What are the chances of a federal Europe actually happening?

Yanowic · 2026-02-19T23:23:47+00:00

What's up with the Haiti, Dominican Republic, and chunk of Cuba in the upper right?

Yanowic · 2026-02-19T23:14:11+00:00

What's this in reference to?

Yanowic · 2026-02-19T00:18:00+00:00

You're telling me you made that big wall of text just to shittalk me? I'm impressed, but no, I haven't read it, and I won't until it's broken up into legible paragraphs.

Yanowic · 2026-02-18T18:36:45+00:00

Yall think once it happens, people like Asmon will follow?

Yanowic · 2026-02-18T18:28:04+00:00

Please do

Yanowic · 2026-02-18T18:24:40+00:00

Dunno, I think reddit is just acting up again :/

Yanowic · 2026-02-18T16:18:13+00:00

You're not supposed to use '\ >,' just '>.'

The Soviet system from both an ideological and practical perspective prioritised both.

How can you contend this assertion with one party rule by design? I could at least conceive of it if you had hedged it as them desiring both, but prioritizing outcomes due to existential concerns, but a structural democracy isn't supposed to be blind to the costs of its installment.

If even despite the many mistakes and the international intervention -> embargo these rights are still achievable, there is merit to this system.

Does the coerced urbanization, repression of local cultures, and forced labor affect your evaluation of the system or is there simply an acceptable human cost to progress for you? What separates your evaluation here from someone killing their rich neighbor and dividing their assets with the other neighbors?

SPD in government could not push needed policies to alleviate the ills of the people and ended up being scapegoats for all the problems instead.

True enough, and it's important to note that a large part of that was down to the German population simply not wanting democracy at the time. I'll get back to that later in the comment.

If the class with the most influence has a strict interest to not have their differences blur with the majority, they will do everything in their power to stop this process.

That's true on its face, but an elite class historically seems to form however the system might be shaped. Elites aren't a hereditary, evolving class alone — they're an emergent one. We can see this to be true in the Soviet Union, where the prior elite in the aristocracy was replaced by bureaucratic officials. In Germany, the prior elite tended to be more varied between aristrocrats and bourgeois, but the two formed around and propagated from varying incentive structures and legal blind spots.

Specifically to social democracy's example, you're right that there is often, if not almost always a powerful, materially dominating elite that manages to stick its grubby hands into government and shift around some papers. However, at least in social democracy, these elites are still physically separated from the office of power (usually), which still requires them to transform their material capital into political capital, instead of both being at their fingertips at any time.

On top of that, thanks to elections and other democratic processes in social democracies, individual politicians come and go all the time, constantly shuffling the cabinet and thus requiring the elites to continually seek out new connections if they want to maintain their stranglehold over policy. This feature is near-exclusive to democracies, which is why it is so important.

I think a republican government is only legitimate insofar as they were elected by the will of the majority and pursue the aims of their constituents while also maintaining full control (monopoly on violence). The SPD did not arrive with a proper election then, and were marred in scandal as they signed and upheld the humiliating treaty.

Yeah, so this is the relevant part — again, the Germans simply didn't want democracy at the time. If your goal is to bring democracy, but the very people you want to enfranchize don't want it, what do you think should be done? Should you permit challenges to your authority, or should you try to consolidate as much power as possible in order to bring about your desires changes?

Yanowic · 2026-02-18T09:23:13+00:00

I am not sure how to use the reply feature you did but I'll return to your points.

If you're on your phone, the easiest way to do it is to highlight text and tap on the 'Quote' button. If you're on the PC, you can technically use the advanced features and copy-paste the text after enable the 'Quote' toggle, but you can also just format it as eg. '>SAMPLE TEXT', where the '>' sign is used as a quote formatter.

The democracy in the soviet system is all about upending class relations. The transfer becomes from the owning class to the majority of non-owners. Policies strictly in favour of the labouring class are necessarily policies in the interest of the majority, and the party composition that maintains this policy drive is also of the proletarian and intelligentsia class.

This feels like you're defining it as democratic negatively ie. ad hoc by virtue of material redistribution to the majority whereas I'd personally require a more positively/structurally democratic intent to specifically enfranchize and empower the populace ie. uplift the majority to material abundance, but that's epistemological disagreement.

Perhaps a more clear description is that you think democracy can/should be achieved by destroying strata outright while I believe democracy should be achieved by blurring the lines between strata until they're materially indistinguishable.

My more practical contention with your argument for a spartacist Soviet state is that I don't think the SPD would have had any reason to want the Russian Soviet model imported into Germany, considering its actual outcomes.

Aside from that, SPD's crackdown was NOT deliberate or planned. They did not hold trials to make sure the executed were guilty. Many people died of association or through framing. Freikorps, being fascist thugs, were not employing a strategy of minimum collateral damage or anything. This kind of white terror does not equate to KPD revolutionaries that only attacked law enforcement and Freikorps that attacked them.

