ToastedPlanet

Not all people of any given ideology agree. I am going to focus on a distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy I believe is important, this is not the only distinction. Democratic socialism is democracy agnostic. They are fine with socialism being achieved with a democracy or with a revolution. I want democracy and socialism. And I want to achieve socialism through a political revolution. Unlike democratic socialists, this a non-negotiable point for me as a social democrat. In the event, we lose our democracy, I'm not going to obstruct somebody's revolution. Pickers can't be choosers. But as long as we have a democracy I am going to leverage that power to achieve a social democracy. Political revolution is the way I want to achieve socialism. And if I did have to hypothetically achieve socialism as part of a violent revolution, a social democracy is the kind of system I would like to create.

No, I am making a point about one part of Marxist theory that is well known. For all your obfuscation and gatekeeping you have not refuted this point.

Marx said that material conditions like the ones we see in the modern day under neoliberalism would inspire the people to a socialist revolution. The material conditions have not done that. Neoliberalism did not exist when Marx wrote his theories. He could have only guessed the ways in which neoliberalism would condition people to reject the tools of their own liberation. Wealth redistribution is essential to correct the wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 99% of people. But most people would have you know that is, to paraphrase, 'an immoral infringement of property rights'. People think they would be losing wealth when of course they would be the ones gaining that wealth. There are people, usually conservatives, who think that their should be an economic hierarchy. And that a person's place on that hierarchy is justified by the circular reasoning that they are on that place in the hierarchy. This idea is incompatible with wealth redistribution and must be full internalized as an incorrect idea by as many people as possible. Then people need learn that wealth redistribution is an essential part of maintaining a functioning economy.

Social democracy combines the inclusive economic institution of socialism with the inclusive political institution of democracy. In short people have a say in both their economy and government. Listing things off the top of my head that a social democracy should include are things like health care paid for by the government, a government run retirement program like social security, food stamps provided by the government, government housing, government maintained public drinking fountains, government provided internet access. If something is needed routinely by people in order to survive then the government should have a hand in making sure that they get that thing. Market economies by default fire the poorest customer in pursuit of profit. It isn't profitable to house everyone, so not everyone gets a roof over their head, but everyone needs shelter in order to live.

In the spirit of inclusive economic and political institution alone, I would say workers owning the companies they work for is consistent with social democracy. Corporations will still be pursing the profit motive. The difference is that the C-staff will beholden to make profit for the workers and not the share holders. The system is still reliant on a welfare state to avoid people falling through the cracks and make sure everyone gets their basic necessities. I'm sure some social democrats would say we don't have to go this far and that a mixed economy is sufficient. I have come to the opinion that we do need to go farther in this specific regard. As long as the owner class exists, even with sufficient wealth distribution, which is still needed, they will be incentivized to overthrow democracy. By having one class of people, workers, there is no class with the incentive to overturn democracy for profit. We need to have a real say in our place of work, as it has a tremendous impact on our lives and the best way to do that is for workers to own it.

Please understand that what you call “Social Democracy” is Market Socialism. If you use the term “Market Socialism,” everyone will understand what you are talking about.

I am talking about social democracy. I will explain what I mean.

If you use “Social Democracy,” everyone will understand it as “Capitalism with robust safety nets.” These terms have long and historied uses, and that’s why using them correctly is the best way to talk to people. Not to reinvent terms.

I am not reinventing a term. I am including the idea, that workers should own the corporations they work for, in social democracy. I am not the only or first person to do this. This does not stop what I am advocating for being social democracy. Over focusing on definitions is not an effective strategy for arguments.

Black Americans did not recieve the right to vote electorally, but after violent struggle and civil unrest. My broader point is that enacting change is not truly possible electorally, it must come from outside pressure.

Women got the right to vote with mass civil unrest.

As I said in my argument, they had to fight for those rights. But people who had the right to vote still had to vote. We need direct action and civil disobedience, but if people don't vote then all that goes to waste.

Abolishing the electoral college? Great. Making democracy more direct? Great. How do you practically see getting this accomplished? This is the crux of my point. Theory is nothing without practice, and practice is nothing without theory. Right now, you are arguing for utopianism, something that has failed numerous times. You cannot simply ask the ruling class to do better.

With direct action, civil disobedience, and voting. I am arguing for social democracy. A set of ideas and policies that includes socialism and democracy.

That is why theory is important! It guides your practice and makes it sharper.

Theory is the backbone of practical application. We need theory, but we have to be willing to point out when something is wrong with the theory.

My point is that we need to vote in record numbers to correct for the overrepresentation of Republicans. So we need to address concerns people have with voting. A major concern I see on the internet are ethical concerns. That's why it's important to tell people there are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. The goal must be to reduce harm by voting for the candidate that does the least harm.

