SOCIALISM DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN RADICAL MARXISM

SOCIALISM DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN RADICAL MARXISM

Other urls found in this thread:

predragrajsic.blogspot.fi/2014/03/the-economy-of-titos-yugoslavia.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

we know, tell /pol/

No one cares commie

No, but it means an immoral, unethical, and unproductive attempt of government control over economics. Not only is it wrong, but it literally doesn't work. Unironically, please read some economics literature like "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. You seriously will learn.

You know what is moral, though, inheritance, cronyism, hoarding the means of production, and using your influence to institute corporate control of government.

People are so scared of government control of financial powers, when really the reverse is what this country has always tended towards.

Yes, inheritance and private property is moral. You're right. Free markets work. Stop pretending we live in Mexico or something, this country is extremely prosperous. The poorest of our poor are fucking RICH compared to most of the world's population. Socialism and government control of economics has always and will always fail. The few things you're complaining about really just aren't that bad. Sorry, not sorry. Seriously, please read the book I mentioned. It's not very long. It's a great book.

How come property rights enthusiasts don't love the Ottoman Empire?

>tfw there's a Christian critique of private property but you'll never hear it from "religious" people in the United States

Wew lad, there are people who unironically are this stupid in the world.

Worked fine for european countries lad
Depending on your definition of socialism

>European countries
>successful

Also, population and relative natural resources.

>Socialism and government control of economics has always and will always fail.
Central banks and government policy have controlled economics for centuries. 99.999% of economic transactions are conducted using a government-backed currency (only exception being crypto-currency). Companies exist because there is government legislature providing for their creation and rights. Stop pretending we live in an Anarcho-capitalist world lad.

>not being otherwise

This

Socialism is just as shitty for the same reasons, if not worse in the case of soc-dems since they combine the worst of both worlds

yes it does :)

Socialism explained.

My grandmother would love this!

welfare =/= socialism

Tito's Socialism was GOAT of all time

Most people in the third world don't pay 1000 a month for rent, 3.00 a gallon for gas and 200 bucks a week on food

In the end we may have higher incomes but you end up with the same shit with better wallpaper

predragrajsic.blogspot.fi/2014/03/the-economy-of-titos-yugoslavia.html

Merely fabrications. Tito was a cool lad tho.

holy shit blogspot

gotta believe that

The post provided empirical proofs, i posted it not because it is some reliable source unto itself but because i can't be bothered to write myself.

But yes, everything in that blogpost is correct and it has proofs.

COMMUNISM DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN PROLETARIATE DICTATORSHIP

i would argue the picture is showing welfare + taxation.

It didn't, but it has ever since WWII.

Lenin says that socialism is merely a stepping stone on the way to communism.
I'm more inclined to believe Lenin than you.

Not really a socialist at all, but I actually do cringe a little when people blatantly don't understand the difference between the two. It's still not anywhere near as disingenuous as the people who call social democracy "socialism" (when it's actually a regulated form of capitalism) and then go on to refer to social democratic countries as examples of successful socialist countries. Or when people make the claim that all forms of capitalism will ultimately devolve into cronyism because they feel like it.

Anarcho-socialist policies can work better at meeting peoples needs than something with a lucrative incentive can but can be easily shitted up by miscreants that disregard established power balancing rules and decide take matters in to their own hands seizing wealth and means of production (i.e. >le human nature). That's why we need a strong authority in place to keep people in line and we end up having to choose between state controlled capitalism or state controlled communism/socialism.
Probably the best compromise would be some kind of minarchy which it can be argued that the early U.S. probably was.

Germany was the first welfare state and also the most powerful continental power

Nordic here.

We have

>inheritance
Our inheritance is actually strongly enforced, parents for example cannot leave their kids out of their will

>private property
We have that
>Free markets
99% free market

Most americans consider a welfare state as socialism, which the nordic states are

Well Americant's shouldn't define any political current since they are barely literate in that regard

The U.S is a welfare state too. Nordics employ a mixture of liberal and Social-Democratic welfare models, whilst the U.S is uses mainly the liberal model.

Sucessful leninist societies: 0

Choke some bleach faggot. Socialism is a fuckin failure, nothing more than a pipedream of people who had never worked a single day of their lifes or bitter poor people with hate for other sucessful people.

spot the American

Fuck off commie.

But who pays for welfare?

Spotted the eurabian/spic/nigger, you are probably posting from a capitalist country that allows you to have your faggy opinions so anything you say is irrelevant.

Go vote Trump and shoot some guns you mouthbreathing tard.

Already did and will go hunting this weekend. Stay mad, surely someday you might *might* grow up from that clinical retardation and jealousy.
REFUGEES WELCOME.

>socialism left the country with the largest oil reserves in the world with no food, electricity and toilet paper
>people will still defend socialism after this

>99% free market
>what is market socialism?

It doesn't, but it also doesn't mean social-democracy.