When did socialism linked with this whole liberal bullshit? are there still conservative socialists?

...

Nice argument. praise kek

...

keep memeing mememan

>half of your board is on hormones, the other half worships negri phali
This can be attributed to /pol/ too.

Conservative Socialist here. I no longer publicly identity as a socialist because the negative stigma surrounding Socialists.

A conservative socialist is someone who's socially conservative and economically left-leaning.

...

Both socialism and liberation have emancipatory goals, socialists just believe emancipation should come through equitable distribution of power while liberals care about minimal state coercion and greater freedom of behavior.

Historically and presently many socialists have been somewhat conservative socially (Eastern European socialist groups are generally homophobic, Chinese socialists are all proud nationalists, and Western European socialists are skeptical of mass migration) but the juxtaposition of socialism and traditionalism can easily lend itself to confusion and contradiction.

Social conservatism often involves protecting older hierarchies. Socialism is naturally against hierarchy. Suggesting that class hierarchy is unacceptable but ethnic or sexual hierarchies are necessary is difficult to defend, so being a socialist and an outright reactionary is hard to reconcile.

Bingo

Posting a .jpg about Communism on paper rather than Communism in practice vs. an inaccurate depiction of Capitalism from a "learned" college student doesn't further your argument whatsoever. I'm a socialist and even I know that your .jpg is inaccurate and retarded as hell.

the funny thing is that these actually apply to you while all you can do is swing at le alt-right strawmen as if Im one. This is like when poltards get butthurt and think everyone else is a jew

>who's socially conservative and economically left-leaning
Despite le political compass "social and economic issues are orthogonal" meme, that's fundamentally contradictory. You can't be supportive of equality and call yourself "social conservative", because you reshape society at the fundamental level. At best you can get non-liberal conservatives typical for Eastern Europe (e.g. PiS).

However if we strictly speak about the American/western Euro crap like multiculturalism, memegenders or normalization of sexual deviations, then majority of communist and socialist are opposed/antipathic towards it.

>outsourcing mothering to a minimum wage Filipino nanny
As a Jew from the upper class, I feel personally attacked by this

Joke's on you. I was just making fun of the fact horseshoe theory turned out right again.

>American education

...

Good. Dealing with shitty "nazis watch out!" antifaggots and kekistani memelords is infinitely preferable to actual commies and fascists

Yes, they are called Imperialists. The Empire of Russia was an example of conservative socialism.

Yes, the socialist parties in Eastern Europe are conservative. The Communists in Russia in particular voted in favour of the anti-gay propaganda law and wanted harsher measures.

>if you're a socialist you have to go on an a cringy board

no

>that pic

Family is overrated. For the future the world' s population needs to be severely reduced. It should be considered shameful to have children by now.

>Yes, they are called Imperialists. The Empire of Russia was an example of conservative socialism.

>Empire of Russia
>Not roman empire

Isn't that kind of a contradiction in terms?
>conservative
Conserve income, including taxes
>socialism
High taxes to pay for social programs etc.

>are there still conservative socialists?

Yes, they are called nazis

Communism:
>Property is nominally in the hands of the people, but it is all owned by the state and everything above the bare minimum is distributed based on bribery, internal connections, and loyalty to the party.
>People are pressured to have a large family out of patriotic duty.
>You are assigned a job by the state, regardless of your actual ability or desires.
>Workers are permitted free time, but only through state-owned organizations and events. Failure to attend them is viewed as a sign of disloyalty.
>In order to prevent the entrance of contradictory thought, travel to nations of different ideology is almost entirely restricted to government members.
>People are encouraged to place the state above all else, even their families and themselves. Failure to do so is viewed as subversive.
>The state says you're happy, so smile!

Capitalism:
>Property is privately owned and bought and sold on the free market. People can generate their own wealth through wage labor, then purchase property of their own. You have total freedom of choice on where and how you wish to live.
>People may choose to have whatever family structure they so desire, and society won't look down upon them for it.
>People are free to pursue whatever job they wish, be it out of personal enjoyment or economic incentive.
>There is a wide variety of entertainment due to the competitive market inspiring creators to cater to almost any taste at an affordable price.
>Since free trade is the lifeblood of capitalism, people are free to do business and travel wherever they damn well please.
>A sense of competition encourages people to develop themselves as much as possible to have the greatest advantage.
>You're free to seek whatever form of personal fulfillment you wish.

Since we're both comparing the ideal version of one with the shortcomings of the other...

I'm pretty sure he means conservative in social terms. More or less being anti-personal freedom.

A bit like how homosexuality was illegal in the Soviet Union under and after Stalin.

Left column might as well read 1915 and the right 2017.

>family by 30
>job with no personal fulfillment
>no incentive to excel/enjoy life
Sounds fucking miserable. No wonder they keep defecting here.

Even in that sense, a conservative socialist would just end up being the labor party in the UK. Those 1984 jokes we make about them all the time are their ideal reality. Social programs paid for by high taxes, but cameras on every street corner.

This deserve it's own cranially deficient wojack.

Yes, it was common for people in the Soviet bloc to have their first kid at 18-20. Like, whats the point? You should enjoy life a bit before you settle down.

Having kids early made sense when you werent sure you are gonna live past 35

Like that movie Equilibrium, taken to its most logical extreme. And that entire movie teaches us how that model DOESNT work well with human nature.

Exactly, or BEFORE the advent of modern medicine entirely. You had them early because you were likelier to survive childbirth but we're well past that now. We even have antibiotics and everything!

People like you are the reason autism rates are sky high.

Because conservative socialism will have to define itself as racial. Or at least nationalistic somewhere down the lie.

Kill yourself

So, how old are you and how many kids do you have?

Not an argument. Encouraging people to wait until their mid 30s will literally lead to the downfall of our civilization.

I don't have kids because I am too autistic to attract a mate because my mother had me in her early 40s.

How did you conceived this bullshit? Why would anyone except for people from colonies and Nazis define themselves racially? And why would the so called "conservative socialism" would need to define itself as nationalistic?

Stalin's USSR would fit into what anons refer to as "conservative socialism" and it still defined itself as internationalistic.

Well, come on. You need to have atleast 8 kids. To compensate for people like me enjoying life, while breeders deal with disgusting kids.

Sounds more like an excuse. Blaming parents.

>Having kids early made sense when you werent sure you are gonna live past 35

Russians are hillarious. A country so miserable people jsut drink themselves to death.

The government 'doing stuff' in the economy is not socialism. Socialism is when the Government owns and operates industries in order to make a profit, especially if it owns virtually all of them. For example, by law, all the gold in the ground, discovered and undiscovered, belonged to the Empire of Russia since the time of Ivan I (the Terrible). The gold mines that extracted the gold/ore were owned by the Empire, and were mostly operated by the same. The gold/ore was transported by trains & barges owned & operated by the EoR to mills & refineries for processing that were owned & operated by the EoR, The resulting metal was then sent to a Mint that was owned & operated the the EoR to be made into coins and ingots, which were then sent to the Imperial Russian Bank, which used the gold for foreign and domestic investments, etc. As the EoR, along with virtually the rest of the world was on various Monetary Gold Standards (also Silver Standards and Bi-Metallic Standards) the control that the EoR had over the economy should be obvious.

Similar Government monopolies existed over salt, coal, copper, iron, etc. mines, along with lesser control over oil. As another example, all the shipyards were owned, and mostly operated, by the Government. The fishing fleets they built (using wood grown in EoR owned & operated forests and turned into lumber in EoR owned & operated sawmills) were owned & operated by the EoR, and the codfish they brought back were processed using salt from EoR saltmines and then mostly exported. All these enterprises were run as profit-making businesses, even though they did not always succeed.

Thus the unavoidable conclusion that the Empire of Russia was socialist. The Revolution circa 1917-1922 in Russia was political, not economic. The socialist Empire of Russia became the Socialist Republic of Russia. The actual changeover in personnel represented less than 1% of the population of Russia.

dude "& Humanities" lmao

Are they also against fags? If so, can't find a problem with them.

the industrial/financial elite will even support things not in their economic interests. since it is basically them buying political power and they can afford to take the financial hit.

>Absolute monarchies were socialists, because they had authority over economy

>Socialism is when the Government owns and operates industries in order to make a profit, especially if it owns virtually all of them.
t. Loberts

Sorry but no. The form of government is not relevant to determining if a country has a socialist economy, only government control itself. A distinction can be made, as in 'Republican Socialism', 'Imperial Socialism', Fascist Socialism', etc, but all are socialist. You can make an argument about this based on what percentage (and how important that percentage is to an economy) of government control is the minimum necessary to call an economy socialist.

For example, the single largest shareholder in the publicly-traded for-profit corporation known as GEneral Electric was the U.S. Navy and the second largest was the U.S. Army. Together they controlled the company. Did that make GE socialist? If so, was Ge important enough to the U.S. economy to call the U.S.A. socialist? I would say no.

Big government doesn't mean socialism you lolbert. Socialism doesn't equal big government. Socialism REQUIRES a strong government, but isn't literally a word to say big government.

Never said it did, even though it could. Big Government means regulations, which may or may not have either a positive or negative effect on profitability. For example, national laws regulating pollution are an example of big government. They are not an example of a socialist government.

>Fascist Socialism
fuck you retard

While it is redundant, it is thorough and consistant use of nomenclature.

DOES LABOUR HATE FUCKING FAGS OR NOT? THIS DETERMINES WHETHER I SUPPORT CORBYN OR NOT

XDDDD

There is this whole book about this.

One of its thesis is that the decline of working class constituencies led left-wing parties to change their social base from the proletariat to young middle-class professionals, immigrants and public workers, who are more amenable to a socially progressive, multicultural program.

It might have something to do with the "worker class" basically ceasing to exist in the West

He is probably a socialist who is pissed off that the left is nowadays dominated by the libertine wing of the left.

>proving my point further by pretending everyone that mocks his silly meme beliefs is a "literal nazi!"