Why is social democracy so hated here when alongside unions it's the thing that actually helps the working class on a...

Why is social democracy so hated here when alongside unions it's the thing that actually helps the working class on a practical basis?

Why is Zig Forums more obsessed with abolishing capital than the benefits of doing it?

Attached: rose-2885586_960_720.jpg (960x720, 138.73K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Attached: 0a024cf54ffdb91d9684e580004f8e08fd9c389bbdf076fc27d4e81cadf30537.jpg (540x594, 35.61K)


I do not understand capitalism and am proud of my ignorance: the post
Social democracy cannot overcome capitalism's internal contradictions, it's why social democracy has become more decrepit over time. Betrayal in the 1910s, incompetence in the 1930s, abandonment of founding principles in the 1950s, losing to neoliberalism in the 1970s, embracing neoliberalism in the 1990s, getting destroyed in elections in the 2010s. Social democracy is a meme at this point and doesn't stand for anything.

Attached: social democracy.jpg (1198x1168, 121.38K)

Generally speaking, social democracy still defends the institution of capitalism. No matter how much they hold businesses accountable, it’s still not enough. Honestly it depends on the party/candidate.

I don’t mean to sound like a defeatist, but it’s idealistic thinking at best to believe that in today’s global corporate society that a large scale communist society could thrive. Like just look at China. People here defend that capitalist mess because they cosplay as commies… but they’re doing what they have to do apparently.

What a dumb ass post. China doesn't have to do it - they choose to. Any developed nation with a decent population size could easily institute socialism once nationalization has taken place. That's the one prerequisite.




It actually does tho, but saying it’s the only thing that does is stupid.

The issue is that it doesn't help in the long term, as most of the time those measures can be repealed.
This speaks to a larger problem in reformism, as there's always forces acting against it whether it be the Freicorps, the police, or the military in all industrialized nations.
There is also the problem of electoralism in social democracy, as it's always required you lose a bit of radicalism in order to cater to unsure voters.

Attached: voting.jpg (512x379, 121.6K)

Social democracy has definitely created the best societies yet for proletarians. As it stands, it just doesn't have a workable socialist program, and will always lose to the interests of capital in the long term.

social democracy only "works" when there's a threat of the working class who forces its hand towards concessions
if they ask for revolution, they will take the opportunity to seize the government and maybe promise to continue unemployment pay and only cutting it next year, gradually
and often enough socdems would rather just shoot workers or screw them over otherwise by trading one program for the other
if it hadn't been for the Soviet Union and the socialist camp there wouldn't have been any socdem welfare programs in western europe to begin with
it was the communists that scared the bourgeois camp so much even the former Zentrum party CDU in west germany had to condemn capitalism, even if just in words

Fucking Rosa killer! It's because anti-fa and actually commies have accomplished much more for the working class than suck dems. When the revolution comes suck dems get the bullet first. *Sarcasm*

I think we should certainly push social democratic reforms as far as they can go, but social democracy can't be an end goal. There is also probably a lot less value in supporting social democracy in Europe than in the US.

Holy shit you are such a normie.

Social Democracy is capitalism. It can be argued that it is worse than free market capitalism because it kills revolutionary potential and it doesn't solve the problem of exploitation it just gives from free shit to first worlders at the expensive of the third world.

Unions were at one point revolutionary. Now, instead of fighting capital they bargain with it.
But I don't think anyone here hates unions

Because we're Marxists not bourgeois parasites

Attached: 1404562487576.jpg (720x473, 56.45K)

what would we do if we actually had trash cans in cities!
glorious trash can liberators

Attached: 2d7cb95c4ab5b83e6ad6e4cd991a3542650458740cff8bbfeac77882859a229d.gif (320x175, 2.33M)

you can do even better with actual fucking socialism you smoothbrain

I'm okay with social democrats who want to create socialism through reforms. I think they're WRONG, but they're at least on the right side of the class struggle. I'm not okay with social democrats who want to preserve capitalism through reforms. They're class collaborationists on the wrong side of the class struggle. Make sense?

where are these social democrats then?
the only succdems who talk about socialism are imagining Bernie Sanders

lol the Soviet Union was literally reformist succdemism. it started with the NEP.
the reason it's hated here is because this board is nothing but NEET larpers who want to feel good about worshipping asian people from across the globe.

