Reminder that if social democracy can be regarded as socialism then socialism is a completely meaningless term and...

DemSoc are people who believe in social ownership of the means of production and also representative democracy.

It's not god-tier, but it's way better than soc-dem

I think there's a continuum between social democracy and socialism, especially if social democracy starts to incorporate a basic income. Just imagine a really extreme case–say there was a 99% tax on income of all capitalists and that money was redistributed as a basic income to everyone, would that still be social democracy as long as the capitalists still owned the factories on paper? Or imagine production was 100% automated making it almost impossible for capitalists to make a profit off of manufacturing, so the robot factories became publicly owned and a small basic income would be enough for everyone to buy plenty of cheap robot-made goods, but there were still "intellectual property" laws allowing capitalists to make money off stuff like software, technology patents, and entertainment…is that socialism or social democracy?

Pragmatism vs idealism.

But that difference has blurred thanks to Sanders.

SocDem = Welfare state that may or may not become DemSoc later
DemSoc = Socialism achieved through voting

No it can't, not "at the barrel of a gun."

99% tax on income still doesn't grant the workers CONTROL over the means of production, quite definitively not socialism.

Isn't control mainly just getting back the full value of the labor they do with the means of production? (minus a little for things like maintenance and insurance and public goods like education, as Marx outlined in the Critique of the Gotha Program) So if money (or something equivalent like labor vouchers) is still used in the initial stages of socialism, but 99% of the money from all goods sold goes back to the workers, that seems like they have 99% control of the means of production. They might still not be able to choose what products are made with the means of the production, or how the machines are arranged on the factor floor, but those types of "control" aren't usually seen as essential, since after all workers wouldn't be making those kinds of decision in any centrally planned economy.

You're pro-capitalists, not pragmatists, end of story

anyone got some more screencaps of really dumb socdem posts? I'm making a compilation

Kill yourself.

And, yes, those things are important for control of the means of production, even in a planned economy. Economic planning would only determine what needed to be produced and in what quantity, which is the role the market plays today, not the employer.

...

SocDem in the 19th and early 20th centuries at least made some sense. Nowadays it is debatable if it's even in the left of center. We should just let SocDem die.

Fucking socdems mien gott

By "those things" you mean the things I mentioned that are unrelated to extraction of surplus value, like workers being "able to choose what products are made with the means of the production"? Isn't the whole point of a centrally planned economy that each factory is assigned what to produce by some kind of central planning committee, rather than letting each factory's production get voted on by the local workers in a disorganized way? Are you saying the only True Socialism is a bunch of decentralized worker co-operatives?

Anyway, the idea of defining socialism in terms of the means of production being controlled by the workers who use them (as opposed to just owned/controlled in some democratic way by the society as a whole) is going to be outdated in another decade or two, as with continued automation we'll soon have factories that don't require any workers to assist the machines at all.

Why are people with my flag so fucking retarded? I'm honestly considering switching back to "socialism" because of all the dumbass posts from SocDems.

It would go both ways. Feedback from workers and consumers informing a greater central plan.

But the workers would have the ability to organize how they produced whatever they produced (provided they still met production quotas). So, yes, the workers would have full control over how the workplace is organized, not just where the coffee machine is located in the break room. Planning determines production and distribution. You can think of it as the more deliberate, conscious replacement for the inhuman force of the market.

Having a central planning committee collate all the feedback from every sector of the economy and use that to tell every factory what to do is still not giving the workers at each factory any direct local control over what's produced (or the production techniques used to produce it) at their factory. Assuming you are in favor of central planning yourself rather than some more decentralized socialist scheme, if there is a disagreement between workers at a factory and the central planning committee about what should be done at that factory, who do you think gets to have the final say?

Assuming a given factory is capable of producing some limited range of different types of goods (different types of cars, say), if there are "production quotas" then the workers don't actually have the freedom to decide what goods they spend their work hours producing. And even just in terms of production techniques, the choice of techniques would probably influence the numbers of different tools and machines that have to be shipped to each factory by the centrally planners–if the central planning committee thinks it would be more efficient for them to use a different set of tools and machines than the ones the workers at that factory had requested, you think the committee can't overrule the workers in the name of efficiency? If you do think the planners can overrule the workers in this case, is the type of "control" over the means of production that you're talking about purely a matter of the spatial arrangement of machines on the factory floor, and which worker is assigned to work with which machine?