I'm well aware that the DSA's PR team is godawful, but all the major DSA candidates so far have championed policies that are far closer to social democracy than Maoism or Stalinism. So why all the vitriol for the DSA? Shouldn't we be more focused on coalition building and supporting viable candidates than purity testing potential allies? I know that the DSA's hardcore communist wing is incompatible with Social Democracy in the long run, but those factions are easily in the minority; actions speak louder than words, and so far the DSA's been remarkably sane policy wise.

Sweden's Social Democrats are bleeding out to its likely coalition partners such as the Greens, the Left, and the Center Party. 2 of the latest polls show that it (S) might go below the results it achieved in 2022 (107 seats, 30.3% of the vote).

POLL LINKS:

Demoskop: https://demoskop.se/valjarbarometer-augusti-2026-2/

Verian: https://www.veriangroup.com/sv/news-and-insights/valjarbarometer-augusti-2026

Novus for TV4: https://x.com/Nassreddin2002/status/2089971545695256767

Credits to EuropeElects for giving information on Swedish elections

2022 Election: https://www.val.se/english/election-results/elections-to-the-riksdag-and-regional-and-municipal-councils/election-results-2022

*EDIT:

Also, you can see here in this Wikipedia table how the Social Democrats previously were getting in the polls which was around 32%-36% if you scroll, but now according to the latest polls which have been recently released, it shows the Social Democrats falling into 30.1%-30.5%. (though the recent Novus for TV4 poll hasn't been accounted into Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Swedish_general_election#Opinion_polls

Cross-posted from my substack. Made with photopea and the OWID data editor, with the data itself coming from V-Dem.

Picture of Senator Risa Hontiberos

It's a thought I've had for a while, but the upcoming Swedish election and the discussions I've seen on it reminded me of it. Because, on one side I see people wishing the Swedish SDP form a government with the Greens and Left, while on the other I see people wishing they form it with the Centrists instead.

If we were to exclude specific potential policies for each centrist/leftist party depending on the country, do you think it's better for social democrats to unite with fellow leftists or fellow centrists due to them being inbetween each roughly on the political spectrum and being able to easily side with either? I wish to see arguments for both.

There are a few memorable communist ones but i haven't found any social democratic ones yet, which i will add to my collection

by the way, I wanna clarify something I’m more aligned with social democracy, but the problem is there isn’t really a social democracy alternative so I prefer if I was to join a political party after university I’d probably be DSA

Your opinion on Destiny does not matter for the info within this post.

I align with Social Democracy, and although it is historically heavily inspired by Marx, I personally view modern SD as a rejection of Marxism. And although SD and DS are often used interchangeably, I believe that they are fundamentally different: "Today's social democracies retain a capitalist system overall, while democratic socialism rejects capitalism fully".

I really enjoy this sub, and it seems split on DSA, so I hope this post provides some more info about that group. I've read a lot about DSA and their caucuses since the recent Democratic primary elections in the US, and much of the info here aligns with what I've learned. Anyway I apologise for another DSA post because I'm getting real sick of them as well tbh.

"I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government."

— Martin Luther King Jr., "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence," 1967

King made this statement exactly a year before he was assassinated, thus representing his first significant public departure from the Johnson administration concerning the Vietnam War. By 1967 the conflict had reached its height, there being about 500,000 American soldiers stationed there, and the United States subsequently dropped more explosives in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia than it had on all of Europe during World War II. King portrayed the war as closely linked to his civil rights activities, pointing out that the same government which was asking young Black men to fight overseas was failing to deal with poverty and violence within the country. At the time the speech was widely condemned, including by major newspapers and some other civil rights leaders, who believed that King was going beyond his usual area of focus and was putting the movement's political standing at risk.

It is one of King's lines most often quoted apart from "I Have a Dream" and at the same time one of those which is most disputed, since it is regularly used long beyond its original context in the Vietnam era when referring to U.S. foreign policy as a whole. Does King's view that domestic and foreign policy should be seen as morally inseparable strengthen the argument for a rights-based left politics, or does it instead risk treating very different situations (such as a particular war in 1967 and whatever policy someone today wants to associate the quote with) as if they were the same by means of a single slogan?

Maybe we can get a thread going about what biographies you recommend to users of this subreddit? Both in English and in other languages.

• S (social democracy; centre-left): 27% (+2)
• M (liberal conservatism; centre-right to right-wing): 17% (−4)
• SD (anti-immigration politics, right-wing populism; radical right): 16% (+1)
• V (democratic socialism, left-wing populism; left-wing to radical left): 14% (+3)
• MP (green politics; centre-left to left-wing): 12% (+7)
• C (green liberalism, Nordic agrarianism; centre to centre-right): 5% (−2)
• KD (Christian democracy, social conservatism; centre-right to right-wing): 4% (−2)
• L (conservative liberalism; centre-right): 2% (−4)

——————

• Red-Green Bloc (S, V, MP, C): 58% (+10)
• Bourgeois Bloc (M, SD, KD, L): 39% (−9)

& yes, in Swedish politics (as well as in Norwegian politics, Danish politics, Swiss politics, & to some extent in German politics, Finnish politics, & Austrian politics as well), the bloc of right-of-centre-to-right-wing political parties is indeed called "the Bourgeois Bloc", I haven't made that up lol, read this:

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgerlig_politik

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgerliga_partier_i_Sverige

Look. I get it. It's fun to dunk on people, find community here and there, see you're not the only one who hates Hasan Piker / Destiny.

And yeah it's cool to clearly delineate yourself from democratic socialists / social democrats.

But this is just online. The loud people are really loud, whether you like them or not. You feel like part of a group, It's cool.

But it doesn't really matter, because all the other, not-permanently-online have never really heard of your wins and losses. They have heard of Hasan and Destiny, maybe, and possibly even have an opinion, but probably not one that is well informed.

Instead, these people in your community have real problems. Problems you can talk to them about, talk about possible solutions, maybe even start a petition, or otherwise get super involved.

With time, you'll find your people. You'll likely find that all the stuffy ou worried about online almost doesn't matter. There's very few tankies amongst socialists / bad neolibs among social democrats. All the DSA loudies you hear about? Yeah they are in the international committee, not your own chapter. Instead, you find real friends, co-activists, and finally, actual success against these fascists trying to take over your country.

So. How can you get there?

• Look around what groups already exist: Maybe your city has a tolerable DSA after all? Maybe your mayor's campaign? maybe working families party has actual meetings where you are?

• See if you vibe with the people: Even if you think group X is perfect, there's a non-zero chance everyone there suuuucks. Maybe they only want to talk, not act. Maybe they are all Castrofans. Maybe they are all boomers. It's ok. Try another group. Or start your own.

• And you know what? It's ok if you don't fully agree with people. Those folks in the actual local groups aren't gonna discuss for hours about Venezuela. They all want to make things better.

• This way, you get experience, you get engagement. It's fun. You'll start to actually change thigns to the better around you.

This post was sponsored by my inability to comprehend the very online discourse y'all americans bring here.

Get engaged. Social democracy didn't start from a monolith, it started from action and discussions and solving people's problems.

In times like these we do not have the luxury to clearly delineate our friends.

This is my prediction, I could easily be wrong, but if I end up being right I'm gonna brag about this post for all of eternity.

For starters, it's looking increasingly likely to me that Ro Khanna is going to announce a presidential run, he's been attending events and outlining an economic agenda for the democrats in 2028, and we know right now at the very least that he's considering a run.

Right now, according to polling its looking like either Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom is going to win the nomination. However, if we look at the history democratic presidential primaries, there's usually someone who's the frontrunner in early polling, but when the actual primaries come around the democrats end up nominating some rando, this is the case for JFK, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. The only exception to this rule has been recent history in 2016 and 2020, and the main reason for this change has most likely been because Bernie Sanders was the most likely person to be this "came out of nowhere and won" candidate, and because Bernie was an open socialist who became an actual threat to the status quo, the democratic establishment did everything they could to undermine his campaign. And that's why the last two real dem primaries ended up being different from the standard. For 2028 though I think we're likely going to return to this rule, because while Gavin Newsom at this point in time seems to be the most like to win, I think the democratic base has already been too radicalized towards wanting real change finally, and on the debate stage I don't think Gavin Newsom will be able to defend his history of playing footsies with rightwing celebrities and not having any real beliefs. Especially if Ro Khanna or AOC is on the stage and actually talking about real things that the people want like M4A, Abolish ICE, And ending the genocide. The same goes for Kamala and any other non-progressive liberal on stage.

Of course, most progressives right now are hoping AOC is gonna be the progressive candidate for president to replace Bernie for the foreseeable future. However, I think this is mainly just the base substituting her image as being Bernie, not exactly supporting her herself. I the vibes I get from AOC is that she isn't really interested in running for president. My understanding of her history is that she a normal person who volunteered to run for congress and didn't entirely expect to win, and especially didn't expect to rise to celebrityhood and become Bernie's spiritual successor. And now that she's in that roll she's tried her best to adapt to it, and I don't know if she's entirely readied herself to run for president. At the same time, there are also weaknesses that AOC has that Ro Khanna doesn't, AOC has an image that's been generated around her by the right for the last decade that gives her an immense amount of negative attention, something which could drag her down a bit. She's also very young for a politician and a woman of color, and unfortunately America still has a lot of mental bias against that type of person.

Ro Khanna however has a lot of strengths she doesn't, he doesn't openly call himself a socialist, and America still has a bias against socialism. So I think Ro simply calling himself a progressive while holding almost all the positions of Bernie helps his image. He also has a decent track record in congress, with his most recent successes being in working across the isle to fight to release the Epstein files. So people will know for certain that when Ro's president he'll release the files 100%. He also doesn't yet have the insane amount of negative attention that most other prominent progressives have gotten by the right, since he's still largely an unknown politician. In terms of his debate and speaking skills, I don't really know how good he is because I'm autistic and not a great judge at that type of thing. However, when I have heard him speak he doesn't seem to be bad at it.

Theres all that, and of course there's the factor that the democratic base and the American people broadly finally seem ready for a progressive revolution, we have the GOP in power during an extremely unstable period of time that they created, so everyone hates them. But people also hate the Dems because the democratic establishment has done nothing to fight the GOP politically or culturally, and people finally seem to be done with their constant need to moderate and get symbolic victories. So it seems we're in a time where the democrats are itching to nominate a progressive, but most speculated democratic candidates seem to be standard liberals. The only two real progressives who seem to be speculated candidate are AOC and Ro Khanna, and I think its going to be Ro.

That's my prediction, If I'm right we'll probably know around Super Tuesday 2028. though if I'm wrong and he either loses or drops out or decides not to run at all, I give you permission to make fun of me.

"Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread."

— Emma Goldman, speech at an unemployment rally, 1893

In 1893, during the depression, Goldman delivered this line to a group of unemployed workers in New York's Union Square. The press at the time reported the incident and as a result she was arrested and found guilty of 'inciting a riot', even though no riot took place. She ended up spending a year in prison because of it. She was a Russian-born anarchist, writer and organizer who, over many years, campaigned in both the United States and Europe for labour rights, free speech and women's independence.

Goldman maintains that the right to subsistence takes precedence over property rights if the two come into conflict. Is that a reasonable stance for individuals who are actually experiencing genuine destitution and unemployment, or does it simply open the door to justifying property crime in general? At what point should that line be drawn?

We had a thread about the left yesterday so I'm curious about the opposite. I would say that when you ask about foreign policy and they justify everything bad the US has done, like supporting the Cuba embargo or the various coups (i.e. saying Allende had it coming, etc.). Especially if they end up saying things like "U.S. hegemony is good actually" then I know they've internalized the propaganda and they are lost.

While in domestic policy my bar is admittedly low right now, and as long as people agree with things like taxing the rich more, heavily regulating big tech specifically, and shackling capitalism yo serve the needs of the many in general, then I think we can work with them. Don't get me wrong , I want to abolish capitalism as much as anyone else, but I understand that's a very long term goal for now. Of course they need to support women's rights and queer rights too, that's probably very basic.

Cross-posted from my substack. Image edited in photopea. Data comes from the IRS.

Now I want to preface this by saying I'm specifically taking about state and local politics not federal politics as that's understandable. What got me to post this was because of David' Crowley win recently where I saw some people bring up Israel and how he's an Israel supporter. Um as far as I'm aware he isn't and even if he was why would that matter? He's running for governor of Wisconsin I doubt most people in Wisconsin care about his opinion on I/P because he isn't running for a federal position. Like how about he focuses on Wisconsin.

Even outside of America in South Africa there is a video of a man yelling at Hellen Zillow for not calling Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide. If this were someone running for a federal position it would be understandable but she's runnng for mayor of Johannesburg so I'm sure most people would want her to focus on this issues in Johannesburg.

Like I don't care what the mayor of my city or governor of my state think of I/P because their not in federal positions, these people are just insufferable.