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.

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.

"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?

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.

Do most see the advent of marriages as generally positive, or same sex marriage specifically having positive impact?

I tend to see it as a completely inconsequential freedom all should have.

I’m a social democrat because I believe it combines the strengths of capitalism and socialism while avoiding the biggest failures of both. I don’t believe completely free markets solve every problem, but I also don’t believe the government should own everything. Social democracy accepts that markets create wealth, innovation, and jobs, but argues that democracy should ensure that wealth benefits society as a whole rather than only a small number of people.
1. Capitalism creates wealth, but it needs rules.
History shows that market economies are incredibly good at producing goods, developing technology, and raising living standards. Countries with market economies have generally become richer than countries with centrally planned economies.
However, history also shows that markets left entirely on their own often create problems:
monopolies that eliminate competition
dangerous working conditions
child labour
environmental pollution
financial crashes
extreme inequality
Social democracy doesn’t reject capitalism. Instead, it regulates it.
For example:
minimum wages
workplace safety laws
anti-monopoly legislation
consumer protections
environmental regulations
These don’t abolish markets. They make markets work better for ordinary people.

2. Evidence from the Nordic countries
Many of the world’s highest-performing countries have long traditions of social democracy or social democratic influence.
Examples include:
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Finland
Iceland
These countries consistently rank near the top globally in areas such as:
life expectancy
happiness
education
healthcare
social mobility
trust in government
low corruption
worker protections
press freedom
Importantly, these countries are not socialist economies. Companies like IKEA, Volvo, Ericsson, Novo Nordisk, Spotify, and Maersk all grew in market-based economies. The Nordic model combines private enterprise with strong public services and redistribution.

3. Healthcare should not depend on wealth.
Social democracy argues healthcare is a public good.
Without universal healthcare:
poorer people delay treatment
diseases become worse
preventable illnesses become expensive emergencies
families can face financial hardship because of medical bills
Universal healthcare systems are generally associated with better health outcomes and broader access to care than systems where access depends heavily on ability to pay, although countries organize healthcare in different ways and each system has trade-offs.
Healthy people are also more productive workers.
Healthcare isn’t only compassionate.
It’s economically sensible.

4. Education is one of the best investments a country can make.
Social democrats believe talent exists everywhere.
Opportunity does not.
If education depends entirely on family wealth, many capable people never reach their potential.
Public education:
produces skilled workers
increases productivity
raises wages
encourages innovation
strengthens democracy
Every engineer, doctor, scientist and teacher contributes more to the economy than the cost of educating them.

5. Workers deserve protection.
Before labour reforms in many countries:
children worked in factories
workers regularly died from unsafe conditions
people worked extremely long hours
there was no paid holiday
there was no sick leave
Many labour protections were achieved through political movements that included social democrats and trade unions.
Examples include:
weekends
paid holidays
maternity leave
workplace safety standards
pensions
unemployment insurance
Markets create jobs.
Governments help ensure those jobs are safe and fairly compensated.

6. Strong welfare can support economic stability.
Social democracy supports a safety net for people who lose their jobs, become disabled, or face temporary hardship.
The argument is practical as well as moral.
People with some financial security are more likely to:
keep spending during recessions
retrain for new careers
avoid homelessness
recover after setbacks
That can make economies more resilient during downturns.

7. Fair taxation.
Social democracy generally supports progressive taxation.
This means people with higher incomes usually pay a higher percentage in tax than people with lower incomes.
The reasoning is that:
infrastructure benefits everyone
businesses depend on educated workers
businesses depend on roads, courts, police and stable institutions
successful societies require public investment
Taxes fund the systems that allow economies to function.

8. Equality of opportunity.
Social democrats often distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
They generally do not argue everyone should earn exactly the same.
Instead, they argue everyone should have a fair chance to succeed regardless of:
birthplace
family income
disability
gender
ethnicity
People can still become rich.
The goal is to reduce unfair barriers.

