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

[Kubra]

Whoa whoa whoa what's this about social democracy not being basically communism
ya'll need Kautsky in your lives

Honestly, I wish half the things conservatives call "communist" actually were.

It used to be, man. This was before Marx and his direct disciples learned that universal suffrage wasn't basically communism.

[Sundiata]

I think that democracy in government and in the workplace should be standard practice.

[Lower Nubia]

Haden't realised you'd written another post.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/

"Socialism is a rich tradition of political thought and practice, the history of which contains a vast number of views and theories, often differing in many of their conceptual, empirical, and normative commitments. In his 1924 Dictionary of Socialism, Angelo Rappoport canvassed no fewer than forty definitions of socialism, telling his readers in the book’s preface that “there are many mansions in the House of Socialism” (Rappoport 1924: v, 34–41). To take even a relatively restricted subset of socialist thought, Leszek Kołakowski could fill over 1,300 pages in his magisterial survey of Main Currents of Marxism (Kołakowski 1978 [2008]). Our aim is of necessity more modest. In what follows, we are concerned to present the main features of socialism, both as a critique of capitalism, and as a proposal for its replacement."

I've read this page. What it says has nothing to do with social democracy, and it doesn't serve your argument in any way, whatsoever.

In fact, the boldened part (and I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that) is just a straight up contradiction with all the nonsense you've said in this thread so far. As it says, socialism exists as the potentiality of a replacement for capitalism; it exists in opposition to it, thus also implying that we must transcend capitalism to have socialism. This straight up leaves out any place for social democratic reformism of the capitalist system (by definition, reforming something means not replacing it). While the page makes a rather lackluster attempt at properly identifying the central characteristics of capitalism, as an economic system, it is clear their layout of socialism as a comprehensive system cannot be reconciled with social democracy. They later discuss piecemeal reforms as an alternative to systematic overhaul, but nowhere are they obtuse enough to present this as somehow a socialist economic system; it might be a system run by self-identified socialists, perhaps, but it is in staunch contrast to everything discussed earlier in the article.

I win.

This pettiness is beyond parody. You didn't prove shit and you didn't respond to any of the questions I asked and instead felt confident spewing the same spiel, using a page that doesn't even agree with you. It's the kind of shit that would make a cartoon character spit out their drink in astonishment.

Yawn.

You didn't read it very well did you?

"We turn now to the last dimension of socialism (DIII), which concerns the transformation of capitalist societies into socialist ones. The discussion on this dimension is difficult in at least two respects which call for philosophical exploration (Gilabert 2017a: 113–23, 2015: 216–20). The first issue concerns feasibility. The question is whether socialist systems are accessible from where we are now—whether there is a path from here to there. But what does feasibility mean here? It cannot just mean logical or physical possibility, as these would rule out very few social systems. The relevant feasibility parameters seem instead to involve matters of technical development, economic organization, political mobilization, and moral culture. (For some discussion on these parameters see Wright 2010: ch. 8; Chibber 2017.) But such parameters are comparatively “soft”, in that they indicate probability prospects rather than pose strict limits of possibility, and can be significantly changed over time. When something is not feasible to do right now, we could have dynamic duties to make it feasible to do later by developing our relevant capacities in the meantime. The feasibility judgments must then be scalar rather than binary and allow for diachronic variation. These features make them somewhat murky, and not straightforwardly amenable to the hard-edged use of impossibility claims to debunk normative requirements (via contraposition on the principle that ought implies can)."

"A second strategy, picking out the combination of possibilities (a.ii) and (b.i), has been taming capitalism. It mobilizes the population (sometimes in sharp political struggles) to elect governments and implement policies that respond to the worst harms generated by capitalism, with the aim of neutralizing them. New policies include social insurance responding to risks faced by the population (e.g., illness and unemployment), tax funded, state provision of public goods which markets tend to fail to provide (e.g., education, public transportation, research and development, etc.), and regulation of negative externalities produced in markets (e.g., regarding pollution, product and workplace hazards, predatory market behavior, etc.). The strategy, implemented by social-democratic parties, worked quite well during the three decades of the “Golden Age” or Trente Glorieuses following World War II. However, progress was halted and partly rolled back since the retreat of social democracy and the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1980s. Possible explanatory factors are the financialization of capitalism, and the effects of globalization, as discussed above in section 4.3. There is a debate as to whether capitalism is really tamable—it may be that the Golden Age was only a historical anomaly, borne out of a very particular set of political and economic circumstances."

See the bold bit at the bottom? That's you. That's your purist argument. Notice these academics know your argument and still include it in the scope of socialism.

As it concludes the above are part of DIII which it says:

"Other significant issues regarding dimension DIII of socialism are the identification of appropriate political agents of change and their prospects of success in the context of contemporary globalization."

What does it say? of Capitalism? No, no. Of SOCIALISM.

Now if you'd stop being such a little purist, we can get on with our lives.

[Duvniask]

I've read this page. What it says has nothing to do with social democracy, and it doesn't serve your argument in any way, whatsoever.

In fact, the boldened part (and I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that) is just a straight up contradiction with all the nonsense you've said in this thread so far. As it says, socialism exists as the potentiality of a replacement for capitalism; it exists in opposition to it, thus also implying that we must transcend capitalism to have socialism. This straight up leaves out any place for social democratic reformism of the capitalist system (by definition, reforming something means not replacing it). While the page makes a rather lackluster attempt at properly identifying the central characteristics of capitalism, as an economic system, it is clear their layout of socialism as a comprehensive system cannot be reconciled with social democracy. They later discuss piecemeal reforms as an alternative to systematic overhaul, but nowhere are they obtuse enough to present this as somehow a socialist economic system; it might be a system run by self-identified socialists, perhaps, but it is in staunch contrast to everything discussed earlier in the article.


This pettiness is beyond parody. You didn't prove shit and you didn't respond to any of the questions I asked and instead felt confident spewing the same spiel, using a page that doesn't even agree with you. It's the kind of shit that would make a cartoon character spit out their drink in astonishment.

Yawn.

Really butthurt, I can tell.

I am not really bothered by your malice because your childish outbursts earlier made me stop taking you seriously. What does bother me is that you don't listen, because you don't respond to any of my arguments about why you pulling up all these texts and articles isn't a response to my concerns; you keep doing it, expecting that it will somehow make you look good. I have consistently been saying academics treat the matter lazily and without proper rigor. Your response is to pull even more links out of your ass that discuss socialism - yes? Need I repeat myself? You're not responding to my claim of the lack of rigour, you're just giving me material to criticize. It's like if I challenged the history books in school for being inaccurate and your response was to keep bringing up inaccurate history books, not understanding that it is a non sequitor.

My argument: "Even academics are wrong about how they use these terms."
Your response: WELL THIS ARTICLE AGREES WITH ME (setting aside, for a moment, how much you misinterpret them)

Do you understand that your posts are not meaningful responses to my own? The response you should give, if you actually understood anything I've been saying, is to show that your semantics are correct, logical and coherent and not just appeals to authority (because that is literally all you have done, appeal to authority, the very authority which I criticize).

You didn't read it very well did you?

We'll get to why this article isn't saying what you think it is, because you haven't read it as an interconnected whole, instead just taking tidbits out of context and thinking you have an argument.

"We turn now to the last dimension of socialism (DIII), which concerns the transformation of capitalist societies into socialist ones. The discussion on this dimension is difficult in at least two respects which call for philosophical exploration (Gilabert 2017a: 113–23, 2015: 216–20). The first issue concerns feasibility. The question is whether socialist systems are accessible from where we are now—whether there is a path from here to there. But what does feasibility mean here? It cannot just mean logical or physical possibility, as these would rule out very few social systems. The relevant feasibility parameters seem instead to involve matters of technical development, economic organization, political mobilization, and moral culture. (For some discussion on these parameters see Wright 2010: ch. 8; Chibber 2017.) But such parameters are comparatively “soft”, in that they indicate probability prospects rather than pose strict limits of possibility, and can be significantly changed over time. When something is not feasible to do right now,

Yes, this entire chapter is discussing the transformation of capitalism into socialism, but that discussion also veers into feasibility and reactions to the historical failure of socialism in places like Russia.

we could have dynamic duties to make it feasible to do later by developing our relevant capacities in the meantime. The feasibility judgments must then be scalar rather than binary and allow for diachronic variation. These features make them somewhat murky, and not straightforwardly amenable to the hard-edged use of impossibility claims to debunk normative requirements (via contraposition on the principle that ought implies can)."

I'm persistently weirded out by your random boldening of sentences that have nothing to do with anything. Who disputes this? It is a very Marxian view that socialism doesn't appear out of nowhere and can only exist under the proper circumstances. So you putting it in bold letters is completely redundant (what are you trying to prove, even?)

"A second strategy, picking out the combination of possibilities (a.ii) and (b.i), has been taming capitalism. It mobilizes the population (sometimes in sharp political struggles) to elect governments and implement policies that respond to the worst harms generated by capitalism, with the aim of neutralizing them. New policies include social insurance responding to risks faced by the population (e.g., illness and unemployment), tax funded, state provision of public goods which markets tend to fail to provide (e.g., education, public transportation, research and development, etc.), and regulation of negative externalities produced in markets (e.g., regarding pollution, product and workplace hazards, predatory market behavior, etc.). The strategy, implemented by social-democratic parties, worked quite well during the three decades of the “Golden Age” or Trente Glorieuses following World War II. However, progress was halted and partly rolled back since the retreat of social democracy and the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1980s. Possible explanatory factors are the financialization of capitalism, and the effects of globalization, as discussed above in section 4.3.

