Why shouldn't I be a socdem?

Why shouldn't I be a socdem?

Capitalism, as you all well know, gradually reduces absolute poverty and improves living standards even for the poorest in the long run. Socdems, by riding this wave and pulling it leftwards, have helped improve the lives and conditions of millions. Men like Léon Blum, FDR and Clement Attlee were far from faultless or ideal, but they did more for the proletariat than any Marxist reading club, black bloc or marginal far-left party.

Now obviously capitalism is going to run its course one day, but until then aren't we better off fighting for labour rights and social welfare? The transitions to agricultural, feudal and capitalist economies were all materially inevitable - they weren't brought about by the agitation or agency of a particular faction or party. Capitalism will end one day on its own, and I see no evidence that we're going to bring that about by ourselves.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=d2-CZQnBRYs
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because social democracy doesn't adress the internal contradictions of capitalism, neither does it have any way to safeguard itself from being infiltrated by porky interests.
Polite sage.

I don't think either of those refute my post though.
The point of social democracy isn't to abolish capitalism though. It's to make the most of it. Leave abolishing capitalism to the inevitable march of materialism.
I think social democracy actually suffers from this less than socialism does. Pic related.

Wow, I'm surprised.
Yeah no. Capitalism has outlived its usefulness : developing the means of production. We're going to take it from here, thanks.

So you really have no contribution to make to what I've said, then. Why bother replying at all?
I'm sure any day now socialists will magically, spontaneously seize control of states all over the world…
Yup, totally about to happen.
Really, any second now. Capitalism's right about to fall!

"As you all well know, gradually reduces absolute poverty" What the fuck???? No??

Yeah social democracy is definitely improving here in scandiland. Oh wait it's not. It's actually being dismantled as we speak.

Socdem has only ever been allowed to come to power when porky was sufficiently shitting himself out of fear of being lynched any day now. The social democratic welfare state of the 20th century was created and maintained as a counter-balance to soviet power and as soon as that was finally put down the bourgeois state begun rescinding its generous provisions for the masses.
Capital is willing to concede only that which allows it to survive, while a genuine threat to it persisted the welfare state could exist, now that is gone and capital demands the rate of profit to be boosted by any means necessary. Social democracy is impossible in the current day.

tbf hasn't socdem endured longer than other left wing movements? german, british and french socdems lasted persecutions of the 1880s, and became significant after 1890s and have had the guile to remain in power till today. Not that remaining in power= good, but as measured by sheer ability to hold power and even wield it at times, it has shown to have huge potential. It just needs the right leadership, propaganda etc. etc.

To be a social democrat at this moment is cowardly and defeatist. It may be an open question as to how successful a proletarian revolution would be today but the alternative will be untold barbarism at the hands of whatever bourgeois movement attempts to succeed capitalism in the future.

Social democracies are only brought about by genuine fear of proletarian revolution, and are only maintained by externalizing the worst exploitations and depredations of capitalism. The original socdem states were colonial powers whose slave labor permitted the profits that funded the first welfare programs. Modern socdem states export their pollution and labor exploitation overseas to the global South, and rely on unseen armies of immigrant labor to fund themselves. Either that or they rely on oil exports, which will not last forever.

Also let's not forget that the original 'SocDem Gang' in Germany provided the Freikorps and NSDAP with many of their early members. Being a modern socdem is as easy as waving a few national flags, winning an election, and promising new welfare and labor laws for the cooperative citizens. Meanwhile legions of foreign immigrants can run the shitty jobs for pennies while the millions of climate refugees and unemployable poor are rounded up and liquidated so to keep them from crossing the border.

I honestly thought that was a given. With rising standards of living in India and China, the absolute global level of poverty is decreasing.
This increase isn't felt in the developed world, because capitalism has already vastly improved the material conditions of those countries.
Incidentally, I don't think that "we might lose the gains that social democracy has given us" is a particularly good argument against social democracy.

So you're predicting that social democracy will be dismantled in the coming century? That's a fair argument if you're right, but we'll have to see. I'm not quite so pessimistic.

Or realistic and pragmatic…
When in history have agitators and theorists and politicians ever had a choice in how the economy would form its next mode of production? The aristocrats and clerics were powerful as hell, but even they couldn't do anything to stop capitalism taking their power and wealth. Not even the Soviet Union could avoid succumbing to the capitalist mode of production. What makes you think we in the present day have any more say in the matter?

