Rich countries need socialism because…

Without their global reach into lesser nations, North America, Europe and Asia would have fallen apart long ago.

1. Rule of soldiers - kings, knights, nobles. State us defined, defended, made stable.
2. Rule of merchants - the safe state is made rich by the few exploiting the many. Infrastructure is built and wealth created.
3. Rule of the people - the now secure and wealthy state distributes its resources equally, so that the numerous poor don't ruin it all.

Optional: instead of doing 3, cycle between 1 and 2.

That doesn't help.

People could live vastly better lives, our society would be fairer, and the nastiest effects of capitalism would be ameliorated.

Socialism isn't some kind of panacea to all of capitalism's ills, but socialism is a way to improve the living standards and security of the vast majority of the world's people, and this holds true even in the nations where the working classes are relatively wealthy.

The workers there are still being deprived of their surplus value, and even in the United States there is still incredible poverty, which you might notice if you ever left your mother's basement.

Someone please tell me in what way state-capitalism that continued to adhere to liberal standards of democracy wouldn't be superior to where we are now.

So why not return to feudalism where literally everyone survived a thin line above starvation? Search up conjunctural poverty. In your idea we better turn back and I think you are a moron

-leftists

Meant to be at

Because capitalism is garbage tier, and will become replaced sooner or later.

>Socialism is wealth distribution.

At any given time there is a finite amount of wealth present in the world. The fact that more wealth can be created is of little relevance as to create that wealth one needs acess to the means of production which the working class do not own so they are forced into a rigged game where that newly created wealth is distributed in a manner that reflects the already existing distribution of wealth which for all intents and purposes makes it a zero-sum exercise.

Workers in the US are certainly not the face of poverty, the most poor people are in fact classless. The poor classless don't really have much surplus value to offer.

There are way more reasons why life expectancy was shit without it necessarily being because of feudalism.

The poorest in America rank among the global poor. Stop eating Burger propaganda. Without a thin and ever whittled away layer of welfare state, millions of Americans would be below even the World Bank's $2 a day line for extreme poverty.

I love the people who come on here acting like it's still the mid-20th Century and Americans are still the highest paid workers in the world. Especially after 2008, the United States is nearly third world tier.

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-developing-nation-regressing-economy-poverty-donald-trump-mit-economist-peter-temin-a7694726.html

because that's not how state capitalism manifests itself

who gives a shit, socialism is not a who-has-it-worse contest. wtf is this pseudo christian wankery?

rich countries are the only actual countries that can achieve real socialism

everything else ends in a bourgeois revolution which eventually leads to communism

red-fascism*

You mean they're lumpen? Even if they don't presently have any surplus value extracted from them, they are still a giant reservoir of labor power that could be tapped to reduce the work load for everyone.
So?
Even if you make $100,000 in wages, if you add twice that much value to goods they your boss is still ripping you off.

Soviet Union was socialist you twat.

...

theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/08/bill-gates-jeff-bezos-warren-buffett-wealthier-than-poorest-half-of-us
You could update that map to be much more dramatic

it would be somewhat nice to not have wars that benefit only the pockets of the ultra wealthy.

...

Does that include high earners who are in tons of debt?

...

automation is slowly making human labor obsolete so what other choice do we have?

Because the rich in rich countries is concentrated among an very small portion of the population. In America 3 individuals have about as much wealth as half the country. That bottom half is struggling to make ends meet and without the welfare state would be under the poverty line.

Mods is this the same ML who was falseflagging a while back?

because they have horrid inequality and exploitation like everywhere else.

…the wealth of a nation does not denote the wealth of the people.
t. someone who is living in Manchester right now.

A vast majority of people are poor.

Seriously, you america n thirld worldist are pathetic. I walk everyday next to homeless people, I know a fair amount of people living in caravans.

"bu-uut, we're rich, porky told me so".
FUCK YOU

You guys are literal liberals shithead thinking everyone go to vacation in the Hampton's.

t. angry prole

This.

Jesus Christ, how could someone be so brainwashed against their own self interest?

Lmao read bordiga nerd
libcom.org/library/factors-race-nation-marxist-theory-amadeo-bordiga

time to read newfag