Pieces on succdem politics?

The USSR was imperialist towards Cuba though.

How?

Re-read the Communist Manifest, there's literally a whole section devoted proto-succdems in Germany (pic related)
Read What is to Be Done? and the State and Revolution by Lenin
Watch this video (>inb4 >FinnBol): youtube.com/watch?v=odYUSTtHfGc

That's such bullshit. Social Democracy means exactly what it mean since at least the 1980s, if not since the SocDems full turned on Marxism in the 1900s

Kyle Kulinski just made a video that is partially about this: youtube.com/watch?v=07xFULkgBoI&t=494s

Attached: marx on liberals.png (648x173, 38.33K)

Kulinsky is a centrist.

no it wasn't, fucking kill yourself

No. To the Ukraine, the Caucasus, the Baltic states and Afghanistan, but never Cuba.

Yes it was. Like I said, imperialism isn't something that can just be dismantled by a head of state.

I know? I was saying that the fact that he's an unapologetic Social Democrat who has openly said repeatedly he doesn't give a shit about abolishing capitalism means he actually has a good definition of what Social Democracy is and its history and difference with Socialism (or Democratic Socialism as he specifically references in the video)

I know Kulinski isn't a radical that's precisely why I linked his vid on the matter. Because he's fine just being a Centrist Succdem he has no reason to try and pretend social democracy is socialism and thus confuse people about what the two things mean the way Democrat Cops of America often does

Attached: avakian.jpeg (504x504, 41.5K)

Attached: Disgust 3.jpg (866x826, 177.23K)

Somewhat related article about anti-fascism that touches on socdems:
libcom.org/library/when-insurrections-die

Source?

I haven't heard this one, but it makes sense. Take a look at this animated gif.

Attached: Colonisation2.gif (1425x625, 100.6K)

Also, it could be argued that neo-liberalism was a way in which colonialism could be transformed in a way to survive. (IMF, etc.)

The infighting I see here against "socdems / demsocs" is part of the reason why the Left has been losing recently. Its no different that idpol in that it is a "purity test" so to speak not on issues, but adherence to doctrine.

There is no reason for socialists today to venerate and follow exclusively the thoughts and paths laid out by Marx or others a hundred, fifty, even 30 years ago - the world has changed and we we can appreciate the input of classical socialist thinkers without being slaves to them and unable to adapt.

I'm going to assume that many here who seem to object to dem-soc / soc-dems are either non-US residents from EU or other countries with a wide variety of leftist representation, or US residents who frankly I see as the bigger issue. If you're not from the US, realize that there is very little actual leftist - especially economically - representation. Democrats are center-right overall as a poltical party and despite a few left-aligned social policies, the only real leftist thought comes from 3rd parties with little to no electoral representation (ie Green, DemSoc, Socalists, Peace and Justice etc). This is not to say a few independents or Democrat aligned types individually aren't leftist (ie Bernie Sanders being an Independent and occupying the highest office as a US senator, as the best example). but not overall.

Thus the rest I speak to those foreign and especially to those in the US - by railing against dem-soc / soc-dems and "progressives", you're basically pushing things to the Right. There is more political fracture than ever and things are dividing. For the first time in 30+ years there are actual Left ideas - like single payer public health care - being championed by "progressive" candidates with a chance to actually win elections. Hell the very chance that someone could even be considered for a major party ticket and identify as a "Socialist" in ANY form, is a MASSIVE FUCKING CHANGE. Yes we need to get away from a 2 party system and more to ranked choice/instant runoff etc.. but we won't do that without lots of new progressives IN OFFICE at all levels. Shitting on them for not being willing to call for abolishment of private property is not helping anything - its hurting. You see the kind of sickness that the Right is bringing, and much like putting down identity politics and divorcing it from the left lest we lose people who should be on our side, we can't afford to have people who adhere to 1850s or 1950s socialist dogma stop the movement from progressing here in the real world.

