Thread is kinda political (you can't have reasonable discussions on pol about anything) but with historical relevancy.

Can someone explain Socialism to me, and why so many people are against it? It's like Americans WANT everything to be privatized. What's wrong with more government oversight? The government is US the people (supposedly). But they act like big government is tyranny. Seems kinda backwards. But maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture.

Basically what the fuck is wrong with having free health care and education?

>>17857819 (OP)
Because its a pathway to totalitarianism. Why should I be responsible for paying taxes so Shaniqua can pop out five more kids from different baby daddies who don't feel obligated to stick around. How is it my problem when I can't even get a woman to talk to me without getting pepper spray in my face. I mean you want to talk a big game about fairness when there's bigger fish to fry.

>>17857827
You already pay taxes, anon. The US government spends a gazillion dollars on new fighter jets and lazer beams to fuck up poor brown people for the Jews, who themselves are given hefty sums of money DAILY. Why the fuck shouldn't we allocate more of that money towards socialist programs? It seems like you're not against socialism you just hate black and brown people

>>17857835
You're right I do. Two of them had an affairs with exes of mine. Why shouldn't i?

>>17857819 (OP)
It isn't. The philosophical conflict between socialism and privatization is necessary because of the importance of industry. Capitalists have to be checked by socialists or they run wild. Socialists have to be checked by capitalists likewise.

>>17857839
>Admits to having personal biases
>Doesn't really know what he's talking about
I'm sorry that happened to you anon, but respectfully your opinion on this subject means nothing. There's poor white people who could use more financial help in this country too! Don't fuck over your own just to spite blacks because you dated some whores

>>17857839
wow you're like a walking stereotype

>>17857842
I think the problem is then that capitalists are destroying this country by privatizing fucking everything and brainwashing people into rejecting all forms of socialism. Like removing everyone's SNAP benefits and laughing about it cus fuck niggers amirite

>>17857854
what does that have to do with anything? Obviously most people think the US could use stronger socialist bureaucracy, but that's because the country is famous for being relatively anti-communist and pro-freedom, at least performatively. We still have socialist programs. It's just a matter of degree. People say Europeans have better healthcare on smaller populations, but a better argument would be America allows people to live in extreme rural poverty, these are the ones truly lacking. In that case, you see how banning rural poverty would make society cleaner but less American.

>>17857862
>What does that have to do with anything?
Racist white people think poor black families (they forget about all the poor white families) collecting welfare or food stamps are somehow stealing. So they disregard all forms of socialism like free college or free health care as theft and for lazy people. But then complain when penicillin is too expensive

>you see how banning rural poverty would make society cleaner but less American.
I'm sorry but I genuinely have no fucking idea what you mean by this

Socialism was born out of the interaction of liberalism within a catholic society. Catholics react aggressively towards secularization and private meetings and the discussion of politics especially but not exclusively limited to constitutionalism and the creation of a republic. Not only do the plebs lash out at liberalism, but so does the establishment, swinging every which way with spears and swords. Frenchies never once considered having a weaker state than they had before, they just wanted to give the power to somebody else. Socialists saw the breakdown of french society after their liberalization (france had been degenerating for hundreds of years by that point) and blamed it on the ruling classes for being too backwards to usher in a scientific utopia any time soon. So instead they started writing about "what if" scenarios if they wiped the slate clean and started from scratch.

The caveat being the lower classes really were complete ignoramuses and would believe anything you said

>>17857873
You never hear about Russia or China's socialized healthcare (they exist) because people in places with no infrastructure can't all be medevac'd to Moscow. US failures of healthcare are failures of economic development, a coal company brings more health infrastructure to formerly empty forest than socialist ideals and no coal mine.

>>17858032
>US failures of healthcare are failures of economic development
This isn't wrong but it's not the whole truth either. Even in developed areas people can't afford healthcare. Obviously there's always gonna be people innawoods, that's just dancing around the issue here.

>>17858032
>coal company brings more health infrastructure to formerly empty forest than socialist ideals and no coal mine
What about socialist ideals AND a coal mine? I mean ??? Those things don't exist in vacuums

>>17858119
because then the government bills itself 400 million dollars and builds a 200 million dollar plant and pockets the rest

>>17858127
>We can't have government assistance because the government sucks
Well every single political and economic discussion could end exactly like this

>>17858131
because socialists would lobby to keep the mines inefficient which would eventually make them a tax burden on the public

>>17857819 (OP)
You're better off asking this on leftypol.org

>>17858153
no he's not, unless he wants to hear the equivalent of an ape screaming at something it doesn't understand

>>17858153
That website hurts my eyes

>>17857819 (OP)
>free health care and education?

