Converting Social-Democrats?

[Comrade #138672]

How hard is it to convert Social-Democrats (sometimes calling themselves "Socialists")? Or at least making them seriously question Capitalism in a fundamental way?

Every Social-Democrat should at least question Capitalism to some extent, but they do not seem to notice the inherent contradictions in Capitalism. Istead they attempt to negotiate with the Bourgeoisie, which usually seems to be an advantage to the Bourgeoisie.

I'm talking about both the voters and the politicians who are supposed to "represent" the voters.

[Questionable]

The first key to defeating your enemy is understanding them. Try to analyze the social-democrat position from a Marxist perspective. Most reformists argue that their movements have made great improvements in capitalist countries without the need for violence. Point out how the majority of welfare states are funded by imperialist super-profits, and go into great detail about this because it is important. Also point out that most "peaceful" movements that people like to talk about were actually quite violent and intense (The Civil Rights movement, the Indian rebellion against England). Point out to them that social services are shrinking and privatization of public services (Schools, for instance) is on the rise everywhere.

Most important of all, point out to them that capitalism still functions in the way it always has. Exchange-value is alienated from use-value. Laborers devote their lives to the expansion of capital. Things might be a bit prettier in some of the greater imperialist nations, but they're still the same underneath.

[Grenzer]

Well the problem isn't that Social-Democrats don't question Capitalism in a fundamentali way, it's that they believe they are either revolutionary or are pursuing a course which can seriously challenge the hegemony of capital when in reality all it does is subordinate themselves to it. Most of the people on Revleft are a pretty good example of that. There isn't really an easy solution in my opinion.

[Peoples' War]

Depends on the person. Some have made up their mind on socialism and will refuse to expand, others are probably not that knowledgeable but curious and open minded.

Social Democratic politicians are not proletariat.There's no point to try to radicalize them, because it is a fruitless effort. Trying to radicalize workers, that is an effort worth supporting -- and what easier than a worker who is a leftist.

One of the things you can do is discuss the problems that lie with Social Democratic states like Sweden and Norway. The continuing contradictions of capitalism which it is unable to correct. From there, move toward the austerity being put into place by social democrats and "socialists" around the world as a result of crises in capitalism, and Social Democracies inability to stave it off. Challenge them by asking them why they think that is, or what the social democratic governments should do. Then explain why they do not do it.

You can, if you think you have them on the proverbial hook, suggest reading material for them. Probably some of Marx's easier stuff; the manifesto, wage labour and capital, socialism: Scientific and utopian. Then you can focus on some anti-reformist literature, like Lenin's "Marxism and Reformism" and, most notably, Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution?".

[Blake's Baby]

Most social democrats, as far as I can tell, have invested so much effort into 'fighting within the system' that they resist any efforts (sometimes quite violently) to demonstrate that what they are doing is supporting the system. They can't bear to be told (even if it's true) that what they're doing is self-contradictory. That's usually the point where they attack critics for being naive idealists, terrorist elitists, dictators in waiting, and generally acting against the interests of the working class.

[Regicollis]

You can point to how social democratic "paradises" in Scandinavia are actually lacking many basic worker's rights and welfare services. For instance in Denmark company unions are legal, there is no legal minimum wage and strikes are routinely being declared illegal and suppressed through legislative means the moment they constitute a serious threat to the capitalist class. Meanwhile the praised welfare system is failing in many places; there is no health care coverage for dental work, the right to a place to live was abolished in the 90's (by a social democratic government) and the unemployed are shamelessly being abused as cheap labour in various workfare programmes without any labour rights which drives wages down.

All this has been started by social democratic governments. They might have done some good back in the old days but today the social democratic party has degenerated into the worst enemy of the social democratic project. It is just another bourgeois party who are allowed to wreck more havoc on the working class due to historical goodwill.

Social democrats will always end up corrupted. It is naive to think you can become embedded with the bourgeois state without turning bourgeois yourself. The only realistic way to build lasting improvements for workers is to fight the very root of the problems workers face - the capitalist system.

