Social Democracy and Liberalism

[Kindness]

It seems many here have a deep-seated hatred of social democracy and liberalism (in the American sense, a watered-down form of social democracy). Why is that? Yes, these things are not socialism, but they do at least accomplish some good for the working class, such as instituting universal healthcare, lowering unemployment, and so on, and this speaks in some small way to the leftist goal of improving the lives of the working class.

Obviously, these things should not be the main goal for revolutionary leftists, but I still see them as steps in the right direction and a much-needed, if inadequate, counter to reactionary conservatism.

[conmharáin]

"Liberals" in the United States are quite far to the right of social democrats.

I don't have a high opinion of social democracy as it occurs in Europe, because it doesn't really resolve the problems of private property and the state. Its end goal strikes me as more or less a welfare state. "Liberalism" doesn't even really exist in the United States; it's the "blue" flavor of America's "friendly fascism." See my signature quote for further information.

[tuwix]

And both of these terms are misused to the original meaning. 'Liberal' has its origin in liberty that is freedom. 'Liberal' means a person loving freedom. And Obama who sent bombs for oil in Libya loves freedom?
Besides description of (slight) left-wingers as liberals comes from Proudhon's (anarchist) understanding of freedom that exclude enslaving people by paid slavery.

'Social democracy' means the social power/authority of people which is DotP. And so-called social-democrats want the DotP?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Social democracy is about social peace and preserving capitalism by modifying it, therein lays its inherent evil and repugnance.

[Nevsky]

I agree with the marxist analysis that social-democracy serves as the capitalist's appeasement policy. However, I don't regard it as an evil plan fabricated by capitalists to enslave the workers. European social-democracy as it is (or rather was) present in federal Germany since the early post-WW2 years was actually a rather well thought out and well functioning model between 'murica style capitalism and soviet socialism. Slavoj Zizek was pretty much right when he said that the years of true social-democracy in Europe were great. Those years are over, though, and the european welfare-state dream fades away.

Its limit was correctly foreseen by marxist theorists; only complete emancipation from capitalism can lead the people into a real prosperous future and social-democratic revisionism is anti-revolutionary per definition. Nontheless, I'd certainly vote a social-democratic party over a neoliberal one. As I said before, not every single social-democrat is an evil, scheming capitalism defender.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It seems many here have a deep-seated hatred of social democracy and liberalism (in the American sense, a watered-down form of social democracy). Why is that?

As ideologies they are opposed to a revolutionary understanding and so that's the first level. Of course so do conservative ideologies and so on - and I think you'd find most people on the radical left have a much more "deep-seated" revusion to those ideas.

But I think specifically, some of the animosity has to do with the fact that if you're active (or even if you're not but are a worker with radical ideas) then soc-dem and liberal ideas are going to be the ones on a practical level that influence workers and students and neighbors that you interact with - especially when interacting in a strike or activism.

If someone's a racist, then many leftists would just write them off (maybe unless it was clear that it was out of a very shallow level of pure ignornace) - they probably won't be on a strike and probably wouldn't be involved in the same movements or causes. But in our practical activities, the dominant ideas tend to be liberal or some kind of reformism and since the people who hold these ideas might half agree with us, it becomes frustrating for some people I guess. And for the real ideologues, the reformist activists and liberal politicians and whatnot, the anger comes from their appeal to people who we might be able to convince and their co-option of movements only to drive them into the ground or back into useless lobbying or whatnot.

Yes, these things are not socialism, but they do at least accomplish some good for the working class, such as instituting universal healthcare, lowering unemployment, and so on, and this speaks in some small way to the leftist goal of improving the lives of the working class.

Personally I seperate reforms from reform-ism. Reforms can make people's lives more tolerable on one level - and the confidence gained from a popular or bottom-up reform effort (and the material gains, such as union rights or more wages or more rights) can help give people confidence in self-activity and organization. To be a revolutionary and support reforms means, I think, seeing the reform not as an end to itself but as a way to help people to build up their own power and make their own class demands.

Reform-ism however suggests that capitalism and all it's contractictions can be smoothed out. That the problems of capitalism are technical or legal problems that can be plastered up for common benifit. Liberalism in the neoliberal era isn't about that so much, but soc-democracy is (even if it too has been pulled towards neo-liberal arguements).

Obviously, these things should not be the main goal for revolutionary leftists, but I still see them as steps in the right direction and a much-needed, if inadequate, counter to reactionary conservatism.

In the US, if people go from passivity to supporting universal healthcare or other reforms, then in a general sense this is a step forward in that more people are rejecting the neoliberal framework against such things, but by itself that doesn't mean much one way or another. If people take to the streets and make demands rather than waiting for "good politicians" or business to do it, then it probably shows the development of more class confidence, anger, and maybe organization.

But I don't see it as a inadaquate step towards a better system, rather maybe it could be a small step in the development of broader working class forces and activity. So I guess the point is that reforms should be seen not in of themselves, but in relation to the class struggle and how it impacts working class organization and confidence. A hard-fought reform by workers will mean that people will see the value of that right (at least in the short-term) and have the skills and ability and confidence to defend it or expand on it. A reform won passivly, will just be worked around or watered-down and it will confuse and maybe demoralize supporters - such as with Obama's watered-down pro-insurance health plan.

[CommunistPenguin]

Social democrats are not leftists, neither are liberals. Both want to keep the capitalist system afloat.

[Rafiq]

It seems many here have a deep-seated hatred of social democracy and liberalism (in the American sense, a watered-down form of social democracy). Why is that? Yes, these things are not socialism, but they do at least accomplish some good for the working class, such as instituting universal healthcare, lowering unemployment, and so on, and this speaks in some small way to the leftist goal of improving the lives of the working class.

Obviously, these things should not be the main goal for revolutionary leftists, but I still see them as steps in the right direction and a much-needed, if inadequate, counter to reactionary conservatism.

American liberals are a bunch of spineless fucks who do a better job in reinforcing the hegemony of bourgeois ideology than the obviously apparent idiot conservatives, just as the scumfuck Chomsky does a better job in reinforcing the hegemony of bourgeois ideology among his sensless followers than the actual organs of formal bourgeois ideology (that is, the state-legalist liberalism). And the nerve you have, spouting about all of this bullshit. Are to support those slave owners who improved the lives of their slaves, after all, as abolitionists, all we want is the improvement of the lives of slaves, right? Let me tell you something, as Leftists, we are not the watchful guardians of the working class, the French revolution is over. In the superstructural sense, we are the working class, we embody and represent their interests. We aren't utilitarians, we don't want to increase a standard of living. We want to crush the class enemy with the mighty hammer of Communism and through state dictatorship solidify the emancipation of the proletariat.

Those "reforms" in social democratic countries were not reforms, they were concessions fought with the blood of the proletariat, at gunpoint forcing the bourgeoisie to concede to those demands. They were not won through the benevolence of activists. Once the power of the proletariat disinigrated, as soon as our arms were lowered, they bit the proletariat right in the ass, threw them in a cage and locked the door.

Beven through bourgeois logic- namely, even through this charity-esque sickening logic of "helping the workers", where are your social democratic states now? Morphing into the great beast that is European Austerity, trampling upon any sort of gains made. This alone proves that not only is the bourgeoisie unwilling to concede to these simple demands, but that the systemic contradictions intrinsic to capitalism are incapable of sustaining social democracy. Neoliberalism wasn't a result of greed or free will, it was an absolute necessity for the survival of the capitalist mode of production.

[Per Levy]

since at least 1914, the first nature of social democratic partys is betrayal, betrayal of the workers that they send into the wars of the bourgeoisie. and even the wellfare state the social dems pride themselfs with, they are gutting once they are in power.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I think it often gives the impression of merely being capitalism with a human face to some far leftists, and so it can help perpetuate the capitalist system, rather than outright abolishing capital. Where as hard core neo-liberalism is unashamedly the harsh and most basic face of capitalism, and doesn't try to hide it through concessions to workers.

