Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
It’s strange how liberals live calling Scandinavia socialist and how it’s better than the US. But they won’t lend support to Latin American socdems to build up their nations and prove that social democracy is the superior ideology. Instead, they’ll instigate coups and political instability and sanctions. All because it’s “America’s backyard”.
Social democracy and fascism are both class collaborationist ideologies: fascism is cynical in the use of class collaborationism to serve the power of the ruling class, while social democrats are often more naive. The difference between the imperial core and developing world is that the national bourgeoisie of the developing nations have tensions with the international bourgeoisie of the imperial core, and thus are more willing to come to a truce with labor to protect their interests. The social democrats of Europe were able to forge these sorts of truces in the 20th century due to the shadow of the USSR, but with the fall of socialism in Europe the ruling classes have no need for such a labor peace and have been instead using the social democratic parties to dismantle said institutions.
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.
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.
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.
Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism in that it is organized towards the same ends of smashing the workers movement, where fascism is openly terroristic and social democracy uses the spoils of imperialism to spread opportunism—social democracy of course allying with fascism. Both are a product of imperialism, where, for instance, fascist Germany's Lebensraum was the response of a country on the one hand facing threats to bourgeois class rule and on the other, as a result of WWI, lacking any means to "bribe" the workers, to engage in the formal economic struggle, and so bare colonial violence had to be directed inwards by the state, ridding society of all the social-democratic luxuries (decentralization, free petty enterprise, formal democracy). The minority states in developed countries are forced by popular struggle to “provide” these luxuries as a means of preventing mass uprising (as this development brings it closer) and maintaining their “good standing,” and again forced to bare their teeth when development is lacking.
There can be no social democracy without imperialism. What this “social democracy in South America” comes closest to is nationalism.
Isn’t Morales more of a DemSoc?
today i will confuse socdems and demsocs
When you're a SocDem in the Imperial West, if you oppose US/Western Imperialism, the worst that could happen is that they'll eliminate you from mainstream politics (Corbyn). Sanders has always been loyal to US Empire, that's why he has had a long and successful political career. If you're a SocDem in the Global South, you have to tread lightly, you're always in the crosshairs of the US, always gotta be prepared for coups and sanctions.
There's a difference between:
"I want to spread the loot more equally!"
and
"Fucking stop looting us, please!"
it is wild, i know 
I mean SocDems in South America should get critical support on various things. They're not a substitute for socialists and have helped crush socialists in many circumstances.
Phonebank for a loser who is despised by his own party versus Head of State backed by a party with the government majority.
lula is doing balls to the wall neoliberal austerity currently, so....