Social Democrat here

Social Democrat here.

Why would I be a Marxist or care about Communism?
I agree with the theory of surplus value being extracted from the workers however every single attempted to shake capitalism has either failed or results in pretty shitty conditions.
I'm not going to try and say its a perfect system like those free market people however mixed market capitalism has raised the standard of living more so than any other system so far.

I also do not see any real proof that Communism is enviable its really just philosophical speculation

Attached: zizek.jpg (720x720, 92.86K)

Other urls found in this thread:

lmao, how is your social democracy holding up?
fucking READ some pre-WW2 (or hell, pre-WW1) socdem manifestos and see how limp wristed and pro-capitalist social democracy is now

Attached: chisinau circus.jpg (3072x2304, 3.14M)

What about it? Markets have peaks and valleys nothing is ever perfect all the time

Oh nice job man, come here and pretend to argue in good faith and then just brush off 100 years of communist revolutions as 'bad' without giving a single argument. I'm sure you'll spark some interesting discussion with this approach on a board that celebrates the achievements of the USSR, Cuba etc.

How is any of this arguing in bad faith? Have most communists revolutions not been failures? Have most Marxist-Leninist states not reverted back to capitalism?

Attached: 1200px-Communist_countries.svg.png (1200x614, 157.52K)

Also I'm not saying that the USSR and Cuba have no achievements however in comparison to Social Democratic countries not so much

What historical mistake / atrocity could this not be used to excuse?


Because you have no balls.

What has Communism done to prevent this? China and the USSR weren't really out to be Eco friendly anymore than western companies.

Depends on what you mean by failure. Yes, they failed in exporting the revolution world wide, but they succeeded in elevating the working classes of their respective nations until reactionary forces overwhelmed them.
If you want to compare achievements between Sweden and the USSR, you need to first imagine a Sweden under constant threat from the UK/France/US/Germany/Japan etc. Not a fair comparison.
And also, all the social democratic countries are clearly falling to neoliberalism too.

1)20th century ML-states are not the end all be all of Marxism.
2) These states where often in terrible conditions before and made much more dramatic leaps than social democratic states.
3) Socdem aren't great at keeping their gains either.

Cuba is one of the only sustainable nations. Also climate change was only begging to be accepted when the USSR was around

But social democracy has also elevated the working class
The working class is living better today in EU style social democracies than any where else.

But Sweden being part of NATO was under constant threat from the Warsaw pact


ok now compare that to

Marxist Leninism has the best track record in regards to establishing Marxist nations but my point still stands for other tendencies

I never said they didn't or that their economics set them back. I said that Social Democracy is clearly the better option when you compare the two today.

Like I said above nothing is perfect but having only 5 "so called" marxist states left it speaks for itself.

And for the most part you have communists and labour unions to thank for that. But again, the social democracies were not under any significant threat. They did not have to engage in defense spending the way the USSR did.
Sweden has never been part of NATO.
Welfare is being eroded in every social democracy in Europe. Are you American or something since this is news?
Okay, I compared, and the more developed Europe is doing worse than China. What's your point?

Within Social Democracy. Also to think that we wouldn't have any of that without communists is laughable they weren't the only people advocating for the working class.

How where they not? the west had NATO and the Communist bloc had the warsaw pact
Also the US spends more on defense than any other nation and they haven't collapsed like the USSR. I'm not saying that they're Socdem but clearly defense spending doesn't cripple you

So NATO would allow the USSR to walk right into sweden?
Most Social Democratic countries are though. This isn't a sweden thread its a Social Democracy thread

Do you think social democracy just means give everyone welfare? I'm not sure what country you live in but a new budget gets put out every year. If less money is being allocated that is no reason for hysteria, For example in the UK despite the constant change of hands of power no one wants to completely privatize the NHS

Now compare emissions. I'll wait

apparently you missed the entire 20th century and literally every attempt to crush socialism out of existence upon inception.

I keep hearing this same shitty argument over and over again. stop it.