Hi, succdem here. I want socialism and not welfare state. I support the dissalution of the bourgeois state and creation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

no it wasn't

Attached: soviet econ.jpg (1200x858, 207.32K)

its idealistic and undialectical
read critique of the gotha program

these two are mutually exclusive

No they aren't. Socialism isn't a welfare state.


Social Democracy is

Perhaps liberals do, but I do not as I have already stated.

Then you're ignorant to what social democracy is

this wasn't until after the 1st 5 year plan.

Why would you want socialism without a welfare state?

yeah read What Must Be Done and State and Revolution.

Lenin explains why he continued capitalism for a bit

Those who do not work do not eat.

Attached: 1388220875616.jpg (298x359, 11.53K)


When proletarians control the means of production they'll implement an effective welfare system without the use of the state.

ok bud

I guess it depends on what you mean by welfare state. Generally I hear it regarded as a capitalist state with strong welfare programs. In a more general sense, yes socialism would have some programs of similar function.

I'm perfectly aware of what social democracy is. I'm also aware of the revisionist tendencies in the movement and don't align myself with them. Whether you want to call it social democracy, democratic socialist, whatever you want the terms have all been denigrated so I'm just not concerned with it. It just describes my tendencies, theory and strategy.


Social democracy relied upon a very specific historic and geopolitical context which no longer exists. It's a cargo cult that can only offer a decontextualized gesticular politics whose hope is that if they ape the actions of the 20th century faithfully enough they'll get similar results without ever taking into account the dissimilar material and social circumstances they find themselves in. It's a dead end.

It's quasi-fascism; even if it brings concessions and genuine QoL improvements to the proletariat, it still relies on all the hallmarks of capitalism, including the exploitation of the third world.

with automation new jobs open up as well.

Because social democracy is dead and nothing will bring it back and make it work this time. Even in the nordic countries the remnants of the social democratic parties are just regular liberals now.

obviously not if you think Social democracy is something without a capitalist welfare state

not enough of them

Sounds like a porky to me

Who? The Chinese? Or me? Or OP?

That's a fact.

.t the amish

No, they'll do it with the use of the state, as the state is literally the only mechanism we have for mass organization needed for generalized welfare.

Haven't socdems in Europespent the last 30 years working to implement austerity policies as part of larger """left""" coalitions? That could explain why people don't like them.

Automation only reduces workweek

They singlehandedly destroyed world communism a century ago. May their treachery never be forgotten.

Attached: b62a0f2e3772e7ccccf4fa79c785c5df8f18d6f4ccd2b633ffa1025237f6e305.jpg (320x314, 35.01K)

Truly our greatest enemy are those that claim to be our allies but stab us in the back every time we get close to accomplishment.

Attached: don'tfeedtheworkers.jpg (4032x2268, 1.15M)

Ah yes, social democracy, or as I like to call it, capitalism.

Attached: Screenshot (173).png (963x604, 122.47K)

Again, as I've already stated, I'm well aware of the revisionist and reformist take over of the movement. I'm content to continue with the social democratic tendency in it's original usage. Democratic socialism has received the same degradation of meaning and so I'm not interested in concerning myself with the reframing of different terms. I stand aligned with the social democratic Marxist movement and reject reformist and revisionist notions.

Because Zig Forums unironically is a good board!



Anyone who thinks capitalism and exploitation are good things as long as you have a red star on your hat.

Attached: third road.png (1080x1080, 896.42K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (500x222, 170.4K)

Social democracy is preferable to libertarian capitalism but is not enough. I'll always go with it if my choices consist of those two, like on a ballotage, because I actually want my people to live better. Socialism may not come as soon as I want to, but that's why I participate in a political party, you can't force it to the masses.
Also, "accelerationism" (as in worsening the conditions of the proletariat) is a ridiculous concept.

