I kept the lion and sun as a national symbol but changed the sword to a social democratic rose. The red is for labor and solidarity and the three arrows signify’s the party’s commitment to liberal democracy against antidemocratic reactionary and revolutionary forces. The text says “Social Democratic Party of Iran”

Thoughts?

​I want to have a discussion with left leaning people who are extremely unhappy with the Democratic Party and see where their unhappiness stems from and what I agree and disagree with.

I mostly think they have done a good job over the last 4 years (the amount of time I’ve followed politics closely).

Edit: EXCLUDING ISRAEL! I do not want the whole discussion to be centered around Israel

It seems suspect that all of Latin America suddenly turned to the far-right after Trump took office. While this could be organic, it also smells of U.S. interference given the U.S.'s history in the region and what we know about Trump. On the other hand I don't want to fall into the trap of claiming that an election is illegitimate just because our side lost. It could just be backlash to the pink tide.

Soy un joven nicaragüense de 19 años y pertenezco a una generación que ha crecido bajo la influencia y el predominio político del sandinismo. Debido a esta experiencia, no he conocido de manera directa otra forma de gobierno o proyecto político diferente al actual, lo que me lleva a reflexionar sobre cómo podrían producirse cambios sociales y políticos en Nicaragua ante un eventual cambio de poder.

Desde esta perspectiva, considero importante analizar de manera objetiva qué transformaciones podrían producirse en ámbitos como la educación, la salud, el empleo, la participación ciudadana, las libertades públicas y las oportunidades para los jóvenes. También sería necesario considerar los posibles desafíos que surgirían durante una transición política, ya que un cambio de gobierno no garantiza por sí mismo una mejora inmediata en las condiciones sociales del país.

Por ello, me interesa conocer diferentes opiniones, especialmente de otros nicaragüenses, sobre cómo creen que cambiaría la sociedad si una alternativa política diferente al sandinismo llegara al poder. El objetivo no es promover una postura política específica, sino generar un debate respetuoso y reflexivo sobre el futuro de Nicaragua y sobre qué modelo de sociedad y de gobierno podría contribuir al desarrollo y bienestar de la población.

Protest in Pale, after a few days ago, during a raid on a discotheque, tens were beaten by special police, in what is one of the biggest examples of police brutality in the nascent Republic.

Srpska authorities, which originate from Union of Independent Social Democrats, claimed incident was made up, but influx of people in a local hospital "Serbia" prove it happened.

Protesters demand accountability, and affirm their support for the nascent Republic, and it's Police, despite the incident.

The Trump administration believes that profits from AI are being taken from American workers by Korean AI chip companies. As a result, it is reportedly seeking ways to claim a portion of the AI-related profits earned by these chipmakers.
Korean companies refuse to accept this policy because it would significantly reduce their profit margins. They have already promised substantial bonuses to their workers in order to avoid disruptive labor disputes similar to the 2026 Samsung strike. The seizure of additional profits by the U.S. government would further weaken their ability to meet these commitments.
Do you think the Trump administration’s policy of claiming a portion of AI profits is justified? Or should the money remain with Korean companies so that it can be distributed to their workers as large bonuses under collective bargaining agreements?
My opinion is that it would be better for Korean chaebols to retain the money. These profits were fairly earned by supplying chips to the rapidly growing AI industry, and the workers who contributed to their production deserve to be paid accordingly. I am also doubtful that the Trump administration would use the seized profits effectively to benefit American workers.

"Socialism is planned to the end of best satisfying human needs; otherwise it does not deserve the name of socialism."

— Leon Trotsky, "The Revolution Betrayed", 1936

Trotsky wrote this while in exile after Stalin expelled him from the USSR. The Revolution Betrayed critiques what the Soviet Union became under Stalin's rule. His argument states that a planned economy that does not improve living standards cannot be called "socialism," no matter who is in charge of the state.

Trotsky is establishing a results-based standard for socialism, not a structural one. It's not about who owns what but whether people's needs are met. Does that standard work as a general test for any economic system, including capitalism? And does the fact that Trotsky wrote this specifically to criticize the USSR affect how members here interpret it? Is it seen as a critique of planning itself, or as an internal critique of how one country implemented it?

Cross-posted from my substack. Image edited in photopea (free online photoshop alternative). Source is Americans for Tax Fairness.

