EDIT: no, I don't sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they're losing an argument ;)
EDIT: no, I don't sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they're losing an argument ;)
You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism. Dem Socs are well-meaning but idealistic, not optimistic but the political philosophy of idealism. Soc Dems are supporters of a kinder capitalism for the Imperial core but keeping the child slaves mining cobalt in the Congo.
The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory. They were harsh but you were implying that keeping exploitation of the third world is preferable to socialism.
What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.
I have, but thanks for the suggestion.
The abolishinists were mean to me. : 😭😭
The tankies were being tankies, not unexpected.
youre getting into arguments where you don't know what the words mean, and then acting indignant when people point that out
That's very ableist of you to conflate dyslexia with stupidity.
Least bad faith liberal
Assuming people are using words in the way they are widely and commonly accepted to mean (I mean, just look at Wikipedia for an easy starting point) is not a bad thing?
I'm innudated with endless notifications from you dweebs, mistakes happen.
People keep telling me that I shit my pants based off the way I smell and the growing brown stain on my pants but they're all tankies because they're all wrong
deleted by creator
What incredible insight. The word 'social' is referring to 'socialism' and so is the relation between 'democracy' and 'democratic'.
It would take an idiot to mix these up, right?
I guess social security = socialism security in your world? Social welfare programs are not socialism and if your political education included anything beyond Elizabeth Warren's policy page you'd know that.
No, social policies are not socialism, however, they do generally benefit the working class.
You guys are so worried about centrists that you are ignoring the fact that the US had a far right coup attempt less than three years ago.
And the US still has a far right regime in power, and has since 1776. What's your point?
No it has not been far right since 1776. I guess when you make up facts it's easy to prove your point though.
By the way, when's the glorious peoples revolution supposed to begin? More importantly, where are the people???
Read Liberalism A Counter History or shut up about shit you don't understand.
The people already revolted in the worlds largest country and their success will convince people to make similar steps once it's made obvious you're being fucked by your far right regimes. The people are hungering in most of the world and they will stand up you brain wormed fucker
Your beef is with the English Language not me. How is it my fault that you misidentified yourself? Funnily enough, you still don't identify your actual political position. It's clear that the only political position you'd take is what gives you an advantage in the argument. Fucking debatebros lol.
Reading so much theory that you confuse two different political ideologies. Sometimes I read so much theory that that I claim to be a monarchist when I really mean to say I'm an anti-monarchist. Obviously the other person should have understood what I meant. Your literally on a communication medium that allows you to plan and edit your comments. You have no excuse for making this grade school mistake.
Debatebro? That's what Hexbear does best.
I would actually love to engage in good faith discussions, but Hexbear users only operate in bad faith, particularly by sealioning. Like clockwork, you don't engage in ideas but rather give reading assignments.
I've read Das Kapital and agree with virtually all the premises about how society is unfair to those who actually generate the surplus value and think that we need to fix a system that breaks cyclically, as Karl Marx correctly predicted in volume I. The only solutions I've seen presented are a total revolution a la 1917, which occured before globalization. Anything close to this in the current globalized world will kill at minimum hundreds of millions globally due to interdependence on products that Marx would consider "needs", such as medications and medical equipment like dialysis machines.
The difference between you and me is that I'd rather work to reestablish democracy away from capital interests. I don't want a dictatorship, I want a functional democracy. Propaganda is often used to disillusion the working class from democracy, and if you don't vote in elections then you are clearly part of the problem.
Edit: Lmao. Citing"theory" gets crickets from the people who endlessly say "you just haven't read theory". It's like they don't know what to do with someone who reads to understand, rather than "reading" just to virtue signal.
Hahaha, literally "I know you are but what am I"
Lmao peak angry chud solipsism. "I would never read except to lord it over others, so that must be what these commies are doing."
deleted by creator
Where has it worked?
deleted by creator
Cuba is your best example, however, it is a socialist state and not communism.
China has three stock exchanges and is not communist:
The USSR never got to the "people's dictatorship", ya know, because the dictators never completed that step. Despite being a very powerful country at their peak, the USSR only exists as a memory of a failed state.
deleted by creator