Leftist arguments against social democracy

Social democracy feeds of from imperialism, and I am not imperialist.

This is why I move further away from SocDem every day. The idea is of pragmatism, but how pragmatic can it be if it merely delays the inevitable and prevents actual progress?

I believe that Lenin was correct, but he was also restricted by the Russian practice. There is no real confrontation between Social Democracy and M-L.

Doctrinally they both fit Marxism, only differing tactically; and their practice was a mixed bag in both cases.

Social Democracy means focusing on the legal and incremental struggle, as opposed to violent and radical, all there is to it.

Engels, in Socialism: Utopion and Scientific expounds upon material that would be further elaborated in the Manifesto, particularly the phenomenon of the proletariat's expansion due to the decimation of the "Middle Class". Essentially, as capitalism progressively swept through Europe busting up feudalism, the liberal bourgeoise and petty-bourgeoise were facilitated, along with the modern working class we call the proletariat. At first this was a progressive force that gave folks "equal opportunity" and allowed them to succeed based on their own labor and tools. However, this is where one of capitalism's most prominent contradictions first arises. We see that soon enough, a new master class emerges, and to meet the demand for ever rising profits necessary to the capitalist system, obliterates the middle class through the development of ever more complex machinery. Because the petty bourg can no longer compete, they are forced downward into the proletarian fold, and from here only two classes remain: the capitalist and the proletariat.

Here it becomes clear why what would become modern Social Democracy can not achieve communism and in fact enables the perpetuation of capitalism. For the Social Democrat's function in society is essentially to protect not the proletariat but the "middle class" and any protections won by the action of the proles is awarded only insofar as it enables the perpetuation of the petty-bourgeoise. This would appear to hinder the ability of the Big Capitalists to perpetuate themselves as a class and indeed the Social Democrat's vulgarization of Marxism often posits their withering away into an indefinite "Middle" as a victory. However, because capitalism as such is not removed, the crises inherent and inevitable in capitalism's self-perpetuation allow for the obliteration of any victories achieved by either the petty bourgeoise or the proletariat and for the renewal of the conditions Engels and Marx described back in the 19th Century. Indeed, because Social Democracy is able to extend the "boom" and stagger its upward curve while simultaneously awarding reforms to workers and the middle class, it appears as if the boom bust cycle has been escaped entirely. It has in fact merely been postponed and guarantees that the next bust period will be even worse.

(1/2)

ere too we should distinguish between what a "boom" for the ruling class and a "bust" for the ruling class looks like and what a "boom" for the working class and a "bust" for the working class looks like. Essentially, with the Social Democrats interventionism, the "bust" that swept said SocDems into power is extended for the ruling class despite them recovering under their reformism. The potential profits shrink and become stagnant while the middle and working class demand ever more from the big capitalists. This creates an immense "ressentiment" within the ruling class, which finds its institutional expression in their next "boom" cycle, which often follows a "bust" for the workers.

We can better understand using the Great Depression and the rise of Social Democracy in Europe after WW2. The Gilded Age that led up to the Depression was indisputably a bust for the workers but a massive boom for the rulers. Once it became a general bust in the form of the Depression, the massive division of society into two camps in the USA and throughout Europe brought societies the world over to the brink of a revolution not unlike what occured in Russia in 1917. Roosevelt's New Deal and the welfare state it created put a stop to this, but it came at the price of compromise on the part of the ruling class, which so displeased some of them that they actually attempted to assassinate Roosevelt in the Business Plot, despite him being a member of their own class and indeed attempting to save them from themselves! This level of ressentiment spread among the big capitalists until finally they got their window to obliterate it in the late 1970s and 1980s. What we call neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization is only the most recent "boom" period for the big capitalists at the expense of a "bust" for the working class. It is the division of society into two camps and the ever increasing control over industry by big capital on a scale we have never before seen. Indeed, after the last general bust in 2008, the control was so staunch that even MORE austerity, even MORE neoliberalism was able to be sold to the public as the solution to the problems caused by THESE VERY THINGS, extending the boom for the rich and bust for the poor to this very day.

This, in my opinion, is all the evidence one needs that the class collaboration and "temperance" of Social Democracy does not only solve the problem of "unchecked" capitalism, but will absolutely guarantee that the next phase of it will be even more barbaric and destructive as before. In the long run, reformism is merely one parent enabling the other, abusive, perhaps alcoholic parents toxic behavior and scolding the children when they point out the oxymoronic nature of this family dynamic.

(2/2)

Attached: dsa.jpg (1013x225 123.23 KB, 44.8K)

If it's ultimate goal isn't removing the cause of those struggles, then it's simply capitalism with a pretty face. It doesn't get at the root causes and only prolongs the inevitable collapse of capitalism.

It's counterproductive to fight social democracy in countries that have yet to reach it. You're just pushing people further right. Most people are a socdem before they are a socialist. Stop pretending Zig Forumsaks are an ally that are easier to convince than a liberal.

Yeah it's not like there's anything in history which disproves this or anything

Attached: lenin.jpg (600x582, 43.79K)

focusing on the legal and incremental struggle, as opposed to violent and radical
There is no such distinction. Success in the legal and incremental struggle (banning capitalist political parties, nationalizing industries, purging reactionaries from the bureaucracy) will inevitably lead to radicalism and reactionary violence.

A statement used to discourage dissent.

Social Democracy is playing the Capitalist's games, for Capitalist prizes, and then whacking on a Socialist jersey and declaring how much you want to crack open a cold one with the proles.
It is peak, peak faggotry.
You can not use a Capitalist """"democratic"""" institution for Socialism, because to do so you would HAVE to take the Capitalism out of it!!!! Its basic fucking sense, but SocDems have put "peace" and "democracy" on such an idealized platter (to even imagine that they could do otherwise than to idealize) that they do not care for facts. They love their idealizations more than they will ever love reality. They will always love the flashy car rather than the functional one, the rich man over the working man, and so on… They love the opulence of bourgeois democracy, and they hate the grittiness of revolution. They REFUSE a class analysis of society. How could the media be against them? How could the government be against them? They have to invent falsities. The proletariat are ignorant, they are stupid, amd on and on until they are literally crying about the woe of man. They can NOT recognize the truth, for if they recognized the truth they wouldnt be liberals! The truth, of course, being that all of the institutions they love and cherish are BOURGEOIS institutions! They HAVE to serve bourgeois institutions because it is L I T E R A L L Y mandated by law that the bourgeois have control over them!!!

El salsa, por favor

the only problem with actually existing social democracy with full employment and strong meaningful trade unions is that it's less likely to be implemented in the first world than Posadism. Other than that it's pretty great.

that first image actually implicitly argues in favour of British social democracy
i'm too tired to give my usual 4000 word history of the labour party, but:
By this standard Labour were socialist from 1945-51, 64-70 and 74-9. An alternative analysis would have 45-51 be a DemSoc-SocDem mix, 64-70 SocDem and 74-6 SocDem followed by 76-9 proto-Monetarist.

It's also not true that Blair removed any references to socialism. Blair added the word "socialism" when he changed clause IV of the party's constitution from:
to

I'm just saying infighting isn't helpful. It is possible to turn a government that is soc dem to a dem soc one so there isn't reason to fear it more than further right ideologies.

It's just an observation not data based. Where would you even get data like that? Who could possibly survey that many people's life time political view changes?

Social Democracy is just another false synthesis of pushing reactionary ideas cloaked in progressive rhetoric. In this case being private property. And just like all false syntheses, it will be forced to choose one side, and it's always the reactionary one.

Read State and Revolution, this is basic stuff

Thank you, but normie are not against private property, because they don't view it quite like we!

Dude! Those memes gave me AIDs just by looking at them, you need to be more careful.
Here are some real memes you Commy cunt.

Attached: 1533714185595.gif (720x527 56.68 KB, 80.13K)

woah… so this is the power… of Zig Forums memes…

Irony was a mistake

pepe is, was, and will always be a shit meme

weird post

Comrades, I just want some info graphs to promote leftism as better alternative to EU social democracy!

Someone add Die Linke to that Image aside the SPD

Call it means of production, if you don't want to clarify private vs personal property.

Good point, thank you.

Is KPRF actually as Shit as RusAnons make them out to be?

Надо запилить русский тред.

Attached: 2v1u5py.jpg (1119x1600, 169.5K)

KPRF is part of establishment. The leader of the party makes great speeches during Meetings and they make relatively good content on youtube channel, but ageing career politicians are not material to lead a revolution

Yes, but I don't want to limit myself only to chans.

Yes.

Link?

Here is good video which talks about capital flight and investments into USA economy.
youtu.be/5IkeD0HybEU

Here is another good one
youtu.be/rt_ZnZ64j1o

any leftist argument against social democracy is not a leftist, but a right-wing argument.

marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch01.htm

Your comment simply put, is not true.

That's quite a take

Attached: wisdom.png (500x673, 99.81K)

Musk's sheer existence is the #1 argument for gulags and bloody red terror. He is a horrid gremlin.

What are you a swede?

Marx didn't say anything that Smith didn't also say

what about the n word

Attached: doubt.png (500x269, 76.64K)

Attached: 455753670.jpg (465x665, 139.85K)

Although misindentifying socialism as social democracy is a very dangerous thing, it (social democracy) is still a lot better neoliberal capitalism and should be fought for/defended ( at least what is left of it) by proper communist parties, while not forgetting that it is not the end goal but only an temporary option which advances the interests of the working class in a situation where it isn't possible to take power and and establish socialism. A true vanguard party's cause is to advance the interests of the working class in every section of society, and this must include parlamentary democracy too. Obviously, community organizing, maintaining a connection with unions, organizing protests etc. are and should be still important. Sitting on your ass, denouncing everyone who dares to participate in parlamentary politics and reciting Stalin, Mao, Hoxha (I'm not saying they are all 100% bad but still) will not get you any closer to socialism, since it doesn't aim at broadening the communist movement through using every available means, but at maintaining the purity of the communist ideal, which is utterly useless in respect to building connections with the masses,

marx was social democrat himself, so was engels. so was rosa and so was lenin. marx himself never argued against social democracy itself, he never even argued against the spd as a whole, he would argue against the positions of other social democrats he disagreed with. you people need to learn more about the history of the working class movement. most of today's social democrat parties aren't social democrats, but bourgeois-liberals or even reactionaries.

Attached: 28_ullstein_bild-00719360-highres_0.jpg (1024x1001 576.01 KB, 161.25K)

dubious anime face.swf

social democrat meant something entirely different then than what it means now

This.

Marx described today's succdem in the memefesto, as bourgeois socialism

What did it mean?

My understanding is that there is a difference between party name and party ideology. UK labour party is prime example of that. It's ideology varies constantly. Bolsheviks were a faction inside Russia's Social Democratic Labour party, but their main ideology was communism.name=/=ideology.

What it sounds like, people that wanted to bring democracy into all corners of society rather than the milquetoast bourgeois "democracy," we have now. Considering most of the places these people were agitating and organizing in were authoritarian quasi feudal empires, being a democrat was a radical position.

I see, thank you. I'm breaking through years of conditioning and the obviousness of it didn't hit me.

I can't believe how distorted my thinking was. It's like having a mental block. Still have far to go.