Is social democracy just a revisionist tradition within socialism or is it akin to something entirely separate, like liberalism is to socialism.
>>886888
Social democracy is just Progressivism 2.0.
>>886888
Revision just to appease people like George Orwell
Also, you almost got 888888
Social Democracy is the attempt of the bourgeoisie to sap the revolutionary energies of the proletariat through concessions that maintain the status quo.
>>886888
It's just a Rawls kind of liberalism.
>>886888
A revisionist tradition from the same continental people
An idea that don't leave millions of people death for something that don't work.
>>886888
by definition social democracy's end goal is literally communism, it is just more gradual and surreptitious
>>886981
You're confusing it with democratic socialism.
>>886888
>or is it akin to something entirely separate, like liberalism is to socialism.
I'd say so because socialism sees capitalism as a historical process that will eventually end. Soc dem sees capitalism as capable of reform and with no end in sight.
>>886981
Isn't that democratic socialism?
>>886888
more like Bourgeoisie friendly socialism. It's popular in the west with well off educated social liberals who are scared of the socially conservative working classes. Because of this, they try and circumnavigate any form of class warfare or revolution so they can keep their ivory tower hugbox in power.
>>886917
And there's nothing wrong with that.
>>887219
Fuck off porky.
>>886888
Leaving the democracy part aside, is the economic system similar to Fascism's economic system?
>>887226
Does there exist people that disslike this system?
Yes
Are some of them prone to using buzzwords?
Yes
'
Yep, it's Fascism's economic system.
>>887222
>Allowing private property and enterprise while making sure people gain decent wages and live comfortably is a bad thing.
>>886917
>constitutionalism is the attempt of the bourgeoisie to sap the revolutionary energies of the proletariat through concessions that maintain the status quo
You could say that about almost every "concession" that has led to the advancement of the common man
>>887234
>slavery is okay as long as you're NICE to your slaves
>>887233
Are you saying that it's comparable to fascism insofar as people criticize it by calling fascism?
Anyway, what I meant is that as far as I know, despite the huge differences between both systems, they both are in favor of private property as long as workers live decently, which ensures class collaboration.
>>887233
In other words a gentle version of capitalism, so to speak.
>>887261
>the only time people aren't slaves is when they are stripped of property
It seems like most modern day "slaves" could opt out and live like neets if they wanted to
>>887261
>Property owner pays worker a wage in exchange for working that property.
>Slavery.
>Believing the LTV meme.
>>887281
>implying prices don't strongly correlate with labor time
wew lad
Social democracy and democratic socialism are both, etymologically, the same system. The difference is in their connotation.
Democratic socialism is generally interpreted to mean an inherently socialist system, i.e. a system that is not at its base capitalist and engages in some form social ownership of the means of production, but that is also democratic. That's the purely political outline of democratic socialism, but what people usually refer to by the term is the most natural economic consequence of democratic socialism.
Democracy means bending to the will of the people, and generally speaking, people like to own things themselves and trade the things that they own with other people who also own things themselves. Therefore, from the economic standpoint, democratic socialism usually refers to a socialist system that nonetheless allows capitalism. The most notable example of this is the Soviet Union under perestroika, and a contemporary example (at least on paper) is the People's Republic of China.
Social democracy is sort of the opposite of democratic socialism, even though theoretically they refer to the same Marxist vision for public ownership of the means of production. Contemporary social democrats support an inherently capitalist system, but one that engages in socialist-type behaviour in a number of ways. Usually, this means abundant public services and strong support for programs that seek to improve human welfare. An example of this is the so-called Nordic model best exemplified by Sweden.
t. Libertarian, so take my descriptions with a grain of salt.
>>887261
Fuck off. I don't want to be equal in my ragamuffinhood with you.
>>887296
What I mean is:
Fascism's economic system, corporatism says "we don't want the free market to dictate people's lives, we don't want capitalist class to give bad conditions to the workers, but we do believe in the right to private property, so this is it, we allow people to privately own as long as there's good conditions for everyone involved, this way classes will cooperate and not struggle likes commies want". And that seems similar (to me, at least) to the economic system that socialdemocracy stands for.
>>887226
>>887343
That is correct. Fascism's economic model is almost exactly that of contemporary social democrats. Capitalism, but with the government rigging things a little more than usual to try and even everything out. I'll also make a point of noting that just because fascists like Hitler and Mussolini supported social democracy doesn't mean social democracy is itself fascist. Hitler and Mussolini also both had two eyes, two ears a nose and a mouth. It isn't someone's views on redistribution of wealth or their love of art or whatever that makes someone fascist, it's their support of fascism. The social democrats of the modern day are not fascists.
