Another reason social democracy must resolutely advocate socialism.

Not only is it basic social-democratic ideology and history, but also because private capital uses its power to undermine equality.

We'll never truly succeeded if we have hostile classes competing with us.
To seal off a new era in humanity's social development, the previous structure has to go.

The bourgeoisie succeeded in their mission to create liberal democracy, civil liberties, free trade etc. because they eliminated the hostile aristocracy, the previous ruling class.
The bourgeoisie pushed to repeal the Corn Laws in 1846, which had the effect of liquidating the land-owning aristocracy and making the bourgeoisie the unchallenged masters of the present civilization.

Social democracy needs to take a queue from them.
In short, the bourgeoisie succeeded (and we should all be glad they did) because they annihilated their opposition. They didn't compromise with them and leave them alone to then undermine their work later on.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Tristam Pratorius the Social Democrat🌹

Tristam Pratorius the Social Democrat🌹 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TristamPratori1

20 Feb
Medicare-for-all meaningfully advances socialist goals.

It extends the principle of, ''from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'' to healthcare distribution.

What Marx meant by that was free access to the articles of consumption or de-commodification.
Although under socialism the principle of ''from each according to his ability...'' cannot be totalized and commodity production and exchange still exists for the most part, essential services and goods can be de-commodified in accordance with this principle.
The commodity exchange done away with for these goods and services, prices will no longer act as impediment for people to fulfill their needs and nor will there be a severe maldistribution of resources, hence ''from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.''
Read 4 tweets
15 Feb
This is a very good point when people on the left contemplate the old ''communist'' regimes.

Without democracy, you have a very bastardized and limited socialism. Ownership by a state being ''socialistic'' depends crucially on the degree to which that state is representative.
The USSR was socialistic in the sense the profits industry were socially distributed through welfare and that class differences were minimal.

But it was not socialistic in the sense that it allowed social wealth to be managed democratically and the rule of class diminished.
If we to call the USSR completely socialist, we would essentially have to concede to the argument that ''socialism is when the government does stuff, and when it does a lot of stuff that is communism.''

This should be assessed on a spectrum.
Read 4 tweets
14 Feb
1/2 Abolishing political parties would be bad.

Its guaranteed to produce conservative outcomes.

All the places that historically lacked or do lack political parties (Confederate States, Gulf states etc.) are reactionary or authoritarian states. Its a de-facto one-party state.
If you abolish political parties, you don't abolish political orientation or benefit left-wing causes if that is what you are into.

Politics reverts to the default ideology of the status quo society.

This is why George Washington didn't want political parties.
Washington was afraid of so-called ''radicals'' (aka what we call leftists today) and that political parties would encourage the ''passion'' of the people or citizenry. (democratic political movements)
Read 4 tweets
13 Feb
That automation and capital income study that recently released in NBER has a very useful dataset about income and wage growth over the previous decades for different parts of the income distribution:…
Read 4 tweets
13 Feb
@MouthyInfidel @pseudocia I think ''proletariat'' is sometimes a bit wonky.

''Bourgeoisie'' is fine, in a sense. I prefer to say ''owners of capital'' or ''capital owners,'' but the trem ''bourgeoisie'' represents those owners ideologically, referring to the term bourgeois liberalism.
@MouthyInfidel @pseudocia ''Proletariat'' should be dropped, mostly.

''Bourgeoisie'' is very clunky and inelegant term, which is why ''owners of capital'' is better. I guess it makes sense only when you are speaking about more ideological and philosophical particulars.
@MouthyInfidel @pseudocia ''Means of production'' may also be very wonky, so ''capital,'' ''wealth,'' ''property'' ''product'' (as in product of the nation or product of labor) may also work.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!