well im from EU and i dont know much about USA representatives,but thanks i will look a little about Sanders,im a member of social democrats party in my countrie,im also active in PES(Party of EU Socialists)  http://www.pes.eu/" rel="nofollow - http://www.pes.eu/  

I'm also studying Karl Kautsky,And Leon Trotsky

 

Not sure of the relevance of Kautsky & Trotsky, both of whom were revolutionaries, and whose modern day followers have a deep and lasting disdain for social democrats.

 

I am a member of the Welsh nationalist party, Plaid Cymru, which, in recent years, has moved very much to a left wing party.

 

I dislike most of the major social democratic parties, actually, especially the British Labour Party, which is about as far away from its roots as it is possible to get these days. It, and most of its European counterparts, have become part of a massive centralised establishment, with crushing impact upon the very working people they were designed to protect and nurture.

I'm aware of this that SD are going way to much to the right wing,but i got abit of hope since an new president of our social democrats was voted,and he already have bring the party more to the left side.

In Igor Lukšič we(i) trust 

Anyway, social democracy has eliminated poverty, income gaps, and  has definitely created the perfect society with an stable way of government, so we have to support it. 

Wait... 

I didn't make myself very clear, sorry. I wasn't referring to the fact that there was a move to the right wing (although that has clearly happened), but the vogue of the left, centre-left, whatever you wish to call them, to centralise everything. This opinion that the centralised state can and will look after all and sundry and everything that moves.

That has never been true, and never will be true. All you end up with is a vast, unworkable, bureaucracy, such as the one I work for.

It should be remembered that the roots of the socialist tradition are libertarian, and it is this tradition I would wish to see a return to. Until and unless the Labour Party return to those roots, I will never support them (I am a member of plaid Cymru, BTW, the Welsh nationalist party).

I wholeheartedly agree with you. If I still lived in England, I would give them my vote, albeit with some reservations.

Good post Iain

I do not think that the problem is with the bete noir socialism, as such, but an utter failure by so-called socialists to redefine what that actually means in the 21st century. Blair had a go, but was destroyed by his love for large corporations (in contrast to all the traditions of the Labour movement), and, of course, the nutter who lived next door. As for his period as PM, well, the less said the better.

As for the independence issue, yes you are right. However, you are right only in the sense of this disgusting "global economy" we now have as the economic mantra of the day - in reality this is a bunch of very greedy and wealthy people shifting huge amounts of money around the world, and destroying local economies in the process.

If we accepted the old principle that man works hard for what he gets, produces and consumes locally, and trades only out of necessity, rather than capital gain, then I believe that independence would be an option. I suppose some call this protectionism. I call it socialism.

 

...when clearly he's a facist.  Right-wing, ha, no such thing.  It's an authoritarian country, sure, but that's a result of both of these fictional "wings" holding too much power over the citizenry.  Of course, I'm guessing the solution from this thread would be more central planning... you know... just by... umm... a different set of dunces than we have now.

 

Actually, I should just be slarti-bombing this thread with cartoons that I never come back to address.

but this will sound a noobish question: dont libertarians support capitalistic system? 

If that makes me a social democrat, whoopee.

No, not necessarily. It rather depends on who you talk to, and what system you are talking about. I certainly do not support the present "global" capitalist system, but I do not object to a fair and regulated market capitalist system (I'm getting older and am not as left wing as I once was).

Saying that all libertarians support the capitalist system is an extremely broad brush statement.

Are you actually serious? That may be the case in the USA, but I don't believe that Europe and even Brazil have that kind of problem, regarding income inequality, lack of promotions, etc.Some areas obviously favors men, specially those that involve risk-taking, leadership-demanding positions and other such cases, but that is explained by the different nature of both the male and female human beings and I find it quite natural that people who adventure themselves more in those areas earn more compared to their peers (a place most of times filled by a man). 

However, in areas where this is not the case, men and women have the exact same place, income, respect, etc and in many women already outnumber men. Where I work/ I am an intern, there are already more women than men (I am the ONLY man, among 10 people who work and intern there, in the the judiciary registry office where I am an intern), there are more women in upper education (medicine, Law, architecture, journalism and many others) than men, etc.

