Socialism is bad

>Socialism is bad

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=2yypg75w#/watch?v=O2Bvvt7sUA4
washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/?utm_term=.ef7669042037
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>My opinion on politics matters

It is, look at Sw*den, country is getting slowly fucked up.

>my opinion on politics does not matter

It's not because of socialism

It is, socialism allows idiots to control and "share" the wealth and the stairway down to hell starts with socialism.

>national socialism is not good

>at Sw*den
The capitalist country

>free speech is good
>eugenics are bad

>i refuse to learn the proper defintions of socialism and communism

>defintions of socialism and communism
Socialism is the first phase of the communist formation, based on public ownership of the means of production

>i'm entitled to someone else's hard work

cant tell whether you are a capitalist or a socialist

arent swedoids pretty anti socialist because of poor experiences in the 60's? i heard they literally implemented friedman policies for education recently or something

Why do darkies in South America love this shit ideology so much when it has fucked over all their countries, are negroes and mutts just inherently retarded

Every country is becoming more neoliberal, Sweden is not a special case.

>capitalism is bad

Poor people desperate for change in country riddled with corruption of which denies them change.

Socialism is trash but I unironically think that it would work great in the Middle East.

They make the correct assumption that too much power is in the hands of the wrong people but then the wrong conclusion that a magic bullet ideology is the answer.

yeah but sweden being socialist is a pretty comon thing to hear from Americans so its extra funny that they are pretty opposed to it.

t. a guy from 2k$ gdp per capita socialist country

its called Ba'athism and it failed horribly

Worked well under gaddafi in Libya

no it didn't.

>i romanticize authoritarian regimes because i think they are more masculine and accepting of cold hard truth than my emotional and feminine country

Everyone who thinks that Nordic countries are socialist can go fuck off we are not socialist, we are capitalist with strong safety nets, there is a big difference.

>national socialism is good

No it's just, shit's pretty fucked there now with out him. Far from a brilliant leader but I think the shit NATO started there has resulted in far more death and human rights abuse.

>facism is bad

that's because of cultural marxism, not socialism

>be America
>becoming less and less racist and discriminatory
>welfare, government programs and policies increase
>blacks becoming more and more impoverished and ignorant


If you get your shit for free you have no incentive to be responsible with it. White people do it, black people do it, lottery winners do it. Humans literally need adversity (e.g. hard days work complete with validation) to coexist in a functional society.

False

Not an argument, try again

At work, break in an hour

ill be here

>he thinks that social-democracy is socialism
Pathetic
Tell me more about how your workers own means of production

This is actually good definition of socialism, though I'd use "workers" rather than "public" because it makes diffrence in some cases

There's no sucha thing as "cultural marxism" because marxists actually believe that sulture, structure of society, it's values etc. are fully dependent on political and economic system of society, so there's no "cultural marxism" without proper marxism, so it doesn't make any sense

Welfare is not a socialist doctrine. It never was. It came from the failure of western democracies to provide for everyone and they introduced it to depower their poor. The society will function regardless of the ideology it adopts and people will always struggle. Free money is not a thing in socialist countries, as Marx said from each his ability to each his need, central tenants of socialism. Not free money de-solidalidarity identitarian crap

Marx believe the machines of capitalism de-connects you from your humanity (responsibility). State giving money itself is entirely against Marxist thinking it strengthen the capitalist ideology by fetishsizing commodity and poverty. The rationality here is that the state promise anyone's existence by being there for you.

