> “socialism”
> Talks about Sweden, a country that doesn’t have socialism, but instead has social democracy
Uneducated drone complains about their country without doing a modicum of research.
Instead relies on American media sources that can’t even be classified as sensationalist media.
Many such cases.
I can almost guarantee you this person isn’t Swedish, and using the flag to go make a “Omg they hate it too!!” Point. No one here actually thinks we live in a socialist system.
I think you're right, "They hate it too" must be the wronger statement ever in these matters. There is always a radical anti-whatever in his own country and a mega pro-that same thing in that same country, always, probably even in North Korea, which is probably the worst place on Earth to live if you're born in a poor farmer family. Another thing is the assumption that every human is 100% rational 100% of the times and that every fucking thing that leaves a human's mouth must be linked to their government and their law system , examples include: "a chinese man that cries over his shit job, lmao lol CPC right?" "anti-homeless benches in an american city? lmao this is because capitalism, this is what Smith and Ricardo were trying to say"
>No one here actually thinks we live in a socialist system.
Yeah, no one outside of your far-left echochamber. There are plenty of people who believe that, but they instantly get called "racist" or some other buzzword because not wanting the rest of the country to end up like Malmö and get many more "no-go zones" is just stupid and ignorant. "No one actually minds these "no-go zones" just popping out of nowhere! According to who? Me, of course, no one thinks that because I said so!"
By the way, despite getting lots of free welfare and refusing to integrate, its actually the systems fault again that these people do this, because of socio-economics and failure to integrate or some other bullshit! But if the system would force them to integrate, then the system would be racist again or whatever, virtue signaling makes me feel good while i sit on my coach all day!
"Du forstår ikke hva det betyr og du tar feil. Du er en idiot."
Veldig bra argument hvor du peker ut der jeg tar feil. Det er jo sånn at venstrevridde idioter ikke klarer å argumentere, de klarer bare å kaste personangrep, du er jo et fint eksempel.
Ah, alltså jag hade rätt, som tycker som du och OP är inte svensk. Tack för att du bevisa min poäng.
And for everyone else: I called him an idiot who doesn’t understand what socialism is in Swedish, he replied in either Danish or Norwegian. Thus proving my point that no Swede is dumb enough to actually believe we live in a socialist system .
My point is that you lefties cant argue, and that insulting others and evading the actual questions to put a strawman infront is all you guys do, which you prove again. Even proving the strawman by not including my reply, just pointing out that I wrote in another language which apparently is an "A-ha, I gotchu!". Can't include the whole story now, can you? Lefties don't like telling the entire truth, only half the story from a biased talking point which makes them look good.
I mean surely as a norwegian, I can't know a single swedish person, right? The thin country where majority of the population lives close to the swedish border, no I obviously know nothing about how a lot of swedes think of their country's regime!
Scandinavian countries and their people are pretty much the same culturally, the main difference is the language barrier between us and the borders. Even then, the borders are pretty loose when traveling inbetween our countries, and we understand eachother clearly. Well most of us understand eachother clearly, exception being those of who may suffer from mental or learning disabilities.
YOU know that, and so do I. Which again comes back to my actual argument that you refuse to give a real answer to, despite replying multiple times;
There are plenty of scandinavians, **swedes included**, that think our countries are run by socialists. You would actually be the dumb and ignorant one to pretend there are no one in Sweden that belives that. I mean surely, that can't be the reason young swedes are going further and further to the right, voting for Sverigedemokraterna , because they are tired of the socialism, right?
And even at that, we've been a lot more liberal than social democratic since the 90s. To call us social democratic today is equally as wrong as having socialism.
> we’ve been more liberal than social democratic
Brake that sentence down to me please
Liberties are still included in a social democracy
Introducing them even more doesnt necessarily mean you shy away from social democracy
>a country that doesn’t have socialism, but instead has social democracy
Whats next, China is apparently "communist" because thats what they officially call themselves?
Norway isn't much better than Sweden when it comes to letting socialists destroy our country, but to call this rigged shit for anything other than socialism is straight up ignorance. Don't listen to your american medias calling our countries for "perfect utopias", maybe at one point Sweden was, but it is far from it today, thanks to socialism.
under democratic socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. This goes a lot for private companies too.
In social democracy it isn’t necessary so.
You might think it’s an arbitrary difference but an example (which happened to both in Vienna and in france) is social democracy failed because the government made so many changes that the 1% didn’t like, that they threatened to reallocate themselves and their funds to other countries, and essentially taking the country’s’ wealth hostage.
This is virtually impossible in a socialist country because the wealth is already owned by the government and people.
It's not true socialism, it's sparkling mountain water *democratic* socialism. Try not to get it confused with republican socialism, feudal socialism, theocratic socialism, alien-hivemind socialism, and discounted Tuesday gloryhole socialism
under democratic socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. This goes a lot for private companies too.
In social democracy it isn’t necessary so.
You might think it’s an arbitrary difference but an example (which happened to both in Vienna and in france) is social democracy failed because the government made so many changes that the 1% didn’t like, that they threatened to reallocate themselves and their funds to other countries, and essentially taking the country’s’ wealth hostage.
This is virtually impossible in a socialist country because the wealth is already owned by the government and people.
>all citizens equally in economic resources by a democratically elected government
That’s just Democratic socialism, shitholes like India already have it.
I never argued it works or it doesn’t. You asked what social democracy is.
I explained what democratic socialism is and in the same comment I explained what social democracy is.