You think you can save capitalism with its internal contradictions like commodity production for example yet fail to realize its the very reason we've been put into this situation where we face entire environmental collapse. The irony of this is you would rather let the world end than end capitalism.

Attached: 6ccd71747246606858d476047d23480a18309096e5bf86b4982f1de53d33b19d.png (579x528, 206.4K)

China is larger and a larger portion of it's economy is used for export. The emissions are outsourced pollution. It's origin lies in the developed countries.

Social democracy has only ever worked when capitalist are forced to capitulate under threat of communist revolution. There's a reason why all those countries adjacent to the USSR had the strongest welfare states, because they were directly competing for the same labor force. That was unacceptable to capitalists though so they waged a half century of cold war. Jesus christ read a book.

No, but they were the most fierce in the struggle. Social democrats have always been half-assing the development of the working class movements.
And NATO was obviously a far more developed military machine, far more threatening than anything the USSR had short of nukes. And the Soviet Union preached peaceful co-existence, while NATO threatened invasion.
America clearly IS crippled. 13% of its population lives in poverty and there is political turmoil like they haven't seen since the 30s.
Nice backpeddling. You wont even admit that you're wrong?
And I used Sweden as an example. You dishonest cunt.
There are no emissions to compare with the link you provided. So why did you link something unrelated to the point you were making? You are, as I said in my very first post, not arguing in good faith, so I'm gonna fuck off now.

good post

Attached: d87da6b199fd77ade2de030f9abc0746990d740a094c5c7e1ef953bac6395180.jpg (2560x1440, 202.84K)

I never said this.

what about it?

How was the USSR going to save the planet? They weren't much better in terms of ecology.

So in otherwards you praise the good china is doing and ignore the bad

Social democracy never lasts because the only capacity that you can secure power democratically is by concessions from the ruling class. Socdems exist in the same capacity that fascists do, tools by which the bourgeoisie will shape and control the will of the populous for as long as they are needed, then they shall be discarded without ceremony.

Yet workers still live better in Social Democratic countries

Is this supposed to be a defense of the USSR? It just sounds less appealing and another shortcoming

Well no one is trying to say the US is a Social Democracy(as I stated above) however even they could handle the massive defense spending where the USSR could not.

waiting for an argument.

Ok and?

China has some of the worst emissions in the world

ok but Marxists states and revolutions last on an even shorter timeline

They weren't much better in terms of ecology.

I'm not him, but just to let you know that we have such a thing called Ecosocialism. Which try to put together the marxist criticism of the capital and capitalism and a solution to our enviromental collapse. Ecosocialism manage to build a worker's state with a strong focus on ecology. My point is, yeah USSR wasn't a good example in terms of ecology but socialism can adapt itself.

"Ignore my trash, what is, is"
Retard op

Socialism will always be crushed upon inception as long as capitalism exists. It poses an existentialist threat to the capitalist class. This is why almost every country surrounding the USSR turned to social democracy.
This is entirely true, but socialism as a system in general (where workers own and control businesses democratically is ideal). The USSR was a good experiment and there's a lot to learn from it. It doesn't mean however we should just give up on socialism.

Just like capitalism, it has been experimented with and failed many times. If we gave up with capitalism in the past we would of had feudalism.

All revolutionary struggles have failures, liberalism was much the same in their attempts to take power from the monarchies. There were many liberal failures, half measures, botched governments, and strong attempts that fell short of the ultimate goal before the ultimate coming of the Napoleonic Wars and the spread of liberalism by force. It's a dialectical struggle that you can see across history, and failed attempts are of little surprise to anyone who has a holistic view of the world, a la what Marxism provides.

That besides, in their short periods of their existence, they secure gains tenfold greater than decades of social democratic rule has achieved for people now, especially with their electoral losses to the far right all throughout Europe, not even accounting for the wars of imperialism and the stratification of wealth throughout the known world as socdems are complicit with imperialist capitalism.


But that is all theory, where are the "eco socialist" nations? The Paris Agreement does more for the environment than eco socialism

Socialism fails against Social Democracy. Is this supposed to be an argument for socialism?

I'm not saying that it is perfect I agree there has been failed attempts however just hoping for Marxism to beat capitalism in the future when real world experiences show the opposite happening, isn't a good argument.

ok and? all the achievements of those socialist countries made them capable of competing in the global market once they gave up on communism?

Socialism is still capitalism lol, do you think it wont act in favor of the ruling class?
I'm trying to say the only reason social democracy exists at all is because of socialism. There would be no need for it if socialism never existed.

social democracy

ok so assuming this is true
why would I want that to happen to my country?

have you paid attention to this thread at all?

Do you have any proof of this?

Yeah it's a theory.
But it's a theory for our times. It's unsustainable to have capitalism in our current enviromental crisis.

Well, that's a nonsense argument because ecosocialism it's a new theory. I just talked about ecosocialism because to me we can't have a solution for our enviromental crisis within capitalism. Yeah The Paris Agreement it's good but it's just a coup of water against a wildfire burning the whole forest.

social democracy isn't socialism, its capitalism with a human face. The means of production still reside in the hands of a few private citizens that hoard most of the land and wealth.

I did a typo
when did the countries surrounding the USSR turn to social democracy? why are they only around previously socialist nations?

Attached: gang.jpg (480x360, 17.06K)

also social democracy is already eroding.

It isn't "just hoping", it is a scientific analysis of the material forces that drive the world turned into a dialectical method that is used to understand the totality of society and it's direction. We don't just hope communism can beat capitalism, by analysis communism is simply the only thing that can come out of capitalism, that or total barbarism. And personally, between socialism and barbarism, I lean towards socialism.

Even in failure these countries have given their people more than your ideology can provide. Were it not for the USSR's development of the Eastern and Southern European states, they would likely be nothing more than third world countries that would be used for the ends of imperialism that would perpetuate capitalism just a little bit longer. But even now nations like Russia can stand against the forces of US imperialism and aid other nations in doing the same, albeit while being an imperialist nation itself. But unipolar hegemony is far worse than what we have now, so I take it as a win.

Plus if you want to take those facts in a more politically concrete scenario, the whole good done by the USSR is much greater than the good done by socdems in elevating people's lives through development of industry and infrastructure. Modern socdems are only known for selling out workers to global capitalism and neglecting to improve people's lives in any meaningful capacities since their electoral politics inevitably lead to their defeat and the repeal of any reforms they made.

"Capitalism has raised the standard of living more than any other system so far"

Here, watch some kid get owned by daddy Chomsky for saying this exact same retarded shit.

Not to mention, half of the entire world lives under $5.50/day. Try that.

Like I said in the OP, there is not any real proof of this just philosophical speculation.

I never said it was socialism.

When Socialism collapsed. or when they were given a choice between socialism and social democracy

So what of France, the UK the nordic countries etc?

If you don't become a communist Marxist, when the revolution comes, we will LITERALLY THROW YOU IN A GULAG FOR BEING A ROSE. That's a pretty good reason to be one.

this and also, right-wing rise in nordic countries are killing social democracy.

This is what controlled opposition looks like people.


Attached: eastern bloc.png (1200x752, 173.27K)

But for that to be true you would need to accept Marxism. I can make an argument for the Kingdom of God to be the final stage of human society but for that to be true you would need to accept christianity.
at that point its just philosophical speculation

You're telling me the working class in Russia, China, Laos live better than the people in Denmark, Sweden, France?

How would they have not came out the same as Western Europe if they had adopted the same economic system as western Europe?

What do you mean "stand against the US"? How do they? There is no actual armed conflict just constantly changing trade deals and media hysteria
Sure the US news won't shutup about Russia and Democrats are sent into a nervous break down, however when you're working class you would rather have a society that looks like Norway than Russia.
Also Russia isn't the USSR anymore you are now defending an authoritarian capitalist regime with a history of socialism against another capitalist regime without one

But if that led to the eventual collapse wouldn't that have been the wrong thing to do? How are those goods that were produced doing to help Russia's socialist cause today? Standard of living?