Maybe you have a dated picture of society, when women were actually oppressed, where unable to work, vote, drive and do mostly anything, but that is NOT how the world is today.

Edit: even my mother, who was once an avid feminist, says that the movement has, for the most part (if not all of it), met its ends / has been depleded of meaning.

As for the "begging to being raped", come on, everybody knows that dressing oneself in a certain way around certain neighborhoods is indeed inviting criminals to assault you. 

RoyFairbank wrote: What about the logos of Social Democracy? The rose in hand thing is really uninspiring.  Roses for the working class, Roses for the ruling class, Roses for everyone! Yet they support this:

War has nothing to do with any specific ideology. If a country has interests it may fight for them in any way it see fitting, including war. The will to find a better life for the population inside said country (including stopping State repression) won't stop that from happening

Iw come to the point where I can't stand listening to any of them, more than 2-3 min.

If things was to chance I'm sure the change would not happen within the established parties.

They are in power, they don't need change, they just need votes.

So speaks the typical social democrat (and most left wing parties for that matter). It's not your fault the "masses" voted for the Tories, it's theirs, and they "get what they deserve".

You and your colleagues would be far better off asking yourselves just why said "masses" voted right-wing in the first place. Once you get your head around that, you might have a chance of presenting a viable alternative.

Until a year ago, I was active in the Labour Movement for over 26 years. I am no longer, and it is nonsense such as this that drove me out.

Ha are you seriously saying that a woman can't lead as effectively as a man? Leadership demanding positions. Come on man get out here with that nonsense. Even if you feel that the differences can be described due to the differences in the sexes (the smart argument to make would be that expected time missed due to pregnancy and raising children), that does not preclude women from wanting to bridge that income gap in spite of those differences.

I did not said that and you know it. I said it quite clearly that there are usually more men in leading positions, risk-taking positions and decision making posts because men naturally have more natural abilities on those; it is instinctive in many men. That said, even though a bigger number of men have these abilities than women that does not disqualify women in any way for those posts. It just happens that more men have these abilities than women.

Thanks for your anecdote, but the data seems to disagree with you - though I supposed with your nebulous definition of risk-taking and leadership demanding-positions you would just try to push that under the carpet. Yeah and as to your bolded statement, the feminist movement might still have some work to do in Brazil it seems. Victims don't invite criminals. What a disgusting statement.

Mah,i will pm you when high school begins and i will tell you if im still interested in politics,i'm planning to study biology and evolution this summer and stop with politics .

I want to get a gf some day soon(in high school) so i need to stop with politics (or just reduce activity) so that i wount be declared for an leninist again. 

p.s: im currently reading lenins work,and i dont know if i should stop reading it or should i read it till the end? 

We don't live there. I am not saying that the movement in all the world should end, I said that it is has no more meaning in the Western world anymore, and Afghanistan is obviously not part of the Western World.

What does not living there have to do with anything and since when is the US not considered part of the Western world?

Okay so I was a bit strong in saying that you said no woman can lead as effectively as a man, but you're saying that men are more effective leaders than men. Once again, I think that's a bit of a joke. With that said, pay should be the same between men and women in leadership positions since the group characteristic would be removed. However, this is not true.

Criminality is something very serious, all I'm saying is that, depending on how you are dressing yourself you will get assaulted somehow. If you are a man, you will probably get robbed of everything you have, kidnapped, beaten or even killed; if you are a women, among those previously mentioned, one of the things that may happen is being raped. It is not inviting for being sexually assaulted, but dressing a certain way may incite crime if you are trolling through the wrong neighborhood.

Don't say invite if you don't mean invite. Which is it? There should be no difference in our view of a women who gets raped strolling through a bad neighborhood in a mini skirt and a women wearing a parka who gets raped walking through a good neighborhood.