This is where you start getting a very wrongful impression. You skipped quite a bit in your post here, where the article discusses the historical difficulties of the transition to socialism and how self-described socialists have responded. That is when it starts talking about these strategies - they are strategies that describe what socialists think should be done, not strategies that necessarily result in a socialist system, which to some started to seem unattainable because:

"it might be asked who is to evaluate and decide upon what is to be done at each stage of the process, on what grounds can it be expected that earlier stages will enhance the likelihood of the success of later stages rather than undermine them (e.g., by enshrining institutions or values that will make it hard to move further along the path), what transitional costs can be accepted in earlier stages, and whether the costs expected are outweighed by the desirability and the increased probability of attaining the later stages. Such questions do not want for difficulty."

You see, this "second strategy" is about how to transform society (or how socialist politicians can strive to make it better) in light of the historical difficulties of developing socialism. It is a strategy that is a response to the problems that ostensibly "socialist" states had historically; nowhere does the article in question say that the result of social democratic policies is equivalent to socialism or a socialist economic system; that would be in contradiction with all the opening paragraphs of the article carefully laying out capitalism and how socialism is the negation of capitalism (its alternative). What the article does suggest, and that is not up for dispute, is that social democratic welfare state policies offer an apparent means of social transformation that do not do away with capitalism, at least immediately.

All of the above I've said fits in with the broader chapter of the article:
"A second difficulty concerns the articulation of all things considered appropriate strategies that combine feasibility considerations with the normative desiderata provided by socialist principles. The question here is: what is the most reasonable path of transformation to pursue for socialists given their understanding of the principles animating their political project, viewed against the background of what seems more or less feasible to achieve at different moments, and within different historical contexts? Complex judgments have to be formed about the precise social systems at which it would be right to aim at different stages of the sequence of transformation, and about the specific modes of political action to deploy in such processes. These judgments would combine feasibility and desirability to assess short-term and long-term goals, their intrinsic costs and benefits, and the promise of the former to enhance the achievement of the latter. The difficulty of forming such judgments is compounded by the uncertainty about the prospects of large societal changes (but also about the long-term consequences of settling for the status quo)."

In short, what's actually being said here is closer to: some socialists, who believed that capitalism was unjust and undesirable, ultimate came to the conclusion could not be surpassed (because of the historical problems with transition), and that it must instead be tamed to whatever extent possible - what the article never says at any point whatsoever is that this "taming" means the establishment of a socialist society. It is included, of course, because social democracy came out of the socialist movement and had important ramifications for much of the West in terms of its politics and socioeconomic development. I do not take that to mean the article is saying that "social democracy = socialism".

There is a debate as to whether capitalism is really tamable—it may be that the Golden Age was only a historical anomaly, borne out of a very particular set of political and economic circumstances."

See the bold bit at the bottom? That's you. That's your purist argument. Notice these academics know your argument and still include it in the scope of socialism.

They include it in an article about the philosophy of socialism, because social democracy evolved from the socialist movement and took many of its concomitant ethical and moralistic concerns to heart, but it had its own unique responses to what should be done about capitalism.

As it concludes the above are part of DIII which it says:

"Other significant issues regarding dimension DIII of socialism are the identification of appropriate political agents of change and their prospects of success in the context of contemporary globalization."

What does it say? of Capitalism? No, no. Of SOCIALISM.

This proves nothing. The matter of identifying the appropriate agents for change is literally just a question of how the socialist movement should look. In the paragraph you took this from, the article discusses whether the movement should focus solely on class or include more diverse concerns simultaneously. It has nothing to do with any point you or I have made.

Now if you'd stop being such a little purist, we can get on with our lives.

I will go on with my life whenever I please.

[Duvniask]

-Snip-

Disagreed about Cuba and the historical Eastern Bloc countries. Certainly they retain(ed) some elements of state, and even private, capitalism as a result of uneven development and the complexities of concrete real world phenomena that abstractions like “socialism” obscure,

Pretty much all elements of state, especially its most repressive, such as secret police (NKVD/KGB) and concentration/labor camps (GULAG).

and certainly they were not the classless, moneyless societies socialists are fighting to establish.

This is what seals the deal.

But I think they are legitimately termed socialist because (even when hampered by antagonistic governments) workers were their ruling classes and production was based primarily on state ownership and planning.

This is just fantasy. The Soviets in the USSR were rubber-stamps by the days Stalin took power, and the party organization was from the very beginning in conflict with actually existing forms of workers' power; it abolished the factory committees, re-instituted one-man management crushed left-wing revolts (like Kronstadt) against the increasing centralization and bureaucratization of the party apparatus. They impeded, rather than aiding, the establishment of a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat and ended up ultimately creating a culture of terror within the party and workplace where iron rule and ruthless purging was the norm. It really is astonishing to me how certain Marxist-Leninists consider party and bureaucratic control as one and the same as the DotP. That is also to say nothing about how the dictatorship of the proletariat != socialism (a usage of the term alien to Marx, who conceived of it as the transition to socialism).

Socialism isn't a matter of political authority. It is a mode of production, and one not achieved in any of the Eastern Bloc countries. In fact, it is also quite inaccurate to say production in Eastern Bloc states really was "planned". I've gone into detail on this before, so I'll refer you to the following exchange here [x]. While a lot of that focuses on the USSR, it applies more broadly. The state functioned as the universal capitalist, to use Engels description.

