Social Democracy: Advancement or Disruption?

[Leftsolidarity]

I have gotten into discussions on this topic before and was looking for some good arguments on both sides. Do you feel social democracy advances the Leftist movement by providing more of a safety net and better living conditions or does it hinder the movement by making people complacent?

[Pretty Flaco]

It's a gain for the working class. I'm not of course advocating social democracy, but I would favor it heavily over straight capitalism with no social welfare programs. Especially living in a place like the US. I would love free university and healthcare. :lol:

[Optiow]

I think that any move to the left is a gain for the working class, because it shows that the people are rejecting right wing ideals.

However, in the end it does become a hindrace to full revolution. Because social-democrats are supporters of free market capitalism, they are opponents of revolutionary socialism, and are therefore a barrier towards emancipation of the working class. They are capitalists, and they protect their profits like any other capitalist. This is why they oppose communists as 'too radical'.

So while they do bring benefits to the working class, and they lean to the left, they are still supporters of capitalism. And this view of theirs is unacceptable, because free market capitalism will breed inequality no matter how many reforms are in place.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Social Democracy is becoming irrelevant, because it is mostly being sucked up by neo-liberalism, as i've experienced first hand in the UK with the Labour Party.

Democratic Socialism, a la Tony Benn, George Galloway and Die Linke, is probably a more accurate target for the question and the answer, of course, is that yes, it is a veritable current within the Socialist movement that seeks to advance the workers' cause against Capitalism, even if it not a particularly Marxist-scientific or revolutionary current.

[Victory Of The People!]

Its a hindrance. The reason I say that is because so far Social Democratic movements have NEVER led to the overthrow of capitalism. It simply prolongs the rule of capital over labor by promoting class-collaboration and providing an false "alternative" to socialist revolution. Opportunism.. nothing but opportunism

[SuicidalTendencies]

Social-democracy has been the basis of a lot of the rights that we have here in Europe. Whatever you say, you can not take that away from them. Historically, they have under much more revolutionary circumstances been the hammer of the working class against the capital. The word socialdemocrat in itself reflects this tendency. The earliest definition of the word "democrat" is to be found in a french dictionary from the time of the French Revolution, wherein it says:
"A democrat is a person who confesses to the cause of the revolution"
The word, socialdemocrat, largely stems from this definition. Most communist movements in Europe were once part of the socialdemocratic party.

Historically, they had some power on their side, and fought for the working class. The corruption of the ideology killed their potential, and they started showing their true nature during the first and second decades of the 20th century, causing the communists to form their own parties.

The problem with socialdemocracy is the fact that it's purpose is not to change society, but rather to preserve it. It is designed in a way which cannot lead to socialism. For this, a revolution (be it somehow peaceful or not) is required. The reformism in Europe created a welfare, but the goal was something that was lost along the way. There was no theory of class-struggles, but the transition into socialism through socialdemocracy and reformism was to be based on class-cooperation.

This theory worked somewhat during the time when the threat of revolution was a real factor in society, and aggrevated class-struggles coming from the burgeoisie weren't strategically viable for them in such a situation. When the threat of revolution is unreal or extremely distant, socialdemocracy dies due to the fact that the class-cooperation they are looking for and expecting is no longer on the agenda of the capital.

It is also interesting to see how the capital was not only able to hold off revolutionary tendencies using a socialdemocratic "worker's movement" in order to do so, but how they could also use the socialdemocrats in order to pacify unions, marginalize the influence of communism and split the working class. To quote the former Swedish prime minister, Tage Erlander:
"The unions are the battlegrounds in which we will crush communism."

And so, the socialdemocrats battled communism in the unions, and managed to nearly completely pacify them in the process. It was as such very revealing regarding the nature of socialdemocracy to see how the capital used the socialdemocrats through the illusion of class-cooperation in order to destroy any real threats to their position. This story can be seen repeated all over Europe.

At this point, reformism is dead in most of Europe. The capital is no longer interested in cooperating, thus making socialdemocracy completely toothless. So, at this point, socialdemocracy is worthless to the working class.

What is needed today, is a revolutionary voice and not a reformist one.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, here in Canada, more centrist Liberals have fallen out of favour and Social Democrats now make up the vast majority of opposition members in Parliament to the most reactionary government that could possibly have been elected.

