I've been thinking about the Vietnam War, the anti-war protests associated with it (and the popularisation of the "all soldiers are imperialist baby-killers" attitude that doesn't seem to have gone away from leftist spaces), its strategic goals, and whether it was avoidable or not. Especially with regards to the domino theory, like if Vietcong takeover could have been avoided had the US not interfered or if the war merely delayed the inevitable. I ask you fine people because I am curious to know about this sub's position(s) on this pivotal moment of the Cold War, and whatever role social democracy may have played in the war.

What are your thoughts on the Vietnam War in general?

Was the war an inevitability or was it entirely avoidable? Especially in the context of Cold War geopolitics and optics? With the USSR and Maoist China watching?

Was the war justified or unjustified? If yes, why? If not, why?

Would a North Vietnamese victory have happened anyways regardless of American intervention? Did the war simply delay the inevitable? Or would a South Vietnamese victory have been in the cards had the US not intervened? Was there even the possibility of South Vietnamese victory?

Had the US won, how differently would the Cold War have proceeded?

Why did so many hippies and anti-war protesters hold a "all soldiers are imperialist baby-killers" attitude towards returning personnel? Despite them being drafted?

Bonus question: even if you think the Vietnam War was an unjust war, were there any positive effects from its happening, in your opinion?

I’m just curious as to whether or not, on the small chance a socialist movement gets momentum and we get a socialist elected into the White House, if it were possible to diminish its presence in our government. Because to me, as we brag so much about being the best, the MIC is one of many problems that face our nation, and is probably why the Democratic Party won’t fully commit to the ceasefire, because the MIC is making lots of money off of their weapons shipments to Israel, on top of all of the weapons we send to Ukraine and any other nation that buys our weapons, and some of that money could go to lobbying or campaign funds. I’d just prefer it if we were more inclined to deal in peace than deal in war.

Do you think a social safety net like what we have now in the USA but more robust/reformed would be better, or a UBI?

Idk how to tag this so I'm just gonna tag it under theory.

I just read some articles and books about the failure of the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) to adequately provide an alternative to austerity and Nazi economic policy and decided to provide a quick summary of the timeline as well as the socioeconomic and political factors at play.

Throughout the 1920s Rudolf Hilferding, a fairly Orthodox Marxist, was considered the second coming of Marx within the SPD (which was far more left-wing at the time than it is now) and was hence completely immune to criticism. His basic socioeconomic thesis was that capitalism was doomed to fail in the long term as it would move from financial crisis to financial crisis, and that there was no true socialist solution to such crises other than deliberate ignorance and the natural resolution of the crisis or the transformation of the economy to a socialist one through revolution. In 1929, one of the worst financial crises in economic history occurred. In 1930 the second Mueller cabinet, a cabinet of the SPD and various bourgeois parties such as the Zentrum and the Deustche Volkspartei, fell due to disputes over austerity measures. President Hindenburg dismissed the cabinet and made Heinrich Bruening Chancellor, who was to lead a "presidential government" and lead by decree, with the SPD delegation in the Reichstag "tolerating" his government.

Bruening's economic thesis was based on the conception that unemployment was not an economic concern and that the Reichsmark (the currency) should be as strong as possible. He hypothesised that such an approach would result in hard credit and the quick resolution of Germany's war reparations. Hilferding's position was similar, as he was critical in the 1924 stabilisation of the currency through the Rentenmark. As such, a series of decrees were rolled out, with implicit SPD support, which cut welfare spending and increased taxes on the lower brackets substantially. Hilferding would only be concerned if the decrees would result in real wage cuts, without concern for unemployment.

Meanwhile, Wladimir Woytinsky, who witnessed the fall of Russia and Italy to communism and fascism respectively, drafted a plan for unprecedented public works spending to deliberately inflate the economy. At the time in almost all Western economies considered public works a welfare measure, not one which could be used to stabilise the economy. Woytinsky argued that the issue would not be real wage cuts but unemployment, and predicted a "deflationary spiral" if Bruening continued with his path. Hilferding considered this ideological heresy which went against the basic tenets of Marxism. Otto Wels, one of the key party leaders, considered it antithetical to the SPD's sociopolitical goals. The SPD, they said, was meant to represent organized labour and not the unemployed.

The SPD went into the 1930 election stuck defending the deeply unpopular economic policies of Chancellor Bruening and was punished. It lost about 6 percent of the vote. The NSDAP (Nazis) led by Adolf Hitler, along with the KPD (Communists), were the big winners. Those two parties promised swift economic action. Bruening continued his "presidential government" and was only emboldened in his deflationary course. Woytinsky further polished his plan. Fritz Tarnow, a trade-unionist, and Reichstag member Fritz Baade threw their backing behind the plan, which was now to be called the WTB-plan (Woytinsky, Tarnow, Baade). The plan was also backed by Theodor Leipart, the boss of the largest trade union in Germany.

However, Hilferding stood firm in his stance against inflationary measures to prevent a deflationary spiral, despite recent economic evidence that the Bank of England's attempt to devalue the pound to inflate the economy helped lessen the blow of the Great Depression. The labour unions began to disassociate from the SPD due to dissatisfaction with Hilferding's course. In 1932 a debate was held among the labour unions and the SPD delegation to the Reichstag. Hilferding again repeated that the WTB-plan was antithetical to the basic principles of Marxism. Woytinsky argued that the threat of the Nazis was too great to continue to defer action, and that the threat was in itself due to the ability of the NSDAP and KPD to promise economic action. In fact the Nazi economic plan, devised by Gregor Strasser, was substantially based on the WTB-plan. All labour unions representatives voted in favour of the plan; all Reichstag members (except for Baade) voted against, due to their tendency to defer to the economic expertise of Hilferding.

