Would anyone here settle for social democracy?

[AlexJohnson]

What's your opinion on the social democracy coming from regions like Scandinavia? Scandinavia year after year ranks in the tops spots for Quality-of-Life rankings put out by the UN and the Economist.

I used to be fairly marxist, but in social democracy, I see a system of government that can realistically be achieved in our lifetimes, and without any of that authoritarian leftism bullshit.

[Rawthentic]

No, I wouldnt settle for social democracy because its still capitalist, no matter what kind of topping you put on it.


and without any of that authoritarian leftism bullshit.

Thats Leninism and the Old Left.

[Xiao Banfa]

Scandinavian countries are labour-aristocratic and imperialist , they also happen to have a bit of oil.

Believe me mate, if the Scandinavian ruling classes were ever in the shit, their proletariats would be the first to cop it.

[Xiao Banfa]

Leninism is the only revolutionary doctrine that has ever achieved anything concrete for the proletariat in terms of state power.

You are inviting defeat without it.

Social democracy is a hopeless blind alley that fails the working class because it does not deliver socialism and state power stays in the hand of the bourgeoisie.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:05 PM
What's your opinion on the social democracy coming from regions like Scandinavia? Scandinavia year after year ranks in the tops spots for Quality-of-Life rankings put out by the UN and the Economist.

I used to be fairly marxist, but in social democracy, I see a system of government that can realistically be achieved in our lifetimes, and without any of that authoritarian leftism bullshit.
I wouldnt settle for the bastard child of capitalism because there is still the capitalist element. in Scandinavia there are still horribly poor and terribly rich, there is still inequality of race and of gender. Social democracy may look good to the nieve and The Economist, but to anyone who really looks at it, and puts thought into it, its capitalism with a happy face.




Leninism is the only revolutionary doctrine that has ever achieved anything concrete for the proletariat in terms of state power.

Exactly! And thats the problem with it. Leninism creates a strong state and for anyone who doesnt want to hang on to the coat tails and follow orders (yes sir Lenin sir) they get left in the dust with a bullet in the head.

[Comrade Phil]

Leninism is the only revolutionary doctrine that has ever achieved anything concrete for the proletariat in terms of state power.

...but then shifted this state power to party bureaucrats resulting in degenerated worker states.

Just because other Communist doctrines have never achieved the vast influence of Leninist doctrines, one cannot dismiss them as inferior or flawed. If any doctrine could be denouced as flawed, it is Leninism. The proletariat revolutions which have followed Leninism or variant of Leninism have all failed to maintain proletariat dictatorship. I'm not saying that Leninism is definitely flawed, particularily when considering the material conditions where these revolutions took place and the imperialist/fascist counter-revolutionary actions. However, I don't think Leninism should be thought of as the only or even the best means to achieve Communism.

[Morag]

Speaking of social democracy...

I wouldn't be satisfied, no, because workers are still exploited and still victims of a market economy. Sure, they have better wages, but those wages are instable. Social democracy also takes the bite out of the working class, which is a terrible position for a communist to be placed in. Is it better for workers to have better lives now, or to continue hyper-exploitation because it will foment revolution. Just taking a position on this is painful to quite a few.

Social democracy has it's good side, and I am a member of a social democratic party, but my goals in that party (and the goals of many other members), are not to actually have a social democratic country (although, I live in canada, so...). The downside is that workers are still exploited and oppressed, people are unequal and no one but the capitalists have everything they need.

[Marukusu]

I live in Sweden, which happens to be a social democratic nation placed in Scandinavia. And I am definately not satisfied. Why?

Because, as practically everyone here on the thread already have stated, the working class are still being exploited by the capitalists and because social democracy, despite what all the politicians say, will never lead to communism. Revolution, not reform, are the way to go.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2006, 04:01 AM

Leninism is the only revolutionary doctrine that has ever achieved anything concrete for the proletariat in terms of state power.

...but then shifted this state power to party bureaucrats resulting in degenerated worker states.

Just because other Communist doctrines have never achieved the vast influence of Leninist doctrines, one cannot dismiss them as inferior or flawed. If any doctrine could be denouced as flawed, it is Leninism. The proletariat revolutions which have followed Leninism or variant of Leninism have all failed to maintain proletariat dictatorship. I'm not saying that Leninism is definitely flawed, particularily when considering the material conditions where these revolutions took place and the imperialist/fascist counter-revolutionary actions. However, I don't think Leninism should be thought of as the only or even the best means to achieve Communism.
How long would a council communist or anarchist revolution last in Russia? Can someone answer that riddle?

[Phugebrins]

Come on, we don't need leninist/anarchist sectarianism on this thread.

There's another problem - western social democracy is in part fuelled by exploitation of poorer coutries. Looking at it globally, social democracy in Europe seems rather like a regressive tax.

[MrDoom]

No. Communism or death.

[matiasm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 02:05 AM
What's your opinion on the social democracy coming from regions like Scandinavia? Scandinavia year after year ranks in the tops spots for Quality-of-Life rankings put out by the UN and the Economist.

I used to be fairly marxist, but in social democracy, I see a system of government that can realistically be achieved in our lifetimes, and without any of that authoritarian leftism bullshit.
tell me what difference do you see from social democracy (in scandanavian countries) and that of US-imperialist democracy?? Does it not share that same flavour, antagonism, that element which allows the capitalist class to own state power through economic pressure, etc...

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What's your opinion on the social democracy coming from regions like Scandinavia? Scandinavia year after year ranks in the tops spots for Quality-of-Life rankings put out by the UN and the Economist.

I used to be fairly marxist, but in social democracy, I see a system of government that can realistically be achieved in our lifetimes, and without any of that authoritarian leftism bullshit.

Social democracy still is controlled by the capitalist class.

Therefore, when profits are in decline, they are able to reduce the welfare system in order to cope with the crisis.

Giving workers the control over the economy would be giving them a real democracy, and social democracy falls really short of that.

[Phugebrins]

"Therefore, when profits are in decline, they are able to reduce the welfare system in order to cope with the crisis. "
That's a good point. In times of plenty, there are fewer who fall into hardship. In times of crisis, when it's needed most, the safety net is whisked away.

[Jamal]

Come on guys, its not that bad, it is still capitalism and exploiting the working class and all, but it is much better than the American system and others like it

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What's your opinion on the social democracy coming from regions like Scandinavia?

I live in Scandinavia. And I can tell you "social democracy" is crap.



Why should it be "good"?

We don't have free education. We don't have free healthcare. The corporations own the nation. It's capitalism.

They say "Norway is rich". That is false. Who is rich? The.... you guessed it, Rich.

The whole notion of "the great, peaceful scandinavia" is a lie. Norway is one of the largest arms sellers in the world. Per capita we are on the top ten list, I believe.

Norway's military equipment have contributed to the deaths/killings of thousands of Palestinians, Iraqis. Norway supplied GB with radars that were completely vital for the British/"Coalition". These radars "located enemy targets".


Scandinavia year after year ranks in the tops spots for Quality-of-Life rankings put out by the UN and the Economist.
And yet people in Scandinavia live in poverty.


Don't fall into the lies and myths of Scandinavia

[rouchambeau]

Come on guys, its not that bad, it is still capitalism and exploiting the working class and all, but it is much better than the American system and others like it

Don't be naive. Those are not the only options.

[Phugebrins]

"it is much better than the American system"
I'd say that yes, it's a slightly better variation of the US system, but that doesn't negate the fact that the essential problems of capitalism are still predominant. Saying 'Scandinavia's economy is fairer than that of the US' doesn't get us anywhere, just as saying 'the US is more democratic than Chad' isn't much to boast about. The real question is 'what *should* things be like, and in what ways does our society fail to reach its potential'.

[Lings]

Social democracy is nothing other than the result of the defeat of socialism and the working class in a region were socialist ideas and the working class at some point was strong and organized.
Its an anti-rebellion ideology made to make capitalism survive revolutionary crisis, its shit and should be treated as shit.

