Is Social Democracy a sustainable system?
No, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
>>355295
Economically, yes. See: Scandinavia
Politically, no. See: Scandinavia.
>>355304
>this meme
>>355295
no, nothing is sustainable, in the end everything must collapse
>>355332
>Economically, yes
Isn`t Scandinavia privatizing lots of state companies and services?
Their work-age population is shrinking, while their retired population is rising fast. The old people will demand more government benefits at the same time there are less people to pay taxes. Their current model of welfare state doesn't seem that sustainable.
>>355295
It's really not from a marxist perspective. Capital will always need more industries, and capital always wins when the state tries to fight it. Social democracy doesn't horribly fail or collapse, it just withers away.
>>355304
>The problem with socialism...
Who said anything about socialism?
>>355469
Additionally, Marx would have been against it as he was against welfare as well as the fact as that it's basically a soft form of capitalism.
>>355332
>Economically, yes
It's actually incredibly unsustainable. As soon as you have an ageing population you're screwed.
>>355486
Don't bully him he's just American. They can't help it they're born that way.
>>355487
He wrote an essay in favor of free trade I thought. The idea being that it would hasten the revolution.
>>355304
>implying it happens
>implying you don't print yourself the people's money
>>355508
Yes, but as you said, the idea would lead to revolution. However, Social Democracy is stagnancy and does not go the full mile into Socialism. Rather, it allows capitalism to exist under chains.
>>355494
That would be true for literally any economic system.
>>355560
Yes. So my answer is still valid.
>>355295
No, because the inherently flawed notion of "progress" that is fundamental to the Left demands them to move their goalposts to be ever more radicalized.
>>355332
Scandinavia wasn't so much Social Democrat as they were a weird mix of reformist SocDem and reactionary Social Corporatist Nationalism.
How many other SocDem movements called out their conservative counterparts for being "unpatriotic"?
Although it was very much the 1968 Left that ruined them with their Americanization so there is some merit in the comparison.
>>355434
>Their current model of welfare state doesn't seem that sustainable.
Lasted over 100 years in a similar form.
Unfortunately their Left and Right both decided for ideological reasons that they like globalist internationalism better so of course the natives had to be replaced at all costs.
>>355594
>Lasted over 100 years in a similar form.
What the fuck are you talking about? The scandinavian social democrat model was created in the late 60s.
>>355295
Depends on what you mean by "sustainable".
Has Norway functioned fine for the last 40 years? Yes. But that's because of massive amounts of oil wealth being used for infrastructure and welfare.
Is it sustainable to have that kind of system without massive amounts of wealth? I'm not so sure.
Though, Norway is a pretty capitalist country, it's just very expensive to do business here.
>>355583
>Left demands them to move their goalposts to be ever more radicalized
You've got it backwards. Social democrats always start out close to the radical left and unions, but once they gain power they have to make concessions to accomplish anything. Then next election they have to make softer demands to have a chance of winning now that people aren't so angry. This continues until they have no resemblance to the radical left.
>>355598
>The scandinavian social democrat model was created in the late 60s.
Absolutely fucking ahistorical.
The Scandinavian Social Democrat model was created in the 1910s. Kjellén, a conservative, spelled out many of it's foundational ideas in 1916 and the Swedish Social Democrats formulated their definite idea of the encompassing welfare state the Folkhem (lit. people's home) in 1928. Almost all of it was built in the 1930s to 1950s when they held a period of absolute majority rule.
The 1960s Left elected Palme, a nobleman who looked to America entirely for his politics (even going so far as stating that the only reason he became Leftist was because of the misery and class split he saw in American society), who broke with all of Social Democrat tradition and eventually led to a conservative, rural and liberal coalition against him that started the liberalization of the entire country because he tried instating retarded commie ideas like demanding unions to gain de-facto ownership of private businesses. (which his own economic advisor said was a catastrophically stupid idea)
Hell in the 1960s the word Folkhem started being mocked by the new SocDems and it was replaced by "Welfare Society" instead. That's how little the 60s Left had to do with building the Scandinavian Social Democratic systems.
Genuinely quite mad that you would claim that the very people who sabotaged it actually built it up.
No as it still requires the exploitation of the third world and imperialism.
>>355652
>Social democrats always start out close to the radical left and unions
The Social Democrats in Scandinavia didn't even get enough votes to get into parliament before they told the radical Left to fuck-off-and-die and kept their distance up until the 60s.
>This continues until they have no resemblance to the radical left.
As shown by their oh so non-radical policies like all of their social positions having moved to the far left of the old radical left.
The only part that hasn't radicalized is their economics and that's solely because they're now the people who profit from the current economic order, diverting welfare to organizations they run, subsidies to papers they own etc.
>>355665
>the exploitation of the third world
That's the magical thing that happens in post-colonial theory classes to explain how the West is totally guilty for being as advanced as it is right?
>>355665
I'm from a third world shithole. Who exactly is exploiting me? The companies that create jobs, wealth, infrastructure and services? Also:
>imperialism
What the fuck is imperialism in the 21st century? Bush going to war in Iraq? China and Japan claiming some rocks in the middle of the sea?
>>355658
What a load of horseshit.
Scandinavia used to be one of the most capitalist regions in the world until the 1960s.
>>355709
>I'm from a third world shithole.
Sure you are
>Who exactly is exploiting me? The companies that create jobs, wealth, infrastructure and services?
Yes, in some fashion
>What the fuck is imperialism in the 21st century? Bush going to war in Iraq? China and Japan claiming some rocks in the middle of the sea?
Yes
>>355669
>The Social Democrats in Scandinavia didn't even get enough votes to get into parliament before they told the radical Left to fuck-off-and-die and kept their distance up until the 60s.
So they developed slightly differently from central european parties, but it's the same pattern. Radical positions don't win elections.
>The only part that hasn't radicalized is their economics
The left has social positions but the idea that social positions can make one radical is ridiculous. It's meaningless to call for gender equality or whatever while supporting a system that produces and benefits from it.
>>355665
Yes, who could forget the cruel Swedish, Norwegian, and Finnish empires
>>355726
>Sure you are
Sim, eu sou. O Brasil pode não ser tão ruim se comparado a outros países de terceiro mundo, mais ainda assim é uma merda.
>Yes, in some fashion
How are they exploiting me? I voluntarilly sign a contract offering them my services in exchange for money. Everyone is happy.
>>355583
>How many other SocDem movements called out their conservative counterparts for being "unpatriotic"?
In Brazil, left-wing parties (including socdem ones) often call right-wing parties who defend Petrobras privatization of "entreguistas", which is like betray our nation interest to benefit other countries. Memes apart, like "kek".
This kind of patriotism from left seem to be frequent in other latin american countries too
>>355744
Foreign companies are using the natural resources of your country, harming the environment of your country and out-competing local business, and all of their profits go abroad. That's exploitation in one sense
>>355732
>So they developed slightly differently from central european parties, but it's the same pattern.
It's the exact reverse pattern. They started out very centrist and became increasingly radical and got BTFO because of it.
>The left has social positions but the idea that social positions can make one radical is ridiculous.
Really now.
There's nothing extreme about the notion that, for example, homosexuals should be thrown off rooftops as per more than one middle-eastern country?
>>355807
>Foreign companies are using the natural resources of your country
At a price. They always have to deal with the local government.
>out-competing local business
What local businesses?
>and all of their profits go abroad.
Not the ones they pay the workers or the bribes that go to the government.
>>355819
>There's nothing extreme about the notion that, for example, homosexuals should be thrown off rooftops as per more than one middle-eastern country?
We're talking about "radical" as it relates to politics. Extreme is a synonym but it's a different word with different connotations.
>Radical: advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform.
A person who thinks homosexuals should be thrown off rooftops is extreme in their opposition to homosexuality. But they're not necessarily radical unless they advocate a complete reworking of society (based on religious principles, presumably).
Any form of Democracy is shit
Meritocracy with a philosophy king when?
>>355846
>But they're not necessarily radical unless they advocate a complete reworking of society (based on religious principles, presumably).
In other words radical theocratic religious people, even if they are wholly in favor of capitalism as practiced, are radicals because of their social positions.
