#Social Democrats

[just-ray]

Okay there's this secret hidden left wing party lore in Irish politics in which labour begs social democrats to go into coalition/form an alliance/go to party talks with them and every time socdems outright rejects them and labour is like "😁no worries😁its fine💞love you!💞"

[ms-boogie-man]

Circle Jerks-Deny Everything LIVE 2022

I would like to dedicate this to the Democrat party in America, as well as the Social Democrats and Marxists, and all liberals who have done absolutely nothing to assist in the messes they caused in Ukraine, East Palestine, Ohio, the dock strike in America which began October 1, 2024 and will decimate the US economy over the next month, and are also doing abso-fuckin-lutely nothing to assist and help with the hurricane they caused called Helene

Elon/Trump X-post via: @superdriver321​

[baratiddyadvocate]

san francisco democrats are so disgusting because why the FUCK are you still electing nancy pelosi you racist scum for brains

[lizardbytheriver]

"Be kind to people, be ruthless to systems." - Michael Brooks

[idontevenknow7878]

Chat

My dad has offered to give me HIS vote in the election

I GET TO VOTE AS A MINOR!

[sprites4ever]

Okay, so, my country's government just collapsed because the ruling three-party coalition of center-Left Social Democrats, Liberal Greens and Libertarians couldn't agree on crucial spending bills. The Libertarian party blocked what was essentially a done deal and the Social Democrat chancellor fired their head and Finance Minister because of it. (The ruling German government is referred to as the 'Traffic Light Coaltion', because the Social Democrats use red as their party color, the Greens use green and the Libertarians use yellow.)

Now, they've scheduled re-elections for early next year, and despite him being unpopular and rarely visible, the Social Democrats (my party) are putting up Olaf Scholz on the ballot for Chancellor again. The alternative would have been the current Defense Minister from the same party, Boris Pistorius, who is actually popular, who knows what he's talking about and how to explain complex topics.

Nice going, Comrades! We'd have had a chance to win the election with Pistorius, but you stuck with Scholz for some reason, even though he's shown that he's not fit for a role with such responsibility and would probably be better in middle management. Now, the Neonazi AfD is gonna have such an easy time.

[nando161mando]

Social democrats, democratic socialists, maoists, leninists, marxists, and other brands of "left" authoritarians can fuck all the way off.

[somerandomg33k]

"Just so you know..."

You are Left-wing politically if you believe power and wealth should be distributed everyone. And remember, equity, not equality. You are Right-wing politically if you believe that wealth and power should be in the hands of the few. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of the production. Power and wealth in the hands of the few. As under Capitalism, there will always be a minority of owners and the rest being workers. Thus if you are Capitalist, even a Social Democrat, you are at least somewhat Right-wing political. Even if your Capitalism is just, "It is alright for there to be small business owners."

[kaydub80]

Two whole years. Now, the takeover has been reversed. As the neoliberal-friendly Newsweek points out, progressives taking over the Democratic Party was always going to be a fool's errand--and it didn't help that the governor's mansion was lost due to the neoliberals taking their ball and going home.

[contemplatingoutlander]

I'm so tired of my peers on the left who DON'T know what "socialism" is and who consequently inadvertently feed into right-wing disinformation about socialism.

Apparently Simon Donald who wrote the above meme doesn't know what "socialism" is and neither does the OP of this post @rickmctumbleface.

However, they also apparently don't know how "communism"--as it is practiced today in mainland China--has evolved, or they wouldn't have posted this:

Communism - nobody can be rich.

As Statista reports:

According to the Hurun Global Rich List 2023, China housed the highest number of billionaires worldwide in 2023. In detail, there were 969 billionaires living in China. By comparison, 691 billionaires resided in the United States. India, Germany, and the United Kingdom were also the homes of a significant number of billionaires that year. [color emphasis added]

So "communism," as it is practiced today in China, allows for some free enterprise, capitalism, and wealth accumulation. My guess is Marx would be turning in his grave if he knew what was happening there.

Back to "socialism." Here is a basic definition of "socialism" from the Google English Dictionary (i.e., Oxford Languages):

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. [color emphasis added]

The problem is that when many Americans talk about "socialism" (like they do in the above post) they are actually talking about "social democracy" which is a movement to reform and regulate capitalism, and provide a basic safety net, without the goal of eventually abolishing the capitalist system. This fits with the above post's definition of "anybody can be rich but nobody should be poor."

These Americans are also generally not even talking about "democratic socialism," which can be temporarily reformist in similar ways, but which ultimately hopes there will be a transition to full socialism, where basically no one is rich, but no one is poor.