[EwokUtopia]

I wouldnt settle for it, but I would use it as a stepping stone for a peaceful transition into true Democratic Socialism, in every essence of the words Demos Kratia. I live in Canada, where Conservative Jackasses under Steven Harper have turned my country from a more progressive less war-mongering capitalist country into a neo-conservative clone of America. There is a huge difference between Bad capitalism and Worse Capitalism, and I would take the bad over the worse in a second if I could. Of course I am not saying lets settle for it, but the revolution is not going to happen by next Tuesday, but thousands upon thousands of the working poor will starve and millions more will be shorthanded by next tuesday. I would gladly take a more reasonable, more responsible form of capitalism now, and work for our goals when the time is right, than just let the biggest dicks capitalism has to offer fuck the world up because we're too busy waiting for the revolution.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 12:00 PM
Social democracy is nothing other than the result of the defeat of socialism and the working class in a region were socialist ideas and the working class at some point was strong and organized.
Its an anti-rebellion ideology made to make capitalism survive revolutionary crisis...
In the u.s., there is a weak form of social democracy that has been under continuous assault from day-one by the ruling class (it is not quantitatively comparable to what is seen in much of western europe). It has been seriously damaged in particular over the past 15 years or so. These "social democratic" programs include, or has included in the past, things like: social security, which provides basic stipends during retirement; medicaid, which provides rudimentary healthcare for the impoverished; medicare, which provides healthcare for retirees; housing vouchers, for people who cannot find affordable housing; foodstamps; and so on.

These social welfare programs did not arise out of the "inherent goodness" of the ruling class. :lol: They were a product of mass struggles: primarily those of workers and the poor during the great depression in the thirties, and those of the Black civil rights and Black liberation movements during the sixties. These struggles were propelled significantly by the most exploited sectors of the proletariat and their concerns around the destructive impact of unfettered capitalism: unemployment and underemployment, homelessness, hunger, poverty, and the suffering of children, the aged, and the ill.

These movements constituted a serious threat to the power structure, particularly in the thirties. The bourgeoisie responded by implementing these social democratic measures in order to neutralize and dissipate those movements. The idea was that by ameliorating and minimizing some of the most onerous and immediate suffering caused by capitalism, the people would give up the struggle and capitalism as a whole would be saved.

Basically, that is what happened. Social democracy as it has existed in the u.s. is historically a product of mass struggle, which constitutes its foundation, but it is a simultaneously an arrest and neutralization of that struggle. It is therefore, in the long-run, a transitory, temporary, ephermeral thing. When the balance of power or relation of forces become advantageous -- which it ultimately will without a countervailing mass struggle -- the bourgeoisie will counterattack and attempt to remove the limited protections that a social democratic state offers working people.

Needless to say, that is exactly what happened in the u.s. It took many decades for the ruling class assaults to really reach critical mass. If we look at the rollback of those great society programs initiated under the johnson administration in the sixties, it took about a quarter century. If we look at the attacks on roosevelt's new deal programs, initiated in the thirties, it took about sixty years. Marx understood that in the long run the capitalist system must maximize its profits and intensify the extraction of surplus value from the proletariat. Even the minimal advantages offered to workers by the social democratic system is antithetical to that goal.

We can no longer be naive or unknowing about social democracy. It has been attempted and failed and is now an historical artifact. It tried to do something that capitalism structurally cannot do over the long-term. Why would we want to implement it again? So we can watch it fail again? :blink: As revolutionaries, our political work must certainly lead to reforms and intermediate demands. But we have to keep moving forward from that, to the overthrow of capitalism and the building of communism. If we don't, we're resigning ourselves to a perpetual, endless struggle against the bourgeoisie, one that we would not have the commitment and willpower to bring to end, but one which also can never be resolved or terminated by the false hopes of social democracy.

[Morag]

I don't think either position is wrong- that is, accepting social democracy for the short term, or rejecting it because it cuts the revolutionary tension of the class structure. For a lot of people, like I said earlier, it's a hard thing to determine- my opinion on it is half-hearted at best, because I grew up in Canada, too. I've seen discussion on it going back to the late 19th century, and the arguments haven't significantly changed.