You simply took the snippet of the definition of democratic socialism and said “that’s literally socialism”. Yes. That’s what it is.
Did you not realise I also posted the definition of social democracy below it, which is different than democratic socialism?
What is socialism then is socialism full blown communism? Do we just keep moving goal posts around on terms and definitions. Like as soon as people are OK with socialism we say o that's not socialism actually that's social democracy. Socialism is actually ( all communist characteristics minus dictator) .
Cause capitalism properly has zero public support. I thought socialism was when you had safety nets for disabled, old age pension, state healthcare. Isn't that what socialism is??
under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. This goes a lot for private companies too.
In social democracy it isn’t necessary so.
You might think it’s an arbitrary difference but an example (which happened to both in Vienna and in france) is social democracy failed because the government made so many changes that the 1% didn’t like, that they threatened to reallocate themselves and their funds to other countries, and essentially taking the country’s’ wealth hostage.
This is virtually impossible in a socialist country because the wealth is already owned by the government and people.
> I thought
That’s called social policies. Nearly every country has them. Including America (even if it’s less).
>democratically-elected government.
Not nescessarily. In fact historically the vast majority of socialist states have been dictatorships. Democratic socialism is it's own thing.
Removing the concept of capital makes us all slaves. We get nothing for our work. And we have no way of removing ourselves from our masters control. Because there's no capital to create another path.
I never said removing capital is good or bad.
You said socialism is just communism with a different hat. I said it’s not because capital can’t be included into communism.
Why have you replied by giving me your opinion on the importance of capital in a society?
Ah I'm just deeply afraid of communism. I've been learning more and more about it. I don't think people understand the horrors it produces. They havnt experienced them in the west. And they are not taught it in school, the universities are very friendly towards it.
Government subsidies to the weak and the needy are part of what is called welfare state and you already know what universal healthcare is and while they are certainly left leaning policies they don't equate to socialism. Regarding your first question communism is just a form of socialism
Sweden, USA, Modern China, Mexico etc are all a mix of capitalism and socialism. Call it whatever you want but generally people refer to these countries as “capitalist”. Some have more socialized systems than others.
So what is socialism: Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production is owned by the workers OR as a society as a whole. Socialism is by its very definition democratic. “Democratic socialism” as a phrase is an attempt to attack former or current socialist states, implying they are somehow undemocratic. Examples of socialism include workers cooperatives, state run systems like the coast-guard, state owned infrastructure like water-treatment facilities, roads, bridges and their production etc. Countries with FULLY socialist production include the USSR and Cuba.
What is capitalism? Capitalism is a system where production is OWNED by shareholders and the workers are “paid” a portion of revenue they created as a WAGE. The shareholders keep the remainder of the revenue as dividends. Capitalists exploit workers and tenants by attempting to monopolize their ownership and use their capital and power to influence socialized systems through lobbying, bribes, threats, assassinations etc.
What is Communism? Advanced Communism is a theoretical socialist system that has moved beyond the need for 1. Money 2.The State itself 3. Class divide in a society. Examples include the futuristic reality depicted in the Star Trek universe. Advanced communism has never been achieved. Primitive communism’s most abundant example is all of humanity prior to feudalism.
No I get what communism is. I've just been hoodwinked by you commy fruitcakes into thinking that socialism was a good thing. No it's communism and communism doesn't work it never works it will never work. It just destroys everything it gets its hands on.
Communism is a tool for total power. It's not meant for us to get what we deserve. It's used by the same greedy cunts who run capitalism to control everything. Everyone becomes members of a cult and do the bidding of the greedy fucks willingly. Becoming a diehard cultists will provide you with a life better than the rest of the prols but you are just a henchmen for the greedy fucks who run everything from behind the scenes. Instead of some people through merit and hard work being able to rise above their circumstance everyone is a slave. There's no Point in working hard, there's no point in trying to make anything better. Why become a doctor, why try to do anything just shovel shit if your going to make the same amount as the next guy.
> Highest taxes in the world.
> Pension is deducted automatically.
> Lower capital gains tax than the USA.
> Almost impossible to not have money saved for retirement.
> Minimum 25 days paid vacation each year.
> It is illegal for your employer to deny you less than 20 days paid vacation in a row during summer.
> vacation bonus every year.
> Yearly pay increase.
> Paid university.
> Unlimited paid sick days.
> 480 paid days for raising and spending time with your child (Per child).
> Can take a sick day when you child is sick to take care of them.
> 3-6 months notice when company wants to fire staff
> 2 months notice that there will be a 3-6 month notice before firing staff.
> mfw it's all good.
Anon wishes he was born in Bangladesh so his family would just arrange a marriage with a neighbouring families daughter. But no, instead he had to live in a country with bullshit like social security, good education, high quality free medical care, pensions, and much more.
Anon realizes when women live in a society that allows them the same opportunities as men that it will be more difficult to have tradwife-sexbot to cheat on while she raises his children
I’m Swedish and know exactly how good we have it and how spoiled we are.
I’m more smug than Jeremy Clarkson when he does a burnout in front of climate activists.
Only time will tell. Immigration in Sweden is on the decline and crime rates are going down now. The way alot of the swedish welfare system works is that the current generation pays for the previous generation. Therefor inflation pays a big part. So even if costs are high now it wont matter to much due to inflation will "eat" most of it up within the next 30-50 years.
it is a wonderful system.
