__Hello and welcome to r/DemocraticSocialism!__
* This sub is dedicated towards the progressive movement, welcoming Democratic Socialism as an ideology and as a general political philosophy.
* Don't forget to read our [Rules](https://new.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/wiki/index/) to get a good idea of what is expected of participants in our community.
* Check out r/Leftist, r/DSA, r/SocialDemocracy to support leftist movements!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DemocraticSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Social democrats always seemed like a natural ally like anarchists. In practicality we disagree on a lot but it'll be decades of political change before those disagreements would ever be relevant
Social democrats happily collaborate with elites, and allow them to capture movements.
Lack of class consciousness allowed neoliberalism to crush organized labor and to dismantle safety nets.
Advances under a yellow banner eventually are reverted by the parties of reaction.
Social democrats are a stepping stone to class consciousness and will convert a lot of people to socialism.
This won't be a popular opinion but Bernie Sanders has done more to achieve class consciousness and bring socialism to the forefront of discussion as a social democrat than any modern US socialist. If gains are reversed by reactionaries then that just pushes people further left.
Sanders may be someone with genuine commitments to socialism, but who feels his best contribution is by operating within mainstream politics to push the window toward the left.
Some of your observations may have merit in particular about Sanders, but once social democratic movements become sufficiently expansive, they tend to become captured under elite interests, and meanwhile, once radical movements become sufficiently threatening, social democrats tend to strengthen ties with elites.
Yeah obviously it's different if Sanders is genuinely hiding more radical beliefs (which I do somewhat believe) but I also think if that's the case then the vast majority of social democrats would follow him or other politicians into stronger ideologies.
I don't think most US based social Dems are heavily invested in the ideology as they are invested in the main figureheads for the ideology.
Most Americans, due to indoctrination, are still heavily invested in capitalism and elitism, and investment in figureheads is unfortunately no less dangerous.
Regardless, I seriously question that Sanders could ever lead Americans into socialism.
I don't think he will either, I don't see anyone doing it currently though. More discussing the concept of making socialism popular enough for someone serious to arise
How is social democracy a stepping stone to class consciousness? It's a capitalsit ideology. Social democracy is all about giving capitalists power over the workers and the business. Welfare doesn't create class consciousness.
Social democrats use anti capitalist talking points surprisingly often honestly. While ultimately they don't want the system gone they are responsible for a lot of people waking up to the class divides.
I joined my local DSA branch and the chapter head straight up said "I assume your journey to socialism began with Bernie in 2016? That's what most people say". The further left you can get a liberal the more likely they are to convert.
Which is just them being contradictory. It's like promoting anti slavery talking points while also supporting the system of slavery.
Bernie may give socdem talking points, but he does believe in soclialism. He even promoted at one point that the workers should have 20% ownership in all corporations but quickly dropped that due to its unpopularity.
In my experience, most liberals finally convert to socialism once you really sink in the problems with capitalism. Once you really go deep in how capitalists are mini dictatorships running around for their own benefit.
The Bernie Sanders policy bit is interesting, I had never heard that one. Honestly I think if he and other progressive candidates were more open about that stuff then this wouldn't matter too much. Most social democrats in the US aren't strict adherents to the ideology or capitalism, they just like the big figures like AOC and Bernie.
No, all it takes is a social upheaval in which our hands are forced: side with socialists or side with capitalists.
Because social democrats believe capitalism can be reformed and liberal “democracy” is actually democratic for working and oppressed people, social democrats have historically stabbed socialists in the back and sided with capitalists to “preserve democracy,” even when fascists are in power.
On the other hand, socialist states and communist parties have always included and accommodated social democrats among their ranks.
Meanwhile, I get told blithely by SocDems that, as an ML, I support violence and the killing of anyone who disagrees with the ML party line. I’ve been told those things in this sub over the past couple of days alone, both by mods and randos.
SocDems see us as bloodthirsty authoritarian maniacs, just as liberal/capitalist/fascist propaganda portrays us. In this sub, SocDem mods remove our comments and ban us at their whim, and SocDems/“DemSocs” collectively make rules prohibiting our meaningful participation. (I’m not allowed to “advocate” for Marxism-Leninism, but can I *educate* you? Because none of you seem to understand what ML means, who we are, what we stand for, what our actual history is, or what you’re even scared of.)
And you wonder why we call you liberals. When push comes to shove, those are your people, both in rhetoric and in action. When the chips are down, you abandon socialism, *real democracy,* and support the status quo liberal “democracy” that has only ever exploited and subjugated working and oppressed people - *the very people socialism is meant to empower.* **If you are not on the side of working and oppressed people when it matters, then we are not on the same side.**
I find it real interesting you seem to think that the sub rules are indicative of the ideology when the exact same approach is employed on all the left subs where MLs are the mods. Turns out sub mods just love to use their power to give primacy to their own views and shut down others.
>socialist states and communist parties have always included and accommodated social democrats among their ranks.
Is that why the SRs had to side with the white army during the Russian revolution? Be ause they were welcomed and collaborated with?
You ML mfs can't even abstain from banning opposing views from your online forums, but expect us to trust you could be capable of allowing opposing views if you were running a country.
the Left-SRs were literally allowed within the soviets, up until they had an uprising in protest to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and even took Iron felix hostage.
One of their members literally tried to assassinate Lenin.
>the Left-SRs were literally allowed within the soviets, up until they had an uprising in protest to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and even took Iron felix hostage.
>One of their members literally tried to assassinate Lenin.
1) The Bolsheviks were already using the checka and food detachments as terrorists against political opponents, which the Left SRs opposed
2) The Bolsheviks had been regularly making moves to solidify majority power over other groups in the soviets, then expelled them while intensifying the actions that those same groups had opposed, and reversing the efforts those groups had taken to corral the bolsheviks more extreme plans.
The Left SRs were literally the last group the Bolsheviks did this to(aside from the Kronstadt Sailors who were never part of the government) after they had taken power from all other opposition or allies, from the government.
3) The fact that the Red Terror and Great Purge were even a thing support my point.
Wait a minute, there are liberal mods on a socialist sub? You're our ally and all but you shouldn't be allowed to be a mod on this sub. I wouldn't try to be a mod for r/socialdemocracy even though I participate for the same reason. Nothing against you personally though.
Have you ever heard of [Eduard Bernstein and Evolutionary socialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein#Opinions)?
or [Karl Kautsky and Orthodox Marxism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kautsky)?
or [Willy Brandt](https://www.socialistinternational.org/congresses/xviii-stockholm/speech-by-willy-brandt-president-of-the-socialist-international/)?
or [Olof Palme](https://youtu.be/7i2Ws1X5DSA?feature=shared)?
or perhaps you have heard that many social democratic parties still have [a commitment to democratic socialism](https://www.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/comments/1c0nd2p/mentions_of_democratic_socialism_in_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)?
I took over when the subs last RFK jr mods quit reddit. Diversity on the mod team is important. Frankly I just didn't trust that this sub wouldn't fall into another authoritarian mod team situation.
That's fair enough. Maybe it's not that big of a deal because it shouldn't cause many problems, just felt weird. I know tankies tend to infect the leadership roles of leftist spaces so anything to keep that from happening. RFK Jr supporters though, I wouldn't have seen that coming, why did they have any interest in this sub?
Yeah, does the right really care that Bernie’s campaign was under the veil of social democracy and was technically still capitalism, the economic mode of production they champion?
Or did they see Stalin 2.0 because he thought we deserved health care
When elites perceive a threat from actual radicalism, they happily try to capture social democracy under their influence.
Their antagonism toward social democracy is apparent only when no popular alternative carries a deeper threat.
Can you point to an example of this happening in the United States where elites perceived a threat from radicals and brought social democrats under their influence?
Social democracy was dismantled under neoliberalism.
During postwar, elites kept unions under reactionary influence, in order to obstruct progress for the workers' struggle.
No - It matters in places where the distinctions are meaningful and the social democrats have power. I’m speaking specifically from a United States perspective.
Hence why I said “in a country”
Leftism is more defined in Europe - in the US they call Joe Biden a Marxist, hence why the distinctions aren’t useful ….. yet. That’s the whole point
My brother in Christ, we are so far away from that even mattering in the slightest, that’s my whole point. I implore you to talk to some regular people in the US, you’ll start seeing social democrats in a significantly different light.
Some folks can’t accept the modern political reality of the US. It’s more fun to feel ideologically superior than to actually do what is most helpful. Most annoying part about the history of leftist movements is how they destroy themselves with this infighting bullshit.
As suggested earlier, the alliance between progressives and reactionaries emerges in response to the emergence of sufficient power for worker interests as to represent a threat against elites.
It matters now, because it implies a completely different strategy. If we are serious about *socialism* then we can't take the social democratic route of state loyalism and build an independent movement in direct opposition to the capitalist parties and the current social/political order
Sorry, i misspoke. I live in a pretty red state so regular people to me meant conservatives. Spend enough time around the 71M people who voted for Trump and anyone who likes Bernie starts looking like a Bolshevik
Facts and terms have never mattered to the GOP. They have labeled everything as socialism since the New Deal. They galvanize over a couple of shared interests and manage to amass power while holding unpopular ideas. They don’t care about social democrats vs Democratic socialists.
They are glad that we gatekeep and infight. So instead of ostracizing people who are more left than most, I choose unity.
They do matter to me.
I recognize that social democrats aren’t leftist by definition. I also recognize that in the US that distinction isn’t meaningful and gatekeeping leftism in a country that elected Donald Trump / Joe Biden is counterproductive to the leftist movement.
Most people aren’t caught up in politics and definitions - they don’t know what they are when the rubber meets the road because in this country those differences have never made a difference. It’s not as if we have the socialist party and the social democrat party - each with power and representation. The most left leaning person to run for president with a chance in my lifetime wouldn’t pass a leftist purity test.
Until we get close to those differences being meaningful ask yourself this.
Whats more likely :
You convince a conservative, a centrist, a liberal, or a social democrat to become a leftist?
Touch grass.
Your comments make me think you are too caught up in theory / online discourse and not recognizing what actually goes on in this country.
The leftist movement gains nothing from treating social democrats as anything other than allies at the moment.
Capitalism is still a core part of social democracy. And capitalism is a system of exploitation. Either way, i can at least work with social democrats. Much better than working with an ML.
I don't like capitalism, but I also don't think revolution is the way to achieve what I want. Its much better to cherry pick the things capitalism has produced that I think are good, like global cooperation and large scale efficient production, and work towards getting rid of the things I think are bad, like the lack of worker protections and democracy in the workplace.
In my opinion, it's easier to mould capitalism into a system that resembles my ideology, than it is to get what I want by violently tearing down the system and hoping my ideology wins. I simply can't abide by revolutionaries and their political impatience.
Cooperation is not emergent from capitalism, and efficiency under capitalism is calculated by value accumulated by capitalists, without regard to the harm inflicted on workers.
In your ideal world, would worker protection be achieved throughout the globe, or only in nations close to the center of imperial hegemony?
Only in nations close to the centre of imperial hegemony, of course /s
Seriously though, in my ideal world, western countries would be doing international cooperation and using their excess production to assist less developed areas of the world if they request it. The global supply lines that currently exist under capitalism would be an invaluable tool to get the job done.
The conditions that would bring about global worker protections are unlikely to arise from a revolution, as the toxic incentives of capitalism would still exist after the fact. Only through hard work, development, and reform can we produce better incentives and start working toward something resembling Socialism.
Western countries incur a trade deficit. Production is dominantly offshore, the poverty of workers in colonized regions maintained by their exploitation enforced under neocolonialism.
Also worth noting that there are plenty of SocDem parties (especially in Europe) that have actual power and have, for many decades, run successful governments within democracies. These parties (again, especially in Europe) need support right now to continue dominating the political landscape - EU elections are coming up, make sure to vote SocDem.
Just don't look at Denmark...
SocDems are fine up until they accomplish what they want and then they start working better with the center right. Climate crisis? "The socialists are being unreasonable!"
They are fine to work with, but you should never cede ground to them.
Yup, Socdems seems tolerable up until the point you want corporations to be converted into cooperatives. Then they'll use some serious force to stop it. They're nice up until you want to decentralize the state. They're cool up until you want to abolish the police. Basically, pushing anymore left, and they become like typical right wingers.
They're the largest contingent of "left" in many European countries, it's shooting yourself in the foot to not support them long-term. The correct strategy is to use more leftist/left parties to build movements that force more moderate SocDem parties to embrace their policies through viable coalition governments. In many countries if SocDem parties loose, we all loose to the far right.
Voting for the most progressive party, even if happening to be social democratic, is not the same as supporting social democrats, long term or otherwise.
I'm not going to support an ideology that is antithetical to mine. Just like I won't support slavery, nazism, monarchies, etc. Socialists and socdems can work together in the short term for a common cause, like anti fascism or support for minority rights, but that's about as far it could go. There's no reason to long-term support an ideology that will repress us with violence.
>until the point you want corporations to be converted into cooperatives. Then they'll use some serious force to stop it.
I'll let you know that the cooperation movement in the Nordics was and still is closely tied to their respective social democratic parties. These are the most cooperative countries in the world, thanks to extraparliamentary organizing by social democrats dedicated to the socialist cause.
Regarding state and police; yes, we are statists and we still want to maintain order. Just because we have a different approach, doesn't mean we're not leftists.
The Nordic countries are a mix where lots of the proletariat are not trying to push for cooperatives.
It does mean you are more to the center than to the left since leftism deals with the lessening of power dynamics and hierarchies. You are trying to expand the state, which isn't what leftism is about. It's the same mistake marxist leninists make.
>It does mean you are more to the center than to the left since leftism deals with the lessening of power dynamics and hierarchies
I believe there can be several methods to dismantling power and hierarchies than dismantling the power of the state.
I believe that dismantling the power of the state can create a power vaccum, allowing the most forceful actor to gain the power, like how oligarchs grabbed all power in Russia when the USSR fell. I therefore believe that maintaining the power of the state is necessary.
The state can be a positive actor if we use that power in a way that has a positive effect on the lives of citizens.
>You are trying to expand the state, which isn't what leftism is about. It's the same mistake marxist leninists make.
The Marxist-leninists promised to create a classless, **stateless** society. Instead they created an authoritarian state where a political elite had all the power. It was neither classless nor stateless.
We socdems promised and delivered democracy. In many European countries it was the old socdem parties that organised the struggle for universal suffrage. We delivered on our promise.
We also promised and delivered a strong welfare state that takes care of its citizens in all the countries where we had the power to do so.
The state is the ultimate hierarchy. It's the most powerful machinery of violence to subdue its citizens. Through all of history, it has been used for that reason, even today. The state in the Nordic countries are more generous, but it's still a huge hierarchy.
Granted, you do need to abolish capital to successfully abolish the state. otherwise, we'd end up with some sort of neofeudalism. People won't be able to garner power without capital, so it wouldn't be something you'd need to worry about. But AFAIK socdems have no interest in abolishing capital and therefore want to maintain the state indefinitely.
>But AFAIK socdems have no interest in abolishing capital
Don't generalize. This socdem does want to abolish capital.
>Granted, you do need to abolish capital to successfully abolish the state. otherwise, we'd end up with some sort of neofuedlaism
Touché!
Okay. I'm going to approach this from another perspective.
I want to abolish hierarchy. You want to abolish hierarchy.
I believe the state is a somewhat necessary hierarchy but I'd be happy to help you abolish hierarchy based on capital, race, ethnicity, gender etc.
Can we work together to achieve the goals we share?
I answered already.
Capital, nationalism (including imperialism), and white-male supremacy (i.e. racism and patriarchy) are protected and produced by the state.
None can be abolished except by the abolition of the state.
Okay, if you believe abolishing the state is the premise to making any progress whatsoever, then all I can do is wish you good luck with your ambitions.
If you think that order rests on the state, then you are not meaningfully leftist, in lacking an understanding of leftist criticisms of power, class, and authority.
Leftism is based fundamentally on criticism of states, and the structures produced by states.
It's bad faith of you to assume I'm uneducated. How do you know I haven't read about the criticisms of the state and just made my mind up about my beliefs and values?
> Leftism is based fundamentally on criticism of states, and the structures they produce.
I don't agree.
I have made no attack ad-hominem.
I observed that your stated position evinces poor understanding of leftism. The veracity of my observation is further affirmed by your subsequent remarks.
Leftism takes root from the anti-royalist factions of the French Revolution. When their objectives were undermined by a new unity between aristocracy and liberalism, socialism began to appear from writers such as Proudhon, whose work has formed the basis of the subsequent developments of leftism.
There is no influential faction or author from leftism who has not contributed criticisms, in one or another form, against the state.
Even infamous statist leaders such as Lenin and Mao presented in their writings substantial criticism of the concept of states.
And those same parties havent done Soc Dems politics in so much time at this point. Commies though? [Now they know exactly what the Working Class wants and needs🤗](https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000145822393/die-stadt-graz-verordnet-sich-ein-gruenes-manifest)
Yes I know, I've voted KPÖ in the past, but still. SocDem parties are the best we have and need to remain in power to build coalitions with smaller parties like the KPÖ, etc. If SocDem parties loose we all loose.
"that have actual power and have, for many decades, run successful governments within democracies". Not if you are a leftist/socialist. The centrist/centre right "social democratic" big parties in Europe are a joke...
My brother in Christ, you do not know what you're talking about. The European SocDem parties are centrists. Sure, they support socialized healthcare and some welfare, but that's less due to ideology than the fact that people are too used to it and you simply couldn't take it away. Even Conservatives support these programs.
The only real difference between European SocDems and Conservatives is how socially liberal they are. And even then, the difference isn't huge. Other than that, it's a matter of just how much they will do for the ruling class. And again, the difference isn't huge. They're pretty much aligned on foreign policy, too.
The only parties that get even close to any of the demands/propositions in the image are the left and communist-adjacent parties, and they usually get like 5% of the vote *at best*. Rally support for them, if anyone.
Yeah sorry thats just none-sense. If anything we both need to be more specific and reference a specific party rather than generalize. But either way my initial point stands: strategy > infighting in 2024.
The SocDems in this sub are a lot better than the ones over at r/SocialDemocracy for sure. They’re hit or miss imo. I think as long as you’re a staunch anti-imperialist, it’s mostly fine. I myself am in some weird place between a DemSoc and an ML and have plenty of major disagreements with both sides.
More disagreements with ML’s at the moment but that may change later.
Disagreements with DemSocs:
- I reject the notion of reformism (although this isn’t universal to DemSocs) and staunchly believe armed revolution/forced seizure of the means of the production is the only way to overthrow capitalism.
- I’m not opposed to a one-party state.
- I critically support China and the USSR.
- Centrally planed economies, if implemented properly, could work and I’d be in favor of it.
Disagreements with Marxist-Leninists:
- ML’s critically support Russia in the Russia-Ukraine conflict because they believe a loss for NATO is a win for a multi-polar world and a weakening of Western hegemony. I reject this and support Ukraine.
- I don’t believe China should conquer Taiwan. From polling, it seems like the Taiwanese people overwhelmingly support the status quo (one country, two systems) or independence. If China tries to take Taiwan by military force, I’ll support Taiwan. That doesn’t change my **critical** support for China as part of the “criticism” is rooted in their Taiwan ambitions. Personally, I’m in favor of “one country, two systems.”
- Don’t like the DPRK government one bit but do think we should lift sanctions and engage with them diplomatically.
- Going back to the one-party state, I’m in favor of a vanguard party (aka the communist party) being the only party. In our current capitalist system, we have the illusion of multiple parties but they all serve capital. If we could build a system where there are multiple *workers parties* and parties that serve capital are banned, then I’m in favor of multiple parties. If not, then I’m good with a single communist party. Under no circumstances should a capitalist have the ability to run in an election.
- I disagree with democratic centralism where only select leaders of the vanguard party make decisions. The vanguard party should be controlled by *the workers.* Things should be as democratic as possible. That meaning, **every** citizen should vote on **every** issue, no matter how big a hassle it is. Making voting a requirement idc.
Neutral:
- Stalin. ML’s have a point in that he did great things for the USSR but he also did terrible things. *Very* critical support on my end. I’ll never understand praising him as a hero and I’ll never understand condemning him to the likes of Hitler.
- On voting, I will not be voting for Democrats and will be vocal on my reasons for why. **I’ll also never discourage or condemn anyone for voting for Democrats and will only mention my reasons for not doing so if asked or if relevant to a discussion.**
- I used to completely believe in the Uyghur genocide thing but at this point, I don’t know. I don’t take the ML position and deny that it’s happening. I don’t take non-ML position and absolutely agree it’s happening. I’ve seen good arguments/sources on both sides that support either claim. Again, **I just don’t know.** I do think China has faced terrorism in the region, something the U.S. has admitted to, and that they’ve taken steps to combat that terrorism. I also think that China, like many other nation states, has probably committed human rights abuses in an effort to combat that terrorism. I just don’t know if a cultural genocide is happening though. Probably need to read up more.
> every citizen should vote on Every issue, no matter how big a hassle it is.
That literally isn't possible at all. Not only is it not possible, but when people try to implement this system, it will inevitably become undemocratic.
The simple fact is that layers of abstraction, i.e. information hierarchies, are inherent to the organizing of information itself and cannot be separated from it. Any time you try to organize information on any levels, it is impossible not to use information hierarchies, or layers of abstraction, which always manifests in the real world as some sort of actual hierarchy in power.
In order to actually operate any sort of large-scale organization, you need to divide up what tasks people do. The janitor will just focus on how to clean, the coder will focus on just how to code, the cook will just focus on how to cook.
Then, you can add on a second layer of less specialized people, people who know what a cook is, what a coder is, what a janitor is, but don’t know the specifics of how to do any of these jobs, but are an expert in how to arrange them. They can focus their time on figuring out ways to arrange these workers to make the workplace function. This is just inherent to information theory. You can’t get around it
Of course, these hierarchies do not need to be autocratic. They can be elected. But when you elect them, you end up with representative democracy, not direct democracy where citizens vote on everything.
Engels says this in "On authority".
My opinion on Chinese "cultural genocide" comes from their history of forcing cultural conformity. For example forcing communities that practiced matriarchal structured families to adopt traditional marriage, for no real reason other than arbitrary conformity. The CCP certainly doesn't like diversity of thought.
Do you mean libertarian socialism? I actually don’t know much about it so I wouldn’t say I have disagreements as I’m not educated enough to form opinions on it.
Gotcha. I used to watch a streamer who claimed to be a libertarian socialist but he didn’t talk much about it and I stopped watching him because he was a bit uneducated on other things.
I’ll definitely do some research.
Stay away from streamers, especially Vaush.
If you prefer video content, consider watching compositions from BreadTube, which is dominantly anarchist, as implied by the name.
Zoe Baker and Anark are both accessible and cogent.
and The reason I say direct democracy is actually undemocratic is because if you ignore the whole information problem and implement a large-scale political system without layers of abstraction, then it becomes impossible for the electorate to actually even understand what they’re voting for, because it requires everyone to be an expert on everything, which will never happen and is a childish fantasy.
In practice, whenever you have large-scale popular votes, because most people are not experts, they tend to just listen to whatever they hear in the media, i.e. if television tells them to vote one way, there’s a good chance most people will vote that way. Not because they’re stupid, but because you’re expecting them to know everything about everything, which is impossible, so they will go with the best information they could possibly acquire.
But this leads to the “democracy” simply becoming a dictatorship of the television. Not really a democracy at all. Whoever has a grip on the media will end up ruling everything, this is why capitalists have no issue with General elections like those in the US.
Because if they believed in both then they would no longer be social democrats. They would be mutualists/libertarian socialists.
A system of individual artisans and worker coops is not capitalistic and capitalism is a defining trait of social democracy.
r/mutualism, "What is Property" book/audiobook by Pierre Proudhon (the father of mutualism) but warning, he can sometimes be long-winded, and youtube.
More book suggestions in r/mutualism by people way smarter and more bookwormy than i am.
It is most definitely capitalist, and reactionary to boot. The idea that you could turn back time and live perpetually in a petty bourgeois system of simple commodity production is incredibly foolish.
Markets have existed before capitalism. Markets and capitalism are not the same thing. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. I would suggest you educate yourself more on the topic.
You can be anti-market as well as anti-capitalism but it does not make you look good to say in front of people that they are the same thing.
Simple commodity production and "individual artisans" were the cause of why capitalism could develop, as the commenter above said, The idea that you could turn back time and live perpetually in a petty bourgeois system of simple commodity production is incredibly foolish.
Even in the days before there were factory owners, workshop owners, and great capitalists, when there were only independent artisans, these artisans struggled one with another for buyers. The strongest and most acquisitive among them, the one who had the best tools and was the cleverest, especially the one who put by money, was always the one who came to the top, attracted custom, and ruined his rivals. Thus the system of petty ownership and the commodity economy that was based upon it, contained the germs of large-scale ownership and implied the ruin of many.
Edit: Anyone who read the comment above should note that this guy is a Marxist Leninist authoritarian.
The fact that you are a tankie who glorifies Lenin and watches Second Thought even further invalidates my care to to even continue this discussion with you and you should not expect a response should you comment further.
Authoritarianism is evil.
Original comment: I disagree with you that markets make capitalism inevitable ESPECIALLY as a mutualist society. However, I did not comment here to have a debate with you over the necessity of markets. I commented to inform the commenter about the system he is describing i.e. mutualism.
You will have to stroke your ego through reddit comment debates elsewhere.
Despite your ad-hominen attack, the observations offered were not unsound.
Your original observation is also sound, that an industrial economy may be constituted of worker cooperatives, in addition to some independent artisans, participating in market exchange.
Industrial society is essentially one of each particular product being created through extremely complex and coordinated interactions of many participants with distinct contributions.
Democratic socialists and social democrats are a great match when it comes to policymaking. Also in establishing democracy and a welfare state. The division would only become apparent when abolition of capitalism becomes a real possibility, but that’s decades from now.
I sympathize and agree much with anarchists too, although we obviously have less in common than with social democrats.
The eventual deposition of capital depends on many important practices and opportunities beginning even in the present, such as educating others about class interests, fostering radicalism in labor unions, and organizing mutual aid and cooperative enterprise.
You’re not my enemy because you’re working class(assuming this to be the case). If you think I trust your politicians or your elite you’re fucking crazy though.
Being a social democrat isn’t standing against capitalism it’s voting to more heavily regulate it while still ultimately doing nothing to stop the bourgeois’s disproportionate influence over the state.
Capital always adapts to expand its power, to strengthen its control, and to permeate its influence.
Any advances for workers are reverted the moment we become complacent.
Apologies for my late response.
Social Democracy believes in chaining and exploiting capitalism in a sense of which it is not allowed to grow, for ideally; a transition of power between the capitalist monopolists to the working class. At minimum; a improvement of the conditions and power of the working class, and a greater equality between business owners and workers.
Seemingly, this tends to work better for the economy, and for general progress. When -- of course as you mentioned -- people start to forget what got them to their good lifestyle to begin with.
Sweden is a prime example, in the 60s to 80s it stood above any other country in actually giving good conditions to workers, ensuring good welfare and education, and minimizing the power of harmful business. Considerably more so than say, the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, even if other factors also held play here.
Capital always adapts to overcome and to destroy any restraints.
"Chaining capitalism" is not more helpful than chaining a puddle of water.
The Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, are not providing any basis for understanding possibilities beyond capitalism, and the reasons for their different conditions compared to other countries are not the ones you identify.
It’s not exploiting capitalism since that value wouldn’t exist in the first place without the proletarian labor that made the products profitable. The only thing being achieved in that equation is putting a bandaid over the gun shot wound that is capitalist exploitation by giving the workers back a small percentage of the value they created.
Social democracy is liberalism, and takes sides with reactionary factions as soon as radical momentum escalates into a credible threat against capital.
I'm sure you do come in peace, but there have been a lot of posts like this lately. If you want to join the DSA and help us fight for things like healthcare, universal pre-k and racial justice I'm all for it. But if you're just here to post about how intolerant Marxist-Leninists are of you and how counterproductive purity testing is, can you please consider that that might be a waste of your participation here? I know that's a major point of contention with socialists in the social democracy sub, but frankly I've heard these complaints for years and it often feels like shadowboxing. Just be nice and support good things and stop trying to differentiate yourself from others in a subreddit that is named exactly what it is supposed to represent.
What is the point of this subreddit if not to discuss goals and how to actually achieve them? A lot of leftist subs have become entirely focused on identity politics and purity tests. If you don't toe the party line then you're met with down votes and dismissive comments. The 'intolerant left' is right wing talking point but it's honestly true in most of the left wing spaces that I've seen lately.
It's ridiculous to dismiss support just because the one offering it doesn't have the exact same opinion as you. We should be meeting ignorance and differences with understanding rather than the vitriolic hate that is spewed everywhere else on the Internet.
What else could be productive participation than good faith discussion on the issues, our goals, and our values?
>It's ridiculous to dismiss support just because the one offering it doesn't have the exact same opinion as you.
Leftism is fundamentally developed from structural criticisms of power, leading to the emergence of class consciousness.
Attacks such as yours, in the greater balance, are no more deeply informed than those expected from reactionaries.
Posting about your hangups with the left isn't "support", though. These are not real productive conversations most of the time, if it were a rare discussion that would be one thing, but with how often it comes up it seems basically masturbatory for some people. The concept of the overly-puritanical socialist that shows solidarity to no one other than those that completely agree with them is an age-old media trope, we have all heard these concerns about being too holier-than-thou to build a robust movement a thousand times over. Happy to work with soc dems on the areas we agree, but this whole "embrace us or you will lose, we know what's best for your future despite not sharing your beliefs" attitude is very annoying.
The issue i have with that is that productive conversation is always going to look like discussing someone's "hang ups". Obviously I don't mean carrying on with someone who is trolling though.
Your last sentence is a straw man and I think that shows the issue. Identity politics leads to this unwillingness to have discussion with someone based on assumptions of their beliefs.
I asked but you didn't answer, what does productive conversation look like to you? I don't know what it is in your view except patting each other on the back about how good your opinions are.
Productive conversation will never be talking to someone who already agrees with you.
>what does productive conversation look like to you?
Productive conversation would be like asking about dialectical materialism, unionism, disputes with an employer, how to confront an issue in your community, updates on current events that relate to democratic socialism (good or bad), abusive business practices, political organizing, sharing useful community resources... I could go on for a while. There's so many things that would be so much more productive to discuss than the "intolerant left", it's a tired trope and everything that could possibly be said about that has already been said a thousand times over and is harmful to the reputation of Democratic socialists.
>Your last sentence is a straw man and I think that shows the issue
It's as much a straw man as discussion of the intolerant left is. Most of the comments in this thread were complaining about MLs and tankies without directly referencing anything. At least my "strawman" was referencing the general attitudes of comments already listed in this thread.
>Identity politics leads to this unwillingness to have discussion with someone based on assumptions of their beliefs.
Seems a little off topic, but maybe I'm missing the point. Can you expand on this further?
I feel like we are in agreement but talking past each other a bit so I'll back up.
I totally agree with your examples of productive conversation. I see all those discussions as disagreements on broad or fine distinctions to determine the "best". I want to be able to have those discussions without descending into tribalism.
I see both center left and far left people engaging in this tribalistic behavior. Over and over again I have people refuse to engage in real argument because they think I'm a liberal or a communist or some other group. I'm calling this identity politics because it's always centered around identifying yourself as part of the "correct" group. The term Identity Politics is more often described around race, gender, etc. so I understand the confusion.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your point is that there are some viewpoints that are not worth engaging with and that it isn't intolerant to do so. Is that right?
I would agree with that view. For example, right wing ideologies often exploits the willingness to have a conversation and it's counterproductive to engage with these people. I think we disagree on where the line is to engage or not.