I'm not a socdem but as far as I can tell, the election of socdems is the means by which we move the overton window. If socdems fail, we have the opportunity to radicalize the populace further.

Socialists shouldn't care about being electable in bourgeois democracy but instead stay truthful to socialist thought
t. Bladimere Benin

Marx is why Socialism as we know it exists. Not only that, but Marxism is the most complete critical analysis of Capitalism. What are you advocating we do? Deconstruct Capitalism exclusively with feminist theory? On top of that, adherents to philosophical Liberalism still venerate John Locke.

They may very well stay true to socialist principles, but if they don't get elected there's no way they're going to be be able to make them come t rue. Thus, they need to make their adherence to socialist principles palatable to the electorate. And that isn't really as hard as it seems. Most people approve of socialist policies such as universal public health care, for instance. Hell the way we pay for our military is objectively socialist! That's another element, showing that the wealthy capitalists who claim such adherence to their own doctrine actually proscribe "socialism for me, capitalism for thee" when they want bailouts or their industries given protection etc… but when it benefits the worker, they hypocritically crow about bootstraps and welfare queens and all that nonsense.

But Marx is not the be-all-end-all of socialist thought. I advocate that we don't limit ourselves because things have evolved in ways that Marx could not have postulated from when he wrote things. Otherwise, we're going to lose our overall struggle if we are rigidly dogmatic which allows the other side to evolve and position themselves as poking holes in our suppositions that will at least sound good to the layman. Just in the same way there is good medical knowledge from Marx's era, you wouldn't want an entire system that was limited to medicine f rom that time would you? No, you move forward not forgetting the past but instead building upon it.

This. "Neoliberalism" is just neocolonialism; same shit, different method.

What socdems want vs. what genuine socialists want is gravely different.

Progressives aren't going to do much against capitalism's downfall. The Keynesian dream of the 1950s ended for a fucking reason, and in no way can it be adequately revived. Europeans, Canadians, and Australians do have more "leftist representation" in the sense that they have many grassroots political movements (also keep in mind that communist parties in European countries were primarily funded by the Soviets; without a socialist counterpower to capitalist countries you aren't going to see much).

Bernie Sanders is a fucking liar. He's a Zionist, supports American military intervention abroad, makes promises he can't keep, etc. If he's elected he'll be a new Obama, because the system he's in will weigh him down.

Assuming we're not dealing with a "no true scotsman" issue here of Socialist definition, how do they really differ except by degrees or definition? Sometimes I think some old school marxist adherents would lose their shit if we have the possibility for a utopian Star Trek Federation style socialist setup, simply because the path there wouldn't adhere to rigid definitions from Marx's time.

Progressives are willing to see capitalism (and its elements. Though some may say market socialism is not socialism some would say its not capitalism etc.) as a force that needs to be restrained and contained, that its potential benefits can only be exploited if very, very strictly controlled by the people and if they look away for a second, it will bite them. This is HUGE change when much of the country has been told capitalism is a savior and all the neoliberal lies, trickle down etc…

We don't need a socialist counterpower like that and lets not pretend that the USSR was a very good socialist system - it was an imperial dictatorship from Stalin on that happened to use a lot of socialist rhetoric and poorly implemented piecemeal parts of the economy. We can actually do more without having a socialist counterpower like that, rather having the support of various socialist groups the world over, particularly in nations like the Nordic ones where socialist elements "work" as in unqualified success. Russian fucking around in the US election for instance has started some sort of red scare 2.0 and there are elements who are trying to call out anyone who ever appeared on RT or whatever as a shill backed by Russia etc… which is bullshit. Of fucking course the Green Party for instance is going to go and speak on the debates hosted by RT and Al Jazeera English if the main networks basically tell them to fuck off etc. We don't need a "socialist enemy state" eve in name now and not having one will actually help move towards global leftist polices than ever before, without a nice big target to say "these aren't just people who have a different economic idea, but evil agents of a foreign power".