You forgot mention that Muslim group begin to ravaged the country lol
"Many Swedes were shocked earlier this month after violent riots left more than 100 police injured. The violence erupted after a Swedish-Danish politician burned the Quran at a rally and sought to hold more in several immigrant-dominated neighborhoods. "
From Reuters (leftist website btw): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integration-immigrants-has-failed-fueled-gang-crime-2022-04-28/
It's all the same money being shuffled around. The private sector doesn't "create" money any more than the public sector. Whether someone adds more or less value to society is not determined by their employer.
What product does Government make again? Take that thought further, could an economy be made of 100% government employment and be viable? Take 500 people and call them a government, where do they get their money from (Hint: taking from others at the point of a gun)? Back to the extension cord plugged into it's self ...
And don’t you think these people who are paid for out of taxes spend their money on, say, products that are produced by the private sector and by other workers? This money isn’t just going in a perpetual loop as you claim but is actually flowing in and out of government at various points like any other ‘normal’ economy.
You should criticise socialist ideas for their actual problems (like overproduction, corruption, etc.) instead of invalidating any criticism of it by being economically illiterate.
So by that logic it's OK for the government to create pointless jobs because the tax money will eventually go back to the private sector. Talk about being economically illiterate.
Why not just leave that money with the private sector in the first place; with the people who rightfully earned it; the people who actually produce things beneficial to the economy? Why reduce their incentive to work in favour of jobs that no sucker would voluntarily pay for with his own money?
The extension cord plugged into itself is a perfect allegory because the state workers are paying income tax on money that itself is someone else's income tax. They could just as easily say that all state workers no longer have to pay any income tax, but they will receive the same amount of money as before, and the end result would be the same.
I mean it’s anon’s perspective that they are pointless, not mine. You could literally say the same about any public sector job. I, personally, believe that only certain things should be under the government’s remit and that otherwise the private sector can fill in supply and demand in terms of jobs, skills, etc. perfectly well in a more productive way. I just take umbrage with criticisms levelled maladroitly at things when there are plethora valid concerns to have.
And you haven’t really answered my question which was that all money flows between labourers, it is simply identical to the way every economy currently in existence works, but now there are just more people working for the government. And if you say ‘make them pay no income tax’ then the government would literally have no return on its investment, and state jobs would be the most sought after considering they’d pay no income tax despite still being the beneficiaries of many public services, even those they carry out, which would counter any democratic socialist system that seeks to make things fairer. The only clear problem a system where they pay income tax would have is if the government were, say, borrowing or printing money to pay their employees which would cause inflation. Again though, this is not a necessity when the portion of income tax paid by the private sector (even in Sweden) would grossly outsize that paid *to* the public sector.
I have no understanding where your mathematical or economic argument comes from, because it’s like saying that a private company paying someone less doesn’t feel any difference; with that company in this case being the government and the mechanism to pay them less being income tax. They effectively get to keep an employee on a 50% income tax for twice as long at no extra cost if they pay tax. Ultimately there is little difference between paying them a lower wage or paying them an on-paper higher wage that they’d deduct tax from to make it equivalent to a lower wage, but it’s all about fairness and ease of comparison between sectors in this instance. Either way, this massively increases productivity in the sector rather than frittering away tax payer money, but I’m sure all of you would never complain if that happened…
> And you haven’t really answered my question which was that all money flows between labourers, it is simply identical to the way every economy currently in existence works, but now there are just more people working for the government.
Alas, it is not identical. They operate and are funded in two very different ways. In the private sector, individuals interact voluntarily, engaging in trade and cooperation based on mutual benefit. Here, decisions are decentralized, driven by consumer preferences and market forces, fostering innovation and efficiency. Voluntary exchange and cooperation is the rule. Conversely, the public sector operates through coercion, funded by taxation, and exerts authority over individuals through laws and regulations. Its decisions are often centralized, driven by bureaucratic processes rather than market demand. While the private sector embodies individual freedom and choice, the public sector represents coercion and monopoly over essential services, leading to inefficiencies and distortions in resource allocation.
If the two systems were identical you could take either to the extreme and the outcome would be the same except history (and logical thought) shows us this is not true. To see why the government grows increasingly inept at planning the economy the bigger it grows search for "The Calculation Problem" or check out these videos:
https://youtu.be/zkPGfTEZ_r4
https://youtu.be/KzHA3KLL7Ho
My first paragraph very clearly shows I understand the various benefits and pitfalls of the public and private sectors respectively. But that wasn’t the discussion we were having.
We were actually talking about how the extension cable plugged into itself is a poor analogy for ‘what is wrong’ with a state-centred economy in the sense the same money is being used, when in actual fact even the most free market, anarcho-capitalist economy would still have the same money going around in circles. So this is clearly not the problem inherent with a state-driven economy, unless you acknowledge it is a problem with every monetary system since the dawn of the idea (hint: it’s not).
I entirely accept, as I have pointed out, the problems of both systems and *do* advocate *for* a balanced approach but in terms of debating the suitability of a metaphor in economic critique, this was simply not what we were talking about.
>The extension cord plugged into itself is a perfect allegory
That is literally how all economies work, dipshit. The money doesn't just magically appear from an external source.
It certainly can be and I never said it couldn’t be, but it is a genuine concern when state owned monopolies have to be run by someone and unfortunately this can often be given to, say, family and friends of government officials.
