you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 4 months ago (11 children)

Well its liberal infighting. DemSocs mild reformist approach is too much left for the centrists that unironically praised Reagan, so the DNC then fights the DSA harder than they fought Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    I get that from your perspective the DemSocs are mild reformists, but from the perspective of people who are in the center of liberal ideology, the DemSocs seem radical. It's all relative. To you they're all just liberals, and you don't make a strong distinction between them, but the two groups see themselves as strongly distinct from one another. And thus, to my original point, that's why in any other democracy each would have their own separate party, instead of having to fight each other for control of one of only two parties.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    @TheDemonBuer Fully aware, but i was under the impression we are discussing it inside a radical left space? Liberalism already dominate 80% of online non chud spaces and i want to not pretend that someone like nancy pelosi is on the left.So yeah they themselves may see it that way but leftist do not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago

    i was under the impression we are discussing it inside a radical left space?

    Indeed. And since I'm not a radical leftist (even though, as we've already established, liberals would view me as such), I'll move along.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -1 points 4 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    @grinning_serpent WE already did have plenty of SocDem Countries including Germany, where even the conservative party CDU pushed for it in 1949de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsThose policies will always get overturned eventually. Think ofthe New Deal in the USA only took till the 70's to undo it and reagan to implement the opposite.Liberal policies cant work longterm its an historic fact.Also stop coming to leftist spaces and berate us for not thinkign like you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Socialist states have generally suffered as any country would under outside pressure, but fared better than capitalist peers to similar pressures.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

    While there was pressure from the outside, outside pressure did not kill the USSR. China changing since the time of Mao is a given, even if they followed the path of the Gang of Four to today, this would still look radically different from the era of Mao simply due to economic development. China of today is still a socialist economy. The DPRK survives because it is heavily millitarized and focuses on economic independence, with nuclear deterrence. Vietnam and Laos are both doing well as well. Cuba is still trucking along.

    As for "subjugation," I think it's better to understand why this happens and for what reason. Capitalist states eventually see a merging of bank and industrial capital, creating finance capital, and this monopoly stage of capitalism is what drives imperialism. Socialist states do not have such an economic drive. While conflict persists, there is more of a drive for cooperation, consolidation, and increasing sovereignty. This is not "Utopian," this is the recognition that centralization of production is economically compelled, which is why States have largely merged over the years, similar to corporations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    If the world were all on the same page, then production and distribution would be far better anyways, and the working classes in developed countries would also benefit. Working together works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    What point in time are you talking about? You're asking me to hit a moving target and make an outlandishy speculative claim. For what purpose?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    This is why I am asking you for a time period. The transition from capitalism to socialism in the imperialist countries would likely result in a shortage of endless cheap commodities, while expanding social safety nets. In the medium to long-term, quality of life would improve as the world would better be able to produce and distribute for everyone than is presently available. Imperialism holds the global south back from economic development for the short term gain of the imperial core, but a world aligned can better develop and produce.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Why would I put an estimate on it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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)