That isn't a sexist or misogynist comment, it actually does happen, it is how reality operates, functions. You have to be sensible to the world around you and mind how you behave: different places ask for different behaviors. Closing your eyes to it just because a police office said that in a less then complementary way does not changes it. Even rape charges/suits show that quite well: one of the most common reasons for why the rapist did it is the "provocative" way how the victim was dressed.

Please give me statistic for that. I need to see a published paper to justify that claim.

You can say it's not wise for a women to dress provocatively. You can't say that she invited the rape. Two completely different things.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

1) the expectation that women and children come before men, not only in terms of general welfare, but for life and death situations. There is no supererogatory action for men in the case of a sinking ship. There is no acknowledgment; it is merely expected for men to die in these circumstances--no need to thank them.

2) child custody

3) rape accusation

Those are some of the most extreme examples, but bring any of them up and you'll be called out for it. Equality flows both ways, and it's all well and good to demand an equal paycheck, but give guys a break sometime.

Also, ain't it neat how the only group that it's ok to make fun of on TV now are (usually white) males? If I had a dime for all the bumbling, idiot f**king dads in commercials and TV shows... That is some seriously annoying sh*t.

Eh, it's apparently "unethical" to do controlled tests on babies to see what's nature vs. nurture , so who knows? 

Oh yeah, I forgot  we are discussing about issues in war-torn zones. This would totally be on topic.

I may not have phrased that in the best way, but I think you get the point, right? 

As for the income disparities, it really depends on the activity. If it has absolutely nothing to do with physical strength and capabilities, then yes, I agree that the wages must be 100% equal; otherwise (construction jobs, etc), I can see sense in having some wage inequality.

Fortunately, women here in Brazil don't have much more problems like wage disparities anymore, things have been improving steadily ever since re-democratization, in '88. It still exist, but if she denounces the employer (and if men and women have the exact same qualifications or if women are more qualified) she can have her wage leveled and can get the employer in serious trouble.

Criminality is something very serious, all I'm saying is that, depending on how you are dressing yourself you will get assaulted somehow. If you are a man, you will probably get robbed of everything you have, kidnapped, beaten or even killed; if you are a women, among those previously mentioned, one of the things that may happen is being raped. It is not inviting for being sexually assaulted, but dressing a certain way may incite crime if you are trolling through the wrong neighborhood.

Which is what i'm saying is flawed. If there is no cause, no reflection in the real world, why would it be necessary to have such a viewpoint? The Doctor has put it crystal-clear: they want woman superiority over men, they want women to be higher, they don't want equality because they already have equality.

True, but unfortunately this is the kind of crime that will never disappear. We may reduce it to very small levels with education and prevention, but it will never disappear, like murderer. There are some examples of that in Scandinavia (the social democratic heaven): there are very few cases of rape committed by Norwegian men against Norwegian women and the pattern goes throughout the rest of Scandinavia (Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland). Same goes for murder. 

The exception, however, are the foreigners, mainly from Africa and the Middle East, who "seek refuge" there and are the main perpetrators of said crimes (rape and murder).

The T wrote: ^In some countries, saying you are a communist would make you look "cool" and get you tons of girlfriends actually... all you have to do is wear Guevara's t-shirt and flocks of people will become your friends and some girls will want to do the revolution with you.

I would love some revolution, but these people usually don't bathe nor shave very often. 

i read lenin selected works,i will read state and revolution i only need to get it in my library (those b*****ds dont have any books from trot and lenin)

mah i will talk about politics only in philosophy classes,and when we are going to have some  debates somewhere else. 

Althu im copying quites from lenins book and im writting it on a paper,im going to do the same with trotrsky and mao.

well yea anarchist are taken by a joke mostly.

I dont know why 

 yea althu i own a che t-shirt my self but i at least know that he was a commie. If you ask me 15% who wears this shirt knows that he was a commie and are also commies there self. The other 58% only wears it to be coooool,rebellion and other sh*t.

Aw sh*t, remembering what I learned in 19th Century philosophy would really be helpful now...

Man, ladies love it when you casually drop a little Kierkegaard.