No, the Democrats did not lose by going too far left.

[Politruk]

So what,where,when has your version of social democracy ever existed? I would be interested in learning because as always I am at a loss to understand. Much obliged.

Most countries in Europe, now. And Canada.

 

[Lazaran]

What a sad commentary on the sorry state of the “fractious spectacle” that characterizes the state of the Democratic Party. lol.

BabyBoobs "thinks" the MAGAt "republican party" isn’t going to have their own EPICALLY fractious spectacle over the next 2-4 years.



The Democratic Party (pragmatic progressives) is still doing the postmortem and slowly realizing that things weren’t all bad this election cycle - especially on the referendum front.



And now DonOld and the MAGAt republicans have to deliver on their farcically empty promises for the populist workers and the masses who elected them, or fail.

Either populist progressive workers and the masses win sooner, or populist progressive workers and the masses win later. (DonOld and the MAGAt republicans will NOT deliver on their farcically empty promises to the populist progressive workers and the masses, so it will be later: 2026-2028).



I’m healthy, financially secure, and retired, so I can wait and watch. (And vote.)





BabyBoobs

 

[PintlerMan]

they lost because they are losers.

 

[Politruk]

they lost because they are losers.

The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

 

[UltraChad]

N.B.: Marx and Rousseau belong to different, and opposing, intellectual traditions.

See Romanticism versus Enlightenment.

Yes, but much like the influence Marx would have on people like Lenin and Mao, ol' Karl very clearly had his worldviews and ideas about socialism directly and very deeply shaped by Rousseau.

Anyone and everyone who's studied much of both can very clearly see the influence.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Like all you Democrats here, Harvard Ethic & Public Policy Professor, Christopher Rubichaud, says we can make all the excuses we want to explain Trump's win, but what it comes down to is a fundamental cultural shift in our society. A majority that prefers hate, racism, misogyny, selfishness and bullying.

We heard this all through the Harris campaign to. That if you vote for Trump, you prefer hate, racism, misogyny, selfishness and bullying.

We also heard the left and the Democrats talk non-stop about Democracy. You know, yay yah yah Democracy! The majority is right. Yadda Yadda yadda.

Well, the people have spoken. Trump got more votes. And, well, that's democracy for you. You told us you support it unequivocally. If that's what you believe the will of the majority is, you better get down to it. Let's hear it for hate, racism, misogyny, selfishness and bullying. It's the will of majority, and Democracy is sacarosant!

Let's do it!

 

[Rightguide]

The TVTropes page on "Political Ideologies" can help us put all this in its proper perspective.

It has sections on:
Liberalism — For Equal Opportunity!
Conservatism — For Tradition and Stability!
Christian Democracy — For God and His people!
Libertarianism — For The Free Market!
Socialism — For Economic Equality!
Social Democracy — For Freedom and Equality!
Marxism — For the International Working Class!
Anarchism — For Absolute Freedom!
Fascism — For Our Nation, Our Leader, and Victory!

Of these, only Socialism, Social Democracy, Marxism and Anarchism* count as "left." Liberalism does not. And you won't find much Socialism, Social Democracy, Marxism or Anarchism in the Democratic Party.

*N.B. Anarchism is not just a more extreme form of American Libertarianism. Anarchism is a European tradition closely associated with Marxism. In a nutshell, Libertarians oppose the state because they see it as a threat to private property, and Anarchists oppose the state because they see it as a guardian of private property. Except for the Anarcho-Capitalists, of whom the less said the better.

^^^
A wheel barrow of crap

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.lEg8N-ObqdlodUDmxb6CVwHaHa%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=2bee3ad383ccba47fc0022d53f4184bc49c22c69aaf34717d8fba015802426dd&ipo=images

 

[Politruk]

Let's here it for hate, racism, misogyny, selfishness and bullying. It's the will of majority, and Democracy is sacarosant!

Exactly!

 

[Politruk]

^^^
A wheel barrow of crap

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.lEg8N-ObqdlodUDmxb6CVwHaHa%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=2bee3ad383ccba47fc0022d53f4184bc49c22c69aaf34717d8fba015802426dd&ipo=images

There is no better schema for sorting out the political spectrum. The Nolan Chart and the Pournelle Chart would not know what to make of the Christian Democrats.

 

[south7eventh]

What the Germans were tired of was Stalinism. Social democracy is a very different thing, and that's what America needs.

So what,where,when has your version of social democracy ever existed? I would be interested in learning because as always I am at a loss to understand. Much obliged

Most countries in Europe, now. And Canada.

Those examples you may call Social Democracies now, although I disagree, but they are not the model that you have previously described. Really what you want is to be a Commissioner within the European Union. Power to issue rules and regulations without having to face an electorate. In other words,the successor to Ursula van der Leyen who has messed up every time she has held power in Germany and in the EU without consequence. She failed upwards like a recent Presidential candidate.

So it is not social democracy but plutocracy. Anyway Good night I have a 3.00am start tomorrow.

 

[UltraChad]

There is no better schema for sorting out the political spectrum. The Nolan Chart and the Pournelle Chart would not know what to make of the Christian Democrats.

Your denial of the consensus definitions for nearly all those terms is NOT the best schema for sorting out the political spectrum.

Put the bottles of pills down.

 

[Politruk]

Those examples you may call Social Democracies now, although I disagree, but they are not the model that you have previously described.

They all have democratic government, a vigorous welfare state and a redistributive tax system -- within capitalism. That's enough to qualify as social democracy.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

Marxism is one of several kinds of socialism.

A bourgeois perspective, seeking to dilute the revolutionary potential of Marxism by framing it as just one of many “socialisms” in order to undermine the scientific basis of Marxist theory and its critique of capitalism, thereby protecting bourgeois interests!