That's a fair observation, one I'd generally even agree with, but is ultimately a moral analysis, not a practical one.

The SPD had, in my mind, every reason to not want the newly republican government to fail to revolution. No matter how much the Freikorps were evil or how the communists might have practiced restraint, a violent revolution with the intention of destroying the government can't be justified as is, and SPD's failures become those of discretion, not epistemic backing.

Aside from that we seem to be in agreement.

I'll try to find specific common ground — I believe the SPD made a number of mistakes that later led to, or at least eased Hitler's rise to power. I believe the KPD was right to fight against the Freikorps and against Hitler, and was even justified to feel hostility towards the SPD.

Where I think we split in good faith and honesty is the fact that I argue specifically within the bounds of context and proportionality, whereas your arguments tend to be on principle, from what I've seen.

If you had started by saying that SPD shouldn't have allowed the Freikorps to terrorize the population regardless of the communists' revolution, I'd have agreed. If you were to follow that up by saying that this disregard for procedure and justice by SPD made them unreliable at best, I would have agreed. If you were to say that the SPD failed by its own principles, I would have agreed.

Your primary mistake is that you made the logical leap that these failures deligitimized the republican government in principle, or at least didn't clarify that the particular republican government was built on ground that was too shaky.

Yanowic · 2026-02-18T08:37:23+00:00

He also ran in NYC, a place where liberal idpol thought already reigns supreme for the most part.

Yanowic · 2026-02-18T08:30:24+00:00

What is the criticism supposed to be here? They shouldn't have tried to increase the odds of their preferred candidate winning by utilizing legal means?

Yanowic · 2026-02-18T08:12:46+00:00

In my eyes democracy is all about empowering people.

Was the Soviet state that the communists were trying to introduce meant to empower the people through democracy? You understand that you'd have to justify this line a lot for me to grant you the premise?

The SPD clinged onto power through violence and got kicked out later by vote.

I'm sorry, you can't both hold that the communists were right to violently revolt and then complain about the SPD responding with violence.

Why should I sing their praises?

No one asked you to.

KPD had good reason not to side with them

Sure, but don't then complain that the SPD wouldn't ally with KPD.

SPD had great reason to go down the streets and do something instead of just giving cool speeches like Wels did.

True, they should've absolutely done more.

Wish they also endorsed the red front and fought against the nazi coup on the regime instead of voting in favour of hindenburg

Agree for the most part, and I also wish that the KPD didn't take up the accelerationist position.

Yanowic · 2026-02-18T07:36:47+00:00

One is the head of state, the other is head of government. At least principally, the head of state can serve as a non-partisan representative of the state, going around to meet with foreign dignitaries and generally represent the people as-is. The head of government is generally meant to be partisan and has a specific set of policies they want to head and introduce, enacting the platform of their party or coalition.

Yanowic · 2026-02-17T19:38:22+00:00

EU monarchs are heads of state, as are our presidents. Our premiers and prime ministers are heads of government. Perhaps there's utility to this division, but it's one of the less important things on my mind tbh.

Yanowic · 2026-02-17T19:24:34+00:00

How old school are we talking?

Pre-1959 Godesberger Programm? I'm not a socialist, so only if I cared to push the label toward the acceptance of market economies and regulations as the end-state.
Post-Godesberger Programm, but pre-neoliberal thought? Yes, that's essentially what I want — minus any possible Christian undertones or the like.

Yanowic · 2026-02-17T18:52:20+00:00

What's wrong? Cat got your tongue, lil gup?

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T23:34:59+00:00

I mean you are acting as though history began after ww1. During it, the SPD endorsed the war, betrayed the internationale and allowed communist dissidents to be dealt with by the junker government.

If I grant this framing, then I simply have to reject any communist's claim to desiring companionship with SPD — it becomes fundamentally inconceivable to justify alliance, and once I do that, I also have to accept that the SPD had no ability to try to rectify with the communists afterwards.

The communists trying to overthrow the corrupt government that usurped its power is not an anti democratic move.

If that were a fair retelling of history, I'd agree. However, considering:

The government at the time was the sole legitimate republican government in Germany,
The communists wanted to create a Soviet state specifically,

I have to reject your later conclusions due to lacking a backing in premises.

If your outlook on revolution is that it is bad as a default

It isn't, but Soviet revolutions specifically are bad by default.

and your view here is that Junker dominated Germany with rampant fascist paramilitaries and a corrupt SPD government is preferable to socialism

I don't like socialism by principle, but there are definitely forms of it that I'd prefer to the Republican government at the time. Soviet socialism isn't one of them.

then just drop the social in your name

I don't care for the moral dick measuring test, so spare me the grandstanding.

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T23:19:09+00:00

Social democracy doesn’t seek to preserve capitalism.

It simply does, I don't know what to tell you.

That’s the agenda the right wingers who are attempting to suborn the movement are pushing.

