Help me understand Social Democrats

[gendoikari]

Okay so I was reading one of the threads here and someone said that you guys don't allow social democrats, well as partly a democratic socialist myself I thought you were referring to democratic socialists. Then someone pointed me to the wikipedia for social democracy....

did I read this right or are these people advocating keeping capitalism and ramping up the social programs that are the band-aid on the cancerous sore that is capitalism? I mean seriously, capitalism with a welfare state? .... um how about we implement full socialism and do away with the vestigial organ known as welfare since it won't be used for the most part anyway?

seriously, i've been working all day and might be a bit woozy, did I read this page right, are these people really serious about this? it's like they're saying "oh hey I know we have this gushing wound on our leg, and it's infected lets just go put a bandaid on it."

Edit:

Since the rise in popularity of the New Right and neoliberalism, a number of prominent social democratic parties have abandoned the goal of the gradual evolution of capitalism to socialism and instead support welfare state capitalism.

[socialistjustin]

Thats the way I always understood it. We would have large social programs funded by taxes in a capitalist economy.

[CornetJoyce]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/rp/pr.htm

[gendoikari]

Dude it is one thing to be a fascist and pretend to be a socialist, it's another thing entirely to be a capitalist apologist and wear the red flag.

[Tommy4ever]

Social Democracy from around about the mid 20th century became an ideology that no longer saw socialism as its ultimate goal but instead focused on trying to correct the worst excesses of capitalism with state control. Whilst successfully cutting down on these excesses social democracy created problems in itself and when the crisis of the early 70s came around seemed to be unable to find a solution to the first serious crisis in capitalism after the war. Since then social democrats have either just been parties trying to protect some of the gains of the post war period, or have turned fully over to liberalism but still wave around their little red flags for the sake of the votes.

[gendoikari]

Social Democracy from around about the mid 20th century became an ideology that no longer saw socialism as its ultimate goal but instead focused on trying to correct the worst excesses of capitalism with state control. Whilst successfully cutting down on these excesses social democracy created problems in itself and when the crisis of the early 70s came around seemed to be unable to find a solution to the first serious crisis in capitalism after the war. Since then social democrats have either just been parties trying to protect some of the gains of the post war period, or have turned fully over to liberalism but still wave around their little red flags for the sake of the votes.

Dude welfare, government regulations and the like, are all bandaids not real solutions. In fact it is welfare in part that keeps the lower classes from rising up, and the capitalists know this, which is why they keep it around. This social democracy bullshit is nothing more than FUCKING CAPITULATION!!!!!!

[Per Levy]

did I read this right or are these people advocating keeping capitalism and ramping up the social programs that are the band-aid on the cancerous sore that is capitalism? I mean seriously, capitalism with a welfare state?

yep pretty much, social dem parties were importent in the way to show workers that capitalism could be social and somewhat workers friendly(back when communists were threat to capitalism). also of course they talked a lot about socialism back in the day, and that they wanted to enact it "democraticly" so when they just have enough votes they will sometime enact socialism. but lets face it most social dem parties these days dont even want capitalism with a welfare state, just capitalism as it is. look at the german spd, or the british labour party as examples.

[La Comédie Noire]

Basically social democracy is what happens when capital absorbs social movements, they gave them the inch and they totally forgot about the mile. Reading about the histories of the respective social democratic parties during World War I makes for some particularly depressing reading. But that's all over and done with, whatever they hoped to achieve within the system is now impossible. Capital is too highly concentrated, they can't make a comfortable profit and give us a living wage. So when the right wing says CUT! all the leftwing can muster is a quiet, suggestion *snip*

[gendoikari]

Don't get me wrong I'm not against trying to enact socialism by voting measures and getting the right people in office but it would never be allowed, the capitalists would find some way to fire the first shot without looking like they fired the first shot in what would end up being a revolution all the same. But even if they didn't you've got to be willing to do more than just say "well capitalism kinda works, but we can fix it" No, if you want to go the democratic route to socialism you have to be willing to re write the WHOLE constitution, possible even encourage the rest of the world to do the same.

That being said if a full scale revolt were to break out I'd be the first motherfucker in the streets.... I'd also be shot down quickly because well.... georgias average IQ is 95

[Tommy4ever]

Dude welfare, government regulations and the like, are all bandaids not real solutions. In fact it is welfare in part that keeps the lower classes from rising up, and the capitalists know this, which is why they keep it around. This social democracy bullshit is nothing more than FUCKING CAPITULATION!!!!!!

