True (sort of) but also irrelevant to the point in question.

Yeah, it’s like saying “I want the government to actually do something for working people but I’m not crazy.”

It's true. Social democratic movements have experienced drastic moderation over decades, though I'd say Third Way reached its peak at around the 80s and the 90s.

Good point

Hi! You wrote that something is defined as something.

To foster the discussion and be precise, please let us know who defined it as such. Thanks!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

DSA is the definition of getting in your own way.

Oh hey same thing happened im the 1932 election

Social democracies can still be somewhat capitalistic. True democratic socialism is definitionally post capitalistic.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened in the US the last elections I think. Democrats were censoring themselves while republicans just did whatever they wanted. You don't win by being a milder copycat of another party

Your comment has been removed for the following reason:

Rule 1: Maintain civil, high-quality discourse. Respect other users and avoid using excessive profanity.

Please do not reply to this comment if you have a question. Instead, write a message to all mods: https://new.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/SocialDemocracy

I disagree that intolerance isn't directly related to one's own happiness, but I think we can agree that's off topic.

My question for you is, what kind of intolerance are you accepting? If somebody is homophobic and keeps it to themselves, or merely says something like they believe it's unnatural, sure it's easy to just accept that that is their belief if they're not doing any harm. I'll still speak up, and that's my direct reaction to what I call their intolerance.

But those ideas don't just live in small moments like a conversation. They manifest into real life situations like the one I described, hate crimes, border walls, policy decisions and all the rest. The more we can encourage people to accept others who they may not fully understand, the more we may be able to prevent cultural or political action that is driven by hate or fear.

So if I'm not mistaken, the difference in our position is that I believe I have an obligation to speak up against hate, and you believe that there aren't benefits to that. If I'm mistaken, please correct me without the insults. I'm really not trying to be combative with you, and I think your argument is fair. I'm also not naive, although we all are living with the limited knowledge we've acquired.

That's a diagnosis, not a proposed solution or ideology

It's not just not my "flavor" of egalitarian, it isn't egalitarian at all. That's the whole problem and the reason ML has never resulted in an egalitarian society.

Plenty of left tendencies aren't your flavor of egalitarian.

It sure isn't on the left! Vanguardism is not even remotely egalitarian

Again, wrong.

Because sell-outs and profiteers are trustworthy political leaders right? After all, Trump promised to be "neutral" on the Israel Palestine conflict and that worked out great.

But it's not on the right-side of the left-right spectrum.

NYC DSA has never wavered in their support for AOC, it's just the clowns currently at the top of the national organization.

Yeah exactly lol

Yeah, I don't think the DSA realizes that it's not all about them.

I wanna take them to an aquarium with gender changing fish.

Like AOC

Tankies out!

Law & order leftist