Talk:Social democracy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Suggestion for dividing this article

Given the multiple meanings of "social democracy", particularly in reference to post-war and contemporary definitions, I would like to float the idea of splitting the present article into two separate articles: "Social Democracy (Social policy)" and "Social Democracy (Political movement)". The former would include content on social democracy defined as a set of public policies and a model of social welfare provision, while the latter would describe the political movement called "social democracy" and the its various stages throughout history (socialism -> reformism -> welfare capitalism -> Third way/neoliberalism). -Battlecry 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How would those articles differ from the existing articles for social liberalism and socialism? TFD (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Social democracy is a specific type of welfare state and policy regime (universalist, supportive of collective bargaining, and more supportive of public provision of welfare) while social liberalism is an ideology that might have some overlap, but does not necessarily support the same model of extensive welfare provision and collective bargaining as the models commonly described as "social democracy" (the Nordic model, social market economy, etc.). This is how the term is commonly used today in Academia and the media (for a recent example: Hollande allies hail new social democratic vision).

The "Social democracy (Political movement)" page would include information specific to social democratic parties and groups. There is already precedent for such an article separated from the parent page "Socialism" as all other major variations of socialism (libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, Leninism) have their own articles. -Battlecry 08:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It should not be moved, just as socialism should not be moved. Social democracy is a vague concept (just as liberalism), but there are key features which have remained unchanged; supporting public ownership, mixed economy, skeptical towards capitalism (and/or capitalists), alliance with trade unions, etc --TIAYN (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The British welfare state was based on the Beveridge Report. Beverdige was a Liberal who had been Minister of Labour. Ironically, Labour were the last party to support it. The social market is part of ordoliberalism. I agree btw that social democrats have adopted all these paradigms throughout their history. But the welfare state (or social liberalism) and neoliberalism are paradigms that were accepted accross the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If we don't split the article, how do we address the fact that there are two definitions of social democracy today? The definition of "social democracy" as a welfare state is not just used by non-academic publications and those ignorant of history, but also by socialists (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2014/foster180114.html, http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Fin_Cr_and_NL_08_12.pdf) and policy analysts. I think a variation of the opening paragraph I proposed on this page a little while back would be the best compromise where the multiple definitions of "social democracy" is more clearly acknowledged at the start of the article:

Social democracy is a political ideology that traces its roots to the 19th century socialist movement. Contemporary social democracy is a center-left ideology that champions a welfare state and varying degrees of economic regulation; however social democratic parties belonging to the Socialist International still have the nominal goal of establishing a democratic socialist economy. Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the latter half of the 20th century. -Battlecry 08:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

First, the social democratic movement (and therefore Labour) rejected the welfare state (at the beginning) because of their adherence to Marxism. At the 1st congress of the Socialist International (held after World War II), the Socialist International condemned communism (and indirectly communism), and became a movement (from there on) which supported the welfare state and the creation of a capitalism with a human face (within the liberal democratic political system).. Currently, social democracy is a mixture of liberalism and socialism. I don't get it, all ideologies change - we are not discussing the possibility of creating two articles on communism, Soviet communism and Chinese communism (despite the fact that what communism entails has changed in recent years...) .. Social democracy has gone from being a Marxist dominant ideology to become a mixture of liberalism and socialism - that's it, but its the same ideology (and I doubt the majority of the social democratic parties before and after World War II believed that social democracy had radically changed somehow...) --TIAYN (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you have the history correct. The dominant Marxism of the Second International was Bernstein;s revisionism, which would be the official ideology of the German Social Democratic Party of Germany until 1959. The Communists, led by the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party broke with socialism and set up Comintern. Most "social democrats" would not support the welfare state until after the Second World War. Meanwhile, liberals, such as Beveridge and Keynes, had developed plans for a welfare state, which is called social liberalism. Since these policies were mostly implemented by social democrats, social liberalism is sometimes called social democracy. However, all parties supported them as they became a new paradigm. From the mid to late 1970s, the paradigm came to be replaced by neoliberalism, which was also accepted by all parties, even the Communist Party of China. TFD (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

How those the Communist Party of China support neoliberalism, 70 percent of the companies of the Shanghai Stock Exchange has dominant state ownership (from 40 percent upwards).. Secondly, the market plays a much smaller role in China then it does elsewhere. Neoliberalism does not exist in China, because it has never been implemented. The whole point with the economic system in China is that the state guides the private sector (in a neoliberalist model, the private market would guide the state - this is not happening to China, at least not to the same degree).. At last, the Communist Party is opposed to neoliberalism, referring it to "market fundamentalism". The view that China is somewhat extremely capitalist is wrong, and the reason being that everything that is good in China is referred to capitalist, while everything which is bad in China is referred to communist.

When did social democracy become synonymous with social liberalism? Social liberalism supports the welfare state, but more often then not are skeptical towards public ownership. No social democrat could self-describe themselves as social liberal, nor could a social liberal call themselves a social democratic .. In the UK, you have a social democratic party, a social liberal one and a conservative one - no one would say that the Lib Dems have the same policies as Labour (not even New Labour...) ... The only place where social liberalism is synonymous with social democracy is in the United States, and that's because the socialist movement died there in the 1910s and 1920s (and never regained their position in the trade unions). Because of this, those people who support public ownership or high taxes are usually dumped into the social liberal category (and if the opponents are mean, they will call these people socialists, as they did with Obama). To take one example, the United States is not moving in anyway closer to European social democracy under Obama (despite their seeming to be a common misconception in the US that this is indeed happening...)

Again, the social democrats before World War II opposed the welfare state because of their Marxist inclinations (which was dropped, if we are to generalize, with the end of World War II, and the rise of reformist socialism, e.g. social democracy). --TIAYN (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD, you have the definitions of "social democracy" and "social liberalism" reversed. Social democracy is commonly defined as a welfare state (or as a model of "social capitalism") and social liberalism is a political ideology. Because this is the most common definition used today we need to be more clear about distinguishing "social democracy" from its historical meanings (as revolutionary socialist parties, as reformist socialist ideology, etc.). Contemporary political parties named "Social democratic party" do not necessarily support social democracy today, just as many "Socialist parties" are not necessarily advocates of socialism, and the ideology "Republican party" in the United States is not republicanism.-Battlecry 02:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Social liberalism is an ideology, it is an ideology that supports the welfare state, which itself can be referred to as the social liberal paradigm. See for example Ian Adams Political Ideology Today, pp. 37ff. Social liberalism "came to dominate most of the twentieth century.... In practical terms, the argument points towards a programme of welfare legislation...."[1] Or read the sources provided for the social liberalism article. Nordic Paths to Modernity discusses social liberalism there on pp. 34 ff.[2] I am still waiting for your source. TFD (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

From the International Encyclopedia of Political Science: "Social democracy refers to a political tendency resting on three fundamental features: (1) democracy (e.g., equal rights to vote and form parties), (2) and economy partly regulated by the state (e.g., through Keynesianism), and (3) a welfare state offering social support to those in need (e.g., equal rights to education, health service, employment, and pensions."

The text then goes on to differentiate between the roots of social democracy (Marxism, anti-capitalism, etc.) with its contemporary developments (acceptance of the fundamentals of the capitalist market economy). On page 2424, it states that the ends of social democracy came into contention and the movement came to be defined by a reformed capitalism and welfare state after Eduard Bernstein’s revisionism. While it does mention that some elements within the social democratic movement returned to the question of ownership and transformation of capitalism in the late 1970s-early 1980s, the social democratic movement is largely defined by its support for reforms, regulation and a welfare state. -Battlecry 03:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is discussing the current policies of socialist parties, which have evolved from the 19th century. But it also says that that social democrats once supported public ownership of the means of production. Notice also that it says the term is sometimes used synonymously with democratic socialism, and that article says "see Social democracy", unlike here where there are two articles. Also, notice that it does not say that European welfare states are social democracies. TFD (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It gives a clear definition of social democracy as a mix of welfare state provisions, economic regulation, and democracy. I never said Social democracy was defined specifically as European welfare states, only that social democracy is commonly defined as a welfare state. No one is disputing that social democrats once supported public ownership and the other hallmarks of socialism; my point is the article should reflect what this source says - that (contemporary) social democracy is defined as a welfare state etc, but historically social democracy supported public ownership, etc. As it stands right now, the article does not make a clear distinction between the historical definition of social democracy and its common contemporary definition. -Battlecry 08:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

When did contemporary social democracy get defined as being synonymous with the welfare state? Social democrats actively support the welfare state, but thats not the only thing they do.. And yes, social democracy is an ideology not practical politics. It may have deradicalized, but its still an ideology (and its not synonymous with social liberalism) --TIAYN (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

In the post-war period, social democracy came to be defined as support for a welfare state, collective bargaining and economic regulation. I agree that social democracy is not merely a welfare state, but that is what it is used to refer to in contemporary literature and policy discussions. -Battlecry 09:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No, rather the welfare state is the most prominent feature in social democracy, but thats not the only thing contemporary literature and policy discussions refer to them as. For instance, in Norway, the Labour Party (Norway) is considered the strongest supporter of multiculturalism, pro-immigration, solidarity, high taxes, marriage equality for both straight and gays, the right for gays to adopt children, a degree of protectionism in agriculture etc etc etc... The welfare state, collective bargaining and economic regulations are the common denominators which all social democratic movements share, but each have their own peculiarity (for instance, the UK Labour Party became non-skeptical towards the market during the Blair and Gordon years), and in Norway with the exception of two companies, all the largest companies in the country are state-owned or have a dominant share owned by the state. Secondly, you're forgetting the Latin American social democratic parties, which are more often then not, opposed to neoliberalism. This is a simplification. --TIAYN (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So in your view social democracy has not definition in that it just means anything ranging from anti-imperialism to social liberalism or neoliberalism? Then we might as well put that in the opening paragraph. And just to clarify, a political party that happens to use the name of a political ideology in its name does not define that ideology by its specific policies and actions. But one thing is clear: contemporary social democrats have no desire (even if their constitutions retain language about "social ownership" or "common ownership" from a previous era) to bring about a post-capitalist (socialist) economic system; they are defined by reforms to capitalism (whether it be the welfare state, regulation or advocating social justice). The article needs to represent this widely-held view making a distinction between "historical" social democracy and "contemporary" social democracy defined as a welfare state and what you refer to as "social liberalism".-Battlecry 02:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Battlecry: Social democracy in its heart is economic equality and public ownership over important heights of the economy.. Tony Blair may have turned the UK Labour Party into a social liberal party (Blair himself said he didn't care if people got rich since the important thing was to alleviate poverty, he supported low taxes and was against a large role for the state in the economy), however, he still called himself a socialist.. In a pamphlet by the Norwegian Labour Party social democracy is defined as a grunnsyn (a "fundamental", an "outlook" etc) which is a mixture of socialism and liberalism, with socialism carrying the most weight. But what does socialism mean? Blair called himself a socialist, many disagree, Kim Jong-un calls himself a socialist (many would definitely disagree), anti-communist Marxists called themselves socialist and calls everyone else capitalists (many disagree).. Since the word socialism has so many meanings, it is by definition impossible to define; but the common denominations are democracy, social justice and economic equality (and democracy and social justice can only be maintained through economic equality).

But yes, you're right, i'm saying social democracy has no definition. Best example, China. They still call themselves, communist, they still believe they are communist, but as mentioned all over the world, it doesn't look much like communism (that is, Soviet-inspired communism).. They are still Marxist (I read somewhere that they use as much money a year on Marxist research as the state budget for the poorest African countries combined; this may not be true, but still, it gets the point through), they still research Marxism, and their "ultimate goal" is still reaching pure communism, but despite this, they look uncommunist. I think everyone agrees that they look uncommunist (with the exception of the CPC itself), but they don't believe so. To give another example, in the 1960s Einar Gerhardsen, the Prime Minister of Norway and a social democrat, established a planning agency and tried to establish a planned economy. He was not a communist, he was not a Marxist, he was a social democrat. However despite this, it would be impossible for the current Labour leader, Jens Stoltenberg, to try to implement a planned economy (or even wishing to implement it; he would probably consider the notion as total communist rubbish).. Despite all this Stoltenberg still considers Gerhardsen to be a social democrat, and not a communist... Or, as Herbert Morrison said, "Socialism is what a Labour government does". --TIAYN (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

An economic and political system can be classified based on the actual processes that take place within said system. Official proclamations by politicians and political leaders are irrelevant - especially for an encyclopedic entry. I will grant that "social democracy" has many different meanings, but the general consensus is that it represents and is defined by support for what we might call "welfare capitalism" and related social policies. That does not mean we need to exclude alternative definitions of social democracy as "democratic socialism"; all I am suggesting is we change the opening paragraph to be more neutral instead of immediately defining social democracy as "officially" a form of democratic socialism. (The source only claims that social democratic parties belong to an organization that declares the establishment of democratic socialism its goal, not that social democracy IS socialism). -Battlecry 07:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not correct that social democracy has different meanings, rather that socialism has evolved, as have all other ideologies. In Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared , the authors explain on pp. 15-20 how socialist parties in have evolved from the 19th to the early 21st centuries.[3] As the number of people in traditional working class occupations, such as factory-workers and miners, declined, socialists have successfully widened their appeal to the middle class, by diluting their ideology. But there is continuity in the SPD, the British Labour Party, etc. The image that most political scientists use is the famille spirituelle or ideological party family. Families change over time, but remain the same family. TFD (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Battlecry: @The Four Deuces: Social democracy has different meanings, just as communism has different meanings, but it doesn't make one social democratic party less social democratic then the others.... But Battlecry, I agree with you (that is, the edits you want to implement), my view of social democracy is this; its inherently vague, and every time I read about social democratic ideology, its "nothing" (its not Marxism, nor even Anarchism)... Not all social democratic parties seek to establish a socialist society, but some do (like the Socialist Party of Chile, and the Social Democratic Party of Austria for instance),.. However, this does not make these parties more or less social democratic then other social democratic parties who only wish to create, lets say, a "capitalism with a human face". --TIAYN (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The definition of communism did not shift between Mao and Deng, the policies did. Similarly, the definition of the Labour Party between Callaghan and Blair did not change, the policies did. Labour ideology changed, but the definition of the Labour Party did not change. Similarly if you study anthropology and switch to history, your definition does not change. You have changed but remain the same person. TFD (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course communism has changed, above in the talk page you accused China of having a neoliberal economic policy.. Secondly, if the old definition still worked, most people would not refer to China as capitalist... Literally if you search for "China" "capitalism" you get more hits than for "China" "communism"... its a reason for that, the old definition does not work. --TIAYN (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Policy and ideology are different things. A socialist opposes the welfare state because it is controlled by the bourgeoisie. Then he says that at least it is a concession to the working class. Then he says it stops economic development which is necessary to support increases in working class wages. He has not changed his definition, merely his policies. Similarly, conservatives and liberals have switched policies on religion, free trade, prohibition, etc.

Conservatives in the UK decided that capitalism would help build the country, but saw capitalists as an inferior class. Similarly, Chinese Communists think capitalism will build the Chinese economy and improve the welfare of Chinese people. But neither wished to replace themselves with capitalists. TFD (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The definition of "communism" hasn't officially changed. The only thing that has changed in China is the policies of the communist party and possibly its allegiance to building a communist society (which is debatable). But in the case of "social democracy" we have a wide swath of academics and policy analysts who use the term in reference to welfare states / welfare capitalism. We need to either better accommodate this widespread definition in this article, or split the article into two separate articles for each major definition. The lead should also do a better job at distinguishing the actual policies and modern ideology of social democratic parties and nominal allegiances to "democratic socialism". -Battlecry 09:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:@Battlecry: Democratic socialism is not the left-wing version of social democracy, where people have gotten that from I don't know. Democratic socialism is a vague term used by everybody, even Brown called himself a democratic socialist before the New Labour period. Honestly. This article is not going to get split, it wouldn't help anyone. Secondly, you could say the definition of communism has changed; many people like to point out you can't be communist if you don't have a planned economy. For instance Meriam Webster defines communism as "a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property"... If that's the case China is no longer communist (by the old definition), but they seem to believe so themselves.... Or Oxford, communism is a "a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."... The definition has changed, or at least certain parts of it. Yes, they are officially committed to reaching communism (the "ultimate goal" of china and the party), but they've changed their view on the capitalist mode of production (which was about time, since the system is not collapsing, but showing clear signs of dynamism); for instance, some CPC theoreticians believe capitalism to be a preliminary stage to reach communism... So the definition must have changed, at least the part which is concerned about economics... --TIAYN (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course there was always a distinction between communism, and the policies of Communist governments. Communists never claimed that China was a communist society, they said it was a socialist society. Similary, the Social Democratic Party of Sweden is committed in its constitution to a society based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." But they have never claimed to have achieved that.

I agree that people sometimes confuse policies similar to the Swedish Social Democrats with social democracy. Hence the social market policies developed by ordoliberals and implemented by Christian Democrats lead some people to call Germany a social democracy. We can say that. But it does not mean the definition of Social Democracy has changed. And there is really no significant difference between Lassallian socialism and Blair's Third Way. In each case they advocated government policies that would immediately help working people rather than revolution. And in both cases their critics accused them (accurately or not) of having sold out to the establishment, and therefore not real socialists.

TFD (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "I agree that people sometimes confuse policies similar to the Swedish Social Democrats with social democracy." ... But the policies of the Swedish Social Democratic Party is social democracy, what else could it be described as? ... " there was always a distinction between communism, and the policies of Communist governments"... There has always been a distinction between communism, the stage of development, but all policies which will help the party to reach that stage are communist (by definition, according to them) because it will reach the party reach its end goal... Its not like the CPC would initiate uncommunist policies to reach communism - that wouldn't make much sense... I agree with you're pragmatism, but in highly ideologized regimes (such as China), there is no chance in hell of introducing things they consider uncommunist.. Its a reason why Xi Jinping recently said "The reason is that, politically, their theory that capitalism is the ultimate has been shaken, and socialist development has experienced a miracle. Western capitalism has suffered reversals, a financial crisis, a credit crisis, a crisis of confidence, and their self-conviction has wavered. Western countries have begun to reflect, and openly or secretively compare themselves against China’s politics, economy and path"... This doesn't sound like a guy who has made a compromise with capitalism, this sounds like a man who believes China is on the socialist road...

Lastly, social democratic parties won't go against their own principle except in cases where their old policies have been proven false (or, if they think they have been proven false, hence New Labour)..... Of course, this is not a discussion (I believe), which can be proven my refs. But, I must say, I wouldn't make sense that social democratic governments went against their ideology because it suited them, they went against their ideologies because they believed they were, indeed, social democratic.. But of course, with this view, I'm also saying, by default, that it is impossible to define an ideology. --TIAYN (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

People do refer to Sweden as a social democracy and there is no reason why we should not point that out in the article. But Sweden is a liberal, captialist state, not socialist or a social democracy, and people do not contribute according to their ability and receive according to their needs, as articulated by the Social Democrats. It is however what they considered the best possible state achievable. The next day they may defend open markets and dismantling the welfare state, like rogernomics.

Ideology is not the policies that they follow but what determines the policies they choose. So conservatives supported welfare because the higher classes should protect the lower classes, liberals supported welfare because without basic amenities individuals cannot achieve their potential, i.e., have real freedom, and socialists thought welfare made society more egalitarian. Or socialists can say welfare enforces the power of the bourgeois state, liberals say it discourages enterprise, and conservatives say it will destory hierarchy.

TFD (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: India calls itself a socialist state, does that make India more or less socialist? They calls themselves an "Independent Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic" (a bit of a mouthful); that doesn't make much sense to me, but its still there.. Its all about how they define it.. Just as Marxism defines socialism as a stage, some defines socialist as some given policies.... But who cares, my problem with you is the following, you're setting it in stone, you're saying social democracy (and socialism) is something definable, and everything a socialist politician is doing in something separate, which you refer to as policy.. You are making lines, and I don't understand why you're lines are better than the lines Marx made for what socialism is, or what Proudhon defined as socialism, or for that matter Michel Aflaq who defined socialism simply as the social emancipation of all arabs into one Arab Nation... Another example, we both agree that Blair and Lenin were socialists, but do their respective socialism' have any common denominators? I can't think of any; I mean, both supported social justice and democracy (but so do anyone...) What common denominators in socialist thinking do Attlee and Kim Jong-un share? I'm guessing none. What common denominators to Einar Gerhardsen, a social democrat who supported economic planning, share with Roger Douglas, a keen supporter of privatization? ... I'm willing to go on the line and state that these people have very different interpretations and personal definition of what socialism is.--TIAYN (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What they all share in common is history, specifically that they can all be traced by to the individuals, groups and literature of the First International, and have retained some of the terminology and symbolism (such as the color red). As the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1-2, says, "First, there were general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of capital.... Second, there was a general view that the solution to these problems lay in dome form of collective control...over the means of production."[4] How far society should intervene, and whether government, particularly existing government, was the correct vehicle for change, are issues of disagreement.

India btw is not a socialist state, it is a capitalist state, even if it follows socialist guiding principles. TFD (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

India might be a "socialist state" as per its constitution, but that does not mean that India has a socialist economic system or even that India's government is actively pursuing the development of socialism. We need to be careful to distinguish between the form of government, the official ideal/policy orientation of a government, and the economic system of a country.-Battlecry 09:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014

lenin isn't a social democrat but a communist. It needs to be edited out of notable social democrats http://www.biography.com/people/vladimir-lenin-9379007#synopsis Jsmetalcore (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that the term "social democrat" is used to refer to different things. Under one of those definitions, Lenin was a social democrat - a member of the Social Democratic Party in the majority ("Bolshevik") wing. TFD (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate source in first sentence

The source cited in the first paragraph() is incorrect and the quote given is not found in the source material it is alleged to originate from. The source material actually draws a distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism.

The paragraph on Page 8 about the Frankfurt Deceleration actually reads as the following: "The Socialist International is an international organization of democratic socialist parties. Their 1951 statement, 'Aims and tasks of Democratic socialism', is commonly called the 'Frankfurt Deceleration'. These forms of democracy can be thought of as stages of development in achieving democratic socialism." --Battlecry 08:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

References

This Article is innacurate because of the recent edits by battlecry, and is offensive to Social Democrats

I am a Social Democrat myself, I use the label in a traditionalist sense -- it means someone who favors a transition from Capitalism to Democratic Socialism over time. I find the changes that were made to the article very offensive. As a Social Democrat, I am a socialist, my goal is the creation of a democratic socialist system that uses some capitalist elements, eventually after hundreds of years, those capitalist elements will vanish. That's what we in the Swedish Social Democratic party believe. Social Democracy is very different than American Liberalism, American Liberalism is farther to the right. American Liberalism is basically European Conservatism. Your definition makes it seem like all Social Democrats have abandoned Socialism. Plenty of us have not, the reason some Social Democrats don't use Socialism (the word that is) is simply because of its "baggage" because they don't want to lose elections. I suggest that this article be used as the basis for the first two paragraphs: http://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy

It's OK to say that *some* Social Democrats don't seek Socialism anymore, it's not OK to make such sweeping changes to the article like that.

"Much of the social democratic political rhetoric on economics today, is like that of progressive liberal rhetoric in the USA, in that it stems from the popularized findings of neo-Keynesian economist Joseph Stiglitz's now famous premise on the problem of economic inequality of the "1%" wealthiest controlling a large portion of the economy while "99%" control a smaller portion."

That's not correct, that's "neo-liberalism," something that we social democrats reject.

"Also, the second paragraph's first sentence is another sentence that does not apply to all contemporary social democratic parties, because as said before, many social democratic parties have come to accept capitalism."

That's also false, just because a party uses *some* capitalist elements, does not make them anti-Socialist. For example, the Chinese Communist Party allows for a good deal of Capitalism within their system, that does not make them "un-communist." They use a what they call a "Social Market Economy." We Social Democrats believe in the same thing.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch37-econ6.htm

Please change the article to reflect the fact that many of us Social Democrats are proud Socialists (like myself), but not all that's fine, and that Social Democracy in the classical sense simply means an evolutionary transition from Capitalism to Democratic Socialism over time, and many of us still use that defintion. And further, just so everyone knows neither Socialist, Social Democratic, nor Communist parties must reject all Capitalism, that's simply not true.

Joe7851 (talk)

The problem with this article is that the topic is not clear. we need to determine what this article is about and what it is not about and what it should be called. You are right that social democracy normally refers to non-Communist socialists, but this article uses it to mean non-socialist Socialists. TFD (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joe7851: Wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote and discuss your personal political viewpoints. My edits are well-sourced by specialized encyclopedias on the subjects of political economy and philosophy. If you can find reliable secondary sources for your claim that contemporary social democrats advocate socialism and social ownership, or that contemporary social democratic parties are really closet socialists who avoid the terminology to win elections, then I will be open to discuss incorporating them into the article. And I never claimed that all individuals belonging to social democratic parties have abandoned the goal of socialism, all I said (which is supported by my sources) is that contemporary social democracy is defined by state interventionism, support for a welfare state, and the pursuit of greater income equality. The definition of social democracy you are using (a reformist movement committed to the gradul establishment of social ownership of the economy) was cited in the lead as a historical definition. -Battlecry 04:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have amended a few parts of the lead to be more inclusive of traditional social democratic viewpoints while remaining consistent with the sources cited. In the first line of the third paragraph, I have added the following (italicized below):

"In the post-war era, social democrats embraced the idea of reforming capitalism and, at least in practice, rejected the goal of replacing capitalism with socialism."

This edit is consistent with the source given and is inclusive enough to accept the possibility that individual social democrats might still advocate socialism. I have also added the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph, but will leave it to you to find reliable secondary sources (preferably comprehensive sources like academic journal articles or citations from dictionaries and encyclopedias specializing in political science or a related field as opposed to highly generalized sources like Merriam-Webster), to verify that modern social democracy continues to be defined by its historical early-20th century definition:

Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political movement that aims to achieve socialism through gradual and democratic means --Battlecry 05:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be about topics, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Can you please explain what you think this article is about? Is it non-Communist socialism, as represented by members of the Socialist International, or is it the right-wing element within them? The Encyclopedia Britannica defines it as the SPD, while others define it as policies in the Nordic countries. What is it? TFD (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would define social democracy as a political ideology that aims to achieve greater social equality through state interventions, typically involving advocacy for a welfare state, collective bargaining and economic interventionism/regulation. I recognize that the ideology has been defined differently throughout history - first it was a Marxist current, then became associated with non-Communist reformist socialism, until finally acquiring its current definition. So the article should touch upon all these historical definitions but mainly focus on the contemporary concept of it as a welfare state/interventionist ideology that exists in countries like Sweden. And now I will pose the same question to you TFD: what topic(s) should this article cover? -Battlecry 06:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Battlecry and The Four Deuces: You're edits are bad, and you are using sources very badly if thats the only confirmed view I can find. I'm a member of the Norwegian Labour Party, and socialist and social democrat is used interchangeably by many of our leaders. Other social democratic parties use socialists more than social democracy, such as the Socialist Party of Chile and the Social Democratic Party of Austria.. This article only reflects Third Way social democracy... There has never been one definition of social democracy, and this article should not pretend their is one in the lead. --TIAYN (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Battlecry and The Four Deuces: Battlecry, what you would personally define social democracy as is irrelevant. I am also a member of a Social Democratic Party and we openly say we are both "Socalist" and "Democratic Socialist" and that is openly our goal. Please stop doing this to wikipedia. Just because you would define social democracy a cetain way does not make that true. You need to be more respectful of people and their viewpoint rather than just write articles because you think it sounds nice. I'm going to change it back. And please, other social democrats, please speak up, this is openly wrong and disrepectful to our views. For example, the Swedish Social Democrats are a member of the "Party of European Socialists" http://www.pes.eu/ That is "Socialists!" Johnlgreen

As another example, this is Stefan Löfven’s recent speach. He is the leader of the Swedish Social Democrats. He openly calls himself in the speech a "Socialist Democrat," just search for that term. http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/upload/Arrangemang/Kongress/Kongress_13/TextOfASpeechStefanLofvenCongress2013.pdf He's a Socialist, because that's what we Social Democrats are, and he just won an election.

And another thing battlecry, you yourself wrote on your talk page that you think sweden is not socialist because the means of production are mostly privatley owned. Socialism is not that black and white, we Social Democrats beleive in the creation of a socialist system over time by reforming capitalism. That is our goal now.

(talk) 09:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: Are you suggesting that the Norwegian Labour Party and other mainstream social democratic parties advocate a socialist economic system of some kind, or are they just using "Socialist" to describe themselves because it is the official name of their party or out of tradition? Regardless, I agree with you that there is more than one definition of social democracy... but in general discourse and in my time as a university student, "social democracy" has almost always been used to refer to a mixed capitalist economy with a strong welfare state and collective bargaining system - the only time it is referred to as a movement aiming to build socialism is in a historical context (the 19th century and interwar periods). This is also what the major encyclopedias on relevant topics have defined social democracy as... which is not the same thing as the Third Way. That being said, I am open to including alternate definitions in the opening paragraph... if you can find me a reputable source that states that contemporary social democracy is a movement that aims to build socialism, we can find a way to include it in the lead. --Battlecry 10:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Battlecry, the term "social democracy" is used to mean different things. In fact that is typical with most terms used to describe ideology. However, articles in Wikipedia are supposed to disambiguate different topics that have the same name. I suggest that this article should be merged into socialism, and the different topics that are called social democracy have their own articles.

Your definition of social democracy is consistent with the definition of socialism. It is a view that the inequality caused by capitalism is a problem that should be addressed by some social control over the means of production. What differs is how and how much. Of course one can argue that stakeholder democracy, socialism with Chinese characteristics, etc., fail to achieve any social control, but that is the intention written into those ideologies.

Also, we should not confuse the policies of the Swedish Social Democrats with their ideology. The Social Democrats believed that implimenting social liberal policies would elevate the health, wealth and education of working people, who would then work to build socialism. So we have the confusion that the liberal captialist welfare state is called social democracy. The solution is to have separate articles about Nordic Social Democracy and the welfare state.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I agree that Social democracy can refer to different things. But contemporary academic texts refer to it as an ideology that seeks to create greater equality, etc. within capitalism rather than a movement to replace capitalism with a qualitatively different economic system. Do you have a source that states that contemporary social democrats in Sweden still aim to build socialism (I don't entirely disagree with you - I know the Meidner Plan was initially an attempt to promote social ownership as late as the 1980s) - and if some Swedish social democrats do, do they represent the majority of the Social Democratic movement throughout the world? The sources I have provided don't specifically indicate that Social democracy (meaning a welfare state and interventionism) is a specifically Swedish or Nordic phenomenon... it is a comprehensive enough topic to deserve its own article. And I would strongly disagree with you that socialism is about "social control". Socialism is about social ownership, which is about eliminating the distinction between those who live on passive income and those who work for a wage/salary. Greater equality might be a positive side-effect, but it's not the main goal of socialists (including Karl Marx who was notorious for rejecting idealist notions like equality). Regardless, "social control" in the form of social planning or regulation is not universally applicable to all major forms of socialism like anarchism and market socialism... the common thread is specifically social ownership. But I digress. -Battlecry 23:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The article does not provide as sources any books or articles about social democracy, merely a few definitions in tertiary sources. However, the first source (Heywood, p. 125) says, "As an ideological stance, social democracy took shape around the mid-twentieth century." That is a clear reference to Sweden's Social Democrats, Germany's SDP and the Labour Party of Atlee in power, i.e., socialists who followed social liberal policies rather than say Blair who followed neoliberal policies, although it could be seen as part of it. Also, it does not include socialism prior to that, so no reason for the article to mention the First and Second Internationals or Ramsay MacDonald or Bernstein.

You are correct that '"social control" in the form of social planning or regulation is not universally applicable to all major forms of socialism...." I did not say it was, merely that social ownership or control is a common thread.

So what is the topic of the article?

TFD (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The other sources indicate that the post-war definition emerged from within the interwar definition (as reformist socialism). The issue here is there are generally three major phases: first social democracy was an orthodox Marxist socialist movement, second it became a reformist socialist movement, and finally it became a movement to reform capitalism via social and economic policy interventions. The last definition is the most current as it represents the state of social democracy today. Again, the topic of the article is the third definition I have given. But we still need to mention at least briefly in the lead, the historical progression of how the modern conception emerged from the social democratic movement. -Battlecry 05:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a single source that provides an approach similar to yours. It seems that when the article was written it followed the Encyclopedia Britannica definition as revisionist socialism in Germany, then someone else changed it to the Third Way and finally you have chosen to define it as post-war socialism. Please provide a book or article that provides a template for what this article should say. TFD (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The second, ninth and eleventh sources in the current version[5] of the article clearly delineates a progression of social democracy from a reformist socialist movement to a "contemporary" phase defined as support for a welfare state etc. Granted these are tertiary sources, they show a fairly straightforward progression of the evolution of social democracy's goals, aims and meaning as an outgrowth of the socialist movement that in large part came to accept the viability of capitalism, albeit with social policies in place to ensure a tolerable level of equity. -Battlecry 08:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

2: "The idea of social democracy is now used to describe a society the economy of which is predominantly capitalist...."

9: "Bernstein was also cautious about the use of social spending to ameliorate capitalism; he ranked what would later be called the ‘welfare state’ as a helpful intervention, but ultimately secondary to more decisive policies intended to attack the source of poverty and inequality." 11. "...since World War II, distinctions have sometimes been made between social democrats and socialists on the basis that the former have accepted the permanence of the mixed economy and have abandoned the idea of replacing the capitalist system with a qualitatively different socialist society."

2 defines sd as the welfare state. 9. defines it as Bernsteins's non-Communist socialists. 11. defines it as the right-wing of the non-Communist socialist movement. Three different concepts.

TFD (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   "No one thinks of destroying civil society as a community ordered in a civilized war. Quite to the contrary, Social Democracy does not want to break up civil society and make all its members proletarians together; rather, it ceaselessly labours to raise the worker from the social position of a proletarian to that of a citizen and thus make citizenship universal. It does not want to replace civil society with a proletarian society but a capitalist order of society with a socialist one." Eduard Bernstein[65]

Bernstein urged social democrats to be committed to a long-term agenda of transforming the capitalist economy to a socialist economy rather than a sudden upheaval of capitalism, saying:

   "Social democracy should neither expect nor desire the imminent collapse of the existing economic system … What social democracy should be doing, and doing for a long time to come, is organize the working class politically, train it for democracy, and fight for any and all reforms in the state which are designed to raise the working class and make the state more democratic." Eduard Bernstein[66]

Bernstein accepted a mixed economy for an unspecified amount of time:[67]

   "It [socialism] would be completely mad to burden itself with the additional tasks of so complex a nature as the setting up and controlling of comprehensive state production centers on a mass scale – quite apart from the fact that only certain specific branches of production can be run on a national basis…Competition would have to be reckoned with, at least in the transitional period." Eduard Bernstein.[67]

   "[...] in addition to public enterprises and cooperative enterprises, there are enterprises run by private individuals for their own gain. In time, they will of their own accord acquire a cooperative character." Eduard Bernstein.[

@The Four Deuces: This is how I understand the subject of the article: social democracy is the political movement and ideology that aims to achieve social justice and equality, and has remained committed to those goals but has changed its methods and values. Initially social democrats believed capitalism was the root cause of these problems so believed socialism was a solution; then they modified their stance by stating that capitalism is not the issue and can thus be regulated, etc. to achieve social democratic values. This is what the sources given present Social Democracy as. Yes, TFD is correct when he says there are different concepts being discussed here (the post-war definition of social democracy as a type of welfare state and the per-war definition as reformist socialism). My question for TFD is how he proposes structuring the article to accommodate this?

