However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, “by any means possible” change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I’m not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it.

Those seem like two different things to me.

Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

  • Match!!
    link
    English
    22 months ago

    Socdems are valid if underrepresented. Maybe start a socdem community?

    • Cowbee [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      42 months ago

      Are SocDems really “left” if they support Capitalism and are against Socialism?

      • @vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        If you define “left” as “communist” then obviously no. But out here in the actual world it usually means “anyone more progressive than a Christian Democrat”.

        • Cowbee [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          22 months ago

          I define “Left” as a supporter of Socialism, ie an Anticapitalist. Simple as, someone who supports a change in the status quo.

          • @vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            22 months ago

            Well then you’re only real disagreement with social democrats is in method, and you are going to have the Ugly Talk.

            • Cowbee [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              No, Social Democrats have a different method, ie class colaborationism and Reformism, and a different structure, ie Capitalism with welfare, and Imperialism in the Nordic Countries’ cases.

                • @ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  42 months ago

                  As a citzen in a social democracy in Latin America: This shit only truly worked in countries with a long history of exploitation of their colonies.

                  • @vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    22 months ago

                    Fair. Large domestic reserves of fossile fuels don’t hurt either.

                    It’s in many regards an expression of privilege.

                • Cowbee [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  22 months ago

                  The Nordic Countries rely on Imperialism, ie the export of industrial and financial Capital to the Global South to super-exploit the proletariat of intentionally underdeveloped countries for super-profits via paying far less for their labor power.

                  Why is it that it is cheaper to produce in the Global South? Because wages are lower, yet you can sell for a higher price, and therefore exploit at a higher rate from the international proletariat.

                  Are you familiar in any way with Marxist theory?

                  • @vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    02 months ago

                    Yes of course. It’s basically what the global economy has been like for fucking forever. It seems weird to single out the Nordic social democrats for this though.

                    What are you trying to get at here?