Good Social Democracy websites [Archive]

ahhh_money_is_comfort

6th June 2005, 00:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:05 AM
I'm not into killing my neighbour because he has a nice car, so where do I find a good website for Social Democrats.
I don't see the point about worring about who has a nice car too in communism. We will all have nice cars. It is a fact. Communism will produce an over production of goods. Since people will gravitate towards work they like, they will produce more goods at thier jobs. It is a fact, thus we will all have nice cars. The factory workers gravitating towards BMW and Lexus will be soooooo good at making cars they will just make cars like rabbits make bunnies.

Or

No one is going to like making cars because that kind of work sucks.

CrazyModerate

6th June 2005, 22:19

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 5 2005, 11:58 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 5 2005, 11:58 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 05:05 AM
I'm not into killing my neighbour because he has a nice car, so where do I find a good website for Social Democrats.
I don't see the point about worring about who has a nice car too in communism. We will all have nice cars. It is a fact. Communism will produce an over production of goods. Since people will gravitate towards work they like, they will produce more goods at thier jobs. It is a fact, thus we will all have nice cars. The factory workers gravitating towards BMW and Lexus will be soooooo good at making cars they will just make cars like rabbits make bunnies.

Or

No one is going to like making cars because that kind of work sucks. [/b]
Or you could actually contribute to what the thread asked for.

resisting arrest with violence

6th June 2005, 22:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:05 AM
I'm not into killing my neighbour because he has a nice car, so where do I find a good website for Social Democrats.
Join the army you reactionary prick!

Frederick_Engles

6th June 2005, 22:26

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 5 2005, 11:58 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 5 2005, 11:58 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 05:05 AM
I'm not into killing my neighbour because he has a nice car, so where do I find a good website for Social Democrats.
I don't see the point about worring about who has a nice car too in communism. We will all have nice cars. It is a fact. Communism will produce an over production of goods. Since people will gravitate towards work they like, they will produce more goods at thier jobs. It is a fact, thus we will all have nice cars. The factory workers gravitating towards BMW and Lexus will be soooooo good at making cars they will just make cars like rabbits make bunnies.

Or

No one is going to like making cars because that kind of work sucks. [/b]
really? I thought under communism the workers wouldn't need cars, as there would be a clean, free mass-transit system. That's my vision any way.

Severian

6th June 2005, 23:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:05 PM
I'm not into killing my neighbour because he has a nice car, so where do I find a good website for Social Democrats.
Trolling much? If you're not interested in seriously discussing with us, then you should leave. I don't much care where you go, either.

ÑóẊîöŉ

6th June 2005, 23:58

Social Democracy is the suck.

Plus it's full of bourgeouis collaborators.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

7th June 2005, 01:49

Originally posted by Frederick_Engles+Jun 6 2005, 10:26 PM--> (Frederick_Engles @ Jun 6 2005, 10:26 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:58 PM

[email protected] 5 2005, 05:05 AM
I'm not into killing my neighbour because he has a nice car, so where do I find a good website for Social Democrats.
I don't see the point about worring about who has a nice car too in communism. We will all have nice cars. It is a fact. Communism will produce an over production of goods. Since people will gravitate towards work they like, they will produce more goods at thier jobs. It is a fact, thus we will all have nice cars. The factory workers gravitating towards BMW and Lexus will be soooooo good at making cars they will just make cars like rabbits make bunnies.

Or

No one is going to like making cars because that kind of work sucks.
really? I thought under communism the workers wouldn't need cars, as there would be a clean, free mass-transit system. That's my vision any way. [/b]
Is mass transit ever 'clean'? Why would I do something so inconvenient as public transport when I can drive directly to my destination. Since there is an over production there will be cars for everyone. Need cars? That is a moot question. You and I know that they WANT cars. Why should the protelariat be denied cars when they want them and there is over production, seems to me your just being a Stalinist denying the protelariat what they want when the system can easily give them the production they want.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

7th June 2005, 01:52

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Jun 6 2005, 10:19 PM--> (CrazyModerate @ Jun 6 2005, 10:19 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:58 PM

[email protected] 5 2005, 05:05 AM
I'm not into killing my neighbour because he has a nice car, so where do I find a good website for Social Democrats.
I don't see the point about worring about who has a nice car too in communism. We will all have nice cars. It is a fact. Communism will produce an over production of goods. Since people will gravitate towards work they like, they will produce more goods at thier jobs. It is a fact, thus we will all have nice cars. The factory workers gravitating towards BMW and Lexus will be soooooo good at making cars they will just make cars like rabbits make bunnies.

Or

No one is going to like making cars because that kind of work sucks.
Or you could actually contribute to what the thread asked for. [/b]
You need to drop your bougousie attitude of envy just because someone else has a nice car. We are all going to have nice cars with lots of horse power, leather seating, and sun roofs; these products will be over produced. Communism says so, so that is what is going to happen.

Monty Cantsin

7th June 2005, 13:17

I think you should look for democratic socialism, rather then social democracy.

Sir Aunty Christ

7th June 2005, 13:25

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 7 2005, 12:17 PM
I think you should look for democratic socialism, rather then social democracy.
Sorry, did I just her someone making an attempt to answer the question? Fair play Monty.

Monty Cantsin

7th June 2005, 14:25

Originally posted by Sir Aunty Christ+Jun 7 2005, 12:25 PM--> (Sir Aunty Christ @ Jun 7 2005, 12:25 PM)
Monty [email protected] 7 2005, 12:17 PM
I think you should look for democratic socialism, rather then social democracy.
Sorry, did I just her someone making an attempt to answer the question? Fair play Monty. [/b]
well though social democracy has it's roots historically rooted in "marxism' it's reactionary today because it's no longer anti-capitalists, so why would we help somone opposed to us? but i think he/she means what we now call democratic socialism which is non-revolutionary anti-capitalism.

Monty Cantsin

7th June 2005, 14:50

by non-revolutionary i mean useing pacsfists means so i've really just contridicted myself because revolution doesnt rule out non-violence but it's unlikely.

Frederick_Engles

7th June 2005, 16:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:49 AM
[QUOTE=CrazyModerate,Jun 5 2005, 05:05 AM] I'm not into
Is mass transit ever 'clean'? Why would I do something so inconvenient as public transport when I can drive directly to my destination. Since there is an over production there will be cars for everyone. Need cars? That is a moot question. You and I know that they WANT cars. Why should the protelariat be denied cars when they want them and there is over production, seems to me your just being a Stalinist denying the protelariat what they want when the system can easily give them the production they want.
yes, mass transit can be clean, public transport is only shitty becuase of an almost complete lack of funding, and pritisation. People probably don't really want cars, not if they can walk, or catch something that doesn't have shit on the seats.

YKTMX

7th June 2005, 17:07

Try:

http://www.betrayal.org
http://www.votecompromise.com
http://www.spineless.net

I'm sure they'll keep you occupied. :lol:

CrazyModerate

8th June 2005, 00:07

ÑóẊîöŉ

8th June 2005, 00:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:07 PM
Have fun sitting at your computers yelling "La Revoultion!" at your screen while the world is being controlled by reactionaries because you are waiting for some revolution to start. Maybe you should go salute a picture of Mao or something.
No thanks, unlike you we don't like fellating bourgeouis cock.

kurt

8th June 2005, 00:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:07 PM
Have fun sitting at your computers yelling "La Revoultion!" at your screen while the world is being controlled by reactionaries because you are waiting for some revolution to start. Maybe you should go salute a picture of Mao or something.
Have fun working with reactionaries, and eventually being restricted to OI :)

CrazyModerate

8th June 2005, 00:23

Honestly, this closed minded attitude on how to defeat reacionaries and capitalists has gotten us sooooooooooooooooooooo far. Oh wait, not it hasn't. The worst reactionaries are in power right now, because the left is divided. If you guys would chill and try to work with other lefists, maybe Bush wouldn't be in power.

And although you guys consider Nader a Jackboot wearing, racist, nazi pig, he would be a lot better than Bush or Kerry. A lot. And if the left worked together and used it's head, he could win an election.

cormacobear

8th June 2005, 01:21

I think they may be being a little hard on you, but i'm sure you won't find many sites like you're looking for on this forum. If all our members were loud mothed jerks then i'm sure no one would stay here. I know of a few Canadian sites if you're interested, but nothing from the states that falls between the democrats, and the communists.

Hopefully you will consider democratic socialism, because if we leave the capitalist private ownership system in place, we are only allowing the whole cycle of repression to re-occur in a few generations time.

PM me if you're interested in those Canadian sites.

CrazyModerate

8th June 2005, 01:43

Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.95
<_< I'm such a reacionary...

I am sorry for my assanine attempts to provoke personal attacks. I think people like money_is_comfort are no better than Hitler. I am open to social democracy, socialist democracy, and revolutionary socialism. It might require extra work for the individuals who attemp it, but working in the lines of both democratic proccess and revolutionary proccess, and being united against the right is better than petty bickering.

