• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

What tendency/ideology do you best align with?

  • Anarchism

    Votes: 28 20.0%
  • Marxism

    Votes: 13 9.3%
  • Marxism-Leninism

    Votes: 5 3.6%
  • Left Communism

    Votes: 4 2.9%
  • Democratic Socialism

    Votes: 54 38.6%
  • Social Democracy

    Votes: 31 22.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 3.6%

  • Total voters
    140

Old_King_Coal

Member
Nov 1, 2017
322
What kind of socialist am I if I inexorably demand universal healthcare, housing, food, and education being provided by the state for everyone? I don't really care about my income taxes being drastically raised when I know that every human being unconditionally has access to the aforementioned things.

Also, everything above a certain threshold should be taxed to ashes. Corporations that profit of the planet's health, exploiting laborers, or anything that exhibits (extreme) forms of greed should be shut down. Billionaires shouldn't exist, hell, one could argue even millionaires shouldn't, but let's take it one step at a time.
As Pigeon says, all of the categories above would agree with those goals. If you see them as an end in themselves, then you are probably closest to social democrat. If you see them as good short-term goals which also serve a tactical purpose towards more ambitious goals, then you may fall into the others.

To get you thinking, what are your views towards the idea of private property?
 

Kilrogg

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,796
What kind of socialist am I if I inexorably demand universal healthcare, housing, food, and education being provided by the state for everyone? I don't really care about my income taxes being drastically raised when I know that every human being unconditionally has access to the aforementioned things.

Also, everything above a certain threshold should be taxed to ashes. Corporations that profit of the planet's health, exploiting laborers, or anything that exhibits (extreme) forms of greed should be shut down. Billionaires shouldn't exist, hell, one could argue even millionaires shouldn't, but let's take it one step at a time.
Sometimes I wonder if, decades or centuries from now, and assuming we survive, future generations studying early 21st century history will go "Can you believe it? These people had to work all day, and they had homeless people, and they had billionnaires? And they used oil and coal! LOL"

I like to think that's what they'll be saying anyway.
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,573
Scotland
Sometimes I wonder if, decades or centuries from now, and assuming we survive, future generations studying early 21st century history will go "Can you believe it? These people had to work all day, and they had homeless people, and they had billionnaires? And they used oil and coal! LOL"

I like to think that's what they'll be saying anyway.
I wish I could believe this too.
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,704
What kind of socialist am I if I inexorably demand universal healthcare, housing, food, and education being provided by the state for everyone? I don't really care about my income taxes being drastically raised when I know that every human being unconditionally has access to the aforementioned things.

Also, everything above a certain threshold should be taxed to ashes. Corporations that profit of the planet's health, exploiting laborers, or anything that exhibits (extreme) forms of greed should be shut down. Billionaires shouldn't exist, hell, one could argue even millionaires shouldn't, but let's take it one step at a time.
If you think that the state should provide those things through taxing the wealthy but that private individuals should still be able to own businesses, you're a social democrat, which is a type of liberal. Social democracy is welfare capitalism.

If you want to use social democracy as a stepping stone to full democratic ownership and control of the economy, you're a democratic socialist.
 

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,970
Communism is not stalinism, communism is a society without state, If stalinism can be classified It would be socialism (and to most critics state capitalism or oligarchy), china would be a type of keynesianism, and Venezuela social democracy.

Socialism is more accepted as the transition state to communism, but there's a confusion of meaning in the US and socialism has the meaning of social democracy.
Stateless societies won't work.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,580
I think ancaps want all functions of government to be privatised and the "free market" will ensure quality services, whereas Libertarians want maximum individual freedom which usually coincides with small government. On a Venn diagram there would be significant overlap.
I feel like it would just be a circle.
Sorry I'm late to the game on this one but AnCaps (read: feudalists) differ from right-libertarians/Randians because in the latter system there is still always some state arbitrator (read: cops) to enforce and protect private property rights. AnCaps believe in eliminating all government structure while retaining private property and respect thereof through the (giggle) Non-Aggression Pact. This is why AnCap is always guaranteed to devolve into feudalism. Also AnCaps aren't really anarchists in my book. They just want to eliminate the political hierarchy while retaining the economic one, which is equally illegitimate.

Also surprised there are so many other Anarcho tendencies here. That's dope.
 

Mekanos

Member
Oct 17, 2018
13,365
If you think that the state should provide those things through taxing the wealthy but that private individuals should still be able to own businesses, you're a social democrat, which is a type of liberal. Social democracy is welfare capitalism.

If you want to use social democracy as a stepping stone to full democratic ownership and control of the economy, you're a democratic socialist.
That’s basically why I identify as demsoc. I think creating a global welfare state is the important first step.

Sometimes I wonder if, decades or centuries from now, and assuming we survive, future generations studying early 21st century history will go "Can you believe it? These people had to work all day, and they had homeless people, and they had billionnaires? And they used oil and coal! LOL"

I like to think that's what they'll be saying anyway.
Blade Runner 2049 will probably be where we’re going at this rate. At least we’ll have hologram girlfriends.
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,573
Scotland
Sorry I'm late to the game on this one but AnCaps (read: feudalists) differ from right-libertarians/Randians because in the latter system there is still always some state arbitrator (read: cops) to enforce and protect private property rights. AnCaps believe in eliminating all government structure while retaining private property and respect thereof through the (giggle) Non-Aggression Pact. This is why AnCap is always guaranteed to devolve into feudalism. Also AnCaps aren't really anarchists in my book. They just want to eliminate the political hierarchy while retaining the economic one, which is equally illegitimate.

Also surprised there are so many other Anarcho tendencies here. That's dope.
I'm demsoc but the more I learn about anarchism the more I like it.
 

Eylos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,597
Stateless societies won't work.
thats not true, you had stateless societies until 1700~ that worked, before european colonialism and modern states being created and conquering everything and you had other experiences through history and even today. I understand and agree with the point that its easier to small communities, but i dont think its an impossible goal with technology and AI development, i dont think we should stick with socialist state forever, communism is a goal where we must aim to go slowly, thats why socialists want to use the state to make that to turn a reality, probably we will never see in our lives. The biggest fighting point of socialists and anarchists is this transition using the state, because the goal is basicaly the same.
 

louisacommie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,587
New Jersey
As shitty as the constitution is, if we ever get one of us in power, maybe Bernie. The president has so much intended and unintended power on foreign policy that they could actually do something about it from a leftist perspective
 

Snowy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
850
So like, we can recognize here that there is genuine ideological integrity in Omar’s vote re: recognizing the Armenian genocide, correct? She didn’t vote against it, she abstained because recognizing it for bad-faith reasons relating to contemporary global political rivalries is cynical and lacks any kind of moral clarity, which is presumably what the purpose of such a vote would be. I don’t necessarily agree, but that does make perfect sense to me and don’t think it’s entirely unfounded. Am I crazy?
 

GiantBreadbug

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,371
Iitate-mura, Japan
So like, we can recognize here that there is genuine ideological integrity in Omar’s vote re: recognizing the Armenian genocide, correct? She didn’t vote against it, she abstained because recognizing it for bad-faith reasons relating to contemporary global political rivalries is cynical and lacks any kind of moral clarity, which is presumably what the purpose of such a vote would be. I don’t necessarily agree, but that does make perfect sense to me and don’t think it’s entirely unfounded. Am I crazy?
No, this is the correct take, and I appreciate her statement invoking the slave trade and colonial Native American genocide. The utter meltdown from people in that thread making the leap to "please primary Omar" is pants-on-head-tier wackiness.

Remember: focus on the issues, not other threads!
Right, apologies.

That being said, this is my first time really encountering ground-level sentiment sympathetic to the traditional party insider rush to figure out a primary based "solution" to the Squad "problem."
 
