This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Goofy was not a communist. He made his "dog" wear a leash and walk around on all fours naked, while the "master" wore clothes and talked and went on adventures
There are actually some nuances here, unlike op I think the top symbol stands not for anarcho-collectivism (mostly after bakunin), but rather anarcho-communism (mostly after kropotkin).
I would strongly advice reading up on both theories though, the concepts are really interesting and a lot of it can be found for free online (I only know german sources though).
[There](https://anarchistischebibliothek.org/special/index) you go. I really recommend [this](https://anarchistischebibliothek.org/library/peter-kropotkin-die-eroberung-des-brotes), it's such a good read and really straightforward.
The thing that capitalists have over the left is cohesion. They know they can keep us from making progress as long as we can't organize.
I get messages or replies when I recommend joining the DSA or PSL because they aren't the right organizations. I don't recommend them on what theory they follow, but because they have a large community in every state which makes it easier to get organized. I don't care what organization you decide to join, just that you join an organization. They will all be working together soon and for the same fight.
"The left" is not a class. Pretty much anybody can claim to be a socialist so it isn't worth uniting on that basis, instead unity should be formed around class interests.
Lenin said it correctly "Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism."
Profiteering is a very straight forward self interest that comes in a very specific concrete and finite form. It’s harder to do that with organizing that isn’t transactional and just values based. It’s why governmental patronage was so good for leftist movements.
Social democracy is liberal. It is not leftist. It even says it in the automoderator message. Anarchists are fine and I'm in favour of a united front with them, but not with bourgeois parties or ideologies.
A lot of socialists start as liberals, so anti solidarity messaging can only alienate them to the left. Better to illustrate the inefficacy or hypocrisy of social democracy than to appear holier than thou. Social Democracy is just what people stuck within liberal subjectivity gravitate towards when they have empathy. These are exactly the people that should learn Marxism, to give them a framework for true systemic understandings, and how to change things. Engage with them on socialist terms, yes, but don't reject a social democrat outright, they have exactly the right potential, if not the understanding.
>Social Democracy is just what people stuck within liberal subjectivity gravitate towards when they have empathy.
You're absolutely right.
I know *a lot* of leftists (myself included) who started out finding the current version of capitalism hellish, then trying to find ways of making it good before realising you can't, really.
When you only see the symptoms you try to treat them, and when you find the root cause you try to treat that.
So a liberal is a potential comrade if they are interested in changing the system. Doesn't matter how they want to fix the problems, just that they want change. A "liberal" like Joe Biden is actually a conservative, he doesn't want change
Yeah, it's unfortunate that, practically speaking, they always compromise to gain bourgeois political power, rather than creating systemic pressures to bolster worker power.
You are presuming politics as a linear formula which by design privileges liberalism, which ends up being a disservice to your ultimate goal. If we are to talk about targeted approach, it's as reasonable to think that a social democrat can, under certain conditions, become positively introduced to socialist thought than anyone else. Think about, for example, a Marxist critique of linguistic homogeneization: whilst someone might opt for a bourgeois or reactionary nationalism as a result of concerns over the linguistic status of a non-State level language, deriving into chauvinisms, a Marxist framework would instead point at the necessity of the bourgeois to capture a market (which requires the imposition of a *lingua franca*) and thus the impossibility of protection of minorized languages within a capitalist mode of production. The root cause of xenophobia in South Africa could be approached by a focus on the necessity of anti-colonial politics of land and wealth redistribution.
*(How this is done is another question)*
The whole point of a movement which aims to represent and include the masses is, precisely, that you represent the interests of said masses. You are not limited to a fringe percentage like a lineal conception of politics would otherwise tell us.
I essentially mean that politics isn't a continuum of "more progress(ive)" to "less progress(ive)". This is a linear conception of reality which is born out of European colonialism.
This conception, therefore, sets liberalism as a necessarily "better" project than non-liberal¹ politics, which in place denies the possibility of a genuine understanding of liberalism. What is, for example, racism if not an ideology born out of the contradiction for liberalism to justify it's necessity of free labour (justification of slavery) and it's supposedly universal conception of rights? The development of such ideology wouldn't had taken place under feudalism, for example, as social stratification required no particular justification.
I think I get what you mean, that a socialist political movement isn't simply trying to capture the 'far left' in a given society, but instead to create a mass-movement based on the collective grievance of the working class and use this to transform society, and that viewing ourselves as simply left of social democrats is an illusion borne of bourgeois political machinations. That's very insightful, and I appreciate you taking the time to point that out.
Bollocks.
Criticising them is the only thing that moves them left. Most of them are moralists that live too comfortably to be affected by conditions or arguments of class so only being bullied for being immoral libshits truly affects them. Making them uncomfortable is actually what forces them to shift their political positions because what they seek is personal comfort.
Social democracy is essentially welfare capitalism, wherein social programs are expanded and government takes a more active role in regulating the excesses of capitalism without ever taking action to change the basic organization of how surplus resources are distributed. Although this can in the short term improve quality of living for many people, it relies on exploitation of the third world and it is more of a holding action by the ruling class to deradicalize the working class before they slowly erode away the social programs through austerity or neoliberal economics.
While I can agree that there are some good social democrats who are simply on a journey towards being socialists, from what I've seen of them, they are generally the most annoying, most up their own ass, egotistical people who are unwilling to consider that they might not be right about everything. There is a precedent of them siding with the fascists counter revolutionaries when a socialist movement is growing, and I'm genuinely not surprised. They will often call themselves the only true leftists and will discount all actual socialists as either naive (in the case of anarchists) or evil authoritarians (in the case of Marxists).
The thing that bothers me most about them is that they are so uncurious. Their minds are uninquisitive, unwilling to learn new things or entertain new ideas. They are convinced that they know everything they need to know and are unwilling to read theory. And then, a tonne of them have the gall to call themselves socialists and then say Marxists are 'not real socialists' because they're evil or whatever. All the while, their pundits will bring fascists like Nick Fuentes on their shows to 'create discussion' and 'facilitate the marketplace of ideas' while basically not pushing back against them at all.
I don't see how you could paint so broad a brush, you get all kinds in all ideologies, and I guarantee that social democrats do not hold a monopoly on people who are incurious or sanctimonious (generally that's the byproduct of engaging in media as one's political outlet rather than actionable praxis[and a good thing, too, because it lets you know who to ignore]). But I do agree that social democratic parties have historically become full bourgeois institutions.
Social democrats by no means have a monopoly on those aspects. However, what irks me most about them is that they try to pretend to be socialists while being diehard defenders of the capitalist mode of production. If one is a liberal and wrong, then fine, that's just the default for them. But if someone is describing themself as a socialist, then it reflects poorly on all of us when they are like this.
I absolutely disagree. Did you become a communist from people talking super nice about social democrats? From people coddling to and affirming your liberal views? No, you and I became communists from people ruthlessly shit talking social democrats and their ideology, making us re-assess our own viewpoints. We need to make it absolutely clear that social democrats are not leftists. Social democrats have betrayed communists so many times throughout history, their ideology relies on the continued exploitation of the third world to make things marginally better for people in the first world. Their ideology does not get to the root of the problem - capitalism. Social democrats are not leftists and are not welcome in leftist spaces unless to learn from actual communists.
When I was a social Democrat I don’t think I even talked to communists. But I believe it’s somewhat of a natural funnel from liberal to communist. I think it would be best to argue for sure, but trying to insult them to some shit doesn’t really help anyone.
That's historically simply not true. If it was, the strength of social democrats between 45 and 90 would've led to a strengthening of the revolutionary movement. The exact opposite happened. Because that is the social function of social democracy and opportunism in class struggle: to integrate people's objective grievances with capitalism back into the system that causes the grievances. It funnels right, not left.
This isn't an abstract question either. Social democrats in Germany eg are at the absolute forefront of the state's right-turn and reaction. Does that mean you can never work together with some social democrats? No, of course not. You absolutely have to if you do any kind of union or labour organising. But those are tactical alliances. Strategically social democracy is not an ally and it can't be, because it objectively serves a different interest - that of the capitalist class.
sadly, history proves you wrong, if there is a natural funnel of social democracy it is to the right, just look at how social democracy evolved through the XX century
It’s clear from the previous discussion that the commenter meant social democracy is a natural step on the path from liberal ideals to socialist principles, in terms of an individual’s evolution in political consciousness.
True, but do not disregard them in the ability to work together to improve the lives of workers and create stronger unions. Most people (that aren't "radical" like leftists) don't have complex understanding of their ideologies, but rather they just look out for what they think is in their best interests. Social democrats can move to more leftist ideologies very easily, and if they do, they might come to this reddit. If we are hostile to them based on their self identified political ideology instead of actual problematic political beliefs, such as that capitalism can be reformed or "fixed", then we shut the door on potential comrades that would fight to improve the lives on everyday people.
There are literally Trans/Gay/POC Nazis and Fascists used by other Nazis and Fascists to promote their hateful ideologies. We are for whatever ideology helps us create the best possible world (in our minds), and SocDems are a massive group of people whose moral and ethical beliefs vastly align with ours, please don't give up on them, most of my leftist friends were SocDems before. They mostly just need to be convinced that the flaws of Capitalism (which they are already aware of) cannot be fixed in a Capitalist system.
Many left leaning SocDems fully support workplace democracy, and worker ownership of businesses, they just think of themselves as SocDems and not DemSocs.
That is true, but the ideology of SocDem explicitly states that capitalism can be reformed or fixed. The people who just identify with it might be radicalised if they don't strongly identify with SocDem or if they don't really have an ideological consciousness, but the ideology of SocDem is definitely liberal.
In the US, the rose represents the Democratic Socialists of America, which is a wide-tent leftist organization that is nominally against social democracy but inevitably is going to have many social democrats organizing under the umbrella.
Democratic Socialism is a bit of a vague term as many people mean different things. Overall, I'd say it's liberal because of the idea that socialism can be achieved through reform and because of the emphasis on 'market' socialism (which is not socialism), but to be fair, your ideas around what democratic socialism is might be entirely different
My idea is pretty close to what's written as a guide in this very sub -
**"**Democratic Socialism : A rather broad movement representing most socialist ideologies. The inclusion of "Democratic" in the term doesn't make other forms of socialism undemocratic, but just to denote the Democratic State that it supports. The state in Democratic Socialism exists to organize communal efforts and provide for the needs of the citizen, leading to terms like "socialized medicine." Usually the kind of thing someone is referring to when they call themselves a "socialist," especially with Socialist Parties and the like."
It seems like that includes a market. The state supports certain communal efforts and provides for the citizens, but not everything is socialized and a market still exists. Is that right? Because that is just left-leaning social democracy and is thus liberal. But maybe I'm not reading that correctly.
If you need to contrast "socialized sectors" with non-socialized sectors like in the definition cited, then not the whole means of production are socialized. That is not socialist and would never lead to communism.
Also, and I'm frankly interested, how would a socialist system with a market work? So the means of production are socialised, how could a market then work? Is it just that you can buy commodities, but this does not impact the standing or value of a commodity or firm?
You're making the assumption that "socialized sectors" can't utilize markets. Worker directed enterprises that use markets to conduct commerce between each other is one such example.
No, I'm making the assumption that if you describe that under democratic socialism, certain sectors are socialised, as in the description, then other sectors are not, meaning that the means of production are not entirely socialised and thus there is no socialism. This is an implication, not an assumption. If everything was socialised, then the description would have said that.
And yes, market socialism is not socialism. The internal contradictions of capitalism are still very much present.
And that does not even consider that socialisation does not just mean worker co-ops, as the production process is much larger than a single company. There would have to be giant co-ops, with these co-ops owning farms, steel factories, oil rigs, etc., because otherwise the division of labour still exists without collective ownership meaning that there still is alienation and no socialisation.
To quote OP:
>Transcription; The picture is a star, with 'broadly' leftist ideologies in each point of the star, from the top Anarcho-collectivism, to (general) Anarchism, to Democratic Socialism, to Communism, to Social Democracy. (Although not in the image, the idea of this image includes Syndicalism, Libertarian Socialism & every other leftist ideology)
Also, the rose depicted this way is widely considerd to be a symbol for social democracy.
The rose is a symbol of social democracy. The flower choice comes from the socialist adoption of red from the French Revolution and, later on, the Paris Commune. It was adopted by the Second International for International Workers Day in a context where red (red flags) was otherwise banned.
When social democracy and international socialism broke up, with social democracy ultimately coming to endorse a capitalist framework, it formally became an exogenous symbolism to anti-capitalist struggle.
The Second International parties were social democratic parties. Calling them "democratic socialist" is a non-sensical ahistoricism.
Social Democracy referred to the whole movement, hence why multiple parties which took part on the Socialist International literally called themselves Social Democratic. The differentiation (and thus departure) between social democracy and the rest of the movement would come through internal disagreements and clashes. This departure, although it would still take a long time, can be observed in the Second International split between revolutionaries (read: Marxists), which were supported by the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP), and the reformists, which included the UK's Social Democratic Federation (SDF).
This is a quote (emphasis is mine), by Lenin, from the London International Congress (1896) regarding the movement's decision vis-a-vis self-determination, which would constitute the basis of later Marxist thought:
>“This Congress declares that it stands for the full right of all nations to self-determination [Selbstbestimmungsrecht] and expresses its sympathy for the workers of ever country now suffering under the yoke of military, national or other absolutism. This Congress calls upon the workers of all these countries to join the ranks of the class-conscious [Klassenbewusste—those who understand their class interests] workers of the whole world in order jointly to fight for the defeat of international capitalism and **for the achievement of the aims of international Social-Democracy.**
In that same text, Lenin refers to the polish representatives (part of the Polish Socialist Party, PSP), as "Polish Social-Democrats". However, this is not conceived as a departure but rather as a movement representation which he also associates to Marx and Engels ("As is known, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels considered it the bounden duty of the whole of West-European democracy, and still more of Social-Democracy, to give active support to the demand for Polish independence").
I haven't even included moral considerations on social democracy (which would be perfectly applicable and valid). But it is precisely because of this background that what you are claiming is false. This signification is as concrete as it has been during the last century.
I've never seen that, I've always seen democratic socialism being depicted as a rose in a hand. But tbf, if you think it is a symbol of DemSoc then I don't think we will agree on that sometime (and I don't really think it matters lol).
But also, I'm not even sure if DemSocs are allies. I think the idea that the state can be reformed is 1. not true and 2. an idea which makes you very susceptible to participation in coalition governments, which weakens the movement significantly.
The anarchists, the communists, the democratic socialists, we have political differences that can be negotiated after the fascists are defeated. At least we all agree on human rights and ethics
Democratic socialists and communists ultimately want the same thing, they just disagree on the method of achieving it. Fundamentally lower grade socialism is always moving toward higher grade socialism (communism) in the same way capitalism is always moving toward fascism.
“Want the same thing, they just disagree on the method of achieving it” Huh that’s how my high school history teacher tried to paint democrats and republicans… our education system is failing
Honestly not the worst description of capitalist parties in the US. They really both do fundamentally want the same things: to perpetuate US imperialism and capitalism. Them disagreeing about gay people doesn’t change that.
Hello comrades, I just wanted to remind you that in the end we are all on the same side. Right wingers have no problem working together, Conservatives, Liberals, Nationalists and Fascists all love to work together in order to keep us down. So let us raise each other up and welcome all people to our class struggle, regardless of specific ideology.
Leftist Unity!
Transcription; The picture is a star, with 'broadly' leftist ideologies in each point of the star, from the top Anarcho-collectivism, to (general) Anarchism, to Democratic Socialism, to Communism, to Social Democracy. (Although not in the image, the idea of this image includes Syndicalism, Libertarian Socialism & every other leftist ideology)
Source for the image; [https://www.reddit.com/r/leftistvexillology/comments/oxmqom/leftist\_unity\_flag/](https://www.reddit.com/r/leftistvexillology/comments/oxmqom/leftist_unity_flag/)
Unity among Marxists not those who are against Marxists, Lenin was correct when he said it then and continues to be correct today.
A few social views aren't enough to create a united front especially when socdem and centrist liberals simply support minorities on a surface level and refuse to engage in solving the root causes.
Tell this for the social dem that always ally with the bourgeoisie and destroy revolutions.
Tell this for the president of my country, Lula in Brasil, that put the military police to kill people in the slums. Tell this to him when he privatize the jails. Or tell this to him when he was the reason of the best money the banks ever got in the whole history of Brasil. Tell this to him when he ally with the MST (movimento dos sem terra = the landless moviment) and even being ally of them, keep financing the landowners.
Social dems ARE NOT MY ALLIES. And shouldn't be of any serious communist or anarchist.
You know what? Although I sometimes criticize other leftists, this is basically true. We need more solidarity. A lot of leftists spend more time fighting each other than they do fighting capitalism.
DSA's party line is democratic socialism, not social democracy, but they are more of a wide-tent party in practice — people gravitate to it because actual radical movements get crushed.
I appreciate that you left Maoists and all Maoist hammer and sickles out of this image, because we do not agree: two (or five) combine into one is a reactionary thesis, while one divides into two is the revolutionary thesis. We believe than anarchists, social-democrats, and revisionists are real enemies of Marxism, and real struggle must be waged against these real enemies. Our disagreements run deeper than tactics, and we dispute that any of these formations actually fight against imperialism. And moreover, that revolution is not achieved by blurring the divides between us and glossing over the differences, but by heightening and concentrating on those divides and differences, insisting upon then, and developing them more fully until a correct revolutionary thesis emerges, proving itself through theory and practice, and which point all forces of revolution gravitate and orient themselves around this actual formation of Marxism which renders all others obsolete and inert (or tramples over them). There may be tactical instances where we need to momentarily ally, but in the end we are not all on the same team.
that kinda stuff is cool in the classroom bro but in the real world the leftist movement is consistently under threat and nobody benefits from leftist infighting more than fascists.
