Does one have to be an iconoclast or revolutionary these days to be validly left? I consider myself to be left of center, and very much in favor of progressive policies.
Does one have to be an iconoclast or revolutionary these days to be validly left? I consider myself to be left of center, and very much in favor of progressive policies.
However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, "by any means possible" change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I'm not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it.
Those seem like two different things to me.
Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY
THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN'T MEANT FOR YOU.
You're viewing a single thread.
Socdems are valid if underrepresented. Maybe start a socdem community?
Are SocDems really "left" if they support Capitalism and are against Socialism?
If you define “left” as “communist” then obviously no. But out here in the actual world it usually means “anyone more progressive than a Christian Democrat”.
I define "Left" as a supporter of Socialism, ie an Anticapitalist. Simple as, someone who supports a change in the status quo.
Well then you’re only real disagreement with social democrats is in method, and you are going to have the Ugly Talk.
No, Social Democrats have a different method, ie class colaborationism and Reformism, and a different structure, ie Capitalism with welfare, and Imperialism in the Nordic Countries' cases.
Ah yes, the imperialist Nordic social democrats.
What are you on about exactly?
As a citzen in a social democracy in Latin America: This shit only truly worked in countries with a long history of exploitation of their colonies.
Fair. Large domestic reserves of fossile fuels don’t hurt either.
It’s in many regards an expression of privilege.
The Nordic Countries rely on Imperialism, ie the export of industrial and financial Capital to the Global South to super-exploit the proletariat of intentionally underdeveloped countries for super-profits via paying far less for their labor power.
Why is it that it is cheaper to produce in the Global South? Because wages are lower, yet you can sell for a higher price, and therefore exploit at a higher rate from the international proletariat.
Are you familiar in any way with Marxist theory?
Yes of course. It’s basically what the global economy has been like for fucking forever. It seems weird to single out the Nordic social democrats for this though.
What are you trying to get at here?
Yes of course. It’s basically what the global economy has been like for fucking forever.
Yes, Colonialism and now Imperialism are brutal, but unfortunately have been long lasting.
It seems weird to single out the Nordic social democrats for this though.
The Nordic Countries, ie the scandinavian model, depends on Imperialism and makes no move against this. If a Capitalist, developed country moves towards Social Democracy, they will do nothing to change this Imperialism.
What are you trying to get at here?
Capitalism isn't Socialism, ergo Social Democrats have little in common with Leftists.
Look at where H&M or IKEA have most of their factories. Super-exploited wage workers in the global south are funding (via a tax on imports of products they produced) the nordic welfare states.
I suggest reading John Smith - Imperialism in the 21st century for more on this.