196

Being a Social Democrat means you want Capitalism with Social Safety Nets. Wanting change via reform is called Reformism, not Social Democracy. You can be a Reformist Democratic Socialist.

I can be whatever I want thanks. In this case a social democrat. I want a market economy with social safety nets.

American democracy is not a marketplace of ideas, but lobbyists and money.

It is both and that is why we need to vote in record numbers. This is supporting my argument that we need to increase voter turnout.

Again, your stance on electoralism is unfounded and immaterial. Yes, voting is good, no, you will not get the change you want past FPTP by voting for it.

History and election results support my argument. Also the word is democracy. I have not interest using electoralism as it is exclusively used by people who either want to get rid of or do not value democracy. Voting is great. We need to vote for candidates who will advance a progressive agenda, including election reform. We will of course need to participate in the FPTP voting system to accomplish this. That is the system we have currently, so it is what we must use to eventually get rid of it and then replace it with a better voting system.

You again are completely butchering what Socialism and Social Democracy mean. Social Programs are government programs, they are a part of almost all systems. They are not synonymous with Socialism. Social Democracies are Capitalist states with large safety nets, otherwise they would be Socialist Democracies.

This again is your argument using strict definitions and categorization to bypass having an actual discussion. Most systems are socialist in some way because they have social programs. Using such a narrow definition of socialism is self-defeating. People need to realize they are already benefiting from many socialist policies. This realization will help them internalize and adopt additional socialist ideas. Social democracies can have capitalist economies, but their market economies do not have to be capitalist. They can have mixed economies as the ones that exist currently do. There is no reason why a socialist democracy's market economy could not shed the remainder of capitalism from the mixed economy.

You did not point out a flaw with Marxism, you pointed out a flaw in your understanding of Marxism.

Ad hominen. I refuted you argument again.

For the last time, the material conditions are NOT THERE in the US for a Socialist Revolution, as long as the US retains it’s status as an Imperialist state that props up higher standards of living off the backs of the third world. That is why republicans exist, Proletarians in the US are largely reactionary because they benefit from the status quo. The US is a dying empire, and soon there will be the material conditions for a Socialist Revolution, but fascism is also the violent outcome of Capitalism in decline. You have not once addressed any of this.

The wealth disparity in the United States is there. I'm just going to quote Bernie here. So the material conditions are there. I would say that it is common knowledge in fact. It is felt by many people who are left behind after each bust in the cycle.

Today, the top one-tenth of 1% owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. The economic game is rigged, and this level of inequality is unsustainable. We need an economy that works for all, not just the powerful.

The wealth the US steals through imperialism is extracted via capitalism by the owner class. Even the worker class' tax dollars go to the military industrial complex that profit off of American military adventurism. It is a big part of why neocons existed, but they have fallen by the wayside. It's the fascists who are control of the Republican party now. Capitalism is not in decline, simply reaching its late stages. We've seen what we will become with the current Russian Federation. The winners of capitalism become the oligarchs that are subservient to the dictator. If the fascists succeed in their takeover the United States will become a christo-fascist dictatorship. This dictatorship will not form an empire, but a sphere of influence. The sphere of influence will expand, consume, and kill out-groups until there are no more out-groups left and the nation state fully self-cannibalizes or it is defeated militarily. There is no socialist revolution that occurs in any part of this process. Fascism is methodical method of self-destruction.

If we want a socialist revolution then we need to make it happen. And we might as well make it happen as a political revolution now when all we need to do is things like direction action, civil disobedience, sharing ideas, and voting.

I have not done any Ad Hominem attacks, I have not misrepresented your arguments.

You have done both of these things multiple times.

I have attempted to fix your misconceptions of Marxism, Social Democracy, and Socialism in general, none of which constitutes misrepresentation or ad hominem.

This is directed at me. I am not in anyway shape or form relevant. My argument is not derived from a misconception, but an observation of the modern reality we live in that contradicts Marx's theory.