I believe I was talking about parties, not governments.
Social democrats did successfully combine capitalism with left wing policies for decades. In the present day it’s becoming increasingly obvious the globalists have thoroughly outplayed socdem policies, but that doesn’t change the fact that they used to work, and it’s entirely possible that they could still be made to work with some changes.
I still have no idea what you’re trying to communicate with that quote.
Oh? Could you list them?
Any country with welfare. Some are even experimenting with a radical concept called UBI, a leftist policy that slots very neatly into existing socdem frameworks.
Did you read it?
Being a great capitalist doesn’t equate to being socialist or democratic fwiw.
Seeing as you’re incapable of actually listing welfare states that capitalistically yield free housing and food, I’ll consider your comments🧵 as hallucinations or delusions.
Take your pick of European country and look into social housing. Yes its not as widespread as it could be and has faults, but it is a system of providing housing to people outside the market/capitalist system.
Insisting on “free” as the marker of being outside a market system is illiterate, resources have to be expended to create things and their has to be accounting for this somehow. Even things that are are free at the point of use (oh look like the UK’s NHS, another example of a left wing policy in existence) have to manage their resources and ensure that they are distributed correctly.
manage their resources and ensure that they are distributed correctly
This is the key: managing resources to serve everyone, and distributing to the needed. Not the bourgeoisie.
Anarchists believe we can manage those resources efficiently and equivocally. Capitalist, and in the case of SocDems, believe they can do so for their populists.
Now now, we don’t need to be exclusionary when clearly the respondent is having a temporary lapse of comprehension.
As anarchists, we have to intersect on the ignorances as we see them, and mutual aid resources for them to get educated on their failings.
We lift people up, not kick bridges down.
Now you’re mixing parties with governments. The former can be (see social democrats) while the latter is harder to analyze given that they are mostly coalitions.
Similarly, If I shit and take a shower after, I’m still not clean!
Sarcasm aside, this sentiment is oozing subjective interpretation mistaken for objective fact. Political views (like more or less any other opinions) are far more complicated than just: “if you are this one thing, you cannot be this other thing.”
You can be fiscally right-leaning and socially left-leaning, as well as the other way around. Likewise, as painful as it may be to hear, capitalism is not mutually exclusive with leftism. By the logic of your opinion, Mamdani isn’t left-leaning either, because he’s still participating in and thereby protecting the capitalist systems of the US. It’s just a silly way of thinking.
You can be fiscally right-leaning and socially left-leaning, as well as the other way around.
No, you actually cannot logically be for the oppression of people and against the oppression of people. Being economically right wing and ‘socially’ left wing means you’re completely fine with gay slaves but if someone suggests getting rid of slavery you’re going to shoot them…
Likewise, as painful as it may be to hear, capitalism is not mutually exclusive with leftism.
It is, by definition. There is no possible radical change position that keep capitalism at this point in time. Every variation of capitalism has been tried and has failed.
You can dislike (like I do) social democrats without clinging to them somehow not being left, plenty of more coherent leftists out there to support instead. Still doesn’t nullify that they’ve made the capitalist hellscape slightly better and “more left” here and there. The world ain’t as simple as your simple brain wishes it was.
European governments are not left either. You cannot be capitalist and left.
State capitalism is more left than libertarian capitalism.
I believe I was talking about parties, not governments.
Social democrats did successfully combine capitalism with left wing policies for decades. In the present day it’s becoming increasingly obvious the globalists have thoroughly outplayed socdem policies, but that doesn’t change the fact that they used to work, and it’s entirely possible that they could still be made to work with some changes.
So housing and food is free in those SocDem states?
chrislundartist
In some of them the state will pay for those, yes. There’s other kinds of leftist policy besides communism.
I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate with that quote.
Apparently I misquoted the wrong excerpt, on the wrong threads post. Corrected the exact quote I meant to post now, unaware the exact URL.
Oh? Could you list them?
I still have no idea what you’re trying to communicate with that quote.
Any country with welfare. Some are even experimenting with a radical concept called UBI, a leftist policy that slots very neatly into existing socdem frameworks.
Did you read it?
Being a great capitalist doesn’t equate to being socialist or democratic fwiw.
Seeing as you’re incapable of actually listing welfare states that capitalistically yield free housing and food, I’ll consider your comments🧵 as hallucinations or delusions.
Take your pick of European country and look into social housing. Yes its not as widespread as it could be and has faults, but it is a system of providing housing to people outside the market/capitalist system.
Insisting on “free” as the marker of being outside a market system is illiterate, resources have to be expended to create things and their has to be accounting for this somehow. Even things that are are free at the point of use (oh look like the UK’s NHS, another example of a left wing policy in existence) have to manage their resources and ensure that they are distributed correctly.
If I were to use your pick (UK), your argument is invalid.
Oh, so you can’t see a system outside capitalism.
And it should be policy to be free to reuse.
nrly.
This is the key: managing resources to serve everyone, and distributing to the needed. Not the bourgeoisie.
Anarchists believe we can manage those resources efficiently and equivocally. Capitalist, and in the case of SocDems, believe they can do so for their populists.
UBI is capitalist bull crap. Get the fuck out of here if you’re not a leftist.
Now now, we don’t need to be exclusionary when clearly the respondent is having a temporary lapse of comprehension.
As anarchists, we have to intersect on the ignorances as we see them, and mutual aid resources for them to get educated on their failings.
We lift people up, not kick bridges down.
Work for who? Because Social democrats hate brown people and constantly work to oppress the global south to fund their policies.
Now you’re mixing parties with governments. The former can be (see social democrats) while the latter is harder to analyze given that they are mostly coalitions.
Governments parties coalitions whatever, if you are capitalist you are not left.
Similarly, If I shit and take a shower after, I’m still not clean!
Sarcasm aside, this sentiment is oozing subjective interpretation mistaken for objective fact. Political views (like more or less any other opinions) are far more complicated than just: “if you are this one thing, you cannot be this other thing.”
You can be fiscally right-leaning and socially left-leaning, as well as the other way around. Likewise, as painful as it may be to hear, capitalism is not mutually exclusive with leftism. By the logic of your opinion, Mamdani isn’t left-leaning either, because he’s still participating in and thereby protecting the capitalist systems of the US. It’s just a silly way of thinking.
No, you actually cannot logically be for the oppression of people and against the oppression of people. Being economically right wing and ‘socially’ left wing means you’re completely fine with gay slaves but if someone suggests getting rid of slavery you’re going to shoot them…
It is, by definition. There is no possible radical change position that keep capitalism at this point in time. Every variation of capitalism has been tried and has failed.
You can dislike (like I do) social democrats without clinging to them somehow not being left, plenty of more coherent leftists out there to support instead. Still doesn’t nullify that they’ve made the capitalist hellscape slightly better and “more left” here and there. The world ain’t as simple as your simple brain wishes it was.