These are my beliefs:
- Workers should control where they work at and receive proper equity from the value they create.
- Non-essential industries should not be controlled by the government, essential industries should be, for the most part.
- People should be able to have some say in who gets into government positions (at a minimum, like Vietnam or Cuba).
- Social democrats are not the same as fascists.
- Regular people (non-politicians, pundits and/or wealthy people) who happen to be liberals are likely well-intentioned and could be educated.
- Military action should not be taken unless you are being directly threatened by another country.
Comrade socdem on leftist forum is infinitely more reachable, than typical lib :meow-hug:
Outside of last point, spinning the wheel: og soc-dem
Whats your opinion on enforcing bad trade deals/contracts, by force if necessary?
Outside of last point
Perhaps I should clarify, I think regular people who are liberals are well-intentioned, but I also think they are able to move to the left, if they receive a little education.
Whats your opinion on enforcing bad trade deals/contracts, by force if necessary?
I don't think trade deals are worth going to war over.
Also, I would question if the deal was between two countries from equal standing or if one was strong armed into the deal.
I think re: liberals - nah, they’ll say correct things until someone reached in their pocket to pay for said things, and suddenly they’ll start talking individualism
But are they worth imposing restrictions over? (They’ll never be equal standing until nation-states exist tbh). Like say usa exist, as social democracy. You (government you) have an issue: banana prices are rising, cause other country wants to increase its worker pay and seize your property. What’s your solution (population wants cheaper bananas and don’t give a shit about other people), and you have political opponent making noises about making bananas great again?
Workers having equity: is it like current equity? Cause intel worker then have significantly more leverage over economy than say joe the welder.
But are they worth imposing restrictions over?
I would say that the people of the foreign country have the right to control their natural resources. Theoretically, bananas being sold could subsidized or even outright nationalized.
Workers having equity: is it like current equity?
The workers are receiving the value they create.
But how do you determine that value? Is a logistics nerd optimizing routing of goods and cutting 1000 of hours of labor time in a week, should they receive thousand of hours worth or 40? What is the value of mothering a child, or caring for grandparents, or teaching a class?
I suppose there would be some sort of formula to determine what exactly a person does and how much they contribute to the overall success.
Of course, I do acknowledge that a lot of changes will be done through outside organizing and that the powers that be may not allow you to win an election.
Well, that’s why og social democrat. Early SDP was force of nature with outside organization in the early 20th century, with clubs and shit all over the place. I think my quarrel with them is (I also don’t agree they are same as fascist, at least not exactly), they got paralyzed with patriotism, electoralism/power (war bonds in ww1, rosa, then idiocy with fascist rise) and sort of “we fix shit for our workers, who cares what’s going on everywhere else”, which warped them in the current iteration.
Planned economy is for our friendos mls/cybersins, labor-hour vouchers for left-commi-ish position. Equity distribution I think would be largely unfair as well, as with existing means of production you have workers controlling extremely powerful “condensed labor” (like intel worker compared to mechanic or fast food worker), which will stratify society into “aristocracy” and their servants
Social democrats are not the same as fascists
The reason that people make this comparison is that by focusing on welfare nationally (within the imperial core) and conceding on issues of foreign-policy they are functionally accepting the apartheid where third world exploitation subsidies first world opulence.
I mean, I would make efforts to get the military on my side and make it more loyal. There would also be working with other (perhaps stronger) countries to protect my movement from subversion.
Remember that Allende thought that Pinochet was the loyal insider helping prevent a coup.
Proper equity from the value they create would be 100%.
All industries all essential.
Not just government positions, but even non-government positions of hierarchy/power.
Don’t look at what countries believe in peace time. Look at what they do when their backs are against the wall. Look how quickly France is turning fascist. SucDems may not individually be Fashies but the system they support will kill a million brown people to keep capitalism on life support.
Everyone can be educated. But we don’t have the time - the planet is burning, my friend
Bourgeois states exist to oppress their own people and to profit off of the exploitation of others. If we live in a socialist country, we absolutely have a duty to free others from the oppression we’ve overthrown in our own country.
Proper equity from the value they create would be 100%.
Correct.
All industries all essential.
I would argue that commodity and entertainment production, each of which existed in "socialist" countries, are not essential.
Don’t look at what countries believe in peace time. Look at what they do when their backs are against the wall. Look how quickly France is turning fascist. SucDems may not individually be Fashies but the system they support will kill a million brown people to keep capitalism on life support.
Yeah, if people who say they are not fascists start doing fascist-like behaviors or even outright fascism, I would have to conclude that they are fascists.
Everyone can be educated. But we don’t have the time - the planet is burning, my friend
I mean this as a genuine question, what are we supposed to do with the normal people not on our side? Perhaps we get power, no matter the method, what are we to do with these people?
Bourgeois states exist to oppress their own people and to profit off of the exploitation of others. If we live in a socialist country, we absolutely have a duty to free others from the oppression we’ve overthrown in our own country.
Yes, you should have solidarity with foreign movements and try to aid them, if you can. All I am saying is that if your country is invaded or what have you, it has a right to defend itself. If fascists invaded the socialists, the socialists would be in the right to defend themselves from and defeat the fascists.
There is nothing to be gained (and everything to be lost) from having a for-profit mindset for entertainment/commodities. A non-profit mindset can only be supported by removing the profit motive which is achieved via nationalising.
SucDem nations are currently doing fascist actions while still calling themselves SucDem.
If and when we get power, the bourgeois aren’t gonna be on our side. We will have to spectate them from power, not anyone else. We will have to, say, put Tim Cook in house arrest and reorganise Apple. You’ll be surprised how quickly we can deal with climate change once we get power.
Socialists have a duty to defend themselves and free others.
Not having entertainment subsidised and administrated at a fairly high level basically ensures the destruction of large sections of the arts. (pretty much all professional performing arts, ballet, classical music etc). Even if they're constantly sold out, they've never turned a profit.
I think there's a distinction between subsidizing art and preventing the artists from having autonomy.
Socialists have the right to free the people of fascist countries, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
If fascists invaded the socialists, the[n] socialists would be in the right to defend themselves from and defeat the fascists.
How do you feel about housing?
I think everybody should guaranteed a quality place to live.
Additionally, I basically think that landlords are the scum of the Earth.
Are grocery stores and farms ‘essential industry’? Logistics and transportation?
I would say that they are essential, but I do think that the workers should control, perhaps after a period of government ownership.
What does government controlling industry mean?
They own it.
How would you want housing constructed and distributed. planned, free market, mixed?
Does the state or tenets own homes? Mixed?
I suppose mixed. There should be planned housing for everybody, but if a person or family wants to build there own independently, they should be allowed to. This could mean that they buy a home from somebody else.
Does government distribute necessary goods for free? Only guarantee workers ownership?
If it is a government service, people would get it for free. If it is a worker's group, there is likely a transaction.
Tendency mostly differs in terms of strategy, which I haven't seen you mention, and even then you will probably find tankies and anarkiddies locking arms at the same demonstrations.
Edit: I mean :LIB:
I really don't think a country should be interfering in the affairs of another one, unless they are attacking us first. I considered this more anti-imperialist.
Should a socialist country provide aid to a revolution in a bordering country?
In most cases, I would say so. It depends on how strong and serious the movement.
I think an attempt could be made to work with the existing government, but, if the revolution is strong and more aligned with you, it would make more sense to actively support them.
But this turns into "interventionist" behaviour quite quickly. Is a "permanent revolution" attitude justified?
The Soviets aided their fellow SSRs (who often had independent socialist revolutions), and then drove west, hoping to overcome the Sucdem/Nationalist Coalition in Poland and link up with the KPD. Cuba famously aided Angola.
“Self-defence” was used to justify Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... the list goes on. If you believe the libs the US has never fought a war of aggression lol
None of those countries attacked us though. I know full-well that the United States is imperialist.
All I'm saying is that if one country explicitly attacks another country, the latter has the right to defend themselves.
The issue is such words can be warped by 911, which they were. Or attack on a consulate/diplomatic mission. It should be much stronger statement, than nebulous threats. China threatens usa. Congo could nationalize coltan and threaten usa production.
Basically, what I was meaning was a full-on military invasion, not some foreign government nationalizing a business' assets.
no way, most countries are bad and have no right to self defense