That said, Social Democrats seem to hijack control of opposition to capitalism that would, without their proposed false alternative of reforms, get a lot more intense. They act to distract popular sentiment from a revolutionary alternative which, in the comfort of their Western lifestyles and neighbourhoods, they dismiss as too extreme.

[Tim Finnegan]

In what sense- as a state of affairs, or as a movement in itself? If the state of affairs- a welfare state, strong labour laws, and so forth- it is generally a good thing, because it provides a stable material base for the working class to organise upon. Those who argue that these reforms serve only to soften or pacify the working class make the mistake of assuming that working class passivity is a unique product of material conditions, and as such ignore the important role played by the understanding of their own material conditions by the proletariat. One only needs to look at the simultaneously decline of the material conditions of the working class in the UK and of the British trade union movement- from its most militant in 1979 to a feeble shadow of itself only twenty years later- to see that hardship can by no means be expected to breed radicalism.

If the latter, however, it depends entirely on context, and on the exact form of social democracy- or social democracies- in that context. Social democracy may be more homogeneous than revolutionary socialism, but it is not a single movement with a universal nature, nor does it exist in universally identical circumstances.


What is needed today, is a revolutionary voice and not a reformist one.
Do we even have a reformist one? Comrades here seem to be forgetting that the reformist socialism once implied by "social democracy" is no longer the case; no major social democratic party today rejects capitalism as such, nor have they for many years. In times such as these, without a mass movement of the working class, reformist socialists are very much our allies. Those who challenge the logic of capitalism are so few, in this day and age, that they have to more to offer each other than they have to argue about.
A century ago, Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution? was directed against a mainstream centre-left, but now it reads like a discussion entirely within the far-left. While the theoretical debate therein has not faded into insignificance, to pretend that it is the core issue around which the left should organise itself is, at best, a naive refusal to address the facts of the present.

[Ocean Seal]

Social Democracy does two things very well.

The first is that it empowers the workers. It gives them shorter hours, free education, free healthcare, and more time to contemplate their exploitation as well as things that they come to expect.
The second is that it collapses rather predictably. Social democracy is not sustainable. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a parasitic ruling class and a reasonable standard of living for everyone for long. The bourgeoisie will have to start taking things away to live their lives of leisure. The workers who are now empowered also become combative unlike in the United States where they step down and break solidarity regardless of what happens.
An empowered combative working class + a deteriorating social democracy = revolution

[Leftsolidarity]

Social Democracy does two things very well.

The bourgeoisie will have to start taking things away to live their lives of leisure. The workers who are now empowered also become combative unlike in the United States where they step down and break solidarity regardless of what happens.
An empowered combative working class + a deteriorating social democracy = revolution

I sort of agree with you. Make a stronger argument and back it up with an example.

[#FF0000]

Do you feel social democracy advances the Leftist movement by providing more of a safety net and better living conditions or does it hinder the movement by making people complacent?Both of these conclusions are wrong. First off, reforms alone don't hurt capitalism. Reforms just change how exploitation's carried out. Secondly, people living in worse conditions doesn't mean they'll be more militant. Workers in France live better than workers in America, yet I've never seen a group of American workers threaten to blow up a factory after they were laid off.

[jake williams]

Social democracy as an ideology is harmful to the working class in the narrow sense, because the working class needs, eventually, to overthrow capitalism, something which social democracy as an ideology can't accomplish.

But the products of social democracy have not been altogether harmful. The welfare state which social democrats have helped the working class achieve is in general a good thing. Workers not dying on the street, going into poverty to look after sick relatives, and being able to educate themselves and their families is a very good thing.

[SuicidalTendencies]

In what sense- as a state of affairs, or as a movement in itself? If the state of affairs- a welfare state, strong labour laws, and so forth- it is generally a good thing, because it provides a stable material base for the working class to organise upon. Those who argue that these reforms serve only to soften or pacify the working class make the mistake of assuming that working class passivity is a unique product of material conditions, and as such ignore the important role played by the understanding of their own material conditions by the proletariat. One only needs to look at the simultaneously decline of the material conditions of the working class in the UK and of the British trade union movement- from its most militant in 1979 to a feeble shadow of itself only twenty years later- to see that hardship can by no means be expected to breed radicalism.

If the latter, however, it depends entirely on context, and on the exact form of social democracy- or social democracies- in that context. Social democracy may be more homogeneous than revolutionary socialism, but it is not a single movement with a universal nature, nor does it exist in universally identical circumstances.


