Talk:Social democracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

section

Title should be in as singular to follow wiki naming rules. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:10 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

tony blair

Tony Blair has also drawn particularly strong criticism for his support for President George W. Bush and the Iraq War.[citation needed]

support for bush and war has nothing to do with social democracy, really. besides, the article and section are not about blair. remove?

what?

"Most commentators agree that Social Democrats have been largely successful in implementing the program of the original Communist Manifesto of 1848 - with the notable exception of land reform and the abolishment of rents. However, Marx believed that the ideals of Communism/Socialism could only be achieved through the self-liberation of the working class, NOT through legislation enacted by a small government elite.

Most would also agree that late-20th-century Europe, culminating in the 1992 formation of the European Union, demonstrates that developed nations can cooperate under the general policies of Social Democrats to achieve a lasting peace."

What kind of cheap propaganda this is? In Communist Manifesto Marx was talking about workers seizing the means of the production from the capital owners and forming a state dictatorship of working class. This has absolutely _nothing_ to do with social democracy. Marx openly critisized social democrats and simiral 'soft' social groups from what I understood.

The next paragraph is as hilarious. Most would agree? For crying out aloud.

These would deserve utter annihilation, but I'm willing to just modify them to make some sence Finlander 23:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

The perspective in the section 'Common criticism of social democracy' is actually the first time I ever encountered such point of view. Most of the time I only hear about arguments such as how interventionist policies are supposedly 'detrimental' to the market economy, and so on. I haven't seen anything that suggest social democracy can somehow potentially 'destroy' the so-called family units until now. Can someone point to sources which such argument can be found? Kfishy 04:37, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Noticed this question when replying to Finlander. Off the top of my head (so don't take this as authoritative :-) ), I recall people arguing that social institutions take up some of the tasks that were originally done by the family unit. Think of things like tending to the sick, or caring for the elderly. Since the state is going to look after you and your family anyway, people might start to feel that maintaing close family ties no longer has much added value.

Maybe you can find something substantial along those lines :-) Kim Bruning 12:33, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

"Some studies claim that globally, more people share the basic ideals of Social Democrats than of any other political movement."

While I'd personally accept this statement as probably being truthful and accurate, I'm fairly sure not everybody would. It would be very nice if some sources could be provided here. Fredrik 16:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

If it was up to me, the UK Labour party would be straight off the list. in my opinion, New Labour has abandoned its own ideology to such an extent that it is no longer a social democrat party. I would also be tempted to replace the UK entry with the Liberal Democrat party. However, I wanted to hear some views on this, so please chip in below:

A.A.B. 23:33 3rd April 2004

I would certainly not remove the Labour party. If the UK Liberal Democrats are considered social democrats, then I see no problem with having both parties on the list. Fredrik 23:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Labour Party remains a member of the Socialist International AndyL 17:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New Labour still maintains a social democratic undercurrent in their policies, but the Liberal Democrats would probably be seen as more social democrat than Labour. Why not have both on the page, in a similar way that the Australia item lists both the ALP and the Australian Democrats? Aaron Hill 10:59, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

As the Liberal Democrats was formed by a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party it can be argued that they have some sort of social democratic history - although I am aware that the party itself may well object to this. On a personal note I share other contributors views of the Labour Party - but as long as it remains in the socialist international, and describes itself as a democratic socialist party then I think we need to keep them on the list, regardless of whether we think Tony Blair is an actual social democrat or not. Secretlondon 11:03, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't think Lib Dems should be classed as social democrats because they don't regard themselves as such, and are arguably better classed as liberals (which they do regard themselves as). Their history is only partly social Democratic, and they belong to the Liberal International and eschew notions of left and right.

---

This article should be named Social Democracy instead. -- Dissident 16:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it manually. -- Dissident 23:48, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Not sure that the Gibraltar Social-Democrats should be here. They only contain the term "Social-Democrat" in their title but do not in fact adhere to the values commonly ascribed to Social Democracy.

I know that people may argue that New Labour is listed here and they do not either (as some people have done) BUT the difference is that the British Labour Party did at one stage adhere to a social Democratic platform, contains many members who would describe themselves as socialists/social Democrats, and as has been pointed out, are part of the current Socialist International.

Not sure the same could be said for the Gibraltar Social-Democrats though.

However, they do have the term Social-Democrat in their name, so perhaps they should be referred to in the article. What do other folk think?

Big Jim FAe Scotland, Apr 14, 2004

I think the Gibraltar SD (like Portuguese SD) are a conservative party and shouldn't be in the list.

The last line is incorrect

Howard Dean did not advocate universal health care but to apply the health care reform policies of his state, Vermont, nationally. Dennis Kucinich advocates a universal health care system like Canada's.

Gary Denton

1. 1 on Google for liberal news

American Democrats

As I was updating the list of parties and adding a section for the United States, I was wondering: should we include the American Democratic Party? Certainly, one could say that many ideas of the "liberal" current (in the American sense) have had social-democrat leanings over the years (like under Franklin Roosevelt). Others might say Bill Clinton and Al Gore took more centrist approaches. Can we include them, maybe even with a mention of caution? This party is quite important in the US and the world, it cannot be overlooked.

• NO, the Democrats and Republicans are both center-right parties. Even though alot of Social-democratic parites have been going in that direction in recent years, they have little in relation with those two parties and are generally center-left. --Che y Marijuana 11:30, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • An wonderful insight from someone named "Che y Marijuana." I think that about sums it up. (comment by Thames though originally unsigned)
    • Yes, I agree. (I'm in the Swedish Social Democratic party.) Starman 1976 02:27, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
• Philosophically, and historically, the Democrats can't really be called social democratic. Better would be "with some social democratic tendencies". Their best description is, broadly, liberal - another infuriatingly difficult term to pin down. I am of the view that including the Democrats muddies the issue somewhat and doesn't bring us closer to a good working definition. NB: Being centrist, in my view, does *not* necessarily exclude being social democrat: cf. Third Way politics. Lacrimosus 03:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me Thames? Could you perhaps address the issue at hand, instead of my choice of username?--Che y Marijuana 03:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize. Where is my wikitiquette? —thames 16:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Actually, there's a sort of point to be made, as one might suppose from the username that the author is quite socialist, and thus can find something as obviously "left" leaning as the Liberal Democrats to be "center-right". The Democrats want to nationalize health care, raise taxes, ban guns, have abortion on demand...socialized abortion (even for an unborn baby nine months along), want massive regulation of any industries left in private hands, et cetera. Definitely not "center-right", except compared to some violent Marxist extremist like Che Guevara.-(comment by [[User: Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal)
    • first, please sign your comments. Second. Don't be rediculous, the democrats do not support nationalized healthcare, or what they call "late term abortions", gay marriage, etc... compared to social democracy anywhere else in the world, which supports public healthcare, the democrats are downright feudal. The Democrats are absolutely not social democrats. In any way. And I dislike social democrats, so, I'm not being biased here. On the other hand, you spin lies about what the democrats want to do that make it obvious you dislike the "left" in general. So to you, perhaps anything that is more left-wing than the grand dragon are godless commies? Please don't get into these arguments with me. If you want to discuss the article, do so, attack me, and I have no reason to listen to anything you say. Neither does anyone else.--Che y Marijuana 09:28, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry Che, the Democrats are publicly suportive of all such issues, including abortions (up to the moment of birth), so-called universal healthcare, gay marriage, gun control and other socialist ideals. If that doesn't include them in the list of socialist/social democrat parties, then what does?

