Really makes you think, huh

not true capitalism!!

>Communism
>Wages

Norway is a capitalist country with a lot of socialist programs, paid for by massive oil wealth.

redpill me user

Do you even know what socialism is?

It's muh Hitler economics
Unfortunately, people are too blinded by the ideology of Hitler to see that his economic plan was a disaster

Government spending=/= socialism

>crony capitolism

isn't that code-word for socialism for corporations and vulture capitalism for the peasants?

Yes, it really made me reconsider my position. Just got a Che shirt and I'm headed down to the park to take a nap on a bench.

Can we range ban Canada

...

>Government spending=/= socialism
didn't say it was burger friend

>(((Capitalism)))

No. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. crony capitalism is government intervention in the means of production without public ownership

...

It is really if you'd rather be poor but buy food with stamps or poor and get food by waiting hours in line.

Then what are these socialist programs you're speaking of?

lol wagecucks

Soviet Union was so successful

It's a political system in which the government includes ideas from both ends of the spectrum, usually socially conservative and economically liberal, not necessarily communism as we know it, as it actually encourages competition.

>paying 50% of your income to give free shit to parasites is a redpill

Whatever you say schlomo

I dunno. Lots of welfare and shit.

That's not socialism. That's just government spending

the true economic redpill is bartering

>Jews introduce coins to immediately control the market

keep using Jewish shekels and continue being debt and wage slavs

north korea is successful

>Working minimum wage for your (((boss)))
The scenario is ultimately the same fool, I didn't advocate one side of the spectrum over another.

communism didn't bring you great circuses such as, the iphone, facebook, cheap personal computers

Socialist government spending

Nonmonetary transactions are more often inefficient than not. Eliminating currency in favor of a barter system would destroy most of the economy

freedom of speech and expression being taken away was the biggest fear.

crony capitalism is not true capitalism, also cocks

I don't make minimum wage because I'm not an idiot

he is right about the state of things but the problem isn't capitalism. the problem is globalism, rampant corruption, and our country being owned by the (((fed))).

No, socialism is public ownership of the means of production.
Welfare is just government. You can't just add the word socialism to whatever you want and suddenly it's socialist

We pay into social security and socialized medical insurance. It isn't true capitalism.

But OP pic is still wrong. Just got myself a condo and getting paid more than I ever have been.

socialism has a broader definition than that burger freind.

Yeah but government spending isn't part of that definition. Also, refer back to

thats the marxist definition of socialism, socialism existed before that

This. Large corporations lobbying and bribing government officials to maintain their monopolies has not only damaged our economy but has ruined the public image of what capitalism is supposed to be.

We treat corporations like people, as we should, but then let the government intervene to keep them on life support even if there are more effective alternatives in the long run. It has slowed progress significantly in all sectors and stagnated our quality of life.

Capitalism works, but those in charge of it are too corrupt to let it.

yeah well.... *checks google*....

fuck

This thread again.

>one post by this ID

Sage troll threads

The welfare system operates under the socialist principal of wealth redistribution

Mind you, there was a moment after the bailout when the US government was a majority shareholder of GM. That's an example of socialist policy, although the situation with GM has since changed.

As far as Norway goes, the Norwegian government only owns something like 40% stake in the oil companies. They just barely meet the threshold for it to be considered publicly owned.

Socialism is central planning. When the government redistributes resources it is trying to control the means of production to create desired outcomes. Stop being pedantic. That's as if saying Brazil isn't or doesn't have socialism because they've only nationalized oil.

Nationalizing oil is socialism, but creating a welfare system is not. It is merely government intervention in the market. If the government doesn't own it, it's not socialism.

Technically, every market structure operates under the principal of wealth redistribution. Capitalism is all about redistributing wealth in the most efficient way possible.

If the government interferes with the matket, it's socialism. You can make up whatever excuse you want for your autism but it won't change reality

Government interferes in the market by simply existing. Property rights? I guess that's socialism since the government needs to Interfere in the market in order to protect them. Contract disputes? Guess that's socialism too.

