I defy you to explain why social democracy is not the most ideal system for a functioning equal society that is fueled...

I defy you to explain why social democracy is not the most ideal system for a functioning equal society that is fueled by capitalism, because inevitably that can never change in the United States, any objections? All things considered.
npr.kek

you will quickly find that unregulated welfare, capitalist freedom and immigrants/shitskins do not mix.

example: pretty much any western country

I actually understand your position, but with a proviso. scandinavian social democracy works extremely well even with a lack of natural resources and a large immigrant population. I agree that welfare should be regulated in any government however.

Because it isn't a centralist traditionalist society.

why should leave ourselves vulnerable to tradition? and left leaning centralism advocates for the strongest safety net for all whilst maintaining capitalist supply/demand competitive innovation

>implying that Socialism and Democratic Socialism are different.

fuck off you retarded kike

the best part of you ran down your mommas asscrack and left a brown stain on the mattress

I would say because it doesn't deal with the underlying contradictions within the system indeed it wants to have the best of socialism and capitalism and ends up with neither.

Likewise given the rise of globalism it seems highly unlikely that it will be able to claw its way back to dominance (stagflation is a big issue), all the moreso given how its original and strongest champions have all gotten aboard the neoliberalism train.

tldr a temporary ideology for a world were the labour market is strong and economic dominance is national

I'm not a Democratic Socialist, I'm a Social Democrat and those are VERY different things. Kike? I'm an atheist you don't have to be so crude just because you disagree with me.

I agree that the system is highly dependent on national strength rather than globalist initiatives. However, (inb4 bernie sanders) Scandinavian countries that claim to be Democratic Socialists are actually Social Democracies that provide strong safety nets while regulating a free market, I agree with a lot of what you said, what do you suggest instead?

>owever, (inb4 bernie sanders) Scandinavian countries that claim to be Democratic Socialists are actually Social Democracies that provide strong safety nets while regulating a free market,

Yeah but that seems to be more of a systematic dismantling of them.Even now they are undergoing cuts and moving towards neoliberal privatsiation.

Im not sure if its possible to roll back these kind of developments.

>what do you suggest instead?

Its a difficult question as most ideologies seem to be geared to either pre globalisation or post globalisation rather than this painful stage we find ourselves in now.

Ultimately I dont have an answer - indeed I constantly get smashed on the question of how any transition to a new system would take place.

A question for you, how do you think you would be able to build up the union movement in the USA sufficently for social democracy to work without it falling into the problems of antiproductvity and demarcation we saw in the UK and other Euro countries

honestly no clue, it's a great idea in theory but accounting for transition stages is difficult because there must be elements of the current system within those changes.

>antiproductvity

regulating welfare is one proposal that has been suggested during one of our presidential candidates during the 2016 campaign (Bernie Sander) and regulating welfare could actually work.

>demarcation

cross our fingers and hope for public opinion to be swayed? After the Trump administration is over in 2020, Incumbents are always victimized , and rightly so, so perhaps a hard leftist democratic candidate such as Sanders could pick up the torch.

The problem I see with those solutions is that they rely on a strong man to get unions to put aside their anti worker squabbling (which is in each unions interest unfortunately) which is something that the US isnt very good at due to its decentralised form of rule.

I dont think its a coincidence that both left wing and rightwing strongmen smash unions.

Atheist. Kike.

Same thing.

if everyone cared about improving themselves by studying and working hard, thus developing the society as a whole, then sure social democracy could work. However, things don't work that way and we end up paying for free shit to thug niggers and cancerous elements.
Also, social democracy presupposes a lot of power in the hands of politicians, who can easily abuse it for their own gains.

how the hell does anarcho-communism work??? surely that's a contradiction in terms?

fuck anarco-communism, or just communism as a whole.

In a Social Democracy, unlike Democratic Socialists, welfare is regulated to maintain social integrity, those who have the ability to work and do not should not expect societies support.
politicalcompass.kek

My post was

>the most ideal system for a functioning equal society

anarco-communism is contradictory, unstable, and heavily dependent on a post-globalization enviroment.

>surely that's a contradiction in terms?

