Skip Navigation
solarpunk memes @slrpnk.net Andy @slrpnk.net

This meme was inspired by the response to a meme I posted on r/worldjerking

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10351845

This is the post: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldjerking/comments/1d92dkp/rate_the_political_factions_in_my_totally/

151

You're viewing a single thread.

151 comments

  • am open to social democrat processes that have provided many EU countries with worker rights, health care, education etc.

    not really liking the tankie / biden genocide / climate indifferent takes.

    these things are not the same.

    • A few things to address:

      1. There is plenty of room between "Social Democrat" and "Tankie"; and social democracy is still capitalism. I don't know exactly what idea you have of Europe, but we're not free from corporations.

      2. I don't know if that is what you are implying, but accusing Biden of supporting genocide does not make someone a tankie. Plenty of countries have condemned Israel and accused Israel of genocide or "committing genocidal actions", are all of them "tankies"?

      3. Republicans are (for the most part) Liberal Conservatives, the Dems (for the most part) are Liberal Progressives. They are all capitalists. Biden vs Trump has nothing to do with this conversation.

      • and social democracy is still capitalism

        Literally the first sentence on social democracy:

        #"Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism"

        ##"within socialism"

        • Maybe keep reading:

          By the post-World War II period and its economic consensus and expansion, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to orthodox Marxism. They shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform as a compromise between capitalism to socialism.[108]

          In Britain, the social democratic Gaitskellites emphasized the goals of personal liberty, social welfare, and social equality.[111] The Gaitskellites were part of a political consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties, famously dubbed Butskellism.

          You can also look at European countries which are social democracies, and you will see they are all capitalist countries. Here, also from wiki. I can tell you here in Portugal we have 2 parties which, according to the wiki, are also Social Democratic parties, and they are also the only two parties who have ever been in power. I can tell you first hand, I live in a capitalist system. According to the wiki, the UK's Labour Party "is a political party in the United Kingdom that has been described as being an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists", do they seem socialist to you? And before you claim that they are because "they also have democratic socialists", that would mean that by transitive property, USA's Dem party is a socialist party. I guess the USA is socialist after all!

          • Maybe actually try to understand what you're reading?

            You have this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies and that all market economies are automatically capitalist.

            I honestly can't express my sincere disappointment at how common that shit is.

            You can also look at European countries which are social democracies, and you will see they are all capitalist countries.

            I'm Finnish, and we are a socialist country, by definition. This isn't even a remotely controversial thing to say in Finland, but weirdly when one engages people on mainly American forums, the black-and-white "no that's communism, you're capitalist countries" red-scare garbage comes out. And yes, I understand you're Portuguese, but that doesn't prevent you from having these asinine notions.

            You're literally arguing that the very first sentence on the Wikipedia article on this exact subject, "social democracy", is not only wrong, but in fact the truth is actually the polar opposite of what it says. I... I just fucking can't with you people.

            Here are literary references to back up the statement in economical theory literature that social democracy is indeed a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism:

            Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.

            Now I'll wait for you to source your "social democracy is capitalism" bullshit, which you won't, because there are no sources for anything remotely confirming that.

            • ou have this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies

              Imagine saying I don't understand what I'm reading, and then accusing me of having "this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies" when I never came close to saying that. I'm a Libertarian Socialist, jackass. Please go be disappointed at yourself.

              Sounds like you don't even know the basics of what capitalism and socialism are. Do people in your country work for private companies? Do the people who own them make all executive decisions, reap profits, and pay (as little as they can) for other people to actually work? Are people able to use capital to buy into those companies and be in charge and reap the profits? Then that isn't a socialist country. Having social welfare and regulations doesn't make it a socialist country.

              You are arguing that "socialism"- something that has always stood in opposition to everything I just mentioned - can be used to describe a country that operates like a capitalist country because an article on Wikipedia has one sentence that says so.

              Here are literary references to back up the statement in economical theory literature that social democracy is indeed a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism:

              Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.

              You literally just copied those from the previously linked Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is your source, I don't believe you've read a single word from any of those works - nay, from any of those people. My sources: Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, The Conquest of Bread, and others, but above all, the real fucking world I live in. Edit: oh, and I guess I'll also add the others parts from that same Wikipedia article, the ones I quoted previously and you ignored.

              • "I never came close to saying that"

                The fact that you don't understand your own implications is pretty much the problem here. Whether consciously or not, you conflate the terms "market economy" and "capitalism", which is quite as silly as thinking cell growth = cancer.

                I've read actual literature on this, and I've this exact "discussion" literally hundreds of times. Stomp your foot and cry all you want, that's not going to change the actual literature of economic theory.

                Are people able to use capital to buy into those companies and be in charge and reap the profits?

                See, this is exactly the implication that all socialism is somehow some authoritarian communism. You just can't understand how poorly you've perceived this. So you write things which argue that using currency makes a place capitalist in some way? That's the real name for what people used to buy things; currency. Not capital, as when you're living from paycheck to paycheck, you don't have capital.

