Here's the platform for the Democratic Socialists of America

Because this is fucking social democracy, by very definition.
Allende was a democratic socialist and he was completely for the abolition of capitalism, openly.

You're saying the dems have what they want and the socdems don't. That's wrong. Explain to me their differences from democrats.

This is a disgusting image. Thank you.

Socdems destroy the power of the proletariat and simply shift power from porky to the state (who is controlled by porky)

What do dems want that they don't have? We currently live in the neolib order.

Universal healthcare, higher min wage, open borders, stronger unions, idpol shit, cheap college etc.

Only the most profound autist would read that and think messaging that basically says "weaken capitalists and be inclusive" to the average person is a bad thing

A blend of "leftist" failures and market fundamentalism.

...

Also better regulations on banks, see Elizabeth Warren.

Are you joking? Do you legitimately think Dems earnestly want those thing? Let me guess, the big bad Republicans just won't let them. Lmfao

Hhaha, you haven't read their platforms and you don't understand American politics. kys

…how does that refute my point?

Earnestly? Yeah, most of them. Publically? No, because they'll lose voters.

All respect for Salvador and his fate, but what Allende wanted and defined as socialism was the consolidation of production into the hands of a digitally-empowered bureaucracy. In this sense his idea of socialism was exactly the same as the USSR's (Preobrazhensky's/Kautsky's), except much more efficient, and we may call it social democracy at the byte of a processor.

You're the most politically illiterate person on the board right now.

If you're splitting hairs this hard your argument isn't very strong. No one cares what their secret fantasies they never actually push for are. And you are incredibly naive, bordering on delusional, to think people like Obama just "really, really wanted and tried their best to get" stronger unions and universal healthcare but just couldn't. Just straight up liberal propaganda.

Their argument holds up better than yours, they had to do with a Trump country and half of the government being Republican, not to mention the Blue dog dems that actually still favored the market above all else.

So yeah, no matter what you think the history is there you retard, Obama's healthcare plan for instance was much more progressive before they had to bow down to the GOP to get anything fucking through.

not an argument

Not to mention the Rebups had majorities in the Senate. And if not the Senate than the House. It was one of them.

So now I'm asking you, how are the demsocs better than the democrats? They're not, it's the same shit with a friendlier face.

And I guess Obama goatse'd himself to the banks back in 09 out of sheer anticipation of this future majority

Not the argument I'm putting forward, I just hate the rehabilitation of the Dems that's coming with this argument. Shit on demsocs to your heart's desire my dude, but spare me the "Democrats wanted to do better I swear" handwringing.

This is not a reddit. I'm not obliged by meaningless internet points to pander to your bullshit.

I provided evidence, you're just a foreign commie that doesn't know dick about America, and thinks every democrat is an evil crypto neo-liberal corporatist. No matter what evidence I give, you'll never believe otherwise because you don't understand basic government and the power structures of this country.

If you are an American, then I have to say you're a complete mong.

not an argument

...

The only thing I'm rehabilitating them as is social democrats. Wow, who would've thunk the democrats actually a bunch of socdem.

That isn't their platform, you're retarded.

While it's true that DSA is reformist, that's the case with every socialist organization in the west.

You have a very flexible interpretation of the word "evidence". Also, I live in America so your whole rant is extra hilarious. I guess I don't buy into every piece of propaganda and don't own any #ImWithHer pins though so I'm not REALLY an American like you are.

Correct.

DSA advocates for socialism

Yeah, and I vehemently disagree with even that characterization. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

what's wrong with it

Yeah nothing about that explicitly rejects capitalism, popular control is CLEARLY a rephrasing for state control.

Literally the Republicans acknowledge class by income levels. Acknowledging class doesn't get you Marxist points when they don't define it by Marx's views.

Bernie and Hillary voted the same 95% of the time, you don't know what you're talking about, you have studied the democrats, and you don't know about their retarded triangulation stratagies. It's not propaganda when the facts support my arguments, the only real one being is the dems are socdems, wow who would've thunk it.

