Young mick, there's no need to feel down

Too bad all the nordic welfare states are being dismantled lmao

succdems out pls

S[weed]en is literally the closest we'll ever come to communism. Enjoy it for what it is.

Its the way how the world works. We had lot of pressure from Soviet Union during cold war and still remain neutral between capitalistic west and what is left of east.

No

All this mentality does is generate complacency under capitalism.

You dont live here so you wont understand. Nordic countries are literally the best place to be if you are working class. We have 80% union membership and large state owned industries.

You're still capitalist.

I thought this was an anti-capitalist board.

And we are filthy rich. Especially norwegians with their oil.

That must explain Sweden having the highest migrant unemployment of Europe.

Its not capitalism its a mixed economy.

That's still capitalism unfortunately.

They give literally thousands of euros of free money. How can you expect them to work without reform in unemployment benefits?

wew

ironic shitposting is still shitposting

No it absolutely isnt. Its MIXED ECONOMY like 100% of all worlds economies.

Learn to basic economics.

...

You're the one playing at semantics here.

I hope you are shitposting tbh

yes, mixed state capitalism with liberal capitalism

I am trust there is nothing better than being drunk and shitposting with leftypol autists.

State capitalism is capitalism but if the workers own the company its socialism because the workers own the mop tbh.

I don't. I expect Sweden with it's high-welfare and light punishment to attract the least desirable of migrants and to be avoided by desirable migrants for the same reason, they of course don't want to pay ultra high taxes to pay for the people they're trying to get away from in the first place. This is a fact so obvious that the Swedes must realize it full well, they need to know it so well to know what to cover up, which they are very good at, much better then they are in the rest of Europe.

The Swedes will either start admitting this and face ideological collapse, or continue to deny it and face national collapse. Considering reputations are worth more than lives, I'm betting on the latter.

No u. The mixed in mixed economy means the market is mixed between private and public institutions. It's not a mix of capitalism and socialism as they are completely antithetical to each other.

>>>Holla Forums

For me immigration is desirible not just in Sweden but all of Europe. We need atleast 25% refugees in every country to force globalism/internationalism
Fuck all of them we have finally a chance to get rid of nationalism and im going to support it.

globalism =/= internationalism you illiterate brainlet.

Stop whining about socdems you autistic faggots.

This is a pro Corbyn / pro IRA thread. We should be united in at least that.

Explain why.

This is why leftists are more dumb than malicious, they're not even reaching their ideals by importing people who don't give a fuck about them.

This is a cancer thread, more like

One of the goals of communism is the global revolution and global communism. Multiculture is just one of many tools to achieve this.

you are going to get banned for low-energy b8ing. STOP.

how does wageslave pusharound bring us closer to changing mode of production?

Nationalism in Europe was dying a quiet death until people like you started mass-importing nonwhites. You still have no idea what you've done, do you?

Immigration hit historic highs under Blair and Cameron you muppet. Who do you think mass immigration benefits?

The business class, primarily.

Forgot to take off my shitposting flag.

But the immigrants do not work.

They just wait for gibs and stretch the economy further.

They increase job insecurity and prevent unions from demanding higher wages.

But they do not benefit the economy, as in they do not make shit, they just consume free shit.

Firstly, immigration increases the labour force and by extension tends to increase the maximum output of an economy, so provided the immigrants work (which the majority do in Britain) then the economy will benefit.

Secondly, even if the immigrants make nothing directly, their very presence means that workers can't demand higher wages else they'll be discarded for an immigrant. In that sense immigration benefits the business class by depressing union power and keeping inflation low. It's the same reason why the government doesn't strive to engender full employment.

It's also worth noting that demand will get a bump regardless which is, again, good for business.

depends on what kind of immigrants. some of them are more hard working than European natives

Oh look, the eternal burger wanking the IRA again.

The only immigrants that work in Britain are the eastern euro ones and the damn indians.
And they aren't the ones that are coming to Europe by the boatloads and ones that actually come back to their homecountry.

Other than that, the migrants are a blight for the economy since everyone have to pay taxes to take care of them.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Never forget the 1000 gorillion, dirty micks!🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

No, 1910s IRA was based, United Irishmen were based, 1970s and modern IRA are shit tier. Read a fucking book.

