Submission of the Social Democrats?

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

I'm kinda new here and except for the ideological understandings I've gained from reading my knowledge in history certainly has some gaps.As far as I know in the beginning Social Democracy was considered and stood clearly on the left denouncing capitalism exploitation and even not going against the opinion that only through violence and revolution things can get better.They just didn't go as far as Communism went, keeping quite some meritocratic points to the spirit of Aristotles and Plato where private property and class division are still allowed but should be closely regulated for not going that far etc , etc.My question is how did they move from there to where they are today, accepting capitalism and reformism through voting, showing a much more passive stance.

[punisa]

Very good topic. I'd love to learn more about this too. So if anyone knowledgable of social democracy has spare time, please give us info:)

I don't know much how it developed, but today (at least in my country) - social democrats are no more then capitalists wearing red ties.
I can't find anything social about them, at least not when it comes to governing the country.
We elected them in the election of 2000. and for 4 years not much, if anything, changed.
It's a real shame, cause after that we got stuck with right wingers and will be for a long time as it seems.

I'd expect them to at least take care of the skinheads menance, but no luck..

[Die Neue Zeit]

As I have learned, "social democracy" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-democracy-t111744/index.html) actually started out to be the same conciliationist shit that it is today. It was only with the foundation of the Social-Democratic Workers Party of Germany by comrades August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, coupled with the social-democratic measures of the Paris Commune (per the above link), that the term was for a short term appropriated by Marxists.

[Tower of Bebel]

Even in Germany numerically Marxism was a minority. The only country with a decent social democratic history was probably Russia. Though German social democracy claimed to be Marxist untill 1945.

The problem with social democracy was not only the lack of political clarity (with a few exeption like the aforementioned Russian and German social democracies), but also it's submission to the labor aristocracy. Since trade unions effectively succeeded at gaining concessions (not only due to the super profits of imperialism) both its numerical and ideological strength was growing faster than the social democratic parties and of course Marxism as a revolutionary alternative.

This submission took different forms in different countries. In Britain and Belgium where the unions formed the basis for the creation of social democratic parties reformism, opportunism and chauvenism ruled the minds and thoughts of those who were involved within the parties. In Russia and Germany where the parties were largely independent from trade unions from their conception (in Germany it was even the opposite of Belgium and England) Marxism held some ground. But eventually submission followed. In Germany the party went through a short fase of so called centrism (already clearly visible in the year 1910), while in Russia it formed the basis for a major split within the Russian social democratic labour party between two opposing factions.

Just after the betrayal called World War One social democracy's degeneration increased. In many European countries labour parties formed (coalition) governments that would save capitalism in exchange for some concessions which in the end only ment further exploitation of the working class. Even in countries where social democracy was exempted from taking part in running capitalism it still degenerated because of trade unionism (reformism).

[NecroCommie]

To my understanding they simply chickend out of radical thought. Social democracy as an ideology has no theory, and is therefore vulnerable to the subtle shifts in the surrounding culture. When communism was outlawed in most european countries during the first half of the last century, the social democrats "went with the flow" and said: "OK, so we are still kinda socialist youknow, but we are kinda nice (=legal) Youknow."

The biggest flaw in social democracy today is that they cannot seem to differentiate between what is legal and what is morally sound.

[h9socialist]

A worthy source on this subject is a book entitled "One Hundred Years of Socialism" by Donald Sassoon. I think that "social democracy" is one of those terms that gets abused far too regularly. In the history of the European left it has both a colorful and contradictory role.

[Revy]

I'm kinda new here and except for the ideological understandings I've gained from reading my knowledge in history certainly has some gaps.As far as I know in the beginning Social Democracy was considered and stood clearly on the left denouncing capitalism exploitation and even not going against the opinion that only through violence and revolution things can get better.They just didn't go as far as Communism went, keeping quite some meritocratic points to the spirit of Aristotles and Plato where private property and class division are still allowed but should be closely regulated for not going that far etc , etc.My question is how did they move from there to where they are today, accepting capitalism and reformism through voting, showing a much more passive stance.

Social democracy is not just a label. now it has to refer to a set of actions (I use the word Stalinism in a similar way). Thus a self-described communist can be a social democrat if judged by actions which show them to be one (just look at the Communist Party USA).

[blake 3:17]

As far as I know in the beginning Social Democracy was considered and stood clearly on the left denouncing capitalism exploitation and even not going against the opinion that only through violence and revolution things can get better.They just didn't go as far as Communism went, keeping quite some meritocratic points to the spirit of Aristotles and Plato where private property and class division are still allowed but should be closely regulated for not going that far etc , etc.My question is how did they move from there to where they are today, accepting capitalism and reformism through voting, showing a much more passive stance.

Only in very particular instances in Social Democracy have its leaders been at all sympathetic to outright revolt. Civil disobedience, protest, hard political fights sure, but not much more than that. The German trade union leaders in the early 20th century were very much against a general strike, let alone revolution, while often being very militant and radical for their sector.


The major split within the international socialist movement happened at the beginning of the First World War. Except for a dissident minority, most of the European Socialist Parties supported "their" nation, "their" military, "their" state.

Like others have stated above they were multiple reasons -- early bureacratization, basic acceptances of ethnic and racial chauvinism, and a basic hope for class peace. The whole period when radical ideas like Marxism, anarchism, feminism, anti-colonialism developed was at the same time where ordinary people were having to figure out how to get by.

The jump from being a fairly radical left to one very statist/corporatist isn't always that big.

The other problem is that the radical or revolutionary Left hasn't really done enough to think out how to use electoral victories. As long as the bourgeois political sphere has legitimacy, then radicals need to use those limited forms of democracy for more radical ends. I know a few quite radical folks who've been elected to some level of government, and are stuck in the muck of it.

There's a couple of huge problems -- the professional politician and the modern nation state. I have no idea how to overcome either.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Nevermind, I was messing them up with the Democratic Socialists :blushing:.I've read some books and some of their theses and I sorted them out now,thanks for the replies :D

[chegitz guevara]

It was only with the foundation of the Social-Democratic Workers Party of Germany by comrades August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht ... that the term was for a short term appropriated by Marxists.

And Marx and Engels were not happy about it.