/lit/ - Literature

>>7210140

good luck revolutionizing the exchange of commodities as necessaries

>>7210140

The Scandinavian model is called Social Democracy or the Nordic Model. I'd call it mid-left socialism, but in America, it would probably be construed as extremist communism. Seems to be the best functioning model in the world.

Can't give specific recommendations, but I'm sure there are several good books on Social Democracy/Nordic Model.

>>7210151
>Seems to be the best functioning model in the world.
why don't americans adopt it?

>>7210140
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Why would you use post-war Germany as a model for success?
It is being overrun with Syrian refugees.

Keynes
Minsky
Joan Robinson
Kalecki
Abba Lerner
Pierro Sraffa
Randall Wray/Stephanie Kelton

And some of the Parecon guys have interesting ideas. I recommend both of these pieces:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/07/joan-robinsons-open-letter-from-a-keynesian-to-a-marxist-2/

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/

>>7210347

American government isn't actually capable of doing anything, it's just a machine which preserves itself at all costs

Also the Scandinavian model is on a clock, it can't sustain the demographic shift it's starting to experience.

>>7210347
It's the best functional model for an educated, homogeneous populace with little or no immigration.

>>7210387
Unfortunately it also promotes socialist thinking in other areas which leads to mass immigration and collapse of the system.

>>7210393
The beast slouches etc.

>>7210358
First off, because it requires steep income taxes (>50%) and no rich person would agree to that increase because American ideology promotes several inter-lapping ideas that being rich=success, rich=carries the assumption that you worked hard for it and are therefore superior (think about Trump who already inherited a 100 million dollar fortune and when taking into account inflation/ all his failures he's not that astounding a businessman) , rich=being a job creator. Secondly, most American are brainwashed into thinking that socialism=communism= the state is going to take away my religion and guns (true in the latter case lol) and socialized medicine means euthanizing old people (if you remember all the old people during the health care debate believed the Republican nonsense about how Obama was going to set up "death panels"). This is the real red pill; the Republican party has been race baiting and red baiting and defunding the education system for so many decades that they've created a malleable population that repeatedly votes against its interests. Not that the democrats are not guilty either; by taking up a civil rights platform and supporting immigrants and gay rights and women they the working class

>>7210409
American ideology in the 1950s was perfectly accepting of a 90% top rate of tax though.

>>7210347
>>7210409
oops meant

>>7210409
>and women they the alienated working class
I presume.
Also, a socialist government doesn't necessarily mean civilian disarmament.

>>7210412
The rich had so many loopholes that they let it be that way to appear to be contributing. The whining of the rich about taxes is in inverse proportion to the available loopholes.

What exactly is non-marxist socialism?
Can someone please define this?
It seems like some shit that has just been come up with on the fly.

>>7210412
Good point. But, that was a different era. National solidarity was pretty high after the shared suffering of the Great Depression and World War II. There was also more racial solidarity tbh. Black/hispanic visilibity in the public sphere was basically nonexistent and so it was easier for rich whites to empathize with the people to whom their taxes were going too. Also remember that religious right gained momentum in the post-war decades and Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater before him were spearheading the neo-conservative movement that created a strong coalition of racist southerners ( a legacy of Nixon's southern strategy) and evangelical christians who were energized by roe v wade's legalization of abortion i.e. the republicans instigated a culture war. Reagan also caused a paradigm shift in elite self-perception that to be a rich person was good for everyone (e.g. trickle down economic)

>>7210151
>Seems to be the best functioning model in the world.
It's an incredibly shitty model. The whole "muh nordic model is da best" is left-wing propaganda.

I'd rather live in hyper-capitalistic Hong Kong than the dystopian nightmare Sweden has become.

>>7210434
>Reagan also caused a paradigm shift in elite self-perception that to be a rich person was good for everyone (e.g. trickle down economic)
I thought that was always a thing and the Reagan years (not the senile old clown himself unless you're using him as a metonym) just gave it a name.

>>7210412
You're a moron if you think the rich actually paid that tax back then.

>>7210429
>What exactly is non-marxist socialism?
Socialism which seeks to establish itself through reform rather than revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat.

>>7210438
>>7210438
>nordic model
>left wing
Kek. IKEA and H&M sure are what leftists dream of

>>7210140
>Any good reading material out there I can confirmation bias myself with on how a mid-left socialist economy works?
You can start by reading some berniefag shitposts on reddit. As for published stuff, no. It's all theory.

A theory which is about to collapse under the weight of unskilled refugees.

>>7210442
But Marx never advocated revolution.

That was the guys who took his ideas and ran with them, like Lenin.

Marx believed that Socialism would come about when Capitalism naturally outstayed it;s welcome and collapsed, he actually disapproved of armed revolt.

- t. Bolshevist

>>7210414
yea you're right. Also, the democrat's support for all the civil rights causes is ultimately just in my opinion, but the focus on those issues has come at the expense of economic issues. Hopefully there will be a time when blacks and women are not discriminated. And I there has been a lot of progress already if you consider how the attitudes of most people (excluding /pol/) toward blacks has definitely changed over the past few decades. However, everyone suffers from poor education system and stagnating wages so the democratic party would be wise to refocus on the economic issues, which is what Sanders and by consequence Hillary is doing no matter how little you agree with his politics. Still, democrats are also funded by parts of corporate america but less to than the republicans. Definitely the lesser of two evils no matter what people say on this board

>>7210448
>only my specific brand of ideology is left-wing
Whether you like it or not, the nordic model, which is basically social democracy with a huge welfare state, is left-wing.

>>7210461
>But Marx never advocated revolution.
Are you fucking serious?

>That was the guys who took his ideas and ran with them, like Lenin.
Lenin's contribution was the idea of a vanguard party, not of the revolution itself you idiot.

>Marx believed that Socialism would come about when Capitalism naturally outstayed it;s welcome and collapsed, he actually disapproved of armed revolt.
Point to the part in his works where he claims that communism can be instated without a proletarian revolution...

>- t. Bolshevist
Well that explains a lot.

>>7210463
Jesus, can you be any more of a good little goy?

>>7210409
>put an outrageously high tax on high earners
>think they'll twiddle their thumbs and do nothing about it

tax rates =/= tax revenues

Even worse, they'll stop investing in the economy.

And with socialized medicine you're going to be inadvertently euthanizing a lot of old people while they wait in line.

>>7210140
>>7210151
>>7210347
>>7210385
>>7210448

It's not the model itself, it's the society and individual human beings involved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz5Oyze8ziI

>>7210387
>>7210393

These two pretty much get it.

>>7210441
But Reagan was the first since the war to implement supply-side economics, which was basically code for huge tax cuts on the rich, corporate gains taxes, wall-street trading, reduction of regulations etc. etc. And it was nice for the rich people. They experienced huge gains in income like never before. It felt great for them; the huge income increases gave them the impression that they were working harder than ever before and that they were superior. It was like Pandora's box. Once you cut taxes its hard to increase them again without huge lobbying efforts on the part of the rich who gained so much from Reagan's cuts.

>>7210409
>Republican party has been race baiting

Oh God how can anyone be this fucking retarded

The Democratic party depends on having 80 percent of the black vote to win every election. No one is more guilty of pandering and race hustling than the liberal Democrats

Fuck out of here

>>7210474
I didn't say it was bad; like you say its natural to protect one's wealth. But obviously the huge income taxes post-WWII didn't stop rich people from investing in the economy, nor does it stop them from investing in such "socialist countries" like those that exist in Western Europe. You sound like a retarded Ayn Rand character mayne.

>>7210473
lol, you only prove my point. You're head's so much up your ass about "niggers, spics and kikes taking my jobs!!" but you happily give up your asshole like a docile little fucboi by letting the top one percent, majority of whom are white/anglo saxon, suck up you're earnings

>>7210493
I mentioned that. The democratic party has alienated the working class for decades by pandering to the black people and hispanic immigrants. So understandly the working class whites who hate blacks vote republican. It still doesn't mean white and black workers don't share an economic interest though. The white voters are so blinded by prejudice because they can't stand the prospect of their money going to black welfare queens. The reality is though that the whites make up the overwhelming majority of welfare and medicaid takers, though blacks are disproportionately represented

>>7210500
>lol, you only prove my point.
What?

>You're head's so much up your ass about "niggers, spics and kikes taking my jobs!!
I don't think niggers and spics are going to take my job anytime soon. I work in the software industry.

> but you happily give up your asshole like a docile little fucboi by letting the top one percent, majority of whom are white/anglo saxon, suck up you're earnings
First of all, it's your, not you're.

Second of all, most of my earnings are taxed by the state and redistributed to niggers and spics.

Thirdly, the richest minorities in the USA are not "le ebil WASP", but hindus and jews.

I originally responded to you because your comment was literally textbook leftist propaganda. I was just amused at how easily brainwashed some people are.

>>7210140
Read Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)

Then read Michael Hudson's new book Killing the Host

Here's a good economic blog: http://real-economics.blogspot.ca/

>>7210473
Oh look, a "redpill"

>>7210520
>Thirdly, the richest minorities in the USA are not "le ebil WASP", but hindus and jews.

Christ alive, the delusion on this one

>>7210500
Nobody actually paid 90% of their income. There were tons of loopholes and deductions.

Your first mistake is conflating "Capitalism" as an ideology. "Capitalism" is a term used by Marxists as an immaterial boogeyman. There is no "Capitalism", there is only the science of economics. There is a difference between Economics and Marxism just as there is a difference between Medicine and Laying on Hands.

Once you've tossed Marxism into the garbage you've got a vast amount of ideologies to choose from. Libertarianism, the "Only Slightly retarded" Anarchisms, Fascism, National Socialism, several shades of regular Socialism, many hues of "Conservativism", Social Democracy, and several others like theocracies.

Your second mistake is assuming that the economic successes of post WWII piggy backing off of the USA is somehow a constant and assuming that the USA's economic dominance is a constant. Had Europe not gotten her entire industry smashed to bits in WWII the USA would never have become the manufacturing giant it is today.

Your third mistake is assuming the USA is some kind of Objectivist hellhole. It's not. It just has a different system than the Social Democracy of Europe. Social Democracy to the extent that it is done in Europe is next to impossible in the USA.

1) The USA is big. You can fit 22 of Germany in the USA, 27 if you count Alaska. Most of the nation is uninhabited (Again, not counting Alaska). The USA is not nearly as dense as, say, France. The USA lacks the bureaucracy and the infrastructure necessary to provide one on one care to every single inhabitant.
2) Everyone needs to work. The moment people let the government take care of them en masse the entire system falls apart. The Africa/Middle Eastern immigration to Sweden is an example of this.
3) The USA is not ethnically nor culturally homogenous. Why should a Black Man's tax money go to a Jewish man? No, really, why? Because they're both "Americans"? Why should Texans be taxed to pay for Louisiana's roads? No, seriously, why? When everything is going good, sure, everyone wants to be an American. But the moment shit falls apart people will fall back on genetics and culture (until things get better of course) and forget about "The American Dream".

Of course one way to integrate Social Democracy with the United States would be for the States to take up the whole "Caring for the people" thing rather than the Feds.

>>7210520
>I work in the software industry.
Fine, but you're an exception most white people are working class and poor americans.

>First of all, it's your, not you're.
fuccboi isn't exactly a real word either...anyway I realize I'm throwing ad hominems at you and thats not fair

>most of my earnings are taxed by the state and redistributed to niggers and spics.
depends on your state. most is redistributed to poor whites. a majority of welfare and medicaid takers are white.
>Thirdly, the richest minorities in the USA are not "le ebil WASP", but hindus and jews.
we're not talking about top earning ethnic groups, but the top 1% of income earners in all of the United States. This group is mostly white.

>literally textbook leftist propaganda
Explain what in particular is propaganda and then refute what you find so biased. I'm open to you're opinion so long as you present it reasonably

>>7210540
>Christ alive, the delusion on this one
It's not delusion, but statistical fact. I know you libshits tend to disregard statistics as the white man's tool for oppression, but make an effort : http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/income-distribution-within-us-religious-groups/

>>7210544
>Because they're both "Americans"?
Ideally, yes. That's why you can only have dual citizenship if you're Canadian, Mexican, or Israeli.

>>7210541
I understand that, but income taxes were substantially higher in the 1950s. And there are HUGE loopholes today that allow rich taxpayers today to pay even lower incomes than they did in the 50s. Romney pays something like 20% iirc because most of his money is stashed away in the Virgin Islands or some such Caribbean tax haven. Apple has funneled billions of dollars through Ireland and into the Netherlands and Luxembourg to avoid paying taxes. Loops holes always exist, but they can be enforced better

>>7210544
>"Capitalism" is a term used by Marxists as an immaterial boogeyman. There is no "Capitalism", there is only the science of economics
this has to be bait

>>7210558
How much was actually paid by people back then we do not know. This is a hopeless conjecture.

>>7210550
>Fine, but you're an exception most white people are working class and poor americans.
Most white people are actually middle class.

>depends on your state. most is redistributed to poor whites. a majority of welfare and medicaid takers are white.
The relevant metric is per capita. Blacks and illegal immigrants are disproportionately dependent on welfare.

>we're not talking about top earning ethnic groups, but the top 1% of income earners in all of the United States. This group is mostly white.
It's really not. It's a mixed bag of whites, asians and jews.

>Explain what in particular is propaganda and then refute what you find so biased
All right. For instance :
> Hopefully there will be a time when blacks and women are not discriminated
Blacks and women are not discriminated. In fact they're actively being helped solely for being black and women. The truly discriminated groups today are white and asian males. Read up on the asian male/black male SAT score divide for getting into college, it's absolutely ridiculous.

>And I there has been a lot of progress
What progress? Blacks were arguably better off before the civil rights movement. Today, 3/4 of black kids are born out of wedlock. They still commit a disproportionate of crime. A high percentage are unemployed. Black culture has sunken to abysmal depths (rap "music").

> However, everyone suffers from poor education system and stagnating wages so the democratic party would be wise to refocus on the economic issue
Wages actually haven't stagnated, only wages in unskilled jobs have stagnated, thanks to illegal immigration.

Also, America's education system is not that bad. It's just that niggers and spics drag down scores. If you actually look at PISA scores by race, asian americans are the top scorers worldwide, white americans score higher than every single european nation except for Finland.

>>7210557
That's exactly my point. Ideally. But the world is hardly ideal. Times are hardly ideal. Tumblr is right about one thing, identities are fluid. If being "Black" or "Episcopalian" or "Israeli" will benefit you more than being "American" people will gladly do so.

My point in this is that any system that relies on what is essentially (forced) brotherly love will only cause boat rocking when people no longer want to be brothers.

>>7210518

There are tons of white liberals, have you ever been to the north east?

>>7210518
Fuck off with shit. I'm a conservative of color and i don't want my money going to anything. I don't earn shit anyways.

Welfare perpetuates poverty anyways. Have black communities improved in the past 50 years? Fuck no.

I hate lefty academic cunts like you so much. My jimmies are officially rustled.

Nobody needs your patronizing garbage m8.

>>7210569
I'm certain the data exists. The amount rich people have paid in taxes most definitely plummeted in the 1980s. That's why Reagan ran the biggest deficits in history up to that time. He cut taxes but at the same time did huge increases in military spending. George Bush did similar. He initiated gigantic tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and then ran a deficit to pay for Iraq. Literally the dumbest mistake in history. It's a tautology that you raise taxes to pay for war. Britain did this in the 1700s to pay for French wars for god sakes, and even the rich people were willing to pay a little extra sales tax and sanction spending in parliament and confirm the debt. But like people are mentioning in this thread, you have to believe in what you're sacrificing in to actually want to contribute to the national welfare.

>>7210593
Sowell confirmed for browsing /lit/.

>>7210593
>Welfare perpetuates poverty anyways
I like how you think.
Although, starvation isn't so great.
Euthanasia over generations will fix things.

>>7210599
I finally understand why there's a retard mentioning sowell in every thread related to economics or marxism.

how come the "welfare state" produces the happiest most economically viable people in the world?

>>7210597
We have no idea how much of a difference the cuts made in how much people payed. We can conclude that military spending did add to the deficit though.

>>7210619
But Black Americans aren't happy.

>>7210619
>how come the "welfare state" produces the happiest most economically viable people in the world?
[citation needed]

>inb4 that "happiness index" study

>>7210613
Sowell is the hero /lit/ needs.

>>7210608
Nobody starves in america. We throw enough stuff away because capitalism is so prosperous :^)

>>7210599
Malcolm X said it first tbh

>>7210480
I asked this question here because I was relying on the fact that /pol/ fuckwits wouldn't get involved.
>that video
He's just plain wrong though, the fact the woman siting beside him is dumber than him does not add credence to his claims, Germany, Norway and other countries socialist countries that are doing so well have and have had for many years far more non-whites than America per capita

>>7210619

>>7210599

Sowell used to be a Marxist. Hopefully you idiots will outgrow it too.

>>7210619

You've got it backwards.

Only highly prosperous countries can afford the extravagances of a welfare state

You can't redistribute wealth and income if there's no wealth and income to redistribute

>>7210585
>The relevant metric is per capita. Blacks and illegal immigrants are disproportionately dependent on welfare.
That is true, but whites still take most of the money. We're at a cross roads here because you would like blacks and hispanics to be represented in proportion to their population. You believe that they are naturally inferior while I believe that they face cultural, educational impediments that might never go away.

>Blacks were arguably better off before the civil rights movement.
In some ways yes. A lot of black businesses went bankrupt because they couldn't compete with white ones after desegregation. But black community was doing well till the late 1970s until the blue collar jobs started going. It's gone downhill from there.
I mean progress in attitudes. At the end of the day though, if service sector jobs were to disappear, for example, the blacks would the first to go because people have a natural affinity to people who are similar to them culturally, physically and ethnically.

>Wages actually haven't stagnated, only wages in unskilled jobs have stagnated, thanks to illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration and exportation of jobs to china and mexico by the rich. Trump is popular because the fact that he threatened to reign these people in. Bernie Sanders too.

>Black culture has sunken to abysmal depths
I agree, there are smart blacks though no need to condemn them all

>It's really not. It's a mixed bag of whites, asians and jews.
I can't find a proper graph, I'd be curious to know if this is true. Also, I'm not talking about a WASP conspiracy. It's simply rich people who want to protect their financial interests from the poor. Nothing wrong with that except that is makes everyone worse off.

>>7210593
That's fine if you believe that. I'm arguing from the perspectives of class interest, you're arguing from a classical liberal perspective.

>Have black communities improved in the past 50 years
They were at one point. Their economic gains stagnated in the late 1970s and it went downhill with the drug war, mass incarceration and the crack epidemic. The blacks were the first to lose the blue collar/ factory working jobs. It was a symptom of what was to come for the whites. They soon lost their blue collar jobs too as more and more jobs started going overseas. The reasons the blacks lost it first was because whites prefered to hire whites, which again, is understandable because of cultural and perceived racial similarities. But let's no pretend that black communities were not improving at one point.

>>7210624
>>7210628
>>7210639
>>7210654
By welfare state I meant the medium rare mid-left socialist policies of Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Germany

>>7210575
>Wages actually haven't stagnated, only wages in unskilled jobs have stagnated, thanks to illegal immigration.

>>7210675
oops
meant for >>7210575


but to answer your question. there are more blacks in the south (though blacks cluster in the large north eastern cities) so its easier to race bait white working southern, and even mid-western, voters, especially considering they already had a legacy of racial segregation and slavery there

>>7210675

Government programs are largely responsible for the decline of black America. Preferential policies have helped affluent, well educated blacks at the expense of their less fortunate peers.

War on drugs has been extremely detrimental to blacks as you mentioned.

Also wages have stagnated, but employment compensation has not.

>>7210709
>Preferential policies
Yes, affirmative action. I'm personally divided on this I have to do more research as to whether it works or not. A lot of people on 4chan believe it doesn't work, but I want to read up on it and come to my own conclusion.
>Also wages have stagnated, but employment compensation has not.
you mean unemployment benefits?

I forgot to answer this:
>Also, America's education system is not that bad. It's just that niggers and spics drag down scores. If you actually look at PISA scores by race, asian americans are the top scorers worldwide, white americans score higher than every single european nation except for Finland.
I'm surprised because I've read something totally different about the last PISA and the results surprised me. It showed that overall, white middle class and educated Americans who grew up during the height of economic prosperity actually did quite mediocre in comparison to educated whites around the world from the same period. In other words, our education system, especially our higher education system, is not as great as we've made it out to be.
Also generally Blacks and Spics don't have good schooling because its paid for by local taxes. And minority people are poorer so they have less to contribute to the tax bases of their communities, so they get shittier schools. Same goes for poor white communities. Our education system works just fine for middle class americans though world competition is getting so aggressive that I don't think our education system is not up to standard

>>7210760
>I have to do more research as to whether it works or not.
Affirmative action has only helped white women, historically.

>>7210438
The SJW aspects of modern Sweden have nothing to do with their economic model. Up to the 80s they already had that model, and it was working at its best, yet they were far from SJWs, they even practiced eugenics to neuter degenerate elements.

