Social Democrats Allowed Here?

[Goldstein]

Hi,
I don't consider myself a revolutionary, but I do think that I'm 'on the left'. Can social democrats participate in RevLeft, or are we not far enough to the left?

p.s. IMO it will take a near revolution to get the United States to be more like say Sweden, so I really think I should be allowed here...

[Kyrite]

I havn't been here for long enough to make a proper comment but i am pretty sure you are allowed here. Most political beliefs are welcome, just not facists.

[rednordman]

Sure your welcome:). So long as you do not avocate race theory or serious homophobic and sexism, your cool here. I would add though, that if you are a hardline conservative or capitalist, you may be more at home in the 'opposing ideology' forum, but you are not, as you are a social democrate which is different imo. I say this as there have been other social democrates on the forum before.

[gorillafuck]

IMO it will take a near revolution to get the United States to be more like say Sweden
No, it more than likely wouldn't.

I think it's kind of odd that you would want to use a forum that is for communists and anarchists and "Revolutionary Leftists" if you're a self-identified social democrat (an ideology that is inherently reformist and capitalist).

[Unregistered]

Sure your welcome:). So long as you do not avocate race theory or serious homophobic and sexism, your cool here. I would add though, that if you are a hardline conservative or capitalist, you may be more at home in the 'opposing ideology' forum, but you are not, as you are a social democrate which is different imo. I say this as there have been other social democrates on the forum before.

Oh whoops this is Goldstein (obviously I'm new here, I guess I was not logged in),
Sounds good I don't consider myself against any 'radicalism' or 'far left' ideas, we don't seem to be in times presently where we are going to see radical change.

[Pogue]

If you are not committed to revolution you are considered opposing ideologies. Would you care to explain your beliefs further?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Everyone is allowed on Revleft (except fascists), but some people are restricted to the three OI forums. I'm afraid social democrats are among those restricted. You can always get unrestricted if you change your views, though.

Also, I don't think social democracy is possible in the United States at all. Reformist means could never go far enough, and a revolution would have no choice but to go much further than social democracy. A revolution in the United States would shake the foundations of the entire world economy. Everything would change everywhere, including in Sweden.

[Goldstein]

Well it looks as if I'm not revolutionary enough to be here. Have fun smashing the system.
best to all.

[Raúl Duke]

Can social democrats participate in RevLeft, or are we not far enough to the left?

They can participate...but more like in OI.

This forum is called revolutionary left.com (shorten to revleft)...it's for the left that advocates revolution and radical change.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well it looks as if I'm not revolutionary enough to be here. Have fun smashing the system.
best to all.
You're more than welcome to stay... We have people around who are far more right-wing than you.

[Pogue]

Well it looks as if I'm not revolutionary enough to be here. Have fun smashing the system.
best to all.

take care

[mel]

Hi,
I don't consider myself a revolutionary, but I do think that I'm 'on the left'. Can social democrats participate in RevLeft, or are we not far enough to the left?

p.s. IMO it will take a near revolution to get the United States to be more like say Sweden, so I really think I should be allowed here...

You are allowed here, but you might get restricted to posting in OI. A lot of us would like to have an opportunity to debate and discuss with you about the capitalism or your ideas on what exactly constitutes revolution. You might have more in common with some of us than you think.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Plenty of "official" Communists (supporters/members of Marxist Leninist CPs) here are about as social democratic as it gets. You'd feel at home here.:D

[Agrippa]

socialist's comment is obviously snarky but it raises an interesting point. Given the undeniable overlap that has historically existed between Marxist-Leninist and Social Democratic movements and schools of thought, (the term "Social Democracy" originally comes from a political party with a far-left, revolutionary Marxist-Leninist contingent, after all) how could any consistantly-enforced exile of Social Democrats, self-identified or percieved, to the Opposing Ideologies forum, be fairly, justly, and objectively executed without stiffling the freeflow of debate and exchange of ideas that makes this forum remotely worthwhile?

To be fair, let's put the shoe on the other foot. Plenty of anarchist communists, such as myself, are accused of right-wing egoism because of our philosophical outlook. Perhaps this is because a significant overlap exists between anarchists and right-wing egoists?

Doesn't the concept of an "Opposing Ideology" forum exist to liquidate attempts to disrupt constructive debate, rather than liquidate constructive debate itself? I have seen way too many attempt to use Opposing Ideology as a form of witch trial, when that's obviously not its intended purpose.

Also, the "no fascists period" rule sort of makes sense given that all the more clever fascists tend to participate in entryist recruitment/psy-ops campaigns targetting the radical Left. But given that most radical Leftists can't agree on a proper definition of "fascist", how is this policy coherently enforced? In my book, Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theorists, Lou Dobs-style "militant moderates", Hindutvas, Islamists, "anarcho-capitalists", militia enthusiasts, Frances Cress Welsing/Louis Farrakhan/Marcus Garvey-style right-wing black nationalists, and "Voice of Atzlan"-style right-wing Chicano nationalists can all be rationally classified as fascists, yet I don't see the harm in allowing these people to flourish in OI, in fact, it'd be amusing. I think banning fascists in a way indicates that the administration is biased towards the ideological position that fascism is a more dangerous form of capitalist control than, say, liberal democracy, something many RevLeft posters may not agree with.

[Pogue]

If I'm not mistaken, Lenin was an Social Democrat, not the other way around, right?

[GracchusBabeuf]

Lenin was an Social Democrat, not the other way around, right? Other way being? Social-democrats are Lenin?

[Pogue]

Other way being social democrats were Leninists, as the person I was talking too suggested. It's not really that complicated to work out what I was saying really, I'm suprised you couldn't work it out for yourself.

[Post-Something]

Well it looks as if I'm not revolutionary enough to be here. Have fun smashing the system.
best to all.

I wish it was always this easy *sigh*.

[mel]

I wish it was always this easy *sigh*.

Losing members that don't agree with our political positions? There are a few I wish would have left that nicely. I'm always sad to see a social democrat go though, because that's how a lot of revolutionaries start :crying:

[GracchusBabeuf]

Other way being social democrats were Leninists, as the person I was talking too suggested. It's not really that complicated to work out what I was saying really, I'm suprised you couldn't work it out for yourself.Thats what I thought. I was confused by your wording.

[Black Sheep]

Hi,
I don't consider myself a revolutionary, but I do think that I'm 'on the left'. Can social democrats participate in RevLeft, or are we not far enough to the left?


This is the home of the Revolutionary Left.Social democracy and reformist left in general is an opposing ideology, so i guess you have to be restricted.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Losing members that don't agree with our political positions? There are a few I wish would have left that nicely. I'm always sad to see a social democrat go though, because that's how a lot of revolutionaries start :crying:

I kind of agree. What if someone's a social-dem who believes in a stage-ist sort of thing or "eventual" socialism. I would want to try and convince them why revolution is necessary and why social-democracy is doomed to only uphold capitalism rather than bring socialism.

Then again, for me a social democrat is a rare thing to meet in real life (here in America) so when I meet one I really want to convince them to become a revolutionary - I might feel different if I lived in Europe or Latin America where that kind of politics is more common and accepted and not necessarily and indication that the individual could potentially radicalize.

Because social-democracy has no major tradition or foothold in the US, it is pretty easy to convince social-democrats to become revolutionaries.

[mel]

Because social-democracy has no major tradition or foothold in the US, it is pretty easy to convince social-democrats to become revolutionaries.

This might be what's getting me too. I'm in the US and almost nobody here even has social democratic leanings. I started out my journey into leftist politics as a sort of social democrat (at least a reformist socialist) but as my understanding of revolution matured, my politics began to change.

A social democrat is often just a small push from becoming a revolutionary ally, which is why I hate to see them leave the forum.

[anticap]

I agree with previous comrades. The most radical voice in US politics is Senator Bernie "social democrat" Sanders. After that we've got the nominally center-left "progressive" Dennis Kucinich. That's the situation. That's what politically-minded people in the US are exposed to as representative of "the Left," and it's painted as unfathomably radical. So I think leeway is warranted for anyone with anti-capitalist tendencies. They can be brought into the fold, but first they've got to be exposed to something more radical than emailing their congressperson with a request to support universal health care.

[Yehuda Stern]

A lot of people here share a common misconception that being a social-democrat or some sort of reformist is a step on the way to become a revolutionary. That is false. Social-democracy's role is to keep workers on a lower level of consciousness, and thus blocks the development of their consciousness rather than aid it.

In fact, this logic is what underlies many groups demand for a broad reformist workers party as a step towards a revolutionary party, or support for such parties where they exist. However, to quote Trotsky,


A long period of confusion in the Comintern led many people to forget a very simple but absolutely irrevocable principle that a Marxist, a proletarian revolutionist, cannot present himself before the working class with two banners. He cannot say at a workers meeting: I have tickets for a first class party and other tickets cheaper for the stupid ones. If I am a Communist I must fight for the Communist Party.

[mel]

A lot of people here share a common misconception that being a social-democrat or some sort of reformist is a step on the way to become a revolutionary. That is false. Social-democracy's role is to keep workers on a lower level of consciousness, and thus blocks the development of their consciousness rather than aid it

You seem to conflate a person who believes they are a social democrat with social democracy the institution here. A "social democrat" is not a worker whose level of consciousness has been stunted, and I know because I have seen it happen myself, and that it happened to me, that people, especially in the United States who have little to no exposure to social democracy, can be swayed relatively easily through logical argument to take a more revolutionary position.

These are people who, usually out of ignorance of revolutionary options have decided that they are "social democrats". Sometimes all it takes is a little examination of their beliefs for a social democrat (especially, as I said, one who comes from an area with no strong social democratic voice) to become a revolutionary. It's not a stepping stone, and not all social democrats can be swayed this way. Those who are firm in their opinions or come from areas where there is a bit more knowledge of revolutionary options probably cannot, but I think a lot of people here were probably liberals before they were communists or anarchists, and probably went through a period where they believed that a little grease on the wheels of capitalism and a welfare state would make things better. Granted that wouldn't be true for all of us, as I'm sure some had revolutionary parents, and others came from areas where revolutionary opinions are more accessible, but the political journey is a complex one and who believed social democracy was the answer yesterday might be a revolutionary ally tomorrow, if we give them the chance to learn.

[h9socialist]

Okay -- let's get things straightened out here. First, Lenin was a member of the "Russian Social Democratic Labor Party," and the bolsheviks and mensheviks were factions of that party -- the bolsheviks later triumphed and the result was the CPSU. But the fact that Lenin was a social democrat in party affliation says nothing about where we would categorize his ideas today. As to the fine distinction between social democracy, socialism and revolution, it is best to point out that there is very little hope at all for a revolution in the U.S. in the same sense as the Soviet Union or Cuba. I consider myself a revolutionist in the same sense as Gandhi was a revolutionist. Moreover, even Che said that as long as the people gave legitimacy to the electoral system, the possibilities of peaceful struggle were not exhausteed, and conditions were not ripe for armed struggle. In that sense I believe that all parts of the "greater Left" have a role to play -- albeit some parts of the "greater Left" are programmatically deficient. The most basic precept of Marxian thought is that the people make history -- not simply the elite. In that sense the Left needs to be broad and diverse enough to bring in many various factions and ideas. Socialism is a means not an end. It is not the end of history, only the beginning of a new history.:closedeyes:

[mel]

You are the asshole, you are the idiot...
Just shut the fuck up....

Harsh words. Glad they weren't directed at me or I might've had to cry :crying:

[teenagebricks]

I consider myself to have many social democratic tendancies, I don't see it as capitalist or reformist. Social democrats have many valid ideas, and traditional social democrats are a lot more revolutionary than many people who post here, anyone who denies that is just elitist.

[Revy]

Hi,
I don't consider myself a revolutionary, but I do think that I'm 'on the left'. Can social democrats participate in RevLeft, or are we not far enough to the left?

Social democrats, in the contemporary sense, can post in Opposite Ideologies.



p.s. IMO it will take a near revolution to get the United States to be more like say Sweden, so I really think I should be allowed here...What is a "near revolution"? Sweden is not that radical of a country. Yes, their right-wing politicians there would probably be shouted down as "socialists" here. But that's only because the US is so much more right-wing than Sweden, not because Sweden = paradise.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

A lot of people here share a common misconception that being a social-democrat or some sort of reformist is a step on the way to become a revolutionary. That is false. Social-democracy's role is to keep workers on a lower level of consciousness, and thus blocks the development of their consciousness rather than aid it.

Y'know, I could say exactly the same thing about Leninists. It's a shame if that Goldstein person's actually gone, since I'm sure they could've contributed something useful.

[F9]

Social Democrats are restricted in OI.End of story!Thats not what the "bad anarkkists":rolleyes: have decided but the whole CC.Social democratism is reformist so its restricted.
The OP seems to be gone, so im closing this thread now.
Closed

Fuserg9:star: