you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 35 points 1 year ago (24 children)
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    I suppose you are both referring to USA politics: it seems clear that dems contains many different souls but I wouldn't call AOC or Sanders right-wing, even here in Europe where we actually have real left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] [S] 19 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    The left starts at anti-capitalism. Anything other than that is right wing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Don't Sanders, Mamdani, and AOC call for socialist reforms in the US?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Reformism is not anti-capitalism. Reforms are just nicer capitalism. There will still be capitalism and imperialism but people just get a bigger slice of the imperialist pie until the ruling class decides to take the slice away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    "People get a bigger slice of the ... pie until the ruling class decides to take the slice away"
    Isn't that just the same with all systems?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The state is the mechanism through which one class exerts its dominance over the others.

    Bourgeois states are the enforcement arm of capital. When it offers improved conditions, it is merely a carrot to prevent you from taking actions that may jeopardize its power.

    In a similar vein, proletarian controlled states can do the same, but the concessions go towards capital and the day-to-day ruling is on behalf of the workers.

    If we want concessions that cannot be revoked, we must overthrow the bourgeois state and replace with a workers state. We cannot reform our way into a society where capital does not have near complete power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    proletarian controlled states can do the same

    This is as much a utopia as capitalist "trickle down economy". It cannot exist because proletariat, in the vast majority, is dumb as a sack of bricks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Historically, socialist states

    Such as?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    You're calling USSR or PRC "socialist"? WTF is this? A joke? I thought we're having a serious conversation here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    LOL, excellent jokes all around!

    Yes, both the USSR and PRC are typical examples of socialism

    Both USSR and PRC are prime examples of bog-standard totalitarian dictatorships. I have no clue where you're getting the "socialism" bits from. The fact that they said they are? Do you also believe that North Korea is a Democracy, because it's in their name?

    Public ownership is the principle aspect of both the former USSR’s economy and the PRC’s economy

    There's no public ownership in either. In USSR it was "friends of friends" (the people who we now call the Oligarchs) and in PRC you have a "dictator-approved capitalism" with companies being privately owned.

    I'll admit that I don't know enough about Cuba or Vietnam to discuss them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My God, you seem to actually believe all this stuff... It's incredible to me!

    Are you from the US?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You being from the US makes a lot of sense considering how absolutely clueless you are to what really is going on in the countries you're talking about.

    I lived through the tail end of the USSR's "communism", my parents lived IN that.

    The reality of it is: USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship. There was nothing communist about it. Saying it was communist is just being extremely naive and ignorant. I mean, they themselves were always talking about how they're "on the road to reaching communism", they themselves didn't think of the USSR as communist.

    But even if we assume it was "not yet communist, but socialist" - it's still bullshit, because, again, it was a totalitarian dictatorship.

    And China? How can you see all the billionaires and CEOs of privately held companies and say "yeah, that's socialism where the workers own the means of production"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [+] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Russians are stupid animals that have been brainwashed and can't think of their politics

    You might as well bring out the calipers already!

    It is very funny that you decided to stop arguing because cowbee is "delusional" and their belief stems from years and years of misinformation. They provided their sources while you only used wikipedia throughout this whole thing and personal anecdotes.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago*

    In a state where there are neofascists like Trump, Mamdani is the left, face it. If you deny this, you're completely ignoring political pragmatism and confusing the historical left with their actual political left.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Left and right are relative to the actual political spectrum of the subject. There are different approaches to anticapitalism, centrist on the left-wing wants to implement social politics to improve welfare, this doesn't make it socialists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Your notion is a very post modernist ideology of absolute relativism, which is an idealist unscientific notion. Socialism starts at anti-capitalism. Anything pro-capitalist is not left wing because everything falls under liberalism which is not a left wing ideology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    And this take is why Trump won. Congrats.

    The right wing starts at fascism. Or so it has evolved to.

    Vote against fascism next time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    And this take is why Trump won. Congrats.

    Anything but enthusiastic complicity with genocide and capitulation to republicans is "why trump won" according to the wing that would rather have trump win than tell netanyahu no ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Trump won with a sliver of majority support in a handful of states because of electoral college fuckery. Every state he lost could have voted against him 10 times harder and he still would have won.

    The swing votes he won in those few states were people fundamentally worried about the same things we are. Childcare, healthcare, cost of living, and keeping their jobs. They had two choices, a man who had a plan, and a woman who said "look how not that guy I am!"

    Trump won because he's mastered the grift and the Democrats dropped the fucking ball, again.

  • source
  • parent