Post unpopular opinions here

[Your Old Comrade]

1.
You know that the ideology of the Swedish (mainly socialdemocrat promoted) folkhemmet is essentially the same as the German (mainly nationalsocialist promoted) Volksgemeinschaft?

2.
How do you want to deal with the de-motivation that a socialism to that extent that you suggest means for Western Europeans?

3.
I would prefer a Volksgemeinschaft where the principles of that are mainly making up a frame of consciousness, solidarity and support to all compatriots, but not yet as for the personal whealth but for essentials and basics just. Also, for their chances for development and success. Respective offers must effectively be provided to all compatriots. Also, their interests must always be more important than those of any non-compatriots outside the Volksgemeinschaft. But the actual whealth has to be obtained in a national-liberal context of own responsibility and economic freedom. This simply yields the best over-all economic performance.
The democracy of current style should be refrained from or much changed as for voting rights. A meritocracy would be an option. A leader with much constitutional power should be elected for a long period to make possible a government with long term considerations and actions and for keeping away all electoral campaign bs. It could be thought of 25 years or even more. The state must be a strict law and order state, just, reliable, respected and consequent.

1. Up to a degree. That's why I favour it.

2. This is commonly seen in centrally planned systems. This is participatory system, which is a completely different beast. Imagine working for a large corporation, where the money disappears abroad. Now that is demotivational. Working to buy a house and never getting to buy it, because speculators drive up prices again. That is demotivational. Here, you are working for the same company, but the workers through their representatives, are the board of directors and the clique that robbed you blind has been driven into exile, and you and your fellows run the company and get your share of the profit.

3. A free people should never be ruled from above. A free people rules themselves. Period.

[Incal]

Don't forget about gender and pronouns.

Well that's not shared by everyone: a redneck won't give a fuck about gender or pronous but is still obsessed by race.

[Mopi Licinius Crassus]

[Headsoccer]

Free will doesn't exist.

Even if hard work sometimes beat certain genetic disadvantages and environmental obstacles, that's because other rather favorable genetic and environmental factors enabled that hard work and made foundation for it to happen.

[Oliver Tooth]

Some races naturally have unpleasant odors, and it’s not racist to notice it.

[Incal]

Some races naturally have unpleasant odors, and it’s not racist to notice it.

[KirillMazur]

A mixture of Swedish folkhemmet (social corporatism and the nationalisation of all banks, insurers, multinationals and the commanding heights of the economy including social housing, the latter being GDR style) and the Yugoslav system when it comes to workers' self management.

This should take form within the framework of a classical liberal democracy, and should come in the form of several constitutional articles as well as the preamble of the constitution and in a national social contract between the political parties and mass organisations, that while they may differ on small matters on how to move towards socialism, socialism is the constitutionally enshrined and democratically mandated socio-economic system of this country.

More problems exist where there are no restrictions on excess income.
Big business is sucking all the juice. And it doesn't pay enough taxes.

Small and medium-sized businesses cannot pay higher taxes because prices are being pushed down by large businesses.
Because they are derivatives of big businesses. They either serve people who receive a salary working in large businesses. Or they perform work for them, at the prices that will be assigned to them.

There was a unique case in Sweden. When one well-known shipyard owner paid... 120 percent of taxes.
And the famous writer paid 101 percent of taxes.

It's nonsense!

But it was precisely with this nonsense that Sweden suddenly became a fairly wealthy country. With good social conditions.
The world's only non-superpower has managed to create its own fourth-generation fighter.
And then. Then they abolished these "nonsense" taxes.
And somehow everything went after that towards one well-known bodily technological hole.

In any case, under the capitalist basis of the economy, business solves its problems by raising prices. That's all.
All the arguments “you yourself are to blame for your poverty” are in favor of capital. Modern society generates a sufficient amount of material assets, but the distribution system is seriously deformed.
In this thread as a whole I made an attempt to describe my position. A strong centralized state with local self-government, mixed economy, on a socialist-cooperativist basis, allowing private initiative (market economy) and private property on small and medium means of production, while big, important and strategic means (planned economy) are nationalised and in public property.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7360133

[Tooting Carmen]

Something I said just now in another thread:

While we can all agree that the scenes at Lesbos, Lampedusa, Calais and the US-Mexican border are a scandal, a farce, a tragedy, a disaster etc., let's get real here: not just on this forum but in many other places too, debates about immigration are quite frankly hypocritical, myopic and, yes, racist. For many people, even one Pakistani or Ghanaian moving to anywhere in Europe is apparently a tragedy. By contrast, there is no problem with huge hordes of Westerners moving to (not just visiting) SE Asia and the Arabian Peninsula, even though many said Westerners are openly contemptuous and indifferent to the local languages and cultures and (especially in the former's case) treat the women like sex objects.

[BakersfieldChimp]

Something I said just now in another thread:

While we can all agree that the scenes at Lesbos, Lampedusa, Calais and the US-Mexican border are a scandal, a farce, a tragedy, a disaster etc., let's get real here: not just on this forum but in many other places too, debates about immigration are quite frankly hypocritical, myopic and, yes, racist. For many people, even one Pakistani or Ghanaian moving to anywhere in Europe is apparently a tragedy. By contrast, there is no problem with huge hordes of Westerners moving to (not just visiting) SE Asia and the Arabian Peninsula, even though many said Westerners are openly contemptuous and indifferent to the local languages and cultures and (especially in the former's case) treat the women like sex objects.

One of the biggest unsaid problems in the USA is those who hire illegal immigrants are rarely if ever held accountable for it. Put actual consequences on using undocumented workers then the jobs will dry up and the border crossings will go down. Of course, Americans love the low prices at the stores so this will never happen.

[Your Old Comrade]

More problems exist where there are no restrictions on excess income.
Big business is sucking all the juice. And it doesn't pay enough taxes.

Small and medium-sized businesses cannot pay higher taxes because prices are being pushed down by large businesses.
Because they are derivatives of big businesses. They either serve people who receive a salary working in large businesses. Or they perform work for them, at the prices that will be assigned to them.

There was a unique case in Sweden. When one well-known shipyard owner paid... 120 percent of taxes.
And the famous writer paid 101 percent of taxes.

It's nonsense!

But it was precisely with this nonsense that Sweden suddenly became a fairly wealthy country. With good social conditions.
The world's only non-superpower has managed to create its own fourth-generation fighter.
And then. Then they abolished these "nonsense" taxes.
And somehow everything went after that towards one well-known bodily technological hole.

In any case, under the capitalist basis of the economy, business solves its problems by raising prices. That's all.
All the arguments “you yourself are to blame for your poverty” are in favor of capital. Modern society generates a sufficient amount of material assets, but the distribution system is seriously deformed.
In this thread as a whole I made an attempt to describe my position. A strong centralized state with local self-government, mixed economy, on a socialist-cooperativist basis, allowing private initiative (market economy) and private property on small and medium means of production, while big, important and strategic means (planned economy) are nationalised and in public property.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7360133

I think that every country should advance towards socialism in its own specific way. The countries around the North Sea have a very strong engrained focus on the middle class that is now under attack from American-style capitalism. The objective shoud more be to raise the lower classes into becoming the middle class and using the excess wealth of the rich to do it (thus lowering them to the middle class).