"We need socialism." - Jimmy "showing the reactionaries the" Dore

"We need socialism." - Jimmy "showing the reactionaries the" Dore

youtube.com/watch?v=ogfctc3wx-M

Attached: comrade dore.mp4 (640x360, 978.73K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=31A214E55306BB04E84B904D8AFA363F
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New-York_Tribune
youtube.com/watch?v=412aatJqbzo
youtube.com/watch?v=ogfctc3wx-M
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Jimmy "Wave My E-Peen at Poser Whores" Dore

I hate it when liberal Democrat cucks talk as if MLK was their guy. The Democratic Party has always been imperialist. At least since WWII/Cold War. MLK didn't have a party affiliation.

but he isn't even talking about socialism. He's using socialism and social democracy interchangeably

Attached: 8f9.jpg (500x222, 21.47K)

Jimmy Dore should be our International General Secretary of Cultural Enrichment once our revolution is succesful.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Stand up comedy🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 is stupid

BTFO

Attached: seder-1.png (485x340, 344.69K)

He pushing the liberals and conservatives who follow him to the left.

This. As annoying as it is when libs conflate socialism and social democracy, shilling for socdems moves the Overton window to the left, and is therefore a good thing in the grand scheme of things.

The Democratic Party has been imperialist before that as well, remember how they sided with the slave-owners in the Civil War.

Marx was a actual card-carrying member of the Republicans.

Wtf are you talking about. Marx never even set foot on America.

Tankies gonna tank, but he was Lincoln's pen pal.

Fuck off back to >>>Zig Forums, there is a reason a containment board exists.

Marx wrote articles for the official Republican newspaper and was considered a member by its leadership. There were also Marxists in the US Army during the Civil War, such as Weydemeyer or Willich. Of course the Republican Party today is reactionary bullshit but it had a relationship with Marxism in the 19th century, especially because they represented industrial capital, which is of course ignored by modern Republicans. Democrats were and are more in bed with finance capital.

that guy is the sargon of the left in terms of brain mass

The New York Tribune?

But socdem isn't "'left" at all. No revolutions have come from social democracy, no country has reformed into socialism.

In fact there have been more socialist revolutions from fascism than from Succdem

Social democracy delays revolution.

Attached: 1427288293880-0.png (1408x3488, 392.97K)

Tbf that Labour one is no longer accurate, and the rest have PASOKified (actually a term now). Leftypol was right again.

Nobody is suggesting that social democracy is anti capitalist, but if the Overton window moves, and socdems become the centre, then demsoc becomes the left. Then the window moves further and demsoc is the centre while socdem is the right, and revolutionaries are the mainstream left. In other words it systematically strengthens the radical left by making their ideas closer to the mainstream. In fact your pic is proof of that happening in the opposite direction, neoliberals pulled the Overton window to the right and forced the socdems to move rightwards if they wanted to stay relevant.


Allende and the Popular Front in Spain would like to have a word with you. The problem isn’t that reform doesn’t work, the problem is that it typically gets stopped by porky resorting to violence. The key then is to have a government that expects and prepare for this. In fact it puts the left in an advantageous position, since it means they have the law and democratic mandate on their side, and if the coup can be stopped it essentially gives the government a free hand to accelerate he transition to socialism. If anything we should be pushing reforms with the intention of triggering a right wing violent reaction.

Wasn't the Communist Party of the Soviet Union originally a social democratic party in the 19th century? Gotta start somewhere muchacho.

Do you have any example of this happening in the real world? If FDR did not institute socdem policies the US would have had a socialist revolution.

"Pen pal" implies back-and-forth communication. Marx wrote letters to Lincoln, but Lincoln never wrote back, unless he did and the public has never seen it.

Yeah but Lenin reformed it to give it a revolutionary edge. Before it was full of Mensheviks and Kautskytes because of that shitshow that was the 2nd international. Communists split with the SocDems in the aftermath of WWI, happened in Germany as well after the SPD agreed to war loans.

Honesty it's not that communists are sectarian edgelods, but the SocDems brought this upon themselves. They completely betrayed their principles as the bourgeois pressure increased to smear them as "anti-patriotic" and eventually surrendered to the establishment. With the murder of Liebknecht and Luxemburg SocDems lost their last legitimacy they still had as a vanguard for the working class.

Comrade Jimmy "Every Bourg in a Morgue" Dore

Attached: Jimmy2.png (1426x853, 739.94K)

t classcuck

Comrade Jimmy "No War But Class War" Dore

Attached: JimmyOnHangTheBankersDotCom.mp4 (1280x720, 1.97M)

I cited the example of it happening all across the west in the opposite direction with the neoliberal sweep in the 70s. By your logic that should have triggered a socialist revolution but it didn’t. And the shift to the left did happen to an extent even in the US, FDR created the postwar consensus which put further reforms like the Great Society and Medicaid on the radar which never would have flown before. The real challenge is keeping this momentum going.

Social democracy back then basically was a catch all term for everybody left of basic bitch liberals.

Can I get the proofs for this please? I would love to use this to troll my conservative friends with, but I need hard proofs.

I don't know about those specific claims, but on a related note Marx congratulated Lincoln on becoming president.
marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

Marx wrote so much for the New York Tribune (in English too) that he left a book worth of material behind him.
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=31A214E55306BB04E84B904D8AFA363F
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New-York_Tribune

hes not a socialist he's an edgy liberal

then what country reformed itself into socialism?

He's been reading and occasionally quoting Marx on his show, frequently saying 'we need a revolution', has Dr. Wolff on his show, and has on multiple occasions asked when we're going to Bezos house.

The only real liberal thing about him is his guns stance.

What makes him an edgy liberal, in your eyes? What other 'liberal' has over 300,000 Youtube subs and is calling for political revolution the way that Jimmy is?

Hell man, even if I agreed with you on this, I'd still be in favor of driving him further left, wouldn't you? I know that when he does live shows quite a few of us from Zig Forums go to his chat - how do you think he got Wolff on his show? Is this not a good thing in your eyes? What makes him irredeemable to you?

Attached: Chairman_Jimmy_Dore_on_Revolution.webm (640x360, 3.61M)

he's a socdem

this isn't happening and it doesn't happen with any social democracies to date.

What does a SocDem do when there's no democracy?

I'd say that's fair, though I wouldn't call him an edgy liberal for it. Sam Sedar or maybe Kyle Kalinsky(?) (The Secular Talk guy) is what I would call an edgy liberal, but that's not really the crux of our issue.


I don't think this is a response to Jimmy's personal politics but towards the leanings of a larger political movement. One person's political opinion can definitely change, but again I'd agree that social democracies don't go further left, they eventually capitulate and go further right.

Overall I don't see Jimmy's show as a negative influence for the left. I see him attracting the more radical people who watched TYT or other more mainstream internet liberals and introducing them to people like Wolff.

I think the meat of our disagreement comes down to this - do you think that anyone who isn't hard-left is a negative influence, or do you think that there can be room for a gradient in opinion?

Attached: Jimmy_Arm_The_Poor_Dore.webm (640x360, 205.13K)

Jimmy is our equivalent of Sargon or Molly who creates a kind of ideological pump diverting moderates to the left/right. He's a gateway lefty who never says anything weird enough to turn off most people unlike most internet lefties.

I see Jimmy's show as a negative influence the same way Bernie is a negative influence.

a) him being a liberal/socdem makes him still very much a capitalist.
b) using the word socialism in place of social democracy is not a good thing.


It depends what you mean by "hard left" I'm not sectarian by any means, I'd support the leftists from the DPRK to over a dozen US military bases in Syria however when it comes to supporting liberals(welfare capitalists) there has to be a line drawn. Also, he comes off as a sort of a man-child but that is neither here nor there

youtube.com/watch?v=412aatJqbzo

Attached: C3otTkPVMAEBiEb.jpg (900x1200, 152K)

I guess this makes me curious about how far left someone needs to be to not be considered a negative influence to some of you guys, but also makes me consider the further-term ramifications of their actions.

Dr. Wolff is a self-described Marxist, but the co-ops he so often advocates for are, at least with the current state of thing, tied to the contemporary capitalist system. Would you describe someone like him as a negative influence for the left as well? He isn't necessarily arguing strongly for a vanguard party to dismantle global capitalism (I guess I haven't read his books - maybe he is), but he does consistently talk about the horrendous mismanagement and subsequent suffering caused by capitalists, which I do actually see Jimmy mimicking in his show.

I actually kind of agree with you about Bernie, though I think that there were likely quite a few people who are now further left because of his message. Imagine he hadn't run, and it was just Clinton v. Trump. The people who supported Bernie would have had no voice and no reason to be involved, attended no rallies, done no networking, organizing, etc. because there would have been no one even coming close to representing their opinions, or they would have been forced to defend/support Hillary, which isn't going to drive anyone further left. This has potential to bring people who are further left together with people who might just be becoming politically aware. Indeed, Bernie being overtly cheated out of the primaries by bourgeois liberals probably drove a lot of people who supported him away from liberalism, but not towards conservatism. I think that's ultimately a win for us, even if Bernie himself is a very poor representation of 'the left'.

I'd be wary of dismissing everyone who isn't full-communist. I don't know that that in itself does anything to support leftism. Aim for Malcolm X, but don't dismiss MLK, I guess.

Attached: d1b4e8c8dc0ff40807fc2f6d40ac26b2cb4e273aab47e442cfe5431245407258.png (1169x647, 1.52M)

"Capitalism is failing, it has failed this country."
-Jimmy Dore

youtube.com/watch?v=ogfctc3wx-M

Attached: JimmyDore.png (720x720, 186.23K)

DPRK is not "leftist" in any way, shape or form. They used to be in name only, and even that they have completely abandoned. In economic terms they still function in a state capitalist framework. They have a social hierarchy more unequal than the Nordic social democratic countries.

t. neo-kulak

At least he's trying reading Capital instead of pushing sucdem policies like basic income

Seder or Dore?


>>>/reddit/

*Laughs in Venezuelan Spanish*

Half of all socialists were SocDems at one point in there lifetime.

Finally his character arc is reaching the climax.
right?

shit writers unless dore turns into a straßerist

Maduro is so fucking based. If Marx were alive he'd wish he was as cool as Maduro.

Friendly reminder to never trust Jimmy "disarm the poor" Dore. I can see people here grade him on a curve because modern liberals have become so reactionary and insane that a liberal who comes out and criticizes democrats and talks about workers suddenly sounds heroic by comparison. But the reality is he's still a big time liberal who supports the entire suite of liberal retardation such as his obsession with gun control, black lives matter, etc. He's also a major capitalist who, like all Americans, believes Sweden is a socialist paradise and that's what he wants when he "criticizes" capitalism.


By "capitalism is failing" he means "we should be socialist like Sweden and England :^)"

> Marx wrote articles for the official Republican newspaper and was considered a member by its leadership.
[citation needed]

jimmy "gonna get organized" dore

shit bait