190
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by autismdragon@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ho_Chi_Chungus@hexbear.net 115 points 10 months ago

okay but like (not particularly educated take inbound)

the biggest gripe we have with social democracy is that it's fundamentally just a more equitable distribution of plunder from the global south, but that criticism doesn't really hold up when you ARE the global south and it's your resources getting plundered by imperialists

[-] zifnab25@hexbear.net 26 points 10 months ago

The criticism of social democracy ultimately boils down to "you're not doing a juche-style degrowth to decouple from imperial satraps". Which is fine and perfectly arguable on its face. But it does lead you to breeze over the policies social democrats are most commonly championing - public sector professional services free at the point of consumption - that would, in fact, get you some of that juche-style degrowth you said you wanted.

[-] GucciMane@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago
[-] Raebxeh@hexbear.net 18 points 10 months ago

I believe he’s saying that, while social democracy in the global south doesn’t directly serve to cut imperialist ties, the policies implemented by social democrats will do some of that cutting in practice.

[-] zifnab25@hexbear.net 7 points 10 months ago
[-] GucciMane@hexbear.net 12 points 10 months ago

By Juche-style degrowth, do you mean a command economy? Socialism?

[-] zifnab25@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago

That's more the method than the end goal. Juche is about economic independence. Decoupling yourself from below-cost-of-production imports and waste-exports that an imperial state uses to enrich the core at the expense of the periphery. Command economies and socialist dictatorship of the proletariat can get you there. And one might even argue they're the only economic model that can get you there. But they still need to be pointed in that direction.

A communist economy in South American Country X that harvests lumber from the Amazon in Neighboring Country Y and fills in denuded landscape with landfills of waste generated by the consumption of the lumber isn't self-sufficient, even if its leaders are democratically decided and its capital democratically owned and operated.

[-] GucciMane@hexbear.net 24 points 10 months ago

Another big gripe is that social-democracy is just capitalism, and we are opposed to capitalism.

but that criticism doesn't really hold up when you ARE the global south and it's your resources getting plundered by imperialists

For the same reason, it doesn't work to materially improve conditions for the 3rd world. The only solution is revolutionary socialism.

[-] autismdragon@hexbear.net 12 points 10 months ago

If it doesnt materially improve conditions for the third world then why do Latam social democracies get opposed by the imperial core?

Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol.

Obviously we all want revolutionairy socialism. But imperialism is the primary contradiction. So things that oppose that are worth some level of support.

Like ffs i do live in the imperial core and socdem policies materially improve my conditions. But i consider my socdems social imperialists anyway. Without the imperialism contradiction though?

[-] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 14 points 10 months ago

If it doesnt materially improve conditions for the third world then why do Latam social democracies get opposed by the imperial core?

because anglos are mad about it. a global south nation-state could do full capitalism but economically align with china or russia and anglos would mald and do a coup or another libya.

Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol

of course.

at leas MAS is "movement toward socialism". western/global north socdems are just trying to save capitalism and that's why they're moderate fascists.

[-] autismdragon@hexbear.net 9 points 10 months ago

Right. Doesnt sound likenwe disagre on much here. Whole point of me posting this is that global north socdems are social imperialists but the same cant he said of a social democracy in a country that isnt imperalist.

I do admit though that a latam social democracy isnt inherenrly worthy of support. Only if it resists imperialism.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol.

I think an important distinction here is that Evo calls himself a marxist-leninist while socdems in the global north call themselves socdems and denounce communism.

Yeah they might be marxists doing social democracy out of necessity. But are they ideological socdems? Or is social democracy viewed by them as genuine compromise and/or stepping stone?

I don't think their goal is social democracy. Whereas that is the goal of the socdems of the global north, with nothing beyond it.

One group sees social democracy as an end, the other sees it as a means.

[-] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 2 points 10 months ago

For the same reason, it doesn't work to materially improve conditions for the 3rd world. The only solution is revolutionary socialism.

Explain the massive gains in living conditions and worker power in Bolivia then

this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
190 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13498 readers
742 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS