What is the difference between 'Socialism' and a 'Social Democracy'?

[Susie]

While some claim that social democracy had always been reformist, aiming to improve capitalism slowly but surely, that is not the case. When it started, social democracy was far from that. It was a self-proclaimed international revolutionary socialist party, aiming to abolish capitalism by any means necessary -- including the ballot box.

Ignoring the warnings of anarchism, Social Democratic Parties argued that electioneering was a key way of spreading socialist ideas and winning people to anti-capitalism. This proved to be their undoing. Slowly but surely, the parties involved became increasingly reformist, betraying their principles to get into and remain in office. The predictions of the anarchists came true. Socialist rhetoric was used to hide moderate practice.

Not that the contradiction between the party's rhetorical adherence to socialism and its growing opportunistic pragmatism went unnoticed. It provoked an intense theoretical debate, which raged furiously from about 1898 to 1904. However, the distinction between the contenders remained largely a subjective one, a difference of ideas in the evaluation of reality rather than a difference in the realm of action. In the end, rather than change the world, Social Democracy simply changed itself to accommodate its tactics.


The descent into reformism

Working in a capitalist institution will have its effect on those who do so. The corruption does not happen overnight. At the start, the party argues that it takes part in elections to advocate radical ideas. But ends are not independent of means. Even with the best of intentions, the radicals who get elected find themselves powerless to accomplish anything of a radical nature. The demoralisation this brings about takes place little by little, so gradually that few notice it, including the radical politician. They quickly perceive that they are regarded as a laughing stock by the other politicians and find more and more difficulty in securing the floor. When they do, they know that neither their speech nor their vote can influence the proceedings. Their speeches do not even reach the public, just the occasional sound bite. The only solution is to elect more comrades. Years pass and a number are elected. Each of them goes through the same experience and quickly comes to the conclusion that to make an impact they must show that they are practical, that they are doing something for their constituency. The situation compels them to take a 'practical' part in the proceedings, to 'talk business,' to fall in line with the matters actually dealt with in the legislative body (i.e. making capitalism work and run better).

Spending years in that atmosphere, enjoying good jobs and pay, the elected radicals have themselves become part and parcel of the political machine. With growing success in elections and securing political power, they become more and more conservative and content with existing conditions. Removal from the life of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the bourgeoisie, they have become what they call 'practical'. Power and position have gradually stifled their conscience and they do not have the strength and honesty to swim against the current. They become the strongest bulwark of capitalism. They even end up opposing direct action and any spontaneous struggle which hinders the respectable image of the party and its potential votes. This is in spite of the revolutionary ideas that originally inspired them. Indeed, they were sucked into "practical" matters almost from the start. In the words of Wilhelm Liebknecht, one of the original leaders of German Social Democracy: "In the early stages, when we had few adherents, we used to go to the Reichstag [the German Parliament] and used it exclusively or almost exclusively for the propagation of our ideas. But very soon we found ourselves involved in practical matters."

However, many radicals refuse to learn this lesson of history and keep trying to create a new party that will not repeat the saga of compromise and betrayal which all other radical parties have suffered. And they say that anarchists are utopian!


The root of the problem

Ultimately, supporters of using political action can only appeal to the good intentions and character of their candidates. This time, we are told, our leaders will be better. Anarchists, however, present an analysis of the structures and other influences that will determine how the character of the successful candidates and their political parties will change. In other words, in contrast to state socialists, anarchists present a materialist, scientific analysis of the dynamics of electioneering and its effects on radicals.

The state is not some neutral body that can be used by all classes in society. It is an instrument of class rule, a machine that exists to protect the wealth and power of the capitalist class and to enforce their property rights and authority. As well as economic pressures