Convincing a 'social democrat'

[Ehakamanda]

I'm curious as to how you guys think I can convince my friend, a self-proclaimed 'social democrat,' to a better understanding of anarchism/communism. He argues for a "government like today, with little or no social laws, and the only laws are there to regulate most if not all industry, and to ensure socialism remains the same economic policy.
otherwise, with no one saying not to, people would take advantage of it to benfit only themselves"

He mostly goes with the argument that someone would have the want to have power over others and eventually form a government based on the 'natural human greed' and that such a government as he describes would better prevent that.

Thanks.

[Tatarin]

Well, first of, you could point him to the current state of social democracy all over the world. What once began as a "calm way to socialism" by making people "vote in" measures until it became true socialism has now changed to small "fixes" to make society "better".

Social democracy has over the years stacked more and more liberal reforms on it's agenda, and have long ago abandoned anything that would lead to socialism. In some countries they are even xenophobic and side with right-wingers over the immigration issue as well as the recent "Islam is taking over the world OMG!11!!"-issue.

The second point is that social democracy, at least after it's initial "extremist" years (that is, when the goal became to create a strong welfare state until a better opportunity to continue to socialism) it became considerably naive. SD's seems to think that the people decide for them, or the right-wing. When the elections is over, society continues without anyone trying to change policy between elections. This is obviously not true.

The ruling class is relentless in it's pursuit of getting rid of all gains the working class have ever made. They have bribed and infiltrated, even calling themselves "reds" and "radicals" and made all kinds of promises. On the other hand, the SD's have protested, demonstrated, but as far as I know they haven't even come close to anything the right-wingers have.

I think the media "debate" in USA is a funny parallel; while the so-called "liberal media" is quiet, makes jokes and sarcasm out of the Republicans, we have the Fox News, O'Reilly and Hannity who openly point and says "fu_k you liberals, you are all better off dead" on TV. In a way, this is what the right-wing has done to the SD's.

Yet another point is the historical one. No great historical change has ever come by the calm and reformist way. You have wars and revolutions and coups, and this is still true today. The welfare states of the world has a secret history that is seldom talked about; and that is the struggle against capital. While SD-parties have once been the rallying point, most of the work was done by those who craved the change. This is another kind of propaganda that is directed at people all the time: that it was the party that did this and that reform, and if it didn't exist, we wouldn't be living as good as we do now.

So to make it shorter, ask your friend about the history of social democracy and point to it's original goal and what it has become today.

[Ehakamanda]

Okay, thanks a lot, I will attempt to utilize your advice. But how about the claim that once the government were to dissolve that someone would eventually hunger for power and start a government?

[Zanthorus]

Okay, thanks a lot, I will attempt to utilize your advice. But how about the claim that once the government were to dissolve that someone would eventually hunger for power and start a government?

They would need support from a large part of the population to do that first. If more or less everyones needs were being met then they'd have little to no chance. People don't just get up one day and say "you know what, I'm feeling power-hungry today. Lets start up a government." Plus in any system you can change the government by getting some people together and using armed force against the current rulers.

[Ehakamanda]

Yeah I did mention the fact that anyone in any system could attempt to overthrow the system, but he mostly says that basically the governmental system he strives for would prevent such an attempt at revolt better than a communal federation or whatever you want to call the communist system.

[Tatarin]

Yeah I did mention the fact that anyone in any system could attempt to overthrow the system, but he mostly says that basically the governmental system he strives for would prevent such an attempt at revolt better than a communal federation or whatever you want to call the communist system.

Hmm... I'm not sure I follow you. How would his proposed system prevent a revolt? Or rather, how would it prevent corruption? While social democracy hasn't really been corrupted in that sense, it has greatly changed into what I described above - thus the question is what would stop such change from happening again?

Not to mention that Chavez's government in Venezuela is much more a social democracy (state control and though restrictions on "the private sector", well, at least on paper), and minding the kind of attacks Chavez has been under from the west, any real social democracy would be criticized for being "strange" or "undemocratic" just like Venezuela has.

Secondly, what would be the incentive of gaining power in a global community network? Not only would any official be monitored and all documents available for everyone at any time, I find it hard to believe that there would be any "officials" in the sense of today. I mean, what would the person in question say to convince everyone to give him or her more power, and especially any control over the people? Who would enforce the new laws?

Mind that many ordinary things would be automated or rotated (garbage collecting, for example, could be done once in a lifetime per person in many countries), entertainment, science and overall progress would be the continual progress of society, and since such a society must be a global one, I find it even more hard to believe that any powerhungry person could come up with some lie about differences or dangers.

The biggest problem with social democracy today is not only it's changed state, it is also that is has no goal. It thinks that the welfare state can be upheld indefinitely while at the same time reforming the country in question to a liberal system. But yes, they do talk a lot of unions, of civil liberties, even class is talked about which gives a greater perspective to people than just "liberal vs. conservative" like in the US, but even these words are much more hollow today and only serves as distinctions and arguments for people to vote on their party.

Having said that, any true social democrat like your friend, would find it very hard to move social democracy back to it's roots. Just like any political block, there are many lines within social democracy. Some wants to go back, some want to stay in the middle, others want a complete reform and still others want to fix some things which will make society perfect. It has long ago moved away from being the people's movement to just another politician's club of specific belief.

I mean, where are the demonstrations? Or the outrage when the EU demands that national unions comply with corporate policy? Too bad - the social democrats are in the EU! Or what about pushing forward a nationalization of a car factory (Saab, for example)?

In addition, your friend should check up on Tage Erlander (wiki link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tage_Erlander), literally the "longest" prime minister (due to his lenght and the years he served) to serve in a capitalist democracy. More recently, Göran Persson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Persson) served another ten years (96-06), and lo and behold where he ended up: JKL Group (homepage) (http://www.jkl.se/default_com.asp). And all this in a country that has basically been ruled by social democracy for a half century, and still has a good 30% support by the general public (despite the fact that no one likes the current party leader!). Yet somehow, the private sector is appealing to all of them.

To compile it down; the political history of Sweden stands as a good example of social democracy and where it led, and why radically different politics is needed to really change history.

[Delegado J]

Personally, I wouldn't mind social democracy. I'm a syndicalist, but that doesn't mean I reject every other system. In the long run, social democracy has proven quite sustainable with regulations to benefit the workers and keep corporations under control. Also, a lot of Scandenavian countries have a hefty trade surplus and extensive protectionism.

But at the same time, I'd like to see socialism go a step further by giving workers direct control over their place of work. Social democracy works quite well, but I think direct democracy and true socialism can work even better.