Do we even have a reformist one? Comrades here seem to be forgetting that the reformist socialism once implied by "social democracy" is no longer the case; no major social democratic party today rejects capitalism as such, nor have they for many years. In times such as these, without a mass movement of the working class, reformist socialists are very much our allies. Those who challenge the logic of capitalism are so few, in this day and age, that they have to more to offer each other than they have to argue about.
A century ago, Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution? was directed against a mainstream centre-left, but now it reads like a discussion entirely within the far-left. While the theoretical debate therein has not faded into insignificance, to pretend that it is the core issue around which the left should organise itself is, at best, a naive refusal to address the facts of the present.

The central issue in my post was the following:

There was no theory of class-struggles, but the transition into socialism through socialdemocracy and reformism was to be based on class-cooperation.

This theory worked somewhat during the time when the threat of revolution was a real factor in society, and aggrevated class-struggles coming from the burgeoisie weren't strategically viable for them in such a situation. When the threat of revolution is unreal or extremely distant, socialdemocracy dies due to the fact that the class-cooperation they are looking for and expecting is no longer on the agenda of the capital.

It is also interesting to see how the capital was not only able to hold off revolutionary tendencies using a socialdemocratic "worker's movement" in order to do so, but how they could also use the socialdemocrats in order to pacify unions, marginalize the influence of communism and split the working class. To quote the former Swedish prime minister, Tage Erlander:
"The unions are the battlegrounds in which we will crush communism."

Tage Erlander was a socialdemocrat who believed in reformism. This story can be seen repeating itself over and over again. Why is this? It is because the reformist course of action is designed in a way that makes corruption inevitible and any transition to socialism close to impossible. This is the reason why we do not have any reformism today to speak of.

Any socialist movement that is based on compromise with the capital will ultimately suffer this fate, and is unable te reach socialism by design. It also has a tendency to become the voice of the capital in the unions.

They have even been able to stop revolutions in favour of their "compromise".

Throughout history, they have sabotaged so much for real socialists, that the welfare they created, although progressive by comparison, in a sense served the reaction.

Rosa Luxemburg didn't see this happen in a large scale, but today we have to know better. A socialdemocrat is no friend of anything progressive, and little true progress will be gained through having them in charge, being the "lesser evil" so to speak.

Of course, any campaign for worker's demands should be supported, but it is also important not to have any illusions about socialdemocracy, or see anybody who proposes isolated progressive reforms as a comrade (hell, there are nazis who propose isolated progressive reforms).

And regarding the proletariat's understanding of their own material conditions, one could say that the socialdemocrats often have promoted and reproduced the alienation. This has, historically, been why they have been so useful for the capital. They are very effective when it comes to keeping people from questioning the system.

All in all, the socialdemocratic reformism gives rise to a contradiction. Working within the system works only with the support of the capital. The capital will not allow a socialist movement to work, unless it can be considered relatively harmless, or even helpful to them in some way. Socialdemocracy turned out to be helpful in fighting communism. The existence of communism gave the socialdemocrats an area to work with. The creation of this relative welfare and the anticommunism of the socialdemocratic parties serves to distance the public from communism, as well as add to the alienation. The contradiction becomes apparent, when the influence of communism is marginalized in society. Without a material reason for the capital to keep the socialdemocrats around, they can just as well (since the reformist way is based on class-cooperation) fight off the reformism with class-struggle from the side of the capital. The socialdemocratic party now loses it's area to work in, and have been used for a long term reactionary purpose.

This is the problem with socialdemocracy, even if I stand by a number of isolated reforms proposed by many reformists.

[Ocean Seal]

I sort of agree with you. Make a stronger argument and back it up with an example.
I think that the best example that I can offer is a look at the situation in Europe and in the United States.

In the United States strikes are rare, the workers think in terms of the boss often not looking to bleed the system, they think little of their vestige's of unions, they don't organize, and they sit there while the royal treasury gives massive bailouts to corporations all the while cutting their social services (and when they do organize this (http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef01156e3c59aa970c-500wi&sa=X&ei=n-jFTbf5JInh0QHMpP2iCA&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEl1waPB-30WCmal6Ge3acr6DoCdw) happens).