>>355854
No, they are radicals because they want to eradicate capitalist democracy and replace it with a theocratic system. European social democrats are too nice to eradicate anything, except maybe nazis.
>>355850
>>355850
>Meritocracy
Pig disgusting merchant class rationalization.
Aristocrats are spiritual superiors not some kind of particularly clever labourer.
>>355850
It's too good to last
>>355304
...he said, as he tipped his Stetson and rode off into the sunset.
THE END
>>355854
My bad, skimmed over a phrase
>even if they are wholly in favor of capitalism as practiced
this would make one NOT radical in the political sense. Saudi politicians, for example, say things that sound crazy to westerners, but no one calls them radical.
>>355867
>No, they are radicals because they want to eradicate capitalist democracy and replace it with a theocratic system
There's nothing inherently incompatible with capitalism and most religious doctrines.
>>355880
desu Marcus letting Commodus take the throne rather than adopting someone else like the rest of the good emperors outweigh any of the good he did
>>355884
>this would make one NOT radical in the political sense.
If you seek to overturn the social order you are a radical regardless if this means not overturning the economic order as well.
>>355896
I don't follow. How do social democrats want to overturn the social order?
>>355548
>Scandinavia's economy
Swedish economy is doing fine
>>355918
Take a Social Democrat from 50 years ago.
Have them compare notes on social policy with a Social Democrat from today.
Watch the old Social Democrat denounce the latter as a spawn of anything from satanic sabbateanism to mental illness.
Hell even just a Social Democrat from 30 years ago could pass as a far-right reactionary nowadays with the globalist acceleration of the internet.
>>355719
What the fuck?
Where are you getting this bullshit from?
>>355486
Social Democracy.
Don't you see the social in it numbnuts?
>>355304
funny thing smart guy, guess what's happening in the world right now.
>>355937
That's not an answer. What are social democrats trying to overturn and how? For religious radicals it's secularism, for leftists it's capitalism, for social democrats it's...systemic poverty? Only the party's marketing department would call that radical.
>>355570
you 're like the character Steve Carrel played in the Office.
>>355684
>magical
can you all please return to /pol/? we are trying to have serious discussions here. do you see a rolling happening thread?
>>355339
That's a stupid argument against sustainability.
>>355833
>They always have to deal with the local government
THAT'S A BIG HAZARD, THE BIG COMPANIES MIGHT TRIP IF THEY 'RE NOT CAREFUL.
>What local businesses?
exactly
>the ones they pay the workers or the bribes that go to the government
you 're practically making the argument yourself, you are THAT stupid.
>>355983
>What are social democrats trying to overturn and how?
All the old orders political institutions mainly.
It's best seen in their seeting hatred of anything unashamedly socially Christian. (they're fine with feminized Christianity that amounts to little more than organized charities like the more pathetic lines of Protestants)
>>356008
>exactly
Is-Ought.
>you 're practically making the argument yourself, you are THAT stupid.
The notion that "no bribes" is a better alternative than "no way to make a living" and "nationalized resources we can't get at" shows just how much of a sheltered 1st world babby you are.
>>356031
no, it shows how alienated you are.
I may be a first world sheltered babby but that doesn't protect you from acting against your ultimate interests.
>nationalized resources we can't get at
gee, I wonder why
>>356016
When secularism is the dominant ideology it's not radical to further it. When capitalism is the economic system it's not radical to privatize institutions. The opposition can call it radical all they want, doesn't make it true. Haven't seen a single example of large radical change yet.
>>356062
>no, it shows how alienated you are.
Oh even worse. A marxist 1st world babby.
>against your ultimate interests.
My ultimate interests is in feeding my family, not the ego of some fudgepacker from a segregated upper-middle class neighbourhood LARPing Mao on the internet.
>gee, I wonder why
A lack of the technology and know-how to run a safe, non-environmental disaster of a oil refinery.
>>356070
>When secularism is the dominant ideology it's not radical to further it.
The deconstruction of the old order is always a radical upturning of the roots of society.
>Haven't seen a single example of large radical change yet.
Nor would you recognize it.
>>356080
>My ultimate interests is in feeding my family
>crime is a cure...meet the disease
>masturbation will make you blind
>marijuana is a gateway drug
>the mafia doesn't exist
>Jesus died for your sins
keep lying to yourself
>>356080
>A lack of the technology and know-how to run a safe, non-environmental disaster of a oil refinery.
You're still talking about Brazil? Of course the technology and know-how exists locally, it's just not profitable because it requires developing infrastructure and talent. It would be in the long term best national interest to invest in that, but it's easier to just let some foreign company handle it while continuing to stagnate.
>>356062
>being this much of a sophist
fucking marxists lmao
>"sorry but marxism bears no resemblance to reality"
>"YO MAN YOU'RE JUST TOO ALIENATED TO UNDERSTAND MAN JUST GO FURTHER DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE BRO"
Social Democracy is the best form of government
Not perfect, but the best possible one
>>355570
>>355934
If you ignore the private debt, sure. That said, that's a different issue than whether social democracy is sustainable or not.
I'm right wing in this country, but to me that just means a slimmer welfare state and less social justice. I still want the welfare state to exist, and I believe it is sustainable as long as you don't stray too far left and forgo the "krona for krona" principle (everything should actually be financed, without taking loans).
Of course, there is also the issue of immigration combined with poor integration, which is an issue in Sweden, as the immigrants end up belonging to the group that need help from the welfare system rather than the group that, in total, actually contributes to it. So any kind of "we need immigration in order to finance our pensions" argument is false under the current circumstances.
tl; dr: Yes, as long as it does not grow too massive or reliant on loans and does not continue the high levels of immigration.
>>355709
>I'm from a third world shithole. Who exactly is exploiting me? The companies that create jobs, wealth, infrastructure and services? Also:
Not him, but he was probably referring to Vietnamese sweatshops or shit like that, not your local McDonalds.
>>355937
But if you compare economical goal the modern Social Democrat will be far on the right
No.
>>356632
Well, that sums it all up quite nicely.
>>355434
> Isn`t Scandinavia privatizing lots of state companies and services?
Depends on the country, but in general yes due to political pressures. Even though people view Nordic countries as Social Democrat led, that was only the period from WW2 to around end of cold war. Last 25 or so years Finland and Denmark especially have been dominated by more right wing parties. Norway and Sweden too have been more right wing, even though their social democratic parties are pretty strong.
>>356693
Privatization is short term pawning for banks. It unloads a bit of cash to the banks to quench them so they give more loans. This means governments are selling short assets people paid taxes for : roads, railway, mail service, etc... This makes the banker happy for a time. In the end, the whole country is centralized to a few hands of rich people, rather than democratically elected people. Social democracy is a scam to suck countries and the population dry.
>>356632
In what way does social democracy redistribute only to N and not N+1? Publically funded education, favorable student loans etc are certainly things that benefit N+1. As does tax funded healthcare.
Strong unions (which is a big part of social democracy) also benefits N+1 once they have entered the workforce. Which they will, despite taxation on private income being rather high. Our tax on businesses is actually similar to most of europe (22%). Our labour laws do favour generation N, however.
The one thing that is a pyramid scheme is the pensions, but that is not exclusive to social democracy.
>>356722
It's the right wing parties that like to privatize things, not the social democrat party.
>>355807
>Foreign companies are using the natural resources of your country, harming the environment of your country and out-competing local business, and all of their profits go abroad. That's exploitation in one sense
Wouldn't put the blame on foreign companies here really, the local ones screw us way harder than them
>>356131
>stagnate
I wish, we are downhill. Massive increase in violence, ever harsher taxation, decaying industry and a shamelessly corrupt ruling class, and worst of all a population too complacent to do something about it
>>355295
FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT THOES FUCKING EUROS WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD THEIR CUSHY SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEMS IF THEY HAD TO SPEND A DIME ON DEFENCE
FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT THESE EFFEMINATE FAGGOTS HIDE BEHIND THE UNITED STATES MILITARY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT IF THEY EVER REALLY GET INTO TROUBLE THE U.S. WILL DEFEND THEM
>>356739
>Publically funded education, favorable student loans etc are certainly things that benefit N+1.
No, it benefits generation N, which doesn't have to pay for education (as it's loaned money the next generation will pay). Meanwhile, with impoverishment and austerity, school system gets bad when it's time for N+1 to put their children at the school.
What I mean is after a while social democracy can't loan money anymore to sustain the system, and shit goes bad.
>As does tax funded healthcare
It's the same as above. Generation N has state help for their healthcare and healthcare of their kids, thanks to the holy debt. But by the time N+1 has kids, social healthcare has gone down the shitter (but the increased taxes, impoverishment and austerity are here) and they'll be less protected.
>The one thing that is a pyramid scheme is the pensions, but that is not exclusive to social democracy
You hit the hot point. Social democracy means a lot of state workers (direct or indirect), by that I mean a big part of population living directly from money of the state (from the unemployed to the policeman, teacher, hospital workers, etc...), and not creating direct wealth. These people will also have a pension paid by the non state workers or by more loans (paid by non state workers or the generation after).
Social democracy is a very selfish system, in which a generation lives on the debt of the next generation. Until the debt is too high, and the government has to sell public assets, instate politic of austerity, companies leave the country, those who stay are under tax pressure and have to fire people, population (and subsequent economical) growth required for loans leads to mass immigration etc...
>>356904
>which doesn't have to pay for education of their children
Fixed.
>>355295
No democracy is a sustainable system.
>>355516
>>355487
Not that he would have been 'against' it, he was part of a lot of movements to make conditions better for workers. This is unlike certain fringe Marxists who basically believe the worse conditions there are for workers, the closer we are to a revolution.
He just would still view it as a form of wage exploitation and alienation and all that shit.
>>355295
Yes, if it bases it's policies with taking national interests into account and doesn't end up being social security office for worst scum on earth like mudslime and niggers.
>>356811
Do you realize that Sweden had fourth largest air force in world when the country was run by social democrats for decades. Since end of cold war country has been ran by right wing liberals and they have no functional armed forces. Glorified mechanized brigade meant for peace keeping missions and air force that has 120 fighters, but only enough personnel to keep half of 'em flying.
>>355295
Of course it is.
>>355295
democracy was BTFO was alain de benoist
![Ludwig_von_Mises[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/A0NYmhr.jpg "Ludwig_von_Mises[1].jpg")
>>355295
in the end of the day, its a system filled with good intentions that actually protects lazy inefficient corporations through biased interventionism
>>356904
You have a point regarding the education.
Your other points rely on debt leading into austerity though. There is no need to take loans, you can rely on a high taxation alone.
Obviously it limits you more than if you were to take the loans, but in return it's actually sustainable.
Is any political system "sustainable"?
Hunter-gatherer societies lasted tens of thousands of years. What tiny fringes of human society are they relegated to now?
Monarchy lasted thousands of years. I don't see many kings these days.
Liberal democracy and capitalism will be replaced by other things, but they outlasted communism and fascism, which are the alternatives most ideologues propose.
>>359411
Well, to be fair. Communism died with Stalin, the later is just a bastardization the countries that stayed Stalinist are the ones which survided. An according to Marx in the end he wins
>>359419
>Communism died with Stalin, the later is just a bastardization the countries that stayed Stalinist are the ones which survided
How does this contradict what I said? Also, please write a little more clearly. I'm aware China and North Korea were playing communist for a long time despite knowing it doesn't work.
>An according to Marx in the end he wins
Marx can suck my dick. Every faggot thinks their ideas will be proven right in the end, but the Marxist claim to historical precognition based on vague materialist history is absurd and borders on dogmatic.
Only when supported by a conservative cultural climate that emphasizes hardwork and civic cooperation.
Social democracy in an age of individualism and hedonistic promiscuity and degeneracy is unsustainable.
>>359437
China is communist tough, anyone that has been inside the party knows the real stuff
>>359342
>Austrian school
Literally the astrology of the economic world.
>Math is evil guys don't test my theories!
>>359462
>China is communist tough
It's undemocratic and illiberal, but has pretty much abandoned any economic pretense of a planned economy.
