Why are ''tru'' socialist hateful against

>>1944585
>Why are ''tru'' socialist hateful against social democrats?
Because it's a less optimal system that sheepdogs people who would otherwise be socialists into supporting the status quo.

Case in point: Bernie Sanders.

>>1944585
I'm a "tru" (anti-Bolshevik) socialist, and I will tell you that I have very mixed feelings about social democracy for several reasons. It doesn't solve the inherent contradictions of capitalism, it often adds to them.

Social democracy relies on taxing the rich, and the rich don't benefit from this, so they will flee and take their capital with them. Socialism promotes socially owned capital, the taxes come from the people that benefit from the system.

It's an inherently populist top down ideology. It causes the lower classes to seek handouts from the state, who in turn either takes it from someone else, or they go into unsustainable debt. In socialism, again, it's the people providing for themselves, they're taxing themselves to benefit themselves. Socialism is much more self-deterministic, in socialism people have to decide their own fates. They don't rely on propping up the state to support them. It makes them take responsibility rather than looking for an authority to take responsibility.

Social democracy often has cart before the horse policy, in an effort to compromise between capitalists and trying to achieve the consumer results similar to socialism. This often leads to stupid things like price controls on toilet paper. This is stupid if you don't have the means of production for toilet paper for obvious reasons.

Social democracy is seen as the middle ground dialectic synthesis between socialism and capitalism. But it really isn't. It solves some problems but introduces others. I don't see it as a viable endgame.

There's a few other reasons I can't remember right now.

I do support social democracy for a few reasons. I do agree with some of the policy changes. I think it will remove some of the stigma about socialism, although I do fear that socialism will be continue to be confused for the welfare state. I think it's a stepping stone for an actual socialist movement. Again I don't see it as a viable or sustainable endgame

>>1944623
cont.

I see market socialism as the most reasonable and long term viable capitalism-socialism synthesis, that's actually an improvement on capitalism. I tend to be of the opinion that the market works okay when regulated, and it's useful, and the alternatives are not viable.

Now some other "tru" socialists are actually anticapitalists more than they are socialists, so they think market socialism is revisionism, even though proposed forms of market socialism predate Marx. They think the market is too close to capitalism and there's problems with the market.

There's no need to sabotage your system by making it not viable by filling it with contradictions or ineffective mechanisms, like anticapitalist socialism or social democracy. They're going to run into problems in the long term unless you find effective ways in resolving the problems, which socialism does.

>>1944593
I'd vote Bernie

>>1944585
>Defend social democracy if you can.
It's done a better job of uplifting the working class than "tru socialism" has.

>>1944651
That's because there hasn't been an actual popular prole revolution. Social democracy is definitely the choice if shit has not already hit the fan, because revolution isn't inherently a good thing. It's just a way of resolving a crisis. I don't think socialism is that much better in terms of benefit than social democracy, or capitalism to justify accelerationism, and social democracy is a way to somewhat uplift the working class in the short term without having to deal with a revolution.

When shit hits the fan though, I'm signing on to the socialist side, and I hope at that point people will be educated enough to make the same choice.

File: bestgirl.jpg (17KB, 335x378px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 335x378px

>>1944623
>>1944637
Thanks for insight sempai. But i didn't quite understand the difference between market socialism policies and the social democratic state interference of capital. Reminder that i am studying STEM and therefore uneducated on this topics.

>>1944765
Socialism means that capital is socially owned and controlled by the workers. Social democracy keeps the capitalists owning the capital, they try to compromise by giving the proles some of what they want.

I'm having trouble thinking up a good analogy. Socialism is like when everyone owns a gun if they want and can hunt and defend for themselves. Capitalism is like the guy with a gun can use his gun to get more guns, and some people lose their guns. Social democracy is like the capitalist agreeing to maybe protect you and give you some meat if you give your guns to him.

The tamest form of market socialism I can imagine is a government run with the express goal of preventing market manipulation and rent, as advocated by the Ricardian socialists, a mostly nationalized finance industry, where interest is only used to offset risk or the profit from the loans is used to supplement taxes to fund social services and infrastructure, and a limited bill of property rights, where all property is ostensibly ultimately owned by society, but your bill of rights prevents unjust seizure if you did nothing wrong, but if you're a banker and cause financial collapse or pharmabro or a predatory lender you don't get to keep your shit when you're not contributing to society and just profiting by ripping people off, and your shit will get seized, you can't just say it's your right to willfully and intentionally take advantage of others and be a dick because you own it and have property rights.

>>1944637
>I'd vote Bernie
I'd vote for Bernie too but it doesn't change the fact that he's a shill for Hillary and the status quo.

>>1944841
It was his responsibility to support the lesser evil once the better option (himself) was out of the race. He did good.

>>1944651
It hasn't.

The rights we enjoy today were hard won by organized labour. They were most certainly not generously given to us for voting Labour.

>>1944846
I understand that. But this kind of lesser-evilism and toeing the party line is rooted in his social democracy.

In reality voting for Hillary is not good for America and it's absolutely not good for the working class. At this point from an actual socialist perspective the best thing you can do for America is get ready for war.

>>1944851
How did getting ready for war, opposing social democrats, and sabotaging the system turn out in the weimar republic?

File: Rosa_Luxemburg.jpg (110KB, 497x746px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 497x746px

>>1944858
The Weimar republic got reaped what they had long sowed. They were in bed with fascists from day one, they shouldn't have been surprised when the fascists came for them.

Had they not been actively anti-socialist and put fascists in graves instead of in office maybe they would have survived.

>>1944623
>>1944637
Good post senpai.

>>1944585
What the other anon said; Social Democracy can be seen as half-hearted through lack of seizure of the means of production, and through negotiating with (accepting the terms of) the bourgeoisie.

Also, Social Democrats often reject (to extents) concepts of class consciousness and class warfare, which is obvious in how they're willing to accept the existence of a capitalist class (as long as it benefits all). This creates obvious conflict between them and Marxists (due to Marx's historical materialism).

File: Friedrich_Ebert_face.jpg (33KB, 308x401px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 308x401px

>>1944863
>They were in bed with fascists from day one
wot

>>1945015
>Be Friedrich Ebert
>Crush socialist uprising with the help of the Freikorps and other nationalist apes

Basically what I mean.

>>1944799
>>1944993
OP here. Thanks for more information. There is a last thing: i suppose in modern states, specifically in western countries, social democratic and socialist acts or policies are mixed? Ie. are there state firms in Eu which has noticible capital? Are there any leaning towards fully achieved socialism in western societies? When i look up on google, i see the most of ideal countries in the world are governed by social democratic parties. (Like nordic countries)

Wer hat uns verraten?-Sozialdemokraten!

>>1944847
I'm fairly certain that labour unions are more aligned with social democrats than tru socialists

>>1944585
Because it prolongs the downfall of capitalism by making it an easier pill to swallow. Its still shit but it seems like it might not be

Because all communists and anarchists become social Democrats after they grow out of their radical teenage years and get actual jobs so they hate what they will become.

>>1945472
Probably why worker's rights are getting eroded away massively.

>>1945472
Fairly certain they wouldnt have become a thing in America without socialists lol thought this was a history board

>>1945567
In my experience SocDems grow into communists and anarchists rather than the reverse.

File: ..jpg (239KB, 1600x844px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1600x844px

>>1945567

Non-revolutionary, it's playing the bourgeoisie as their own game.

It doesn't kill people.

>>1944651
This. Social democracy is prettt much the only system where poorfags like me don't have a shit life. Socialism makes promises of liberation and delivers violent revolutions ending in tyrrany. The right wing doesn't even pretend to care, or distracts the populace from its gradual erosion of social services with muh immigrants.