9. Democracy is essential.
Unlike authoritarian systems, social democracy insists that governments must be chosen through free elections and remain accountable to voters.
It supports:
free speech
free elections
independent courts
independent media
human rights
rule of law
Economic reforms should happen through democratic institutions, not dictatorship.

10. It has shown durability.
Since the mid-20th century, social democratic parties have helped shape many European welfare states. Over time, many of their policies, such as public pensions, universal healthcare in several countries, labour protections, and expanded education, have been adopted or maintained by governments across the political spectrum.

11. Social mobility.
Countries with stronger education systems, healthcare access, and social safety nets often have higher social mobility, meaning a person’s future depends less on the income of the family they were born into.
The idea is simple:
Success should depend more on effort and ability than on luck at birth.

12. It balances freedom with responsibility.
Social democracy tries to answer two questions simultaneously:
“How do we create wealth?”
Answer:
Markets, businesses, innovation and entrepreneurship.
“How do we distribute the benefits fairly?”
Answer:
Democratic government, taxation, public services and social insurance.
Rather than seeing markets and government as enemies, it treats them as complementary institutions with different roles.

Common criticisms and responses
Social democracy also faces criticisms. Some argue that high taxes can discourage investment or that generous welfare programs can reduce incentives to work if poorly designed. Social democrats generally respond that these risks can be managed through careful policy design, and they point to countries with both competitive economies and extensive welfare states as evidence that strong public services and economic growth can coexist.

In summary
I support social democracy because I believe it offers a practical balance between economic efficiency and social fairness. It accepts the value of private enterprise, competition, and entrepreneurship while recognizing that markets alone do not guarantee equal opportunity, public health, quality education, or protection from hardship. By combining a market economy with democratic institutions, worker protections, universal public services, and a social safety net, I believe it aims to create a society where people have both the freedom to succeed and the support to recover when life goes wrong. Human societies are messy enough without pretending every problem has a one-ideology solution. Social democracy, at its best, is an attempt to manage that mess through democratic compromise rather than ideological purity.

The far far-right party of my country is gonna hold a manifestation in my city. Me and my local left-left bloc parties and their youth sections plan on counter-protesting. What good info needs to be known?

> "Direct action gets the goods."

— organizing slogan of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), in wide use since the 1910s

No single person came up with this idea. It came from IWW pamphlets and speeches that promoted "direct action," such as strikes, slowdowns, and workplace organizing, instead of depending on politicians, lawsuits, or arbitration. The IWW, founded in 1905, organized across different industries and skill levels rather than by craft. It remains active today, mainly focusing on low-wage and gig-economy organizing.

This is truly a strategic claim, not just a slogan. Workers benefit more from direct actions like strikes and boycotts than from legislative or electoral options. Where do you think this is still true today? In what cases has electoral or legislative action, such as minimum wage laws, collective bargaining rights, and EU labor protections, clearly outperformed direct action? Is this a choice between the two, or do they typically work together?

The CJP movement began as a student-led campaign demanding accountability after repeated examination paper leaks and broader reforms in India's education system. What started as anger over the futures of millions of students gradually evolved into a wider movement calling for transparency, government accountability, and the protection of democratic rights.

Supporters argue that the movement is no longer only about education—it is about every citizen's right to peacefully protest, question those in power, and demand accountability without fear. They believe that governments should respond to public criticism through dialogue rather than suppression.

At the same time, as the protests grew larger, some demonstrations turned confrontational. There have been reports of protesters attempting to breach police barricades, incidents of stone-pelting, and clashes with security forces in places such as New Delhi. Police responded with tear gas and baton charges, while protesters and activists accused authorities of using excessive force. Both sides have blamed each other for the violence, and the vast majority of demonstrations have remained peaceful despite these incidents.

Whether one agrees with the CJP's demands or not, the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of India's constitutional democracy. Democracies are strongest when citizens can express dissent peacefully and governments remain accountable to the people. Violence—whether by protesters or through excessive use of force by authorities—undermines those democratic ideals and distracts from the issues being raised.

