Where does Holla Forums stand on this issue?

Where does Holla Forums stand on this issue?

Those feet belong to the same man for a reason. The difference in treatment is a strategic motion to demotivate the man on the left from aiding the man on the right in revolting against being stood on at all.

This image is perfect, although it doesn't know it. The man on the left is content with the small concessions, and thus consents to the treatment of the man on the right. Socdems are in it for themselves and no others, and are enemies of the revolution.

Two pronged attack m8.

Evolution in the streets, revolution in the sheets. Or maybe it's the other way around…

Either way, perusing the creation of socialism both through bourgeois democracy and through revolutionary activity at the same time is the only way to go.

Or from another perspective, how are you going to tackle the man standing above you, if he has you absolutely dominated against the floor?

Also, nobody wants to spend their finite lives eating mud waiting for a revolution.

That "perspective" can be used to justify inaction in any scenario, including literal slavery. The working class has to revolt against the ruling class as a whole. That foot hovering over your face can and will come down whenever it wants, and you'll just keep crying about not wanting things to get worse or risk what little leeway you have as he presses down harder and harder. Sometimes on you, sometimes on your family and friends. The only reason you're "waiting for a revolution" in the first place is this shortsighted notion that it's safer to maintain the status quo.

The world is assholes vs. good people

If the good people are taught that they can never be the "boot", then only assholes will be the boot

If good people are allowed to breath, stand up and become the boot, we'll have better boots

Why must we have boots at all?

Why must towers have columns?

Now you're just using the rhetoric of metaphors to fill in for your lack of actual political understanding. There is no reason for the oppressed to need an oppressor.

The tower is society, the columns are hierarchies

What kind of society doesn't have hierarchies?

You can either have rigged hierarchies where most of the floors are terrible

Or you can have dynamic hierarchies where all the floors have their necessities met

it's called communism bucko

I can't picture "communism" working in my head, nor can history find an actual example.

However, social democracies have a proven record..

so they're old and busted then :^]

w-what?

Why is it that you think stating
a) communism has yet to be achieved
b) you have neither the imagination or the education necessary to understand how socialism/communism functions
or c) that social democracy has been implemented correctly (tacitly admitting it to be a failure at solving the issues inherent in capitalism, since shit is still fucked)
is somehow an argument contesting my points or supporting the socdem ideology?

I'm saying from a historical perspective, reformism is a dead end.

no it isn't, standards of life are high, even though you have periodical right wing government trying to fuck everything up

Pick one. Socialism as in a transitional dictatorship was a disaster and never led to communism. Communism has yet to be explained in a way that it's not primitivism.

for whom, in relation to what, for how long?

There's nothing periodical about it, it's always right wing. Liberals are not leftists.

This is only one of many, many types of socialism, and not one that I or many other socialists would go to bat for. Assuming you mean the USSR, heck, there are people who would argue it never even met the requirements to be called socialism. But let's not get into that.

No, what you should say is that you have yet to have it described to you in a way that you understand it, without assuming it to be primitivism. Probably because you're clinging so tightly to that spook of "societies need a ruling class".

90%
History, countries being oppressed harshly (the breeding ground of a revolution, according to revolutionaries), countries being led by the so-called revolutionaries
It is such a solid construct that it can allow right wing governments to take power and still the standards of life remain high despite them.

The ball is on your court, describing how companies work without hierarchies, describing how law and justice (or whatever replaces them) work without hierarchies, describing how education works without hierarchies…

That's quite the statistic to pull out of your ass, my man. 90% of the global population? Can I get a citation on that?

That's going to be a bit of a slog to go through all those, but I'll give it a try, only if you back up your empty "high living standards" statement. Last I checked, the international working class isn't doing so hot, not even in "high living standards" countries like the US. Do the people of Flint have a high living standard?

The world doesn't have social democracy. Some countries do.

Even third world countries where some kind of social democracy was implemented flourished.

