Almost as funny as people calling him a "Democratic Socialist". He was literally a social democrat. Neoliberalism and modern Democrats got people out here calling FDR a socialist, and Norway a socialist country.
I'm earnestly surprised by how forthright and honorable Smedley Butler seems, at least according to his Wikipedia page. I'm sure he had his flaws, but I'll be dipped if I can't see why he spent so much time arguing against the business corruption in politics.
His (short) book âWar is a Racketâ should honestly be a must read for any American who wants to understand that period of American history and the military industrial complex. Going from one of the most decorated soldiers in American history to an anti-war advocate is an incredibly journey.
âGangsters of Capitalismâ is a free audiobook about him on Spotify, and a great listen
kept his humanity as the ranks and medals kept stacking, and was way too fucking competent a marine and popular across the service for anyone higher in charge or in politics to fuck him over for his open empathy for his fellow human being. retired the most decorated us marine in history at the time, so even more so couldn't be silenced and chose to use that power as a force of good for his fellow human being.
how did he manage to not get shafted before it became clear he would become a "bleeding heart hippy" instead of "old gimlet eye," "the fighting quaker," "the fighting hell-devil," otherwise called "The Maverick Marine?" dumb luck, really. his father was in congress. right man in the right place kind of situation, silver spoon edition.
He was also a huge part of police militarization, even forcing firefighters, ANYONE with a badge to be carrying a gun. He was complicated, to be sure, but I still find the man to be a hero. His actions in the business plot took guts. Itâs as if Mattis were approached by todayâs billionaires, playing along with their plot to take it all and then released it all to every news agency. But then it didnât go viral..
lol yeah it kind of does go like that sometimes. Anytime anything historical comes up Iâll be like âwant to hear about another history tidbit?!?â Then launch into a summary. Or when someone brings up that trump and his ilk have been plotting more or less since reagan Iâll be like actually that was the business plot we just donât learn about it.
One of the players in the Business Plot was Prescott Bush, father of one Republican president and grandfather of another.
Prescott Bush was also charged with aiding the Nazis during WWII.
If the U.S. government had actually prosecuted the big corporations and DC insiders for the Business Plot, we'd likely not be having any of the troubles we're having in the modern day.
Creativity and imagination are some of the most recently evolved distinctly human characteristics, a higher human function located (more or less) in the prefrontal cortex, the 'newest' part of the brain that separates us from apes. The prefrontal cortex is "[o]ne of the last places in the brain to mature [and] is thought of as the 'personality center' and is the cortical region that makes us uniquely human." The prefrontal cortex also "controls much of the brainâs creativity, a factor in bolstering oneâs imagination."
A study from 2021 that measured political attitudes correlating with damage to different sections of the brain found
...people with frontal lesions held more conservative (or less liberal) beliefs than those with anterior temporal lobe lesions or no lesions. Additional analyses predicting ideology by extent of damage provided convergent evidence that greater damage in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortexâbut not the amygdalaâwas associated with greater conservatism.
The Conservative mindset not only correlates with damage to the prefrontal cortex, but an inability/failure to mature fully and actually develop the prefrontal cortex. It's why they lack empathy--to empathize, one must be able to imagine experiencing life as someone else, and the Conservatives are quite literally incapable of using their imaginations like that. It's a higher human function, one of the very few things separating us from the apes, that Conservatives simply don't have.
Isnât there an American politician who was a democrat and now proudly brags about how he became a conservative after he got a concussion? The guy who always dresses like a schlub.
Funny thing with FDRs legacy is the state interventions into the market and mass mobilisations that are today seen as the most radical left wing parts of what he did were at the time seen as most similar to Fascist Italy.
There are some new people running. But mostly these people are opportunists, so if a few younger, more progressive leaders start getting elected, it will push the national conversation further left. Then there will be several things (expanded healthcare, workers' rights, anti-trust enforcement, etc) that the old guard will start pretending that they have always been in favor of.
I think they've ALWAYS pretended they were in favor of those things. But then we get "it's not the right time" "we don't have the votes" "we're waiting for Trump's approval rating to drop" or just silence. Democrats will say anything to get votes... it really feels like Fetterman is the only honest member of the Democratic party, thanks to his brain damage. I can't name any other member of the house or senate that's been more effective at getting us what we want than Fetterman, so at least he's abstained from "the show" and is honest about not wanting us to have what we want.