                "My source, Communist Manifesto"

                Your source for what? The modern definition of social democracy? You've never even held a copy of Das Kapital let alone have read it. I can assure you, Marx does not write "oh and social democracies are forms of capitalism, bruv".

                Because they aren't. And you're arguing that modern actual literature on the subject, which is quoted on the very first sentence on the article about social democracy actually don't matter, but your haphazard pretentious Lemmy comments should be taken as fact?

                Thanks for the laughs, big guy. :D

                • I’ve read actual literature on this

                  Sure, yet all you could do was copy past the wiki sources. You sound very well read!

                  I'll make simpler so you can understand - hell, I'll even play the wiki game with you!

                  Socialism :

                  Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.

                  Here are all the sources for that according to the wiki:

                  spoiler

                  Busky (2000), p. 2: "Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism."

                  Arnold (1994), pp. 7–8: "What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system."

                  Horvat (2000), pp. 1515–1516: "Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend... Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs."

                  Rosser & Barkley (2003), p. 53: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.";

                  Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino (2011), p. 2456: "Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."

                  Zimbalist, Sherman & Brown (1988), p. 7: "Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups."

                  Brus (2015), p. 87: "This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production."

                  Hastings, Adrian; Mason, Alistair; Pyper, Hugh (2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 677. ISBN 978-0198600244. "Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one...Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership. By its very nature it involves the abolition of private ownership of capital; bringing the means of production, distribution, and exchange into public ownership and control is central to its philosophy. It is difficult to see how it can survive, in theory or practice, without this central idea."

                  Interesting, uh?

                  Wiki says Soc-Dem = Socialism

                  Wiki says all parties that have governed my country are Soc-Dems

                  Wiki says Socialism = socialy owning the means of production, opposed to private ownership

                  In my countrie most companies are privatly owned, and the government has actually privatized previous national companies

                  MFW the Wiki just contradicted it self

                  It's almost like you have to use critical thinking and can't just take things you read on Wikipedia at face value!

                  I'd say thanks for the laughs as well, but arguing with extremely ignorant but simultaneously extremely arrogant people is anything but fun.

                  Now, quit acting like you've ever read anything other than the Wiki, and go to your local library to pick up a book. I'ma ignore you from now on, because there's clearly nothing left to be gained for this conversation.

                  • When you won't agree with the most basic of definitions by going "no, not true, I know better but I don't have cite anyone just trust me bruv", then me citing who thinks that the very basic definition is actually the very basic definition, but you then continuing to disagree with it without being able to provide any sources at all... what use is trying to have a discussion? You're not ready for one. You've made up your mind and you just haphazardly try to equivocate. Like I said, I've had this exact same conversation hundreds of times.

                    So, to address your link... "maybe keep reading"?

                    Types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, and the structure of management in organizations. Socialist systems divide into non-market and market forms.

                    Almost as if market economies weren't all capitalist. Almost as if equating market economies to capitalism was as silly as equating cell growth to cancer. As established by me earlier, and the link you provided, modern socialism includes market socialism. Of course you might be oblivious to something like that if say, you were just pretending to understand the subject.

                    So now that you realise that you can't possibly back up your "social democracy is actually capitalism" garbage, you start shifting the goalposts, trying to equivocate on what socialism is in general. (Again, been here, done this, 2000000x)

                    You're now making the exact argument that I said you were, the entire time. You're directly saying that there is no private ownership under socialism.

                    Do us a service. Go to Google and type in "define socialism".

                    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.

                    Again, thanks for the laughs.

                    Edit, oh right, please do cite a source or any support for this "social democracy is capitalism" bullshit, why don't you? I'll wait here. :)

    • Yeah don't try to shoehorn some dictatorial bullshit into the democratic process and we can talk.

    • I relate to this, but I keep trying to tell people that we need to get a clear diagnosis of the problem and figure out how we're going to get out of this bind.

      Ultimately, Biden is currently on track to lose. He's been losing in the polls all year, and alarmingly, he's insisted that he isn't going to make changes. He's staying the course.

      Those of us who want to avoid a Trump dictatorship need to find a way to change this dynamic, and I don't see any way that complaining about Biden's disaffected base fixes this. I don't think complaining about Biden fixes it either. I think he's made peace with losing. So what will?

      The Democratic establishment -- the campaign managers and staff in particular -- can largely tolerate a Trump dictatorship more than the loss of status. "Leaders of the Resistance" is okay with them. "Collaborators" or "nobodies" isn't. If Jill Stein hits 15% in the polls and starts drawing major crowds, I thik this would be such a painful shock to the self-image of Democratic campaigners that I think this could dislodge the race and force Biden to reconsider his approach, and hopefully campaign for president the way he did in 2020.

      If you don't want Trump, don't blame the left. They aren't the primary source of his polling collapse. That's coming from moderates who see no vision or benefit. And the Democratic party's most popular agenda items are all leftist anti-corporate stuff. So criticism is all that I see saving us from Biden's terrible judgement.