The claim that Marxism is but one variant of socialism minimizes the historical and theoretical significance of Marx' work, and the specific class struggle framework he developed. Your assertion attempts to sow confusion about the nature of socialism itself, allowing room for bourgeois ideologies to co-opt the term for various reformist or nationalist projects that do not challenge the capitalist system.

The attempted differentiation among kinds of socialism serves the bourgeois class by creating potential for fragmentation within the socialist movement. The idea that socialism can take many forms—including those fundamentally at odds with Marxist principles [as national “socialism”], aids bourgeois interests by encouraging divisions among leftist groups. This weakens the working-class as a whole, making it easier for the ruling class to control workers.

With the broad interpretation of socialism that includes non-Marxist variants, the bourgeoisie hopes to divert attention from the need for a radical transformation of society and the economy. This shifts the focus toward reformism, a proven failure that ultimately preserves existing power structures, safeguarding bourgeois interests.

 

[Politruk]

the scientific basis of Marxist theory

There is none. So far as we can tell, Marx did not even understand the scientific method. He was a rationalist as opposed to an empiricist -- no better than the pseudoscientific economists of the Austrian school.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

There is none.

I’ve been waiting to see if there was any basis for rapprochement here. That is clearly exhausted.

Be well.

 

[Deleted member 6873114]

They lost by not going far left enough to offer any real, hopeful alternative to plutocratic rule and the low-wage economy it produces.

Of course any historian that is honest will point out that capitalism has generated more individual wealth than any other form of government man has tried. Even people in poverty in the USA often have more creature comforts than Kings of the past. History also shows that the further left a civilization goes the greater the poverty rate. But your comment just focuses on the economic aspect of the left. What about tampons in the boys room? Insane lefty ideas like that sank the ship.

 

[Politruk]

This shifts the focus toward reformism, a proven failure that ultimately preserves existing power structures, safeguarding bourgeois interests.

But it also produces better results, more broadly shared prosperity, than anything else that has yet been tried. That's social democracy.

 

[Politruk]

Of course any historian that is honest will point out that capitalism has generated more individual wealth than any other form of government man has tried.

Capitalism is not a form of government.

What about tampons in the boys room? Insane lefty ideas like that sank the ship.

Those never existed, not even as an idea. And if they did, would not be "lefty."

 

[Politruk]

So it is not social democracy but plutocracy.

The EU is neither.

 

[UltraChad]

A bourgeois perspective,

A political science perspective, one recognized by most current socialist thinkers.

The claim that Marxism is but one variant of socialism minimizes the historical and theoretical significance of Marx' work, and the specific class struggle framework he developed.

Not at all, if anything it's a testament to it.

Your assertion attempts to sow confusion about the nature of socialism itself,

Considering you tried to redefine the term to suit your FEELINGS about it vs. what the actual nature of socialism is I'm calling this a projection.

The attempted differentiation among kinds of socialism serves the bourgeois class by creating potential for fragmentation within the socialist movement.

The socialist movement already did that to itself like 100 years ago. That's what I'm trying to explain to you.

With the broad interpretation of socialism that includes non-Marxist variants, the bourgeoisie hopes to divert attention from the need for a radical transformation of society and the economy. This shifts the focus toward reformism, a proven failure that ultimately preserves existing power structures, safeguarding bourgeois interests.

A proven failure, just like radical transformations failures, that led to a huge fracturing of socialism.

 

[south7eventh]

They all have democratic government, a vigorous welfare state and a redistributive tax system -- within capitalism. That's enough to qualify as social democracy.

You obviously do not understand the concept of the supremacy/primacy of European Union law and the role of the European Court of Justice.

The example that I thought that you would cite was Switzerland which remained neutral and very largely democratic throughout the twentieth century. The country has had bilateral agreements with the European Union for over fifty years.Switzerland accepts European Union law on many competencies without having any influence or input to that law even if there is a conflict with domestic law.

 

[Politruk]

You obviously do not understand the concept of the supremacy/primacy of European Union law and the role of the European Court of Justice.

Doesn't matter. Its member states are still social democracies. (The EU as a whole can't really be called a democracy because the elected parliament plays such a limited role; but its not exactly a government, either.)

 

[south7eventh]

Doesn't matter. Its member states are still social democracies. (The EU as a whole can't really be called a democracy because the elected parliament plays such a limited role; but its not exactly a government, either.)

My final retort, to bring the whole thing down to its basic absurdity

Taste Swiss chocolate and then try chocolate made elsewhere in the European Union. You can really taste a difference, a big difference. The Swiss version has been unchanged in over a century. The EU has regulated the ingredients and the manufacture of chocolate for over two decades. It is a disappointment. Not a challenge to Hershey!

But someone decided that all chocolate manufacturing should be regulated throughout the EU. Why? Ultimately,because Brussels has said so as the European Community became the European Union.

Little changes in all walks of life accumulate and gradually everything has changed. The big changes follow without challenge because the role of democracy has diminished along with everything else. Big Sister Ursula has spoken.

 

[AceDesSpades]

There has never been a socialist nation ...

They cannot last for reason well known. Many have been attempted and the only way to maintain them is through a ruthless and unfettered Strong Man who can order people to act against their own self interest or die. The strong man is never, ever an economist.

You argue continual for The Return of the Primitive.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

“…a ruthless and unfettered Strong Man who can order people to act against their own self interest or die.”

I have never supported Trump. And yes, I do know you were not alluding to the same.

On the other hand, I’ve not seen the strong, principled opposition to the ‘Strong Man who can order people to act against their own self interest…’

Were it otherwise, the remark might have some import. In the face of DP capitulation and refusal to take any action to prepare the public for coming struggles, one can be forgiven for thinking the current regime is chloroforming the population to accept what it would not dare to foist on it.