Well, I'm just trying to help you understand the idea, not advocating it myself.

Remember that social democracy evolved out of Marxism (indeed, a little over a hundred years ago being a social democrat basically meant being a Marxist). It basically went from think ''when we are elected to power we shall introduce socialism!'' to ''when we are elected to power, without one of those nasty revolutions, we shall gradually introduce socialism!'' to ''lets just correct the worst parts of capitalism, we wouldn't want to have one of those revolutions'' to ''lets just try to stop things becoming too unequal'' to ''capitalism, it's fine by me! But we're way more dynamic and caring than those nasty right wingers!''

[gendoikari]

Well, I'm just trying to help you understand the idea, not advocating it myself.

Remember that social democracy evolved out of Marxism (indeed, a little over a hundred years ago being a social democrat basically meant being a Marxist). It basically went from think ''when we are elected to power we shall introduce socialism!'' to ''when we are elected to power, without one of those nasty revolutions, we shall gradually introduce socialism!'' to ''lets just correct the worst parts of capitalism, we wouldn't want to have one of those revolutions'' to ''lets just try to stop things becoming too unequal'' to ''capitalism, it's fine by me! But we're way more dynamic and caring than those nasty right wingers!''

Oh I know your not advocating it. It just pisses me off. There is nothing wrong with a gradual introduction of socialism, but to give up entirely, and not have the balls for a revolution should one be needed.... Sickening. Almost as sickening as capitalists themselves.

[Pretty Flaco]

Oh I know your not advocating it. It just pisses me off. There is nothing wrong with a gradual introduction of socialism, but to give up entirely, and not have the balls for a revolution should one be needed.... Sickening. Almost as sickening as capitalists themselves.

Well, they are capitalists.
I wouldn't say it's sickening. Living in the United States, it would certainly be an easier system to live in than the current one. However, that is not to say that it's one that would not be needed to be done away with, in favor of a socialist economy.

[gendoikari]

Well, they are capitalists.
I wouldn't say it's sickening. Living in the United States, it would certainly be an easier system to live in than the current one. However, that is not to say that it's one that would not be needed to be done away with, in favor of a socialist economy.

actually I think it's even more dangerous. You litterally would have taken away the working classes will to revolt permanently. Effectively creating a master/slave relationship in society, and on a more fundemental level than it already exists. Emplementing this social democracy stuff would be the end of any real socialist movements.

[Ocean Seal]

Okay so I was reading one of the threads here and someone said that you guys don't allow social democrats, well as partly a democratic socialist myself I thought you were referring to democratic socialists. Then someone pointed me to the wikipedia for social democracy....

did I read this right or are these people advocating keeping capitalism and ramping up the social programs that are the band-aid on the cancerous sore that is capitalism? I mean seriously, capitalism with a welfare state? .... um how about we implement full socialism and do away with the vestigial organ known as welfare since it won't be used for the most part anyway?

seriously, i've been working all day and might be a bit woozy, did I read this page right, are these people really serious about this? it's like they're saying "oh hey I know we have this gushing wound on our leg, and it's infected lets just go put a bandaid on it."

Edit:
Basically social-democrats believe that the corporations and private capital isn't the enemy if it is fully regulated. They want to tone down the power of private capital and transfer it into the state where they believe that they'll have more control over it being that they "chose" their leaders. They feel that socialism will lead to dictatorship and so on, and like the idea of potentially getting rich and think that its wrong to rob the rich of their property for some bizzare moral reason. Kind of the same moral reason as the taxation is theft crew, but to a lesser extent.

[gendoikari]

Basically social-democrats believe that the corporations and private capital isn't the enemy if it is fully regulated. They want to tone down the power of private capital and transfer it into the state where they believe that they'll have more control over it being that they "chose" their leaders. They feel that socialism will lead to dictatorship and so on, and like the idea of potentially getting rich and think that its wrong to rob the rich of their property for some bizzare moral reason. Kind of the same moral reason as the taxation is theft crew, but to a lesser extent.

ROTFL. ... You know lenin was a great man, I believe his heart was in the right place even if his methods were a bit extreme.... and he had a good system but ... yeah he made that very same mistake of assuming the part bolded above. It was a bad mistake. And these people haven't learned from that?

