God you communists are fucking pathetic...

wow, it really is a john maymay post

what is saging?

Nope /r/ politics

Haha sure

What?

...

This is what wagecucks actually believe.

put sage in e-mail field so you don't bump shitty threads up on frontpage / top of catalog

Sure, your pathetic ignoring of me won't do shit LMFAO

Why is everyone on reddit so conceited in their ass licking of the status quo? Its like 'actually I'm right precisely because this is what my dad told me over dinner one time and I never bothered to question it, don't you know most of the population agrees? How could I be wrong?'

I suppose you think voting for Hillary is the progressive choice or something. Yawn. I was like you once, a socdem/liberal/libertarian. Its all bullshit. Capitalism is a fundamentally unsustainable system and no amount of taxation or regulation will change that.

oh and

isn't really a constructive dismissal of any of the 10 or so things I said to you.

But i use subversive tactics to make my opponents do my biding hehehehe.

Sorry, but I live in Sweden which is a nice and progressive Social democracy, both poor and rich people thrive and we have low crime.

Yes, they are a bunch of clowns here.

...

But what is that progressive social democracy with a high quality of living built on?

It's built on the exploitation of cheap labour in third world countries.

if they were thriving, they wouldn't be poor you doofus

...

They are doing better than they would in your pathetic communist state

Nope, most of our exportation are from other first world countries
atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/swe/#Destinations
Stay uninformed.

Wow it seems you are worse than just a socdem. Fucking liberals, I swear.

Unemployed parasites, I would like to know how well you speak Swedish.

Geez i wonder why you import so much from a trading hub, mate

The poor are thriving…. hmmmm.

You have low crime compared to other capitalist nations because you have adopted sensible prison policies and the standard of life is better.

It is true you are pretty much as good as it gets…. under capitalism.

Like all other progressive social democracies, you once had an empire of exploitation, which carries on as an empire of debt slavery, so you can afford an NHS etc, you own large amounts of capital and have been reasonably savvy in investing in this capital.

HOWEVER without the hundreds of years of conquest that gave you your riches, you would not enjoy these muh privileges. Your system is more or less the same as anyone elses, the material conditions of your country have afforded you luxuries.

And how is social democracy doing outside of scandinavia?

We had a social democracy for a long time, what we did under a free market has little effect.

like the minerals in your Iphone m8?

Pretty good actually.

you had an empire before you had social democracy friend.

I showed you a fucking link.

We did, but this one is better

That's funny because I used to steal cars for fun.

which one is better? what are you talking about?

I live in the uk and never intend to live in sweden. What does how well I speak swedish have do do with anything?

You say you are a "socdem" and espouse how great the progressive values in Swedena re yet you say "unemployed parasites".
I think you have a dire case of the ideologies. I reccommend administering 600mg of cyanide.

Why did you kill her?

a link which does not prove Sweden import nothing from the third world at low low prices

Apologise.

I have a job idiot, it's that what you just said is a contradiction.

wot

So edgy

Pathetic communist

We import very little from these countries

The gap is not large at all :)

Not an argument :^)

Thank you.

But there is a gap.

The propertied classes maintain a distinct advantage in your society that allows them to remain "rich", while those without property remain "poor".

you import a great deal.

Also some of your largest businesses, for example, Ikea, fund the Israeli lobby and are responsible for global imperialism.

ANYWAY my original point was that you used to have an empire, this empire made you rich and so it was easy to industrialise and then easy to implement social democracy. For most countries, simply adopting social democratic policies is not enough, because these countries are broke.

Go back to Stephen Moleneux

Of course they do, but rich people pay higher taxes which later go down to the poor. That is how it should be, a small gap between the lower,middle and upper class. Also to that picture a worker cannot organize things as much as somebody who has experience with it. Capitalism allows for a fast production and has the ability to feed many.

just wanted to point out to you guys how desperate OP is for attention
getting salty for explaining someone new how to sage
stop feeding the obvious shitposters

Our empire was not even large, also countries like Norway were poor and worked themselves up from the bottom.

No, it should be that private property is abolished and the means of production are owned collectively by the workers.
Damn, someone should tell Mondragon and their 75,000 employees that their business model is impossible.
This is demonstrably false. In my country, we overproduce food, yet people still starve, entirely because of capitalism.

You were one of the major powers in Europe. That is quite large enough.

Norway has MASSIVE oil reserves

and there is the bottom line advantage that you are a creditor rather than a debtor nation

Tell that to the people who remain starving even in so called "wealthy western nations".
Check out the panama papers. The rich have plenty of means to avoid taxation. Not to men tion the ratio of taxation of the poor to rich has increased sixfold since the 70s.
Norway is an oil-based economy. Not all countries have the massive oil reserves that norway has. Countries with fewer natural resources cant just bootstrap themselves into wealth.

...

most commies were socdems once.

I used to be just like you and then I read and read and read and read and read.

I'd start with the cold war history of Latin America or just the cold war in general.