The right seems so united now, they have turned a "Labour" party to the far right. The left also needs to be united.

Monty Cantsin

8th June 2005, 04:44

the thing that the right has over the left is that they support capitalism and thats all they need to unite against us...where as some on the left support capitalism and others dont, and we have different positive visions from post-capitalists society but if you havnt noticed we still work together quite a bit.

CrazyModerate

8th June 2005, 05:00

I dont support capitalism though.

Alright, are you saying there should be no change if capitalism isn't removed immediately? Those who might support Capitalism also support social programs and anti-reactionary policies. Why can't you accept that for now, especially if the only current alternative is the current reactionary control over the earth.

Unless a worldwide revoultion is going to take place and complete itself within the next ten years, until that time comes the democratic process should be used to get some concessions.

Ok, just answer this: Do you think no concessions is better than some concessions? Because, if the democratic left is not supported, there will be no concessions, and the reactionaries have complete control. See, I am pleased with existing social programs, even if I am not completely satisfied.

kurt

8th June 2005, 06:05

Have fun sitting at your computers yelling "La Revoultion!" at your screen while the world is being controlled by reactionaries because you are waiting for some revolution to start. Maybe you should go salute a picture of Mao or something.

Frankly, your ignorance and random insults are really becoming tiresome. You claim to be open to the idea of revolutionary socialism, yet you seem to be dishing out major insults to people for no apparent reason. There is a reason many of us are against social democracy.

Go ahead and try to bring about socialism through parliament; heck, I'd even vote for you if you had a decent platform, but I certainly won't be expecting you to make any REAL progress.

CrazyModerate

8th June 2005, 06:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:05 AM

Have fun sitting at your computers yelling "La Revoultion!" at your screen while the world is being controlled by reactionaries because you are waiting for some revolution to start. Maybe you should go salute a picture of Mao or something.

Frankly, your ignorance and random insults are really becoming tiresome. You claim to be open to the idea of revolutionary socialism, yet you seem to be dishing out major insults to people for no apparent reason. There is a reason many of us are against social democracy.

Go ahead and try to bring about socialism through parliament; heck, I'd even vote for you if you had a decent platform, but I certainly won't be expecting you to make any REAL progress.
What has been achieved in the USA, Canada, or Western Europe through a leftist revolution?

Black Dagger

8th June 2005, 11:12

What has been achieved in the USA, Canada, or Western Europe through a leftist revolution?

Nothing yet, what's your point?

CrazyModerate

8th June 2005, 20:33

Well, I like my nation's universal healthcare system, and I know that was achieved through demoracy.

RedSkinheadUltra

8th June 2005, 21:15

CrazyModerate, all welfare states and social democracies from Sweden to Germany have betrayed the people who got them in power by slashing the social safety net and embracing right-wing free-market policies (deregulation and privatization.)

If you want to know why it is a failure study the "pink-green," SPD/Green Party government in Germany. It faced massive protests and is now losing ground to right-wing parties.

Frederick_Engles

9th June 2005, 00:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:33 PM
Well, I like my nation's universal healthcare system, and I know that was achieved through demoracy.
Assuming you are British, the NHS was set up by the Labour party, who at the time were very left wing, and a legitimate party. While the labour party was being founded however, in the early 20th century, the meetings and rallies were attacked unsucessfully by right-wing thugs, as the ruling class didn't want the workers to have any kind of voice in parliament. Thus, this universal health care that you speak of was only acheived through "democracy" becuase the ruling class saw that popular support was too large.

CrazyModerate

9th June 2005, 02:26

Originally posted by Frederick_Engles+Jun 8 2005, 11:13 PM--> (Frederick_Engles @ Jun 8 2005, 11:13 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 07:33 PM
Well, I like my nation's universal healthcare system, and I know that was achieved through demoracy.
Assuming you are British, the NHS was set up by the Labour party, who at the time were very left wing, and a legitimate party. While the labour party was being founded however, in the early 20th century, the meetings and rallies were attacked unsucessfully by right-wing thugs, as the ruling class didn't want the workers to have any kind of voice in parliament. Thus, this universal health care that you speak of was only acheived through "democracy" becuase the ruling class saw that popular support was too large. [/b]
Im Canadian. I like the NDP. And I understand how the British Labour Party and the German equivalent have become capitalist, using the "third way." ANd I don't support that.