@Somedifferentstuff: The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have as much weight as encyclopedias specializing in political science, political philosophy or political economy. As it currently stands, the article has more reputable sources defining contemporary social democracy as a political ideology that supports social justice, interventionism and redistribution within capitalism and not as a movement that aims to replace capitalism with socialism - though the latter is cited in a historical context. This is why I have the former as the first major definition of social democracy and the latter referenced in a historical context. - Battlecry 08:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If one accepts your definition of social democracy, then the article should be merged into socialism. Social democracy is then merely a term to distinguish socialists from communists. I disagree too that any socialists or social democrats do not believe capitalism is the root cause of social injustice and inequality, otherwise they would be liberals. Social liberals do not think that capitalism causes problems, merely that it does not solve all problems which they see as pre-dating capitalism. TFD (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I never implied that social democrats are merely non-Communist socialists, my position is that (modern) social democrats accept capitalism and don't question its underlying dynamics, whereas socialists aim to replace capitalism with an alternative socialist system. Social democrats are not the same thing as social liberals in this sense - they favor more comprehensive welfare systems than liberals (universal services vs. services aiming specifically to help the poor and unemployed) and are more likely to advocate for collective bargaining/corporatist wage bargaining. This article should focus on this modern conception of post-war Social democracy as something distinct from socialism since that is how it is commonly defined today. But we still cannot completely avoid describing pre-Second World War reformism because post-war social democracy grew out of this reformist movement. - Battlecry 23:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead says, "Initially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, social democracy aimed to replace private ownership with social ownership of the means of production, and adhered to a Marxist theoretical framework." That is indistinguishable from socialism and contradicts the statement that social democrats want to retain capitalism. The problem with the article is that it uses the term sd to mean different things. Of course there should be an article about Labour opponents of Clause IV and SPD supporters of the Godesberg Program. Maybe we should rename this article "Modern social democracy" and re-direct sd to "Socialism." TFD (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You make a fair point. Perhaps a brief overview of "classic" social democracy and reformist social democracy should be included (if not already) in the main socialism article under its "politics" section, and the existing article on "social democracy" should focus on the modern conception of post-war social democracy as economic interventionism, universalist welfare state provisions, and collective bargaining based on ethical appeals which exist within the framework of Western capitalism. This could cover the "social democratic" aspects of existing social welfare models like the Nordic model and the history of post-war social democracy. I would be in favor of this sort of restructuring. - Battlecry 04:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Marx position

I just wanted to explain the latest edits I made to avoid possible misunderstanding and taking into account @Battlecry reverts:

• It's not accurate to to say that "Marx changed his position", because from the citation from the Hague Congress in 1872 it is clear that he just admitted a possible deviation from his theory in England and USA, while consequently claiming that on the continent the force should be still the main driver of the revolution. Thus I have restored my wording of this paragraph and full citation of his statement.
• Scathing critique of the Gotha Program published just 3 years later (1875) confirms that he didn't change his position significanlty, and is quite consistent with what he said about the revolution on the continent.
• The Gotha Program became the program of Social Democratic Party of Germany in the same year (1875).
• I didn't write that Marx coined the term "social-fascism". I think from the sentence I added it's clear it was Stalin who used it for the first time, but if you feel this can be written in a more clear style, please feel free to rewrite. Marx and Lenin are mentioned here just for the sake of completeness, as they both criticise social-democracy, as documented above.

Kravietz (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Saying that Marx was a critic of social democracy is anachronistic. If you want to say that Marx thought revisionist Marxism was pro-capitalist, then say that and explain why he thought that. Similarly saying that Stalin called social democrats social fascists is confusing unless you explain what he meant. TFD (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks like an article describing Third Way instead of social democracy

Social democracy embraces socialism through reformism, instead of other forms which seek socialism with another forms of approach. Nevertheless, they did not give up on socialism, or even democratic socialism (its final goal). That's why I think the introduction text is poorly written. — B.Lameira (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes and after all you can't redifine social democracy as ideology just because social democratic party changed its approach, just like you can't redefine fascism becaouse some fascist party change it.

The problem is that there is no clear definition of the topic. It can mean non-communist socialists or the right-wing of socialism for example. Encyclopedia Britannica identifies it as the ideology of the German Social Democratic Party. I think this article should explain the different meanings of the term rather than be about any of the various topics called social democracy. TFD (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thing is that social democracy is an ideology which aims to gradually build socialism through elections and parliamentary means, democratic socialism is system combining democratic political system and socialist economic system, and socialism is social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.39.140.67 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 January 2016

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016

The last sentence in the second paragraph reads: As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism, and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of abolishing the capitalist system (private property, factor markets and wage labour)[4] and substituting it for a qualitatively different socialist economic system.

I suggest that, to clarify and simplify the sentence, the word "abolishing" be replaced by "replacing", and the phrase "and substituting it for" by the word "by" or "with". I suggest it should then read As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism, and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (private property, factor markets and wage labour)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system. LeeLance (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Reasonable grammar-wise, but the source at the end of the sentence specifically mentions abolishing capitalism. From the quote in the reference, In the second, mainly post-war, phase, social democrats came to believe that their ideals and values could be achieved by reforming capitalism rather than abolishing it. They favored a mixed economy in which most industries would be privately owned, with only a small number of utilities and other essential services in public ownership.. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes but we don't have to follow slavishly the individual words used in one individual source (indeed, if you do that for a string of words, it becomes plagiarism). As acknowledged, the suggested change reads much better, without changing the fundamental point. N-HH talk/edits 10:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

N-HH makes a valid point: we don't have to slavishly follow the specific phraseology of the source material. If the proposed edits are grammatically correct, doesn't distort the the information encapsulated in the citation, and is more concise and/or readable for a general audience, then they are worth considering. -Battlecry 01:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016

In the section "Notable social democrats" there is not the name of Greek Social democrat ex prime minister of Greece "Andreas Papandreou".The leader and the founder of PASOK the Greek social democratic party of Greece StathisPanagiotopoulos (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terra ^❤ 02:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see the value of the list. Papandreou's party was the Socialist Party. TFD (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2016

In the section "Notable Social Democrats" I would suggest to add the Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky, who was one of the most influential European social democrats during his tenure and was a leading figure of the Socialist International. Also many of his contemporaries and friends such as Olof Palme and Willy Brandt are already listed.