Several problems with that, my anonymous friend. First, gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or social democracy (and most American Democratic politicians don't support it). Gun control also has nothing to do with socialism or social democracy (and American Democrats mostly support gun control, but few support banning of guns altogether as you initially stated). Abortion is also not a "socialist" issue; you might notice that both the UK and Germany regulate abortion more than the US, even under the Labour Party and SPD. The only social democratic position of American Democrats is single-payer healthcare, and again, while many Democrats support it, many others do not.thx1138 11:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth American political parties don't really have ideologies. Both parties were created before the modern ideologies started out. They are also not very tight. In that in the UK, for example, we have tight party discipline. Democrats and Republicans on the other have a wide berth to basically do what they like. If a gang of Republican congressmen oppose Bush on an issue, no one blinks an eye. If a gang of Labour MPs oppose Blair, its frontpage news. It should also be noted that the general position of the parties has shifted somewhat. By today's terms the original Republicans were, by todays standards, to the left of the Democrats, it was not until Roosevelt that the positions reversed. There is definitely a Social Democratic influence on those on the left of the Democrat Party. People like Al Sharpton especially, but in general definitely not. The majority of democrats certainly don't believe in massive regulation, some, but not all do support universal healthcare, but this does not necessitate nationalisation. Canada, France, and most other countries with universal healthcare have some degree of privatisation to their system. I seriously doubt any Democrat would support nationalisation of anything in the US, if only because it is politically impossible in the United States, and nobody in their right mind supports abortion up to the moment of birth. That is complete fallacy. To be honest political parties in the US are not really tight ideological groupings, but rather a large apparatus for fundraising for candidates. The fact is that in most 'Red States' when Democrats ARE elected they are almost as Conservative as their Republican candidates, and similarly in most 'Blue States' when Republicans are elected they are pro-choice, and not almost as 'liberal' as their Democrat counterpart. Look at Arnie in California for instance. If you look on the Democrat and Republican articles under ideology is listed several different ideologies. Often the same ones. For all the polarisation in American politics there is in truth very little difference between the two parties. The closest thing the Democrats have to a unifying ideology is 'American Liberalism' as wikipedia calls it, which is the ideology of most of its core supporters. A sort of specifally American ideology. In International terms the ideology it most resembles is probably Social Liberalism. --CTerry 01:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Terry has pointed out a certain truth about the American political system - we only have two parties (of any consequence to federal policy) that must encompass the views of nearly 300 million people - they are large "blanket" parties. They try to get as many people under their blanket as possible, so there are many various views of what is a Democrat or Republican. An excellent example would be the comparison of the views of Dennis Kucinich and Joe Lieberman, both Democrats. Anyway I agree that the Democrats are NOT Social Democrats, since their policies have NEVER involved as much government involvement in the economy and the individual's socio-economic status as European Social Democrats. A much better example from the U.S. would be the Green Party or the American Socialist Party. sorry I'm not a registered user, I will be shortly - my name's Nathan Greenhalgh

I agree with Nathan and Terry on this point. Our American political system can hardly be compared with the political systems of other nations. We tend to stay in the center on both party sides because of our free political party system creates two "blanket" parties, as Washington intended. By free I mean, I didn't need to pay a fee for membership in any party and had the right not to declare any affiliation. As a result, there is no such hard ideologies as socialism in existence in the American Political system, because both parties are in constant competition for all or the majority of Americans at the election polls rather than the primaries. If some of the efforts of our two-party system take on a resemblence of hard political or economic ideologies it is purely coincidental and would have no bearing in this article. I would like to point out that our two party system, in it's history, has made many role reversals and changes but still keep the same basic positions. Basically we take a small swing around a pendulum from time to time, many political analysts have argued in the past that this is what keeps our representatives "for the people". This actually started before the civil war and was nothing new by Roosevelt's day. Although modern analysts have argued that our government has lost touch with the people. There arguement can only be sustained by the lack of turnout during most polls. One could argue more that the people have lost touch with their government. Really, any discussion of the American political system is better left as a seperate topic and best not included in any article about hard political or economic ideology. Tommorrow you could very well see a socialstic type of economy emerge within the US, but it would only be because our economy allows for such diversity by nature and not because of any change into "far-left" or "far-right" ideologies within our political system. For starters, our anti-trust laws do not allow for governmental ownership of capital or production. At the same time it would allow for privatised cooperatives as it has in the past. I would include some references on these points but I am still learning the whole wiki-markup. So I will sign JJohnson.

Although most American Democrats would probably renounce it, Social Democrats USA is the official U.S. member of Socialist International, and its policy is to promote social democracy by helping elect candidates of the U.S. Democratic Party. Candidates who are members of Social Democrats USA seek nomination through the Democratic Party rather than their own party. Because this is the political reality of social democracy in the United States, I believe it should be noted in the article. -- JKramer

A few comments

(1) How was the anarchist Peter Kropotkin involved in the development of social democracy? I think this line needs some clarification or it should be removed.

(2) "However, most commentators agree that social democrats have been largely successful in implementing the program of the original Communist Manifesto - with the notable exception of land reform and the abolishment of rents."

What the...? That sentence makes no sense. The program of the Manifesto was clearly revolutionary, as opposed to the reformist goals of modern-day social democrats.