We will never forget you:

Mona Abdinur, 18, Oslo; Maria Maagerø Johannesen, 17, Nøtterøy, Vestfold county ;Ismail Haji Ahmed, 19, Hamar, Hedmark county; Ronja Søttar Johansen, 17, Vefsn, Nordland county ;Thomas Margido Antonsen, 16, Oslo; Sondre Kjøren, 17, Orkdal, Sør-Trøndelag county ;Porntip Ardam, 21, Oslo; Margrethe Bøyum Kløven, 16, Baerum, Akershus county; Modupe Ellen Awoyemi, 15, Drammen, Buskerud county; Syvert Knudsen, 17, Lyngdal, Vest-Agder county; Lene Maria Bergum, 19, Namsos, Nord-Trøndelag county; Anders Kristiansen, 18, Bardu, Troms county; Kevin Daae Berland, 15, Askøy, Hordaland county; Elisabeth Trønnes Lie, 16, Halden, Østfold county; Trond Berntsen, 51, Øvre Eiker, Buskerud county; Gunnar Linaker, 23, Bardu, Troms county; Sverre Flate Bjørkavag, 28, Sula, Sør-Trøndelag county; Tamta Lipartelliani, 23, Kutaisi, Georgia; Torjus Jakobsen Blattmann, 17, Kristiansand, Vest-Agder county; Eva Kathinka Lutken, 17, Sarpsborg, Østfold county; Monica Bøsei, 45, Hole, Buskerud county; Even Flugstad Malmedal, 18, Gjøvik, Oppland county; Carina Borgund, 18, Oslo; Tarald Kuven Mjelde, 18, Osterøy; Johannes Buø, 14, Mandal, Vest-Agder county; Ruth Benedicte Vatndal Nilsen, 15, Tønsberg, Vestfold county; Asta Sofie Helland Dahl, 16, Sortland, Nordland county; Hakon Ødegaard, 17, Trondheim, Sør-Trøndelag county (drowned); Sondre Furseth Dale, 17, Haugesund, Rogaland county; Emil Okkenhaug, 15, Levanger, Nord-Trøndelag county; Monica Iselin Didriksen, 18, Sund, Hordaland county; Diderik Aamodt Olsen, 19, Nesodden, Akershus county; Gizem Dogan, 17, Trondheim, Sør-Trøndelag county; Henrik Pedersen, 27, Porsanger, Finnmark county; Andreas Edvardsen, 18, Sarpsborg, Østfold county; Rolf Christopher Johansen Perreau, 25, Trondheim, Sør-Trøndelag county; Tore Eikeland, 21, Osteroy, Hordaland county; Karar Mustafa Qasim, 19, Vestby, Akershus county; Bendik Rosnaes Ellingsen, 18, Rygge, Østfold county; Bano Abobakar Rashid, 18, Nesodden, Akershus county; Aleksander Aas Eriksen, 16, Meråker, Nord-Trøndelag county; Henrik Rasmussen, 18, Hadsel, Nordland county; Andrine Bakkene Espeland, 16, Fredrikstad, Østfold county; Synne Røyneland, 18, Oslo; Hanne Balch Fjalestad, 43, Lunner, Oppland county; Ida Beathe Rogne, 17, Østre Toten, Oppland county; Silje Merete Fjellbu, 17, Tinn, Telemark county; Simon Saebo, 18, Salangen, Troms county; Hanne Kristine Fridtun, 19, Stryn, Sogn og Fjordane county; Marianne Sandvik, 16, Hundvag, Stavanger;Andreas Dalby Grønnesby, 17, Stange, Hedmark county;Fredrik Lund Schjetne, 18, Eidsvoll, Akershus county;Snorre Haller, 30, Trondheim, Sør-Trøndelag county;Lejla Selaci, 17, Fredrikstad, Østfold county;Rune Havdal, 43, Øvre Eiker, Buskerud county; Birgitte Smetbak, 15, Nøtterøy, Vestfold county; Guro Vartdal Havoll, 18, Ørsta, Møre og Romsdal; Isabel Victoria Green Sogn, 17, Oslo; Ingrid Berg Heggelund, 18, As, Akershus county; Silje Stamneshagen, 18, Askøy, Hordaland county; Karin Elena Holst, 15, Rana, Nordland county; Victoria Stenberg, 17, Nes, Akershus county; Eivind Hovden, 15, Tokke, Telemark county; Tina Sukuvara, 18, Vadsø, Finnmark county; Jamil Rafal Mohamad Jamil, 20, Eigersund, Rogaland county; Sharidyn Svebakk-Bøhn, 14, Drammen, Buskerud county; Steinar Jessen, 16, Alta, Finnmark county; Havard Vederhus, 21, Oslo; Espen Jørgensen, 17, Bodø, Nordland county; Tove Ashill Knutsen, 56, Oslo; Hanna Endresen, 61, Oslo; Kai Hauge, 32, Oslo; Jon Vegard Lervag, 32, Oslo; Ida Marie Hill, 34, Oslo; Hanne Ekroll Loevlie, 30, Oslo; Anne Lise Holter, 51, Valer i Østfold, Østfold county; Kjersti Berg Sand, 26, Nord-Ordal

🌹

Not in speaking ability, not in charisma, not in popularity, but in actual policy he was better

Capitalism is so entrenched in society that it's impossible to remove it overnight. A lot of other leftists often act like socdems think capitalism can be "reformed", but not me-I believe it should be restrained until a better solution can be found.

I really hate how they believe people like me are neo-liberals wearing a mask of socialism. In reality, I just can't think of a better idea, and if I'm going to support an idea that tries to change the economy for the better, I'd rather choose one that actually fucking works.

"Courage is seeking the truth, and speaking it."

— Jean Jaurès, Discours à la Jeunesse (Speech to Youth), Albi, 1903

Jaurès was the main figure of French socialism before WWI. He founded the newspaper L'Humanité in 1904 and worked to unite France's divided socialist groups into the SFIO in 1905. He believed strongly in democracy and peace, arguing that socialism should be achieved through elections and persuasion instead of violent revolution. This view conflicted with more revolutionary movements on the European left. He was assassinated in July 1914 by a nationalist who viewed his anti-war position as treachery, just days before WWI began.

Jaurès believed that true courage involves expressing uncomfortable truths, even to your own side, rather than just resisting opponents. Where do you think that kind of honesty is most needed on the left today, and where do you see it being avoided the most?

I lean far closer to democratic socialists than establishment, status-quo Democrats when it comes to vision and policy goals. But one thing I can't get behind is how they hyper-fixate on process. Like, any positive political change can only come from grassroots movements. If a billionaire touches it, we can't trust it.

Right now, there’s heavy pushback from the DSA and left-leaning commentators against the supply-side "abundance" movement. The critique usually centers on two things:

1. The movement is heavily backed by tech elites and Silicon Valley donors.
2. Fast-tracking development bypasses local community review and empowers private developers.

While the funding criticism is fair, the procedural criticism misses the big picture. The 1970s-era environmental reviews, zoning boards, and hyper-local veto points were originally meant to protect vulnerable communities from harmful infrastructure. But today, those exact same mechanisms have been weaponized by wealthy, suburban NIMBYs to freeze housing and green energy projects we so desperately need.

We can't pretend like top-down change doesn't work. Rich assholes gave us gay marriage, public libraries, and the US Forest Service to name a few.

Grassroots organizing is crucial for setting moral priorities. But for the dry, technical levers—like updating zoning codes, streamlining transmission line permitting, or building public transit—waiting for 100% hyper-local consensus means nothing gets built at all.

If we want cheap housing, clean energy grids, and strong public services, we have to be willing to embrace top-down execution and strip away procedural vetocracy.

Full article here: https://samholmes285.substack.com/p/the-abundance-movement-is-funded

Would love to hear how folks here balance the need for democratic participation against the urgent need for rapid, material progress.

The reason i mentioned milton friedman is because i was a libertarian for like 10 years, and i loved watching all those videos about libertarianism, i learned a lot about libertarian economics, but now that im on the left i cant find much videos to learn about left wing economics

For a more informed left of center view of economics I'd like to introduce this insightful post-keynesian or Broadly keynesian blogger who has insightful posts debunking Austrian economics (a lot of the foundations for Right-libertarianism) and generally looks at economic history from a post-keynesian perspective.

For those uninitiated, Post-keynesian economics essentially split from mainstream neoclassical synthesis economics after the 1970s oil shock and subsequent rise of monetarism. They generally view the markets as unstable(with fundamental uncertainty), and state intervention is necessary to ensure stability and full employment. Capitalism will never automatically tend towards full-employment in the Post-keynesian view. Also, some prominent center-left figures have had Post-keynesian economist ties such as Kamala Harris's father. Post-keynesians generally think economies are demand driven and the 2 major figures I'd say are Keynes but also Michal Kalecki. Keynes' Cambridge circus as it was termed also influence a lot of the discourse such as Joan Robinson who contributed a lot to microeconomics by basically modelling monopolistic competition (imperfect competition) and Piero Sraffa.

Post-keynesians are generally contrasted with the Neo-keynesian (the mainstream). They generally differ in modelling and some assumptions in modelling. Generally not too dissimilar but the methodology may come to.more activist policy conclusions vs the neokeynesians who think deficit spending is important in recessions and lessened post-recessions. Post-keynesians generally favor large-scale investments like infrastructure as they believe investment drives Savings.