r/SocialDemocracy

Genuinely trying to learn here. I can see the point Marxists make in that the capitalist economy must grow or die and that its imperative to constantly expand leads to imperialism and environmental catastrophe. The world does have limited resources after all. I've also seen arguments that the capitalist class could easily revoke the social programs built under social democracy if they so wanted to. I've considered myself a social democrat for years but I do think these are valid concerns and have recently been looking into the ideas of those like Rosa Luxemburg, Bookchin, Pannekoek, and Kropotkin. Could libertarian socialism be a necessary next step after social democracy? So yeah, just wanted to get the social democrats opinions on these ideas and improve my own understanding of the theory that's out there.

Register to vote: https://vote.gov

——————

Contact your reps:

Senate: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?Class=1

House of Representatives: https://contactrepresentatives.org/

the Indian Prime Minister refusing to interact with the press in your countries? Modi has not given a single press conference in his entire tenure in India. I was doubtful he'd change in the EU, and it seems I was right.

Register to vote: https://vote.gov

——————

Contact your reps:

Senate: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?Class=1

House of Representatives: https://contactrepresentatives.org/

Hey yall,

I'm the creator of the short-film (aka machinima) 'RED DEAD LIBERATION'.

Here's the plot :

In this alternative Red Dead world, Arthur Mainwaring, the son of welsh socialist Sam Mainwaring, decide to try his luck in Saint-Denis after years of doubts working the mines in Annesburg.
Even in the toughest of times, he find camaraderie to unite and attempt to live free.

Red Dead Liberation is an exploration on how anyone can become a revolutionary who fight against the systems of oppression and how the social revolution is built.

I spent more than 200 hours crafting the script, learning mods, recording, failing, editing, choosing the right music, voice acting, etc.

This short film, in my opinion, could resonate with a lot of yall.

If you like that type of work, I plan on making more leftist gaming content on video games that have a lot of revolutionary/socialist potential :
- Anno 1800
- GTA : San Andreas
- Frost Punk
- FC 2026/2027
- Stardew Valley
- The Outer Worlds
- Total War : Three Kingdoms
- 1979 Revolution : Black Friday
- Minecraft

For almost 2 years, I've been given a lot of thought to communism, socialism, and social democracy as viable ways for the US to move forward given that it's current state is in ruins, ie liberalism. I think other people are thinking on the same lines.

The beauty and appeal of utopia communism should not be understated. I mean everyone owning everything and there's no government, and everything is shared. Very euphoric. But in practice, that never came about. And the countries that tried stopped at an elite in control, aka a dictatorship. I asked myself why that never worked? I think it's because of some human nature called narcissism. That is ego centric people. Because sharing everything means not hoarding but sharing instead. But an ego centric brain will not give up something without something else in return of equal or more value. Hence bartering, hence money, hence capitalism.

And pure capitalism is just the ego centric people hoard all the resources and then the 99% end up with nothing and revolt and you know the rest. Bad things happen and we call that social justice. Read about the French Revolution for reference.

So, that's why I landed on Social Democracy. Where capitalism still exists and the ego centrics can trade and gain their wealth but also have to give back to society according to their hoarding. And the 99% can lead a decent life.

I just hope we can get there.

Nearly 3 in 5 Indians, roughly 840 million people, rely on the Public Distribution System (PDS) for their sustenance.

The PDS is a food security system that was established by the Government of India to distribute food and non-food items to India's poor at subsidised rates. Major commodities distributed include staple food grains, such as wheat, rice, sugar and essential fuels like kerosene, through a network of ration shops established across the country.

In addition, another 11% are covered under state schemes. Including the population covered under state schemes, 950 million persons were covered by the PDS. PDS can include both subsidised and free foodstuffs.

The government spent $24.5B in food subsidies in fiscal year 2024/25, not including state spending. This is larger than many countries' military spending, and even health and education in total for some.

And despite decades of spending on food availability, nearly 75% of rural residents and 50% of urban residents still rely on rations. In a country with a space program, prosperous middle class, and a full assortment of wealthy elite. Really, this is a display of India's inequality and giant population more than anything else.

What can be done to reduce dependency? India is one of the largest agricultural producers, and yet a majority of our populace can't meet their food requirements in only the market. The current system has many flaws, including poor quality food and rampant corruption, and yet many would starve without it.

Homeplus workers began an indefinite hunger strike on the 14th. It is already their fourth hunger strike. Although Homeplus had promised reassignment opportunities after closing some stores, workers say they were informed of layoffs just one day after the shutdowns. With the company now undergoing court-led rehabilitation proceedings, workers have resorted to hunger strikes and full-body prostrations to appeal the urgency of their situation.

On one side, there is a fierce tug-of-war over performance bonuses worth hundreds of millions of won per person. On the other, there are workers struggling to survive on monthly living expenses of just 1.3 million won. It feels like an absurd drama unfolding simultaneously in the same society. As we enter the age of artificial intelligence, one wonders how many more “Homeplus situations” we will witness. Instead of invoking emergency mediation powers, could the government not invoke some form of emergency relief authority? The thought lingers.

As negotiations between Samsung Electronics management and labor remained deadlocked, Chairman Lee Jae-yong stepped in. On the 16th, Lee apologized to customers and the public, then appealed to employees and the union by saying, “We are one body, one family.” It is fortunate that labor and management agreed to return to the negotiating table after his remarks. Yet it is difficult to see how the employees’ desire to “earn enough bonuses to buy a home in Seoul” can truly meet management’s appeal to “do our best out of pride as members of the Samsung family.”

The behavior of Samsung’s union differs from the traditional grammar of labor unions and labor movements. Why is that? The cross-company union currently leading the strike defined itself from the beginning as an independent, pragmatic union opposed to political struggles and major labor federations. Membership grew from 6,000 at its founding to 70,000 in just over a year, making it the company’s largest union with more than half of all unionized workers.

The union’s rapid expansion was largely driven by the enormous bonuses paid at rival company SK Hynix. The organizing logic became: “We cannot receive less than our competitors,” and “Let’s gather under the pragmatic union first and build our strength.” Because the organization was hastily built around the shared interest of “maximum compensation,” it has proven vulnerable to internal conflicts of interest. As demands for bonuses became concentrated around the semiconductor division, workers in non-semiconductor sectors such as home appliances began leaving the union, while conflicts intensified between senior and junior employees over differentiated compensation.

The head of the union calmly remarked that strike-related losses could amount to “roughly 30 trillion won” when accounting for equipment backup and related disruptions. The statement emphasized the legality of the strike while appearing unconcerned with the company’s future.

If solidarity is lacking even internally, it is difficult to expect broader public sympathy. One official from a higher-level labor federation involved in the union’s founding remarked that the organization “is merely an interest group and difficult to regard as a labor union or labor movement.” To them, unions appear less like collective solidarity organizations for workers and more like legal representatives for pursuing economic interests.

This is why some interpret the Samsung strike as the extreme outcome of enterprise-based collective bargaining structures that have long pushed large Korean unions toward economic unionism. Beyond Samsung and SK Hynix, demands tying compensation directly to a percentage of operating profits are rapidly spreading across other manufacturing conglomerates. This is a challenge confronting not only organized labor, but also government and corporations alike during this period of transition.

Debates over the extraordinary profits generated by the AI industry and how they should be socially shared have also become urgent. Chairman Lee apologized to the public, but made no mention of broader social responsibility. Whether meaningful action follows his apology remains uncertain. This is not something that should be left to the goodwill of corporations, unions, or shareholders alone. Society must openly deliberate and seek solutions together.

Recently, Presidential Chief of Staff for Policy Kim Yong-beom proposed redesigning how excess tax revenues generated by the AI boom are used. The issue should not stop at merely having enough budget without borrowing additional debt. Kim’s proposal touches on something deeper. Legally, excess tax revenues already have designated uses. Instead of distributing them as one-time spending, he suggested opening a broad public debate over where and how they should be invested. That could become a meaningful starting point for public discussion.

Ultimately, the most straightforward solution is fair taxation. Korea’s tax system has historically been relatively weak in redistributing corporate profits back into society. Taxes proportional to profits are among the most rational and equitable mechanisms for social sharing. Because this is not about distributing pain but about distributing opportunity, the barriers to consensus may be lower than expected.

For example, society could begin by defining what qualifies as “excess profit.” More than twenty European countries have already institutionalized standards for excess corporate profits following public debate, and use the resulting tax revenues as long-term national assets to fund future policy priorities.

No one knows how long semiconductor monopolies and excess profits in the AI era will continue. But it is clear that this may be a rare opportunity to mitigate population decline and slowing economic growth, while increasing future investment and strengthening social safety nets. For any responsible government, that possibility should make the heart pound.