What's wrong with being a Social Democrat...

solid proof

Socdems are the guys that supported Germany taking part in World War 1.

Ask Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht about that.

And the communists sided with the Nazis in the Weimar Republic to oust the Social Democrats

ere ya go

To oust the whole Weimar Republic in fact.

...

10/10

I love the simultaneous contempt for socdems and appraisal of Sanders, Corbyn and Mélenchon on this board.
It's kinda like Holla Forumsyps defending gays when they are being assaulted by Muslims before advocating their genocide a few hours later.

Overton window pushers have that one use

This and Sanders would have made millions of people ok with calling themselves socialists in the most classcucked nation to ever exist, it would have been fertile ground for us all.

I'm sorry what, do you even understand how that works? Healthcare is one of the more expensive things a government can offer and you're actually implying that they're just le happy merchants and that healthcare doesn't really cost that much?

I swear to god leftypol gets me sometimes…

...

Social democracy gets far too much hate on here. I'd rather live in a country where Corbyn is the head of state than Castro.

Democratic Socialist is better. I don't think Social Democrat is fully bad but it has been corrupted in various countries.

I disagree, I believe we should be ever vigilant even when participating in bourgeois democracy and that we should take crumbs when we can, with our eyes firmly placed on the cake.

However it does irk me whenever I hear any of these light dem socs/soc dems abuse the word "revolution" and seeing their supporters call for a revolution in comment sections but with the caveat that it has to be a peaceful one.

socialism would provide higher living standards if it was actually implemented in the developed world

I'll tell you what will happen if you ever elect a socdem in your country:
They will fill every government department with their friends. So evrything that is nationalzied will be fully controled by people not because of their experience on that field, but because they sucked cocks throught out their life to get that job.
They will make impossible for anyone else to work for the state, because you didn't sucked cocks.
They will steal money from everywhere. Social security, taxes you name it.
They will raise every form of taxes known to man, every single one. Because they need money to pay for their lavish lifestyles.
The former socdem prime minsiter of my country i.e. enjoyed travelling to New York to buy suits in a very exclusive and expensive tailor. After he left the position he went to France to study philosphy while living in one of the most expensive areas of Paris. He claimed that he got a banking loan to do it, but the reality was stolen money.
Socdems also will create laws to fuck you in every possible way. For instances, they will make a law saying is mandatory for everybody to have car insurance…but every insurance company is private. So they make this laws to boost the private sector, because since is mandatory, they will make you pay higher prices for car insurance.

You see kids. That's what happens when you elect socdems.
Under any circumstances you should trust or vote for a socdem, they are all cancer.

I was one of the few on here against Sanders from the beginning. Thinking leftism will come in any form but revolution is laughable.

Nice lifestyleism.

He sounds edgy, but he's correct, socdems've always chickened out when it came to implementing socialist mode of production. Even if it was as shallow as market socialism.

Yeah, especially since the revolution is coming any day by now !
I mean, why do people still have hopes in social democrats, are they little precious pacifists ?
And who cares about what will happen after we seize power ? We will easily find a synthesis between the dozens and dozens of left-wing ideologies that everyone will agree upon, while fascists will be crying in the corner of a room, don't worry !

Yes, not liking the "social democrats" makes you a nazi basically. What a well-founded and moderate opinion you have here. Did you learn that from your succdem history teacher?

Maybe you have trouble understanding how time works. Time moves in one direction only, future events do not influence the past. So saying usual succdem shit like
doesn't make any sense.

The word socdem doesn't mean anything other than neoliberalism to me.
Blair and Hawke/Keating, and while not quite a socdem, even Clinton, represent what those fuckers do once they have the pressure of capital on their ass.

hello Holla Forums

Pure ideology. You cannot even conceive of another system

socdem is k

It's historical fact.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism

marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch12.htm

k

this wasn't my point. Nicely packing idpol and political corruption into some nice story while blaming some specific political ideology while ignoring that exactly same things do happen in every state is pretty Holla Forums-tier.

Shitty ideology but I like that NEET socdem guy who used to post around here.

get out suck dem

What's wrong with being a Feudalist? It is a system that has provided the best and highest standards of living in all of Christendom.

t. 15th monarch

YEAH HAHA! I DONT UNDERSTAND KEYNESIANISM OR DEBT EITHER. GOOD MEME.

It's a historical fact that you are an unbearable fagot.

Social Fascism is an entirely accurate term for the people who brought you World War 1 and after the war destroyed the Bavarian Council Republic.

Keynesianism has nothing to do with what he's talking about at all. Unless you think magic man Keynes proved that 'debt is good retart', which he didn't.

Keynes said you should pay the debt off when the economy is doing well.

What he's talking about is the problem social democracies have where they give different special interest groups, especially retired people, huge entitlements to capture their votes. And then they can't pay them off and the debt keeps increasing

(I'm human)

That's a myth.

When you issue your own currency, balancing the budget as a goal in itself is entirely pointless. It can make sense to set taxation and spending in a way that keeps an eye on unemployment level and inflation, but that doesn't imply a balanced budget. This approach is called Functional Finance.