The Problems With Social Democracy

I think anarcho-syndicalism, parecon, and Social Democracy are all viable systems. However, I suspect that many of you here are adamantly opposed to Social Democracy. One of the arguments I hear from Chomsky is that the state is inevitably captured by corporations to the detriment of society at large. It seems to me that this isn't necessarily the case. I think you are all familiar with Norway. I know some of you think that Social Democracy can't work and have a rebuttal for Norway already lined up. I would like to hear it.

I frankly cannot see the issues with a Social Democracy which incorporates elements of Geoism and Ordoliberalism. Capital is allowed to bargain collectively, so labor should too. Unions help tremendously in evening the field. Making sure that the laborers have food, shelter, and a decent standard of living without having to work would address inequalities of bargaining power. Socializing the natural resources/minerals/oils would make sure that people have material upon which they may labor. Together with debtor forgiveness mechanisms and a progressive tax structure intended for Gini Coefficient targeting, I do not see why Social Democracy can't be viewed as a reasonable alternative.

I only need to ask this:

WHY there needs to be workers and owners? Two separate classes?...

Even some of the most staunch anti-capitalists should be able to admit that capitalism is quite good at using price controls to direct resources, especially when ordoliberal type interventions mitigate the excesses of the market. It addresses the "economic calculation problem" in a way that can theoretically be superior to all other systems. All of this is THEORETICAL though because in practice it rarely works out that way. AnCap-istan I believe would be a nightmarish dystopia. Heavy state intervention is necessary to make capitalism reasonably efficient.

Also, I don't think there "needs" to be. As I said, other systems are perfectly viable as well. I think that capitalism can be modified in ways that are, in theory, beneficial to the working class. Whether or not certain types of reforms are practical depends largely on the geography and demographics. Capitalism seems reasonable in Scandanavia right now. There's improvements I would make, but I think it is approaching something humane there.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:I only need to ask this:

WHY there needs to be workers and owners? Two separate classes?...

The answer is: B – surplus value!

Not only is it a revisionist, un-Marxist ideology, it really doesn't work economically. Hence why most Social Democrat parties manage to get their nations in large amounts of debt a lot.

safeduck wrote: Not only is it a revisionist, un-Marxist ideology, it really doesn't work economically. Hence why most Social Democrat parties manage to get their nations in large amounts of debt a lot.

You should first explain why deficit spending is a bad policy in terms of bourgeois economics. It would also make more sense to not refer to Marx's analysis and theory as though it were a religion or a buzz word. If you have a solid argument then I invite you to make it.

It would also make more sense to not refer to Marx's analysis and theory as though it were a religion or a buzz word. If you have a solid argument then I invite you to make it.

Marxism is not a religion, yes, but it still has fundamental principles to uphold. A core principle of Marxism is class struggle and the overthrowing of Capitalism. Social Democracy does not seek to overthrow Capitalism, it merely wants to maintain it. Social Democracy also preaches class collaboration instead of class struggle, meaning there is no chance of a real proletarian state being constructed. Social Democracy also preaches the idea of peaceful revolution (via elections etc.), which is ludicrous, it's not like the bourgeoisie are going to let you win by peaceful means. Social Democratic parties have been shown to be tools of imperialist interests multiple times. The Labour Government here in Britain has initiated 2 wars in the space of 10 years. Social Democracy, by definition is the revisionism of Marxism-Leninism and the abandoning of the core principles of Marxism. Just by this small critique, it is easy to see a party of social democracy is a party fit for the bourgeoisie. It attempts to water down Marxism in the name of "Dogmatism".

Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. - Lenin

You should first explain why deficit spending is a bad policy in terms of bourgeois economics.

Because it usually ends up getting a nation into debt which forces the working classes to pay for it?

Marx was a revolutionary but you don't have to be one to be a marxist. You only need to follow his method of analysis: historical materialism, class analysis, ect. His theories are interconnected but you get my point.

You can be a reformist marxist but that would require a lot of cognitive dissonance.

Marxism does not have 'core principles' to adhere to in the manner that you mean. It is not some oath of conduct or tenets to live by.

Social Democracy, by definition is the revisionism of Marxism-Leninism and the abandoning of the core principles of Marxism.

Who says they even cared about ML to read up on it in order to revise it in the first place?

Because it usually ends up getting a nation into debt which forces the working classes to pay for it?

That is one outcome, but they could also use the rich to pay for it like Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Why do you think that deficit spending is bad policy for the moment other than the current of austerity?

That is one outcome, but they could also use the rich to pay for it like Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Why do you think that deficit spending is bad policy for the moment other than the current of austerity?

If national debt is not enough of a reason for you I don't know what is. Not to mention Roosevelt's new deal was a more of a failure in the long run. Unemployment was lowered slightly, but by 1939 it was still 17.9% and the economy had actually taken another dip. It was lucky for Roosevelt that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to ignite US involvement in WWII. Which helped to draw attention away from his failures and raised employment figures. So Roosevelt's new deal is hardly a great example.

Considering that it was almost 25% when he took office, what was your point?

Red Aegis wrote:Considering that it was almost 25% when he took office, what was your point?

That it wasn't very effective?... And that it started to show signs of failure by the late 30's in when the economy took another dip.

That is mainly speculation I think and even if it were to have been heading for a dip that is not an indication of failure. Anyway, the main thing that I was trying to get across is that your conception of debt being bad is really the issue. Why is debt bad?

Red Aegis wrote:Why is debt bad?

Why is debt bad? because it usually leads to economic decline, which usually leads to unemployment on a large scale and higher taxes on the working classes. But hey at least there's one positive about debt, it leads to a real chance for Socialist revolution as the masses begin to realize another system is needed. To flip this on it's head, why would you think debt is good in any way other than an increase in chances for revolution?

sytar wrote:One of the arguments I hear from Chomsky is that the state is inevitably captured by corporations to the detriment of society at large.

That problem is structural. The larger the government the more areas exist for corporate influence to enter in. If, in fact, its corporate influence on government that concerns you then the only way to reduce that is to reduce the size of government not increase it.

V for Valjean wrote:

sytar wrote:One of the arguments I hear from Chomsky is that the state is inevitably captured by corporations to the detriment of society at large.

That problem is structural. The larger the government the more areas exist for corporate influence to enter in. If, in fact, its corporate influence on government that concerns you then the only way to reduce that is to reduce the size of government not increase it.

That is not the only way as you say. The alternative is to eliminate a source of the problem, the corporate system. A better way would be to eliminate Capitalism all together. Also, welcome to the forum!

Red Aegis wrote:That is not the only way as you say. The alternative is to eliminate a source of the problem, the corporate system. A better way would be to eliminate Capitalism all together. Also, welcome to the forum!

Thanks for the welcome, and the message as well!

And you're correct my suggestion that shrinking the size of government shrinks the areas available for corporate influence isn't the only alternative. Of course technically doing nothing is an alternative, as is increasing the size of government with the accepted understanding that avenues for influence of lobbyists will increase.

That said, however, the fear of some mysterious, powerful, invisible force called "corporate influence" isn't well founded. Its based on the fear that things in the capitalist system are motivated by greed. To which I'd say ask: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?

Why anyone would talk to a "libertarian" is beyond me.

Kids stuffed chimneys mean nothing to you? Would you also debate kiddie fiddling advocates?

Catch yourselves on. The "glory years" of capitalism were a living hell for working people in general and saw horrible colonialism. These people our enemies- they see us the same way we see a piece of coal.

Paradosis wrote:Why anyone would talk to a "libertarian" is beyond me.

Kids stuffed chimneys mean nothing to you? Would you also debate kiddie fiddling advocates?

Catch yourselves on. The "glory years" of capitalism were a living hell for working people in general and saw horrible colonialism. These people our enemies- they see us the same way we see a piece of coal.

You've only considered 50% of what's at play with child labor, and the other 50% you've overlooked is much more difficult to explain away. Indulge me as I defend the seemingly discpicable, undefendable topic of child labor.

We've done 2 experiments in the last 50 years where we took an identical country and divided it in 2. We made one half socialist and the other half capitalist. They were east / west Germany and North / South Korea. And in both cases the average person was able to escape the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about only when they were on the capitalist side.

But more to your specific point about child labor. There's a very core matter beneath that remark that you may not have considered Paradosis. In capitalism no transaction takes place unless both parties benefit. The very definition of free. So you look at England during the Industrial Revolution when you had rampant child labor in factories. That only occurred because it was a superior arrangement to what was otherwise available to those children. See you've only looked at half the picture of where the children ended up. Where did those children come from? They came from farms where they did back breaking manual labor for 12 hours a day and were paid nothing. By working in factories they were able to gather a small means and become slightly better off. And they didn't stay in those jobs for long, certainly not for their entire life. As they developed more valuable skills they left those menail positions for ones where the skills they'd learned made them productive enough to justify a higher wage.

That is why you saw rampant, crushing poverty in East Germany but after 30 years not in West Germany. That's why you see it today in North Korea whereas the people living in South Korea are prospering greatly. They didn't start off that way, but as a society they became more and more productive as they went whereas their counterparts who did not have a free enterprise system did not.

Paradosis wrote:Why anyone would talk to a "libertarian" is beyond me.

Kids stuffed chimneys mean nothing to you? Would you also debate kiddie fiddling advocates?

Catch yourselves on. The "glory years" of capitalism were a living hell for working people in general and saw horrible colonialism. These people our enemies- they see us the same way we see a piece of coal.

Chill out. If you take that stance then you should be yelling at almost every single person in your neighborhood. Talking to people is how you convince them. Debate and discussion are what forums are for. Doing so several people have changed their positions towards more of a socialist alignment. Insults won't change anything so try to make your point in another way instead of equating being a capitalist to being a pedophile.

V for Valjean wrote:Thanks for the welcome, and the message as well!

And you're correct my suggestion that shrinking the size of government shrinks the areas available for corporate influence isn't the only alternative. Of course technically doing nothing is an alternative,

Zero is a number but how many people start counting at it? Anyway, I don't think that it is useful to put my point in the same category as doing nothing.

as is increasing the size of government with the accepted understanding that avenues for influence of lobbyists will increase.

That is why I suggested getting rid of Capitalism. Without the influence of the market and the uneven accumulation of wealth the lobbying power of everyone would be much more equitable which is what you want in a democracy.

That said, however, the fear of some mysterious, powerful, invisible force called "corporate influence" isn't well founded.

You were literally just complaining about lobbyists. Who funds lobbyists?