You're viewing part of a thread.
And I bet you're fun at parties. Please oh great psychic, tell me more about myself?
And actually, I do know the difference between demsoc and socdem. The formal definition for Social Democrat is "a supporter or advocate of a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means." That we are constantly painted as "filthy liberal" for wanting to respect the will of the majority is a disappointing and disgusting lie. And the ONLY people who accuse socdems of being fake leftists? TANKIES. Who are not, by any meaningful definition, more left than those of us with a soul.
The only way I'm not a leftist is if your version of leftism says "fuck people, freedom, or democracy". In **your ** version of leftism, are you ok with being the 1% ruling by force against 99% who hate you? Think very carefully before replying to that.
And I bet you're fun at parties
Social Democrat is "a supporter or advocate of a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means."
That's what a demsoc is. Social democrats support capitalism with social programs.
Who are not, by any meaningful definition, more left than those of us with a soul.
Speaking of succdems look how even in their mind palace they're already dehumanizing anyone to the left of them. This helps when they cooperate with and enable fascist parties like they do every time in history. "Tankies don't have a soul and they're going to kill you first so it's okay to let the nazis kill them actually" I'm a REAL leftist :D
Social Democrat is “a supporter or advocate of a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.”
That’s what a demsoc is. Social democrats support capitalism with social programs.
You should tell Webster they're wrong. And Wikipedia. And Brittanica.
By their definitions, a Socdem's insistence on using democracy at all costs is what differentiates between them and demsocs.
By why is it so important for you to insist everyone use your nonstandard definition of the terms? Also, your calling us "succdems" tells me exactly everything I need to know about your permission. If I'm not willing to murder people, I'm less than human to you enough to be given a silly nickname.
“Tankies don’t have a soul and they’re going to kill you first so it’s okay to let the nazis kill them actually” I’m a REAL leftist :D
At this moment, you're on the wrong side of the "First they came for" poem because you're the one rejecting the Left.
You should tell Webster they're wrong. And Wikipedia. And Brittanica.
Not to call the editors of those fine resources for elementary school aged children stupid or anything, but the adjective-noun pairs "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" literally imply within the terms themselves what these things are. A democratic socialist is a socialist who uses democratic means. It's on the tin.
At this moment, you're on the wrong side of the "First they came for" poem because you're the one rejecting the Left.
This has to be a bit
Yeah, it's the bit where I've gotten threats on my life.
What does that have to do with you referencing a poem you never read the first two lines from?
Can you show us a time this happened? Genuinely, people shouldn't throw around death threats to anyone but war criminals billionaires nazis transphobes and cops, so if thats happening to you just because you're an average liberal I don't support that
or I'll have to assume you were on some cracker shit and actively supporting or being one of the aforementioned groups, in which case, lmao haha
Social democracy, noun
a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practicesSo, uh, capitalist, according to Webster. It is very funny to say "I totally know the difference between SocDem and DemSoc", and then go on to not know.
However, I'll write something up here. I'm from Denmark, a SocDem country. The current prime minister is Mette Frederiksen of the Social Democrat party. We are almost at SocDem as you can get.
This Social Democracy of Denmark formed around the time of the Soviet Union starting to get more influential, as the capitalists of Denmark found themselves needing to provide concessions to the working population, since an example of better worker rights was right next door. This was the birth of Social Democracy in Denmark. It expanded to have free healthcare, education, and a pretty strong social safety net. Now these things are of course nice for the people living in Denmark, however the second that the USSR fell, austerity started happening. I cannot remember a time in the last 20 years where the government wasn't trying to "save money". Now our healthcare system is crippled, education is getting defunded, and social safety is the same.
The only reason that the capitalist class of Denmark gave the concessions they did, was because the Soviet Union was next door. This is the reality. The capitalists will never give you anything, unless their security is threatened. To be a Social Democrat, and rejecting revolution as a concept, is to just play into what capitalists want. Social Democracy is just another way to preserve capitalism. It's not a solution, it's a band-aid for a bullet wound - might stop the bleeding for a bit, but it sure as hell will get infected if it's not treated properly. At best it's harm reduction, at worst it's a detriment to the rights of the working class.
I'm not even getting into the exploitation necessary to uphold Social Democracy, and some of the other more icky elements of the ideology. I'm just giving you an example of what has happened to every single Social Democracy currently. I understand that it's nice to think about, but I promise you that it's not the solution to the problem.
The DemSocs at least have a problem with capitalism, however while their insistence on pacifism, and reform sounds very nice, it has literally not worked once in history. Not a single time. One of the only time it got close was with Allende in Chile, and the US fucking killed him, because you cannot fight empire with just words. I'm sorry, but that is the truth. You need to be able to fight counter-revolution, sabotage, sanctions, threats, war, espionage, etc. You cannot do this within the system that is funding all those things. You have to move away from capitalism entirely, suddenly, and forcefully, otherwise you will be crushed.