[Lower Nubia]

Yawn.

Really butthurt, I can tell.

I'm so butthurt... so butt hurt I reintepret an article from Stanford to make Social Democracy not a form of Socialism.

I am not really bothered by your malice because your childish outbursts earlier made me stop taking you seriously. What does bother me is that you don't listen, because you don't respond to any of my arguments about why you pulling up all these texts and articles isn't a response to my concerns; you keep doing it, expecting that it will somehow make you look good.

I have quoted professionals that continue to agree that taming Capitalism and then transforming it into a socialist system is itself an acceptable definition under Socialism. If you don't like that, then tough.

I have consistently been saying academics treat the matter lazily and without proper rigor. Your response is to pull even more links out of your ass that discuss socialism - yes? Need I repeat myself? You're not responding to my claim of the lack of rigour, you're just giving me material to criticize. It's like if I challenged the history books in school for being inaccurate and your response was to keep bringing up inaccurate history books, not understanding that it is a non sequitor.

You're basically saying that because I find academics that disagree with you, they must be lazy. The academics have been rigorous - its simply you who has not. The scope of academic rigour is utterly beyond this conversation - it requires a complete systematic review of their work, something that cannot be tested in the scope of a conversation.

My argument: "Even academics are wrong about how they use these terms."
Your response: WELL THIS ARTICLE AGREES WITH ME (setting aside, for a moment, how much you misinterpret them)

Do you understand that your posts are not meaningful responses to my own? The response you should give, if you actually understood anything I've been saying, is to show that your semantics are correct, logical and coherent and not just appeals to authority (because that is literally all you have done, appeal to authority, the very authority which I criticize).

There is no misinterpretation, the source material also concludes that Social Democracy is a variant of Socialism.

You didn't read it very well did you?

We'll get to why this article isn't saying what you think it is, because you haven't read it as an interconnected whole, instead just taking tidbits out of context and thinking you have an argument.

"We turn now to the last dimension of socialism (DIII), which concerns the transformation of capitalist societies into socialist ones. The discussion on this dimension is difficult in at least two respects which call for philosophical exploration (Gilabert 2017a: 113–23, 2015: 216–20). The first issue concerns feasibility. The question is whether socialist systems are accessible from where we are now—whether there is a path from here to there. But what does feasibility mean here? It cannot just mean logical or physical possibility, as these would rule out very few social systems. The relevant feasibility parameters seem instead to involve matters of technical development, economic organization, political mobilization, and moral culture. (For some discussion on these parameters see Wright 2010: ch. 8; Chibber 2017.) But such parameters are comparatively “soft”, in that they indicate probability prospects rather than pose strict limits of possibility, and can be significantly changed over time. When something is not feasible to do right now,

Yes, this entire chapter is discussing the transformation of capitalism into socialism, but that discussion also veers into feasibility and reactions to the historical failure of socialism in places like Russia.

we could have dynamic duties to make it feasible to do later by developing our relevant capacities in the meantime. The feasibility judgments must then be scalar rather than binary and allow for diachronic variation. These features make them somewhat murky, and not straightforwardly amenable to the hard-edged use of impossibility claims to debunk normative requirements (via contraposition on the principle that ought implies can)."

Feasability is not the thing under discussion. The option being under socialism is the discussion, whether that option works is a different conversation, so if you'd stop getting stuck on that for 10 minutes, maybe you'll progress.

I'm persistently weirded out by your random boldening of sentences that have nothing to do with anything. Who disputes this? It is a very Marxian view that socialism doesn't appear out of nowhere and can only exist under the proper circumstances. So you putting it in bold letters is completely redundant (what are you trying to prove, even?)

Social Democracy is a variant definition under Socialism. For someone who said I don't listen, the fact you've ignored this point is hilarious.

"A second strategy, picking out the combination of possibilities (a.ii) and (b.i), has been taming capitalism. It mobilizes the population (sometimes in sharp political struggles) to elect governments and implement policies that respond to the worst harms generated by capitalism, with the aim of neutralizing them. New policies include social insurance responding to risks faced by the population (e.g., illness and unemployment), tax funded, state provision of public goods which markets tend to fail to provide (e.g., education, public transportation, research and development, etc.), and regulation of negative externalities produced in markets (e.g., regarding pollution, product and workplace hazards, predatory market behavior, etc.). The strategy, implemented by social-democratic parties, worked quite well during the three decades of the “Golden Age” or Trente Glorieuses following World War II. However, progress was halted and partly rolled back since the retreat of social democracy and the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1980s. Possible explanatory factors are the financialization of capitalism, and the effects of globalization, as discussed above in section 4.3.

This is where you start getting a very wrongful impression. You skipped quite a bit in your post here, where the article discusses the historical difficulties of the transition to socialism and how self-described socialists have responded.

The historical difficulties aren't my concern, the concern is Social Democracy is a variant of Socialism. Whether Social Democracy can bring about Socialism is a different conversation.

That is when it starts talking about these strategies - they are strategies that describe what socialists think should be done, not strategies that necessarily result in a socialist system, which to some started to seem unattainable because:

This is all irrelevant, the point of conversation is not the feasibility of the choice, but that the choice was a socialist one. As I have said, many, many, many, many, times. The whole point of this conversation is that Social Demcoracy is one form of socialism. The Article I quoted confirms this.

"it might be asked who is to evaluate and decide upon what is to be done at each stage of the process, on what grounds can it be expected that earlier stages will enhance the likelihood of the success of later stages rather than undermine them (e.g., by enshrining institutions or values that will make it hard to move further along the path), what transitional costs can be accepted in earlier stages, and whether the costs expected are outweighed by the desirability and the increased probability of attaining the later stages. Such questions do not want for difficulty."

You see, this "second strategy" is about how to transform society (or how socialist politicians can strive to make it better) in light of the historical difficulties of developing socialism. It is a strategy that is a response to the problems that ostensibly "socialist" states had historically; nowhere does the article in question say that the result of social democratic policies is equivalent to socialism or a socialist economic system; that would be in contradiction with all the opening paragraphs of the article carefully laying out capitalism and how socialism is the negation of capitalism (its alternative). What the article does suggest, and that is not up for dispute, is that social democratic welfare state policies offer an apparent means of social transformation that do not do away with capitalism, at least immediately.

My. God. It literally says it. The result. As I've said, is not the concern! It's the fact that Social Democracy is an option under Socialism. Whether it works, is a different bloody conversation.

All of the above I've said fits in with the broader chapter of the article:
"A second difficulty concerns the articulation of all things considered appropriate strategies that combine feasibility considerations with the normative desiderata provided by socialist principles. The question here is: what is the most reasonable path of transformation to pursue for socialists given their understanding of the principles animating their political project, viewed against the background of what seems more or less feasible to achieve at different moments, and within different historical contexts? Complex judgments have to be formed about the precise social systems at which it would be right to aim at different stages of the sequence of transformation, and about the specific modes of political action to deploy in such processes. These judgments would combine feasibility and desirability to assess short-term and long-term goals, their intrinsic costs and benefits, and the promise of the former to enhance the achievement of the latter. The difficulty of forming such judgments is compounded by the uncertainty about the prospects of large societal changes (but also about the long-term consequences of settling for the status quo)."

In short, what's actually being said here is closer to: some socialists, who believed that capitalism was unjust and undesirable, ultimate came to the conclusion could not be surpassed (because of the historical problems with transition), and that it must instead be tamed to whatever extent possible - what the article never says at any point whatsoever is that this "taming" means the establishment of a socialist society. It is included, of course, because social democracy came out of the socialist movement and had important ramifications for much of the West in terms of its politics and socioeconomic development. I do not take that to mean the article is saying that "social democracy = socialism".

Who said Social Democracy = Socialism? I said it was simply a facet under the definition. So your point above agrees with that. Thank you for that confirmation. It literally says DIII, which includes Social Democracym is a form of Socialism. It literally says that. I can take a picture of it for you.

They include it in an article about the philosophy of socialism, because social democracy evolved from the socialist movement and took many of its concomitant ethical and moralistic concerns to heart, but it had its own unique responses to what should be done about capitalism.

They then confirm that DIII, which is the above, is a variant of Socialism. My point all along.

This proves nothing. The matter of identifying the appropriate agents for change is literally just a question of how the socialist movement should look. In the paragraph you took this from, the article discusses whether the movement should focus solely on class or include more diverse concerns simultaneously. It has nothing to do with any point you or I have made.

[/quote]

This is what the entire conversation is about, so yes, it does. Next time you make another, long winded, stupid response, I'm just going to post the part where it says DIII which includes ALL of the things above, as a form of socialism.

"Other significant issues regarding dimension DIII of socialism are the identification of appropriate political agents of change and their prospects of success in the context of contemporary globalization."

That's the quote. DIII includes Social Democracy. It says this in DIII.

[Duvniask]

I am not really bothered by your malice because your childish outbursts earlier made me stop taking you seriously. What does bother me is that you don't listen, because you don't respond to any of my arguments about why you pulling up all these texts and articles isn't a response to my concerns; you keep doing it, expecting that it will somehow make you look good.

I have quoted professionals that continue to agree that taming Capitalism and then transforming it into a socialist system is itself an acceptable definition under Socialism. If you don't like that, then tough.

IT HASN'T FUCKING SAID THAT ANYWHERE, HOLY SHIT. I carefully try to explain what the article is actually saying, which goes perfectly woosh above your head.

I have consistently been saying academics treat the matter lazily and without proper rigor. Your response is to pull even more links out of your ass that discuss socialism - yes? Need I repeat myself? You're not responding to my claim of the lack of rigour, you're just giving me material to criticize. It's like if I challenged the history books in school for being inaccurate and your response was to keep bringing up inaccurate history books, not understanding that it is a non sequitor.

You're basically saying that because I find academics that disagree with you, they must be lazy. The academics have been rigorous - its simply you who has not. The scope of academic rigour is utterly beyond this conversation - it requires a complete systematic review of their work, something that cannot be tested in the scope of a conversation.

No, I am saying their definitions in these cases are lazy or inconsistent; it has nothing to do with whether you find them or not, I was already aware of their existence. Need I remind you that it is their work I am criticizing.

My argument: "Even academics are wrong about how they use these terms."
Your response: WELL THIS ARTICLE AGREES WITH ME (setting aside, for a moment, how much you misinterpret them)

Do you understand that your posts are not meaningful responses to my own? The response you should give, if you actually understood anything I've been saying, is to show that your semantics are correct, logical and coherent and not just appeals to authority (because that is literally all you have done, appeal to authority, the very authority which I criticize).

There is no misinterpretation, the source material also concludes that Social Democracy is a variant of Socialism.

And you fail once again to respond to any point that was made. Nice. I can tell I'm you're really trying here.

Yes, this entire chapter is discussing the transformation of capitalism into socialism, but that discussion also veers into feasibility and reactions to the historical failure of socialism in places like Russia.

we could have dynamic duties to make it feasible to do later by developing our relevant capacities in the meantime. The feasibility judgments must then be scalar rather than binary and allow for diachronic variation. These features make them somewhat murky, and not straightforwardly amenable to the hard-edged use of impossibility claims to debunk normative requirements (via contraposition on the principle that ought implies can)."

Feasability is not the thing under discussion. The option being under socialism is the discussion, whether that option works is a different conversation, so if you'd stop getting stuck on that for 10 minutes, maybe you'll progress.

Yes it is. It literally opens with this in the second sentence at the beginning of section 5. It is a permanent consideration throughout the section; you'd know that if you read it as a coherent whole. Stop lying.

I'm persistently weirded out by your random boldening of sentences that have nothing to do with anything. Who disputes this? It is a very Marxian view that socialism doesn't appear out of nowhere and can only exist under the proper circumstances. So you putting it in bold letters is completely redundant (what are you trying to prove, even?)

Social Democracy is a variant definition under Socialism. For someone who said I don't listen, the fact you've ignored this point is hilarious.

Jesus Christ. I'm asking what you're trying to prove with the part you specifically underlined there, because it's utterly irrelevant. I can understand you say you're autistic in your sig, because you really have some problems reading into things. I don't mean that as an insult, but holy fuck does it make getting any sort of point across hard.

This is where you start getting a very wrongful impression. You skipped quite a bit in your post here, where the article discusses the historical difficulties of the transition to socialism and how self-described socialists have responded.

The historical difficulties aren't my concern, the concern is Social Democracy is a variant of Socialism. Whether Social Democracy can bring about Socialism is a different conversation.

Fucking hell. It's the concern of the article. It's what the article is talking about. I'm trying to explain the article to you and now you're just pivoting again. Fuck me.

THE ARTICLE talks about social democracy as a strategy for social transformation in light of the historical difficulties of establishing socialism. This is not a statement that social democracy = the establishment of socialism or a socialist economic order. That would be logically inconsistent with what they say in section 1 of the article.

That is when it starts talking about these strategies - they are strategies that describe what socialists think should be done, not strategies that necessarily result in a socialist system, which to some started to seem unattainable because:

This is all irrelevant, the point of conversation is not the feasibility of the choice, but that the choice was a socialist one. As I have said, many, many, many, many, times. The whole point of this conversation is that Social Demcoracy is one form of socialism. The Article I quoted confirms this.

The point of our conversation is the semantics; the point of the article is not on the same level as us. That is the point. You're responding to me interpreting the article for you with dismissal, but you're the one that used this very article in the first place to say that you were correct; I'm showing you the article does not talk about the same thing that you are. Oh my God.

"it might be asked who is to evaluate and decide upon what is to be done at each stage of the process, on what grounds can it be expected that earlier stages will enhance the likelihood of the success of later stages rather than undermine them (e.g., by enshrining institutions or values that will make it hard to move further along the path), what transitional costs can be accepted in earlier stages, and whether the costs expected are outweighed by the desirability and the increased probability of attaining the later stages. Such questions do not want for difficulty."

You see, this "second strategy" is about how to transform society (or how socialist politicians can strive to make it better) in light of the historical difficulties of developing socialism. It is a strategy that is a response to the problems that ostensibly "socialist" states had historically; nowhere does the article in question say that the result of social democratic policies is equivalent to socialism or a socialist economic system; that would be in contradiction with all the opening paragraphs of the article carefully laying out capitalism and how socialism is the negation of capitalism (its alternative). What the article does suggest, and that is not up for dispute, is that social democratic welfare state policies offer an apparent means of social transformation that do not do away with capitalism, at least immediately.

My. God. It literally says it. The result. As I've said, is not the concern! It's the fact that Social Democracy is an option under Socialism. Whether it works, is a different bloody conversation.

It "literally says" nothing.

