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).

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The label shift was a survival tactic

Fair, but why can't social democracy function in a peripheral (=developing?) country?

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

If a developing country invests in public education, free healthcare, transport infrastructure, housing, etc., is that not social democracy? Why wouldn't that work?

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 hours ago

It is possible but not under capitalism which social democracy aims to preserve, It is possible under socialism as is seen in the PRC or the former USSR but that's not social democracy.