A note on democracy in India

The protests have also reignited a broader debate about the state of Indian democracy under the BJP government. Critics—including opposition parties, many civil society organizations, and some international democracy watchdogs—argue that India has experienced democratic backsliding in recent years. They point to concerns such as the use of investigative agencies against political opponents, pressure on independent media, restrictions on some civil society organizations, internet shutdowns, and the use of laws against activists and journalists.

The BJP rejects these accusations, arguing that it is strengthening governance, fighting corruption, and enforcing the law equally. Government leaders also maintain that India's elections remain free and competitive and that democratic institutions continue to function.

Whether one agrees with these criticisms or not, the debate over the balance between national security, effective governance, and civil liberties has become one of the defining political issues in contemporary India.

I think we need way higher taxes on the rich and large corporations, and a lot more services. Healthcare should be free*, and we need to do something to provide housing for those who lack it. I don't know exactly how to do this, but I know capitalism is failing here, and I absolutely do not support inhumane or coercive measures like institutionalization. State collages should probably be free* as well.

*Yes I know nothing is cost free, I am using "free" to mean "100% govt subsidized"

It is important that these subsidies do not become "strings attached" leading to government putting conditions on healthcare or education or other services, for example inserting bias in curriculum, refusing to pay for trans-related healthcare, conditioning healthcare payments on getting vaccinated, etc.

I'm very much against mass surveillance and believe the criminal justice system is violent and inhumane, though there are some people so dangerous that they do need to be jailed, but under humane conditions. In general I think imprisonment and similarly carceral sentences should only be used where absolutely necessary.

I believe discrimination/bigotry has been one of the biggest problems in our world and believe it to be wrong in all forms. It has lead to genocides, slavery, marriage restrictions (both gay and interracial) voting restrictions, and all manner of evils. Because of this I also oppose viewing people as members of oppressor groups on the basis of race or gender, the real oppressors with power are corporations and government, and the "oppressed class" is everyone who is not obscenely rich or implementing govt power, including most white men. It is true that some people are on average more oppressed than others because of their race or gender, but white men still don't have much power unless they are leveraging the power of corporations, government, or other organizations, the real oppressive power lies with institutions, not demographic groups.

I think dividing society into oppressed and oppressor demographic groups is particularly harmful as applied to gender, specifically the idea that domestic and sexual violence is inherently misogynist oppression. This erases male victims and puts them at risk of being treated as perpetrators (false accusations are literally the R in DARVO, an acronym for a common tactic of abusers https://harbormentalhealth.com/2025/10/31/darvo-manipulation-how-to-spot-and-protect-yourself/ )

This is not to downplay the problem of abuse of women, but to say that anyone can be a victim or perpetrator regardless of gender.

I do not agree with narratives that how much power someone has is dependent on their race/gender, because power is contextual, it is not just something that a person has or does not have, for example someone could have a ton of power over their employees but no power at all in an interaction with law enforcement.

I strongly support democracy, and believe in a strict adherence to the bill of rights, govt should not be able to bend the rules on this, even if they argue it is in the public good, and there needs to be some sort of court system or other enforcement mechanism to stop a majority of voters from voting away the rights of the others. I am fairly absolutist on free speech, not because bigotry and misnfo are worth protecting, but because anyone given the authority to gatekeep speech has the power to end democracy. No authority can be above questioning.

I believe strongly in bodily autonomy, so I am pro-choice, this also extends to skepticism of many cases of forced mental health treatment and vaccine mandates (including private vaccine mandates, since I don't view corporations as any less capable of infringing rights/oppressing people than govt). I do think vaccines are good though.

I believe in a strong military to defend the US, allies, and freedom of navigation, and think foreign policy should promote peace and human rights. I do not believe sovereignty is a right of governments, only people have rights, so I find it bizarre when people describe wars against dictatorships (which are not accountable to the people) as violating sovereignty, but other criticisms of the recent wars, like civilian harm and terrible strategy, are valid IMO.