Social democratism

[Redhead]

What are your opinions on Social democrats?

[RedWorker]

Well, reforms would make it better, but capitalism and all its disadvantages would still exist under social democracy. Certain problems will only be fixed with socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

What are your opinions on Social democrats?
It's not really my thing to assess the relative efficacy and strength of different counter-revolutionary currents, but I gotta say I find social democrats of various stripes a significant hindrance for workers' struggles specifically, due to their better position to recuperate the struggles, direct them onto dead ends and and defuse a movement or a movement in becoming.

Anyway, modern social democracy isn't at all interested in tailing working class militancy with the purpose of institutionalizing some changes which are immediately favorable to the working class; instead, they're the architects of austerity and continued programmes of flexibilization as much as, and in a more insidious way, liberals and conservatives. One only has to compare Hollande's platform with what actually went through during his presidency for instance. Where I live, the situation was effectively the same, with the current social democrat government being dedicated to austerity in a way that the previous conservative one simply wasn't (not out of any regard for the working class but as a strategy of political maneuvering and trying to keep themselves in power).

[BolshevikBabe]

Social democracy as ideology - not in its partisan form, where "social democratic" parties can be much more pragmatic - tends to have a class basis in the labour aristocracy, and it tends to garner or diminish in strength depending on the size and influence of the labour aristocracy (though by the labour aristocracy I mean a very small portion of the highest stratum of the working class, not the Maoist Third-Worldist version where everyone in the first world is a labour aristocrat or whatever). That means social democracy is inherently tied in with the imperialist epoch of capitalism, and it serves imperialist ends.

One of the reasons why I think social democracy never caught on in the US, amongst many reasons, is because unions never gained the amount of institutionalization they did in much of Europe, and thus the labour aristocracy - while it exists - has traditionally been much smaller and weaker. But wherever it exists, social democracy represents a real threat to any attempt to create working class consciousness, and we should avoid working with them in all circumstances except in united fronts against fascism, where that's possible.

[consuming negativity]

I mean, it depends who it is. Some people are very nice, whilst others are rude or boring or...

Oh, you mean politically-speaking. Well. I think they're wrong. Some are more wrong than others. Most are alright, although a significant number are a bit rough around the edges, or hold prejudiced beliefs about certain groups of people. That can be a bit bothersome but I find that many don't particularly wish to offend in their day-to-day affairs.

???

[Thirsty Crow]

I Most are alright, although a significant number are a bit rough around the edges,

Rough around the edges? I'm trying to wrap my head around this one but I don't think I can really.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Considering that Social Democracy is completely non-existent here in the States, my views may be a bit lacking.

Some SocDems are OK. They definitely mean well. But most of them are about as spineless as liberals when it comes to revolution and class conflict.

Social Democracy as an ideology, however, is ultimately counterrevolutionary as it aims to maintain Capitalism, albeit in a much more 'progressive' form.

[Left Voice]

It's also important to remember that Social Democracy has evolved over the past century.

There was a time when Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism were essentially interchangable terms. They saw socialiam as possible through reforms in capitalism. They even mostly nominally embraced Marxism. This changed after the second world was when most abandoned it. Most Social Democratic parties simply embraced the nationalisation of some (not all) services, the establishment of some kind of universal health service while propping up capitalism. Today, freed from having to pay lip service to socialism, support full-on free market capitalism under the misguided belief that provision of minimal welfare services will solve its inherent ills. Check out so-called 'Red Ed', who seems to think that socialism can come about through a form of 'reformed capitalism' http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/22/google-corporate-responsibility-ed-miliband-speech

Despite its roots in socialism, it can be discarded as a truly revolutionary ideology.

[exeexe]

Social democrats are like the biggest excuse ever to have an ideology which is pro state, pro capitalism and pro liberalism with a potential to be racist, sexist and fascist.

[Zoroaster]

To Communer:

I know exactly what you are talking about. My brother, who is a social democrat, is very smart, and talks a lot about Keynesian economics and why Ted Cruz sucks. However, he always regards anarchism and communism as "too unrealistic", and "capitalism can do better than socialism if it's regulated." He means well, but I disagree.

[tuwix]

What are your opinions on Social democrats?


My opinion is that they are just liars. If they were democrats, they wouldn't participate in bourgeois governments in fact serving to bourgeoisie. And serving to bourgeoisie exclude the from being socialists. That means they're lying in their own name.

[The Intransigent Faction]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/05/08/andrea_horwaths_rightwing_populism_salutin.html

From what I know of Social Democratic parties in other countries and provinces, and the federal NDP here, I don't think it would be a stretch to say they have the same problem as depicted in this article.

In short, before I sleep: "lying" or sincere, either way they try to rescue capitalism by implementing programs contrary to its profiteering logic. At best they're naively trying to win an unwinnable battle, or preserving the institutions and ideology of capital by operating ultimately on its terms with reforms meant to placate the majority. At worst, they're opportunistic careerists who outright collaborate with Conservatives or sometimes with Liberals, depending on which is politically expedient in a given month.