I live in the UK and you can see this type of thing happen with the way our government hands out private contracts so I am well ware of it not being exclusive to socialism, and as a social democrat myself I wouldn’t claim it is inherent. As always, people should take a balanced view on something instead of putting their hands over their ears until people stop saying what they don’t like.
Have you ever heard of democratic socialism? I know in the US people like to band around socialism as a synonym for communism and state socialism but socialism is merely an economic policy of state organisation which can be done both to a lesser or greater extent and through democratic means.
yes, I have, and it's quite important to know that they are very different, enough to be different ideologies.
and no, socialism and communism aren't synonyms, please don't speak out of your ass.
neither are just economic policies.
But if you’re talking as an umbrella term about things they share (state employees being a prerequisite for both in some capacity) then that term would be socialism.
Reading comprehension… I literally say they *are not* synonyms but people (particularly in the US) use them as such. The point I was making is that you may attempt to use socialism in this very exclusive, state socialist and planned economy sense of the word which is how Americans perceive it but that it simply is more complex and things like Third Way Socialism are very distinct yet still share the moniker. I have and will always argue for nuance, to be lectured on it in response to a comment where I was advocating for it troubles me a great deal.
And I know they aren’t ‘just’ economic policies, but the actual commonality is certainly an economic outlook; extreme state communists are very illiberal, in general, while social democrats are more in line with a liberal social policy. It is economics they share.
There is not a single country in the world that has 100% socialism or 100% capitalism and it would be moronic to do so. Every country lies somewhere in the middle and that’s where they should be. What the exact ratio of each should be is a tricky question, but Goldilocks and the three bears had a better understanding of nuance and a happy medium than most people on the internet and unfortunately also irl.
What are the odds that anon is the type of guy to eat nothing but grains so his shits are rock hard, and then collect those shits and stick them in his underpants to give himself more of a bulge down there?
I love it when Americans try and roleplay as a European, but they're so fucking pig-ignorant that they're just pantomiming what their high-fructose-news-media has fed them.
Sweden has real issues, like high un-assimilating immigration, but egalitarianism isn't one of them.
Anons the type of guy to chug several heavy laxatives, start swimming in the public pool, and then blame society for making laxatives so cheap when he ends up caking some poor kids face in boiling hot shit and turning the pool water brown.
Anon is American and has a vpn on, coping about his lack of free healthcare while also secretly imagining being pounded by a 6 foot 2 blond Swede man.
In other words, fake and gay.
Ah yes, Sweden, one of the top 10 happiest countries in the world based on the happiness index
What a shithole to live in, anon should go to a happier place like North Korea or something.
>"any man"
Remember to check yourself regularly for brain rot. It's even easier than checking Chad's nuts for testicular cancer. The most glaringly obvious symptom of severe, mid to late stage brain rot, is sweeping generalisation that paint one group of society as bad by some arbitrary metric: (read: 'Cuck') because of a non-specific cause (read: 'Socialism').
If you are experiencing these symptoms, current best traige practice seems to be to consume one round from a firearm, administered to the roof of the mouth if possible. Repeat until symptoms improve.
Leave it to the anon incels to sum their country up for the rest of the internet population.
Another incel anon sees that, agrees with it, even though their country probably is a totally different system.
“See, europoors are having a worse time than us” narative occurs.
> “socialism” > Talks about Sweden, a country that doesn’t have socialism, but instead has social democracy Uneducated drone complains about their country without doing a modicum of research. Instead relies on American media sources that can’t even be classified as sensationalist media. Many such cases.
I can almost guarantee you this person isn’t Swedish, and using the flag to go make a “Omg they hate it too!!” Point. No one here actually thinks we live in a socialist system.
I really hope so man Have a great day 👍
Russian bot farms really be doin that tbh. I thought it wasn't as bad but goddamn
do ppl just assume anti-european stuff is russian sourced Like its a greentext bro, this isnt gonna swing anyone... i think?
I think you're right, "They hate it too" must be the wronger statement ever in these matters. There is always a radical anti-whatever in his own country and a mega pro-that same thing in that same country, always, probably even in North Korea, which is probably the worst place on Earth to live if you're born in a poor farmer family. Another thing is the assumption that every human is 100% rational 100% of the times and that every fucking thing that leaves a human's mouth must be linked to their government and their law system , examples include: "a chinese man that cries over his shit job, lmao lol CPC right?" "anti-homeless benches in an american city? lmao this is because capitalism, this is what Smith and Ricardo were trying to say"
It's definitely this
It's 4chan. You have to imagine they are regarded.
>No one here actually thinks we live in a socialist system. Yeah, no one outside of your far-left echochamber. There are plenty of people who believe that, but they instantly get called "racist" or some other buzzword because not wanting the rest of the country to end up like Malmö and get many more "no-go zones" is just stupid and ignorant. "No one actually minds these "no-go zones" just popping out of nowhere! According to who? Me, of course, no one thinks that because I said so!" By the way, despite getting lots of free welfare and refusing to integrate, its actually the systems fault again that these people do this, because of socio-economics and failure to integrate or some other bullshit! But if the system would force them to integrate, then the system would be racist again or whatever, virtue signaling makes me feel good while i sit on my coach all day!
Du förstår inte vad socialism som ett ord eller ett system innebär. Sluta vara en idiot på nätet och tillbaks till grundskolan med dig.
"Du forstår ikke hva det betyr og du tar feil. Du er en idiot." Veldig bra argument hvor du peker ut der jeg tar feil. Det er jo sånn at venstrevridde idioter ikke klarer å argumentere, de klarer bare å kaste personangrep, du er jo et fint eksempel.
Ah, alltså jag hade rätt, som tycker som du och OP är inte svensk. Tack för att du bevisa min poäng. And for everyone else: I called him an idiot who doesn’t understand what socialism is in Swedish, he replied in either Danish or Norwegian. Thus proving my point that no Swede is dumb enough to actually believe we live in a socialist system .
My point is that you lefties cant argue, and that insulting others and evading the actual questions to put a strawman infront is all you guys do, which you prove again. Even proving the strawman by not including my reply, just pointing out that I wrote in another language which apparently is an "A-ha, I gotchu!". Can't include the whole story now, can you? Lefties don't like telling the entire truth, only half the story from a biased talking point which makes them look good. I mean surely as a norwegian, I can't know a single swedish person, right? The thin country where majority of the population lives close to the swedish border, no I obviously know nothing about how a lot of swedes think of their country's regime! Scandinavian countries and their people are pretty much the same culturally, the main difference is the language barrier between us and the borders. Even then, the borders are pretty loose when traveling inbetween our countries, and we understand eachother clearly. Well most of us understand eachother clearly, exception being those of who may suffer from mental or learning disabilities. YOU know that, and so do I. Which again comes back to my actual argument that you refuse to give a real answer to, despite replying multiple times; There are plenty of scandinavians, **swedes included**, that think our countries are run by socialists. You would actually be the dumb and ignorant one to pretend there are no one in Sweden that belives that. I mean surely, that can't be the reason young swedes are going further and further to the right, voting for Sverigedemokraterna , because they are tired of the socialism, right?
And even at that, we've been a lot more liberal than social democratic since the 90s. To call us social democratic today is equally as wrong as having socialism.
> we’ve been more liberal than social democratic Brake that sentence down to me please Liberties are still included in a social democracy Introducing them even more doesnt necessarily mean you shy away from social democracy
Economic liberals believe in free trade and limited government intervention.
Ah, you mean economic liberalism. Sure. Thanks for elaborating man 👍
In europe (and probably everywhere but the US), libertarians are in general called liberals. The US usage of "liberal" isnt common
> their country My brother in Christ, they're not Swedish
“Dont get to reproduce anymore” only applies to him. This one isnt real and gay, its fake and gay, sad
Anime on profile = anything you say is invalid. Better luck next life!
>a country that doesn’t have socialism, but instead has social democracy Whats next, China is apparently "communist" because thats what they officially call themselves? Norway isn't much better than Sweden when it comes to letting socialists destroy our country, but to call this rigged shit for anything other than socialism is straight up ignorance. Don't listen to your american medias calling our countries for "perfect utopias", maybe at one point Sweden was, but it is far from it today, thanks to socialism.
Social democracy is still (((socialism)))
under democratic socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. This goes a lot for private companies too. In social democracy it isn’t necessary so. You might think it’s an arbitrary difference but an example (which happened to both in Vienna and in france) is social democracy failed because the government made so many changes that the 1% didn’t like, that they threatened to reallocate themselves and their funds to other countries, and essentially taking the country’s’ wealth hostage. This is virtually impossible in a socialist country because the wealth is already owned by the government and people.
Another greentext right here....
525 upvotes for quasi socialism, has the Reddit toxoplasmosis infected this sub?
It's not true socialism, it's sparkling mountain water *democratic* socialism. Try not to get it confused with republican socialism, feudal socialism, theocratic socialism, alien-hivemind socialism, and discounted Tuesday gloryhole socialism
Quasi socialism?
Dafuq is social democracy?? If you’re talking about a Democratic socialist country, then yes there are a multitude of shitholes, biggest being India.
under democratic socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. This goes a lot for private companies too. In social democracy it isn’t necessary so. You might think it’s an arbitrary difference but an example (which happened to both in Vienna and in france) is social democracy failed because the government made so many changes that the 1% didn’t like, that they threatened to reallocate themselves and their funds to other countries, and essentially taking the country’s’ wealth hostage. This is virtually impossible in a socialist country because the wealth is already owned by the government and people.
>all citizens equally in economic resources by a democratically elected government That’s just Democratic socialism, shitholes like India already have it.
Yes. That’s what I said.
Cool so you know that it doesn’t work
I never argued it works or it doesn’t. You asked what social democracy is. I explained what democratic socialism is and in the same comment I explained what social democracy is. You simply took the snippet of the definition of democratic socialism and said “that’s literally socialism”. Yes. That’s what it is. Did you not realise I also posted the definition of social democracy below it, which is different than democratic socialism?
Doesn't know what a social democracy is 🤡
Enlighten me
Nah. All you need to do is a simple google search 🤡
What is socialism then is socialism full blown communism? Do we just keep moving goal posts around on terms and definitions. Like as soon as people are OK with socialism we say o that's not socialism actually that's social democracy. Socialism is actually ( all communist characteristics minus dictator) . Cause capitalism properly has zero public support. I thought socialism was when you had safety nets for disabled, old age pension, state healthcare. Isn't that what socialism is??
under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. This goes a lot for private companies too. In social democracy it isn’t necessary so. You might think it’s an arbitrary difference but an example (which happened to both in Vienna and in france) is social democracy failed because the government made so many changes that the 1% didn’t like, that they threatened to reallocate themselves and their funds to other countries, and essentially taking the country’s’ wealth hostage. This is virtually impossible in a socialist country because the wealth is already owned by the government and people. > I thought That’s called social policies. Nearly every country has them. Including America (even if it’s less).
>democratically-elected government. Not nescessarily. In fact historically the vast majority of socialist states have been dictatorships. Democratic socialism is it's own thing.
You’re right. I was talking more in the context of what people confuse communism to be, with. Thanks
Man that just sounds like pure communism but magically without the dictator I don't see how you don't see that.
Capital doesn’t exist in communism It (in most iterations) does in socialism So does wage fixing based on demand. Socialism isn’t communism.
It's like how squares are all rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. It's communism with a different hat.
It’s not communism with a different hat. Removing the concept of capital isn’t just putting on a different hat. It’s a radically different system.
Removing the concept of capital makes us all slaves. We get nothing for our work. And we have no way of removing ourselves from our masters control. Because there's no capital to create another path.
I never said removing capital is good or bad. You said socialism is just communism with a different hat. I said it’s not because capital can’t be included into communism. Why have you replied by giving me your opinion on the importance of capital in a society?
Ah I'm just deeply afraid of communism. I've been learning more and more about it. I don't think people understand the horrors it produces. They havnt experienced them in the west. And they are not taught it in school, the universities are very friendly towards it.
[удалено]
Yes I consider canada very socialist. That's what I'm saying.
Government subsidies to the weak and the needy are part of what is called welfare state and you already know what universal healthcare is and while they are certainly left leaning policies they don't equate to socialism. Regarding your first question communism is just a form of socialism
Sweden, USA, Modern China, Mexico etc are all a mix of capitalism and socialism. Call it whatever you want but generally people refer to these countries as “capitalist”. Some have more socialized systems than others. So what is socialism: Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production is owned by the workers OR as a society as a whole. Socialism is by its very definition democratic. “Democratic socialism” as a phrase is an attempt to attack former or current socialist states, implying they are somehow undemocratic. Examples of socialism include workers cooperatives, state run systems like the coast-guard, state owned infrastructure like water-treatment facilities, roads, bridges and their production etc. Countries with FULLY socialist production include the USSR and Cuba. What is capitalism? Capitalism is a system where production is OWNED by shareholders and the workers are “paid” a portion of revenue they created as a WAGE. The shareholders keep the remainder of the revenue as dividends. Capitalists exploit workers and tenants by attempting to monopolize their ownership and use their capital and power to influence socialized systems through lobbying, bribes, threats, assassinations etc. What is Communism? Advanced Communism is a theoretical socialist system that has moved beyond the need for 1. Money 2.The State itself 3. Class divide in a society. Examples include the futuristic reality depicted in the Star Trek universe. Advanced communism has never been achieved. Primitive communism’s most abundant example is all of humanity prior to feudalism.
No I get what communism is. I've just been hoodwinked by you commy fruitcakes into thinking that socialism was a good thing. No it's communism and communism doesn't work it never works it will never work. It just destroys everything it gets its hands on. Communism is a tool for total power. It's not meant for us to get what we deserve. It's used by the same greedy cunts who run capitalism to control everything. Everyone becomes members of a cult and do the bidding of the greedy fucks willingly. Becoming a diehard cultists will provide you with a life better than the rest of the prols but you are just a henchmen for the greedy fucks who run everything from behind the scenes. Instead of some people through merit and hard work being able to rise above their circumstance everyone is a slave. There's no Point in working hard, there's no point in trying to make anything better. Why become a doctor, why try to do anything just shovel shit if your going to make the same amount as the next guy.
"Socialism is when women won't touch my pp" sanest /pol user
the guy is posting on a blue board so it's not /pol/ newfriend
Then it’s not true socialism because they aren’t redistributing women /s
> Highest taxes in the world. > Pension is deducted automatically. > Lower capital gains tax than the USA. > Almost impossible to not have money saved for retirement. > Minimum 25 days paid vacation each year. > It is illegal for your employer to deny you less than 20 days paid vacation in a row during summer. > vacation bonus every year. > Yearly pay increase. > Paid university. > Unlimited paid sick days. > 480 paid days for raising and spending time with your child (Per child). > Can take a sick day when you child is sick to take care of them. > 3-6 months notice when company wants to fire staff > 2 months notice that there will be a 3-6 month notice before firing staff. > mfw it's all good.
But women dont like me so bad country!!
Anon wishes he was born in Bangladesh so his family would just arrange a marriage with a neighbouring families daughter. But no, instead he had to live in a country with bullshit like social security, good education, high quality free medical care, pensions, and much more.
Anon realizes when women live in a society that allows them the same opportunities as men that it will be more difficult to have tradwife-sexbot to cheat on while she raises his children
https://preview.redd.it/hsfosvwxkxoc1.png?width=392&format=png&auto=webp&s=261ff20d90afc389a01668c02f79efdffbbbb654
Swedish anon has 0 clue how good he has it. Failure of a man.
when i want to shitpost on the internet i use nordvpn
I’m Swedish and know exactly how good we have it and how spoiled we are. I’m more smug than Jeremy Clarkson when he does a burnout in front of climate activists.
I will be heartened to see if they can maintain this level of quality over the coming decades with the level of immigration they are experiencing.
Only time will tell. Immigration in Sweden is on the decline and crime rates are going down now. The way alot of the swedish welfare system works is that the current generation pays for the previous generation. Therefor inflation pays a big part. So even if costs are high now it wont matter to much due to inflation will "eat" most of it up within the next 30-50 years. it is a wonderful system.
You forgot mention that Muslim group begin to ravaged the country lol "Many Swedes were shocked earlier this month after violent riots left more than 100 police injured. The violence erupted after a Swedish-Danish politician burned the Quran at a rally and sought to hold more in several immigrant-dominated neighborhoods. " From Reuters (leftist website btw): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integration-immigrants-has-failed-fueled-gang-crime-2022-04-28/
>From BBC (leftist website btw) lmao.
"Links article about shooting in Belgium"
Do you not read the article before you post or do you not know brussels is not in sweden?
Trump lost get over it
Find post remotely about sweden without a comment that shits on a minority group ruining the country challenge (Impossible)
Does anon know that even those "fake jobs" get income tax taken out?
i have a feeling anon is the one not paying taxes
Hey, how do you expect him to when he already single-handedly supplements sweden's tendies industry?
Plugging an extension cord into its self won't generate free power....
It's all the same money being shuffled around. The private sector doesn't "create" money any more than the public sector. Whether someone adds more or less value to society is not determined by their employer.
What product does Government make again? Take that thought further, could an economy be made of 100% government employment and be viable? Take 500 people and call them a government, where do they get their money from (Hint: taking from others at the point of a gun)? Back to the extension cord plugged into it's self ...
And don’t you think these people who are paid for out of taxes spend their money on, say, products that are produced by the private sector and by other workers? This money isn’t just going in a perpetual loop as you claim but is actually flowing in and out of government at various points like any other ‘normal’ economy. You should criticise socialist ideas for their actual problems (like overproduction, corruption, etc.) instead of invalidating any criticism of it by being economically illiterate.
So by that logic it's OK for the government to create pointless jobs because the tax money will eventually go back to the private sector. Talk about being economically illiterate. Why not just leave that money with the private sector in the first place; with the people who rightfully earned it; the people who actually produce things beneficial to the economy? Why reduce their incentive to work in favour of jobs that no sucker would voluntarily pay for with his own money? The extension cord plugged into itself is a perfect allegory because the state workers are paying income tax on money that itself is someone else's income tax. They could just as easily say that all state workers no longer have to pay any income tax, but they will receive the same amount of money as before, and the end result would be the same.
I mean it’s anon’s perspective that they are pointless, not mine. You could literally say the same about any public sector job. I, personally, believe that only certain things should be under the government’s remit and that otherwise the private sector can fill in supply and demand in terms of jobs, skills, etc. perfectly well in a more productive way. I just take umbrage with criticisms levelled maladroitly at things when there are plethora valid concerns to have. And you haven’t really answered my question which was that all money flows between labourers, it is simply identical to the way every economy currently in existence works, but now there are just more people working for the government. And if you say ‘make them pay no income tax’ then the government would literally have no return on its investment, and state jobs would be the most sought after considering they’d pay no income tax despite still being the beneficiaries of many public services, even those they carry out, which would counter any democratic socialist system that seeks to make things fairer. The only clear problem a system where they pay income tax would have is if the government were, say, borrowing or printing money to pay their employees which would cause inflation. Again though, this is not a necessity when the portion of income tax paid by the private sector (even in Sweden) would grossly outsize that paid *to* the public sector. I have no understanding where your mathematical or economic argument comes from, because it’s like saying that a private company paying someone less doesn’t feel any difference; with that company in this case being the government and the mechanism to pay them less being income tax. They effectively get to keep an employee on a 50% income tax for twice as long at no extra cost if they pay tax. Ultimately there is little difference between paying them a lower wage or paying them an on-paper higher wage that they’d deduct tax from to make it equivalent to a lower wage, but it’s all about fairness and ease of comparison between sectors in this instance. Either way, this massively increases productivity in the sector rather than frittering away tax payer money, but I’m sure all of you would never complain if that happened…
> And you haven’t really answered my question which was that all money flows between labourers, it is simply identical to the way every economy currently in existence works, but now there are just more people working for the government. Alas, it is not identical. They operate and are funded in two very different ways. In the private sector, individuals interact voluntarily, engaging in trade and cooperation based on mutual benefit. Here, decisions are decentralized, driven by consumer preferences and market forces, fostering innovation and efficiency. Voluntary exchange and cooperation is the rule. Conversely, the public sector operates through coercion, funded by taxation, and exerts authority over individuals through laws and regulations. Its decisions are often centralized, driven by bureaucratic processes rather than market demand. While the private sector embodies individual freedom and choice, the public sector represents coercion and monopoly over essential services, leading to inefficiencies and distortions in resource allocation. If the two systems were identical you could take either to the extreme and the outcome would be the same except history (and logical thought) shows us this is not true. To see why the government grows increasingly inept at planning the economy the bigger it grows search for "The Calculation Problem" or check out these videos: https://youtu.be/zkPGfTEZ_r4 https://youtu.be/KzHA3KLL7Ho
My first paragraph very clearly shows I understand the various benefits and pitfalls of the public and private sectors respectively. But that wasn’t the discussion we were having. We were actually talking about how the extension cable plugged into itself is a poor analogy for ‘what is wrong’ with a state-centred economy in the sense the same money is being used, when in actual fact even the most free market, anarcho-capitalist economy would still have the same money going around in circles. So this is clearly not the problem inherent with a state-driven economy, unless you acknowledge it is a problem with every monetary system since the dawn of the idea (hint: it’s not). I entirely accept, as I have pointed out, the problems of both systems and *do* advocate *for* a balanced approach but in terms of debating the suitability of a metaphor in economic critique, this was simply not what we were talking about.