      • Ultimately, Biden is currently on track to lose.

        If you don’t want Trump, don’t blame the left. They aren’t the primary source of his polling collapse.

        See, your premise is faulty so your conclusions - built upon this fault - are doomed.

        Polling is fucked. Literally, the polling we're seeing (and saw in 2020) is worse than useless in so far as it doesn't inform the public and deliberately distorts the ground game.

        If Jill Stein hits 15% in polls we've wandered into bizzarro world and all bets are off anyway.

        . So criticism is all that I see saving us from Biden’s terrible judgement.

        ....?

        • like when he cut insulin to $35, literally saving lives?
        • saving the economy,
        • forgiving school loans,
        • stood up for unions & labor (FIRST PRESIDENT TO EVER WALK A PICKET LINE),
        • increased overtime for millions,
        • ended federally subsidized discriminatory mortgage lending,
        • went after airlines, cable companies, phone companies, concert ticket sales and hotels for their fucking ridiculous hidden fees!,
        • brought back net neutrality,
        • he's gonna try to tax billionaires!

        Look I don't like the old shit, I've never been a fan and would prefer bernie but this is where we're at: if you can't look at that list and admit that holy shit the old squint seems to actually have some handle on the situation you're disregarding reality.

        And if you think Jill fucking Stein would do better you need to stop huffing gasoline Charlie Kelly.

        • Bruh.

          Your arguments are totally wasted on me. I'm not saying he hasn't done good stuff. I'm saying that he's running a losing campaign, and so far has been totally unwilling to change.

          Regarding polling: I don't know how to get through to you that he's losing. If you're not accepting reality, then we're fucked. Are you going to reject the election results too? It's not really even in the margin of error most weeks, he isn't even close to having the votes he needs in the states he needs to win. I can't believe we're replaying 2016 when we've already been through it. Wake up: we're on a collision course and need to change direction NOW.

          Regarding his achievements: These are largely great. Which just makes it so much more painful that no one knows about them. He's never been a skilled candidate, and unfortunately getting older has not done him favors. If he had a really strong campaign, he could certainly win, but if you give a guy who isn't good at the fundamentals of running bad support and bad guidance and a muddled, poorly delivered message, we're going to wake up under President-for-life Donald Fucking Trump.

          Did people forget that he was president? He won. It's like I'm in groundhog's day, and no one knows that we already ran this simulation, and the result was terrible.

          If Jill Stein hits 15% in polls we’ve wandered into bizzarro world and all bets are off anyway.

          We are already in bizzarro world! The leading candidate is a known fascist/rapist/felon, and the current incumbent is the most unpopular president in contemporary history.

          People don't even remember that Trump was found guilty of rape last year, because it's not even newsworthy because he keeps quoting Hitler. And he is CURRENTLY IN THE LEAD.

          Smash the glass and pull the alarms! All bets ARE off! This is a god-damned crisis, and repeating why BIden SHOULD be winning is pure copium. Put down the pipe and put on a pair of comfortable shoes, because saving America is going to need actual organizing work! And that starts with accepting that we have a problem.

          I'm not saying that we need to make Jill Stein president, but we need something to convince Biden to either let someone else take the nomination or start running like he means it. He (and you) need the loudest possible wake-up call or mark my words: Trump WILL win.

      • https://www.tiktok.com/@acdph/video/7308926178683915563

        • This is out of touch with the problem.

          The long term problem is that we don't have a political economy that actually represents the public.

          But the short term problem is that Trump is currently on track to win, and the people who don't want that to happen are sticking their heads in the sand.

          We need to (1) reengage the Democratic base. Biden's victory in key swing states -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia in particular -- was built on the backs of grass-roots door knocking campaigns by Bernie supporters. His campaign was absolutely reliant on the support of people who didn't really like HIM, but really wanted to get Trump out of office. Those people will probably still hold their nose and vote for him, but that turnout operation is shattered, and I don't see a way he can match his close victory in 2020 without it.

          If progressives find a champion in Jill Stein, it's possible that they start dreaming of something better, and if Biden turns things around, they'll have the drive to rebuild that critical lefty turnout machine.

          (2) Biden needs a metaphorical slap in the face. He won last time because Bernie's team wrote half his platform in a reconciliation committee. This time, there was no primary, so Biden has reverted to all his instincts, and they are TERRIBLE. He's trying to win Haley voters as if that's not like Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy's football. If Stein gets momentum, maybe it'll knock sense into him.

          This is all aside from the fact that voting Green builds party infrastructure and ballot access for a meaningful third party. There are lots of complicated reasons why voting Green has long-term strategic benefits, but I'm not even getting into those. I'm just talking about how we save Biden from himself. Sorry if it sounds like 4D chess, but polls already show Biden losing and he's not taking note, so I think seeing popularity for a left alternative is the only thing I can think of that will rescue this thing.

151 comments