>>887306
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com.ar/2015/05/debunking-marxism-101.html
>>887445
More like they integrate capitalist class and worker class.
>>886888
Isn't that just socialism by any other name?
>>887373
I agree, the "this controversial political figure drank water, and so do you, therefore you advocate said political figure" fallacy is stupid, besides, socialdemocracy works (as far as I know, so correct me if I'm wrong), therefore it would be fallacious to say "but it will turn into fascism" since it's been demostrated that it hasn't, unlike communism.
>>887445
Everyone who exists in a capitalist system is a capitalist. Marx himself was a capitalist, in that he resided in capitalist states and owned (substantial) wealth. The Marxist term for the people you're thinking of is the 'bourgeoisie'—another demographic of which Karl Marx was a member.
It's ironic how much loathing there is among democratic socialists for so-called 'champagne socialists', considering that the ecclesiocrat of the socialist system and socialist thinking was himself sipping champagne as he wrote the Communist Manifesto.
>>887472
Didn't put it very clearly in the last bit, I meant that communism has lead to totalitarian states, not that it has lead to fascism.
>Is social democracy just a revisionist tradition within socialism or is it akin to something entirely separate, like liberalism is to socialism.
The former. Both revolutionary and democratic socialism didn't work out? Let's try reforming the capitalist system! Unfortunately, it is also doomed to fail.
>>887445
Fascism supports corporatism, which is far from a free-market.
>>886981
No fucking social democrat in the world aims for actual socialism anymore. They're all petty left-center faggots.
>>887234
>>Allowing private property and enterprise while making sure people gain decent wages and live comfortably is a bad thing.
furthering the humanity through hedonism is ok
>>886888
More like revisionist tradition in love with capitalism. I'd call it capitalism-lite.
Useful idiots.
>>886907
This.
>>890168
This tbqh. Social-democracy has almost nothing to do with socialism.
>>887331
i would dispute your description of democratic socialism. in my view it is the doctrine of attempting to bring about socialism through bourgeois parliamentarianism. all socialist doctrines support democracy in theory so i think it unhelpful to use democratic socialism to refer to democracy in a socialist society.
the term social democracy has morphed over time. it started out as the name of parties who advocated the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist state. the bolsheviks were part of the social democratic party of russia. the sdp in germany also started out revolutionary but became revisionist under bernstein. this is where its gets its modern meaning of an essential capitalist state but with strong welfare state, nationalisation etc
>>886981
Well meme'd m8.
I suppose it changes from country to country, but Social Democracy in the Scandinavian countries have traditionally been about using capitalism useful for the workers. You're changing the system to be more fair yet you still work within the system.
>>891267
This is a strong criticism towards Social Democracy. If Social Democrats have abandoned the idea of complete Socialism or to merely work towards Communism, then how does it differ from Social Liberalism?
>>886888
It's disgusting revisionism
>>891328
You are confusing social-democracy with democratic-socialism, mate.
>>886888
i live in a capitalistic socialist democracy
>>886981
Social Democracy comes from the English Radicals-Labour tradition and doesn't want the end goal to be communism.
Democartic Socialism is originally rooted in Germany and the SPD but has been ressurgent since the end of the Cold War amongst left wing radical college students in Europe. Their end goal is something very close to communism.
There were other branches like French CGT-style Syndicalism, but they're all extinct nowadays.
>>886888
>revisionist tradition
>lol check out this new non-sequitor buzzword guys
it's a form of government. not necessarily perfect. but while all other forms are, "perfect," in theory, in execution they have never been able to factor in human nature, greed, envy, laziness, as well as cognitive defects that prevent us from properly behaving.
in fascism, the power is concentrated at the top. instead of being used to further civilization it is used to smash it apart, because at the top is a man.
in communism, the power is dissolved entirely. only this is not possible. so instead it is concentrated in the mechanism of dissolution, and we end up with Stalin, Pol Pot, etc...
in social democracy, the power is in the hands of the people. so marketers, advertisers, schools and the rest of the media gets to work hammering into people's minds as much as possible, flooding them with entertainment, poisoning them with garbage, making sure they are enslaved to their way of life. theoretically a group could market a message effectively to change the opinions of the masses. but theoretically the two afore-mentioned systems could work just as well.
>>886981
Absolutely wrong. This is literally covered in A-Level politics text books.
How is it possible to even talk about politics without knowing this shit?