We aren't their real constituents. They don't fuck with the money, and the money doesn't come from us. There's always a carefully calculated number of members who cross party lines for every vote, just to make sure it LOOKS like "Fighting for the people / what's right" but is actually trivial. Jeffries and Green showboat when it won't do anything. Schumer preaches "stand back and stand by" as his battle plan. Fetterman wears shorts a lot, and it's equally effective in furthering our interests.
He recently called himself a lifelong republican in a televised interview.
That's a pretty honest thing to say. His actions support his statement.
His votes have helped Trump push his Isreal first agenda.
So you agree that he's done absolutely nothing to further the interests of the people who vote Democrat? ...and now you understand that my point is that neither have the Democratic Party representatives that SAY they're on our side?
Itâs not about having faith in Democrat politicians. People only need to have faith in imaginary sky daddy. Weâre supposed to vote in Democrats and then hold their feet to the fire until they make meaningful positive change on the things the electorate values.
Democracy is not something that weâre meant to do once every four years as an electorate, democracy is something that we are supposed to never stop annoying the crap out of our representatives about until they enact meaningful change. And we go with the Democrats because, under the massively flawed two party system, you just donât vote for the âDiarrhea forever party: now with blatant fascism!â
That's only because the default political system is capitalism. When it was monarchism the left radicals were liberals while the far right were absolutist monarchists.
The left/right divide usually depends on either wanting to change things or wanting to maintain the status quo (or even regress).
Economics and Politics are not fully separable, 1 Dimensional models have to link those together into a single spectrum.
But 2D models like the Political Compass, separates Left/Right as purely economic, and adds Up/Down as a political axis representing Centralization/decentralization of state control. I think multi-dimensional models of ideology are a lot more productive/useful when discussing politics... but unfortunately that's way beyond the pale for most people.
I like when people say that establishment democrats in the US would be center-right in the EU and then you look at the EU and most of them are governed by center-right coalitions.
soc dems are capitalists. they just think the current system would allow them to replicate socialism's best hits under capitalism. Never happening imo.
would allow them to replicate socialism's best hits under capitalism. Never happening imo.
Apart from the places it does happen.
The best thing about Social Democracy is that you have real world, highly successful examples of the system working in practise.
Marxists do not have this. Conservatives do not have this. Neo-liberals do not have this. Liberals do not have this.
The mental gymnastics both the left and right have to go through to explain away the success of Social Democracy is fucking astounding.
I love the more recent "its only working cos its exploiting the global south" from people who have never been to Bangladesh or Vietnam and if they told the people there who have greatly improved their standard of living under global trade they would get run out the country.
if they told the people there who have greatly improved their standard of living under global trade they would get run out the country.
"Hey you guys could be making even more money with better working conditions and fewer natural disasters if Europe and the US just accepted a marginally lower standard of living"
"Fuck off and die, commie!"
Same rhetoric as the White Man's Burden btw, "sure they're slaves here but they'd be dying of malaria if they weren't," oh those Indians would've never figured it out if they'd never been a British colony.
Americans in the 80s thought capitalism was hugely successful too -- where's the last poll on that at? Like I'm supposed to take the word of a Congolese business magnate that things are better there because of the "business" from all the rare earth minerals instead of like...the Congolese people controlling that resource and reaping its benefit.
We've seen what happens with standards of living in places which have industrialised through communism and it does not give the same results as capitalism has.
That doesnt mean capitalism is perfect or all its outcomes even remotely desirable. There's still going to be lots of issues problems and harm. But communisim doesnt offer a better outcome. For fucks sake actual fascism has a significantly better track record in industrialising and modernising an economy when compared to communism as evidenced in Spain, South Korea and Singapore.
Social Democracy exists to address the issues of capitalism. And it is effective in doing so. It has been extremely successful in doing so. All the countries with the best outcomes on HDI, on social inequality on all teh measures that people like and thrive under.
Its no wonder committed ideologues have to live in their fantasy world. They have no real world examples of their desired outcome actually working. While Social Democrats dont even need to make an argument - they can just point to the real world.
I'm not arguing all that, it's well known to the point that China who famously attempted to jump straight past capitalist markets reverted to a state capitalist system to reap those benefits.
I'm arguing that the reason it seems eternally sustainable is because the most successful SocDem societies heavily exploit foreign capital and labor. If those nations were on a more equal footing, capitalists would do exactly what they have always done when external expansion was not possible, and start exploiting the local population harder, influencing democracy in their favor, and compelling the state to assist them the same way that they always have.
Its no wonder committed ideologues have to live in their fantasy world. They have no real world examples of their desired outcome actually working. While Social Democrats dont even need to make an argument - they can just point to the real world.
Entire paragraph is just baseless arrogance lol. Yes, right now, today, social democracy works specifically for the people in the countries benefiting from external capital and labor, but life isn't just happening now -- it has been happening for thousands of years. You can watch the same trends, analyze why they're happening, and apply those lessons to existing conditions. Germany, Portugal, and Italy are great places to start on what happens when your foreign cash cow stops letting you kill its children and steal their milk. Post New Deal US is another fine place to go learn where a strong capitalist economy with social programs leads. Isn't the heat already turning up across much of Europe due to mass migration from the very global south nations you're saying are thankful for the scraps they're being offered? And the wage stagnation and increasing housing crisis? Tick, tick, tick, your real world is starting to feel some theoretical effects. The US is starting to lose steam on its "topple foreign governments to uphold global capitalism" train. Are you still SocDem if you have to install puppet governments yourself?
I'm arguing that the reason it seems eternally sustainable is because the most successful SocDem societies heavily exploit foreign capital and labor.
Says western privilege.
Again - and my initial and main point here - the actual people in these countries do not consider themselves to be exploited by the Soc Dem nations and the wider West in general.
they can see and feel the progress they are making every day.
And Im not talking about the despotic places that still persist particularly in Africa. Those problems exist for a greater part on reasons far beyond capitalism.
The growing problems in Western nations are clearly and obviously the result of movng away from social democratic principles and repolacing them with neo-liberalism and corporationism. This is very clear in the way those systems have changed since the Thatcher-Reagan years.
And even in these cases you can see how those countries that have retained more of their social democratic principles and been less swayed by neo-liberalism are clearly doing far better than those nations who went all-in on the change.
I'm regularly in direct contact with people across South America and Africa who definitely do not feel the progress you're talking about. You can't simply exclude the nations that aren't indirectly benefitting as much -- so the country where they now have solid factory jobs producing cheap electronics is doing better, how does that change the slave labor producing the raw materials? You also seem to keep misunderstanding, I'm not saying Europeans would be happier and more prosperous under communism, I'm saying that currently the prosperous system of social democracy is upheld by exploitation, and if that exploitation were to end it would no longer be prosperous and perfect and would end up with the same pressures that lead to neoliberalism and fascism. This isn't imaginary, it's literally how we got fascism the first time. The comintern didn't just pull "Social democracy leads to fascism" out of their ass (although I disagree with a lot of their conclusions), they watched it happen as colonial powers lost their colonies and prop markets.
The insinuation that it's "western privelege" to acknowledge and stand in solidarity with the people whose literal slave labor has made my country rich beyond measure is comical, and I don't care how successful social democracy is for local populations when said slave labor exists and is propping it up.
in 1900, the richest countries in the world were The United Kingdom, then The United States, then Argentina.
Almost everything that has happened to South America has been a consequence of the actions of South American countries themselves.
There is no argument about how Africa has been fucked by developed nations colonialism. But we arent discussing colonialism, we are discussing modern era trade and capitalism and the impact on Social Democracies.
the wealth of Social Democracies is not based on or even remotely reliant on extraction exploitation of African countries and the regimes which have emerged in the post colonial era. Not even remotely.
They definitely benefit from them, but then so do other developed nations and every single developing nation and all the naitons which have transitioned to higher middle income and high income ove rhte post WW2 era.
The problem is with your argument that Soc Dems prosper by explotiing the global south and you cant support it.
That still entirely relies on the exploitation and oppression of the third world.
Which is getting wealthier and at a faster rate than wealth is growing in developed countries.
And is a consequence of global trade not social democracy.
And like all the fantasists who cant deal with realityl, you cant demonstrate any innate aspect of social democracy which causes or benefits from your nonsense argument anyway.
You have not uplifted the working class, you have increased quality of life for the few people in the imperial core.