However in Europe, where social democracy has been implemented the workers are more courageous, more organized, more militant and so on. Just look at what happened in France when they tried to raise the retirement age. I spoke to some workers here and they said that French workers had it too good :confused:. That retiring at 62 was way too early (even though full retirement age was 64, and that now that people are living longer they should be working longer too). And then I told them that businessmen, wall street brokers, and executives could retire at any age that they want. And they said that these people were harder workers than our workers :confused: and that they didn't retire early accusing me of making that up. I said that they had the option to. I told them that workers worldwide are exploited, they denied that. Because everyone loves the boss. The worst part these were self-identified liberals in New York (ideologically further to the left than most in America). The workers of Europe are more combative and more organized.

[Tim Finnegan]

The worst part these were self-identified liberals in New York (ideologically further to the left than most in America).
Which reflects an additional advantage to social democracy: shutting up pompous liberals! American left-liberals have a habit of adopting grand postures, so sincerely, embarrassingly convinced are they of their own exceptional radicalism, while European liberals, for all the contempt in which I hold them, at least have the good decency to be vaguely aware of their own essential conservatism. ;)

[progressive_lefty]

In my opinion Social Democracy, emphasises the social and democratic parts of society, it has nothing to do with capitalism or the free market. I personally believe that some elements of capitalism can be useful, but I stress ONLY some elements. The United States is one of the few developed countries in the world that hasn't embraced the social democratic policies of Sweden, Norway, UK, Australia, Denmark, Germany.......

This was my post on this thread here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democrats-and-social-t151969/index.html?p=2075613#post2075613).

[fishontuesday]

Both, but actually more of an advancement. I say more of an advancement because it's very unlikely communists will be elected president of any country in Western Europe and Social Democrats at least provide people with some basics. Such as healthcare and better security for unemployed. I much prefer ACTUAL SOCIALISTS but these guys are a million times better then the right! The left is always right! (as in correct lol)

[Rowan Duffy]

The meaning of social democracy has changed enormously over time. The RSDLP from which the Bolshevik's sprang and the SPD can hardly be compared with the Labour party in the UK even of the 70s. The current Labour party in the UK is just a complete joke.

The social democrats at the turn of the century were often revolutionaries, a very large number of them want to abolish capitalism, and many of them thought that the bourgeois state needed to be eliminated in order to do so. Compare that with what people call social democracy now, that is, a welfare state under capitalist control.

I think depending on the meaning we ascribe to the term, it can be variously interpreted as progressive or not. I don't think there is anything progressive about the UK or Irish Labour parties. The best that can be said is that they are less regressive (and they are definitely regressive in terms of the fact that they want to actively roll back success) than some of the alternatives.

Does this mean that social democracy of the revolutionary anti-capitalist variety has no role left to play?

[miltonwasfried...man]

I have gotten into discussions on this topic before and was looking for some good arguments on both sides. Do you feel social democracy advances the Leftist movement by providing more of a safety net and better living conditions or does it hinder the movement by making people complacent?


Social democracy is the best means to an end, far from perfect but one of the best methods we have to advance the leftist cause. Like Unions, socialist political parties can speak up for and represent the working class and the majority of citizens. By advocating Proletariat rights and freedoms, many people will support them leading to a fighting chance to make a difference in the government and society. Better living conditions, universal health care, free education, equality, etc make for a better life for the masses and can be provided by a socialist democracy. Where many 'revolutionaries' will complain that it is not enough or democracy doesn't work, they rarely present a valid alternative. Destruction and anarchy will not bring happiness to the Proletariat.

[SuicidalTendencies]

Social democracy is the best means to an end, far from perfect but one of the best methods we have to advance the leftist cause. Like Unions, socialist political parties can speak up for and represent the working class and the majority of citizens. By advocating Proletariat rights and freedoms, many people will support them leading to a fighting chance to make a difference in the government and society. Better living conditions, universal health care, free education, equality, etc make for a better life for the masses and can be provided by a socialist democracy. Where many 'revolutionaries' will complain that it is not enough or democracy doesn't work, they rarely present a valid alternative. Destruction and anarchy will not bring happiness to the Proletariat.
Socialdemocracy doesn't advance the leftist cause. It is reactionary in it's nature. This is again, not to say that a socialist or communist can not support progressive reforms just because of the people who propose them within the system.

The important thing though, is to always have in mind that socialdemocracy does not lead to socialism, because it is designed in such a way that it really can't. To claim that it can is to underestimate the reaction, which has led many worker's movements to their graves throughout the years.

This is not to say that I think it to be completely impossible to carry out a revolution using the electoral system, but in these cases there would have to be some kind of revolutionary potential in the masses behind the party (which would make it impossible for the reaction to overthrow the movement due to the impending threat of a violent revolution). An example that is often cited is Venezuela. Now, while I am not going to categorically judge Venezuela to be a failure in the making, but we should also see the development there with some skepticism. Remember: We have not seen the party there build socialism yet, so there is no telling right now how such a series of events would turn out.

If any such tactics of "peaceful revolutions", so to speak, were to prove viable in some environments, they would of course be preferred in the environments where they are viable. In the places where they are not viable, however, talking about better alternatives than reformism is pointless, since reforms are not even an option to begin with if you actually want to get it done.

Now, what is the difference between these "peaceful revolutions" and socialdemocrat reformism? What is it that dooms the one, but still leaves a little glimmer of hope in me for the other?

Theoretical basis, of course! One is based on compromise and class-cooperation in order to achieve it's goals. It seeks to beg the capital into throwing them scraps from the table, and are always trying to make "mutually beneficial" agreements with the capital. The other one is designed to topple society and remake it, and will not compromise with the enemies of the working class. This makes it a much more viable option, and no matter the direct path they use to carry out the revolution, these would be revolutionaries.

[Tim Finnegan]

Socialdemocracy doesn't advance the leftist cause. It is reactionary in it's nature.
Could you elaborate? My understanding of the concept of "reactionaryism" doesn't have a heavy overlap of with my understanding of "social democracy", in either its older, reformist socialist form, or its later, capitalist form.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

This story can be seen repeating itself over and over again....Any socialist movement that is based on compromise with the capital will ultimately suffer this fate...etc.

Could be; unfortunately, if you chose your sample, you chose your conclusions.

Let's take the example of a very small country of 6 million in 1919. It has a strong Socialist party whose leaders openly call themselves Marxists. On either border they see the Bavarian Republic, then the Hungarian Commune crushed, and they have every reason to believe the same fate would happen to them, should they attempt to establish a similar Revolutionary government.

They argue that the only way to preserve Socialism would be to create a stronghold in this country's capital (over a million inhabitants), to impose a federation on the rest of the country, and to attempt to strengthen socialist culture among the working class in the hopes of resisting the eventual repression from reactionary capital.

This goes very well for a number of years. The bourgeois landlords are not expropriated, but a very high property tax allows the municipal government to invest enormous resources into low-income housing, health care, education, etc. This form of working Socialism is the envy of the world.

Unfortunately, reactionary pressures catch up with the municipality when a group of workers are murdered, their right-wing militia killers are acquitted, and an uprising occurs in the Capital which the Social-Democrats refuse to back. After this the City Government gradually loses power against the increasing power of the State; the Communists alone call for armed insurrection, and are marginalized. Finally, the reactionary government and its paramilitaries march in, bombard the worker's housing projects and eliminate the Socialist Government. Four years later the National Government itself is destroyed by the Nazis.

It's easy to make all kinds of assertions, and they have been made: a) that the Social-Democratic government "betrayed" the Revolution; b) that they failed, as all Social-Democratic governments will, by assuming they could build up a Socialist culture strong enough to resist fascist encroachment. I have to say, after reading quite a bit of the evidence, that I don't see how things would have turned out any differently. For one thing, I haven't seen any evidence that the SDs turned against the Communists until late in the game, or even that they betrayed the workers any more than the Bolsheviks did; and there wasn't the kind of open warfare between the two groups that you had in Germany. A good deal of the argument against this particular form of Socialism strikes me as applied after the fact, and after the example of Germany, and based on assumptions about Germany spelled out by the Comintern at the time.

[Revmind84]

It is a gain within the framwork of struggling for more democratic rights WITHIN capitalism. It can be a hindrance only after those rights are won and the leadership of Marxists becomes complacent and loses sight of the long-term goal: the emancipation of the working-class.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

It is a gain within the framwork of struggling for more democratic rights WITHIN capitalism. It can be a hindrance only after those rights are won and the leadership of Marxists becomes complacent and loses sight of the long-term goal: the emancipation of the working-class.