I get that social democracies are terribly flawed and exploitative at every level, but there really isn't an alternative. Our choice is "left-leaning welfare state" or "neo-liberal hellhole". Revolution ain't happening.

...

The New Deal only happened because of the combined efforts of the Community Party, Socialist Party, and CIO.

They can be washed away because it's politically feasible and within the Overton Window. Institutions like the NHS in the UK are practically sacrosanct. The first sign of cuts and people are already up in arms about the threat of privatisation. And try telling the French that they have to work more hours. Count the seconds before they go on strike.
Supporting left-leaning socdems is what strengthens those institutions.

I think government regulation and international accords are not only reasonable answers - they're more realistic than any answers I've heard from a socialist. How do socialists propose to solve our climate problems in the next 50 years?

That's a fair point, and I've deliberately avoided advocating socdemism for nations in the developing world. I honestly don't know enough about their conditions to have a strong opinion on what they should or shouldn't do.

Do you think that Europe, Russia or the rest of the developed world outside of the US has a realistic chance of implementing socialism within our lifetimes?

Came here to post this

Nothing he says in that refutes what I've said. He admits that average incomes are rising across the world, albeit unequally and not always permanently.

Interesting stuff, but it's one voice among many, and his is the exception The historical precedent has been for capitalism to improve living conditions, and I'm inclined to think that that's going to continue, if not so much in the developed world.

...

LoL
LoL

...

1.The environment. Capitalism is infinite growth on a finite planet 💀
2. War and poverty are necessitated by the need of capital to expand 💀💀💀
3. Reforming capitalism is always futile, it is like scooping teaspoons full of seawater out of a small boat with a leak in it (i.e. You'll sink anyway, all your progress will be undone).

idk what else but YOU KILLED ROSA

19th century 'socdems' and what we mean by socdem today are worlds apart.
Bourgeois politics has great staying power in bourgeois states, who knew!
socdems are political opportunists of the worst kind, one only has to look into the 90s-early 00s period. They will sell their souls, core ideas and policies for short-term popularity and electoral success. A socdem will betray you every time.

Historical illiteracy. The bourgeois had been gaining in relative political power from the age of absolutism on, long before generalised commodity production became the dominant mode of production.
youtube.com/watch?v=d2-CZQnBRYs

Can you maybe just make your points instead of making me listen to Chomsky/Zizek for 6 minutes? Which parts of it are relevant?

What's your point? You haven't challenged what I've said. The aristocracy couldn't prevent the inevitable usurpation of their power. Also, the noun is "bourgeoisie".

And you're going to replace it with…what exactly? What answers do socialists have for environmental problems in the next 50 years beyond vague calls for revolution? And how is that an argument against social democracy?
And you're going to fix this by doing what? Not supporting the parties that can moderate these things?
Nonsense. The life expectancy of a woman in the developed world is over 80 at this point and we only work 40 hours a week. How is that not valuable? And these improvements have been piling on top of one another for a century.

6 whole minutes? rosa-killing can wait, just watch the damn video
basically the argument is that to do only the 'modest' 'realistic' option of social democratic reform and nothing else is utopian
for progressive, effective taxation, for managing the worst excesses of capital, you have to somehow tie down and be able to effectively control capital which is NOT a 'modest realistic' achievement in the modern day.
to think that mere modest change is enough in the face of the coming challenges like ecological degradation is completely utopian

People's lives have improved in the presence of all sorts of different economic systems. Does that justify them?

No, and I'm not trying to justify capitalism either.

I agree that radical overhaul is needed. But I don't think that that overhaul is feasible in the near future; and I think if it happens then it will have been inevitable anyway.
It's not enough to say "capitalism is bad" - you need to have a reasonable alternative.

A bit of cognitive dissonance. Reforming capitalism still results in a capitalist system, no matter how you spin it.

But I fail to see how you really think this is a solution to anything. Every socdem reform is constantly on the chopping block. Those nations always feature right wing austerity attacks on the various “entitlement programs”. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not but under the current system it is a matter of time, an inevitability. So long as there are super rich people who can buy ad time, write opinion pieces in the news and run right wing blogs they will trick the working class into supporting their agenda.

I think you're very confused.
I don't. Fucking hell.

