This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
Um sorry to break the news, but, there's far far better democratic socialists than freaking mamdani.
Regardless of participating in dictatorship of the bourgeois state, at least people like Salvador Allende and even recently, MORENA figures like AMLO and Claudia Sheinbaum did not condemn Cuba and shown a disgrace of foreign policy.
Mamdani is not carrying out our agenda. He is not a socialist, not even a Democratic Socialist; he is a member of the Democratic Sellouts of Amerikkka. He's not even in control of the city; his financing comes from a spigot controlled in Albany and the streets are run by the fascist NYPD. They want us to be happy with a few peanuts. He threw his own wife under the bus rather than stand up for Lebanese writer Susan Abulhawa.
Aren't Democratic Socialists just Social Democrats? In Europe we have several Socialist Parties who are part of the same European group of Social Democrats. PS (French and Portuguese), PSOE, SPD are all part of the same group Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D). Also, those "Socialist" parties have long stopped advocating for socialism and even take pride in implementing and defending liberal policies.
My understanding of the difference is: dem socs believe you can bring about socialism through electoralism, whereas soc dems (in the modern terminology) just believe in reforming capitalism.
But in practice, there doesn't appear to be substantial difference because neither is willing to buck the system on a fundamental level and so both end up working toward policies that try to reform capitalism. They can dress it up however they want, but neither takes seriously the power struggle for control over the means of production and distribution, nor the need to have a militant and disciplined vanguard. I'm not aware of any instance of dem socs winning electorally on a majority level of influence and actually holding onto it in the long-term against the forces of reaction. Not sure how they would without armed forces on their side to defend them.
But I also sympathize with why some true believers may try anyway. If one lives in a place where repression of communists is high, then going for reform might feel like a way to reduce harm without risking their life outright. People just have to be clear about the limitations of it for bringing a socialist project into being. OTOH, people who seize on it because it advances their career and who choose their career over any sort of ideological line that actually challenges the system, fuck that.
Juvenile behaviour, probably from the US, a country without universal healthcare. Demsocs have been worthwhile tactical allies in many social reforms all over the world, even if our strategies don't align. Mamdani is at best another example of this, and at worse another coopting of the movement name. He's not even a big demsoc name, at least criticise (actual demsoc) Jeremy Corbyn or (socal-liberal fake) Bernie Sanders for good examples of modern demsoc failures.
Besides, factually, social-liberal theory is theory. It's just incorrect theory, as evidenced by Allende's charred corpse.
😫👉
😼