politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Europe needs to elect socialist leaders to respond to this moment, or fall into the grips of fascism.
How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?
But can't capitalism can be reformed?
When half of Europe had socialist leaders, that half of Europe was total shit authoritarian countries that oppressed the population, and prevented progress.
That's because they were authoritarian, not socialist. Just like the Nazis called themselves socialist, despite being obviously authoritarian. Same way that American fascists love to co-opt and redefine words like "liberty, freedom, grooming," etc.
Socialism is authoritarian. There has never existed an example of a Socialist regime that wasn't.
This guy refuses to engage with the fact that the Zapatistas exist, an anarchist region with at least 300,000 people living under it, and also that Revolutionary Spain existed, an extremely successful example of anarchism in practice which resisted Nazi Germany better than any democratic nation in mainland Europe. I have pointed them out to him a few times now and he just keeps ignoring it, like an NPC in Westworld. It's more comfortable to deny reality when it lets you go on believing your existing beliefs. Admitting that you're wrong is hard.
By definition, socialism is a movement of, by, and for working people; distributing power democratically among the working class, and removing power from the wealthy and powerful. If a regime claims to be socialist while maintaining centralized, dictatorial power, then they have hijacked the movement to their own ends while coopting the language of it. Those regimes you mention were authoritarian because they failed to achieve socialism.
Funny how that has happened every single time.
Oh come on, every social movement by the people gets hijacked by corporate interests these days. Anything for a buck. That's what they do
Which is why the strict regulation of a well functioning democracy is the only thing we have to protect ourselves against that.
Deafboy said the exact same thing 13 hours before you did. You even replied. You can read my reply there.
Your link doesn't work.
Which one? They all work for me
The one where you write I can read it here.
Ah, I see, you're struggling to debate my ideas on the merits, so you're resorting to wasting my time. I'm not interested in childish games, I am trying to save lives here. I can lead you to water, whether you drink or not is entirely your prerogative. All the best!
Nope you were. IDK where "here" is, only you know that. And it takes only a second to make a link. Also you wanted to make a point, but failing to provide the link you also failed to make your point.
I don't really give a shit about your point, and apparently you don't either.
Yet you asked me to explain a very complex topic, just for you. Curious!
And where did I ask that? I wrote: "When half of Europe had socialist leaders, that half of Europe was total shit authoritarian countries that oppressed the population, and prevented progress."
And that's what you responded to.
I think you are confused and lost. Not just "here" but about politics in general.
Do you give a shit or not? I will happily discuss anything you want with you but you've made it pretty clear that you aren't arguing in good faith. Take a minute, recognize that I am not the enemy, calm down, take some deep breaths, maybe go out into that beautiful Danish countryside, and maybe come back with a curious perspective, rather than an oppositional one, and I will chat the night away with you.
One place you claim to be an anarchist, and another you promote Socialism. So no I don't really think we have much to talk about.
Because neither of those work, and the two are decidedly opposed. You are too far gone IMO.
Anarchism is inherently socialist. With all due respect, I would encourage you to learn more, by asking questions rather than assuming your pre-conceived notions are correct.
I also mentioned elsewhere the Zapatistas is a functioning anarchist society with hundreds of thousands of people living in it. There is a sign outside Zapatista territory which reads, in Spanish, "You are in Zapatista rebel territory. Here the people command and the government obeys."
No it is not, Anarchism is about regulating as little as possible to maximize "freedom" which is the absolute opposite of socialism, and will always end out giving all the power to the rich, and all the riches to the powerful.
Any game theory test will show you that. Then you can call it bullocks up democracy as much as you want, it doesn't work. It's an unrealistic childish fantasy.
Look, you can believe whatever you want, but you're just simply wrong about both socialism and anarchism. I have no interest in investing my time and energy into someone who is so clearly unwilling to hear me out. There are plenty of people out there who are curious and open to new ideas, enough that we don't need you. Don't worry, we are fighting for you, too, even if you want to resist it every step of the way, it doesn't matter. We will liberate the working class, with or without you. Stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la, I'm not listening" all you want. Rant about the soviet union all you like. Deny reality. Refuse to accept that you have been brainwashed. A bright socialist future is coming, whether you like it or not.
Much love and solidarity.
Europe had socialist leaders. It set half of it at least 50 years back in terms of social and economic progress, put up barbed wires around the borders, banned and imprissoned the oposition. Never more!
Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let's not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
I'd encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven't heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it's almost definitely nothing like what you think. I personally believe that it's the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
OK and what if that approach doesn't lead to socialism? What you are describing is a change to how democracy works, why would that automatically lead to socialism, and be better than what we have in Scandinavian countries? And exactly what kind of socialism would it lead to?
You are talking like a Russian agent trying to sow discourse. What you suggest has no evidence of working. Social democracy does.
Also a consensus among just a few thousand people is impossible, Denmark that is one of the best democracies in the world, and we have 12 parties represented in parliament. How would you run a country based on a principle that wouldn't even work for a small city?
Socialism is, by definition, social ownership of the means of production. That means instead of wealthy private individuals owning, for example, factories and hotels, the factories and the hotels are instead collectively owned and controlled - perhaps by everyone in society, perhaps by those who work there.
You are asking me, how would socialism lead to socialism.
No bosses. No exploitation for profit. No pedophile billionaires fucking everyone over. Equality for all. No wage slavery. Unpleasant working conditions would be minimized. Democratization of the workplace.
It's really important to emphasize that anarchism isn't some blueprint for a society that we follow by rote and dogmatically implement, but rather a base layer of ideas we can use. As per an anarchist FAQ
Uhm... Russia isn't socialist, mate. They're very, very capitalist. Discourse is good. You might be thinking of discord. I'm just a gay autistic furry trying to make the world a better place.
That's actually not true at all, neither historically nor in the present. The Zapatista movement is an example of an anarchist society with hundreds of thousands of individuals living under it, in Mexico. For a historical example, you might be interested to read about revolutionary Spain.
There are lots and lots of examples of this working in practice! I mentioned two above, but an anarchist FAQ has lots more answers for you.
Bottom up, direct democratic? Will we not have the same issues as now with people simply getting manipulated? Like seriously, 1/2 voted for Trump, a 2nd time no less. The problem is not the eventual type of government but how stupid, ignorant and selfish most people are.
Well, first off, ignorance, selfishness, and susceptibility to manipulation aren’t fixed traits, they’re produced and reinforced by hierarchical systems - states, corporations, mainstream media, etc. In other words, people behave the way they’re incentivized and conditioned to behave. Luckily, even if people are stupid and selfish, this system has a lot of safeguards, far more than representative democracy. I'll explain:
A consensus-based decision making system does a great deal to prevent these issues. Under representative democracy, individuals have almost no influence. They don't necessarily have to engage with - or even hear out - the opinions of everyone in a discussion. Political engagement is very low under representative democracy, but under a consensus system, necessarily, people need to engage to participate.
That engagement would mean that people have to hear out all voices in a debate, so they'd inherently become more informed on the facts. Additionally, this approach also adds social responsibility, since you're not just casting a single vote, but need to confront your neighbors and discuss with them, meaning selfishness would also be counteracted through that social accountability.
Finally, anarchists are in favor of decentralized decision making. Instead of one big system where half the population can mess things up, anarchists work to build many small, autonomous groups, which are loosely coordinated and work together, with decisions made locally and then bubble up, rather than made centrally and imposed down. That way, even if one group makes bad decisions, it doesn’t drag everyone else down
It's a childish fantasy that is completely unrealistic, consensus even among a thousand people is impossible and unrealistic.
The only consensus possible is the one that the 1 party communist countries in Europe had before Communism disappeared.
That 1 party system was of course in reality an authoritarian dictatorship. And those that disagree are put in prison. That's how you create "consensus".
Socialism is not communism.
It is when at the same time capitalism is demonized with comments like this:
Much of Europe is social democratic, and that actually works very well by regulating capitalism to prevent exploitation.
As a European, lmao, no. It's better than fascist America, no doubt, but there is still plenty of exploitation under social democracy. Things have only gotten worse as social democracy has eroded and given way to neoliberalism.
European society is also sliding towards fascism, with the exact same causes as in America. The far right is on the rise everywhere because of cost of living outpacing wages, public services increasingly under more and more pressure with less and less funding, and massive, rampant inequality caused by the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.
Socialist of what kind? Socialist communism is as close to fascism as you can get without being explicitly fascist.
I am an anarchist. If you haven't heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it's almost definitely nothing like what you think. I personally believe that it's the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
I'm plenty familiar with anarchy but it's not a valid strategy for large systems. Some systems are better for small scales some for big ones, it's not a single shoe fit all.
Thanks for your reply, I hope you don't mind me copying and pasting something I wrote to someone who replied something quite similar: