>>74087204

For fucks sake Billy. Have you been listening to Glen Beck again?

>inb4 no he regularly calls me for advice actually

Pour money at poor people so they can move around and shit for jobs. Also free college and healthcare so people can maximize their productivity.

This isn't hard. Very few people are literal leeches. Capitalism relies on greased wheels and yours are rusty as fuck.

>>74087593
Then how come all EVUUUUL KKKAPITALIST KKKOUNTRIES have upward mobility and "nice educated socialist cucktries don't?

Protip: Because socialism does not work, now prep the bull.

>>74088459
>upward mobility
Will soon be just a meme if you stay on course.
Globalization and corporatism will become more oppressive than any communist government ever was.

Socialism abolishes classes so the question is moot. If you mean "socialism", as in soc-dem policies, then possibly. It depends on what system you start from. Soc-dem policies in an initially feudal society will lead to increased class mobility. Soc-dem policies in a society where both the state and companies are initially weak will decrease class mobility.

>>74088775
And guess who always is 100% pro globalization and NWO?
Socialism!

>>74088899
Here is how class system works in socialism
>Equal class (AKA subhumans AKA poors AKA everyone who isn't top 1%)
>More equal class (AKA elites)
But it's okay, because the 99% is total and utter dogshittingly poor!

>>74087204
It's a crab mentality. They just want everyone living in shit so "we're all in this together" they're retarded and don't care about equality of opportunity only equality of outcome. You see this in many activist groups today.

>>74087593
Not nearly subtle enough, chocoboy

>>74087593
People are driven to meet base needs, and only go beyond them through tons of socialization. When a socialist state meets base needs it destroys the most basic source of personal motivation- survival.

People are also, by nature, far less conscious of wasting other people's resources. So if you create a state with free education (that has no limits, like the US. Meritocratic, competitive limited-major system might work) then people will go to college for no reason, taking bullshit classes they don't need, wasting money they cannot see and therefore do not feel.

Socialism is fucking dumb brah

>>74089001
>And guess who always is 100% pro globalization and NWO?
>Socialism!
Which always seemed like nonsense to me. As it is globalization just lowers wages and reduce workers' bargaining power, and makes corporations incredibly powerful, etc. These are not traditionally leftist values.
The SJWs are not really leftists either. They are useful tools. Their ideology is inconsistent. They are just a divide-and-conquer mechanism for the ruling elite.
I get the conspiracy theory that in the long run it will turn the world socialist, but this is kind of a stretch. I think it will more bring the world to some kind of neo-feudalism of some sort.

>>74090260
>These are not traditionally leftist values
These, however are the true left values.
>Everyone is equal (poor) but some are more equal(rich) goy

>>74090594
Everyone doesn't get the same things under socialism. It's a really retarded meme.

"Everyone is equal" is an enlightenment principle and doesn't have to be taken LITERALLY. It also was one of the founding principle of the American revolution. It mostly just means that a person's fate doesn't have to be fixed at birth.

Even under centrally planned, statist socialism, people get different salaries, allowances and privileges for different jobs.

Pretty much all socialists are free market socialists nowadays anyway. And pretty much all western nations are better described as "social democracies" (including the US). Most socialists are very moderate and just want it to work better. They don't want to eliminate the profit motive; in fact they can really help capitalism by allowing more people to be competitive and also give them more economic freedom.

>>74091466
>Everyone doesn't get the same things under socialism
Of course not, the elites get all and the rest gets rammed by the globalist dick

>>74091844
Not even among the workers I mean. There will always be an elite in any system. But socialism doesn't make it equal for everyone else. The "no private property, no money, everyone just does its job anyway" thing is mostly just anarchist socialism and idealized communism. Communist countries are not "communist" either, they "work towards communism" (but not really though).

You Americans are still brainwashed by cold war era programming. Moderate socialism is good for the free market.

>>74092483
>You Americans are still brainwashed by cold war era programming.
Hahaha, I'm spanish a country ruined by "le epic socialims is goods" meme
>Moderate socialism is good for the free market.
Top kek.

Socialism has ONE OBJECTIVE.
DESTRUCTION OF CULTURE AND TRADITIONS
DESTRUCTION OF ECONOMY.
CREATION OF THE NWO.

>>74092743
>I'm spanish
Oh. Didn't notice flag. You sounded American.
>Socialism has ONE OBJECTIVE
Why would all socialists be part of the same conspiracy?

The push towards globalism is happening no matter what. It's not a particularly socialist thing. Right now, it's borderless, laissez-faire capitalism that enables it. This causes unemployment which is dealt with with welfare. But it wouldn't be as necessary without free trade and the promotion of domestic industries.

>>74093118
Because this happens to EVERY SINGLE SOCIALIST KEKTRY.
Southern europe was first, but you all are falling prey to the same thing, instead of wise up and killing the socialist subhumans you keep getting a bigger guv and more "free" shit.

Where do Socialists stand on the EU ref? I know they dont like democracy but they also dont like not having a fair system. I want to know so I can sway some Socialist people from my College to vote out.

>>74093735
If the issue leads to even bigger guv, socialists will always say "yes".

So they're all in for the "no" on the brexit

it depends

if you mean robust social welfare programs, it may encourage mobility, but would presumably limit the heights of income in a country lacking progressive taxation or a tradition of robust social welfare, but not necessarily limit wealth accumulation

if you mean the proposed alternative mode of production wherein the means of production are controlled in common, then yeah, it would certainly limit class mobility because by definition it abolishes class society. there's no class to be mobile toward