1: So you do do not want to own anything? No privacy, no owning anything because it feeds into capitalists
2:Capitalists worked hard so that those workers have jobs
3: In Sweden nobody is starving because the government hands free food and housing to people

1: Which ones are you referring to? Non social democracies?
2: We should be more vigilant about that, the panama papers had a lot to with government involvement
3: What about Iceland?

Every single communist country has had a terrible economy.

Socdem, pls stahp ; – ;

1: I am not a B████ supporter
2: I am not white
3: I do not use the word political revelation
4: Who is Rosa Luxemburg?
5: No socialism is workers controlling the means of production

lel

Oh look, a Holla Forumstard.

swede plz

I mean the
8ch.net/pol/index.html kind, I prefer r/politics because people are smarter there.

1. No, simply no owning means of production.
2. No they didn't. Owning property has nothing to do with hard work and jobs aren't created by capitalists, they're created in relation to the demand for the good or service that job provides.
3. I don't care.

1: You said you wanted to abolish private property
2: It is rightfully theirs, you could buy them if you want
3:So you do not care that a social democracy is ACTUALLY helping the poor? God you are such a tard.

Sanders and Corbyn are doing great :^)

Huh? I was referring to Finland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Belgium.

wew

1. Learn the difference between personal and private property.
1.1 as a democratic actor in a collectivised society I own one small piece of EVERYTHING

2. Capitalists merely own, they do not work. The work they do do, in a managerial sense, should be rewarded, however it is no more valuable really than most other jobs.

3. The government can afford to hand out free food because of historical exploitation. The government would not need to hand out free food if the workers were in control of their own production.

1) Nearly every single communist country has been the victim of global trade embargoes sanctioned by neo liberal social democracies such as Sweden, the UK and the US.

2) Rojava

3) Communist Country is an oxymoron. A classless stateless society is not a country.

4) Nearly every single communist society has been engaged in defending itself from the total war of capitalist nations.

5) Nicaragua, before the US backed contras drove the country into the ground, was winning awards for education and healthcare. Similar case in Chile, before the US backed assassination of the democratically elected Allende.

In fact, if you actually read history, the statement 'every single communist country has had a terrible economy' is utterly false.

In fact Communism has faced global repression at the hands of a ruthless owning class desperately trying to cling onto the profits of companies such as the united fruit company.

What is happening in Congo right now? 'SOCO PLC' The private corporation from Britain, a social democracy, have lead a privately funded war in order to exploit oil resources and murdered thousands of indigenous Congolese, while preparing them for further exploitation.

Remember those iphone minerals I was talking about? Most of those are also mined in Congo. All this oil and minerals? But how is Congo so poor? The answer, friend, is exploitation by 'progressive' social democratic nations.

r/politics is full of poltard, you fucking socdem turd

So because they are in Scandinavia it does not count?

No it is not.

1. Private property refers to the private ownership of socially useful property, which is to say private ownership of the means of production.
2. Naturally, I don't believe that private property is a right. You might as well be telling me that slave owners have a right to their slaves by virtue of owning them, so abolishing slavery is immoral, and after all I could just buy my own slaves.
3. I don't want to give out alms to the poor. I want the working class to be able to help itself by getting rid of the system that keeps them in poverty.

To quote from The Soul of Man Under Socialism:

Daily Reminder that Holla Forums is and always will remain pathetic.

I don't know if the guy is actually baiting.

Some people are genuinely stupid or uninformed, you know.

1: Under socialism there would be no socially useful things made because socialism does not produce crap
2: Owning a piece of furniture or a fridge is not the same as owning a slave
3: Our welfare system forces the poor to get jobs while still giving them housing and food.

Var bor du? Jag bor i göteborg

Holla Forums tards assume that everything that disagrees with them is bait

Don't know about the other countries but everything here has been privatised. Education, healthcare and welfare have all gone shit. Thx pvda. Belgium is also not doing great.

Sorry, but I don't want a stupid commie showing up at my door with a knife or whatever you idiots do, get out of Sweden and stop asking where I live.

Kike commie cunt deserved it.

wew

1. What? You think factories cease to exist because they're owned by socialists?
2. That's personal property, not private property.
3. It still doesn't solve the inherent contradictions of capitalism.

As can be seen already, your system has been tearing itself apart. From what I've heard from Scandinavian comrades, even the much lauded "Nordic Model" countries haven't been free of the scourge of neoliberalism and your whole system is being slowly undone. Maybe quickly undone when more European economies start going under.

1: They won't be as efficient and new ones will be made less frequently
2: What is the difference
3: It is only failing because we are taking in too many immigrants at the moment, they will soon integrate and they will pay for themselves.

That's one way to look at it. But without these shitty manufacturing jobs the populations of east asia would be even worse off. Neoliberalism has done more to alleviate absolute poverty in the developing world than socialism has.

have you stopped replying to my points because you simply cannot and defend your position?

