So Zig Forums, explain me all that's bad (or good) about socialdemocracy

this image is wrong but i love when it's posted because it lets me go over Labour party history and also partially because you can tell it predates Corbyn.
By this definition, the social-democracy of the 1945-1970s period is actually existing socialism
Clause IV was something of a dead letter since the 1950s (because most of the big stuff Labour wanted nationalised was nationalised and nobody could really see the point in nationalising the local sweet shop) which is in part why Gaitskellites wanted to abolish it. Nationalisation remained as an administrative tool (and there was some brief co-op obsession in 1970s after Tony Benn got into a position of real influence inside the party.) more than a direct long term aim after 1945.
However that's not all: Blair removing clause IV did not remove all references to Socialism, in-fact he added the word "socialism" to Clause IV.
Old Clause IV:
New Clause IV:
>The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
That may remove the substance of socialism, but it makes far more direct reference to it in compensation. (It also amusingly lent Corbyn for the many, not the few.)

But it gets better! Labour was arguably betraying workers as early as 1923 (first Labour government), 1929 (Second Labour government, first as largest party in parliament, arguably economically right of the proto-Keynesian Liberals of the day.) or 1931 (said Labour government collapsed due to gold standard nonsense, which was completely pointless because Britain was then forced off the gold standard anyway haha. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1931#Background )

Equally it doesn't seem to be harsh enough on the SPD. (Mad to think it doesn't even mention Rosa Luxemburg!)

Attached: No plans for expenditure in Vietnam.mp4 (1280x720, 2.96M)

Tbf, the 1920s examples aren't great because MacDonald (who I have some respect for opposing World War One) and his cohort were kicked out for forming the nat gov.
As for Wilson, while I respect you socdem poster, you have to remember he did renationalise steel and there were quite a few attempts at setting up coops. The main problem was they were already failing businesses so eh… And Benn's plans were pretty fucking radical, he want to nationalise the biggest 50 companies in the UK and stop foriegn porkies owning british enterpises.
As "For the Many, Not the Few", that comes from Shelly's poem "The Masque of Anarchy".

It devolves into liberalism see every single social democratic or labour party in the west for proof.

How do you respond to the idea that social democracy is all that will inevitably come out of leftist activism, given that the conditions for full communism are (allegedly) not here yet?

That its bollocks McDonnell is gonna bring a cybernetic IVth undustrial revolution.

Improves the conditions of the working class, often supports and maintains trade unions. Will defend nationalized industry from privatisation. Will generally be against meaningless wars.

Due to its nature, social democracy will never abolish capitalism. The people who get elected within the bourgoies state as social democrats rely on the existance of capitalism to keep them in power. Social democracy cannot advocate for more radical things either, because social democracy is the choice the bourgeoisie make when the labour movement gets strong, if forced to choose between it and socialism/communism. Therefore its existance is always antithesis to the abolishion of capital, for social democracy, as an anti-revolutionairy political movement, grows stronger proportional to the potential of revolution. While it improves the lives of the workers, it is only there as a vent to let the steam escape from the boiling mass of the revolution, to provide jobs to the angry unemployed, to redistribute income to the angry poor, to ease the brutal exploitation of the workers. It is the vent that stops the system from exploding, it is the vent that makes concessions to the working class to avert revolution. And it will always be like this, because any social democrat that tries to be more hardline, more radical, will be swept aside by the bourgeoisie in favour of the least radical candidate they can get away with. They are the choice with the least loss for the establishment. FDR was like this, social democracy in europe was like this during the cold war. This kind of behaviour is mirrored everywhere in history, such as Ghandi, who was the better choice for the british when they were losing control of india, compared to the radicals that killed and bombed the british army. Ghandi would let them keep the most benefits, trade, possessions, etc. So too does social democracy allow the bourgeoisie to keep most of their possessions. They will be allowed into power when needed, discouraged from using their power to do more radical things by promises of wealth to those in control of their party, they will be dumped into the trash as soon as convenient too.
It is, as an ideology, by its design, thanks to the forces at work, always an ideology that will betray the workers. It is, by design, a doctor who keeps prescribing his patients painkillers, instead of healing them, because this doctor makes money of these painkillers.

I mean, I'll take it over where I live now.

Why would someone be a socdem when they could be a demsoc? It seems like the welfare safety net and market regulations would be easier to protect under the later system.
That said, this:

In a communist country socdems would be considered rightwing.

I think in a capitalist system if you have to choose between voting for a socdem or neolib you should vote for the socdem. communism is preferred but waddaya gonna do

Some points:
1. While welfare capitalism and social democracy are not synonymous, they are associated in the public imagination because they have strong overlap. What is the purpose of welfare in its capitalist context? It is mainly to subsidize employers that pay wages so low that their employers cannot survive on their wages; or, to keep alive that portion of the working class that is either temporarily or chronically unemployed.

Most people see this as a good thing, and to an extent it is, but no one should be blinded to the ulterior motive which is to make sure that the future labor market will be well-stocked. Rather than stopping the misery these vulnerable people go through–it is ironically the welfare system that perpetuates it. When people can no longer make up for an inadequate income through additional sources they revolt, they immigrate, they stop having children or they die but the result, however morbid this logic is, is that they must bring wages up to the point where they can reproduce their labor power meaning they can reproduce themselves and the next generation of workers for capitalism to continue to function long-term.

It maybe objected since welfare payments/benefits constitute an additional wage that those low-wage workers who use the system aren't quite as bad off as you might think. Here's why that actually might be a bad thing–if you have welfare to make up for lost income then you might not be as interested in joining the labor movement to fight for better pay because you have the state on your side. This follows something FDR and the New Dealers said many times: that its "better to pass a law" than to institutionalize unions in the workplace. A higher minimum wage and some food stamps and/or unemployment checks from the state may actually cost employers far less than for the majority of workers to get involved with unions and proletarian political parties. The open shop and the welfare/regulatory state aren't necessarily opposed–there are several European nations that lack or until recently lacked a minimum wage but the strong labor movements in those countries actually meant their labor costs were higher than in the US.

2. High taxes. This is an excellent way of splitting the working class by forcing one better-off part of the working class to pay for the upkeep of its lowest part. Not only does this lay the ground for reaction but its an ingenious way of getting labor to subsidize capital. Various flat/regressive taxes such as VAT and Sales tax that maybe implemented to "help" pay down the state debt may end up hurting the working poor almost as much as it helps.

3.Large state deficit. This can exist (and usually does) without a social democratic welfare state but social democratic states typically find them inevitable. It should go without saying that the deficits of European welfare states would be much higher if they also had to undergo American-style military spending to defend global capitalism. Deficits create a self-perpetuating cycle of sorts. With the "Left" in power it becomes incumbent that social democrats do what they can to preserve capitalist "society". If the debt threatens to keep piling higher and higher until it tears society apart at the seems then it is reasonable for social democrats to advocate for more taxes to pay for them. In fact, it also supports their campaign in favor of social justice, a more equitible society can be had through taxation in theory–but should it? Probably not. If you're going to have a large state debt, with the large transfer of wealth from the public to the bondholders which that entails, its best not to make it easier for the bourgeois state to actually pay it.

4. Inflation. Pretty self-explanatory, generally social democrats prefer inflation so large soverign debts can be paid down over time and employers are happy to hire workers at gradually falling wages but this is generally not to the benefit of people who find their paychecks too meager to live on anyways.

5. real inequality is hidden because tax evasion by elite is incentivized

Succdems are class cucks, enough said

that's just socdem

This tbh, unless there proposals to change ownership of the MoP it is social democracy.

youtube.com/watch?v=SLGsn8pu9nU

Attached: harold-wilson-great-britain-s-prime-minister-on-visit-to-the-ussr-B96AT9.jpg (1300x993, 153.95K)

What's wrong with them?

