Socialism and Social Democracy

[BobKKKindle$]

For the purposes of this 'ponderement' I consider Social democracy to be the economic model that has been applied in Scandanavia - A High level of unionization, a progressive and all-encompassing welfare state, and substantial government interevention in the economy - all within a capitalist framework. Socialism, is of course, a revolutionary political idea, and supportive of an economic system without money, profit, or private propety.

I often hear Revolutionary Socialists saying that all the advances of Social Democracy in terms of GDP per Capita, Equality, And Welfare Schooling and Healthcare are relatively meaningless, because the workers have still maintained their fundamental place as people who do not own the means of production and must sell their wage labour in order to earn a living - and in turn, the Capitalists still continue to extract surplus labour value from workers.

However - Correct me if I am wrong - but the First Marxist law of the dialectic is that History is composed of both Quantative (gradual) and qualitative (revolutionary change) Now, dont get me wrong - I am no social democrat - but I still feel that the workers have gained concessions through social democracy. Is it possible that Social democracy could be considered a form of quantative change in the struggle towards Emancipation, and should be celebrated by Socialists as the percusor to Revolution, instead of being shunned as 'revisionist' etc? I would be interested to hear your views.

[Janus]

Well, in the socialist state that the social democrats envision, the state will play a much larger role though some capitalists may still exist depending on the type of state. However, worker's conditions should improve but that does not mean that their relation to the means of production has changed as you said.

The social democrat parties now have basically sat down to engage in parliamentary squabbling and their reign does not represent the precursor to the revolution at all. In order for a true revolution to occur, the conditions need to get to the point in which class consciousness can and will develop. That has not happened after social democrats took over.

[Ander]

I am not sure who it was who said it, but supposedly the final system that would work in the world is Social Democracy. I believe that it is a step forward from outright capitalism as it promotes strict regulations on private enterprise and strong social rights but falls short of socialism.

Most "socialists" you hear about are actually Social Democrats. Examples are the Spanish PSOE, New Democrats of Canada, and Bachelet in Chile. They all parade under a socialist banner but actually follow a Social Democratic ideology.

[Marukusu]

In Sweden, where to Social Democrat Worker's Party (Socialdemokraterna) has more or less been in rule for the latter part of the 20th century, there's still a long way to to socialism (which though still is the Social Democrat's goal). The unions are strong but are hampered by the bureaucracy and generally don't do much things for the average worker. The taxes are high in general, but on the other hand, basic education is free and compulsary (yay!), healthcare is free for everyone under the age of 18 (though not medicine) and the personal freedom is large and (mostly) respected, though many in the government would wish otherwise.

Recently, the prime minister of Sweden Göran Persson broke the party tradition of "living like a worker" (i.e. living a spartan life, to be "closer to the people") and purchased his own mansion for many million crowns. In general, the Social Democrats have been corrupted by "the liberal poison" and are today far more right than they where under the venerable Olof Palme. The Social Democrats in Sweden have moved from populist to bourgeois and has exchanged their pseudo-revolutionary statements and promises with pseudo-capitalistic ones.

I belive that social democracy (sadly) never will be able to achieve socialism, and I belive that there's no way to simply reform a society to socialism through liberal-democratic measures, just because power corrupts.
However, there are many ideologies that are much worse than social democracy...

[Herman]

Social Democracy is a poison which should be extracted as soon as possible before it infects us all.

[Hit The North]

Social democracy is the most civilised form of capitalism but it is capitalism nontheless. The major problem it has is that it is reliant on an expanding capitalist economy. When this fails, services are cut and workers rights are rolled back. Maintaining the general level of profit is always prioritised over the human needs of the people.


Social Democracy is a poison which should be extracted as soon as possible before it infects us all.

Ultraleft nonsense! It's the job of revolutionaries to engage with workers and defend the gains which are made under social democracy - whilst at the same time explaining how their needs can only be met and maintained by the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a workers state.

[Herman]

Ultraleft nonsense! It's the job of revolutionaries to engage with workers and defend the gains which are made under social democracy - whilst at the same time explaining how their needs can only be met and maintained by the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a workers state.

You cannot bring change from above. It will not happen. Change comes from below.