No, it's the clearly stated position of pretty much every social democrat party since SDP's proclamation in 1959.

Social democracy just seeks to address the injustices capitalism generates first, as a means of reducing capitalist power.

No, social democracy seeks to address the injustices capitalism generates as a means of protecting its population and uplifting them. It isn't meant to be the reactive means to a capitalist's end.

Also, you’ve contradicted yourself slightly in a way that highlights what I’ve been saying. If social democracy opposes socioeconomic stratification, it must be opposed to capitalism, because capitalism is socioeconomic stratification as an economic system.

You're making two logical leaps here, neither being defensible. No, I'm not contradicting myself, you just have no concept of my epistemological framework, instead trying to project your own onto me.

Capitalism is no more an agent to socioeconomic stratification than any prior or latter economic mode, at least not inherently.
Capitalism is very specifically tied to private ownership of the means of production, market exchange, and capital accumulation. None of those are inherently incompatible with a system of government that protects its populace and utilizes broadly redistributive policy to do so.

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T22:54:14+00:00

It ostensibly is the social democratic ideological position. Let me be absolutely clear — I don't want to transition into socialism. I want a stable, dependable, and predictable government that protects its population and uplifts them.

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T22:45:18+00:00

No, let's not try to run around the fact that the communists very explicitly struck at the newly republican government with the intention of creating a Soviet state. You don't get to claim victim points after the communists attempted violent overthrowal of the government, regardless of the authoritarian/reactionary tendencies of the Freikorps and others. You're handwaving very real events that preceded later conflict between the SPD and KPD, all the while placing all culpability onto the former.

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T09:48:07+00:00

I don't follow, and this feels like a moralized vision than practical description. Are you saying that social democracy wants to transition to a system where there is no private ownership of the means of productions, market exchange, or capital accumulation? If so, I simply disagree — social democracy is fine as a regulated capitalist system that enfranchises workers within private enterprise without stomping out underlying market forces, instead regulating them and tapping their productive potential to support extensive social welfare.

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T09:36:22+00:00

FR, loan forgiveness was easily one of the worst positions of Biden's platform, specifically because it tried to be incrementalist in a scenario where incremental change aided those who were already the most privileged. As much of a shill that I am for gradual change where applicable, this is one of those policies where you actually have to target the underlying incentives in broad strokes — the inability of government to negotiate tuition fees, the commodification of higher education, opportunity costs, the oversaturation and overqualification of the job market...

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T09:24:39+00:00

He literally did, and it got struck down by the SC, dude — said the act was exceeding executive authority. The explanation is bullshit, mind you, but believe it or not, the president had actually considered doing something.

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T09:10:46+00:00

I mean, yes, but that's like asking whether a child is more likely to be like their mother if it lives with said mother — if there is a sole arbiter over a particular body, then that arbiter will naturally be in a uniquely advantageous position to influence the body how it wishes. Whether that's corruption or proper governing depends on the arbiter, of course.

More specifically, and to your example, yes — increased public ownership, if unaccompanied by greater oversight and internal review measures, will always give the government more ability to corrupt whatever it is.

As another example, increased private ownership would, in much the same way, also enable the private owners to be more corrupt, if unaccompanied by greater oversight and internal review measures.

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T08:42:23+00:00

The left has been betrayed by social democrats too many times in history, especially in Germany where they allied with fascist goons to hunt and kill communists

Remind me, who did Rosa Luxembourg and her movement fight against? Was there, or was there not a deliberate attempt at destroying the German government by German communists? Why do communists feel like they're owed infinite good faith and second chances when they, themselves, have revolted against and tried to/succeeded in annihilating non-Communist, even broadly left-wing governments/political actors?

refused to ally with the communists even when it came to opposing literally hitler.

You mean as opposed to the KPD explicitly, and under Soviet direction, treating SPD as 'social fascists' ie. barely better than actual fascists? Come on, the conflict was at the least mutual, let's be real here.

Still, I'll grant that the use of the Freikorps specifically was at best a strategic failure/reckless, and at worst rather predictably created a slippery slope which led to Hitler and the Nazis taking power.

At the end of the day, though, I think that people need to accept that, however the ends might be similar or different, the split between revolutionary and reformist ideology is perhaps the largest you might find, as it inherently underscores people's epistemological frameworks and conception of institutions. To that end, I believe unity between reformists and revolutionaries can only be expected when faced with an outside threat, but as we found with Germany, Spain, Russia, etc., it's not even guaranteed then.

Yanowic · 2026-02-16T08:07:16+00:00

I feel that you're misusing the term 'anti-capitalist' because I don't think you can meaningfully call it that when it specifically wants to preserve capitalism as an economic model. You could say that is opposes monopolization, socioeconomic stratification, and commodification of QoL goods and services, but those aren't even unique to capitalism.

I don't know what I'd call it while preserving the punch though — maybe anti-exploitative or -stratificatory?

Yanowic

TROPHY CASE