I don't think social democracy is possible within the imperial core. The democratic chambers that we're given (and i'm including parliamentary systems, here) have been molded to ensure a structural favor to the powers that be. Even assuming a successful electoral project, you've unfortunately set a new precedent that unprincipled actors will mimic. And in liberal democracies, unprincipled actors nearly always have the advantage.

Peripheral states are another matter. I don't know. I'm optimistic, but I don't know. The people living and working there know the conditions best. It's for them to figure out how best to utilize what's available to them, both outside and inside the chambers of the law and state.

[–] kot@hexbear.net 21 points 2 years ago

It doesnt work here either because sucdems have to work with the existing ruling class for their reforms to go through. This means that social democracies tend to become more and more right wing and implement more and more neoliberal policies over time just to remain in power, and even then it's not enough. Just look at what happened to Allende and Lula, and Lula is currently making the same mistakes because theres nothing else he can do.
Socialism can't be achieved through the ballot box, and any improvements done by social democracies are fragile and will inevitably be undone.

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago

The peripheral states are no less vulnerable to their own powers that be, while also being, at least to some degree, vulnerable to the powers of the core.

Revolution is the only path forward for both.