Arguments for and against socialism! go, please!

>socialism

It's a word. That may mean one thing to one person and another to someone else. You may need to define it. 400 words or so should be adequate.

those are democratic socialist and not straight socialist
democratic socialism is actually a pretty awful name for it, it should be changed

Neither actually exists, if that makes sense. "Communism" is a transitory period between capitalism and anarcho-communism where no state exists and everyone just gets along fine and dandy doing things for the fuck of it because wealth no longer exists.

fuck them both

Attached: mPN4fX0.jpg (618x770, 71K)

Attached: IMG_0936.jpg (931x1024, 227K)

>can't hack it in capitalism so fuck it
GIBS PLEASE

They're synonyms according to Marx. this will inevitable become a Peterson tier thread with third positions smirking in the corner

>speed freak, opinion discarded

Also. I'm an expert at judging books by their covers. Hers look majorly boring. And long. I guess if you're all jacked up you're able to just pound away at the ol typewriter.

Communism: Things that are shareable are, therefore some good things can happen, but there is also lots of gibsmedat.exe.

Socialism: Shareable things, such as roads or hospitals are shared, and things that can't be 100% shared shared like food or housing aren't.

Conclusion, socialism makes best of both worlds, and communism makes good of one and fucks another.

They were extremely wealthy countries before their socialist programs. They were way more successful and they threw it away.

Having parlimentary elections, free market economy, and homelessness isnt socialism retard

Against: open borders and third world immigrants.

Take your pick faggot. There's zero end game in having both.

Almost all of them are going to become 3rd world nations by 2030-2040 if they keep things up.
Socialism and Communism are a 1 generation success since the money stops coming after they spend it all for that generation.

Look at those baby arms

>Almost all of them are going to become 3rd world nations by 2030-2040 if they keep things up.
So just like America, whilst being one of the most kike capitalist country.

Fuck both.

Attached: racism25.jpg (1024x1024, 256K)

If you dont know by now you never will you stupid fucking leaf

I like to eat 3 regular 400-800 calorie meals a day

At least you are so poor no one wants to immigrate

Which fucking socialism you faggot? You can't generalize in regards to a term as intentionally vague as Socialism.

>itt: people who have no idea what the fuck they are talking about

Friendly reminder to you newfriends: Not all socialism is Marxist in nature.

Attached: 1492323457460.jpg (236x170, 11K)

Well actually the communiggers in the Soviet Union had the highest caloric intake in the world in the 1980's, hundreds above the United States.

AI=good
aid=good
AIDS=good

Socialism leads to communism, is oppression of the naturally successful, gives too much power to government that they will never relinquish, and encourages immigration of needy peoples whom politicians will inevitably cater to by promising to increase these handouts.

The Democratic Party and the success of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez despite her obvious ignorance and lack of qualifications is proof.

Attached: hjhjhjh.png (667x350, 331K)

IMO the biggest thing for people to get is it's international socialism (progressives, champagne gommies) vs national socialism ("""nazis""" or you know, normal people that want to do for their own first).

>dont generalise bigots!
you socialists are all the same

for:

> muh feefees and hubris

Against:

> it has been tried and never worked
> no food.

social net is a given for any society so the lowest of lows don't chimp out like they do throughout history. You simply can't have a close knit society that works with each other if 40% or more of the populace suffes. Ideas can only get you so far

>Explain Scandinavian country or even some Europeans one.

Socialism is defined as the people owning the means of production. Scandinavian countries run on the "Nordic Model" of capitalism with generous social programs funded by a massive tax rate.

Why tax the shit out of people to provide services when they could just keep that money, purchase the services themselves and cut out the middle men?

youtube.com/watch?v=PY27TBAFqBE

gomunism on the other hand has valid criticism of the capitalist system but fails in basic market economy and basic anthropological ways. The worst thing about it is that it pretends to be above money when it's main pretense is that all it takes for society to be close knit and positive is that all people make the same amounts of money or resources. It simply misses the point of human societies in many ways I think deliberately

Marxist Socialism:
>internationalist
>created by and primary beneficiaries are Jews
>egalitarianism
>state owns all economic activity
>attempts to destroy the family unit, fails has to bring it back
>attempts to squash out national identity and culture

National Socialism
>anti-globalist, Nationalist
>most fundamentally anti-semitic ideology
>anti-egalitarianism
>state privatizes economic activity and uses markets to allocate resources and capital
>sees the family unit as the basis for all society
>protects culture and tradition at all costs

Yeah, they're totally the same you mongoloid.