[Marxaveli]

My mom is somewhere between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist. She was a hippie in the 60's, very involved in the anti-Vietnam protests along the so-called 'fabian socialist' lines. With all that has happened with Capitalism in the last 4 years though, which resulted in her having to work longer and harder hours, and retiring earlier this year but struggling financially to do so because her bills are more than her social security, she has moved farther to the left. I get the general feeling that she hates Capitalism, but she is far from being revolutionary, and she is in fact, scared to death of it. She wants the system to be changed through non-violent means - I have told her this is completely utopian and will never happen, but you can't take the "hippie" out of her, hehe. It's kind of funny to hear her talk about how "anti-establishment" she was in her younger days, since her son is far more radical than she ever was :lol:

[Red Commissar]

In my experience (since I used to consider myself "democratic socialist"), it's usually something that'll happen gradually. Introduce doubts about the abilities of social democracy to achieve the things they hold as important issues- public programs, healthcare, housing, income disparities, etc.- there's thousands of examples of the SocDems adopting third way policies and abandoning a lot of their trademark focuses on nationalization and social services in favor of free trade and neoliberal solutions.

Only issue here is that it may horribly backfire and they'll swing to the right, blaming immigrants for wrecking their comforts from socdem programs.

[Geiseric]

It actually is possible to legally pass reforms that the working class as a whole would be willing to struggle for. Doing things like ending austerity, starting a public health care system, and providing free education are demands that the working class will back, and are demands that can be legally won. In fact they will have to be won before the masses will back any kind of "communist," party.

[ed miliband]

everything they point to as an example of "how things should be" happened over half a century ago under completely different social/political/economic circumstances, and the last thirty or so years have seen a slow, steady destruction of the institutions they hold dear.

and they say those of us who believe in good old-fashioned class war are outdated!

[Marxaveli]

everything they point to as an example of "how things should be" happened over half a century ago under completely different social/political/economic circumstances, and the last thirty or so years have seen a slow, steady destruction of the institutions they hold dear.

and they say those of us who believe in good old-fashioned class war are outdated!

It's only class war when the poor fight back. When the ruling class conducts class war on a daily fucking basis, it's just called 'business'.

[ed miliband]

It's only class war when the poor fight back. When the ruling class conducts class war on a daily fucking basis, it's just called 'business'.

class war exists even when it's not obvious. i mean, this summer i was working a terrible job at a hotel. twelve hour days doing fuck all, and all of my colleagues being "close to the bosses" since it was a small business. but you know, my colleagues had worked out ways to have naps on the job, read newspapers despite it being banned, have plenty of cigarette breaks despite them being banned, and so on, in spite of management. they didn't see that as rebellion, or "class war" but it patently is -- imposing our needs over those of the bosses, whether through recognised channels (unions, etc.) or not. they didn't do it cos they were all signed-up revolutionaries, but because they nature of work compelled them too.

[barbelo]

Convert social-democrats to what?
Socialists are more incoherent and utopians than ever; there are real economical problems happening in their countries, yet they only care about Syria, fascism, circumcision, Julian Assange and Palestine.

Guess who is concerned with their communities needs? Far right parties like the one in Greece, who even started a course of self-defense for women.

Of course, I'm not praising their ideals, objectives and much less their methods; but for an ideology of the workers, it's ironic how communism and socialism turned into some kind of religion of the illustrated middle class, with Marx as their prophet.
There is even discussion about which sect is more right than the other.

[Mather]

How hard is it to convert Social-Democrats (sometimes calling themselves "Socialists")? Or at least making them seriously question Capitalism in a fundamental way?

If the person in question is a worker who happens to vote for a social democratic party, then begin by trying to appeal to the person as a worker rather than as a social democrat. The strength of working class politics lies not with parties that appear every four or five years for your vote and then disappear again, but with the working class themselves when they collectively act to further their own class interests. These working class interests always collide with those of the capitalist class and from such collisions we have the class struggle.

Ask the person about their situation at their job or workplace. Do they have any disputes with their management? Have their pay or working conditions come under attack from their bosses? Have they suffered as a result of government austerity policies or from the lack of provision of adequate social services, education, housing and healthcare? In all likelihood the person will be able to answer "yes" to at least one of these questions. With that answer you can then provide them with an example of how social democratic parties have taken the side of the capitalist class; be it supporting the side of the bosses during strikes, passing laws to make it easier for the capitalists to attack workers pay and working conditions, impelementing austerity programmes and cutting services that are vital to working class people such as education, healthcare, housing and social services. This can be applied to any social democratic party in any country. Europe has many good examples and although they are not a social democratic party (strictly speaking), the Democrats are a good example for people in the US.