>>359472
Cant keep discussing that stuff just in case.
>>359465
wut
>>355295
>Social Democracy
It's an empty concept. Any real representative republic can be nothing else.
>>355295
No.
Full socialism or bust.
>>355295
No, but National Socialism is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Quantified between five, admittedly very similar, countries, it's clearly the best system in the world.
>>359602
Socialism just means there is no private property. Means of production are either state-owned or collectively owned by the workers themselves. Communism is a stateless, classless post-scarcity society where everyone's needs are fullfilled more or less unconditionally.
>>359602
>Communism is doesn't even mean having a planned economy. Why can't people understand that?
Because realistic people judge communism by how it was implemented in real life, not by the impossible utopian fantasyland it claimed it would create.
>Socialism = government owns the means of production
>Communism = anarchism
That's one kind of socialism, which is a very broad term that isn't relegated to Marxist definitions alone. Communism and anarchism are two ideologies that were nothing but abject failures, fuck off with your No True Scotsman bullshit you 16 year old soymilk sipping socialist faggot.
>>359637
Even in theoretical terms, left-anarchism is distinguished from anarchism by abandoning the concept of a vanguard state as a necessary transitional period.
>>356904
it's based on taxation, not loans.
And the fact that each new generation is more educated and has access to more efficient technology, plus an influx of immigrants, means the caregiving burden will be sustainable.
>>359603
ingsoc or bust faggot
>>359637
Turning a feudal shithole into a superpower in a couple of decades isn't an "abject failure" in my book
>>359661
sure, if you think the responsibility of a leader is to play Civ, rather than actually take care of his people.
>>359668
How did the people's lives not improve dramatically compared to feudal Russia?
>>359677
1. It wasn't Stalin that ended feudalism in Russia
2. They starved to death, had little or no rights, were put in gulags or killed.
>>359637
>Because realistic people judge communism by how it was implemented in real life
revolutionary catalonia was pretty cash tbqhwyf
>>359661
Collectivization WAS a failure, Russia industrialized in spite of collectivization, not because of it. It failed to increase agricultural production, limited the rights of peasants, caused mass famines, displaced people from country to city, consolidated bureaucratic corruption and was dependent on capitalist principles like international trade with foreign investors to even acquire machinery in the first place, which is why they largely grew cash crops. Russia wouldn't have become a superpower if it wasn't for a large population, which had nothing to do with Stalin.
>>359698
>It wasn't Stalin that ended feudalism in Russia
That's right, it was Lenin.
>They starved to death, had little or no rights, were put in gulags or killed.
As opposed to all the plentyful food, freedom and rights serfs had under the Tsars.
>>359699
>lasted 3 years
Great success.
>>359720
>things were shit before
>things were shit afterward
>guys, Communism worked!
>>359726
Things were by far less shit than before.
>>359722
because fascists decided to fuck their shit up, not because the system wasn't feasible
>>355434
Scandinavian birthrates are higher than anywhere in Western Europe except France.
>>359733
Because of technological developments made outside of Russia, it had fuck all to do with Stalin.
>>359754
I'd love to hear about all those great foreign technological developments that magically turned Russia into a superpower and freed the serfs.
>>359785
The serfs weren't freed by Stalin.
As for the technological developments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
>>359807
They were freed by Lenin, who, believe it or not, was a commie.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
Did those maschines pop up out of nowhere? Did all other feudal shitholes of the world suddenly turn into industrial powerhouses just because these technologies existed?
>>359830
can you please decide on whether you are talking about Stalin or Lenin?
Besides, let me simplify the equation for you:
Enormous amount of land and people + industrial development + Lenin and Stalin + collapse of main rivals (Germany and Japan) = superpower
Enormous amount of land and people + industrial development - Lenin and Stalin + collapse of main rivals (Germany and Japan) = STILL superpower
>>359830
The serfs were freed by Tsar Alexander II
>>359860
>collapse of Germany
You mean the one resulting from being btfo by the Soviet Union which was only made possible through forceful industrialisation and militarisation. Russia would've been steamrolled.
>>359894
1. That wasn't me. I was merely disgussing the merits of Stalin.
2. The Russian economy utterly tanked under communism.
>>359914
that is conjecture.
A more sane ruler might have done the same degree of industrialization, without antagonizing the Ukrainians and without purging his generals. All of which woulve have made the war a lot easier for the Russians.
>>359923
>2. The Russian economy utterly tanked under communism.
That's just literally untrue.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
>By the 1950s, the Soviet Union had, during the preceding few decades, evolved from a mainly agrarian society into a major industrial power. Impressive growth rates during the first three Five-Year Plans (1928–40) are particularly notable given that this period is nearly congruent with the Great Depression.
>>359894
Depends on the region, the Baltic governates, city of Tiflis, Qazan for example were on par with Central Europe. The impoverished inland minorities of the Komi and Udmurt people already had newspapers in their own language and a young national elite. At least in the areas surrounding the Baltic Sea, the speed and rate of economic, intellectual- cultural and civic progress was unseen and unrepeated. I am talking about the years 1880s-1917 of course
>>359948
Like I said, that was the result of technological developments that occurred outside of the USSR.
Compare those numbers to those of the Western nations and the USSR looks stagnant.
>>359965
I already addressed that m8.
Russia's was nowhere near the Western nations' level of development. There was hardly any middle class, no factory owners and no factories. Industry doesn't just appear out of nowhere, just because the technology is available.
>>359997
Russia*
>>360022
>You're seeing the start of collapse of capitalism in many Western states right now.
Am I?
>>360027
Yes.
Both from economical and sociological standpoint, liberal capitalism is in crisis.
>>360031
Good thing we have anti-liberal capitalism to save us.
>>360031
lel.
You mean the millions of people literally moving there to take part in its greatness are a sign that it's in a crisis?
>>360074
Those people have a completely warped image of life in Europe.
Also capitalism's "greatness" is the reason for the refugee crisis in the first place.
>>360107
No, government weakness and shortsightedness is the reason for the crisis. All Europe needs to do to stop the crisis is close the frontiers and stop giving shits about these fucks. But will they? Nooo! That would be racist and antiglobalist, in open opposition to the hyperglobalism the left and center have been shilling these last two decades, and that would undermine party credibility. Can't have that, better have the countries invaded, after all by the time the situation reaches critical mass, 90% of the politicians responsible will have completed their mandates anyway, why should they care.
>>359746
You don't think being unable to effectively organize a military in a non-hierarchical society is part of the problem with anarchism?
>>359948
Yes, industrialization provided by investment from foreign capitalist powers with much wealthier economies.
>>360243
Why do you think the middle east is a shithole in the first place? And don't give me the old "lol they're just lazy subhumans yadda yadda islam"
>>360277
From what I've heard Durruti's brigades were doing pretty well compared to the Popular Front's. And of course there were military leaders, they just had to be democratically legitimised.
>>360288
Gonna need a source on that one.
>>360329
>Why do you think the middle east is a shithole in the first place?
Irrelevant. Them being a shithole doesn't hinder Europe's capacity to keep them the fuck out.
>>360341
>Them
*The middle east
The fuck happened to my post
>>355295
Only if everyone is white and there is no immigration.
>>360341
I agree the borders should be closed in the interest of the European working class, but
A) it's not that easy to hermetically seal off a whole continent
and
B) closed borders are just a bandaid fix and don't tackle the actual problem
>>360378
But you don't need to close the border hermetically, you just need to stop most of them and promptly expel those who make it through (easy enough, just wait a month and they'll be picked up by the police for doing something). As soon as getting in stops being a matter of just physically reaching the border, you'll see the number of attempts dramatically go down, because 99% of these fucks are running from poverty not death, and they won't be satisfied with just reaching the shittier ex commie states.
Turkey might suffer tho. But then again Turkey never had any issue killing off importunes, so maybe not.
>>360378
>in the interest of the European working class
Yes well it's not like the business fare any better because of them either. Between rising crime and shrinking consumption they're suffering too. After all poorer workers means less money spent on anything but the merest necessities.
>>359997
>There was hardly any middle class
So why did they kill the kulaks again?