This would suggest that such rights could be won within capitalism, which is the bet that Marx was willing to take when he suggested, against the Guesdists, that sooner or later the rights won by the working class under capitalism would be snatched away from them (as we see now), and that would be the time to "transition" forward from Democratic Socialism. The complacency of Marxists (and Social-Democrats, and unions) has more to do with preserving their bureaucracies than anything else, and I think that is what we're seeing in Wisconsin and elsewhere. (Not to mention the USSR).

[Ocean Book]

Social Democracy does two things very well.

The first is that it empowers the workers. It gives them shorter hours, free education, free healthcare, and more time to contemplate their exploitation as well as things that they come to expect.
The second is that it collapses rather predictably. Social democracy is not sustainable. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a parasitic ruling class and a reasonable standard of living for everyone for long. The bourgeoisie will have to start taking things away to live their lives of leisure. The workers who are now empowered also become combative unlike in the United States where they step down and break solidarity regardless of what happens.
An empowered combative working class + a deteriorating social democracy = revolution


I sort of agree with you. Make a stronger argument and back it up with an example.

The theoretical framework I would back this argument up with is the falling rate of profit, for the need to expand profit always overcomes any social contracts placed in its way.

[Mr. Natural]

Social democrats seem to have universally become liberals and left-liberals whose ultimate loyalty is to capitalism. There was a time when social democracy had some claim to radicalism, but this disappeared with its wholesale surrender to the various national imperialisms in WWI.
A welfare state is not a workers' state and is an inherently unstable capitalist structure. Social democrats operate within The System; we need revolutionary reforms, not reformist reforms.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This would suggest that such rights could be won within capitalism, which is the bet that Marx was willing to take when he suggested, against the Guesdists, that sooner or later the rights won by the working class under capitalism would be snatched away from them (as we see now), and that would be the time to "transition" forward from Democratic Socialism. The complacency of Marxists (and Social-Democrats, and unions) has more to do with preserving their bureaucracies than anything else, and I think that is what we're seeing in Wisconsin and elsewhere. (Not to mention the USSR).

I agree with you except where you mentioned the Guesdists. They were right in their characterization of juxtaposing radical, structural, pro-labour social reform (in today's world consider the Minskyites and other Post-Keynesians) with reformist scabs, but they weren't the ones screaming "transitional" all the time... unlike Marx.

[Leftsolidarity]

The meaning of social democracy has changed enormously over time. The RSDLP from which the Bolshevik's sprang and the SPD can hardly be compared with the Labour party in the UK even of the 70s. The current Labour party in the UK is just a complete joke.

The social democrats at the turn of the century were often revolutionaries, a very large number of them want to abolish capitalism, and many of them thought that the bourgeois state needed to be eliminated in order to do so. Compare that with what people call social democracy now, that is, a welfare state under capitalist control.

I think depending on the meaning we ascribe to the term, it can be variously interpreted as progressive or not. I don't think there is anything progressive about the UK or Irish Labour parties. The best that can be said is that they are less regressive (and they are definitely regressive in terms of the fact that they want to actively roll back success) than some of the alternatives.

Does this mean that social democracy of the revolutionary anti-capitalist variety has no role left to play?

I am talking about how it is currently thought of as welfare state under capitalism.

[Antwan3K]

In Belgium, the incorporation of labor unions into the state framework (which is very much a social-democratic element of the welfare state that we have), while remaining in opposition to it (I know it seems contradictory, but I mean it in the sense that while the unions are very much part of the system, they also are the only major voice of leftist mobilization) does create a pretty stable base for ground action for the left. The small left-wing parties, who aren't anywhere electorally, are generally pretty well represented in the socialist union. (Although this probably differs between different factories or other workplaces).
Also, I think the defense of social-democratic achievements as basic rights of the working class could, theoretically, ultimately be used to underline the basic contradictions in the economic system. An example is the system of wage indexation (which I think is pretty unique in the world?), which is coming under pressure from the EU, but which a huge majority of the working population consider ultimately just, and will defend as a basic right.
Thus, defense and radicalization of social-democratic gains can form a good platform for revolutionary mobilization, in my opinion.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I've been reading Wolfgang Maderthaner's account of how the Austrian Social-Democrats ("Austro-Marxists") were crushed by fascist troops and paramilitary in 1934 - the first armed fascist coup against a civilian population in interwar Europe. It's very hard to assign blame to Social-Democracy as a structural system, at least in his reading.