91.141.0.88 (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 08:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

notable social democrats

There is no citation for Bernie Sanders as a notable social democrat. As a self-identifed democratic socialist, he shouldn't be put under both the article for "democratic socialism", and "Social democracy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggeezy (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a citation for Nelson Mandela on this list? I was under the impression he was more democratic-socialist (or even left of that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.212.25 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

well, there is not always a totally clear line between social democrats and democratic socialists 13:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.146.49 (talk)

Nelsons Mandela was actually a Communist, which is also confirmed by the SACP. The policies in South Africa did however resemble social democracy, due to the power constellation. --41.145.240.177 (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As I am not certain, the edit has not been made but would it not be fair to argue that, on the basis of policy, Harold Wilson should be included in the category of social democrat. From Ben Pimlott's Political Biography of Harold Wilson, the assertion is often made that he never legislated with the intention of replacing capitalism and 'talked left to steer the party centre' in the same way that his predecessor, Harold Macmillan had talked right to steer his party centre. Also incured the wrath of Bevanites later, and of Tony Benn. Evidence suggests that he was not a democratic socialist and so should be included in the list of notables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkshireCricket (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible errors: the article makes a point of describing the differences between democratic socialism and social democracy, but then goes on to list a number of social democrats (erroneously labelled democratic socialists), by the article's own metric, as democratic socialists.

Furthermore, these social democrats (such as Bernie Sanders) aren't listed in the social democracy page either. - bluntpencil2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluntpencil2001 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

UK section in "Decline (2010-Present)"

I don't believe it's fair to say that the decline of Scottish Labour signifies a decreasing popularity of social democracy; there are two key points to be made about this.

First is that Scottish Labour's lack of popularity comes from the view that they are incompetent at standing up for Scotland, and that they colluded with the Scottish Conservatives in the Better Together Campaign, not because of its policy of social democracy (which arguably it doesn't hold).

Second is that Scottish Labour's popularity has essentially been replaced by the Scottish National Party - a social democratic party in itself.

Thus Scottish electoral results do not suggest a lack of popularity for social democracy, and even if they do, the example given (that of Scottish Labour) is irrelevant to the article and should be removed.

OldNewBorrowedBlue (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Also, the whole section is original research. As Socialist parties have abandoned "social democratic" policies, Left parties have filled their ideological space. TFD (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Some right wing thinkers criticism of social democracy would be highly welcomed...

In the criticism section to this social democracy article, there is no right wing criticism of social democracy . Why? Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the benefit of everyone and free of any political bias.

To say that social democracy as such is not socialist enough is nothing but just one kind of possible flaw: the kind of flaw that a socialist would think of those political views of the world that aren't socialist enough.

Many people doesn't like, nor agrees with, social democracy, let alone socialism. Therefore, other kinds of criticism on the subject at hand need to be sought.

For example, and apart from the most obvious criticism (that social democracy isn't capitalist enough), you can mention one of the most common criticism to such political systems: that they lead to these so-called 'Nany States'. The flaws inherent to such kind of arrangements of society are many and evident. For starters, you cannot babysit an entire country and expect not to suffer the consequences of it. Just as idolatry leads to emptiness, nany-states will lead to: (1) weakened standards in general: the upsurge and idolization of mediocrity as an end in itself (excellence, discipline, responsability and all of the highest virtues: all of them down the toilet in the long run); (2) the softening of moral principles, and inescapable, widespread moral decadence (recalcitrant corruption, ever more higher levels of criminality, etc, etc, conform the pot of gold at the end of the social democratic "rainbow"); (3) an ever growing dependence on state benefits, and the subsequent economic ruin; etc, etc.

You can say that, in the long run, social democracies foster an unhealthy, parasitic view and attitude towards life and people in general. It is already a sign of decadence from a society when it wishes for the arrival of some political system like communism, socialism or social democracy... Unwishful Thinker (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

216.183.48.98 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I need add a really important personality of social democracy

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 18:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017

Include current leader of the New Democratic Party Jagmeet Singh as a person associated with social democracy 70.51.45.78 (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"Decline" section again: here or in Pasokification

Hello, I noticed that the section "Decline in Western Europe (2010s–present)" has a list of national parties and their losses in the 2010s. Another, similar list ermergens on the Pasokification article. I suggest that we have the list here or there, not in both articles. I wonder a little bit how established is the term "pasokification". Ziko (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Social Democracy is not socialism.

Due to the popularity of Bernie Sanders and other far-left voices in the Democratic party, and their incorrect mixing of the terms "social democracy" and "democratic socialism", there seems to have been a lot of confusion among many Americans about meaning of those terms. Social Democracy is a highly successful system which is in use in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and to some degree Germany and is based around a capitalist economic system. Democratic Socialism on the other hand, which has been in practice in Angola, Barbados, Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritius, Mazambique, Nepal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Tanzania, Venezuela and Zambia, IS based on a socialist economic system, and has little in common with Social Democracy. I would like to point out that Social Democracy is not, and has never been a "socialist" system, and therefor should not be a "part of a series on socialism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BreakingZews (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that say that? Anyway, the parties that support the economic models in Norway, etc., include parties across the political spectrum including extreme right, conservatives, christian democrats, liberals, greens, socialists or social democrats, and left parties. TFD (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

To quote the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede: Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism. This idea is woven through the rest of the article. So either social democracy is a type of socialism, or the article needs to be rewritten whole cloth. The consensus sides with the first option. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

While Social Democracy may INITIALLY have been considered an transition from capitalism to socialism, that has never happened. No social democracy has ever transitioned to become a socialist society. No matter what the initial thoughts behind the creation of social democracy was over a hundred years ago, the fact is that it quickly evolved into a political system that could stand on it's own, and became an better functioning alternative than socialism. Social Democracies have a CAPITALIST economic system, and are capitalist by definition. I live in Norway(and have lived in both Denmark and Iceland as well), we have a right-wing government, and this country is VERY far from socialism, in spite of being social democratic. There is a quite big left wing social democratic Labour Party(AP), but the "Socialist Party"(SV) only gets about 4-5% of the votes. This labelling is simply incorrect. Social Democracy is not socialism. BreakingZews (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Social Democratic was/is the name of socialist parties in some countries. The term came to be associated with the positions of the German and Swedish parties. The first advocated revisionist Marxism, while the second advocated a comprehensive welfare state. It subsequently became a term of abuse by Communists to refer to mainstream socialist parties and by left-wing socialists to their more moderate socialist opponents. It is also used a synonym to differentiate democratic socialist parties from communists or as a synonym for the welfare states of Western Europe. This article suffers from conflating all ways in which the term is used, which is original research and misleading. The theory that the gradual nationalization of industry will lead to socialism has never been called social democracy. TFD (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Social Democratic is not the name of the socialist parties in any countries. There are left wing social democratic parties, yes, but the socialist parties do not identify as social democratic and those parties usually do not get a substantial part of the vote in the social democratic countries(here in Norway the socialist party gets about 4-6% lately). And notice that also the biggest RIGHT WING parties identify as social democratic parties. They do absolutely not identify with socialism. Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are two VERY different concepts, even though there may be some overlaps. BreakingZews (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts with Democratic Socialism

There are political parties listed here that are being said to have embraced capitalism that the Democratic socialism page is claiming as pushing for pure socialism. Also these two articles seem to use the same history, people and examples to say opposite things regarding socialisms ability to remain in a free market economy. The similarity of the names also may cause confusion. Would it be worth combining these pages and just having two paragraphs talking about whether to work with or against capitalism? Stuck Internetting (talk) 6:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This page could then become a disambiguation page which could say "Social democracy can refer to: a synonym for democratic socialism, especially in Europe, the ideology of the German Social Democratic Party, the right wing of socialism or the welfare state." TFD (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Social Democracy is fundamentally different from Democratic Socialism, something which can easily be seen in how successful social democracy has been in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and other places, and how unsuccessful Democratic Socialism has been in Venezuela, Ecuador, Congo, Tanzania, and everywhere else it has been tried. Contrary to Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy is not socialism, does not aim for a socialistic society at all, but is simply an moderated form of capitalism, capitalism with relatively high taxes, and tax-payer funded education and health care. Socialist parties in the Scandinavian countries usually do not refer to themselves as social democratic, but most of the large and moderate left AND right wing parties are considered social democratic. The conservative party here in Norway, which is the most powerful party in government and has the Prime Minister, is social democratic. It is absolutely not socialistic in any way... social democracy is NOT socialism, this is a misunderstanding/misconception that is being actively promoted by American democrats, something which can be seen here in both the Wikipedia articles on Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. The largest left wing party in Norway, the labour party, is not socialist. While it may have started out as a socialist party in the 1887, it moved away from socialism and was a social democratic party as it came to power in 1935. The socialist party usually receives only about 4-6% of the vote here in Norway. There are right wing governments in Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and in Sweden the right wing won the last election easily, but as one of the biggest parties is very critical of immigration and originated from a nazi group, the Swedes have struggled on agreeing on a government platform. My point being, most of the Social Democratic countries are right wing now, and while they sometimes have had moderate left wing social democratic parties in control of government, they have NEVER been socialist. American Democrats need to stop using Wikipedia to promote this misconception, just to be able to point at the Scandinavian countries when promoting "democratic socialism", it is fundamentally wrong. BreakingZews (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That is your distinction but other people may have different ones. The Labour Party constitution says, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect'." And if you are right that social democracy is the basket of policies that European and other developed nations (except the U.S.) have, then there is nothing to distinguish social democratic from liberal, conservative or even far right parties in those countries. TFD (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This term should be explained and deprecated as a historical point. Also right, liberal, left; similar labels are subjective and presume an accuracy that can never be confirmed ...

There is a problem with the term "Social Democracy" that requires a revision and deprecation announcement. I will suggest the x to y change below, but first an explanation.

1. Wikipedia has a pervasive credibility problem with topics that discuss sustainable monetary system cycle management; definitions here are hijacked for "Social Contract", "Late Capitalism", "Business Cycle", Kondraiteiff Waves, too-broad descriptions of "Socialism" - and these hijacks are protected by editors when expert revision is suggested too. See Use Case for Monetary Systems and Social Contract Report at CSQ Research for accurate definitions).

2. Before you hear the next statement, you should probably hear that I not an alarmist nor a conspiracy theorist, not liberal nor conservative, etc.; rather, who I am - is a 25-year C-level technology and automation engineer, and a researcher with six books & theses, forty articles, (4000 pages) on Sustainable Societies - see think-tank CSQ Research at csq1.org. My research examines books and systems designed to create sustainable societies, and problem solves why they were so consistently unsuccessful.

I won't be the first researcher to point out that contemporary Economics teach theories about how an economy should work, rather than how an economy does work. Relying upon theory which is proven to fail in observation, is an unscientific approach - the fact that we have arrived in another preventable mature capitalism confirms this is a true statement. Read about Jubilee Years in Leviticus 25:26 and Code of Hammurabi to see that monetary systems have lifespans - and to confirm this condition has repeated in history dozens of times due to the mathematical certainty of compounding annual inflation. I advance the science of Transition Economics because "it is an empirical, simple, and absolutely defendable view of what economies do"(as should all of our encyclopedic entries be). As with any new science - like the Theory of Relativity e=mc2 - which took 20-years to be broadly accepted by western Academics (who had invested their careers in Ether in 1905), adoption of defendable studies of Economics will take time similarly.

The statement is this: I cannot voice the importance of understanding and communicating Social Contract - carefully and correctly - strongly enough in today's global mature capitalism. Why is this? : If the events of twenty recorded mature capitalisms in history repeat, the human race (100% of it) is in danger of nuclear obliteration - within 8 to 10 years (before 2030) - in its first mature capitalism within a mature nuclear era.

Climate activists want to explain that by 2035 our obliteration will be assured; nuclear winter might have killed us all off several years earlier - so really, even climate - is just an important series of projects, of secondary importance.

Mature Capitalisms were prevented in the past, and are preventable today, by Social Contract (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 1654; 1945 Universal Rights - Eleanor Roosevelt) - peacefully.

The costs of misunderstanding Social Contract Theory is enormous; $3.6 billion per day per country.

What are the "X to Y" changes needed here?

(I would like to suggest an open, iterative development effort here, by experts in this topic only, please. Bring your research and please assist this important discussion.)

1. Social Democracy - Social Programs within a democracy build Social Contract; Strong Social Contracts are proven to build advancing economies, and weak Social Contracts are proven to result in collapse-trending economies; see http://csq1.org/SCP. Finally, these same Social Contracts build strong economies reliably in Monarchies and other systems of government, presumably. The term Social Democracy ignores a thought-through Use Case for Monetary Systems.

2. References to "liberal are not correct, Social Contract is empirically proven to create advancing economies at all points in a monetary system's cycle - The Americans had it early in our current monetary system cycle and the Irish, Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, and soon Germans; have it today.

"Social Contract" is, therefore, a conservative policy. The fact that historians have misunderstood this topic is irrelevant based on new, empirically defendable information.

Conservative Policies in new or early monetary system cycles change from Capitalistic Laissez-faire, to policies that protect Social Contract - as the monetary system cycles mature.

I will add more detail in coming days. Are there any objections here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edtilley4 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Following sentence may need to be split

This is all one sentence:

While democratic socialism is largely defined as an anti-Leninist and anti-Stalinist left, socialist big tent that opposes authoritarian and statist forms of socialism, rejects self-described socialist states as well as Marxism–Leninism and its derivatives such as Stalinism and Maoism and includes classical Marxist, libertarian socialist (anti-authoritarian, socialism from below), market socialist, neo-communist, orthodox Marxist (Bernsteinism, Kautskyism and Luxemburgism) and social democratic tendencies, it is also defined as social democracy prior to the 1970s, when the displacement of Keynesianism caused many social democratic parties to adopt the Third Way ideology, accepting capitalism as the current powers that be and redefining socialism in a way that it maintains the capitalist structure intact.

Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And note it has 18 footnotes interspersed throughout the sentence. It doesn't actually say anything, so I think it is better to take it out. TFD (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)