In Defense Of Democratic Socialism

There's a reason why revolutions tend to fail, you just can't force socialism into the masses.
Only through education and critical thinking will socialism be achieved, and this take two things: action and time.
In most civilized countries, you can form political parties and convince as many people as you can through discussion and arguments. These are the people prepared for socialism, those who are able to challenge their own beliefs in favor of a more equal society for all, however those that do are a very small minority.

A revolution won't work in an ignorant society, and sadly you just can't kill everyone disagreeing with you. You may kill the people but not their stupid ideals: those can only die through education of the masses. We have the internet and the technology to get our arguments everywhere, but this doesn't seem to be enough. Why?
Although there could be a lot of answers for this question (media "influence", propaganda, no class conscience, etc), I think the primary reason is that people no longer believe in revolutions and the power of the people. The system got so complex that it creates the illusion of omnipresence, like a nation-wide ghost. While people keep protesting on the streets, they don't do so on the pretext of destroying the system that is hurting them, they do it for a change in that system. And although this is not enough, it makes sense. The system is a sign of development, a sign of organization, a sign of stable living. And these are all thanks to the (flawed) democracy and organization, not capitalism. This is also the reason why society is so against anarchism, through the false belief that anarchism is chaos and no organization/system.
Discuss with high school teachers, coachs, social workers, waiters, everyone who has a job involving talking with loads of people. Educate those who educate.

Because we are talking about different kinds of education here. Being educated about society, economics, political conflicts, philosophy, etc is not required for most careers and I would bet most people aren't interested in these topics throughout their whole lives. You being good at maths doesn't tell anything about your moral beliefs or how empathic are you.
And even so, there's a large amount of scientists who are socialist (Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, Peter Kropotkin, Bertrand Russell, Richard Levins, Richard Lewontin, and a shitton of non-mainstream European scientists).

Attached: ImageServlet.jpeg (338x500, 186.37K)

Any serious democratic socialist knows you need atleast the threat of force to get shit done. You need militancy, you need unions who aren't afraid of striking, you need militias, you have to be willing to purge reactionaries, you have to be willing to pull off a (color) revolution if necessary.
Instead you are just advocating for social democracy.

Dude, Einstein was literally "Stalin did nothing wrong, lmao tier", Kroptkin was an anarchist and a revolutionary so you can't really claim him either. Russell was a pacifist cuck and borderline liberal. Noam Chomsky is a left-wing anti-communist who spreads cold war propaganda about the eastern bloc.

Revolutionary doesn't mean Blanquist. Revolutionaries know that for any revolution to succeed you need to have the mandate of the masses on your side. Lastly, the guy in your pic is literally the poster child of "either arm the workers or fascists will roll in and kill you".

Shit post.

and since that's never been the case, your entire false premise falls apart and you can go fuck yourself and the whole "effort" of stretching out your post was for nothing
isn't that sad

Never said that those things weren't needed or desired. My post consisted on a reflection of the means of the transition from capitalism to socialism, indeed unions and militancy are great tools for education.


Fair, the scientists example wasn't the best, but not the point of the thread really.
I didn't imply otherwise, I just think that you need the means of democracy for that to happen. Winning in a democracy means that the majority of your population is on your side.
That's not a cause of democracy, you can't blame the victims of a murder because they didn't saw it coming. Otherwise, you're right, the people should be armed, and it can happen in democratic countries like Switzerland.


When a revolution happens, the population revolt against the government because of oppression, unsatisfactory results or undemocratic rule between others. These are all things deserving of a revolution, because ideally it brings an actual democracy for the people to choose their party. If a revolution is done to replace an undemocratic rule for another undemocratic rule it is destined to fail. Note that I'm not talking specifically about the Soviets, although it later became undemocratic.
I don't care.

Social democracy died with Allende. The bourg no longer want or need to give concessions. Also lol at a socdem trying to tell us what makes a revolution succeed.

You're confusing Social Democracy with Democratic Socialism, fucktard.

Read Lenin’s State and Revolution, dumbfuck

There's not an actual difference

Demsc believes in the ultimate destruction of capitalism, socdem wants to preserve capitalism, there's a difference

Attached: lefties liberals.jpg (2070x1588, 371.1K)

WTF this comic isn't even correct.

Even the USSR had wage differentials.

The two things the world lacks the most.

really makes you think eh?

WE DONT HAVE TIME NIGGA WE GONNA LITERALLY DIE BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING

BILLIONS ARE GONNA DIE

The amount of times I've tried to convey this point to liberals, and they just shrug and say technology will somehow fix it in the future before anything really bad happens - ignoring the fact that we already have the technology to stop climate change getting any worse if it was actually used.

Are democratic socialists supposed to be giving people a real political education and encouraging critical thinking? If so, they're doing a terrible job at it. Instead, they're doing a wonderful job of enriching themselves and working within established capitalist parties to do their bidding, perhaps sometimes causing a bit of an uproar by saying things that sound vaguely leftist before ensuring everyone that they're no radicals and don't want to change things much at all.

You're again confusing socdems with demsocs. The parties I support are democratic Marxist socialists.

but this isn't true/is just phrasing buggery.
the revolutionary left generally doesn't believe in income equality, it believes in worker ownership of the means of production. more "capital equality" than "income equality" in accounting terms.

Wrong.

Attached: MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao-agitprop.jpg (500x345, 105.89K)

If you're a marketsucc that's your own issue not ours.

Oh boy, another "We need to be nice to the state or they'll call us mean names like communists" thread again.

You are so far up your own ass you can't see just how dumb you look, OP. Your view of communism is a caricature. Do you really think there are people out there advocating for like 5 dudes to take total political control of a country to force socialism on the masses? Do you honest-to-god think this is a real political movement? Especially after Trots, libsocs, and other anti-Soviet elements took over the Western socialist movement in the Cold War? I guess that little bit of information just flew right over your head huh?

I can guarantee you 100% of all posters here, without a single exception, see mass education as the key to communism. You're not making any profound point, you've said nothing substantial in your useless post. Try harder next time, read some books.

Allende was based

Attached: 20190108_211449.jpg (720x577, 203.33K)

Even non-market socialism doesn't lead to complete equality. Worker ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange with central planning does not necessarily entail equal distribution of income.

not to mention the pedant's question: do we define equality as "everyone gets the same" or as "everyone gets the same equivalent" - i.e. does a wheelchair come out of the income of someone with broken legs? if so, arguably they're being given a smaller share of resources because that's a necessary purchase for basic mobility. if it doesn't and is treated as a necessity, then more resources will have to be allocated to that person than to someone who doesn't need a wheelchair, leading to them getting an unequally high distribution of resources.
i'm not even anti egalitarian, the image is just wrong. it's not what socialism is.