How to save socialism in the US (and other western countries

[Atheris]

You say as you flaunt a dogwistle for fascism; the flag of a bunch of murderous thugs who aside from imposing German imperialism also terrorized civilians and straight up killed people for fun (as a direct consequence of their ethos).

It’s called anti communist action, I don’t see any moral difference in what antifa does.

I'm gonna side with Duvniask on this one. While it wasn't a fascist flag in the 1920s, the Totenkompf and skulls in general are commonly used as symbols of white supremacy groups.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Well this thread is a train wreck.

As are all threads devoted to left-wing topics since LWDT was shut down.

I don't know what that is.

[Loben The 2nd]

It’s called anti communist action, I don’t see any moral difference in what antifa does.

I'm gonna side with Duvniask on this one. While it wasn't a fascist flag in the 1920s, the Totenkompf and skulls in general are commonly used as symbols of white supremacy groups.

dont care, didnt ask.

[Slavakino]

You say as you flaunt a dogwistle for fascism; the flag of a bunch of murderous thugs who aside from imposing German imperialism also terrorized civilians and straight up killed people for fun (as a direct consequence of their ethos).

It’s called anti communist action, I don’t see any moral difference in what antifa does.

Lib-Lefties lmao

[Cisairse]

It’s called anti communist action, I don’t see any moral difference in what antifa does.

Lib-Lefties lmao

ugh don't give him to us, he's obviously a bluebox

[Punished UMN]

>Socialism has prevailed in the Nordic countries
Honey, no.

[Duvniask]

>Socialism has prevailed in the Nordic countries
Honey, no.

I wish.

[-Astoria-]

It’s called anti communist action, I don’t see any moral difference in what antifa does.

Lib-Lefties lmao

You called?

also, lmao no

[Slavakino]

>Socialism has prevailed in the Nordic countries
Honey, no.

Sweden got absolutely fucked electing their socialist and green parties

[-Astoria-]

Sweden got absolutely fucked electing their socialist and green parties

Protip: apart from the other nonsense in that post, social democratic parties are not inherently socialist.

[Slavakino]

Sweden got absolutely fucked electing their socialist and green parties

Protip: apart from the other nonsense in that post, social democratic parties are not inherently socialist.

No shit. Yet they have some sort of socialist aspect. Anyways, Sweden is ruined

[-Astoria-]

Protip: apart from the other nonsense in that post, social democratic parties are not inherently socialist.

No shit. Yet they have some sort of socialist aspect. Anyways, Sweden is ruined

How so?

And also, "BeCaUsE ImMiGrAnTs" is not valid.

[Slavakino]

No shit. Yet they have some sort of socialist aspect. Anyways, Sweden is ruined

How so?

And also, "BeCaUsE ImMiGrAnTs" is not valid.

It is valid. Don't be in denial of crime. This new cultural shift of acceptance and diversity has ruined Sweden as a whole. Not to mention the greenies (like always) are trying to shut down nuclear like their stupid policies always dictate

[-Astoria-]

How so?

And also, "BeCaUsE ImMiGrAnTs" is not valid.

It is valid. Don't be in denial of crime. This new cultural shift of acceptance and diversity has ruined Sweden as a whole. Not to mention the greenies (like always) are trying to shut down nuclear like their stupid policies always dictate

You have a basis or source/citation for that claim, mm?

[Slavakino]

It is valid. Don't be in denial of crime. This new cultural shift of acceptance and diversity has ruined Sweden as a whole. Not to mention the greenies (like always) are trying to shut down nuclear like their stupid policies always dictate

You have a basis or source/citation for that claim, mm?

How about you look that up yourself if you don't believe me? Don't expect people to always carry sources around them, yeah sure don't believe me but don't be a smug arse always assuming someone has a source 24/7. I'm not wasting my time to dig for articles and stats I've read before

[Fedel]

Save socialism? It's stronger than ever in most Western nations.

[Duvniask]

Save socialism? It's stronger than ever in most Western nations.

So where are all the socialist revolutionary attempts? Let's be real, what we see now is a tiny flame springing up among the embers left over from the bonfire that was the early 20th century.

[Fedel]

Save socialism? It's stronger than ever in most Western nations.

So where are all the socialist revolutionary attempts? Let's be real, what we see now is a tiny flame springing up among the embers left over from the bonfire that was the early 20th century.

Do you think a candidate like Bernie Sanders would have been able to garner anywhere near as much support during the Cold War era or even the later 90's/early 2000's as he did in the last two primaries? Minimum wage going up to $15 an hour in many states? National healthcare actually being a viable issue democrats can espouse without being laughed off the stage? I'm not saying that socialism is the most viable it's ever been at here in the U.S. but it's definitely on an upward trend.

[Duvniask]

So where are all the socialist revolutionary attempts? Let's be real, what we see now is a tiny flame springing up among the embers left over from the bonfire that was the early 20th century.

Do you think a candidate like Bernie Sanders would have been able to garner anywhere near as much support during the Cold War era or even the later 90's/early 2000's as he did in the last two primaries?

How do you misunderstand "early 20th century" to mean the late 20th century? Do you not know about the history of the socialist movement?

Minimum wage going up to $15 an hour in many states? National healthcare actually being a viable issue democrats can espouse without being laughed off the stage? I'm not saying that socialism is the most viable it's ever been at here in the U.S. but it's definitely on an upward trend.