Last edited:

Snowy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
850
Remember: focus on the issues, not other threads!
I agree, but I wasn’t intending to thread war or anything like that, just seek clarity that I’m not crazy for being able to simultaneously think her vote was wrong, but not shit my pants that she has a differing moral and political perspective on a complex geopolitical issue. That people are also bringing up her voting against sanctions certainly says to me that, at a minimum, people are completely oblivious as to what the rest of the world, especially the Global South, thinks about US politics, and the ripple effects it can produce.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,580
Yeah more people should be aware that Omar is tight with Erdogan. I don’t give her the benefit of the doubt that her vote was actually based on her statement.
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,704
But it’s not okay to invoke right-wing talking points on progressive WoC and doubt them every step of the way with infantilizing rhetoric.
You can talk about Democrats complaining about Omar (there's plenty on Twitter), but we don't want to give the mods a reason to think we're breaking the "ceasefire".
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,573
Scotland
So like, we can recognize here that there is genuine ideological integrity in Omar’s vote re: recognizing the Armenian genocide, correct? She didn’t vote against it, she abstained because recognizing it for bad-faith reasons relating to contemporary global political rivalries is cynical and lacks any kind of moral clarity, which is presumably what the purpose of such a vote would be. I don’t necessarily agree, but that does make perfect sense to me and don’t think it’s entirely unfounded. Am I crazy?
Nobody is gonna read her statement, everything is see headline and react now.
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,573
Scotland
You can talk about Democrats complaining about Omar (there's plenty on Twitter), but we don't want to give the mods a reason to think we're breaking the "ceasefire".
I'm relatively new here but I can't recall anyone I've seen post here just straight up trolling libs or whatever. I'm still confused why we got that warning.
 

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,970
I'm relatively new here but I can't recall anyone I've seen post here just straight up trolling libs or whatever. I'm still confused why we got that warning.
There is sniping from both sides(not everyone is involved), but let us drop it; it will go nowhere good.

Now, as to Omar it's definitely a bad look, and a growing list of what I think are either political miscalculations or just bad messaging errors but in no way do I say she needs to go. She is certainly burning political good will doing stuff like this though.

As for my statelessism Pekola & others Stateless societies don't work in the modern era for a very large list of reasons. Chief among them is the fact that our society is too large and overburdened as is with states to accomplish what anarchism wants. Another issue is stateless societies can't answer outside context problems/powers very easily...or at all.
 

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,970
the correct number of votes for an overt white supremacist to receive is 0, regardless of how bad the clintons are
Oh well yes.

But Trump isn't solely the reason the right has such a stranglehold right now. That was racism against Obama and the fact that the democratic party ran away from him at times.

What I'm saying is...racism is 90% of the problem. Ignorance and apathy 5%.

Chalk up another 5% to dems occasionally shitting the bed.
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,573
Scotland
Does anyone else think the recent tendency to call everything a culture tends to give nonsense like "cancel culture" an authority that isn't deserved?

It's hard to explain, but it just feels like slapping culture on the end of anything makes it seem more 'real' than it actually is.
 

Pekola

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,954
( •̀ω•́ ) 🖤
Does anyone else think the recent tendency to call everything a culture tends to give nonsense like "cancel culture" an authority that isn't deserved?

It's hard to explain, but it just feels like slapping culture on the end of anything makes it seem more 'real' than it actually is.
The terms only gain legitimacy through reiteration effect. And the way you dismiss them is by sucking the oxygen with the same authority.

Cancel Culture doesn’t exist.
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,573
Scotland
The terms only gain legitimacy through reiteration effect. And the way you dismiss them is by sucking the oxygen with the same authority.

Cancel Culture doesn’t exist.
Indeed but it's somehow became a truth, even on here. It's kinda incredible to have seen it grow from a far right conspiracy theory to liberal orthodoxy in the space of just over a year.