It's a well known fact here in Denmark that Socialdemokraterne have not been remotely social-democratic since the 70's. Even a few years ago when I was significantly more of a brainwashed lib, even I could see that they dropped the policy and kept the coat of paint
It is a common trope on the Danish centre-left to complain about the social democratic party not being "real" social democrats and contrasting this to an idyllised past where there were real, good social democrats. I disagree with this. The austerity, the racism, the reactionary bootlicking, is all as genuinely social democratic as when they built social housing and introduced universal healthcare.
Social democracy is not about building socialism incrementally through the ballot box. It hasn't really been about this since 1914. No, social democracy is all about bolstering the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by getting just enough workers to support the system and preventing real proletarian mass movements from emerging, partly by passively being a lightning rod that diffuses proletarian discontent, partly by actively Dissing anti-communist propaganda in the working class, something that's a lot easier to do when you are yourself a "worker's party". Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.
Back in the day the way to get workers on board was to dole out welfare to the labor aristocracy. The labour movement had a radical presence that needed to be placated and not that far away you had the USSR. Today nobody is holding up a vision of a radically different world, nobody can imagine a life beyond capitalism. You don't need to give people healthcare any more, waving the flag around and blaming the woke elite and non-whites for society's ills is enough.
I don't have the knowledge of theory to know if what you're saying is true, but I do point out that I never said anything about "real" social democracy being desirable just that they aren't even what they claim to be anymore. Because they used to - at least - build social housing and improve healthcare, and now they run-of-the-mill libs directly in bed with capital. If I understand you correctly, those goods should not be celebrated since they came at the cost of declawing the real labor movement. And, again, I'm not well-versed enough in the theory or history to know how true that is (their involvement, I mean, it's obvious that the labor movement in DK has been killed), but it sounds about right.
But I still think there is a point, however sad, that they used to do things that helped workers short-term and now they don't even do that - as you point out in your last paragraph.
Thanks for the perspective. Coming from a strongly socialdemokratisk family, I have heard the myth of how great they used to be so many times I probably internalized it.
Remember when Bernie said socialism is Denmark, not Cuba?
:flattened-bernie:
Hold on I though he got flak for being "too nice" to castro did he really say something like that?
:edit Bernard Sanders and his consequences has been a disaster for the human race :flattened-bernie: :xi-reactionary-spotted:
if you dont immediately condemn Castro, you're branded as a communist.
He also called Chavez a "dead communist dictator" again proving Corbyn is better. https://labourlist.org/2013/03/thank-you-hugo-chavez/
I firmly stand by getting behind Bernie and phone canvasing/canvasing/donating/signal boosting/countering proganada against Bernie was the right thing to do but it's still embarrassing in retrospect. I know he's always been a social democrat but he's been extra pathetic as of late. It's like as the crisis deepens he's churned more to the right( I know the Cuba/Denmark qoute was on the campaign trail though) . He's old as fuck so whatever but he should've just left and put the middle finger to the party that literally conspired against him , but he churned around with the knife still in his back and collaborated with them(an continues to). Despite the fact that he has done good for the world I would scoff at him and spit in his face just like any other ghoul in Washington. We shit on Britian( most violent empire in human history) but damn Corbyn is sooooo much better then Bernie .
My boy did a listicle
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/nov/06b.htm
Greetings to Comrade G. Trier! “Things are moving”, Huysmans is right—moving towards a precise, clear, politically honest, socialistically necessary division between the revolutionary Marxists, the representatives of the masses of the revolutionary proletariat, and the Plekhanov-Potresov Huysmans allies and agents of the imperialist bourgeoisie, who have the majority of the “leaders”, but who represent the interests, not of the oppressed masses, but of the minority of privileged workers, who are deserting to the side of the bourgeoisie.
Will the Russian class-conscious workers, those who elected the deputies now exiled to Siberia, those who voted against participation in the war industries committees to support the imperialist war, wish to remain in the “International” of the ten Cabinet Ministers? In the international of the Staunings? In the International which men like Trier are leaving?
Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront
:stalin-fancy:
There's a big difference between succdem parties and succdem voters.
When dunking on their libness, I mostly refer to voters. When calling them moderate fascist, I mostly refer to parties.
Succdem parties are reflections of their succdem membership. If you don't want to be called a social fascist then don't be a social fascist - it's really that simple.
My point is, succdem voters don't dictate nor understands the succdem parties' goals, that's what :porky-happy: does
At least we'll have the smug satisfaction of having been right as we're told to line up against the wall.
