@willz.talks: Anyone got any responses?b hmmmmmm? Wanna say that America isn’t similarly built off the backs of slavery and genocide? HMMMMM? Every time you imagine an America doing something and wanna make an excuse for it I’d like you to imagine an Israeli doing it, and get back to

Makancheesey :

"What's wrong with social democracy?" it's still capitalism

Namo :

Dosmart :

what I got from this is what mamdami is doing is good but the bare minimum. the end goal should always be the end of capitalism and imperialism.

▄︻デ Cyrus ══━一 :

Social democracy doesn’t equal democratic socialism just making sure

Elias_schmidt :

“what so wrong with laws? israle has laws! that should be enough”. brother, just cuz israel is a social democracy, doesnt mean social democracy in itself is bad. also, socialism and social democracy are copletely different things. also, notice how you mention norway as an example of a social democracy and then continued to mostly critique israel and the US instead of explaining how the social democracy in norway is based on colonialism? all you do is critiquing capitalism, but you could have a social democracy without capitalism. so what exactly are your problems with scoail democracy as a system? not how its implemented in israel or how some US americans want to implement it, but as an overarching idea. and what would be the better system?

Motive ☭🔻 :

Social democracy is the carrot that capitalism dangles to hang onto control. Fascism is the stick it wields. Social democracy is just padded chains for some and business as usual for most.

Maggie😼😼 :

social democracy = capitalism with better welfare

NinjaTurtle4456 :

This leftist “all or nothing” approach to Social Democracy is a big reason Hitler got into power btw (Look up Stalin’s “Social Facist” policy)

Patriot Ro :

So how is Israel far right if they’re a social democracy

penaalin terävin kynä :

israel is also a democracy are you against those too

Youssef Hamdi :

Griffin :

So is your point that no change is ever worth making if it doesn’t change the entire world’s economic structure? I’m confused here.

Foofoocuddlypoops :

As a Swede, YUP. In the recent four years, we increased unemployment rates by 25%, can barely afford rent and food unless you have a high paying job, missed all the criteria for the environment that the EU set up, the housing and job market is barely functioning, and insane tax cuts for the rich were made an incredible priority. All this because the capitalist parties won the electoral race. The problem with social democracy is that includes capitalism in its system

EzGG :

Israel was founded by socialista 😱 """Socialism""" etnothism and colonialist

Phil Woodford :

I like your functionalist theory of social democracy - that it only exists to perform a specific role for capital 😆, as opposed to being a long-standing political tradition and philosophy with a track record of success that Marxists can only dream of.

Author Athanasios :

The heyday of UK social democracy was post war. That was built on the resources and people from the colonies. Combined with fear of Communism.

😴 :

So social democracy is good?

BazzaMacKenzie :

I am not pro social democracy, but this isnnot an argument.

Youssef Hamdi :

Long comments help push the algorithm!! Flowers, with their delicate petals and vibrant colors, have captivated human attention for centuries—not just for their beauty, but for the rich symbolism and complex biological purpose they carry. From the wild meadows bursting with untamed poppies to meticulously cultivated rose gardens, flowers seem to exist at the intersection of chaos and control, nature and nurture. They are more than mere decoration; they are nature’s intricate mechanisms of reproduction, attracting pollinators with their scent and symmetry in a quiet evolutionary dance. Yet beyond their ecological role, flowers have become messengers in nearly every culture—tokens of love, mourning, celebration, and apology. A single bloom can evoke memories, convey unspeakable emotions, or completely transform a space, however briefly. Even in decay, they remind us of the fragility of beauty and the constant cycle of life and death. There’s something quietly profound about how a flower, fleeting as it is, can hold so much meaning in such a short lifespan—like a soft rebellion against time itself love

clumbip :

wasnt the ussr also very much imperialist

Ale :

I support social democracies in the global south. They make it harder for the global north to exploit the global south which weakens imperialism and thus capitalism.

Alexander :

I'm genuenly curious what you would want Mamdani to do instead. I'm not saying your criticism doesn't hit in a way but he's still doing a lot in terms of gaining popular support for the cause. Participation in bourgeois democracy will never lead to socialism but socialists should still do it in order to gain popular support. Lenin himself wrote about this. The bolsheviks participated in elections. Mamdani may be a reformist but he is helping our cause a lot more than any other person in the US currently. And honestly, I personally don't exactly see reformists and social democrats the exact same. Yes neither of them will bring socialism through their method but at least one of these isn't planning on preserving capitalism.

satoukun7 :

Social democracies are also slowly eroding and becoming less progressive.

The egalitarian Washingtonian :

Having a specific economic system doesn’t mean you are going to have good foreign policy

OrangeRatt ⚛️🇺🇸 :

The main point is that social democracy makes capitalism tolerable enough to survive, so if we support it we are actually supporting the exploitation underneath it. This idea sounds well thought out but it is based on something that is never proven: that making capitalism more livable will make it last longer. This is not obviously true. Looking at history, when governments expanded welfare it sometimes made people want more change, not less. It raised expectations rather than quieting them. The other main point is that where the money comes from makes the whole policy morally worthless. But if we apply that standard consistently then it becomes impossible to improve anything unless we completely tear the system down first. That is not analysis, it is a conclusion hidden inside the premise. We are deciding reform cannot work before we even look at whether it does. The biggest problem is that nothing can ever count as evidence against this idea. If social democracy helps people, that is dismissed as keeping them calm. If it fails people, that proves the system is broken. When every possible outcome confirms the same conclusion, we are not actually examining the issue, we are just protecting a belief from being challenged. That is the real problem here. The Israel comparison and the question of where the money comes from are symptoms. The root issue is that this argument is set up so it can never be wrong, which means it does not actually explain anything or predict anything. It just sounds like it does.