Anarchists can't defend themselves, Tankies will always drink the kool-aid and never give up the MOP

Democratic socialism, ie reformism, is hard as fuck but the only plausible means by which socialism can come to the developed world.

oh god

she gets fucked every night by a different chinese millionaire, doesn't she?

How is reformism spooked?

Anarchism is democratic socialism you arse.

You are the worst poster on this board

I prefer the tankeis tbqh

So… where are the nudes?

Literally the first post I made.

And no demsoc is an entirely different process then pick related.

Capitalism does that better with a leftist government, though.

The rest is narrow minded dogma, tankies really are retarded. Fuck yourself,

Okay well there is another one around who is the worst poster.

I used to be a socdem. That was before I actually started to read about socialism.

You talk about co-operatives, why does a collective of co-ops need a state over it?

Yeah, that always works! If the people vote in leftists, then the bourgeoisie will HAVE to respect their wishes!

It's called State Capitalism and it happens after violent Revolution as temporary measure, until Planning gets implemented.

Anything else is "leftist" government.

Except no. Because capitalist businesses will always be more profitable for the people on top, and thus they will always be favored by the bourgeoisie. That's like pitting a business that uses slave labour against a business that only uses paid employees.

You just completely ignored the 2 half of my point. Xexizy, you are the dumbest leftist on the board. Read a book.

Difference between state capitalism and nationalizing a couple things through taxes. Try again.

And again you ignored strip Capitalists of advantages from the state(corporate welfare, tax evasion, loan exclusivity, speculative spending, rigged patents, etc.)

Regardless if 1 person can make more money, he would have no workers because co-ops with be better with the right conditions.

Your cognitive dissonance is embarrassing.

And how exactly the fuck do you expect to do that? Do you really honestly fucking believe the people who run the state will allow you to "fix" the system?

"72% of those who approve of the ACA also would favor replacing it with a single-payer federally funded health system."

Do we have a single-payer funded healthcare system? No. We don't have real democracy and things will be dramatically different once we get it.

gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

At which point the Bourgeoisies either vetoes it, or leaves your country with all of its wealth, and your country's economy crashes harder than the Twin Towers. GG.

And how exactly the fuck do you expect to do that?

Read before typing.

You are being tankie with a narrow-minded dogma now.

Believe in Democracy! You can fly!

Yeah, real fucking specific. That solves everything. How the fuck do you expect to do that?
Again. The people on top will not allow it.

Stop being a little bitch. Our government/constitution is set up for the people to change government with enough support. It's not impossible to reform the Democratic party's laws when 50% of it supports you. That's even happening as we speak.

Yeah, you don't understand how politics works. We wouldn't do any of this until we could set up news laws preventing rich people from sabotaging us. It's possible.

Yeah, we'll just change the party from the inside and gain power that way!

Lmao and how exactly the fuck? Not to mention the fact that the bourgeoisie acts above the law 90% of the time, of course.

Engels, 1891:

Also tax changes:
money.cnn.com/2015/08/14/news/economy/us-government-taxes-record/
- 13.8% Corporations (including excise), down from 45.5% in 1952
- 80.0% Individuals (including social services), up from 51.9% in 1952

how old are you?

Not an argument, if the people don't want change nothing will happen, especially anarchism. It happens through democracy, education, and political action. Americans almost elected a socialist, get your head out of your ass.

hahahaha oh my god okay i didnt realise I was being trolled, my bad.

good riddance, you are a child.

...

The moment you see a white hand holding a rose you know you are seeing a shitposter.

get cancer, seriously.

He may have been a socialist in the past, but that is irrellevant, because he was not running with a socialist platform for this election.

Yeah, because "Stop being a little bitch.".
No, actually. It is not. It is set in exactly the opposite way, as a matter of fact.

anyone else here think this guy is just a Holla Forums shitposter?

...

Kek!

I had the intense displeasure of being bored and going on omegle to talk to people about socialism and such last night.

First I got a SPUSA member who says he is a reformist, and not a vanguardist. Vanguards apparently mean groups that monopolize power and suppress dissent! I didn't know that, did YOU leftypol?!
Also apparently the Party needs to be accountable to the people and the socialists should conduct their affairs strictly in Congress and allow bourgeois parties to compete in elections to make people afraid of the return of capitalism. Everything needs to be democratic. "democracy before socialism". I told him about base/superstructure and he basically knee-jerk responds with some anti-USSR non-sequitur. I am dead serious, people are this fucking dumb.

Then I talked to an "anarchist" though I think he was a troll. To him, "statist" apparently means combating the state in the quest for power (I didn't find out his conception of statism, he disconnected after calling me a statist). Insurrection is statist. What we need is to empower local economy and use bitcoin.

Seriously fucking kill me.

I don't understand democratic socialism

yeah, we don't live under a king. I'm sorry you don't understand law or the constitution.

good riddance

Democratic Socialism is Social Democracy, which is not socialism friendo

Seriously.

You know what, you're right. You've changed my mind. Social Democrats would never betray the leftist cause.

pick one

also demsoc =/= socdem

It's actually a pretty undebatable historical fact that the freikorps killed Luxemburg, in cooperation with the Social Demcorat government at the time.

my symbol is property of demsocs, leftypol mods are just silly

Dude, you posted 2 controversial example of Leftists betraying their cause in order to debunk my argument.

What you fail to realize is that, your argument can be applied to literally any movement ever. The amount of logical fallacies I've seen from you is stunning. Stop trying to save your own ass and admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Join us, and we can take steps to ensure that Socialism is

1. Dominant
2. Voluntary

Meant to say victorious, not dominant. Although it would be dominant later.

t. every liberal and anarchkiddie ever

I am perfectly aware of the more libertarian revolutions such as Catalonia etc. Is this what you're referring to? Also, in every one of those states, the workers didn't own anything because the elites drank the kool-aid and believe in state socialism.

and by "those states" I do mean the ones you pointed out, not catalonia, etc.

but anarchist revolutions are free pizza for Capitalist countries who can simply drink the kool aid and tell their people, they were saving a country from a dictatorship.

This is why dem soc is the most pragmatic one to me.

pic

No fam, I'm referring to communes established in Germany under Marxism which had given a couple more months would of abolished paper money, or communes in Hungary both under Lukacs and Nagy. I dont know if you can count the Paris commune, probably not.

They all failed though as they were communes, which is the reason Anarchism fails too. It's not the ideology, it's the fact that communes are shit at defending themselves against national armies. The only difference is Anarchism cant work on scales larger than communes, as we saw in Ukraine.

The reason larger scale Marxist revolutionists failed is not because they were Marxist, because they would of failed even harder if they were Anarchist, they failed because they were originally all third world shit holes.

I've come to the conclusion that Holla Forums fuckers are easier to talk to then social democrats.

Yeah, I don't know much about those but isn't that because they failed within weeks?

But how is this an argument against dem socs? I wouldn't get rid of conscription until it was no longer needed.

I don't understand your point tbh, maybe I got confused.

Please dont move the goal posts.

As for dem socs it just comes down to the fact that Capitalists would never, could never, allow reform. It's violent revolution or nothing. Reform is only useful to pave the way to Leftism revolution.

I literally don't understand your point.

Uh what? No, that's not my position. My position is that Marxist revolutions are very unstable and that elites will always find a way to drink the kool-aid and just say, "hey guys we did it, you guys own everything through the state, just don't read the rest of lenin's works or anything."

It's way too fucking risky and it's always lead to failure.

Power corrupts, it's that simple

State capitalism allows no room for democracy or a 2nd revolution. That's simply the nature of law, money, and power. You give it to 2 out of 10000 people, there's very little guarantee you'll get it back.

I am not worried about facism, I'm just anti-state capitalist

Ok well, you made the claim that, and I quote:

I then provided you with Marxist revolutions that DID have worker ownership, and then you disregarded that by saying they didnt last long. While this is true, it's besides the point.

And this shit you're saying about it's too risky and always leads to failure again is refuted by the fact that it has been successful until crushed by outside force multiple times.

And with this comment you have shown you have no idea how the dictatorship of the proletariat actually functions. It is not power above the people, entrusting rulers and just hoping they have the good faith to eventually pass things on, but rather the people above the state, the people USING the sate like a tool to enact their will, with the will of thoes actually in the state being irrelevant. THIS is the DotP, and this type of DotP has been achieved in all the communes I listed and even in the Paris commune, even though their actual economics wernt strictly Marxist.

The reason this type of DotP was not achieved on large scale revolutions is because it requires large amounts of engaged democracy, which you cannot get from a population that cannot even read or write, and has no infrastructure built up by a previously Capitalist system as they were Feudalistic instead.

Ok I don't know about the German commune but you're telling me, the German workers commune took over the state, took over everything, and then proceeded to give the control later to the workers. Is this what happened? Did state capitalism happen first, yes or no? If no, then I'm not really referring to those revolutions.

I measure success by how much control the workers had and whether there was a possibility for Socialism/Communism to happen. In state capitalist societies where the elites can drink the kool-aid and put out propaganda, I am highly skeptical. I mean just look at America. We've had leftist books for centuries and yet, people still think the point of socialism is dictatorships.

Ok, that's definitely not what happened in the most "successful" Marxist states but don't you understand that there is no real mechanism for that to happen? If workers truly had the power of the state, they would certainly not vote for a "dictatorship" of the proletariat. This seems like revisionism. Plus, the will of the workers could very well be to kill anarchists if that is true. Afterall, why wouldn't they drink the kool-aid if it gave them immediate benefit? There's simply to many fallacies for me to place confidence in leninist revolutions

I'd also like to ask something else.

Why do we need State Capitalism? Aren't Leftist capitalist governments just as efficient at industrializing and protecting workers? And no, that's not state capitalism, there's a difference.

I ask because I place more faith in a correct revolution happening under a leftist capitalist government over a state capitalist government.

What do you think State Capitalism is?

I don't think you know what a Leftist capitalist system is, it is basically just a capitalist social democracy that aims to give work coops control eventually.

Furthermore, under my government.

Only the bare necessities for life would be nationalized by the state.

> what do you think

You don't think. Period.

haha, you got me.

good bye.

Bye ya dumb bitch

bye

awaiting your response

i'd smash

Kek.

Source?

youtube.com/watch?v=SIM4G-4kBA8&list=PL9987A659670D60E0&index=79

Namasensei's FUCKING japanese lessons

I swear if I see another which ism is better thread…

Seeing one thread about it is fine. But this is not like over half the catalog. Let's all get our heads out of our pretentious asses pls.

...

I agree with you on most points OP, I'd just go farther left and have the state take over most production and only allow coops where state production is unfeasible
And state production gotta be for use for the most part
and I'd establish a system of military service for universal housing and employment for those who volunteer
Don't take these guys too seriously, they're just salty the B████ got cheated and capitalists have corrupted every democracy by controlling media