[Kindness]

American liberals are a bunch of spineless fucks who do a better job in reinforcing the hegemony of bourgeois ideology than the obviously apparent idiot conservatives, just as the scumfuck Chomsky does a better job in reinforcing the hegemony of bourgeois ideology among his sensless followers than the actual organs of formal bourgeois ideology (that is, the state-legalist liberalism).

Thanks for your kind words.

A few things:

1) What is "bourgeois ideology?"

2) How is Prof. Chomsky (a committed, lifelong anarchist who has served the cause of liberation for nearly a century) a "scumfuck" who promotes "bourgeois ideology?"

3) What is your definition of "bourgeois?"

And the nerve you have, spouting about all of this bullshit.

The nerve to ask a question?

Are to support those slave owners who improved the lives of their slaves, after all, as abolitionists, all we want is the improvement of the lives of slaves, right?

You can't compare capitalism to slavery. Yes, capitalism is horrible, but it pales in comparison to the whippings, beatings, rapes, mutilations, cultural genocide, family separations, denials of education, and false prosecutions that my ancestors faced under slavery in America. Please kindly check your privilege, friend.

Let me tell you something, as Leftists, we are not the watchful guardians of the working class, the French revolution is over. In the superstructural sense, we are the working class, we embody and represent their interests. We aren't utilitarians, we don't want to increase a standard of living. We want to crush the class enemy with the mighty hammer of Communism and through state dictatorship solidify the emancipation of the proletariat.

How is doing nothing -- which hurts the working class -- supporting the interests of the working class? By doing nothing to at least tacitly support liberalism and social democracy, one hurts the interests of working individuals and families.

Those "reforms" in social democratic countries were not reforms, they were concessions fought with the blood of the proletariat, at gunpoint forcing the bourgeoisie to concede to those demands.

There was no bloodshed in places like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

Once the power of the proletariat disinigrated, as soon as our arms were lowered, they bit the proletariat right in the ass, threw them in a cage and locked the door.

This is true, and it is why I seek the end of capitalism, rather than just social democratic reforms.

namely, even through this charity-esque sickening logic of "helping the workers",

Would you rather workers go hungry from unemployment and die from lack of healthcare just so that you don't have to compromise your fundamentalist hardline ideological purity?

where are your social democratic states now? Morphing into the great beast that is European Austerity, trampling upon any sort of gains made.

Exactly, which is why I am an anarcho-socialist, not a social democrat. I oppose social democracy in the big picture, but supporting it is the best option we have right now for the working class and the poor. Anarchist revolution isn't going to happen anytime soon, so the best we can do is support the working class in any way we can.

This alone proves that not only is the bourgeoisie unwilling to concede to these simple demands, but that the systemic contradictions intrinsic to capitalism are incapable of sustaining social democracy. Neoliberalism wasn't a result of greed or free will, it was an absolute necessity for the survival of the capitalist mode of production.

I agree with this, which is why I'm not a liberal or soc-dem, although I definitely think cold hard greed, not just material conditions, led to the rise of neoliberalism.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

2) How is Prof. Chomsky (a committed, lifelong anarchist who has served the cause of liberation for nearly a century) a "scumfuck" who promotes "bourgeois ideology?"

Heh, reminds me of this Chomsky moment

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Heh, reminds me of this Chomsky moment

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AConfusedSocialDemocrat For This Useful Post: Kindness, NGNM85

EXTRA! EXTRA!
The Chomskyan Triumvirate! The Worst that Revleft has to Offer! Now with 35% More Liberalism!

[LOLseph Stalin]

The negativity towards these ideologies generally stems from the fact they're just seeking to throw a band aid over the wound rather than curing it completely. I do have some respect for certain aspects of the European models of social democracy(such as their free university), but at the same time I also recognize it's not enough. There's still exploitation, it's just not felt as much because of the fact strong social programs exist. It's actually a pretty clever tactic on the bourgeoisie's part I think since it gives the workers the illusion of not being exploited thus they won't become a threat.

As for American liberals, most of them are pretty far to the right actually. They may seem incredibly progressive on social issues, but in reality they still support the same exploitative system that is keeping people down. Not to mention, they're blindly supporting American imperialism now simply because "their guy" is doing it now rather than Bush. I once had a liberal actually try to defend the drone strikes; her defenses essentially consisted of "it's better than sending in innocent Americans to get killed!"

[#FF0000]

Why is that?

Because I've worked with them.

[Akshay!]

I agree with the people above who say that liberalism does a better job of reinforcing the current system and makes it more stable, that it's like treating slaves a little better, and that the current system cannot be reformed, it must be overthrown, but all that said, let's not be too harsh on Chomsky. Whatever you think about his philosophy, I think everybody can agree that his analysis of US Imperialism, how the media works, etc.. is something that has changed the thinking of thousands of people (including me). You don't have to agree with him on every single thing to agree that his analysis has been a great contribution to the debate.

[NGNM85]

EXTRA! EXTRA!
The Chomskyan Triumvirate! The Worst that Revleft has to Offer! Now with 35% More Liberalism!

How infantile. I might attempt to refute this bogus accusation, if I thought you were remotely capable of having an intelligent, honest conversation. Frankly; I'm not convinced you even know what the word means.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

EXTRA! EXTRA!
The Chomskyan Triumvirate! The Worst that Revleft has to Offer! Now with 35% More Liberalism!

The Chomskyan conspiracy is why I'm not a winner!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

2) How is Prof. Chomsky (a committed, lifelong anarchist who has served the cause of liberation for nearly a century) a "scumfuck" who promotes "bourgeois ideology?"

If an actuator served the cause of moving things as much as the esteemed professor Chomsky serves the cause of liberation, it would have to be replaced at first opportunity. What has Chomsky done, exactly? He has written a couple of books, and has become a celebrity. Hardly something that serious revolutionaries should praise.

You can't compare capitalism to slavery. Yes, capitalism is horrible, but it pales in comparison to the whippings, beatings, rapes, mutilations, cultural genocide, family separations, denials of education, and false prosecutions that my ancestors faced under slavery in America.

And people are not whipped under capitalist regimes? Every oppressed group in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia and so on would kindly beg to differ. People are not beaten? People are not raped? I should only point to the recent wars in Bosnia and Rwanda, both generously sponsored by the imperialist bourgeoisie. People are not denied education in capitalist states? What?

Please kindly check your privilege, friend.

That's an interesting phrase. As far as I know, most people that use it are part of the tumblr "social justice" brigade, who are as far from proletarian radicalism as they are from sanity.

[No_Leaders]

The issue with social dems is as some others said it puts a band aid to cover up what really is a broken failed system. It's a system based on exploitation, putting profits before people, it's a system which needs to torn down, we need tear apart these monuments to greed and build our new world from the broken pieces. Sure social dems can make some reforms that may make day to day struggles in life a little bit better, just a tad bit more tolerable but in the end it's not going to make the types of changes which we as revolutionary leftists wish to see. What are these social dems doing to annihilate the state and abolish an exploitative economic system?

They're perpetuating the cycle and belief of representative ''democracy'', that capitalism works, that reforms to appease the lower classes will keep 'the rubble' at bay. They wish to keep the masses complacent, to shut out any revolutionary fervor before it cultivates to something that threatens their seat of power. Once that seat of power is under threat, you'll see how much the social dems care about the same people they pretend to champion. You'll see it bright and clear when they unleash thugs with billy clubs to round up the masses and beat people into submission. Social dems might seem like a "friendlier" face, but they're not on our side, they're not radicals, and they're definitely not anti-capitalists.