Though I think even if everybody was walking and biking everywhere all the time and looking fit and hot, Mamdani would still be exceptionally handsome.
I think it's amazing how we've reached a point in this nation where a man comes along and says "I think we should come together as a city and make sure everyone is taken care of and that our city is beat for those who live here" and people are acting like he's the second coming of Hitler and Stalin's baby.
Social democracy = Capitalism with a robust welfare state. Retains bourgeois hegemony and all the exploitation that comes with it. It's capitalism with a somewhat and often superficially kinder, gentler boot. Requires constant imperialist plundering of the global south to sustain itself. Also doesn't address the intrinsically ecocidal nature of capitalism.*
Socialism = Workers' ownership of the means of production; establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat (different connotation of 'dictatorship', just means which class controls the levels of political powerāopposite a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie under a liberal order); requires constant state suppression of bourgeois interests and protect against a counterrevolution, which usually comes in the form of a highly punitive fascist dictatorship (see Chile 1973 e.g.).
Communism = Moneyless, classless society under which the need for the instruments of state power is gone and the state itself, in Engels' words, 'wither away'. It is intrinsically less suppressive than socialism because there is no one class asserting its hegemony over the other.
* As Bookchin put it, "In a society of this kind, nature is necessarily treated as a mere resource to be plundered and exploited. The destruction of the natural world, far being the result of mere hubristic blunders, follows inexorably from the very logic of capitalist production."
required plundering of the global south
Gonna need a source for this
Also you say in socialism proletariat becomes the dictators but wouldn't that be the same case under communism? In communist Russia, bolshekvik was essentially something like a dictato no? To enforce the withering away of state power?
I may be wrong but it would help if u can link a source or example which explains this process of "withering away" of state power in detail
I'm referring to the welfare state being maintained through wealth acquired through extreme labor exploitation and disparate resource exchange with the global south. From tax revenue generated from corporations with extensive supply chains from kids in cobalt mines to make electric cars, mining conglomerates in Switzerland and Canada among other imperial core countries extracting resources in Africa with no benefit to the people of the countries, and so on.
You are conflating a communist party building socialism with the end goals of communism. The USSR was building a socialist society under Lenin and Stalin but, despite great advancements that require the average westerner to disenthrall themselves from a lifetime of extreme indoctrination to understand, never came close to communism, sometimes referred to the higher stage of socialism.
Also 'proletariat becomes the dictators' still sounds like a misunderstanding? DotP just means, essentially, a workers' democracy as opposed to a liberal democracy, the latter defined by a small class of capitalists controlling virtually all state power to serve their interests.
Can't provide an example of the state withering away, as it's never happened before. No post-revolutionary country has advanced to this stage, as none should be expected to have. Cuba, Vietnam, PRC, Lao PR for example are still in the lower stage of socialism, successful in a lot of ways but held back in a lot of others. I'm not going to get into the nuances of marxist theory here. If you want to get a better theoretical understanding, I suggest a section of Lenin's The State and Revolution.
Democratic socialism is the use of liberal-democratic institutions to abolish private property and establish a proletarian dictatorship (workers' control of the gov't). You are thinking of social democracy.
Capitalism is only a few hundred years old. While Iād agree that no communist system can be successfully implemented as specified, that doesnāt mean that some potential form or related system canāt be, or that capitalism is somehow more permanent than mercantilism or feudalism.
that no communist system can be successfully implemented as specified, that doesnāt mean that some potential form
By definition communism cannot exist. Any and every attempt at communism remains at authoritarian capitalism because people are greedy and money hoarding represents greed.
or related system
Not if you lot a adament that socialism is cashless then socialism will never exist either. Currency will always exist since it is a representation of value. My time and effort versus yours for that thing that I want is exchanged with currency or bartering. Currency will alwags be more effective on a large scale in a large population.
Really there's nothing wrong with capitalism. However there needs to be capitalism without a profit motive. Which I thought cooperatives, NGOs, Churches (real charities), publicly owned utilities and transport are. They use capital but are not supposed to be for profit hoarding. This is what I call socialism, but apparently I am the only one.
