Talk:Social democracy/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Social democracy is not socialist

Latest comment: 3 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

Please respect the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung's work on this. I understand some people really want to stretch the definition of socialism to be "whenever the government does something".

https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/05818.pdf
https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ghana/10519.pdf
Furthermore, Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy

More sources:

Godless Raven (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Luke March's article does not say whether or not social democracy is a form of socialism, but your next sources, "Basics on Social Democracy" and EB say it is. I think it is more accurate to say that social democracy does not meet your definition of socialism. TFD (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Really? Is that why it contrasts it all the time with socialists (such as democratic socialism, populist socialism, etc.) on page 3? With regards to "Basics on Social Democracy" and Encyclopedia Britannica, can you explicitly quote it? Godless Raven (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It says, "The Socialist International is to this day the biggest socialist organization, with 115 parties from all over the world. The members' political views range from social democratic to labor political; and they must be clearly distinguished from the term 'socialism' as it was interpreted by the former Eastern European states." ("Basics on Social Democracy.") Incidentally, the party that supports the publisher is a member of the European Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. 04:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well here is the other part (p. 37): "Today's understanding of socialism varies largely from country to country. In the U.S. or Germany you would never call a social democrat a 'socialist'. Here the word 'socialist' suggests an ideological proximity to the brutal and unjust dictatorships of the former East European systems. For German or American social democrats, which clearly believe in a vibrant market economy and oppose any form of anti-democratic movements, 'socialist' is very negatively associated." Godless Raven (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Whereas in English (the U.S. excluded) speaking countries and France, socialist is perfectly fine, social democratic sounds foreign or namby pamby. That's what the socialist parties of Germany and Sweden and are called and what Communists call them. U.S. usage is changing too. Note that the EB article is about the ideology of the German Social Democratic Party, also called revisionist socialism, while the term is also used to describe the Scandinavian welfare states.

Note that in France, both liberal and conservative have negative connotations, so people don't use the terms for self-identification. Conservative used to have a negative connotation in the U.S., but now many people call themselves that, while fewer people now call themselves liberals. It's all regional semantics.

TFD (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You may believe that, but "social democracy is socialist" is not an accurate description of the situation at hand, considering the historical implications this has, d'accord? Godless Raven (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Or, to better elaborate my point: Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point-of-view (NPOV); describing social democracy as socialist only reflects your side while it ignores my side that clearly rejects that label. Godless Raven (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It reflects what your sources say. The only point they make is that German socialists prefer to call themselves social democrats to distinguish themselves from Communists. A friend of mine prefers to call himself English instead of British to distinguish himself from non-English British. It doesn't mean he isn't British or that English people aren't British. Similarly, social democracy is within socialism.

The problem may be your definition of socialism. I refer you to the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1-2.[1]

Incidentally, I don't have a "side" in this, I am merely following reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Except you are only following reliable sources that agree with your preconceived notions of socialism? Godless Raven (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I use standard reference books that review all the different views of the topic and summarize them. Obviously you didn't read the source I provided. You on the other hand have provided no sources that support your opinion that social democracy is not a form of socialism. If you can't provide any sources for your opinions, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. TFD (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Good, maybe call a moderator to solve this impasse then? Godless Raven (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There are no moderators. In any case you need to provide a source that backs what you say. I notice that the SDP re-affirms its commitment to democratic Socialism in its Hamburg Program 2015.[2] TFD (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I provided you a source, even multiple ones. You just rejected it. Also, it's the SPD, not SDP.

"This article explores the ‘democratic socialism’ being proposed by new left movements on either side of the Atlantic, and evaluates its claim to be a form of anti‐ or postcapitalism. It argues that in the democratic socialist worldview, the line between capitalism and socialism rests on the balance of power between workers and capitalists in the economic sphere. While traditional social democracy seeks to redistribute wealth but leaves relations between workers and capitalists within firms untouched, democratic socialism seeks to abolish private property in the economic sphere." (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-923X.12830)
"Democratic socialist parties define themselves both in opposition to »totalitarian« communism and »neo-liberal« social democracy and fully espouse »new left« themes such as feminism, environmentalism and self-management, advocating a non-dogmatic and in many cases non-Marxist socialism which emphasises themes of local participation and substantive democracy, and support for alternative lifestyles and ethnic minorities. (https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/05818.pdf)"
"The umbrella term for all supporters of a more just and equal society was 'socialists'. A clear division between communists, democratic socialists or social democrats was not yet possible. During years of heated political discussions, distinctions between the political movements began to form." (https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ghana/10519.pdf)
"While Western Europe experienced a democratic development, Eastern Europe states turned into totalitarian regimes. As these non-democratic 'people's democracies' called themselves 'social' or 'socialists', social democratic parties had to clearly distinguish themselves." (https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ghana/10519.pdf)
"The members' political views range from social democratic to labor political; and they must be clearly distinguished from the term 'socialism' as it was interpreted by the former Eastern European states. For a more detailed distinction between socialism and social democracy read, e.g., the chapter 'Different Political Ideologies'." (https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ghana/10519.pdf)
"Today's understanding of socialism varies largely from country to country. In the U.S. or Germany you would never call a social democrat a 'socialist'. Here the word 'socialist' suggests an ideological proximity to the brutal and unjust dictatorships of the former East European systems. For German or American social democrats, which clearly believe in a vibrant market economy and oppose any form of anti-democratic movements, 'socialist' is very negatively associated." (https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ghana/10519.pdf)
"Social democracy, political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the second half of the 20th century, there emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, which generally espoused state regulation, rather than state ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy)

Godless Raven (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Your sources don't support your claim. The most you can say is that the democratic socialism of parties in the Socialist International differed from the state socialism of Communist countries and to distinguish themselves, some democratic socialists prefer to use the term social democratic. Again, I suggest you read the section about definitions of socialism in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism which explains how the term covers a wide range of political views. TFD (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem unable to even concede anything, I say we reached an impasse. As it stands, the article does not reflect a NPOV and reliable sources are being ignored to bolster a narrative that is factually false and misleading. Godless Raven (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, it perfectly reflects the sources both you and I have provided. What incidentally is your definition of socialism? TFD (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Common ownership of the means of production. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Godless Raven (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Your link goes on to say that socialism "refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal." Also, socialism can mean either a political ideology or a social system. This article clearly uses it in the first sense. "This article is about the political ideology within the socialist movement. For the type of capitalism adopted by social democrats in the post-war period, see Democratic capitalism." Contrary to your statement that in the U.S. one would never call a social democrat a socialist, Merrian-Webster's says that social democracy is "now often referred to as democratic socialism." A 2018 poll of Americans finds that only 17% of Americans define socialism as "government ownership of the means of production....Americans today are most likely to define socialism as connoting equality for everyone."[3] As Tony Blair said in his maiden speech, "I am a socialist...because I believe that, at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for cooperation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality." So I agree that the system of social democracy is not a form of socialism, but a form of capitalism. But the article clearly says that. The ideology of social democracy is however within the ideology of socialism. Incidentally, in my experience, people who advocated collective ownership of the means of production were called communists, while people who supported parties such as Labour were referred to as socialists. Social democrat was the term used by communists to disparage socialists. TFD (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

As a form of finding common ground, I edited "socialism" to "philosophical socialism", if that's what you mean by this entire thing. Godless Raven (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The original wording was, "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy." Adding philosophical to socialism is redundant. IOW it already said what you wanted it to say. TFD (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Social Democracy is a wing within Socialism. People are confusing the ideology with a party, which is not something Social Scientist do for good reasons. An ideology, a party and the members will not be perfectly aligned. The UK Labour party embracing Social Liberalism or something else is a commentary on the UK political parties it's not changing the ideology of Social Democracy. I worry people are sinking their personal bias into this and that should be avoided. Social Democracy is within Socialism and Social Liberalism is within Liberalism Erzan (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Social Democracy is an economic set of principles within capitalism, not socialism. Nobody is confusing social democracy with any political party. You keep making that claim to everyone here, but I can't see a single person mentioning anything about any political party. Specifically which political party do you think is being referred to? Can you please quote other users statements which lead you to this idea? --Twozerooz (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing Social Democracy with Social Liberalism. Erzan (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Not even in the slightest. Social Liberalism is a very different concept. The Wiki article on the topic will highlight the difference for you, I would suggest you start there. --Twozerooz (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course. Social Liberal is within Liberalism and Social Democracy is within Socialism. Agreed. Erzan (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course that is incorrect, as many here have attempted to educate you on. Please stop vandalizing this page. --Twozerooz (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Social Liberal is within Liberalism and Social Democracy is within Socialism. There are plenty of credible sources to this, such as LSE and Harvard. Please see the sources. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of credible sources have given to you by many other users here. Please see the sources and cease your vandalism. It is not everyone else who is wrong, it is just you. --Twozerooz (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"...a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism..."

Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Economically social democracy relies on capitalism and the tax revenue generated from it to establish it's welfare policies, sources exist stating it is an economic model within capitalism as well, however It actually combines economic principles of capitalism, and welfare principles of socialism, therefore it cannot be classified a "socialist" system or "capitalist" system. We should probably delete the labeling of it as being within "socialism" to a more general term for example; "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports political and economic democracy" removing the "socialism" labeling. Especially since only one source is cited for a strong claim like that. It is it's own socioeconomic model combining elements of capitalism and socialism, it is not a current of socialism nor capitalism. A change should be made to reflect that. Only in the intro paragraph. The history of it is where claims can be made and sourced about its founding ideologies, or historical definitions should remain the same. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Note we are talking about a philosophy not an economic system. Social democracy derives from revisionist Marxism. TFD (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes agreed, it is a derivation of revisionist Marxism. Was just concerned about its labeling as being a socialist model in the intro paragraph since in the modern era social democracy as a system does not advocate worker ownership of the means of production and likewise government ownership of the means of production. It is it's own socioeconomic model in it's own right. But your justification historically accurate. Agreed! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

In some agreement with above, I believe because social democracy is not a type of socialism as is democratic socialism, that the above sentence considered is factually erroneous, and should be changed to read "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy 'that draws from' the philosophical tradition of socialism, 'in support of' political and economic democracy." Even though one could be technically accurate using the words 'derived from ... socialism', this too easily supports the common mislabeling of social democracy as democratic socialism. --Douglas Asland (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the article confuses different concepts. There is social democratic ideology that developed in Germany and then there is the modern welfare state pioneered by the Swedish Social Democrats. TFD (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The confusion is intentional. The left desires to call Scandinavian countries "socialist" so that they can use them as a successful form of Socialism. They have woven together a history of the left in Sweden in order to make it appear to have roots in socialism. In actuality, the government had to abandoned Socialism for capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.109.22 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 14:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)John Dee

The reverse is also true. Only the Soviet Union et al. are the "be end it all" of socialism. Many conservatives and right-wing conservatives called, and still do, post-war social democracy as "socialist". They are wrong, but you are going in the opposite direction by associating socialism only with the Soviet Union et al. There are also many definitions of capitalism and socialism. If you were to define capitalism as 19th-century capitalism before the welfare state, one could as easily define the welfare state as socialism, or at least as a moderate version of it. Venezuela is also routinely called socialist because it is considered a failure, not because a factually analysis says it is socialist, despite as correctly noted by The Four Deuces, who was simply repeating what reliable sources say, being a capitalist economy and in a sense being closer to the post-war consensus than a "centrally-planned economy", the Soviet Union or even Cuba.

According to Christopher Pierson, "[i]f the contrast which 1989 highlights is not that between socialism in the East and liberal democracy in the West, the latter must be recognized to have been shaped, reformed and compromised by a century of social democratic pressure". Pierson further claims that "social democratic and socialist parties within the constitutional arena in the West have almost always been involved in a politics of compromise with existing capitalist institutions (to whatever far distant prize its eyes might from time to time have been lifted)". For Pierson, "if advocates of the death of socialism accept that social democrats belong within the socialist camp, as I think they must, then the contrast between socialism (in all its variants) and liberal democracy must collapse. For actually existing liberal democracy is, in substantial part, a product of socialist (social democratic) forces."

In other words, you want socialism to have no praise for its role in establishing liberal democracy (socialist parties were being banned by liberal-conservative governments such as in Italy and Germany) or the post-war consensus. Of course, there are those to its left who criticise it as a betrayal, for being too timid, for leading us into neoliberalism, etc. As noted by Pierson, the "socialist parties within the constitutional arena in the West have almost always been involved in a politics of compromise with existing capitalist institutions." This. their pragmatism and reformism cause confusion as a socialist can be a socialist without wanting to turn the economy into a centrally-planned one. You say "[i]n actuality, the government had to abandoned Socialism for capitalism", when what you really say, or should say, is that "the government had to abandoned [the goal of a socialist economy] for capitalism." I still do not understand why social democrats would be opposed to workers' self-management or having a mixed-owned economy, i.e. a mix of private, public and cooperative ownership, which would be closer to socialism (neither anarcho-communists such as Kropotkin nor Marx and Engels opposed small-property holdings or personal property), but I digress. The point is that they are still socialists in an ethical or liberal sense and is what distinguish them from social liberals; you may argue, as those to their left have argued, that they have abandoned socialism and everything, but academic and reliable sources show a more nuanced situation.
—Davide King (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

B. M. L. Peters, that is probably because you see socialism and socialist model as the Soviet Union et al. Socialism is not just an economic system, a "centrally-planned economy", or even "government ownership." Social democracy is simply one of the many schools and tradition within the socialist movement. This is what distinguishes it from social liberalism, which today is often conflated with it as the Third Way, i.e. since Third Way social-democrats "adjusted to the political climate since the 1980s that favoured capitalism by recognising that outspoken opposition to capitalism in these circumstances was politically nonviable and that accepting capitalism as the current powers that be and seeking to administer it to challenge laissez-faire liberals was a more pressing immediate concern", hence they distanced themselves from socialism, equated with the Soviet Union et al. (in spite many academics refer to it as state-capitalist or even rejected they were planned economies, calling them command economies), then that somehow means social democracy itself stopped being socialism or envisioning a socialist society, its whole point (socialism defined as social democracy, i.e. political and economic democracy). The lead is clearly referring to the socialist philosophy and movement, not to the Soviet Union et al. which was opposed by social democrats, who made classical/orthodox Marxist criticism of it already in the 1910s and the 1920s. Davide King (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I completely understand. The historical origins of the ideology and the concepts it has brought to the table are no doubt grounded in socialism. I just ask in relation to modern day, if these parties that represent social democracy, can actually be classified as socialist since as we see in the Nordic Model for example, a free market economy within a welfare state, and collective bargaining agreements between employer(s) and employee(s) mediated, economically, can we consider this socialism. All socialist models have one thing in common, that is social ownership. But that does not exist in current social democracies. So historically and originally, social democracy was developed out of Marxism, but currently, in the modern era, can it be called "socialism" by the economic definition. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

B. M. L. Peters, no one nor the article is saying that the Nordic model or current social-democracies are socialist or socialism in the economic sense and many socialists have argued against both of those. However, socialists, among others, did participate in its build up and in countries such as Sweden social democracy became synonym with it. By the way, the Nordic model may be considered 'free-market' capitalism since the 1980s with some neoliberal reforms, but it is actually based on the social corporatist model and closer to the post-war model. The lead is clear that we are not using the economic or Soviet definition of socialism. Again, many people do not seem to understand social-democratic reformism and socialist pragmatism that led many socialist politician and parties to reform, rather than overthrow, the capitalist economic system. That they adopted a mixed economy, rather than a Soviet one, is because of their reformism and pragmatism, not because they abandoned socialism in the philosophical sense. There is this unnecessary stark difference between a Corbyn (who is called a socialist in the Soviet sense, so bad) and a Blair (who is called a social-democrat in the Third Way social-liberal sense, so good) when both are socialist and social-democrat. One is simply more left-wing and the other more centrist and pragmatic, whose socialism is based more on ethical and liberal, rather than economic, socialist principles. That may be absurd, but it is not really absurd when one examines the history of socialism and see similarly huge gaps such as socialists advocating the outright abolition of the state and socialists advocating the use of the state to develop socialism, yet both are considered socialists and part of the socialist movement.

Bear in mind that social democrats such as Crosland thought that post-war capitalism was so different from previous capitalism that it could be argued capitalism was reformed out of existence ("[T]raditional capitalism has been reformed and modified almost out of existence, and it is with a quite different form of society that socialists must now concern themselves. Pre-war anti-capitalism will give us very little help.") I disagree with this view and history proved it wrong when the model, which he seemingly thought was irreversible, was replaced by the neoliberal order, but this just goes to show the difference between social democracy and social liberalism. What you are espousing is one view, but it is not the only one. Most of those complaints come from those who see social democracy only as its right wing (Blair and the Third Way) and ignore its more left wing such as with Corbyn and Sanders (all pre-neoliberal social democracy would be considered to the left of Blair and the Third Way today). In other words, those complaints are based mainly on the Third Way development of social democracy; and even in such case, they did not necessarily abandon socialism (again, socialism in the Soviet sense was already abandoned decades earlier), they were more concerned in fighting the New Right and neoliberalism, even though critics argue that in practice they simply represented a left-wing variant of neoliberalism or a "neoliberalism with a human face" rather than a new left-wing anti-neoliberal stance. I would also redirect to you this and this relevant comments by The Four Deuces.

My personal view is that since the 1970s most social-democratic parties essentially became (neoliberal) social-liberal ones. However, most of those parties are still and routinely called socialist as correctly pointed out by The Four Deuces ("IOW the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test.") While it is true social-democrats adopted social-liberal proposals and policies (indeed, so much so that the paradigm popularised by social-democrats, who put in practice policies advocated by social-liberals, is called the social liberal paradigm, the say way the post-1970s development is described as the neoliberal paradigm), they did so based on socialism and socialist principles. Again, see this comment by The Four Deuces ("The philosophy of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden was that if people were healthy, well-educated and had a decent standard of living, that they would seek to develop a socialist society. They did not consider the welfare state to be socialism but a necessary condition for its development.") and while most social-democratic parties moved to the right since at least the 1970s, they did so because all socialism was linked to the Soviet experience, among other, surprise surprise, pragmatic reasons. Most social-democratic parties remain socialist parties. There a few parties that use the social-democratic label but are not social-democratic (the Portuguese Social Democratic Party, which is actually a Christian-democratic and liberal-conservative party, bears in mind) and there are some who use social democracy to mean the social market economy and Third Way social liberalism, but those are considered liberal or social-liberal parties.
—Davide King (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You could say the same thing about liberals and conservatives. Liberals no longer insist that government spending be under 10% of GDP, while conservatives no longer insist that hereditary peers have equal or greater power than elected MPs. Social democrats continue to fit within the definition of socialism provided by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1-3. The different groups will differ in policy based on ideology, even when the policies appear similar. For example, liberals, conservatives and socialists respectively created welfare programs in the United States, Germany and Sweden, but for different reasons and implemented them differently. TFD (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Social Democracy is a wing within Socialism. People are confusing the ideology with a party, which is not something Social Scientist do for good reasons. An ideology, a party and the members will not be perfectly aligned. The UK Labour party embracing Social Liberalism or something else is a commentary on the UK political parties it's not changing the ideology of Social Democracy. I worry people are sinking their personal bias into this and that should be avoided. Social Democracy is within Socialism and Social Liberalism is within Liberalism. Erzan (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

An error that should be corrected. Social Democracy is no longer a subset of Socialism, and hasn't been for a while. This wiki page must refer to the modern usage of the term. All references to Social Democracy being within socialism must clearly indicate it is only in historical context. "In the second half of the 20th century, there emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, which generally espoused state regulation, rather than state ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs" --Twozerooz (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is confusing the ideology with a political party. There are different wings/branches of socialism. Erzan (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in the previous comment does it mention anything about a political party. Specifically which "different wing/branch of socialism" exists within a capitalist market? --Twozerooz (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Social Democrat is an ideology within Socialism and Social Liberal is an ideology within Liberalism. Erzan (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The question was "Specifically which "different wing/branch of socialism" exists within a capitalist market?" It does not seem you are able to support your points, as they appear to be rooted entirely in ideology, rather than fact. I would strongly suggest to cease your editing warring on this topic. Others have provided you ample evidence for which you should be able to reach the correct conclusion. I also suggest you take some time to review the literature that has been provided to you. --Twozerooz (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The intro already carefully explains Social Democracy is within Socialism and it operates within a mixed economy. Check the sources and intro. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If we agree that Social Democracy is within a mixed economy, then we also agree it cannot be within socialism but must be within a capitalist framework. This is the very definition of a mixed economy:

"This meaning of a mixed economy refers to a combination of market forces with state intervention in the form of regulations, macroeconomic policies and social welfare interventions aimed at improving market outcomes. As such, this type of mixed economy falls under the framework of a capitalistic market economy".

In other words, the preamble would be correct to say "within a mixed economy framework", OR "within a capitalist framework". Either is acceptable, but the current version is not only factually incorrect but is self-refuting --Twozerooz (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"While retaining the long-term goal of socialism"? Nope.

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Source: http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/POLITICS%20AND%20GOVERNMENT%20Dictionary%20of%20politics%20and%20government.pdf

Social Democracy: a belief that changes should be made to the structure of society to produce greater equality, with a mixed economy where there is some state involvement in industry and welfare but also a strong free market, and in addition a political system based on democratic freedom (page 229)

Socialism: the belief that in a state the means of production, distribution and exchange should be controlled by the people, that the people should be cared for by the state and that wealth should be shared equally (page 229)

Godless Raven (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

What do the four sources that you dispute say? Incidentally, the source you provided is a dictionary for school and college, not what one would use as a source. TFD (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"the source you provided is a dictionary for school and college, not what one would use as a source" Please link me the wikipedia policy on didactic material being used or discarded as a source. Godless Raven (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's patronizing to directly quote me when I am well aware of what I just said. I have better things to do with my time than to look up policy for you. You need to follow a common sense approach. Identify the best available secondary sources and summarize what they say. Instead, you have decided what you want to say and are searching for sources, which inevitably leads to biased editing. Do you think that a professor writing an article for students that summarized social democracy would consult a dictionary designed for secondary and college students? Or would they consult academic books and articles? Would they reject what an advanced textbook on social democracy said because a dictionary "ideal for school and college" defined the topic differently? TFD (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean the plethora of material I provided above that you discarded? Godless Raven (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the article as it is currently written does a very good job of differentiating between economic and philosophical ideologies. And I agree Godless Raven, some users here seem to conflate the historic meaning of the term (more within the realm of socialism) with modern usage (purely within capitalism) --Twozerooz (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Social democracy is a form of socialism, even as with regards to economics

Latest comment: 2 years ago45 comments6 people in discussion

There seems to be quite a lot of debate about wether social democracy should be classified as capitalist or socialist, or wether social democracy is economically socialist. In the philosophical and ideological terms, it is socialist. Social-democratic parties frequently outline their ideology as being democratic socialism. The pre-amble that states it is in a capitalistic framework is explicitly contradicted by the current social-democratic parties themselves. The Swedish Social Democratic Party defines their ideology in the first words of their 2013 program as democratic socialism. They state: The Social Democrats want to form a societal foundation based on the ideals of democracy and the common people equal value and equal right. It is free and equal people in a society of solidarity the goal of democratic socialism.' They also further elaborate and state that their view of society is based upon Karl Marx's materialist conception of history, which they refer to as the materialist view of history. Even modern social-democratic parties incorporate explicitly Marxist analysis into their party programs. 'OUR VIEW OF SOCIETY What shapes society? 'The Social Democrats were born out of an understanding of how basic production and The conditions of production are for society and the living conditions of pre-humans. When it modern mechanical engineering and the industrial mode of production have drastically changed it' not just the way of working.It changed the whole society.It affected human way of life that perceived self and the world, the conditions of everyday life affected and ultimately the whole community organization.' 'In this way, the ideology of the labor movement is also a way of analyzing the development of society. Fundamental is the materialist view of history, that is, the realization that factors technology, capital formation and work organization are of crucial importance to society and people's social conditions'''' As with regards to economics, social democracy has a well-recorded history of advocating socialist economic policies and desiring to achieve a socialist economy, not just in the ethical sense. These policies do include public ownership of the means of production, economic planning, workers' control and a classless society. If the welfare states that were constructed and advocated in the post-war era can be viewed as part of the social-democratic economic model, then these can reasonably too. Social democrats in many countries did continue to advocate socialist economics in the post-war era. For instance, the 1959 party program of the Dutch Labor Party states the goal of the party is ″socialization of the important branches of industry,″ ″planned management of the economy″ and a society ″without class contradictions.″ The 1952 party program of the Finnish Social Democratic Party states that the party intends to ″resolutely pursue socialization″ . There are other instances of this. Excuse me if some of the writing is clunky, I am new to this. Tristam Pratorius (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Tristam Pratorius

It should be better phrased. The definition of socialism in the Historical Definition of Socialism says that socialists advocate some degree of regulation and/or ownership of the means of production, but disagree on how much. The phrasing conflates them with social liberals. TFD (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not that TFD will care, but I gave multiple sources (above) that state that social democracy is *NOT* socialist. Godless Raven (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact you did not. The reason you came to that conclusion is that you defined socialism as the economic policies of Joseph Stalin circa 1930, which would exclude most of socialism. Under your definition, the Communist Manifesto wouldn't be a socialist document, because it doesn't call for the overthrow of capitalism. TFD (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and since we are mentioning party programs: There is not a single mention of (democratic) socialism in the Austrian Social Democratic Party platform. https://www.spoe.at/wp-content/uploads/sites/739/2018/12/Parteiprogramm2018.pdf Godless Raven (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

They removed the term socialist from their platform after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But they still use the term social democratic which is a form of socialism, and the preferred name in Austria, Germany, Russia, Sweden and some other countries, while the French party and some others called themselves socialist, while Labor was preferred in others. They are still full members of the Socialist International.[4] You are really arguing over semantics. Different socialist parties prefer different descriptions and names. The parties of Marx and Lenin for example preferred to call themselves Social Democrats, although they were to the left of the Socialist Party of France today. TFD (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, are you now actually saying that Marx and Lenin were social democrats?!? Godless Raven (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I said that Marx was a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, while Lenin was a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, both of which were Marxist. The name lives on in the Union of Social Democrats, founded by Mikhail Gorbachev. TFD (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, is Marx a social democrat? Godless Raven (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important to note how much the term "social Democrat" has changed. During Mark's time, it was a form of socialism, but third way ideas have turned it into a fundamentally non-socialist belief. (I think) it says this in the article, which is good, but there is also some contradiction. The issue is that it calls modern Social Democracy a socialist belief, but that is not true.Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Terms take on different connotations over time. The term social democratic for example has come to be associated with the revisionist socialism of the German Social Democratic Party and the welfare state of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. Meanwhile, their sister parties in the English speaking world adopted the term democratic socialist. The term socialist too once referred to the broader socialist movement, including Marx and Lenin, but now refers mostly to social democratic/democratic parties, such as Labour and the German and Swedish SDPs, while Marx and Lenin are referred to as Communists. TFD (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think that the article should do more to encapsulate that subjectivity though, as well as the modern mainstream view of social democracy, ie. regulated capitalism, welfare, et. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I always thought this article fails to establish a distinct topic as required by policy. While social democracy (and socialism and democratic socialism) can mean many things, articles are supposed to be about a single topic. An article should explain different meanings of a term and then be about one of those meanings with other meanings covered by other articles, if they are significant. For example, both social conservatism and social liberalism have two distinct meanings, because social can mean either cultural or economic. Both articles explain the different meanings, and are about one of the meanings, providing a link to an article about the other meaning. Wikipedia provides the example of Mars, which can refer to the god or the planet (or the chocolate bar.) They are covered in two separate articles. TFD (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, though I would dispute that it would need multiple articles; I think it's a slightly different situation than with social liberalism or something, since (at least in my experience) the duality in meaning with social democracy has more to do with people's confusion (perhaps confusion between the historical modern definitions of the term), rather than multiple official meaning. I think we should just explain this confusion, rather than breaking the article into 2 or something. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Social democracy can refer to non-communist socialist parties, such as the members of the Socialist International, or to the more moderate wings of those parties, or to the revisionist socialism of the SDP, or to the Swedish welfare state, or to the original meaning (social ownership of the means of production.) TFD (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. So how do you propose to change the article to be more accurate? Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. But consider how the same event is described in three articles:

Socialism In 1945, the British Labour Party led by Clement Attlee was elected based on a radical socialist programme.
Democratic socialism: In 1945, the Labour Party in the United Kingdom led by former UK Deputy Prime Minister Clement Attlee was elected to office based on a radical, democratic socialist manifesto.
Social democracy [Labour is described as a "social democratic" party.] After the 1945 general election, a Labour government was formed by Clement Attlee.

So we have three articles about the same thing more or less. Do you have any suggestions?

TFD (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In terms of specific changes, I'm stumped. I guess just clarifying the subtle differences while emphasizing the similarities, otherwise, I have no clue. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Social Democracy is a wing within Socialism. People are confusing the ideology with a party, which is not something Social Scientist do for good reasons. An ideology, a party and the members will not be perfectly aligned. The UK Labour party embracing Social Liberalism or something else is a commentary on the UK political parties it's not changing the ideology of Social Democracy. I worry people are sinking their personal bias into this and that should be avoided. Social Democracy is within Socialism and Social Liberalism is within Liberalism Erzan (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Social Democracy is an economic set of principles within capitalism, not socialism. Nobody is confusing social democracy with any political party. You keep making that claim to everyone here, but I can't see a single person mentioning anything about any political party. Specifically which political party do you think is being referred to? Can you please quote other users statements which lead you to this idea? --Twozerooz (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Political parties are referenced in this page several times. Regardless of how a particular party governs in a particular country does not change the ideology of Social Democracy being with socialism. You have Socialism, Liberalism and Conservativsm as the three well known ideologies. Tying to take Social Democracy out of Socialism is like trying to take One Nation out of Conservatism or Socai Liberal out of Liberalism. Social Democracy is a brance/wing of Socialism. Erzan (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

None of the mentions of a party are at all relevant to your previous assertion. Specifically which quote do you believe is "confusing the ideology with a party"? Regardless, you are using circular logic, and seem unable to actually support the idea that Social Democracy is within socialism. In fact, Social Democracy still uses capitalism to achieve its goals, ergo cannot be within socialism. Trying to take Social Democracy out of Capitalism is like trying to take One Nation out of Conservatism or Socail Liberal out of Liberalism. Social Democracy is a branch/wing of Capitalism.--Twozerooz (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Social Democracy is a branch/wing of Capitalism?" I respect that is your POV but this not backed up by the many credible sources. Erzan (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe this will be about the 5th time I've asked you for these "sources". Because all of the sources actually shown here support modern usage of the term being all within a capitalist framework:

All argument on this talk page in favour of referring to it as a socialist ideology is only supported by obsolete and historic usage of the term. There is already a history section in this page that deals with that, but the bulk of the page must only refer to modern usage of the term. As another user here said: "the duality in meaning with social democracy has more to do with people's confusion...perhaps confusion between the historical [and] modern definitions of the term". He is correct. The usage of the term has radically shifted, and the only correct course of action is to make this clear in the article: Historic usage was socialism, modern usage is capitalism. --Twozerooz (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

How can an ideology be a branch of an economic system? We don't say for example that liberalism is a branch of capitalism. TFD (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly @The Four Deuces

Liberalism exisits within fedualism and capitalism. We don't say it is capitalism or fedualism.

Federalism exists within fedualism and capitalism. We don't say it is capitalism or fedualism.

Conservatisim exists within fedualism and capitalism. We don't it is capitalism or fedualism.

Socialism does not mean capitalism has gone, that would be Communism and there are plenty of credible sources I could cite to back this statement up. Erzan (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Nobody is saying an ideology is a branch of an economic system? Regardless: It seems everyone agrees Social Democracy is within a mixed economy - correct? If so, then it is impossible for the statement of "Social Democracy is... an economic philosophy within socialism" to be correct; this statement is nonsensical and self-refuting, since a mixed economic is -by definition- within a capitalist framework. At the very least, "and economic philosophy" must be removed from the preamble, given how clearly incorrect it is. Agreed? --Twozerooz (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You are probably confused because the term socialism can refer to an ideology or an economic system. Liberalism on the other hand only refers to an ideology, while capitalism only refers to an economic system. Social democracy can also refer either to an ideology or to a social, political and economic system. Swedish social democratic policies (i.e., cradle to grave welfare state) was within capitalism, but the actual ideology was not. Swedish Social Democrats believed (wrongly as it turned out), that if the working class were educated, healthy and wealthy, that they would create a socialist society. The welfare state was not the objective of socialism/social democracy, because under socialism there is no need for welfare. Many social democrats oppose welfare in fact. TFD (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I just say, ignoring people's comments and deleting them without permission does not seem like the behaviour of someone who wants to build a consesus on something. It seems like the behaviour of someone who wants to push a POV @Twozerooz Erzan (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces The confusion is only on your part. The distiction is irrelevant here. Both an economic system and an economic ideology can be categorized by capitalism vs socialism. Social Democracy as an economic ideology also exists within a capitalist framework. Both the statements of "Social Democracy is... an economic system within socialism" and "Social Democracy is... an economic ideology within socialism" are equally incorrect.--Twozerooz (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No one has claimed that "Social Democracy is... an economic system within socialism" or "Social Democracy is... an economic ideology within socialism." Social democracy is neither an economic system nor an economic ideology. It's a political ideology within socialism. TFD (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please thoroughly read the comments you're responding to. As I said, the very first sentence of the article clearly says "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism.". Once again: At the very least, "and economic philosophy" must be removed from the preamble, given how clearly incorrect it is. Agreed? Once this obvious error is removed, we can discuss other points. (For added clarification: "economic philosophy" is a synonym for "economic ideology") --Twozerooz (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fix it yourself. TFD (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do. --Twozerooz (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey everyone, there is no consesus on changing the lead and in the administrators talk page @Czello stated we should wait for one until we change the lead. In addition and more importantly the change made did not make sense (sorry) because the next following sentences explain how it's an economic ideology. An economic ideology is an economic philosophy, since ideology and philosophy are synonymous. Erzan (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Only you and TFD were the last holdouts. Now that TFD agrees, it is just you. If you review archived talks, you'll find the utterly overwhelming majority of the wider community also agree. WP:CON does not require your approval; "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". The current version is correct, please do not change it again without first building consensus. --Twozerooz (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how one can say that social democracy is an economic philosophy. What does that mean anyway? Social democrats have supported every economist from Adam Smith to Paul Krugman at one time or another. What's the social democratic position on the labor theory of value vs. the marginal theory or does it matter since they were both invented by liberals? TFD (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The word philosophy is another word for ideology.
All three sources cited mention how social democracy has an economic philosophy/ideology.
The agreement was to reach a consesus before changing the intro. The changes conflict with the sources.

Erzan (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources say that social democracy has an economic philosophy/ideology and I don't even know what an economic philosophy or ideology means. Can you name an economic philosopher who explains social democratic economic philosophy? TFD (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you do not know what an economic philosophy/ideology is why are you telling people to remove or change the sentence that states what social democracy is? Erzan (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In don't what covfefe means either, but if you add it to the article without sources, I will remove it. If the meaning of a statement is unclear then it doesn't belong in the article. TFD (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The sentence being disputed is 'Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism'.

The three sources do refer to social democracy as having an economic philosophy within socialism. Below are the sources cited in the first sentence.

The 1st source states "In terms of economic policy, social democrats believe strongly" [5]

The 2nd source staes "Socialism came to be heavily associated with the work of 19th century German economist" and "belief that the American economy treats people unfairly" [6]

The 3rd source states "It needs to rejoin its critique of the capitalist economy" [7]

Thereofre the three sources do talk about social democracy as having an approach/philosophy/ideology towards the economy.

Erzan (talk), 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The cutting off of quotes is... interesting. To say the least.

1st source: "in terms of economic policy, social democrats believe strongly in the virtues of co-operation between the government, the unions and management." This doesn't support a socialist economy. In fact, it goes on to say:

"Social democrats stipulate that capitalism can and should be humanised. The creation of a society built around social justice and equality does not therefore require a mass programme of nationalisation and state control as advocated by democratic socialists... Instead, an economic system based primarily upon private ownership can be civilised via an extensive set of left-wing policies."

2nd source directly argues against your own argument:

"If you want to say that Denmark and Iceland have a 'version of socialism,' then you have to say that every democracy in the world does, too, because they all have one degree or another of welfare state. If they have a version of socialism, they also all have capitalism. Every democracy has a 'mixed economy.'"

"The point is that democratic socialists or social democrats were successful to a degree in creating what is usually called a 'welfare state,' which we also have in the U.S…but they achieved this only by abandoning socialism,"

I'm not sure what your third quote is supposed to prove, but other relevant quotes from the third source include:

"The left nationalist project collapsed when realising socialism with peaceful means turned into a project of stabilising capitalism."

"in the case of the centre-left by accepting the cooptation in the capitalist state, in the case of the radical left, by making itself irrelevant to it."

Regardless, it is clear that consensus has been reached. I can provide endless quotes from archived talk pages (or there's other active ones from people like Godless Raven that haven't yet been archived. Remember, consensus does not require your approval. Since the overwhelming majority of both active participants (TFD) and the broader community all disagree with you, the change will go ahead. If you wish to change it, you will first have to attain the approval of the vast majority of editors. The current change stays as it is now the WP:QUO version. Please stop reverting it - but feel free to continue discussing in the talk page.

--Twozerooz (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The first source says, "In terms of economic policy, social democrats believe strongly in the virtues of co-operation between the government, the unions and management. The level of wealth created within society should be reallocated via a combination of progressive taxation, an extensive welfare state programme and a significant role for both the public and private sector." But it doesn't say that set of economic policies is referred to as social democracy. In fact it's social liberalism. If I were to say that social democrats mostly oppose the death penalty, that doesn't mean that social democracy can refer to opposition to the death penalty. In fact in some cases, social democrats may advocate policies that promote inequality on the basis that a rising tide lifts all boats. Hence the Labour Party abandoned Keynesian economics in the 1970s. They abandoned the social liberal paradigm for neoliberalism. TFD (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A view on what to do on tax is an economic philosophy, yes. Erzan (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is now turning into a POV over socialism and edit war, so I had to report this. Erzan (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Too long?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

At 157 kB (24127 words) of readable prose, this article seems WP:TOOBIG. Any thoughts on this, and what could be split of shortened? Jr8825 • Talk 23:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The history section should split off as it's large enough to be it's own article.-Elishop (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I propose that the history section be split into a separate page. The content of the current page seems to be of a lenght large enough to be split off into its own article. Elishop (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As no one objected I went ahead and split the article. Elishop (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Definition from Encyclopaedia Brittanica?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can we not write our own definition instead of quoting another encyclopaedia? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree, especially since the EB article is about the ideology of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, rather than social democracy in general. TFD (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Preamble

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Revision 1044322045 is contradictory to prior consensus. We have already agreed the preamble be changed to "As an economic ideology and policy regime.... within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy".

Economic philosophy and economic ideology are synonyms. It makes no sense to have one sentence directly contradict the next. A simple oversight in prior consensus that must now be fixed. --Twozerooz (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see a clear consensus that states economic philosophy should be removed -- what I do see is that at one point you simply stopped replying to Erzan, so you cannot declare there is a consensus. However, I don't understand your comment that this is a contradiction. You said yourself that they're synonymous -- how can that, therefore, be a contradiction? I recommend you start an WP:RFC as that appears to be the most definitive way to resolve this. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 06:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: Consensus was already reached on the second sentence. There was already a consensus on economic ideology being a mixed economy and NOT socialism. The only person who had difficulty understanding this was Erzan, and remember that consensus does not require 100% support, only the overwhelming majority. The fist sentence is directly contradictory to this consensus, because economic philosophy and economic ideology are synonyms. Economic ideology cannot simultaneously be socialism and capitalism. I will open a WP:RFC. --Twozerooz (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't see that overwhelming majority, though. I see you opposing its inclusion, and TFD seemed to question how well sourced it was, but that's all. Yes, an RfC is the best solution here as I think the issue is that this talk page doesn't get enough eyes on it. Thank you for pursuing an RfC. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 14:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"There was already a consensus on economic ideology being a mixed economy and NOT socialism"

@Twozerooz This does not make any sense I am afraid. The phrase 'economic ideology' has nothing to do with 'mixed economy'. At all. Again, 'Economic ideology cannot simultaneously be socialism and capitalism'. What does that even mean? It does not make any sense. I can cite many sources to back this up if that is wanted. An economic ideology/philosophy is an economic ideology/philosophy. Social Democracy operates within Capitalism but it is still pushing for Socialist policies. Erzan (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I cannot make it any more clear. The first sentence directly contradicts the second. Period. But please, feel free to cite any source that you believe says an economy can be both capitalist and socialist at the same time. I look forward to reading them. --Twozerooz (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence uses three wikilinks, the first two of which are to "philosophy" pages. The second sentence uses the "ideology" wikilink, and as you mention, in this context "philosophy" and "ideology" are synonyms, so stop messing up the wikilinks and wording in the first sentence. You're making the word "ideology" apply to the two previous words based on "philosophy" wikilinks. That doesn't work. Just leave it. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed --Twozerooz (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC on lede

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Consensus is to keep the references to socialism. — Czello 08:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lede sentence be changed to remove "within socialism", and/or state that Social Democracy operates within a Social market economy? --Twozerooz (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: As a long-time contributor to this page, it would have been nice to be pinged in light of recent developments, since despite I kept editing pretty much consistency towards the year, early this year I took a break from such pages for a few months, while editing mostly random or unrelated pages. I even wrote a FAQ, which seems to be relevant to the OP, who seem to be conflating social democracy either for the Third Way or the welfare state, both of which are relevant insofar we are discussing socialist or like-minded centre-left parties and their evolution. I think the lead already makes this clear but you seem to be confusing or taking this as an either/or when it is not the case. The topic of this article is the socialist movement originating in 1860s Germany that eventually became the mainstream left in most Western world countries, not any welfare state, which is what you seem to support but for which we already have an article for. Finally, the within socialism is well-supported by sources (there are many more in the body) and we pretty much already say that social democracy operates within a social market economy, though the difference between other parties, movements, or ideologies that support it is precisely its socialist character. Socialism is not only an economic system but a political philosophy too. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism explains this well.

Davide King (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The fact that SD is within socialism is adequately sourced, and given the edit history on this article I don't see this as a NPoV change. I think Davide King's comment also demonstrates why the lead should clearly state that SD is socialist in nature. — Czello 06:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose As I said above, this article conflates several different definitions of social democracy, which are separate topics and therefore should have separate articles. Rather than ask whether social democracy should be defined as a political ideology or as an economic system, it should ask what the article topic should be.

Having said that, I don't understand what the second defintion means. Social democratic parties can of course operate within any economic system. Or are you equating social democracy with the social market economy? If that's the case, this article should be a re-direct.

OTOH, if we define social democracy as the policies of Sweden and social market economy as those of Germany, they are distinct. While social market economy begins with the concept of the dignity of the individual, social democracy begins with their equality. This is in contrast to social liberalism, which begins with individual freedom and dirigisme, which has no interest in the individual or equality.

TFD (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose social democracy is part of the broad church of socialism, sitting on the centre-leaning element of socialism as a spectrum of political ideologies. Jamzze (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Social democracy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

under Overview > Political party: - change "describe their goal the development" to "describe their goal as the development" - change "parties represents" to "parties represent" Qiuw (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Done melecie t - 13:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's settle this

Latest comment: 1 year ago27 comments7 people in discussion

I've been trying to avoid this dispute as it seems to be a mess, but it also seems to not be getting resolved. Twozerooz, you've been edit warring for months now. You've been undone on your recent edits by me, Valjean, and Erzan. You clearly do not have consensus. We previously agreed to an RfC: you then backed out of it. You then opened up a dispute resolution: you closed it before it could reach a decision. You've been undone several times, and yet you haven't touched this talk page in almost a month (remember, the onus is on you as per WP:BRD). I have to ask, why are you so keen on avoiding discussing this on the talk page?

I am honestly inches away from starting an WP:ANI thread, this is borderline disruptive now. Either get consensus for your change (via an RfC if you have to) or stop editing. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 14:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Czello, you are simply confused; I closed nothing. I would argue that both you and Valjean are being disruptive: Both of you are hyper-focused on Wiki policy without thought of the actual edit. You have admitted you have zero stake in the actual edit/subject, but rather it appears given yourself the mantle of 'Wiki policy moderator'. Yet even on consensus you would be incorrect. On the actual subject, there is quite a clear consensus with the one exception of Erzan - however Wiki policy states that consensus does not require 100% support; just the overwhelming majority. I would simply urge you to review the archived talk pages, rather than incorrectly limiting yourself to what is immediately visible. Also, given that Erzan has already agreed to the second sentence, I would argue his lack of support on this correction for the first sentence is based purely on confusion, rather than legitimate input.

Consensus aside, the first sentence and second sentence are quite clearly contradictory. You cannot have an economic philosophy being in both capitalism and socialism at the same time. If you wish to now have a stake in the merits of the edit itself and want to argue otherwise, I strongly suggest you either do so or stop editing.

I'd also suggest reviewing WP:SHOT, given your own behaviour lately.--Twozerooz (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You closed this report - the one that would have actually resolved this. I'll bypass most of what you said and focus at the heart of this: who is the "overwhelming majority", exactly? Because I'm not seeing them. Even if you claim there is consensus (which I don't accept), WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Quite obviously what this boils down to is the fact that your edits are disputed and instead of trying to resovle it yourself, you've gone back to edit warring again. Please don't undo Erzan's last edit until there is consensus here. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 16:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Which says it was a duplicate. I had mistakenly thought the original was closed and re-opened it, but then realized my error.

This is the actual dispute which was closed by someone else. And yes, consensus can absolutely change. However, you still don't appear to be taking any stake in the actual subject matter. It definitely still appears to be only Erzan who is firmly opposed - and as I said, one person does not break a consensus on the discussion. In the spirit of civility, I have made what I believe to be an appropriate and middle-ground edit with source. This may help clear up some of the confusion and ensure the article remains factually correct and free of logical contradictions. --Twozerooz (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Twozerooz:Thing is though, it wasn't a duplicate. You opened two: one about me, and one about Erzan. You closed the one that might have actually resolved this! And the point is that Erzan isn't breaking consensus -- you need to adequately achieve it first. May I suggest something? How about you just open the previously-agreed-upon RfC? You might actually get your wording if you do that. It really would put an end to this whole thing. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 17:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You are free to open an RfC if you wish. As I've already said numerous times, a dispute seems to be a more appropriate avenue and I've already opened one which was subsequently closed by someone else. I've made a reasonable well-sourced, balanced, and appropriate edit. Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; I know you're acting in good faith by trying to enforce Wiki policy, but your reverts are harmful to Wikipedia and the community. Even if you believe your interpretations of Consensus are correct, WP:IGNORE clearly supersedes it. Again, I strongly suggest you either take an actual position on the subject (and argue the merits), or refrain from reverting again. If Erzan continues to be disruptive and revert the most recent edit without cause, I will start a WP:ANI to deal with him. --Twozerooz (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

... What reverts? I've deliberately avoided reverting you since you continued edit warring. And the reason your last report was closed is because you abandoned it. I quote the closing comments, After the editors were asked whether they wanted assistance, there has been no request for assistance. Any further disagreement can be discussed at Talk:Social Democracy. You ended up making it about canvassing rather than actually discussing the dispute... and then you didn't come to this talk page per closure. So okay then, why not open a WP:DR, as you don't seem to be replying to Erzan below? And I don't think you'd get much traction at WP:ANI given that his revert is in line with WP:BRD, but that might actually end this dispute. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 17:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow up: It's just occurred to me by reverts you might mean replies? If that's the case then my position is simple: WP:BRD and WP:ONUS mean you need to get consensus for your changes. Simple as that. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 18:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't abandon it. I asked for assistance numerous times and yet it was still closed. It looks fairly clear you are against taking any stance on the subject matter so I'll consider our dispute resolved and trust you will not revert any future edits. I also don't find it productive to engage purely in WP:LAWYERING with zero consideration of the actual subject. My goal here is to improve Wikipedia, and this discussion distracts from that. In regards to Erzan: I've spent considerable efforts in engaging Erzan previously (more than any reasonable person would be expected to), but the discussions inevitably become circular or consensus building becomes stalled in other ways. Whatever the barrier is here -whether it is a language issue or otherwise- it is clearly insurmountable. Lastly, WP:BRD assumes non-disruptive editing, and removing sourced edits without legitimate cause is clearly a violation of WP:DIS. I've made a reasonable, explained, and sourced edit which no user has actually provided reasons against. Reverting edits simply for the sake of reversion is a legitimate reason for WP:ANI--Twozerooz (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czello this user just deleted the entire sentence and sources. Erzan (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@User:Erzan Be careful, lying is against WP:IUC, even if its in good faith and simply due to not reading carefully enough. I would ask that you strike out your previous comment. --Twozerooz (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I am really confused why this has become an edit war.

Ideology and philsophpy mean the same thing. Why is this a dispute? It is like saying glad and happy. This is called synonyms, different words that mean the same. Normal for Wikipedia.
Why is the word economic being removed? the three sources to the sentence back up it up, social democracy is political, economic and social.

So why is this so hotly disputed? Please help me to understand, thanks. Erzan (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czello why has @Twozerooz replied to you and not me?

"You cannot have an economic philosophy being in both capitalism and socialism at the same time" @Twozerooz

This does not make any sense and the three sources are being ignored. An philosophy/ideology, like Liberalism, Socialism or Nationalism is apart from whatever type of economy exist. This is like saying Socialism or Liberalism can not exist in feudalism and monarchism era. It has and it does. Erzan (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I see no contradiction in the first two sentences. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 18:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

That is like saying "I mixed white and black together and got grey, so grey must be white". Rather than argue whether it is or is not white, let us just agree it is grey: Social democracy is an economic philosophy within social capitalism. I imagine it would be quite difficult to argue against this fact. --Twozerooz (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Twozerooz if you could respond to my first two questions that would help. Otherwise this becomes hard to follow if new points are made. Erzan (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The first question is irrelevant; I have literally no idea why you're asking that as that's never once been disputed by anyone. I've even made that point several times, and made an edit in that regard. A bizarre question. Your second question is now irrelevant to the most recent revision so I see no need to refute it. --Twozerooz (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czello I have no idea what @Twozerooz was or is disputing now. The recent edit by @Twozerooz has returned the 1st and 2nd sentence broadly back to the 20:32, 5 October 2021‎ edit. What was the point of the edit war? Erzan (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok I'll take that as acceptance of the most recent proposed edit. --Twozerooz (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no acceptance of that edit. @Czello has proposed this as a chance to talk about this. Erzan (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The proposed edit is fully sourced. If you have another source that says social democracy is NOT social capitalism, then feel free to provide it. Otherwise, constantly reverting just for the sake of reversion would be a violation of WP:STONEWALLING and I'll have to report it. --Twozerooz (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

As an outsider to this argument, let me just lend my full-throated support to Twozerooz's viewpoint. An ideology or philosophy CANNOT be both capitalistic and socialistic in nature. My only beef with the current first sentence is it ending with "within the socialist tradition". Social democracy only applies WITHIN a capitalistic framework, not a socialistic one. FWIW. 109.228.176.49 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The reason there is a disagree is because the propose changes are misleading. It would give the reader an incorrect undrstanding of social democracy.

Let's try again.

Ideology and philsophpy mean the same thing. Why is this a dispute? It is like saying glad and happy. This is called synonyms, different words that mean the same. Normal for Wikipedia.
Why is the word economic or social being removed? the three sources to the sentence back up it up, social democracy is political, economic and social.
An ideology and philosophy is sepreate from whatever economic system being used. As the sources and the rest of the article show, social democracy is a wing or branch of socialism.
Why does your proposed source ^[1], which is a blog, not mention Social Democracy? At all. This will mislead readers.

Erzan (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Medium.com is not a RS. -- Valjean (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Here, have a reference^[2] that might help explain why Social market economy is a better link from the first sentence than (for instance) Social philosophy. Also, perhaps, why Social democracy is NOT part of socialism. 109.228.176.49 (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the FAQ, which I have written but The Four Deuces was very helpful in explaining it to me, already explains and clarify this, especially in regards to socialism and the difference between the policy regime put in place by moderate socialists, the Nordic model (which has been put in place mostly by socialists but has been accepted by other parties), and any welfare state, i.e. conservatives who have supported the latter not as a development towards socialism like social democrats thought but as a compromise from further radical politics, and as a way to preserve the status quo by convincing workers not to support, say, a communist revolution. Why there is such a push to remove its socialist character? The main topic of this article is about those moderate socialists dating back to the 1860s in Germany, not any welfare state. Bismarck may have supported a welfare state but he was no social democrat, he was a conservative, perhaps progressive or reactionary depending on some views. Its emphasis is on the movement originating in Germany and the 20th-century development of social democracy as a policy regime by socialists, their disputes about how to best achieve it, the split between those who adapted to neoliberalism and those who did not, etc. Davide King (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

True that, I don't necessarly agree that Philosophy and Ideology are the same thing, Philosophy is the debate, Ideolggy is whe n a stream of thought becomes established. Interesting for me to point out that it was only under the regime of John Howard that I learnt that Australia wasn't a Social Democracy and a Liberal one- I didn't know that until I was 30. My whole life I thought we where a Social Demicratic Society. And then 2 decades of Liberals/liberals- Philosophy- Ideology-Dogma. 124.170.117.129 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

References

^ Goldman, Daniel (2020-02-25). "The Power of "Social Capitalism"". Politicoid. Retrieved 2021-10-08.
^ Steffen Mau (2003). Moral Economy of Welfare States. Routledge. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-134-37055-9.

Trimming cites without links; collecting sources in separate Bibliography article

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been making edits to Social democracy and Democratic socialism, which both seem to have lots of sources in the References, many of which aren't referred to in the article. I'm also trying to fix/rescue refs that have a citation to point to.

In doing so, I've collected all the sources to begin a Draft:Bibliography of works about social democracy. It's not curated yet; it's just a collection & deduplication of sources from those articles, and a couple others. I believe the bibliography list would be a good addition to the WP:WikiProject Socialism project (essentially mirroring the Bibliography of works about communism for the Communism project). — sbb (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sbb: Communism is a more so current of socialism than social democracy, although it is arguable both fall under its umbrella – as there is neither a 'WikiProject Communism' nor 'WikiProject Social democracy', both of these lists can be added to WP:WikiProject Socialism. Do you intend linking it only on the WikiProject page or creating a sidebar akin to {{Russianbiblioseries}}? It might also be good to include these on the Outline of socialism article. Just ideas of promoting these pages and making them more visible. -Vipz (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Honestly, I don't have any specific intentions whatsoever, as I'm not really versed in where it would fit better. It was only through introductory learning about the subjects, when I got annoyed that both the socdem and demsoc pages were completely overwrought with too many "citations" that weren't cited. I didn't see fit to nuke them all, and I noticed both pages seem to copy and paste from each other a bit. So I thought a biblio page to capture all the sources would be in order.

I'd appreciate any subject guidance, and of course, please freely edit/organize/arrange as you think it makes sense. I certainly don't feel any ownership, as the work and research has been done by others. I'm merely doing some dusting/cleaning Wikignoming, trying to make both pages more readable, and distinguished from each other. — sbb (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Historic?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I find the historical part a bit off-focused, as it seems to be very focused on the Marxist roots but neglect to mention its early development in Danmark that precedes the German and British branch, I sadly do not have direct access to Trust, Social Capital and the Scandinavian Welfare State by Gunnar Lind Haase Svendsen so I can't provide a set of page numbers, but i hope i can at least bring this issue to light. 188.148.83.71 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Article filled with contradictions

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This whole article is a socialist propaganda piece filled with contradictions and poorly backed up claims. In its essence it calls everything west of laissez faire capitalism socialist. Scratch that, it actually calls laissez faire capitalism socialist when it states anarchism is a socialist ideology. Seriously? Markets (as shown throughout history in every society ever) is a natural consequence of scarcity. Anarchism rejects any form of government which means the market is left to the people = laissez faire capitalism.

My proposition is for this whole article to be shut down as it's just one big propaganda piece by now that is actively making people misinformed about social democracy. 78.72.18.35 (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

We go by what sources say, not personal interpretation. — Czello 22:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you either know what you are doing or you don't see the whole overarching picture here. You think shitty sources from open marxists and ideologues at universities are to be put above rational argument? Their respective fields lacks any kind of epistomological validity to begin with. There is such a thing as truth and this article is filled with obvious lies.

I understand that it's hard to put together a reasonably impartial article on a political subject where everyone has a right to have a say, but that only makes it even more important to be rational about changes. You cannot call a capitalist economy socialist. No matter what sources you have that is wrong. One is by definition a socialised economy without free ownership, one is not. There are no social democrats that have strived towards socialism. Even the german social democrats that looked up to Marx heavily amended marxism to "fit" within capitalism.

Here are some sources:

https://www.ne.se/uppslagsverk/encyklopedi/l%C3%A5ng/socialdemokrati

https://www.ne.se/uppslagsverk/ordbok/svensk/socialdemokrati

These tell you what social democracy is from the nation of Swedens standpoint.

https://www.ne.se/uppslagsverk/encyklopedi/l%C3%A5ng/andra-internationalen

This tells about the meeting that made socialist parties social democrats. They officially renounced the idea of a revolution and emphasized worker rights and a strong social safety net within capitalist societies.

https://books.google.se/books/about/Den_socialdemokratiska_ungdomsr%C3%B6relsen.html?id=GgLhvgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

This book by the historian Tage Lindbom covers among other things how revolutionary socialists got kicked out of the social democrats in 1917. The real socialists then went on to form the communist party of Sweden.

It's clear that social democrats since the beginning have worked towards a liberal capitalist society with a strong social safety net. Social democracy is NOT democratic socialism. Social democrats in their earliest form were a party of people who were for societal changes equivalent to social liberalism. That being said they derived many of their policies from socialist thinkers. 78.72.18.35 (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The article's second sentence makes it clear that social democrats operate within a capitalist framework, so I'm not sure what you're talking about: "As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy." X-Editor (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"within socialism" vs. "within the socialist movement"

Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@Czello pointed it out to me that the current wording (of the first sentence) came after much discussion and careful sourcing. What I presume they are primarily referring to is Talk:Social democracy/Archive 9#"...a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism...". What I see from that discussion was a debate over whether or not is it socialist at all, and not about the wording. I cannot access Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103 and Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Newman 2005, p. 5 says "tradition of socialism"; other sources within reference ^[1] do not use any of the two wordings. I see "within the socialist movement" as more precise wording than "within socialism" without changing the substance. The same way it is for the article "Communism". Should the current wording stay and why or why not? –Vipz (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Any objections to reimplementing the change...? –Vipz (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Wright says, "[Social democracy] stands as the dominent twentieth century form of socialism in the West." (Eatwell & Wright, p. 81)[8] I disagree with saying "within the socialist movement," because as Wright points out, socialism is both a doctrine and a movement. TFD (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources say "form of socialism" or "tradition of socialism" and not "within socialism", and although I agree with your assessment, I'm not convinced against my original proposal. Thanks for commenting! –Vipz (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - It fits in better with the "about" section and describes social democracy more accurately according to the page's sources. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

[1] Goldman, Daniel (2020-02-25). "The Power of "Social Capitalism"". Politicoid. Retrieved 2021-10-08.

[Mau2003-2] Steffen Mau (2003). Moral Economy of Welfare States. Routledge. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-134-37055-9.

[1]

[2]