Idealism of social-democracy

lesbiskammerat:

Is social-democracy, or any similar reformist ideology wherein the goal is to constrain or limit capitalism without its complete abolition, more realistic, more achievable or less idealistic than socialism or communism?

While the ultimate goals of social-democrats may be closer to current conditions, and so appear to be within reach, this does not mean that they are more easily achievable or more sustainable. Many of the goals of social-democracy, such as free healthcare, free education, safe working conditions, etc. are shared by communism, so the problem isn’t that these things are undesirable, but that social-democracy, while in some cases able to achieve them through long, arduous struggle, cannot sustain them. The root of the problem, capitalism, remains untouched under social-democracy, and as such capitalists are free to manipulate conditions in their favour. 

While attempting to achieve social-democracy, the odds are completely stacked against the working class. The movement limits itself to working within a system designed to combat it at every turn. The media is operated for profit by capitalists, and the government is dominated by capitalists, who can use their power to disrupt and destroy any movement that threatens profits, through anything from the disenfranchisement of voters to assassinations. 
This is especially so in nations that are victims of imperialism, where even if a social-democrat is finally elected, they are an easy target for the imperial powers. As soon as Mosaddegh threatened British profits in Iran, he was overthrown. When Árbenz threatened American profits in Guatemala, he was removed.  The reforms of these heroes were immediately rolled back, and capitalism resumed its course.
Even still, what if social-democrats were to successfully take and hold on to power? The scope of their influence is still limited to local issues, as social-democracy does not present an existential threat to capitalism or imperialism, but rather a smaller local obstruction. So while conditions may improve on a local level in a successful social-democracy, capitalism continues to exploit and impoverish people outside its borders.
Additionally, by not dismantling capitalism itself, social-democracy leaves room for capitalists to freely build up their power again, and gradually remove the reforms. In time, social-democrats will inevitably be forced to start over again.

In short, while social-democracy may have goals not far removed from our current conditions, it does not properly address the roots of the suffering it seeks to mitigate. As a result, it is essentially doomed to either never get off the ground, or have its limited progress destroyed eventually.

7 months ago / 208 
via: frogmunist
src: lesbiskammerat
  1. duckproletariat reblogged this from nikator
  2. officialcomemierda reblogged this from pelkoja
  3. butch-dyke reblogged this from lesbiskammerat
  4. narwhalpigeon reblogged this from pelkoja
  5. myrmicitephilosipher reblogged this from ninarosehotchkiss
  6. stitchsystem reblogged this from earlploddington
  7. guzzlemilker reblogged this from pelkoja
  8. earlploddington reblogged this from lesbiskammerat
  9. they-call-me-hippie reblogged this from lesbiskammerat
  10. incredulousbaby reblogged this from lesbiskammerat
  11. luxembrutalist reblogged this from lesbiskammerat
  12. ninarosehotchkiss reblogged this from pelkoja
  13. herenotwhere reblogged this from lesbiskammerat
  14. lesbiskammerat posted this
(c)