But here's the thing: When I ws born, my dad was a miner, my mom stayed at home to look after us, and there were three kids. At that time, with his wage, my parents could feed, clothe and house us all, and saw no problem with doing so until we hit university, which they would be able to pay for. When I was four, to continue the arrangement, we had to move to a small, cheaper town, because the pay check didn't stretch anymore. My last day of kindergarten, my mom got a part-time job. By grade two, she needed a full-time job just to manage the things we had easily when I was born. By the time I was out of elementary school, my dad worked as a paramedic as well as a miner. My sisters needed part-time jobs to save for university. By the time they entered university, their savings weren't enough and they had to take out some loans. My savings didn't match my first years tuition, and I'm further in debt now then my parents were when they bought their first home. That's what social democracy has come to mean to me- the slow decline of the working class position. In the beginning, my mom was active politically and in her union- by now, she doesn't have the energy to attempt more then signing a few petitions. My sister was very active politically, but now with two kids and a mortgage and car payments, ect., she works overtime to pay bills instead of becoming active in her union like she'd wish to do. Social democracy is a good thing, but it isn't the glorious answer many believe it to be.

[rouchambeau]

I wouldnt settle for it, but I would use it as a stepping stone for a peaceful transition into true Democratic Socialism
Where do people keep getting the idea that Democratic Socialism is a stepping-stone to, or brings us any closer to a non-hierarchial society?

[norwegian commie]

I wont buy it, i will not.
It does nothing but fool the workers in a less hipocrtical society.

Norways livingstandards is caused by oil and armsdealing not the system.

[вор в законе]

Social democracy, just like fascism and laissez faire, are expressions of Capitalism. Each one of them serves one purpose: furthering the Capitalist system.

During the last years in the post Soviet era Social-Democracy, here in Europe, is responsible for the removal of most the welfare/social programs and it is generally easier for them to do this job, than the centre-rght governments*, because they act under the cover of 'socialism'.

*Who either way advocate laissez faire Capitalism and openly strive to end as many social programs they can. So when they are voted the removal of social programs is done without guilt since they were voted by the majority precisely for that job.

It is a cleverly set up system that required years to come into such equilibrium.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2006, 04:01 AM
...but then shifted this state power to party bureaucrats resulting in degenerated worker states.

Just because other Communist doctrines have never achieved the vast influence of Leninist doctrines, one cannot dismiss them as inferior or flawed. If any doctrine could be denouced as flawed, it is Leninism. The proletariat revolutions which have followed Leninism or variant of Leninism have all failed to maintain proletariat dictatorship. I'm not saying that Leninism is definitely flawed, particularily when considering the material conditions where these revolutions took place and the imperialist/fascist counter-revolutionary actions. However, I don't think Leninism should be thought of as the only or even the best means to achieve Communism.
Leninism is the ONLY means of reaching communism. The rest is utopian bullshizer. The reason there has never been a successful anarchist revolution is because it is impossible! anything resembling a revolution is crushed by trained reactionary forces due to the lack of organization. Anarchists claim they are organized, but it is impossible to organize a revolution, especially an armed revolution, without a chain of command. History proves it.

Sure, leninism is flawed and has it's problem but it has gotten further than any other ideology. No one would agree with leninism if they didn't think leninists had learned from the mistakes of the 20th century. The fact of the matter is that all leninism really is, is an extension of marxism which adds that workers and communists should organize into a democratic party. There is nothing wrong with that.

On topic though, social democracy is better than neo-conservatism, but I don't think I would settle for it.

[Taevus]

In short, no.

Long version: no way.

[AlexJohnson]

Okay, it seems that we all agree that Social Democracy is a step in the right direction from the u.s. system.

Can anyone tell me why making small steps in the right direction isn't a favorable path to follow?

Would anyone care to try an convince me how a revolution wouldn't just end up with an authoritarian psuedo-communist system?

[Taevus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:47 PM
Okay, it seems that we all agree that Social Democracy is a step in the right direction from the u.s. system.

Can anyone tell me why making small steps in the right direction isn't a favorable path to follow?

Would anyone care to try an convince me how a revolution wouldn't just end up with an authoritarian psuedo-communist system?

Social democracy, just like fascism and laissez faire, are expressions of Capitalism. Each one of them serves one purpose: furthering the Capitalist system.

During the last years in the post Soviet era Social-Democracy, here in Europe, is responsible for the removal of most the welfare/social programs and it is generally easier for them to do this job, than the centre-rght governments*, because they act under the cover of 'socialism'.

*Who either way advocate laissez faire Capitalism and openly strive to end as many social programs they can. So when they are voted the removal of social programs is done without guilt since they were voted by the majority precisely for that job.

It is a cleverly set up system that required years to come into such equilibrium.

[rouchambeau]

Leninism is the ONLY means of reaching communism.
Not only does history prove otherwise, but there hasn't been a single example of communism brought about by Leninism.

The reason there has never been a successful anarchist revolution is because it is impossible! anything resembling a revolution is crushed by trained reactionary forces due to the lack of organization.
The anarchists of Spain were doing quite well before the Republicans and Soviets co-opted the revolution and "organized" the anarchists into regular units.

Anarchists claim they are organized, but it is impossible to organize a revolution, especially an armed revolution, without a chain of command. History proves it.

Quite the opposite, history proves that a revolution does not need someone to say "ok, ready go!". Look to Spain, The American Revolution, The French Revolution, etc.

Sure, leninism is flawed and has it's problem but it has gotten further than any other ideology.
In creating communism, Leninism has a score of zero. However, non-hierarchial movements in Italy, Spain, Russia, former Palestine, etc. have been successful.

[AlexJohnson]

Originally posted by Taevus+Aug 29 2006, 10:52 PM--> (Taevus @ Aug 29 2006, 10:52 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 10:47 PM
Okay, it seems that we all agree that Social Democracy is a step in the right direction from the u.s. system.

Can anyone tell me why making small steps in the right direction isn't a favorable path to follow?

Would anyone care to try an convince me how a revolution wouldn't just end up with an authoritarian psuedo-communist system?

Social democracy, just like fascism and laissez faire, are expressions of Capitalism. Each one of them serves one purpose: furthering the Capitalist system.

During the last years in the post Soviet era Social-Democracy, here in Europe, is responsible for the removal of most the welfare/social programs and it is generally easier for them to do this job, than the centre-rght governments*, because they act under the cover of 'socialism'.

*Who either way advocate laissez faire Capitalism and openly strive to end as many social programs they can. So when they are voted the removal of social programs is done without guilt since they were voted by the majority precisely for that job.

It is a cleverly set up system that required years to come into such equilibrium. [/b]
How does a system were the government regulates business heavily in favor of the worker compared to the US further the capitalist system?

I'm fairly sure you won't deny it's a step in the right direction, so the only palpable reason you could have for disfavoring it is because the workers would be less inclined to revolt.

[Sabocat]

...If we settle for nothing now, we'll settle for nothing later.

[matiasm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:47 PM
Okay, it seems that we all agree that Social Democracy is a step in the right direction from the u.s. system.

kid what post replies have you been read? are we reading the same ones? que idiota!!!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 11:23 PM









Not only does history prove otherwise, but there hasn't been a single example of communism brought about by Leninism.

Aside from little communes, leninism has taken the most steps towards reaching communism.



The anarchists of Spain were doing quite well before the Republicans and Soviets co-opted the revolution and "organized" the anarchists into regular units.

Ah! of course! the Spanish Revolution. I don't see why anarchists see a failed revolution as such an accomplishment. If that's the best example of a revolution you can give me, than we're screwed. Besides even if it had been successful there is no evidence that anarchism as an ideology would have worked. Also, didn't trotskyists play a major role in the Spanish revolution?



Quite the opposite, history proves that a revolution does not need someone to say "ok, ready go!". Look to Spain, The American Revolution, The French Revolution, etc.

Spain failed, and the American and French revolutions were capitalist. Also the French and American revolutions don't serve as very good examples because the scenarios are extremly different than the scenarios of a modern day revolution would be.



In creating communism, Leninism has a score of zero. However, non-hierarchial movements in Italy, Spain, Russia, former Palestine, etc. have been successful.


But they have been successful in reaching socialism and who knows what they'd have accomplished without Stalin. Leninists have learned from the mistakes of the past and now concentrate on correcting them.

