I suppose most of us here don't want the citizens starving

Or just living a miserable living condition

I doubt anything but authoritorian state-capitalism would've been as good for russia at that time

@ClibtardMario so if there will be crisis of capitalism will you join us?

Nope

But you don't like seeing people starving?

Because capitalism right now is being moved by overspending and government intense regulation (i.e. keynesianism)

I'm calling for a crash within a year or so

Yes, and if it is in crisis and makes people starve it should go, right?

Most people think like that?

keynes isn't regulations is it? isn't it more about spending

that'll be socdem

Both

@Firefly I blame the last capitalist crises on keynesianism.

what do you blame the great recession on?

@ClibtardMario I'm just trying to follow your logic.

@Sampuka Federal Reserve monetary loosening and government deficit spending

Plus some laws enacted by Clinton which increased the governments incentives on housing ownership

@ClibtardMario If people starve we do not want that and we change the system, right?

it was an interesting time because it changed economic theory so much

from neoclassical to keynes

@Firefly If people start to starve under the current system, change it to free market capitalism.

You want those people to be able to work hard and make a better life for themselves if they're not in need of immediate help by say war

@ClibtardMario In free market people never strave?

Not really @Sampuka , keynesianism has been widely used since the start of the 1970s

wait, we're talking about to different recessions then

Started by the 70s, paused a bit under Reagan (which was still fiscal populist) and then returned full speed

@Firefly Most don't.

@ClibtardMario And the rest is not free market, right?

No

Like England

Or USA

Am I tlaking about great depression then?

Yes?

america sure finds some good names

If after free market capitalism by X time there are still people out there starving, I'd rather blame FMC

Ironically though, food stamps are actually cheap and are widely recognized as an efficient welfare for FMC systems

@ClibtardMario So we blame someone if we starve under capitalism?

Blame the current system.

If it has been used by enough time though

@ClibtardMario what do you think of non-capitalist free market ideologies?

@ClibtardMario The capitalist system?

>Non-capitalist
>Free market
hahaha

>free market is what defines capitalism

wew

@Firefly It really depends about which deaths you are blaming.

America

@ClibtardMario We don't blame the capitalist sytsem?

America isn't FMC

boi

why do all political terms have such weird meanings in america? from anarchism to libertarianism to socialism?

I don't blame capitalism because it is a far too broad of a denomination. So I just attack the specific viewpoint applied

@ClibtardMario So capitalism as a system cannot be blamed?

It can, but blaming it is too broad

can any american answer my question?

@ClibtardMario In which cases it can be blamed and in which it cannot be?

Capitalism can range from ancap to fully fledged state capitalism

Name me a situation in which a capitalistic system would lead to starvation

bad weather

I can only think of two, food shortages and your own fault

@Firefly If capitalism has been applied by enough time and there are still people suffering under it, then its capitalism fault. But I repeat myself, blame capitalism alone is too broad because then you can be blaming one or more than 10 different systems

those 10 systems share some things

@ClibtardMario so you can't blame capitalism. But you can blame socialism, right?

you can blame those

So far, I'm blaming keynesianism for 1970s stagflation, 1995-2001 bubble, 2002-2008 bubble and 2009-2017/18 bubble.

though you cant conclude

@Firefly I just said you can ffs

capitalism simply gives you the freedom, socialism puts rules on what you can and can't do

@ClibtardMario I'm asking not about how it is so far.

@ClibtardMario what about great depression? that was what I tried to ask before

@Timo))) state capitalism does too

anarchism doesn't

Not in the same exctent

FED's loosening and government subsidies which ended up in overproduction

I'm not arguing for anarchism

you're simplifying it

capitalism both can and cannot

as with socialism

Stocks at the time were booming because cheap credit was being unleashed on economy and because government incentives just increased production, at the long-term expense of huge deflations

Because that is the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism, the freedom

no?

that's between socdem and right-libertarianism

boxxy lost her charm

^

russian propaganda aesthetics aren't as good as china's were

chinese revolutionary peasant best aesthetic

were soviet union and china ever friends?

yah American kinda butchers european political words

They were in an Allience.

like libertarian means something different in europe

libertarianism hardly even lives in europa from what i've seen

shame tbh

Was it called the The Sino-Soviet Treaty?

well libertarian in eruope pretty much is ancom

for the most part

libertarianism hasn't really been a thing in America

@ClibtardMario You can blame a certain type of capitalism and cannot blame the actual system?

only """libertarianism"""

I like to identify myself as a Bourbon Democrat, for the sake of simplicity

LOL

More of a driving force in the academic area, compared to europe

modern europa or america has none of it

@Firefly ffs you can blame both, but if you are going to blame capitalism, please identify which of the 1289405 kinds of viewpoint

you'd have to look to Rojava I guess

@ClibtardMario Do you do the same about socialism?

Socialism is only one system, at least according to M-L

So I can only really blame socialism

@ClibtardMario you can blame the thing that makes them all capitalism

@ClibtardMario I'm M-L, socialism can be different.

why we would blame the most successful system is the question

Show me how then

@ClibtardMario You literally tell me what I think.

You don't compare a system to utopia

is Liberal the most raped word in poilitical discourse?

or is there a worse one?

socialism isn't as butchered

Btw, heres what a Bourbon Democrat is:
```Bourbon Democrats were promoters of a form of laissez-faire capitalism which included opposition to the protectionism that the Republicans were then advocating as well as fiscal discipline. They represented business interests, generally supporting the goals of banking and railroads but opposed to subsidies for them and were unwilling to protect them from competition. They opposed imperialism and U.S. overseas expansion, fought for the gold standard, and opposed bimetallism and promoted hard and sound money. Strong supporters of reform movements such as the Civil Service Reform and opponents of the corrupt city bosses, Bourbons led the fight against the Tweed Ring.```

100% match with me ngl

opposed imperialism nice

socialism is butchered to hell to the point that on one knows what the original meaning is anymore XD

Bring back Grover Cleveland by the fucking third time

american's consider sweden socialist

lmao

@Taylor☭ well at least some people do

but liberal means a millino things

yah it does

yep

at least socialism means socdem in america

i've seen americans call anarchist who riot liberal

specially when you apply to local politics

@ClibtardMario what else do I think?

[Talks about Sudanese politics] "I am a conservative"
"But what are you even going to keep?"

@Firefly Idk?

@ClibtardMario You just told me

you mean reactionary

does anyone vc

in here ?

I hate typing

XD

@ClibtardMario It seems you can read my mind

Interesting

also can political parties just fuck off with their names? we have like 7 socdem parties in denmark but only one calls themselves it

Now I'll stop to read your mind and play some agar.io, I'm bored af

>Denmark

Is there any danish FDP?

FDP?

@ClibtardMario Come more to talk with me.

German classical liberal party

@Firefly Ask me shit and tag me, gotta answer later

what is it about neoclassical theory that makes people reject it in favor of classical?

I don't even know whats the point of neoclassical economics ngl

there's a party calling themselves the liberal party, they're the free-market party

And just a reminder that Scandinavia was wealthier back in 1950-60

>search "denmark median income graph"

>the results are for america

KEK

the taxes in denmark is crazy though

^

Denmark is just afloat because like all of Scandinavia, they've ended social security and started a system of pensions by capitalization back in the 1990 Crisis

Otherwise, RIP

social democracy can survive because of imperialism

not that america is much different

What was different about scandinavian countries in 1950s then now

just curious

can someone else find some data about scandinavian incomes?

They had no welfare

IIRC there is GDP, brb

there was welfare in the 50s pretty sure

But was the link to increased wealth due to a lack of wealth fair ?

or at least the socdem movement had begun

http://8ch.net/leftypol/res/1852563.html

rip, my source is apparently offline

GDP isn't very helpful tbh

I like income better

median

taking buying power into account

is there a problem with this?

@Sampuka Socdem started off in the early 60s, or by the 1970s

the movement started in the 20s though

There was some welfare before, yes, but it swelled after social-democrat reforms were implemented

the famous social democrat premiermenister was in 1924

effective reforms started off 40-50 years later tho

doubt it, but I don't know for sure

Social democracies only work on wealthy countries who implement economic liberalism tbh

well buying power is an important factor to see how rich a country is

And it's not certain that the welfare state will be kept sustainable

they only work with countries that are imperialist

Define "imperialism"

in other words why venezuela failed

you can easy figure out some buying power if you look at inflation and the costs of living

Venezuela was straight collectivism, it's different

imperialism in capitalism is buying very very cheap labor from poor countries

Government kept seizing foreign property and private property as a whole and spread their tentacles over oil industry, which became the walking stick of venezuelan economy

well it tried, but it wasn't collectivized

That's not imperialism though, that's just trade opportunism

"imperialism in capitalism is buying very very cheap labor from poor countries" i agree

Venezuela shot intself in the foot by making it so hard for foreign investers

^

not if your country wars the poor country and makes the state accept it

They could be very wealthy

They also ended with agriculture because "HURR DURR OIL WILL PAY FOR OUR FOOD"

venezuela shot it's other foot by relying on oil

Dude

*they literally burned crops*

*for no reason*

They should have invested the oil money

like UAE

But they'd rather give everyone their basic needs

@ClibtardMario I heard that was the opposition

UAE is smart, they have their hands in everything

who burned crops?

It was the chavist government, they found the miracle of oil and began burning crops because "oil revenue will pay for our food imports, fuck it"

when are w talking?

I'm thinking recently

I don't know the exact timeframe

Socialists regimes often make grave mistakes in thinking they nkow better to do with a whole lot of sectors

Venezuela and the great leap forward by china are good examples

great leap forward, possibly the most retarded thing in the 20th century

FUCK THE SPARROWS

why sparrows though, at least kill something annoying like mosquitoes

tfw you intend to create a great leap forward and end up creating an economical depression and a death toll of 60 million <:bour:313709044957315082>

well they thought sparrows were a detriment to harvest

how are you gonna kill musquitos?

was a joke

woops turns out sparrows are imporant

rip

hey hey hey, what if people make iron in their backyards?

Aren't they genetically modifying mosquitos not to carry malaria

Hi

what is this

wasteland of a discord

omfg

```WHY ALL THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM BASED ON CAPITALIZATION IS FADED TO FAILURE.

Some people might think that I am making an anticapitalist and left-wing critique of funded pension systems, as I am criticizing the girl in the eye of the big fallacy of proposing "pension fund capitalism," but I will make a critique within Market logic that usually escapes economists and administrators, the evolution of technological evolution.

CAPITALIZATION systems are based on "good managers", honest, honest (redundant) and efficient that they invest the fortunes they collect in solid companies and with a promising and profitable future in the long term, but even if they have this profile they are doomed to failure!

To better understand, let's trace the profile of a "good manager" of investment funds for retirement and show that this "good manager" is in reality intrinsically a lousy manager!```

>Implying pensions by solidarity are better

🤔

is this full gommunism

wilderness may be better word

??

@BoleslawBierutLover <#314928198809026561> it is a mental prison for ungodly sinners and materialists.

it used to be

@Firefly There are no leaders???

tbh anyone who defends social security is either leeching off of it or is a retard

FULL COMMUNISM

@BoleslawBierutLover everyone is a leader.

FULLER COMMUNISM

does anyone know at what time socialism began to mean socdem in america?

always

people called Freddy Roosevelt a socialist

because I assume it didn't in the earlier parts of 20th century and before