Wtf is up with all these social liberal redditors here now?

Because they don't belong here, you fucking retard

FFS that isn't what social liberalism means!
You fucking dumbass yanks

Social liberalism does not mean "muh gay marriage" "muh drugs"

It means public welfare programs and state regulations for the sake of social justice.

Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to.

We're leftists, we want to abolish the capitalist framework that eliminates the treatment for this system's contradictions.

We are not liberals of any kind, we're sociasts

oh well, I miss seeing those

...

No more reformism.
You really fucking think in the porky US we should get a "pro worker" candidate for the fucking Democratic party?

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm

You are. Don't put me in in the same stupid bowl of revolutionary leftism. That shit should have been dead since the 90s.
There is more to the left than anarchists and communists and both of them are retarded to this day and age.
I won't try to make an argument for this, but the biggest contradiction ever is socialism. Break the bubble and find out for yourself.
Again, speak for yourself.

Worst post of 2016 tbh

Fuck off.

Hi Holla Forums

Give me one good example of voting accomplishing anything ever.

Holla Forums is pretty stupid.

Not turning into socialism.

You aren't a leftist now fuck off to /liberalpol/

Sorry, leftism is more than just communism and anarchism. Stop with the historical revisionism now.

No, leftists are socialists.
Social liberals are a type of liberals and as such they support the capitalist mode of production.
You're the one being ahistorical.
What's next? Obama's a socialist?

Cool, send us pictures from the YPG

I don't understand the need for leftists to be so hung up on reformism and their need to prove how radical they are by tell us "it's the revolution or nothing, comrade"

Why not try both tbh ? I'm going to die in 40 or 50 years, and there is no revolution on sight. All the attempts to organize it in the West during the 20th century have failed. We can't afford to try to repeat that shit all over again.
We need more new anarchist and Marxist ideas that take into account the peculiarities of the 21th century, and how to turn that to our advantage.
And while people are thinking about this, I wouldn't denigrate politicians like Sanders or Corbyn who would make life more tolerable for the poor, not worse as usual.

What I mean is that we should be educating and spreading propaganda to the workers and not expecting something good to come out of the official political game

The criticism is against people who think something is going to come out of the neoliberal Democratic party

Workers have been betrayed by reformists at literally every single opportunity they had. Do we really need to talk about the SPD enabling the Freikorps or, as a more recent example, the betrayal of workers by SYRIZA and Podemos? By enabling reformists we allow the illusion of reform to live in workers minds. Not a single meaningful reform in the US came from a vote. Everything we gained over the 20th century from basic labor rights to civil rights were the result of widespread riots, strikes, and protests.

get out, pig

No. Social democrats and social liberals are leftists together with socialists and anarchists.

Good. Still lefty.

No, you fucking idiot. Just because he's a lefty (well, he isn't even that) doesn't mean he's a socialist.

Socialism and communism are dead. Deal with it. Your only option is to start by managing cooperatives. Anything else I have heard is brain-dead stupidity and/or nonviable.

People have been doing that for at least a hundred years and still no success. Are you really that stupid?

Fuck off, your revolution is not happening, not even in a few hundred years.
Also, social democrat =/= liberal

you can try both, but reform is always fragile and fleeting. concessions are only won from capitalism in extraordinary times.

you need to go back
>>>/liberalpol/

V. I. Lenin is that you?

I would rather try to convince some commies that their ideas are shit at this point and should look at the better alternative to ensure the well being of most.

get banned faggot

This. America has now proven that when capitalism has now failed, they will turn to fascism instead.

Sorry for attacking your safe space, faggot

Come on…

You're a liberal. You support the economic capitalist framework. Leftists want to move beyond that and move towards socialism like the original leftists wanted to move from feudalism to liberalism. The supporters of feudalism who wanted to reform the system a little to make it all cute and nice were not leftists. You aren't leftist. In fact, it's your type who ruins it all.

Social liberals aren't leftists.
At most, you're the left of the Right.

Social democracy was born out of socialism in it's concept and not from liberalism. They are lefties.

I'm a leftist liberal if you want.
Leftism and capitalism are compatible.

If I'm ruining socialism, then thanks for the compliment. Socialism should die already.

They're proles, just like you and me, user. They belong here. We all do.

that's right prole, one more reform is all that's needed!

Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, 1927

Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels), Das Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei, 1848

again, get banned faggot

Traditional social democracy IS socialism, idiot. They're evolutionary socialists.

Modern social democracy like the one you'd see in Northern Europe, however, is liberal and not socialism. They have capitalist markets. That isn't socialist.

Read leftist literature.

"Even then, it is not that simple. There is a difference between traditional social democracy and modern (liberal) social democracy with the former being in favor of evolutionary, democratic socialism and the latter being a bourgeois, co-opted form that is characteristic of the Nordic countries.

Liberal social democracy retains the capitalist means of productions, and in a way, can be said to (attempt to) tame the contradictions of capitalism."

No, you're a left-liberal. You're not a leftist.

No the fuck they aren't. Leftism is radical. That is, it identifies the root of the current social and economic order as the cause of the problem faced. That root is the capitalist economic system. Leftists, again, want to move pat it thusly.

yeah,, sure

Isn't that the same guy who said anarcho capitalism was anarchism? lmao

I never said social democracy was communism, you stupid commie

Are you seriously implying social democracy is democratic socialism? What is social democracy according to you?
Nevermind, just read your post below. Still, (liberal) social democracy has it's ideological roots in (traditional) social democracy

That's a contradiction.
Over a hundred years waiting and still no socialism to be seen. Why are you still waiting for it to happen? It's not happening, especially not now that standards of living are improving for virtually everybody.

"Social Democrat was pretty much the standard of the Representative Left-wing in the late 19th and early 20th century, lots of them Marxists and other Socialists who used the democratic institutions to agitate the working class, therein lay the early Labour Party, the SPD, even Lenin's party was the Social Democratic Party of Russia (of which both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were part of)
After 1917 Left-wing Parties grew bolder and started calling for military action and the overthrow of Bourgeois Democracy, partly due to the successful revolutions and partly due to the rise of reactionary movements that would later become Fascist, those who weren't so willing to pick up arms, whether for Theoretical disagreements like the Mensheviks or doubt in current Praxis like Kautsky or for being Bourgeois Reformists dressed in red, kept the old Social Democrat label, while advocating for gradual reform which would bring power to the workers through the democratic process of the Bourgeois State (Democratic Socialism) while Revolutionaires would turn their parties Leninist or Trostkyst and center them towards Praxis, abandoning Representation within the accepted order.
Cold War pressures and Electoral politics would push the Social Democrat parties further right up to the point that they would abandon Socialism as previously envisioned completely and advocate for the welfare state, "humane capitalism" ,"social justice" or (the worst of all) "a third way"
Social Democracy (and Social Democrats), having failed to bring Worker's Ownership of the MOP came to define the economic organization of 1st world countries with a strong safety net, labour unions and spending in social programs.
Democratic Socialism (aside from distancing its advocates from the Revolutionaries of old) can mean modern political parties who share the goals of the original Social Democrats of creating a Socialist society through the electoral process, (although I can't think of any example other than Hugo Chavez whose project has demonstrated to be little more than Social Democracy so far) or just emphasis on the Democratic character of some Revolutionary group."

Read a book.

No, it isn't.

Left-liberals are not leftists. They're the left of the Right, but they're not in the Left.

Rousseau, for example, was a left-liberal.

you miss the point. you said
they are literally antithetical. leftism is anticapitalism. communism is a strand of leftism

leftism literally opposes capitalism. calling them compatible is like calling disease compatible with wellness

It doesn't matter. The goal of traditional social democracy was socialism. Liberal social democracy doesn't have that as a goal and only wishes to make capitalism more "fair".

Your point is irrelevant.

[citation needed]

Fair enough.

What is leftism?

Leftism is an umbrella for radical politics. In a way, we're trying to do what the early liberals tried to do. That is, smash/capture the state and abolish the current socio-economic order to near the age of liberty, equality and fraternity. Leftism is anti-capitalism.

Someone, post some leftist literature PDF's for this social liberal.

can't give you one offhand. "leftism" is not a scientific taxonomy, but it generally applies to socialism, communism and anarchism, and the various forms thereof; those all oppose capitalism. therefore it's appropriate to conclude that anticapitalism is a major tenet of leftism
broadly, opposition to hierarchy and the master-slave/owner-owned dynamic. capitalism is inherently and intrinsically hierarchical, thus it is opposed by leftism

[citation needed]
Also, fascism fits under that definition.

So, you literally give the word any meaning you want? Wow.

like your declaring liberalism and capitalism as leftist? despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Most political academic researchers (if not all) consider social democracy to be leftwing. It's not me who gives words a new meaning but you.

Facists are reactionaries. The want to return to some time perceived as "more pure, innocent and holy". Leftists want to go foreword.

Again, the the leftists want radical change and progress and not simply a cute makeover like social liberals do. The original Left were liberals who had their revolution against the Right and pushed for capitalism to replace the feudal economy. The liberal succeeded and the age of liberal democracy began. Liberalism was established as the status-quo like feudalism and the slave economy once was; the liberals became the Right (the conservatives in a Marxist sense) and the the new Left (socialists) arose to rail against liberal capitalism and fight to bring socialism in the shell of the older society.

Some also call Obama a socialist, say libertarianism is right-wing and use the bourgeois liberal vs conservative dichotomy.

It's liberals, whether they are social liberals or conservative liberals who change the definitions of shit. Especially the Americans.

meaningless.

Go to >>>/freedu/ and read a book

i can't help that. that's a problem from the lack of understanding leftism (and lack of leftism itself) in academia and society in general. most "political academic researchers" reflect the biases and falsehoods of their respective institutions, heritages, and societies

ultimately it's beside the point. your contention was that "leftism and capitalism are compatible," which is just flatly false

I'm so glad Trump won if only for the delicious outpouring of salt EVERYWHERE.

I honestly don't know, but I wish they'd stop shilling the Greens and other dead-end reformist parties.

Not academic researchers
True, but because they refer to another kind of libertarianism than the original one. Same word for two different things.
Nothing wrong with it.

You are pretty much an idiot.

Yes, because social democracy is left wing, everybody (including professionsals) but commies agree with that use of the word

Socialism is dead end.

brilliant argument. not that i should expect much more from a liberal
that is because there is an internal understanding of these matters versus an external one. those who consider themselves actual, serious leftists (like most serious posters here) don't consider socdems leftists, because socdems coddle and often empower capitalism instead of advocating its abolition. however, those outside of that genuine leftist current, such as the mainstream academics, pundits, and politicians, use terms like "left" and "left wing" in a much less disciplined and (in the view of leftists) accurate way.

basically, the different groups have separate definitions of "left." the definition held by leftists is based on theory, literature, facts, history and logic; the definition held by outsiders (like yourself) is based on misinterpretation, argumentum ad populum, ideology, delusion, and outright lies.
then you should fuck off, since this board's obviously not for you

Lmao at that arroagance hahaha
Also, not a true scotsman

Not when it's done by academic research
lmao
You are the deluded ideologue who has to lie about what words mean to fit your own ideological agenda

Too bad, I'm using it anyways. Maybe some people will turn away from the stupidity that socialism is to this day and age.

nice meme
argumentum ad verecundiam
nope. i just use the factual meanings rather than false ones
"i'm gonna visit this pro-socialism community and try to turn them against socialism. man i'm good"
i hope you're prepared to try harder, because your arguments (nonarguments, really) so far have been beyond terrible

You haven't justified your position at all. You're just making an appeal to authority (ad nauseum).

Based on the caliber of your arguments, I don't think socialists have anything to worry about.

Not really
Nice meme btw

Factual according to who?

Yes, because Socialism is awful by now.

Sorry, I'm not the one who says social democracy is not leftwing despite not mentioning any sources nor references other than "me lol XD"

See above.
Do you perhaps think climate change is fake while we are at it?

True, I haven't made any serious arguments against socialism in this thread, but I can in other threads.

I'm repeating this, because I know you guys are pretty dense when it comes at this.

See? Political researchers are the word when it comes to defining what words mean in a political context, not you, and that's NOT an appeal to authority.

Carl Sagan

Because modern bourgeoisie politics is theater, where you can weave a narrative around that suits your own benefit. The defeat of Bernie and this election as a whole is a bit like a Shakesperean tragedy. Repurposing the betrayal of the DNC as some sort of symbolic betrayal of the working class and young people allows an opportunity to present a radical alternative.