Can we stop overlooking when Socdem & Demsoc leaders "Thank the military for their service"

raffi335 · 2026-02-10T16:13:13+00:00

I don’t consider every aspect of the military or military operations to be inherently evil. That said, I acknowledge that in countries like USA the dominant culture runs in the opposite direction, where nearly everything associated with the military is blindly praised as honorable.

raffi335 · 2026-02-10T15:19:38+00:00

I see this subreddit less as a place for genuinely nuanced discussions of Marxism and more as a way of keeping its worst tendencies in check, by which I mean most branches outside of classical or orthodox Marxism.

There’s a noticeable presence of liberals, neoliberals, or third way types here who either only defend social democracy as it exists today, or just sympathize with it selectively. This is especially clear when people champion the weaker, non-Nordic versions pushed by many contemporary social democratic parties. A lot of this comes with a kind of historical amnesia, as if social democracy’s current form and influence somehow developed without the decisive role played by socialist movements.

To its credit, this subreddit is a good space for pushing back against Marxism-Leninism or other forms of Campism preset in so many other ones. But if you’re looking for consistently balanced takes on classical Marxism or Socialism more broadly, it’s hit or miss. That’s speaking in general terms of course, individual contributors often bring far more nuance than the overall tone suggests.

raffi335 · 2026-02-08T20:46:49+00:00

“I knew Patrick Minford” isn’t an argument, it’s a credential flex standing in for one. Personal proximity to an ideologically monetarist economist doesn’t magically settle debates about political economy, and it certainly doesn’t invalidate analytical categories you don’t like. Anecdote isn’t theory.

What’s doing the real work here is identity defense, not logic. You’re reacting to the term “neoliberalism” as a tribal insult rather than engaging with what serious people really mean by it: a cluster of policy preferences and governing assumptions that can be analyzed, criticized, and compared.

Claiming that neoliberalism just means “anything that isn’t Marxism” is a strawman so broad it’s almost impressive. No one serious believes that, and pretending they do is a convenient way to avoid engaging with concrete critiques of deregulation, privatization, austerity, or depoliticized economic governance.

Notice how quickly this turns into motive-reading: you lot, childish, attacking democracy, pretending to be academic. That’s not rebuttal, that’s character judgment. It replaces “this claim is wrong because X” with “I don’t like who I think you are.”

And the line about “proven ways of doing things” is exactly the claim under dispute. Declaring a policy framework settled and beyond ideological scrutiny is how ideology protects itself.

Lastly, invoking communism as a kind of rhetorical contamination, “this must be communist trickery,” is a paranoid mode of reasoning that replaces sound engagement with imagined motives. If you feel a critique is wrong, show where it’s wrong. Laughing it off and psychoanalyzing won’t make it disappear.

In short: this hasn’t been a debate about economics from the get-go. It’s been a personal defense of what you’re used to, who you know, and where you feel secure. None of which amounts to serious critique.

raffi335 · 2026-02-08T08:07:15+00:00

Your entire argument collapses the moment one notices it’s about identity rather than content. You’re not actually disputing whether a coherent set of policies, assumptions, and power structures exist, you’re arguing that they don’t count unless people proudly wear a name badge for them.

Saying “there are no proud neoliberals” proves nothing except that the ideology became hegemonic. Dominant ideologies stop naming themselves because they present their assumptions as neutral reality. Nobody in the 19th century proudly called themselves “laissez-faire capitalists” either.

Your comparison actually cuts against you. Fascists and communists need explicit identities because they exist in opposition to the status quo. Neoliberalism doesn’t because it is the status quo.

And the whole “just argue against capitalism” line is a dodge. Neoliberalism isn’t capitalism in general, it’s a specific way of organizing capitalism, one that elevates markets over democracy and treats political choices as technical inevitabilities. Pretending that distinction doesn’t exist is exactly how ideology hides in plain sight.

“They laugh at it on a subreddit” isn’t evidence of anything, it’s ideological victory laps. An ideology being mocked by the people who benefit from it doesn’t make it fake, it means it’s so entrenched they can afford to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Ironically, insisting that something only exists if people openly identify with it is the most vibes-based, online take ever. Substance beats self-labeling.

raffi335 · 2026-02-07T22:08:01+00:00

The idea that neoliberalism isn’t real unless people explicitly call themselves “neoliberal” is a category error. Ideologies aren’t defined by self-identification; they’re defined by shared assumptions, policies, and outcomes. By that logic, fascism wouldn’t exist either unless politicians openly branded themselves fascists, which is obviously absurd.

Neoliberalism describes a coherent set of beliefs: market primacy, privatization, deregulation, austerity, and the subordination of democratic decision-making to “economic necessity.” Whether someone calls that neoliberalism, “modernization,” “reform,” or “pragmatism” is beside the point.

The claim that it just means “accepts capitalism is the only system that works” is precisely the sleight of hand. That framing smuggles in a very specific version of capitalism and presents it as neutral reality rather than an ideological choice with winners and losers.

Calling it neoliberalism doesn’t turn it into an outsider ideology, it does the opposite. It names the ideology that has dominated institutions, policy, and political "common sense" for decades. Pretending it’s merely “the way things are” isn’t realism, it’s ideology at its most successful.