Then give the person examples of working class self organisation such as strikes, factory occupations, anti-fascist activism, community actions all the way to social revolutions. Capitalism can only be abolished when the working class take the means of production away from the capitalist class. At present no social democratic party has a programme based on abolishing capitalism, either by force or reform. Social democracy is therefore a dead end for any worker who wishes to oppose capitalism. The best they may get from social democracy is a few concessionary crumbs from the capitalist class, concessions they can easily take away as we can now see with the implementation of austerity in many capitalist countries.


Every Social-Democrat should at least question Capitalism to some extent, but they do not seem to notice the inherent contradictions in Capitalism.

As an ideology, social democracy has long since renounced it's origins and associations with Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#Pre-reformist_usage_of_the_term_.22social_democracy.22 .2C_1848-1889). Nor does it seek to introduce socialism through reform, as it once did. Workers have the potential to question capitalism by virtue of their class so when they do it is because they are workers and not social democrats. As for non-working class social democrats (union bosses, politicians, think tank types), they will not seek to challenge capitalism as they both gain from it and play a part in sustaining it.


Istead they attempt to negotiate with the Bourgeoisie, which usually seems to be an advantage to the Bourgeoisie.

That's because all social democratic parties are bourgeois in leadership and ideology. Most of them have seen their working class base of supporters and members decline drastically over the last two decades. Which means that these parties don't even have a sizable base amongst the working class of the countries that they operate in. We also have to consider that we are in the midst of a severe global capitalist crisis and that the capitalist class is set on austerity. Being bourgeois parties, the social democrats will do what all the other parties of capital will do. Some of them may try and sell themselves as the 'less severe'/'less harsh' alternative to their centre-right rivals, but such differences are superficial and in no way represent any real alternative to capitalism.

A good historical example of the anti-working class nature of social democracy is the German Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919). It's clear that when the working class pose a threat to the rule of capital, social democrats will use all means possible to eliminate that threat.


I'm talking about both the voters and the politicians who are supposed to "represent" the voters.

Appeal to working class social democrats and voters, but don't waste your time with the politicians.

[James Connolly]

Isn't it obvious? We need a Red Church where we preach the word of our great father Marx, and his disciples(although that is batter known as a 'party').

No, just let a natural sway occur, and when contradictions in Capital become evident, to the extreme, with aggravation directed by a party, they'll fall in line.

[Ostrinski]

Social democrats.. do these folks exist anymore?

[Mather]

Well the problem isn't that Social-Democrats don't question Capitalism in a fundamentali way, it's that they believe they are either revolutionary or are pursuing a course which can seriously challenge the hegemony of capital when in reality all it does is subordinate themselves to it.

Most social democrats don't question capitalism due to the bourgeois nature of modern social democracy.

[Mather]

Social democrats.. do these folks exist anymore?


Sadly, yes.

[jookyle]

You're not going to be able to convert anyone. All you can do is put the materials and information under a persons nose and hope they pay attention.

[Crux]

How hard is it to convert Social-Democrats (sometimes calling themselves "Socialists")? Or at least making them seriously question Capitalism in a fundamental way?

Every Social-Democrat should at least question Capitalism to some extent, but they do not seem to notice the inherent contradictions in Capitalism. Istead they attempt to negotiate with the Bourgeoisie, which usually seems to be an advantage to the Bourgeoisie.

I'm talking about both the voters and the politicians who are supposed to "represent" the voters.
I would say at it's most basic it's pointing out that the reformists can no longer even carry out reforms, instead they are more often then not spearheading neoliberal counter-reforms. Secondly, no reform has ever been won by negotiation. None. Every single successful reform has been carried out through pressure from below. Thirdly, as is evident now, reforms can always be rolled back as long as the system remains intact. So if they truely believe in those reforms to maintain them the system must be fundamentally changed, overthrown in fact.

[Mather]

You're not going to be able to convert anyone. All you can do is put the materials and information under a persons nose and hope they pay attention.


I agree, convert is the wrong word to use.