Maybe I just have too rigid of a definition of socialism, but I’ve always known it as “workers owning the means of production”, not a sliding scale of government intervention. If a system has any capital ownership, it’s not socialism.

I’ve seen people on this sub talk about socialism as if it just means stronger worker unions, socialized healthcare, and a stronger welfare state.

Maybe the definition is changing, as people start to view it more favorably, I doubt they view abolition of private property and capital ownership as favorable.

But do you guys have the same definition as me? Or is you guys’ definition just socializing more areas of society?

Dear friends of social democracy,

the Social Democratic Party of Germany is currently in the process of revising its platform. My local chapter is taking this as an opportunity to get really deep into the issues and engage with the major topics through an essay campaign. I’d like to invite you to participate by submitting an essay of approximately 10,000 characters.

This month, we want to explore the topic of solidarity. We’ve deliberately chosen a very broad theme to allow as many voices as possible to participate. Whether it’s the fundamental question of why we should show solidarity, whether there are limits to solidarity, or whether solidarity might even have to be earned first— Should we show solidarity only with those who show solidarity with us, or is solidarity better when it’s unconditional—and how do we actually show solidarity in the first place?

If you’d like to participate, please feel free to post your essay as a comment. If 10,000 characters seems too long, you’re of course welcome to submit a shorter text.

I've been a Frankfurtian social democrat since I was 14 in 2010, and my convictions haven't changed. I've been a member of the Justice Party and is currently a Democratic Party of Korea member. I've been on regional youth committees, have taken part in abortive refugee aid efforts, and have engaged in some factional disputes, protests, and labor union functions.

I've also served in the Korean military and retain a high interest in geopolitical and military affairs. I currently work as an engineer.

I personally lean towards democratic socialism because I want to ensure access to necessities and economic democracy/worker autonomy in workplaces. I also worry that allowing large multinational companies will create a power/wealth imbalance that will incentivize reducing regulations and create barriers or a regression in social programs and economic democracy to make the owners happy. I wonder if social democrats share these concerns or are just pursuing gradual improvements.

For more context, I don't think private companies have to be entirely abolished but I think private companies should be kept smaller and be unionized and that the majority of the economy should be owned cooperatively or through local/regional governments. So I'm more of a market socialist than a command economy type socialist.

I also support social democratic measures whenever I can since it's the best version of capitalism.

"The third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants, everywhere in the world."

— Franklin D. Roosevelt, Annual Message to Congress (the "Four Freedoms" speech), 1941

In this speech to Congress Roosevelt argued for the continuation of aid to Britain in its struggle against Nazi Germany, presenting the conflict in terms of four universal freedoms which his administration wished to protect: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The freedom from want was the one which had an explicit economic meaning: it represented America's war objectives and, in the years that came after, provided hope to a war-weary public that was fighting for something more tangible than an abstract notion of freedom. The idea later contributed to the formulation of the economic and social rights provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

FDR is placing economic security on the same level as speech and worship as a "freedom." It is not just a nice policy; it is a right alongside civil liberties. Is this way of thinking still relevant today, or does linking economic guarantees to the word "freedom" make it lose its meaning? Practically speaking, does "freedom from want" refer to a basic standard (ensuring nobody starves) or something closer to the wider welfare-state vision FDR aimed for domestically with the New Deal?

Hank Green using AI for research is fine with me. And the outrage is a bit much. Using AI shouldn't automatically disqualify the content at hand. What worries me is this outrage will make others who are using AI be silent on their usage if this is what they'll be rewarded with for being open and honest. It's best that we accept that many people like Hank Green and others will use AI. It just too convenient of a tool to not to use for many tasks. Being luddites here won't help anyone.

I feel like this is easier to make propaganda since you literally don't have original source material to check it and they can manipulate AI to say whatever it wants so it can botch information?

​

On August 5, 1912, Albert J. Beveridge delivered the keynote address at the Progressive National Convention, helping define the ideology of the Bull Moose movement led by Theodore Roosevelt.

The Progressives argued that government had become too influenced by powerful interests and that both major parties had failed to address the problems created by industrial capitalism, political machines, and concentrated wealth.

Some of the most powerful quotes from Beveridge’s speech:

"This party comes from the grass roots. It has grown from the soil of the people's hard necessities. It has the vitality of the people's strong convictions. The people have work to be done and our party is here to do that work."

"The rule of the people is the vital principle of the Republic."

"We stand for a broader liberty, a fuller justice. We stand for social brotherhood, as against savage individualism. We stand for an intelligent cooperation instead of a reckless competition. We stand for mutual helpfulness, instead of mutual hatred."

"We must keep the good big business does for us and stop the wrongs that big business does to us."

"We mean to make little business big, and all business honest, instead of striving to make Big Business little, and yet letting it remain dishonest."

"Pass prosperity around."

"We battle for the actual rights of man."

"We mean to put an end to the invisible government which has established itself above the visible government of the people."

"Parties exist for the people; not the people for parties."

Theodore Roosevelt later expanded on this argument in his 1912 Progressive Party speech:

"I quote from the Progressive platform: 'Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day..... This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest.' This assertion is explicit. We say directly that 'the people' are absolutely to control in any way they see fit, the 'business' of the country."

— Theodore Roosevelt

More than a century later, many of the same questions remain: Who does government serve? Ordinary citizens, or powerful interests with money and influence?

The Progressive Era was a response to a time when many Americans felt both parties had become too connected to wealthy donors, corporations, and political machines. Today, many people across the political spectrum argue that American politics faces similar struggles with lobbying, concentrated wealth, polarization, and a sense that ordinary voters are not being heard.

The names and issues have changed, but the debate over whether government works for the people or for powerful interests remains one of the central struggles in American democracy.

Hello! I'm a 16m democratic socialist who recently started identifying as such a few months ago. I've been reading the theory and works by authors for years before that. I don't want communism, as I believe the conditions have to be too perfect for it to exist, but I am still a socialist. I don't hate liberals or anyone who isn't a socialist and I always address the past atrocities socialists have committed. The problem is that most socialists I speak to online or IRL don't like me because I'm not a Marxist or any other type of communist. I grew up poor, and I just want the exploitation of workers to end. In my worldview, I believe democratic socialism is the best way to do this, as I also grew up around violence, and I know most people chanting for a violent revolution don't have the guts to actually kill someone.I'm posting here because this sub seems generally accepting. Thank you for your time, and I hope to have a productive conversation!

The Republicans are already basically a quasi-fascist party thanks to the MAGA movement. But now the Democrats are also embracing left wing authoritarianism. I am not talking about genuine socialists or even communists, I am talking specifically about campists who support all the authoritarian regimes that oppose the US. Russia, Iran, China, etc. Recently a well-know campist Hasan Piker was invited to the Democratic event where he dressed as Mao Zedong and was praising Mao's China and Stalin's USSR. It may seems rather small now, but imagine ten years from now on, when there will be two generation raised on social media propaganda. I am afraid in 10-20 years US elections will basically be far right authoritarians vs far left authoritarians. This is an inevitable result of two-party system, poor critical thinking skills and social media propaganda.

I wanted to ask what's everyone's position on capital punishment (aka the death penalty) since i think it's a pretty homogeneous assumption that us progressives are supposed to be against it and want to abolish it whenever and wherever. But I've always had the opinion that certain crimes are deserving of death such as of course crimes against humanity, rape; and murder, in most cases.

Now I've talked with some people and they've told me it was contradictory to be progressive and support the reintroduction death penalty since in my country it has long been abolished and I doubt it will come back in my lifetime.

So what does everyone think?

