Social Democracy versus Communism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14630
Social Democracy versus Communism

Social Democracy: A political theory advocating the use of democratic means to achieve a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism. (Known more as democratic socialism today).

This book is very good. I suggest everyone (including communists) reads it.

Social Democracy versus Communism, by Karl Kaustsky, 1937
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky ... /index.htm
By CrazyPete
#14644
I was going to argue my side, but I will do so after I read the book.

Just in advance, I am going in complete disagreement with democratic socialism, let alone social democracy :muha2:
User avatar
By FCP
#14691
Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are not necessarily -- although there is alot of similarities -- one and the same. Most social democrats accept, for better or worse, to greater and lesser extents, the capitalist system with all it's perceived deficiencies.
By CasX
#14704
Of course. But from what I have read of the early socialists, though they described themselves as 'social democrats' they fit much better today into the category of 'democratic socialists' as opposed to the mere slightly-reformist social democratic parties of Europe, who advocate things like a progressive taxation system. The early socialists are more than that, they want real socialism - but achieved through democracy.
User avatar
By FCP
#14718
Aha, I didn't realize you weren't using the terms in the modern sense, but rather a historical one.
#14734
CasX wrote:Social Democracy versus Communism

Social Democracy: A political theory advocating the use of democratic means to achieve a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism. (Known more as democratic socialism today).


That definition ignores historical facts. Before WWI, the Social Democratic movement included both Marxists and reformists. It was WWI that completely revealed the rotten opportunism of the reformist parties, many of which sided with their 'own' imperialist bourgeoisie and after the war helped crushing the proletarian uprisings.

When communists were still in the Social Democratic movement, Lenin described SD parties as proletarian parties in countries where bourgeois-democratic revolution was yet to be completed. 'Social' referring to socialism and 'Democratic' to the democratic tasks (abolishment of the remnants of feudalism) of the party.

gradual transition from capitalism to socialism


What does that mean? Socialism is the 'gradual transition' itself. Are you proposing some transitional phase before the launchment of socialist transition. Gradual transition to gradual transition - What is that?

Do you think you can smash the organs bourgeois state gradually, replace it with proletarian state organs gradually, having the bourgeoisie just watching from aside as you deconstruct those very organs that were from the beginning build to preserve its class rule? How are you going to touch the machinery of force by which one class rules over the rest of the people, without getting a more or less violent reaction? Or is it to remain untouched?

Combine the bourgeois state with Social Democratic government, and guess what you have? Still a capitalist society. Imagine a genuinely socialist government in a capitalist government. That simply wouldn't be allowed to stay in power or realise its political program, if it even was accepted to take the government in the first place. What you have to do to avoid reaction from the bourgeois state, is to retain abstract 'socialist' phrases and give up any demands that would shake the very basis of capitalism. Then you are free to take the government. Such 'socialism' which doesn't seek to overthrow the bourgeoisie and smash its state, however well-meaning, will never get rid of capitalism and reach socialism. Such 'socialism' has become an integral part of the machinery of bourgeois parliamentarism, assuring that once in every four year the big capital gets a government that preserves its interests.
#18430
CasX wrote:Social Democracy versus Communism

Social Democracy: A political theory advocating the use of democratic means to achieve a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism. (Known more as democratic socialism today).

This book is very good. I suggest everyone (including communists) reads it.

Social Democracy versus Communism, by Karl Kaustsky, 1937
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky ... /index.htm


Socialdemocracy is a joke. I know, I live in sweden, we have had the socialdemocrats ruling for a hundrad years, yet not a sight of socialism.
There is impossible to reach socialism throught the parlament, the real power lies in the hand of the capitalists. It doesent mather what you vote for, it wont make any real differens. The parlament is a part of the state, the state is a part of the bourgeoisie society, by and for the capitalists. Elections is a dead end i say! We have to build something aside from the state, we have to build something that stand free from the capitalistsociety. Otherwise we are doomed! Look at the communistparties of Italy for example, sooner or later every communistparty built on the capitalitsociety will fall in their hands. Revolution is the only solution!
#21486
Illuminat wrote:
CasX wrote:Social Democracy versus Communism

Social Democracy: A political theory advocating the use of democratic means to achieve a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism. (Known more as democratic socialism today).

This book is very good. I suggest everyone (including communists) reads it.

Social Democracy versus Communism, by Karl Kaustsky, 1937
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky ... /index.htm


Socialdemocracy is a joke. I know, I live in sweden, we have had the socialdemocrats ruling for a hundrad years, yet not a sight of socialism.
There is impossible to reach socialism throught the parlament, the real power lies in the hand of the capitalists. It doesent mather what you vote for, it wont make any real differens. The parlament is a part of the state, the state is a part of the bourgeoisie society, by and for the capitalists. Elections is a dead end i say! We have to build something aside from the state, we have to build something that stand free from the capitalistsociety. Otherwise we are doomed! Look at the communistparties of Italy for example, sooner or later every communistparty built on the capitalitsociety will fall in their hands. Revolution is the only solution!


What is so bad about Sweden and their social-democracy?
#23215
i think this transition of capitalism into socialism is more properly termed the liberlization of capitalism. although as i was aware this to not transition into socialism. the way i think of it is that a democratic socialist is a socialist who beleives in the state system of a democracy (read: not a republic) and the social democrat as the pussy who dare not try to take anyones money away but still wants the affection of the working class. mind you that opinion is very biased but i beleive holds true if you look at the social democrats in europe. i agree though that revolution by the vote is a farce as it is still a tool of the capitalist society.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yale course on Ukrainian history: https://www.you[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Find Someone Who Loves You Like Israel Loves Att[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]