[Comrade-Z]

Recently, the prime minister of Sweden Göran Persson broke the party tradition of "living like a worker" (i.e. living a spartan life, to be "closer to the people") and purchased his own mansion for many million crowns. In general, the Social Democrats have been corrupted by "the liberal poison" and are today far more right than they where under the venerable Olof Palme.

"The liberal poison"? It's called material conditions. Being determines consciousness. Function as part of the ruling class for long enough, and you inevitably adopt the interests and views of the ruling class.


I often hear Revolutionary Socialists saying that all the advances of Social Democracy in terms of GDP per Capita, Equality, And Welfare Schooling and Healthcare are relatively meaningless, because the workers have still maintained their fundamental place as people who do not own the means of production and must sell their wage labour in order to earn a living - and in turn, the Capitalists still continue to extract surplus labour value from workers.

I agree with this assessment because social-democracy, despite whatever rhetoric politicians use to justify it, is essentially a defensive maneuvoer aimed at buying off the working class, co-opting and institutionalizing rank-and-file worker movements, and ultimately preventing proletarian revolution and maintaining the exploitation of surplus value from the proletariat--which means that those workers would still be faaaar better off without bosses and exploitation at all.

Those social-democratic politicians don't want to "help workers." That's not where their motivation comes from.


The major problem it has is that it is reliant on an expanding capitalist economy. When this fails, services are cut and workers rights are rolled back.

Correct. All the vagaries of the capitalist system--and all of the corresponding insecurity--are still right there beneath the surface, constantly bubbling and perculating.


Ultraleft nonsense! It's the job of revolutionaries to engage with workers and defend the gains which are made under social democracy - whilst at the same time explaining how their needs can only be met and maintained by the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a workers state.

Double-talk. Either social-democratic capitalism can meet the needs of most workers, or it can't. If it can, then why overthrow it? If it can't, then why fight for it in the first place?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:27 PM

Ultraleft nonsense! It's the job of revolutionaries to engage with workers and defend the gains which are made under social democracy - whilst at the same time explaining how their needs can only be met and maintained by the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a workers state.

You cannot bring change from above. It will not happen. Change comes from below.
Absolutely, comrade. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to see social democracy as divorced from the class struggle. It exists as a compromise position for the bourgeosie as a response to pressure from below. In other words, it exists, in part, because of working class aspirations for a better life.

Comrade Z:


Double-talk. Either social-democratic capitalism can meet the needs of most workers, or it can't. If it can, then why overthrow it? If it can't, then why fight for it in the first place?

Social democracy has definite material advantages for the working class. At the same time, it still represents a narrow slice of the cake - and workers could have so much more.

We fight for it because we operate in the here and now and I don't hear the revolutionary trumpets sounding over the horizon. The alternative to defending it is standing on the side-lines while workers rights and living standards are attacked by the dogs of liberal economic capitalism. If revolutionaries don't get stuck into these limited and defensive struggles then we allow the field to be dominated by the left-wing reformists. Isn't this obvious?

[Comrade-Z]

Social democracy has definite material advantages for the working class. At the same time, it still represents a narrow slice of the cake - and workers could have so much more.

Fair enough. But, if this is the case, it sounds to me like we should be encouraging workers to aim as high as possible with their struggles and demands. If they aim for stateless communism and end up with social-democracy in the short term, I think that's a lot better than encouraging them to aim for social-democracy in the short term because then it's like saying, "Well, we got what we were aiming for." I don't think social-democracy should be given any legimitacy or credibility. If it happens as a side-effect of more far-reaching struggles, then fine.


We fight for it because we operate in the here and now and I don't hear the revolutionary trumpets sounding over the horizon. The alternative to defending it is standing on the side-lines while workers rights and living standards are attacked by the dogs of liberal economic capitalism. If revolutionaries don't get stuck into these limited and defensive struggles then we allow the field to be dominated by the left-wing reformists. Isn't this obvious?

I think workers are increasingly ignoring left-wing reformists these days because these reformists either don't or can't deliver on their promises.

When I see a democrat on TV "talk tough" about opposing Bush and bringing about certain (rather pathetic) reforms, I laugh, give the guy the middle finger, and change the channel.