We are discussing workers owning the companies they work for. I don't need to explain every other idea I hold because the one being discussed could fit in another box. My point is that workers owning the companies they work for fits into social democracy. Ideas do not respect your rigid categorizations. And this splitting hairs is effectively a moot point.

Also I want social democracy.

No, what form of Democracy, and by what metrics? Why do you say bourgeois dictatorships are better?

Again review the countries that exist. Google maps exists. Also call them what they are, liberal democracies, thank you. People fought hard for those democracies.

Again, no. You are entirely missing the point. People will not be swayed by learning Socialism is better, without material conditions matching said ideas.

No, these martial conditions, under neoliberalism, despite matching the material conditions of a worker class oppressed by an owner class, make it harder to learn that Socialism is better. This is why it's hard to even engage people about Socialism. This is the specific part of Marxist theory we are disagreeing about by the way, not Marxist theory in general. Neoliberalism makes it much harder for us to engage people with socialist ideas. Where as people are primed for fascist ideas. This is the problem we face that exists in the modern day. It started with Thacher in 1979 in the UK and Regan in 1980 in the US so as interesting as the Owenites are, they are not relevant.

does not make you equipped...I’m not even gatekeeping,

These statements contradict each other. It's not for you to decide what makes someone qualified to discuss anything. To be clear, I do not have to have read all the theory you have to discuss this topic.

I would argue the majority of what I argue for is social democracy. The fact I'm arguing for workers owning their companies does not exclude the system I'm arguing for from being social democracy. I want a market economy, I just want the workers to own that market economy.

I'm describing what I'm describing. This is social democracy as I see it. I am arguing workers owning companies is not at odds with social democracy and is a policy that should be pursued as part of such a system.

No, people have been trying to fix US democracy to be more inclusive for centuries. Black men got the right to vote in 1870. But of course people of color are still facing voter suppression to this day. Woman got the right to vote in 1919. People fought for these rights. We need to keep fighting until majority rule is established in the United States. Then we will need to fight to keep it that way. I'll name a few things that we need to do, but this is not a comprehensive list. We need to abolish the electoral college, and make both the House of Representatives and Senate proportional to the population. The House of Representatives is currently capped at 435. And every state in the union needs to agree to change the Senate to be reflective of the population from the current two senators per state. As long as our democracy has these and other flaws fascists and corporations alike are going to have undue leverage over our democracy.

To be clear, I’m using this meme to address ethical concerns I see people have with voting. Namely that we should ignore those concerns. I think we should vote for Biden in 2024.

I saw your comment further down and I wanted to address any potential confusion where it can be seen. I think we fundamentally agree that people should vote.

But the sonic meme says voting is unethical

No, just that there are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. For example, abstaining from voting is a choice even if it's not voting. Voting for the candidates, not just the president, that will result in the least amount of harm to people is what is optimal. People use ethical concerns as a reason to not vote, but no matter what a person chooses, even the least bad choice is still unethical. Therefore these ethical concerns should not weigh into our decision making process.

This is comparable to no ethical consumption under capitalism. Steve Shives made a good example in his video on Don't Look Up, so I'm going to steal it here. We shouldn't dismiss Hollywood out of hand for making movies like Don't Look Up even though everyone who works in the film industry benefits from capitalism in unethical ways. Even though it is true that they benefit in unethical ways, this line of reasoning would silence everyone. We all benefit in unethical ways from capitalism. It's the nature of living in a capitalist system that we cannot escape as long as we live under capitalism. Even the least bad consumption is still unethical. So these ethical concerns shouldn't weigh into our criticism of a movie like Don't Look Up.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. There are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. So, these ethical concerns should not weigh into our criticism of capitalism or our decisions about who to vote for. We should vote even if the choice of who we vote for isn't ethical. The goal should be to reduce the most harm to people.

The social democracy I am describing in my arguments would do away with capitalism but not market economies. The fact this doesn't exist yet or isn't in the theory you have read about social democracy isn't relevant. The US has never had true majority rule. Our democracy overrepresents some people and thus underrepresents others. This must be fixed. The US is still fundamentally a democracy despite its flaws. That's why the fascists want to do away with our democracy, so they can have total power, as just being overrepresented is insufficient for their aims.

Social Democracy is not a form of Worker Ownership but welfare Capitalism.

Again, this is a description of current social democracies. This is not what am I advocating for with social democracy.

You are calling Market Socialism Social Democracy, despite Nordic Countries not being Market Socialist.

No, I was just pointing out social democracies exist. They currently have mixed economies like most countries in the world.

Alright. I still think what we believe is not in conflict with each other. But I am going to agree to disagree on what we should do about the election.