This is not socialism. It's strategies for managing the capitalist state of affairs by expanding its welfare provisions, not a concerted effort towards abolishing the capitalist mode of production. The people supporting these provisions might be socialists who wish to make temporary gains for the working class under capitalism, but is cannot be their end goal for that would be contrary to the entirety of the socialist project, which is to abolish the existing state of affairs in favor of a new socialist order.

[Slavakino]

Save socialism? It's stronger than ever in most Western nations.

Socialism in the Western European world is a failure. In the East, they thrived

[Fedel]

Do you think a candidate like Bernie Sanders would have been able to garner anywhere near as much support during the Cold War era or even the later 90's/early 2000's as he did in the last two primaries?

How do you misunderstand "early 20th century" to mean the late 20th century? Do you not know about the history of the socialist movement?

Minimum wage going up to $15 an hour in many states? National healthcare actually being a viable issue democrats can espouse without being laughed off the stage? I'm not saying that socialism is the most viable it's ever been at here in the U.S. but it's definitely on an upward trend.

This is not socialism. It's strategies for managing the capitalist state of affairs by expanding its welfare provisions, not a concerted effort towards abolishing the capitalist mode of production. The people supporting these provisions might be socialists who wish to make temporary gains for the working class under capitalism, but is cannot be their end goal for that would be contrary to the entirety of the socialist project, which is to abolish the existing state of affairs in favor of a new socialist order.

I don't believe I did. I never mentioned anything about "socialism during the early 20th century" in the US. I said that in MOST western nations, socialism is in a better position than it ever has been. I never commented on the U.S. specifically.

When I DID comment on the U.S. I stated that socialism seems to have a stronger foothold in the present day then it did during the Cold War era or even around the turn of the century. I never commented on its strength now in relation to the early 20th century.

Actually, what I did say was this:

I'm not saying that socialism is the most viable it's ever been at here in the U.S. but it's definitely on an upward trend.

You seemed to have conveniently overlooked this part of my response.

To me, the things I mentioned seem to be overtures to socialism. I.E. attempts to appease a growing number of people who are more sympathetic to the ideology. I don't believe I ever claimed that such policies being pushed meant that socialism was being enacted to its fullest extent.

[Fedel]

Going by your previous comments, you seem to believe that anything short of a socialist revolution means that we are not making movements towards the ideology.

Apologies if that's not what you think, it's simply what comments like these:

Save socialism? It's stronger than ever in most Western nations.

So where are all the socialist revolutionary attempts?

Seem to indicate to me.

[Duvniask]

I am actually annoyed right now, because how the fuck do you read what I said and then misunderstand it to this absurd extent? Now I feel obligated to clean up the mess caused by such lack of comprehension.

How do you misunderstand "early 20th century" to mean the late 20th century? Do you not know about the history of the socialist movement?

This is not socialism. It's strategies for managing the capitalist state of affairs by expanding its welfare provisions, not a concerted effort towards abolishing the capitalist mode of production. The people supporting these provisions might be socialists who wish to make temporary gains for the working class under capitalism, but is cannot be their end goal for that would be contrary to the entirety of the socialist project, which is to abolish the existing state of affairs in favor of a new socialist order.

I don't believe I did. I never mentioned anything about "socialism during the early 20th century" in the US.

I am the one who mentioned it, Christ. It refutes your point that "socialism is in a better position than it has ever been".

It's very simple pal. You say "socialism is stronger than ever in the western world", and I refute that assertion by directing you to a point in history where socialism was obviously, undeniably stronger, because actual attempts at creating a new order were undertaken by millions of people.

I said that in MOST western nations, socialism is in a better position than it ever has been.

And I said you were wrong, by pointing out it was stronger in the early 20th century. Anyone familiar with the history of the socialist movement knows of the socialist uprisings taking place in Germany and Spain and the strength of the labor unions and student movement prior to the advent of neoliberalism.

I never commented on the U.S. specifically.

Yes you fucking did. You literally just brought up Bernie Sanders. I'm not the one who commented on specific countries, YOU ARE.

I'm not saying that socialism is the most viable it's ever been at here in the U.S. but it's definitely on an upward trend.

You seemed to have conveniently overlooked this part of my response.

"It's stronger than ever in most Western nations."
"I'm not saying that socialism is the most viable it's ever been at here in the U.S."

Why are you, at once, telling me that it's both stronger than ever and then giving an example where you're contradicting your broader narrative by saying it's not the most viable it's ever been? Also, again, you're the one bringing up the United States specifically.

To me, the things I mentioned seem to be overtures to socialism. I.E. attempts to appease a growing number of people who are more sympathetic to the ideology. I don't believe I ever claimed that such policies being pushed meant that socialism was being enacted to its fullest extent.

Appeasing people doesn't mean ending capitalism. While the calls for such appeasement might be indicative of an overall increase in the strength of socialists, it can obviously not match the point in time where socialist mass movements were actually making attempts at toppling capitalism.

[Thanatttynia]

'''''Socialism''''' is now a luxury ideology. Its most prominent representatives are disgusted by the working class, which then regards them likewise. It has been swallowed by liberalism... now meaning 'being friendly to poor people' and 'giving money to individual black trans womxn,' in liberalism's belly it acts out its fantasy of success against the regime, much easier and flashier than actually challenging it.

[Punished UMN]

'''''Socialism''''' is now a luxury ideology. Its most prominent representatives are disgusted by the working class, which then regards them likewise. It has been swallowed by liberalism... now meaning 'being friendly to poor people' and 'giving money to individual black trans womxn,' in liberalism's belly it acts out its fantasy of success against the regime, much easier and flashier than actually challenging it.

I might be inclined to agree in the Western world, but most of the world's socialists are still in the developing world.