Is "electoral socialism" possible?

[Nilokeras]

it's not. not because socialists cannot capture the state electorally, because that's still eminently possible, it's because that for most of the world the state no longer has the power to implement socialism. we'd be taking possession of a burnt out ruin thinking it's a fortress of proletarian democracy.

[Umeria]

Isn't "appeasing the masses", like, what democracy is supposed to do? The people want something so their leaders give it to them. What's the problem here?

The problem is that what I'm referring to as 'appeasement' is just token reforms that temporarily address a symptom of the system but fail to address the system that causes the issues in the first place.
The ACA is a prime example of an appeasement that doesn't address the actual problem.

The ACA is definitely not the furthest we can go. Medicare for All is possible without overthrowing the government.

Voting is only one small part of democracy.

I forgot to include that in both Britain and the US the richest parties win. People are so brainwashed that now there are 2 sides. The supposed "leftist" democrats (neolibs) and Republicans (Neoconservatives).

Okay but again, the 2 party system is not the only way to participate. Unionization, mass protests, etc. can accomplish a lot.

[HISPIDA]

it's not. not because socialists cannot capture the state electorally, because that's still eminently possible, it's because that for most of the world the state no longer has the power to implement socialism. we'd be taking possession of a burnt out ruin thinking it's a fortress of proletarian democracy.

this is a really good point honestly

[Genivaria]

The problem is that what I'm referring to as 'appeasement' is just token reforms that temporarily address a symptom of the system but fail to address the system that causes the issues in the first place.
The ACA is a prime example of an appeasement that doesn't address the actual problem.

The ACA is definitely not the furthest we can go. Medicare for All is possible without overthrowing the government.

I forgot to include that in both Britain and the US the richest parties win. People are so brainwashed that now there are 2 sides. The supposed "leftist" democrats (neolibs) and Republicans (Neoconservatives).

Okay but again, the 2 party system is not the only way to participate. Unionization, mass protests, etc. can accomplish a lot.

My point isn't that universal healthcare is impossible under capitalism, obviously it is when other capitalist countries have it.
My point is that any meaningful reform under capitalism will be either stalled or rolled back while capitalists still hold the power.

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

The problem is that what I'm referring to as 'appeasement' is just token reforms that temporarily address a symptom of the system but fail to address the system that causes the issues in the first place.
The ACA is a prime example of an appeasement that doesn't address the actual problem.

The ACA is definitely not the furthest we can go. Medicare for All is possible without overthrowing the government.

I forgot to include that in both Britain and the US the richest parties win. People are so brainwashed that now there are 2 sides. The supposed "leftist" democrats (neolibs) and Republicans (Neoconservatives).

Okay but again, the 2 party system is not the only way to participate. Unionization, mass protests, etc. can accomplish a lot.

What the fuck have unions been doing these past few decades? What are people doing in that same timeframe? Protesting. Every year since the formation of the Republican Party the only parties winning elections are the Dems and Reps. Do you think there hasn't been any protests since 1861?

[Fauzjhia]

If its possible I don't know
but if we want to a real, lasting form of socialism, it is necessary

we need democracy to make a communist system work

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

If its possible I don't know
but if we want to a real, lasting form of socialism, it is necessary

we need democracy to make a communist system work

Pretty sure we're not talking about Communism, Socialism and Communism are not the same.

[Umeria]

The ACA is definitely not the furthest we can go. Medicare for All is possible without overthrowing the government.

My point isn't that universal healthcare is impossible under capitalism, obviously it is when other capitalist countries have it.
My point is that any meaningful reform under capitalism will be either stalled or rolled back while capitalists still hold the power.

Capitalists don't necessarily hold all the power under capitalism. Unions among other organizations can keep them in check if they're strong enough.

Okay but again, the 2 party system is not the only way to participate. Unionization, mass protests, etc. can accomplish a lot.

What the fuck have unions been doing these past few decades? What are people doing in that same timeframe? Protesting. Every year since the formation of the Republican Party the only parties winning elections are the Dems and Reps. Do you think there hasn't been any protests since 1861?

The protests since 1861 got us an end to child labor, the 40 hour work week, social security, Medicare, and civil rights - under Dems and Reps! Unions were crippled after Reagan but that doesn't mean they can't reemerge; in many ways they're doing so now.

[Washington Resistance Army]

My point isn't that universal healthcare is impossible under capitalism, obviously it is when other capitalist countries have it.
My point is that any meaningful reform under capitalism will be either stalled or rolled back while capitalists still hold the power.

Capitalists don't necessarily hold all the power under capitalism. Unions among other organizations can keep them in check if they're strong enough.

In the past this might have been true but not anymore. Oligarchs and capitalists are more powerful now than ever before.

[Umeria]

Capitalists don't necessarily hold all the power under capitalism. Unions among other organizations can keep them in check if they're strong enough.

In the past this might have been true but not anymore. Oligarchs and capitalists are more powerful now than ever before.

I'm sure a lot of people thought this during the Great Depression, and yet it turned out that change was possible. Why isn't it possible now?

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

My point isn't that universal healthcare is impossible under capitalism, obviously it is when other capitalist countries have it.
My point is that any meaningful reform under capitalism will be either stalled or rolled back while capitalists still hold the power.

Capitalists don't necessarily hold all the power under capitalism. Unions among other organizations can keep them in check if they're strong enough.

What the fuck have unions been doing these past few decades? What are people doing in that same timeframe? Protesting. Every year since the formation of the Republican Party the only parties winning elections are the Dems and Reps. Do you think there hasn't been any protests since 1861?

