what's wrong with socialism?

Evil_Socialism_at_work.jpg
 
"Yeah, but even though every race will spend less on health care, blacks and browns will spend more lesser."

It's two scoops-ism. If white folks are only just benefiting, but not benefiting to an equal or greater extent than minorities, they'd just rather everyone be worse off.
You guys are so hung up on race you are completely missing the point.

Let me try to explain with this example. In 1995 Fredrik Reinfeldt, a Libertarian Swede, wrote a book about a distopian Sweden which collapses due to mass immigration from people who are unable to integrate and contribute to Swedish society. In the novel Sweden's welfare state collapses from the strain and a night watchmen state is setup. Now normally this would be a non event. But Fredrik Reinfeldt happened to become Prime Minister in Sweden from 2006 to 2014 and despite the fact that he was a right leaning party leader he was the primary architect of the mass immigration that Sweden has experienced over the last 15 years.

Recently the Swedish finance minister declared that massive rollbacks would be required in the Swedish welfare system in order to keep the country solvent. This is overwhelmingly being driven by the cost of the unproductive immigrate population.

http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2016/11...er-valfarden-riksrevisionen-varnar-effekterna

Libertarian and corporate groups have been pushing these demographic shifts in order to destroy the liberal democracies of the west. They know that these groups will not integrate and cannot compete and so they will become parasitic and other communities will eventually refuse to support communities they have no connection with. None of this is unpredictable. The compassion of the people from the west is being used as a sword to destroy it.

If connections between these communities aren't made then eventually this is what will happen. It is what has happened in the past and it is what will happen in the future.
 
Goddamit! Look at these socialisms! Some one do something!

slide3.jpg
 
If socialism only means over-taxing the ultra rich, then sign me up. I'm a socialist.
 
If you group whites, Latinos, Asians, and blacks into population groups then take their relative tax burdens and the relative benefit each would receive from socialized medicine then yes it is a direct subsidy from one community to another. This matters politically to participants, it isn't a social issue that is easily diffused either. As I said before, the class issue is diffused someone by personal familial ties which create social pressure to assume some care of community members. When you have distinct communities operating within the same framework without that sense of connection it is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Am I just not explaining this concept correctly? Social cohesion in multicultural groups falls into the toilet, nobody wants to contribute to the social good because every group has a different set of values and they don't want to subsidize the values of other communities.

I agree that social cohesion is probably generally higher in homogenous societies than in multiracial ones, but to say that it "falls into the toilet" is a wild exaggeration.

If it was, you'd have US whites staunchly and uniformly against the expansion of social programs. Yet we know that's not true. White Democrats exist, and they're still the biggest constituents of the Democratic Party.

Bernie Sanders was the white liberals' candidate of choice (as opposed to Hillary, who was favored by blacks and Latinos) and he is almost obsessed with increasing social spending and taxing the rich further. That was THE issue for him. Hell, he was so popular with whites a good number of moderates and even a few conservatives were backing him.

Despite decades of vicious race-baiting and stigmatizing from the GOP, a slight majority of Republican voters now favor single-payer.* These things would be completely inexplicable under the scenario you're describing.

Whatever lack of cohesion does exist is largely a product of your line of thinking: hardworking whites are subsidizing lazy minorities through social programs. But it's simply not true.


* https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-progressives/
 
It’s just a poison term.

Actual socialism, as in Marxism, as in the State owning all businesses is a terrible, terrible idea.

Universal healthcare and affordable college tuition, which Republicans call socialism, are great ideas.

College Is already affordable if you go to a community college for 2 years and then transfer to a state school for 2 years. It's not free and you have to work and save some money but it's not unattainable by any stretch.

But what do I know? I only did just that and I work on a team with graduates from MIT, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, and William & Mary.

Guess what? I earn the same salary as them.
 
Last edited:
College Is already affordable if you go to a community college for 2 years and them transfer to a state school for 2 years. It's not free and you have to work and save some money but it's not unnatainable by and stretch.

But what do I know? I only did just that and I work on a team of graduates from MIT, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, and William & Mary.

