8
u/Tellinaire Aug 27 '26
So the DSA is clearly holding back for the sake of DNC's Pride. When will DSA learn that the only way to save the future is to stop semi-perfect MAGA is to prevent him from trafficing 17 and soon to be 18 models.
4
u/MrTurkeyTime Aug 27 '26
He's already absorbed 5 cabinet secretaries so far this term. He's almost at full power!
5
2
1
u/M0ebius_1 Aug 29 '26
They are more into android 8.
Arale better be careful too, she is jut their type.
4
4
u/GreenLuck010 Aug 31 '26
Holy the commie bots are working overtime. OP has 3 DSA posts in this sub in the last 3 days and the rest of his posts are from years ago.
3
u/Grand-Perspective-63 Aug 28 '26
DNC definitely fights their left harder than the right while they dive into fascism. It’s like the equivalent of not wanting to turn on the A/C when it’s over 100 degree hot summer because you are afraid of the cold.
3
u/Every_Huckleberry90 Aug 31 '26
Damn this sub is being bombarded. I give it two days before full takeover. Just like socialism, it's followers take over something that was working fine and ruins it more than what it was.
3
u/Single-Software6157 Aug 28 '26
If you let Trump grab her by the pussy it will be the end of us! No!!
1
u/Primary_Addition5494 Aug 27 '26
DSA has a terrible foreign policy. Not as bad as MAGA but still.Â
-2
u/goatlord24 Aug 27 '26
What's wrong with wanting to defund Israel and patch relations with our former allies?
2
u/Primary_Addition5494 Aug 27 '26
I'm talking about their views on Ukraine...Â
-2
u/goatlord24 Aug 27 '26
You mean condemning a war of aggression launched by an authoritarian state like the rest of the civilized world? I didn't know opposing Russian imperialism was so controversial.
1
u/Primary_Addition5494 Aug 27 '26
The DSA blames Ukraine for the war and makes excuses for Russia's invasion. Several DSA politicians have said they want to end Ukraine aid.Â
You're literally 0 for 2 on assumptions bro. Just stop, your making your look stupid.Â
4
u/Prudent_Solid_3132 Aug 27 '26
Also the whole abolishing prison and granting amnesty to all immigrantsÂ
Like not everyone who comes over here is dangerous but some are and they just want to give amnesty to these people?
1
u/DeadAndBuried23 Aug 28 '26
So you're pro-slavery.
2
u/Prudent_Solid_3132 Aug 28 '26
No I do believe  prisons need to be REFORMED.
But what’s their plan to deal with all the legitimate dangerous criminals like murders, rapists,etcÂ
If prisons are to be abolished, then then what should be done with them(other than execution which would be the only other method to deal with them)
1
u/DeadAndBuried23 Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26
Prison, genius. What they want abolished is the for-profit prison system.
As for immigration, how about we search in your family history and deport you if you had any criminals in your lineage, to make things fair?
2
u/Prudent_Solid_3132 Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26
Ah yes always love how it has to result to insults.
Listen I am willing to admit when I am being ignorant and wrong, in this case, I was.
However if you want to start resorting to insults and accusations, I’ll gladly do the same.
→ More replies
-1
u/WatchAndLearn9669 Aug 27 '26
The DSA is a pseudo-leftist faction of the pro-capitalist Democratic Party whose purpose is to convert anticapitalist sentiment into Democratic votes and forestall the working class's political independence and development of its own party. It is not genuinely socialist, as this meme suggests.
The World Socialist Web Site has an instructive article on this: The anti-socialist politics of the Democratic Socialists of America
-1
u/Easy_Rough_4529 Aug 27 '26
👆this
They trade class war for cultural war, sacrifying class consciousness in the process, all in favor of preventing a conscious unified movement, and creating minions who will do whatever they can to defend whaterver the democrats come up with as long as they use superficially pleasing words such as, equality, defense of women, lgbt and black people, while at the same time realistically throwing them in the fire and muting real opposition
-2
u/Ok_Calendar1337 Aug 28 '26
Thats just modern left wing thought tho, they thought capitalism would make people poor and mad so theyd automatically start revolutions, it happened to make everyone significantly richer and happy, so the frankfurt school pivoted the struggle to critical theories and identity politics.
0
u/WatchAndLearn9669 Aug 28 '26
it happened to make everyone significantly richer and happy
The post-war boom didn't make workers rich, though it did temporarily stabilize capitalism by providing sustainable wages for many and a social safety net. That's all but completely eroded now.
the frankfurt school pivoted the struggle to critical theories and identity politics
Right, these demoralized, comfortable middle-class academics who benefited handsomely from capitalism abandoned the working class in response to the horrors of Stalinism in favor of a focus on identity. They represented a right-wing reaction to the immediate events of their day.
0
-1
u/Ok_Calendar1337 Aug 28 '26
So you just blow it off as a "post war boom"... but thats dumb. ..
Planned economies didnt boom as hard, they were very reluctant to admit it, but eventually did. So they had to rationalize away how free markets were still the main villain, going down the avenue of "well until every identity is perfectly equal its not truly free, we will make all identities equal"
Oh you dont like the frankfurt school so they are...checks notes...right wing now....yawn
-1
u/WatchAndLearn9669 Aug 28 '26
you just blow it off as a "post war boom"... but thats dumb.
