Bad Pun Bernie

YEahhhhhh. I'm gonna have to ask you to show your work. 'Cause this sounds like you're pulling some shit out of your ass.

'Cause the only thing I can find is that from 1911 to 1950 Sweden reduced the rate of mortality for the country and increased the average life span by 3.5 years, a trend that has continued through today.

So put up or shut up.

This is some Bowling Green nonsense. The only incident the Swedish lost their lives to in this time period would be the Winter War, and even that was in an unofficial capacity.

See my response above to Whistlelock.

During 1932, Swedish premier Per Albin Hansson looked to bring private organizations to work with the state and have several aspects of central planning in the economy. He also supported wealth redistribution. These policies lead to lower birthrates because much of needs of elderly folk were taken care of by the state. Because many were unfit to breed they passed eugenic laws to ensure only the ''fit'' could breed.

1) taking care of the elderly does not cause a lower birthrate.
2) lower income does not cause a lower birthrate.
3) Socialism is not eugenics.
4) Eugenics is not socialism.

Many of the eugenics programs in Europe were developed due to... eugenics programs that were being run in the United States in the very early 1900's.

ANd your premise- wealth redistribution to feed the needy causes mass death!!!- doesn't track. Why would consolidating wealth in the hands of the few allow poor families to afford food?

I'm gonna have to give you an F on your history and your math.

*Over time

It would destroy the birth incentives, yes it does, socialism can lead to eugenics because it gives the state enough power to do that stuff overtime.

Many 1900s eugenic programs were made in spite of the US in Europe.

Wealth redistribution by giving out money leads to stagnation because nobody has reasons to work when the government sets the standards.

Eugenics in the States began in the late 1890's. European states modeled their programs on the ones in the US.

Not in spite of.

Because of.

Indiana was the first state to enact compulsory sterilization. North Carolina's program ran until 1977.

Are you still so certain that eugenics is a result of socialism?

Some did but not all. Anyways, democratic socialism could give the state enough power to ensure that the state got large enough and had enough people to trust them to enforce the eugenics. Slowly you're freedom is removed by the state.

Sorry, before I even begin here, I'm still not hearing the "many died" part of your claim.

Then you didn't read my comment.

I had to read it and reread it just to make sure I hadn't missed something. You never once mention anything that led to Swedish loss of life. If the OP said "Many births were prevented" that would be one thing, but you said "many died" - when?

Eugenics came in all forms in this case.

So what was the death toll of the eugenics program in Sweden?

Several thousand.

You've been lied to. It's zero. 63,000 people were forcibly sterilized and not one was forcibly euthanized.

By definition it was killing

Well, tell you what - why don't you say "many were forcibly sterilized" in your meme and let people agree with you or not about whether that means "many died"?

Sterilization is preventing life and preventing life is killing.

No. You said "Many Died". That means they were once living people and then they weren't. You are straight up admitting that you lied.

Goodness, that is a stupid assertion, even for you.

where did you get this from?

You mean the source?

yes. what else did you think i meant?

You often say stuff ironically so I was right to question your true meaning.

aight, fair point. anyway, source pls?

aier.org/article/even-swedish-socialism-was-violent/

looked at the article. it was sterilization in the 1930s. not modern day democratic socialism

with socialist policies

anything can be bad if i pair it up with something that killed people

socialism already killed lots of people

even if that was true, where are the masses of dead swedes today? :|

Most Swedes aren't starving today because it isn't a socialist nation now.

wait i just realized: the swedes were starving in the 30's, the same decade literally everyone was starving, well done

now on to a point: why shouldnt the united states take on some of the policies that make sweden a nice place to live today, like that free healthcare they got going on

The US is paying for most of the Swedes stuff. Anyways, Sweden had starving linked with their policies.

that first claim is just straight up false, okay. also can you provide a source for this swedes starving from their healthcare being free i cant find anything when i look it up

Who said anything about starving? You're just putting words in my mouth. Anyway, free trade, free markets and donations from the US keep Sweden from financial failing. The private sector has actually been rising since the 80s after stagnation and such. There's actually a fun documentary on this topic. youtube.com/watch?v=jq3vVbdgMuQ

so...trade? literally every country relies on trade wym
also you did say starving read your first reply and your second reply

Trade at a free-market level isn't used by all nations. Also I only brought up eugenics.

eugenics was not mentioned until you said it just then, also i dont see how the free market 'keeping sweden afloat' means we can't have healthcare, why cant the us use the free market and have healthcare too? sweden is the 4th richest country, why couldnt it work?

You first brought up starving and now you're saying I only mentioned eugenics? Sweden has been drifting towards privatization because government programs are mostly poorly run. The reason for this is because government services lack prices for production so it's hard to look ahead nobody will have any reason to improve in service because you aren't applying the market to it. It wouldn't have to get better because it's a monopoly.

what are you saying with that first sentence i cant understand where that came from. universal healthcare could increase in quality because it's run by the government, it's not a company and when people dont like that a government isnt providing what it could they protest until it gets done

Wait aren’t many people currently dying in America’s capitalistic society? This seems kinda hypocritical.

What in smithereens are you talking about?

History

that he hasn't sourced

He said "history" - that means he won. And history is written by the winners so makes sense, right?

ahh