Yeah that’s the problem with American exceptionalists getting to redefine language: it doesn’t work outside our walled garden, regardless whether the fruit is nourishment or poisonous.
I have cause to believe USA makes up their own meanings of words that has nothing to do with the rest of the world meaning. You can interpret that how you will.
I know what socialism means. I wanted to hear your interpretation of the facts regarding Mamdani, since this is a contentious topic, and socialism is a broad tradition. But I see now it was a waste of time to expect serious discourse from you.
Good. Do your work bc I’m busy rn doing mine. Obviously that’s the definition, which is obviously mine since reading about the US definition not being the definition is too much effort for you.
Last I heard, he was calling himself soc Dem or Dem soc, both of which uphold the capitalist class. He’s proposing good work to make a few inroads but not proposing his potential constituency own the means of production which is the definition of socialism.
For the record, he’s a democratic socialist, not a social democrat. These are distinct, though related movements. The difference between them, which you seem confused about, is that socialists do not uphold the capitalist class, despite your claims. Social democrats want to retain capitalism, while democratic socialists do not.
However, democratic socialists do have differences of opinion with more radical socialists on the best way to achieve the socialized means of production they aim for. They favor reform over revolution.
You are welcome to disagree with this view but it’s not a good reason to view their socialism as false or insincere.
No need to reply, since we already established that you’re not interested in good faith discourse. But I couldn’t leave this misinformation unchallenged.
He’s not a socialist.
In fascist USA anyone not actively licking the boot of a billionaire is a socialist!
Yeah that’s the problem with American exceptionalists getting to redefine language: it doesn’t work outside our walled garden, regardless whether the fruit is nourishment or poisonous.
He calls himself one, do you have cause to doubt it?
I have cause to believe USA makes up their own meanings of words that has nothing to do with the rest of the world meaning. You can interpret that how you will.
I’m talking about Mamdani specifically though. Or are you just assuming that based on your feelings about the US in general?
And? I live here. I like Mamdani. That doesn’t change the veracity of what I said. Perhaps your own feelings preclude that.
I guess that’s a yes. I was genuinely curious to hear the case that he’s not a socialist but it doesn’t seem you have much basis for this opinion.
Here, since you can’t be bothered: https://www.britannica.com/question/What-does-socialism-mean
Western source.
I know what socialism means. I wanted to hear your interpretation of the facts regarding Mamdani, since this is a contentious topic, and socialism is a broad tradition. But I see now it was a waste of time to expect serious discourse from you.
Good. Do your work bc I’m busy rn doing mine. Obviously that’s the definition, which is obviously mine since reading about the US definition not being the definition is too much effort for you.
Last I heard, he was calling himself soc Dem or Dem soc, both of which uphold the capitalist class. He’s proposing good work to make a few inroads but not proposing his potential constituency own the means of production which is the definition of socialism.
For the record, he’s a democratic socialist, not a social democrat. These are distinct, though related movements. The difference between them, which you seem confused about, is that socialists do not uphold the capitalist class, despite your claims. Social democrats want to retain capitalism, while democratic socialists do not.
However, democratic socialists do have differences of opinion with more radical socialists on the best way to achieve the socialized means of production they aim for. They favor reform over revolution.
You are welcome to disagree with this view but it’s not a good reason to view their socialism as false or insincere.
No need to reply, since we already established that you’re not interested in good faith discourse. But I couldn’t leave this misinformation unchallenged.