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

[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.

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

Oh, sure. I should have pointed that out, my bad :-) I was talking specifically of these new 'socialisms' popular today with Western millennials/zoomers. I don't know enough about socialist movements in other countries to properly characterise them

[Fedel]

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

That's not what I claimed. What I claimed was:

"It's stronger than ever in most Western nations."

I emphasized this in my response to you as well.

Socialism not being at its most prominent in the US as it ever has does not mean that socialism in the majority of other western nations is not better off than it was.

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.

Incorrect. Read my response above and read future posts more carefully.

And I said you were wrong, by pointing out it was stronger in the early 20th century.

That... Doesn't disprove what I said. Pointing out that socialism was stronger at one point in a single western nation does not disprove the statement that "socialism is stronger than ever in most western nations."

What is so difficult about this concept for you?

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

No I fucking didn't. My comment that I hadn't brought up the U.S. specifically was in regards to how favorably socialism is viewed in the present day in comparison to the early 20th century. I acknowledge this in my very next sentence where I state what I HAD talked about in relation to the U.S.

My statement for context:

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.

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough for you, but I won't have you strawmanning me. Accidentally or otherwise.

"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.

Are you attempting to claim that it's impossible for socialism to be stronger overall in western nations if a single western nation is not as socialist as it was at one point in its history?

Nah, I never did. I brought up the U.S. to point out that socialism in general is viewed far more favorably there than it has been in recent years which is incredible when you consider that it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the average citizen in the 50's to have attacked you for espousing such views.

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.

It depends on whether you think these subversive attempts are likely to be more successful or not.

[Punished UMN]

That... Doesn't disprove what I said. Pointing out that socialism was stronger at one point in a single western nation does not disprove the statement that "socialism is stronger than ever in most western nations."

What is so difficult about this concept for you?

It was much stronger in all western nations and around the world generally from 1870-1970 than it is now.

[Fedel]

That... Doesn't disprove what I said. Pointing out that socialism was stronger at one point in a single western nation does not disprove the statement that "socialism is stronger than ever in most western nations."

What is so difficult about this concept for you?

It was much stronger in all western nations and around the world generally from 1870-1970 than it is now.

Why do you think so?

[Punished UMN]

It was much stronger in all western nations and around the world generally from 1870-1970 than it is now.

Why do you think so?

They had violent uprisings, civil wars, passed major social reforms, etc.

[Fedel]

Why do you think so?

They had violent uprisings, civil wars, passed major social reforms, etc.

So do you think more overt acts like these occurring during the times you're referencing necessarily translate to these movement enjoying greater popular support? Or is it possible that other factors may have made it so that the supporters of socialism during these times felt more emboldened or that it was more necessary to act in this manner? I.E. having less social and political tools with which to bring about socialism in their society, the existence of entities like the Soviet Union who would likely be willing to support violent socialist revolutions, standards of living not being where they are today, etc.

Just trying to clarify the metric by which we're measuring support for the movement and whether or not that's effected by certain factors that are not necessarily the same today.

[Duvniask]

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

That's not what I claimed. What I claimed was:

"It's stronger than ever in most Western nations."

I emphasized this in my response to you as well.

I responded to precisely that statement. I have been telling you, this entire time, that socialism was stronger in most western countries in the early 20th century and that you, sir, are wrong about it being stronger "than ever" in most western countries. This is not difficult to understand unless you have a serious problem understanding English. You have shown me nothing to disprove that; you have literally only brought up Bernie Sanders and the US, which aside from being just one country is also an outlier where the socialist movement was largely nipped in the bud compared to other places.

Socialism not being at its most prominent in the US as it ever has does not mean that socialism in the majority of other western nations is not better off than it was.

I never fucking said the US, Christ in Holy Fucking Heaven.

Look, mate. If you want to talk about other western countries, why don't you? I did, for example, when I said: "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."

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.

Incorrect. Read my response above and read future posts more carefully.

How is it incorrect? You have nothing to show for it.

And I said you were wrong, by pointing out it was stronger in the early 20th century.

That... Doesn't disprove what I said. Pointing out that socialism was stronger at one point in a single western nation does not disprove the statement that "socialism is stronger than ever in most western nations."

What is so difficult about this concept for you?

