is social democracy capitalism+some state owned departments+ welfare? Social Democracy is still capitalism right?
Social Democracy is simply garbage, as was proven in the early 20th century.
Just "scandinavian socialism"
scandinavia wasn't social democratic in the strict sense
It use a capitalist economy but force everyone to stick together so no one is left behind.
It's the best form of government when done if you ask me, but then someone open the border and poor strangers can just come to get a good life without expanding the economy while the rich are free to go to Belgium, Switzerland or Russia with their money.
Social democracy with open border mean the working man is the only one contributing to society and half of the money supposed to support the working man on his temporary embarrassments or when he retire go feed millions of bums who don't see why they should get a job.
It's Marxism-Leninism with less guns.
capitalism+some state owned departments+ welfare
I would push to include something that has a tinge of actual Keynesianism, for example "and government policies oriented towards full employment" and "With strong trade unions or worker representation in business" as well. Broadly speaking though, yes. Social Democracy is a variation on capitalism.
However, most "Social Democratic" parties today are Social-Neoliberal, and it's worth making a distinction somewhere (it will always be quite fuzzy exactly where) to emphasise this. Tony Blair for example would meet the "capitalism + some nationalised sectors + welfare" criteria (although he privatised many things and butchered welfare), but wasn't really a social democrat. (If you think I'm being nebulous to cover my own arse politically: There are people out there who'd call him a socialist.) Social Democracy is incompatible with neoliberalism.
It's partially a result of a euphemism treadmill of sorts. A lot of early socialists called themselves social democrats and wanted to abolish capitalism, but as things got mired in the compromises of reformism they moved to calling themselves socialists and communists instead.
Socdems are treated poorly by their fellow capitalists so they like to try to hang out in our camp.
Yes its capitalism with social corrections, in contrary to socialism, which is unable to coexist with capitalism.
Good text. Thank you
Succdems will be the first to get the wall.
lenin was closet succdem
how will ML's ever recover?
Succdems as traitors of the class revolution are the first to get the bullet.
A FUCKING CLASSCUCK
They will not even "get to the wall", they'll just disintegrate with their beloved parliament and scatter like cockroaches.
I would argue it's entirely possible to be both a socdem and (at the very least) hate capitalism, more linguistically strained: and a socialist.
Getting the railways nationalised so the journey to work is less hellish is an immediate goal deliverable under a capitalist framework. Hanging the bourgeoisie from lampposts takes time. You don't have to like capitalism to recognize this utility.
(I think most people of this viewpoint would just call themselves socialist and be done with it, along the lines of Trotskyists who spend half their time campaigning for Social Democratic parties and the other half selling newspapers, but in the spirit of intellectual honesty it's better to identify what's "being a socdem" and what's "being a socialist.")
To some extent the "Well I'll campaign for election now and if you need me in the revolution here's my number" approach is obviously lazy and terrible and so on and doesn't actually aid the revolution getting started - but there are whole swathes of activity for which this is true on the left.
Not to mention that it'd make getting elected much easier if I could campaign on "Only the Social Democrats can negotiate with the revolutionary communists…" 😏
Fuck off mr freikorps you killed rosa.
Hanging the bourgeoisie from lampposts
Sorry, you don't quite comprehend communism and get caught in your bourgeois fantasies about overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Anyway, the false consciousness of the parliamentary rule is incompatible with communism.
pls fuck off r/soc shill your kind is not welcome here for you killed rosa and that is most unforgivable.
Rosa died before The General Theory was written. Not true social democrats.
and get caught in your bourgeois fantasies about overthrowing the bourgeoisie
Well, it's that or the one where I go with James Callaghan to the Antilles…
Anyway, the false consciousness of the parliamentary rule is incompatible with communism.
But we're not yet living under communism. There are immediate gains to be made in parliament while working on a long term strategy of abolishing bourgeoisie democracy. and so on. Communism won't be here by December no matter how desirable it is, but railway nationalisation could be. There's little reason why one can't have both. (Well, there are time constraints but an organised left could surely manage division of labour, at least until division of labour is abolished.)
all these retards not saging r/soc bait and r/soc justification for killing rosa.
Would you prefer the bullet now or later when the mass proleteriat revolution begins?
All deaths of WW2 can be attributed to the social democrat freikorps destruction of the German revolution of 1918-19 and subquently forming of the brown shirts.
SAGE NAZI/SOCDEM(Same thing really) BAIT COMRADES
Yes, although there is some further context.
See Social democracy used to be marxist: specifically the implementation of marxist ideals through democratic means. This is why the Social-Democratic Partei Deutschlands was called a marxist party and openly lauded by the first international. However, there were two main splits that created social democracy as it was until the 1990s. The first was the debate over the first world war, in which we pro and against camps. In Germany for example, the main SPD supported the war, and dissenters started to drift away. The second was over support for the Bolshevik revolution and to a lesser extent, either the revolutions in other countries or actively leading said revolutions. Now in different nations this played out differently, for example the British Labour party rejected WWI but also did not support the bolshevik revolution: as such it was neither social democratic nor revolutionary communis, this is where democratic socialism is conceived as a mainstream standpoint.
Now since social democrats got all the pro-war wimps they last their marxist twinge and mostly abandoned socialism as a goal through any serious means whatsoever. They mostly became focused on the welfare state and unions' rights. So we have this thing called WWII, and in many parts of Europe (although ironically not France, the UK or Germany because they get their own special causes) social democrats take control and introduced the Keynesian consensus. Many a welfare state is built and trade unions are welded into the apparatus of capitalism. Time passes and some states have social democrats in charge for so long (looking at you scandies) that their economic ideals become the consensus for their entire mainstream political systems and political debate is about other shit like defence or social issues. Then comes the neoliberal black dawn. Now in Europe, one of three things happen: in the social democratic consensus states, it remains mostly. In states with strong social democratic movements, it is hit hard and in those with strong hard left parties (I.E: France and the UK) It rises to fill the spot of democratic socialism for the most part. However, the latter two come with the welding of social democracy and neoliberal economics that is: The Clintonite-Blairite social democratic third way *thundercracks* . So social democracy in these states adopts neoliberal economics (corporatism, free trade, deregulation ect.) while trying to maintain the welfare state at the same time. Best example I can think of is Blair (you might have noticed I am british): where he said he would expand funding for the NHS not by increasing taxes, but by cutting "red tape" in teh NHS and putting hte money back into it. Deregulation and mild fiscal conservatism.
So we come to today, well, after 2008. Social democracy is dying, even the states in which it thrives (the scandie states, a few others) it is facing large issues due to globalisation undercutting it. The irony is that Social Democracy's death is our gain, as is seen in quite a few states in the west.
So yeah, never forgive, never forget, Rosa was /ourcomrade/ and they took her from us.
Lol. People die all the time in socdem states from lack of medical treatments that are deemed too expensive for human lives. Suicide and drug addiction rates are not exactly nice either. And measuring political models' efficiency by death rate is retarded, socdem states still have poverty, unemployment, wage slavery, fucked up markets continual concentration of capital, huge reproducing class differences, money, mass surveillance, and more or less any other problem neolib faggots have just at a smaller scale.
Let's take a more objective measure then.
What fantastic examples you found…
What was it lacking?
The General Theory
Stop fucking pretending Keynes was some Social Democrat. He was a fucking liberal aristocrat.
He could've been a Martian Nazbol, doesn't make his economic theory (or the economic policies recognized to descend from it, like full employment as a policy goal.) less valid.