And how have non-hiarchial movements been successful? Obviously they haven't if the only thing you can point at is one failed revolution in the 30's.

[Tommy-K]

I wouldn't settle for it, but I would choose it over what we have now. It's better than nothing, but still not enough. Really it has to be all or nothing! Does that make me an extremist? I'm starting to sound like Margaret Thatcher :blink: only with polar opposite morals :P

[nightwatchman]

well I wouldn't settle for it but I think it would be a good first step towards becomeing a socialist country, just like how socialism is transitional stage towards communism. Also I think in the society we live in today, such a drastic change from capitalism to socialism, is too much for average people to handle. So I think we need to slowly but surely change from capitalism to socialism in order for people to get used to it.

[norwegian commie]

Not only does history prove otherwise, but there hasn't been a single example of communism brought about by Leninism.


Has any other examples been made?
Besides the primitive commuist societies, i cant see anyone.
In Communism you will need a global revolution. This we have not seen, hence no communism.


The anarchists of Spain were doing quite well before the Republicans and Soviets co-opted the revolution and "organized" the anarchists into regular units.

Sure thing


Quite the opposite, history proves that a revolution does not need someone to say "ok, ready go!". Look to Spain, The American Revolution, The French Revolution, etc.

If you mean by go: someone calling the shots than here; Cuba, Sovjet, China, Vietnam, Korea ect, ect.

I need something moore than a failed revolution to convince me that history says it.



In creating communism, Leninism has a score of zero. However, non-hierarchial movements in Italy, Spain, Russia, former Palestine, etc. have been successful. In creating communism?

[CheGregory]

You cannot have a revolution without spilling blood. Whether in warfare, or execution of the oppressors.

A revolution without firing a bullet, is doomed to die in its own waste of corruption and inefficency.

[AlexJohnson]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 02:51 PM
You cannot have a revolution without spilling blood. Whether in warfare, or execution of the oppressors.

A revolution without firing a bullet, is doomed to die in its own waste of corruption and inefficency.
Would you call what Ghandi accomplished short of a revolution?

[AlexJohnson]

Originally posted by matiasm+Aug 30 2006, 12:35 PM--> (matiasm @ Aug 30 2006, 12:35 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 10:47 PM
Okay, it seems that we all agree that Social Democracy is a step in the right direction from the u.s. system.

kid what post replies have you been read? are we reading the same ones? que idiota!!! [/b]
What I was trying to say was that social democracy is a step closer to socialism/communism from the u.s. system.

[Morag]

Originally posted by AlexJohnson+Aug 30 2006, 05:43 PM--> (AlexJohnson @ Aug 30 2006, 05:43 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:35 PM

[email protected] 29 2006, 10:47 PM
Okay, it seems that we all agree that Social Democracy is a step in the right direction from the u.s. system.

kid what post replies have you been read? are we reading the same ones? que idiota!!!
What I was trying to say was that social democracy is a step closer to socialism/communism from the u.s. system. [/b]
No. What most of us are saying is that social democracy is better then outright capitalism, but does not lead to socialism. Therefore, it cannot be considered a step on the revolutionary path. It can only be considered a uneasy and temporary step economically, but cannot last and is still a part of capitalism. The difference between what we're saying and what you thought we meant was that we were dividing the two situations and not thinking of them in the same way.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by AlexJohnson+Aug 30 2006, 06:43 PM--> (AlexJohnson @ Aug 30 2006, 06:43 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:35 PM

[email protected] 29 2006, 10:47 PM
Okay, it seems that we all agree that Social Democracy is a step in the right direction from the u.s. system.

kid what post replies have you been read? are we reading the same ones? que idiota!!!
What I was trying to say was that social democracy is a step closer to socialism/communism from the u.s. system. [/b]
It appears to be a step closer, but it isn't. Instead, it is a step closer to reformism, whilst our goal is revolution. The workers of the world will not be satisfied with "capitalism with a smiley face" and why should they? Nations, governments, religions, police - these things are not there for our benefit, but for the benefit of those who wish to keep us docile.

[rouchambeau]

Left Henry: Feel free to back up your claims.

[norwegian commie]

Left Henry: Feel free to back up your claims.

