649
Defediverse
(lemmy.ml)
EDIT: no, I don't sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they're losing an argument ;)
Find me one neoliberal who isn't promoting violence.
Here's a comment thread where a Hexbear user said "I hope to kill people like you" because I simply said I supported democratic socialism.
Going on any Hexbear instance people froth over telling anyone right of Karl Marx to "get up against the wall". You guys are, and will always be, a joke.
This you?
You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism. Dem Socs are well-meaning but idealistic, not optimistic but the political philosophy of idealism. Soc Dems are supporters of a kinder capitalism for the Imperial core but keeping the child slaves mining cobalt in the Congo.
The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory. They were harsh but you were implying that keeping exploitation of the third world is preferable to socialism.
What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.
I have, but thanks for the suggestion.
The abolishinists were mean to me. : 😭😭
Assuming people are using words in the way they are widely and commonly accepted to mean (I mean, just look at Wikipedia for an easy starting point) is not a bad thing?
Social and Socialism are not spelled the same, neither are Democracy and Democratic.
What incredible insight. The word 'social' is referring to 'socialism' and so is the relation between 'democracy' and 'democratic'.
It would take an idiot to mix these up, right?
Your beef is with the English Language not me. How is it my fault that you misidentified yourself? Funnily enough, you still don't identify your actual political position. It's clear that the only political position you'd take is what gives you an advantage in the argument. Fucking debatebros lol.
Reading so much theory that you confuse two different political ideologies. Sometimes I read so much theory that that I claim to be a monarchist when I really mean to say I'm an anti-monarchist. Obviously the other person should have understood what I meant. Your literally on a communication medium that allows you to plan and edit your comments. You have no excuse for making this grade school mistake.
Debatebro? That's what Hexbear does best.
I would actually love to engage in good faith discussions, but Hexbear users only operate in bad faith, particularly by sealioning. Like clockwork, you don't engage in ideas but rather give reading assignments.
I've read Das Kapital and agree with virtually all the premises about how society is unfair to those who actually generate the surplus value and think that we need to fix a system that breaks cyclically, as Karl Marx correctly predicted in volume I. The only solutions I've seen presented are a total revolution a la 1917, which occured before globalization. Anything close to this in the current globalized world will kill at minimum hundreds of millions globally due to interdependence on products that Marx would consider "needs", such as medications and medical equipment like dialysis machines.
The difference between you and me is that I'd rather work to reestablish democracy away from capital interests. I don't want a dictatorship, I want a functional democracy. Propaganda is often used to disillusion the working class from democracy, and if you don't vote in elections then you are clearly part of the problem.
Edit: Lmao. Citing"theory" gets crickets from the people who endlessly say "you just haven't read theory". It's like they don't know what to do with someone who reads to understand, rather than "reading" just to virtue signal.
Hahaha, literally "I know you are but what am I"
Lmao peak angry chud solipsism. "I would never read except to lord it over others, so that must be what these commies are doing."
Haha, classic Catradora_Stalinism, what a rascal.
so you promoted violence first?
i'm failing to see your complaint here
Oh silly you.
So you said that you support the regime of extreme global inequality against the third world in order to maintain treats in the first.
I support what are realistic policies actually will push the status quo in the direction you want.
Larping on the internet waiting for a revolution to occur seems like a nice fantasy.
IDK what country you're from, but in America at least, a democratic socialist has about as much likelihood of being elected to any given office as a communist does, so if you're looking for "realistic" policies you should look elsewhere.
There are numerous democratic socialists who are in Congress, you just aren't paying attention.
Run for office. There have been many spoilers from genuine grassroots campaigns. Don't want to do either? Keep coping and seething online.
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. Entryism always ends up changing the entrant instead of the system. We are revolutionary socialists.
It's clear you never studied US politics if you think that is remotely true. The Gilded Age and the Great Depression briefly pushed America away from corporate interests towards policy that benefited the working class. We averted overt fascism a la the Business Plot and the ratfucking that Smedley Butler disclosed while being the most badass anti-capitalist ever.
You're not a revolutionary socialist, you're a larper who won't do anything to better the world other than wait for this revolution like it's the second coming of Christ.
You guys are the QAnon of the left.
You're describing one group of bourgeoisie resisting a takeover by a different group of bourgeoisie. This is not a meaningful resistance to capitalism, this is the maintenance of a capitalist state.
Present some options that have broad appeal and would be accepted by the proletariat. I don't know if you've looked around the US, but the voting proletariat generally find centrist policies to be "far left".
How do you have your people's revolution without the people?
How does any of that disagree with what he said?
Who are you talking about? AOC? If your definition of a democratic socialist is a left-leaning Democrat then it is thoroughly incompatible with mine, because I would require at a minimum that anybody classified as any kind of "socialist" be staunchly opposed to Capital.
I too support democratic socialism
Allende just needed more people's militias
So socialism, if it has any degree of democracy to it, which is kind of essential to socialism, is evil in your eyes.
What version of decision making is acceptable in socialism then?
Just one party rule?
Extreme violence is still violence. Industrial violence on a massive scale is still violence. You are advocating for violence, terrible violence, and then getting upset someone else advocated for comparatively mild violence.