82
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
82 points (98.8% liked)
chat
8645 readers
267 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I think flattening definitions like this reduces the level of conversation and analysis. Ancom=syndicalist=mutualist, Marxist-leninist=MLM=CPC would also flatten the conversation around relevant topics on our left-wing discussuon forum.
I wouldn't disagree that these factions currently have a lot of alignment in the current US political context. We see this demonstrated with AES being a "unity candidate" between the left and even part of the liberal establishment.
I would phrase it differently, but it's very hard to contest that the bulk of "democratic socialists" in America are literally socdems ("Nordic socialists" or whatever) which literally is a type of liberal.
There are also genuine democratic socialists, who are incorrect but for different reasons, but I think they might be in the minority of people using that title.
If we are discussing from a perspective within the US, I think that flattening our vocabulary weakens our analysis. I think there is a chance (though not overwhelmingly likely) that the differences between these factions will become more pronounced in the future, rather than less. I would like our community to retain the vocabulary to identify it if it happens.
I dont expect discussions from a non-US perspective to care too much about it, though.
I agree that we shouldn't flatten our vocabulary, but consider that treating all self-identifying demsocs as just being "demsocs" is flattening the distinction between actual demsocs and "Nordic socialist" socdems.
I think the conflation is fairly accurate in this case, as the "DemSocs" in question don't believe in (and therefore constantly contradict) forwarding and defending socialism, but maintaining and moderately reforming capitalism. This means they are actually SocDems at best and SocDems are just a kind of "progressive" liberal.