Well its liberal infighting. DemSocs mild reformist approach is too much left for the centrists that unironically praised Reagan, so the DNC then fights the DSA harder than they fought Trump.
I get that from your perspective the DemSocs are mild reformists, but from the perspective of people who are in the center of liberal ideology, the DemSocs seem radical. It’s all relative. To you they’re all just liberals, and you don’t make a strong distinction between them, but the two groups see themselves as strongly distinct from one another. And thus, to my original point, that’s why in any other democracy each would have their own separate party, instead of having to fight each other for control of one of only two parties.
Leftists ain’t going anywhere but in circles anyway, so I don’t see the point of looking down your nose at people that are finally beginning to generate a bit of positive momentum.
There’s not gonna be some grand workers revolution that disembowels capitalism. Capitalists won’t give up without a fight, people won’t want to pay that butcher’s bill, and Communist states have historically not fared well under pressure from capitalist rivals. Unless some global natural disaster threatens modern civilization on a fundamental level, capitalism or something like it but worse (cyberpunk-style “corporations are basically the real nations” thing I guess?) is likely here to stay.
What do we gain by playing No True Scotsman with people who are pushing in the same general direction?
Those policies will always get overturned eventually. Think ofthe New Deal in the USA only took till the 70’s to undo it and reagan to implement the opposite.
Liberal policies cant work longterm its an historic fact.
Also stop coming to leftist spaces and berate us for not thinkign like you.
By that token, neither can socialist ones. What kinda argument is that? The PRC isn’t even a hundred years old. Laos is a bit younger and Cuba younger still.
How can you claim liberal policies can’t work when even the eldest of the communist regimes hasn’t even made its first centennial? Hell, the shitty neoliberalism we’re suffering under is almost as old as Vietnam’s post-reunification regime. Especially when there are plenty of failed communist states we can point to?
Not to mention, these communist states have to be authoritarian to survive for very long, at least in the short term. It’s kind of the nature of violent revolution - the revolutionaries have to be brutal at suppressing dissent while they legitimize and solidify the new power structure. It’s why I’ve never been interested in the tankie propaganda - authoritarianism is bad, in all its forms.
I think China is showing what a successful Communist regime can look like but they’ve had a rough time getting there and it’s not without its own problems, most recently that whole kerfuffle with Hong Kong. At any rate, with fucking Trump in charge here it seems like we’re all but guaranteed to see “the Chinese century” happen. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
I guess it depends on if you think the ends justify the means.
In what way? The Soviets ain’t around anymore. China has changed significantly from the time of Mao. North Korea survives only because it’s convenient for the Chinese for them to do so. Vietnam is doing pretty well. Cuba is still around. What else?
Capitalist nations subjugate each other, but would that not happen if everyone were Communist? States would still have irreconcilable differences. Or are we thinking of a truly utopian future here?
While there was pressure from the outside, outside pressure did not kill the USSR. China changing since the time of Mao is a given, even if they followed the path of the Gang of Four to today, this would still look radically different from the era of Mao simply due to economic development. China of today is still a socialist economy. The DPRK survives because it is heavily millitarized and focuses on economic independence, with nuclear deterrence. Vietnam and Laos are both doing well as well. Cuba is still trucking along.
As for “subjugation,” I think it’s better to understand why this happens and for what reason. Capitalist states eventually see a merging of bank and industrial capital, creating finance capital, and this monopoly stage of capitalism is what drives imperialism. Socialist states do not have such an economic drive. While conflict persists, there is more of a drive for cooperation, consolidation, and increasing sovereignty. This is not “Utopian,” this is the recognition that centralization of production is economically compelled, which is why States have largely merged over the years, similar to corporations.
What would a global economy with Communism as the rule of the land look like? Those of us in the developed world would surely have to give up some of the luxuries we’re used to if the workers in the nations providing the raw materials and gross production got their fair share.
Has anyone tried to create that particular “what if?” scenario?
Here in the US people use liberal and left interchangeably out of ignorance. But the liberals being referenced in this story understand that they are not left wing which is why they refer to themselves as “centrists.” Demsocs are to their left. Demsocs might be to your right, but demsocs are definitely left wing in the context of US politics. We have established over and over again that to more radical people such as yourself, demsocs are “just liberals” and not left wing. That’s fine, that’s your perspective. The liberals who call themselves centrists have a different perspective, and theirs is far more common in US politics than yours, and therefore it is very relevant to anyone who cares about what’s happening in US politics.
Demsocs being to their left is as meaningless as Democrats being to the left of Republicans when they all defend the same systems of oppression and want to work within the lose systems
Kinda. The establishment liberals are trying to discipline the social democrats and prevent them from gaining in influence. However, the social democrats are, at the moment, not actually in favor of establishing socialism nor doing what is required to do so. It’s liberal infighting.
The more millitent rank and file of the DSA is largely what’s pushing this grassroots support in this wave, but without a correct analysis of the structure and role of the capitalist state the DSA’s reformist strategy is a dead-end.
Clearly the liberals disagree.
Well its liberal infighting. DemSocs mild reformist approach is too much left for the centrists that unironically praised Reagan, so the DNC then fights the DSA harder than they fought Trump.
I get that from your perspective the DemSocs are mild reformists, but from the perspective of people who are in the center of liberal ideology, the DemSocs seem radical. It’s all relative. To you they’re all just liberals, and you don’t make a strong distinction between them, but the two groups see themselves as strongly distinct from one another. And thus, to my original point, that’s why in any other democracy each would have their own separate party, instead of having to fight each other for control of one of only two parties.