Nah, one is centralised the other is decentralised. In Authoritarian socialism the wealth generating assets are held and controlled by a central planning committee in Anarcho or libertarian socialism the wealth generating assets are held and managed by those who work them who then either through unions or elected representatives negotiate with other groups who control those assets

entertain the thought of how atheists are kikes, I'm intrigued.

yea unions will never submit unless they feel threatened by the government *cough* abolish the unions? KEK

Yet that's how it happens irl. In the end, workers end up without resources when they need them because they were given to unproductive or even harmful sectors of society. That's precisely what's happening here.

>workers end up without resources because they were given to unproductive sectors of society.

I agree this is a problem in the status quo but traditionally when we allow predator multinationals to pay employees low wages, WE end up having to pay for them via welfare.

We solve the issue by:

1) Reducing the amount of people on welfare by increasing the minimum wage (making private corporations ex. Walmart pay reasonable salaries)

2) Policing welfare by enforcing stricter, more invasive examinations of welfare recipients before acceptance.

Minimum wage is good but also a double-edged sword. If you increase the money people get without a correspondent production improvement, there'll be more money in the market, more consumption and, since there are limited products, higher inflation. That's the invisible hand. Also, the employer will have to increase the product's price to pay for the extra wage.
The 2) solution appears to be good but it would involve massive resource allocations and there will be frauds. Not to say that welfare will be used as a political weapon to get votes, so don't expect it to be restricted.

>The 2) solution appears to be good but it would involve massive resource allocations

the money that we save from reducing welfare fraud would allow more than enough resources to continue harsher restrictions.

Taxes have three purposes: to create a demand for money in order to stabilize its value, and to withdraw excess cash from society, and to keep the plutocracy from getting too powerful. Surely you can adjust more than one knob at a time?

the thing is, people is quite creative and daring when it comes to getting free shit. On the other hand, the state can't inspect everyone and everywhere, except maybe in small rich countries.
Taxes also create distortions in the demand/offer chain and usually harms more the poor than the rich, because these can avoid them with some tricks and bribes. Also it doesn't prevent the plutocrats from getting filthy rich and powerful. After all, both Brazil and the US have an all-powerful untouchable chaste of richs, despite the high taxes. Besides, the more taxes, the more power is given to politicians.

see you in hell

By that token, so does lending at interest. Usury was generally illegal until recently. When the top marginal tax rate was 90% they could only get their effective rates down to like 60% IIRC. Now they can get basically paid to keep the trash in line without offering any real good or service to us to make it worth our while.

Politicians are useless and unnecessary. Public administrators that can be fired at any time through a recall election are much more responsive to their constitutency, therefore worth keeping around. It doesn't have to be an expensive recall election, either. We have blockchains now ffs. There's no reason to recognize elected officials supposed right to supposedly serve.

Besides, money has no intrinsic value. It's only the destruction of other economies, notably the natural economy, that force us to deal with the fucks with no other way to eat. Life isn't all about numbers.

bump

>Politicians are useless and unnecessary.

wow, not afraid to be bold, ok ok i can respect that

>National socialism that far into the left
>Fascism way to capitalist
>Syndicalism in the green
>Nationalism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism,Activism being political ideologies
1/10 worst political compass ever

Scandinavia has a mixed market economy similar to that of National Socialism, and the large immigrant population is what is ruining it. They had an awesome thing going on, but they ruined it with flooding their countries with immigrants. An economic system has to be grounded in the countries culture, and it what the Scandinavians had going on, worked perfectly with their culture, but they are ruining it with their multiculturalism. Like the other user said welfare and open borders dont mix. It's ok if you are trying to take care of your people, but you are going to shoot yourself in the foot if you try take care of the whole world.Which is exactly what Social Democrats want. Also Social Democracy only works with white people. Again a large immigrant population is fucking up what the Scandinavians have created

to be honest i agree with you. Usury is cancer when it's legal at high rates, and kills the economy in the favor of banks. In the 90s interest were so freaking high here (at more than 100% a year i think) that the banks actually started taking them for granted, and when our currency took the dollar as a backing, many of them broke due to the sudden drop on interest.
>politicians are useless
amazing statement, but they hold power nonetheless, and we need to deal with it. Also politicians tend to want more power.
>money has no intrinsic value
yet money is like the blood of society, it has only diversified thanks to it. The true problem is how it is monopolized by the state and the central bank, who can manipulate it according to obscure interests.

If there's one thing I've noticed from socialists is that they always bend over when it comes to masses of immigrants.

>unions to put aside their anti worker squabbling (which is in each unions interest unfortunately)
what