The Socialist Thread

Fixed.

What does this have to do with whether or not social democracy is socialism or not?

This is besides the point. This does not prove socialism as we define it is unworkable, what it does prove is that we need a stronger unified left and we need fix our mistakes.

In the sense of hardcore socialism? No. In the sense they belong in the Left? Yes. Do they have the same roots? Yes. Did they go different directions with different prescriptions to social issues? Yes.

Just like modern conservatism. The conservatism that Burke argued in opposition to the radicalism of the French Revolution has changed significantly due to the course of history too. The original conservatory didn't support mass democracy (hence the name "Tory"), but this idea has strayed significantly from the conservatives of today. They may have the same roots also, but these ideas are now different...but that itself can be another topic.

Socialism isn't a political movement, it's an ideology. Socialism is not synonymous with 'the left' and there are specific criteria that need to be met in order for an ideology to be considered socialist.

Which are, in your humble opinion?

As someone who actually lives in Germany (and knows the history here pretty good), I can say this view is only half true. There's a wider story to it. Bismarck instituted pensions and social welfare programs in order to undercut the support of the SPD, which was gaining more members steadily during this time period, despite things like the Sozialistengesetz that tried to clamp down on their membership. Bismarck was a deeply conservative fellow, and feared the Socialists ever coming to power in the Reich. He deeply feared the industrial working class, which was very much in swing at that time of industrialization. One way to win their hearts (and avoid what he feared could be a potential revolution in the future) was to guarantee industrial regulations for workers, health care and pensions. So yes, it was a conservative who initiated the welfare state...by more or less stealing the thunder from a political party he despised. In that sense, Bismarck was a very astute politician. The SPD wanted concessions from the government. Bismarck obliged, but gave them with his name and his government's stamp, and therefore, the imperial state's guarantee too. He didn't necessarily steal their platform completely, but he definitely stole their thunder.

Socialist ideologies are defined, more than anything else, by their opposition to the capitalist economic model. More specifically, the means of production in a socialist society is supposed to be controlled by the state or by workers. Social democracy doesn't do that. Social democracy is thus not socialist.

Oh yeah, of course, I don't think Bismarck was a friend of the proles either. He was part of a Prussian elite that looked at the factory workers and labourers of the Kaiserreich with a mixture of disdain and fright. Yet there is a clear distinction between those who initiate a welfare state out of potential civil unrest and to take a swab back at their supreme foes (like Bismarck), and those who are elected to enact those very reforms to begin with (Tommy Douglas in Canada). Bismarck enacted a welfare state in Imperial Germany to avert a potential future revolution and cut the support of the rival SPD, out of a mixture of self-interest,continuing a Prussian elite-led empire, and maintaining a healthy, imperial-supportive population. Douglas, on the other hand, won elections in a very open system that the Reichstag would never achieve until 1919, and believed health care was a basic human right because of his prior medical-related experiences and connection to the Left. So, there's a mixture of motivations ultimately.

hoodky I was wondering what are your thoughts on the parties in germany especially SPD and The Left

Oh i would love to here this, personally i hope the SPD party beats out the Christian democratic union.

The SPD is a Vokspartei here, along with the Christian Democrats, meaning that they are a "peoples party," appealing to the general electorate the most. For me, I'll take s SPD-Green coalition any day over a CDU-FDP government. The SPD-Greens had been committed to gradually ending nuclear power here (a very big topic here) long before the Conservatives finally adopted a similar position after Fukushima. The SPD and their Green allies controversially voted to go into Afghanistan--an event I'm still on the fence on--but were wise to stay out of Iraq, a good move. The SPD also favors reducing student fees (which are pretty low to begin with), increasing subsidizing universities, and investing more in the transportation sector to help keep Germany competitive. I also really like the SPD's views on the NPD, the far-Right party. I'm with the SPD, and think this party should be outright banned. Their connections to neo-Nazis are intolerable, especially with the recent string of murders here, and there should be stronger undercover operations to expose these groups before they can bring harm. I'll be interested to see if Sigmar Gabriel, the party leader, will be able to attract voters next time round. He's been very critical of the party's performance in the last federal elections, but the party's doing very well in state elections, toppling the conservatives left and right.

As for Die Linke, they are not taken too seriously in old West Germany, seen as a relic of the SED in old East Germany, and spend more time shouting for economic change than actually implementing it. They do have several seats in western state parliaments, and make up a significant portion of Bundestag seats from eastern states. Their ideas are, quite frankly, a bit on the extreme side for most average Germans economically, and they are still trying to come up with a cohesive agenda to appeal to all of the party's disparate factions. Die Linke are generally hardcore socialist in their vision of a future without capitalism, much more to the left than the SPD, who are huge proponents of a mixed economy. Die Linke's refusal to support Joachim Gauck for the presidency, a highly respected civil rights activist, archivist and hunter for former Stasi members, because of his views of the totalitarian DDR regime, was nearly cringe-worthy. In most cases, the SPD has refused any coalitions with Die Linke, except most notably in Berlin, where the party was brought into a coalition government there. For all intents and purposes, they became far more moderate in tone once they became a junior coalition partner, acting more like a social democratic party than a radical democratic socialist one. In time, I think you will see Die Linke mature (as they have in Berlin), while still trying to remain distinct from the SPD, and also fight off the surge in popularity of the Pirate Party.

If you want some German TV comedy about Die Linke, you can watch it here from "Klaus the Maus," who explains Die Linke (they were called the PDS at the time) like a children's TV show. I don't know how much you understand the language or the humor, but here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5t91NcPA4Q

Hooray for banning the opposition. Can't be having any feelings get hurt.

I imagine they're also in favor of censoring the hell out of everything that so much as passively mentions the Nazis. History, man, it's overrated.

You can't call it a credible opposition party, especially when members connected to that party in ideology and spirit murdered 10 people in the last several years.

Additionally, a new poll published recently said 77% of all Germans favor banning the NPD:
http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20111125-39119.html

Read more about the NPD and its antics here from Deutsche Welle. Think twice before ever calling it an "opposition." More like a parasite:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,416021,00.html

It doesn't matter how popular a decision to ban them would be, how disturbing their ideology is, or how much criminal activity is conducted in their name. Banning a political party in any circumstance is utterly despicable and an affront to democracy.

Inciting criminal activity is illegal, but racism isn't and shouldn't be. Free speech and free expression should be limited only when they cause immediate harm to the life, livelihood, or property of someone and are false, in which case you're dealing with defamation (civil) and/or incitement (criminal).

I can't think of any instances where a political party wouldn't be using protected speech since nothing they can say would advocate behavior that is both intended and likely to result in immediate lawless action.

pedro would be better informed on the issue.