Social Democracy: Our True Enemy?

[We will rise again]

I've been thinking about this for the last few days. May Social Democracy actually be slowing the world's Socialist cause, and helping Capitalism?

Here is my theory:

The Welfare State (imperfectly) allows for the less blessed in society to have access to basic needs. The mental depression caused be Capitalist system gives the people a felling of "giving up", hence such pessimism amongst political discussions. Welfare money isn't enough for purchasing decent commodities and is just enough to "get by" i.e. just enough to prevent thoughts of Revolution. You see, the People will have much more inclination to the left-wing when they are deprived, so maintaining a Welfare system only suppresses these tendencies. This allied to indoctrination and Anti-Socialism says it all.

Your thoughts? :star3:

[Tommy4ever]

You'd love this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism

[Kamos]

They are our enemies just like all other reactionary ideologies. No more, no less. Granted, social democracy slows down the revolution by trying to "appease" the revolutionaries, but other ideologies do just the same by keeping the masses ignorant, or suppressing them violently. Still, I can see where you are coming from.

[Kenco Smooth]

By this logic surely we should be violently breaking strikes and spitting on beggers? Afterall rising living conditions just slow the revolution.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I don't know that social welfare necessarily has that effect. The US has much less in the way of social programs than Europe, for instance, yet one could hardly argue it has a stronger socialist movement. If anything one could argue the opposite, that grinding people down with capitalism at its rawest demoralizes them. If you spend all your time struggling for the very basics of survival, you probably don't have the opportunity to organize a revolutionary movement.

[ckaihatsu]

I've thought about this, too, especially in today's climate of shifting economic policy orientation, from a Keynesian "loose money" "stimulus" paradigm to one of monetarist "belt-tightening" and "reining in debt"....

Really I think it's just a dynamic inherent to the material reality we call reality -- should we live more for the present or more for the future, basically -- ? (We could potentially direct ourselves now to efforts mindful of possible future conditions or live with what we have now with less concern about tomorrow. This goes for politics as well as any surplus-material-oversight roles, at any scale.)

In the context of revolutionary politics it's complicated, too, as reconciling the past with the present, and the present with the anticipated future ever is. Of course we don't want people to suffer -- which means *now* -- but we know that if conditions are better now then people will feel more at ease with the status quo and won't be as interested in fighting for a revolutionary future.

We often see this same material dynamic in bourgeois politics, too -- where, counterintuitively, the more right-wing candidate, once elected, winds up enacting more-progressive policies because people mobilize more aggressively, anticipating a more serious threat to their living conditions. But the more-liberal candidate, once elected, winds up getting away with enacting more right-wing policies because people were confident in past credentials and extended 'political capital' in anticipation of more-populist actions after election.

[Chris]

No, social democrats are far from our "true enemies". Social democracy has served to improve the lot of the workers in capitalism, and for that we should give them credit. Social democrats are also more likely to radicalise into socialists/communists (the current leader of the Communist Party of Norway is a former member of the Labour Party). As said earlier, you could say the same about Trade Unions & strikes (as in, they serve to improve the lot of the working class). Revolutionary leftists should struggle both for short-term gains for the working class (in the form of reforms, wage increase and better work conditions) as well as the long-term revolutionary goal.

[We will rise again]

I don't know that social welfare necessarily has that effect. The US has much less in the way of social programs than Europe, for instance, yet one could hardly argue it has a stronger socialist movement. If anything one could argue the opposite, that grinding people down with capitalism at its rawest demoralizes them. If you spend all your time struggling for the very basics of survival, you probably don't have the opportunity to organize a revolutionary movement.


Maybe you won't have such opportunity to revolt, but it will most certainly inspire revolutionary thought. I believe Welfare provides enough for the People to accept the system. It gives them a safety net. In other words, "If Capitalism fails for me, it's not the end of the world, I can still eat, clothe myself and have access to Healthcare, I don't think Capitalism is perfect, but it certainly doesn't need to change." From now on I oppose Social Democracy.

But not all is lost! It might help the Revolutionary Cause, because it educates the masses. This is extremely important as it allows ignorance to fade and promotes complex and philosophical thought, allied to scepticism/unconscious resistance to indoctrination. :glare:

What we need to do as Leftists, is help the People realize their Material World. Class consciousness in my country (Portugal) is devastatingly undeveloped, especially amongst youngsters. You see, my revolutionary thoughts started when I grew out of puberty, became educated, and turned to be a spectator of the ills of society: Homeless sleeping on the streets, unfinished property development due to corruption, constant lies from politicians, it goes on and on... I had always had left-wing tendencies, even as a child (completely oblivious to Politics), because I was raised by unselfish and caring Grandparents (who ironically where Free-Market Capitalist Entrepreneurs), it obviously rubbed off on me.

For the sake of Consciousness we must take the streets, let our voices and cause be heard, and conquer the hearts and minds of potential comrades.

Your thoughts?

[red_rich]

No, social democrats are far from our "true enemies". Social democracy has served to improve the lot of the workers in capitalism, and for that we should give them credit. Social democrats are also more likely to radicalise into socialists/communists (the current leader of the Communist Party of Norway is a former member of the Labour Party). As said earlier, you could say the same about Trade Unions & strikes (as in, they serve to improve the lot of the working class). Revolutionary leftists should struggle both for short-term gains for the working class (in the form of reforms, wage increase and better work conditions) as well as the long-term revolutionary goal.


I think what the OP was getting at is that what if the short term gains actually aid in preventing the long term gains? As long as the system we have still delivers the goods, people will not turn to revolution.

[Chris]

I think what the OP was getting at is that what if the short term gains actually aid in preventing the long term gains? As long as the system we have still delivers the goods, people will not turn to revolution.
And if we do not show that we fight for the material improvements of the working class, why would they ever turn to revolutionary ideologies? Fighting against the social democrats would just strengthen their hold on the working class, since then it would seem like the soc-dems were the only ones fighting for our rights in the now.
If we do not also fight for short-term gains, we will never be able to rally sufficient numbers of the working class to make way for our long-term gains.

[red_rich]

And if we do not show that we fight for the material improvements of the working class, why would they ever turn to revolutionary ideologies? Fighting against the social democrats would just strengthen their hold on the working class, since then it would seem like the soc-dems were the only ones fighting for our rights in the now.
If we do not also fight for short-term gains, we will never be able to rally sufficient numbers of the working class to make way for our long-term gains.

im not suggesting i dissagree. However there is a certain dilema where if the material improvements for the working class are at a sufficient level, they will not turn to revolution.

we naturally represent working class interests, yet as long as capitalism (and capitalist states) deliver a standard of living the working class percieve to be acceptable, thier workers will not turn on them.

i admit i am talking of western nations. There are many parts of the world where the results of capitalism to not give workers a suffucient standard of living. This is where revolutions happen.

[Tim Finnegan]

I've been thinking about this for the last few days. May Social Democracy actually be slowing the world's Socialist cause, and helping Capitalism?

Here is my theory:

The Welfare State (imperfectly) allows for the less blessed in society to have access to basic needs. The mental depression caused be Capitalist system gives the people a felling of "giving up", hence such pessimism amongst political discussions. Welfare money isn't enough for purchasing decent commodities and is just enough to "get by" i.e. just enough to prevent thoughts of Revolution. You see, the People will have much more inclination to the left-wing when they are deprived, so maintaining a Welfare system only suppresses these tendencies. This allied to indoctrination and Anti-Socialism says it all.

Your thoughts? :star3:
I think that you're trading in long-refuted ultra-left clichés. Stop it, you'll poke somebody's out.

[MarxSchmarx]

im not suggesting i dissagree. However there is a certain dilema where if the material improvements for the working class are at a sufficient level, they will not turn to revolution.

we naturally represent working class interests, yet as long as capitalism (and capitalist states) deliver a standard of living the working class percieve to be acceptable, thier workers will not turn on them.

i admit i am talking of western nations. There are many parts of the world where the results of capitalism to not give workers a suffucient standard of living. This is where revolutions happen.

So although I see where you are coming from, I think there are several problems with this case.

1. the idea is that it leads to the position that it is, in fact, rational for lefitsts to support insanely reactionary, repressive,and capricious policies that immesierate people as because it somehow accelerates an impending transition to socialism. A corollary of this is that we should oppose things like abolishing child labor, the 8 hour work day, etc... because the harsher the conditions, the more people are to apt to demand radical change. This is not in any real sense of the term a defensible leftist position.

2. I don't know why we have to assume that people, seeing that they have the power to extract concessions, won't want more. In fact, I don't see that this is how people in other areas of life. It frankly sounds to me like a variant of "if rich people can afford a reliable used honda civic, this takes away the incentive to buy a fancy schmancy sports car."

Morever, if human being by and large contend themselves with what are seen at one time as "the basics", then why would they prefer color monitors to black and white monitors, refrigerators to ice boxes, etc...? Clearly people don't just settle for "good enough" but seem to perpetually want improvement. And the more ability they have to improve their lot, the more willing they seem to be to accept change. Thus, as color tvs came down in price, more people had the ability to switch to color tv and did, in fact do so. In fact, it is probably because they see themselves as basically powerless to purchase an affordable, highly effective 3d entertainment system that holds them back, rather than contentment with the existing 2d tv systems.

It seems reasonable to assume that as the class struggle continues and rejuvinates, the working class increases in its confidence to affect change and therefore is more likely to demand more, not less.

[Ocean Seal]

Social democracy is a form of capitalism and is therefore part of our true enemy. But no rising living standards give people something to look forward to. Every gain that the people make, makes them more revolutionary. Every hour lost off their mandatory work schedule is another hour to read Marx. Moreover, social democracy sets itself up for failure. England, France, all of these social democracies are getting heavier and heavier bailouts. They can't pacify the masses for long and with the gains that the workers have made under social democracy they know that change is possible and the direct action leads to change.