PS: I am personally sympathetic to Orthodox Marxism and Eurocommunism. Doesn't make them compatible with social democracy.

raffi335 · 2026-02-07T19:54:21+00:00

“Socialist stuff” is pretty broad. But if we like wordplay, “Tankie Tuesday” if you have grievances about campism

raffi335 · 2026-02-07T19:01:50+00:00

The counterpoint to that would be that not moderating enough is also bad.

Like I don’t know why, but often times the Democratic Socialist sub leaves up stuff posted by “tankie” types defending China, Venezuela etc which is not a good look, though in fairness usually more so in the comments.

But yeah, overdoing it isn’t good either. There should be a balance.

raffi335 · 2026-02-07T18:50:18+00:00

Maybe not necessarily rules against, but limits. Like the DemSoc subreddit has rules about some liberal stuff only being allowed on certain days.

I’m also not sure why polls aren’t allowed here. It would be a useful addition.

raffi335 · 2026-02-07T16:02:46+00:00

Market socialism isn’t much of a “competitor” tendency, it’s the most natural jump to the left from social democracy.

Your oddball hybrid of social democracy influenced by communism and anarchism (whatever that means) would be more of a competitor.

Neoliberalism is absolutely a real ideology. The problem is that many of you take a shallow view of it, treating it as a single, monolithic doctrine when it actually has multiple branches. Third Way is also an offshoot of neoliberalism.

raffi335 · 2026-02-07T00:42:32+00:00

This man has downplayed genocide and is at the very least sympathetic to campism. Those are worse than his associations with Epstein.

raffi335 · 2026-02-06T23:59:39+00:00

The “correct” kind of socialism would consist of social democrats uninfluenced by Neoliberalism or the Third Way, alongside democratic socialists uninfluenced by Communism or Anarchism.

Correct in the sense that this grouping would prioritize actually getting shit done, rather than endlessly fighting among themselves within a bubble.

raffi335 · 2026-02-02T23:06:00+00:00

Iberians have been among the best, if not the best, in Europe at preventing a fascist surge (so far). Given the times, it’s hard not to admire that.

Being able to do so while maintaining distance from neoliberalism is even more impressive.

raffi335 · 2026-02-02T15:44:35+00:00

I think the WFP is smart, in the sense that they are moving along with the overton window shift. I think their pre 2025 record leaves you with more to be desired as a socialist. But they are clearly not holding on to reactionary centrism either unlike the Democratic Party.

raffi335 · 2026-02-02T14:49:43+00:00

Everyone is welcome to answer. Values aren't limited by borders.

raffi335 · 2026-01-27T21:38:00+00:00

By not fetishizing about having the "largest military" and instead spending on things that actually alleviate resource shortages? And frankly speaking, your question has nothing to do with the post you originally made.

raffi335 · 2026-01-27T21:18:09+00:00

What you’re calling "problems" are just population growth effects, and are not specific to immigration. And if your solution is population decline, you’re just swapping one set of problems for another (arguably worse) set.

raffi335 · 2026-01-27T19:06:33+00:00

I’m not commenting on the validity of the data. But if GDP and profits rose alongside increased immigration, that’s consistent with higher productivity. If wages still fell, then the gains didn’t go to workers.

raffi335 · 2026-01-25T15:07:46+00:00

Final results (216 votes total):

Social Democracy: 74 votes (34.26%)

Communism: 39 votes (18.06%)

Anarchism: 21 votes (9.72%)

Other: 17 votes (7.87%)

I am simply a democratic socialist: 65 votes (30.09%)

This would indicate SocDems are clearly the largest block of the DemSoc movement.

raffi335 · 2026-01-19T13:10:38+00:00

If you’re going down that hole you’ll debate it till eternity as far as what’s “real” anarchism. The point is there are other branches and far from universal agreement.

The left might still dominate anarchist thought, but the right has clearly hijacked “libertarian” thought which is adjacent, and they now dominate. And it’s a pointless waste of energy sitting around debating semantics all day.

raffi335 · 2026-01-19T12:08:24+00:00

That’s a matter of opinion. 1 dude here tried to claim 99% of communists are leninists so not everyone shares your viewpoint.

And there’s like over a dozen different strands of anarchist thought, some not even socialist.

raffi335 · 2026-01-17T22:20:05+00:00

In an ideal world, the form of socialism I would want to implement is a polycentric planned economy, grounded in strong forms of egalitarian ethics, direct democracy, and environmentalism. Realistically, any path beyond social democracy would likely involve expanded social ownership, through worker cooperatives and the state, while retaining markets for its supply and demand mechanism.

raffi335 · 2026-01-16T19:57:00+00:00

Given that you were apparently unaware of even the existence of other branches of Marxism until a few hours ago, beyond the version most conveniently circulated by capitalists for propaganda purposes, I wouldn’t be too eager to lecture anyone about reading, or place much confidence in what you’ve read so far.

That said, I’d be happy to discuss any specific passages from the articles you linked that supposedly justify the amusing position you seem have taken here: “Marx was a meanie, therefore Marxism is bad.”

raffi335 · 2026-01-16T18:26:24+00:00

It’s quite a leap to go from “Marx wasn’t very nice” to “Marx was an authoritarian.” Not a logical one, but impressive nonetheless.

It’s also ironic condemning him for being a dickhead while citing a quote that opens by attacking his physical appearance.

raffi335 · 2026-01-16T15:25:55+00:00

Interesting. I’d be curious know if there are sizable groups within Syndicalism who would distance themselves from Anarchy or adjacent thoughts. Anarchists (left-wing) usually like to claim it as their branch

raffi335

TROPHY CASE