Am I? Lmao
Yea great argument. Social democracy has failed to deal with the transient nature of bourgeois democracies. If you really think you can beat porky by playing his game in his arena, the most you are gonna get are scraps. One baby step forward, followed by a swift shove backward. Rinse and repeat

of course it isn't feasible, There Is No Alternative
are you looking for absolution? is that what this thread is all about?
Sure, go ahead, go campaign for a 'realistic, moderate choice', but understand that your moderate option Has No Alternative. When right-liberals say that the economy is going to be better under them, they are in many ways right; 'the economy' is largely based on the feelings and evaluations of investors. Politics perceived as anti-business or anti-capital will in practice result in a worse economy regardless of the actual policy itself. In the era of international capital and credit rating agencies the only sovereign power is that of capital itself.
this thread is about you shilling for positive succdemism, not looking for alternative formulations to capitalism

Social Democrats say they subordinate capitalism to the public good, and sometime they do deliver the goods. They are typically outflanked by global capital that can take it's ball and go home, especially in poorer countries, but that can't be blamed on the socdems themselves. However in the industrialized world their continued political success precludes the dismantling of the military industrial complex. They assume, probably correctly, that defunding the war machine will be costly to their electoral success.

A soldier pointing out the futility of human wave attacks in the trench warfare of WWI would not be cowardly or defeatist.

A lot of MLs and ancoms on this board kinda forget that you need power before you can start dismantling systems of private ownership and imperialism. Do I think that these things are good? Yes. Would I prefer 100% socialism over some welfare state mish-mash of capitalism and social programs. Obviously yes. I would be a ML or an ancom if I thought they were the best shot at obtaining power and implementing a program.

Of course, most of the people who enjoy hating on le succdem gang here refuse to consider the fact that most proles never will have a conception of socialism beyond job guarantees, free health care and old-age pensions. Even WITH a DotP, most people will never fuck with theory beyond party slogans and advertising. Therefore I refuse to seriously consider any movement that obsesses over theory and refuses to prioritize strategies that will give workers and the unemployed the material benefits that make them like and vote for socialism.

the old "Communism is Soviet Power + Electrification of the Whole Country"/Healthcare for all vs "Communism is the Real Movement that abolishes the present state of things"
social democracy isn't a bandaid on a mortal wound since a bandaid helps at least a little, social democracy is painkillers taken to prevent the feeling of pain from the mortal wound
this simile is good because the pain itself can be so debitilating that one can't take action to fix the mortal wound, but on the other hand painkillers don't actually address the critical problem- the wound.

Beats me, user.

Ignoring the limits of the overton window is a good formula for getting ignored.

And yet the successes of the old USSR are measured in the material improvements they brought to Soviet workers.
It really isn't that good of a simile. Painkillers are sometimes needed for a body to recover, since suffering constant pain itself harms the body. Much like how crushing austerity beats down workers to the point where they withdraw from politics and don't engage with worker's movements at all.

The whole overton window thing is kind of like the rules of fashion. It's good to have a solid understanding of what the limits of good taste are and what goes together. Some of it is set by what actually works but much of it is social convention. Social convention changes, and even just the act of pushing the bounds of those conventions intrigues people. You should be aware of the rules so you know when and when not to break them, but adhering to them rigidly would be just as foolish.

Also there's a shit-ton of people who are constantly trying to shift the social conventions around it for the sake of their own profit all the fucking time.

And this is precisely why leftcoms call ML 'taylorist social democracy at the barrel of a gun'
but thats literally what I wrote:
with the exception that should crushing austerity go far enough, the revolution is inevitable, "every society is only three meals away from revolution."

Damn, Yemen must be about to go full communist then?

'revolution' does not mean 'implementing communism', but I'm sure you already knew that, shitpost-kun

Could you refresh my memory? Some of us get a little worried when you start throwing around this idea that we'll only reach your end state political goal when the majority of the population is on the edge of starvation and death.

People die when they're killed you know.

to put it simply:
when shit gets bad, people get upset and topple existing power structures, see Russia 1905, 1917, France 1789 and so on
I'm not a leftcom. I actively work to avoid the situation where things are so bad that revolution is inevitable. Understand the difference between necessary and sufficent causes.
that being said, some accelerationism now to make change happen faster is likely better in the long run
Quite, but that applies to situations of socio-political calm as well as political upheaval. I'm not the one perpetually building armies of alienated young men with nothing to lose.

I don't get what your point is. You're agreeing that socialism can't offer a feasible alternative to social democracy in the near future. So what's your beef with the latter?

This isn't a very good post. The impossibility of implementing socialism in the here and now is not an ideological construct. It's a political and social fact.

What makes you think ML is not the best shot? I'm not asking about AnCom, yes.

It doesn't. Austerity forces workers to radicalise - they withdraw from non-radical movements. However, in the absence of radical movements, they will end up withdrawing from politics altogether, yes. That's how you end up with Fascism: once general public is ready for violent resistance, this readiness is hijacked by mishmash ideologies (I have problems finding better word that "intersectionality"; it fits perfectly) and channelled into protection of Bourgeoisie.

Your OP is fucking retarded:
> Capitalism, as you all well know, gradually reduces absolute poverty and improves living standards even for the poorest in the long run.
No, i don't fucking know. Why Great Compression happened only when West was threatened by Evil Commies?

See I don't buy that argument at all, you bring up Russia and France but there's been a loooot of other recent cases of countries where things got very very bad. Bengal, Congo, Indonesia, Cambodia, Somalia, Sudan. In some of those cases the crisis brought around major political changes but as we saw in Cambodia that wasn't necessarily a good thing either. In other places like Indonesia or Bengal, the crises just served as a tool for and/or were a part of a broader genocidal concentration of power. The power structure came out stronger than ever having used the crisis to massacre their opposition and consolidate power.

Somewhere like Vietnam is a good example for your point where a well prepared and organized leftist party became the core around which opposition crystallized during a series of major wars and catastrophes. Ending in an overthrow of the previous power structure and its replacement with a new left government. But that's far from the most likely outcome for a crisis, historically speaking you usually end up with a lot of bodies in the streets and people begging the ruling class for any relief.

In the West, the conditions that have historically preceded ML seizures of power are totally absent. If you look at the two prototypical ML states, the SU and China, the rise of ML power was preceded by decades of internal ferment, weakening of central authority and outright (civil) war. We are nowhere near that today, and there are no currently active sufficiently broad and powerful ML organizations who could seize the moment should it appear.
In the place and time where almost all the posters on this board live, ML is not currently viable.

These are good points to make. Smart socdems with spines should posit themselves at the borders of the overton window and work to push those borders left. We need to push left institutions and the people who inhabit them to a favoured position where they can sweep in and take advantage of the inevitable crises of capitalism.

And if that happens when full-on socialism is outside the bounds of "acceptable" thought you'll probably see some awful reactionary regime sweep in and force all of us into exile in Nepal

My experience to date with ML orgs and MLs in general. Same thing with maoists and ancoms. Refusal to abandon 20th century iconography/terminology, sectarianism, tactics that haven't changed since the 1960s.
These movements need to be competent and (outwardly, at least) demonstrate the ability to assume and wield power for the benefit of the people.
Why do you think fascist movements are so obsessed with the aesthetics of power and strength? Same thing with salafist movements: their internal propaganda emphasizes the strength of a puritan, extremist theocratic state over a weak, ineffectual and corrupt secular nationalist regime.

Indeed. Revolution isn't an end to itself, it is merely the means by which the existing order is brought to an end. What happens afterwards is a whole 'nother thing.
It's just that people generally aren't willing to put what they have at risk by partaking in social upheaval, and that the existing political order rarely if ever is toppled by some kind of peaceful consensus, the ruling class doesn't like to give away its power

not to mention that ML revolutions in Russia and China were conditional on peasant support.

this is why left socdems like Melenchon or Corbyn are deserving of at least reserved public support. Any leftist public-popular-political figure who does't accept current 'economic common sense' is an asset.
not all revolutions are the same. the 'inevitable revolution' as I use it is the one caused directly by inherent contradictions of capital, the one to finally overthrow international capitalism and bring about international communism. Defined a-posteriori, by its results. again, I'm not a leftcom, I just think that they are right in that eventually the 'organic international revolution' will happen as long as humanity exists at that point by the sheer force of conditions being so crushing as to not allow for any other course of action. I simply think that we should try to avoid this course of history if at all possible.

I'm not agreeing. I'm saying you and socdems in general agree with the liberal 'common sense' of There Is No Alternative.
History, theory and practice of betrayal of socialism and working class interest, especially in terms of the political power of the proletariat in a global sense

And don't forget that the most successful program the black panthers ever ran was cooking breakfast for kids whose parents had to work and couldn't feed them before school. When the pain of capitalist crises become too much to bear people turn to the organizations that have a successful track record of alleviating that pain.