Attached: 1472600887296.jpg (726x590, 52K)

>le centrist meme

fuck off back to plebbit

Kind of, Comunism is the transition between the original government and Socialism (technical called Marxism due to morons doing dumb shit and calling it Socialism or Communism). The issue is that the strongmen stay in power and thus we have Communism 2.0 which is Stalinism.

For:
>muh feelings
Against:
>muh facts

Yes, it's not going to well in Sweden with our socialist rulers, but that's about to change, National Socialism (SD) is now the biggest party in all out latest measures, and it's going steadily upwards still. they're expected to be winners in our election 9 september. Socialism without nationalism is always doomed to fail, our people have realized that by now and change is soon to come!

Attached: 1526872327543.jpg (1340x1164, 307K)

For:
Ethically helps the most people out by eliminating inequality and removing the ultrarich
Against:
Everyone is equally poor now

>National Socialism (SD) is now the biggest party in all out latest measures
SWEDEN YES

>state privatising
no such thing commie get fucked

Concise.

Attached: 1443996752095.gif (392x400, 1.34M)

>SD
Those are just welfare state democracy advocates who want less immigration

>swede
like pottery

>for
It's a good system if your country is either suffering and can't compete with capitalist countries (only good if you are in an alliance with said capitalist countries) or culturally and most likely ethnically homogeneous enough that you can rely on everyone giving their fair share
>against
It can never go above a capitalist system without incorporating so much of capitalist philosophy that calling yourself "socialist/communist" is stupid, and neither ideology work in a culturally diverse nation in which groups naturally tend to help those that are like they are rather than others

Good luck Sven. Kicking all the Somalians and Muslims ruining your country is going to be a tough sell regardless of how much progress you make. We're get compared to Nazis constantly for trying to kick Mexicans and South Americans out of our country, and they came illegally. You'll have an even worse time since you just handed them full citizenship.

Racially homogenous. Swedish welfare state was a literal copypaste job from Germany - "volksgemeinschaft" [people community] is the exact same concept as "folkhemmet" [the people home]
S are hardly socialist. SD is far from national socialist - doesn't want to deport anyone and is pro gay adoptions. Even if the immigration stops, it's useless without deportations.

>national socialism is a rip off
>When a ripoff is better than the original

Attached: 1497895145836.png (314x319, 127K)

Godspeed user

Attached: Bateman jig.gif (200x317, 892K)

>state sells of previously government-owned businesses and enterprises to the private sector
>no such thing

If you're new just don't post, save everyone the trouble.

Attached: 1530739067892.png (500x497, 175K)

It makes ppl living in the economic system soft and unwilling to see obvious dangers in letting in foreigners

How can I learn of the economics behind National Socialism?
Any good reads to enlighten a new fag?

Attached: 818F7CD0-5FAF-448A-A49B-B701D7089170.jpg (540x540, 63K)

1. Socialism bestows leadership skills and encourages critical thinking and a sense of ownership, increasing productivity.
This is because employees are equal shareholders of their company.
Note: I did not say union, I said shareholder, like capitalism shareholder. Give yourself a raise simply by contributing to good business.

2. Well educated population. Science is the root of technology. To be able to be competitive, we need to know things other countries don’t.

3. People have a moral obligation to be healthy and don’t have unforeseen medical expenses to ruin their lives.

4. A healthy and environment and respect for the humanities fosters tourism, healthy outdoor life styles, and business opportunities for people ready to make some money from the towns local history.

4. Guaranteed employment and housing. No one will have an excuse to beg for money

Attached: AA9DCD89-A106-466E-8B12-630640ACF159.jpg (400x400, 26K)

so it sells everything? then wheres the state?

Textbook useful idiocy.

Attached: ingsoc.jpg (630x630, 52K)

Legit

>So just like America
No not really. America has been recovering from the FDR and LBJ days just fine.

I would also like to know this.

For-none
against-ikeelyou
/thread

With Socialism others are entitled to my own hard earned money.
That is my counter argument.

My post had nothing to do with Marxism you idiot. Can you not read?
It doesn't matter if millions of nigs are in your state or 0. You eventually run out of other people's money.

oh man, the boomer replies.

Attached: 1531793046948.jpg (800x1013, 426K)

Strong labor unions are the answer.

