Re: Re: social democracy

["Ken Hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While those accomplishments may not hold when conditions change they
nevertheless are accomplishments. I thought that was part of  Paul's
message. They were also accomplishments achieved after great struggles. Of
course every step of the way powerful forces sought to limit changes and
integrate these changes into the capitalist system. Reforms obviously will
be limited by demands of the capitalist system and as we are experiencing
now, reforms achieved when social democratic parties were powerful are now
being eroded at an alarming rate. Health care, union power, etc.etc. In the
US social democracy never seems to have been that great a force, the US have
never achieved such elementary social democratic reforms as a universal
health care system.
    Politics beyond any type of reformism is necessary for the working class
to bring about socialism. On the other hand surely it is necessary to fight
back against attempts to savage social democratic reforms rather than do as
social democratic parties in Germany and Britain are doing, namely serving
as agents of capital in destroying the very reforms they had earlier
championed.
     No one seems to have defined "social democracy". Is it the view that
capitalism can be humanised through various reforms in the interest of the
working class and limiting the power of capital or that using democratic
means capitalism can evolve through struggle into some type of democratic
socialism?

Cheers, Ken Hanly

>
> Paul Phillips is wrong to think that this critique pooh poohed the
> accomplishments of the social democrats; it was a warning that those
> accomplishments could not hold and that politics beyond social
> democracy would be needed for the working class to defend itself.
>
> rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>