Try reading a fucking book rather than just calling anyone smarter than you autistic

Don't want to seem like an anarchist but you don't need a government to enforce property rights and dispute contracts.

Meant for

There needs to be a legislative monopoly in order to enforce them though. It's one of the most basic requirements for a free market to exist.
Whether you wanna call this monopoly the "government" is up to you.

Capitalism is the best when the populous controls it. You know the best way to get good jobs back in America? Stop buying from companies that ship factories overseas. Buy things only made in America. Form Unions to get better wages. Don't sit back, bitch, say how hopeless everything is and then expect big daddy government to solve all your problems for you.

Capitalism operates off voluntary exchange, socialism, I.e, welfare, doesn't

Socialism is not the opposite of the free market. Socialism is the opposite of capitalism.
Capitalism and the free market are not the same thing. The free market is simply one aspect of capitalism.

Also, lack of voluntary exchange isn't always socialism either.
If you get robbed at gunpoint, is that socialism?

I seriously want to range ban Canadian posters. Fucking fifty percent of shitposts come from this one frost-bitten, desolate meme country.

...

>x is an opposite of y
>z is an aspect of y
>therefore x doesn't oppose z
jesus fucking christ

Keynesianism isn't communism. Keynes hated Marx just as much as any Austrian.

My favorite quote is "say what you will about Marx, but at least he's not a Keynesian"

Nice meme. You've never been to the poorest parts of the USA. In parts of Appalachia and the rural South and West, some people don't even have running water.

>Whether you wanna call this monopoly the "government" is up to you.
In the absence of a state it would probably be considered a group of protection agencies.

Getting back to the previous point though, when the government creates things like welfare, it is in a de facto sense trying to control the means of production and the allocation of resources. That's why these policies are referred to as socialist, with emphasis on the -ist.

>X is an opposite of Y with respect to Z
>X has property p but not property q
>Y has property p and property q
>Therefore, property p is not relevant with respect to Z, and property q is relevant to Z

Voluntary exchange exists in socialism too...

You mean the labor theory of value or worker-centered economics?

How exactly is it controlling the means of production? And trying to control something is far different than owning it

>really makes you 1 post by this ID
>really makes you reply to troll posts
>really makes you 2016

Confirmed houseless. I bought a 400k home and bought a brand new Chrysler 300 with rims. I mean, I got a raise at Cinnabon! Wtf capitalism!

A self help group for fagots. As in you fagots use the government to help yourselves to my paycheck.

Who gives a fuck? What's stopping them?

It's come to the point that I laugh whenever I hear people complain about capitalism. Seriously, it's your fault if you're working as a barista and you've accrued massive debt while getting a worthless liberal arts degree. It was all your choice.

I guess socialist worldwide takeover has occurred then, because every government intervenes in the economy to a degree. Private property protection, subsidies, tariffs, protectionism, and other common aspects of modern economy wouldn't exist without government.

Hell, legalizing gay marriage would be socialist by those standards, since that interferes with the wedding industry

Jesus fucking Christ people like you are bringing the average intelligence of our country down. Keynesian economics are definitely not communist.

Seriously. Keynes wanted to disprove Marx just as bad as Hayek. They just had different ideas on how to oppose him. It was an ideological smackdown for the ages

When people say X is socialist they don't mean the government will own the means of production, they mean that X shares similarities with socialism, that it is like socialism.

>And trying to control something is far different than owning it
Distinction without a difference, control is achieved through force and if you have the power to back up your control you effectively own it. If the US successfully decided to force an industry to follow its every guidelines, how it is funded, what it produces, how it produces, where its produce goes how is it in effect any different from them directly owning it?

Apalchia is pretty well to do despite being poor.

...

No it hasn't you spoilt fucking brats, you don't know what you're talking about. I fucking REMEMBER not having anything to eat, can you say the same?

But it's not socialist, it's Keynesian. you should be saying keynesianist rather than socialist if you want to be accurate.

How is it different? Well for one thing, that's currently illegal for the government to do. If they change the law so that they can control them, then that would be nationalizing those companies which makes them socialist.
The only exception is if the original shareholders are the only ones being compensated in dividends. But why would the government take over a company but not want to get paid from the money the company makes? That makes no sense. They're not gonna say "we run your business now, but you still get all the profits without doing anything" no they'd say "we own this shit now"
Pic related

Use airlines as an example. The FAA makes them jump through so many hoops just to operate that you could almost say that the government controls them. However the government does not own the airlines, so it's not socialist.
The same thing can be said about Space X and Nasa/DoT. The government doesn't own space x just because they can control it.
There are several other examples

It is capitalism you fag. The point is that its not free market capitalism. Which is another FORM of capitalism then the one we have now.

I'm pretty sure there are people in the USA who are going hungry.

>Yet 10/10 times socialism has failed

Yes but cases of starvation are extremely rare (about 100 a year), and those cases are almost always entirely anorexics or intentionally neglected infants. Nobody in America starves to death if they don't want to.

>Ranked by net national exports
No wonder China is highest. Having net exports isn't as good as having net imports, but the liberals seem to think that money is an end and not a means to an end. Same with jobs.

>If they change the law so that they can control them, then that would be nationalizing those companies which makes them socialist.
That's my point though. The government's control over an industry even if partial is the justification for policies being called "socialist" by people. I know that socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. Regulative policies are just a step in that direction.

>But it's not socialist, it's Keynesian.
Regulation is not necessarily keynesian.

>But why would the government take over a company but not want to get paid from the money the company makes? That makes no sense. They're not gonna say "we run your business now, but you still get all the profits without doing anything" no they'd say "we own this shit now"
Because the public benefits would exist even if the government isn't actually spending. Petrobras is a nationalized business whose profits are used for public benefits and services. The airlines are a private business whose operations are being controlled through regulation for public benefits and services.

>Petrobras is a nationalized business whose profits are used for public benefits and services. The airlines are a private business whose operations are being controlled through regulation for public benefits and services.
In both of these instances the government asserts control over something for a desired outcome.

t. yankee

Technically, from a strictly Marxist standpoint, that's a step toward socialism in that it furthers the likelihood of a political revolution. Marx believed socialism needed to arise from a revolution against capitalism. When democracy tries to coexist with capitalism (as is the case of regulations and interference), the workers become disenfranchised, from their employers, from the product of their labor, and from the labor itself. This will start a socialist revolution, which will nationalize the major industries.

However, where capitalism exists, socialism will fail. Democracy will make its way into socialism and eventually capitalism will take hold again.
That's Marx's Hegelian dialect. The Manifesto is all about the cycle of revolution.

Marx thought the only way to end this cycle was a global revolution to eliminate capitalism once and for all, giving birth to communism.

So yes, government interfering does push the country towards socialism, but only because it alienates the socialists. It's not socialist in the true sense of the ideology.

>true capitalism
>america
you can only have both if you join the beta uprising

Socialism has existed before marx

And ended up becoming capitalist as Marx predicted.
Marx wasn't just looking into the future in his dialect, he was also looking into the past. It's always been a cycle. He just figured the cycle would continue forever without communism to break it.

> rich people are getting richer while the middle class and poors are losing money
> rich people only account for 10% of the voters in the country
> still nobody votes for a more balanced financial policy and a higher taxing of the rich people

you guys are all cucks and numales. If you are poor you deserve it. Stupidness may not hurt yet but it makes poor

>mass starvation
>left win death squads
>you pretend to pay us, we pretend to work
>jeans shortage
>capitalism
with jews you lose.

>mfw based bernie

The difference is - it's entirely your fault, not the cheka's.

If you can't appreciate that, you're a stupid nigger