What the fuck are you on about? Bernie himself is not a fucking Zionist, if anything he's one of the strongest voices against Zionism and for Palestinian justice ! If you mean he doesn't think that all the jews should be kicked out of what is now Israel then fine, but that's asinine. He frequently supports the idea that Israeli safety comes with them not pulling any untwoard shit, close down the open air prison they run, grant right of return and need a one or two state solution - there can be peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. His Jewish heritage yet NOT being for Israel no matter what it does is a massive, massive win for those who want real justice for the area. Regarding military intervention he has come out against all our quagmires and stupid profiteering wars. Lets not blame him for the system - he's not culpable for that and the kind of opposition he'll face from the wealthy elite etc… .but he can still fight against it. He's not a centrist like Obama that wouldn't even strongly come out for his own positions on many issues (ie the public option stays in ACA etc) and even with lots of opposition - which he may not have if there's a congress full of progressive leftists with Ds and Is next to their name. - he could still do a lot of good just from the executive since he realizes that the other side is just plain obstructionist.

oh boy here we go
one requires maintaining capitalism while the other requires eliminating it

Attached: what is a class cuck.png (1408x3488, 344.82K)

I hear ya. I live in a crumbling social democracy as we speak and fascism will be the only thing which emerges from it unless the true left can get its shit together.

SocDems (including Sanderistas) are utterly useless.

Bernie is against BDS. That's enough for me.

Oh jesus fuck. All this proves is that there are jerks and/or compromise in all political parties. Fuck we know it happened in communist/socialist ones where people in Stalin's gulags said "wait a minute now that we're socialist why do things suck so much when I work so hard for the party? " or those during the Hundred Flowers Era put forth ideas as Mao requested and instead of socialist utopia they got executed .

Let me ask you, if all these parties are not good enough or whatnot what happened when people chose otherwise? They went to the right and even went farther from what ideals you claim to support.

Socialism will not win under this essential purity test that if someone doesn't eliminate personal property on day one they're not "for the cause". Fuck no wonder we're losing . Meanwhile, the right pushes is and takes more an more from the workers!

Elements such as global socialist revolution and whatnot, if they happen at all, will happen by degrees. The point is to keep moving things in the proper direction. A "socdem / demsoc" is not going to get anywhere in the current situation or make any positive changes by eliminating private ownership or markets etc… they have to make changes in stages to get over the fearmongering that has been fed to the entire populace. Market socialism can still exist and thrive for instance until a point where technology makes the entire economy/labor obsolete. Championing things like subsidy for worker-owned cooperatives is a better road than revoking private property. Even Marx spoke of socialism and communism as a process and we need to adapt further - anything less is a purity test that will only fuck things up and divide us, setting us back.

What the fuck? He voted against Ben Cardin's "illegal to support BDS" bill! The most he said is that he doesn't necesarily think BDS will fix things itself, but he's not against it like many are or boo-hoos about Israel being singled out etc.

No he is openly against BDS and has said so MANY times. He only voted against the bill because he doesn't believe protest should be illegal.

Let me ask you: which country are you in?

Your English comes off as gibberish BTW so I'm guessing it's not your first language?

Think of it this way: most Americans support Israel. Having an anti-Zionist platform is not at all pragmatic in the current atmosphere, not just because you'd get called anti-semitic, but because most Americans think Israel is the "good guy" in a sea of Arab "bad guys."

BDS and other pro-Palestine activists aren't just portrayed as "loonies" by neocons, but by average Americans as well. Plus, no one is going to prioritize Palestine over health care, jobs, etc.

AmeriKKKa will crash and burn before social democracy can manifest.

This to the max.

Attached: Muammar Gaddafi.jpg (780x520, 36.37K)

Gaddafi was SocDem.

No he wasn't. At worst, a DemSoc. At best, a theocratic NazBol.

Attached: gaddafi-e1471358509410.jpg (1411x840, 154.66K)

Same shit. Theocracy can never be socialist.

Yes it can. Theocracy in Libya was partially what made it one of the only functioning socialist states.
The problem with socialism is that it is infested with nihilistic/materialist marxists.

Attached: Libya_1979_Int_Seminar_of_the_Green_Book_(Col_Gaddafi).jpg (371x500, 161.85K)

Jesus was a Communist and he wanted the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Secularism > any kind of theocracy

Both have their pros and cons. That's why specific nations with highly religious (and homogeneously religious) cultures should be allowed to live in their own nations with their own holy law.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 17.96K)

replace the first "nations" with "peoples".

If theocracy indeed works, it proves Marx essentially wrong in the observation that all conflicts are class conflict.

He was absolutely wrong about that. I know a lot of people here don't like Zizek, but this is something that he points out as well.

That's the core thesis of his argument though.

Marxs argument? Yeah he was wrong about a lot of stuff.

Marxism is about class struggle and that literally everything is class struggle i.e. economic purpose.

If you can prove that people have fought for reasons other than material conditions, it essentionally proves Marx wrong.

Marxism is pure materialism. I find it incredibly naive to claim that so much of our existence is just malleable constructs.
Fighting/conflict is a part of who we are as naturally selected mammals. Yes, reasons for fighting are materially driven, but only because we channel our deeper urges into outlets that relate to the material world.

Attached: gadaffistamps-copy.jpg (596x420, 192.99K)

If I kill you because you are a heretic, that's not materially driven.

Yes it is.

But that's not it?

This is like getting punished for eating pork in arab countries.

I'm not going to defend Islamic standards, but those laws against pork are there for a reason.

What fucking reason?

European and asian have eat pork for centuries.

Because it says not to in the Quran, and humans need something larger than conventional laws to follow in order to hold society together.

Yo, dawg, that is not a material reason.

That's a fucking idealist reason.

It's exactly like marxists quoting Marx like some kind of prophet.

Israel?

Yeah except Marxism is a materialist philosophy. Religion is not.

Zizek is against theocracy being a universalist. Theocracy can never be truly universal because it always prioritizes one religion over another.

Qur'an also says don't fuck until you're married. Would you support instituting laws against fornication as well?

Yo, believing something to be inherently right is idealist, not materalist.

Universalism is a fantasy. Human history is one big competition of opposing ideas, and it will never change.

I'm aware. That's why I said it. Fuck materialism.

Abstinence is good for society yes, although that would make me a sinner.

Basically because hundreds and thousands of years ago nobody could correctly figure out there were invisible pathogens in shellfish and pork and demonstrate it scientifically, so people basically said "these are fucking dirty animals and people seem to get sick eating them more times than other alternatives in the area". Of course few people would listen to a society at that point with some guy saying "seriously, don't do it", but instead if they claim that GOD said so, people take notice.

Lots of the stuff in the old testament and qu'ran for instance were basically borne of the times. All those laws in exodus were just designed to stop the jews from settling down with outsiders and give up wandering for their own promised land with a coherent identity etc. Likewise, Mohammad was a warrior and lots of his policies fall into the socio-political avenues of the times when it was helpful to have people not do certain things to keep the people he would need for his army from fighting each other, healthy, unified, and ready for combat.

Except again, we have eaten porks for centuries without problems.

Attached: sophisticated adults.jpg (255x233, 42.57K)

animal cohabitation goes hand in hand with plagues, pigs are probably slightly worse than other farm animal because they are somewhat closer to humans biologically, making it a smaller gap to cross for diseases.

Also pigs are omnivores that eat the same as we do which means they are less efficient then herbivores at making meat.

Succdems aren't the leaders of the revolution, Juggalos are.

Finally some real quality discourse. The revolutionary potential of Juggalos is underrated. The Dark Carnival is actually class struggle.