The political definition of liberal generally involves free enterprise. Social Democrats are generally trying to phase out free enterprise towards higher regulation and public good. Social Democrats seek to move society towards socialism nonviolently. That is not really a “liberal” thing by the version of that term generally used by Marxists.
While retaining socialism as a long-term goal, social democracy is distinguished from some modern forms of democratic socialism for seeking to humanize capitalism and create the conditions for it to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian, and solidaristic outcomes… It has been described as the most common form of Western or modern socialism,[6] as well as the reformist wing of democratic socialism. ( ref )
Social democracy is, by definition, geared towards socialism while still acting within capitalism to better society by pushing for direct action against inequality. The way a lot of socdems see it, the difference between them and demsocs is that demsocs tend to be neutral (or even negative) on steps that better overall quality-of-life that involve working within the capital system. For example, a socdem would embrace public option, or growing medicare as a good thing in the US because it’s better than what we have. A demsoc **might ** not because it is not actually taking a concrete step towards nationalizing healthcare.
Categorizing is hard because different people think different things of different terms, but it is unfair to categorically call socdems “liberal” in the “free enterprise” sense.
You know youre doing good when tankies talk shit on you. I was once DM spammed by a bunch of nazis when I talked shit about it. Fun times and makes me stay on the right lane
Maybe you mistyped, but why on Earth would Nazis defend tankies? The most Nazi deaths in history were caused by the Soviets. Nazis foam at the mouth with rage at the thought of anything to the left of Hitler himself
Sorry mate, I was unclear. The time of DMs I was referring to was when I was talking shit about nazis specifically, tankies weren’t in the vicinity of the discussion. But yeah the two are mortal enemies despite the awkward similarities between the ideologies.
France. We don’t use the word tankie. But the government is calling the social-democrat parties extreme left (often adding dangerous), and often talk about them like equal or worse than the extreme right racist (bordering fascist) party.
If you think any flavour of socialist “just hasn’t discovered social democracy”, then no, you don’t know what socialism is. Any socialist already knows about it, and probably believed in it once, but moved past it after learning that it’s insufficient.
Uh, I think you dont know what socialism is. Read up on it. This comment tree is not about it anyway so please start another one if you want to discuss socialism. Or at least make sure you
WTF exactly do you think socialism is, if you think it’s off topic?
You mentioned tankies. Tankie is a pejorative for Marxism-Leninism, a form of socialism.
You mentioned communism. Communism is a form of socialism.
You mentioned social democracy - a concept many ignorant people confuse with socialism.
You also intimated that MLs simply “haven’t discovered social democracy” - a statement that can only be said by someone who thinks social democracy is “socialism done right”.
You also intimated that MLs simply “haven’t discovered social democracy”
This is especially completely hilarious for anyone actually reading even a wiki page and knowing that the the most historically important M-L party, CPSU, was originally named literally Russian Social Democratic Labour Party and that all marxists called themselves social-democrats for a decades, until the bulk of them betrayed the working class and supported imperialism in WW1.
Fascinating how the guys most enthusiastic about communism and socialism have the least clue on what it is. Please, educate yourself, they are quite simple ideas, which is why they are the ideology of the uneducated and violent
This is incredibly inaccurate, Marx talks at length why Social Democracy isn’t enough and merely supports the status quo, preventing the liberation of the Proletariat.
Communists are typically critical of Nordic Social Democracy as they can only exist due to US Military supremacy as a peacemaker (so they don’t have to have a large military budget), and economic Imperialism via corporations like Nestlé exporting shitty working conditions. Even then, they are still seeing increasing disparity.
If you have any knowledge at all from the countries in question or the world in general, you would’ve understood the sarcasm. Now you just prove you have no idea what you are talking about.
Finland has a massive army and Sweden is renowned for its air power. These are not secrets, but well-known facts that even slightly educational people know. Unlike you.
Dude it’s an alliance of western powers. No matter how proud the Nords are of their armies, they are ultimately dependent on the military and financial domination of the US.
I never said they had no armies, but they both spend much less than the US does as a percentage of GDP.
Again, you can’t actually refute the points I made. Modern Nordic Social Democracy doesn’t actually solve the issues Communists take with Capitalism, it only makes the downsides slightly more bearable. It still relies on economic Imperialism to export shitty labor conditions to developing countries to poach local resources, and still generally relies on the US spending so much more on their military both percentage wise and in total.
Your point that Communists just haven’t discovered Social Democracy is ludicrous, anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading Marx will know about Social Democracy’s issues systemically. Simply batting for the team with the highest standard of living without giving any critical thought as to why these countries have the highest standard of living is primary education level political and economic thought.
I think I’m being trolled here but if you actually don’t know about the concepts of finlandization or Sweden’s neutrality I have no clue how you can keep a straight face lying
Lying? In what way? Is it a lie to say that the US as a peacemaking, Imperialist force with military supremacy and war deterrent has an impact on what other countries spend on their military?
Is it a lie to say that Finland spends less both in total and as a percentage of GDP on their military than the US does?
Is it a lie to say that Nordic countries have companies like Nestlé where the working conditions and environmental damage done to developing countries are massive, yet workers within said Nordic countries are generally treated well?
Is it a lie to say that Marx specifically mentioned the concepts of Social Democracy as insufficient and therefore Communists aren’t just blind people who haven’t discovered magical Capitalism but the government does some stuff yet none of the issues with Capitalism are actually solved?
All in all, you’re painfully unaware of how economics or politics works.
Finland and Sweden do in fact have militaries. They don’t have to spend nearly as much money on them because the US exists as a global deterrent. If the US was not a global deterrent, then Finland and Sweden would have to spend more money on their militaries.
Social Democracy is not when the US spends money on military. Social Democracy is just Capitalism but the government does some stuff, which solves none of the actual problems of Capitalism.
Social Democracy as found in the Nordic Countries only exists because these countries do not have to spend as much on their militaries, and practice economic Imperialism a la Nestlé where these companies practice brutal Imperialism of developing countries.
This isn’t a difficult concept to understand. Yes, Social Democracies are generally better for their own citizens, but are parasitic in nature.
Nah.
Communists are social democrats who just haven’t heard of social democracy.
Tankies are authoritarians who just like to masquerade under a less edgy ideology, communism in this case.
Most of the time, tankies tell me that I’m automatically a Liberal (the bad version of the word) if I’m a Social Democrat.
Social democracy is liberal, though
The political definition of liberal generally involves free enterprise. Social Democrats are generally trying to phase out free enterprise towards higher regulation and public good. Social Democrats seek to move society towards socialism nonviolently. That is not really a “liberal” thing by the version of that term generally used by Marxists.
Social democracy is not geared towards socialism. It sounds like you’re thinking of democratic socialism.
Social democracy is, by definition, geared towards socialism while still acting within capitalism to better society by pushing for direct action against inequality. The way a lot of socdems see it, the difference between them and demsocs is that demsocs tend to be neutral (or even negative) on steps that better overall quality-of-life that involve working within the capital system. For example, a socdem would embrace public option, or growing medicare as a good thing in the US because it’s better than what we have. A demsoc **might ** not because it is not actually taking a concrete step towards nationalizing healthcare.
Categorizing is hard because different people think different things of different terms, but it is unfair to categorically call socdems “liberal” in the “free enterprise” sense.
You know youre doing good when tankies talk shit on you. I was once DM spammed by a bunch of nazis when I talked shit about it. Fun times and makes me stay on the right lane
Maybe you mistyped, but why on Earth would Nazis defend tankies? The most Nazi deaths in history were caused by the Soviets. Nazis foam at the mouth with rage at the thought of anything to the left of Hitler himself
Sorry mate, I was unclear. The time of DMs I was referring to was when I was talking shit about nazis specifically, tankies weren’t in the vicinity of the discussion. But yeah the two are mortal enemies despite the awkward similarities between the ideologies.
No, I think you just make shit up on the fly. You start typing, with no knowledge of where the comment will end up
Y’know, such as weird oddities like this insane statement:
Similarities… Between Nazism and ML…
Is this some im14andthisisdeep horseshoe theory bullshit?
What’s the difference between a concentration camp and a gulag? Horseshoe, apparently.
Ok, so you actually think horseshoe theory has relevance.
Uh huh. And is there something you’re going to do about the reality of the situation?
If it’s like in my country, tankie will be used to qualify people just slightly left of hardcore liberalism…
Sounds based. Which country is it mate?
France. We don’t use the word tankie. But the government is calling the social-democrat parties extreme left (often adding dangerous), and often talk about them like equal or worse than the extreme right racist (bordering fascist) party.
Ah fuck you dude you tricked me into saying fr*nce is based
You have no idea what socialism is whatsoever, do you?
I do. But I find the concept of just “socialism” a bit boring to talk about, due to obvious reasons
If you think any flavour of socialist “just hasn’t discovered social democracy”, then no, you don’t know what socialism is. Any socialist already knows about it, and probably believed in it once, but moved past it after learning that it’s insufficient.
Uh, I think you dont know what socialism is. Read up on it. This comment tree is not about it anyway so please start another one if you want to discuss socialism. Or at least make sure you
A: let everyone know youre going OT
B: know what you are talking about.
Thank you
WTF exactly do you think socialism is, if you think it’s off topic?
You mentioned tankies. Tankie is a pejorative for Marxism-Leninism, a form of socialism.
You mentioned communism. Communism is a form of socialism.
You mentioned social democracy - a concept many ignorant people confuse with socialism.
You also intimated that MLs simply “haven’t discovered social democracy” - a statement that can only be said by someone who thinks social democracy is “socialism done right”.
This is especially completely hilarious for anyone actually reading even a wiki page and knowing that the the most historically important M-L party, CPSU, was originally named literally Russian Social Democratic Labour Party and that all marxists called themselves social-democrats for a decades, until the bulk of them betrayed the working class and supported imperialism in WW1.
Fascinating how the guys most enthusiastic about communism and socialism have the least clue on what it is. Please, educate yourself, they are quite simple ideas, which is why they are the ideology of the uneducated and violent
Then explain to me what it is and why it is violent. I wager you can’t.
Reality (its a thing) is a bit of a giveaway
This is incredibly inaccurate, Marx talks at length why Social Democracy isn’t enough and merely supports the status quo, preventing the liberation of the Proletariat.
Communists are typically critical of Nordic Social Democracy as they can only exist due to US Military supremacy as a peacemaker (so they don’t have to have a large military budget), and economic Imperialism via corporations like Nestlé exporting shitty working conditions. Even then, they are still seeing increasing disparity.
I’m not even a tankie, this is just basic Marx.
Uh the nation of Finland with its tiny itsy bitsy army would like to have a word.
Or Sweden, renowned for its centuries old tradition of US-dependency, especially their reliability on air assets to upkeep sovereignty.
Simple as.
That… proves what they said
If you have any knowledge at all from the countries in question or the world in general, you would’ve understood the sarcasm. Now you just prove you have no idea what you are talking about.
Finland has a massive army and Sweden is renowned for its air power. These are not secrets, but well-known facts that even slightly educational people know. Unlike you.
Dude it’s an alliance of western powers. No matter how proud the Nords are of their armies, they are ultimately dependent on the military and financial domination of the US.
Really? Starting when?
Let’s see literally any one of those countries try to go socialist and see how long it takes for the US to invade and coup them.
That’s debatable, but you haven’t answered the question.
Finland has been in an alliance for less than a year. Sweden hasn’t been in an alliance in centuries.
Do people actually talk this enthusiastically on subjects they have no knowledge of? Scary, but explains a lot
There are more types of alliance than military, dude. Global capitalism be like that.
And this thread is talking about military alliances. So stay on topic.
Damn those must have prevented war in ukraine
I never said they had no armies, but they both spend much less than the US does as a percentage of GDP.
Again, you can’t actually refute the points I made. Modern Nordic Social Democracy doesn’t actually solve the issues Communists take with Capitalism, it only makes the downsides slightly more bearable. It still relies on economic Imperialism to export shitty labor conditions to developing countries to poach local resources, and still generally relies on the US spending so much more on their military both percentage wise and in total.
Your point that Communists just haven’t discovered Social Democracy is ludicrous, anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading Marx will know about Social Democracy’s issues systemically. Simply batting for the team with the highest standard of living without giving any critical thought as to why these countries have the highest standard of living is primary education level political and economic thought.
I think I’m being trolled here but if you actually don’t know about the concepts of finlandization or Sweden’s neutrality I have no clue how you can keep a straight face lying
Lying? In what way? Is it a lie to say that the US as a peacemaking, Imperialist force with military supremacy and war deterrent has an impact on what other countries spend on their military?
Is it a lie to say that Finland spends less both in total and as a percentage of GDP on their military than the US does?
Is it a lie to say that Nordic countries have companies like Nestlé where the working conditions and environmental damage done to developing countries are massive, yet workers within said Nordic countries are generally treated well?
Is it a lie to say that Marx specifically mentioned the concepts of Social Democracy as insufficient and therefore Communists aren’t just blind people who haven’t discovered magical Capitalism but the government does some stuff yet none of the issues with Capitalism are actually solved?
All in all, you’re painfully unaware of how economics or politics works.
You are saying Finland and Sweden had no deterrence during their respective times of neutrality.
And social democracy is when US spends money on military? Yo what?
No, I said precisely neither of those.
Finland and Sweden do in fact have militaries. They don’t have to spend nearly as much money on them because the US exists as a global deterrent. If the US was not a global deterrent, then Finland and Sweden would have to spend more money on their militaries.
Social Democracy is not when the US spends money on military. Social Democracy is just Capitalism but the government does some stuff, which solves none of the actual problems of Capitalism.
Social Democracy as found in the Nordic Countries only exists because these countries do not have to spend as much on their militaries, and practice economic Imperialism a la Nestlé where these companies practice brutal Imperialism of developing countries.
This isn’t a difficult concept to understand. Yes, Social Democracies are generally better for their own citizens, but are parasitic in nature.
I have no idea how you speak to me like thay when you are unaware what neutrality means.
I’m being trolled