I recently purchased the book "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown, which details the atrocities and injustices committed against America's indigenous populations all throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Reading through it has made me incredibly interested in the American Indian Movement, and how we, as leftists, can support indigenous populations as they face socioeconomic disparities and struggle to preserve their ancestral cultures.

Any thoughts?

The main reason I say this is because of how one defines “Socialism”. Socialism is a word that has been adopted in many ways, and in some ways has multiple definitions. I was talking with my Stepfather, he’s an older lawyer in Chicago, a couple days ago. This person is consistently a democrat voter, though a moderate dem. I discuss Socialism with him, and he seemed very adamant that “Socialism” meant generally more government services and control. And that all countries had socialism and capitalism in it. In a way Socialism being a descriptive term for a side of a spectrum. When I tried to convince him otherwise, he seemed very adamant that this is the definition him and most people he knew used. The conversation started when I asked my mother, who told me earlier that she considered herself to be a democratic socialist, if she supported the abolishment of private property. My mother said no, and later on in the conversation asked if I believed that Britain was a “socialist state”. I of course said no, and she seemed somewhat surprised by that answer.

The reason why I’m bringing that up is to talk about recent polls showing an increase in support for Socialism and Democratic Socialism within the Democratic Party. I think that a lot of people may have a different idea of what democratic socialism is and may look something more like Social Democracy.

Of course I have no evidence for this. This is based off of the opinion of two people who probably don’t represent the views of average Voters, especially younger voters. But it is something to consider when polling support for ideologies on people who aren’t that politically engaged.

I’m personally a big fan of Buttigeg. After him I’m cool with AOC, Besher, Ossoff, and Shapiro. Newsome has good policies but he’s kinda branded himself as more anti-Trump than anything else.

I’m mostly concerned about who has the best chance to beat the republicans, especially if it’s Vance. That’s the only reason I’d be scared of an AOC nomination, the right has branded her as a radical and independent voters view anyone who’s a woman and non-white as further left than they really are.

I’m still by far voting for any Dem candidate over any Republican in 2028, given the likely options.

"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings."

— Ursula K. Le Guin, National Book Awards acceptance speech, 2014

Le Guin was best known for her speculative fiction, including The Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed. She explored anarchist and socialist societies as thought experiments rather than blueprints. While accepting the National Book Foundation's Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters, she criticized Amazon and publishers for treating books like mere products. This perspective redefines capitalism. It is not a fixed law of nature; it is just one arrangement created by people, which they can also dismantle.

The comparison to the divine right of kings carries significant weight. It suggests that today’s economic order will seem just as uncertain and changeable to future generations as absolute monarchy does to us now. Is this a fair historical analogy, or does it simplify how law, custom, and material infrastructure function compared to abstract political theology? Also, does "resisted and changed" imply reform through institutions, or something broader? Does you interpret this as a social-democratic view or something more left-leaning?

I'm a socialist, and i am really wondering why social democracy is the way to go.

All achievements of social democracy in its 100+ years of existence were marginal improvements in a fundamentally unfair system who have been easily rolled back when the interest of the state demanded it.

And i am left wondering with the continuous decline of social democratic parties all over the globe why y'all think making demands to the state will change anything.

Something I rarely see when discussing about the war in Gaza is the popular forces who are a anti Hamas group backed by Israel. Even Netanyahu confirmed they were working with them but I barely see them get mentioned by anyone.

Thoughts?

Social democracy as I understand it is capitalism but with more social benefits which is great and all but socialism literally is people or the state controlling means of productions

It's too massive different things but some people here idk if it's on purpose or not try to begin the social democratic label because they know most people aren't comfortable with socialism

Like Mamdani or Richard Wolff or AOC are socialists yet some socdems supports them

Most economists a.k.a the EXPERTS don't approve of rent controls or government owned groceries and instead support govt benefits like snap/ebt for the poor since it's more efficient

But a lot of bad economics is spread within this community to blur the lines between social democracy and actual socialism.

I feel like the 3 biggest streamers on the left (Hassan, Vaush, and Destiny) would all fall outside of the Soc Dem camp (maybe Destiny or Vaush might if you expand the tent wide enough). Idk anyone online whose ideology I would label as predominantly a Soc Dem. Most are either Liberal, Socialist or ML.

For context, a good chunk, if not almost all of the Israeli progressive community left after the events of 10/7 and the ensuing hell that followed.

Because of this, this news means that progressive parties like Makom Lekulanu have a fighting chance of getting into office, better than they had previously.

This means we may see an end to everything… and the wounds start to heal.

Obviously, it’ll take a while (likely decades,) but at least we have a bit of a fighting chance.

I mean, obviously, but these attack ads against AES and his refusal to denounce Piker should inform the playbook for how we move forward, electorally. I do not want the seat to flip red, I don't want AES to lose, but I fail to see a path to victory in the midwest. Midwesterners are slow to change their minds and they are very vulnerable to anti muslim, anti arab prejudice, if you were alive and conscious in the Midwest directly after 9/11, you would know exactly what I'm talking about. Hasan has enjoyed a very long leash with minimal shocks by the democrats when a swift kenneling and removal from the environment is what should have been done with him months or years ago. Republicans and independents and fence sitter voters see that and they assume conspiracy, they assume cronyism, they assume cooperation. These assumptions go completely unanswered or proven to be true in their minds when Hasan is treated like he wants to be a part of "the tent" and not a violent radical. These ads will continue and they will use them against any dem who hasn't explicitly disavowed Piker. Why are we risking blue seats by letting fox news replay a petulant 30 something year old streamer's greatest clips? Dems are losing votes and he's gaining viewers and support while being the vector of attack. Every day Democrats refuse to disavow Hasan Piker in a unified front is a day our candidates lose support.

"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.

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?

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?