Thank you for breaking this down. Would it be fair to say that social democracy on a national scale can still be imperialist but social democracy on a global scale would actually be a good thing? I guess when I see social democracy equated with fascism it leaves me wondering what is actually the better path.
No. Social democracy needs superprofits from the periphery to fund the core. Capitalism requires exploitation to function. If every nation is the core, who gets exploited? The surplus value does not exist. When accumulation slows, the bourgeoisie abandons reform. They choose fascism to protect property. The SPD proved this when they sided with reactionaries against workers. Reformism tries to manage a system built on violence. It cannot work globally because the economic base forbids it. The only path is revolution. Seize the means of production. End the imperialist chain.
Those “social democratic” parties in the periphery aren’t proof the model works globally. They’re rebranded revolutionary movements (MPLA, FRELIMO, ANC) that dropped Marxist-Leninist labels after the Soviet Union collapsed. Without that protection, they faced a stark choice: adopt the language of the Socialist International or risk regime change, sanctions, or outright intervention by the imperial core. The label shift was a survival tactic, not evidence that social democracy can function in a peripheral economy (because it can’t).
Social democracy needs superprofits from the periphery to fund the core. Social democracy is a type of capitalism. Capitalism requires exploitation to function. If every nation is the core, who gets exploited? The surplus value does not exist.
If a developing country invests in public education, free healthcare, transport infrastructure, housing, etc., is that not social democracy? Why wouldn’t that work?
It is possible but not under capitalism which social democracy aims to preserve, It is possible under socialism as is seen in the PRC or the former USSR but that’s not social democracy.
Democratic socialism. I know it sounds a little bit ridiculous because the names are so similar, but the key difference is social democrats are fundamentally capitalists, while democratic socialists believe that capitalism will inevitably always lead to what we’ve got now. We know we have the resources to house everyone, clothe everyone, feed and educate everyone on earth. The only reason we don’t is because it’s not profitable for a handful of billionaires. Democratic socialists believe that everyone born on earth has the same rights to what the earth has to offer, and that we could give all of us a reasonable quality of life if resources were managed in a way that benefits the most people and not just the shareholders.
Obviously there’s a lot more to it, and I’m fully expecting a reply to this that starts with Well actually… but that’s the 10 second version from someone who doesn’t claim to be an expert.
Instead of well actuallying it, I would like to ask: how? How do you get these resources to be managed “better.” How do we go from where we are now to what you have stated?
As I said, I’m not an expert, but this guy has some really good ideas and his channel is definitely worth a look. A good starting point would be to look at the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark), as they are the closest in practice to this kind of system and consistently have the best quality of life and happiness among their citizens.
Lots of reasons. Democratic socialism doesn’t eliminate private ownership the way communism does, people can still get rich, own companies, and buy jet skis, but they can’t take a successful company that hundreds of people have helped build and centred their lives around and hand control of it to their unqualified, arrogant, spoiled children to run into the ground, among other things. Here’s a decent basic summary:
*Democratic socialism combines political democracy with public, cooperative or state ownership of key industries while maintaining elections, civil liberties and pluralism. It seeks to reduce inequality and ensure that wealth and power serve the public good through taxation, regulation and social programs.
Communism, rooted in Marxist theory, envisions a classless, stateless society where all property is collectively owned. In practice, communist states have often used centralized, one-party government control to pursue those aims.* (edit: don’t know why italics isn’t working)
Communism is democratic. In practice, what you call democratic socialism is either social democracy, ie not socialist at all, or reformist socialism, in which it isn’t at all successful in establishing socialism. Communist parties have successfully established socialism and democratic systems via revolutionary means.
Democratic socialism doesn’t eliminate private ownership the way communism does, people can still get rich, own companies, and buy jet skis
No, you’re describing social democracy.
Democratic socialism combines political democracy with public, cooperative or state ownership of key industries while maintaining elections, civil liberties and pluralism.
I’m getting a little lost - you said both “social democracy” and “democratic socialism” there. I just want to be sure that was intentional? I’m still a little unclear what the better system’s rules are. I don’t mean to be ungrateful for the explanation, but this section in particular didn’t clear anything up for me:
people can still get rich, own companies, and buy jet skis, but they can’t take a successful company that hundreds of people have helped build and centred their lives around and hand control of it to their unqualified, arrogant, spoiled children to run into the ground
So… okay, but how is this codified in law? No inheriting?
You’re right, apologies, I fucked up there. Changed it to democratic socialism (still not an expert!).
At the most basic level, employees at a workplace would elect their management, rather than management being chosen by the business owner/s.
I posted this link to another comment, it’s from a guy who runs a really good youtube channel that’s definitely worth checking out. I know being asked to watch a video sucks, but he explains it a million times better than I can.
You’re talking about workplace democracy, and are linking a video by a Marxist-Leninist to explain the communist conception of socialism as a transition to communism, as is found in Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, etc. This isn’t a video by a socdem or demsoc.
For clarity, OP is confusing Marxism-Leninism (Second Thought is a communist) for “democratic socialism.” Marxism-Leninism is democratic, but is nothing like the Nordic model.
I think multi-line italics isn’t a thing. Although you may actually want to prefix the lines with > to make it into a quote like the first line of this comment.
Thank you for breaking this down. Would it be fair to say that social democracy on a national scale can still be imperialist but social democracy on a global scale would actually be a good thing? I guess when I see social democracy equated with fascism it leaves me wondering what is actually the better path.