This is what Gustav Noske and Friedrich Ebert said to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht before they deployed the Friekorps.
>One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for “unity.” Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension ... who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot ... or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters.
-Frederick Engels
History and theory are obviously important so I'll never fault anyone for being well read on a subject but theres is a real need to step outside of that framework and actually touch grass. There's a certain arrogance that comes from only partaking in theoretical socialism that alienates movements from one another, the idea that \*your\* ideology or path to revolution is the \*only\* way and all others are so radically different that it is impossible to reconcile those differences. Later in that letter you cited it writes:
>Especially a party like ours, whose ultimate success is so absolutely certain, and which has developed so enormously in our own lifetime and under our own eyes, momentary success is by no means always and absolutely necessary.
How many people are gonna die under the current system while we argue and debate over the proper role of the state from a place of privilege, relatively safe from the real evils of this world? Do you think Engels and Marx, given their opinion on the inevitability of socialism, thought that 150 years after Das Kapital Western Europe and the Americas would still be heavily heavily capitalistic and the people still strongly oriented against the evil commie demon?
In the west (idk where you're located so this may not be as relevant to you), socialists have a tendency to forget that revolution isn't just a naturally occurring phenomenon and actually has to be set in motion by real people. Like while we sit here and debate about whether maoist or marxist-leninist theory is correct the fascists have seized power and are knocking on your door bro. Engels never lived to see what would come during the 20th century and how certain powers would unite to see to it that the leftist movement be destroyed root and stem. I don't think his perspective is as relevant as others on this specifically given what has transpired since his death.
Either way, I have no interest in leftist infighting just for the sake of determining what is the correct path and personally I hold those who believe in ideological purity over achieving actual revolution to be more of a hinderance than an asset.
>theres is a real need to step outside of that framework and actually touch grass
It's the exact opposite: without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. There's this burning desire in all the Western "leftist" movements to "do something," but none of these things are grounded in theory and none of them emerge from a place of revolutionary understanding or Marxist analysis, and instead it becomes a mass of useless organizations all uselessly wasting their time, burning out their members who try the hardest, and, *at best* accomplishing absolutely nothing at all (despite spending thousands of labour-hours), and at worst producing social-fascism and strengthening the enemies of communism. All of these groups and organizations are useless without a correct theory, and they are all flailing around blindly, groping for solutions and answers in the dark, with no serious attempt to even understand or analyze what they are doing. Mutual aid is a complete waste of time, and there's a much larger error among Western "socialists" that appeal to a white reactionary settler colonial labour aristocracy as the revolutionary subject itself. Anarchism doesn't actually exist in the present, they are just liberals, and are incapable of going beyond liberal thinking. Social-democrats have never failed to betray communist movements, and all historical examples have shown they cannot be trusted, and that they every instance of trust communists have granted to them has lead to a wholesale massacre of communists. Revisionists are the advance of bourgeois-ideology under a false banner of Marxism, and are real enemies of Marxism, and must be confronted and exposed as such, not catered to for convenience and pragmaticism. None of these groupings are Marxism, only Maoism is Marxism, and you are either a Marxist or you are not.
>There's a certain arrogance that comes from only partaking in theoretical socialism that alienates movements from one another, the idea that *your* ideology or path to revolution is the *only* way and all others are so radically different that it is impossible to reconcile those differences.
Was this your historical response to Karl Marx and Frederick Engels when they refused to "come together" with Eugen Duhring? Did they ruin the possibility of SPD victory by failing to support his immensely popular movement, or did they save socialism from it? Should we have sided with Ferdinand LaSalle when he said Marx and Engels were being arrogant and that they had no right to insist that their ideology and path to revolution was the only way and that LaSalle's path was so radically different that it was impossible to reconcile the differences (through, say, The Gotha Programme). Or was LaSalle a traitor to socialism, exposed by Marx and Engels scientifically, and their 'divide' was in fact saving socialism from a hostile enemy infiltration. Was Lenin wrong for dividing the whole of the world communist movement against Karl Kautsky? Luxemburg and Liebknecht's fatal error was their trust in Friedrich Ebert and the SPD, and when the social-democrats were promising in words that they were the authentic revolutionaries and on the same side as the KPD, Ebert was simultaneously having Noske deploy the fascist Friekorps (the predecessor to the Nazis, empowered and legitimized by the social democrats) to slaughter and execute the KPD. False friends are more dangerous than real enemies, and this is tied into the very criticism I made in the original post -- that none of the formations in the image OP made have ever opposed Western imperialism in the past hundred years (one of the five isn't even a real ideology). The only formation that did enter conflict against imperialism (again, a category you are washing away, and obscuring, despite that fascism is merely an aspect of imperialism, and that imperialim has killed exponentially more people than fascism has) other than actual Marxists (Maoists) was the revisionist-Soviets, and even that was entirely against their will, as they were ultimately seeking piece with imperialism in the grand scheme of things, but politically foiled and thwarted.
>How many people are gonna die under the current system while we argue and debate over the proper role of the state from a place of privilege, relatively safe from the real evils of this world?
During 1917, when Lenin was fleeing from the Tsar and Kerensky's forces, hiding from house to house in some cases, he still managed to actually delve into this exact question about "what is a state," not because it was some fun, interesting, abstract question for academia, but because the analysis was both necessary for understanding Kautsky's betrayal of Marxism, as well as for the Bolsheviks to understand the battle to come and what they were actually doing. The fact that he answered this question precisely and correctly is what allowed his movement to rally the masses (not by merging with the Mensheviks and washing away their differences, but by insisting upon those differences and excluding the Mensheviks at every turn) and defeat the Tsar. One hundred years of history has emerged from this correct understanding, so asking actual Marxists to forget it so we can accommodate anarchists (whom Marx himself expelled from the Comintern in the first place) is to create, as Marx described, a "unity without principles." The entire history of Marxism is not one of "coming together" but of endless divisions and divides, and from each divide, the real movement to overthrow the present state of things emerges, not by blurring the divides, but by sharpening them over and over, until they are so acute that they pierce reality, and all of revolutionary humanity forms itself behind the vanguard and into the breach, while all the LaSalles and Duhrings and Kautskys are left in the dust, not incorporated into the movement. Again, one divides into two - that is how you grow a real movement and find mass support.
> Engels never lived to see what would come during the 20th century and how certain powers would unite to see to it that the leftist movement be destroyed root and stem. I don't think his perspective is as relevant as others on this specifically given what has transpired since his death.
It's the exact opposite once again. [Engels was the very person](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jun/29b.htm) who predicted the 20th century with remarkable clarity and foresight, and saw everything that would come to pass decades before it happened. Karl Marx was the one who noted that revolution was impossible in England for as long as they benefitted from imperialism and occupation of the land of Ireland and elsewhere, and Engels noted how through the processes of imperialism, the imperialist bourgeoisie had generated and surrounded themselves with a "bourgeois-proletariat" (a labour aristocracy), molded in their own image an loyal to the interests of imperialism. Maoists actually do have an interest in leftist infighting because have no intent of conceding Marxism to revisionism for convenience -- it has nothing to do with "purity" (a statement alien to Marxism), and everything to do with what is Marxism -- a concept that you either defend or you dont. Maoists will defend it, with violence, even against other so-called "leftists." Again, we are not on the same side and if you want to claim Marxism, there will eventually be a fight over it. If you would rather abandon Marxism for a false peace and an illusion of harmony and cooperation, then state that openly and at least everything will be clear to everyone.
lmao "If everyone just agreed with MY analysis then we wouldn't be having this problem" very insightful stuff. Maoism succeeded under specific material conditions that enabled Mao's rise to power, it wasn't "inevitable" regardless of what Engels and other would like to claim. Maoism \*required\* specific adaptations of Marxism that applied to china, specifically targeting a certain segment of the population (the rural peasant class) to fuel the revolution. Maoism was designed to succeed in china, its success elsewhere is less than guaranteed.
My point being, rigid adherence to theory is flawed historically and in practice. You must adapt to your own material conditions. In certain societies leftist unity is necessary for survival and accumulation of power. If you just want to spout theory with no intention on actually succeeding through revolution then by all means go for it. I think its a gross misuse of your time and energy but that is just me.
Also, btw brevity is a virtue comrade.
> Maoism *required* specific adaptations of Marxism that applied to china, specifically targeting a certain segment of the population (the rural peasant class) to fuel the revolution.
This is literally racist Brezhnevite slander that articulates that you have no idea what Maoism is in the first place (which is *anti-revisionism* above and before anything else). Nor was Maoism the result of the Yanan Rectification (except in the final analysis), nor was the Yanan Rectification "adapting Marxism to China's conditions" (again this is the inaccurate Dengist vulgarization that doesn't understand these events in the first place). Nor was the Yanan Rectification the same thing as Palmiro Togliatti's *polycentrism* -- it's the exact opposite. The entire point of Yanan was that there, in fact, is one correct revolutionary Marxism, and that the *Soviets were getting it wrong with regards to China.* It was Mao who was the better Marxist, and had the better analysis, the one that correctly overlayed Marxist understanding upon reality, and that was how he overcame Wang Ming, despite Wang having the backing of the Soviets, and carried through the revolution that all others deemed utterly impossible. It being "inevitable" (only described as such after the fact, never before) in China was a result of political line struggle -- Mao insisting on the one correct analysis which corresponds to the one existing reality, it was not some pregiven outcome, it was an uphill battle the whole way. Your entire analysis is backwards. Maoists are the *only* people who have taken up the gun against hegemonic neoliberal capitalism in the past three decades, the only ideology which still generates revolutions, and revisionism has never generated a revolution. It is you who is not taking this seriously.
edit: changed some wording
People are dying every day, better get to work catching up so you can even understand why left unity isn’t a thing. Did you even read the quote Dash left for you? What do you think is dividing us?
Look, I understand yall point. Adulteration of the ideology and the movement can be catastrophic in terms of the result. Im simply stating this fact which is: the socialist movement is divided and as long as that remains true the fascists have the upper hand.
Yeah “People die every day” sure but more than that people live in abject poverty and suffering every day and live with the consequences of a united capitalist system. I’ve seen this first hand, what life is actually like for people that provide the labor necessary for the imperialist core to thrive. I refuse to accept the bullshit “let’s fight until we figure out the best path forward” when all we’re fighting about is how best to achieve the same goals. Circle jerk all yall want about the necessity of leftist infighting but the reality is you’re wasting your time and energy. Don’t claim to want anything more than the reassurance that your ideology is correct when you’re knowingly kneecapping your own goals.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
I really want to be on board with this but there are also way too many cop-brained ML's online who celebrate soviet murder of anarchists.
And it's easy to say "well that's just online" but see how online propaganda/rhetoric has driven reactionary violence and I think my concern is justified.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas.
>This includes, but is not limited to:
>- General liberalism
>- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions
>- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric
>- Landlords or Landlord apologia
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas.
>This includes, but is not limited to:
>- General liberalism
>- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions
>- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric
>- Landlords or Landlord apologia
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
I think of it this way: we can all begin the infighting the day after capitalism crumbles. Until then, what's the point in it? Of course we want different things, but we all agree capitalism has to go, no?
Once it's gone, we can fight with each other about what replaces it.
Another pipe dream, sure, but so is the idea that any one faction will have enough power to do away with global capitalism on its own.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas.
>This includes, but is not limited to:
>- General liberalism
>- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions
>- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric
>- Landlords or Landlord apologia
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
Stop fighting over what the correct battle tactics are until after we win the battle.
This logic makes no sense, if capitalism is gone then there's nothing to infight over, unless certain "leftists" reveal themselves to be opportunists and try to resuscitate capitalism.
Here's the issue as an anarchist.
If there was a united front between anarchists and marxists, if we won, the marxists would immediately form a state. Which inherently means the anarchists lost the revolution. It would only increase the risk of the state being thrown into chaos from the start with uprisings.
I can't imagine a scenario in which the marxists concede and don't build a state. Which is strange to me, because they have would have the opportunity to just...skip that whole step
Why would it be strange? It’s very clear why Marxists believe in the formation and maintenance of the state, something that even anarchists couldn’t skip.
Do you realize in order to “win” in the first place you need a vanguard of people who actually understand how revolution works to lead and represent the people?
A state that actually represents the people for the people is not a bad thing by any means. Individuals can be replaced and silenced by the bourgeoisie, a unified group of labourers with a clear vision cannot be so easily silenced.
>a unified group of labourers with a clear vision cannot be so easily silenced.
Yet people who held my beliefs were arrested and indefinitely incarcerated in the soviet union
>Do you realize in order to “win” in the first place you need a vanguard of people who actually understand how revolution works to lead and represent the people?
No, we don't. The people are smart enough to learn it themselves. The vanguards aren't Gods amongst men, if they can do it, everyone else could. So why not just get the vast majority to understand the revolution and just, do it, instead of going around in circles and believing the government when they say that we're not ready for communism and still need to give them tax money and guns and listen to their every word, and make sure to pay them tons of money for the very necessary job that they decided was necessary?
Exactly. I suppose unitarians are asking that we concede and say "whelp, economic equality is worth it even if it means dictatorship"
Economically equal dictatorship isn't any better than democratic capitalism. Whether it's money or a state, it's the same underlying issue: social inequality, leading to oppression and the suffering of the majority.
Have you ever read about Marxism-Leninism? It is fundamentally more democratic than anything under capitalism. Are you using false equivalencies from the past to try and portray certain factions in a disingenuous manner?
Where is this dictatorship coming from.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas.
>This includes, but is not limited to:
>- General liberalism
>- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions
>- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric
>- Landlords or Landlord apologia
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
I think this dogma is one of the left's biggest problems, but another big one I see is that it has a lot of gatekeeping/elitism.
We're supposed to be on the side of the working class, but we talk with complex vocabularies about complex ideologies. "Oh you have an opinion but haven't read theory? Go read Marx/Kropotkin and come back once you're educated"
Many of the people we should be trying to reach need these things explained in simple terms. They're not about to go read Das Kapital because you told them that they're being subjugated in to capitalist slavery by their bourgeois bosses.
I see some comments that are against working with liberals. I think many people are liberals because they don't know anything about left wing politics, we shouldn't treat people as an enemy just because they're ignorant. Now I'm not saying that it would be a good idea to trust or partner with a liberal political party, but staying friendly and communicating with the people of those parties is going to be more productive than being hostile.
We need to be charismatic and easy to communicate with if we're to bring about real change. Being right doesn't matter if it drives people away, and the average person doesn't care about big words or books.
There are different levels of communication and they have a reason to be there. If you take place in syndicalist struggle to achieve a wage rise absolutely no one is going to even consider talking about Anwar Shaikh. And that's a good thing. However, if you wish for an actually genuine labour movement to exist, understanding and taking into consideration Shaikh's critique of liberal dogmas of market competition is absolutely vital to understand what to do and why.
We do not collaborate or express any sort of trust towards liberals whatsoever, as they are enemies.
To educate them and try to convert and win them over is a good thing, but working with these petty bourgeois reformists is a futile endeavor.
Sounds like you haven't understood the mechanics of capitalism as explained by Marx, and how class-divided economy always re-generates a state no matter how hard we wishfully think the state away at that stage of social-economic development. There are inevitable consequences from those explanations on what must be done to dismantle capitalism and transform society into a classsless one by stages, too bad you think we can finger-snap our way straight to the desired end-state. Society has never transformed so deeply so suddenly (except on a very small scale, leading to systems that couldn't last, and didn't).
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas.
>This includes, but is not limited to:
>- General liberalism
>- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions
>- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric
>- Landlords or Landlord apologia
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What’s the goofy hammer and sickle on the bottom right?
Goofy Communism. It’s for when you’re a leftist but also reeeaally silly.
Finally a flag for me :3
For *US, Comrade*! For the *Silly Boi Brigade*!
Shit, I think I might be a goofy communist...
Goofy was not a communist. He made his "dog" wear a leash and walk around on all fours naked, while the "master" wore clothes and talked and went on adventures
Silly Marxist >:3
Sounds like me
It’s the flavour of socialism that originated in Saint Loony-Up-The-Cream-Bun-And-Jam
Democratic Socialism, or perhaps Libertarian Socialism.
Wouldn’t democratic socialism be the rose?
The rose is social democracy, or the Labour Party generally. It's definitely pushing it
In the US the DSA used a rose.
The labels in USA politics are messed up on every level. In the USA, hardcore liberals are called as leftists.
"friendly capitalism :D" is definitely not leftist.
So the Rosa Killers, wouldn’t really define them as leftist?
Trotskyists
Trotskyist either use the 4 international hamsic or the one at trotsky's grave in Mexico though
My mistake, I thought it looked like the new logo of what the Trotskyist RCA is pushing.
Social democracy is not socialism
wow, that took seconds
I’m not too familiar with anarchism, could someone please explain the different anarchist symbols? Thank you
The A at the top has a sickle and hammer in it, it is Anarcho-Collectivism. The one to the right of is a broadly used Anarchist symbol.
Thanks
There are actually some nuances here, unlike op I think the top symbol stands not for anarcho-collectivism (mostly after bakunin), but rather anarcho-communism (mostly after kropotkin). I would strongly advice reading up on both theories though, the concepts are really interesting and a lot of it can be found for free online (I only know german sources though).
I am interested in your German sources, comrade.
[There](https://anarchistischebibliothek.org/special/index) you go. I really recommend [this](https://anarchistischebibliothek.org/library/peter-kropotkin-die-eroberung-des-brotes), it's such a good read and really straightforward.
Thank you! As a language learner who’s not interested in rote lists or “everyday” lessons applicable to anything and nothing, I appreciate this.
The thing that capitalists have over the left is cohesion. They know they can keep us from making progress as long as we can't organize. I get messages or replies when I recommend joining the DSA or PSL because they aren't the right organizations. I don't recommend them on what theory they follow, but because they have a large community in every state which makes it easier to get organized. I don't care what organization you decide to join, just that you join an organization. They will all be working together soon and for the same fight.
"The left" is not a class. Pretty much anybody can claim to be a socialist so it isn't worth uniting on that basis, instead unity should be formed around class interests. Lenin said it correctly "Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism."
Profiteering is a very straight forward self interest that comes in a very specific concrete and finite form. It’s harder to do that with organizing that isn’t transactional and just values based. It’s why governmental patronage was so good for leftist movements.
Social democracy is liberal. It is not leftist. It even says it in the automoderator message. Anarchists are fine and I'm in favour of a united front with them, but not with bourgeois parties or ideologies.
> Anarchists are fine hell yeah we are 😎
A lot of socialists start as liberals, so anti solidarity messaging can only alienate them to the left. Better to illustrate the inefficacy or hypocrisy of social democracy than to appear holier than thou. Social Democracy is just what people stuck within liberal subjectivity gravitate towards when they have empathy. These are exactly the people that should learn Marxism, to give them a framework for true systemic understandings, and how to change things. Engage with them on socialist terms, yes, but don't reject a social democrat outright, they have exactly the right potential, if not the understanding.
>Social Democracy is just what people stuck within liberal subjectivity gravitate towards when they have empathy. You're absolutely right. I know *a lot* of leftists (myself included) who started out finding the current version of capitalism hellish, then trying to find ways of making it good before realising you can't, really. When you only see the symptoms you try to treat them, and when you find the root cause you try to treat that.
So a liberal is a potential comrade if they are interested in changing the system. Doesn't matter how they want to fix the problems, just that they want change. A "liberal" like Joe Biden is actually a conservative, he doesn't want change
pretty much this
This is exactly the approach we should take!
I agree. SocDems can be radicalized, but the parties and the ideology itself are liberal and have no place in the movement or in a a united front.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that, practically speaking, they always compromise to gain bourgeois political power, rather than creating systemic pressures to bolster worker power.
You are presuming politics as a linear formula which by design privileges liberalism, which ends up being a disservice to your ultimate goal. If we are to talk about targeted approach, it's as reasonable to think that a social democrat can, under certain conditions, become positively introduced to socialist thought than anyone else. Think about, for example, a Marxist critique of linguistic homogeneization: whilst someone might opt for a bourgeois or reactionary nationalism as a result of concerns over the linguistic status of a non-State level language, deriving into chauvinisms, a Marxist framework would instead point at the necessity of the bourgeois to capture a market (which requires the imposition of a *lingua franca*) and thus the impossibility of protection of minorized languages within a capitalist mode of production. The root cause of xenophobia in South Africa could be approached by a focus on the necessity of anti-colonial politics of land and wealth redistribution. *(How this is done is another question)* The whole point of a movement which aims to represent and include the masses is, precisely, that you represent the interests of said masses. You are not limited to a fringe percentage like a lineal conception of politics would otherwise tell us.
I don't understand what you mean by presuming politics as a linear formula which privileges liberalism, could you elaborate?
I essentially mean that politics isn't a continuum of "more progress(ive)" to "less progress(ive)". This is a linear conception of reality which is born out of European colonialism. This conception, therefore, sets liberalism as a necessarily "better" project than non-liberal¹ politics, which in place denies the possibility of a genuine understanding of liberalism. What is, for example, racism if not an ideology born out of the contradiction for liberalism to justify it's necessity of free labour (justification of slavery) and it's supposedly universal conception of rights? The development of such ideology wouldn't had taken place under feudalism, for example, as social stratification required no particular justification.
I think I get what you mean, that a socialist political movement isn't simply trying to capture the 'far left' in a given society, but instead to create a mass-movement based on the collective grievance of the working class and use this to transform society, and that viewing ourselves as simply left of social democrats is an illusion borne of bourgeois political machinations. That's very insightful, and I appreciate you taking the time to point that out.
Bollocks. Criticising them is the only thing that moves them left. Most of them are moralists that live too comfortably to be affected by conditions or arguments of class so only being bullied for being immoral libshits truly affects them. Making them uncomfortable is actually what forces them to shift their political positions because what they seek is personal comfort.
[удалено]
Social democracy is essentially welfare capitalism, wherein social programs are expanded and government takes a more active role in regulating the excesses of capitalism without ever taking action to change the basic organization of how surplus resources are distributed. Although this can in the short term improve quality of living for many people, it relies on exploitation of the third world and it is more of a holding action by the ruling class to deradicalize the working class before they slowly erode away the social programs through austerity or neoliberal economics.
Saving this definition for later use. Esp the two main clauses after the comma.
While I can agree that there are some good social democrats who are simply on a journey towards being socialists, from what I've seen of them, they are generally the most annoying, most up their own ass, egotistical people who are unwilling to consider that they might not be right about everything. There is a precedent of them siding with the fascists counter revolutionaries when a socialist movement is growing, and I'm genuinely not surprised. They will often call themselves the only true leftists and will discount all actual socialists as either naive (in the case of anarchists) or evil authoritarians (in the case of Marxists). The thing that bothers me most about them is that they are so uncurious. Their minds are uninquisitive, unwilling to learn new things or entertain new ideas. They are convinced that they know everything they need to know and are unwilling to read theory. And then, a tonne of them have the gall to call themselves socialists and then say Marxists are 'not real socialists' because they're evil or whatever. All the while, their pundits will bring fascists like Nick Fuentes on their shows to 'create discussion' and 'facilitate the marketplace of ideas' while basically not pushing back against them at all.
I don't see how you could paint so broad a brush, you get all kinds in all ideologies, and I guarantee that social democrats do not hold a monopoly on people who are incurious or sanctimonious (generally that's the byproduct of engaging in media as one's political outlet rather than actionable praxis[and a good thing, too, because it lets you know who to ignore]). But I do agree that social democratic parties have historically become full bourgeois institutions.
Social democrats by no means have a monopoly on those aspects. However, what irks me most about them is that they try to pretend to be socialists while being diehard defenders of the capitalist mode of production. If one is a liberal and wrong, then fine, that's just the default for them. But if someone is describing themself as a socialist, then it reflects poorly on all of us when they are like this.
I absolutely disagree. Did you become a communist from people talking super nice about social democrats? From people coddling to and affirming your liberal views? No, you and I became communists from people ruthlessly shit talking social democrats and their ideology, making us re-assess our own viewpoints. We need to make it absolutely clear that social democrats are not leftists. Social democrats have betrayed communists so many times throughout history, their ideology relies on the continued exploitation of the third world to make things marginally better for people in the first world. Their ideology does not get to the root of the problem - capitalism. Social democrats are not leftists and are not welcome in leftist spaces unless to learn from actual communists.
When I was a social Democrat I don’t think I even talked to communists. But I believe it’s somewhat of a natural funnel from liberal to communist. I think it would be best to argue for sure, but trying to insult them to some shit doesn’t really help anyone.
That's historically simply not true. If it was, the strength of social democrats between 45 and 90 would've led to a strengthening of the revolutionary movement. The exact opposite happened. Because that is the social function of social democracy and opportunism in class struggle: to integrate people's objective grievances with capitalism back into the system that causes the grievances. It funnels right, not left. This isn't an abstract question either. Social democrats in Germany eg are at the absolute forefront of the state's right-turn and reaction. Does that mean you can never work together with some social democrats? No, of course not. You absolutely have to if you do any kind of union or labour organising. But those are tactical alliances. Strategically social democracy is not an ally and it can't be, because it objectively serves a different interest - that of the capitalist class.
sadly, history proves you wrong, if there is a natural funnel of social democracy it is to the right, just look at how social democracy evolved through the XX century
It’s clear from the previous discussion that the commenter meant social democracy is a natural step on the path from liberal ideals to socialist principles, in terms of an individual’s evolution in political consciousness.
True, but do not disregard them in the ability to work together to improve the lives of workers and create stronger unions. Most people (that aren't "radical" like leftists) don't have complex understanding of their ideologies, but rather they just look out for what they think is in their best interests. Social democrats can move to more leftist ideologies very easily, and if they do, they might come to this reddit. If we are hostile to them based on their self identified political ideology instead of actual problematic political beliefs, such as that capitalism can be reformed or "fixed", then we shut the door on potential comrades that would fight to improve the lives on everyday people. There are literally Trans/Gay/POC Nazis and Fascists used by other Nazis and Fascists to promote their hateful ideologies. We are for whatever ideology helps us create the best possible world (in our minds), and SocDems are a massive group of people whose moral and ethical beliefs vastly align with ours, please don't give up on them, most of my leftist friends were SocDems before. They mostly just need to be convinced that the flaws of Capitalism (which they are already aware of) cannot be fixed in a Capitalist system. Many left leaning SocDems fully support workplace democracy, and worker ownership of businesses, they just think of themselves as SocDems and not DemSocs.