"near" is relative
Social Democracy is a European thing

its strange how all these counties surrounding one of the largest socialist industrial superpowers converted to social democracy, its kind of like they were competing for labor.

I wonder why that is

Attached: eastern bloc.png (1200x752 173.27 KB, 173.27K)

eurocentrism it's a thing.

in terms of the world it is.
in terms of Europe is far

Social democracy has lost all of its gains and constantly has to concede or get cucked by neoliberals or worse.

How? Especially when places like the US have just increased welfare spending over the last 50 years and no social democratic countries have given up the national healthcare system

Cuba is the only nation that does well in both human welfare and ecological sustainability. Call them revisionist or whatever but they're one of the closest things we have on Earth to a Marxist Leninist state still existing.

Attached: cuba ecological sustainability.jpg (850x522, 139.49K)

Holy shit if that is your best defense then I rest my case.

this is entirely missing the point, social democracy happened to start as a result of the formation of the USSR time wise. Read the bottom section of page 8 to the top of page 9

The difference is one uses an objective scientific method through material analysis, the other is based off some book from the desert.

No, but they live far better now than they would have lived if there was not a socialist revolution in their countries that developed infrastructure, industry, and a strong standard of living. Without communist nations, these places would likely just be third world nations imperialized by capitalists.

Because the simple and fundamental basis of the highest stage of capitalism, imperialism. Just as how African nations "could" achieve the standard of living as Western nations if they adopted the economic model of Western nations, but the reality is that this is antithetical to the global capitalist class' interests. Ultimately, the financial capital of the imperializing nations goes forwards to owning all industry in these "developing" nations and subjecting them to brutal conditions and miserable wages for the sake of profit. The same would be true of all the nations of Eastern and Southern Europe if not for communists, in fact you can see a good representation of this in picture. Turkey only joined NATO because they still had Ottoman ambitions of controlling the now USSR-dominated southern europe and becoming an imperialist capitalist nation themselves. Hell, even now they have that ambition through the autocrat Erdogan and their excursions into Syria and the military pressure they put on the rest of the Near East.

As in stand against the United States attempts at imperialism, like in Venezuela and Syria, by extending aid to those countries.

There is plenty of armed conflict through proxies, the US most prominently using and arming "moderate rebels" that have ties to the Sauds to try and control the middle east. Meanwhile Russia arms and trains middle eastern governments to resist the attempts of the US and secure the sovereignty of their allied nations.

As a prole I would know that both are ultimately doomed, Norway would just be a greater fall. The relative comfort or achievements of either are pointless without communist rule.

We support Russia opportunistically to weaken the near-unipolar hegemony of the United States and their proxies. Ultimately we will betray Russia at the first convenience like the capitalist dogs that they are.

Better to live in a failed socialist state than a third world imperialized one.

The USSR stands as a historical example of the achievements of communism as well as an analysis on what we can do in the future to ensure a better communist rule to begin with. Secondly the USSR may have failed to achieve communism, but they established the capitalist state that is the prelude to revolution as per Marx's thinking, meaning that no matter your stance the USSR advanced the dialectics in Russia (unless you are a filthy third worldist anyways). Then of course there is also the standard of living and the end of mass starvation thing, as well as innumerable contributions to medicine and science through communist funded research and experimentation.

look at all those fucking words.

Attached: baby.png (908x836, 229.21K)

Do you have an updated list?

Aren't they also privatizing most of their economy?

If you want to prop up a nation that is moving away from socialism and a good example of sustainability you're helping my point

ok so you have no argument

>this is entirely missing the point, social democracy happened to start as a result of the formation of the USSR time wise. Read the bottom section of page 8 to the top of page 9
Yeah time wise. Correlation does not = causation. However even if that were true it has nothing to do with the topic.
Wow,13% is working in the private sector. okay then. Whats your point about Cuba privatizing its economy again?

so you're still claiming socialism existing has nothing to do with the spread of social democracy?

Damn, that's almost like a quarter of a page of a normal book. How will I ever manage to get through such a massive wall?

Those statistics are from before they were privatizing so much. Don't ask me why they think privatization is a good idea, I don't know. Such a thing was horrible for places like Russia. Maybe they're doing it due to the massive US embargo and its effects or something. Like I said, I don't know.

Its also interesting that you ignored the embargo on Cuba that lasted from 1962 which still hasn't ended.



How is Marxism objective science.

Do you have any proof of this?

How is that statement true but saying that: "if they adopted the same economic type as western Europe they would end up looking like western Europe" not true?

And why would Russia not have engaged in the same imperialism as the rest of Europe

how is this relevant?

how is this relevant?

The working class is better in Norway than in Russia. Your opinions don't change that material reality

Good thing I'm not advocating to live in a third world imperialized country

And ultimately those achievements are not as great as Social Democratic achievements

this is just speculation though

a person needs to accept that Marxist dialectic for this to be true

They keep becoming more and more capitalist.

I never said that. I said that socialism existing isn't proof that it is the cause of social democracy.
But the topic isn't about what caused social democracy so its irrelevant either way.

lol what, are you telling me social democracy sent the first person to space, or invented the first portable phone.


So the best Marxist state is failing at socialism?

when was it even brought up? What about it?

what are the benefits of that

you don't have any either, those examples you gave are barely social democratic and are already hanging by a thread. If anything you are proving me right when you boasting about how the welfare state isn't that broken down yet

did you even read the article?
read this document again

in refrence to

No, it's failing to spread it internationally to people all around the planet and especially in the USA to prevent an embargo. Which is kind of a ridiculous thing to ask Cuba to do alone. If we just disregard them as a failure and not learn from what they've done well it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Attached: thinky.png (960x718, 138.32K)

Attached: D3phrFEX4AAvJeu.jpg (1200x1000, 152.2K)

yes and they're becoming more and more capitalist.

>read this document again

ok and?

I never said this
you still haven't given an argument

What exactly makes you think privatization in a socialist economy speaks to an inherent flaw in it, but privatization in a social democracy speaks to something else?

cuba: clamps down on private ownership

This thread is absolute ass, you're not acting in good faith when you dismiss articles that go against your feelings.

Social democracy isn't anti capitalist socialism is.

except they don't

and this is an argument in favor of socialism?

what articles?

except this didn't happen

Both cases entail the collapse of our ideal system.
Why is it an inherent failure on socialism's part but not on social democracy's?
You'll find privatization occurring in any socdem nation you point to now.

Privatization is a part of social democracy, its a mixed market economy what are you talking about

Social Democracy is a mixed market it has both private and public sector jobs.


Alright Going to bed Americans!
Will answer all unanswered Questions in the Morning.

Attached: social-democracy-400x587_orig.jpg (400x587, 56.34K)

It is an out of season April Fools Joke?

Historically illiterate suckdems are all the reason needed for arguing against social democracy

Damn straight!

Attached: thumbs up.jpeg (634x482, 110.53K)

Guess what? Social democracy can only exist with high profit rates. The reason why social democracies boomed after WW2 was because the massive destruction of capital values, which ultimately caused the rate of profit to go up. This increased rate of profit allowed the working class to win many key concessions, while still keeping the capitalist system intact. However, in capitalism, there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall. And by the 70s, the profit rate started to fall to dangerous levels. It was no longer sustainable to have both a capitalist system and high wages, good benefits unionized workers, and large social safety nets. SO IT ALL HAD TO GO! Wages were slashed, unions were busted, safety nets cut into ribbons. That was necessary in order to keep the capitalist system going. We are moving further in that direction every day. In the UK, they are even talking about privatizing the NHS! This is not a "political" decision that can be reversed, this is an economic reality that is INEVITABLE in capitalism.

Attached: cockshottfeels.png (680x703, 402.36K)

Maybe markets are the problem you fucking idiot.

Attached: this is your life in the year 2010.jpg (2300x1594, 663.33K)

Possibly not an English speaker I guess

Communism is for poorfags. Fucking poorfags.

Attached: poorfags.jpg (400x400, 132.48K)