Revive the International.

You are the one who is wrong. You can try to "explain" it by more 10000 times, you are still wrong. Social-democracy comes from marxism. You´re prespective and your view of politics is different, and that is why to you, I m wrong (but I´m not). Social-democracy wants to reach socialism, but trougth a democratic process. That is the difference with other radical marxist ideologies. What you are doing is revisionism (distorting reality).

Take this simple "what is" social democracy, from encyclopedia britannica:

They are the same, with different names. The ideals are simillar (deny radical marxism and reach socialism trougth democratic process).

Not only that, demcoracy and socialism are incompatible. Because to reach socialism you while need coercion (stealing property from others and share it), and to do that, you have to use a corecive state (which is not democratic), because there will be always people who oppose socialism.

Under socialism all the "capitalists" will be kicked out of said country, making all the rest "supporters of socialism", and in theory the goverment would be like the russian soviets (little communes).

You do know that social democracy changed meaning to it's modern definition in the 40s right. This modern definition is the one we use. I do not remember any social democratic parties in modern times saying they want to achieve socialism or communism.

Never once did I say otherwise about the origins of social democracy. I'm simply stating that, as a philosophy, social democracy has evolved in order to appeal to the broader mass that is the social justice crowd.

You'd do wise not to mistake Republics [more commonly referred to as democracies these days], and the literal democracy [rule by majority whim without regards to an established body of law] that most western born reds advocate.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to report back to the Ministry of Truth.

crocive, you have to understand two things:

Yes social democracy orginally was a brand of marxism(lenin called himself a social democrat, as did luxemburg and plenty others.) but it has ceased to be that.

You cant steal property, property is already theft against the workers.

What? My family build one of our houses that we have. How can that be "stolen" from the workers, if it was our family that build it?

The idea of any property being theft is a Proudhonist non-sense.

Did your family hirer anyone? Also was it really your family or your family's ancestors? Did the individual family members who built that house have the right too it? Do you have tenets? Who built the materials? What forms of wealth did you build this house with? Besides a personal house is not property.

It was one of my grandfathers who built it, along with other members from family (it was built in the 70´s). My family has a great tradition of manual work (in the fields of masonry, electricity, plumbing, mechanichs, etc.), and that is why they didn´t hired anyone to help (at least, that was what my family said).

The house belongs to various members of the family, so it´s shared property, that who was built by the family and it wasn´t "stolen" from anyone.

Right and it was passed down to you? Family ownership is complete nonsense, its how feudalism arose. But as long as its only used for personal living(and not for landlording), it isnt property.

Question: Who owns the house if it was built by mathematical algorithms working in conjunction with automated equipment?

Whoever owns the ground it's sitting on.

Wow. Why didn't I see that coming?

Nah, you can't own ground, man. And even if you did, man, you wouldn't really own it though. Man.

What you should really ask is "What is that which is ground?". What is that which is ownership?

Dude, you just blew my mind. But really, what is the mind? And how can it be my mind, because you can't own a mind, man.

This is a good non-capitalist argument aganist the labor value theory, Kropotkin provides a solution: The amount of worth someones labor has is impossible to determine, and therefor we should hold all property in common. But my view would be is just that those where workers too.

So mathematical algorithms should own the house in conjunction with the automated equipment?

Given that they are non-people, I'm ok with exploiting them.

Glad we agree.

So then why aren't you a technocrat?