Whether it works is part of what the article talks about in section 5. If you're going to transform society, feasibility is a natural concern. Get it through your skull.

In short, what's actually being said here is closer to: some socialists, who believed that capitalism was unjust and undesirable, ultimate came to the conclusion could not be surpassed (because of the historical problems with transition), and that it must instead be tamed to whatever extent possible - what the article never says at any point whatsoever is that this "taming" means the establishment of a socialist society. It is included, of course, because social democracy came out of the socialist movement and had important ramifications for much of the West in terms of its politics and socioeconomic development. I do not take that to mean the article is saying that "social democracy = socialism".

Who said Social Democracy = Socialism? I said it was simply a facet under the definition.

You're being very weasely with words here. I think it's clear from the context that I am talking about it in precisely the sense that you are, whether the article says it is a form under the panoply of socialism.

And once again you fail to respond to any point that was made.

So your point above agrees with that.

No, you just lack reading comprehension. You take my casual usage of "=" to mean something it doesn't.

It literally says DIII, which includes Social Democracym is a form of Socialism.

No.

It literally says that. I can take a picture of it for you.

No.

They include it in an article about the philosophy of socialism, because social democracy evolved from the socialist movement and took many of its concomitant ethical and moralistic concerns to heart, but it had its own unique responses to what should be done about capitalism.

They then confirm that DIII, which is the above, is a variant of Socialism. My point all along.

You've nothing to show for it.

This proves nothing. The matter of identifying the appropriate agents for change is literally just a question of how the socialist movement should look. In the paragraph you took this from, the article discusses whether the movement should focus solely on class or include more diverse concerns simultaneously. It has nothing to do with any point you or I have made.

This is what the entire conversation is about, so yes, it does.

No? Do you suffer from amnesia now? The conversation has never been about whether the working class movement should also be a movement for LGBT rights and minority rights. That is a separate discussion entirely. We've discussed nothing of the sort so far. Again, you lack reading comprehension and take the above to mean something totally different. If you just read the paragraph in the article where this quote comes up, it's clear it has nothing to do with anything we've discussed at length so far.

Next time you make another, long winded, stupid response,

The words you type aren't worth the bandwidth it takes to upload them.

I'm just going to post the part where it says DIII which includes ALL of the things above, as a form of socialism.

By all means.

"Other significant issues regarding dimension DIII of socialism are the identification of appropriate political agents of change and their prospects of success in the context of contemporary globalization."

That's the quote. DIII includes Social Democracy. It says this in DIII.

Did it literally go in one ear and out the other?

I just explained to your ass that this quote here is in a paragraph describing whether the working class movement should only be about addressing class concerns or about broader issues of gender, race and other social issues. that has nothing to do with what we've talked about.

[Cisairse]

After Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic nomination for president to Joe Biden, a moderate, some concerns have arisen to the survival of socialism in western democracies.

After a huge Labour defeat in the UK election, a substantial loss of seats from the NDP and a large right-wing resurgence in the EU, the general socialist ideology has suffered in the past 5 years or so in the West.

I would challenge this premise, slightly. Yes, the "aesthetically socialist" parties and candidates have not done well electorally in recent years. Corbyn was an electoral disaster, Sanders failed to diversify outside of his base to win the nomination. Sanders moved the conversation to the left, however. Biden's platform is to the left of Clinton's, and Clinton's platform was to the left of Obama's. The DSA has grown incredibly fast. Philadelphia has a city council member from the "Working Families Party", a party to the left of the Democrats.

From the socialist perspective, having Sanders or Corbyn win would have been preferable, but there have been practical and tangible socialist victories. But I think that the losses feel worse than they actually are, because there was the potential for greater power that did not pan out.

What can we do to save it?

And what has been the instrument of it's decline?

I do know that in some western countries, like Mexico and the Nordic Countries, socialism has prevailed to an extent, so what has kept it going there but not in other places? (sorry about having to delete the poll, but this thread needed a major makeover.)

IMO, drop the aesthetics. Disavow the MLs and Soviet apologists. The Soviets were bad and lost the cold war. They are not a model that anybody outside of niche communities looks to. Venezuela is bad, don't defend their kleptocratic regime. Cuba has no appeal outside to anyone over 30. If this is your vision of socialism, there is no future for it and you will be continuously disappointed.

In the countries where socialism has been politically reasonably economically successful in the modern world, it hasn't been because the party members won by talking about how cool they think Rosa Luxemborg is. The social democrats in the Nordics focused on providing practical benefits to their supporters. They have been pragmatic in achieving their goals- where socialism works, they use socialist thought, and where markets are more efficient at achieving social democratic goals, they've used them to help deliver more socialist outcomes. I am not well versed in Mexican politics, but my understanding is that AMLO won by on focusing pressing issues in Mexican society, while his opponents didn't do enough to address them.

This has also been the success of socialism in the United States, both historically and recently. "Sewer Socialists" did very well in the Upper Midwest because they promised, then delivered, practical benefits to a broad enough swath of supporters to keep electoral power. Unions were a force in the United States because they delivered practical benefits to their members, and the economic structure of the time allowed them to build and wield that power. Bernie Sanders did well in 2016 because he attracted a broader coalition- people interested in his social-democratic reforms, and people who really didn't want Hillary Clinton. He obviously lost that election, but I would argue he did worse in 2020 because he failed to build beyond that base, and this time, Hillary wasn't running so he lost that leg of his coalition. His strategy for the nomination was always the Trump strategy- hope that the rest of the party is too divided, and win with your base even though it's not 51% of the party.

If socialists want to win, they need to broaden their appeal. That means focusing on the practical side of things, and above all, putting practicality and pragmatism above theory. Hire people who are committed to practicality, winning, and objective analysis, not hacks and sycophants.

If socialists want to win, they need to stop running for positions of high office in elections.

[Steppe Khanate]

The irony here is that Scandinavian countries raise taxes on both the rich and the poor to pay for their programs. Sales tax in those nations are through the roof.

Sanders and his ilk can raise taxes on the topmost brackets without having too much impact on the poor. When I ask the question in my post, I do acknowledge that there have been strides made in taxing wealthier people instead of the poor. The thing is, the people who control most of the money in the country aren’t taxed when people like Bernie Sanders "raise taxes on the rich"

The people who have to pay more taxes in that case, are upper middle class and lower upper class people, you know, doctors, lawyers, middle management, etc. You know whose taxes aren't raised? Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, the highest 1% in general. The reason for that isn’t because the tax legislation is badly written, or the rich are exploiting some loophole or doing anything illegal, in fact, the way they avoid paying extra taxes is 100% legal. They use their debt to write off high taxes, then directly use the profits from their sources of income to pay off that debt, whilst maintaining a minimum in liabilities so that they are making a huge net gain in money.

Copied and pasted my post from the Biden thread, but I feel like this is relevant to this thread’s topic

[Atheris]

If socialists want to win, they need to stop running for positions of high office in elections.

"If we want to win, we should stop trying to win!"

[Cisairse]

"If we want to win, we should stop trying to win!"

The idea that socialism "winning" is defined as "holding the office of the presidency" is inane and should be disregarded.

[Bear Stearns]

Drop the woke stuff and actually stand for American workers instead of disparaging them as deplorable rednecks.

[Loben III]

Drop the woke stuff and actually stand for American workers instead of disparaging them as deplorable rednecks.

“No it’s the rednecks who are wrong.”

[Duvniask]

Drop the woke stuff and actually stand for American workers instead of disparaging them as deplorable rednecks.

What is this vapid nonsense even supposed to mean?

[Kowani]

Drop the woke stuff and actually stand for American workers instead of disparaging them as deplorable rednecks.

What is this vapid nonsense even supposed to mean?

Hate LGBT+ people, don't care about immigrants, ignore police brutality.


Also, get our manufacturing jobs back from China somehow.

[Bear Stearns]

Drop the woke stuff and actually stand for American workers instead of disparaging them as deplorable rednecks.

What is this vapid nonsense even supposed to mean?

lol the communist suddenly becomes confused at what standing with the working class means. how typical.

[Empirical Switzerland]

As much as I do not want to be rude....

why?

Socialism is terrible, and the idea of everybody in unity is good, but making everybody basically poor, ruining the economy, and taking away people's personal business's make you happy?

[Cisairse]

As much as I do not want to be rude....

why?

Socialism is terrible, and the idea of everybody in unity is good, but making everybody basically poor, ruining the economy, and taking away people's personal business's make you happy?

If socialism actually meant "making everyone poor, ruining the economy" etc then why would people follow it?

Hint: That is a completely false description of socialism.

[Empirical Switzerland]

Because dumb people exist in this world.

[Zedeshia]

As much as I do not want to be rude....

why?

Socialism is terrible, and the idea of everybody in unity is good, but making everybody basically poor, ruining the economy, and taking away people's personal business's make you happy?

...Because that is not socialism? I don't mean to be rude myself, but how much do you actually know about socialism and socialist theory?

[Cisairse]

Because dumb people exist in this world.

Are you saying that those who espouse socialism are dumb?

[Empirical Switzerland]

Most of them.

[Farnhamia]

Most of them.

*** Warned for trolling ***

[Duvniask]

What is this vapid nonsense even supposed to mean?

lol the communist suddenly becomes confused at what standing with the working class means. how typical.

I am going to flip a shit. Gaslighting, not answering the question.

How are socialists in the United States not already dedicated to helping working class people? They generally support the types of measures that would, some of the simplest ones being: a universalized system of publicly available healthcare that is free-of-charge to the patient (and don't get started with the drooling ridiculousness of trying to pretend "free" implies something more than it being delivered freely to those that ask); free higher education; ending the war on drugs; strengthening unions. Simple soc-dem shit that doesn't even begin to leave the capitalist paradigm, at least for a start. So what is this bullshit about not wanting to help the working class?

[Phoenicaea]

^_Lower Nubia, i find yours to be a rather good exposee.