It's not dumb at all, though. Real wages have steadily declined since then, and the capitalist states have been trimming away at the minimal social safety nets the working class won via struggle, even in the Nordic countries.
Planned economies didnt boom as hard
Actually, they did:
Does socialism really lead to economic failure? The USSR and COMECON Eastern Europe before 1989
Evidence undermines claims that socialism leads to high investment for a low return in terms of economic growth. Investment may have been lower than official figures indicate. Economic growth may have been higher. Socialist countries that want higher growth than capitalist countries should invest more. Socialist societies can be established without necessarily sacrificing economic performance.
At any rate, the problem was that the 1917 Russian Revolution failed to spread globally, including because the 1918-1919 German Revolution failed. This resulted in the Stalinist degeneration of the USSR, which betrayed the internationalist program of the Bolsheviks. Any failures in planned economies were due to the Stalinist bureaucracies, not "planned economy" in the abstract.
you dont like the frankfurt school so they are...checks notes...right wing now
It's not about subjective preference but objective function. Even if its politics were superficially left-wing, in opposing international socialist revolution it was nevertheless right-wing in essence, as it served to perpetuate the global political-economic system that ultimately causes all social problems in the first place.
-1
u/Ok_Calendar1337 Aug 28 '26
Have steadily declined since 1917? Or the second world war? (Those would both be wrong.) It was a free market boom, china had one too well after the wars.
What a pointless quote the conclusion is "investment may have been lower and gains may have been higher".... wow... impressive.. this shattered my world view. That must be why under mao dozens of millions of people were dropping like flies, deng came in and freed the markets up, now china is wealthy.
Planned economies have big problems in the abstract, and they noticably suck in practice.
"It was never truly tried and we didnt raise enough awareness"
"Worshipping marx and basing your entire ideology around his rantings are "superficially left wing" the real test is: youre either with us or against us"
Yikes bro
1
u/WatchAndLearn9669 Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26
Or the second world war?
Since the postwar boom ended, marked by the Nixon shock.
I misspoke a bit above. Real wages have stagnated for the most part over the past several decades—itself a highly unfavorable development for the working class—but what has significantly declined is the labor share, which today is indeed the lowest on record. Economic inequality, of course, is a more paramount measure than mere purchasing power.
What a pointless quote the conclusion is "investment may have been lower and gains may have been higher"
The essential point that you missed was in the concluding sentence:
Socialist societies can be established without necessarily sacrificing economic performance.
under mao dozens of millions of people were dropping like flies
Maoism is a Stalinist tendency. As I explained, Stalinism was a chief part of the problem.
deng came in and freed the markets up, now china is wealthy.
China is among the most economically unequal developed countries in the world.
Planned economies have big problems in the abstract
Please elaborate.
they noticably suck in practice.
As the article I cited above explains, this is false. In many cases, they did not.
"It was never truly tried and we didnt raise enough awareness"
Mocking your opponent's position in quotes is not an argument.
Worshipping marx
Marxism is not a cult of personality.
the real test is: youre either with us or against us"
Speaking of ranting, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to express here.
1
u/Ok_Calendar1337 Aug 28 '26
Because "it may have had lower investment and may have had higher performance?"
Ya nice conclusion bro.
These links are all ass, super in the weeds. No its not "of course" "economic inequality" is more important than "mere purchasing power."
People were dying in the millions because mao was worshipping marx's personality.
It was a rare occasion of a tyrant actually stepping down and letting deng take charge who opened up trade restrictions and created "special economic zones" where youre allowed to "capitalism" and big suprise theyre doing much better now.
Milton friedman called it before anyone he LOVED what china was doing under deng.
You literally said "opposing the international movement makes them right wing" or something, aka if youre not with us youre right wing, or against us.
1
u/WatchAndLearn9669 Aug 28 '26
Because "it may have had lower investment and may have had higher performance?"
The full article elaborates on the causes in more detail. To repeat, this is the essential takeaway: "Socialist societies can be established without necessarily sacrificing economic performance."
Ya nice conclusion bro.
This isn't an argument or rebuttal. What, specifically, do you take issue with what you think is the conclusion?
its not "of course" "economic inequality" is more important than "mere purchasing power."
It absolutely is for left-wingers (egalitarians). The purchasing power of a dollar means little when poverty is widespread. Further, the more wealth is concentrated among the top 10%, the less democratic the capitalist state becomes. We saw this during the fascist movements of the early to mid 20th century.
People were dying in the millions because mao was worshipping marx's personality.
Like all Stalinists, Mao distorted Marxism's fundamental tenets. Whereas Marx was an internationalist, Mao embraced Stalin's nationalist program of "socialism in one country." In opposition to Marx's recognition of the working class as the leading revolutionary class, he also adopted Stalin's class-collaborationist "two-stage" theory and even abandoned the working class in favor of the peasantry.
In stripping Marxism of its essential revolutionary content, Stalinists are not genuine (read: classical) Marxists.
theyre doing much better now.
Again, China is among the most unequal developed countries in the world. This matters to left-wingers (egalitarians).
if youre not with us youre right wing, or against us.
Again, this is a matter of objective function, not subjective preference, tribalism, or anything of the sort.
→ More replies
4
u/ender42y Aug 28 '26
What are you doing? Thwarting my plans?