- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
Good?
Good.
Doog?
Not good enough. Wake me up when its Scientific Socialism and Capitalism is dead.
Good. Elected representatives funded by their constituents and others in the working class mean there’s less of a risk they pull up the ladder behind them and fuck those who got them into power.
Doesn’t mean this won’t ever happen. That’s why I said risk.
Long term goals are of course to ban Citizen’s United, set a cap on money needed to campaign for an elected position, and pass Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
I’d be okay with just democracy taking over the Democratic party
You just get another Trump like candidate sooner or later. Recognize the symptoms.
They had decades to figure out how to unite their base. Obama and Bernie’s popularity gave them the building blocks. They remained willfully ignorant because they like those corporate checks too much.
deleted by creator
Alternatively workers should earn a pension for every hour they labour on behalf of someone else.
Anyone under a predetermined amount when they retire should be able to collect the difference between the what they received and what they are short.
Any business that does not pay enough to those working for them should have their taxes increased to double the difference, as a punitive action.
Also do this with other things
Not so scary if you do five minutes of research.
I’d love to go socialist at this point. Capitalism has only fucked me over and over and over.
I’m pretty wealthy and I want the USA to be way more socialist. I want medical for all, free daycare, food security for everyone, and a huge expansion of public education. Unfortunately about 50% of the population equates any socialism with Marxism and refuses to even hear how bad they’re getting screwed by their Corp sponsored overlords.
I’m literally explaining social democracies vs Marxism to grown adults on nextdoor constantly. These knuckle draggers have the strongest political opinions and the weakest base of knowledge, it’s infuriating. The 24 hour news cycle has turned our dumb neighbors into hateful mean little people.
Social democracy isn’t socialism. Which is why it has the same problems as capitalism.
They don’t equate socialism and marxism, they haven’t read Marx like most people and implies think anything left of Bill Clinton is Marxist because that’s what talking heads have told them.
Exactly what I was trying to say.
Nice of you to give socialism its turn.
This would be far more accurately titled as ‘returns to’ given FDRs New Deal and the fact that 99% of socialist policies enacted over the last century are from the Democrats, instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording ‘what if socialism takes over’ like it’s some kind of coup.
It might be some dumb play to drum up clicks from right-wing people who have never seen a Jacobin article I guess, but it puts off their base, and looking through the article… it doesn’t hide its socialist-positive bias at all even from the first few sentences, so I kinda doubt that intent. Just dumb.
instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording ‘what if socialism takes over’ like it’s some kind of coup.
If I can give some context, as a DSA member, while DSA is parasitizing the Democratic ballot line, it essentially acts like an independent party.
The goal isn’t necessarily to “take over” the Democratic Party. Rather, the dominant position in DSA is what’s called a “Dirty Break”, where the org parasitizes the Dems in the short term, essentially until they kick us out (Ideally in such a way that DSA comes out the stronger org, and that the Dems whither not unlike the Whigs).
Something which is already starting to happen, with Democrats telling us to go “make our own party” as though we haven’t looked at the US political system, and ruled that out for now.
Further, DSA is a big tent organization, with everyone from reformist social democrats, to Anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. And the DSA party platform (the updated version of which gets released on the 14th, I believe) expresses an overt desire by DSA to transcend capitalism. So this isn’t just a return to FDR style social Democracy, like you’re suggesting, there’s a bit more going on
Thanks for the clarification, I feel like very little of this was discussed in the article and you explain it better.
Good luck getting that motley crew to get along. Everyone can agree on anticapitalism but that’s basically it. How exactly to go about it is going to vary widely. It’s hard to see Marxist-Leninists wanting to play ball with reform advocates.
It’s still a good idea worth trying. I’m just skeptical of lefties ever turning into a cohesive force since there’s such a wide array of leftism and some of the particulars of given ideologies are mutually exclusive.
Good luck getting that motley crew to get along
I mean, this isn’t a project that started yesterday, and it isn’t some hypothetical. DSA has existed in its current form, a big tent with ideological and strategically based caucuses, for a little over a decade at this point. If anything the caucus system, which currently codifies those different tendencies in the org, makes it stronger. People within DSA debate endlessly about everything under the sun, but the minute any one part of the org is attacked by someone on the right, the org rallies around them, generating greater organizational coherence. It’s like having siblings. You can bully your little brother, but god forbid anyone else tries it.
Additionally, caucuses allow DSA members to collaborate across chapters in ways that national is improving on, but not currently able to fully facilitate. Caucuses also exchange ideas, strategies, etc. in ways that general membership might not do otherwise.
And that, I think, is what has allowed DSA to grow in the way that it has. All of these left tendencies are forced to come to the table in order to get what they want, instead of just imploding into a billion little sects. And those negotiations, both among caucuses, and with material conditions, mean that DSA is able to formulate a cohesive program and strategy.
I think the Caucus system, as it currently stands, will probably have to be done away with at some point, if DSA is to cohere more power, and thus a greater sense of party discipline, but for now, I think it’s a strength of the org, not a weakness.
Yeah, the left is unfortunately mired with purity tests and No True Scotsman fallacies. Meanwhile, the right is laser focused on marching directly towards fascism. It’s like watching a game of tug-of-war, except one side has people tripping their teammates, or loudly complaining about how they got rope burn one time so they’re going to refuse to participate.
If you think socialism is bad, you either are an evil piece of shit or ignorant of what socialism actually is.
Or both!
What if a foreign genocidal ethnostate takes over the Democratic Party?
Russia took over the GOP, not Democrats.
Don’t play dumb. Of course you know I meant Israel. Here you are discussing and downplaying the Gaza genocide:
I guess they wanna throw a shade by contrasting the numbers. 1.5 million deaths in 2 years vs 76000 deaths in 3 years. Or in relative terms, 60-70% vs 4%.
They kinda have a point there, even though the official UN definition of genocide of course doesn’t rely on number of deaths but intent. But usually, genocidal intent leads to high number of deaths, doesn’t it? Especially when your military is so much more powerful.
Using a death toll that quit counting YEARS AGO because the people doing the counting (Gazan health ministry) were wiped out. You think Israel is counting? Who is counting how many people they’re rounding up and killing and putting mass graves in occupied Gaza?
Democrats are very obviously in bed with Israel (not to say GOP isn’t as well).
The Democratic Party needs an anti-trump:
Someone who is the opposite of trump in every way…
Smart, wise, humble, charitable, brave, gregarious, kind, caring, socialist, democratic, and good.Essentially, someone who embodies all the virtues that the hypocrites of the Christian Right eschew.
Smart and wise folk generally do their best to stay out of formal politics. politics sucks.
Closest I can think of is Bernie Sanders, but he may have aged out of a presidential run.
That person is very much staying at home happy and content with their loved ones.
Like Obama?
What socialism is happening? Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production? All I see are social programs being touted.
Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production?
That would be communism, not socialism. Lennonist communism is where the workers control the means of production in a collectivist but decentralized manner (Stalinist communism is where the state (Stalin) controls the means of production). Socialism is where the capitalists are allowed to maximize profit all they want (hell they keep most of that under the socialist model), but society guarantees a minimal quality of life (the social bit) by taxing the capitalists to ensure a base-level of universal health-insurance and/or housing for the masses.
Basically, socialism is the logical conclusion of FDR’s New Deal.
Where are you getting this from?
It sounds like they just plucked it out of their ass.
Explained here
The article you linked is what happens when you hire a “content marketer” to write for you. Not sure why the home of ancient aliens would be a definitive source.
Where did you get this definition of socialism from? There’s no such thing as as socialism that allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production; if a socialist says it’s fine, they’re not a socialist.
As per Einstein himself (in his article entitled “Why Socialism?”):
In [a socialist economy], the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilised in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.
As you can see, as the means of production are owned and maintained by society itself in a socialist economy, there would be no possibility for any aspiring capitalist to accrue those means for themselves, and thereby maximize their own profit. In theory they would just be another worker without any special economical advantage over anyone else.
Where did you get this definition of socialism from? There’s no such thing as as socialism that allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production; if a socialist says it’s fine, they’re not a socialist.
The distinction between socialism and communism is well known and studied. The key differences are:
Communism:
All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on need. In practice, a strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.
Socialism:
individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.
You can find the basis of my quotes here, on the history channel’s very own website. You can also see the clear distinction in Europe’s current Democratic Socialism vs. Russia’s Communist stuff.
The History channel? As in the channel that hosts and broadcasts “Ancient Aliens”? You’re not exactly helping your case here.
Additionally, you’re incorrect in your citing of the notion that all property in a communist state is communally owned. All private property is communally owned, but that only goes for anything falling into the category of productive assets used to generate profit and subsume labour. You’re by all means still entitled in such states to owning any personal property, i.e. various forms of entertainment, food, toiletries, housing, etc. The whole basis of your distinction pretty much falls apart through that correction alone.
For the sake of providing an external source, you can read further on socialist/communist ideas through this website, particularly the first two paragraphs which once again thoroughly deconstructs your false distinction of the aforementioned ideologies.
Just curious if your head hurts from banging it against so many walls…
Sorry, but the stupid people’s website, Reddit, is that way ------>
That’s seems pretty rude for someone who is on your side. Maybe I’m missing your joke though.
My words were an expression of solidarity with you. I thought it was funny way to recognize you banging your head against the wall as the expression goes, but maybe you didn’t get my joke?
I found it funny how you kept having to educate people and they seemingly didn’t understand what you were saying.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that friend
What FDR did with a New Deal and socialism are not the same thing. FDR’s goal was to save capitalism while feeding the working class stale bread crumbs so they do not demand better, so that they do not advocate for more socialism.
Americans don’t understand that distinction.
All those words and not a single one of them correct.
Explain that to history channel. Also, look at the distinction between Europe’s socialist implementation. Then, compare that to Russia’s Communist stuff.
You mean explain it to a contributor to the History Channel that knows nothing about either?
So, that bit in my response as related to how Europe implements socialism is conceded?
There is nowhere in Europe where any form of socialism is practiced at the state level
Socialism is 1950’s conservatism now.
We can hope.
As in social security and other safety nets including retirement systems where my purchasing power doesn’t dacay as I age until I’m not able to pay my mortgage or feed myself. Sounds like a plan.