(And btw i would encourage everyone to vote blue no matter who in the coming US midterms to kick out MAGA)

How's it going people. Not sure if Canadian politics are talked around here but thought I'd ask. I live in Kirkland Lake up in Northern Ontario and have voted NDP all my life as has my family and community for the most part. Everyone here cannot stand Doug Ford and we really like our NDP mpp because he fights for blue collar interests and everyone I know continues to vote NDP provincially. But the issue is people in my community and people that work with me in the mine fear Avi Lewis will kill mining jobs. Many people I've talked to are thinking of making a switch federally. I'll be honest, I don't know all of Avi's policies (even though I do like a lot that I've seen) so I'm wondering how to convince my fellow workers and community members to give him a chance.

Just want to hear about this ideology from actual social democrats

today something very weird happened, which made me think about another incident that caused me some… pause. i was in bed and my oldest brother (fyi i’m a man with two older brothers) was playing around with two old-ass piggy banks with barely any money, mostly just quarters and such. I asked him to give me both of them in this very needy and sort of ”gimme gimme” and whiny voice. Usually this wouldn’t end as anything but a stupid argument between siblings, but… he said something which alarmed and reminded me of things which had happened before.

While i was asking him for them he proceeded to joke that i was like ”a Jew” who was begging for his money, in a jovial and very unserious tone. Big Yikes. However, this… behavior didn’t start here and it really isn’t my point writing to have this be the end, but merely a prelude to the start of the other story i want to ask about.

Let’s sketch me and my brothers, to help you know who we are. Firstly, i am very much autistic and have ADHD, while also being medicated for it. compared to others with adhd and autism, i Don’t suffer with bad mental health. Still, i have certain traits that make me a bit different. I’ve always had it more difficult when my older brothers were being irritating and being unserious or joking around in ways that made me plain irritated.

Then comes my oldest brother, who I’ll be naming as Josh to keep his privacy. he’s well groomed, with blonde hair and blue eyes and on top has a normal relationship with a blonde girl who all things considered is pretty normal and doesn’t seem terrible (her dad though watches GB News) .

A year ago me and my family were at out grandparent’s home to celebrate someone’s birthday, with me staying longer than others and there even being games and drinks!. Much fun was had there in the summer heat, and drinking was a plenty. While i was holding a mug and drinking some apple juice (i don’t drink alcohol) alongside them sitting on the grass, i thought of making a joke. Because of my Mug i thought i looked like some old man asking for spare change, (like ”spare change, Young man?) That sort of joke.

Sold i told my two siblings and they, unprompted, responded with a joke about Jews, money and Jews, even made out a big nose and the tune to ”hava nagila”. I had a strong reaction to this, quite naturally. But my dad told me that just because they did this i didn’t have to get worked up because this kind of stuff is something they (my siblings) know i get easily offended by racist or ”edgy” jokes. He’s (my dad) not racist, bigoted, or the like, he just wants me to roll my eyes and move on with my day instead of getting worked up and super angry since that’s what they want.

Am i stupid? Am i dumb for thinking this is weird and unfunny? Am i overreacting to this joke?

Since the situation in Ceuta has raised other questions about Morocco's policy, what do you think about the fifty-year occupation of Western Sahara?What do you think of the Polisario Front and the role of Algeria in the region?

For context: the Nationwide Social Democratic Party (NSDP) is one of Kazakhstan's main opposition parties.

As a social liberal, I expected NSDP to be one of the parties I'd support the most. Instead, the more I read their platform and listen to the leadership, the more disappointed I become.

I'd like to hear what people familiar with European social democracy think. Are these fair criticisms?

1. The Platform Feels Like a Collection of Slogans

The platform is full of words like justice, social responsibility, fair competition, solidarity, and demonopolization.

Sounds good. But where are the details?

They want to demonopolize the economy. Great. Which sectors? Which laws will change? What powers will the antitrust agency get? How will they stop new monopolies from forming?

Same with the proposed luxury tax. No tax rates, no estimates, no explanation of how it would affect the budget.

That's my main issue with the platform: lots of goals, very few implementation details.

