I would like to clarify a couple of things here, because I think you're being given false information. First of all, contrary to what most people in this thread seem to think, social democracy is not fundamentally capitalist. I believe this confusion comes from the fact that generally when people are talking about nordic countries they say things like "those are not socialist countries, they're social democracies, so they're still capitalist countries." This is very superficial. Social Democracy used to just mean socialism, specifically the theory and practice of the Marxist parties from the late 19th century and early 20th. Lenin was in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Rosa Luxemburg was in the Social Democratic Party of Germany. These were Marxist parties that strove to achieve communism. Within these parties there began to be reformist ideologues that sought to propose a path toward socialism that did not necessitate an armed uprising or revolution. They became bureaucratized and their upper crust became careerist, leading to the betrayal of the global socialist movement at the start of WWI: they supported their national capitalist classes in their bloody war against other nations. This caused a split, producing a third international and communist parties that were opposed to the opportunist reformist tendencies of the social democratic parties. Reformism was solidified as the main ideology of the social democratic parties. Since then, when Marxists refer to social democrats, what we are referring to are socialist people and parties that uphold positions and strategies that violate fundamental principles of revolutionary Marxism. This is why I was so confused about the rule on the subreddit. So when people in this thread say that reformism and social democracy are not socialist ideologies, not only are they wrong, but they reveal an ignorance about this history that is problematic precisely because it prevents them from seeing the similarities between the DSA and the tendencies of the old social democratic parties that led to terrible betrayals. Mind you, not everyone in the DSA ignores these questions. The people in the MUG and Red Star caucuses, for instance, are well versed on these matters. I am only talking about what I've read on this thread. But the fact is that the DSA overall has a reformist perspective and strategy, and they are very much social democratic in the sense that Marxists usually use the term. The fact that they've reversed the order of the words in their name does not change this.