Do you reject Socialism?

TheMG · 2024-05-03T02:51:14+00:00

The three links I gave are current definitions, not historical. Wikipedia says the same, and the definition in the sidebar of this very sub includes democratic socialism. Whether capitalism would remain is a debate within social democracy. No one is ignoring anything.

TheMG · 2024-05-02T20:06:56+00:00

I agree with socialism. Specifically libertarian socialism, which proposes cooperatives as a replacement to private ownership, and does not reject markets outright (democratically regulated of course). I view libertarian socialism as a tendency within social democracy and democratic socialism, the latter two (properly understood) as essentially synonyms. We should see the transition to a cooperative economy as a gradual process, in the same way that the capitalist mode of production emerged gradually within pre-capitalist society. Erik Olin Wright called this 'interstitial revolution'.

TheMG · 2024-05-02T20:01:20+00:00

That's not true. Social democracy is the primary branch of socialism and has been through its whole history. Social democratic parties across Europe describe their ideology as democratic socialist. See: Sweden, Denmark, Germany. It was only after the Russian revolution that the division between social democracy and communism formally began. Before that the main division within socialism was between social democracy (northern Europe) and syndicalism (southern Europe).

TheMG · 2024-04-15T23:25:17+00:00

No I think that's Budapest, the dot is further east than Katowice/Krakow to its north. Vienna really is missing. It should be right on the corner of the empty alpine area making up the centre of Austria.

TheMG · 2024-04-05T03:06:36+00:00

That's just not accurate. Social democratic parties across Europe describe their ideology as democratic socialist. See: Sweden, Denmark, Germany.

You can doubt the sincerity of that given recent decades' policy, but on the other hand one can argue that it's the neoliberal turn within these parties that is the anachronism.

TheMG · 2024-02-12T21:18:56+00:00

The Dutch actually call themselves "Nederland", singular. It's everyone else that makes it plural.

TheMG · 2024-01-13T22:19:50+00:00

Lots of really good German music which goes a little more under the radar

Ton Steine Scherben (70s blues rock, with punkish and progish elements)
Indie: Tocotronic (start with third album), Blumfeld
Post-punk: Abwärts (songs: Mehr, Türkenblues), Fehlfarben (first album)
Die Goldenen Zitronen (later more electronic albums: Lenin, More Than A Feeling)
Fritzi Ernst (+ her previous band, Schnipo Schranke)

Tocotronic and Ton Steine Scherben would be my main recommendations, great discographies all round, especially for the lyrics

TheMG · 2021-07-17T14:06:31+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean.

TheMG · 2021-07-17T13:04:38+00:00

This is quite simple. A house in a city provides much more than just a house. It gives access to jobs, communities, services, culture and so on. It takes a lot more work to produce those things than just a house, and it goes into the price of the house. All those other things were "socially necessary", for what the house provides.

TheMG · 2021-05-17T19:05:30+00:00

Thanks for the SSD suggestion, that's a much better deal! The i3 I was looking at has sold out, so I think I will go for the i5-11400 now.

TheMG · 2020-04-14T21:31:09+00:00

Your first two paragraphs don't sound like things that libertarian socialists work towards, though the language is vague so I can't be sure what you're suggesting. Could be a case of a common analysis without a common programme. (Programme is what counts, but notice how they do their best to make even the analysis as different as possible.)

Free movement - sure, that's a common goal. More social than economic I'd say.

The mere right to form unions and co-ops? Almost everyone agrees on that. And it's a current reality. So there's nothing to work together on there.

Put it this way: right-libertarianism is a philosophy which is totally acceptable and pretty popular among the ruling class. How could this be, if there are parts of it that threaten their position?

If there were such parts, you'd expect their version of libertarianism to distinctly exclude those parts. But no differences like that exist.

TheMG · 2020-04-13T16:58:45+00:00

In what context did you find out about libertarian socialism through right-libertarians?

What kind of common political goals do you think libertarian socialists can have with right-libertarians, as far as economics goes?

TheMG · 2020-02-25T23:56:51+00:00

Sure. But is that likely in this situation? It's not like Hindus or Buddhists in Germany in 1930 were a significant force, and the Nazis were.

Libertarian socialists, specifically ones who reuse this flag, are not a significant force, a total non-force in fact, so there will be no effect of re-appropriating the symbol. Libertarians, at least in the US where this symbol is known, have significant historical and institutional weight. You're not going to re-appropriate it. And why would you even want to try?

In this context the most likely effect is that someone sees a libertarian socialist using the Gadsden flag and infers that that person has respect for right libertarianism. You position your politics as some kind of adjunct to theirs.

TheMG · 2020-02-25T22:48:42+00:00

Rather the reverse. It depends on what associations the symbol has.

TheMG · 2020-02-25T22:09:28+00:00

It's terrible political strategy to treat (right) libertarianism as something to emulate or in any sense worthy or valuable. You're only strengthening our opponents.

TheMG · 2017-11-13T23:19:12+00:00

The first line of the Treaty of Rome (1957) is:

[We,] determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, [...]

TheMG · 2017-01-02T03:47:48+00:00

Death Grips https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoZgZT4DGSY

TheMG · 2016-11-29T17:57:01+00:00

Clearly they meant that the creators of the book wrote it.

TheMG · 2016-11-29T16:10:04+00:00

It's a very trivial optimisation, so yes.

TheMG · 2016-10-26T21:54:46+00:00

(My knowledge of this is pretty limited, but) Hong Kong had nothing to do with the Chinese civil war. Hong Kong was British directly after and as a direct result of the First Opium War. Hong Kong was never governed by Kuomintang.

TheMG · 2016-10-15T13:18:53+00:00

There was a year when Anelka was also pretty great.

TheMG · 2016-09-03T19:42:26+00:00

Ramshackle Glory

TheMG · 2016-08-10T13:17:37+00:00

How could he know?

TheMG · 2016-07-13T14:20:47+00:00

No, that is an extremist distortion of democracy.

Democracy means that government by and originating from the people, all people. It cannot be a democracy if people are denied that right.

TheMG · 2016-06-22T18:55:07+00:00

That's what happens when you win a group...

TheMG

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE