okay but like (not particularly educated take inbound)
the biggest gripe we have with social democracy is that it’s fundamentally just a more equitable distribution of plunder from the global south, but that criticism doesn’t really hold up when you ARE the global south and it’s your resources getting plundered by imperialists
The criticism of social democracy ultimately boils down to “you’re not doing a juche-style degrowth to decouple from imperial satraps”. Which is fine and perfectly arguable on its face. But it does lead you to breeze over the policies social democrats are most commonly championing - public sector professional services free at the point of consumption - that would, in fact, get you some of that juche-style degrowth you said you wanted.
I don’t see how this applies at all
Asset inflation and excess waste production resulting from our Big Number Go Up strategy is undermining our ability to operate self-sufficiently without sacrificing quality of life. Any kind of economic restructuring is going to result in a huge nominal drop in the economic numbers that undergird the economy, and we need to be psychologically prepared for that if we’re going to execute on necessary economic changes before they’re forced on us by material limitations.
I also don’t see how decommodification would result in either a Juche system or degrowth
De-commodification would, first and foremost, decouple the material resources upon which our economic forecasts are based. If you go into the economy and you decommodify energy, you’re going to cause the speculative price of for-profit energy companies to crater. That’s going to result in a large contraction in credit markets following a wave of defaults on debt. Big Number Would Go Down.
De-commodification and distribution of energy on an as-needed basis rather than a speculative basis would move us towards a system of self-sufficiency rather than one of artificial revaluation. Microsoft no longer having an infinite well of paper currency to buy from a finite well of fossil fuels for the purpose of generating electricity to run their entertainment machines would free up enormous amounts of energy for necessary living conditions.
Another big gripe is that social-democracy is just capitalism, and we are opposed to capitalism.
but that criticism doesn’t really hold up when you ARE the global south and it’s your resources getting plundered by imperialists
For the same reason, it doesn’t work to materially improve conditions for the 3rd world. The only solution is revolutionary socialism.
If it doesnt materially improve conditions for the third world then why do Latam social democracies get opposed by the imperial core?
Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol.
Obviously we all want revolutionairy socialism. But imperialism is the primary contradiction. So things that oppose that are worth some level of support.
Like ffs i do live in the imperial core and socdem policies materially improve my conditions. But i consider my socdems social imperialists anyway. Without the imperialism contradiction though?
If it doesnt materially improve conditions for the third world then why do Latam social democracies get opposed by the imperial core?
because anglos are mad about it. a global south nation-state could do full capitalism but economically align with china or russia and anglos would mald and do a coup or another libya.
Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol
of course.
at leas MAS is “movement toward socialism”. western/global north socdems are just trying to save capitalism and that’s why they’re moderate fascists.
Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol.
I think an important distinction here is that Evo calls himself a marxist-leninist while socdems in the global north call themselves socdems and denounce communism.
Yeah they might be marxists doing social democracy out of necessity. But are they ideological socdems? Or is social democracy viewed by them as genuine compromise and/or stepping stone?
I don’t think their goal is social democracy. Whereas that is the goal of the socdems of the global north, with nothing beyond it.
One group sees social democracy as an end, the other sees it as a means.
When Bernie starts saying shit like this my opinion of him will change:
“You don’t know how happy I am today. For the first time in the history of this country, we’ve managed to put a communist on the Supreme Court, a comrade of the quality of Flávio Dino”
Those south american socdems hit different.
Under no circumstances would any of our global north socdems say something overtly praising putting communists in positions of power. With perhaps the sole exception of Jeremy Corbyn who was quite obviously only a socdem of necessity, it’s clearly not his actual ideology.
To be honest, I was shocked when he said that. Lula, and the Worker’s Party as a whole, usually shy away from name-dropping Communism, let alone openly praising it.
Lula is usually worried with having support from the right-leaning Congress, and honestly, he needs that support to be allowed to do anything as president, and openly saying what he said is sure to get him a lot of criticism.
Still, it was a nice surprise to hear that.
You clearly don’t know Brazilian politics, but I already explained how unusual that is for a leftist politician like Lula who tries to appear moderate to appease the right. He straight up said he was very happy because for the first time ever, the supreme court will have a communist minister (appointed by him). Dino being a communist was a fact that only the opposition was using, to attack him and his appointment for the supreme court.
Under no circumstances would any of our global north socdems say something overtly praising putting communists in positions of power.
I think they do pop off, once or twice, before they get piled on by liberals and social fascists. Sanders was openly complimentary of Chavez’s Venezuela, Ortega’s Nicaragua, and Castro’s Cuba a decade ago. Rashida Tlaib has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian resistance in Gaza as recently as a few weeks ago. You can find comparable statements from AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Cori Bush, particularly early on in their first campaigns and terms in office.
With perhaps the sole exception of Jeremy Corbyn who was quite obviously only a socdem of necessity, it’s clearly not his actual ideology.
Corbyn is a great case study in how the national far-right media treats anyone even tacitly supportive of left wing governments and organizations. The British Press has made it some kind of contest to see how many times they can demand everyone in the Labour Party condemn Hamas, as a result of his Palestinian advocacy. Every third question in any given interview boils down to “Do you condemn?”
So there’s a certain amount of attrition that occurs, as even the tangentially left-wing Congresscritters and Parliamentarians avoid these issues entirely because of the way the press hounds them in the most annoying way possible. Because national right-wing media narratives whip up constituencies into a confused and angry lather, and because left-wing media in this country is heavily curtailed and censored, it is difficult to have a coherent conversation about foreign policy that doesn’t end with a bunch of liberals accusing a sitting Congresswoman of being the unibomber.
“There were a lot of folks in Cuba at that point who were illiterate. He formed the literacy brigade,” Sanders said. “(Castro) went out and they helped people learn to read and write. You know what, I think teaching people to read and write is a good thing.”
He added: “I have been extremely consistent and critical of all authoritarian regimes all over the world including Cuba, including Nicaragua, including Saudi Arabia, including China, including Russia. I happen to believe in democracy, not authoritarianism.”
…
“You may recall way back in, when was it,1961 they invaded Cuba and the, everybody was totally convinced the Castro was the worst guy in the world. All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro,” Sanders said, discussing the logic behind the Kennedy administration’s failed Bay of Pigs coup. “They had forgotten that he educated the kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society.”
“You know, not to say that Fidel Castro or Cuba are perfect, they are certainly not,” he said. “But just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say that the people in their own nations feel the same way.”
…
“The revolution (in Cuba) is far deeper and more profound than I had understood it to be” and encompassed more than economic policy. “It is a revolution of values in which people, instead of working for their own personal wealth, work for the common good.”
…
“President Kennedy was elected while I was at the University of Chicago, that was 1960. I remember being physically nauseated by his speech and that doesn’t happen often. He debated Nixon on Cuba. And their hatred for the Cuban Revolution, both of them, was so strong,” Sanders said. “Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal, but I think at that point, seeing through Kennedy, and what liberalism was, was probably a significant step for me to understand that conventional politics or liberalism was not what was relevant.”
…
Sanders in the 1980s said Ortega had the right, as the leader of his country, to meet with the Soviets and offered a review of the Nicaraguan government under Ortega that echoed his comments on Castro’s Cuba.
“Is it a totalitarian country? No, it is not a totalitarian country. Are there civil liberties. Yeah, there are civil liberties. Is it a perfectly free country? No, it most certainly is not. Is it freer than of the most of the countries in Central America? Yeah, it is,” Sanders said. “Within the context of the misery and the lack of democracy in Central America, it holds up reasonably well. Is the Nicaraguan government always right? The answer is absolutely not. Have they made mistakes? Sure they have.”
…
“What surprised me about the trip to the Soviet Union was the strong degree of friendship and openness that both Soviet officials and ordinary officials have to us both is Yaroslavl and the other cities,” Sanders said. “Both the officials and the people were extremely generous and warm and I was very surprised by the degree in fact they like Americans and admire Americans.”
He attributed the ostensibly open conversation to his own willingness to speak directly about issues facing his own country, with specific mentions of the expensive housing and the outsized cost of medical care in the US.
“The other observation that I would make is that I was surprised to the degree of self-criticism, which Soviet officials were prepared to make about their own society,” Sanders said of the notoriously closed and violent Soviet government. “Frankly, I thought they would be there to tell us that everything is wonderful and that certainly was not the case. For example, they are absolutely open in acknowledging that they are not a democratic society.”
Is the nation imperialist?
If yes, social imperialists.
If no, social democrats.
Pretty damn simple.
there was a good reply by some smart lady about him on here, let me just find it…ah! Here we go:
the sole exception of Jeremy Corbyn who was quite obviously only a socdem of necessity, it’s clearly not his actual ideology.
See? I said she was smart.
Yeah that was where the real distinction evolved. In Europe and the US opportunists were happy to redistribute the wealth of the global periphery to their nation’s proletariat and call it socialism. The global periphery redistributing it’s own wealth from its bourgeoisie to its own working classes isn’t particularly evil though.
Latin American socdems: “I denounce capitalism and the west’s condescension and imperialism. It is evil, exploitative, and the Marxists are right. The violent revolutionaries of the global south were right. We must engage in capitalism in the current state of the world to survive, but we can and must do better”
European socdems: We are LITERALLY the only real socialists. Every other attempt at socialism is a failure. Who produces our energy? Whose labor allows us our privileges and benefits? Who knows! Magic! The browns are being too uppity which could end our high standard of living, so we need to support the US to secure our existence. What do you mean the collapse of the USSR means we no longer have leverage over capitalists?
This is a simplification of course. But no European socdem has given me the impression he cares about anything except himself these days.
You are being way too kind to European succdems. These slimy bastards doesn’t want leverage over capitalists, they want to serve the capitalists.
Just wanted to chime in and say how proud I am of all my comrades for understanding the essential difference between geopolitical dynamics in the global north and south.