I like the Canadian NDP, which has never held power at the federal level, and has never betrayed the Canadian people. The NDP has had good and bad leaders.

I obviously don't support the bad leaders, such as the now libertarian who failed in Ontario. But I do support the likes of Tommy Douglas and JS Woodsworth, who truly helped the poor where they could. Like I said, Canada has only been lead by the COnservative Party and the Liberal Party.

There is a reason I posted this in opposing ideologies, I know that these ideas don't fall in line with the revolutionary left.

codyvo

9th June 2005, 02:45

Crazy Moderate, they might call me a fascist pig that kills jewish lesbians for fun, but I agree with you. I think that Democratic Socialism is the best way to get something done here in america, even though I know you are in Canada. Violent revolution will only lead to the death of many leftists. This doesn't mean I will count out the idea of violent revolution if ity is the last possible method.

Those of you who say social democrats or democratic socialists are anti-revolutionary are quite similar to Bush in that ideology. Bush said that you are either with me or against me, and it sound like some of you have the same hate for the "fence-sitters."

To answer the question, no I don't know any sites for that, but SOME of the people on revleft are very open-minded and will listen to you and will not try to kick you off this site.

Black Dagger

9th June 2005, 09:06

Violent revolution will only lead to the death of many leftists.

And potentially the death of capitalism, of class, and the exploitation of human by human. 'Democratic socialism' will see the death of none of those things.

Those of you who say social democrats or democratic socialists are anti-revolutionary are quite similar to Bush in that ideology. Bush said that you are either with me or against me, and it sound like some of you have the same hate for the "fence-sitters."

'social democrats' aren't 'fence-sitters', being a 'social democrat' is as much an ideological position as being a freemarketeer, or a maoist. Genuine communists oppose social democrats not because they are sitting on 'the fence', which they're not, but because they are anti-revolutionary- they oppose revolution (and in many cases 'violence'), and support a system of 'humane' capitalism- which maintains class division, wage slavery and thus exploitation. That is why they are opposed and that is why they are considered 'anti-revolutionary'- because they support capitalism and oppose revolution.

Professor Moneybags

9th June 2005, 16:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:26 AM
And I understand how the British Labour Party and the German equivalent have become capitalist, using the "third way."
They did that to make themselves electable.

The Grapes of Wrath

13th June 2005, 05:18

Crazy Moderate, they might call me a fascist pig that kills jewish lesbians for fun, but I agree with you. I think that Democratic Socialism is the best way to get something done here in america, even though I know you are in Canada. Violent revolution will only lead to the death of many leftists. This doesn't mean I will count out the idea of violent revolution if ity is the last possible method.

Shit, I'm with ya. Not so much from how I wish things to be but more based off of how realistic things are. Idealism cannot take the place of realism, no matter how much we want it too. I'm a "crazy moderate" as well. Forced that way through necessity and realism rather than wish.

... but then again I am a fence-sitter, so what do I know (I hope your sarcasm meter went off a few times there).

TGOW

codyvo

13th June 2005, 06:28

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 9 2005, 08:06 AM

'social democrats' aren't 'fence-sitters', being a 'social democrat' is as much an ideological position as being a freemarketeer, or a maoist. Genuine communists oppose social democrats not because they are sitting on 'the fence', which they're not, but because they are anti-revolutionary- they oppose revolution (and in many cases 'violence'), and support a system of 'humane' capitalism- which maintains class division, wage slavery and thus exploitation. That is why they are opposed and that is why they are considered 'anti-revolutionary'- because they support capitalism and oppose revolution.
You said that social democrats are fence sitters and you said that social democrats are not fence sitters, make up your mind, you fence sitter.

TGOW: Yes, I was kidding, trying to emphasize how some people on here way over react to everything and immediately compare it to Hitler.

cormacobear

13th June 2005, 08:32

here are some sites I keep an eye on.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm

http://www.statcan.ca/start.html

http://www.paecon.net/

http://www.resisters.ca/index.html

http://www.connect.ab.ca/~plawiuk/redmonton.html

http://edmonton.activist.ca/

www.ndp.ca

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-links.asp...sCategory=party (http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-links.asp?linksCategory=party)

Elect Marx

13th June 2005, 11:23

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Jun 7 2005, 06:43 PM--> (CrazyModerate @ Jun 7 2005, 06:43 PM)I am sorry for my assanine attempts to provoke personal attacks.[/b]
Good to hear; to be honest, I was starting to get rather pissed off.
I see sectarianism farther to the left often enough and seeing it in other places is another level of annoyance... I was so gonna rip on you :lol:

Okay; so lets all try to be respectful here.