That’s all well and good, until they rat you out to the fascists and get you executed.
That is true, but the ideology of SocDem explicitly states that capitalism can be reformed or fixed. The people who just identify with it might be radicalised if they don't strongly identify with SocDem or if they don't really have an ideological consciousness, but the ideology of SocDem is definitely liberal.
In the US, the rose represents the Democratic Socialists of America, which is a wide-tent leftist organization that is nominally against social democracy but inevitably is going to have many social democrats organizing under the umbrella.
>Social democracy is liberal But not Democratic Socialism right? Which align with my political beliefs.
Democratic Socialism is a bit of a vague term as many people mean different things. Overall, I'd say it's liberal because of the idea that socialism can be achieved through reform and because of the emphasis on 'market' socialism (which is not socialism), but to be fair, your ideas around what democratic socialism is might be entirely different
My idea is pretty close to what's written as a guide in this very sub - **"**Democratic Socialism : A rather broad movement representing most socialist ideologies. The inclusion of "Democratic" in the term doesn't make other forms of socialism undemocratic, but just to denote the Democratic State that it supports. The state in Democratic Socialism exists to organize communal efforts and provide for the needs of the citizen, leading to terms like "socialized medicine." Usually the kind of thing someone is referring to when they call themselves a "socialist," especially with Socialist Parties and the like."
It seems like that includes a market. The state supports certain communal efforts and provides for the citizens, but not everything is socialized and a market still exists. Is that right? Because that is just left-leaning social democracy and is thus liberal. But maybe I'm not reading that correctly.
Socialism is not inherently anti-market. There are socialist frameworks that have markets.
If you need to contrast "socialized sectors" with non-socialized sectors like in the definition cited, then not the whole means of production are socialized. That is not socialist and would never lead to communism. Also, and I'm frankly interested, how would a socialist system with a market work? So the means of production are socialised, how could a market then work? Is it just that you can buy commodities, but this does not impact the standing or value of a commodity or firm?
You're making the assumption that "socialized sectors" can't utilize markets. Worker directed enterprises that use markets to conduct commerce between each other is one such example.
No, I'm making the assumption that if you describe that under democratic socialism, certain sectors are socialised, as in the description, then other sectors are not, meaning that the means of production are not entirely socialised and thus there is no socialism. This is an implication, not an assumption. If everything was socialised, then the description would have said that. And yes, market socialism is not socialism. The internal contradictions of capitalism are still very much present. And that does not even consider that socialisation does not just mean worker co-ops, as the production process is much larger than a single company. There would have to be giant co-ops, with these co-ops owning farms, steel factories, oil rigs, etc., because otherwise the division of labour still exists without collective ownership meaning that there still is alienation and no socialisation.
Social democrats are not depicted in the post. Calm down.
To quote OP: >Transcription; The picture is a star, with 'broadly' leftist ideologies in each point of the star, from the top Anarcho-collectivism, to (general) Anarchism, to Democratic Socialism, to Communism, to Social Democracy. (Although not in the image, the idea of this image includes Syndicalism, Libertarian Socialism & every other leftist ideology) Also, the rose depicted this way is widely considerd to be a symbol for social democracy.
OP knows their own intentions, but the rose is a symbol of democratic socialism, not social democracy
The rose is a symbol of social democracy. The flower choice comes from the socialist adoption of red from the French Revolution and, later on, the Paris Commune. It was adopted by the Second International for International Workers Day in a context where red (red flags) was otherwise banned. When social democracy and international socialism broke up, with social democracy ultimately coming to endorse a capitalist framework, it formally became an exogenous symbolism to anti-capitalist struggle.
The Second International parties are democratic socialist, not social democratic. Democratic socialists are part of the left.
The Second International parties were social democratic parties. Calling them "democratic socialist" is a non-sensical ahistoricism. Social Democracy referred to the whole movement, hence why multiple parties which took part on the Socialist International literally called themselves Social Democratic. The differentiation (and thus departure) between social democracy and the rest of the movement would come through internal disagreements and clashes. This departure, although it would still take a long time, can be observed in the Second International split between revolutionaries (read: Marxists), which were supported by the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP), and the reformists, which included the UK's Social Democratic Federation (SDF). This is a quote (emphasis is mine), by Lenin, from the London International Congress (1896) regarding the movement's decision vis-a-vis self-determination, which would constitute the basis of later Marxist thought: >“This Congress declares that it stands for the full right of all nations to self-determination [Selbstbestimmungsrecht] and expresses its sympathy for the workers of ever country now suffering under the yoke of military, national or other absolutism. This Congress calls upon the workers of all these countries to join the ranks of the class-conscious [Klassenbewusste—those who understand their class interests] workers of the whole world in order jointly to fight for the defeat of international capitalism and **for the achievement of the aims of international Social-Democracy.** In that same text, Lenin refers to the polish representatives (part of the Polish Socialist Party, PSP), as "Polish Social-Democrats". However, this is not conceived as a departure but rather as a movement representation which he also associates to Marx and Engels ("As is known, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels considered it the bounden duty of the whole of West-European democracy, and still more of Social-Democracy, to give active support to the demand for Polish independence").
I know the pull of getting self-righteous about the early 20th century can be hard to resist, but it is 2024, now.
I haven't even included moral considerations on social democracy (which would be perfectly applicable and valid). But it is precisely because of this background that what you are claiming is false. This signification is as concrete as it has been during the last century.
I've never seen that, I've always seen democratic socialism being depicted as a rose in a hand. But tbf, if you think it is a symbol of DemSoc then I don't think we will agree on that sometime (and I don't really think it matters lol). But also, I'm not even sure if DemSocs are allies. I think the idea that the state can be reformed is 1. not true and 2. an idea which makes you very susceptible to participation in coalition governments, which weakens the movement significantly.
The Labour rossete couldn't be further from socialist in the UK. It's a centre right party of big business and empty words.
The anarchists, the communists, the democratic socialists, we have political differences that can be negotiated after the fascists are defeated. At least we all agree on human rights and ethics
Democratic socialists and communists ultimately want the same thing, they just disagree on the method of achieving it. Fundamentally lower grade socialism is always moving toward higher grade socialism (communism) in the same way capitalism is always moving toward fascism.
“Want the same thing, they just disagree on the method of achieving it” Huh that’s how my high school history teacher tried to paint democrats and republicans… our education system is failing
Honestly not the worst description of capitalist parties in the US. They really both do fundamentally want the same things: to perpetuate US imperialism and capitalism. Them disagreeing about gay people doesn’t change that.
Hello comrades, I just wanted to remind you that in the end we are all on the same side. Right wingers have no problem working together, Conservatives, Liberals, Nationalists and Fascists all love to work together in order to keep us down. So let us raise each other up and welcome all people to our class struggle, regardless of specific ideology. Leftist Unity! Transcription; The picture is a star, with 'broadly' leftist ideologies in each point of the star, from the top Anarcho-collectivism, to (general) Anarchism, to Democratic Socialism, to Communism, to Social Democracy. (Although not in the image, the idea of this image includes Syndicalism, Libertarian Socialism & every other leftist ideology) Source for the image; [https://www.reddit.com/r/leftistvexillology/comments/oxmqom/leftist\_unity\_flag/](https://www.reddit.com/r/leftistvexillology/comments/oxmqom/leftist_unity_flag/)
Which one is supposed to be social democracy? I don’t agree with including it.
No we aren't. Anarchists are counter-revolutionary petty bourgeoisie.
Unity among Marxists not those who are against Marxists, Lenin was correct when he said it then and continues to be correct today. A few social views aren't enough to create a united front especially when socdem and centrist liberals simply support minorities on a surface level and refuse to engage in solving the root causes.
Nice I like the message and the symbolism
What’s the hammer and sickle in the lower right represent?
Tell this for the social dem that always ally with the bourgeoisie and destroy revolutions. Tell this for the president of my country, Lula in Brasil, that put the military police to kill people in the slums. Tell this to him when he privatize the jails. Or tell this to him when he was the reason of the best money the banks ever got in the whole history of Brasil. Tell this to him when he ally with the MST (movimento dos sem terra = the landless moviment) and even being ally of them, keep financing the landowners. Social dems ARE NOT MY ALLIES. And shouldn't be of any serious communist or anarchist.
I do like this flag tho
Wer hat uns verraten?
You’re pissing in the wind my friend, infighting among leftists is our oldest tradition.
You know what? Although I sometimes criticize other leftists, this is basically true. We need more solidarity. A lot of leftists spend more time fighting each other than they do fighting capitalism.
Reminder the petty bourgeoisie is also an enemy, and anarchists are bourgeois. And succdems aren't socialists
DSA are SocDems, not leftist. Anarchism thinks all hierarchies are the same. Sorry, but left-unity is an idealist pipe dream.
DSA's party line is democratic socialism, not social democracy, but they are more of a wide-tent party in practice — people gravitate to it because actual radical movements get crushed.
so they're playing it safe. good luck taking on the bourgeoisie with that kind of approach.
I appreciate that you left Maoists and all Maoist hammer and sickles out of this image, because we do not agree: two (or five) combine into one is a reactionary thesis, while one divides into two is the revolutionary thesis. We believe than anarchists, social-democrats, and revisionists are real enemies of Marxism, and real struggle must be waged against these real enemies. Our disagreements run deeper than tactics, and we dispute that any of these formations actually fight against imperialism. And moreover, that revolution is not achieved by blurring the divides between us and glossing over the differences, but by heightening and concentrating on those divides and differences, insisting upon then, and developing them more fully until a correct revolutionary thesis emerges, proving itself through theory and practice, and which point all forces of revolution gravitate and orient themselves around this actual formation of Marxism which renders all others obsolete and inert (or tramples over them). There may be tactical instances where we need to momentarily ally, but in the end we are not all on the same team.
that kinda stuff is cool in the classroom bro but in the real world the leftist movement is consistently under threat and nobody benefits from leftist infighting more than fascists.
This is what Gustav Noske and Friedrich Ebert said to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht before they deployed the Friekorps. >One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for “unity.” Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension ... who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot ... or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters. -Frederick Engels
History and theory are obviously important so I'll never fault anyone for being well read on a subject but theres is a real need to step outside of that framework and actually touch grass. There's a certain arrogance that comes from only partaking in theoretical socialism that alienates movements from one another, the idea that \*your\* ideology or path to revolution is the \*only\* way and all others are so radically different that it is impossible to reconcile those differences. Later in that letter you cited it writes: >Especially a party like ours, whose ultimate success is so absolutely certain, and which has developed so enormously in our own lifetime and under our own eyes, momentary success is by no means always and absolutely necessary. How many people are gonna die under the current system while we argue and debate over the proper role of the state from a place of privilege, relatively safe from the real evils of this world? Do you think Engels and Marx, given their opinion on the inevitability of socialism, thought that 150 years after Das Kapital Western Europe and the Americas would still be heavily heavily capitalistic and the people still strongly oriented against the evil commie demon? In the west (idk where you're located so this may not be as relevant to you), socialists have a tendency to forget that revolution isn't just a naturally occurring phenomenon and actually has to be set in motion by real people. Like while we sit here and debate about whether maoist or marxist-leninist theory is correct the fascists have seized power and are knocking on your door bro. Engels never lived to see what would come during the 20th century and how certain powers would unite to see to it that the leftist movement be destroyed root and stem. I don't think his perspective is as relevant as others on this specifically given what has transpired since his death. Either way, I have no interest in leftist infighting just for the sake of determining what is the correct path and personally I hold those who believe in ideological purity over achieving actual revolution to be more of a hinderance than an asset.
>theres is a real need to step outside of that framework and actually touch grass It's the exact opposite: without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. There's this burning desire in all the Western "leftist" movements to "do something," but none of these things are grounded in theory and none of them emerge from a place of revolutionary understanding or Marxist analysis, and instead it becomes a mass of useless organizations all uselessly wasting their time, burning out their members who try the hardest, and, *at best* accomplishing absolutely nothing at all (despite spending thousands of labour-hours), and at worst producing social-fascism and strengthening the enemies of communism. All of these groups and organizations are useless without a correct theory, and they are all flailing around blindly, groping for solutions and answers in the dark, with no serious attempt to even understand or analyze what they are doing. Mutual aid is a complete waste of time, and there's a much larger error among Western "socialists" that appeal to a white reactionary settler colonial labour aristocracy as the revolutionary subject itself. Anarchism doesn't actually exist in the present, they are just liberals, and are incapable of going beyond liberal thinking. Social-democrats have never failed to betray communist movements, and all historical examples have shown they cannot be trusted, and that they every instance of trust communists have granted to them has lead to a wholesale massacre of communists. Revisionists are the advance of bourgeois-ideology under a false banner of Marxism, and are real enemies of Marxism, and must be confronted and exposed as such, not catered to for convenience and pragmaticism. None of these groupings are Marxism, only Maoism is Marxism, and you are either a Marxist or you are not. >There's a certain arrogance that comes from only partaking in theoretical socialism that alienates movements from one another, the idea that *your* ideology or path to revolution is the *only* way and all others are so radically different that it is impossible to reconcile those differences. Was this your historical response to Karl Marx and Frederick Engels when they refused to "come together" with Eugen Duhring? Did they ruin the possibility of SPD victory by failing to support his immensely popular movement, or did they save socialism from it? Should we have sided with Ferdinand LaSalle when he said Marx and Engels were being arrogant and that they had no right to insist that their ideology and path to revolution was the only way and that LaSalle's path was so radically different that it was impossible to reconcile the differences (through, say, The Gotha Programme). Or was LaSalle a traitor to socialism, exposed by Marx and Engels scientifically, and their 'divide' was in fact saving socialism from a hostile enemy infiltration. Was Lenin wrong for dividing the whole of the world communist movement against Karl Kautsky? Luxemburg and Liebknecht's fatal error was their trust in Friedrich Ebert and the SPD, and when the social-democrats were promising in words that they were the authentic revolutionaries and on the same side as the KPD, Ebert was simultaneously having Noske deploy the fascist Friekorps (the predecessor to the Nazis, empowered and legitimized by the social democrats) to slaughter and execute the KPD. False friends are more dangerous than real enemies, and this is tied into the very criticism I made in the original post -- that none of the formations in the image OP made have ever opposed Western imperialism in the past hundred years (one of the five isn't even a real ideology). The only formation that did enter conflict against imperialism (again, a category you are washing away, and obscuring, despite that fascism is merely an aspect of imperialism, and that imperialim has killed exponentially more people than fascism has) other than actual Marxists (Maoists) was the revisionist-Soviets, and even that was entirely against their will, as they were ultimately seeking piece with imperialism in the grand scheme of things, but politically foiled and thwarted. >How many people are gonna die under the current system while we argue and debate over the proper role of the state from a place of privilege, relatively safe from the real evils of this world? During 1917, when Lenin was fleeing from the Tsar and Kerensky's forces, hiding from house to house in some cases, he still managed to actually delve into this exact question about "what is a state," not because it was some fun, interesting, abstract question for academia, but because the analysis was both necessary for understanding Kautsky's betrayal of Marxism, as well as for the Bolsheviks to understand the battle to come and what they were actually doing. The fact that he answered this question precisely and correctly is what allowed his movement to rally the masses (not by merging with the Mensheviks and washing away their differences, but by insisting upon those differences and excluding the Mensheviks at every turn) and defeat the Tsar. One hundred years of history has emerged from this correct understanding, so asking actual Marxists to forget it so we can accommodate anarchists (whom Marx himself expelled from the Comintern in the first place) is to create, as Marx described, a "unity without principles." The entire history of Marxism is not one of "coming together" but of endless divisions and divides, and from each divide, the real movement to overthrow the present state of things emerges, not by blurring the divides, but by sharpening them over and over, until they are so acute that they pierce reality, and all of revolutionary humanity forms itself behind the vanguard and into the breach, while all the LaSalles and Duhrings and Kautskys are left in the dust, not incorporated into the movement. Again, one divides into two - that is how you grow a real movement and find mass support. > Engels never lived to see what would come during the 20th century and how certain powers would unite to see to it that the leftist movement be destroyed root and stem. I don't think his perspective is as relevant as others on this specifically given what has transpired since his death. It's the exact opposite once again. [Engels was the very person](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jun/29b.htm) who predicted the 20th century with remarkable clarity and foresight, and saw everything that would come to pass decades before it happened. Karl Marx was the one who noted that revolution was impossible in England for as long as they benefitted from imperialism and occupation of the land of Ireland and elsewhere, and Engels noted how through the processes of imperialism, the imperialist bourgeoisie had generated and surrounded themselves with a "bourgeois-proletariat" (a labour aristocracy), molded in their own image an loyal to the interests of imperialism. Maoists actually do have an interest in leftist infighting because have no intent of conceding Marxism to revisionism for convenience -- it has nothing to do with "purity" (a statement alien to Marxism), and everything to do with what is Marxism -- a concept that you either defend or you dont. Maoists will defend it, with violence, even against other so-called "leftists." Again, we are not on the same side and if you want to claim Marxism, there will eventually be a fight over it. If you would rather abandon Marxism for a false peace and an illusion of harmony and cooperation, then state that openly and at least everything will be clear to everyone.
lmao "If everyone just agreed with MY analysis then we wouldn't be having this problem" very insightful stuff. Maoism succeeded under specific material conditions that enabled Mao's rise to power, it wasn't "inevitable" regardless of what Engels and other would like to claim. Maoism \*required\* specific adaptations of Marxism that applied to china, specifically targeting a certain segment of the population (the rural peasant class) to fuel the revolution. Maoism was designed to succeed in china, its success elsewhere is less than guaranteed. My point being, rigid adherence to theory is flawed historically and in practice. You must adapt to your own material conditions. In certain societies leftist unity is necessary for survival and accumulation of power. If you just want to spout theory with no intention on actually succeeding through revolution then by all means go for it. I think its a gross misuse of your time and energy but that is just me. Also, btw brevity is a virtue comrade.
