The only thing it does is allow liberals to point at it and say "look muh socialism doesn't work!" or "look capitalism isn't so bad in Scandinavia!"

Other urls found in this thread:


What do you propose we do right now


Read Althusser.

Kill all socdems

Right now, our only option is to
Google Bookchin, read Mao, read Pol Pot, read Stra*ser, read Bordiga, read Lenin, read Guevara, read Gaddafi, read Corbyn, read Zizek…

wonder who's behind this post

Many people see it as a " successful" implementation of socialism, even though it's on the retreat all across the world.

If you're talking about reform among socialists, you have to go where the masses are.

Vangard party

It wasn't real Social Democracy. Real Social Democracy has never been tried.


Advocating social democracy and big welfare is unironically good praxis. Capitalism is strained as it is and between the falling rate of profit on one side and high taxes on the other we push capital closer to collapse.
Capital stands by a crumbling cliff edge which on its own will eventually erode the ground it, social democracy however will push capital closer and closer to the edge, till capital tumbles down or lashes out to save itself thus revealing its reactionary nature to all.

Nuke Wall Street and the Swiss banks and immediately assign all marine biologists to create widespread human-dolphin communication. Then we signal to the Space Comrades that it is time.

I'll answer this sperg out with another question. What's to be gained by berating allies like this? Why not focus you energy on actual opponents like the rich or aut-right.

Is soc dem fence sitting? Maybe, but at least it's modern and not a hail Mary like socialism or largely unrealistic like communism.

What I really don't understand is how autistic ☭TANKIE☭s are.
I mean, the vast majority of people's conception of communism, is that it's a mass murdering failed authoritarian ideology.
You aren't going to get blue collar workers in the first world and third world to join some vague notion of "collective ownership".

Social democracy is beneficial for actual existing people. Having Single Payer, subsidized daycare, free university tuition, forgive student debt, high minimum wage and unions are all great improvements for the majority of the people.

Now, what should be done is push farther than that, point out that those nice, popular things like Single Payer won't last if there is a small minority of parasites who will always try to control legislation and dismantle those hard won gains.
If the majority of people actually care about climate change and not in the abstract, then they will likely support large scale collective acts outside the control of the private sector.

Again, this is the dilemma of communists.
Do you either support gradual socdem reforms that can be dismantled without constant working class support and agitation?
And remember, people are selfish.
Do you think even poor people with access to credit will want to give up cheap consumer goods which are only possible through slave labour?

Boomers, who control about 65% of all wealth don't give a damm about millennials who are struggling with debt, starvation and a hopeless future. We shouldn't assume people care about X in the abstract. People are concerned with primarily themselves and a few close others.

In State & Revolution, Lenin says that Marx defines 'socialism' as the very first step of the journey towards communism and can be considered to exist when the workers expropriate all property from the bourgeoisie. Notions of 'equality' (racial, gender etc) are not realized & other notions of 'bourgeois right' are not eradicated until a later stage when the DotP lasts long enough for that the state, made up entirely of the proletariat and actively oppressing the bourgeoisie until there are none left - one way or another, 'withers away'. The state withers away over time as its functions are no longer needed as socialism progresses and the bourgeoisie class has disappeared from society.
This is said with the understanding that the state serves as an avenue for the bourgeoisie to exploit us and manipulate the proletariat & thereby society. This functionality will no longer be necessary at some point after socialism is established.

Communism might seem unrealistic if you don't think that people will ever, at any point in the future attempt to work together in their own class interests to achieve real change. That's all it takes to get started moving towards communism. You are by no means guaranteed to actually arrive at communism but it absolutely must be tried over and over until it is achieved. Communism is inevitable.

Naturally, capitalists are involved.

Did Keynesian SuccDems even fail on their own or did economically illiterate politicians just get spooked by the 1973 Oil Crisis that badly?

Stagflation was literally a false flag event used as a pretext to dismantle the entire socdem system.


The flaw was allowing the bourgeoisie to remain in power. The dismantling of the welfare state was inevitable while the ruling class that wanted dismantled in their positions.

I am aware of the failure of peaceful coexistence with the booj. I mean did Keynesianism fail on its own?

it's like a bandaid for a necrotic wound


Until third world countries get their countries together and the free ride of oil /resources and cheap labor dries up. Or 1st world socdem continues to neo colonize Africa since the resources to give people in the 1st world great lives comes from somewhere else.

I agree 100% but when socialism is established what or who will maintain it and ensure it works only for the prole?

Bruh, people don't even vote in their self interest. I just think communism is unrealistic because it's unspecific, vague and fails to do a great job of applying to life today. I mean, come on "a society without class." How would anything ever get done?


Capital shuts it down by implementing liberalism every. single. time. All social democracy does is push the scale slightly left, then porky starts shitting it up and tells the proles
"Look! Socialism doesn't work"
and then they switch back to status quo.

Does Holla Forums need class to do things?


Why do succdems even pretend to be Socialists?

Australia is full of Uranium and the reconstruction of western manufacturing borders on a prerequisite for meaningful full employment.

(Actually, calculating the resource-scope for a developed-world Autarky would be quite interesting. I'm not going to do it, though.)

Americans manage. :^)
taking bets on this poster believing the "middle class" is a real thing, £10 a pop.

Erhm, I don't think he has written anything lad…


It's liberalism.

Read muh favourite book that appeals to me for fashionable reasons only to realize it doesnt actually resolve anything nor proposes anything usefull and wasted hours of your lifetime


Just fucking type down one of his speeches and read it, you moron.


Read Kaczynski

reformists aren't allies they are the enemies.
case in fucking point, yall kill every revolutionary movement that comes into existence.

It's almost as if there's a narrow spectrum of acceptable political beliefs in the West, and to make any progress through democratic institutions significant dilution and concessions are necessitated.

Also, Utopianism.

You are pretending that these things can be brought about through thin air, it's ridiculous to say that social democracy has only advantages and no drawbacks, capital flight and lowering of purchasing power being one of them.

Ah yes, Corbyn's famous manuscript; "North Sea Oil, the NUM, and lessons for Collective Proletarian Organisation"



w e w

I do this but instead of memes I take the effortposts and assume they're correct

Ideologues and poor arguments. I don't know what part of the world you guys are in but this probably why Democrat Cops of America is actually accomplishing things in the US as opposed to all of you "comrades"

What if I want to read Paul Mason

Maybe they want collectivism in order to stand against the world's titans of industry and finance, but without the prospect of murdering tens of millions of our own people added by Marxism?


To be fair, Marxist-Leninism was designed to handle the colonial and imperial questions, it's all about increasing production and the rapid development of the colonies so they can fight the imperial centers, not for the proles in the cockpits of empire to crash the plane. The task of the first world proles, ones who will overthrow empire for good, is an entirely new understanding of Marx and Lenin, alien to Marx and Lenin themselves but still in their spirit.

We make another marxist-leninist state and watch it collapse because we are retarded and dont learn from mistakes.