The economy by which you mean wealthy land owners. It devalues labor and occupies jobs Why do you think every politicians mandate is 'job creation'. Well I can think of an easy way to create a lot more jobs, 50% in fact by sending all women back to the kitchen.

Since industrialization and universal suffrage women have started working to satisfy the labor demands of WW2 (men away fighting or killed in the war).

Now that the population has recovered we need to go back. They need to go back.

If the harmed the economy they wouldn't be brought in, for they serve no other purpose than to increase the labour force, increase output, increase demand, and decrease union power. That has always been the rationale for immigration among economists, and I would suggest it was the rationale both Blair and Cameron used.

Ever noticed how rarely it is that prominent businessmen oppose immigration, and how those politicians that do oppose immigration seem to have such powerful forces aimed squarely at them?

Ever think that those companies are doing it for liberal good points instead of any rational reasons?

If they want to exploit labor and get the most bang of your bucks, they would close down facilities and move to Asia/Africa while maintaining the least workforce in native land.

Importing the migrants add nothing but government/rights to "potential workers" (to say if they work).

Labour opposed immigration reforms long before the cuntservatives. Why do you think so many workers stopped voting for them? The political elite class has totally disinvested themselves from anyone living outside of London's international mosque diversity inclusion zone.

Corporations have a legal responsibility to make as much money as possible for their shareholders, that's why they never do anything nice unless they can justify it in terms of future financial gain.

t. eternal anglo

International corporations generally do shit for liberal good points because of their beliefs that liberal good points mean liberal buy their shit.

This is actually irrational, since the consumers do not give a shit.

This is evidence in the comic book and vidya industries where companies make illogical moves for liberal good points and end up losing money.

That's not how capitalism works, corporate power only supports that which enhances its profits. Immigration serves them well in that respect.

That's already happened with the jobs they can outsource while maintaining a profit ; it's one of the main neoliberal tenets. Regardless, if they move to Asia or Africa they might be exposed to competition which would harm them, whereas the nanny state in the UK (for example) will give them protection.

They can actually get sued and lose by their own shareholders. It's not just the executives and middle managements' corruption it's also the legal system. It happened to Henry Ford in Murica and that set a similar legal precedent over there.

You can't do nice things because your shareholders will sue the shit out of you for not protecting their investment.

Wrong, corporate power can and would make bad and illogical decisions.
Yeah, that's the point, outsourcing is much wiser and more efficient than importing migrants.
What protection, pray-tell? African companies are a joke, and save Japan, S. Korea and China, all other countries are easily shallowed up by european and american firms. Look at Vietnam, Thailand and Bangladesh.

t. eternal hibernian

I don't think anyone is getting sued for making feminist vidya games, the same way for welcoming migrants.

They are just gonna lose money in doing so, thus self-destroy themselves.

...

Why are you so against right wing socialism?

Jesus Christ, Deng was a mistake.

You're literally not though. Nazis and Fascists are historically neoliberals and there is no way you can wedge yourself around this statement.

Are you implying hitler was right?

neoliberals are never right

The left/right wing divide is too confusing for me, someone needs to dumb it down. Maybe using more words that end with ism.

left - giving workers bigger share of what they produce, ultimate goal is socialism - worker ownership
right - giving owners bigger share of what workers produce, utlimate goal is neoliberalism - being free to exploit and sell to anyone on the planet

How does this fit into NutSac which allows private ownership but only as long as it serves the community aka the working majority.

Neoliberalism is cancer but it would be nice if someone could break down the differences between right and left socialism.

I don't buy the argument that right wing socialism is just fascism since the soviets ended up being authoritarian despite the communist intentions.

Another thing I have trouble understanding is if these states like the USSR/Nazi Germany acted the way they did because of conflict seems to me like they both failed to uphold their own idealogies properly. Would they have if it wasn't for outside capitalistic forces?

Germany? Outside capitalist forces? The nazi party wins elections, get ride of their coalition partners, began to change everything in german society. Meanwhile the outisde countries did nothing and allo Germany to prop their war machine, annex Austria Czechoslovakia and did nothing.

Meanwhile after the revolution in Russia, the rest of Europe and the USA supported the russian civil war and financially helped the white army.

