China isn't engaging in imperialism lol

who are you talking about inbred kings? sounds kinda racist to me

Lmao right

Stop reaching. Hows that racist? Sorry for not being PC i guess. I meant not so smart royals...

I like how you missed the whole point and derailed the argument tho. You will make it far as a socialist

Sidenote: kings in my country were inbreds, guess im racist toward myself?

I did, I’m surprised a socialist would tell anyone to read that book (not that I have a problem with it)

Of course, because I believe Communism is the thing that can liberate all workers and save the world from a climate crisis

Obviously anything else would suck compared to that

But it didn’t even liberate workers in countries that tried to practice it. Instead of working for landlords they just had a socialist bureaucracy to get quotas from. I mean yeah it was better than before but it’s still not actual worker’s control

I don't think the Soviet Union was perfect, it was far from it. I could point out plenty of ways. But the significant progress it made to me shows that it's something that can be emulated and further improved on.

I take it a big reason you went from social Democrat to socialist is because you were told that the business practices of Sweden and Denmark exploit the third world.

Well what if I told you Sweden and Denmark could still be rich social democracies even if every corporation actually paid workers in the third world a livable wage?

Had nothing to do with Sweden, Denmark etc. "Socialist" countries still have the ability to exploit small countries

The main reasons I went from Social Democracy to Marxism is

1. The US Ruling Class won't accept lite social democracy why would they accept serious reforms.

2. Even with Social Democracy the ruling class is still in charge and working conditions will be relatively the same even with improved wages + benefits.

• Include other reasons relating to ruling class being in charge

3. Capitalism is still in place so labor is still exploited. Even if the entire government is Corbyn's, AOCs and Bernie's workers would still get advantage of.

Theres other reasons that I've read through theory but these were the problems with Social Democracy I found when I initial became interested in Marxism

1. The only reason social democracy hasn’t come to America is because a good percentage of the country’s voters are conservative. If push came to shove it wouldn’t threaten the balance of the world for the U.S. to actually engage in public spending

2. So? The ruling class in a socialist state is still a ruling class. And no, the state was never going to either away. I don’t understand the whole “working conditions will be relatively the same” thing. The improved wages and benefits are explicitly what makes working conditions good or bad. It’s not like working could ever be fun, it’s work

3. In socialist countries, wages don’t greatly increase to reflect a greater share of revenue that workers should be entitled too. In fact, wages in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries actually grew slower than in much of the west. A large chunk of revenue has to go towards investing, leaving workers with not much left to increase in wages without upsetting economic conditions. It’s clear when looking at Russian wages over time that it’s not like not paying ceos 300x the amount of base level workers would mean that those workers would be making even twice as much

OP ether'd half the section

Nah

i have a degree in Econ lolz

lol

u and op are just jerking each other off, so pathetic

You mean like how socialists couldn’t get enough of the c***bathing in their own thread so they had to come here despite this thread explicitly not being for them

Then why did you have a problem with me attacking central planning as a means for economic development

You're deeply offended at the usage of evidence to debunk your claims and it shows

1.Social democracy hasn't come to the U.S because private capital dominates both of its political parties. That isn't an accident.

2.The ruling class is those who own capital, who shape the country to the interests of their private property. Quite different from vanguard party of Communists trying to abolish the concept of private property.

3. Comparing wages in a socialist country with that of a capitalist is asinine because they have completely different systems of allocating resources. The important concept is living standards, which grew steadily in the USSR and often outpaced the West, shown in that paper I sent. The USSR had nationalized healthcare for instance (something the U.S still lacks) which would not be reflected in a wage comparison.

because I understand the limitations of neoclassical economics and because anyone can see how centrally planned economies have managed to threaten the United States in the last century

#neversocialist

I wonder whats ktt's obsession w socialism/capitalism etc. Discussing systems all f***ing day

And other, more important subjects barely get any attention

What subjects

Just cause you recognise the stupidity of central planning doesn't make you a neoclassical

I'm a keynesian, I support an active interventionist state, but the market has a role