The Leftist AssemblyBoard

Keketa wrote:

Can anyone make me a flag?

What sort of flag?

Wow, what a detailed description.

Keketa wrote:

Communism flag...

Here's your communism flag
https://miro.medium.com/max/1200/1*L_uBUcOn1-NvGPQFZ4XlrQ.png

The confederation of mexican workers wrote:

What do you guys think of syndicalism?

based

Turning point tla wrote:

Kavagrad says he’s for workers’ liberation and yet he sleeps with a teddy bear that has a picture of Milton Friedman taped over the face.

Curious 🧐

Turning Point TLA

Creepy stalker go brrrr

I opened the gulags to help my economy guys

Keketa wrote:

Sorry but I haven't much inspiration

No problem.

Asturies-Llion wrote:

Yes, please, too much Kaiserreich.
It is necessary for the workers, it is what keeps or gives more labour rights. Does it have potential for sparkling a revolutionary process? Not by itself alone, and in fact, unions are not free of ending up becoming corrupt organizations that do not give a sh*t about the working class.

In my opinion unions don’t really have enough power or organization to really start a revolution

Do you guys think distributism is good?

While we're talking about what ideologies we like, I'll say that while I still have a lot to learn, I consider myself a social democrat, meaning I'm as close to a centrist as the left-wing goes (or, by many American "patriots"' standards, a "radical liberal Rapheal Warnock")

I don't think capitalism as a whole is inherently bad, but free-market capitalism allows greedy people with power to exploit their workers with the only aim of increasing their power and wealth perpetually. Some companies and leaders actually do a good job of giving back to society and treating their workers fairly, but those are usually the smaller ones whose leaders are more involved in the actual workings of it and have an active passion for doing what they're doing.
While I'm not for immediately abolishing capitalism, I am for gradual change towards a hybrid system by imposing more regulations. Just look at how Reaganomics affected everyone in the U.S. except the few investors and the ones who were already at the top. Not good.
I also am in favor of more and better social programs, and hope that we reach a point that when automation and technology becomes advanced enough that most jobs are obsolete, that people can dedicate themselves to personal endeavors and passion projects instead of having to worry about providing for themselves, or finding new areas to work on that will elevate life to a new level. Doing away with responsibilities so we can play, as Arthur Clarke basically said. However we're still at the stage where we need a steady source of income in order to survive in the world, so while we're in it we should make it easier for people to cover their needs, and for people to put in more work to earn some luxuries as well no matter their background or disadvantages. And ideally, this wouldn't be restricted to those already within the country, but should be made able to be accessed by people around the world who want a better life for them and their families.
How to do that with limited resources? I don't know yet. Hopefully advanced technology helps with that.

Sorry for wall of text I got carried away

Mexicalia union wrote:

While we're talking about what ideologies we like, I'll say that while I still have a lot to learn, I consider myself a social democrat, meaning I'm as close to a centrist as the left-wing goes

I don't think capitalism as a whole is inherently bad, but free-market capitalism allows greedy people with power to exploit their workers with the only aim of increasing their power and wealth perpetually. Some companies and leaders actually do a good job of giving back to society and treating their workers fairly, but those are usually the smaller ones whose leaders are more involved in the actual workings of it and have an active passion for doing what they're doing.
While I'm not for immediately abolishing capitalism, I am for gradual change towards a hybrid system by imposing more regulations. Just look at how Reaganomics affected everyone in the U.S. except the few investors and the ones who were already at the top. Not good.
I also am in favor of more and better social programs, and hope that we reach a point that when automation and technology becomes advanced enough that most jobs are obsolete, that people can dedicate themselves to personal endeavors and passion projects instead of having to worry about providing for themselves, or finding new areas to work on that will elevate life to a new level. Doing away with responsibilities so we can play, as Arthur Clarke basically said. However we're still at the stage where we need a steady source of income in order to survive in the world, so while we're in it we should make it easier for people to cover their needs, and for people to put in more work to earn some luxuries as well no matter their background or disadvantages. And ideally, this wouldn't be restricted to those already within the country, but should be made able to be accessed by people around the world who want a better life for them and their families.
How to do that with limited resources? I don't know yet. Hopefully advanced technology helps with that.

Sorry for wall of text I got carried away

The issue i've seen many leftists bring up (and which I agree with) about social democracy as we know it (regulated capitalism as in Sweden, Norway etc.) is that despite providing a good standard of living for their citizens, social democracies rely on exploitation in the global south to achieve this. This is because in capitalism must have an exploited group for another one to benefit.
That being said it's still much better than what we have now in many countries and I think that electing socdems or demsocs in countries like the US and the UK (like bernie or corbyn) would allow for a decrease on suppression of global left movements as these politicians tend to be much less imperialist (yes I know bernie said some stupid things about Yugoslavia).
But also I'm still learning at the moment so yea.

Therronja wrote:

The issue i've seen many leftists bring up (and which I agree with) about social democracy as we know it (regulated capitalism as in Sweden, Norway etc.) is that despite providing a good standard of living for their citizens, social democracies rely on exploitation in the global south to achieve this. This is because in capitalism must have an exploited group for another one to benefit.
That being said it's still much better than what we have now in many countries and I think that electing socdems or demsocs in countries like the US and the UK (like bernie or corbyn) would allow for a decrease on suppression of global left movements as these politicians tend to be much less imperialist (yes I know bernie said some stupid things about Yugoslavia).
But also I'm still learning at the moment so yea.

This is the kind of things I still need to learn
Obviously no one ideology is perfect just like no one person is perfect
If I had complete control over how the world worked, I'd say that anarchism would be the ideal system, where we wouldn't need a government for anything, but for that to happen people would have to naturally be willing to help each other and leave tribalism and any semblance of hierarchy behind. Since we're not at that stage yet, from what I know social democracy is the least of the evils that has a plausible chance where I live, but it's not the final solution as it still leaves groups being exploited for the benefit of others. At least with restrictions it's damped down as much as possible and benefits more people compared to a select few, but progress cannot stop there.
And any progress will take the support of a lot of people, many of which are naturally reluctant to change, but I think that will change with the rise of Gen Z, who are already accustomed to exponentially growing rates of change and are more inclined to progressivism compared to your stereotypical Baby Boomer and such. I might be biased because I live in SoCal which is a hotspot of everything left-leaning, but I think the distant future is looking bright, but it'll take years of painstakingly slow change in the national and international culture. I still have hope though.

Also something I want to point out, we never stop learning. If we do, we're doing something wrong. There'll always be someone who knows more than you and someone who knows less than you, the world's too big for that not to happen. So for anyone that feels discouraged at seeing other people speaking so eloquently and with such confidence in what they know, realize that they're also learning, and so that you're not alone
I used to always think my English was worse than native speakers just because I wasn't born speaking it, even though my teachers kept saying my essays were better than my peers'. And I realize that language is just another one of those things that you learn perpetually. Some people say non-native speakers are often better at a language than many native speakers themselves😂
So just stay curious.