I think people like money_is_comfort are no better than Hitler.

Wow; quite a statement but to be fair, he is likely allowing a great deal of suffering, if not greatly facilitating it. Can you really measure the "suffering level" anyway? Though Hitler probably had a hand in killing and depriving more people, so I'd have to say Hitler was likely a worse guy.
I also would put more blame on Hitler but who is to say what either of these guys could have accomplished without reactionary worldviews... you can't even really speculate.

I am open to social democracy, socialist democracy, and revolutionary socialism.

I am glad to see this and I will make no secret that I am of the far-left persuasion or as the cappies here might call me, an extremist :o Oh no! I don't know what that is; be afraid!

It might require extra work for the individuals who attemp it, but working in the lines of both democratic proccess and revolutionary proccess, and being united against the right is better than petty bickering.

Well, actually I couldn't agree with you more. I am what you might call an anti-ultra leftist. We will NEVER get anywhere by basically helping the people in power divide us; we need to be done with sectarianism and not run people off that are interested in learning. You are a liberal...blah blah blah; the right doesn't waste the majority of it's time fighting itself and that is why their strategy is working. I say people calling themselves leftists need to start working for leftist causes rather than basically helping the right though the divide and conquer method. It really doesn't even matter if you are "correct" in your theory/practice; if you don't build a movement, your cause is doomed.

The right seems so united now, they have turned a "Labour" party to the far right. The left also needs to be united.

I'm with you there and so are people scattered across this board.
I advise you to soak up some of the theory around here and keep struggling to improve social conditions. If you have questions; there is a good chance I could answer them or at least know where to point you on the board and welcome to RL, BTW :hammer:

[email protected] 6 2005, 04:58 PM
Social Democracy is the suck.

Plus it's full of bourgeouis collaborators.

Hey! That is my line :P

Black Dagger

13th June 2005, 18:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:28 PM
You said that social democrats are fence sitters and you said that social democrats are not fence sitters, make up your mind, you fence sitter.

No, i didnt.

"'social democrats' aren't 'fence-sitters'"

and

"Genuine communists oppose social democrats not because they are sitting on 'the fence', which they're not, but because they are anti-revolutionary".

Elect Marx

13th June 2005, 19:37

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jun 13 2005, 11:26 AM--> (Black Dagger @ Jun 13 2005, 11:26 AM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 03:28 PM
You said that social democrats are fence sitters and you said that social democrats are not fence sitters, make up your mind, you fence sitter.

No, i didnt.

"'social democrats' aren't 'fence-sitters'"

and

"Genuine communists oppose social democrats not because they are sitting on 'the fence', which they're not, but because they are anti-revolutionary".[/b]

It would seem we haves some very different definitions of "social democrat" on this thread, so we might want to get CrazyModerate's definition before putting any words into his mouth.

CrazyModerate

14th June 2005, 01:39

I am not anti revolutionary, but I don't think I belong.

I didn't quite realise what I was getting into at first, but now I do.

This is what I think, and I am probably going to get restricted for saying it. The industrialized first world doesn't need a revolution, as the vast majority of the population in the USA, Canada, Western Europe, and Pacific Rim live comfortable lives where they have a relatively good oppurtunity to become wealthy.

In the case of the much smaller lower classes, and the lack of equal oppurtunity, the NDP, the social democractic party I support, is dedicated to closing the gap, and eliminating poverty.

As far the rest, and therefore most of the world goes, I am for whatever route it takes to allow them to also live a comfortable life. And, the NDP, which I support, is also for eliminating third world debt, and asking Canada to make sacrifices in order to help the people of poor nations escape poverty.

I am completely for justice for the lower classes, but I don't think we need to attack everybody who is not in the lower class to achieve relative equality

I would not be surprised, nor would I mind being restricted for what I just said, becuase it is generally not in the exact same position as Marxism, and the revolutionary left.

Sir Aunty Christ

14th June 2005, 09:08

The industrialized first world doesn't need a revolution, as the vast majority of the population in the USA, Canada, Western Europe, and Pacific Rim live comfortable lives where they have a relatively good oppurtunity to become wealthy.

All the more need for a revolution. Capitalism is so ingrained in the psyche of these countries that Capitalism is "safe" and people like what is safe. What the majority of people need is a change of mindset. Only then will people see that capitalism is not "safe" and the revolution will be truly successful.