• No, it makes perfect sense...examine the ten items Marx outlines for the implementation of the socialist society for Communism. Progressive income tax, confiscation of property from heirs and criminals, et cetera...it has all been implemented gradually, as tiny, incremental "reforms" over the course of generations...but it's been done. Even the abolishment of rents and land reform have come a very long way, with things like public housing. Kaz

(3) Finlander: I changed your "form a state dictatorship of working class" to "establish the dictatorship of the proletariat," as Marx was purposely vague as to the meaning of this term and I think your phraseology a bit too connotative of Soviet-style dictatorship; interestingly, even some anarchists believe in a "dictatorship of the proletariat" expressed through the working class' revolutionary struggle but not through the seizure of state power. Spleeman 04:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • To be fair, Marx was being vague purely so he could rob momentum from the anarch-socialist movement, for his authoritarian socialist movement. He didn't REALLY intend for there to be any egalitarian society, but a government agency run by elites such as himself in the alleged NAME of the masses. Examine carefuly where he places his effort and emphasis...it's on establishing a Soviet-style state, nothing Bakunin or Proudhon could ever find tolerable.

Why do organizations select then support the candidates for major political office? The best answer I believe was given by Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party's presidential candidate in every election between the years of 1928-1948.Mr Thomas said :"We have learned it possible, to a degree not anticipated by most earlier Socialist, to impose desirable socail controls on privately owned enterprisesby the development of social planning, by proper taxation and labor legislationand by the growth of powerful labor organizations. Mr Thomas was revealing the game plan for the ultimate success of Socialism: the utilization of non-socialist hands to gradually achieve the goals of Socialism.How could the Socialist get the American people to accept a movement they had made clear they did not want?."The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing it. J.M.

Revisiting the article after long time

A troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRR_Trollkien) has again introduced the exact 1:1 versions of the texts I modified. Also the point (2), which Spleeman makes has been restored by someone.

Therefore I will delete all false claims from them as obvious propaganda:

"... However, most commentators agree that social democrats have been largely successful in implementing the program of the original Communist Manifesto - with the notable exception of land reform and the abolishment of rents."

"Most would also agree that late-20th-century Europe, culminating in the 1992 formation of the European Union, demonstrates that developed nations can cooperate under the general policies of social democrats to achieve a lasting peace. Whether similar policies can work elsewhere is a matter of much debate, especially in the anti-globalization movement, where advocates on both sides argue about the degree to which regulation has fostered growth and tolerance. ..."

"However, these parties too are often perceived as going too far for comfort, particularly in foreign policy, trade, and warfare, so social democrats may never disappear, even if the entire original program of socialism has been accomplished. ... The services may vary in quality but never seem to be withdrawn completely - the gains made by social democrats politically are seemingly seen by the public as public goods."

Finlander 11:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Hmm, well even trolls sometimes say things that happen to be true I guess. The paragraphs you removed do actually appear to be the actual consensus in the area where I live. I've been on the internet a little longer than today, so I'm getting used to meeting people who disagree with things that I hold to be universal truth. But when I do meet those people, I'm always curious!

Could you explain why you disagree with the above statements?

Granted, sometimes a troll will put texts that are otherwise true somewhere, but worded in such a way as to start a discussion anyway. Hmph, I guess he succeeded a little. On the other hand, if we can reach NPOV on this, then the trolls will have lost in the long run. ;-)

Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 12:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

The troll did not write the additions, just restored them. The fact that you don't see anything wrong with the paragraphs above is disturbing.

1. The first statement has absolutely no coherence with reality. It is absolutely and utterly false statement. Read the Marx and Engels's communist manifesto (the book).

2. Social democrat politicians will have easy time agreeing to such an statement. Other parties, historians, political critics, anyone with a half a brain and not being sd, will most surely not. That is, this is obviously a POV statement on a grand scale.

3. "even if the entire original program of socialism has been accomplished" "the gains made by social democrats politically are seemingly seen by the public as public goods." There is no 'original program of socialism' (unless referring to communist manifesto), and even if there was, saying such things has been accomplished, in today's world, is lunatic. Furthermore (to the secound quote), has it ever occurred to you that many do not see tax payed public health care, tax payed public (propaganda) schools, income tax, generally high taxes, cradle to grave services, as a good thing? For example liberals would want to life their lives and spend their money the way the choose to, not how the state forces you to by taxation. A capitalist owner would definately not appreciate progressive income tax. An anarchist would of course disagree with all of these. This all makes the statement highly POV.

Just because the social democrats are in power in today's Europe, it doesn't make all their views facts just as people today don't view the nazi Germany's views as the absolute truth.

Finlander 09:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

1. Apparently you have read those books at some point, while I'm going to have to look them up sometime. I'll concede point 1 to hurry things up for now.

2. Most political parties in the EU tend to talk about degrees of social democracy. I think it'd be very hard to think of any european party that does not support at least some amount of social democracy. I'm not sure about the statement "lasting peace", but certainly we've had half a century of peace all told, and the social democrats have been in power. So that's at least a correlation, if not a causation. :-)

I have over half a brain I think (we could do MRI to check ;-) ) and I'm not a social democrat, so I guess you'll have to adjust your statement to " almost everyone with half a brain ... "

Since in general most .eu constitutions have elections in the Proportional_representation style, you can usually roughly figure out agreement or disagreement with policy directly from election results. The social democrats are still in power, so QED there.

3. Well, in my personal experience a lot of people do see social democracy as a public good (and they vote for it too, so there's objective numbers that can be checked if we like). I think it would have been better to explain that many people see social democracy as a form of support (see: Social safety net).

The local liberal party (who I occaisionally vote for) does indeed argue that there should be less taxes, and less govt spending, but I don't think they'd seriously advocate removing all social programs entirely. They simply wouldn't get many votes if they tried that.

Kim Bruning 18:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I re-read the communist manifesto (from gutenberg free ebooks) and I can now make more accurate claims. Also I should edit The Communist Manifesto for it has some inaccuracies. First of all the absurdity of point 1. results from the fact that in CM it is made clear that all the non-political or less levolutionary reforms alone (such as the "1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." and "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.") are deceiving to the proletariat without the revolutionary acts of abolition of bourgeois property (capitalist who own the means of production) and the proletariat overtake of the government during the communist revolution to form a Dictatorship of the proletariat. (CM was vaque about this point, though).

To further advance my point concerning the claim 1. , I present a quate from the CM that refers to non-communist socialist such as the social democrats (who are specially mentioned also in the CM):

"The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern

social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily

resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society

minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish

for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie

naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the

best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable

conception into various more or less complete systems. In

requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby

to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but

requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within

the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its

hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this

Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in

the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political

reform, but only a change in the material conditions of

existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to

them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this

form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of

the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be

effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based

on the continued existence of these relations; reforms,

therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen

the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois

government.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only

when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective

duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for

the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the

only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism."

I believe that in light of this, you can agree that point 1. is an absurd claim and if made with the knowledge of Marx's ideas, a terrible lie. It is interesting that many points which Marx makes (over 150 years ago) in the above direct quote, do show in our modern society. Free trade for the benefit of all!

2. The whole secound point is just a claim, and so if it is central to the article then this would make it NPOV enough:

"Some people who share the ideas of social democracy believe that the late-20th-century Europe, culminating in the 1992 formation of the European Union, demonstrates that developed nations can cooperate under the general policies of social democrats to achieve a lasting peace. Whether similar policies can work elsewhere, is a matter of much debate between different parties."

As to your mention of general population appectance of SD policy, remember that in most EU countries the general population would vote against the new European union constitution (had they the choise), which brings about the shared views of overnational social democracy and capitalists (or conservatives) over the population. But this point is irrelevant to me, since the general population has really no clue about what the new constitution actually consists of. But it does elaborate the fact, that one can't claim that acceptance of social democracy nationally doesn't mean that 'most people' would agree to the above claim in its original form.

3. I believe I've already dismissed all but the last phrase of the point three, which is also the only one you mention: "the gains made by social democrats politically are seemingly seen by the public as public goods."

To add necessary NPOV to this claim, it would need to be made clear that not all see these 'benefits' as benefits. Thus I could propose something along the lines of:

"the gains made by social democrats politically are seen by some/many as public goods."

I won't be reintroducing these to the article, so I suggest whoever does, or if its you, Kim Bruning, spends good time to polishing them.

Finlander 14:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Canadian Green Party

If no one objects, I will remove the Green Party of Canada from the list of social Democratic parties, since it is self-described as "eco-capitalist". Tony Kao 17:41, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Does this warrant removal? We would first have to know what the heck "eco-capitalist" means. ;) It sounds like a purposely vague political statement like... it has sometimes been seen before. :P I will bring your attention to a quote from this very article: "As of 2004, social democrats generally do not see a conflict between a capitalist market economy and their definition of a socialist society, and support reforming capitalism in an attempt to make it more equitable through the creation and maintenance of a welfare state." Capitalism can scrape the ears of social democrats, of course, but in theory, as the quote states, a controlled capitalism can be part of social democracy. --Liberlogos 22:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see the Eco-capitalism article on Wikipedia, which specifically names the Green Party of Canada. Though I wouldn't personally agree with it, it's quite interesting nonetheless. In particular it sets itself apart from social Democracy in that it "uses" capitalism to achieve its goals, rather than seeking to destroy it (though I suppose you can say similar things about third-way social Democracy). For example, one of the Green Party's policy is to do away with progressive taxation and tax consumption instead, to discourage ecologically burdensome behaviours; on the other hand the NDP, the social Democratic party of Canada, proposes further implementation of progressive taxation such as elmination of income tax for people earning less than 15,000. Obviously it raises a few interesting questions, such as whether it will impact negatively on the working class, but that's for another time :) I think the previous discussion regarding Liberal Democrats in Britain can be applied here, in that since a) the Green Party does not belong to the Socialist International, and b) it would most likely object to a social Democratic label, it should thus not be categorized as a social Democratic party (as an aside, this seems eerily like some sort of legal eligibility test :-\). Besides, if anything the German Greens should be listed here, as they're more social democratic than the local Social Democratic Party. Tony Kao 16:53, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. I would agree to see it removed, then. Maybe it could be added to a list on the Eco-capitalism page. --Liberlogos 17:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Socialistische Partij

Well, they're socialists, and they operate in a democratic context (in fact they actively support democracy). Is there a specific reason that we shouldn't classify them as being social democratic (next to perhaps several other things)?

If not, well, wouldn't we be making our catagories too specific (like it'd almost be like every party gets its own catagory otherwise :-/) Kim Bruning 11:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But if we have the Dutch SP on the list, why don't we add than all the other left wing socialist parties from Europe, like the Danish Socialist People's Party etc. I am not convinced about the social democratic nature of the SP. Originally it was a spin off of the Communist Unity Movement marxist leninist KENml and its policies might be left-wing, but social democratic? The article itself makes a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. Gangulf 12:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point. Currently there are no democratic socialists listed at the democratic socialism page, though hmph, I think the difference is miniscule. If you move socialistische partij to that page, I can't really object at the moment though. Would that be an ok compromise? (Either that, or merge the 2 pages). Kim Bruning 12:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Green parties

Green parties, while they may share some things in common with social democrats, are not social democratic parties. == Spleeman 19:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've removed Green parties from the list; they have their own article. I'm also concerned about some other parties, such as the Mongolian one - if they're revolutionary socialists, they are not social democrats (and btw, democratic socialist is not the same thing as "social democrat", but we can leave that for now). Lacrimosus 02:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some claim Democratic Socialists are the same thing as Social Democrats, and some do not. I'm a Social Democrat, and claims it's the same thing, but there are people calling themselves Democratic Socialist that claim it is not the same thing. Quite frankly it makes me confused. I've also read both articles here in the Wikipedia, but haven't really found a clear difference. I think the articles about DS and SD should be merged together, or get a Social Democracy Vs. Democratic Socialism article, so that it's possible to see the differences. And please do not confuse the Third Way with Social Democracy. It's not the same thing.

Rewrite

Just a heads-up: I'm planning a rewrite to more clearly enunciate the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy. Otherwise, there's no point in having seperate articles. Lacrimosus 20:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Text of my proposed revision (still a work in progress) is available at User:Lacrimosus/Drafts/Social democracy. Feedback would be most helpful. Lacrimosus 20:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Odd! I thought we'd done a merge and redirect. Hmm, must have been mistaken. The current democratic socialism article is kind of strange though. Is "democratic socialism" an Americanism? Kim Bruning 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Googled for it, wikipedia&mirrors along first few pages of hits. Proceeding accordingly. I'm going to have to oppose a rewrite for now. Kim Bruning 21:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not purely an American term. It's used in Britain too. Some people consider "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" to be the same thing, and there is certainly no clear distinction. Some people adopt the term "democratic socialism" to indicate their opposition to the rightwing shift in social democracy in the last 20, 50, or 100 years. On the other hand, the British Social Democratic Party adopted the term "social democracy" in a deliberate attempt to distance itself from Labour's avowed "socialism", but the same can't be said of the German Social Democrats, which adopted their party name more than 100 years ago and were convinced socialists. Interestingly, the Constitution of the British Labour Party - as revised by Blair - still describes the party as "a democratic socialist party", a formulation introduced by Blair himself.

As I've understood it, (and I'm a member of the Swedish Social Democratic Labour Party), Democratic socialism and Socialdemocracy is the same thing. Only two different synonyms used to describe the same thing. Socialism however is another thing than Social Democracy (= Reformistic Evolutionary Socialism). Some Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist parties has adopted the Third Way, and can thus not really be called to be socialists anymore, but being social liberal. All this is complicated by that the Third Way parties still likes to call themselves Social Democratic, and that some Revolutionistic Socialists (could also be called Communists?) are calling themselves Democratic Socialists, although when reading their agendas and their party programs, clearly are not. - Starman 1976 05:00, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Is it clear though? The fact in particular that social democratic parties throughout the world have had similar policy shifts in the past few decades make me wonder. Have they essentially redefined what it means to be Social Democratic? If eg. Blair, Schröder, and Latham aren't social democrats, what are they? It's so complicated. . . some are proud to be called "socialists", some are offended; some claim they are but others deny it. Lacrimosus 05:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

This seems slightly biased-- even though I agree with it 100%, perhaps a more NPOV phrasing should take its place: "Obviously, most criticism against social democracy comes from their main political opponents, the right wing. Right-wingers typically argue that social democratic systems are too restrictive on their version of individual rights, particularly the rights of wealthy businessmen, and that individual choice is not as great in systems that provide state-run schools, health care, child care and other services." D.E. Cottrell 05:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Criticisms of Social Democracy

A brief reading of the Criticism section reveals that it is not even close to NPOV. "Right-wingers" is hardly an encyclopædic word. Further it doesn't include any of the key points of criticism from notable thinkers such as Milton Friedman or F.A. Hayek. In fact, it pretty much pigeon-holes all critiques as simply the whining of "wealthy businessmen," hardly a fair statement. It would be like calling advocates of Social Democracy a bunch of pot-smoking hippies—manifestly untrue, no matter how appealing the stereotype might be to critics of social democracy. I may try to spruce up the criticisms a bit, but I wonder if anyone else can contribute with an critical, balanced and informed eye? —thames 19:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also: see D.E. Cottrell's similar sentiment above.

• I'm a Social Democrat, so I will take a look at the Social Democracy article once in awhile, to see if it looks good. As I am a Social Democrat, I agree that I might not be able to be completely NPOV, but who is really? But I'm well informed about what Social Democracy is, so I can compare this article with the knowledge and experience I do have from over ten years of activity in politics. - Starman 1976 04:13, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

List of Social Democrats

I'm going to remove this list. Unless we can establish that the list is of people who are actually leaders/promininent members of social democratic parties, ie. parties with "Social Democratic" in their title, I think it's pretty arbitrary and not very helpful to compile it. Lacrimosus 03:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it again: although some of the most striking misallocations have been removed, I still think it's a bit uneven and subjective, and it doesn't necessarily do any good (if they're important enough, they'll rate a mention in the body of the text, or in Social Democratic parties. Lacrimosus 06:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. Having watched this page for a few months, it seems like no substantive work gets done on the actual article content itself. Instead people simply add their favorite lefty politician to the list, get it removed arbitrarily, and then get in a fight over it. It contributes nothing to the article itself. If Social Democrats were a small distict identifiable group it might be acceptable to put a list of them on the page (the U.S. neoconservatives are small and identifiable enough, for example). But there are many many social democrat parties with many many leaders. It's just not a worthwhile feature for the article. Meanwhile, the rest of it needs work—let's stop obsessing over the useless list and get the article content into a less embarrasing shape. —thames 14:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its still there, or it was readded. --138.88.48.174 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

possible NPOV quibble: under "Extensive social laws" in "Views of the social democrats today," none of the laws delineated are social laws. They all relate to business and commerce rather than the social arena.

Start cleared

I defined Social democracy as a kind of representaive democracy rather that a political ideology, based on Socialist International

NPOV

The article does not give due justice to the recent Socialist International's councils and the groups statutues and principles. The article just discusses the old school meaning during the turn of the 20th century which was even pre-cold war, not the 21st, which is the priority and up to date. SI redefined social democracy and Democratic Socialism. Today, DS forms the ideology and theory, meanwhile SD forms the application and integration with the real world. Issues like welfare, etc, were already reconciled between the 2 former ideologies. These were completely ignored by the article, it was not even considered in the start. SD now is the ideal representative democracy and objective, and not a political ideology. DS is the ideology. See SI Principles in the web

I think that's an entirely valid view, and does deserve a place in the article. But SI isn't the be-all and end-all on the definition: they're a helpful guide rather than being the sole authority. Slac speak up! 05:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, but just for the record, it is one of the most credible authorities on socialism. Socialist parties all world discuss and reconcile their opinions to build a monolithic socialism over the years with their councils (Socialism has splintered in to several many branches)

What is Social Democracy

I know a book that might help to define what Social Democracy is. It's available for download on the official web site of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. This site has a section, "Other Languages", with a number of .pdf publications. "What is Social Democracy" does a good job at explaining what Social Democracy is. The book is written by Ingvar Carlsson and Anne-Marie Lindgren. - Starman 1976 06:08, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Social democracy under "Socialism"???

Social democracy doesn't advocate the transition to socialism anymore. Rather, it accepts the market economy, with social safeguards that can make a capitalist society more just and equitable.

Describing it as a branch of socialism is misleading and clearly POV.Caleiva 00:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read the article carefully, and note that it says (or should say) pretty much that. If you can find a better wording, please suggest it - it's something that needs to be finely tuned. But I don't think it's true to say the article simply suggests that social democracy is a "branch of socialism" and leaves it at that. I think that it should be described as originating in and having its theoretical basis in socialism, since that is true. Slac speak up! 20:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of countries

Why there is no list of those countries considered social democratic? Social democracy is not a theory, it is a widespread practice. Germany and Sweden are prime examples of social democracy, while Austria (as in Central Europe, for the sake of sheep-addict ignorants) is a christian-democratic system.

It is really disturbing. Another time yankee treat en(lish).wikipedia.org as US.wikipedia.org and remove anything that does not fit the lone gunman republican worldwiew. Social democracy is first and foremost a practice of governance and only very secondarily an ideology. This is the great differentiation from socialism and communism, where ideology is the holy grail and every aspect of life is adjusted to fit the ideology and those who do not adjust are cut.

Americans want to deny the very existance of social democracy because they want to antagonize the world: you are either a fuckin' commie or you are an individualist neocon under god, there is no other way they say. Of course there is! Social democracy is the kind of governance where individual search for happiness (read: profit) is balanced with the health of the entire society, so that people have the incentive to endeavour, but not at each other's direct expense. Knowing this is very dangerous to USA's world plans and so this info must be supressed. This is why my additions were removed. Anything that does not appeal to money counting honest yankee is POV and gets deleted.

This is a recurring experience. I am sorry to say, but this problem will make en.wikipedia.org split sooner or later and result in separete en-us.wikipedia.org and en-rest-of-the-world.wikipedia.org, because US based editors have numerical superiorty and are always vigilant to revert any of your un-eagle-ish additions.

213.178.102.147 14:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I take objection to most of this. Firstly, I'm not American. Secondly, if social democracy is "mainly" an ideology, what is a social democratic party when it is out of power? How is it that conservatism and liberalism are primarily ideologies and not social democracy?

I'm also not a US neocon, and any suggestion that definitions of social democracy were removed to further plans of US world domination are contemptible. Slac speak up! 20:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not even the social democratic party leadership in Sweden knows what it is. The only definition of Swedish social democracy i can come up with is the following "Make the social democratic party in Sweden stay in power regardless of the consequences, the policies, the cost and the methods used". They still put the blame on the Moderate Party governement from 1991-1994 for every problem in society, and everything positive is attributed to Social Democracy. The fact is that everything that the government gets involved in ends in a mess, and as long as they keep their fingers out, most things just work. Goran Persson is a disgrace to Social Democracy, which indeed died in Sweden when Olof Palme stepped up to power in 1969.

---

Indeed. Furthermore, the attempt to paint sweden as an example of a near-utopian social democratic state is a heinous piece of propagandising. What few people realise is that swedish society - apart from being riven by social tension brought on by class-based and ethnic divisions, dominated by trade unions and its people utterly dependent on the state - is also incredibly corrupt. Almost all senior positions within theoretically apolitical institutions such as the civil service and the armed forces, as well as national television and radio, and indeed the church (which is bizzarre given that it was disestablished in 199-) are held by members of the social democratic party, regardless of competence or experience.

The doctrine of collective responsibility ensures that individual members of party and their positions are secure, because, come election time, the entire party machine ensures another victory from an electorate which is dependent on the state for their livelihoods and duped into believing that they are as well off as they could be, and vote for the party which promises to perpetuate the status quo. 195.195.166.41 12:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Leave the Tony Blair clown out of this article.

For example, the debate over detention of terrorist suspects without trial in the UK in 2004-05 pitted the Liberal Democrat party, who supported the right to a fair trial, against the Labour government, who argued that curtailing human rights was justified if it served a social end.

This must be a joke, totally outrageous POV. The current english Labour Party has only as much to do with social democracy as the current US Democratic Party has to do with slave-holding, which is exactly zero. The current labour and its Blair boss is the true-to-blood party of Iron Lady Thatcher. The faithful social democratic countries and parties of Europe (germans, swede, frenchies) were the most loud protestors against incommunicando detentions in USA and UK! This must be righted!

Um, what? Detention without trial is not an economic policy. Social democracy does not require respect for human rights (indeed, it routinely violates them in order to "serve social ends" as you put it). Blair has massively increased the tax and regulatory burden in Britain, put a lot more money into socialist public services, introduced the minimum wage, Etc. Etc. He is undeniably a social democrat. Maybe not as lefty as you would like, but just because a blue chair could be bluer doesnt mean it isnt blue. 88.105.244.162 20:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all too black-and-white. The Blair government has introduced a raft of human rights based legislation, and has been criticised for it. It has also issued criticsm, admittedly muted, of Guantanamo.1Z 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

This may be a good image for this page. Could someone with knowledge of image inserting please uncover whether or not this is copywritted?

Canadianism 20:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Blair in the List of famous Social democrats

Blair doesn't belongs to the List of famous Social democrats. He's a centrist. PhDP 12:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

An external link that have broken links inside it

I put a link to [socialdemocracia.org] that is in spanish, because http://www.socialdemocracy.org has his menu-links brokens and there's not useful information in that website. At least, with spanish version the english wiki have some useful external-links.

Crime rates?

"Likewise, crime has been steadily rising since the 1960s, and during the past decade has grown ever more violent."

This line is subjective and doesn't have anything to do with social democracy in Sweden or anywhere else.

---

Depends. I think that the rise in crime is quite well documented although obviously a citation would help. Some would attribute it to the very large, unassimilated and poor immigrant population (the product of heinous immigration mismanagement) - which could be regarded as a direct consequence of the policies of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which after all has been in power for roughly 60 of the last 70 years. This need not necessarily be the reason, but perhaps their other policies are responsible.

Or was it the moderates' three year tenure in the early 90s that caused it...?

---

According to Brottsförebyggande Rådet (http://www.bra.se), the official Swedish statistics bureau for tracking crime and coming up with solutions, crime has risen from 195 000 reported crimes in 1950 before the Social Democrats began changing the criminal justice system, to 1 245 000 in 2005. Since 1990, murder rates have doubled, and the number of sex crimes have increased from 5 246 in 1990 to 12 768 in 2005. All figures can be easily found on http://www.bra.se . Since the centre-right government ruling three years in the early 1990's, the crime rate as a whole has been static. However, violent crimes have risen rapidly both during the 3 years of centre-right government, and then continued during the past 12 years of Social-Democratic rule.

---

But what kind of linkage is there to Social democracy? Is there some kind of proven causality between social democracy and crime, or is that trying to be proved in the article? How about computer sales in Sweden? They too went up during this period.

This section really needs to be removed from the article as it seems to be a politically motivated edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.255.34 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I'd like to draw attention to instances of POV throughout this article, as I have put the notice on this page:

1. "system in order to make it more equitable and "humane" - This is hardly neutral (and a POV of liberal capitalism)
2. "and the democratic socialists are in favour of humanizing capitalism" - As before, heavily tinged with the assumption that social democ. is more humane.
3. "gradually corrupted" - Capitalism is now corrupting! (a moral POV)
4. "the fact that usually the lowest classes are the ones sent into the war to fight, and die, putting the cause at the side" - While this may be true, it betrays a sentimentality for the working class in the article and is POV.
5. "principles out of corruption" - again, capitalists being accused of corruption, assuming that socialist ideals are the bastion of purity.

Obviously, all that needs to be done to remedy this is to rewrite the sections and remove the bias rather than delete the content. --Knucmo2 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not agree with no "neutrality"

The same that is questioned by Knucmo2 could be questioned of other political options. Could be some moralist, and the user can edit the more moral "words". But if you read liberalism can find some unneutrality like "the really oppositors to totalitarist".

The acusation about the corruption of capitalism, not is focused about the capitalism is corrupting now, I understand that "the capitalism get some degree of corruption", that's no moral is a observation of some practices and attitudes of some capitalist and some governments. Is a fact that the capitalism (like others economic organizations) have some degree of corruption, some "free riders" that exploit the aventages of the capitalist system without obey the law or pay the fees. Enterprises that exploit the natural recourses and not take care of contamination that produces. Is a fact that without rules, agencys, organizations or negotiation between stake-holders this "free-rider" problem of capitalism do not stop.

