this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
120 points (72.6% liked)
Memes
55095 readers
880 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The meme is about how socialdemocrats entire ideology is built upon “reforming” capitalism by implementing a welfare state to more evenly spread the profits of the super exploitation of the periphery. When those profits dry up so too does the welfare state which inevitably pushes them right or left to deal with the heightened contradictions. The meme is pointing out the unfortunate pattern of it almost always ending in a rightward shift (due to many factors). (It is also possibly a reference to the SPD and how them unleashing the freikorps on the KPD directly helped bring Hitler to power)
Thank you for breaking this down. Would it be fair to say that social democracy on a national scale can still be imperialist but social democracy on a global scale would actually be a good thing? I guess when I see social democracy equated with fascism it leaves me wondering what is actually the better path.
Democratic socialism. I know it sounds a little bit ridiculous because the names are so similar, but the key difference is social democrats are fundamentally capitalists, while democratic socialists believe that capitalism will inevitably always lead to what we've got now. We know we have the resources to house everyone, clothe everyone, feed and educate everyone on earth. The only reason we don't is because it's not profitable for a handful of billionaires. Democratic socialists believe that everyone born on earth has the same rights to what the earth has to offer, and that we could give all of us a reasonable quality of life if resources were managed in a way that benefits the most people and not just the shareholders.
Obviously there's a lot more to it, and I'm fully expecting a reply to this that starts with Well actually... but that's the 10 second version from someone who doesn't claim to be an expert.
Any reason not to just throw out these terms and talk about it as capitalism vs communism?
Lots of reasons. Democratic socialism doesn't eliminate private ownership the way communism does, people can still get rich, own companies, and buy jet skis, but they can't take a successful company that hundreds of people have helped build and centred their lives around and hand control of it to their unqualified, arrogant, spoiled children to run into the ground, among other things. Here's a decent basic summary:
*Democratic socialism combines political democracy with public, cooperative or state ownership of key industries while maintaining elections, civil liberties and pluralism. It seeks to reduce inequality and ensure that wealth and power serve the public good through taxation, regulation and social programs.
Communism, rooted in Marxist theory, envisions a classless, stateless society where all property is collectively owned. In practice, communist states have often used centralized, one-party government control to pursue those aims.* (edit: don't know why italics isn't working)
From https://www.newscoopnd.org/socialism-communism/
Communism is democratic. In practice, what you call democratic socialism is either social democracy, ie not socialist at all, or reformist socialism, in which it isn't at all successful in establishing socialism. Communist parties have successfully established socialism and democratic systems via revolutionary means.
No, you're describing social democracy.
No, that's socialism
I’m getting a little lost - you said both “social democracy” and “democratic socialism” there. I just want to be sure that was intentional? I’m still a little unclear what the better system’s rules are. I don’t mean to be ungrateful for the explanation, but this section in particular didn’t clear anything up for me:
So… okay, but how is this codified in law? No inheriting?
They're using the terms wrong, don't worry that you can't follow; they're not being consistent
You're right, apologies, I fucked up there. Changed it to democratic socialism (still not an expert!).
At the most basic level, employees at a workplace would elect their management, rather than management being chosen by the business owner/s.
I posted this link to another comment, it's from a guy who runs a really good youtube channel that's definitely worth checking out. I know being asked to watch a video sucks, but he explains it a million times better than I can.
https://youtu.be/fpKsygbNLT4
You're talking about workplace democracy, and are linking a video by a Marxist-Leninist to explain the communist conception of socialism as a transition to communism, as is found in Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, etc. This isn't a video by a socdem or demsoc.
Thank you. I am interested to learn more.
For clarity, OP is confusing Marxism-Leninism (Second Thought is a communist) for "democratic socialism." Marxism-Leninism is democratic, but is nothing like the Nordic model.
I think multi-line italics isn't a thing. Although you may actually want to prefix the lines with > to make it into a quote like the first line of this comment.