You will never convince me it should be. 

Apparently, I am the one being dogmatic here

anytime we try to get reasonable social programs that I want, people wrongly call it "socialism" and screenshot posts like yours to prove it is just the process that will lead to socialism.

You’re not going to get anywhere if you care this much about what some random people on the internet think. Socialism is becoming more and more normal to be in favor of, because we are not exactly advocating for forced collectivization here.

Ok so here's the thing. The party isn't more progressive because people don't vote. When progressives lose elections it is largely because a bunch of people sat out. So you can blame, and should blame the voters for not forcing the liberals into a position where they have to compromise with progressives. If there's 10 progressives in the House with 215 Dems that means 205 of them are liberals or straight up Republican ops, because they have those too. Manchin, Gluesenkamp, Golden, Sinema, etc. I am a progressive socdem and I'm getting fucking furious with purity politics and the belief that your responsibility as a citizen stops at voting. Or that they don't even have a responsibility to vote. If people will not fill out a ballot, make phone calls, run campaigns, push their reps, then nobody is going to take you seriously. People keep sitting out elections and then wondering why nobody is listening to them. And I understand the idea that once you vote for them then they just get to do whatever they want and you've lost all control but it's just not the case. Your reps can be pushed to do what you want but you have to actively participate in democracy. Politicians wanna get votes. If you don't vote, they don't care. That's why even though they're a minority of the country you see Dems constantly trying to court Republican voters. They fucking vote. Every 2 years. Look at who's getting their way in this country

By signing a mutual treaty with them while annexing Poland

But I don't see it as the process. You will never convince me it should be. Furthermore, in the US, where I live, anytime we try to get reasonable social programs that I want, people wrongly call it "socialism" and screenshot posts like yours to prove it is just the process that will lead to socialism.

Scornful? I agree with you, I just think it is incredibly naive that having the process be the goal, rather than the means of achieving a goal, is incredibly naive.

I don't know if it will be worth the effort. You seem pretty scornful of the goals I find to be most realistic, achievable, and ideal. I suspect that whatever argument I make will not change your mind.

Elaborate 

And I disagree with you. I have read your reasons, but I do not find them to be persuasive.

If you are choosing between WFP and DSA, you are probably going to be much more productive and less consumed with infighting in the WFP.

I am explaining why I understand there is a difference, but why social democracy should be socialist anyway 

The comparison is not even close. It’s delusional to compare China to the US like Ukraine to Russia.

North Korea does not engage with other countries in good faith. It has no one to blame but itself when it threatens everyone in the region directly and frequently.

Labour

No. I believe you are conflating social democracy with democratic socialism. They are not and should not be the same.

Ah yes, there it is, a definition that conveniently redefines imperialism so as to exclude imperialism committed by non-capitalist nations.

According to this logic, imperialism never existed before the advent of capitalism.

Corbyn is a pro-Russian d-bag.

okay so recognision by other states is what grants legitimacy, That's borderline working on the same rules as Priests.

which for Imperialism, firstly before even starting that it's not government based at all, your definition hinges on Governments.

for a very simplified definition, Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.

when competition has effectively ended so expanding to extracting wealth from other nations.

It was a breakaway state that was recognized by no other state and never exited a state of civil war with its parent country.

Anyway, if not “one country dominating another” how would you define imperialism?

Hopefully, idk.

okay so the CSA does not count as a sovereign state thus it's not imperialism what the US did?

it was de facto a state for years, it had it's own laws it enforced, it had it's own military, it had it's own currency, it also had a core territory it held on for years. So if that does not count as a "sovereign" state then it's an "illegitimate" state, no? which is an arbritrary Value judgement which then we have to move even further down to ask what makes a state sovereign/legitimate by your own words, do you see what i mean with this definition of imperialism is not really useful because it's uses subjective on subjective with value judgements.

>i think your definition of imperialism is rather flawed because not only is it way too vague to be useful really and more used to condemn than being a descriptor, and it relies on "countries" rather than people. With that definition the US conquering the CSA through force could be imperialism and the question of is it imperialism depends on if you count the CSA as a sovereign state (arbritrary judgement criteria) rather than what the US was doing and the why.

The CSA wasn’t a sovereign state, and conversely European nations used abolishing slavery as their justification for conquering various African states where slavery was legal and turning them into colonies, which was pretty morally dubious at best.

>yeah it's only mitigating, but even then the alternative to trying this is somewhat absurd. So instead of trying to organise for this and against the imperialists will instead roll with the less brutal imperialists because the alternative can maybe fall back into that tendency.
Which still these imperialists are not even accountable to you, if you reject the idea of creating an independent organisation/party that can stand up as opposition you're leaving yourself with no alternative, which means they can do essentially whatever they want, because what are you gonna do about it?

As I said before, a Socialist state is no guarantee, at all, against that state engaging in imperialism. And the main reason I don’t support a socialist revolution is because, to begin with, I don’t support violent revolution in a state with even a flawed democracy. Socialism is no guarantee that the higher-ups will be accountable to the common people.

Electoralism rots from within, because it shifts success from how they represent the working class and their interests to electoral results. Which shifting more right /closer to the "norm" means a larger pool of potential voters.

And also only partly a byproduct of the fact Social Democrat Parties tend to get more bourgeoise membership in over time, because the regulations on the market, reforms like education, healthcare etc can and does also benefit the bourgeoise, giving them a healthier and more education working class that can me more productive which means more profitable for them.

i think your definition of imperialism is rather flawed because not only is it way too vague to be useful really and more used to condemn than being a descriptor, and it relies on "countries" rather than people. With that definition the US conquering the CSA through force could be imperialism and the question of is it imperialism depends on if you count the CSA as a sovereign state (arbritrary judgement criteria) rather than what the US was doing and the why.

>Still, none of this necessarily protects against imperialism, just look at the USSR. Anti-imperialism relies on respecting the sovereignty and rights of other nations, even if they are vastly different than your own and have a vastly different form of government.

yeah it's only mitigating, but even then the alternative to trying this is somewhat absurd. So instead of trying to organise for this and against the imperialists will instead roll with the less brutal imperialists because the alternative can maybe fall back into that tendency.
Which still these imperialists are not even accountable to you, if you reject the idea of creating an independent organisation/party that can stand up as opposition you're leaving yourself with no alternative, which means they can do essentially whatever they want, because what are you gonna do about it?

The only viable solution to end capitalism, demagoguery, and all their derived ills is education and post-scarcity together.

Post-scarcity gets rid of the dangling carrot the wealthy use to tempt others into doing their bidding. Education protects people from being fooled into acting against their own benefit, which is always also everyone else's benefit.

>okay so how is countries defined for that definition, because countries aren't people

Well, if one country invades or controls another sovereign country through force, that is clear imperialism. A country can also inherit subject areas that were conquered long ago in past acts of imperialism, and that gets a little more complicated, but the first definition is unambiguous.

>Either way because that is starting to sidetanget, yeah even democratic states can exploit other peoples not included into that democracy's ingroup (a dictorship of a class, that class as a whole is empowered, and the state exists for that classes interests)

For sure.

>But how to ensure that said means of production will be used in the interests of the people of that country, through collective ownership, democratic empowernment. The Capitalists do not share the interests of the vast majority, in basically every example of colonialism or imperialism you will find local collaborators that benefits from the subjegation and are a separate class from the vast majority.

Still, none of this necessarily protects against imperialism, just look at the USSR. Anti-imperialism relies on respecting the sovereignty and rights of other nations, even if they are vastly different than your own and have a vastly different form of government.

okay so how is countries defined for that definition, because countries aren't people.

Either way because that is starting to sidetanget, yeah even democratic states can exploit other peoples not included into that democracy's ingroup (a dictorship of a class, that class as a whole is empowered, and the state exists for that classes interests)

But how is that risk mitigated, International Solidarity beyond immediate nation however one decides to define it. Ensuring that there isn't unequal exchange between them so they are not economically reliant on the manufacturing of the imperialists. ->

But how to ensure that said means of production will be used in the interests of the people of that country, through collective ownership, democratic empowernment. The Capitalists do not share the interests of the vast majority, in basically every example of colonialism or imperialism you will find local collaborators that benefits from the subjegation and are a separate class from the vast majority.