False. The Fascist states crushed any means of the workers indicating something was not in their best interest, such as unions, and democratic entities. They also enacted largely Laissez Faire policies, deregulating and privatizing many things that even the monarchy had not.

since nazis they allowed private ownership, they were not socialist. "as long as it serves the community" is just propaganda, every other european country did it during war. Most countries in the world set laws what can not be produced in factories even today, so even fucking USA could say that phrase if it would fit into their agenda.

As long as you don't buy into newspeak, "right wing socialism" is oxymoron. Being authoritarian doesn't mean that you are right wing.

Onle of the things that can be said for certain is that Hitler had no intention of dismantling capitalism, and Stalin a little overdid purges.

>Would they have if it wasn't for outside LIBERAL capitalistic forces?
we can only dream

Triggered.. But that actually explains a lot, right wing socialism never really got off the ground there anyway because nobody ever agreed on what it was.

Did he abolish the unions because they were ineffective, and then establish a national union… I feel like this may be a misinterpretation. The economy was in meltdown after all with hyperinflation.
Were the unions in the weimar republic actually effective at all?

This is very interesting, anyone got any more evidence of the nazis shitting on workers or doing the opposite of what they say.

Whenever I browse Holla Forums
I get the feeling that NutSac is 'everything will be ok if we just gas all the jews'. Meaning they really have no intention or any other real policies. I mean they aren't wrong about most things but you can't govern a country with that.

I'm frightened that if I look into communism it'll be much the same, a bunch of hypocrites and power mongers who dont care how many poor sneks they tread on.

nordic 'socialism' seems like the closest thing to what I could describe as right wing socialism. Even if it is just a meme.

Germany didn't have hyperinflation during the depression, that was after WWI

Really cause I was taught the Germany economy was a shitshow under the Weimar and thats part of the reason the nazis were voted in.

People here are not banned just for browsing Holla Forums as long as they maintain civilized discussion, but people who slip into
are banned, sometimes with reason "Holla Forums"

I don't have any PDFs handy right now, but I do have legislative facts that could help your research. Hitler's laws effectively banned collective bargaining and outright banned strikes, meaning that the workers had no way of actually affecting anything, not peacefully and not disruptively. Union officials were directly elected by the state and served the state's interest, which, as the documents suggest, usually coincided with that of the bourgeoisie. There was one show election in the history of the union, and after that, no more elections were held. if William L. Shirner is to be trusted, the state appointed head of the German Labour Front outright said that his goal was to return absolute control to the factory owner.

spartacus-educational.com/GERlabour.htm This has sources to read more.

This is true, everyone is technically allowed to debate on the board provided they aren't just spamming and shitposting. I will say that some mods take things a little too far and ban people who just ask questions in an abrasive way, though, which can be a problem.

It was a shitshow because Germany was hit by the great depression as everywhere else
The german people voted socdems and communists over the nazis in every free election. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor and after the Reichstag decree Hitler used the brownshirts to wipe out his political opposition and solidify his power. Even after that the nazis didn't get the majority in the Reichstag.

9/10 times the person asking questions abrasively is around 10-20 replies from "lelel 100 gorilion cuck cuck *not listening* cuck"

This tbqh. Whenever I give polcucks the benefit of the doubt they immediately go on a shitposting spree about sjws, niggers, and kikes. I'm much stricter with pollocks because they're guests here and ought to behave themselves, because they have the rest of Holla Forums to sperg out on.

Well the Holla Forums moderation is insane, and you can't have a discussion there because they ban anything that isn't
or the fucking retarded kek worship threads. It's gotten a little better because they were alienating posters but its still impossible to actually discuss certain topics.

those statistics are damning especially the volkswagen scamalam. Fuck now I feel really sorry for the worker, literally paying your masters to enslave you. I could understand abolishing strikes and closing unions if workers actually got treated fairly but christ. That is some real triggering material right there. Thats like forcing miners to buy their equipment from the company store that overcharges and gets them further into debt or ripping people off with fake work pensions that dissapear suddenly.

Raise the anchor on the no brain thread you fun lobotomist.

I just realized I have no idea about how unions worked in the USSR. Were they publically owned too?

spartacus-educational.com/RUSfive.htm
How accurate is this, it makes it sound like Stalin was just as much of an asshole to workers as Hitler was. fuggin' gommies.

"I am disinclined to agree."

I want to hear about the retard rancher!