I support a multi-party soviet democracy

the dprk has 2 other parties lol

So while the party that leads a revolution may be trotskyist, a workers state wouldn't be trotskyist

or stalinist

labor checks 1) only show the amount of labor-time done and 2) are not accumulative in the same sense as money

honestly i like that idea but what if people vote for the party that wants to make capitalist reforms

Only socialist parties are legal

No bourgeois parties

ok last question

gulags?

I mean gulags are no different than prison

is that something we're actually considering lol

Though in the USSR the gulags were in poor condition

the USA prisons are basically gulags

and often abusive

@Deleted User are you a commie

gulags where working prisons dedleg

Anyways

and they stopped operating in the 50's

There's this guy called Paul Cockshott @Deleted User

back when every other country stopped labor camps

He wrote a good modern day thing about why social democracy is not good

almost all countries but the USA JAJ

I'm still reading, I know I'm a socialist but I don't have a specific tendency or anything

Do you have it easily availible?

A couple paragraphs

I can copy and paste it

dedleg read bordiga

I am

actually

lmao

LOL

```Social democracy has traditionally stood for a ‘mixed economy’, for the mitigation
of the inequalities of capitalism by means of a system of progressive
taxation and social benefits, for parliamentary democracy and civil liberties.
At their most successful, social democratic parties have certainly succeeded in
improving the conditions of the working classes, compared to a situation of unregulated
capitalism; in Britain the National Health Service remains the most
enduring monument to this sort of amelioration. Nonetheless very substantial
problems remain.```

```First, capitalist economic mechanisms tend to generate gross inequalities of
income, wealth and ‘life-chances’ (as discussed in chapter 1), and social democracy
has had little real impact on these inequalities, which have indeed worsened
over the last decade or so. Only a radical change in the mode of distribution
of personal incomes, such as that advocated in chapter 2, offers a real prospect
of eliminating gross inequality. Secondly, the ‘mixed economy’ is problematic
in two important ways. In the mixed economies that have existed to date, the
socialist elements have remained subordinated to the capitalist elements. That
is, the commodity and wage forms have remained the primary forms of organisation
of production and payment of labour respectively. ‘Socialist’ activities
have had to be financed out of tax revenue extracted from the capitalist sector,
which has meant that the opportunities for expansion of ‘welfare’ measures and
the ‘free’ distribution of basic services have been dependent on the health of
the capitalist sector and the strength of the tax base. Only when the capitalist
sector has been growing strongly have social democratic governments been able
to ‘deliver the goods’. In this way, the capacity of social democratic governments
to reshape the class structure of society has been inherently self-limiting:
attempts at radical redistribution always threaten to destroy the engine of capitalist
wealth-creation on which those governments ultimately depend.```

```Linked to the foregoing, if the mixed economy is a mixture of capitalist and
socialist elements, there has been little serious attempt to define the principles of
operation of the socialist sector. This leaves the whole idea of a mixed economy
vulnerable, in a world context where the planned economies are disintegrating.
Advocates of the unfettered market can argue, in effect, that if planning is
being rejected in its heartlands, why should it be tolerated in the West, even as
a subordinate element of the system? Insofar as Western social democrats have
no coherent idea of what planned and non-commodity forms of production are
ultimately about, and how their efficiency can be assessed, they are ill-placed to
defend their favoured ‘mixture’, except in a rather vague and moralising manner.
From this point of view, our attempt to define the principles of a socialist
economic mechanism might be seen as providing the socialist backbone which
is conspicuously lacking in contemporary social democracy: even those who
disagree with our advocacy of a fully planned economy might find some value
in our arguments, insofar as they illuminate the undeveloped component in the
mixed economy’s ‘mix’.```

-Paul Cockshott, *Towards a New Socialism*

@Deleted User

@Deleted User Just don't fall for the stalin/dprk/assad apology please

Ait!

stalin did nothing wrong tho

read Unruhe