Impact of the Democratic primaries: MS Now has been cutting back and forth to this bland-looking chart comparing democratic socialism to communism
democratic socialism
private home and business ownership
ok so that’s just capitalism, I hope you guys know that
Cool, I’ll take the communism option please.
It sounds so much better even in their propaganda example.
One communism, coming up.
WAITER! ONE COMMUNISM WITH EXTRA STRUGGLE SESSIONS PLEASE!
Once again making me yearn for the day that a communist can just flippantly say shit about capitalism and then the institutions around them do not budge.
“Oh, you want capitalism? So you think it’s good when people drop nuclear bombs?”
“I get why you’d want capitalism, but I just don’t think it’s worth it to spend the finite resources on Earth on genocide though.”
“It’s okay to not like your manager, it’s another thing entirely to arbitrarily split up and duplicate work so that you can gamble on a better boss. If they’re really that bad, you’ll all vote them out.”
“The workplace isn’t just for gambling with money, you know. People work there and actually help society.”
“Oh, the reclaimed forest is taking up real estate? You want the trees to start paying rent? You want the tree money to buy politicians?”
The smarmy, smug shit I would say if I were simply given with power instead of having to be evaluated by LOSERS.
“Capitalism sounds good on paper but every time it’s been tried it failed because of human nature”
I have actually used this one lmao
“Capitalism doesn’t even work on paper. Obviously, communism is the better system.” (A line I have used in response to “communism only works on paper”.)
(I love the idea of a world in which socialism has become the default and capitalism is treated the way current Red Scare bullcrap treats “Scary Evil Communism”.)
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a bear. Please report any suspawcious behaviour.
“The problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people’s resources”
“Why would you want capitalism? People starve and live on the streets in capitalist countries!”
“Alex, finish your mashed potatoes. There are poor kids your age starving in a capitalist country.”
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a bear. Please report any suspawcious behaviour.
Really falls apart at the end there, just repeating ‘no incentivizing the individual,’ like when you ran out of things you knew about the topic in a high school essay
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that incentivizing individualism fails the working class and must be stopped.
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto, presumably
Capitalism can be reformed
The Manifesto is like 40 pages and even has a very simple list. They really cannot read can they.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
- Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
- A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
- Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
- Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
- Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
- Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
- Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production
Very insightful
I think even DSA is mostly on board with the 10 points
Number 6 is problematic for me. The state can control transport routes, but not all transport ation in general. Also, there should be private comm options, with many frequecies available for private users like HAM folks. I also want a private option or two for phones and maybe a state-ran, open source OS for mobile that is privacy respecting.
The state can control transport routes, but not all transport ation in general. Also, there should be private comm options, with many frequecies available for private users like HAM folks.
You’re still misunderstanding what is meant by “state” when Communists talk about it. The State is the collective self governance of the working class. The goal with the manifesto was to lay out a framework for using the existing power structures to destroy the monopolies and rule of capital.
The existence of private options implies the existence of a state enforcing the private rights of that company.
The libs admit the DSA is little more than a radlib organization and so called “demsocs” are nothing more than turbolibs
“The opponents of DSA define it to hold a position other than what DSA says it holds, and I somehow think this is ‘admitting’ something.”
now they should post home ownership rates between the commie countries and the sucdem/demsoc countries.
capitalism can be reformed to create social safety nets
This is such blatant redefining of “democratic socialism” into social democracy.
That’s because it is. It’s only yankkks that like to call social democracy “democratic socialism”
Nonetheless, DSA explicitly states that their goal is to replace capitalism with socialism. Their program asks people to imagine a world without capitalism.
DSA is the boogey man they’re pointing and DSA is clear that their democratic socialism is about ending capitalism and building socialism.
Labour in the UK also used to be explicit in its charter about wanting to replace capitalism with socialism, until Blair cut it from the charter. Fat load of use that was 'ey?
This is trivially true. Any socialist formation can drop its demand to end capitalism. Many have.
Do you think it matters what’s in a platform? Do you think you should characterize a formation by what’s in it’s platform or by what is not in it’s platform?
Labour were/are social chauvinists who oversaw both radical and meek reforms to the capitalist system they’ve been tasked with overseeing over the last century. Their charter’s ambition never manifested because they are ardent supporters of bourgeois democracy, and continuously fail to overthrow the basic elements of the political system they operate in to stop swings to outright reactionaries like the Tories.
Yet their strategy is to elect social democrats who openly say they are capitalists. Something isn’t adding up here
Which DSA electeds call themselves capitalists?
Abdul El-Sayed: drew immense boots-on-the-ground support and resources from DSA activists. Despite benefiting from their infrastructure, El-Sayed openly walked back any association with the socialist label, explicitly stating to the press: “I am not a socialist, just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works.”
Bernie Sanders: While Sanders popularized the term “democratic socialist” and the DSA heavily allocated organizational power to canvass for his presidential runs, Sanders has explicitly defined his ideology as akin to Nordic social democracy. He maintains that he supports a regulated market economy with a robust social safety net rather than the complete abolition of capitalism.
That’s just the 2 biggest/most recent, the DSA has done this dozens of times. They endorse and back every “progressive” with resources from their organization and then those candidates go on to become centrist careerists. If their goal is “Democratic socialism”, why do they promote social democrats and Liberals? Why do they repeatedly spend their resources on political campaigns of people they have no control over whatsoever?
Neither El-Sayed or Bernie Sanders is in DSA. Neither are currently endorsed by DSA. If you want to move the goal post and discuss Sanders and El-Sayed I’m happy too.
But first, will you admit you couldn’t name a DSA elected who has called themselves a capitalist?
They were both heavily backed by DSA individuals, their ground teams composed of DSA volunteers using DSA resources. Sanders was officially endorsed. A system is what is produces.
You can’t use the “they aren’t officially members of DSA” defense while the DSA endorses and backs and gives resources to electeds outside of the DSA constantly as a matter of process. Why don’t they stick to backing official DSA members only instead? Then that would be a valid defense.
Even CNN realizes they are the same thing.
i mean…
I’ve already depicted you as the column with “bad stuff” and me as the column with “good stuff”.
WHERE are they pretending to get this information from? you can’t just unquestionably shout unsourced shit with the justification ‘idk lol vibes’ and expect anyone to listen to you
I think they can
Yeah, the liberal audience already agrees so they won’t stop to ask for sources. Communism = authoritarian by default.
In contrast, most communists have had their worldview shaken to the core. This lends itself to healthy skepticism about political/economic beliefs such that new beliefs require more justification. Which doesn’t make all our political/economic beliefs correct–we don’t all agree, after all–but we will at least point to some historical or theoretical evidence to back up our views.
They are completely politically illiterate, none of them knows what any of these words mean. It’s like watching children pretending they’re grown-ups.
Time; Hampton Roads Naval Museum.
It’s not a useful source declaration but more then I’m used to from liberal media.
This is what is taught in schools across America in middle school social studies. This is just the common sense of this shithole, and nobody questions the ideology they swim within
Wow this communism thing looks pretty good, thank you MS Now!
Claiming Democratic “socialism” has “free and fair elections” is laughable after the shit we’ve witnessed the past decade. Shit’s gonna backfire on them when they’re laughed it off the room saying this stuff.
Notice how they never actually talk about whether these are actually effective strategies for improving society, it’s entirely vibes based. You must not think about what works, only what feels good. Consume. Don’t think.
So they’re bargaining. Good sign.
yeah. even this much bargaining is frankly insane to me