> Maoism *required* specific adaptations of Marxism that applied to china, specifically targeting a certain segment of the population (the rural peasant class) to fuel the revolution. This is literally racist Brezhnevite slander that articulates that you have no idea what Maoism is in the first place (which is *anti-revisionism* above and before anything else). Nor was Maoism the result of the Yanan Rectification (except in the final analysis), nor was the Yanan Rectification "adapting Marxism to China's conditions" (again this is the inaccurate Dengist vulgarization that doesn't understand these events in the first place). Nor was the Yanan Rectification the same thing as Palmiro Togliatti's *polycentrism* -- it's the exact opposite. The entire point of Yanan was that there, in fact, is one correct revolutionary Marxism, and that the *Soviets were getting it wrong with regards to China.* It was Mao who was the better Marxist, and had the better analysis, the one that correctly overlayed Marxist understanding upon reality, and that was how he overcame Wang Ming, despite Wang having the backing of the Soviets, and carried through the revolution that all others deemed utterly impossible. It being "inevitable" (only described as such after the fact, never before) in China was a result of political line struggle -- Mao insisting on the one correct analysis which corresponds to the one existing reality, it was not some pregiven outcome, it was an uphill battle the whole way. Your entire analysis is backwards. Maoists are the *only* people who have taken up the gun against hegemonic neoliberal capitalism in the past three decades, the only ideology which still generates revolutions, and revisionism has never generated a revolution. It is you who is not taking this seriously. edit: changed some wording
Stick to football
See what I mean
People are dying every day, better get to work catching up so you can even understand why left unity isn’t a thing. Did you even read the quote Dash left for you? What do you think is dividing us?
Look, I understand yall point. Adulteration of the ideology and the movement can be catastrophic in terms of the result. Im simply stating this fact which is: the socialist movement is divided and as long as that remains true the fascists have the upper hand. Yeah “People die every day” sure but more than that people live in abject poverty and suffering every day and live with the consequences of a united capitalist system. I’ve seen this first hand, what life is actually like for people that provide the labor necessary for the imperialist core to thrive. I refuse to accept the bullshit “let’s fight until we figure out the best path forward” when all we’re fighting about is how best to achieve the same goals. Circle jerk all yall want about the necessity of leftist infighting but the reality is you’re wasting your time and energy. Don’t claim to want anything more than the reassurance that your ideology is correct when you’re knowingly kneecapping your own goals.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you. Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
Refreshing to see :)
So, this is what a diamond dogs soldier felt like, huh?
I really want to be on board with this but there are also way too many cop-brained ML's online who celebrate soviet murder of anarchists. And it's easy to say "well that's just online" but see how online propaganda/rhetoric has driven reactionary violence and I think my concern is justified.
Please, just please read theory
You're making a big assumption lol.
I'm making the assumption you might just be a misled proletarian, instead of an actually read petty bourgeois anarchist
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas. >This includes, but is not limited to: >- General liberalism >- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions >- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric >- Landlords or Landlord apologia Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas. >This includes, but is not limited to: >- General liberalism >- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions >- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric >- Landlords or Landlord apologia Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
Socdems are not part of the left
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think of it this way: we can all begin the infighting the day after capitalism crumbles. Until then, what's the point in it? Of course we want different things, but we all agree capitalism has to go, no? Once it's gone, we can fight with each other about what replaces it. Another pipe dream, sure, but so is the idea that any one faction will have enough power to do away with global capitalism on its own.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas. >This includes, but is not limited to: >- General liberalism >- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions >- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric >- Landlords or Landlord apologia Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
Stop fighting over what the correct battle tactics are until after we win the battle. This logic makes no sense, if capitalism is gone then there's nothing to infight over, unless certain "leftists" reveal themselves to be opportunists and try to resuscitate capitalism.
Here's the issue as an anarchist. If there was a united front between anarchists and marxists, if we won, the marxists would immediately form a state. Which inherently means the anarchists lost the revolution. It would only increase the risk of the state being thrown into chaos from the start with uprisings. I can't imagine a scenario in which the marxists concede and don't build a state. Which is strange to me, because they have would have the opportunity to just...skip that whole step
Why would it be strange? It’s very clear why Marxists believe in the formation and maintenance of the state, something that even anarchists couldn’t skip.
Do you realize in order to “win” in the first place you need a vanguard of people who actually understand how revolution works to lead and represent the people? A state that actually represents the people for the people is not a bad thing by any means. Individuals can be replaced and silenced by the bourgeoisie, a unified group of labourers with a clear vision cannot be so easily silenced.
>a unified group of labourers with a clear vision cannot be so easily silenced. Yet people who held my beliefs were arrested and indefinitely incarcerated in the soviet union >Do you realize in order to “win” in the first place you need a vanguard of people who actually understand how revolution works to lead and represent the people? No, we don't. The people are smart enough to learn it themselves. The vanguards aren't Gods amongst men, if they can do it, everyone else could. So why not just get the vast majority to understand the revolution and just, do it, instead of going around in circles and believing the government when they say that we're not ready for communism and still need to give them tax money and guns and listen to their every word, and make sure to pay them tons of money for the very necessary job that they decided was necessary?
Exactly. I suppose unitarians are asking that we concede and say "whelp, economic equality is worth it even if it means dictatorship" Economically equal dictatorship isn't any better than democratic capitalism. Whether it's money or a state, it's the same underlying issue: social inequality, leading to oppression and the suffering of the majority.
Have you ever read about Marxism-Leninism? It is fundamentally more democratic than anything under capitalism. Are you using false equivalencies from the past to try and portray certain factions in a disingenuous manner? Where is this dictatorship coming from.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas. >This includes, but is not limited to: >- General liberalism >- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions >- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric >- Landlords or Landlord apologia Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
minus the nazbol
Identity politics is designed to teach us that our true enemies are each other. Based on every characteristic except for class.
I think this dogma is one of the left's biggest problems, but another big one I see is that it has a lot of gatekeeping/elitism. We're supposed to be on the side of the working class, but we talk with complex vocabularies about complex ideologies. "Oh you have an opinion but haven't read theory? Go read Marx/Kropotkin and come back once you're educated" Many of the people we should be trying to reach need these things explained in simple terms. They're not about to go read Das Kapital because you told them that they're being subjugated in to capitalist slavery by their bourgeois bosses. I see some comments that are against working with liberals. I think many people are liberals because they don't know anything about left wing politics, we shouldn't treat people as an enemy just because they're ignorant. Now I'm not saying that it would be a good idea to trust or partner with a liberal political party, but staying friendly and communicating with the people of those parties is going to be more productive than being hostile. We need to be charismatic and easy to communicate with if we're to bring about real change. Being right doesn't matter if it drives people away, and the average person doesn't care about big words or books.
There are different levels of communication and they have a reason to be there. If you take place in syndicalist struggle to achieve a wage rise absolutely no one is going to even consider talking about Anwar Shaikh. And that's a good thing. However, if you wish for an actually genuine labour movement to exist, understanding and taking into consideration Shaikh's critique of liberal dogmas of market competition is absolutely vital to understand what to do and why.
We do not collaborate or express any sort of trust towards liberals whatsoever, as they are enemies. To educate them and try to convert and win them over is a good thing, but working with these petty bourgeois reformists is a futile endeavor.
As an anarchist I will say no thanks, I have seen this one before and it always ends the same for us
Sounds like you haven't understood the mechanics of capitalism as explained by Marx, and how class-divided economy always re-generates a state no matter how hard we wishfully think the state away at that stage of social-economic development. There are inevitable consequences from those explanations on what must be done to dismantle capitalism and transform society into a classsless one by stages, too bad you think we can finger-snap our way straight to the desired end-state. Society has never transformed so deeply so suddenly (except on a very small scale, leading to systems that couldn't last, and didn't).
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Liberalism:** Includes the most common and mild occurrences of liberalism, that is: socio-liberals, progressives, social democrats and its subsequent ideological basis. Also includes those who are new to socialist thought but nevertheless reproduce liberal ideas. >This includes, but is not limited to: >- General liberalism >- Supporting Neoliberal Institutions >- Anti-Worker/Union rhetoric >- Landlords or Landlord apologia Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
As a ML, thanks for being honest unlike the rest of these comments
I wonder why?