Consequently, when some people on the American left (who are in fact "social democrats") proudly proclaim they are "socialists," they feed into the fears that the right wing spreads that they are actually "socialists" who want to abolish capitalism and take over all the means of production.

This confusion allows the right to get away with absurdly proclaiming that the U.S. Democratic Party is "socialist," as is Joe Biden. I mean Joe Biden? Seriously?

If you don't believe me about how even the most left-wing American politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are NOT "socialists," read this article by Annalisa Merelli:

Here are some excerpts from the article:

Sanders, who describes himself as a “democratic socialist,” provides fuel to Trump’s rants against a socialist takeover of America. But despite the longstanding negative connotations of socialism—and its powerful effect in halting social reforms such as universal health coverage—the senator from Vermont doesn’t seem too concerned about the effect a socialist label can have on his campaign or proposals. While it might not sound as dramatic, what Sanders is isn’t a socialist—democratic or otherwise—it’s a social democrat. Social democracy is a reformist approach that doesn’t do away with capitalism in its entirety (as, instead, socialism eventually suggests) but instead regulates it, providing public services and substantial welfare within the frame of an essentially market-led economy. Other leftist politicians such as Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also fall into this camp. [...] The Democratic Socialists of America describe their proposals as social democratic, essentially using the two labels interchangeably, advocating that social democratic reform “must now happen at the international level” and using northern European countries as references for their vision. This seems inaccurate, however, and feeds the misunderstanding Trump is banking on. Democratic socialism does not pursue a model like Finland, for instance, which has not done away with capitalist ways of production or a private market. The key difference between democratic socialism and social democracy is precisely that the former advocates for social ownership of the means of production, and does not believe in reforms within capitalism (although it does support temporary social democratic actions), but in a revolution of the system. The platform Sanders is running on is reformist, and what he is proposing is a US that looks much more like Canada, or Europe—which certainly are not socialist nations. Whether he believes that the end goal is beyond what Europe has achieved (and the history of his political beliefs suggests so), he still isn’t proposing an actual revolution (not within his lifetime, at least) and should just label himself accordingly. [color emphasis added]

So, my fellow people on the left, please don't arrogantly define political economic systems that you don't understand. You are giving the far right political ammunition against us.

[edited]

[just-ray]

are you in a political party at the moment? are you gonna join one?

I am part of a young political party. I shan't say which to avoid tumblr slander, but it's quite complicated.

So say party A and party B and party C are all in government, and party V, W, X, Y, Z, are all in opposition. I support outright the values of party Y and Z, and some of the values of party B. Ireland has a big issue where party A and B have been cycling in and out of government for decades, and opposition parties have never had a chance to get into government.

Now, say you are any of the following.

Somone with the intention to be a politician that;

-wants to be in government

-cares more about making a difference than party affiliation

-wants a realistic chance of having influence

(This does not apply for people with no intent to be in government, and I VERY MUCH encourage voting for a party you support and agree with regardless of affiliation, or for locals, voting by candidate rather than party.)

Because the cycle between A and B has been going on for so long, if you want to make a larger change, it's adviseable to be in government. It could be argued that it's easier to join party A or B, than to break the cycle.

Dosen't this feed into poor decisions? Not inherently. So, I am formally affeliated with party B.

We must take a look at this parties youth. You will observe that they are all very progressive next to the current party. You will also observe that party B seem to really like party Y and Z.

As I said, party B has solid values but sometimes falls on execution. I also wish to break the cycle between party A and party B, but to do that, I must be in party B, in order to have a chance of being in government, and also to have a chance of promoting true democratic practice within that party, and establishing good, competitive but healthy and non hostile relations between parties. Competition stays, but it is paired with cooperation.

Although I agree with all of the values of party Y and Z, I see real potential in party B to rise to the same standard, and even above it, and I feel it's the better of the two parties that will get you into government, compared to party A.

I might be canvassing for party A, however I feel similarly towards them in the sense that I really do believe the candidates are good and dedicated people, but there needs to be real discussion had upon the question; "are we working AT the people, or are we working with and for them? Are we justifying our mistakes instead of endeavouring to improve upon them?"

I also believe that canvassing is good in all it's forms. While there are outright discriminatory parties I wouldn't canvass for, I believe the spreading of information and a variety of perspectives is inherently good. The people need to know their options, and I am happy to facilitate that in any way I can. I trust the voter will make the choice that they feel is best.

Tbh I'd be the first to admit that I have to perform insane mental gymnastics to be a part of this party, but I do think I have fair reasoning.

There are definitely worse parties to be in. There are less popular (thank god) parties that outright deny people human rights, and would fall very close to the beliefs of US trump supporters, however I'm happy to say I'm not part of a party that is deliberately denying human rights, but rather just a party that has solid theoretical values but exercises them poorly sometimes, but I really think the youth will have a great impact.