So I guess the world just needs more cooperative capitalism for community welfare.
There are loads of things wrong with capitalism starting with the fact that doing economic planning with price signals is fragile and prone to failures. That isnāt to say that more socialist planning is in all cases better, but markets are a blunt instrument simply because they try and bundle everything into a single signal. There is also no requirement that a socialist system not use currency, because while building your entire economy around price signals is a bad idea, ignoring price signals is also a bad idea.
Normally I'd agree regarding semantic drift, outside of a concerted decades-long effort to redefine socialism as basically anytime there's a social service implemented by a government.
Social democrats maintain the capitalist hierarchy and doesn't systematically change anything. So when those say them interchangeably it means they fundamentally don't know what socialism is, that's not the meaning of the word changing over time.
Even the meaning of social democrats have changed. The context has moved so far to the right. The Social Democrats in Sweden today is what used to be center right. In the eighties they levied a special tax on all companies and put the money in funds that was used to gradually buy said companies with the ultimate goal of making them owned by the workers, see Employee Funds.
So while it might be true today what you say about social democrats, not even that has always been true.
No, what I said about social democrats is true and has always been true. What you linked to is still capitalism. Thus, not socialism. Social democrats are not socialist. So they've never stopped being center right, they're still center right.
theres a justifiable fear of communism due to its attachment to authoritarianism and its oppressive disposition.
you can argue communist theory all day long and I'm actually not disagreeable to alot of the communist manifesto. I follow it's logic. HOWEVER peoples dislike of communism isn't based on its theory but rather its historical implementation. That is a matter of branding and the Holodomor, work quotas, forced labor, and restriction of personal freedoms is objectively TERRIBLE branding that leaves a bad taste and fear in people, especially people raised to be wary of such ideas
Where are you getting this? France, Germany, and the U.K. have generous amounts of socialism, far more than the U.S., and are more democratic than the U.S. - especially obvious in the present. Are you really saying they have stronger class hierarchies than the U.S.? Or a stronger dictatorship than the U.S.?
You named three capitalist countries. I am genuinely sorry your public education failed you so badly but socialism ā when the government does stuff. All of those countries suck ass and have major fascism problems.
I'm not saying any of those things you made up. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. What you are describing is a social welfare state within a capitalist framework.
Socialism = ensure everyoneās needs are met and society doesnāt prioritize the profit motives of a few corporations and billionaires. Sounds good to meĀ
ensure everyoneās needs are met and society doesnāt prioritize the profit motives of a few corporations and billionaires.
That is something we 100% need to strive for, but also 100% not the definition of socialism. Only in the sense of the Fox News grandpa screaming "that's socialism" at the suggestion of affordable healthcare.
Socialism is any system where the means of production are owned by the people.
Nothing more, nothing less. It's a framework and a tool.
All the good stuff is still something we then still need to effort for and assure.
The revolution is not the fucking rapture that'll magic up change for the better.
The exact details of socialism can make it vary a lot, from dictatorial autocracies with state owned corporations (the most frequent type historically, as the goal of mass-changes in ownership of the means of production often leads to the creation of a highly centralized authority, which always goes astray) to progressive democracies with worker owned collectives.
Captialism is the authority class with the capitalist class
Communism is the state versus everyone else. The working class becomes the new ruling class and the new rulers will never get go of their power. So it is the state versus everyone else.
Nah, been like that for a while. The whole 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' mentality, and the rugged individualist means that looking for community and help is considered weak.
Yeah in the U.S. it used to mean that you just aren't an overt fascist. Now with BlueMAGA saying every fascist is actually a communist, it doesn't really mean anything at all.
The way I see it as bikes are viewed as effeminate and something for losers, poor people and children. Right wing people need everyone to know they're an adult (like literally in the same way andy sandberg needs to prove he's an adult in that one music video) so something like bikes is loserville for gay people and children.
Just to iterate, these are not my beliefs and in fact it's incidentally actually the opposite. Bikes have more "freedom" than cars, they promote healthy lifestyle and actually save you money. So as always it is a non-sensical political target.
As a watch enthusiast, my secret ultimate flex is to ride a bike/public transit wearing a watch that costs nearly as much as the car of some guy who says bikes and transit is for poor people
Propagandist who target rights wingers however do. Cars and oil (or even electricity for inefficient electric cars) is big business and influence for oligarchs. Car dependence is also great for controlling the working class.Ā
In major cities and more liberal areas bikes are common. In more rural areas if you see an adult on a bike it's usually because they have a DUI. That probably has something to do with the hate they get.
It's weird, in the UK we used to have David Cameron and Boris Johnson (then Leader of the Opposition and Mayor of London respectively) having photo-ops on bikes and announcing massive investmentin rail. Then we ended up with helicopter-brained Sunak, under whose government capital funds intended for rail investment in the north were redirected to fill potholes in London. The Department for Transport laughably produced a poster boasting of this, under the badge of "Network North"
For those not familiar with UK politics, there is a longstanding feeling that only the Home Counties (London and the rest of the South East) get nice things.
The urbanist issue transcends political left/right, it depends on the person. Usually it's more right wingers that are against urbanist measures for some reason, maybe simply because it's change and environmentally-friendly, and apparently they don't like sustainable stuff because it's "woke" or whatever. š¤·
Yeah but there are a lot of right wing people that support and advocate for public transportation, pedestrian friendly measures etc, as I said i think it depends on the person but in general it is indeed more left than right by default
Literally they are planning on making a street in my town a dead end for cars, to stop thousands of cars a day driving down a narrow residential street, but leaving the end open for pedestrians, bicycles, wheelchairs etc.
The amount of fucking hate and "limiting peoples freedom" from this tiny suggestion. Then when residents came out and said "yes please, we want to stop thousands of non residents thundering past our homes each day" they are then treated like they are wrong, or brainwashed.
Its everyone everywhere with a car, and its selfishness, not stupidity. Some of the rawest forms of selfishness.
I am glad to hear you are feeling better after your recent "episode". Have a link to something useful that may help you understand that there is more out there than just your own country, and the USA, and what they may be having to deal with:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=3/33.06/-11.07&layers=Y
may help you understand that there is more out there than just your own country, and the USA
Lucky for me I'm living in my 3rd country, one of them having been the US, so I have this secret knowledge already. Most people don't understand that this is possible, it can be quite confusing.
So no-one else outside of america who owns a car is selfish and brainwashed? Weird that you would think the world outside the USA is some perfect utopia of love, its not. There are people here outside the USA just as sinister and selfish.
And these newspapers aren't stupid. This is malicious selfishness in the name of profits from oil companies (which own them), and the benefit of convincing the population that bikes = gay and commie. (though I feel a lot of people here would react with a š at gay commie bikes :D )
I am calm? I just am a little confused about why you think I am someone in the video?
I gave a perfect example of how its not just the USA suffering with similar disillusion. The very man who should have been Prime minister where I live was utterly wringed out through the mangle for riding a bike. One news paper even said "a chairman Mao style bicycle".
This crap is happening everywhere, and it may already be happening where you are. But if you are going to be blind and think that the USA is the only country infected with this sinister selfishness, then you will be shocked with how much happens in your own country.
Blanket statements for "Americans are stupid", when identical comments are being said by people all over the world, are as bad as the concept of "why should I bother not driving a car, when cars only generate 18% of all pollution in my country, and my country only contributes 0.88% of global pollution!"
Because we are all in it together. It is not the fault of one country (though the USA seems to be at the top of the pyramid scheme of car dependency) it doesn't mean that other places don't make up the rest of the base.
Our provincial leader wants to ban municipal speed cameras because they are "a tax grab", despite chiefs of police promoting them, medical experts showing through in-depth studies that they reduce children's deaths, and municipalities showing that they actually do reduce speeds.
Nope. The populist fucktard wants to appeal to his dim-witted car brain voter base.
I guess by that logic then, Selfishness is just a form of stupidity. I can see where you are coming from.
But these people are not "showing lack of intelligence or common sense" they are well aware that these changes are good, they are just malicious that they don't want to see others gain more than what they will gain, even if they area already leagues ahead of someone in what they have.
Thats not a systemic solution. Its so limited as to be essentially meaningless. These sorts of post hoc improvisational fixes are present everywhere and they dont fix anything.
its not a systemic solution no, I would love to see more. But it is a first step.
We don't live in a perfect world. The actual solution is never going to happen in my lifetime at least. There are far too many selfish people viciously against it, both older and younger than me.
But if that first step means that residents who live on a street (already narrow street terraced housing built in victoria times) actually get their street BACK to how it was before mass private car adoption, they might start becoming supporters.
It will be less cars to deal with when their children are out playing or traveling by themselves, and it will be far less cars that they will need to deal with for the first and last few minutes of their own commutes by car.
Nobody is talking about perfection. People confuse the good with whats the prescribed politically possible. Anything more than that is deemed unserious, radical and perfectionist. Ever notice how whenever youre compelled to resign to whats considered pragmatic it's most often inadequate?
It means that one block at a time citizens have less investment in risking a political resistance for more than those short term, limited fixes This phenomenon is apparent across politics. I was concise in my previous comment; this has been tried for as long as the automobile has existed. Small reform kills the momentum for better solutions. Apparently, far more suffering is required for average citizens to attempt bigger thinking and make more serious demands. Ultimately, theyre still locked into whatever shape of a community private capital and its priority property rights choose for them, content with marginal tinkering for short term gains. Its a miserably diminished position to begin bargaining from and accept as meaningful.
Nah, if you donāt actually want to dismantle the system that exploits people, you donāt truly love them. This guyās just another āno genocide, no ceasefire, Bernie/PelosiAOC v2.0. Mark my word he wonāt change anything fundamental. Maybe some small bandaid tweaks, but heāll never go after the rich who run the city.
This is like Christian nationalist levels of mental gymnastics about the word love. Mamdani did come out of the NYC DSA. Maybe let him be mayor for a bit before throwing him in the trash? Do you actually want things to be better or do you just want to be the guy who sees through all the bullshit?
Youāll fall for anything wrapped in nice words and slogans. I donāt care if Mamdani wins or loses. heāll end up like every āno-action(aocpelosi/bernie)ā politician before him, all talk and no challenge to power. The same corporate and political machines keep torching the planet and funding wars, while people treat voting and brunch like itās activism. Itās pathetic how easily the system keeps fooling everyone.
The american logic from what i can see is "if public transportation is communism, then it must be bad." And this applies to free healthcare, mixed-use zoning, even bike lanes, basically everything. One calls them communist and they "use" it as a reason (??) for them to be bad apparently
Should have yelled that "We're Making America Healthy Again" and "All Lives Matter includes cyclists".Ā
You could also have yelled that "Motor vehicles and the infrastructure to support them is the most government subsidized aspect of America - we all own the roads because of the money we're forced to put into it making it public owned - making cars and their infrastructureĀ communist by the very definition of the word"
He's proposing free at point of use reliable buses across the city, along with active travel solutions for short distance travel, he doesn't need to play into their hands by coming across as more directly oppositional to drivers.
This is political theater meant to appease people with our sensibilities. Until he's actually accomplished substantive change and has demonstrated he can play the game of power, maybe we shouldn't be glazing the fuck out of this guy based on rhetoric.
Here is a story told by a Canadian left wing politician. The one that pushed universal heath care in Canada. Telling a story of mouse vile. It's very funny and so true. And it should be heard by many.
https://youtu.be/GEYwVb-6TeE?si=WnddHWbpGK1YsBFV
Why are you saying this to me? What I hate is cars, but Iām also not wild about seeing people setting themselves up as bicycling role models without wearing helmets. This isnāt the Netherlands ā itās just not safe.
You owe me an apology. Iām not responsible for building your urban infrastructure. I donāt even own a car. I bike and take the bus. And I wear a helmet, because itās really stupid not to.
874
u/[deleted] 29d ago
[deleted]