Lemdro.id

3 points

7 months ago

social democracy isn’t a great goal, and while it’d certainly be a huge improvement that I’d support, that doesn’t mean I’m going to use its more unsavory rhetoric.

report

Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

4 points

7 months ago

Seems like a pretty good goal for a starting vector unless somebody has an idea how we go from the latest stages of capitalism to a moneyless society without an intermediate phase.

And I’m not sure “disliking the fact 40% of your paycheck goes to your own oppression is bad” is a great starting point

report

[ - ]

1 point

7 months ago

the most successful communists so far have mostly started from underdeveloped countries mostly comprised of peasants, so I don’t think its 100% necessary to become socdems (built off the exploitation of the 3rd world) first. Living conditions along the lines of social democracies, but without the imperialism (both economic and military), now that’s a more compelling thought

And again, I’d support it, to some limited extent, but that doesn’t mean I need to adopt its rhetoric. emphasizing the flaws of social democracy is important, to combat liberals saying “oh everything’s great now we don’t need to continue to improve” or “going beyond social democracy is redfash tankieism”

report

Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

2 points

7 months ago

What about all the countries that developed past that point? I don’t see them just ditching the system without an intermediary.

report

[ - ]

2 points

7 months ago

sure. Not saying it’s the only route, just that becoming socdems isn’t a necessary step.

I’m not going to support any intermediary if it relies on the exploitation of the natural resources and labor of the 3rd world, though. Frankly I think (and I could be wrong here) that most first world countries would need to do some significant re-industrialization (and along with that would come some proletarianization) in order to maintain their living standards while weaning off of the profits of imperialist extraction.

Becoming western-style soc-dems and living off of either 3rd world raw materials, or purely being finance leeches, sets up your country in opposition to global progress, even as it improves conditions at home.

report

Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

1 point

7 months ago

If you didn’t want to rely on extracting resources from the third world seems like using taxpayer money to fund Healthcare rather than using it to fund imperialism would be a positive.

Also, using the taxes for training programs and subsidies of renewables for re-industrialization seems like a better plan then taking a bunch of money from the working class and giving it to Haliburton.

I’m legitimately confused if it’s bad to worry about how taxes are being spent is the goal to get rid of taxes and hope for a government that benefits people without any money or is it for a more egalitarian society to spring up from pure anarcho capitalism with no taxes and no safety net.

report

[ - ]

1 point

7 months ago

sure, yes, but the money isn’t (just) coming from the domestic working class. it’s ultimately being funded by the exploitation of the 3rd world. If you, for example, take venezuela’s oil by hook and crook and give it to exxon for pennies on the dollar and forbid venezuela from operating domestic refineries, setting their economy up to be a miserable client state, then no amount of redirecting the exxon employees’ tax dollars from the military to social welfare will solve that problem, and in fact, building a society with a high standard of living atop such exploitative global relations, gives that society great incentives to at best, maintain those relations, if not continue to worsen them. It will build public support for imperialism, the MIC will be back with a vengeance next time there’s a crisis.

It’s a non-solution that only takes care of imperial core workers, and even them only in the short term. The anti-imperialism has to come first.

report