Also, since when it is the job of revolutionaries to prod workers into action or fight their reformist battles for them? It makes sense to me that the main, and possibly sole objective for revolutionaries is to "ease the birth-pangs of revolution." That's all you really "have" to do to be a revolutionary. If you are bored in the meantime and want to do "extra" stuff, then fine. But that stuff won't be revolutionary, insofar as it doesn't directly create systemic material and/or ideological change.

If you are a worker yourself, then you may see it in your material self-interest to fight for a reform. My advice is, go for it! Find as many like-minded allies as you can, and go for it.

If workers perceive that "workers rights and living standards are attacked by the dogs of liberal economic capitalism," then why don't they do something about it? I'll help out copiously and enthusiastically when workers start rebelling. But I can't just "manufacture" rebellion from the working class with proddings, encouragement, and/or reformist struggles.

[Hit The North]

Posted by Comrade Z:


I don't think social-democracy should be given any legimitacy or credibility. If it happens as a side-effect of more far-reaching struggles, then fine.

I'm not arguing that we should be legitimizing social democracy. Our arguments should be very sharp about the limitations of the capitalists and their state. All I'm saying is, in the words of our shitty National Lottery in the UK, "You've got to be in it to win it."
We should be helping to push the demands forward and connecting the discrete struggles together.

Posted by Comrade Z:


it sounds to me like we should be encouraging workers to aim as high as possible with their struggles and demands. If they aim for stateless communism and end up with social-democracy in the short term, I think that's a lot better than encouraging them to aim for social-democracy in the short term because then it's like saying, "Well, we got what we were aiming for."

Yes but not so high that it becomes abstract propaganda. With all due respect, that reminds me of some Anarchists I spoke to during the Miners Strike in 1984. They argued that revoltuionaries shouldn't be supporting the Miners' right to work because you end up supporting the Protestant work ethic and their "right" to be exploited. I told them I'd take them down to the picket line and they could patiently explain this to the Miners who, at this point, had been on strike for 6 months. "I'm sure they'll be really respectful of your revolutionary purity," I added. They never turned up.

Posted by Comrade Z:


I think workers are increasingly ignoring left-wing reformists these days because these reformists either don't or can't deliver on their promises.

Never underestimate the ability of these "nannies of labour" to come out of hibernation and hijack the worker's movement.

Posted by Comrade Z:


Also, since when it is the job of revolutionaries to prod workers into action or fight their reformist battles for them?

Well, I was going on the understanding that revolutionaries are workers too!

Revolutionaries didn't start the Miners Strike, but they were instrumental in building miners support groups all over the country and worked within their unions to build solidarity. Sure, there were thousands of left-reformists as well and there were arguments to be had. If you weren't engaged in the movement then you were most likely just arguing with yourself!


If workers perceive that "workers rights and living standards are attacked by the dogs of liberal economic capitalism," then why don't they do something about it?

Remember France and the millions of workers on the streets? It was only several weeks ago. And you've heard of Venezuala?


I'll help out copiously and enthusiastically when workers start rebelling.

Nice one! I'll be there to lend you a hand.


But I can't just "manufacture" rebellion from the working class with proddings, encouragement, and/or reformist struggles.

Honestly, no one expects you to!

[barista.marxista]

Since when do we have "laws of the Marxist dialectic"? Man, that's jus' mo' laws we gonna hafta break when the Revolution comes. :ph34r:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I don't mind social democracies. they're better than regular capitalisms.

[Comrade-Z]

Well, I was going on the understanding that revolutionaries are workers too!

Naturally, I would assume that too. What I was saying was, since when is it the responsibility of a small portion of politically conscious revolutionary workers to heap upon their backs the struggles of the entire working class? The revolution will only arrive when the entire working class can do this for itself. Really, the vast majority of the working class needs to become revolutionary in and of themselves before we can expect revolution.


Remember France and the millions of workers on the streets? It was only several weeks ago.

And I enthusiastically supported these actions as best I could as a high school student living in the U.S. I passed out flyers notifying other students about what was going on, struck up discussions around the subject, printed off photos of the demos and showed them around class, etc.

But even as far as these actions in France went, most people even approach the point of advancing systemic change, unfortunately.


And you've heard of Venezuala?

Well, there's significantly less there to get excited about.

[IronColumn]

Social democracy is a tool or a means of making the lives of workers better, but it does need political direction from below or it decays into supporting imperialist wars and declaring that the struggle is the goal in itself, or toning down its rhetoric to be respectable or some sell out of another variety.

Tell me, has anyone ever tried to make a councilist/syndicalist political party? That would be interesting now that I think about it.

[SocialistGenius]

Just wanted to note here that there is a difference between Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists. Social Democrats are willing to use capitalism to achieve some of the effects of socialism (as noted in the topic-post). Democratic Socialists are not. I am the latter. If you are in the USA, see www.dsausa.org for more information.

[rouchambeau]

Just wanted to note here that there is a difference between Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists. Social Democrats are willing to use capitalism to achieve some of the effects of socialism (as noted in the topic-post). Democratic Socialists are not. I am the latter. If you are in the USA, see www.dsausa.org for more information.

You know, I looked all over the dsausa.org website and could not find a single mention of anti-capitalism or classism. In fact, I found support for the Democratic Party, calls for a democratic (as opposed to class controled) economy, and other liberal BS.

[rouchambeau]

I don't mind social democracies. they're better than regular capitalisms.

So you don't mind capitalism?

[Ol' Dirty]

Socialism, is of course, a revolutionary political idea, and supportive of an economic system without money, profit, or private propety.


Not neccasarily.

In a socialist economy, all industrial and economic would be nationalized/ assimilated into public control, but people would have their right to their own possesions, such as tootbrushes (which people wouldn't want to share anyway, usualy :D ) or a plant, ora pet, or something.


For the purposes of this 'ponderement' I consider Social democracy to be the economic model that has been applied in Scandanavia - A High level of unionization, a progressive and all-encompassing welfare state, and substantial government interevention in the economy - all within a capitalist framework.

I often hear Revolutionary Socialists saying that all the advances of Social Democracy in terms of GDP per Capita, Equality, And Welfare Schooling and Healthcare are relatively meaningless, because the workers have still maintained their fundamental place as people who do not own the means of production and must sell their wage labour in order to earn a living - and in turn, the Capitalists still continue to extract surplus labour value from workers.

However - Correct me if I am wrong - but the First Marxist law of the dialectic is that History is composed of both Quantative (gradual) and qualitative (revolutionary change) Now, dont get me wrong - I am no social democrat - but I still feel that the workers have gained concessions through social democracy. Is it possible that Social democracy could be considered a form of quantative change in the struggle towards Emancipation, and should be celebrated by Socialists as the percusor to Revolution, instead of being shunned as 'revisionist' etc? I would be interested to hear your views.

I agree. I think that proggresive changeis just as neccasery as instant change. Even Marx admired the indutriousness of the bourgoise, yet he heavily fought against their manipulation of moral values.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:23 PM

Not neccasarily.

In a socialist economy, all industrial and economic would be nationalized/ assimilated into public control, but people would have their right to their own possesions, such as tootbrushes (which people wouldn't want to share anyway, usualy :D ) or a plant, ora pet, or something.


You have the part wrong where you say that that the economy would be nationalized. That is the element of a welfare state, such as Cuba for example. Yeah, people will always have their own personal possessions that they use for themselves. This is personal property, not to be confused with the capitalist private property which is at the root of capitalist exploitation. Just thought I would point that out

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria+Jun 15 2006, 05:47 PM--> (hastalavictoria @ Jun 15 2006, 05:47 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 02:23 PM

Not neccasarily.

In a socialist economy, all industrial and economic would be nationalized/ assimilated into public control, but people would have their right to their own possesions, such as tootbrushes (which people wouldn't want to share anyway, usualy :D ) or a plant, ora pet, or something.


You have the part wrong where you say that that the economy would be nationalized. That is the element of a welfare state, such as Cuba for example. Yeah, people will always have their own personal possessions that they use for themselves. This is personal property, not to be confused with the capitalist private property which is at the root of capitalist exploitation. Just thought I would point that out [/b]
Ah.

Still, i said put into public control too.

I just read a post like yours, and I feel kinda dumb now. :blush:

[Rawthentic]

Dont feel dumb, this is always about learning and obtaining knowledge from other comrades.