If Knucmo2 could modify the more "moral" expressions i agree with him, but i don't agree with the POV of this article. Then i ask to Knucmo2 to modify this moral expressions and then took out the alert of no-neutrality.

Yeah, I understand that the other articles might be POV too. But the point I was trying to make was that when you say "capitalism corrupts" then it means that capitalism is inherently corrupt, which is a moralistic POV, and something has to be pure, ethical and uncorrupt before it is corrupted (which is socialism is inherently not, but ideally so). As you say, capitalism can become corrupt. --Knucmo2 15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not my article, i try to understand the way that the author say "capitalism corrupt". Ok, i'll agree with your last comment, then why do you not edit the article?

Cool, when I can get round to it, I'll make the changes, but by posting it here on talk it can draw attention to editors, to promote discussion, and will draw attention to editors who are probably much better at writing than me. --Knucmo2 17:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Biased article pretends this is just another commie ideology

This article like most on wikipedia are works of paranoid gun crazy individualist anglo-saxon adamsmithians. They want to hide the fact that social democracy is not a philosophy or ideology, it is an existing reality. Nowhere there is a paragraph on Sweden and many other european countries where social democracy is the form of governance and has always been since the end of WWII or even before, the 1930s. Social democratic countries have the best quality of life in the whole word and their industries have a lot of profit.

There should definitely be a split to en-us.wikipedia.org and en-en.wikipedia.org, because the perception of reality differs irreconcibly between the anglo-saxon race and "the rest of the world". Yankee never admit anything successful or wise may exist beyond the two oceans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)

From the article:

1. "The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered considerably in the 1990s and 2000s, against the predictions of those who suggested Sweden's 57% top tax bracket would slow its economy. Instead, Sweden has produced a robust economy from sole proprietorships up through to multinationals (e.g., Saab, Ikea, and Ericsson), while maintaining the longest life expectancy in the world, low unemployment, inflation, infant mortality, national debt, and cost of living, all while registering sizable economic growth. [citation needed] On the other hand, Sweden experiences welfare dependency of around 20% of the working age population according to the Swedish Trade Union Confederation. Likewise, crime has been steadily rising since the 1960s, and during the past decade has grown ever more violent."
2. Page also links to a separate, specialist article on social welfare in Sweden.

By the way, Sweden in 1996 suffered from 14% unemployment and problems with absent workers. It is not all plain sailing under social democracy, nor is it under any system. --Knucmo2 15:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. Knucmo2, the socialdemocracy is not perfect... but could you retire de "disputed" or "not neutrality" of this article, and change the controversial expression to return to his neutrality?, there is 40% of criticism of social democracy in the article, i see that is greater than criticism in anarco capitalism, liberalism, neoliberalism, and others... i think that this article is fairly neutral. By 'trinitro' (from spanish wikipedia).

Hello! Granted, but read my above post for why I inserted the NPOV template. Don't take this personally that I put the template in there. --Knucmo2 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MERGE Democratic socialism into here

What does this fork between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" means? The strange expression of "democratic socialism" might have been used in certain places or by certain theorists, but it certainly isn't common! Beside, the theoretical distinction itself is more than discutable. I've come to this page, because it was described in the introduction of the French Socialist Party entry that "although it historically considered itself as a democratic socialist party, it had became recently a social-democrat party". This is simply false. The expression "democratic socialism" has, in the case of France, never been used. The Section Française de l'Internationale Ouvrière (SFIO) defines itself as a "social-democrat" party, and this, in its eyes, did certainly not meant that it accepted capitalism and liberal democracy! By this, I mean that the PS, as most declared social-democrats party, have all considered themselves, in theory, as "democratic socialists", if I have to follow this strange distinction. Since the distinction isn't proven, I suggest we merge the two articles, and address any eventual debate here. I don't think this distinction which has been probably be made up by some theorists warrants two different articles! Lapaz 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not agree with merging. In the European Union there is the green group and socialist group like two branches of democratic socialism. One of them, the second, is the socialdemocratic branch, but the first is not "socialdemocrat" instead of them thei are "ecosocialist". The term "democratic socialism" is a great conception that englobes socialdemocrats but anothers forms of democratic socialism. The socialdemocracy is the center-left wing of democratic socialism with a miriad of others forms of socialism more left-winged. Can you have a little problem merging but you not diference the socialdemocrats with some social-liberalism in economyc behaviour and socialist in social politics with the democratic socialism that were more nearest to European Green group (ecosocialist) and other visions that can be called democratic and socialist like could you include some partys in the eurocommunist group. (trinitro from spanish wikipedia)—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

They are different things. How on earth can you merge them? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

They are entirely separate concepts - they are not to be merged.--cj | talk 05:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

They are widely felt to be different by their respective supporters. I, for one, am a democratic socialist who would not feel comfortable being labelled as a social democrat. To speak in general terms, social democrats think we're delusional dreamers; democratic socialists think they're useless sell-outs. As the democratic socialism article makes clear, there can be some overlap between social democracy and democratic socialism – but that's certainly no grounds for an outright merge. QuartierLatin1968 16:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying the following comment from talk:Democratic socialism, so that this discussion can be kept all in one place:

Parties such as the Dutch SP and the German Left Party never, AFAIK, use the term social democracy to refer to their own ideology. One could argue that they are social democratic in a historical sense of the word, but currently, social democracy (at least in the Netherlands) is invariably used to denote the centrist ideology of parties such as the PvdA (which, confusingly, sometimes still calls itself democratic socialist). Qwertyus 10:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, political classifications, especially when we have to take into account the multiple senses words have in different countries, is just too messy. I'll abandon the merge, but I do request that sources are provided on the democratic socialism section, more than currently used, in order to prove that it is a recognized and international expression, not just somebody's classification. I've had enough trouble myself with other users concerning labelling of some political groups to understand your concerns, but this does not mean that sources mustn't explain the term. Else, I'm sure someone else is going to have the same reaction as me, because to tell you the truth, hopefully there's Wikipedia out there to teach you new words and concepts like that! Lapaz 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't think users should use it to qualify French parties, as it is completely foreign to the context. For this reason also, I created Category:Left-wing parties in France and Category:Right-wing parties in France, so not to be forced to use the US classification of liberals/conservatives which has no sense out there (the most "leftist" US deputies in the Democrat party would probably be considered center-left, Socialist Party here...) Lapaz 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Swedish example paragraph

I found some references, but some claims may need to be refined or corrected. Canadianism 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially something like this: "Crime has risen from 195 000 reported crimes in 1950 to 1 245 000 reported crimes last year." It should go without saying that "last year" is not an encyclopedic term. There needs to be an actual year there.

