#social democracy

[suicidal-socialist]

Much as he is a milquetoast socdem, Bernie is one of the few people in mainstream US politics with both a soul and a pair of (metaphorical) balls, and that's commendable

Bernie Sanders will always fight for The People.

[probablyasocialecologist]

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.

10 January 2024

[climbhighsleeplow]

The citizens of the countries listed above are considered among the happiest people on earth.

[dn-838]

Genocide bad

[wiki-fight]

[itscoldinwonderland]

**For context "center-left" and "center right" can just be described as "left" and "right respectably. The "center " part just means it's closer to the center than a far-stance.

Bonus put in the tags how you self describe your politics and what you picked.

[suprememayobros2]

Does america just not have high rise residential areas?

This is just a block of council flats. They're everywhere in great Britain, especially in North England. There are entire council estates of the things. My uncle lives in one. What's so commie about them?

Your just brainwashed into hating social housing.

[alpaca-clouds]

I am admittedly laughing a bit. Still on the German post-election stuff over here. While I was not aware of this study during the election, I found this study last Friday (note, the study is in German). Now, you need to know about the institute doing this study: It is mainly supplied by an association of "employers" and the association of German industry, two organisations that are fairly conservative and usually more on the side of the "economy" (meaning: "rich people yacht money"). But they did a study going through what, if everything a party program promises would be implemented, this would mean a) for the tax payers, and b) for the German national debt.

And their finding was basically: Actually, the left wing party program is the only that would actually help the poor people in the country, would probably help the German economy grow, and fix our national dept.

You know, the left wing party program. The one where everyone goes: "But who is gonna pay for it?"

I am taking from this one lession: Whenever someone is going to criticize left wing politics with "who is gonna pay for it", I will counter by asking about right wing politics the same question. Because it turns out, that the right wing politics are the ones that do not work ecnonomically. Left wing politics actually do.

Which once again confirms my general observation: If you study economics, you either end university as a leftist, or you clearly did not understand anything you learned.

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think that intersectionality hurts or advances activism; for example let's say a climate change organization calling for a ceasefire?

Both.

In its positive aspects, intersectionality is grounded in reciprocal solidarity. It is an ideological and philosophical position that we are all connected and "no man is an island, entire of itself...Any man's death diminishes me/Because I am involved in mankind."

It is also a very pragmatic understanding that there aren't enough of us to win on our own. In addition to the concrete analysis of political struggle that we all share common enemies and have overlapping interests, the fractured nature of human society and identities means that coalition-building isn't a choice, it's a necessity.

In its negative aspects, intersectionality results in this weird, toxic narrowing of social movements to a point where only the most oppressed people possible are allowed to be in charge and make decisions and speak for the movement, and everyone else is a guilt-ridden privileged outsider who needs to shut the fuck up and lower their hands and listen and not make it about them - but only after they donate their time and money.

This is pretty much the opposite of what intersectionality was originally meant to convey: the whole point is that everyone exists in different positions on the various axes of oppression, discrimination, etc. (and these positions can change pretty damn quickly), and thus depending on the issue, certain people might have more of a lived experience and need to be listened to and have greater needs and need to have their agenda items prioritized, and who those people are going to be is fluid and dynamic rather than fixed.

And this brings us back to my earlier thing about reciprocal solidarity. I completely reject the notion that I exist within social movements solely as an ally to other people, because in truth I participate in these movements in no small part because I need help from other people on a whole host of issues. However, I remain in coalition when it comes to other issues (especially those in which my personal constellation of intersectionality puts me in a position of relative privilege), both out of a humanistic understanding that their lives and needs are equally important and out of that pragmatic understanding that if I help them on their stuff, they'll return the favor when it comes to my stuff. And over time, the experience of being in coalition will expand people's mindsets on issues that don't directly affect them and get them to act in solidarity more consistently.

And that's what I think is so good about social democracy and similar movements that have a comprehensive political "line" or policy agenda, because if we sit down and engage in good faith in democratic coalition-building negotiations where everyone understands what they are getting and what they are giving and that everyone gets a say but not an exclusive one, then we short-circuit this kind of toxic, self-destructive behavior and can move on to doing the work that needs to be done.

[just-ray]

This photo is the difference between the social democrats and labour/greens to me

[archtroop]

My better half is preparing for his construction site manager exams, and I overheard his course on line about, "law of workplace accidents and health hazards" from 1945.

1945, even before Israel was a full fledged state, Jews were preoccupied with social concerns of workers, and laws to enforce them.

Fuck you, so called "left" that can't get the Jihadi flag out of their assessment praying about Israel being some sort of moral demon. Fuck you. You know nothing.

[fieryarmadillo]

Man, I think a lot of people don't realize how bad the Democrats fucked everyone over in this country in the past 10 years. We could've been coming off of 8 years of a Bernie Sanders presidency, and a new era of economic development along with a green new deal. Instead, the Democratic establishment, high off their own power, stabbed him in the back *twice* to put through weak, ineffective candidates that would continue the neoliberal order. Instead of embracing populism and social democracy, they ran to the right as always, paving the way for Trump and the rise of the fascist right.

Don't be fooled, the Democrats prefer to lose with capitalism than win with the most minor political and economic reforms. They would rather fundraise off of your legitimate, existential fears, letting the far right bulldoze you and your loved ones; than form a working class coalition. Trump, while a disgusting evil, is merely a symptom of a broader problem: The decline of the neoliberal world order, and those selfsame neoliberals who would cling to the sinking raft that is our planet, rather than help the working class, are the cause.

Make no mistake, the Democrats will continue to lose as long as they continue to snub us. This is not the end, but it's the beginning. Join local organizations, be part of protests, protect yourself and the ones you love. Make your voice heard, and please, do more than just vote.

[sordidamok]

They've been saying they're going to impeach Biden for months and they can't even name a crime.

[itty-clover]

The democrats have abandoned us. They do not now nor have they ever truly cared about us. Their politics are not our politics. Their interests are not our interests. We need to respond to their capitalist politics with our own, working class politics, based on the creative application of the scientific socialist theory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. We need to understand who our allies are and who our enemies are and we need to unite with our class allies and shun and struggle against our class enemies. The road to liberation will be through solidarity with our class and not through collaboration with our oppressors, whether the preface their names with a capital R or a capital D.

[anarchistfrogposting]

Ok, this is probably quite a big question so Tell me if you want me to specify more. Currently, im a democratic socialist. Why do you consider anarchism to be a better functioning system then democratic socialism ? I don't want to pressure you to write An entire book or Something. Just a few reasons is fine.

I know, I do tend to write out some lengthy responses. Y’all’s questions are just way too good!

I also used to be a democratic socialist (the democratic socialism as a means to communism way) and a hardcore pacifist. I was largely inspired and radicalised by Jeremy Corbyn, and his election loss just radicalised me further. I am now neither a democratic socialist (obviously) nor a pacifist (and if folks want me to talk about why I’m against pacifism, let me know).

From a purely philosophical perspective, anarchism posits that democratic socialism is doomed to fail because you can’t obliterate hierarchies (and, by extension, class hierarchies) through a system which is inherently hierarchical. This is a logical product of the anarchist theory of history, which argues that hierarchical systems are self correcting systems of domination which exist to preserve themselves; that the only way to end hierarchies is to uproot and destroy them.

Democratic socialism aims to achieve socialism through representative democracy, which, it is posited by anarchists, is anti-democratic, since it can only, at best, support the will of large majorities. It is also susceptible (and currently controlled by) capitalist interests. Capitalist powers can and do use their financial and social capital to dominate media narratives and societal tendencies to their own end. Capitalists do not sit idly by whilst their interests are curtailed, particularly if you live in a financial centre like England or the United States. They shift public perspectives against those pushing change until political leaders are forced to toe the line of their formerly supportive constituents. Remember when people were celebrating AOC being elected to the House of Representatives, only for her to almost immediately start falling back to the imperialist line?

Politicians, furthermore, are forced to compromise their beliefs lest their ideas get completely blocked by opposition bodies, even with considerable party majorities. We see this time and time again with decidedly progressive policy reform getting watered down until they are almost unrecognisably different. (There’s a reason the trans community has such a lean toward the radical left.) As Kropotkin talks about in the Conquest of Bread, these politicians which are constantly blocked and curtailed are eventually forced to change their base positions until proper socialist reform is impossible. Quite literally right where the capitalists need them to be.

Liberal democracy exists by and for the capitalists. Democratic socialist reform is quite literally impossible within it.