attention socialists

Please tell me how you're going to make everybody work efficient?
Or at least make them work at all?

why dont you want to work?

>>2

is that question going somewhere or did you just misunderstand what i'm talking about?
if it's the former then just say what you want to say.

>>3
who's telling you to work efficiently then? do you work? dont be shy i've got employees who are lazy - just means they dont get bonuses, time off, long term job prospects, etc.

no one "makes" you work hard. you do it for a reason.

>>4

I'm not quite sure whether you got me right.
Lets clear this first: Are you a socialist?

Inefficiency will be dealt with.

>>5
He gave you the answer.
>>4
He was asking socialists.

Come on, some real socialist tell me your idea on getting people to work in your welfare state.
4chan is full of liberals so there must be at least one who thought about this.

>>8
SOCIALISTS ARE NICE THWEY WOULD DO IT, CAPITALISTS ARE EVIL SO IT WOUDLNAT WORK FUCK YOU EVI LCAPIGTALIS

I really need to know this. PLEEES HALP

>>10
It is too complex for you to understand. I'm right. Study the entire works of Karl Marx and get back to me. If you don't this prove you are ignorant and because you are my opponent it means I win the argument and am right.

Marx wrote nothing about that, that's why I'm asking.

In socialism, the workers own the means of production. That means, that they harvest the fruits of production. If they are not efficient, they themselves suffer, or rather, they are as efficient that they needs to be to satisfy their needs (this is overly simplified but gives a notion how theories on socialist production are).

Yeah, I've already got that.
They will eventually grow some food so they don't starve.
But the motivation to work is still missing.
To be more specific: A worker only pleases his desires but fails at producing what others need.

>>14
Yeah, thats true, but since the division of labor has rendered (almost) every worker without the skills to be self sufficient he has no choice but to cooperate with other workers. "If we dont produce food, they will not produce milk or phones or music, and we will all suffer. Lets not." Is that motivation enough for you? The worker has no choice, to fulfill his own needs he needs to fulfill others, he cant choose to shut down production because then everybody chooses that. But yes, there will always be free riders and somewhat of a tragedy of commons, but that exist today also in the present system and i dont hear people using it as a reason to abandon capitalism or market friendly policies.  

I wouldn't sayt that such connections get them to do something.
Heck, even direct dependance like cloth and clothes didn't.
My father lived in the USSR and he used to tell anectdotes about what he experienced at work.
One of this goes like this: He got a job to preserve salad (or something like that) on his first day he sees a guy peeing in the tank with the preservative. A coworker noticed him and says "You see that? That's the toilet. You may piss but don't shit."
Now according to your logic all Soviet products would be made of piss and poo as revenge for this.

Yes, the present system is mixed economy and I agree with you that welfare is made of fail and AIDS. However, I just wanted to know whether a socialst system can compete with the  free market and the more I think about it the less attractive it becomes.

>>However, I just wanted to know whether a socialst system can compete with the  free market

Nothing can compete with the free market, which is the natural system of the world.

>>and the more I think about it the less attractive it becomes.

Indeed.

welfare is made of fail and AIDS
Speaking as someone whom got back on his feet thanks to welfare, I'd like to know what is wrong with it? Shit happens to everyone, including me, you, and the dog next door.

Whenever someone mentions leeching off welfare, I simply point to successful welfare systems that ensure that welfare recipients are actively out looking for work or getting trained. If you have a problem with welfare, are you sure you're not just having a problem with your local version of it? Why not follow more successful welfare models instead of throwing the whole thing out then?

What's the problem, exactly?

>>15
You can't free ride a free market.

>>19
Enron anybody? Or white collar criminals doesnt count as free riders now?

