Why don't you like social democracy?

Keynesian economics has always produced the results that have the highest living standards in the world.

Do you think your ideology could produce higher living standards than what there is in Denmark and Sweden?

keynesian economics is unresponsive to the reality of global neoliberalism, and cannot expand beyond present "state borders" germoney has a quite keynesian approach but uses neolib bourgie exploitation to sustain it. denmark and sweden are also neolib occupied, and are less and less socdem-keynesian with every year.

So what are Sweden and Denmark doing wrong? As long as there are checks and balances so that social democracy aren't undermined, I don't see what the problem is

There are always going to be some conflicts. Like pushing for exclusion of immigrants from their policies.

Sure, but that's just policy difference that gets fleshed out. Not a flaw in social democracy

Well if you don't care about workers migrating freely between countries, then it is a problem.

It's not sustainable. In all odds, you'll probably get another brainless liberal who will let in like a million immigrants out of sympathy.

there is the state of sweden
VS.
the big wide hostile world of coporate prokies, who yearn to bribe your "checks and balances" in order to gobble your natural resources up
WHO WINS?

yes

KEYNESIAN MARKET SOCIALISM WHEN

Market socialism is by definition keynesian?

No tho

We can't all be proletarian aristocracy.

The keynesianism you're talking about is a synthesis of early neo-classical economics with Keynes, because they couldn't handle such revolutionary theory. They bastardized Keynes.

Post-keynesian economics is much better. It's still possible to be a social democrat with it, and most of them are, but there are a lot of post-keynesian socialists as well. I'm probably one of the only people on this board who doesn't mind social democrats (generally) even though the bastards killed Rosa yadda yadda.

I think it could, if we moved through reforms to socialism right off the bat. If we move by revolution, yes, eventually still.

By the way, I know a good companion to post-keynesian economics if you want. It's actually very convincing.

and thats why nobody likes you

It's probably also my devilish charm :^)

also way to derail the thread you fucking faggot.
Not an argument my dude

Social democracy is nice in theory but the problem is that capitalism puts in place the incentives and gives the power for the capitalists to undo it.

You will be instantly likeable guy if you stooped posting anime shit

"no"

The problem with Keynes that i have is that he give the world a medicine "only a pain killer " with out perception of clarification on the needed minimum and maximum dose
Look at the US today HELL i will call the USSR a Keynesian failure


So you do enjoying being trash don't you

You are probably the worst poster here. Please stop posting.

I do, very much. But Post-Keynesianism is still correct.

It's preferable to neoliberalism, at least.


That should be seen as a feature.

Force me to stop I dare you .


Sure thing bud
oh wait we still in the crisis because of the Post-Keynesianism ignorance of the Marxist analysis

t. doesn't know what Post-Keynesianism is.

You need to re-read my initial post.

daily reminder that a mixed market socialist welfare state is the only realistic model for the west

that's not at all why socdem fails.

Social democracy isn't a monolith

How high government spending (although of course some government spending is neccesary) is has literally nothing to do with whether a country is keynesian. The most keynesian country historically has been the US. Confirmed for knowing nothing.

Next you'll be telling me about the death count :^)

dw it's ok my dude, I'm still ok with you.
Opinion on distributism?

...

European social democratic states literally could not exist without being propped up on a global economy that is in turn dependent on mass exploitation. Even if you don't care about the ethical implications, such policies are ticking time bombs. They cannot last forever.

Keynes was correct about capitalism, though. The lolberts are still butthurt about it to this day.

The problem is that there was a reason capitalists abandoned keynesianism in the first place, and the reason is that it was not working. There were big crises in the 1970's that could only be solved by dismantling many of the existing social-democratic institutions, that were no longer suitable and functioning for a globalized, digitizing economy that was no longer recovering from a giant war. Economists like Reich and Stieglitz like to talk about it as if everything was going fine under Keynesianism until some stupid monetarists thought they knew better and so we switched to neoliberalism. but it's not just a mistake, keynesianism was no longer delivering the goods for capitalism, and had to be replaced. If you look at a graph of the global rate of profit you'll see that it was going down extremely quickly during the so called "golden age of capitalism" and reached an all-times low in the late 70's, while neoliberalism partially recovered it. That's the problem with social democracy, you just can't have the working class taking so many goodies under capitalism for too long without the contradictions of capitalism becoming apparent and forcing some sort of change. So what I think the problem is that while Denmark and Sweden are really good places to live in most of the time, they're still just islands of social democracy and can't universalize themselves (Swedish workers couldn't buy many currently-affordable commodities if the wages of the sweatshop-workers making those commodities were anywhere near Swedish levels, for example). You'll need a revolution for that.

1. Capitalism is not sustainable
2. There is no revolutionary potential in the west
3. Best case scenario then is to artifically prolong the life of capitalism through regulations (ie. introduce a 30 hour work week just like how labour fought for a 40 hour work week, raise the minimum wage to a livable wage, etc)

Keyensian economics and capitalism for that matter can work in certain conditions. Those conditions largely no longer exist.

Globalization doesn't make Keynesianism impossible. If porkies want to leave and move their capital elsewhere, let them. We don't need their capital. So as long as our workers have the skills and we have the natural resources (securing sovereignty over our national resources is of primary importance), we don't need porky.

this

The USSR would have eaten Europe without NATO

Post-Keynesianism is fringe as fuck.
You're thinking of Neo-Keynesianism.