Social Dems, in my experience, are generally people with hearts in the right place, but haven't yet done any structural analysis. Essentially, they recognize that the current states with the highest standards of living are Social Democracies, and form their political and economic beliefs around replicating current "success," without actually taking it a step further and performing historical analysis or looking at trends.

There are SocDems that are incredibly based, and those are people who support third-world countries becoming Social Democracies as a means to achieve Socialism and Communism in the long run, as they can combat Imperialism and provide more for their people as they develop.

The issues with developed Social Democracies still stem from Capitalism lasting beyond the developing phase. In Scandinavian countries, we still see brutal, awful organizations like Nestlé brutalizing developing nations, rising disparity, and declines in equity. Social Democracies are better than Neoliberal Republics like the US, but still aren't "good."

[+] vsh@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Graylitic@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Social Democrats take their roots in Marxist philosophy, but seek reform, rather than revolutionary change. Revolutionary doesn't inherently mean violent, but a total replacement of the state with a new one. See Rosa Luxembourg's Reform or Revolution for information on why reform will never work.

Social Demo is not Socialism. Social Demo is a rejection of Socialism, as Socialism is simply a Mode of Production by which the Means of Production are owned in Common, not by individuals. Social Demo is Capitalism, with Social Safety nets, and has issues as I've elaborated on in my previous comment.