Guess what? I make the same salary they do.
Good for you.
 
Not quite quick enough: Different people have different things in mind when they use the term, and a massive amount of time and rectal pain could be saved and avoided by people realizing that.

Command economies suck. I think we all know that. Markets are awesome. But to work effectively, they need post-market redistribution, some regulations (should be minimized), and some gov't-provided services and infrastructure.

Yup

Socialism = / = social policy. But at this point we may have to throw in the towel and agree that anything that suggests a any distribution of resources from something other than the market = socialism, and then deal with the soviet strawman and say, ok so what?
 

Because there were no roads, police or firefighters, court systems, bridges etc. prior to socialism, right? The Polio vaccine was created by an American, but let me guess, this has something to do with socialism because folks like you think the March of Dimes is some sort of a Socialist concept? Idiot wannabe Socialists post this meme all the time, and I can't for the life of me figure out what the point of it is, other than the irony that the same people who post it, as in this case, are generally anti Police/Military which makes it even funnier.
 
The Norwegian state owns roughly 66% of the country's wealth and if you exclude home ownership(because its not really a part of the means of production) it goes up to 75%. That's still not all the country's wealth but it is most of it and Norway has one of the highest living standards in the world. For comparison the Chinese state, an officially communist one, owns roughly 33% of the country's wealth.

That doesn't mean their system can be neatly adapted everywhere else but the point is it works to a large extent over there. What's terrible is a command economy where a powerful centralized state dictates all prices and transactions but in Norway despite the very high levels of state ownership its still a market economy.

Its a mixed economy. Land does count, rent, factories, stores, etc. all go on land. By the same metric USA govt is ~40% of the economy. To me they are both variants of the same system. USA = SOCIALISM :)
 
I was responding to your request. Here's my offer: I will agree to binding arbitration of the matter by a mutually agreed-upon third party. Or you can submit an overlooked post, and if I deem it worthy, I will "like" it in exchange for the lost "like." This is serious business.
I only agree if it is a three person arbitration panel: one I choose, one you choose, and a third mutually agreed upon by our respectively chosen arbitrators.
#NotMyArbitrator
 
Until the 80's Canada was extremely homogeneous unless you count the English/French divide which I don't since the English are just a bunch of wanna be Frenchmen.

{<huh}

Are you like 15?


The diversification of Canada is a relatively recent thing. I think they have diversified more then any other country in the world in the last 20 years if I am not mistaken.

Which would make it not homogeneous. Glad my post was able to get you to think it through unlike your previous post.
 
{<huh}

Are you like 15?




Which would make it not homogeneous. Glad my post was able to get you to think it through unlike your previous post.
Sure, it was homogeneous and is in the process of becoming multicultural and is experiencing tremendous transition pains and from all accounts ethnic groups are claiming parts of the country as micro states. Not exactly what I would call a ringing endorsement of multiculturalism.
 
Its a mixed economy. Land does count, rent, factories, stores, etc. all go on land. By the same metric USA govt is ~40% of the economy. To me they are both variants of the same system. USA = SOCIALISM :)
I'm not excluding land in the second number, only home ownership. So land on which a factory is built or housing that is put up for rent isn't excluded, only residences that are owned by their residents.
 
Because there were no roads, police or firefighters, court systems, bridges etc. prior to socialism, right?

Yeah, only capitalism could have come up with those things, brah.

The Polio vaccine was created by an American, but let me guess, this has something to do with socialism because folks like you think the March of Dimes is some sort of a Socialist concept? Idiot wannabe Socialists post this meme all the time, and I can't for the life of me figure out what the point of it is, other than the irony that the same people who post it, as in this case, are generally anti Police/Military which makes it even funnier.
Never seen an incel so rage filled over the March of Dimes.

HOW DARE YOU STEAL CREDIT FOR POLIO FROM AN AMERICAN AND THE MARCH OF DIMES! FUCKING SOCIALISM! RAAWWWRR!!! :mad::mad::mad:

The underlined is a completely made up lie. Try being more honest, cuck ;)
 
Back
Top