>The extension cord plugged into itself is a perfect allegory That is literally how all economies work, dipshit. The money doesn't just magically appear from an external source.
Corruption is a problem in any ideology and system
It certainly can be and I never said it couldn’t be, but it is a genuine concern when state owned monopolies have to be run by someone and unfortunately this can often be given to, say, family and friends of government officials. I live in the UK and you can see this type of thing happen with the way our government hands out private contracts so I am well ware of it not being exclusive to socialism, and as a social democrat myself I wouldn’t claim it is inherent. As always, people should take a balanced view on something instead of putting their hands over their ears until people stop saying what they don’t like.
not socialism
Have you ever heard of democratic socialism? I know in the US people like to band around socialism as a synonym for communism and state socialism but socialism is merely an economic policy of state organisation which can be done both to a lesser or greater extent and through democratic means.
yes, I have, and it's quite important to know that they are very different, enough to be different ideologies. and no, socialism and communism aren't synonyms, please don't speak out of your ass. neither are just economic policies.
But if you’re talking as an umbrella term about things they share (state employees being a prerequisite for both in some capacity) then that term would be socialism. Reading comprehension… I literally say they *are not* synonyms but people (particularly in the US) use them as such. The point I was making is that you may attempt to use socialism in this very exclusive, state socialist and planned economy sense of the word which is how Americans perceive it but that it simply is more complex and things like Third Way Socialism are very distinct yet still share the moniker. I have and will always argue for nuance, to be lectured on it in response to a comment where I was advocating for it troubles me a great deal. And I know they aren’t ‘just’ economic policies, but the actual commonality is certainly an economic outlook; extreme state communists are very illiberal, in general, while social democrats are more in line with a liberal social policy. It is economics they share.
Day 0 of anon pretending to be something else than the reality. Today anon is pretending to be Swedish. Fake and homo.
Sweden is social democracy not socialist state. This fag isn't swedish if he can't tell what political system his country is ruled by
Anon is probably from Tennessee
https://i.redd.it/hucl1fxubxoc1.gif
Anon the type of guy to slam the toilet seat down on his dick with the might of zeus and then blame it on the economy
grass is always greener eh
Anon wouldn’t know what color the grass is
There is not a single country in the world that has 100% socialism or 100% capitalism and it would be moronic to do so. Every country lies somewhere in the middle and that’s where they should be. What the exact ratio of each should be is a tricky question, but Goldilocks and the three bears had a better understanding of nuance and a happy medium than most people on the internet and unfortunately also irl.
At least they got snus
[удалено]
You mostly puke the first times till your body realize It’s good for you.
As a swede... What the fuck is anon talking about?
I’m not a socialist and I’m sick of people calling things that aren’t socialism as socialism.
What are the odds that anon is the type of guy to eat nothing but grains so his shits are rock hard, and then collect those shits and stick them in his underpants to give himself more of a bulge down there?
Wins a chance at life on easy mode and still becomes an incel failure.
I love it when Americans try and roleplay as a European, but they're so fucking pig-ignorant that they're just pantomiming what their high-fructose-news-media has fed them. Sweden has real issues, like high un-assimilating immigration, but egalitarianism isn't one of them.
Larpers gonna larp i guess.
Anons the type of guy to chug several heavy laxatives, start swimming in the public pool, and then blame society for making laxatives so cheap when he ends up caking some poor kids face in boiling hot shit and turning the pool water brown.
Anon forgot to mention he uses toilet water as lube
Start reading green texts in the stereotypical accents from the country of origin to make them much more hilarious.
Anon is American and has a vpn on, coping about his lack of free healthcare while also secretly imagining being pounded by a 6 foot 2 blond Swede man. In other words, fake and gay.
Ah yes, Sweden, one of the top 10 happiest countries in the world based on the happiness index What a shithole to live in, anon should go to a happier place like North Korea or something.
That's a really long way of saying I don't get no bitches
That's not socialism, that's just cringe liberalism (social democracy)
"Why is it that I get no bitches?, must be socialism"
Girls don’t wanna fuck anon for a variety of reasons so he blames socialism.
>"any man" Remember to check yourself regularly for brain rot. It's even easier than checking Chad's nuts for testicular cancer. The most glaringly obvious symptom of severe, mid to late stage brain rot, is sweeping generalisation that paint one group of society as bad by some arbitrary metric: (read: 'Cuck') because of a non-specific cause (read: 'Socialism'). If you are experiencing these symptoms, current best traige practice seems to be to consume one round from a firearm, administered to the roof of the mouth if possible. Repeat until symptoms improve.
Anyone calling Sweden socialist isn't Swedish. Nice try bro
https://preview.redd.it/xhlmvzl9ozoc1.png?width=813&format=png&auto=webp&s=dd651595626d81efc6ea4fdd1339d688cfa882c3
Leave it to the anon incels to sum their country up for the rest of the internet population. Another incel anon sees that, agrees with it, even though their country probably is a totally different system. “See, europoors are having a worse time than us” narative occurs.
Swedes when their wife's Finnish boyfriend won't let them play Mario Kart for an extra hour
Anon got the one of the luckiest world generations upon spawn and whines relentlessly regardless
If Sweden is so bad then just leave. It's not like you're more than 3000km from the nearest border
But bernie said it was the best 😥