Holy fucking shit, you can't read worth a fuck. You're making shit up about what I said out of thin air.

Get this through your skull: nothing I said was about one country. Literally. Retrace the entire conversation. There is not a single line where I focus my attention on a single country at once.

I said you were wrong by pointing out it was stronger in the early 20th century (IN THE WESTERN WORLD AS A WHOLE). Holy fuck, my mind is melting.

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

No I fucking didn't. My comment that I hadn't brought up the U.S. specifically was in regards to how favorably socialism is viewed in the present day in comparison to the early 20th century. I acknowledge this in my very next sentence where I state what I HAD talked about in relation to the U.S.

The conversation went like this:
"It's stronger than ever in most Western nations."
"No, It was stronger in 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 (...)"

YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP BERNIE SANDERS. YOU WERE THE ONE THAT STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE UNITED STATES. I didn't ask you about him. I didn't say anything about socialism in the United States. You did. You're the one that brought up this tangent that is completely irrelevant to my original response to you. My response concerned all Western countries. Your response to my response was to go on a tangent about Bernie Sanders.

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough for you, but I won't have you strawmanning me. Accidentally or otherwise.

I'm not, you just have zero reading comprehension.

"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.

Are you attempting to claim that it's impossible for socialism to be stronger overall in western nations if a single western nation is not as socialist as it was at one point in its history?

No, I'm saying you're not even providing any evidence for your own claim, because the only piece of evidence to back up your silly assertion is Bernie Sanders and the United States, which, again, is just one country.

Nah, I never did. I brought up the U.S. to point out that socialism in general is viewed far more favorably there than it has been in recent years which is incredible when you consider that it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the average citizen in the 50's to have attacked you for espousing such views.

The fuck are you talking about? Yes, you're the one that brought up the US... so why are you bringing up the US specifically and not mentioning any other country? I thought we were talking about the West as a whole. At least I was.

You see? You're the one that veered off on this tangent, and for some reason you've got it into your head that I was the one that started it. I have zero idea why you can't even figure out who said what in this conversation.

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.

It depends on whether you think these subversive attempts are likely to be more successful or not.

No, because giving people public healthcare doesn't make capitalism magically disappear. It disappears when it is abolished.

[Duvniask]

This is one of the most mind melting things I've ever seen on this site: someone that literally attributes their own tangential talking points to me and then strawmans me based off their own stupid tangent.

Holy fuck I need a break.

[PeoplesFreeVille]

Thoughts on Syndicalism? Specifically the ideology, not the failed practice of modern labor unions that are constructed to favor the bourgeoisie.

Dont mind it is a bit of a technocratic system were workers rule so kind of like wakey communism

[-Astoria-]

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

How ironic, but thank you for proving my point.

If you're not going to be arsed with standing by statements you make (& in this case, an easily debunked non-issue), then don't complain when few will take you seriously.

You made that bed, now you're going to sleep in it.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Why do you think so?

They had violent uprisings, civil wars, passed major social reforms, etc.

violent uprisings, civil wars?In all western nations?Isn't it just in Austria and Russia?

[Plzen]

violent uprisings, civil wars?In all western nations?Isn't it just in Austria and Russia?

Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2.

A traditional advantage of socialist movements in western countries have been the sheer numbers they could mobilise into direct action, and they weren't afraid to use it. Nowadays, though, they're not so able to do that.

[Atheris]

They had violent uprisings, civil wars, passed major social reforms, etc.

violent uprisings, civil wars?In all western nations?Isn't it just in Austria and Russia?

Austria, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Hungary all come to mind.

[South Odreria 2]

violent uprisings, civil wars?In all western nations?Isn't it just in Austria and Russia?

Austria, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Hungary all come to mind.

Don’t forget San Marino, the only western European country to have a communist head of state

[Atheris]

Austria, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Hungary all come to mind.

Don’t forget San Marino, the only western European country to have a communist head of state

Ah, yes. San Marino - the country that only exists because Garibaldi was an idiot.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Wow....I may have seen some before, but I ignored it.So it was a red time in the world?I listened the number of members of ARCP and CPUSA had a lot of growth in 2020.

[Slavakino]

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

How ironic, but thank you for proving my point.

If you're not going to be arsed with standing by statements you make (& in this case, an easily debunked non-issue), then don't complain when few will take you seriously.

