Talk:Social democracy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social democracy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 3 months

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why is social democracy labelled socialist or within socialism?

A: Because social democracy is not all welfare states, which have been supported across the political spectrum by some types of conservatives, liberals and socialists.^{[nb 1]} Social democracy is one of the many traditions within the socialist movement. In addition, the most common name for the classification to which social-democratic parties belong to is socialist. These parties were mostly associated with the Socialist International. Many of them self-describe as democratic socialist or social-democratic. When we use these terms to describe parties, etymologically they mean the same thing. We do not want to imply that they have two ideologies under the same roof as, for example, the Democratic Party does with Bernie Sanders, AOC and Ilhan Omar as "democratic socialists" (which is what they call themselves) or social democrats and all other major leaders as liberals. Of course, socialist parties have left–right divisions and they are sometimes called democratic socialist and social-democratic. The new party family that has emerged, which is broadly made up of Marxist–Leninists, Trotskyists and more left-wing socialists, is now generally referred to as "left parties".

Q: Still, why is social democracy considered socialist?

A: While social democrats have not turned capitalist economies into socialist ones^{[nb 2]} for pragmatic reasons, among others, socialism is not only an economic system but a political philosophy, too. First, socialism can mean either an ideology or an economic system, while capitalism is mainly simply defined as an economic system. Under classical Marxism, socialism is a stage of the economy that would replace capitalism and was the name that Communists used to describe the economic systems they implemented. As the definitive Historical Dictionary of Socialism points out, socialists disagree about the degree to which regulation of the economy is necessary; how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change are issues of disagreement. And they are anti-capitalist only so far as "there were general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of capital—poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security." In addition, party ideologies are generally static, although policies change over time. As an example, the Tories have changed their policies since the days of the English Civil War more than Labour has over its 120 year history, yet are still considered conservatives.^{[nb 3]}

Q: But social-democratic parties are not socialist and do not identify with socialism, do they?

A: That is not true, most include mentions of socialism in their party constitutions, describe themselves as socialists and are routinely called as such, being categorised by academics as part of the socialist party family. The philosophy of social-democratic parties such as the Swedish Social Democrats 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. However, as the Swedish Social Democrats built the most comprehensive welfare state, the welfare state is sometimes referred to as social democracy. Of course, socialism/social democracy as the Social Semocrats understood it did not happen and right-wing parties in countries such as Sweden, among others, also came to support the welfare state. The SPD describes democratic socialism as its ideal, with social democracy serving as the "principle of action". Some socialist parties use that to mean a post-capitalist order while others use it more in a utopian and idealised sense to describe an egalitarian society, where features such as discrimination and poverty are eradicated, which would still be starkly different from current capitalist society to be considered a post-capitalist one. Both of these are perfectly in line with the definition given by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism and it is more of a spectrum than a hard line.

Q: What is the difference between, say, Corbynism and Blairism? Surely the difference is that the first is socialist and the second is liberal?

A: Not so easy. The difference between Corbynites and Blairites, or the difference between the left and right wings within socialist/social-democratic parties, is not that the former are socialists and the latter are not, but that they have different conceptions of socialism. Admittedly, many people question whether any of them are actually socialists. Yes, those to their left accuse those to their right within the party to not be socialists; yet, those to the left of both accuse them of not being socialists but reformists.

Appendix

Socialism and socialist are loaded terms in the United States and right-wing media while in the rest of the world they are usually just one of two major parties. When describing foreign leaders, American media only uses the S-word for socialists they oppose and never use it for those they support. So Maduro is routinely referred to as a socialist while Guaidó, a former member of the socialist/social-democratic party Popular Will (still affiliated to the Socialist International and described as social-democratic, "with socialist and progressive tendencies"; note that it is the Maduro government that says Popular Will is "fascist" or "right-wing") never is. Being opposed to Chavismo, or Madurismo, does not necessarely mean being opposed to socialism; there are at least as many types of socialism as there are months in a year.

In addition, "[m]ost critics cite anti-democratic governance, corruption and mismanagement of the economy as causes of the crisis" rather than socialism^{[nb 4]} and even those who blame policies for the crisis, only a few say "socialist policies" and they mostly say "populist" or "hyper-populist" policies, which are not the same thing. This should not stop us from following academic sources that use socialism, in a neutral manner as provided by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, to refer to social democracy.

Footnotes

^ 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. As an example, liberals, conservatives and socialists created welfare programs in the United States, Germany and Sweden, respectively, but for different reasons and implemented them differently.
^ If you use socialist economy to mean the Soviet model, of course they have not turned capitalist economies into socialist ones; yet, they moved them closer to socialist ideals (Jerry Mander describes the mixed economy as "an active collaboration of capitalist and socialist visions"), so much so that social-democrat Anthony Crosland argued that "traditional 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", for a new kind of capitalism required a new kind of socialism. Of course, "Crosland believed that these features of a reformed managerial capitalism were irreversible, but it has been argued within the Labour Party and by others that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought about its reversal in the 1970s and 1980s. While the post-war consensus represented a period where social democracy was 'most buoyant', it has been argued that 'post-war social democracy had been altogether too confident in its analysis' because 'gains which were thought to be permanent turned out to be conditional and as the reservoir of capitalist growth showed signs of drying up.'" Still, many legitimate academics, economists and scholars have disputed the Soviet model as socialist, calling it centralised-managed (rather than planned; and planning itself, which has been adopted by many capitalist and non-capitalist countries, or a planned economy is not necessarely socialist), command economy, state capitalism, or another non-socialist mode of production; so socialist economy cannot be reduced to that.

It is not original research to discuss whether social democracy as used to describe the Nordic model developed by the Swedish Social Democrats and social democracy as used to describe the ideology of the party are the same thing. The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only anti-communists and Marxist–Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's State Socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist.
^ 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.
^ According to Asa Cusack, an expert on Latin America and frequent contributor to mainstream media, Venezuela's economy remained "market-based and private-sector dominated" throughout Chávez's time in office. Although "the social economy and the public sector were heavily promoted", for example through nationalisation, "the private sector was expected to remain dominant, and it did. A centrally planned socialist economy like Cuba's was neither the aim nor the reality." Even Fox News, before things went bad and socialism became the boogeyman, reported in 2009 that roughly 70% of Venezuela's gross domestic product was created by the private sector; so during the 2000s economic boom, Venezuela was still capitalist (good) but as soon as the 2010s economic crisis hit, it became socialist (bad).

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Socialism Top‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

United States: History High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).

Politics: American Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 11, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed

Is social democracy socialist or not?

The page begins with "Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism that supports economic democracy", before it later changing to "within the framework of a capitalist-orientated mixed economy", before later changing again back to "the most common form of Western or modern socialism, as well as the reformist wing of democratic socialism", before again changing to "a left-wing political ideology that advocates for a peaceful democratic evolution from laissez-faire or crony capitalism towards social capitalism", before switching back again to saying it was a "dominant political tendency within the international socialist movement".

Is social democracy socialism or not? Geo (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's socialish. Andre🚐 23:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is "socialish", do workers directly or indirectly control the means of production, distribution, and exchange, or do they not?

Plus even if social democracy is a form of "semi-socialism", that isn't quite what is said in this article which seems to flip flop on whether its socialism or capitalism. Geo (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixed economy, but it depends. Andre🚐 00:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy is a system where the workers do not democratically own the means of production; the owning class (bourgeoisie) and government does; it is liberal capitalism with a strong social safety net and some key-industries nationalized, and therefore not socialist. The article should reflect this. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No - socialism is a range, and a mixed economy can have some socialized industries. Anyway, you need a reliable source, not just logic and opinions on definitions. Andre🚐 15:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem to support it being a part of socialism but inherently capitalist in nature. — Czello ^(music) 15:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy (which is admittedly still a big tent) historically did emerge from the socialist tradition, and it seems to me it was formerly much more common to use the terms more or less interchangeably; but I feel the introduction to this article has problems -- it is overly specific in its descriptive claims, and it fails to distinguish between the historical and theoretical features of social democracy on the one hand and the politics of contemporary parties in the tradition on the other. Quite plainly, "maintaining socialism as a long-term goal" does not generally apply to contemporary social democratic parties. Knot Lad (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that easy. Historically, in this case, means pre-1990s. The 90s is when every social democratic party of Europe moved towards a liberal consensus, from Tony Blair, to Lionel Jospin, to the successors of Olof Palme (in Sweden, yes. That's also why modern Swedish socdems might not like Bernie Sanders calling Sweden socialist), to Schröder, and the list goes on.... But even here the line isn't that clear. Tony Blair claimed the term democratic socialism for his reforms. In France socialism meant, and means, essentially reformist socialism, the rest being labeled communism. Lionel Jospin used 'modern socialism' as not a term but a descriptor for the evolution of socialism.. not really an easy way to define things. Also, democratic socialism was a term also used by Oskar Lafontaine in 1990, before Schröder, so that complicates things. But generally social-democracy is part of a wider socialism, which vaguely wants more social justice and a better welfare state. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that social democracacy is socialist is not generally accepted.

Social democracy is not devoted to the private ownership of the means of production but has found its peace with capitalism. Why? Because capitalism is more productive than socialism and, when well-regulated, satisfies the principles of justice outlined above. Conversely, if it turns out that the socialization of the means of production is more productive and consistent with the principles of justice outlined above, then social democracy would favor economic socialism. But social democracy carries no principled commitment to economic socialism. Since such a principled commitment is a defining feature of any socialist theory of justice, it follows that social democracy is not socialism, and, a forteriori, also not democratic socialism. Von Platz J. Social Democracy // The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. – Routledge, 2022

So to write that social democracy is an ideology within socialism violates NPOV (since even if many sources agree with this statement, there are serious sources that disagree). It arose within socialism - this is how it should be written, it will be more neutral. Reprarina (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It originally meant non-Marxist courants of socialism, revolutionary (what you often call communist) and reformist (socialism through gradual reform). After the 1920s it meant exclusively reformist socialism, and after the 1990s it had a move to the center and towards economic liberalism. Your interpretation of socialism is what is commonly called « far-left ». Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, your interpretation, while common (at least in the US), would make major figures like Jean-Luc Mélenchon, or Jeremy Corbyn, or Oskar Lafontaine, not socialist, but moderate social-democrats (most of them would claim both labels, as a side note). Social-democracy is social welfare while not violently usurping the capitalist system, however, it can, in theory, lead to socialism via gradual reform. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is there is such opinion between at least scholars who write articles for Routledge that social democracy is not socialist. And that is enough for removing "within socialism" from the preface. Reprarina (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, since other reliable sources disagree. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a dominant point of view rule, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view rule. Only completely fringe points of view can be ignored. Reprarina (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does go after academic consensus, so essentially, yes, Wikipedia has a dominant point of view rule. This POV can’t be ignored completely, although I think the article has made clear the development of social-democracy, and the debates surrounding it. Since the 1990s, there is a move to the center, and a de-radicalisation. However things don’t always stay the same, they change. The PS of France is moving to the left again under the influence of LFI, the SPD has a left-wing party leader, the PSOE isn't really economically liberal either. In Colombia, Gustavo Petro claims to be a social democrat, yet he openly expresses eco-socialist ideals (he believes that there cannot be a green capitalism), Lula is claiming to be a socialist of the 21 century while doing social-democratic policies, radical communists in Venezuela label Chavez a social-democrat, etc. Social-democracy doesn’t exclude the possibility of a socialist model through reform. Socialism through slow, gradual reform, respecting the democratic institutions, and not by revolution, is reformist socialism. Encyclopédisme (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking of cases where individual social democratic parties and politicians are seen to favor a transition to socialism in the long term (such as link 25 in the preamble) does not mean that all social democracy is within socialism. Faulty generalization. Reprarina (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These social democratic parties or individuals seem to not see a contradiction between socialism and social-democracy. The exemples I cited show that the only reason some sources claim social-democracy is not socialist, the development towards the Third Way, is developing and changing itself. It is a fact that since the late 2010s, social-democracy in general is having a move to the left again. Social-democracy is one ideology, and some experts and politicians believe that it’s third way version is not socialist. However, even there, things aren’t black and white, since other third wayers, such as a certain Tony Blair, do claim the term « democratic socialism ». Social-democracy on its own was and, to a lesser extent, is viewed as reformist socialist (reformist socialism, defined by people such as Jean Jaurès, not Marx). Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a plethora of sources cited that say it's part of socialism. — Czello ^(music) 16:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the only non-fringe point of view, then there would be enough of them. Reprarina (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not about fringe or not fringe. WW2 started in 1939, and social-democracy is a part of the socialist ideology and movement. The majority of reliable sources say so. End of debate. In this case the reasons why some variations of social-democracy since the 1990s might not be socialist are explained. Did you even read the article? Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific consensus that WW2 started in 1939 is much more clear than "scientific consensus" that social democracy is within socialism. Reprarina (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. Nonetheless, it is a scientific consensus. A majority of reliable sources. Maybe you could add this POV in the article, explaining the developments of the Third Way. But the lede is alright. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends a lot on the lens through which you’re viewing it: hardcore capitalists probably see social democracy [SD] as a variant of socialism (e.g. those in the USA who call universal healthcare "socialised medicine") whilst hardcore socialists probably view it as capitalism in sheep's clothing. As a self-described social democrat, I am uncomfortable being labelled either capitalist or a socialist, but instead see SD as occupying a midpoint between full-blown capitalism on the one hand and full-blown socialism on the other. However, it would seem that many people (at least in the West) conceive of capitalism and socialism as binaries, with those in the political 'centre' be capitalists, albeit moderate and/or socially liberal ones. Adding to the confusion is a combination of factors including:

- the fact that centre-left Labor / social democratic parties in many Western European countries bear the name "Socialist Party";

- the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by, and general rightward rightward drift of, pretty much every 'social-democratic' party in Europe and Australasia beginning in the 1980s;

- many progressive Democratic Party politicians in the USA describe themselves and/or their politics as "democratic socialist" when they really mean "social democratic", possibly because the term "Social Democrat" would confuse many people?

Aeronius aus (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if there is a significant number of academic sources that do not consider social democracy to be a variant of socialism, then the opposite view, even if it is shared by some majority of political scientists, should not be presented as fact. We should not confuse facts with majority opinion. Reprarina (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a substanial number of academic sources that explicitly say it's not socialist? Because presently we have an abudance that say it is (or at least, "within socialism"). — Czello ^(music) 07:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using opinion pieces as a source?

This quoted piece cites two opinion pieces rather than academic papers. Is this really good conduct? Citing two academics and saying "described by academics" gives a false implication of a scholarly consensus.

"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." Allmänbildare (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism and economic democracy (and citation bloat)

I think it's misleading to imply in the first line that economic democracy is one of the two main pillars of social democracy. I think this should be removed. I also think it should be clarified that today social democracy no longer stands for overturning the capitalist system. I'm not opposed to discussion of economic democracy or social democracy's more radical roots later down the page. But this is the principal definition that most readers will encounter on this page and currently it gives off the impression that social democracy is more radical than it is. This talk page is proof of how much confusion this is causing.

There's also citation bloat. There isn't a need for nine different sources for a single line. Oakley Kim (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to prove your claims. It would be incorrect and misleading to change an article based on subjective opinions. Allmänbildare (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well, let me make the case then that the sources that are presently cited don't quite justify the current placement of economic democracy. Wintrop (1983) says that "originally the term social democracy denoted a concern to make the values of democracy apply to social and economic life..." so this is only supporting evidence regarding a definition of 19th century social democracy. Moreover, the author goes on to explain how social democracy changed and moderated according to its circumstances. Archer (1995) more strongly asserts social democracy as a tradition of economic democracy, but most of his work is discussing the potential future of social democracy, not explaining it as such. Archer's work reads to me as showing that besides a few notable experiments, political democracy and establishing a welfare state historically took priority—and these I would argue are more suited as the implied core pillars of social democracy. Ritzer (2004) references the Meidner plan (one of the experiments cited by Archer) which was indeed a bold and novel effort towards economic democracy. But it was only implemented in a watered-down form and then abandoned by the SAP. (More precisely, the right wing shut it down whilst in power and the SAP never reintroduced it.) So my interpretation of Ritzer is the same as with Archer. (As for Jones, unless I missed it or accessed the wrong version, I don't see a mention of economic democracy.) Oakley Kim (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with this and related articles is that the topic is not defined. Social democracy can mean different things. Therefore what the article says about the topic will be contradictory. TFD (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and Vandalism