It would also be helpful to provide some idea of the change in relative scale, i.e. how many per capita crimes were there? Raw numbers without context are meaningless. The Dark 13:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

i think the crime rates example is bs

the sex crimes is up just becouse theres been alot of it on the TV and people arnt ashamed to report it like they did before

do i really have to quote mark twain ? theres 3 lies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.10.255 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 October 2006

Poor article

I think this article needs complete rewrite. Social democracy is very important political ideology especially in Europe and it deserves a better article.

Relationship with Bretton Woods

When discussing the recent reversal of social democratic policy it is important to bear in mind that what many people refer to as 'traditional' social democracy is now generally regarded to have been possible only because of the prevailing international climate - the post-war Bretton Woods consensus. What is of interest to contemporary social democrats, therefore, is why this consensus itself collapsed, whether it would be possible to rebuild it, and how.

Can anyone elaborate on this? To me this is the most fascinating part of the article, but after shoring up my understanding of Bretton Woods I still can't say I understand it. Also, while I don't want to see this paragraph go (it just inspired several hours of research), I would suggest that not all "contemporary social democrats" are nostalgic for the traditional social democracy that sought to replace rather than just moderate the capitalist system. Kyle Cronan 10:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bülent Ecevit

I deleted this man from the list of famous socialdemocrats. If he is one, I am Mickey Mouse.

Requesting article "Tribunite"

Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)?
The only sources I have are

http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html

(and other pages with identical text)

and this from Guardian

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html

"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism."

-- 201.50.123.251 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Key figures

I have just removed the following from the pre-war section[1]:

Two key figures within the socialist movement at this time were César de Paepe of the Belgian International Working Men's Association and Jean Jaures (Who led the French Socialist Party until his assassination on July 31, 1914, one day before the general mobilization of forces that began World War I).

They seem quite arbitrary to me - the first little known, the second very important. EITHER there should be a longer list of key figures in this period (Karl Kautsky, Kier Hardy, George Plekhanov, etc) OR no list. BobFromBrockley 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also unhappy with list of "famous" social democrats[2]. The list now, before my amendments is:

• Karl Ast
• Pavel Axelrod
• Hjalmar Branting
• Ed Broadbent
• Gro Harlem Brundtland
• Eduard Bernstein
• Gordon Brown
• Helen Clark
• Ingvar Carlsson
• Tommy Douglas
• Gary Doer
• Fedor Dan
• Tage Erlander
• Einar Gerhardsen

• Felipe Gonzalez
• Per Albin Hansson
• Bob Hawke
• Paul Hirst
• L. T. Hobhouse
• J. A. Hobson
• António Guterres
• Toomas H. Ilves
• Ricardo Lagos
• Mark Latham
• Jack Layton
• Julius Leber
• René Lévesque
• Wilhelm Liebknecht
• Anna Lindh

• Rosa Luxembourg
• Ramsay Macdonald
• Mihkel Martna
• Julius Martov
• Aleksandr S. Martynov
• Olof Palme
• Göran Persson
• Georgi Plekhanov
• Bob Rae
• August Rei
• Gerhard Schröder
• Jens Stoltenberg
• Vera Zasulich

Nothing against Canadians, but they make up too big a proportion of the list.

I am deleting: Paul Hirst (important academic, but not famous as a social democrat), Richard Dawkins (ditto), Gary Doer (not important enough), Karl Ast (ditto), Mihkel Martna (ditto), Aleksandr S. Martynov (ditto)

I would propose deleting Bob Rae (not important enough), and I think others should have a go at making the list better. BobFromBrockley 16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing Bob Rae as he's now a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, which in turn is a member of the Liberal International. Tony Kao 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples of social democracy cleanup

I see that the part about Sweden's social democratic government has been talked about multiple times on this discussion page. The sections is extremely confusing and unorganized. Statistics of the 1990s and 2000s are mixed together and the text following does not address whether it is talking about one or the other. There is also no clear mention of when social democratic policies were introduced and when they were rolled back. The whole section seems to be a mix of positive and negative statistics mashed together to the point you no longer know which was better.

Here's my take on what the section presumably says:

Apparantly the section started as a way of showing praise for the social democratic government of Sweden in the early 1980s. I guess from there a center or conservative party rolled back some policies between 1991 to 1994 leading to higher crime rates since many people were dependant on the services. Throughout the 1990s crime rose until the 2000s when crime began to fall.

The period between 1994-2000 is not addressed at all in terms of whether social democracy was reinstituted or further rolled back. Since the social democratic party was in charge in this period, I would assume they reinstuted welfare policies but crime still rose but at a slower pace until now when crime fell.

The final part of the section weakly tries to reason higher crime rates with more reporting. Its a good attempt but need to be more convincing.

I'd appreciate the help of anyone who has more in depth knowledge of Sweden. Gdo01 07:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to provide an explanation. First there is an important distiction between reported and actual crime. Reported crime has increased, but it's unclear if actual crime has increased. A higher percentage of actual crime is reported to the police today -- this is especially the case with sex crimes -- which at least partly may explain the increase. I suppose a majority of sex crimes are still not reported at all. A recent study I cited in the article [3] [4] shows that violence with fatal/deadly result is lower in the 2000s than in the 1980s and 1990s.

There was a severe recession and high unemployment in the early 90s which coincided with the centre/right administration (1991-1994). Government spending was cut in that period, but also after the Social democrats reassumed power in 1994 due to the serious economical situation. So social democratic policies were rolled back in the 1990s.

I deleted this sentence: "The number of murders have doubled since 1990". There seemed to be no support for it in http://www.bra.se. There is probably also a need for grammar improvement in the "Examples of social democracy" section. Vints 10:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Social capitalism

I oppose the proposed merge (both pages have been tagged for a while now, though I can't find any comment about it on either talk page). "Social capitalism" (a phrase I've never encountered outside Wikipedia, for what it's worth) seems to be significantly different from social democracy, particularly in its quasi-libertarian reliance on the "invisible hand" of the free market. More importantly, I find the social capitalism article poorly written, confusing, completely unsourced, borderline-neologistic and probably original research. I think merging it into this article would make the concept of "social capitalism" even less clear (to me, at least) and reduce the quality and coherence of the social democracy article. Since the merge tags have been up for so long without activity, I'll remove them if I don't hear any objections in the next day or two. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging those two articles is absolutely nonsense. Democracy is no synonym for capitalism. That's why Social democracy and social capitalisms are not synonymous either. 87.123.81.201 08:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tags removed. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)