No. Social democracy needs superprofits from the periphery to fund the core. Capitalism requires exploitation to function. If every nation is the core, who gets exploited? The surplus value does not exist. When accumulation slows, the bourgeoisie abandons reform. They choose fascism to protect property. The SPD proved this when they sided with reactionaries against workers. Reformism tries to manage a system built on violence. It cannot work globally because the economic base forbids it. The only path is revolution. Seize the means of production. End the imperialist chain.
But there are social democratic parties in developing countries.
Those “social democratic” parties in the periphery aren’t proof the model works globally. They’re rebranded revolutionary movements (MPLA, FRELIMO, ANC) that dropped Marxist-Leninist labels after the Soviet Union collapsed. Without that protection, they faced a stark choice: adopt the language of the Socialist International or risk regime change, sanctions, or outright intervention by the imperial core. The label shift was a survival tactic, not evidence that social democracy can function in a peripheral economy (because it can’t).
Fair, but why can’t social democracy function in a peripheral (=developing?) country?
Social democracy needs superprofits from the periphery to fund the core. Social democracy is a type of capitalism. Capitalism requires exploitation to function. If every nation is the core, who gets exploited? The surplus value does not exist.
If a developing country invests in public education, free healthcare, transport infrastructure, housing, etc., is that not social democracy? Why wouldn’t that work?
It is possible but not under capitalism which social democracy aims to preserve, It is possible under socialism as is seen in the PRC or the former USSR but that’s not social democracy.
Democratic socialism. I know it sounds a little bit ridiculous because the names are so similar, but the key difference is social democrats are fundamentally capitalists, while democratic socialists believe that capitalism will inevitably always lead to what we’ve got now. We know we have the resources to house everyone, clothe everyone, feed and educate everyone on earth. The only reason we don’t is because it’s not profitable for a handful of billionaires. Democratic socialists believe that everyone born on earth has the same rights to what the earth has to offer, and that we could give all of us a reasonable quality of life if resources were managed in a way that benefits the most people and not just the shareholders.
Obviously there’s a lot more to it, and I’m fully expecting a reply to this that starts with Well actually… but that’s the 10 second version from someone who doesn’t claim to be an expert.
Instead of well actuallying it, I would like to ask: how? How do you get these resources to be managed “better.” How do we go from where we are now to what you have stated?
As I said, I’m not an expert, but this guy has some really good ideas and his channel is definitely worth a look. A good starting point would be to look at the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark), as they are the closest in practice to this kind of system and consistently have the best quality of life and happiness among their citizens.
https://youtu.be/fpKsygbNLT4
The Nordic countries are the very same imperialist social democracies we have been talking about.
“I’m not a social democrat, I’m I democratic socialist, look at these social democrat countries I support!”
Could you please try a little harder
They also entirely fund their system through super exploitation of the periphery.
They are social democrats though
Any reason not to just throw out these terms and talk about it as capitalism vs communism?
Lots of reasons. Democratic socialism doesn’t eliminate private ownership the way communism does, people can still get rich, own companies, and buy jet skis, but they can’t take a successful company that hundreds of people have helped build and centred their lives around and hand control of it to their unqualified, arrogant, spoiled children to run into the ground, among other things. Here’s a decent basic summary:
*Democratic socialism combines political democracy with public, cooperative or state ownership of key industries while maintaining elections, civil liberties and pluralism. It seeks to reduce inequality and ensure that wealth and power serve the public good through taxation, regulation and social programs.
Communism, rooted in Marxist theory, envisions a classless, stateless society where all property is collectively owned. In practice, communist states have often used centralized, one-party government control to pursue those aims.* (edit: don’t know why italics isn’t working)
From https://www.newscoopnd.org/socialism-communism/
Communism is democratic. In practice, what you call democratic socialism is either social democracy, ie not socialist at all, or reformist socialism, in which it isn’t at all successful in establishing socialism. Communist parties have successfully established socialism and democratic systems via revolutionary means.
No, you’re describing social democracy.
No, that’s socialism
I’m getting a little lost - you said both “social democracy” and “democratic socialism” there. I just want to be sure that was intentional? I’m still a little unclear what the better system’s rules are. I don’t mean to be ungrateful for the explanation, but this section in particular didn’t clear anything up for me:
So… okay, but how is this codified in law? No inheriting?
They’re using the terms wrong, don’t worry that you can’t follow; they’re not being consistent
You’re right, apologies, I fucked up there. Changed it to democratic socialism (still not an expert!).
At the most basic level, employees at a workplace would elect their management, rather than management being chosen by the business owner/s.
I posted this link to another comment, it’s from a guy who runs a really good youtube channel that’s definitely worth checking out. I know being asked to watch a video sucks, but he explains it a million times better than I can.
https://youtu.be/fpKsygbNLT4
You’re talking about workplace democracy, and are linking a video by a Marxist-Leninist to explain the communist conception of socialism as a transition to communism, as is found in Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, etc. This isn’t a video by a socdem or demsoc.
Thank you. I am interested to learn more.
For clarity, OP is confusing Marxism-Leninism (Second Thought is a communist) for “democratic socialism.” Marxism-Leninism is democratic, but is nothing like the Nordic model.
I think multi-line italics isn’t a thing. Although you may actually want to prefix the lines with > to make it into a quote like the first line of this comment.