They are an autistic Stalin fanclub (legit they were founded by a pro Stalin club cal.ed tye Stalin society) who thinks they are the greatest thing since Hegel's dialectic whose praxis relies solely on saying how great Stalin was (there is a student video where their youth head praises him for abolishing tutuion fees, that cringy) that have engaged fuckall in actually changing shit. The CPB have actually written theory advancing on how socialism can be brought to the UK, the SWP organised the largest protests in britush history against Iraq, RMT & FBU engaged in militant trade unionism that has done more for the proletarian than most and the CPLD in the end undid Blairism. Yet, for some fucking reason, this autistic LARPer group is better knowm than all of the overseas it pisses me off, they are like the worst part of the british left.

Yes, even worse than all the imperialist stooges masquerading as "left". Yes.

Also what does this have to do with the content and FACTS in the video? Are you butthurt? Succdem scum.

…
Tbh I am sure at this point CPGB is a honeypot designed to draw in idiots rather than let them filter to orgs with good theory and praxis so they may do something productive.

imo Brar is connected to/in the pay of the state and the cpgb-ml exist solely to engage in wrecking.

The only other orgs that exist are capitulators/trots/anarchists - all different shades of liberal.

Why do you say this? Genuinely interested in the evidence.

Kek, cue that song:
youtu.be/f88nMWvCZSY

Their formation was highly suspect: most of the ☭TANKIE☭s joined the CPB: Andrew Murray for example. The CPB is actually more radical than its predecessor, but suddenly Brar founds this org in 2004: in the wake of the birth of both the neo anti war and anti fascist movements, both of which the CPGB ML opposes heavily. Also he was involved in maoist groups in the 1970s and 1980s, which were heavily infiltrated by spycops, and furthermore he joined Scargill's breakaway party, which in it he did his best to be a part of a group that wrecked it. Oh also the guy is literally fucking petit-bourgois. He is either a useful idiot for porky or an agent.

What do you mean? That he's "literally" a small business owner or that he's part of those pompous urban elites?

I mean most of the "left" these days are petty-bourgois, it's a joke.

Also this has been a massive red herring from the facts brought up in that video, did you have any disagreement with what was said?

He owns an Indian rug shop, literally petit-bourgois.

From my experiance most CPGB ML "facts" are them screaming at other leftists, which is likely due to the fact they are under the employ of the state to do so. Never trust paid propaganda, even if its accurate.

But most of what was stated in the video were actual facts, there was no screaming. Why are you creating a strawman?

Alright, the guy in the video isn't Brar though. Most prominent "leftists" come from petty-boug families. Should we just abandon western leftism altogether?

"We did not resist, we did not throw hurdles into the way of the victorious political opponent", wrote the author. "The old ones (in the SPD leadership) are concerned about their fame. Like old, ridiculous actors or singers they never notice when the curtain has fallen."

"We were, and stayed, in all the full blood parliamentarians, that is, we talked about things, but they did, they mastered them. While concentration camps were already being built and many of our followers were shot dead we got into fierce struggle for seats."
[…]
When the Not Socialists entered in 1932 on a ford with the Zentrum and thus won a majority in the Reichstag, Hoegner and his comrades considered it merely an "enjoyable game". It is true that the Social Democrats sensed that "a black and brown government was in the air," but they had no other idea than to "annoy our Zentrum colleagues with the song of the black-brown girl."
[…]
On March 23, 1933, the SPD alone voted against the Enforcement Act, which gave the Hitler government an almost unlimited power of power. And when the SPD chairman, Otto Wels, had explained the reasons why his party had to refuse to approve this law, Hitler once again hurried to the podium, kicked off the SPD, and concluded, "You, gentlemen, are no longer needed I do not want you to vote for the Enabling Act, but Germany should be free, but not through you. "
Hoegner: "That clapped and snapped like a whip on our heads, that fell like a fierce fire on us."
Nevertheless, at the Reichstag meeting of May 17, 1933, the SPD, together with the Not Socialists, voted in favor of the program proclaimed by Hitler to remove the restrictions imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles ("equality of Germany"), which caused astonishment
[…]
The last Reichstag meeting, to which Social Democrats were admitted, was "even more agonizing for many of us than our presence at the meeting of March 23, 1933. At the time we had expected to lose our lives in the worst case, but this time Some of us felt that we were losing our honor. "
But when Hitler began his speech, the comrades experienced a surprise. The new chancellor avoided any attack on the SPD, even for the Nazi opponent Hoegner sounded the speech "extremely moderate": "A more gentle peace speech could not have been held by Stresemann." When Göring called for the vote, the members of the SPD parliamentary group rose and voted in favor of the Reichstag declaration.
Hoegner described this as follows: "Thereupon an agitator of the other deputies broke loose, and even our most implacable adversary, Adolf Hitler, seemed to be moved for a moment, and he rose and clapped us applause, but the President of the Reichstag, Goering, stood up Spoke magnificently: "The German people are always united when their destiny is. Then the German national deputies began to sing the German song. Most of our ranks were singing. Some ran tears down their cheeks. It was as if social democrats, who were always cursed as the lost sons of the fatherland, had for a moment immortalized the common mother of Germany. "
spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-40693632.html

Its not socialism.
It works and people in social democratic countries have best living standards in the world.

Not anymore lmao

You see the same thing to this day with even american liberals/progressives. They insist on the bourgeois legality, completely ignoring that the system is not "rigged" in favor of the capitalist class, because that implies faul play, but that it's rather just a facade that'll be dropped as soon as there's any danger to theh profits of the most influental capitalists. They'll rid themself of all bourgeois laws at any given chance, first just by creating loopholes, secondly by just bypassing law and not getting persecuted anyway and lastly by drawing back to open fascist terror to cement their rule.
For all of this, the social democrat is willfully putting a blind eye on. He has a sick obsession with legality and rather than persuing policies for the working class interest, they'll do everything in their power to bind the masses to the legal standards implemented by the capitalists to work within their framework. It's their sole existence purpose: Paralyzing the workers.
At the end they'll even bow their head to fascism, they are shameless scum.

On the issue of social democracy applied by antiimperialist nations, it's something to be sympathetic with and show solidarity towards, however it suffers from the same issues and is why an antiimperialist popular front needs a strong communist party to not end up with a US initiated counter revolution.
Venezuela for example, just like Chile before, but also Libya and Syria, that are infected with social democratic ideas, continue on a bourgeois democratic path even when crisis has already hit.
We have some harsh words by the communists in Syria and Venezuela, but there needs to be action taken, without stepping out of the popular front.

Social democracy is inherently dialectical in the third world as it progresses developmentmalthough it should not devolve into autocracy lest it evovle into corpratism like Egypt.
The same thing, however, is true of anti imperialist social democrats (although most are actually democratic socialists) in the first world: stopping a nation from engaging in opimperialism is pretty big, for example despite being socdem the government of Portugal following the carnation revolution is laudable becausenit ended colonial rule over two large african states and other areas.
I get your point about legality, but counter it with what I call the 'democratic defence principle'z: this is a conceot that people will support whatever ruling government from anti democratic forces if portrayed as the only way to preserve democracy. An example of this is the mass support shown duringnthe 2016 Turkish coup by the populace for a quite clearly autocratic regime, because a coup was "anti democratic". As such a legitimate democratic socialist government, if elected, should undertake all efforts to expand democracy and reform thensystem before any coup: then use its stance of being in the position of the democratic government to garner support for a counter coup effort. It worked in 2002 Venezuela, and in a first world state the kind of economic warfare waged against that country would be far more difficult.