What does this even mean? do you think that welfare is fascist?
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
136 points (74.3% liked)
Memes
55066 readers
1371 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Welfare in nordic style social democracies is paid for via exploiting the global south, protecting capitalist superprofits while also throwing the domestic working classes a bone in the form of free healthcare and other nice things. Welfare isn't fascist, it's possible to provide good welfare without relying on imperialism, you just have to become socialist.
The meme is about how socialdemocrats entire ideology is built upon “reforming” capitalism by implementing a welfare state to more evenly spread the profits of the super exploitation of the periphery. When those profits dry up so too does the welfare state which inevitably pushes them right or left to deal with the heightened contradictions. The meme is pointing out the unfortunate pattern of it almost always ending in a rightward shift (due to many factors). (It is also possibly a reference to the SPD and how them unleashing the freikorps on the KPD directly helped bring Hitler to power)
socialdemocrats entire ideology is built upon “reforming” capitalism by implementing a welfare state to more evenly spread the profits of the super exploitation of the periphery.
when put like this, social democracy is really the peak of "half of slaveowners should be women!" ideology lol
socialdemocrats entire ideology is built upon “reforming” capitalism by implementing a welfare state to more evenly spread the profits of the super exploitation of the periphery.
Technically, it's built on the idea that a socialist society can be/should be reached gradually by participating in parliamentary liberal political system instead of overthrowing liberal society and implementing a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
At least that was what the original debate was about ("reform vs revolution") that split the left apart. Since then, most social democrats have completely moved away from the idea of reaching a socialist society anytime soon (for various reasons).
The meme is pointing out the unfortunate pattern of it almost always ending in a rightward shift
The meme is clearly pointing out that "social democracy enjoyers" turn into fascists/Nazis once the economy declines. Or, if we keep OP's caption in mind, the idea that social democrats are actually fascists "wearing a mask".
directly helped bring Hitler to power
What helped Hitler seize power was not just the actions/inactions of the socdems and the economic collapse, but the deep split of the left overall, the ineffective political system and the relentless infighting to the point were socdems and communists saw eachother as equivalent or even a bigger threat than the fascists.
Technically, it's built on the idea that a socialist society can be/should be reached gradually by participating in parliamentary liberal political system instead of overthrowing liberal society and implementing a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
You are mixing social democrats with democratic socialists. Democratic socialists, however ineffective or utopian, at least retain socialist aims in theory. Social democrats do not. Their program, accepts the permanence of capitalist property relations. Their project is not the abolition of exploitation but its rationalization: a "fairer" distribution of imperial superprofits among the labor aristocracy of the core. This is not a path to socialism. It is a management strategy for capitalism.
The meme is clearly pointing out that "social democracy enjoyers" turn into fascists/Nazis once the economy declines. Or, if we keep OP's caption in mind, the idea that social democrats are actually fascists "wearing a mask".
The social democrat's mask, like the liberal's, depends entirely on the surplus extracted from the periphery. When that flow contracts, the mask comes off. In the words of Malcolm X on a similar issue: "The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling." Social democracy operates the same way. Its niceties are financed by imperial rent. When the rent falls, it defaults to open class defense.
What helped Hitler seize power was not just the actions/inactions of the socdems and the economic collapse, but the deep split of the left overall, the ineffective political system and the relentless infighting to the point were socdems and communists saw eachother as equivalent or even a bigger threat than the fascists.
I explicitly said "helped," not "solely responsible." Multiple factors converged in 1933. But the SPD's role was decisive in one key respect: they preserved the bourgeois state apparatus after 1918. Through the Ebert-Groener pact, they kept the reactionary judiciary, the imperial officer corps, and the bureaucratic machinery intact. They unleashed the Freikorps on the KPD. They refused every proposal for a united working class front against the Nazis. Stalin characterized this relationship precisely when he stated that "Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism" and that these organizations "are not antipodes, they are twins." The KPD's analysis recognized that in a crisis, social democracy functions as the left wing of counterrevolution. History confirmed that analysis.
Thank you for breaking this down. Would it be fair to say that social democracy on a national scale can still be imperialist but social democracy on a global scale would actually be a good thing? I guess when I see social democracy equated with fascism it leaves me wondering what is actually the better path.
No. Social democracy needs superprofits from the periphery to fund the core. Capitalism requires exploitation to function. If every nation is the core, who gets exploited? The surplus value does not exist. When accumulation slows, the bourgeoisie abandons reform. They choose fascism to protect property. The SPD proved this when they sided with reactionaries against workers. Reformism tries to manage a system built on violence. It cannot work globally because the economic base forbids it. The only path is revolution. Seize the means of production. End the imperialist chain.
Social democracy needs superprofits from the periphery to fund the core.
But there are social democratic parties in developing countries.
Those "social democratic" parties in the periphery aren't proof the model works globally. They're rebranded revolutionary movements (MPLA, FRELIMO, ANC) that dropped Marxist-Leninist labels after the Soviet Union collapsed. Without that protection, they faced a stark choice: adopt the language of the Socialist International or risk regime change, sanctions, or outright intervention by the imperial core. The label shift was a survival tactic, not evidence that social democracy can function in a peripheral economy (because it can't).
The label shift was a survival tactic
Fair, but why can't social democracy function in a peripheral (=developing?) country?
Social democracy needs superprofits from the periphery to fund the core. Social democracy is a type of capitalism. Capitalism requires exploitation to function. If every nation is the core, who gets exploited? The surplus value does not exist.
Democratic socialism. I know it sounds a little bit ridiculous because the names are so similar, but the key difference is social democrats are fundamentally capitalists, while democratic socialists believe that capitalism will inevitably always lead to what we've got now. We know we have the resources to house everyone, clothe everyone, feed and educate everyone on earth. The only reason we don't is because it's not profitable for a handful of billionaires. Democratic socialists believe that everyone born on earth has the same rights to what the earth has to offer, and that we could give all of us a reasonable quality of life if resources were managed in a way that benefits the most people and not just the shareholders.
Obviously there's a lot more to it, and I'm fully expecting a reply to this that starts with Well actually... but that's the 10 second version from someone who doesn't claim to be an expert.
Instead of well actuallying it, I would like to ask: how? How do you get these resources to be managed "better." How do we go from where we are now to what you have stated?
load more comments
(5 replies)
Any reason not to just throw out these terms and talk about it as capitalism vs communism?
load more comments
(10 replies)
Social democracy is the left wing of fascism.
The European welfare state is built upon the exploitation of the global south and has historically always led to fascist dictatorahips when this system of exploitation eventually collapses in on itself.
Can you even read lol
I was going to argue against this, but then you're right. There has been regulatory capture of socdems as they became neoliberals; who keep chasing the magical "centrist" unicorn. But in reality, who they are trying to appease are the property owning base who want their property value to keep going up and up, at the expense of the youths, families and homeless, and to appease rich donors.
view more: next ›