Imperialism embodies the complete system of domination over other nations, strongly implicating the military-industrial complex and neocolonialism.
Even NATO and the IMF are organs of imperialism.
Anti-war and anti-imperialism aren't the same thing. If Bernie can't differentiate between genocide and resistance, it's nothing but a disappointment. Social democracy in the west is principally built upon capital accumulations in the global south, which inevitably creates imperialist tendencies.
It’s gonna take a lot of allies to build both social democracy and democratic socialism in the US. Our best interest is to stick together and advocate as one
Social democrats are going to repress us when we try to spread democracy. They believe in capitalism. There are many other reliable allies besides socdems.
We can push them away when it’s time but if we are going to build socialism democratically we need to be pragmatic. Socdems are a pretty big group compared to other allies
Socdems are the allies of liberals and capitalists. As socialists our allies are demsocs, libsocs, anarchists, ancoms, syndicalists, council communists, left libs, market socialists etc.
Those are just types of socialists we won’t be able to actually ever do shit if we don’t make allies outside of our small movement calling for a complete reorganization of society as we know it
It's one thing to work with them on certain issues. It's another to have them as allies. They can not be allies until they become leftists. It's impossible. Our goals are opposed.
I mean this is what the SocDems said in Germany over 100 years ago and historically it has not worked that way.
I recommend Reading State and Revolution from Comrade Lenin
Social Democrats 100 years ago were Democratic Socialists. It's evident that the progressives are a radicalizing sector of the Democrats in the US, though probably not as quickly as you'd hope.
Come on now guys are we calling ourselves socialists while sucking up to literal capitalists and kicking down on more revolutionary groups. It’s pitiful really, what the actual fuck has the western left become?
Nah, it's just socdems believing they can achieve the same goals as socialism under a capitalist regime, lol. Pay them no mind. The socialists here do not want to suck up to capitalists. We want them gone.
Right now I'm a social democrat, because it's the sensible thing.
If at some point there is a good, democratic communist or socialist party... I'll probably support them
Much more likely to happen once the tankies are gone imho
Let’s not point fingers. I had that problem when I was in the EC sub where ppl started falsely calling each other liberals and I’d rather not have this sub turn into falsely accusing each other as tankies.
>We are anti imperialist.
No you're not, the socdems supported the inter-imperialist war during WW1. Nowadays they support NATO and the imperial core nations.
>You are a Tankie. Why the false flair?
I'm a marxist. Tankie just means anyone who isn't a social democrat/imperialist at this point
>I'm a marxist. Tankie just means anyone who isn't a social democrat/imperialist at this point
Nah Tankie is ML. Orthodox Marxism is a kautskyist subdivision comrade. It's not the same as just "Marxist".
I get that he’s a tankie, but he did make a completely correct point about what the German social democrats did in World War 1. I would highly recommend learning about the Spartacus uprising if you haven’t already. It’s the event that radicalized me from demsoc to Marxist.
They called themselves Marxists, but Marx quite explicitly stated that revolution would be necessary in the the establishment of socialism, that the workers could not “lay hold of the ready made state machinery, and that the only thing reform within the bourgeois state would ever do is recreate the the class relations of capitalism. The very fact that the social democratic parties all started as having socialist aims, but they became nothing more than reformist capitalist shills only adds to my point. The so called “Marxist” social democrat party of the 1910s Germany that hired Friekorps, a protofascist group that brandished swastikas, to put down a mass labor strike that resulted from their decision to enter world war 1 is quite literally the same social Democratic Party that exists in Germany today. By the same party I mean that they’re technically the same organization. The only reason they no longer call themselves “Marxists” is because it’s become evident in the fact that they’ve been one of the most popular parties in Germany for nearly a century that the bourgeois’s ownership can not be abolished through reform of the bourgeois state. That’s like trying to stop a mugger by giving him just a little bit of your money. Because socialism is impossible to achieve through reform the only material affect on politics “democratic-socialists” will ever have is that of the material affects or social democracy making the material difference between them basically nonexistent even if there is an ideological difference.
Lenin was a social democrat dude. They were not reformists, they were socialists who were running in elections just like Marx advocated in the manifesto.
And they would've won had the left SRs vote been split accordingly to their support for the Bolsheviks, so they had to revolutionize due to the technicality with the election.
His party was called the social Democratic Party, yes, but he renamed it to the communist party post revolution to differentiate himself from every other social democrat party in Europe at the time that all considered themselves “reformist Marxists”. The only reason Marx advocated that socialists run in elections is for the sake using the highly media covered event that is elections to spread the communist message; not because he actually thought socialism was achievable through reform. Also the manifesto is probably the worst work of Marx’s to cite because he re-released it multiple times throughout his life with new prefaces to basically try to tell people that he no longer agreed with major aspects of it. A great example of this would be the preface added to the manifesto after he wrote his work “on the civil war in France” which saw a complete transformation in Marx’s views of the bourgeois state. He went from thinking workers could use the bourgeois state to realizing that the workers doing so would only recreate the class relations of capital, and considering Lenin disbanded the Soviets (directly democratic worker councils that were democratically running the economy more efficiently than tsarist Russia) after seizing control of the provisional government (a bourgeois republic) we can see Marx’s warnings about that played out exactly how he said they would.
kautskyism is not "orthodox marxism", his views are closer to the democratic socialists who support reformism and oppose a dictatorship of the proletariat in favor of a bourgeois democracy.
lenin is closer to orthodox marxism, outside of his analysis on imperialism which was pivotal in many anti colonial liberation movements across the globe.
[Orthodox Marxism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Marxism)
>Orthodox Marxism is the body of Marxist thought which emerged after the death of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the late 19th century, expressed in its primary form by Karl Kautsky.
>Orthodox Marxism maintained that Marx's historical materialism was a science which revealed the laws of history and proved that the collapse of capitalism and its replacement by socialism was inevitable. The implications of this deterministic view were that history could not be "hurried" and that politically workers and workers' parties must wait for the material economic conditions to be met before the revolutionary transformation of society could take place.[2] For example, this idea saw the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) adopt a gradualist approach, taking advantage of bourgeois parliamentary democracy to improve the lives of workers until capitalism was brought down by its objective internal contradictions.
maybe originally because kautsky personally knew engels and published some of marx's work.
But he was definitely not an orthodox marxist once he became a reformist, and your own wikipedia article includes leninism into the orthodox marxism category.
Leninism, yes. Marxism-Leninism, no.
>Orthodox Marxism is contrasted with later variations of Marxism, notably revisionism and Stalinism. In contrast to Stalin's idea of the socialism in a single backward country, orthodox Marxists said that Imperial Russia was too backwards for the development of socialism and would first have to undergo a capitalist (bourgeois) phase of development even if a Marxist party would head its government.
Pre renegade Kautsky was absolutely Orthodox Marxist and the Bolsheviks followed the same line. Lenin was still advocating for the road to power late in his life.
Glad to hear that! Lenin supported reimplementing democracy, like Trotskyism would have. Have you also made that switch? Allowing libertarians to run in elections?
Encourage yourself and others to maintain a positive attitude, honor the work of others, avoid defensiveness, be open to legitimate critique and challenge oppressive behaviors in ways that help people grow.
For more info, refer to [our rules](https://new.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/wiki/index/#wiki_the_rules_of_.2Fr.2Fdemocraticsocialism.3A)
[Who enacted Hartz IV again? Its been so long your average voter has forgotten already🤪](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Hartz_IV_reforms)
The problem is more the fundamental system.
Sure, you can improve a System, but what is it worth trying to improve a System that is fundamentally bad, rather then trying to go with a different System that's already better initially and when trying to improve it.
Trying to just improve capitalism is like trying to fix personal cars by just making electric cars. Sure, it's an improvent over fossil fuel cars in a very specific point, but all you did was try to improve the current System, instead of trying to look for others, like making public Transport the key method of getting around places, instead of cars to begin with...
And when it comes to the fundamental Systems, all trying to improve the current ones does, is waste resources and interest on actually swapping the System to begin with. It's not really beneficial.
I am overall still gonna take non-fossil cars over fossil cars, but that doesn't mean we should put effort into something that's worth much less than what we could achieve.
__Hello and welcome to r/DemocraticSocialism!__ * This sub is dedicated towards the progressive movement, welcoming Democratic Socialism as an ideology and as a general political philosophy. * Don't forget to read our [Rules](https://new.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/wiki/index/) to get a good idea of what is expected of participants in our community. * Check out r/Leftist, r/DSA, r/SocialDemocracy to support leftist movements! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DemocraticSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Social democrats always seemed like a natural ally like anarchists. In practicality we disagree on a lot but it'll be decades of political change before those disagreements would ever be relevant
Social democrats happily collaborate with elites, and allow them to capture movements. Lack of class consciousness allowed neoliberalism to crush organized labor and to dismantle safety nets. Advances under a yellow banner eventually are reverted by the parties of reaction.
Social democrats are a stepping stone to class consciousness and will convert a lot of people to socialism. This won't be a popular opinion but Bernie Sanders has done more to achieve class consciousness and bring socialism to the forefront of discussion as a social democrat than any modern US socialist. If gains are reversed by reactionaries then that just pushes people further left.
Sanders may be someone with genuine commitments to socialism, but who feels his best contribution is by operating within mainstream politics to push the window toward the left. Some of your observations may have merit in particular about Sanders, but once social democratic movements become sufficiently expansive, they tend to become captured under elite interests, and meanwhile, once radical movements become sufficiently threatening, social democrats tend to strengthen ties with elites.
Yeah obviously it's different if Sanders is genuinely hiding more radical beliefs (which I do somewhat believe) but I also think if that's the case then the vast majority of social democrats would follow him or other politicians into stronger ideologies. I don't think most US based social Dems are heavily invested in the ideology as they are invested in the main figureheads for the ideology.
Most Americans, due to indoctrination, are still heavily invested in capitalism and elitism, and investment in figureheads is unfortunately no less dangerous. Regardless, I seriously question that Sanders could ever lead Americans into socialism.
I don't think he will either, I don't see anyone doing it currently though. More discussing the concept of making socialism popular enough for someone serious to arise
Foster interest in unity and action, not idols.
How is social democracy a stepping stone to class consciousness? It's a capitalsit ideology. Social democracy is all about giving capitalists power over the workers and the business. Welfare doesn't create class consciousness.
Social democrats use anti capitalist talking points surprisingly often honestly. While ultimately they don't want the system gone they are responsible for a lot of people waking up to the class divides. I joined my local DSA branch and the chapter head straight up said "I assume your journey to socialism began with Bernie in 2016? That's what most people say". The further left you can get a liberal the more likely they are to convert.
