|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 30, 2019 10:47:30 GMT -5
Why is that relevant to our discussion? How does that analogy relate to the examples you've brought up?
It's very relevant. You wrote "I contend that every individual is morally responsible for their own actions, and that this is true of all human beings, Marxists and other "suicidal animals" included."
Giving a speech is an action, isn't it? If that speech contains phrases such as "We should all go out and kill those (insert your favorite persecuted group here)" and someone in the audience then goes out and kills someone, does the speaker have any responsibility for the murder?
And I still need you to clarify specifically what you mean by "moral responsibility."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2019 9:19:33 GMT -5
Who said that everyone needs to go out and kill capitalists? Karl Marx? Friedrich Engels?
Do you have any evidence for that?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 31, 2019 12:02:41 GMT -5
Who said that everyone needs to go out and kill capitalists? Karl Marx? Friedrich Engels? Do you have any evidence for that? I already gave evidence earlier in this thread. Here it is again: Here is more on Marxist Revolutionary Terror: Revolutionary terror. The same idea, started by Marx and continued by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 31, 2019 23:11:54 GMT -5
Yea, you "gave evidence" that does not actually say what you keep claiming it says, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Do you have anything other than these two quotes to support your point, or is that it? I provided evidence. You claim it really isn't evidence, but you don't say why. Do we have to accept your word for it or do you actually have some counter-evidence that you don't want to share? And here are more quotes from Marx: Do you have any counter quotes? Perhaps you have found something like "Oh my God, I really didn't mean it when I talked about Revolutionary Terror!" Signed Karl Marx.  Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2019 23:48:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2019 23:51:11 GMT -5
By the way, it was not Marx who invented the concept of "Revolutionary Terror". That was the French Enlightenment, and its practical proponents in the form of the First French Republic.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 1, 2019 0:11:58 GMT -5
And this proves...what, exactly? Engles is talking about petit-bourgeois terror, not terror from Communist Revolutionaries. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 1, 2019 0:20:47 GMT -5
By the way, it was not Marx who invented the concept of "Revolutionary Terror". That was the French Enlightenment, and its practical proponents in the form of the First French Republic. So? Does it make any difference if Marx didn't invent the concept of "revolutionary terror?" Adolph Hitler didn't invent Jew-Hatred and progroms either. Does that exonerate Hitler?
It's quite enough that Karl Marx advocated Terror. And his disciples, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin put it into practice. And why do you keep quoting Kautsky? He was not a mainstream Communist. He was considered a renegade. I do like him though because he wasn't blinded by dreams of a Communist Utopia like so many others. He saw what was happening in the Soviet Union and he spoke up. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 1:54:26 GMT -5
So? Does it make any difference if Marx didn't invent the concept of "revolutionary terror?" Of course it makes a difference whether a statement is correct or not. Do you think otherwise? And why do you keep quoting Kautsky? He was not a mainstream Communist. He was considered a renegade. I quote Kautsky because he wrote extensively about the French Revolution and the concept of Revolutionary Terror. Also, he was hardly "a renegade". Kautsky co-authored the SPD's Erfurt Program and was considered one of Germany's most influential Marxists. As far as I can tell, his reputation as a "renegade" largely stems from a rivalry with Lenin due to Kautsky's very anti-Bolshevik stance. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 1, 2019 11:45:45 GMT -5
So? Does it make any difference if Marx didn't invent the concept of "revolutionary terror?" Of course it makes a difference whether a statement is correct or not. Do you think otherwise? What statement are you referring to? One of mine? Which one? The key here is that Karl Marx advocated Revolutionary Terror. After the Russian Revolution, the vast majority of Communists followed Lenin. How many followers did Kautsky have? What exactly are you trying to do here? You have one Communist who went against the policies of all the other Communists. So what?
The original question was: Did Marx advocate Revolutionary Terror? He did, and I posted the quotes.
Marx and Engles preached Revolutionary Terror. Lenin and Stalin followed their advise. Millions died. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 12:14:36 GMT -5
Of course it makes a difference whether a statement is correct or not. Do you think otherwise? What statement are you referring to? One of mine? Which one? Your statement that Karl Marx invented Revolutionary Terror, which is false. A statement that you have yet to support with evidence. Technically correct, the best kind of correct. After 1917, all self-identifying "communists" were Marxist-Leninists by definition: They were Marxists that followed Lenin's authoritarian interpretation of Marx. But before the Second Russian Revolution, the distinction between "Communists" and "Social Democrats" did not exist in most parts of Europe. Even the Marxist, revolutionary wing of the SPD (the party of German Social Democrats") did not call itself "communists", it called itself "Independent Social Democrats" (USPD) and later on "League of Spartacus" (Spartakusbund). Only after Lenin had seized power in Russia would radical Marxists start calling themselves "Communists", and adopt Lenin's authoritarian interpretation of Marxism. The Erfurt Program that I talked about was a Marxist program that was adopted by the SPD, a Social Democratic party. In fact, before 1917, the overwhelming majority of Marxists were Social Democrats. In fact the earliest meetings of socialists included out-and-out Anarchists!
My conclusion: It is consistent with Marxism to work towards a democratic or even anarchist society in practice, and to reject authoritarianism and terrorism. So what you are claiming is that Marxists who are against terrorism are not Real Marxists? That all Marxists are in favor of genocide by default? Were you genocidal when you were still a Marxist? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 2, 2019 13:59:57 GMT -5
What statement are you referring to? One of mine? Which one? Your statement that Karl Marx invented Revolutionary Terror, which is false. Nope. I never said that. Here is your original question in this thread on March 18: "Are you sure you can't come up with a single quote by Marx where he calls on followers to murder capitalists? If you can't do that, then please be open to the possibility that Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's crimes were committed in violation of Marxist principles." In response, I posted two quotes from Marx and Engles where the phrase "revolutionary terror" was explicitly listed. AT NO POINT DID I CLAIM THAT KARL MARX INVENTED REVOLUTIONARY TERROR. So all of your "evidence" that he didn't was an irrelevant response to a claim that I never made. This is why it is important to cut and paste actual quotes. It saves both time and embarrassment. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 2, 2019 14:31:14 GMT -5
Technically correct, the best kind of correct. After 1917, all self-identifying "communists" were Marxist-Leninists by definition: They were Marxists that followed Lenin's authoritarian interpretation of Marx. But before the Second Russian Revolution, the distinction between "Communists" and "Social Democrats" did not exist in most parts of Europe. Even the Marxist, revolutionary wing of the SPD (the party of German Social Democrats") did not call itself "communists", it called itself "Independent Social Democrats" (USPD) and later on "League of Spartacus" (Spartakusbund). Only after Lenin had seized power in Russia would radical Marxists start calling themselves "Communists", and adopt Lenin's authoritarian interpretation of Marxism. The Erfurt Program that I talked about was a Marxist program that was adopted by the SPD, a Social Democratic party. In fact, before 1917, the overwhelming majority of Marxists were Social Democrats. In fact the earliest meetings of socialists included out-and-out Anarchists! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Associationen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_InternationalMy conclusion: It is consistent with Marxism to work towards a democratic or even anarchist society in practice, and to reject authoritarianism and terrorism. It may be "consistent" but that's not what actually happened, is it? Russia became the hell hole called the Soviet Union. Italy was taken over by a former Socialist who added his own ideological twist. The "peaceful" Marxists were clearly in the minority, and they have been so ever since. After WWII, "peaceful" Socialists were elected in Great Britain. They were thrown out after five years. Sweden had Socialists in power for a few years as well. They didn't last either. The only Socialists who have been able to consistently take power and keep it for any length of time have been the Revolutionary Marxists. The key here is the Marxist concept of "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." If you do not advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you are not following the plan that Karl Marx clearly set out. Yes! Exactly.If you are not in favor of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ( which is a fundamental principle of Marxist Philosophy)then you are not a true Marxist. You are a "revisionist." Yes. At times I was. Once you are convinced that all the World's Troubles are due to evil Capitalists, it's a short leap to concluding that you can fix society by eliminating them all. I know this from experience because it almost happened to me. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 12:35:41 GMT -5
Are you argueing that no Marxist who rejects genocide is a true Marxist?
