Tell me Holla Forums, what's wrong with social democracy? Yes, it still retains capitalist power structures...

Tell me Holla Forums, what's wrong with social democracy? Yes, it still retains capitalist power structures, but it has been shown that it can nonetheless lead to a very fair and stable society. I'll use Finland as my case study:


etc etc etc. So my question to socialists is: What do you hope to improve? Finland, the example used here, achieved all this with social democracy and the welfare state, which though having its roots in the labour movement is not socialism.A And although there are other factors like small size and homogeneity contributing to this, it means that it's not impossible to replicate those results elsewhere. In fact, the upheaval caused by the adoption of socialism would probably decrease many of those metrics. Socialism aims for a more just, egalitarian world where people can pursue their dreams freely and without oppression. If this has already been achieved, what more is there to do?

You will receive no good answers, for the same reason if you presented this as an argument for the welfare state to lolbergs; it goes against their ideology and muh morals.

Would you support an Empire as long as it had a dread dole?

Is compromise with hierarchy and tolitarianism really the best thing we can do?
Is capitalism with a human face (the very thing that sparked fascism in almost every case, once the contradictions of Empire set in) really all we should aim for?

I know human beings have so much more potential than that.

*bread dole

Though a dread dole sounds pretty metal.

Sounds like a pretty weak argument. Totalitarianism? Empire? How is that relevant to any of what I said?

it is a good system, but Socdem are easilly teared down by capitalists.

See: France. Once a proud Social democracy, now, poor are almost chased in the street.

Not OP, what are the contradictions of Empire?

What good are these 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th rankings when they are dependent upon and complicit in the exploitation of the land and labour of various poverty stricken areas in the world.

It depends of the country. The social democracy party in my country in 4 years of ruling killed more than 3k people on public hospitals due to budget cuts. So hospitals couldn't take propper care and people were dying from respiratory infections.
Also 300k people left the country to work abroad.
I could go on. But that's my experience of "social democracy".

which country user?


I'm not entirely that's the case with Finland or any of the high ranking countries.

A capitalist workplace is one where unelected leaders tell others what to do and profit from their labour, who have to expand constantly and rob Peter to pay Paul.

What does that sound like?

Yes. A company and an empire is the same exact structure, the only difference is scale.

And I'd never choose an empire over democracy. No matter how kind the empire is.


And empire is a pyramid scheme.
You pay thugs to rob others to pay more thugs to rob more people.
Rome was a lost cause even before it spread out of the Italian peninsula.

If it is capitalistic as the entire world is then it is dependent upon the exploitation and theft of someone else's surplus value. Just as profit and wealth flows from the poor to the rich in one country so does it flow from poor countries to rich ones

Indeed.
The main reason Africa starves is not because there's not enough fertile soil in africa, but because Africans don't have enough internationally compareble purchasing power, so landowners just sell cash-crops to westerners while Africans themselves.

By contrast, Africans were well-fed just 200 years ago. To believe they have always starved is ridiculous.

*themselves starve.

Man, I'm tired.

But if there was only one socialist state among many capitalist ones, wouldn't the same problems persist as long as it engages in trade with other countries?

The problem is not so much trade as it is with ownership and exploitation.

A lot of Africans have to work for foreign companies or sell to western intermediaries that pretty much only buy at whatever robber-prices they themselves see fit.

Even if one state managed to institute full socialism into its society, as long as the world is capitalistic then that state must trade as if it were capitalistic itself. So even if it is equitable on the inside it would still be dependent upon exploitation of others.
That is unless that state was somehow able to completely and 100% sustain all its needs which would be highly unlikely

I can smell your stinking fucking Georgian breath from here Joe, don't make me go get Lenin again..

Exactly, so what makes socialism better? If evey country successfully adopted social democracy to the same degree as Finland, there would no longer be need for socialism.

It is as good as it gets under capitalism. All the while benefiting from being part of the Neo-Liberal monolith that is is the EU.

Finland could not enjoy the leisure it does without benefiting from structures which exploit other countries.

Its owning class still leech of the proletariat, creating an underclass, regardless of how big the middle class has become

Also


Are you telling me that Finland is actually 100% perfect?

Being equally exploited is still being exploited. It does not matter if all the countries in the world were Finland exploitation still happens Capitalism with a pretty face does not fix the contradictions of capitalism it just hides them.

Because the injustices of capitalism still exist. Would you be fine with slavery if the slaves had a very good life and were paid well? I wouldn't because slavery as a system is inhumane.

Social democracy is fine and social democratic countries are often the best to live in. However, it shouldn't be the end goal. It should be treated like a good way to improve existing conditions, but we should still realize the injustices of the system and overcome them.