We all affiliate differently, but many of us have a common goal of liberation, happiness, and healthy institutions.

I have friends from all parties, from a-z. We do discuss sometimes, but we do not tend to argue because we share the same foundational desires for a healthy and empowered society.

As long as a party does not restrict human rights; I am not against that party in any way. We each have our own unique set of beliefs and our own power and healthy ideologies, and to have a real future for the people, it is essential that we cooperate and work with, rather than against each other, to find a way to move forward in the common belief in justice and civil rights.

Sorry for the really long answer, but I feel it's necessary to explain.

[thenewdemocratus]

Robert Reich: Where They’re Raging Against The Establishment

Source:Robert Reich showing his readers the iconic political mascot of his American socialist movement. Source:The New Democrat “A groundswell of rage against the establishment has been growing in America for decades. It became a gale-force wind after the Wall Street financial crisis of 2008, when banks that gambled with other people’s money had to be bailed out by taxpayers but millions of…

[head-post]

Iceland’s Social Democratic Party leader appointed to form new government

Icelandic President Halla Tómasdóttir granted the leader of the Social Democratic Alliance (SDA), Kristrún Mjöll Frostadóttir, a mandate to form a new government, Euractiv informed.

The mandate follows the Social Democrats’ significant success in Saturday’s election. The party won 20.8 per cent of the vote, securing 15 seats in the 63-seat parliament, the Althingi.

Economist Frostadóttir, 36, headed the SDA in October 2022. She focused on the Scandinavian welfare model and cost-of-living issues. The party’s revitalisation resulted in its major regional successes in recent elections.

I think a key issue for the next government must be to keep the economy stable and in good shape.

The next step for Frostadóttir is to form a 32-seat majority with other parties. A key player in the future coalition could be the Reform Party, which won 11 seats with 15.8 per cent of the vote. Inga Sæland, leader of the People’s Party, also voiced interest in joining a coalition with the SDA and the Reform Party.

The recent elections followed a burst of dissent within the previous coalition and growing public discontent over migration, energy policy and the housing crisis. This led to snap elections and the formation of a new government.

Read more HERE

[kropotkindersurprise]

Adopting rightwing policies on issues such as immigration and the economy does not help centre-left parties win votes, according to new analysis of European electoral and polling data. Faced with a 20-year decline in their vote share, accompanied by rising support for the right, far right and sometimes the far left, social democratic parties across Europe have increasingly sought salvation by moving towards the political centre. However the analysis, published on Wednesday, shows that centre-left parties promising, for example, to be tough on immigration or unrelenting on public spending are both unlikely to attract potential voters on the right, and risk alienating existing progressive supporters.

[...]

One of the key lessons was that “trying to imitate rightwing positions is just not a successful strategy for the left”, he said. Two studies in particular, looking at so-called welfare chauvinism and fiscal policy, illustrated the point, the researchers said. Björn Bremer of the Central European University in Vienna said a survey in Spain, Italy, the UK and Germany and larger datasets from 12 EU countries showed that since the financial crisis of 2008, “fiscal orthodoxy” had been a vote loser for the centre left. “Social democratic parties that have backed austerity fail to win the support of voters worried about public debt, and lose the backing of those who oppose austerity,” Bremer said. “Centre-left parties that actually impose austerity lose votes.”

[...]

The data strongly suggests centre-left parties can build a coalition of voters who believe a strong welfare state, effective public services and real investment, for example in the green transition, are essential,” Bremer said. “But doing the opposite – offering a contradictory programme that promotes austerity but promises to protect public services and the welfare state, and hoping voters will swallow such fairytales – failed in the 2010s, and is likely to fail again.” Similarly, said Matthias Enggist of the University of Lausanne, analysis of data from eight European countries showed no evidence that welfare chauvinism – broadly, restricting immigrants’ access to welfare – was a successful strategy for the left.

[truthwars]

Irish General Election Predictions: Key Winners and Losers

The 2024 Irish General Election is set to reshape the political landscape. Will Sinn Féin rise? Can Fine Gael hold on? Find out in our full predictions. #IrishElection2024 #PoliticalChange #Vote

The 2024 Irish General Election will likely be a turning point for Ireland’s political scene. As dissatisfaction with mainstream parties grows, Sinn Féin has emerged as the frontrunner. Meanwhile, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, and the Green Party face rising challenges. Smaller parties and independents also aim to gain ground. Here’s a detailed look at who’s likely to win, hold, or lose seats. 1. Sinn…

[mysharona1987]