Isn't the key to distinguish among the movements and reforms that Tariq seems to be grouping together as "left social democratic" ? (and help change them for the better!)
Some of these movements argue "this far and no further" and plan accordingly; others try to use their practical achievements to raise our sense of vision.
Likewise, some reforms are humanly essential but designed to be dis-empowering (the dreary British National Health Service, the American welfare system) or divisive (increased financing of the needs of one segment of the working class but largely by raising the taxes of another segment of the working class). Other reforms address the same humane concerns except they do it in ways that strengthen people's ability to demand yet more (the feminist health care movement in the '60s/'70s, the barefoot doctor movement) or develop greater solidarity that can be used for future efforts (European movements to reduce the working day; the American CIO movement, the anticolonial movement).
Its simply the difference between "humanitarian" and "progressive".
[Or to build on our earlier discussion of Brazil: I was concerned that the PT government (1st term) compromised with international/national finance (40% *real* interest rates) thus deeply promoting de-industrialization when they had other possible compromises. Or that they had explicitly financed the new cash assistance to the poor (Bolsa Familia) by transferring the funds from the pensions of the public sector workers. OTOH, I thought honorable PT's attention to raising the minimum wage (which also indexes support to retirees).
The question (a question because I do not really know Brazil) was not whether compromises were made...but the strategic choice among a range of compromises/partners and whether short term electoral benefit to the Party was weighed higher than the long term consequences for larger goals.]
Paul