Sorry I submitted my post early. I also wanted to say that this "no compromise" left is hurting the movement like no other thing in my fucking country. My country's left parties are almost all trotskyist. We have like 20 different fucking parties which differ in a couple things and they don't want to join forces because their party is the TRUE socialism. None of them would ever think of joining forces with succdems either, even if that means that they will NEVER have any fucking power or means of improving the proletarian conditions.

I know succdem is shit, but it's a step in the better direction. Is achieving the perfect idealist socialism in 100 years more important than improving society in this moment? I really don't think so.

Social democracy only ever happens because actual socialists agitate and the bourgeoisie get spooked that some real shit might go down. Social democrats can't be relied upon to put their ideology into practice. They almost always need the help of people to their left to make the "opening bid" that the ruling class talks the proles down from.

Attached: 1401774996343.jpg (338x310, 32.92K)

You can clearly see in the gif that they're moving the trashcans to another location. The reason antifa do this is to block roads and make it harder to get vehicles into the area.

Social democrats provide the illusion that capitalism is okay and should keep continuing while porky continues to undermine workers. SocDem parties can't survive in capitalist societies since they're just a tool of distraction. The only reason the West tried at all was because the Soviets were breathing down their neck.

I never get this argument. The Soviet Union also failed becuase of its own internal contradictions too which are no more glaring than the ones that face social democracy and controled capitalism. To be pessimistic, no regime or economic system lasts more than 25 to 50 years before morphing into something different. Only exceptions are maybe ancient egyptnfor the sheer stability of its cultural forms and such and maybe China

The soviet union didn't fall it was dismantled.

It wouldn't have fallen if people didn't want it to.


Attached: ClipboardImage.png (950x751, 828.63K)

Why are you even posting if you don't know even the basic history of what you're posting about?

This is a board populated by wannabe revolutionary larpers, including ☭TANKIE☭s, anarchists and other autists. Remember, these people hate anything that actually benefits people in the real world, especially if it isn't through violence and shrieking of their shitty ideologies.

If anything, this is characteristic of the Left today.
They don't accept that meritocracy exists, that people can improve their lives. They bitch about capitalism for everything, they convince themselves that their personal failures are not their fault but "muh spooky capitalism".
These people will die religiously defending failed regimes, such as the Soviet Union or failed Anarchist communal shitholes.

They have no agreed upon alternative to global capitalism that respects the individual, how resources would actually be distributed, how utilities work, etc.
They can't decide on how incentives would work aside from magical thinking that people will do shit jobs, hold hands in a shitty commune all for their ideology.
And their bizarre fetishizing of "workers", "community", "collective", and using terms like "brothers/sisters" makes me think these are fucked in the head religious lunatics who view the world in Manichaean "Good vs Evil" worldview.

Anyways, for all its faults, and atrocities, I do not want to live in some communal shithole where I cannot own things and cannot have a private life free from the "collective".

Shut the fuck up liberal.

Attached: deadass gun.png (246x200, 20.47K)

The Referendum in march of 1991 was not legally binding in any way. Gorbachev was trying to use it to bolster his party's legitimacy during a period of political decentralization and to validate his opening up policy without losing control of the union.

New political posts were created to this end, eg. the presidency of Russia, and Yeltsin was elected president of the Russian Republic in July of 1991 and Gorbachev, who held soviet leadership bumbled along, attempting to control Yeltsin and others via appeasement, by deferring more powers to the republics.

With these actions Gorbachev made his own position tenuous and effectively irrelevant, resulting in a power vacuum at the highest post of the USSR. The august coup was an attempt by elements of the Supreme Soviet to fill the power vacuum and reverse decentralization, it failed as the troops stationed in Moscow proved loyal to the Russian president. Yeltsin became the dominant figure in the union instead.

He promptly pulled Russia out of the union thereby ending it (the union apparatus relied on Russian portion of budget to function), He induced shock market reforms which involved selling off all state assets as quickly as possible to raise capital for building of a private sector, much of the raised capital ending up in various pockets; this inadvertently induced chaos and destroyed the economies in Russia and surrounding republics (which were highly integrated with the SFSR).

Attached: stfuliberaltrumpkimjongun.jpg (891x536 111.22 KB, 81.02K)

Try reading about the years prior to the dissolution you fuck.



Honestly I doubt you actually own any capital. If you do then enjoy it while you can cause we're taking that shit, faggot.

Attached: deadass.jpg (800x699, 64.01K)

Lucky for you i know how to use ms paint.

Attached: stfuliberalqaddafi.jpg (700x467, 83.66K)

Yes just like social democracy has been dismantled, it stands to reason. It wouldnt have been dismantled had it notngotten caught in its own contradictions no? I dont mean to be blacklilled i just want to show that socialism is neither a permanent state or solution and it runs into its own dilemmas just as capitalism does. Its uo to us to resolve them

It's a good entry point for liberals. I'd rather have social democracy then neoliberalism.

1. The Bourgeoisie retains control of the Means of Production thus Exploitation of labor continues.
2. The bourgeoisie stays wealthy while the working class continues to toil and remains poor with the new taxes Soc Dems implement for their programs.

You still aren’t getting the full value of your labor, people are still profiting off of you, Communism cannot be achieved this way.

tl;dr socdem is big gay.

Attached: 73F494C2-2770-48F9-B082-DEA9857EF1D5.jpeg (750x502, 84.01K)

Damn, I just can't get over it. Put it on the banner

some soc dem facts:
Lmao eat a watermelon or something. You aren’t living his life. He doesn’t care about you. He would probably hate your attitude and knock you out cold after you screech about ‘muh BBC’. Fix your own life first, then talk. Go on about it like this:
If you’re too much of a bitch unironically neck yourself.
Tada, first step done.

Attached: IMG_2551.JPG (366x366, 31.36K)

The board is full of utopian ultraleftists who unironically defend Stalin. They will grow out of it i hope. Studying basic economics instead of political philosophy also helps.

Social democracy is fine, so long as we can still use violence against reactionaries and hate america

market "socialists" prove once again to be the biggest retards around

You aren't gonna get to final-form communism without traversing some intermediary steps of soc-dem.
Even the "violent revolution" route proves to be fruitless, because once the proles gain power they don't really know what to do or how to get into final-form communism in the short-term.

People here shit on social-democracy because it has an empirically bad record, it has a lot of risks and contradictions, so it becomes easy to critique communism implicitly if they attach to social-democracy.

and this is what socdems do
stay as vague as possible, throw in some accusations and smears against the working class and socialism, presenting that as their plus side and again simply just argue for preserving capitalism while getting proles fucked dry

well if corrupt, evil people overthrow the existing order using violence, by what miracle do you suppose they'd be able to create a more just or more equitable state of affairs? The essential thing we miss is not simply transformation of external material order, but also a co-substantial transformation of human moral excellence, dignity and humility. And this must begin individually and introspectively, it cannot simply be forced onto the populace via re-education and threats.

You're implying that workers are braindead sheep who will follow anyone into doing violence though.

Not just anyone, they will usually follow someone charismatic or persuasive. History shows us this.
So a system founded on a bloody-immoral beginning will be unstable and the people in charge will not be high-minded, generous or humble.

Well I mean America's a lost cause, but what about yuroop? 4chinz always told me those fellas were super gommie xDDDDDD

It's failing in Europe as well. Just look at how the SPD and Syriza got cucked.

SPD is dying and being replaced by Greens who are succdem with idpol on steroids (really imagine a party of stereotypical SJWs mixed with Clinton moms).

Succdems in France have died away (Parti Socialistes?)

Succdems in Greece got cucked

Only notable succdem movement left IMO is the UK and the Labour Party is more left than the SPD and PS

Labour is getting memed right now too. Corbyn had one shot to depose May and he fucked it up.

what is a vanguard party

Still much more popular than the SPD and friends. This might blow over in a while, but yes things did go south

Not really: that confidence vote was going to fail if the DUP wanted their gravy-train.