It is a form of capitalism that gave billions of free money to protect failing industries, while making people pay it back in taxes.

bernie sanders told me nordics are socialists.

such is life in a dictatorship

>Welfare is not a socialist doctrine. It never was.
I hadnt been thinking it was but i think of it as a device unnecessary in a properly functional capitalist society, in the case of the inevitable poor, ideally local communities pick up the slack. I come back to my point that was, simply, welfare is bad for people who arent just down on their luck looking for a hand up not out too much of it will always lead to more people than normal (relative to a properly functional western society) expecting welfare as a right.
>It came from the failure of western democracies to provide for everyone and they introduced it to depower their poor.
Agreed
>The society will function regardless of the ideology it adopts and people will always struggle.
Wasn't disputing that
>Free money is not a thing in socialist countries, as Marx said from each his ability to each his need, central tenants of socialism. Not free money de-solidalidarity identitarian crap
True that, but I guarantee those benefiting and the middle class lefty snots with more empathy than brain cells dont think of it that way. I believe their perceptions will pervert a realistic functioning welfare in the context of a democratic system.

If the thread is still alive after work in one and half hour I can respond effectively

Were not really in disagreement, im coming more from a position of what regular people think socialism is and how it works. The powers that want to increase welfare are those who want to gain more control and votes from the populace in order to gain more power for more socialist policies. At this point socialism is out of Marx's hands.

Righto

Russian politicians really love Italy because your system works very similarly to theirs.

឴

ubvoded!!

It is, look how your shithole went to shit thanks to socialism...

And the same happened to my own country, once first world, once the second biggest military in the continent.. Ruined thanks to populism

youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=2yypg75w#/watch?v=O2Bvvt7sUA4

Nasser was the last good Egyptian leader you dumb shit.

Downtooted

I am back

>ideally local communities pick up the slack
globlistic forces is greater than any community, poverty is not created by the community but by corporate need for cheap labor supported by governmental practices, the community bears the brunt of the trauma, it cannot be asked to support the responsibility of international corporations, think of the poorer sweatshop laborers in south east asia instead of your suburban poor in the west

>more people than normal (relative to a properly functional western society) expecting welfare as a right
welfare is not some ethical argument for human rights but quite the opposite, it is a fix up tape thing to make sure poor people aren't crowded the streets in demanding just pay, welfare in the beginning was to offset the economic disaster of 1920s but only recently they realized these kind of disasters is cyclical and continuous. And even if the people who claim it don't need it it pales in comparison to the debt these corporations have asked the government to pay for them, the bailouts were 700 billions of dollars vs 200 billion dollars for poor people washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/?utm_term=.ef7669042037

and if the society comes to the point where "normal" people needs it the idea isn't to blame greed or weakness of heart or their lack of morality, it's probably because the society isn't working properly, and no not because there isn't enough "conflict" either

>The powers that want to increase welfare are those who want to gain more control and votes from the populace in order to gain more power for more socialist policies

politicians that argue for more government help do it from any economic perspective and it's really justified, food stamps are literally government paying for some of the cost of food, housing and transportation too, the money is cycled directly into the system (continued)

(following)
the more money the poor don't have to spend on necessity they spend of other commodity, it is not as if they are saving that money and investing it overseas
the corporate rich however can and do

i see most of the hatred with people about welfare is as if the money the poor is saving is somehow making them richer because they have to spend less, that is quite illogical since they cannot trade that welfare for money and they spend it in the economy anyway, welfare as we know it benefit directly to the economy

there are no party that goes out of the way to make welfare a priority, because just like you it sounds very very bad
the democrats could care less about the poor, their only arguments for increasing welfare is to make more money economically, which increases spending power

>functioning welfare in the context of a democratic system

the truth is welfare is not a part of a functioning system, it is to fix up the inability for a society to recover from an economic bubble, which is created from speculating on futures, majority of people thinking trading on futures is normal business but at the end of the day when everything comes crashing down, we have to understand that value without substance is quite literally nothing, with money backed up by nothing it creates all kind of disasters later on, welfare is the only thing we have to keep that system in some semblance of sanity

>

...

>ideally local communities pick up the slack
>ideally
Such action would only succeed if the vast majority isnt impoverished, im aware its not feesable in south east asian sweatshop hubs. Im speaking specifically of the suburban pauper

>welfare is not some ethical argument for human rights but quite the opposite, it is a fix up tape thing to make sure poor people aren't crowded the streets in demanding just pay
I wasnt making an argument about the ethics of welfare and its obviously just a patch job, i was arguing the quality of the patch job hinging on the actions of suburban paupers, also
>too much of it will always lead to more people than normal expecting welfare as a right.
>too much of it
not as in quantity, rather scope of welfare, and that certain actions are incentivized because there is that safety net. e.g. single motherhood. Maybe you think a little less about getting a husband if you know the gov is going to pay, which is still inferior to a 2 person income at the least

>even if the people who claim it don't need it it pales in comparison to the debt these corporations have asked the government to pay for them
My argument isnt welfare is a massive economic crutch to the entire US, its a human agency crutch to the specific communities with a high density of consistent welfare use. Its obviously not the only issue in say, poor black areas but its damn well contributing quite fantastically to their continued position (same example) fatherless young boys go on to create more fatherless young boys, which is statistically correlated with criminal activity and drug use, things that will probably keep you from getting a job. A job that's probably not going to pay too well considering all the crime and no one is investing in these areas.

Cont.

>"conflict"
>adversity
Getting good at doing things you dont want to do

>the more money the poor don't have to spend on necessity they spend of other commodity, it is not as if they are saving that money
Im not claiming its a drain on on the economy, although there is bound to be loss, and im not sure how all your different programs work for you guys but in Aus you get money straight into your bank account, i dont really know the conditions of use but i live in the doll bludging capital of Australia and I know a lot of cunts that need a real good drug testing and an AA meeting.

>saving that money and investing it overseas the corporate rich however can and do
neither here nor there in my opinion im not arguing which is worse im arguing that welfare is a terrible piece of tape that socialist politicians only want to make bigger instead of fixing the crack.

>the democrats could care less about the poor, their only arguments for increasing welfare is to make more money economically, which increases spending power
And my point is thats fucking retarded because it doesn't address the real issues, why have a bunch of economic slaves dependant on the state when you could have the majority of a community working in an area thats worth investing in for bigger returns and building an actual economy in impoverished areas. Oh right, the votes. Maybe if they spent more time fixing economic regulation you wouldn't have to worry about offshore accounts, overseas manufacturing and corporate bailouts as well as welfare.

one more
>the truth is welfare is not a part of a functioning system, it is to fix up the inability for a society to recover from an economic bubble, which is created from speculating on futures, majority of people thinking trading on futures is normal business but at the end of the day when everything comes crashing down, we have to understand that value without substance is quite literally nothing, with money backed up by nothing it creates all kind of disasters later on, welfare is the only thing we have to keep that system in some semblance of sanity
Your arguing the need of the welfare system based on poor economic management. I agree that welfare becomes necessary in such systems, and its not at all a good thing, its just a necessary evil but the worst part is there is no honesty about this in the high profile discussion of it.

>Listening to an American politician
God dammit Colombia, I expected better from you.

familial troubles are not the result of welfare, it's more common because of the rise of wealth, middle class families have more support, lower income families always do worse with or without welfare, its contribution to crime is negligible, without governmental support drug problem will be worse, they are certainly not doing drugs because they get food stamps
no, you do get some money here but like a few hundred dollars a month, you get price reduction in housing, or even free housing, you get food stamps which you cannot trade for cash and you get bus pass, lunch pass etc

the whole ideology of the west is based on capital on a global scale which has no place for a working independent community
obviously a wholesome community doesn't need welfare in the first place but the west and the globe is knees deep in abusing the inequality of the world, value in your material is derived from the very poor to sell to the well-off, this system has continued since the mercantilism era, and it will continue to push the labor boundaries

of course insulated economies, such as switzerland and iceland have good liquid wealth but no country is isolated
the only real course is try to adjust the production side to some level field with the demand side that way there is a reverberating effect on the 1st world poor

឴