@TheDemonBuer Fully aware, but i was under the impression we are discussing it inside a radical left space?
Liberalism already dominate 80% of online non chud spaces and i want to not pretend that someone like nancy pelosi is on the left.
So yeah they themselves may see it that way but leftist do not.
Leftists ain’t going anywhere but in circles anyway, so I don’t see the point of looking down your nose at people that are finally beginning to generate a bit of positive momentum.
There’s not gonna be some grand workers revolution that disembowels capitalism. Capitalists won’t give up without a fight, people won’t want to pay that butcher’s bill, and Communist states have historically not fared well under pressure from capitalist rivals. Unless some global natural disaster threatens modern civilization on a fundamental level, capitalism or something like it but worse (cyberpunk-style “corporations are basically the real nations” thing I guess?) is likely here to stay.
What do we gain by playing No True Scotsman with people who are pushing in the same general direction?
@grinning_serpent WE already did have plenty of SocDem Countries including Germany, where even the conservative party CDU pushed for it in 1949
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorfer/_Leits%C3%A4tze
Those policies will always get overturned eventually. Think ofthe New Deal in the USA only took till the 70’s to undo it and reagan to implement the opposite.
Liberal policies cant work longterm its an historic fact.
Also stop coming to leftist spaces and berate us for not thinkign like you.
By that token, neither can socialist ones. What kinda argument is that? The PRC isn’t even a hundred years old. Laos is a bit younger and Cuba younger still.
How can you claim liberal policies can’t work when even the eldest of the communist regimes hasn’t even made its first centennial? Hell, the shitty neoliberalism we’re suffering under is almost as old as Vietnam’s post-reunification regime. Especially when there are plenty of failed communist states we can point to?
Not to mention, these communist states have to be authoritarian to survive for very long, at least in the short term. It’s kind of the nature of violent revolution - the revolutionaries have to be brutal at suppressing dissent while they legitimize and solidify the new power structure. It’s why I’ve never been interested in the tankie propaganda - authoritarianism is bad, in all its forms.
I think China is showing what a successful Communist regime can look like but they’ve had a rough time getting there and it’s not without its own problems, most recently that whole kerfuffle with Hong Kong. At any rate, with fucking Trump in charge here it seems like we’re all but guaranteed to see “the Chinese century” happen. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
I guess it depends on if you think the ends justify the means.
Socialist states have generally suffered as any country would under outside pressure, but fared better than capitalist peers to similar pressures.
In what way? The Soviets ain’t around anymore. China has changed significantly from the time of Mao. North Korea survives only because it’s convenient for the Chinese for them to do so. Vietnam is doing pretty well. Cuba is still around. What else?
Capitalist nations subjugate each other, but would that not happen if everyone were Communist? States would still have irreconcilable differences. Or are we thinking of a truly utopian future here?
While there was pressure from the outside, outside pressure did not kill the USSR. China changing since the time of Mao is a given, even if they followed the path of the Gang of Four to today, this would still look radically different from the era of Mao simply due to economic development. China of today is still a socialist economy. The DPRK survives because it is heavily millitarized and focuses on economic independence, with nuclear deterrence. Vietnam and Laos are both doing well as well. Cuba is still trucking along.
As for “subjugation,” I think it’s better to understand why this happens and for what reason. Capitalist states eventually see a merging of bank and industrial capital, creating finance capital, and this monopoly stage of capitalism is what drives imperialism. Socialist states do not have such an economic drive. While conflict persists, there is more of a drive for cooperation, consolidation, and increasing sovereignty. This is not “Utopian,” this is the recognition that centralization of production is economically compelled, which is why States have largely merged over the years, similar to corporations.
What would a global economy with Communism as the rule of the land look like? Those of us in the developed world would surely have to give up some of the luxuries we’re used to if the workers in the nations providing the raw materials and gross production got their fair share.
Has anyone tried to create that particular “what if?” scenario?
Indeed. And since I’m not a radical leftist (even though, as we’ve already established, liberals would view me as such), I’ll move along.
Liberals also think they are on the left, so what the disagree on is irrelevant
Here in the US people use liberal and left interchangeably out of ignorance. But the liberals being referenced in this story understand that they are not left wing which is why they refer to themselves as “centrists.” Demsocs are to their left. Demsocs might be to your right, but demsocs are definitely left wing in the context of US politics. We have established over and over again that to more radical people such as yourself, demsocs are “just liberals” and not left wing. That’s fine, that’s your perspective. The liberals who call themselves centrists have a different perspective, and theirs is far more common in US politics than yours, and therefore it is very relevant to anyone who cares about what’s happening in US politics.
Demsocs being to their left is as meaningless as Democrats being to the left of Republicans when they all defend the same systems of oppression and want to work within the lose systems
You can fight people barely to the left of you
Kinda. The establishment liberals are trying to discipline the social democrats and prevent them from gaining in influence. However, the social democrats are, at the moment, not actually in favor of establishing socialism nor doing what is required to do so. It’s liberal infighting.
The more millitent rank and file of the DSA is largely what’s pushing this grassroots support in this wave, but without a correct analysis of the structure and role of the capitalist state the DSA’s reformist strategy is a dead-end.
So I have been told by at least a dozen people with lemmy.ml handles.
Sure. I don’t see what the handle has to do with it.
The love to compartmentalize groups of people and make broad generalizations.
Seems to be a pattern.