No, we shouldn't be cucks to companies and corporations. We need reasonable regulations.

But there also shouldn't be regulations to the point where everyone is a slave to the state.

Yeah, really want to know answer for this.
If there is a reasonable one I can see merit within a national socialism.

Absolutely not, believe me it's national socialism.

>Better our defense
>Lower immigration to 10% of our current state, and all refugees is to be helped on the spot instead of coming here
>Tougher requirements for anyone seeking a swedish membership
>Modern in every way, billions spent on immigration is to be put into technology and peoples well being
>Values our swedish culture etc

Yes that's true, the damage is already beyond repairs since this is sweden afterall, extremists will never have a chance to totally kick out the mudslimes because a big part of our population is literally retarded in the sense that all humans are equal.

You know as well as everyone else that sweden is soft to the core, you can't be seen as close minded if you want to rule the country. But they are national socialist still, just slightly adopted to the modern world.

Attached: 1525187427699.jpg (2048x1367, 221K)

Not particularly. The thing about National Socialism, as is the case with all Fascist/Ultranationalist movements, is that they aren't economically dogmatic. Capitalism and Marxism are economically-centered worldviews and are thus Economic systems. National Socialism/Fascism aren't economic systems, they're political systems. National Socialism did was was economically pragmatic at any given time, namely that it would privatize previously state-owned economic activity and sectors (such as the Reichsbahn railway system) and allowed the private sector to operate it, because from an operation standpoint that's the most efficient. But since the National Socialists controlled the political system and had the monopoly on violence within the state, it had the technical capacity to shut down or seize assets from businesses that were acting contrary to the national interest (but ultimately never actually had to with the exception of the central banking system, because everyone knew what would happen if they did step on the toes of the government).

Really it was about what worked, not what fit with the ideology, because National Socialism simply didn't have an ingrained Economic ideology. There are probably many books about the topic, but since National Socialism has become the taboo idea, none of them will look at it critically without massive bias.

Most people are greedy, lazy assholes and any system that allows them to profit from the labour of others (eg socialism, communism, capitalism) will be doomed to corruption.

I already know the answer he's being disingenuous, they're just like marxists with their retarded marxist theory, they know it makes no sense but they're attached to the bullshit on an emotional level, like a cult
The state takes control of the corporations within their own country and collaborates with them like a mafia

>for
free gibs
>against
*starves*

Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.

Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.

Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:

>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD
>Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD
>To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people.
gommies.gom/fug/
gommies.gom/starve/

GL uses philosphy of gib and starve, see here:
gommies.gom/ohfugme/

It is recommend you kill yourself so you can avoid starving.

Resources:
gommies.gom/ohshid/
gommies.gom/1984/
gommies.gom/guck/
gommies.gom/probaganda/
gommies.gom/XDDDD/
gommies.gom/wheresfood/
gommies.gom/benis/

Da sdages of gommunism.

>Sdage one
Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.

>Sdade two
Withering
All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.

>Sdage three
Gommunism.
No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis.

>Sdage four
Nod real gommunism. Move on to nexd goundry :DDDDDDD

>so it sells everything? then wheres the state?

That's what's called a strawman. Not once did I say that it privatizes EVERYTHING (they nationalized the Central banking system out of the hands of Jews). What I said was that they privatized state-owned BUSINESSES and ENTERPRISES. The word "privatization" was literally first used to describe what the National Socialists were doing in the 1930s.

For socialism
>works if you have a population of good, hardworking white people
Against socialism
>total fucking disaster if you have nonwhites, which is an issue because the people who want socialism also want to import millions of impoverished and backwards brown third worlders

Attached: bernies_dream.jpg (669x638, 60K)

>the damage is already beyond repairs since this is sweden afterall

It's really too bad. I used to admire Sweden quite a bit. It was one of the places I was considering leaving America to live in if shit got too bad here.

It's a leaf, don't take leafs seriously

>Lower immigration to 10% of our current state, and all refugees is to be helped on the spot instead of coming here
Even at 0%, Swedes will still become a minority in 20 years. In Malmö, Swedes have been a minority since 2004. In most major cities, Swedish 10-year olds are a minority (30-40%). SD won't stop any of this.
Sweden needs deportations and needs it fast.

Without the Nat we can have no Soc.
It is not good for you under the current Socialism scheme, at least any one that ever gets attention.

