Bayzeek Ecanomicks

After revolution, what economic system do you think should be implemented?

Attached: images_6.jpeg (430x342, 38.74K)

Other urls found in this thread:

anticapitalists.org/2013/03/17/solidarity-not-charity/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprises_in_the_Soviet_Union
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Geomutualism.

Socialism, durr.

Cybernetic socialism of course.

No shit sherlock. I meant what type of socialist economy

Democratic socialism with internet voting.

Esoteric an-prim with crypto-transhumanism
Fucking obviously

Attached: 64b17fd58e2774d8e0060ce087c45859.jpg (736x969, 93.59K)

The only one that actually works, Capitalism.

Attached: Monopoly Man.jpg (900x800, 96.11K)

State services utilities run by cybernetics, syndicalist, cooperaive and soviet self management for everything else until we can get climate change sorted. Then full automation.

Socialism doesn't work you fucking morons.

...

Attached: Shovel.png (1160x420, 97.98K)

Attached: 0f813e83ef818b5b623052623b708f23a3b3a85c.png (484x1524 1.24 MB, 141.6K)

le ebin Vuvuzela xdddd Cuba xddd Noff Koree

Attached: 951c7a8e0535ec432f9da61fdfb35e0fd1e27976a1852fcf9d4cab16dd572b6f.png (474x711, 90.48K)

Attached: 39bcf8ee0bf434fb9469f92928cfdc6b183b9002.png (400x420, 25.59K)

Attached: Brainlet.png (213x237, 8.07K)

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.

A collective that regulates.

a strain or heavy demand.

Taxation also refers to resources, money is nothing more than a measuring stick.

Attached: Every Fucking Time.jpg (498x499, 20.31K)

Attached: c4033167a6440c152392087070519eccfb3054d7.png (1368x1341 373.94 KB, 191.77K)

Attached: d9a0681ebf2a6faf2aea03c7f5761112aeded2fd.png (680x680, 366.44K)

ebin meme, and nice wikipedia definition on

Every fucking time.

Never implied that, I did imply that thinking you should get payed by how productive you are is fucking retarded.

There no longer needs to be a workers congress now that we have the internet.
We could have council communism + internet voting.
It makes perfect sence to me until somebody can prove otherwise.

You can't have any form of collectivism without a state. A state is nothing more than a collective that regulates.

a strain or heavy demand.

You just posted the literal definition of taxes.

It doesn't have to, neither does capitalism for that matter, it's just really fucking retarded because money is nothing but a tool used measure value. A dollar bill is nothing more than a ruler.

...

…you're opposed to voluntarily trading your labor for a wage but aren't opposed to being compelled to work at gun point by the state?

Free market capitalism. Im not even kidding, we live in a society upside down, where we have a capitalist economy with some social welfare, in an ideal socialist society, we collectively own all base industry and all natural resources and all the land. But we let entrepreneurs use the produce to make consumer goods which we will buy with some form of fiat currency.

So Everyone will get a house, some food, and all necessary household things for free. But anything above that will be purchased from private entities. This way if you have a niche interest or a particular taste you can get it from a capitalist.

This market economy would be heavily regulated highly taxed, and with an upper limit on the potential size of the company. This would not be a problem since all base industry as stated will be state owned.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production.

Any socialist society that is not democratic is not socialist.

I don't think that's how Free Market Capitalism works

Literally Hitler.

Any corporate tax above %0 is fucking retarded.

But it is how it will work under socialism. You can own a company, but no land and no property. So you can only rent land and by resources from the state, which you will use to provide for consumers.

...

And the Dengist comes and ruins it all.

Why?

Let me explain how council communism works.
People work for a industry.
People select a representative to represent said industry in the workers congress.
The workers congress determines production.
Only we could have internet voting on top of that.

This is correct.

This is incorrect.

Its just form of market socialism then. Not free market capitalism

Hitler would be proud.

I don't know what you learnt from Jordan Peterson but a state is a centralised organisation with a monopoly on violence and legislation. the institution of a public force which is no longer immediately identical with the people’s own organization of themselves as an armed power.

