibletrash I said corners for a reason. Paper math works on paper but not always in the real world , same for socialism. Works only paper ONLY

or take on more risk

@Arthur Grayborn interesting that you don't have a single example of such a system, yet claim to know the inner workings

@ManAnimal - Why do people work for a living now?

Why should anyone at Walmart give a damn if they don't own the corporation?

Simple: They get fucking paid.

so they can earn capital and use that capital to p urchase what the want and need

they work and get what they want

no work? no house no food

Implying that the same would not be true under socialism.

@randomNPCno3 imagine if AOC wrote in the first three pages of the green new deal, that her ideas are completely asinine and non-functional. Would you still consider it to work in theory...?

No work, no house or food.

Work harder, get nicer house and better food.

but it isn't a discrete

Because that's literally how Engels and Marx wrote it

They admit the complete lack of even theoretical function

8 hrs as a doctor isn't 8 hrs as a mcdonalds employee

Yeah, exactly.

@Reprehensibletrash no, her plansl look like they were written by a child. She shouldn't be in government

Under socialism doctors could still have mini-mansions while McDonalds employees live in small apartments.

so... again, if they are the same then why work?

and if they aren't the same salary who determines who makes what?

who gets to determein value

I agree with that opinion, but that doesn't really answer the question. If the writer themselves admits they're defying all reality, how can you take their theory as even practical on paper?

@ManAnimal - That's such an incredible straw man, it's not even funny. Socialism does not mean economic equality. It does not mean that McDonalds burger flippers and highly trained doctors are going to have the same exact housing and food budget.

The problem in socialism is that government bureaucrats would fuck it all up. They always do. Always.

it wasnt a man of any kind

@Reprehensibletrash - Who the fuck says I'm even considering Marx or Engels?

Socialism fails because they try to create objective facts out of arbitrary values

@Vir ah hadn't actually heard of him. I haven't read as much Traditionalist literature as I have Fascist since it incorporates a lot of the good ideas traditionalism has into it most of the time anyway.

they were QUESTIONS

@Arthur Grayborn notice how I wasn't tagging you

That's because I wasn't talking to you

burrecrats doing what?

👍🏻

read Evola if you havent its wacky and borderline crazy a lot of the time

but id you look past that

the base ideas are atleast interesting

@randomNPCno3 - Socialism fails because when you replace corporate management with government management, the result is always a shitshow. Government competence is so rare, that we only really use the government in cases where contractors and privatization would be even worse.

the problem with theory or acedemics is they think they know how something works but once the take so mething apart, there are SO many pieces they don't know what they do