Those countries don't exist in a vaccuum. The success of those countries stems from the international exploitation of the working class.

The success of Argentina with the Kirchnerite government stemmed from the exploitation of other countries?

Yes.

How so? Argentina was basically operating in a vacuum, completely cut off from international finances. They had unprecedented growth thanks to social-democratic reforms (universal income for children, government promoting cooperative ownership of companies, nationalizing natural resources, etc.)

What countries did they oppress?

Oh fuck off, the USSR drastically improved the lives of people living in it. Khazikstan was much better off under the Union than now.

Meanwhile you'd be hard pressed to find a social democracy country that isn't using products made with slave labor somewhere else.

Probably, but they weren't dynamic enough and the average citizen couldn't even cast a vote.

And the USSR was a feudal shithole that then ended up being the first country to get to space.

Argentina didn't need labor camps or mass murder of dissidents though.

Being isolationist does not mean you are "in a vaccuum" nor does a country have to actively oppress other countries in order to benefit from exploitation. It's a similar concept to there being no ethical consumption under capitalism. The very material conditions that allowed it to persist in such a manner comes from international relations. And unless the means of production were 100% owned by those working it, it was still exploiting it's own citizens, no matter how nice a layer of paint is used.

I don't agree with how undemocratic it was, but it wasnta faliure before Gorbachev( and Kruschev). It's not perfect but I dot want social democracy, I want socialism. Mondragon is a 75,000 person worker co-op. We don't need institutional hierarchy.

How the fuck "it doesn't matter"?

It's the difference between working 12 hours every day and nearly starving every night or having a more sensible schedule and a refrigerator full of food. Of course it matters, we aren't talking about some trivial materialist nonsense, it's the difference between living hell and some fresh air.

Mondragon has hierarchies

wow what a tragedy

I don't agree with everything the USSR did. But it's a revolutionary government. You have to take measures to make sure the revolution wasn't in vain. Even then, it was still subverted by capitalist so in a sense they didn't even go far enough

If Soviet citizens had been allowed to vote in the 70s, socialism would still exist in Russia.

I said institutional. Not, no hierarchies. I don't want them built in the system and I will fight against those who impose them. Workers aren't retards no matter how much you capitalist want to treat them that way. If they need someone to direct them they'll get someone.

It doesn't matter because those nice little concessions of those are just that. Concessions. To be taken away, as soon as it benefits your masters to do so. And they come at the cost of the less fortunate. I'm glad you've got improved living conditions. Me and the rest of the world are still getting fucked in the ass, however. (It's because they can exploit us that you are even cut some slack in the first place.)


Not all hierarchies are created equally. Families have hierarchies. You don't see socialists seeking to abolish families (at least, not for that reason.)
Mondragon isn't perfect anyway, nor can it be so long as capitalism persists.

The living hell which was created by capitalism.

This is patently false. In Latin America, the elites were local, so they didn't have a place to outsource. They just had to eat shit and resign a part of their profit. You operate under a false paradigm.

and which was converted into paradise by social democracy, even in countries that didn't depend on foreign labor

That doesn't make it any less temporary. This year's porkies had to loose some pocket change because they got caught out in the rain. That just means they'll learn from it and come back harder next time.

I can't kek hard enough

You're like a starved beast who is eternally grateful to his neglectful master for accidentally dropping you some bread crust.

They still imported products made with capitalist labour. Again, show me a social democracy country that produced everything itself using no trade with non socdem countries and that had no poverty, and then we can start talking. Until then, socialism is my goal.

...

No, they placed restrictions on imports to foster local industry. And they gave the highest minimum wage in the region to their workers. And it still worked.

Temporary gains that can be rolled back at any time. Leaving the capitalist underpinning in place is like walking off the field in the 3rd quarter because you're up 10 points while the other team is still out there ready to win. It's the capitalists self interest to see the social democratic state torn down.