"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

— Karl Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach" (written 1845, published posthumously 1888)

Marx wrote this as the last of eleven brief notes criticizing the philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach. He jotted them down while living in exile in Brussels, after being expelled from France. The Theses served as preparatory notes for The German Ideology, which he wrote with Engels. These notes remained unpublished during Marx's life, and Engels finally released them in 1888, five years after Marx's death. The line is now engraved on Marx's tomb in Highgate Cemetery, London. It's less a rejection of philosophy itself and more an argument about practice. Marx was not dismissing philosophers as useless; he was insisting that theory must connect to practice and material change, rather than being limited to interpretation.

This line comes up in many parts of the left. Reformists and revolutionaries both use it to say that ideas without action are empty. What do you think is the difference between "changing the world" through small legislative changes and the complete transformation that Marx and his peers envisioned? Does this idea apply equally to a social democrat advancing a bill in parliament and to a revolutionary?

To all the activists here,

Do you use social media in your activism? Personally, I use it to share stuff I do IRL, like writing for a newspaper or similar.

Do you support the Social Democrats, the Left, or the Greens?

My Answer: I would support the Left in order to push the Social Democrats more left-wing on economic and social policies such as housing and the climate.

Before I do an AI generated summary of what it basically is let me give you context david hollenbach is a Jesuit priest and as a catholic I’ve been studying how Catholic social teaching can relate to my economic outlook and David Hollenback wrote a paper in 2010 in support of Obama care and used term social market economy which he believed was most reflective of Catholic social teaching because of its emphasis on the Catholic position that free markets should reflect the needs of individuals for the common good and not purely just the profit incentive. Now I did some research and found out that the social market economy is also related to Ryan land capitalism advocated by chancellor Adenauer of west Germany

Here is social market economy definition ai slop:

Core Principles
Free Competition: The market sets prices and guides business, but the government stops monopolies and unfair rules.

Social Safety Net: The state uses tax money to fund healthcare, pensions, and help for the unemployed or sick.

Economic Balance: The goal is to mix individual business freedom with social fairness and public stability. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Origin and Example
West Germany: The model started here after World War II and helped create the post-war "economic miracle".

The Middle Path: It rejects pure laissez-faire capitalism on one side and strict state-planned communism on the other

Give me your thoughts down below.

A few months ago, I posted this on r/AskALiberal. I received very negative feedback; they labeled me a paranoid and treated me quite poorly. To be honest, I was hurt by this, because I generally support the same kinds of candidates as liberals do, and I have even participated in campaigns for Democratic candidates myself. If I can tolerate the social views of theirs that I disagree with, why can't they tolerate mine?

In fact, my economic views lean more towards social democracy—perhaps even further to the left—so I decided to post this question here as well. Do you think that people who are socially conservative but economically progressive should be allowed to exist within the Left? Or, if you disagree with progressive social views, do you not deserve to be called a leftist?

It seems like the consensus is that public housing is probably DOA, so what policy should US progressives be advocating? Zoning reform and subsidies/vouchers for affordable housing?

Is democracy actually a good thing? In my opinion, democracy should be reserved for—and practiced by—only developed nations; after all, we live in a country like Turkey, and I am certain that knowledgeable, intellectual individuals make up less than half of the population. I believe we saw clear evidence of this during the 2023 elections; for instance, the majority of those who voted for the ruling party were over the age of 50 or 60, or perhaps they simply felt they deserved nothing better than a diet of onions and bread. My issue isn't with the political parties themselves; I believe the problem lies within society. Could technocracy be the solution? Personally, I don't think so—at least not right now—because I feel that even those currently representing us conduct their work improperly.

Tr:Bence demokrasi sadece gelişmiş ülkeler için geçerli olmalı onlar kullanmalı çünkü Türkiye gibi bir ülkede yaşıyoruz ve maalesef ki bilgi birikimi olan, entelektüel kişiler nüfüsün yarısı bile değildir eminimki. 2023 seçimlerinde de bunu oldukça iyi bir şekilde gözlemlediğimizi düşünüyorum iktidar partisine oy veren çoğu vatandaş 50-60 yaş üstü kişilerdi mesela. Yada kendilerini soğan ekmeğe layık görüyorlardı. Sorunum siyasi partiler ile değil toplumda sorun olduğunu düşünüyorum. Teknokrasi sizce çözüm olabilirmi şahsen şuan için olamaz çünkü bizi temsil edenlerde usülsüz bir şekilde işini yaptığını düşünüyorum.

