As an exercise, explain to me why Social Democracy can not transform capitalism

Because of the degenerate state of social democrats.
Forget about feminism, multiculturalism and state capitalism and start supporting socialism for a change.

Everyone alive today exists within a capitalist framework, including you and all communist parties (working from the assumption that Communism does not exist in North Korea, Cuba, or other Cold war hold-outs). The question is whether it can transform it, which can logically happen internal of capitalist framework, Marx even proposes that capitalist contradictios, the framework itself, is what will bring about the end of capitalism, so Social Democracy should be eligable on the same grounds.

Holla Forums pls

There are plenty of committed socialists in these parties. Would anyone dispute Corbyn is a socialist?

Not an argument. no one cares about what intuitions you have about social democracy. back it up with logic or science.

I know they got Rosa killed

Which is a weasely way of saying "I can name a few when pushed"

I'm just going to quote this:

Social Democrat was pretty much the standard of the Representative Left-wing in the late 19th and early 20th century, lots of them Marxists and other Socialists who used the democratic institutions to agitate the working class, therein lay the early Labour Party, the SPD, even Lenin's party was the Social Democratic Party of Russia (of which both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were part of)
After 1917 Left-wing Parties grew bolder and started calling for military action and the overthrow of Bourgeois Democracy, partly due to the successful revolutions and partly due to the rise of reactionary movements that would later become Fascist, those who weren't so willing to pick up arms, whether for Theoretical disagreements like the Mensheviks or doubt in current Praxis like Kautsky or for being Bourgeois Reformists dressed in red, kept the old Social Democrat label, while advocating for gradual reform which would bring power to the workers through the democratic process of the Bourgeois State (Democratic Socialism) while Revolutionaires would turn their parties Leninist or Trostkyst and center them towards Praxis, abandoning Representation within the accepted order.
Cold War pressures and Electoral politics would push the Social Democrat parties further right up to the point that they would abandon Socialism as previously envisioned completely and advocate for the welfare state, "humane capitalism" ,"social justice" or (the worst of all) "a third way"
Social Democracy (and Social Democrats), having failed to bring Worker's Ownership of the MOP came to define the economic organization of 1st world countries with a strong safety net, labour unions and spending in social programs.
Democratic Socialism (aside from distancing its advocates from the Revolutionaries of old) can mean modern political parties who share the goals of the original Social Democrats of creating a Socialist society through the electoral process, (although I can't think of any example other than Hugo Chavez whose project has demonstrated to be little more than Social Democracy so far) or just emphasis on the Democratic character of some Revolutionary group.

Social Democracy gives power to the people
The Bourgy fomrs part of thie "people" collective
then
Social Democracy will give power to the Bourgy

good for your 3 year old mind?

Look at what happened to socdems in Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

Your question can be clarified:

no it doesn't. it gives power initially to majorities, and the bourgeoisie always have a minority position.

What happened there? I've never been to any of those places, and I was born after all of the events there.

majorities can be in favour of bourgeoise rulership

Because social democrats are too concerned with upholding status quo and retaining power, so they cannot force themselves to end capitalism through legislature.
After all, they could pass a law turning all privately-owned companies into muh coops or something along these lines. But they never ever did that.

literally any Western country since the 1970s is evidence,

Social Democrats had no qualms privatising industries

Not more than minorities.

So is all Social Democracy needs to do is find and elect 51 legislators who are steadfast enough that they value communism more than their 100k salary?

except democracy is the rule of the majority

If what you're talking about is infiltrating the capitalist system and then undoing it, does that really count as social democracy? I assume that part of social democracy is working alongside capital in an attempt to accomplish your goals.

But even so, 51 legislators is not enough to make communism the rule of the land. I can only speak as an American, but here it would probably be more efficient to take enough control of local districts that the commies could demand a constitutional convention and rewrite the constitution. While this would be incredible, I highly doubt the ability for commies to get a 2/3 majority in opposition to the ruling hegemony.

So Democracy does a better job of preventing the bourgeosie from gaining power than minoritarian systems. Checkmate.

All it takes to ruin Succdem is a little stagflation

Not exactly, there are also things like supreme court, which would also have to be pro-commie in order to change the constitution.

why do you, a leftist shitposter in 2016, Think you know that social democracy is bunk, while men like Karl Kautsky could never see that, and spent their entire life working towards worker liberation through social democracy? That isn't a rhetorical question either, I'm interested to know. What is it you know that Karl Kautsky never discovered? what mental trap do you think he fell into that he wasted his life?

then just say reformist socialism

Replace this with Alchemy and you will find out how stupid your argument is.

No, it's called social democracy.

it's not an argument, it's a question.

No, because the majority can vote in favour of the bourgeoise interests, see reality

He didn't live to the moment when socdem reformists got cucked by liberalism
Also every single revolutionary socialist(be it Rosa or Lenin) warned Kautsky this would happen, but he didn't listen

it would be easy enough to answer if it was alchemy. Alchemy was just people figuring out chemistry. They were incorrect, because the necessary scientific knowledge hadn't been discovered yet, i.e. atomic bonds, enthalpy, atoms, etc. What was Kautsky unaware of that has been discovered?

How completely uncompatible the profit motive is to social democracy