I think you're conflating two things here. Social upheaval and changes in the fundamental structures of power. Social upheaval always brings some level of pain with it and that pain is justified only in the case that it results in important changes to the fundamental structures of power. Social upheaval without an end result of positive change or even ending in worse and more oppressive conditions is just pain and death. No shit most people aren't willing to put themselves at risk to participate in social upheaval unless they're damn sure it's going to be worth it or are so desperate they have no choice.

In the case of Russia, that's a misconception. The communist base of support during the civil war was in the cities, and in the army. The army did consist of peasants, but those were only radicalized in the context of the Great War and the agitation at the front; they were radicalized as soldiers. Concessions were made to the countryside under the NEP, but that was more a recognition that the Bolsheviks lacked the power to enforce their rule over the countryside than anything else, which was reversed with the aggravation of the class struggle in the late 20's and 30's.

Because SocDem isn't a radical movement, and doesn't seek to take the necessary radical measures that will abolish the system, and therefore can perfectly be in harmony with the ruling elite for the time being.

"Fill a man's mouth and you open his ears."

In the countries where most of us live, socdem is about as radical as you can be without inviting scorn or dismissal from the populace

I completely agree.

I wouldn't say that 20th century socialism failed but it created something that I do not want. More bureaucracy, authoritarianism, and stagnation. The last thing I want to do is defend capitalism but there is no denying that the west was WAY better off than the soviets during the cold war.

Same with anarkiddies. Anarchism is such a utopian fantasy and it will never happen the way that they want it to.

Larping as a ☭TANKIE☭ or anarchist-guerrilla and refusing to vote doesn't help anything. The left should focus on short term goals like minimum wage and single payer.

(Pic not related)

He also said "Fill a mans butt and you open his heart" true story.

If by perfect harmony you mean they'll scream and flail around like a bunch of psychotic squid monsters having a seizure and sic the entire soft-power apparatus on the very idea that they should have to divert any money into social programs rather than endless war and corporate welfare. Then yes. Like you can probably publicly be a socdem without getting shot most places. Probably.

Two examples hardly make the law. Moreover, Mao's success was in no small part based on China being comparatively remote with USSR being just near. I.e. it is not fully independent example.

Consequently, we get only Russia as a the only proper example. Using one example to draw conclusions like "Socialist Revolution is possible in agrarian nation" is, frankly, dumb.

Impossibility of ML Revolution in the West is a self-fulfilling prophesy. You need only to look at all revolutions (including French) to see that the real prerequisite is creation and strengthening of revolutionary centres of power.

Specifically:
1) Preceding Civil War is hardly a prerequisite. In Russia there was no Civil War until mid-1918.

2) Fragility of central authority/internal ferment are usually evident only in hindsight. Look at the Ukraine-2013, for example. Nobody expected utter collapse of state legitimacy that followed. If there were at least 10,000 Communists ready to act, the whole Fascist coup would've imploded by April and we would've gotten - at the very least - SocDem Ukraine (arguably, with Western Ukraine going independent).

However, mainstream Communists in Ukraine shared your opinion on impossibility of Revolution (and were more interested in parliamentarianism). This made rise of Fascism inevitable.

Consider: what would happen if tomorrow Trump goes to war against North Korea; and manages to fuck it up sufficiently to cause collapse of US economy, with hyperinflation and all the jazz; which in turn will be used as an excuse to depose him by force (Hillary can hardly expect to win new elections, but has enough delusions and power to keep trying)? Within a few years US could be looking at this very "fragile central authority", but there will be only Right-wingers to capitalize on this opportunity.

Bolsheviks circa 1916 were very far from having "broad and powerful" organization.

You are evaluating organizations, rather than ideology (methods).

I'll have to disagree to a point. You are severely understating the underlying weakness of Russia, there was an abortive civil war in 1906 after the defeat against Japan. The Tsarist regime only survived the unrest by making large concessions to the bourgeoisie, which it then proceeded to try and roll back when order was restored. This reaction left effectively a vacuum, in that both Tsarism and bourgeois society were very weakened and lacked mass political or deep institutional support, which proved fatal when Russia experienced limited famines in 1917.
As for the Ukraine, I agree. But I don't think it is analogous to where people in West proper find themselves. States and institutions here are still very powerful and command authority in a way that nothing in Ukraine did. If all the of the EU looked like Ukraine ca. 2013, a more ML line would be a better bet, sure.
Give it 20 years.

Why are you framing this as if it is a disagreement? You are simply rewording what I wrote:

You miss my point. The impossibility of implementing socialism tomorrow isn't the issue at hand. Social democracy is a political program of resignation that no longer seeks to go beyond capital as it has internalized the notion that there is no alternative. A communist should advocate and support reforms as a means to qualitatively improve the lives of the working class while offering a positive vision that can move beyond capital. The will for reform emerges organically out of class struggle and as communists we should actively be involved in class struggle to see these conspicuous avenues of progress to their inevitable limits within the boundaries of bourgeois political institutions. At this point the communist says "but wait there's more" while the social democrat proclaims to have hit a dead end.

No no, this is a key element to understand if you want to make sense of the actions of the Bolsheviks later on. There were in fact two revolution, the one in the cities, at the font, among the railways, and the revolution in the countryside against the large landowners and gentry. The relation between the two was not of support, but of live and let live, and that only until the Bolsheviks were able and willing to take on the countryside, and collectivize agriculture. You don't in fact need a revolution countryside per se, and might even end up having to fight it later on.

The disagreement is that I'm wondering whether you understand that most forms of social upheaval will just make things worse.

fair, perhaps support was too strong of a word

WHICH IS WHY SOCIAL UPHEAVAL IS NOT AN END TO ITSELF, BUT A MEANS TO AN END
have I made myself clear?

Not really no. Look the primary criticism of Communists from educated normies is still that they want to bring about a violent revolution which will somehow magically solve everything. And they don't care about the suffering caused in the upheaval and everytime they're asked about the deaths in the previous revolutions which didn't even fix much they say, well that wasn't real communism. This time it will be different. Murderous idiots with no real plan basically. This is why I press the point. You really do need to be very explicit about what you intend to do when a crisis comes. This is a fairly serious topic, its no joke to say millions of people have died in similar upheavals. And no you haven't been terribly clear or explicit about it.

This.

In 1905, before the war was over - it was exactly because of the discontent that Czar demanded to stop the war and concentrate on the internal problems. Also, you are exaggerating in calling it Civil War - it was a few disconnected uprisings.

I don't agree. Frankly, I don't see much of a weakening of power. See Stolypin's reign, for example.

Famines begun in 1916 and the collapse of state was not caused by this "weakening", but by (to put it bluntly) utter political impotence of Czar.

This "proper West" is shrinking. Eastern EU has never been West proper in this sense. Today, both Greece and Spain are quite far from it. Quite a few parts of US also hardly fit this description.

The only difference between "improper" EU and Ukraine is the presence of NATO troops that can suppress uprisings by force. For example, in 2009 Latvian government got almost overthrown Maidan-style. NATO troops (nominally, "military police"; some cars still had KFOR - Kosovo FORce painted on) had to enter capitol and patrol streets for a month, until things were sorted out (even local police was very ambivalent about supporting government).

But this difference is not going to hold back discontent for long. Demonstrations of force are not going to work forever.

I'll give it 5-10 years. Cracks are already there. Effective dissolution of EU (switch to two modes; "real" and "colonial" economies) is going to worsen conditions on the periphery (aforementioned Eastern EU) significantly. Then it's going to snowball quite fast - and not having radical Left (which, in my opinion, only ML can realistically represent today) to take over the mess, would mean that radical Right will.

Bad logic is bad logic, but it is true that these same normie critics shrug, turn a blind eye or even make excuses for similar atrocities that happen during the capitalist status quo. It's only murder and genocide if you aren't in power.

undialectical and a strawman, I don't think these normies are particularly educated
revolutions and revolutionary periods don't only come in socialist flavours

What the fuck? I love neoliberalism and neocolonialism now.

This is a good point. I think its some sort of cognitive dissonance thing. Educated normies want to feel safe and in control of their lives. If some of the bad things happening in the world were true that'd mean they were neither safe nor in control. So they minimize them in whatever way possible.

K

Neither of those have anything to do with Real, Actually Existing Social Democracy.

...

There's a finite number of trustworthy social democrats. It's only a matter of time before the good ones retire and get replaced by grasping careerists who say the right words.