This is what socialism means if you restrict yourself to orthodoxy from 100 years ago. Social democrats are not swearing allegiance to capitalism. They are not meeting with billionaires in back rooms promising to not almost go far enough. This is naive, academically outdated, and exactly the kind of thing I am tired of explaining to people who read some pamphlets and think it represent a broad view of contemporary political science.
Third way socialism starts with an acknowledgement that capitalist forces arise from places other than malevolence by so-called capitalists, and a broad rejection of such modernist economic determinism. Rather, it acknowledges that capitalism is in part an inevitable product of scarcity and economic complexity which can be whittled away, while also being a tool which can be wielded by the state. But the imperative to eliminate it is as artificial as the imperative to eliminate rainy days or icebergs.
If the goal is keeping people dry and ships afloat, then just do those things, and push society forward iteratively until the conditions are correct that we can legitimately control the weather. Liberate people by creating conditions for liberation, not by calling their chains something different.
This is what socialism means if you restrict yourself to orthodoxy from 100 years ago.
No, no, no, wiseguy… you don’t get to pretend that socialism all of a sudden means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. If that’s what you want to do, perhaps you should be meeting in back-rooms with billionaires - because your drivel sure as shit don’t mean anything for us proles other than “more of the same.”
But the imperative to eliminate it is as artificial as the imperative to eliminate rainy days or icebergs.
In other words… there’s nothing socialist about it in any way whatsoever.
One doesn’t need to take centuries old writing as dogma to learn from it or expand upon it. Your narrow definition of socialism is outdated by contemporary standards. You don’t have to like it or agree, but don’t shoot the messenger.
You’re excluding yourself, Clyde. Don’t expect leftists to include you while you’re trying to camouflage the fact that appeasing the status quo serves your interests - that’s the kind of shit we have become really good at seeing through.
This is what socialism means if you restrict yourself to orthodoxy from 100 years ago. Social democrats are not swearing allegiance to capitalism. They are not meeting with billionaires in back rooms promising to not almost go far enough. This is naive, academically outdated, and exactly the kind of thing I am tired of explaining to people who read some pamphlets and think it represent a broad view of contemporary political science.
Third way socialism starts with an acknowledgement that capitalist forces arise from places other than malevolence by so-called capitalists, and a broad rejection of such modernist economic determinism. Rather, it acknowledges that capitalism is in part an inevitable product of scarcity and economic complexity which can be whittled away, while also being a tool which can be wielded by the state. But the imperative to eliminate it is as artificial as the imperative to eliminate rainy days or icebergs.
If the goal is keeping people dry and ships afloat, then just do those things, and push society forward iteratively until the conditions are correct that we can legitimately control the weather. Liberate people by creating conditions for liberation, not by calling their chains something different.
No, no, no, wiseguy… you don’t get to pretend that socialism all of a sudden means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. If that’s what you want to do, perhaps you should be meeting in back-rooms with billionaires - because your drivel sure as shit don’t mean anything for us proles other than “more of the same.”
In other words… there’s nothing socialist about it in any way whatsoever.
See? That wasn’t so difficult at all.
One doesn’t need to take centuries old writing as dogma to learn from it or expand upon it. Your narrow definition of socialism is outdated by contemporary standards. You don’t have to like it or agree, but don’t shoot the messenger.
No. It isn’t. You just wish it was.
No, I think we’ll just settle for debunking you… which would be no more difficult to do than with any other “enlightened centrist” claptrap.
Me: The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic.
You: Insufficient fan service
Isn’t that what they’ve been telling us we already have?
Really… try harder.
Me: exclusionary leftist orthodoxy is the most annoying part about lemmy.
You: but have you considered exclusionary leftist orthodoxy?
You’re excluding yourself, Clyde. Don’t expect leftists to include you while you’re trying to camouflage the fact that appeasing the status quo serves your interests - that’s the kind of shit we have become really good at seeing through.
You heard it here first folks. Democratic socialism is the statues quo. I think we’ve sufficiently beaten this horse.