Even now you have Denmark which is quite conservative, and probably the harshest European country on immigration, yet they follow the Nordic economic model.

>>7210760

No I mean employment compensation. Wages are not the only component. You have benefits and other components.

>>7210760

Teachers unions are a big part of the problem. Unions have made it outrageously expensive to fire bad teachers. So instead, these teachers are shuffled around from one district to the next, each one lower income than the last.

Nigs and spics do drag down our averages significantly. White America by itself is top 10 in the world for education. Asian America is top 3.

Government schools suck because they are a socialist enterprise. There's no competition among government schools and no incentives to excel.

>>7210638
"Germany, Norway and other countries socialist countries that are doing so well and have had for many years far more non-whites than America per capita."
Absolute bullshit.
In 2012, nearly 92% of Germany's population was white (or "European"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany
In 2007, Norway was 98% white:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html

>>7210140
Its a false dichotemy. Whichever one you choose, youre choosing Industrial society, centralized state powers, and a paradigm of scientism and infinite growth.

>>7210619
>>7210689

>happiest
>among the highest suicide rates in the world

Nope.
Welfare doesn't give purpose to life.

>>7210869
Forgot to add that in the U.S., the non-Hispanic white population was 69% in 2000 and about 63% in 2010.

>>7210638
>Germany, Norway and other countries socialist countries that are doing so well have and have had for many years far more non-whites than America per capita

That American education...

>>7210882
>among the highest suicide rates in the world

Eat shit, you dumb faggot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

>>7210140
>a mid-left socialist economy works
That's capitalism mate.

THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD, WHO THINK THE SCANDINAVIAN MODEL IS NOT CAPITALIST


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAH

>>7210896

France and Belgium do have very high rates of suicide

>>7210909
Pretty sure France and Belgium aren't Scandinavian countries

>>7210896
He was exaggerating but all four are still in the top half. Hardly a display of happiness.

>>7210919

But France is heavily socialist

>>7210946
>happiness
>in a capitalist economy

top kek

>>7210971
>But France is heavily socialist

Who works for who?

>>7210971
That's a good point. France has (or rather had) heavy socialist tendencies. In the 60-70s it even had soviet-style economic planning and in the 80s it nationalized a fuckton of companies.

Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, have extremely free economies. They are much more capitalist than any other European country bar Britain. Still, they are often perceived as socialists, at least by Americans, because that cutthroat capitalism is accompanied by a very strong welfare state. It's just that the welfare state doesn't meddle with what corporations do and give them free reins.

>Americans calling Scandinavia socialist in any way, shape or form
>Americans debating their absurd domestic politics like they even matter
>Americans discussing politics in general

You guys.

You shall go deeper. The real thing is about materialism vs. idealism. When you solve this, you can actually point for something.

>>7210140
Piketty - Capital in the 21st Century

Problem solved

>>7211376
>ortodoxian
>not capitalist
kek
In countries like Venezuela, Piketty is like a super neo-liberal monster

>>7210347
Why doesn't China adopt it?

>/lit/ doesn't know the difference between socialism and social democracy
jesus
social democracies are still fundamentally capitalist
they're also all going to shit so you can stop sucking their dicks

>>7210975
Happiness is for the Bourgeois. It only leads to shame.

>>7211376

>pikikey

Stop posting meme economists

>>7211404
Thanks, Tony Cliff. These words are in no way loosely or contentiously defined and your sophomoric spittle is definitely all that's needed to close any debate about their meaning.

>>7210151
>Scandinavia
>functioning
Literally what? Sweden isn't going to make it to the end of the 21st century.

>>7210429
You know there was socialism before Marx's theories became popular, yes? Who do you think the Communist Manifesto was directed towards?

>>7213016
p.s.: the value form reproduced itself in an expanded form within the Soviet Union as early as 1917.

>>7210760
>Yes, affirmative action. I'm personally divided on this I have to do more research as to whether it works or not. A lot of people on 4chan believe it doesn't work, but I want to read up on it and come to my own conclusion.
Not him, but check up the relation between middle class blacks and Fannie Mae, no LTV, housing credits (LIHTC), etc. throughout post-WWII USA. Someone is writing the dissertation of it. He mentioned it back in >>>bunker.

>>7213016
no worries
you're a fucking idiot if you think the difference between socialism and capitalism comes down to tax rates and welfare payments