1. Studies show that worker cooperatives are more efficient than traditional capitalist business
2. Personal property is your shit, stuff that's valuable to you, but doesn't produce anything or is otherwise socially useful. Private property is when the means of production and socially useful land and amenities are owned by private capitalists.
3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It's not because of the immigrants you fucking idiot. It's because the capitalist class don't give a shit about your hides or that of anyone else, and are now doing what they can to no longer pay into your welfare state, if they can't privatize the functions of the welfare state. They smell profits abroad, and they're in the process of unhinging themselves from your society so they can go pursue said profits. The whole West is going the way of Detroit, Flint, Cleveland, Camden as so many other abandoned industrial areas.

...

What points?

1: Citation needed
2: So if I own something, and people decide it can be useful to others I can't own it anymore?
3: It is, don't compare a country to a city

1. thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
afscmeinfocenter.org/blog/2016/03/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies.htm#.V6H8Y7grLIU
2. No. We're talking about productive property.
3. Learn how capitalism works. Those cities are the canary in the coal mine.

Worker owned cooperatives present several very obvious problems that are never mentioned by those who advocate for them. If anyone is interested in having an in depth discussion of these problems, I would be eager to engage in it.

For now, perhaps we might consider just the most obvious and glaring question.

There are approximately 28 million businesses in the US, of which only "an estimated 300 to 400", according to Ms. Chen, are worker cooperatives. That is approximately 1 out of every 80,000 businesses.

Why?

If cooperatives are "more productive", as Ms. Chen claims they are, why aren't there more of them in a competitive economy? Why are there so few of these type businesses, despite the fact that various groups are expending a great deal of money and effort to promote them?

Does that really surprise you?
In a capitalist-predominant economy, the capitalist wins.

Because success in a capitalist market system isn't contingent on productivity or efficiency. It's based on the ability to accumulate capital, which the cooperative model hampers somewhat, since the primary mode of accumulating capital within a capitalist system is the exploitation of the surplus value of labor.

Nice rant faggot

learn to sage and ignore bait threads
Put it in the email field.

1. Learn the difference between personal and private property.
1.1 as a democratic actor in a collectivised society I own one small piece of EVERYTHING
2. Capitalists merely own, they do not work. The work they do do, in a managerial sense, should be rewarded, however it is no more valuable really than most other jobs.
3. The government can afford to hand out free food because of historical exploitation. The government would not need to hand out free food if the workers were in control of their own production.
1) Nearly every single communist country has been the victim of global trade embargoes sanctioned by neo liberal social democracies such as Sweden, the UK and the US.
2) Rojava
3) Communist Country is an oxymoron. A classless stateless society is not a country.
4) Nearly every single communist society has been engaged in defending itself from the total war of capitalist nations.
5) Nicaragua, before the US backed contras drove the country into the ground, was winning awards for education and healthcare. Similar case in Chile, before the US backed assassination of the democratically elected Allende.
In fact, if you actually read history, the statement 'every single communist country has had a terrible economy' is utterly false.
In fact Communism has faced global repression at the hands of a ruthless owning class desperately trying to cling onto the profits of companies such as the united fruit company.
What is happening in Congo right now? 'SOCO PLC' The private corporation from Britain, a social democracy, have lead a privately funded war in order to exploit oil resources and murdered thousands of indigenous Congolese, while preparing them for further exploitation.
Remember those iphone minerals I was talking about? Most of those are also mined in Congo. All this oil and minerals? But how is Congo so poor? The answer, friend, is exploitation by 'progressive' social democratic nations.

*both win

Based on both

Okay, fag.

please see

Seriously, when you are so fucking autistic that you can't recognize bait threads or have to respond to them, at least put the word "sage" in the email field.

Why is this so hard for people?

...

What about the 99.9999 percent of the world where everything sucks due to capitalism or due to capitalist supported governments? (I.e. everywhere except the socdem fantasy land)

I've heard people make exactly the same arguments about muh country, but that doesn't mean I should question it or it should be better

Well your iphone is made is sweatshops with minerals taken out of Africa
Whatever first world country you then directly import it from doesn't matter that much on the scheme of things you autist

Top kek

Socdem know your place:

>>>/gulag/

I love how an autistic mongoloid like yourself thinks that if you don't whore yourself to capitalists, then you are a "worthless parasite".
Why not go suck off those "job creators" then?
I love hypocritical and stupid liberals and social democrats are. You people bitch about communists/anarchists and how revolution is "impossible" and how all leftists are parasitic, dumb unemployed teenagers who should just become corporate slaves.
Then, the liberal and social democrat in turn will whine about corporations, or give off some feel good bullshit about "I care about gays and trannies, and black people".
Then you refuse to support things like raising the minimum wage because "muh corporate masters won't like that and it will hurt competitiveness".
Fuck off little corporate cock sucking whore.
At least the libertarians and anarcho capitalists are honest about what they believe in.
Liberals and social democrats are apologists and defenders of capitalism, with the bullshit "we want to help the poor and non whites".

...

Can I have a sports car in communism?

Yes but no seatbelts.

most libertarians and anaps are trots these days