[Tim Finnegan]

Dude welfare, government regulations and the like, are all bandaids not real solutions. In fact it is welfare in part that keeps the lower classes from rising up, and the capitalists know this, which is why they keep it around. This social democracy bullshit is nothing more than FUCKING CAPITULATION!!!!!!
I don't think that it really is that simple. The British working class was at its strongest and most militant in the post-war period, a period characterised by a strong welfare state, strong corporatist institutions, nationalised industry, and so on. The trade union and Labour Party bureaucrats who put it together were collaborationist assholes, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they were only able to pursue this collaboration through working class power, had to appeal to working class power to defend it when it was threatened by capital, and completely lost their political influence with the collapse of working class power in the face of neoliberalism.

Now, I'm not saying that this is what we should aim for today- a lot of it is unnecessary, more is infeasible- but I don't think think that allowing the limits of class-collaborationism to overshadow the reality of working class political power required to strong-arm the bourgeoisie into collaboration does you any favours.

[Pretty Flaco]

actually I think it's even more dangerous. You litterally would have taken away the working classes will to revolt permanently. Effectively creating a master/slave relationship in society, and on a more fundemental level than it already exists. Emplementing this social democracy stuff would be the end of any real socialist movements.

I really don't understand your logic. Pretty much any country in Western Europe and Scandinavia have some level of social democratic legislation, at least up until recently with austerity measures. They also have much higher percentages of their workers which are in unions than the United States. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country which is social democratic that has less labor action than the United States either.

[Feodor Augustus]

I think, gendoikari, there are quite a few different dimensions to your question, each of which can lead to rather different 'understandings'. It is, therefore, important to distinguish between these.

First, there is social democracy as a mode of thought. A kind of pessimistic Marxism that at times is rather prophetic and a whole lot more level-headed and realistic than much of the ultra-left posturing that passes for Marxism. See, for example, Karl Kautsky's writings on revolutionary terror, Otto Bauer and Giovanni Zibordi's very different but nevertheless fascinating perspectives on the rise of fascism, alongside Rudolf Hilferding's concepts of the 'political wage' and 'economic democracy'. As political theory goes, its pretty damn good, and a lot of so-called Marxists would do well to go to the source itself rather than rely on what the "Party Notes" tell them. (The same goes for the Third Period Communist 'right', who have a bad rep but made far more sense than the Third Period left!)

Secondly, there is social democracy as a political movement of rank and file working people. This has been, and will likely continue to be, the working class in organised political form. It is undeniably reformist, but it is still the major representative of working peoples interests, and therefore fights on this 'bread and butter' basis. What you deride as 'capitalism with a welfare state' has been the major achievement of the workers movement over the last century, and one that we are fighting tooth and nail to save the remaining, depleted rump of against the austerity programmes now being inflicted upon us.

Thirdly, and finally, there is social-democracy in power, which has increasingly become tied into the management apparatus of the capitalist state, and has over the past few decades given up all pretensions of being 'socialist'. This was always the most opportunistic layer, torn in two directions, its fingers in both pies. However as Tim Finnegan alluded to, it could not completely escape its reliance on working class power, and to some (v. limited) extent, still can't.

The real tragedy of the workers movement is not that there are people within it with shitty positions on this and that, but that it was split, first in 1872, then in 1914, and then again and again ad infinitum. This robbed the class of much of its power, and until revolutionaries learn that they are a tendency in a movement, rather than the party in its own right, they will continue to sustain a divide that severely undermines the prospects of 'revolution' - in whatever form you imagine that might take. And moreover, to use your own analogy, sometimes there's good reason to put a bandaid on a gushing wound and live with a bit of pain, if the other option is to amputate the limb and risk death.

Revolution's really a young man's game, as you get older reform starts to look like the more sensible option. Yet the dichotomy itself is something of a false divide, and the two imo have a far more dyadic relationship than most people would allow. Tim Finnegan really hit the nail on the head:


The British working class was at its strongest and most militant in the post-war period, a period characterised by a strong welfare state, strong corporatist institutions, nationalised industry, and so on.

Small incremental change becomes massive and profound change. I do believe that is 'Dialectics of Nature' 101. ;)

[gendoikari]

I really don't understand your logic. Pretty much any country in Western Europe and Scandinavia have some level of social democratic legislation, at least up until recently with austerity measures. They also have much higher percentages of their workers which are in unions than the United States. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country which is social democratic that has less labor action than the United States either.

There is a big difference between active work for socialist causes and labor unions. and in part our current social measures aren't doing NOTHING to the revolutionary spirit, I mean americans are already pacified as is.


First, there is social democracy as a mode of thought. A kind of pessimistic Marxism that at times is rather prophetic and a whole lot more level-headed and realistic than much of the ultra-left posturing that passes for Marxism.

They might be more realistic but capitalism is driving us into the ground. It might take 100 years or more but capitlalism will crash, burn and collapse in on itself to form the new aristocracy. Don't mistake something that works as a good system if it's tendancy is to divide the people along class lines. It will continue to do so for all time in as small steps as it can without being noticed or suppressed.

[Cynic]

To me Social-Democrats seemed to be like the American Democratic Party. They try to ease the evils of capitalism by having some regulation and maybe a universal healthcare system and a welfare state but continue to use capitalism as the economic system and the workers end up slightly better but are still getting screwed by the corporations and the government.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There is a great difference between post-WW1 Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.

Democratic Socialism is a genuinely Socialist ideology. You might say the likes of Tony Benn and George Galloway are Democratic Socialists. It is a largely non-Marxist analysis of society, but critically what differentiates it from Social Democracy is that it is critical of Capitalism as a whole - as an economic, social and political system. It's failure is that it often does not fall upon a material, class analysis of society and thus fails to follow a revolutionary path of opposition.

Unlike Democratic Socialists, post-WW1 Social Democrats do NOT oppose Capitalism. They oppose its worst excesses, and thus do not believe in Socialism. Because of this, they are satisfied with the bourgeois concept of quasi-democratic parliaments and do not believe in Socialist democracy in terms of the workplace, workers' councils and so on. Thus, they believe that bourgeois parliaments are democratic enough tools by which, through bourgeois elections and the use of the state apparatus, the worst excesses of the free market can be curbed.

[Chris]

The nordic countries are social-democracies. Essentially, the word socialism here has gone from "worker's control of the means of production" to "welfare state with mixed-ownership between state and private".
The Worker's Party (our social-democratic party) were genuine socialists up till after WW2, when they had to "moderate" their economical policy to get the Marshall Aid. Up until the Marshall Plan, the norwegian social-democrats advocated gradual change into a centrally planned socialist economy.

Then again, the norwegian social-democrat's capitulation to capitalism has been slower than in the rest of Europe. They were a part of ComIntern up till 1923, when it split into the Worker's Party and the Communist Party of Norway. Talks of re-uniting the WP and CPN only ended in 1947. They advocated an end to capitalism up till the Marshall Plan, and their first government was disbanded when one of their first actions was to "outlaw private property". They had a plurality, and no coalition against them were formed until they did that.

Nowadays, they are more like "Old Labour" in Britain than anything. Although, they are "softening" a bit towards privatisations and partial privatisations. They have become a betrayal towards their name. At least, it seems like the trade unions (long a bastion of the social-democrats) are taking a more aggressive stance towards them. The previous leader of the main trade union confederation, Gerd-Liv Valla, was a bit too independent compared to the Worker's Party (in a left-wing direction). She was ousted by the Worker's Party, for allegedly "bullying" a secretary.

[Crux]

Well, I'm just trying to help you understand the idea, not advocating it myself.

Remember that social democracy evolved out of Marxism (indeed, a little over a hundred years ago being a social democrat basically meant being a Marxist). It basically went from think ''when we are elected to power we shall introduce socialism!'' to ''when we are elected to power, without one of those nasty revolutions, we shall gradually introduce socialism!'' to ''lets just correct the worst parts of capitalism, we wouldn't want to have one of those revolutions'' to ''lets just try to stop things becoming too unequal'' to ''capitalism, it's fine by me! But we're way more dynamic and caring than those nasty right wingers!''
Well put.

[electro_fan]

i'd also say that you needn't get upset over social-democracy any more, because it's basically dead now as a concept (and dying in countries like Sweden)

i'd also say that you shouldn't just dismiss the idea that under social-democracy real improvements were made and the working class was a force that had to be listened to.

it's dead now tho, its over, and even reasonably "nice" capitalism is basically over as well