That is one persons view of the purpose of their reforms. As I said in another post some see it as a step and some see it as an end. They'd have to eventually see and acknowledge power no longer tolerates reform.
Now that social democracy has abandoned that principle and that goal,
Is that the philosophy as a whole or a specific political party in Germany from the 1930s? A lot of this debate might simply be due to being bogged down in confusing arguments between political parties in Germany in the 1930s and applying that to the whole concept today.
They didn't see it as a step. Look at the history there, late 20s Germany, what would the SPD soon do? Ban the Roter Front, crush unions, prop up Hindenburg and create the environment for Hitler. Sure you can say "well that's one guy's opinion" but it is a more informed opinion than your own, no offensive, if you are asking the initial question, and frankly more informed than any of us here aside from hindsight.
The SPD DID choose capital reconstruction over the workers, heck part of the stuff the paper is talking about is the literal murder of Rosa and the creation of the Freikorps. You asked a question but seem to have already decided an answer for yourself. Yes of course historical examples exist in the context of history, but they are foundational to socdem theory, and are the split that caused the creation and codification of social democracy as its own strange of political theory.
There is no non-materialistic application of ideology, and beyond that the party dynamics are not confusing. They are pretty simple and well documented and translated all over the left. It seems like you want affirmation, not actual political theory and historical materialism.
For a modern description here is Parenti
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2125595571100509
That is one persons view of the purpose of their reforms. As I said in another post some see it as a step and some see it as an end. They'd have to eventually see and acknowledge power no longer tolerates reform.
Is that the philosophy as a whole or a specific political party in Germany from the 1930s? A lot of this debate might simply be due to being bogged down in confusing arguments between political parties in Germany in the 1930s and applying that to the whole concept today.
They didn't see it as a step. Look at the history there, late 20s Germany, what would the SPD soon do? Ban the Roter Front, crush unions, prop up Hindenburg and create the environment for Hitler. Sure you can say "well that's one guy's opinion" but it is a more informed opinion than your own, no offensive, if you are asking the initial question, and frankly more informed than any of us here aside from hindsight.
The SPD DID choose capital reconstruction over the workers, heck part of the stuff the paper is talking about is the literal murder of Rosa and the creation of the Freikorps. You asked a question but seem to have already decided an answer for yourself. Yes of course historical examples exist in the context of history, but they are foundational to socdem theory, and are the split that caused the creation and codification of social democracy as its own strange of political theory.
There is no non-materialistic application of ideology, and beyond that the party dynamics are not confusing. They are pretty simple and well documented and translated all over the left. It seems like you want affirmation, not actual political theory and historical materialism.
For a modern description here is Parenti https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2125595571100509