You made that bed, now you're going to sleep in it.

Yeah, proved my point you're lazy and can't search shit yourself. You cannot deny Swedens rape and crime has skyrocketed ever since the mass inclusion of immigrants in 2015-2016

[Nobel Hobos 2]

How ironic, but thank you for proving my point.

If you're not going to be arsed with standing by statements you make (& in this case, an easily debunked non-issue), then don't complain when few will take you seriously.

You made that bed, now you're going to sleep in it.

Yeah, proved my point you're lazy and can't search shit yourself. You cannot deny Swedens rape and crime has skyrocketed ever since the mass inclusion of immigrants in 2015-2016

You made the claim, you were asked for a source and you refused. Now all you have is personal abuse?

[-Astoria-]

Yeah, proved my point you're lazy and can't search shit yourself. You cannot deny Swedens rape and crime has skyrocketed ever since the mass inclusion of immigrants in 2015-2016

Given that this is coming from the same person who seemingly cannot be arsed to defend your statement when anyone calls you out on it, that's rich.

Try again; random ad hominem attacks do not detract from what I've said, & only fully vindicates my point.

[Drongonia]

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?

Lol this is a well-documented thing cited by several sources.

The original report comes from Swedish Broadcaster SVT, and has been reported on by many English-speaking outlets such as the BBC and Russia Today. The BBC article also shows the steady increase in reported incidences of rape. Did Swedes all of a sudden get all rape-happy? No, the immigrants they brought in did. It's all very well of you to say:

"BeCaUsE ImMiGrAnTs" is not valid.

But the reality of the matter is that whether or not you agree with immigration, these people have changed Sweden for what most sane people would consider to be the worse. Here's another article that shows rapes have increased by 35% over the last decade (article from 2018). That doesn't happen in a country with a static population/demographic change.

Rape, violent crime and sexual assault are bad. Ergo, perpetrators of those crimes are bad. To simplify it:

Raping women bad
Violent crime bad
Sexual assault bad
If you bring these things in you are making the country worse - regardless of ethnicity, I might add.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

There's a price to pay for not giving a source when asked. It's your opponent giving their own choice of source instead.

Swedish government agency finds immigrants probably not responsible for increase in reported rapes since 2015

Swedish government agency finds that some crimes have increased beginning in 2015: sexual crimes, harassment and threats but crimes against households (from bicycle theft to burglary) have no changed.

[Drongonia]

Oh right this is a socialism thread. Stop trying to include diversity/ethnic politics in your socialist doctrine and it might not seem so alien to people. Very few people disagree with the premise of the state providing healthcare, education, roading and infrastructure services etc etc.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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

Lol this is a well-documented thing cited by several sources.

The original report comes from Swedish Broadcaster SVT, and has been reported on by many English-speaking outlets such as the BBC and Russia Today. The BBC article also shows the steady increase in reported incidences of rape. Did Swedes all of a sudden get all rape-happy? No, the immigrants they brought in did.

Unlike you, the BBC made clear the limits of the "report"

Public broadcaster SVT said it had counted all court convictions to present a complete picture in Sweden.

But Sweden had thousands more reported rapes, and there is no ethnic breakdown for those.

It's hard to convict on charges of rape, even in Sweden. The convictions are a small percentage of the total rapes, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if foreign-born people are more likely to be convicted.

There's a sudden influx of immigrants in 2015-2016, about half way through the "ten years" of the study. If the rate of rape reports rose steadily over the ten years without any noticeable bump after 2015, that would actually demonstrate the opposite of what you're saying: the rise would be mostly or entirely due to a change in Swedish society. People raped more, people reported rape more, or it was recorded more.

The link below the quote is Bloomberg which wants money from me, I'll still read it if you quote it here.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Oh right this is a socialism thread. Stop trying to include diversity/ethnic politics in your socialist doctrine and it might not seem so alien to people. Very few people disagree with the premise of the state providing healthcare, education, roading and infrastructure services etc etc.

Before you came to Slavakino's defense, you should have considered it was them who started the threadjack:

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

Sweden got absolutely fucked electing their socialist and green parties

[Drongonia]

Before you came to Slavakino's defense, you should have considered it was them who started the threadjack:

I will always come to Slavakino's defence, he is a comrade of mine.