The state doesn't represent the entire collective.
No, in some cases you'd call that mutual aid. Voluntarily organising and giving resources according to need for the collective isn't the same as taxation.

Based on market prices and not equilibrium prices.
It's a really shit ruler.
HOLY STRAW MAN, BATMAN

...

Brainlet detected.

Attached: 652B4D6B-64EB-474F-8D55-85EB589D3FFE.jpeg (800x450, 39.91K)

Left-wing Anarchism doesn't exist, you can't have collectivism without a state.

…as he pushes the goal posts.

...

In the very least, its democratic for the workers in the case of dictatorship of the proletariat.


Well usually when you talk market socialism you talk about Titos Yugoslavia which would be completely different from what i am proposing.


It wouldn't be fascism partially because as i said there companies would be small and heavily regulated, hence no corporatism. And also it lacks the reactionary social component which would make it fascist. I doubt you would say scandinavia is fascist for being semi corporatists?

You don’t even know what a state is. Read a book, or just actually read black flag user’s definition since it was actually right.

On the contrary, you cannot have anarchism without socialism, as there would be no organisation to determine which property is who's in a theoretical capitalist anarchy.

...

Anarcho syndicalism believe that workers syndicate should be the government.
Anyways its about turning the workplace into a government entity.
As opposed to it being separate.

He was.

It leads to mod rule and tyranny of the majority.

Being this stupid.
Go read a book

Attached: c9a3e47942ae92862bb3fa03aa06f7abca32f40b9ba45e58f48ee973819897e9.jpg (3256x2808, 2.54M)

...

Give me a second to type out a response.


Correct. Let's break this definition down.

aka a collective…

…that regulates.

…which happens democratically and naturally when you remove power from the individual and hand it to the collective. You trade your freedom for security and end up with neither.

Correct but it is created by the collective when you remove power from the individual.

No, you'd call that charity.

Correct, it's called charity. The issue is when you remove the concept of private property and their is no clear difference between what is mine and what is yours, that's when the collective comes in and has to use force removing the completely voluntary aspect from the concept turning "mutual aid" into taxation.

Based on what? You don't have any pricing information. You kiddos have no idea whatsoever how the world works. Today or yesterday. The later is why you're children.

Attached: Hayek.jpg (403x403, 51.66K)

Spot on.

Worker's shouldn't be in control of shit, it should remain voluntary as a two way street.


That's what corporatism is. Corporations do not exist in a truly free market.

Yes, low corporate taxes with high progressive tax rates and a strong welfare state is textbook fascist economics. They are a lot more closer to actual fascism then the united states would ever be.

i wonder who could be behind this post

Attached: 0992238a47bb55fbe819141a8a74475a637da50cf579a65fd1982e36101f29b4.jpg (680x661, 77.4K)

It’s not just a collective that regulates dipshit, it’s a collective that regulates in a particular way for a particular purpose.
You aren’t removing power from the individual numbnuts. The need for collective action is a fact of life, part of human nature, read Aristotle ffs. Humans are social animals and our societies are built around collective action of some kind, even capitalist societies. If collective action and social living is inevitable, then democracy is the only method of collective decision making that maximizes each individual’s control over their own lives.
By the same means that porkies do. You do realize that corporations are planned economies right? They basically guess at what to produce and how much, and AI technology is quickly supplanting humans in capital allocation.

Attached: 4570BCAB-2A33-4EA5-AD41-082AAC3BF60B.jpeg (1040x693, 314.28K)

He's definition of a state is correct, his definition or mutual aid doesn't exist because it will always be taken at gun point because without the concept of private property. You should try reading some literature that isn't leftist dogshit psuedo-economics like Marx or Kropotkin.

A collective doesn't have to be a state.
correct
The collective and individual are illusory terms as individuals can form a collective and a collective can be formed with individuals.
How? Granting autonomy to the whole as opposed to it being controlled by a centralised form of government is good. Socialism isn't all vanguards you know.

Capitalism does that regardless through alienation of labour.

No. Mutual aid, as opposed to charity, does not connote moral superiority of the giver over the receiver.

Socialists oppose the welfare state
anticapitalists.org/2013/03/17/solidarity-not-charity/

Personal property like your tooth brush and car isn't private property, like a factory or restraunt you child.

...

Social credits/labor vouchers?
Its like money but destroyed upon use.

>I think currency is value
Wew lad dropped on your head?

to expand on this

National Socialism is different from Marxist socialism.

Also if a private company is merged with the state it is no longer private

because Not Socialism…isn't. it's just fascism with a different sticker on it.

…and which law grants private property in the United States? Pray tell.


Great argument.


Really gets the noggin joggin.


wew lad

...

No its NutSac

Are you telling me the US is ancapistan?

Bit vulgar of you, user

Nope.

This is correct.

This is completely incorrect.

Not that person but this is completely incorrect. There is a difference between a business risking his own money and a state risking everyone's money in a financial decision.

its the world filter

Sure it is, user.

I think the problem with the modern revolutions, not only the socialist ones but also nationalistic or emancipatory revolutions, is that people are trying to apply an social-economic model to a society doesn't exist as of it. Like, and I might be wrong, but didn't both the French revolution and the Russian evolution started off just as a movement to remove an unpopular government, and through a dialectal process conflicting philosophies shaped different theories into practice?
It seems to be that the biggest revelation from old revolutions is that no one can predict the post-conflict model of society, that can only arise once you're not clouded by the distractions of the current model.


Wrong, the State REGULATES the collective, and by collective read: anyone the State deems to belong to it's jurisdiction.
There are multiple definitions of State, so unless you're using the dumbest of them all that would allow you to classify proto-european tribes of 15 people as States, no, it's not just a group that regulates relations between individuals.

When the Mayan emperor ordered servants to carry rocks from one place so they could make a construction on another, who was he taxing? The earth itself?


Ah yes, my truly voluntary choice between working 8 hours a day or becoming a hobo.


So… Georgism?

Oh boy.

And again, socialism isn't everything the state does, you can have stateless socialism, but you still reject the fact that left wing anarchism exists.

Attached: thonk.jpg (979x832, 546.07K)

It was socialist just not marxist

It literally wasn't. There are no other forms of socialism other than Marxism or Anarchism.

Attached: a7465b6cb1099fea698464360a3a5a0cdccc27c1.png (2720x3752, 6.8M)

Socialism was theorized before marx was even born and Marxists don't hold a monopoly on socialist theory

All that picture proves is that Germany's socialism wasn't marxist. Which it absolutely was not

Yes but extended to base industry and infrastructure.

socialism is by definition, marxist or anarchist. it can't be neither.

Attached: DkYJbKzU4AEM4If.jpg-large.jpeg (643x537, 46.4K)

Glad to know this idiot is arguing in bad faith and we can ignore him.

labour front was superior

it wasn't private because it was controlled by the state

Done by people acting as a group.

A nation or territory considered as an organized political community (aka a collective) under one government.

Conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).

A collective is a state.

They're not illusionary so much as happening at the same time.

By removing private property you are centralizing power.

This is labor in general and has historically happened in every system of government. How is being a wage slave any different than being a civil servant or being a surf when it comes to alienation?

HAHAHAHAHA, get your virtue signalling bullshit out of here.

There is no difference. Why should you or anyone else decide how I utilize my assets. I can just as easily put a bed in a warehouse to utilize as a home and use a house to run a sewing business from. This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that socialism can't be stateless.

Person 1: Do X, person 2 and I'll give you Y.
Person 2: Either yes or no.

Person 1: Do X, person 2 and I'll give you Y.
Person 2: Either yes or no.
Person 3 (who is not part of the transaction): No!
Person 4 (who is not part of the transaction): No!
Person 5 (who is not part of the transaction): No!

...

It wasn't, and the fact that the unions were smashed means that they certainly had no interest in maintaining or creating socialism. That's not even counting the fact that workers didn't control the MOP.

Did you even read the graph, dipshit? The Verginite Stahlwerke, Deustche Bank, Dresdner Bank and Hansa Dampf along with others weren't controlled by the state.

THEY WERE NOT SHAREHOLDERS

Even if they were, state control over private property would lend itself to be corporatist or kensyeian at best, but certainly not socialist, as socialism abolished private property.

Attached: 74bf2ec6e0b282ac5e4797b4942b4d9ea08ac061.png (538x2325, 619.28K)

Marxist socialism pits classes against each other Germany's Socialism does not.
and?

this is just a lie. Germany had the fastest economic recovery in human history after implementing Socialism

I do and it's fucking retarded. The government is incapable of generating wealth.

Giving the politicians the ability to print more money to pay for their government gibs instead of raising taxes is fucking retarded.

It doesn't matter if it's created or destroyed, value will always remain in equilibrium.

I've stated multiple times it's nothing more then a measuring stick.

Attached: Inflation.jpg (480x360, 16.14K)

Of course there’s a difference, but the mechanism of resource allocation is what’s important here. Also I have no idea where anybody got the idea that the pricing system of capitalism is efficient in allocating resources.

the class struggle is the worker's fight for freedom. you just want peace for it's own sake
and they suffered for it. without the threat of strikes, bosses and shareholder could exploit and abuse to their heart's content
and they also had the fastest economic downfall after declaring war on basically everyone because MUH ARYAN CLAY

Wew lad

Attached: DF336570-7375-4800-8544-2F3C0F3B0C05.png (640x377, 30.92K)

Unions weren't needed when they had a labour front. The labour front was superior because it had the same function of a trade union but on the national scale and could be mobilized far easier than independent unions.

Under Germany's socialism was Volkish socialism not Marxist Socialism. The MOP were given to the German volk.


All private business had strict state oversight just because the state was not a shareholder did not mean the banking system was free of regulation. You can read Feder to learn more about this


It was a component of Germany's Volkish socialism

Class collaboration is the Volk's fight for freedom
No they couldn't because of the labour front

So you're admitting I'm right? thanks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprises_in_the_Soviet_Union

*blocks your path

Again, doesn't have to be a state.

And again, the state isn't the """collective""" it seeks to serve its own interests first and foremost. Anarchists for example would advocate for federation, libertarian municipalism, syndicalism or participatory/ direct democracy. Are you telling me people voted for Australia's past two prime ministers? No. They didn't have a say, so the """collective will" hasn't been enforced.

No, a collective is an illusory term, as I mentioned before. A collective doesn't have to be the a state, it can be, as you mentioned, and organisation or a group of people.

Hence, why they're illusory terms. The collective and the individual are illusory terms for the reasons I mentioned before.


How? Workers syndicates and federations would create a form decentralised planning so no single organisational entity has say over where resources are distributed. How exactly is it a centralisation of power? Because "muh precious individuality"? Cry more lobster boy.


It isn't.

Attached: 2efe1fdb82e20ab56783524484d527d34c3e251d.jpg (2025x2052, 455.51K)

what does this even mean. I've heard it slung around, but no solid definitions
didn't give a shit. they just put up a front of everything being ok.
¿que?

the view of german society was seen as the struggle between the german people and internationalists instead of proles and bourgeois like in marxism.

ok so you're willfully being ignorant of the german labor front and dismissing it because of that.

You said conditions got worse. I replied with "this is just a lie. Germany had the fastest economic recovery in human history after implementing Socialism"
you rather than contesting this added to what I said by bringing up the war.
Also WW2 has nothing to do with the economic theory.

Why am I not surprised?

It's funny how you go on about "muh socialism is not democratic" but you chose the example of the Nazis and all of a sudden shill for them "controlling the MOP". The volk is an illusory concept, it literally just means "if you were born in the country you can control it".

Again, state control over private property doesn't make it socialist, and again, the graph CLEARLY points out that the state were not active shareholders, in these departments. That means that private property was still allowed to flourish without regulation.

Which again, is still not socialism. It still maintains private property, class relations, and doesn't even maintain an element of democracy.