Or are you argueing that everyone who calls themselves Marxist is by definition genocidal, even if they outwardly claim not to be?
´ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 12:40:12 GMT -5
Also, given that we know for a fact that Ayn Rand approved of genocide, does that mean all Objectivists are genocidal?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 3, 2019 14:16:17 GMT -5
Are you argueing that no Marxist who rejects genocide is a true Marxist?
Or are you argueing that everyone who calls themselves Marxist is by definition genocidal, even if they outwardly claim not to be?
´
The destruction of the bourgeois class is the basic principle of Marxism. It is possible to look for other ways to destroy that entire section of humanity rather than killing all of them. But so far, Marxists who are not ready to kill have never managed to hold power for any length of time. The only "successful" Marxists have been have been the violent ones.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 3, 2019 14:29:18 GMT -5
Also, given that we know for a fact that Ayn Rand approved of genocide, does that mean all Objectivists are genocidal?
Unlike Marxism, where the destruction of an entire class of people is central to the philosophy, Objectivism has Non-Initiation of Violence as its fundamental principle.
Genocide is consistent with "Destroy the Bourgeoisie." Genocide is not consistent with "Never Initiate Violence."
Rand was contradicting her own basic principle by supporting seizure of land from Native Americans.
By contrast, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were acting in accord with "Destroy the Bourgeoisie", the fundamental principle of Marxism.
Of course millions of other people were killed as well. But they justified that because they were building an Ideal Communist State.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 11:54:40 GMT -5
Are you argueing that no Marxist who rejects genocide is a true Marxist?
Or are you argueing that everyone who calls themselves Marxist is by definition genocidal, even if they outwardly claim not to be?
´ The destruction of the bourgeois class is the basic principle of Marxism. It is possible to look for other ways to destroy that entire section of humanity rather than killing all of them. But so far, Marxists who are not ready to kill have never managed to hold power for any length of time. The only "successful" Marxists have been have been the violent ones. Bob
Social Democrats don't count as successful Marxists to you?
So you really are argueing that democratic and non-violent Marxists, or even just Marxists who reject genocide are No True Marxists: That it is intrinsic to your definition of Marxism to be genocidal; and thereore, everyone who calls themselves a Marxist must also be genocidal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 12:06:21 GMT -5
The key here is the Marxist concept of "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." If you do not advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you are not following the plan that Karl Marx clearly set out. Yes! Exactly.If you are not in favor of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ( which is a fundamental principle of Marxist Philosophy)then you are not a true Marxist. You are a "revisionist." "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" can mean many different things. Roman "Dictators" were not totalitarian rulers, but temporary emergency governors with a very short term limit, for example. Plenty of Democratic Socialists take the term to mean a rule by the working class, and Social Democratic Marxists believe this can be achieved simply by Marxists achieving total control over a democratic parliamentary government. Indeed, so much has changed since you used to believe that all social ills lead back to one social class that controls the government and most of society.
Nowadays, you believe that all social ills lead back to one social class that controls the government and most of society - leftists: - They are corrupting and distorting the Free Marketplace of Ideas via protests and brainwashing, so that Correct ideas aren't given their due
- They are oppressing Creators via regulations and taxation
- They destroy Capitalism through evil and bad economic policies
- And to sustain their oppression they are buying popular support via public welfare, and are literally brainwashing young people in their communist universities
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 4, 2019 14:13:21 GMT -5
The key here is the Marxist concept of "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." If you do not advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you are not following the plan that Karl Marx clearly set out. Yes! Exactly.If you are not in favor of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ( which is a fundamental principle of Marxist Philosophy)then you are not a true Marxist. You are a "revisionist." "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" can mean many different things. Roman "Dictators" were not totalitarian rulers, but temporary emergency governors with a very short term limit, for example. Plenty of Democratic Socialists take the term to mean a rule by the working class, and Social Democratic Marxists believe this can be achieved simply by Marxists achieving total control over a democratic parliamentary government. What you say would be true if we were having this discussion before 1917. However we now have over 100 years of history behind us so we can see how the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" actually worked out. Millions were killed. Millions more starved to death. So much for the "Communism can be peaceful" argument. Not really. Left-Wingers still believe that. Nope. I never said that and never believed it. What I do believe is that many social ills stem from BAD PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES. My battle has always been against the bad ideas, not any particular class or people. Corrupting and distorting the Free Marketplace of Ideas? Why yes. That's going on right now. I've certainly posted enough supporting evidence to demonstrate that. Speakers with controversial opinions have actually been attacked. And it's not just the "Creators" who are being oppressed by increased taxation. The governments here (state governments included) are taxing everybody. Worse still, governments here are borrowing money. Eventually, that bubble will collapse. That's simple economics. And of course the politicians are buying votes. That's what politicians always do. Politicians need votes so they have to pay off their supporters. This is a simple matter of fact. As for "welfare", plenty of "welfare" goes to large corporations because the owners have to money to finance political campaigns. Do you deny this? In the Universities, instructors with contrary opinions are being slowly weeded out. Freedom of speech is being tolerated less and less. I've certainly posted enough articles to demonstrate that this is a fact. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 15:52:24 GMT -5
What I do believe is that many social ills stem from BAD PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES. And you believe that the worst philosophical principle is egalitarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 5, 2019 18:05:27 GMT -5
What I do believe is that many social ills stem from BAD PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES. And you believe that the worst philosophical principle is egalitarianism.
As usual, you did not mention a post where I actually said that. That is because there is no such post.
It would be so much easier to have a discussion if you responded to what I actually said.
Bob Marks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 18:10:13 GMT -5
As usual, you deny that you said something explicitly, without actually denying that you believe it.
Is that because you do believe that egalitarianism is evil? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 5, 2019 18:23:57 GMT -5
As usual, you deny that you said something explicitly, without actually denying that you believe it.
Is that because you do believe that egalitarianism is evil?
And as usual, you claimed I said something explicitly when I actually didn't. Don't you believe that doing that is evil?
Tell me what definition of "egalitarianism" you are using and I will tell you if I believe it or not.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 12:44:08 GMT -5
What I do believe is that many social ills stem from BAD PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES. If people have free will, then they can choose how to interpret a philosophical principle any way they want. Lenin and Mao chose to believe that mass murder is an acceptable method for social revolutionaries. Mises and Rothbart chose to believe that libertarianism and fascism are compatible political forces. Ayn Rand chose to believe that genocide is okay, as long as it targets the 'right' kind of people. I choose to believe that we can salvage ideas for a better world from old Marxism. You choose to believe that all social problems are the fault of leftists, and that the world would be better off without them. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" can mean many different things. Roman "Dictators" were not totalitarian rulers, but temporary emergency governors with a very short term limit, for example. Plenty of Democratic Socialists take the term to mean a rule by the working class, and Social Democratic Marxists believe this can be achieved simply by Marxists achieving total control over a democratic parliamentary government. What you say would be true if we were having this discussion before 1917. However we now have over 100 years of history behind us so we can see how the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" actually worked out. We now have over 100 years of Social Democracy behind us, so we can see that socialism only ends in authoritarian regimes when it is being led by authoritarians desiring an authoritarian order, such as Lenin or Mao. Rosa Luxemburg, a Marxist revolutionary, openly defended freedom of speech, even of her enemies. You even cited her in a past thread on thag subject. Are you saying that she would still have erected a totalitarian dictatorship, had she succeeded in her revolution, simply because she was a Marxist? Are you saying that regardless of their actual political work, Marxists are always genocidal? How many millions did the SPD kill? How many millions were murdered by the CGT? None. Your entire argument rests on the unwarranted conflation of all leftist political ideologies with Leninism, an authoritarian political regime built on Lenin's specific interpretation of Marxism. But by "Left-Winger". you don't actually mean people of leftist political beliefs. You mean Leninist-Stalinists exclusively. Because your definition of "Marxism" and "leftism" excludes all leftists who aren't genocidal authoritarians. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 7, 2019 14:02:07 GMT -5
What I do believe is that many social ills stem from BAD PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES. If people have free will, then they can choose how to interpret a philosophical principle any way they want. People can also use free will and choose to jump off of a cliff. However, once they jump, they cannot take it back. Free will has its limits after all. In a like fashion, when you choose a philosophy that says a certain group of people are evil and must be eliminated, then you have crossed a line. Murder, tyranny, and genocide follow. No. They chose to follow Marxist philosophy, a philosophy that says a whole class of people must be "eliminated" in order for all human suffering to end. Of course you have quotes from the works of both of these men to show they actually believed that. And as I have already pointed out many times, that belief was in total and complete contradiction with the rest of her philosophy. By contrast, the Genocide, Mass-Murders, and Political Tyrannies established by the followers of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were in perfect accord with their philosophical principles. And you choose to believe that I said things I never said! Perhaps that's why you don't posts any quotes to support your claims. There are no such quotes. I never once said that all social problems are the fault of leftists. I never once said that the world would be better off without leftist PEOPLE. What I did say is that many (not all) of today's problems are caused by Leftist PHILOSOPHY. Do I have to list again the vast numbers of people who were murdered by following those evil principles? Millions died in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Venezuela, and North Korea. Thousands are starving to death right now in Venezuela. And yet you seem to be saying that Communist principles are pure and wonderful and it was only the actions of a few bad people who created all this carnage. There you go again. You are claiming that Communism is a wonderful philosophy if only it hadn't been corrupted by "bad people." But a philosophy that says the evil in the world can be greatly reduced if only we eliminate the "bad people" has ALWAYS ended up by butchering millions of innocents Rosa Luxembourg would have come to the point where she would either have to give up power or kill everyone who threatened her power. More typical of Communists is Eric Hobsbawm "In a 1994 interview on BBC British television with Canadian author and politician Michael Ignatieff (whose grandfather and great-grandfather were ministers of the Czar prior to the Bolshevik Revolution), he shocked viewers when he said that the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens under Stalin would have been worth it if a genuine Communist society had been the result.[5][48][49] Hobsbawm argued that, "In a period in which, as you might imagine, mass murder and mass suffering are absolutely universal, the chance of a new world being born in great suffering would still have been worth backing" but, unfortunately, "the Soviet Union was not the beginning of the World Revolution".[48][50]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hobsbawm#Praise_and_criticismSo I guess since Eric Schindler (of "Schindler's List) who was a Nazi Party member saved the lives of a few thousand Jews, that must mean that Nazi philosophy is is wonderful and humanitarian, right? After all, we have the proven that there was one good Nazi. So all Nazis must now be considered good. Leftists who are not "genocidal authoritarians" never seem to get power, do they? Or to hold it after they get it. By contrast, tyrannical leftists at one point governed over a third of the world's land surface (when you add up the territories covered by the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Soviet Eastern Europe, etc.) Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 14:43:15 GMT -5
If people have free will, then they can choose how to interpret a philosophical principle any way they want. People can also use free will and choose to jump off of a cliff. However, once they jump, they cannot take it back. Free will has its limits after all. In a like fashion, when you choose a philosophy that says a certain group of people are evil and must be eliminated, then you have crossed a line. Murder, tyranny, and genocide follow. You said that you used to be genocidal. Is that still true? Do you still want to murder people? That's not "Marxist philosophy", though. That's your personal, genocidal, interpretation of it. And I don't see any purpose in doing hours of unpaid work just for you to first dismiss it, and then forget all about it two replies later. You know Mises, you know Rothbart, you know exactly what passages in their works I am talking about. Don't play dumb. And as I have already pointed out many times, that belief was in total and complete contradiction with the rest of her philosophy. And as I have already pointed out several times, the Ayn Rand Institute disagrees with your personal interpretation. And you reject the notion that different people can have different correct interpretations of the same text. Neither Marx nor Engels ever established a political tyranny. And that statement remains an unsupported assertion, since most Marxists completely rejected tyranny and genocide as valid methods of political advancement. Every single problem that you've complained about on these forums, you've blamed on "leftists" or "postmodernists". I'm sorry, but I cannot quote an entire forum just to make this point. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? No statement of yours that I've found on the subject makes a distinction between leftist people and their philosophy. Millions died in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Venezuela, and North Korea. Thousands are starving to death right now in Venezuela. Millions died when America was colonized. Hundreds of thousands died from hunger when capitalism was implemented by the British in Ireland and India. Thousands of workers and socialist activists were murdered by armed goons and police while protesting bad working conditions and demanding more democracy and equality. And yet you seem to be saying that Capitalism is pure and wonderful, and it was only the actions of a few bad people (most of whom probably leftists) who created this carnage. I have never said such a thing. I am saying that Leninism is a specific, authoritarian interpretation of Marxist philosophy, and that every single communist dictator has followed that specific interpretation of Marxism. Do you actually think it's a coincidence that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot all called themselves Marxist Leninists? The more I am having these discussions with you, the more I've become convinced that you're actually an adherent to Manicheism, the belief that there is a cosmic battle between Good and Evil, and that every single being on Earth is alinged with one or the other. I teach foreigners my language for a living, and I've seen A1 learners with better reading comprehension than this. Nothing you are saying here has anything to do with the text you quote. Nothing at all. It's like you're talking about an entire different text than the one I wrote, yet made the mistake of including my quote in all this. How am I supposed to reply to nonsense like this? Go back and re-read my statement. It says nothing of the sort you are claiming. Indeed. Atlas Shrugged, for example, is a genocidal fantasy. Rosa Luxembourg would have come to the point where she would either have to give up power or kill everyone who threatened her power. So I guess since Eric Schindler (of "Schindler's List) who was a Nazi Party member saved the lives of a few thousand Jews, that must mean that Nazi philosophy is is wonderful and humanitarian, right? After all, we have the proven that there was one good Nazi. So all Nazis must now be considered good. Leftists who are not "genocidal authoritarians" never seem to get power, do they? Or to hold it after they get it. Social Democrats have held power in Europe for most of the last 70 years, and have been the dominant leftist parties in most democratic countries. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 7, 2019 15:02:13 GMT -5
Have you seen the news lately?
"Germany’s struggling Social Democrats
Germany’s oldest political party cannot find a way out of the mire"
"Who killed European social democracy?
Collapse of center left risks destabilizing Continent’s politics."
"Europe's social democrats are having a hard time The near collapse in the vote for Germany's SPD is just the latest crisis for social democratic parties across Europe"
"Social democrats are having a hard time
All across Europe, social democratic parties are struggling to stay relevant. One of the oldest political ideologies is in crisis."
And last but not least:
"European Social Democracy Extinct?
Almost everywhere in Europe, social democratic and socialist parties are losing support: last year, the German SPD saw a historic bad result in the parliamentary elections. Its sister parties in France, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic have even sunk to single digit shares of the vote. European social democracy is fighting for its political survival: since the new millennium, its vote share has fallen in 15 of the 17 countries we examined – sometimes dramatically."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 3:40:10 GMT -5
They are still remain the dominant force of leftist politics while Leninism remains a total fringe ideology. QED.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 11:59:49 GMT -5
They are still remain the dominant force of leftist politics while Leninism remains a total fringe ideology. QED.
LOL! Social Democrats are polling in the single digits and you still claim that they are "the dominant force?"
Bob
|
|