Well shit.
How can we experiment further with this?
I get the taboo of National Socialism and how it’s negatively associated German Nazis (WW 2 US enemy) and how others would be hesitant to dive further.
To me it sounds akin to the Roman Empire when the Emperor would step in when the Republic was in turmoil.

Socialsm can work in a homogenous society like in China.

gottfried feders three book series on various topics including the economy.
All I remember from other sources is that the economy was fascist in terms of everything being morally regulated and set up through the state, but citizens were allowed to own such shops under their name. I think the taxes were a flat tax of 20-25%? Everything was paid for by the state (healthcare, schooling, etc)
The main point you should get out of the economy is that the people work for the state, and the state gives back to them tremendously. Through the NSDAP they enshrined nationalism and race into the state, making working life not a want or an economic gain, but a duty towards the people.

Attached: tumblr_nnugexGxOv1rav39bo1_540.jpg (533x761, 175K)

Oh god shut the fuck up. We all came from Reddit at some point.

No we didnt, faggit

I fully agree, it's too bad, it's like we had every chance to make this a true paradise but instead we wasted it in the worst possibly way..

I agree, but still, the majority of swedes just doesn't want that just yet, we rather wait until we're at the brink of civil war before we take action for real. But believe me, right now it's SD or nothing. It will still be like 20x better than our current state.

So where Does the balance lie between the people and the state?
My concern is that the people will get shafted by an extreme authoritarian figure like with Stalin.

Attached: 79E65084-9CDA-4841-8A62-428010053DBA.jpg (700x1024, 159K)

You sound libertarian like I do.
So brings up my question here

>How can we experiment further with this?
As a general rule I'd say it's impossible within any democratic system, it's impossible with freeloaders and impossible with a divided country, racially or otherwise.

Democracies have a habit of being completely subverted by moneyed interests (for instance in the US, the candidate in any given election that has the most campaign funding wins that contest 98% of the time. I'll let you think about where that goes). Having a National Socialist economic model would be completely corrupt, as having the state stop degenerate or nation-damaging activity by seizing assets and then reselling it later would become the order of the day when you get donors who back you and in return you take someone elses shit and give it to your donor at low prices in exchange.

It was also a model in which the country was roughly homogeneous and had high social capital. Aristotle noted thousands of years ago that despots and tyrants generally come to power and rule over divided society and that countries needed Philia(roughly translates to extended family or comradery) in order to function properly on a political level. Western countries are losing that.

Simply without a massive change in conditions in western society it's impossible.

Kind of the complete opposite of what the powers that be want.
If we don’t change China will cash in on their debt here shortly

Lighten up Francis. At least he’s not a fuckin Swede.

the difference is that hitler loved the german people as long as they were morally alligned with the NSDAP, as they got rid of the degeneracy. Once everything was on track, they lived in harmony. The state is made to serve its people, and the people contribute to that state. The good thing that Hitler did was that he made the state not a living hell, he made people actually want to work and instead of government being an evil big brother, it was the culture they knew infused with a responsibility of securing their next offspring. Quite amazing compared to governments today if you think about it.

Attached: 1531787350146.jpg (634x517, 101K)

A linguistic sleight of hand. There is no difference

Ohhhhhh, what an imagination. I wish I lived in the magical world you inhabit. That's some "Big Rock Candy Mountain" level shit

Hmmm

Attached: 36554254_10204844804637924_1952329628378988544_n.jpg (960x960, 51K)

No, it won't. If you weren't a shut-in NEET, you would have noticed that during 2015, people while not making overtly racist statements were very heavy on the dog whistles. Even the leftists were making comments about how those "children" have "suspiciously large beards"
Why? Because they were painfully aware of the brown hordes flooding into the country over the Öresund bridge, and the government was close to collapse. During the refugee crisis, SD went from 20-27%. Since then, that has died down. The leftists think Sweden has an extreme far-right migration policy, most apolitical people think M has a sane migration policy, etc. These were the same people who 3 years earlier would have supported genocide had you discussed the matter with them for more than 5 minutes.
SD won't make anything better, they'll just lull people into a false sense of security.
In the election, you have three choices. Vote NMR because you support them, vote AfS to push the overton window rightward, or vote C to increase the polarization. SD is not an option.

>meme has 2 most retarded political ideologies together
Best way to know this thread is cancer, thank you for making it obvious, leftist scumfuck.