Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

>they never read Marx
>hurr still hanging on every word of a failed prophet durr
Just can't win with cucks.

Why would you ever want to elect a system that will never benefit you at all?
>free healthcare
Someone always pays for it, and in this case it would be me, or us.
>free housing
Completely unattractive to anybody with a house.
>welfare
I don't need welfare, so I'd only be paying for others. Why should I do that?

How are you so sure that Kek has the same plans as you?

SOCIALIST AMERICA CONFIRMED

Attached: jEW1zyv.png (5000x2523, 1.96M)

>someone
>someone
It's always someone, never all of us.
What kind of jew would rather pay $2 to lay blame instead of $1 to provide the service?
People who are wasting my goddamn money and should hang for it.
>Completely unattractive to anybody with a house.
So?
>don't need welfare
Take off your proxy, burger.

I for one welcome our new communist overlords.

Attached: ygpPhRl.jpg (300x200, 12K)

People like to own things. That will never change and that's why socialism/communism never lasts past Gen 3. Kids grow up seeing their dad and grand dad still at shit jobs with government housing that can be changed around on the government's will. Nobody owns anything. There's no pride in the fruits of your labor.

Democratic socialism is a fucking oxymoron. They even admit they're only using democracy to acieve socialism. Ill give you some communism. Everyone gets a bullet.

youtube.com/watch?v=qKmljxsz6BA

Attached: B5CBD468-BF05-4CBB-902D-92571AF8D20F.gif (500x377, 996K)

???
What kind of retard would rather pay $3 to receive the service and pay for the next guy, instead of both of them paying $1 each? That's the waste of your money retard.
>completely unattractive to anyone with a house
Why would you vote for this policy if you have a house?
>take of your proxy, burger
What? Do you think everybody outside of America lives on welfare? Or that I'ma n American on welfare, using a proxy to hide my pathetic existence? All in all, not sold on this whole democratic socialism thing.

KEK answers

LMAO..... It doesn't get any funnier than this shit...

>People like to own things
No, society tells them they should own things.
>That will never change *stomps foot*
Sure kid
>Kids grow up seeing their dad and grand dad still at shit jobs with government housing that can be changed around on the government's will
You seem to be missing the part about "worker control", as if you were somehow erecting a straw man.
>There's no pride in the fruits of your labor
Nonsense. There's plenty of pride to be taken in one's home, one's hobbies, one's arts and crafts, one's intellectual pursuits, one's friends/comrades. When the material conditions are no longer an obstacle, creativity and conviviality can flourish.

Apparently you. Especially since your example makes no sense at all, and we could save $2 trillion over ten years by simply not keeping score and not fighting patients and doctors so hard.
You have a problem with this because you need, not to own things, but to grasp onto anything that makes others feel small. Let me guess, infant circumcision?
>Why would you vote for this policy if you have a house?
Who's coming to forcibly move you out?
>Do you think everybody outside of America lives on welfare
No, but I'm pretty sure that anyone who calls public goods "welfare" has had burger propaganda shoved so far up their arses it comes out the mouth.
>All in all, not sold on this whole democratic socialism thing.
That's odd, because nothing proposed so far is any more extreme than has existed in the Anglosphere in recent decades. If you think that these relatively modest reforms are "welfare", you can't have lived outside the US or you're very young and you don't remember when there were robust public goods and services.

Democratic Socialism doesn't work. And no, I don't mean "it only works in white countries with high social trust and human capital," because it doesn't work there either.

The way you can tell that a system "works" is simple.

1: It must not be violent or pathological.
2: The needs of the people must generally be met.
3: It must be sustainable.

Democratic Socialism promises #2, though it rarely provides it except in ideal circumstances, and those ideal circumstances--not the Democratic Socialism--provide #1.

#3 however is a failure that Democratic Socialism has in EVERY country in which it is implemented. The birthrates drop even in the most ideal scenarios. The system creates a demographic crisis that overexpands investment capital while diminishing consumption. Suicide rates rise as people lack fulfillment, an incel crisis emerges naturally as hypergamy destroys the traditional sex dynamics of the society. Eventually the consumptive class is no longer large enough to sustain the civic society upon which Democratic Socialism relies. This results in one of three events:

-Emmigration of Capital from the country (bad, economy collapses)
-Immigration of workers into the country (destroys high social trust society that makes DS possible in the first place)
-Authoritarian measures to mitigate the crisis (inevitably violent or pathological, or both.)

In other words, it's a poisonous system that destroys societies. The only functional form of X-Socialism is NATIONAL Socialism, because in a National Socialist society, you avoid the common problem of the public simply voting itself largess from the treasure of the nation.

Cite me a single counterexample.

Attached: 1495962813136.jpg (500x582, 39K)

It is the natural order of the universe.
Dark to light

waste of digits

Source please, that would be nice.
>Who's coming to forcibly move you out?
No-one, but why would I vote to give out free houses when I already have one? I don't really need another.
>No, but I'm pretty sure that anyone who calls public goods "welfare" has had burger propaganda shoved so far up their arses it comes out the mouth.
What an outrageous straw man. No, I'm calling welfare, welfare, and I never hinted otherwise. This must be that public education kicking in.
>>All in all, not sold on this whole democratic socialism thing.
>That's odd, because nothing proposed so far is any more extreme than has existed in the Anglosphere in recent decades.
>Housing as a human right
Name the country
>If you think that these relatively modest reforms are "welfare", you can't have lived outside the US or you're very young and you don't remember when there were robust public goods and services.
No I don't you stupid cuck. That's why I mentioned welfare separately to those things.
>relatively modest
>completely public healthcare
>housing as a human right
The mind of a so᠍yboy continues to astound me.

Attached: 1531855008885.png (1097x2706, 2.9M)

>empowering ordinary people
Ordinary people are stupid

Attached: 1511232677475.png (311x300, 103K)

>posting the same tendentious "private business is the solution to all problems, we promise this time" neoliberal shit
Yet this doesn't correlate with what actually happens. The neoliberal "internal market" of the NHS is a prime example.
>No-one, but why would I vote to give out free houses when I already have one
Why wouldn't you? Because you're jewish?
>No, I'm calling welfare, welfare
The state of being well is a problem to you? They didn't even use anesthetic, did they.
>Housing as a human right
UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, an instrument to which, it must be reminded, the US is too proud to be a signatory.
South Africa Constitution, Chapter 26, section 2: "everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing"
>not fetishizing markets and competition as the natural and proper state of society
Better a basedboy than a neoliberal cuck.
>mises
Austrian economics is Calvinism obscured with math. Discarded

>>posting the same tendentious "private business is the solution to all problems, we promise this time" neoliberal shit
Private Clinics in my country keep heath prices much lower. Apparently in America you have to go to an actual hospital to get a check-up, vaccines, stitches etc. That's absurd.
>Yet this doesn't correlate with what actually happens. The neoliberal "internal market" of the NHS is a prime example.
The NHS is public. What's your point.
>there's privatisation within the public system therefore, it's entirely the fault of privatisation
Wrong.
>Why wouldn't you? Because you're jewish?
>Why wouldn't you?
Any society that operates by this logic is not one I want to live in. The government should have a reason for every limitation they put on my freedom, and I do not accept why not as a reason. Also I am not jewish.
>The state of being well is a problem to you?
If you want to dance around the point make it elegant, this is neither funny nor smart.
>They didn't even use anesthetic, did they.
I am uncircumcised.
>UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, an instrument to which, it must be reminded, the US is too proud to be a signatory.
But not a single country in the anglosphere has actually legislated that.
>>not fetishizing markets and competition as the natural and proper state of society
What the fuck did you mean by this?
>Better a basedboy than a neoliberal cuck.
I disagree, but am happy to be neither.
>>mises
>Austrian economics is Calvinism obscured with math. Discarded
Just an image I tacked on, but that's only one of the sources. The actual data there is pure fact, and disagreeing with the interpretation of that data changes nothing. Do you believe that all the government interference in the market listed in that image actually reduced the cost of healthcare?

It's a lie, the moment these "democratic socialists" realize not enough people support their insane bullshit, they become revolutionary socialists. It has happened that way every since the time of the mensheviks gave way to their more radical compatriots.

thank god

>Apparently in America you have to go to an actual hospital to get a check-up, vaccines, stitches etc. That's absurd.
Lol no. Any GP's office can do that. Even pharmacists give flu shots.
>The NHS is public. What's your point.
The "internal market" mandates extra bookkeeping.
>limitation they put on my freedom
This is a perfect example of the Anglosphere's class fetishism, the need to make others feel small.
>anglosphere
Because there's something about the English language that makes classcuckery difficult if not impossible to avoid. I think it's all those two-part verbs that are impossible to use without considering where something is in relation to oneself.
>What the fuck did you mean by this?
Well, why are you fetishizing competition, then? Competition is only ever good for the jew who owns the arena.
>pure fact
Their perception is selective, as expected for someone selling a policy prescription for private business. I have to bail shortly, but examples of cost/delivery pressures they ignored due to ideology include:
>Private malpractice insurance for doctors (under single payer, patients would just continue treatment elsewhere, no lawyers required)
>Claim coordination across companies/lines e.g. auto/homeowners/health
>The inherently adversarial nature of insurance claims and capricious approval policies
>Unregulated private profit
And others.
>disagreeing with the interpretation of that data changes nothing
Oh, but it does, especially since many of these facts are false.
Just one example: "lower prices for insured patients" lel, many doctors gladly provide cash discounts to save them from filing a claim and waiting for payment which can take more than a year
I really do wish they had footnoted the thing properly so we could know what's fact, what's tendentious spin, and what's pure religious cant.
Anyhow, g'day and I hope you do more research. pnhp.org is a good place to start.

>Lol no. Any GP's office can do that. Even pharmacists give flu shots.
Better make that public, don't want the lower classes to miss out.
>>The NHS is public. What's your point.
Private systems have less bookkeeping, governments will hire more administrators than private businesses do.
>This is a perfect example of the Anglosphere's class fetishism, the need to make others feel small.
In what way exactly, I want all of the classes to be as free as possible. In no way do I need to make anyone small.
>anglosphere
Stop dancing around the point you fucking nigger. I ask for a single country that has housing as a human right and you give me this shit. A single word is all it takes, and you give me a lecture on excessive use of words.
>>What the fuck did you mean by this?
>Well, why are you fetishizing competition, then? Competition is only ever good for the jew who owns the arena.
At least capitalism allows for multiple jews to outjew each other, you just want one megajew, but you call it the government so it's okay!
And as for fetishization of competition, I do find evolution extremely interesting and I find that the efficiency that naturally arises from competition is fascinating.

>Their perception is selective, as expected for someone selling a policy prescription for private business. I have to bail shortly, but examples of cost/delivery pressures they ignored due to ideology include:
>>Private malpractice insurance for doctors (under single payer, patients would just continue treatment elsewhere, no lawyers required)
There are risks associated with lock-in contracts. And if the government is the only supplier of care, and it fucks you over, there's nowhere else you can go.
>>Claim coordination across companies/lines e.g. auto/homeowners/health
This can be a problem but the more legal precedents there are, the less of a problem there will be.
>>The inherently adversarial nature of insurance claims and capricious approval policies
Such is life, people will avoid giving you something, whether they are a company or a government.
>>Unregulated private profit
If a company is only allowed a 30% profit margin they will only provide the necessities for that 30%, fucking over the company and the customers.
>And others.
>>disagreeing with the interpretation of that data changes nothing
>Oh, but it does, especially since many of these facts are false.
>Just one example: "lower prices for insured patients" lel, many doctors gladly provide cash discounts to save them from filing a claim and waiting for payment which can take more than a year
If you don't want it don't take it.
>I really do wish they had footnoted the thing properly so we could know what's fact, what's tendentious spin, and what's pure religious cant.
But that's work, and work is hard.
>Anyhow, g'day and I hope you do more research. pnhp.org is a good place to start.
I'll check it out but I do not expect much.

>Single-payer national health insurance, also known as “Medicare for all,” is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains
>largely in private hands.
Sounds just like what you criticised the NHS for.
Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.
>The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear;
>95 percent of all households would save money.
Just like Obamacare
>Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.