Two new chancellors, the Prussian coup, and two elections in 1932 yielded the Nazis a majority, and the 1933 Enabling Act spelled the end of the Weimar Republic (and the lives of millions of people).

Sorry this is a pretty basic post lol

This is a short pamphlet meant to be passed out. I plan on going in-depth later on, but these are what I see as main issues in society. Please comment on it, criticize it, and share it around. All engagement is welcome.

Land, Exploitation, Individuality, and the very concept of Ownership is on the table. We need to revolutionize our way of thinking and grow. The enemy of the people are the elites, the owners, and those who want to destroy our liberties.

https://preview.redd.it/c0ovb17neckd1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c64dc37f7893288acc7d4221cc81eb9a76de9681

And in what proportion? Are unions reliably pro democrat, or divided with only a slim majority supporting democrats?

Has anyone ever heard of any government consulting groups that operate out of the Nordic countries?

I ask because I have heard of fact-finding missions. These are trips that Americans routinely organize to see how people do things in other countries. In the book Viking Economics, the author comments on a Chinese delegation that travels to Norway to study how their healthcare system works. Finland is renowned for its education system.

So I'm wondering if there are groups who consult for governments that have extensive experience in some of the best run countries in the world?

I ask this being quite familiar with, and agreeing with, critiques about too much outsourcing eroding state capacity.

We all know that social democracy is truly excellent for creating a better quality of life for people. But what about pure economic growth?

No semantics about how growth isn’t important compared to quality of life; that’s besides the point. (Also imo, GDP growth is important for remaining competitive with geopolitical rivals, so it’s not something we can just choose not to care about.)

To the point where the Democratic Party effectively abandoned its entire left wing and almost entirely embraced centrism, neoliberalism, and the third way under Bill Clinton? This continued all the way until 2020, where under Joe Biden, the Democrats have finally began to turn left again.

To be clear, I mean the economic left. Obviously socially liberal ideas and movements have continued to thrive and win countless battles.

Was it a mistaken position by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair that being economically left wing wasn’t electable on a national level in the 90s-2000s?

Would Bill Clinton have lost in 1992 if he ran as a new deal democrat?

Secession is the idea of a part of a country breaking off and forming their own country.

Many people believe that this has issues in a social democracy where the central government plays a big part in infrastructure , spending and building up the people. The idea that at any time a part of the country could just leave has some implications.

Let's say that a social democracy builds a new state owned nuclear power plant for the people of the nation. They build it in a town of like 5000 people. If Secession was a right like many on the left think it should be, then at any moment hat town could Seceded and the nuclear power plant built by the whole nation's taxpayer money now belongs to them and it could be privatized and bought by some billionaire. Hypothetically a billionaire could just bribe the town to vote to Secede and bribe them for the plant.

So the countries of the European Union especially the Nordics have been held up as the golden standard of social democracy. Critics have argued that their economic model wasn't sustainable. Now these countries are having really bad economic issues, so what does that say about social democracy ? Do you think this is temporary ?

I’m currently figuring out my political beliefs and I find myself very attracted to certain left leaning ideas, but I really don’t like the standard Marxist Leninist views. I appreciate their critiques of capitalism, but I’m also frustrated with their admiration of the USSR and their desire for a revolution. I’m also frustrated with the wholesale rejection of the American political system as a way to make our society better.

Social democracy seems to be what I’m looking for. I’d like to learn more about it, but the only leftist youtube channels and podcasts I find seem to be Marxist Leninist types. Are there youtube channels/podcasts that I can watch to learn more about social democracy? What about book recommendations?

So, this scenario results in no Donald Trump. But on the other hand, Hillary winning means we almost certainly never see a Biden presidency, which means we would not see the beginning of a movement away from neoliberalism. Additionally, I presume Hillary would have practiced and strengthened a version of “third way” politics had she been victorious. Thoughts?

We probably like to rag on the US in this here sub for the kind of capitalism it practices (tipping culture, privatised healthcare etc.) and we probably go on about how it should adopt a form of the Nordic model or the soziale Marktwirtschaft to save it/truly make it great again (after taking into account sociocultural differences of course).

But what I want to ask is this:

What is it that the USA genuinely does better than any other country out there and that the rest of the world should emulate?

It could be anything from any aspect of it, be it from their economics, their laws, their foreign policies, their institutions, their general sociocultural tapestry, anything really. Anything that you think the US does better than say, Sweden or the Netherlands.

For example, I heard that their national park system is second to none.

So what do you think the USA is truly #1 at in the world? And if other countries could benefit from emulating it?

The enthusiastic response that AOC got from even moderate Democrats has convinced me that it's entirely plausible AOC may win a democratic primary and possibly the presidency at some point in the future. A glimmer of hope on the horizon

Embedded liberalism is the term given to the post war global economic system that existed during the late 1940s to the early 1970s.

However I can't find a lot of in depth information on it.

According to the Wikipedia article titled "Embedded Liberalism", it was essentially a normal regulated capitalist economy the allowed for free trade but also allowed for governments to limit the movement of capital so that they could intervene in the economy for social welfare purposes.

That's a pretty broad overview. It doesn't provide fine details. I know the major economies linked there exchange rates close to each other and the main goal of governments was to provide full employment, but is that all it is?

What is your input on Embedded Liberalism?

https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf