politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You know Stalinism isn't the only type of socialism, right?
The reason the DSA's predecessors added "democratic" to their name was to explicitly say that they're not Stalinists.
That every nation-state is built on a foundation of blood is a fairly common belief among socialists. You are not making the point you think you are. This is particularly blatant in some countries; some don't just have to deal with the effects of a colonialist past, but have a colonialist present. This is why socialists focus so much on the USA and Israel.
Furthermore, the USA's imperialism is the reason it has so many enemies. You treat them as evil demons out to get your country. Many are. But consider for a moment why they became this way. Why do people keep becoming terrorists? Why does reactionary populism hold so much sway over the people of these foreign adversaries?
Social democracy hides the flaws of capitalism under the rug, rather than solving them. The corporations of Sweden treat their workers at home well, it is true. But what of the workers abroad? The Swedish designer gets to sit in a comfy office and earn a great salary designing clothing after going through college for free. The Singaporean sweatshop worker that makes the clothing earns pennies. Under capitalism, one cannot exist without the other. Attempts to implement social democracy in a poor country that relies on plantations and sweatshops seldom go well. You mentioned one example yourself: Venezuela.
I will not excuse the bad takes the DSA have on foreign policy, nor the idealized past where Palestine was a land of perfect harmony that the other guy imagines, because you have a point there. You do not have a point about socialism overall. These people are trying to achieve a better future: one where people truly govern themselves, rather than taking orders from a greedy board of directors or a power-hungry politburo. I don't like their love of electoralism or their position on Ukraine, but they're actually striving for a future we can be proud of. They're not conjuring the vengeful spirit of McCarthy, who sees foreign agents everywhere, nor are they channeling Fukuyama and saying that what we have now is the best there is and the best there ever will be. Can you say the same?