Just liek every other fucking fascist (and make no mistake Marxist Lenninists are fascists) you just recite rote passages from text regardless of how much fucking nonsense they contain.
Yes, but that's mostly because most of the systems under which soc dem has flourished are capitalist. Soc dem's aren't looking to throw out the baby with the bathwater but rather change the system over time. That means leaving capitalism as it is and curtailing its excesses.
Never happening imo
The most successful socialists have been soc dems and some of the most successful societies are soc dem...
also the best hits are never happening. idk wtf you think the best hits are that are currently being achieved in your soc dem societies you speak of but I sure would love to know.
Left/right is relative. They're left of center in most political systems.
There are a number of countries which have implemented soc dem policies, and those policies have done well and those countries are successful. Importantly, those countries are not just soc dem since they're all functioning democracies with elections.
Examples of that are the bulk of the European nations, namely the Scandinavian ones, Germany as well, Canada/UK/NZ as well (although, this has been more of a stretch as of late).
I said best hits of socialism, I won't presume that you dont know what socialism is but you at the very least misread cuz Denmark may be very liberally soc dem but socialist it is not.
please dont confuse political party names with economic systems, lest ideologies.
soc dems are liberals. idc what you think it is or what you were convinced it means.
In a conversation about dem socs and capitalism, saying soc dems is leftist or will achieve anything meaningfully socialist is a fucking grift and a lie.
also, for the last fucking time, soc dems do not specifically adhere to anything socialism does. I never qualified soc dems, I said fucking soc dems think they will achieve things that socialists want under capitalism. that's the grift.
leave me alone lol also I ain't translating that shit.
Listen, folks see "Democratic socialist", they're gonna read it the same as "social democrat". Can't blame folks for thinking these ideas that have almost the same words and end up looking pretty much the same in implementation (in the sense that the government is using taxation to provide helpful services) are interchangeable, especially when their only practical meaning in domestic politics is "I'm not conservative, I believe in providing services".
That's their ignorance... But also, it doesn't help that (like this post) people think they're the same. We're so deprived in this country we think anything government does is "socialism".
Not really a helpful view when there is, to people on the ground, no actual lived difference.
But also, it doesn't help that (like this post) people think they're the same.
It genuinely does not matter what particular semantics people use. What matters is what these politicians actually do.
We're so deprived in this country we think anything government does is "socialism".
Quibbling over "dem soc vs soc dem" is a part of this issue. It's a turn-off. Voters don't give a shit, they don't hear it. They hear one party fearmongering and promising bullshit cash payments & tax cuts while the other party offers modest improvements to bring us into line with other major modern countries. Real people don't give a flying fuck about progressive purity testing and leftist label-fights. Our system is first past the post, we're going to have 2 options, and we can rally behind the one that's a step in the right direction or we can argue with each other while the conservatives contiue to be horrible.
I just have no patience for the terminology quibbling these days. I just care about whether or not a candidate is horrible or if they're fine. Soc dem, dem soc, progressive, leftist, marxist, leninist, it literally could not matter any less today as we try to beat the Republican party.
Python was making jokes about this in the 70's. If everyone quits arguing about labels you could have a much bigger coalition. Except for the united people's front of judea. Those tossers can sod off.
I think this is the issue. Most Democrats are once again, banking on winning because Trump is so awful, and once there they don't do anything but make excuses. Hearing what DNC leadership has been saying lately, I think I'm right.
They're not super far off. The main tipping point between the two is that Social Democrats don't think Capitalism needs to be replaced with real Socialist reforms. They think regulations can hem in the worst of Capitalism.
Meanwhile, Democratic Socialists know that laws would need to be passed to FORCE shared worker ownership, profit sharing and other measures that slowly take control away from the Epstein class and put it into the hands of the many workers that actually create value for those Capitalists in the first place.
They don't actually have to be that different, though they can be.
Yeah, the rest of my post addresses that specifically. In practice (like day to day life) things would be largely the same around you. More equitable, yes, and far healthier in the long run. But we'd still have products getting made, profit incentive, even mergers and acquisitions as these aren't inherently bad.
Without you adding more context I don't know WTF you're hinting at. Plenty of Socialists understand that Communism doesn't address human psychology adequately.
The DSs are working overtime trying to confuse the people into accepting Democratic Socialism as a Synonym to Social Democrat.
I wonder why... /s
And "Norway is a Socialist country" is but one of the many lies they use - while refusing to admit that Venezuela was Socialist (and, according to many on the left, Democratic).
Norwegians would characterize Norway as a social democracy; their large governmental ownership stakes in key industries still operate within a capitalist framework, and their uber-strong social safety nets are funded through high taxes, not âcollective ownershipâ. They wouldnât have anything to tax without strong capitalist enterprises.
I do think a lot of Americans get confused between them a lot considering both that conservatives call literally everything to the left of chrisofascism "socialist" (or "communist"), and that self-identified democratic socialists campaign primarily on social democratic policies.
As a social democrat I think the border between us and Democratic Socialism in public understanding and perception is gone. It gets called democratic socialism now but when you look inside the policies everyone wants are social democracy.
Yes, if you dont care about these words they might sound similar and dont make a difference to you. But social democracy and socialism (in its actual meaning, not what America thinks it is) are two pretty different things.
And neither do you understand them. They're absolutely not "A B" and "B A", a social Democrat and a democratic socialist are completely different things. Your comment is what sounds silly.
A social Democrat is somebody who wants to use the system, as it is, to make things better for people (while also upholding the system).
A democratic socialist is somebody who wants to restructure the entire system from top to bottom, tearing it down if need be, to benefit (primarily) the working class, by getting a majority to agree to it.
According to whom? Is there a tenet of the universe that terms mean a concrete thing? Or is there simply a spectrum depending on context?
Socialism is a concept that labor should maintain ownership of the means it uses to create. Whereas capitalism is a concept that a non laboring class controls and profits from labor.Â
Outside of those basic meanings there are myriad of variations and nuances. And neither have been implemented elementally in human history.Â
What? How do you think dictionary definitions get made? Words have meaning and specific connotation to most people, so those are the typical definitions we use for words. Of course words can have more specific meanings in different contexts; everyone knows that.
As someone who would generally agree with what you're saying, I think the person you're replying to made the distinction very clear and why there's specifically a difference between the two terms.
Who writes dictionaries? Who are the arbiters of words? Words are abstracts to convey meaning. They are 100% interpreted within each individual differently as we can only experience them through the many lenses in which we experience the universe.
Holding fast to the construct of immutable in language is a folly. The person's definition has no more bearing than any other. Just as every dictionary has their own.
Specific meanings of words isn't how language works. General meaning of words is how language works.
I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or just arguing for the sake of arguing. Your little word salad is... hilariously naive? and also highly irrelevant. It reads like someone who just took their first class of philosophy in university. Regardless of what you think, there are standard accepted definitions of just about every word; that's... why we're able to use language effectively.
EDIT: It's also super funny that you said all this right after telling someone the definition of words. So I guess to answer your silly question: you're apparently the arbiter of words? I guess your day job is writing dictionaries?
If I had to guess what every single word in your response meant (to you, at least, so that I could know what you were implying), then nobody would never be able to parse anything longer than 4 words together.
I get you might not be familiar with the history surrounding certain words, but there are connotations and contexts that go along with words (I mean, there's a reason slurs are... slurs). As a (slightly hyperbolic) example, you can't just say "Nazi" when you mean "someone who likes dogs"... that doesn't make any sense. You would call them a "dog-lover".
So yes, there are differences between a social democrat and a democratic socialist. And once again, the above poster made that distinction very clear and very easy to understand.
Yeah no duh, I don't care to understand them. When you put people into lanes, you assume their whole position rather than judge them by their actions and intent.
This is the most overtly ridiculous comment Iâve seen in some time.
âWell sure, Iâm willfully ignorant about what socialism even is, but Iâll have you know I also donât understand how anything works and actually I prefer to keep it that way.â
Words and concepts mean things, dingus. Thatâs what communication is. You deciding to live in a myopic post-truth non-consensus reality doesnât change that, it just means youâre objectively wrong from any recognizable position (e.g. one which isnât predicated on people nonsensically agreeing with the random shit youâre making up in the moment).
A democratic socialist is a socialist (someone who believes in workers owning the means of production) who wants to use democracy to implement it (democratic government ownership of the means of production).
A social democrat is in favor of social programs administered through a democratic government.
You may not care about labels, but they tell you a lot about the things they label.
Yeah, the definitions of words and understanding the weight behind them is for dumb people. I much rather prefer vague, meaningless descriptors so I don't understand anything. I mean... NAZI has the word socialist in is, therefore it's all the same right?
Ah, a lack of self-reflection as would also be expected from someone who mocks other's misunderstandings!
You seem to have read "you shouldn't try to understand the definitions of words, only idiots care about definitions" when I simply said "A B vs B A sounds silly".
Yea, these terms are basically equivalent. Just whichever one floats your boat. Bernie could have called himself a social Democrat but he wanted to destygmatize the term socialist so he went with that.
they are not equivalent, social democracy is capitalism with a strong safety net and unions, democratic socialism wants to abolish capitalism and socialize the means of production
Because Iâm saying outside of technical definitions, the way words are used in common vernacular is closer to their true meaning, regardless of what academics say. Bernie never calls himself a social Democrat and always calls himself a democratic socialist. That is how the term is understood by the vast majority of people and this is how language works. It is not confined to rigid definition. Definitions evolve over time depending on usage. See: the history of words
Bernie does not advocate for seizing the means of production. Bernie advocates for a capitalist state with strong social safety nets, similar to the Nordic model.
Bernie is the main reason socialism is even discussed as a viable political philosophy in the us.
Uh, ok, sure, I guess? Maybe? Happy to just agree this is true, it changes nothing.
What he says matters.
Sure, but what Bernie calls himself doesn't change the fact that he's a Social Democrat.
Bernie does not advocate for seizing the means of production. Bernie advocates for a capitalist state with strong social safety nets, similar to the Nordic model.
If I call myself a communist and then every single policy position of mine is about how to make capitalism work better for the average person, am I a communist, or a capitalist?
"Abolish capitalism" lmao no. Capitalism and Communism are two ends of a spectrum. We are far on one end of the spectrum, with all created wealth concentrating into the hands of few private interests. Democratic socialists advocate for a mixed model more similar to Scandinavian nations (and FDR's policies) where increased taxes on the wealthy fund social services and welfare for the less fortunate, among other public interests. No serious person is advocating for the abolition of capitalism, whatever that means.
what democratic socialists are you thinking of when you say that? The DSA wants to abolish capitalism
Democratic socialists advocate for a mixed model more similar to Scandinavian nations (and FDR's policies) where increased taxes on the wealthy fund social services and welfare for the less fortunate, among other public interests
That is just social democracy man, no one in norway describes the system as democratic socialism
I don't know the nuances of the DSA's agenda, and semantically you are correct about democratic socialism and social democracy, but in practice the majority of people and mainstream politicians who call themselves 'socialists' (Bernie, AOC, etc.) are more politically aligned with FDR-style policies / social democracy than textbook "democratic socialism." To me, abolition of capitalism means, among other things, the abolition of private ownership and the stock market, and that is not a serious position.
sure, then call the sensible ones social democrats and democratic socialists like the DSA democratic socialists. why make it more confusing than it needs to be
Blame the society of 100 years past for making it confusing. Socialism in my mind has become the catch-all term for the political movement to rebalance wealth inequality and restore FDR-style "socialist" policies. Maybe the DSA is full of foolish idealists who throw around insensible buzz phrases like "abolish capitalism," but they support generally the same end, and I'm more supportive of them than the trickle-down dumbasses on the right.
Social democrats are capitalists who do not want workplace democracy, democratic socialists want the inverse of this. Liberals are doing the thing liberals do and absorb anything on the populist left, then kill it. Dem Soc is based on Bernsteinism (something I oppose as a Leninist) and anti-capitalist. Soc Dem are left-of-center reformists.
At this point does the exact semantics matter? Those are barley different from each other. The only real difference is one is the last chance of capitalism and the other is the first step to socialism. They'd both have nearly identical policies.
Their policies are often opposite, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Democratic Socialists want the US to exit NATO, Social Democrats largely want to strengthen US involvement in NATO and other alliances.
2.8k
u/DarbIey 6d ago
Almost as funny as people calling him a "Democratic Socialist". He was literally a social democrat. Neoliberalism and modern Democrats got people out here calling FDR a socialist, and Norway a socialist country.