Call me a tankie if you want, I don't care. But if you are going to call me this, at least tell me why. Tell me what part of what I just wrote is wrong.
Sorry, cited the wrong dictionary I guess. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social democrats . I'm surprised at Webster disagreeing with everyone else. I figured every dictionary would agree. The dictionaries using my definition are:
Collins, Dictionary.com, Oxford English Dictionary, Brittanica, Cambridge, Wictionary
So I've got mud on my face, citing the only source that disagrees with me.
But fine. If it really matters that much to a couple people, then there's not a term for what I am. I'm not a DemSoc because I don't realistically think we will achieve complete socialism in my lifetime and I think that's OK in the short term as long as we improve things, and actually preferable until people actually want socialism. That doesn't make me a capitalist.
Also you're going off mainstream liberal dictionaries and not how the left as a cluster of organized movements has come to definitions for its working purposes. So you're coming at it from an outside (liberal) perspective which reads as an indicator you're a liberal.
The problem with dictionaries is that they describe the popular use of a word, not necessarily the academically correct one. I only used the dictionary because it was honestly too easy to do a gotcha there.
A great example of dictionaries being "wrong" is the word "factoid". A factoid originally is a popular piece of information that is actually incorrect or false - a popular lie. Now the word factoid is in many dictionaries described as being "an insignificant or trivial fact", which is like, the exact opposite of the original meaning of the word. I'm 100% sure that in certain universities, I would be marked down for using "factoid" as "fun fact", even though dictionaries seem to think this is fine.
The original meaning of the word Social Democrat was a heavily discussed topic even in the beginning of the Soviet Union. After WW2, it was even popular within Socialist/Communist circles to call SocDems, "Social Fascists", as the enabling of the SocDems in Germany (SPD) helped the Nazis attain power, since they positioned themselves against the rest of the "left". SocDems will always rather align themselves with capital, rather than the "actual left", because the entire ideology reinforces capitalism. The reason people are mad at you here, is that SocDems have historically, every single time, helped the fascists rather than the socialists when push comes to shove. It's the reason for the quote "Social Democracy is the moderate wing of fascism". Now you can disagree with that last part, but this is history. Schumacher did betray the socialists. And he always would have, because Social Democracy is a capitalist ideology, which is why Marxists refuse to let them call themselves socialists. You cannot believe in capitalism, and socialism at the same time. They are opposites.
DemSocs on the other hand, are Reformist Socialists. They are who the dictionaries should actually refer to. They are the people who believe that a peaceful reformist transition from capitalism to socialism is the way to go, even though it has never worked. They believe that if you just vote hard enough, the capitalists will just let the poor take away their power. I don't actively dislike them, but I think it is very very naive.
Marxists are usually Revolutionary Socialists, who believe in revolution as a way to make change. This has worked several times in history, and there are several countries in the world right now that still exist after a socialist revolution, and are doing as well as you can considering that the entire western world is sanctioning them.
Marx hated Social Democrats btw. When one of the founding figures of the ideology does not think that a Social Democrat is a socialist, then I dunno what to tell you.
In short, the dictionaries are wrong. In an academic setting those definitions would be rejected instantly. People just do not understand what these ideologies are, so they use the words the wrong way. These words get used the wrong way enough, and the dictionaries will change to fit, as that is what dictionaries do. But the original meaning, that is part of the books that many of us read about these subjects, do not match with the dictionaries. If you referred to dictionary definition in a Political Science class, you would not pass, I assure you.
Thank you for your comments they are packed with good info btw
I appreciate the kind words, thank you. Might as well use my experience with Social Democracy for something, because it always bothers me when people think it's the solution.
I'm less than human to you enough to be given a silly nickname
did you think this one through at all? like, give it even a seconds thought?
God, you're such a big dumb idiot of a lib. That's the definition of a democratic socialist, not a social democrat - you can tell by the way one of the groups are call socialists and the others are called democrats. Not only did you mix up your definitions, but you never actually managed to define democratic socialist - do you really know what the difference is if you can't even remember to talk about one of them? The answer, scrolling down your post history to where you called yourself a socdem, is no, you think they're the exact same thing, because you don't even have a surface level understanding of leftism. It only takes 5 minutes in leftist spaces to discover that anarchists, socialists, and communists of all flavour hate socdems for exactly your "no really, somehow we'll manage to vote socialism in this time" attitude, but you've never spent a single minute in them, because you're not a leftist.
My version of leftism is called Marxism and is based in historical reality and current material conditions. Your version is fantastical utopianism that's convinced the elite are just going to give up the reigns any day now.