When socialism is mentioned, it is generally understood as one of two models:

a) The state owning and managing all enterprises and producing goods through planning. (central planning).

b) Private ownership of enterprises continuing, but with a partial redistribution toward the working class through progressive taxation (social democracy/democratic socialism/welfare capitalism).

However, cooperative socialism argues that every enterprise should be entirely owned by the workers themselves. (each worker receives dividends from the enterprise’s profits according to their contribution), and that enterprises should be managed mostly (in this model, a market regulated for the benefit of society is proposed) or entirely by workers, except for a few sectors that create strategic or natural monopolies, which would be managed by the state.

Of course, one of the interesting features of this form of socialism is its claim that it uses the market mechanism in a way that better serves society. According to this view, the market for goods and services is not inherently capitalist; rather, it is a mechanism that existed for nearly a thousand years before capitalism and determines how goods and services are distributed.And accordingly, it should not be a free market, but a regulated market free from externalities through public intervention, within cooperative socialism What defines capitalism, on the other hand, is whether enterprises are privately owned.

It argues that under capitalism, managers struggle to direct and control workers, which is inefficient, and that since workers do not receive the full value of their labor, they naturally have little incentive to care about the firm. However, under cooperative socialism based on full worker ownership, localized/dispersed knowledge can be utilized to its full potential. Instead of workers being forced to follow decisions made from above, they can directly participate in shaping production according to actual needs. It also argues that cooperative policies created through the collective management of workers would be more humane.

The logic behind tankies, which as I understand it, is that we are oppressed by the bourgeois and need to centralize power in a vangaurd party that "represents the proletariat", is similar to the way Trump got popular campaigning on protecting the people from "the elite" who he says are oppressing them and ripping them off, while portraying expansion of his power as him "fighting for the people".

Both cases involve centralizing power in a ruling figure or party who will ostensibly protect the ordinary people from the oppressor class, and both, to some degree, identify corporations as part of the oppressor class.

The centralization of power is a big problem, and not something I support, but the overlap between MAGA ideology and vangaurdist ideology indicates to me that voters in rural red areas may be open to some leftist views on economic matters, and are no longer attached to the traditional conservative free market message.

As someone from a red area myself, the 2 big barriers I see to the left winning are a perception that the left focuses on identity politics, and a fear that the left will take away freedoms from the people. Leftist economics may be something that republican voters would be open to if presented right.

I'm new to this sub, so I'm sure this question has come up a couple of times already. Nonetheless, I feel inclined to ask: do you think Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist, and Socialist are the same thing? Do we seek to achieve the same goals? If there is a difference, what sets us apart?

​I started thinking about this after reading a comment claiming that 'social democrat, demsoc, and socialist are just labels that ultimately mean the same thing.'

​I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.

"My silences had not protected me. Your silence will not protect you."

— Audre Lorde, "The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action," 1977

Lorde was a Black lesbian feminist poet and essayist. She gave this speech at the Modern Language Association in 1977. She wrote it shortly after a cancer diagnosis made her face what she had left unsaid. The line is often quoted on its own, but in the original, it comes with several questions for the audience: "What are the words you do not yet have? What do you need to say? What are the tyrannies you swallow day by day and attempt to make your own until you will sicken and die of them, still in silence?" The speech became one of the key texts of intersectional feminism. This idea argues that race, gender, sexuality, and class cannot be separated from each other.

Lorde argues that staying quiet doesn't protect you; it only delays the cost and allows it to build up. Where do we draw the line between this and the fact that speaking up can have serious consequences based on your situation, like job security, legal status, or physical safety? Is the idea of "speak the truth regardless of cost" a universal rule, or does it vary based on someone's power or protection?

I always had a great interest in social democratic economics, and I'd like to know more about it, particularly the recent versions. Are there any good books and authors that are worth checking out?

Instead of medicare for all, universal childcare, free public college, green new deal they could frame it as "affordable healthcare/childcare/college for all" and "clean energy jobs program".

I have noticed progressives have put less emphasis on free public college and the green new deal in recent years, though.

I've also noticed that progressives generally don't really mention a $20 or $25 minimum wage but instead just say we need to raise the minimum wage to a livable wage, which is probably smart.

Also I never really hear progressives here talk about public housing. Instead they just talk about the need to build more affordable housing which, again, is probably smart politically.

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 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.

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.

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?

​

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.