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/why-socialism-always-fails/

>>17858199
What if we kept private property and mostly the same exact society as we have now, but we spent like 1 billion less on military and spent it on like healthcare and education

>>17858116
>there's always gonna be people innawoods
not in Europe where the mythic great healthcares are in place, or at least they're segregated into their own countries where you can say "Europe" has great health care but Latvia doesn't. There is no real issue here because planned economy versus free market is a huge ongoing debate. Neither side has full possession of the truth because if they did, that side would just win and the discussion would be over. See: liberalism and conservatism in all walks of life.
>>17858119
>What about socialist ideals AND a coal mine?
Socialism is known to be less economically efficient because of its emphasis on human rights and advanced society. The first successful mine will be one designed to maximize profit. Then when capitalism has colonized and destroyed the old system, it can be replaced with more finely tuned socialist instruments. They work together. Lenin and Stalin wouldn't deny their revolution was an exercise in capital accumulation, albeit for socialist purposes.

Socialism isn't just trade unions and social welfare, it is a dogmatic ideology. Beliefs vary, but the relevant social democratic and democratic socialist parties of the world base their views on the works of Karl Marx and have similar policies, a continual push for ever more government control over the economy, nationalization, subsidies, taxation, heavy regulation, redistributive measures like DEI, inflationary spending, debt and money printing, far beyond the level impartial moderates would suggest. There are also a few authoritarian regimes left over from the cold war and related communists which have some level of state planning and state ownership of enterprises.

For much of the 20th century these groups prevented liberalization of the economy and still lambast it, even though the evidence is clear it led to very significant growth, not just in GDP but also standards of living, whereas the drawbacks like antiquated industries going out of business were minimal at best. China and India saw growth after liberalizing, whereas countries with dominant socialist parties like Venezuela and Bolivia suffer from shortages, lack of investment and massive corruption.

Their absolutism seems to be their biggest error, if say an ordinary working class fellow starts their own business they consider him an enemy, they associate him with the worst plutocrats simply because of his meager possessions. They seem unaware most actually want this freedom and it is often preferable to state ownership and control, which a cynic might assume was the real goal.

Government projects tend to be inefficient because they lack business incentives for fast, effective action. The government doesn't need to be profitable, it's spending other people's money after all. There's very little accountability for how taxpayer money is spent. It takes a lot of public outrage for any kind of accountability to happen, and the government is very good at distracting people from its waste and inefficiency with superficial wedge issues. Just look at California for a textbook example of how government waste looks.

Another factor is that socialization requires some degree of brotherly feeling among the voting public. Social cohesion, in other words. Without it, people don't like to cooperate. This is true at virtually all levels of society. If people don't get along, don't see one another as coequal, they're not going to willingly pool resources for a common effort that benefits everyone involved, because they feel like the other person doesn't deserve it. They will horde their resources and try to make the best for themselves and the people they care about.

If you need me to explain why social cohesion is low in America, and has been for a long time, you are too clueless to be having this discussion.

>>17858252
You are demonstrating your ignorance. In the first place your supposition that healthcare is robbed to pay for the military is completely backward to how funding actually works. The US spends more on Healthcare than any other nation on Earth. Both in total amount, and per capita. Spending on medicare and medicaid are the largest chunk of the US federal budget, and they are what is called "non-discretionary spending" which means that barring a congressional vote on the subject the funding for these programs cannot be ended or reduced. Which is why the big bill that Trump proposed was a big deal, it proposed the first substantial cuts to medicare and medicaid in a long time.

The military, meanwhile, is 100% discretionary funding, meaning it only gets whatever tax money is left after non-discretionary funding is met. To wit: we fund our military, the most expensive military in the world, with the scraps left over from funding our national healthcare and welfare services. The scraps of the US federal budget just happen to be bigger than the GDP of most of the world's nations.

We spend TRILLIONS on healthcare already. 1 billion extra is basically nothing, and would accomplish nothing, because the issue isn't money it's the corrupt, inefficient, defective systems that simply don't work.

>>17857819 (OP)
>and why so many people are against it?
I am against it because of its inherently internationalist character and its focus on cultural progressivism.

>>17859036
>Internationalist and culturally progressive
Why do these things both sound great but most people agree they're terrible

>>17859000
Well if it's not about money then what is it about? If we spend so much on health care why do Americans have to pay so much (again) when they go to the Dr? Why does everyone have to rely on third party or state funded insurance?

>>17858979
Well you've given me a lot to think about.
>No social cohesion in America
This is actually something I'd considered earlier. Russians and Chinese have centuries of shared suffering between them and their cultures were both already heavily indoctrinated with ideas of stately duty and sacrifice for the greater good of the nation. Something Americans certainly wouldn't agree to, not in the 21st century. We mostly want to kill each other.

At the end of the day I've never been a realist, my head stays in the clouds and on paper socialism just made sense to me. People helping people, it couldn't be simpler. Versus capitalism which is a system based entirely on competition and exploitation. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur after all, not everyone's gonna "make it". And even if you're a fucking genius, no amount of hard work will rise you from poverty line to Jeff Bezos or Henry Ford level. The peaks seem so high, it feels unfair. As someone born in the 21st century I feel like everything's already been conquered, all the money has already been made. That's why kids wanna be YouTubers not business owners.

Oh well, it's a good thing I'm not in charge but I don't have much faith in those who are.

>>17859141
Social cohesion is low in America because of deeply embedded racial tensions. Whites do not see blacks as "fellow Americans" and likewise blacks do not see whites as their countrymen. The federal government has tried to promote racial integration for the better part of a century and it has failed, utterly. Wherever Americans still possess the liberty to self-segregate based on race, they do so, without fail. See: the public schooling system. See: racial breakdown of neighborhoods. See: the total lack of universal healthcare or state-funded college education.

>>17857827
>when I can't even get a woman to talk to me without getting pepper spray in my face

Literally happened to me twice in the past year. I'm just bad at approaching women, destined to be alone. Sucks bros

>>17857819 (OP)
>What's wrong with more government oversight?
If I pay more taxes for social services, it would benefit some White people. But it would also benefit at least one nigger. We can't have that.
>>17857827
Kek I skimmed through this as soon as I finished typing the last paragraph. Never change, Americlaps.

>>17859176
Not to mention the latins, asians, Indians, arabs, and every other manner of immigrant that flood into the US every year. I think about the potential for war with China and I remember stories about Austro Hungarian generals during WW1 trying to give orders to 20+ different ethnic groups who didn't speak German or Hungarian

>>17859184
>it would benefit some White people. But it would also benefit at least one nigger. We can't have that.
Correct. Welfare is a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks, so whites have absolutely no reason whatsoever to support it.

>>17859195
>Welfare is a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks
>implying poor white people don't exist
This is why amerimutts will never achieve what Nazi Germany did. You don't care about White people. You just love rich ones (who are mostly in bed with jews).

>>17859191
The language barrier was perhaps the least of the problems plaguing Austria-Hungary. They had no true imperial army, they had the disparate military traditions of Austria and Hungary, and all the other, smaller constituents of the Empire. Each one had its own command structure, each one had its own regulations and standards. Even the fucking train tracks were not interoperable so trying to ship troops or war material from one part of the empire to the other required switching from one rail system to another, creating a logistical quagmire.

The US was never this disorganized even at its worst, which was probably right after the Revolutionary War when the Continental Army was disbanded and they naively thought a bunch of state militia could serve in the place of a real military. The US Army has been a standing army longer than most modern European countries have existed, so there's little chance of any kind of problems like the ones in Austria-Hungary occurring, which were due to separate military institutions clashing as much as anything.

>>17859213
I dunno the Articles of Confederation were pretty bad. It's similar to what you described: every state had its own set of weights and measures, its own currency, set trade duties on goods moving over state lines, it was pretty bad.

>>17859205
Poor whites are the casualty, but thankfully are not that numerous. When looked at in aggregate, whites pay for virtually all welfare programs, and blacks are a net drain on those programs. Therefore anyone who supports American welfare programs supports the transfer of wealth from white taxpayers to blacks who largely do not pay any income taxes at all.

>>17859205
>This is why amerimutts will never achieve what Nazi Germany did
Being destroyed by communists? I think we'll cope.

>>17859227
sounds like abolishing income taxes is a good idea

>>17859230
Yep. I would whole heartedly support the abolition of the IRS and federal income taxes. Repeal the constitutional amendments that allowed Congress to do these things. Did you know that the US had no permanent federal income tax until the 20th century? Do you want a guess as to why it was implemented?

>>17859246
JEWS

>>17859246
Republicucks were running 50% tariffs, that's where they got all their money to play with. The midwest and south wanted lower tariffs and expanded credit which the northeast refused to provide. It got bad enough that the republicucks and demoturds lowered tariffs for 10 years in exchange for the creation of income taxes and a central bank. After the 10 years were over tariffs went back to the same rate.

Industrialists were just neo-imperialists.

>>17859248
Prohibitionists, almost as bad. See, outlawing liquor had some negative consequences for the US federal budget. One third of the US federal budget was derived from taxes on alcohol. With alcohol banned nationally, all that revenue was gone. So to replace it...

>>17859268
it would make sense but I don't think there's evidence for that, prohibition was a psyop