Why are ''tru'' socialist hateful against social democrats? Defend social democracy if you can

Why are ''tru'' socialist hateful against social democrats? Defend social democracy if you can.

>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.

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

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.

I'd vote Bernie

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

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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