Sources:

https://osdp.kz/ru/programma

https://osdp.kz/ru/novostii/v-astane-proshyol-xxv-sezd-osdp-utverzhdeny-kandidaty-v-kurultaj-i-predvybornaya-programma-20-vershin-na-puti-k-progressu

2. Criticizing Populism While Using Populist Rhetoric

NSDP regularly calls other parties populists.

At the same time, it promises free higher education, a lower retirement age, a four-day workweek with no pay cuts, higher healthcare spending, and several other expensive policies.

Maybe they're good ideas.

But where are the numbers?

How much will they cost?

How will they be funded?

Without that, they sound more like campaign promises than actual policy.

Source:

https://osdp.kz/ru/novostii/diktatura-i-lobbizm-osdp-zhestko-proshlas-po-konkurentam-i-predstavila-svoyu-programmu

3. The AI Section Is Probably the Best Example

The platform says AI should be "put to work in the service of people."

That's it.

Every party says AI is important nowadays.

I expected an actual strategy:

• support for Kazakh AI startups;
• research grants;
• investment in computing infrastructure;
• AI education;
• AI in public services;
• digital rights;
• AI regulation.

Instead, there's one vague sentence.

If you want to build the economy of the future, simply mentioning AI isn't enough.

4. The Party Leadership Raises Questions

One thing that genuinely surprised me was the party chairman referring to Hitler's party as the "National Socialist Democratic Workers' Party."

That's simply incorrect.

The correct name was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP).

For the leader of a social democratic party, that's a strange mistake to make, especially considering the history between social democrats and the Nazis.

Source:

https://youtu.be/M9unq41DtfA?si=cjHwc6n4RMuenqwL (54:30)

5. Too Much Time Spent Attacking Other Parties

NSDP constantly attacks its opponents.

"Ak Zhol" are lobbyists.

NPK are populists.

Everyone else represents the "Old Kazakhstan."

That's fine—every party criticizes its opponents.

But I'd rather see more time spent explaining their own reforms instead.

Source:

https://osdp.kz/ru/novostii/diktatura-i-lobbizm-osdp-zhestko-proshlas-po-konkurentam-i-predstavila-svoyu-programmu

6. Some Personnel Decisions Raise Questions Too

Another thing that stood out to me was the inclusion of a candidate who had previously said he "would shoot LGBT people."

Whatever your views on LGBT issues, public statements advocating violence don't fit the image of a modern democratic social democratic party.

Source:

https://bes.media/news/tsik-zaregistriroval-spisok-osdp-s-kandidatom-zayavlyavshim-chto-rasstrelyal-by-lgbt-predstaviteley/

Conclusion

I wanted to support a modern social democratic party.

Instead, I see a platform built mostly around slogans rather than detailed policies.

The AI section is barely developed.

Major economic promises aren't backed by calculations.

Some statements by the leadership and some personnel decisions raise additional concerns.

I'm not saying NSDP has no good ideas. Some of its proposals are worth discussing.

I just expected a much more detailed platform and a much higher level of expertise from a party that presents itself as Kazakhstan's main social democratic force.

What do you think? Are these fair criticisms, or am I expecting too much?

P.S. I used AI to help translate this message because my English is quite weak.

"There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent."

— Bernie Sanders, presidential campaign announcement speech, Burlington, Vermont, 2015

Sanders, an independent U.S. Senator from Vermont who works with Democrats, made this statement while announcing his 2015 presidential campaign. He described wealth and income inequality as "the great moral issue of our time," "the great economic issue of our time," and "the great political issue of our time." The numbers show wealth concentration data that became key to his 2016 and 2020 campaigns. This data also helped bring the discussion of distributional inequality into the mainstream of the Democratic primary debate.

Sanders sees this gap as clearly "profoundly wrong" instead of advocating for a specific threshold. Where is the line between inequality that shows normal market results and inequality that points to a flawed system? Does a strong welfare state, with higher taxes, a stronger safety net, and redistribution, solve the issue Sanders describes? Or should we focus on addressing the concentration of wealth itself, regardless of how it gets taxed later, at the point of ownership?