The protests since 1861 got us an end to child labor, the 40 hour work week, social security, Medicare, and civil rights - under Dems and Reps! Unions were crippled after Reagan but that doesn't mean they can't reemerge; in many ways they're doing so now.

The protests in 1861 were caused because countries in Europe criminalized child labor (and 1861's Reps were much more left wing), the 40 hour workweek was made law only because all big companies were using it at the time, the SSA for which funding was cut (same for Medicare) and civil rights, because the US government was overwhelmed by the protests.

[Umeria]

The protests since 1861 got us an end to child labor, the 40 hour work week, social security, Medicare, and civil rights - under Dems and Reps! Unions were crippled after Reagan but that doesn't mean they can't reemerge; in many ways they're doing so now.

The protests in 1861 were caused because countries in Europe criminalized child labor (and 1861's Reps were much more left wing), the 40 hour workweek was made law only because all big companies were using it at the time, the SSA for which funding was cut (same for Medicare) and civil rights, because the US government was overwhelmed by the protests.

So you're saying protests can be effective.

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

The protests in 1861 were caused because countries in Europe criminalized child labor (and 1861's Reps were much more left wing), the 40 hour workweek was made law only because all big companies were using it at the time, the SSA for which funding was cut (same for Medicare) and civil rights, because the US government was overwhelmed by the protests.

So you're saying protests can be effective.

Did anyone of those protests overthrow the 2 party system?

[Umeria]

So you're saying protests can be effective.

Did anyone of those protests overthrow the 2 party system?

My point is that you can change things without overthrowing the 2 party system.

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Did anyone of those protests overthrow the 2 party system?

My point is that you can change things without overthrowing the 2 party system.

What leftist reforms took place since 1980 let's say.

[Nilokeras]

it's not. not because socialists cannot capture the state electorally, because that's still eminently possible, it's because that for most of the world the state no longer has the power to implement socialism. we'd be taking possession of a burnt out ruin thinking it's a fortress of proletarian democracy.

this is a really good point honestly

really, consider what everyone else is arguing about too - preserving the hollowed-out gains of the great social democratic compromise of the 20th century? making capital's boot a little bit gentler? fighting against a constant downward pressure exerted by a bourgeois democracy that has never been interested in socialism except as a means of self preservation?

all of it stuck firmly in a past where the state actually had the power and interest to deliver anything. pure delusion.

[Umeria]

really, consider what everyone else is arguing about too - preserving the hollowed-out gains of the great social democratic compromise of the 20th century? making capital's boot a little bit gentler? fighting against a constant downward pressure exerted by a bourgeois democracy that has never been interested in socialism except as a means of self preservation?

all of it stuck firmly in a past where the state actually had the power and interest to deliver anything. pure delusion.

We've never had Medicare for All, free college, or a $15 minimum wage in the US, so implementing these things wouldn't be "preserving the hollowed-out gains", it would be actively making things better. And yes, politics will always be a fight against a constant downward pressure. There is no way society can be structured to prevent that from happening. But you can push back harder.

What leftist reforms took place since 1980 let's say.

To be honest, besides things like gay rights there hasn't been much. That doesn't mean it's impossible to accomplish anything in the future, however.

[Samicana]

Ok but if you have an authoritarian state you can't have a socialist society because the state would own the means of production, not the workers

[Nilokeras]

really, consider what everyone else is arguing about too - preserving the hollowed-out gains of the great social democratic compromise of the 20th century? making capital's boot a little bit gentler? fighting against a constant downward pressure exerted by a bourgeois democracy that has never been interested in socialism except as a means of self preservation?

all of it stuck firmly in a past where the state actually had the power and interest to deliver anything. pure delusion.

We've never had Medicare for All, free college, or a $15 minimum wage in the US, so implementing these things wouldn't be "preserving the hollowed-out gains", it would be actively making things better. And yes, politics will always be a fight against a constant downward pressure. There is no way society can be structured to prevent that from happening. But you can push back harder.

ah yes, american democratic socialism - crawling bravely through gunfire and mud to the unprecedented heights of 1930s Sweden

[Umeria]

We've never had Medicare for All, free college, or a $15 minimum wage in the US, so implementing these things wouldn't be "preserving the hollowed-out gains", it would be actively making things better. And yes, politics will always be a fight against a constant downward pressure. There is no way society can be structured to prevent that from happening. But you can push back harder.

ah yes, american democratic socialism - crawling bravely through gunfire and mud to the unprecedented heights of 1930s Sweden

This but unironically.

[Disgraces]

No because nobody votes socialism

[Nilokeras]

ah yes, american democratic socialism - crawling bravely through gunfire and mud to the unprecedented heights of 1930s Sweden

This but unironically.

interesting ploy, admitting you have no vision for the future but a past that you can never reach again

[Hemakral]

This but unironically.

interesting ploy, admitting you have no vision for the future but a past that you can never reach again

can you guys save the leftist infighting until after we do something about the oligarchy

[Umeria]

This but unironically.

interesting ploy, admitting you have no vision for the future but a past that you can never reach again

I've never lived in Sweden. Medicare for All in the US would be unlike any past I've experienced. And why can't we reach it?

[Nilokeras]

interesting ploy, admitting you have no vision for the future but a past that you can never reach again

I've never lived in Sweden. Medicare for All in the US would be unlike any past I've experienced. And why can't we reach it?

because you've been trying for Sweden in the 30's since the actual 30s, when the state had the actual capacity to do things, and youve failed at every step. And now it's too late since the state has been purposefully stripped of any capacity to effect any of the changes you want