I agree, but probably for another reason: China's development model (socialist market economy) was developed in consideration of China's unique historical circumstances. So, it's not necessarily a bad thing that other nations are better off developing another economic model.
That's a good point. Easy to overlook. China had to open up to develop technologically. Much of the west has the technological development but lags behind in development of the relations of production. The west may have to catch up again with industrial capacity. Otherwise, it's may take a very different set of steps to achieve socialism in the west.
No nation's system is directly transferable to any other nation. But it is incredibly heartening and powerful to see a socialist nation thrive and surpass the capitalist world.
I agree. I'm just talking about how Social Democrats at least on paper recognize some of the problems of capitalism. They just downplay them, which is a step above standard neoliberals. They just don't follow it to the logical conclusion. I would consider Demsocs to be a bit better than SocDems, but in my opinion the difference between SocDems and socialists should be or seems to be a bigger relative jump than between DemSocs and socialists. Maybe I'm phrasing this wrong.
Because with Democratic Socialism, you already have a foot in the door, and with SocDems, its a way bigger jump.
Imperialist socdems like sanders want to fund US social services off the backs of workers in the global south (via a tax on imports from commodities produced by workers making pennies, if you're wondering how this functions).
This is why he and AOC have voted in support of every US war, and why when it comes to foreign policy, they're indistinguishable from neocons and other liberals.
Socdems like yourself just want to uphold the status quo of imperialist wealth extraction, just with a little more of that stolen wealth allocated to social services.
There is no version of socialism that could be "what we want overall". In each country where it is implemented, and within that country in each province, socialism changes its form to address the practical demands of the situation at hand, as they are dictated by the current local topography, climate, vegetation, state of infrastructure and material conditions, culture, demographics, history, law, foreign relations, military capabilities, advancement of urbanisation, education, bureaucratisation, and familiarity with technology, prevalence of diseases and their countermeasures, pollution, availability of public activities and facilities, et cetera.
The socialism in China is the socialism of China, and the socialism of neighbouring nations such as Vietnam, Laos, and the DPRK already looks very, very different; even moreso than the variation between and within China's cities and provinces. Neither is its current form of socialism the same as what they did in the 1960s or in the 1990s. I suppose you don't live in China - that much one can read into your takes - therefore I can already promise (disappoint?) you that when socialism develops where you live, it will be nothing like the Chinese version.
deleted by creator
I agree, but probably for another reason: China's development model (socialist market economy) was developed in consideration of China's unique historical circumstances. So, it's not necessarily a bad thing that other nations are better off developing another economic model.
That's a good point. Easy to overlook. China had to open up to develop technologically. Much of the west has the technological development but lags behind in development of the relations of production. The west may have to catch up again with industrial capacity. Otherwise, it's may take a very different set of steps to achieve socialism in the west.
No nation's system is directly transferable to any other nation. But it is incredibly heartening and powerful to see a socialist nation thrive and surpass the capitalist world.
China doesnt have a significant landlord class and 90% of people there own a house, whatever the fuck they have going on I want it lol.
deleted by creator
You're a fan of when there's a lot of hype but then nothing gets done and liberals take power anyway?
So, support for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, which always seem to be the result Bernie gets? That "democratic socialism"?
Or the one where you do imperialism abroad to pay for healthcare and schools at home?
They barely have either of those things though, i wonder where that cash goes... oh yes, bombing Yugoslavia. That "democratic socialism" too.
Just the imperialism, then. Imperialiberalism.
Their evil regime versus our wholesome owned by 15 companies democratic system 🥰
Western Doublespeak™ ladies and gentlemen
Common misconception. Do you think the US is less authoritarian than China or Russia? The correct answer should be no.
Must be a big fan of Sanders’ hand in the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia then I guess ?
Sanders is a capitalist
Bernie is a socdem at best, not a demsoc
I consider socdems to be barely better than liberals.
Socdems ARE liberals, what they advocate for is not socialism, but "Welfare Capitalism"
I agree. I'm just talking about how Social Democrats at least on paper recognize some of the problems of capitalism. They just downplay them, which is a step above standard neoliberals. They just don't follow it to the logical conclusion. I would consider Demsocs to be a bit better than SocDems, but in my opinion the difference between SocDems and socialists should be or seems to be a bigger relative jump than between DemSocs and socialists. Maybe I'm phrasing this wrong.
Because with Democratic Socialism, you already have a foot in the door, and with SocDems, its a way bigger jump.
Imperialist socdems like sanders want to fund US social services off the backs of workers in the global south (via a tax on imports from commodities produced by workers making pennies, if you're wondering how this functions).
This is why he and AOC have voted in support of every US war, and why when it comes to foreign policy, they're indistinguishable from neocons and other liberals.
Socdems like yourself just want to uphold the status quo of imperialist wealth extraction, just with a little more of that stolen wealth allocated to social services.
Edit: of course Bernard doesn't even advocate socialism
There is no version of socialism that could be "what we want overall". In each country where it is implemented, and within that country in each province, socialism changes its form to address the practical demands of the situation at hand, as they are dictated by the current local topography, climate, vegetation, state of infrastructure and material conditions, culture, demographics, history, law, foreign relations, military capabilities, advancement of urbanisation, education, bureaucratisation, and familiarity with technology, prevalence of diseases and their countermeasures, pollution, availability of public activities and facilities, et cetera.
The socialism in China is the socialism of China, and the socialism of neighbouring nations such as Vietnam, Laos, and the DPRK already looks very, very different; even moreso than the variation between and within China's cities and provinces. Neither is its current form of socialism the same as what they did in the 1960s or in the 1990s. I suppose you don't live in China - that much one can read into your takes - therefore I can already promise (disappoint?) you that when socialism develops where you live, it will be nothing like the Chinese version.