>>16
I loev welfare. I believe the unemployment benefit should be at 120% of ones latest salary. But im an extremist so what do i know.
No, according to my logic the sallad pisser would be the free rider that doesnt invalidate the whole system. But the system in USSR can hardly be called ideal for a socialist. The workers did not own and control the means of production in any real sense, and one of the reasons for this was because USSR was not an industrialized country at the time of revolution, meaning there where no factory workers, just a lot of farmers who tried to cope. Britain was not super efficient either the first 50 years after the industrial revolution.
And that said, the free market is not more efficient by default. One example is health care, where the US has the most expensive per capita while its quality is in the bottom of the OECD countries. Swedens health care system costs a third per capita, while its quality is in the top 5. Swedens health care system is more regulated than the american system, yet its more efficient.  Why?
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
 

>>20
As for welfare efficiency -> Amartya Sen
However, I'd rather want to know how planned economy wants to be as efficient as the free market without competition.
Tell me without maligning the free market.

>>21
If you define efficiency in quality terms, then command economies are often more efficient than free market economies. Quality indicators could include fairness (how evenly distributed services and goods are), literacy, infant mortality/invested $, life expectancy/invested $ etc. In soviet russia everybody had healthcare and housing. This means that they had a high quality on these services. That means those services had a high efficiency (because they were very cheap for the state to maintain). Soviet russia was only inefficient if you only choose to consider the owners (the one earning profits) perspective and not the consumers. People starve in the US. That means that the US economy is inefficient ie low quality (sorry, couldnt resist some maligning).

If you define height in length term, then roads are often more higher than mount everest. Lenght indicator could include two points on the outline which are farthest away. In climbing everybody had victories and success. This means that they had achieved high lengths on these tracks. That means those tracks had a high height (because they were very easy fo the people to ascend). Climbing was only hard if you only choose to consider the mountains (the one earning respect) perspective and not the climbers. People fall in the US. That means that the US sport is hard ie low length(sorry, couldnt resist some maligning).

You see what I did thar?
Try again without thiking out own definitions.

Btw USA's economy system is made of socialsm and fail since Herbert Hoover.

>>24
TIN FOIL HAT TIME! EEEEEEEEE!

Yo mommas a socialist.

>>22
I'd rather have the healthcare opportunities of a hobo in America than the "free" healthcare provided by soviet russia.

soviet russian and other authoritarian societies that described themselves as "socialist" were not truly socialist.

>>28

Yes they were.

>>28
>>29

Same person or two trolls playing along?

I can't stand these rich spoiled kids who think they know what communism "really is". They wouldn't last a day in the gulag.

>>31
They wouldnt last a day as a hobo either.

>>23
You are very clever. But i am not inventing those efficiency indicators, they are used by such bolshevik institutions like the WHO and such. But you prove that ignorance is not exclusive to dumbfucks. And btw, is it not logical to include quality to efficiency? Or what, one thousand NES games are the same as one thousand PS2 games?

>>27
An american hobo has no health care opportunities in the US. In soviet russia there were no hobos. You cant eat freedom, or rather, if one starves, has no shelter, has no clothes, one is not free or at least not able to use that freedom in any meaningful way. This does not change just because one can elect which millionaire should sit in the oval office.

>In soviet russia there were no hobos.

Yeah there were just starving peasants in their homes and political prisoners in their gulags

>>32
There were no hobos in the USSR because they all starved to death.

>>34
Suprisingly is there more starvation in the US than there was in the soviet union. In the soviet union people starved because a violent industrialization disrupted the food supply (farmers became factory workers), in the US people starve because they are poor and the system dont give a shit that they do. See, one is accidental and temporary and the other is systemic, structural and perpetual.

>>35
Um... No.

8D

Why are poor people fat?

>>32
>But i am not inventing those[...]

You completely missed the point. Welfare is not part of the economy. The question was: Which one enables the people to produce goods/offer services with the best quality, fastest and cheapest.

>>35
This is a lie. The USSR had some serious famines and a lot of people died.

spoilers: All commie countries failed so far. So it's a bad idea to defend them. I'd say you should rather concentrate on theory.

/r/ numbers of deaths by starvation in America
the Google it finds nothing