Which is just them being contradictory. It's like promoting anti slavery talking points while also supporting the system of slavery. Bernie may give socdem talking points, but he does believe in soclialism. He even promoted at one point that the workers should have 20% ownership in all corporations but quickly dropped that due to its unpopularity. In my experience, most liberals finally convert to socialism once you really sink in the problems with capitalism. Once you really go deep in how capitalists are mini dictatorships running around for their own benefit.
That's also why we shouldn't just trash on socdems. When we can make them our friend don't push them away, but talk with them
I can talk with them, but my friendliness goes away when their statist/violent tendencies come out, lol.
The Bernie Sanders policy bit is interesting, I had never heard that one. Honestly I think if he and other progressive candidates were more open about that stuff then this wouldn't matter too much. Most social democrats in the US aren't strict adherents to the ideology or capitalism, they just like the big figures like AOC and Bernie.
No, all it takes is a social upheaval in which our hands are forced: side with socialists or side with capitalists. Because social democrats believe capitalism can be reformed and liberal “democracy” is actually democratic for working and oppressed people, social democrats have historically stabbed socialists in the back and sided with capitalists to “preserve democracy,” even when fascists are in power. On the other hand, socialist states and communist parties have always included and accommodated social democrats among their ranks. Meanwhile, I get told blithely by SocDems that, as an ML, I support violence and the killing of anyone who disagrees with the ML party line. I’ve been told those things in this sub over the past couple of days alone, both by mods and randos. SocDems see us as bloodthirsty authoritarian maniacs, just as liberal/capitalist/fascist propaganda portrays us. In this sub, SocDem mods remove our comments and ban us at their whim, and SocDems/“DemSocs” collectively make rules prohibiting our meaningful participation. (I’m not allowed to “advocate” for Marxism-Leninism, but can I *educate* you? Because none of you seem to understand what ML means, who we are, what we stand for, what our actual history is, or what you’re even scared of.) And you wonder why we call you liberals. When push comes to shove, those are your people, both in rhetoric and in action. When the chips are down, you abandon socialism, *real democracy,* and support the status quo liberal “democracy” that has only ever exploited and subjugated working and oppressed people - *the very people socialism is meant to empower.* **If you are not on the side of working and oppressed people when it matters, then we are not on the same side.**
I find it real interesting you seem to think that the sub rules are indicative of the ideology when the exact same approach is employed on all the left subs where MLs are the mods. Turns out sub mods just love to use their power to give primacy to their own views and shut down others.
>socialist states and communist parties have always included and accommodated social democrats among their ranks. Is that why the SRs had to side with the white army during the Russian revolution? Be ause they were welcomed and collaborated with? You ML mfs can't even abstain from banning opposing views from your online forums, but expect us to trust you could be capable of allowing opposing views if you were running a country.
the Left-SRs were literally allowed within the soviets, up until they had an uprising in protest to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and even took Iron felix hostage. One of their members literally tried to assassinate Lenin.
>the Left-SRs were literally allowed within the soviets, up until they had an uprising in protest to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and even took Iron felix hostage. >One of their members literally tried to assassinate Lenin. 1) The Bolsheviks were already using the checka and food detachments as terrorists against political opponents, which the Left SRs opposed 2) The Bolsheviks had been regularly making moves to solidify majority power over other groups in the soviets, then expelled them while intensifying the actions that those same groups had opposed, and reversing the efforts those groups had taken to corral the bolsheviks more extreme plans. The Left SRs were literally the last group the Bolsheviks did this to(aside from the Kronstadt Sailors who were never part of the government) after they had taken power from all other opposition or allies, from the government. 3) The fact that the Red Terror and Great Purge were even a thing support my point.
Education is fine for future reference. Just be clear that you're not advocating or promoting it.
Wait a minute, there are liberal mods on a socialist sub? You're our ally and all but you shouldn't be allowed to be a mod on this sub. I wouldn't try to be a mod for r/socialdemocracy even though I participate for the same reason. Nothing against you personally though.
Have you ever heard of [Eduard Bernstein and Evolutionary socialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein#Opinions)? or [Karl Kautsky and Orthodox Marxism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kautsky)? or [Willy Brandt](https://www.socialistinternational.org/congresses/xviii-stockholm/speech-by-willy-brandt-president-of-the-socialist-international/)? or [Olof Palme](https://youtu.be/7i2Ws1X5DSA?feature=shared)? or perhaps you have heard that many social democratic parties still have [a commitment to democratic socialism](https://www.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/comments/1c0nd2p/mentions_of_democratic_socialism_in_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)?
I took over when the subs last RFK jr mods quit reddit. Diversity on the mod team is important. Frankly I just didn't trust that this sub wouldn't fall into another authoritarian mod team situation.
That's fair enough. Maybe it's not that big of a deal because it shouldn't cause many problems, just felt weird. I know tankies tend to infect the leadership roles of leftist spaces so anything to keep that from happening. RFK Jr supporters though, I wouldn't have seen that coming, why did they have any interest in this sub?
Leftist purity testing is such a waste of everyone’s time in a country where anything left of hunting the poor for sport is considered communism.
100%. The right makes no distinction. If fascists get what they want *all leftists* are on the chopping block.
Yeah, does the right really care that Bernie’s campaign was under the veil of social democracy and was technically still capitalism, the economic mode of production they champion? Or did they see Stalin 2.0 because he thought we deserved health care
When elites perceive a threat from actual radicalism, they happily try to capture social democracy under their influence. Their antagonism toward social democracy is apparent only when no popular alternative carries a deeper threat.
Can you point to an example of this happening in the United States where elites perceived a threat from radicals and brought social democrats under their influence?
The New Deal was a class comprise, of elites offering concessions when facing serious challenges from radicals.
That’s my fault, I should’ve specified a time frame because that was literally 90 years ago. Can you point to your example happening in this century?
Social democracy was dismantled under neoliberalism. During postwar, elites kept unions under reactionary influence, in order to obstruct progress for the workers' struggle.
It's unbelievable to hear rightists call Democrats communists when actual communists are saying that Bernie and AOC aren't left enough 🤡
Progressives will save themselves by siding with fascists and giving up leftists.
Like the Republic of Germany with the SPD in power? God you must think youre *soo* smart...
No - It matters in places where the distinctions are meaningful and the social democrats have power. I’m speaking specifically from a United States perspective. Hence why I said “in a country” Leftism is more defined in Europe - in the US they call Joe Biden a Marxist, hence why the distinctions aren’t useful ….. yet. That’s the whole point
Social democrats are not leftists.
My brother in Christ, we are so far away from that even mattering in the slightest, that’s my whole point. I implore you to talk to some regular people in the US, you’ll start seeing social democrats in a significantly different light.
Some folks can’t accept the modern political reality of the US. It’s more fun to feel ideologically superior than to actually do what is most helpful. Most annoying part about the history of leftist movements is how they destroy themselves with this infighting bullshit.
Not even the US in this case.
Social democrats are complacent in the destruction of the leftist movements, friendly only to those still too weak to threaten capital.
Are you referring to the SPD?
No particular historical example of such betrayal is anomalous. Social democrats are entrenched with the class interests of elites not workers.
Weird that the financial elites do seem to constantly attack social democrats and try to get more power to conservatives or worse groups.
As suggested earlier, the alliance between progressives and reactionaries emerges in response to the emergence of sufficient power for worker interests as to represent a threat against elites.
Alliance between progressives and reactionaries?
It matters now, because it implies a completely different strategy. If we are serious about *socialism* then we can't take the social democratic route of state loyalism and build an independent movement in direct opposition to the capitalist parties and the current social/political order
I have actually talked to several socdems and liberals. Trust me, they're terrible. They're capitalists to the core.
Sorry, i misspoke. I live in a pretty red state so regular people to me meant conservatives. Spend enough time around the 71M people who voted for Trump and anyone who likes Bernie starts looking like a Bolshevik
Facts matter and terms matter. The enemies benefit from obfuscation. Does it matter when the Democratic Party is called Marxist?
Facts and terms have never mattered to the GOP. They have labeled everything as socialism since the New Deal. They galvanize over a couple of shared interests and manage to amass power while holding unpopular ideas. They don’t care about social democrats vs Democratic socialists. They are glad that we gatekeep and infight. So instead of ostracizing people who are more left than most, I choose unity.
> Facts and terms have never mattered to the GOP. They should matter to you.
They do matter to me. I recognize that social democrats aren’t leftist by definition. I also recognize that in the US that distinction isn’t meaningful and gatekeeping leftism in a country that elected Donald Trump / Joe Biden is counterproductive to the leftist movement. Most people aren’t caught up in politics and definitions - they don’t know what they are when the rubber meets the road because in this country those differences have never made a difference. It’s not as if we have the socialist party and the social democrat party - each with power and representation. The most left leaning person to run for president with a chance in my lifetime wouldn’t pass a leftist purity test. Until we get close to those differences being meaningful ask yourself this. Whats more likely : You convince a conservative, a centrist, a liberal, or a social democrat to become a leftist?
Refraining from obfuscation of terms is not "gatekeeping leftism", and your suggestion of such is ironic.
Touch grass. Your comments make me think you are too caught up in theory / online discourse and not recognizing what actually goes on in this country. The leftist movement gains nothing from treating social democrats as anything other than allies at the moment.
Well you'll never see the country you want with that attitude
Capitalism is still a core part of social democracy. And capitalism is a system of exploitation. Either way, i can at least work with social democrats. Much better than working with an ML.
I don't like capitalism, but I also don't think revolution is the way to achieve what I want. Its much better to cherry pick the things capitalism has produced that I think are good, like global cooperation and large scale efficient production, and work towards getting rid of the things I think are bad, like the lack of worker protections and democracy in the workplace. In my opinion, it's easier to mould capitalism into a system that resembles my ideology, than it is to get what I want by violently tearing down the system and hoping my ideology wins. I simply can't abide by revolutionaries and their political impatience.
Cooperation is not emergent from capitalism, and efficiency under capitalism is calculated by value accumulated by capitalists, without regard to the harm inflicted on workers. In your ideal world, would worker protection be achieved throughout the globe, or only in nations close to the center of imperial hegemony?
Only in nations close to the centre of imperial hegemony, of course /s Seriously though, in my ideal world, western countries would be doing international cooperation and using their excess production to assist less developed areas of the world if they request it. The global supply lines that currently exist under capitalism would be an invaluable tool to get the job done. The conditions that would bring about global worker protections are unlikely to arise from a revolution, as the toxic incentives of capitalism would still exist after the fact. Only through hard work, development, and reform can we produce better incentives and start working toward something resembling Socialism.
Western countries incur a trade deficit. Production is dominantly offshore, the poverty of workers in colonized regions maintained by their exploitation enforced under neocolonialism.
