647
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 ;)
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. : 😭😭
The tankies were being tankies, not unexpected.
youre getting into arguments where you don't know what the words mean, and then acting indignant when people point that out
That's very ableist of you to conflate dyslexia with stupidity.
Least bad faith liberal
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?
I'm innudated with endless notifications from you dweebs, mistakes happen.
People keep telling me that I shit my pants based off the way I smell and the growing brown stain on my pants but they're all tankies because they're all wrong
Maybe we can assume people got terminology wrong and not immediately jump to death wishes?
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?
I guess social security = socialism security in your world? Social welfare programs are not socialism and if your political education included anything beyond Elizabeth Warren's policy page you'd know that.
No, social policies are not socialism, however, they do generally benefit the working class.
You guys are so worried about centrists that you are ignoring the fact that the US had a far right coup attempt less than three years ago.
And the US still has a far right regime in power, and has since 1776. What's your point?
No it has not been far right since 1776. I guess when you make up facts it's easy to prove your point though.
By the way, when's the glorious peoples revolution supposed to begin? More importantly, where are the people???
Read Liberalism A Counter History or shut up about shit you don't understand.
The people already revolted in the worlds largest country and their success will convince people to make similar steps once it's made obvious you're being fucked by your far right regimes. The people are hungering in most of the world and they will stand up you brain wormed fucker
Read this book I just read last month or you don't know anything!
It's funny, no matter how many reading assignments I actually partake in, it's never enough. Perhaps your movement would be more successful if you spent less time alienating anyone right of Ho Chi Minh.
Then read any fuckin book about this subject before speaking
Funny you mention that. Whenever I do cite any "theory" that I have read, you well-read individuals somehow always disappear and avoid discussing anything. I'm sure you'll either A) do the same thing or B) move the goalposts all the way to Laos/Cambodia.
https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/2650764
Lol is that your best fuckin example? You didn't cite Marx lol you just misunderstood an analysis for a method and made a shit argument. You didn't deserve a good reply and dont now. I'm all for whatever analyses come out to peacefully move forward, but you're just preserving the current world for your benefit not trying to prevent some deaths or something. Millions die yearly to preventable causes which would end with global socialism.
I have never had the opportunity to have a more in-depth discussion because you guys seem more interested in smugly acting more intelligent than everyone, forgetting you need to recruit "people" to have a "people's revolution".
Since you're one of the wise leaders of the revolution, what is your plan to bring your superior ideologies to the masses?
I'm not first bringing ideologies to the masses, it's first proving a method works and then explaining why and how. You do this through Analyze the rising maladies of a system, describe how they've come about and explain how the solution only moves in 1 direction, socialism. Now I'm not gonna waste time explaining at any more depth until you prove yourself to be someone at all worth my time here by showing you've read literally anything relevant to the discussion.
I'm not more intelligent than the masses, no in fact I think that this is precisely only how you can think. There are those who have the time to develop certain skills which can be applied to reaching the intelligence and needs of the masses and those for whom that time is difficult and they build expertise in their specific fields. A vanguard is exactly the people who learn how to learn from the masses, not the opposite. Lenin was beloved for his ability to do this, and Stalin soon after with similar astonishingly high approvals.
Let me remind you, you're the one who thinks you're smarter and better than those masses who had to perform revolution to improve their conditions. I think they're just better than you
Yeah there are a lot of people smarter and better than me so that's not the insult you think it is.
????
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."
This is a childish understanding of the theory you purport to have studied. What's your concrete proposal to "reestablish democracy away from capital interests" that has actually worked?
We do. It's called a dictatorship of the proletariat and it's actually worked.
Where has it worked?
Cuba, China, USSR all saw massive gains in just about every measurable metric post revolution because they adhere to the theory that says you have to work to actively suppress the worst urges of the ownership class, aka the people who destroyed the biosphere and possibly life on earth for short term gains. The liberal rely your probably already wanting to type is to whinge about how these systems still had their flaws, arent perfect utopias, are authoritarian (yes, against capital) etc, but at least they get results and aren't idealism, but actual application of a rigorous program.
Cuba is your best example, however, it is a socialist state and not communism.
China has three stock exchanges and is not communist:
The USSR never got to the "people's dictatorship", ya know, because the dictators never completed that step. Despite being a very powerful country at their peak, the USSR only exists as a memory of a failed state.
I'm too fucking bored of this already. It's the same uninformed spew from you guys every time. I'm not going to even address your uninformed points here, maybe someone else who gives a shit will, idc.
"The sky is green and I know you dumb neoliberal are going to try and tell me it's blue!"
How do you reconcile the fact that China has more stock exchanges than BurgerlandUSA?
Pretty hard to defend, so I expected you to claim bad faith and throw in the towel. Your Hexbear friends have better endurance and wit.
I'm not claiming bad faith this conversation is just boring for the same reason I don't shoot hoops with toddlers lmao.
Ok, give me a call when we are about to start the people's revolution. My mom gave me enough money to get snacks for everyone.
You're right a better world isn't possible. I bet you've also used the "kumbaya" quip and thought you were one of the clever boomers.
You can keep waiting for the revolution, I'll keep working on getting democratic socialists elected.
We can compare notes on who made a bigger difference in a few decades.
Western chauvanism is one hell of a mental block for you as if other places haven't already had revs or won't be more likely to have revs. I sincerely hope you are somehow able to vote really hard and somehow things get better AND youre able to permanently lock in the progressive gains, but to me you sound like a sucker who has never studied history bc that never happens.
What's your plan? Crickets
It's not "my plan" and this is why it's like taking to a wall with you folks. Crack a goddamn book?
Basically look into the largest socialist projects in history and the resulting gains in things like literacy and life expectancy. Look at what they did and tweak it to be adapted to current conditions.
I'm really done with you now enjoying the last of my long weekend and not wanting to waste the time.
How do you plan on implementing these strategies in 2023, in a country that has global hegemony and the ability to prevent a 1917? Crickets again