So do the Young Turks.

Well you're clearly wrong, these people aren't free market fundamentalists. They're not ancaps, how are they not socdems? You're autistic.

Basically just autists mad that sometimes messaging has to be tailored to normies.

you haven't studied the democrats*****

I asked this before and still haven't gotten answer: how are the DSA different from progressive democrats?

Yep, I'm clearly the autist here

And if you're going to accuse people of being "foreign commies" I'd learn to articulate better in my native tongue.

Explicit critique of capitalism.

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy; as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions"

This is all you need to classify oneself as a socdem, you're under the impression I like socdems, I do not. All I'm saying is that technically the Democrats are socdems, they voted for more regulations, they voted for food stamps, etc.

But mein gott, isn't that just capitalishm with a human face?
Why is it so hard for people to understand base and superstructure?

which wouldve been fucking awesome tbf

And my contention comes from the fact that no motion or platform by the Dems since Reagan significantly differentiates them from any conservative party. As has been stated before, Obama's healthcare plan was developed by the Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Mitt Romney. It is a massive give-away to insurance lobby. And by the standards you seem to have, any conservative politician in a country like the UK is a "socdem" just for advocating the NHS or other mild safety net program.

I think we should be clear on this point, NEITHER of us thinks the socdems are good (just so this conversation can move away from moralizing implications). We're just disagreeing on categorization.

Well yeah they are, conservatism does not have a concrete definition like social democrat.

Yes because they're all liberals, also go look up their party platform yourself, and go look up the 90s Clinton attempt to get universal healthcare.

I agree, but they're still socdems and Reaganomics was much more free market focused then what the dems were pushing for, you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, I respect you.

If your own stupidity and shit tier understanding of what socialism is wasn't enough, you pull this card. Amazing.

Yeah, nothing seems wrong

There's definitely an anti-Soviet bias present, but this bias is present in 99% of Americans.

...

They also hate cuba and every socialist state ever.

reminder that this is the group that those chapo cunts are members of

So are DSA. Read their website.

dsausa.org/

Why would socialists bat for authoritarian state capitalist regimes?

The only role these for such governments is to be useful idiots for socialism, to shake the foundations of the capitalist order and spur global revolution.

They don't even contest elections, what's even the point of the party?

Spread class consciousness

Name all revolutions which didn't happen thanks to the political or economic collapse.

The Bolshevik Revolution. The Chinese Revolution. The Cuban Revolution.

The will of socialist individuals is necessary to overpower a government and lead the society to socialism. If we don't, reactionaries will do this instead.

It's not, they're a wing of the Democrats that exists for leftists to blow off steam. They should be opposed like every activist group.

Russia has almost collapse in WWI, plus the country had incredible social and economic problems even before the war has even started
First the Qing were overthrown and shortly thereafter the Chinese state has collapsed and fractured into the warlord cliques, also Japan joined the fun, causing even bigger chaos.
Batista basically became a dictator with the connections to the organized crime and US companies while the population was plagued by severe unemployment and even water deficits

they aren't connected to the Democrats at all

why should activists be opposed?

lol no, though I can see why you'd be confused since the word "democratic" is right in the name, amirite?

I love when autists try to teach me about human interaction and selling a message. It turns out if you can't communicate well it doesn't matter how good your ideas are.

So dear redpillers class consciousness raisers, how many people like pic related have you converted to communism so far?

So where did the KPD go wrong?

In 1919?

It's Jacobin in party form. They'll line up and critically vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is in an election.

They seem to be doing it on their own.
redneckrevolt.org/

>redneckrevolt.org/
and absolutely
BTFO

Activists on suicide watch.

In short, the pendulum metaphor isn't wrong. The extent of these reforms and social programs careen back and forth subject to the ever-present contradictions, opposing pressures, of the capitalist system.
The aim is to stop the pendulum and cut it down.

Wait till you realize the DSA is in contact with RNR in most major areas where they're active

Stay mad, internet LARPer

Oh well, there's always another authentic working class movement that can arise that might not get coopted.

For now I'll let the conditions precipitate until this movement invariably runs into the dead end it is predestined to run into and kills itself, too. Sigh.

You know you can just admit you're trolling.

This infograph is actually pretty good in concept but has some flaws in understanding what each position actually puts forward. I'm assuming the creator of it is an anarchist because that's the only one that seems spot on. Still though, 7/10.

As properly pointed out, the DSA operates just like a Trot org, the only difference being that it's ideologically slightly different and less refined than Trotskyism.

I'm not really trolling. All I'm saying is one hundred percent true to what I believe and what is, although I'm obviously being smug about it.

After a couple dozen leftists the trolley would slow down and stop thereby saving me from having to leave my armchair. Read Bordiga you pleb.

Anyone who's ever done irl activism would recognize that trots and DSAers have very active disagreements on a variety of topics. Local chapters can range from barely left of socdem to ML/anarchist, so trot is a gross mischaracterization in any case. Also, the glib dismissal is unwarranted considering that, outside of internet LARPing, most leftists want to recognize, work with, and assemble with fellow leftists. So getting in contact with other leftist groups of other tendencies isn't some nefarious subversive plot - especially with membership crossover - and it's weird to frame it as such.

Trots are pretty much the orthodox revolutionary socialists, though. Clearly more so than "socialism in one country" which does nothing to resolve capitalism's fundamental contradictions.
The only problem with trots is you get a lot of fake ones, liberals who repudiate Trotsky's positions and fetishize reform and bourgeois liberal democracy. This is because the "trot" label has necessarily become a vague one, in no small part due to the labors of the theoretically bankrupt, opportunists, class collaborators, and the bourgeoisie itself, to channel discontent back into the safe, dead-end channels of class rule.

So it's right to say that DSA behaves like these fake trots, but not that they're Trotskyists in the real sense, like the SEP

The important thing in that pic is the dialectic of "reform." It's an equilibrium process like the whole rest of policy economics.

But yes, i'd say that "traditional cultural norms" are hardly a fundamental logic of the modern system, and that communism is much more than "capturing" the state. It and anarchism are both separate methods of dismantling the state, differing in theory and outlook, yadda yadda yadda.

An important thing is to rationalise the relative improminence of ancap ideas, since one would naively expect the whole bourgeoisie to line up behind them. As it turns out, however, stability and "business-as-usual-ism" themselves have an intrinsic value to the ruling class, and its material interests make it just as "impractical" to push for the level of deregulation ancaps would like. I feel ancaps ultimately need to come over to our side to "smash the state" at all and achieve the level of personal freedom they would like. Of course, this is where "freedom to exploit" becomes a wedge issue.

SocDems themselves have disagreements among themselves. What matters is that they're both full of action but no content because of no theory and a heavy allegiance to bourgeois democracy, either consciously for the SA or unconsciously for the Trots respectively.

"Orthodox" as in dustbin of history era unchecked ideologues that follow the ramblings of a militant figure that should be forgotten ASAP (unless workers enjoy theoretical limbo, which I doubt), maybe: theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/notes-trotsky-pannekoek-bordiga-gilles-dauvé-jean-barrot-1972.

Just calling everyone socdems doesn't make them so. Quit begging the question.

…but SA are the trots?

I swear dude

That's not even their platform, OP is a fag

So they have no theory, but their focus on strong theory is wrongheaded? Nice critique.
"Orthodox" as in the correct expression of Marxism, the scientific understanding of current conditions and the way forward from them.
I'm not sure where to start with you here. "Entry-ism" is not a Trotskyist position. It's painfully easy to see how "co-opt a bourgeois party by joining it with contrary views" is a project doomed to failure, from a Marxist standpoint. You can even read the Transitional Program and see Trotsky predict that the old trade unions may become appendages of bourgeois rule which are necessary to abandon, which is exactly what happened.

they're like 30% trots actually

DSA -do- want to alter the base

They reject capitalism and want social control of the economy

By that standard I'm a pair of legs

are you joking?

DSA is a Trot-driven group that's bringing a lot of liberals to the left. They have a lot of MLs and Maoists within them hoping to make the group more hardcore.

While it's good to criticize them for being socdem at times, they're not our enemies. It's impressive that they went from 6,000 to 20,000 members in a year. There's a real opportunity for radicalization here.

What a patronizing, childish attitude.

He said patronizingly.

National level DSA is shit. I don't think anyone will argue with that. Most actual work gets done on the local level. Local chapters range from socdem to Marxist/Anarchist. It has gone left since the 80s. People I know are using it as a way to network with other leftists and radicalize liberals. Without a doubt the DSA won't bring about socialism. It's just a starting point to meet people and eventually build our own radical organizations. Easier to get the masses involved in a socialism-lite org to start than one of the current LARP orgs in the US. Whether this tactic will fail I don't know, but I think it's worth supporting for the moment.

Reformist. Reformist. Reformist. You're all reformists. None of you are free from reformism.

That's one of the more horrible things I've heard today

lol not even close to true

The DSA has absolutely no legal or financial connection to the Democratic Party

In what way?

Can't be radicalization without education

Ah, so this was the coordinated attack on DSA we were warned about for this week. Fascinating

By whom? Cointelpro?

Have you considered that the reason people disagree with you isn't because they're "uneducated"? Sounds like you think everyone but people who share your political ideals is retarded.

It's literally on the about section of their site
dsausa.org/about_dsa

...

...

Nice try CIA/FBI/pol/global capital/vested interests/general shitbag on the internet.

see

Unless we're just playing some dimension of chess where blatantly lying to get your point across isn't propaganda

Rosa Luxemburg was CIA confirmed

Revolutionary thought is RUSSIAN! Pretty strange all this revolutionary thought comes about at this point in time at which other things are also happening, huh? Further proof socialism is communist and Russian.

a partial list of (worthwhile!) objectives is not a platform

Can you tell me why?

But it is (part of) one, no?

It used to be fun to call out Obamacrats as right-wing menaces and watch them trip over themselves trying to defend his approach to the crimes of the Bush years and then the whistleblowers. "W-well it's clearly not i-ideal, but the republicans are at his throat! We have to move forward!" or something. They knew they were wrong and full of empty rhetoric, and that angst was delicious.
Now they've managed to convince themselves that wikileaks and whistleblowing in general are not neutral approaches to transparency and "accountable government" we all benefit from, but overtly partisan tactics to rob The Anointed One of her rightful place.
Every push for and in defense of the basic democratic rights of the people is now a Russian plot. The people who just years ago screeched about republicans using 1984 as a guidebook have credulously latched on to the very same sort of talking points.
This time, strange as it was, the farce came before the tragedy.

We DO need robust and correct theory though, if we're going to build socialism. DSA doesn't provide that.

Would entryism into the DSA to recruit militia members be a good idea?

What a great idea, you should get right on that

I want to stop hearing the word "entryism." It's not valid praxis.
But you seem to be using it here as a nonsense buzzword, like "synergy."

Joining the DSA with no intention of stealing their members and dragging them further left is entryism. Do you have a different definition or did you just want to say "praxis"?

*no intention but stealing their members

color me surprised

...

When people say that, for example, CPUSA is "an arm of the Democratic party," they don't mean it in the fully literal sense. They're referring to its actual policies and theoretical outlook.
I don't know why that guy would call DSA a "legally owned subsidiary" of the Democrats, because I haven't seen any evidence of that, but there is an absolutely thriving industry of pseudo-leftism that quite literally makes its living through diversionary and ineffectual political activity, just as well-heeled union executives profit by functioning as an arm of management. So it pays to be a little more skeptical, and to not credulously take "it has seen a surge in membership" as some inherent quality or endorsement of the party itself, when the pseudo-left is designed to do just that, "capture" those falling out of the mainstream.