Heh, yeah.. Please do. If you are going to be so anti-leininistic please back it with some good argumentation. A good diskussion is nothing but positive, it is the way political systems are developed. But if you wont reply, i kinda loose the respect.

[Brekisonphilous]

Definitely.

[AlexJohnson]

Originally posted by ThisAnarchistKillsNazis+Aug 30 2006, 06:25 PM--> (ThisAnarchistKillsNazis @ Aug 30 2006, 06:25 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:35 PM

[email protected] 29 2006, 10:47 PM
Okay, it seems that we all agree that Social Democracy is a step in the right direction from the u.s. system.

kid what post replies have you been read? are we reading the same ones? que idiota!!!
What I was trying to say was that social democracy is a step closer to socialism/communism from the u.s. system.
It appears to be a step closer, but it isn't. Instead, it is a step closer to reformism, whilst our goal is revolution. The workers of the world will not be satisfied with "capitalism with a smiley face" and why should they? Nations, governments, religions, police - these things are not there for our benefit, but for the benefit of those who wish to keep us docile. [/b]
Ah yes, if we are speaking strickly in revolutionary terms, the closer to absolute capitalism the better or higher chance for revolution.

Speaking of revolution, would anyone care to convince me that a successful revolution wouldn't bring about any less than an authoritarian communist state?

I'm all for equality, nonexploitation, and tearing down heirarchy, but I still value my freedom more.

[EwokUtopia]

Ok, the votes are tied between Schwarzeneggers Republicans and a fauxcialist party that advocates social democracy. There is a communist party on the ballot, but they are not expected to get even 10%. You have nothing to do on the election day, and starting the revolution by friday is not a realistic answer. Do you vote for the Communists, and see the Prezinator, or vote for the half measure socialists to have a less fascist capitalism?

There is such a thing as lesser evils, and when it translates to less people starving on the street, and is much more realistic to have within the next 4 years than a full out communist revolution, why should we not take it? after all, it is brought about by the laziness of voting, so what else do you have to do on election day?

[Phugebrins]

Does voting communist confer momentum to the worker's movement? Sometimes voting for a lesser evil makes a smaller difference than letting other people know that the left has support.
(Though this assumes the communists are the sort of 'communist' we should be supporting).

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:00 PM
Ok, the votes are tied between Schwarzeneggers Republicans and a fauxcialist party that advocates social democracy. There is a communist party on the ballot, but they are not expected to get even 10%. You have nothing to do on the election day, and starting the revolution by friday is not a realistic answer. Do you vote for the Communists, and see the Prezinator, or vote for the half measure socialists to have a less fascist capitalism?
You vote for the social democrats if they'll bring in Proportional Representation of course. :) Then next time you vote for whoever you like.

[EwokUtopia]

There is a huge difference between Neo-Con Capitalists and Faux socialist capitalists, and when that difference translates to less people starving to death, better welfare systems, better civil rights, and less stupid and imperialistic wars, I think it should be acknowledged. You arent going to start a revolution by sitting at a computer, we might as well take half measures until the time for an actual oppurtunity for a shift in society becomes apparentl. Until then, we should do what we can to preserve equality and social justice, if that means working through the 'socialist' parties that are an actually plausible option at this time, so be it, but right now, as for that, America doesnt even have Social Democrats. At least where I live, Canada, we have a left leaning party with nearly 50 seats, this does make a difference, if you look at the differences between Canadian and American societal structure. The problem is that the people with the most seats here are unfortunately the Neocon Conservative party, so the differences between Canada and America are closing in.

Also, in my riding, we didnt have a Communist party, I voted for the NDP which is a fairly good party (for being a major runner in a North American society's political scheme) and had a fair chance of success....so I guess the lesser of two evils would have been the Liberals. We had the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Green party, Marijuana party and an independant candidate. If Stephen Hitler wasnt going to win, I may have voted Marijuana...because why the fuck not?

[Dreckt]

And then what happens when the social-democrats get an idiot for minister or president? People vote for the conservative/"more capitalist" party. Just like in the US, or hell, like in the rest of the world for that matter.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Social democracy is still not democracy. Its just nicer capitalism.