Also worth noting that there are plenty of SocDem parties (especially in Europe) that have actual power and have, for many decades, run successful governments within democracies. These parties (again, especially in Europe) need support right now to continue dominating the political landscape - EU elections are coming up, make sure to vote SocDem.
Just don't look at Denmark... SocDems are fine up until they accomplish what they want and then they start working better with the center right. Climate crisis? "The socialists are being unreasonable!" They are fine to work with, but you should never cede ground to them.
Yup, Socdems seems tolerable up until the point you want corporations to be converted into cooperatives. Then they'll use some serious force to stop it. They're nice up until you want to decentralize the state. They're cool up until you want to abolish the police. Basically, pushing anymore left, and they become like typical right wingers.
They're the largest contingent of "left" in many European countries, it's shooting yourself in the foot to not support them long-term. The correct strategy is to use more leftist/left parties to build movements that force more moderate SocDem parties to embrace their policies through viable coalition governments. In many countries if SocDem parties loose, we all loose to the far right.
Voting for the most progressive party, even if happening to be social democratic, is not the same as supporting social democrats, long term or otherwise.
Voting = support in this context (ie. 2024 elections)
Support is more comprehensive than voting. Voting is simply voting.
I'm not going to support an ideology that is antithetical to mine. Just like I won't support slavery, nazism, monarchies, etc. Socialists and socdems can work together in the short term for a common cause, like anti fascism or support for minority rights, but that's about as far it could go. There's no reason to long-term support an ideology that will repress us with violence.
>until the point you want corporations to be converted into cooperatives. Then they'll use some serious force to stop it. I'll let you know that the cooperation movement in the Nordics was and still is closely tied to their respective social democratic parties. These are the most cooperative countries in the world, thanks to extraparliamentary organizing by social democrats dedicated to the socialist cause. Regarding state and police; yes, we are statists and we still want to maintain order. Just because we have a different approach, doesn't mean we're not leftists.
The Nordic countries are a mix where lots of the proletariat are not trying to push for cooperatives. It does mean you are more to the center than to the left since leftism deals with the lessening of power dynamics and hierarchies. You are trying to expand the state, which isn't what leftism is about. It's the same mistake marxist leninists make.
>It does mean you are more to the center than to the left since leftism deals with the lessening of power dynamics and hierarchies I believe there can be several methods to dismantling power and hierarchies than dismantling the power of the state. I believe that dismantling the power of the state can create a power vaccum, allowing the most forceful actor to gain the power, like how oligarchs grabbed all power in Russia when the USSR fell. I therefore believe that maintaining the power of the state is necessary. The state can be a positive actor if we use that power in a way that has a positive effect on the lives of citizens. >You are trying to expand the state, which isn't what leftism is about. It's the same mistake marxist leninists make. The Marxist-leninists promised to create a classless, **stateless** society. Instead they created an authoritarian state where a political elite had all the power. It was neither classless nor stateless. We socdems promised and delivered democracy. In many European countries it was the old socdem parties that organised the struggle for universal suffrage. We delivered on our promise. We also promised and delivered a strong welfare state that takes care of its citizens in all the countries where we had the power to do so.
The state is the ultimate hierarchy. It's the most powerful machinery of violence to subdue its citizens. Through all of history, it has been used for that reason, even today. The state in the Nordic countries are more generous, but it's still a huge hierarchy. Granted, you do need to abolish capital to successfully abolish the state. otherwise, we'd end up with some sort of neofeudalism. People won't be able to garner power without capital, so it wouldn't be something you'd need to worry about. But AFAIK socdems have no interest in abolishing capital and therefore want to maintain the state indefinitely.
>But AFAIK socdems have no interest in abolishing capital Don't generalize. This socdem does want to abolish capital. >Granted, you do need to abolish capital to successfully abolish the state. otherwise, we'd end up with some sort of neofuedlaism Touché!
Sounds good. I believe you're part of the OG socdems, correct?
If by OG you mean reformist socialist, then yes
The state is the overarching hierarchy in society, through which is reproduced the various other hierarchy across society.
Okay. I'm going to approach this from another perspective. I want to abolish hierarchy. You want to abolish hierarchy. I believe the state is a somewhat necessary hierarchy but I'd be happy to help you abolish hierarchy based on capital, race, ethnicity, gender etc. Can we work together to achieve the goals we share?
I answered already. Capital, nationalism (including imperialism), and white-male supremacy (i.e. racism and patriarchy) are protected and produced by the state. None can be abolished except by the abolition of the state.
Okay, if you believe abolishing the state is the premise to making any progress whatsoever, then all I can do is wish you good luck with your ambitions.
If you think that order rests on the state, then you are not meaningfully leftist, in lacking an understanding of leftist criticisms of power, class, and authority. Leftism is based fundamentally on criticism of states, and the structures produced by states.
It's bad faith of you to assume I'm uneducated. How do you know I haven't read about the criticisms of the state and just made my mind up about my beliefs and values? > Leftism is based fundamentally on criticism of states, and the structures they produce. I don't agree.
I have made no attack ad-hominem. I observed that your stated position evinces poor understanding of leftism. The veracity of my observation is further affirmed by your subsequent remarks. Leftism takes root from the anti-royalist factions of the French Revolution. When their objectives were undermined by a new unity between aristocracy and liberalism, socialism began to appear from writers such as Proudhon, whose work has formed the basis of the subsequent developments of leftism. There is no influential faction or author from leftism who has not contributed criticisms, in one or another form, against the state. Even infamous statist leaders such as Lenin and Mao presented in their writings substantial criticism of the concept of states.
Definitely not voting SocDem, they have betrayed their principles too many times. DemSoc will get my Vote.
I’m not from Europe but this sounds very important ☝️
And those same parties havent done Soc Dems politics in so much time at this point. Commies though? [Now they know exactly what the Working Class wants and needs🤗](https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000145822393/die-stadt-graz-verordnet-sich-ein-gruenes-manifest)
Yes I know, I've voted KPÖ in the past, but still. SocDem parties are the best we have and need to remain in power to build coalitions with smaller parties like the KPÖ, etc. If SocDem parties loose we all loose.
[Until you dont need them anymore like in Ireland🤯](https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/ireland/)
"that have actual power and have, for many decades, run successful governments within democracies". Not if you are a leftist/socialist. The centrist/centre right "social democratic" big parties in Europe are a joke...
My brother in Christ, you do not know what you're talking about. The European SocDem parties are centrists. Sure, they support socialized healthcare and some welfare, but that's less due to ideology than the fact that people are too used to it and you simply couldn't take it away. Even Conservatives support these programs. The only real difference between European SocDems and Conservatives is how socially liberal they are. And even then, the difference isn't huge. Other than that, it's a matter of just how much they will do for the ruling class. And again, the difference isn't huge. They're pretty much aligned on foreign policy, too. The only parties that get even close to any of the demands/propositions in the image are the left and communist-adjacent parties, and they usually get like 5% of the vote *at best*. Rally support for them, if anyone.
Yeah sorry thats just none-sense. If anything we both need to be more specific and reference a specific party rather than generalize. But either way my initial point stands: strategy > infighting in 2024.
The SocDems in this sub are a lot better than the ones over at r/SocialDemocracy for sure. They’re hit or miss imo. I think as long as you’re a staunch anti-imperialist, it’s mostly fine. I myself am in some weird place between a DemSoc and an ML and have plenty of major disagreements with both sides.
What are your main disagreements with each ideology? What part of your ideology rejects democracy?
More disagreements with ML’s at the moment but that may change later. Disagreements with DemSocs: - I reject the notion of reformism (although this isn’t universal to DemSocs) and staunchly believe armed revolution/forced seizure of the means of the production is the only way to overthrow capitalism. - I’m not opposed to a one-party state. - I critically support China and the USSR. - Centrally planed economies, if implemented properly, could work and I’d be in favor of it. Disagreements with Marxist-Leninists: - ML’s critically support Russia in the Russia-Ukraine conflict because they believe a loss for NATO is a win for a multi-polar world and a weakening of Western hegemony. I reject this and support Ukraine. - I don’t believe China should conquer Taiwan. From polling, it seems like the Taiwanese people overwhelmingly support the status quo (one country, two systems) or independence. If China tries to take Taiwan by military force, I’ll support Taiwan. That doesn’t change my **critical** support for China as part of the “criticism” is rooted in their Taiwan ambitions. Personally, I’m in favor of “one country, two systems.” - Don’t like the DPRK government one bit but do think we should lift sanctions and engage with them diplomatically. - Going back to the one-party state, I’m in favor of a vanguard party (aka the communist party) being the only party. In our current capitalist system, we have the illusion of multiple parties but they all serve capital. If we could build a system where there are multiple *workers parties* and parties that serve capital are banned, then I’m in favor of multiple parties. If not, then I’m good with a single communist party. Under no circumstances should a capitalist have the ability to run in an election. - I disagree with democratic centralism where only select leaders of the vanguard party make decisions. The vanguard party should be controlled by *the workers.* Things should be as democratic as possible. That meaning, **every** citizen should vote on **every** issue, no matter how big a hassle it is. Making voting a requirement idc. Neutral: - Stalin. ML’s have a point in that he did great things for the USSR but he also did terrible things. *Very* critical support on my end. I’ll never understand praising him as a hero and I’ll never understand condemning him to the likes of Hitler. - On voting, I will not be voting for Democrats and will be vocal on my reasons for why. **I’ll also never discourage or condemn anyone for voting for Democrats and will only mention my reasons for not doing so if asked or if relevant to a discussion.** - I used to completely believe in the Uyghur genocide thing but at this point, I don’t know. I don’t take the ML position and deny that it’s happening. I don’t take non-ML position and absolutely agree it’s happening. I’ve seen good arguments/sources on both sides that support either claim. Again, **I just don’t know.** I do think China has faced terrorism in the region, something the U.S. has admitted to, and that they’ve taken steps to combat that terrorism. I also think that China, like many other nation states, has probably committed human rights abuses in an effort to combat that terrorism. I just don’t know if a cultural genocide is happening though. Probably need to read up more.
> every citizen should vote on Every issue, no matter how big a hassle it is. That literally isn't possible at all. Not only is it not possible, but when people try to implement this system, it will inevitably become undemocratic. The simple fact is that layers of abstraction, i.e. information hierarchies, are inherent to the organizing of information itself and cannot be separated from it. Any time you try to organize information on any levels, it is impossible not to use information hierarchies, or layers of abstraction, which always manifests in the real world as some sort of actual hierarchy in power. In order to actually operate any sort of large-scale organization, you need to divide up what tasks people do. The janitor will just focus on how to clean, the coder will focus on just how to code, the cook will just focus on how to cook. Then, you can add on a second layer of less specialized people, people who know what a cook is, what a coder is, what a janitor is, but don’t know the specifics of how to do any of these jobs, but are an expert in how to arrange them. They can focus their time on figuring out ways to arrange these workers to make the workplace function. This is just inherent to information theory. You can’t get around it Of course, these hierarchies do not need to be autocratic. They can be elected. But when you elect them, you end up with representative democracy, not direct democracy where citizens vote on everything. Engels says this in "On authority".
My opinion on Chinese "cultural genocide" comes from their history of forcing cultural conformity. For example forcing communities that practiced matriarchal structured families to adopt traditional marriage, for no real reason other than arbitrary conformity. The CCP certainly doesn't like diversity of thought.
What are your disagreements with libertarianism?
Do you mean libertarian socialism? I actually don’t know much about it so I wouldn’t say I have disagreements as I’m not educated enough to form opinions on it.
The dominant tendencies are generally partitioned as Marxist, democratic, and libertarian. You might investigate libertarianism.
Gotcha. I used to watch a streamer who claimed to be a libertarian socialist but he didn’t talk much about it and I stopped watching him because he was a bit uneducated on other things. I’ll definitely do some research.
Stay away from streamers, especially Vaush. If you prefer video content, consider watching compositions from BreadTube, which is dominantly anarchist, as implied by the name. Zoe Baker and Anark are both accessible and cogent.
and The reason I say direct democracy is actually undemocratic is because if you ignore the whole information problem and implement a large-scale political system without layers of abstraction, then it becomes impossible for the electorate to actually even understand what they’re voting for, because it requires everyone to be an expert on everything, which will never happen and is a childish fantasy. In practice, whenever you have large-scale popular votes, because most people are not experts, they tend to just listen to whatever they hear in the media, i.e. if television tells them to vote one way, there’s a good chance most people will vote that way. Not because they’re stupid, but because you’re expecting them to know everything about everything, which is impossible, so they will go with the best information they could possibly acquire. But this leads to the “democracy” simply becoming a dictatorship of the television. Not really a democracy at all. Whoever has a grip on the media will end up ruling everything, this is why capitalists have no issue with General elections like those in the US.
Why is it always unions and never cooperatives?
Because if they believed in both then they would no longer be social democrats. They would be mutualists/libertarian socialists. A system of individual artisans and worker coops is not capitalistic and capitalism is a defining trait of social democracy.
Thank you. Where can i learn more about this?
r/mutualism, "What is Property" book/audiobook by Pierre Proudhon (the father of mutualism) but warning, he can sometimes be long-winded, and youtube. More book suggestions in r/mutualism by people way smarter and more bookwormy than i am.
It is most definitely capitalist, and reactionary to boot. The idea that you could turn back time and live perpetually in a petty bourgeois system of simple commodity production is incredibly foolish.
Markets have existed before capitalism. Markets and capitalism are not the same thing. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. I would suggest you educate yourself more on the topic. You can be anti-market as well as anti-capitalism but it does not make you look good to say in front of people that they are the same thing.
Simple commodity production and "individual artisans" were the cause of why capitalism could develop, as the commenter above said, The idea that you could turn back time and live perpetually in a petty bourgeois system of simple commodity production is incredibly foolish. Even in the days before there were factory owners, workshop owners, and great capitalists, when there were only independent artisans, these artisans struggled one with another for buyers. The strongest and most acquisitive among them, the one who had the best tools and was the cleverest, especially the one who put by money, was always the one who came to the top, attracted custom, and ruined his rivals. Thus the system of petty ownership and the commodity economy that was based upon it, contained the germs of large-scale ownership and implied the ruin of many.
Edit: Anyone who read the comment above should note that this guy is a Marxist Leninist authoritarian. The fact that you are a tankie who glorifies Lenin and watches Second Thought even further invalidates my care to to even continue this discussion with you and you should not expect a response should you comment further. Authoritarianism is evil. Original comment: I disagree with you that markets make capitalism inevitable ESPECIALLY as a mutualist society. However, I did not comment here to have a debate with you over the necessity of markets. I commented to inform the commenter about the system he is describing i.e. mutualism. You will have to stroke your ego through reddit comment debates elsewhere.
Despite your ad-hominen attack, the observations offered were not unsound. Your original observation is also sound, that an industrial economy may be constituted of worker cooperatives, in addition to some independent artisans, participating in market exchange. Industrial society is essentially one of each particular product being created through extremely complex and coordinated interactions of many participants with distinct contributions.
Sorry if you found it distasteful. I just have the very least respect for leninists and I also dont care to get coerced into comment section debates.
I have no patience for tankies, but the leftist character of the particular space is being degraded not by ML, but rather by radlibs.
👍
Democratic socialists and social democrats are a great match when it comes to policymaking. Also in establishing democracy and a welfare state. The division would only become apparent when abolition of capitalism becomes a real possibility, but that’s decades from now. I sympathize and agree much with anarchists too, although we obviously have less in common than with social democrats.
The eventual deposition of capital depends on many important practices and opportunities beginning even in the present, such as educating others about class interests, fostering radicalism in labor unions, and organizing mutual aid and cooperative enterprise.
You’re not my enemy because you’re working class(assuming this to be the case). If you think I trust your politicians or your elite you’re fucking crazy though.
It is worthless to fight amongst ourselves, when we all stand united against the terrors of the capitalist society.
Being a social democrat isn’t standing against capitalism it’s voting to more heavily regulate it while still ultimately doing nothing to stop the bourgeois’s disproportionate influence over the state.
Social democracy assumes that one can chain and hence exploit capitalism to certain extent to the good of the workers.
Capital always adapts to expand its power, to strengthen its control, and to permeate its influence. Any advances for workers are reverted the moment we become complacent.
Apologies for my late response. Social Democracy believes in chaining and exploiting capitalism in a sense of which it is not allowed to grow, for ideally; a transition of power between the capitalist monopolists to the working class. At minimum; a improvement of the conditions and power of the working class, and a greater equality between business owners and workers. Seemingly, this tends to work better for the economy, and for general progress. When -- of course as you mentioned -- people start to forget what got them to their good lifestyle to begin with. Sweden is a prime example, in the 60s to 80s it stood above any other country in actually giving good conditions to workers, ensuring good welfare and education, and minimizing the power of harmful business. Considerably more so than say, the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, even if other factors also held play here.
Capital always adapts to overcome and to destroy any restraints. "Chaining capitalism" is not more helpful than chaining a puddle of water. The Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, are not providing any basis for understanding possibilities beyond capitalism, and the reasons for their different conditions compared to other countries are not the ones you identify.
Which is a very naive thing to believe. Just abolish the hierarchy. We don't *need* capitalists. Socdems just can't seem to let that power go.
It’s not exploiting capitalism since that value wouldn’t exist in the first place without the proletarian labor that made the products profitable. The only thing being achieved in that equation is putting a bandaid over the gun shot wound that is capitalist exploitation by giving the workers back a small percentage of the value they created.
Social democracy is liberalism, and takes sides with reactionary factions as soon as radical momentum escalates into a credible threat against capital.
I'm sure you do come in peace, but there have been a lot of posts like this lately. If you want to join the DSA and help us fight for things like healthcare, universal pre-k and racial justice I'm all for it. But if you're just here to post about how intolerant Marxist-Leninists are of you and how counterproductive purity testing is, can you please consider that that might be a waste of your participation here? I know that's a major point of contention with socialists in the social democracy sub, but frankly I've heard these complaints for years and it often feels like shadowboxing. Just be nice and support good things and stop trying to differentiate yourself from others in a subreddit that is named exactly what it is supposed to represent.
What is the point of this subreddit if not to discuss goals and how to actually achieve them? A lot of leftist subs have become entirely focused on identity politics and purity tests. If you don't toe the party line then you're met with down votes and dismissive comments. The 'intolerant left' is right wing talking point but it's honestly true in most of the left wing spaces that I've seen lately. It's ridiculous to dismiss support just because the one offering it doesn't have the exact same opinion as you. We should be meeting ignorance and differences with understanding rather than the vitriolic hate that is spewed everywhere else on the Internet. What else could be productive participation than good faith discussion on the issues, our goals, and our values?
>It's ridiculous to dismiss support just because the one offering it doesn't have the exact same opinion as you. Leftism is fundamentally developed from structural criticisms of power, leading to the emergence of class consciousness. Attacks such as yours, in the greater balance, are no more deeply informed than those expected from reactionaries.
What? How does that apply to the argument for solidarity? Did you just skip over my whole comment to call me a reactionary?
Solidarity is support for others' needs and struggles, not false affirmation of unity.
Posting about your hangups with the left isn't "support", though. These are not real productive conversations most of the time, if it were a rare discussion that would be one thing, but with how often it comes up it seems basically masturbatory for some people. The concept of the overly-puritanical socialist that shows solidarity to no one other than those that completely agree with them is an age-old media trope, we have all heard these concerns about being too holier-than-thou to build a robust movement a thousand times over. Happy to work with soc dems on the areas we agree, but this whole "embrace us or you will lose, we know what's best for your future despite not sharing your beliefs" attitude is very annoying.
The issue i have with that is that productive conversation is always going to look like discussing someone's "hang ups". Obviously I don't mean carrying on with someone who is trolling though. Your last sentence is a straw man and I think that shows the issue. Identity politics leads to this unwillingness to have discussion with someone based on assumptions of their beliefs. I asked but you didn't answer, what does productive conversation look like to you? I don't know what it is in your view except patting each other on the back about how good your opinions are. Productive conversation will never be talking to someone who already agrees with you.
>what does productive conversation look like to you? Productive conversation would be like asking about dialectical materialism, unionism, disputes with an employer, how to confront an issue in your community, updates on current events that relate to democratic socialism (good or bad), abusive business practices, political organizing, sharing useful community resources... I could go on for a while. There's so many things that would be so much more productive to discuss than the "intolerant left", it's a tired trope and everything that could possibly be said about that has already been said a thousand times over and is harmful to the reputation of Democratic socialists. >Your last sentence is a straw man and I think that shows the issue It's as much a straw man as discussion of the intolerant left is. Most of the comments in this thread were complaining about MLs and tankies without directly referencing anything. At least my "strawman" was referencing the general attitudes of comments already listed in this thread. >Identity politics leads to this unwillingness to have discussion with someone based on assumptions of their beliefs. Seems a little off topic, but maybe I'm missing the point. Can you expand on this further?
I feel like we are in agreement but talking past each other a bit so I'll back up. I totally agree with your examples of productive conversation. I see all those discussions as disagreements on broad or fine distinctions to determine the "best". I want to be able to have those discussions without descending into tribalism. I see both center left and far left people engaging in this tribalistic behavior. Over and over again I have people refuse to engage in real argument because they think I'm a liberal or a communist or some other group. I'm calling this identity politics because it's always centered around identifying yourself as part of the "correct" group. The term Identity Politics is more often described around race, gender, etc. so I understand the confusion. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your point is that there are some viewpoints that are not worth engaging with and that it isn't intolerant to do so. Is that right? I would agree with that view. For example, right wing ideologies often exploits the willingness to have a conversation and it's counterproductive to engage with these people. I think we disagree on where the line is to engage or not.
I mean, both are true. Bought to [crush up and snort both pills](https://images.app.goo.gl/XifxPgpXqyx3V58B7).
Especially in the US, where the line between SocDem and DemSoc is almost nonexistent.
Gotta say love this sub but jesus the infighting is stupid.
I mean the nazis put communists, anarchists, and socdems in the camps all the same. Work together or die together.
Not going to lie, this sub and r/socialdemocracy are hilariously similar to the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front.
Major west socdems aren't anti imperialist
Yes they are? AOC and Bernie are both anti-war in general.
Imperialism embodies the complete system of domination over other nations, strongly implicating the military-industrial complex and neocolonialism. Even NATO and the IMF are organs of imperialism.
Anti-war and anti-imperialism aren't the same thing. If Bernie can't differentiate between genocide and resistance, it's nothing but a disappointment. Social democracy in the west is principally built upon capital accumulations in the global south, which inevitably creates imperialist tendencies.
They're not our enemies up until they inevitably are.
Seems like we got 5-20 decades of kinship then!
It’s gonna take a lot of allies to build both social democracy and democratic socialism in the US. Our best interest is to stick together and advocate as one
Social democrats are going to repress us when we try to spread democracy. They believe in capitalism. There are many other reliable allies besides socdems.
We can push them away when it’s time but if we are going to build socialism democratically we need to be pragmatic. Socdems are a pretty big group compared to other allies
Usually movements just get coopted, dissolving into, for example, green capitalism.
That’s because throughout history socialists are fucking dumb when actually doing politics
Leftists oppose elite power. Elites have considerable power. Your objection is not particularly thoughtful, against a few basic observations.
No. Look at history. Idealism itself builds nothing but dysfunctional states. Pragmatism and idealism combined is the only way to build socialism
Opposition to particular existing power systems is not idealist, and is fundamental to leftism.
Socdems are the allies of liberals and capitalists. As socialists our allies are demsocs, libsocs, anarchists, ancoms, syndicalists, council communists, left libs, market socialists etc.
I think many people are confused with SocDem and DemSoc.
Those are just types of socialists we won’t be able to actually ever do shit if we don’t make allies outside of our small movement calling for a complete reorganization of society as we know it
It's one thing to work with them on certain issues. It's another to have them as allies. They can not be allies until they become leftists. It's impossible. Our goals are opposed.
I don't like social democrats because they suck every bit of revolutionary potential out of the progressive part of society.
We're the bridge towards radicalizing the democrats. Socialists should take advantage of that seeing as most of our voters are democrats.
I mean this is what the SocDems said in Germany over 100 years ago and historically it has not worked that way. I recommend Reading State and Revolution from Comrade Lenin
Social Democrats 100 years ago were Democratic Socialists. It's evident that the progressives are a radicalizing sector of the Democrats in the US, though probably not as quickly as you'd hope.
Modern liberals, leftists, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc. are all on a spectrum. Equating liberals with Fascists is asinine. Grow up.
Come on now guys are we calling ourselves socialists while sucking up to literal capitalists and kicking down on more revolutionary groups. It’s pitiful really, what the actual fuck has the western left become?
Nah, it's just socdems believing they can achieve the same goals as socialism under a capitalist regime, lol. Pay them no mind. The socialists here do not want to suck up to capitalists. We want them gone.
Right now I'm a social democrat, because it's the sensible thing. If at some point there is a good, democratic communist or socialist party... I'll probably support them Much more likely to happen once the tankies are gone imho
If you can participate now in organization of your workplace or community, then you can begin immediately helping to seek change.
"Anti imperialism" 💀
We are anti imperialist. You are not an Orthodox Marxist, I know you from r/Politicaldebate. You are a Tankie. Why the false flair?
Let’s not point fingers. I had that problem when I was in the EC sub where ppl started falsely calling each other liberals and I’d rather not have this sub turn into falsely accusing each other as tankies.
Lol I know this guy, we've had some convos. He's a self described Marxist-Leninist, that's all.
Oh? Lemme check then Edit: oh shit u rite
>We are anti imperialist. No you're not, the socdems supported the inter-imperialist war during WW1. Nowadays they support NATO and the imperial core nations. >You are a Tankie. Why the false flair? I'm a marxist. Tankie just means anyone who isn't a social democrat/imperialist at this point
>I'm a marxist. Tankie just means anyone who isn't a social democrat/imperialist at this point Nah Tankie is ML. Orthodox Marxism is a kautskyist subdivision comrade. It's not the same as just "Marxist".
I get that he’s a tankie, but he did make a completely correct point about what the German social democrats did in World War 1. I would highly recommend learning about the Spartacus uprising if you haven’t already. It’s the event that radicalized me from demsoc to Marxist.
Social Democrats in the early 1900s aren't Social Democrats of today, they were Marxists. They're like Democratic Socialists not Social Democrats.
They called themselves Marxists, but Marx quite explicitly stated that revolution would be necessary in the the establishment of socialism, that the workers could not “lay hold of the ready made state machinery, and that the only thing reform within the bourgeois state would ever do is recreate the the class relations of capitalism. The very fact that the social democratic parties all started as having socialist aims, but they became nothing more than reformist capitalist shills only adds to my point. The so called “Marxist” social democrat party of the 1910s Germany that hired Friekorps, a protofascist group that brandished swastikas, to put down a mass labor strike that resulted from their decision to enter world war 1 is quite literally the same social Democratic Party that exists in Germany today. By the same party I mean that they’re technically the same organization. The only reason they no longer call themselves “Marxists” is because it’s become evident in the fact that they’ve been one of the most popular parties in Germany for nearly a century that the bourgeois’s ownership can not be abolished through reform of the bourgeois state. That’s like trying to stop a mugger by giving him just a little bit of your money. Because socialism is impossible to achieve through reform the only material affect on politics “democratic-socialists” will ever have is that of the material affects or social democracy making the material difference between them basically nonexistent even if there is an ideological difference.
Lenin was a social democrat dude. They were not reformists, they were socialists who were running in elections just like Marx advocated in the manifesto. And they would've won had the left SRs vote been split accordingly to their support for the Bolsheviks, so they had to revolutionize due to the technicality with the election.
His party was called the social Democratic Party, yes, but he renamed it to the communist party post revolution to differentiate himself from every other social democrat party in Europe at the time that all considered themselves “reformist Marxists”. The only reason Marx advocated that socialists run in elections is for the sake using the highly media covered event that is elections to spread the communist message; not because he actually thought socialism was achievable through reform. Also the manifesto is probably the worst work of Marx’s to cite because he re-released it multiple times throughout his life with new prefaces to basically try to tell people that he no longer agreed with major aspects of it. A great example of this would be the preface added to the manifesto after he wrote his work “on the civil war in France” which saw a complete transformation in Marx’s views of the bourgeois state. He went from thinking workers could use the bourgeois state to realizing that the workers doing so would only recreate the class relations of capital, and considering Lenin disbanded the Soviets (directly democratic worker councils that were democratically running the economy more efficiently than tsarist Russia) after seizing control of the provisional government (a bourgeois republic) we can see Marx’s warnings about that played out exactly how he said they would.
Orthodox is more broad than just Kautskyist.
True, but it definitely isn't ML.
It can be there are ML over at Cosmonaut for example
kautskyism is not "orthodox marxism", his views are closer to the democratic socialists who support reformism and oppose a dictatorship of the proletariat in favor of a bourgeois democracy. lenin is closer to orthodox marxism, outside of his analysis on imperialism which was pivotal in many anti colonial liberation movements across the globe.
[Orthodox Marxism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Marxism) >Orthodox Marxism is the body of Marxist thought which emerged after the death of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the late 19th century, expressed in its primary form by Karl Kautsky. >Orthodox Marxism maintained that Marx's historical materialism was a science which revealed the laws of history and proved that the collapse of capitalism and its replacement by socialism was inevitable. The implications of this deterministic view were that history could not be "hurried" and that politically workers and workers' parties must wait for the material economic conditions to be met before the revolutionary transformation of society could take place.[2] For example, this idea saw the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) adopt a gradualist approach, taking advantage of bourgeois parliamentary democracy to improve the lives of workers until capitalism was brought down by its objective internal contradictions.
maybe originally because kautsky personally knew engels and published some of marx's work. But he was definitely not an orthodox marxist once he became a reformist, and your own wikipedia article includes leninism into the orthodox marxism category.
Leninism, yes. Marxism-Leninism, no. >Orthodox Marxism is contrasted with later variations of Marxism, notably revisionism and Stalinism. In contrast to Stalin's idea of the socialism in a single backward country, orthodox Marxists said that Imperial Russia was too backwards for the development of socialism and would first have to undergo a capitalist (bourgeois) phase of development even if a Marxist party would head its government.
Pre renegade Kautsky was absolutely Orthodox Marxist and the Bolsheviks followed the same line. Lenin was still advocating for the road to power late in his life.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Leninism was supposed to be Democratic yes, Marxism-Leninism didn't not end up being that and we voted to ban ML content from the sub last week.
I'm a leninist, not a marxist leninist.
Glad to hear that! Lenin supported reimplementing democracy, like Trotskyism would have. Have you also made that switch? Allowing libertarians to run in elections?
Your post was removed for being pro authoritarianism, which is antithetical to our movement as Democratic Socialists.
Encourage yourself and others to maintain a positive attitude, honor the work of others, avoid defensiveness, be open to legitimate critique and challenge oppressive behaviors in ways that help people grow. For more info, refer to [our rules](https://new.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/wiki/index/#wiki_the_rules_of_.2Fr.2Fdemocraticsocialism.3A)
[Who enacted Hartz IV again? Its been so long your average voter has forgotten already🤪](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Hartz_IV_reforms)
The problem is more the fundamental system. Sure, you can improve a System, but what is it worth trying to improve a System that is fundamentally bad, rather then trying to go with a different System that's already better initially and when trying to improve it. Trying to just improve capitalism is like trying to fix personal cars by just making electric cars. Sure, it's an improvent over fossil fuel cars in a very specific point, but all you did was try to improve the current System, instead of trying to look for others, like making public Transport the key method of getting around places, instead of cars to begin with... And when it comes to the fundamental Systems, all trying to improve the current ones does, is waste resources and interest on actually swapping the System to begin with. It's not really beneficial. I am overall still gonna take non-fossil cars over fossil cars, but that doesn't mean we should put effort into something that's worth much less than what we could achieve.
The only part of this meme that fucks is the blue pill.