@Czello @TFD There was a consensus on the lead of this page, achieved by us 3 and others. Over the last 6 months or more I have noticed some editors have sporadically edited the lead intro without reaching a new consesus in the talk page first. The accumulated effect of these individual edits have led to the intro to change almost without recognition. I have only seen @Czello make some edits and request people go to the talk page first. But unfortunately I see this hasn't worked. I propose the lead returns to the previous edit that matches the consesus otherwise I believe steps might have to be taken protect this page. Erzan (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the definition is not sufficiently clear. For example, is Jeremy Corbyn a social democrat? TFD (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a direct answer to the issue I raised. So I am returning the intro lead page back to when @Czello last edited it without the individual edits, which stated changes to the lead intro required a new consesus in the talk page. Is that ok with you @Czello because otherwise this page will become a edit war. Erzan (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the lengthy discussions we had previously I do think the lead would require consensus for new changes or wording. — Czello ^(music) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been subjected to repeat vandalism and some editors inserting opinions with dubious sources which has undermined the consesus that was built after a very long discussion, a process which involved arduous discussion and seeking the attention and opinions of others to settle disputes. I see little to no incentive to restart that process because the same editors are contributing to the breakdown of consesus. Erzan (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any article, unless there is an edit war, the existing version is the consensus version. It remains so until the next unchallenged edit is made. Of course people are able to edit articles.

If you disagree with an edit, you should reverse it providing reasons. If the other editor reverts you, you should set up a discussion explaining why you oppose the edit. The fact that you and a few other editors at one point agreed to the current wording does not mean you own the article.

However, the fact that your consensus did not clearly define the topic means that you have no argument against anything another editor adds so long as it is sourced.

To use my example, if the topic were defined, you would be able to tell me if Corbyn is a social democrat because he meets some definitions while not meeting others. TFD (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Vandalism was not my intention. Oakley Kim (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In South Africa and social market economy

The "In South Africa" section has nothing to do with the section its under ("Social democracy and democratic socialism"). It also doesn't seem to fit elsewhere in the article as its content is rather specific to South Africa, not social democracy in general. I propose this be removed.

Also regarding this line: "It is a left-wing political ideology that advocates for a peaceful democratic evolution from laissez-faire or crony capitalism towards social capitalism, sometimes also referred to as a social market economy." This line is unsourced and also untrue. The social market economy is a liberal concept/model, not social democratic (i.e. tied to the socialist tradition) even if it may have similarities with the latter in practice.[1][2] I think this to be removed also. Oakley Kim (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article is that it conflate various topics referred to as social democracy. Some people for example refer to social welfare programs that exist in most advanced nations as social democracy, while some restrict the term to the ideology of the German Social Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Socialism & Lede

The Lede currently describes socdem as an ideology within socialism. 5 sources are cited for this sentence clause. Three book sources from 1999, 2005, and 2007 respectively, and two online sources from 2018 and 2019 respectively. Only 2 of them are accessible, the two online sources. Neither of the two online sources (this and this) make the claim that Social democracy is a movement within Socialism.

The question for the RFC is: should the lede describe the ideology as Socialist? There will be 6 options; please write the option you support along with your reasoning in the survey section, and then discuss in the discussion section. Also please write the extent to which you support the other proposals. Please don't reply to others in the survey section. Please don't just write an option without any reasoning for it.

Option 1: It should should describe it as 'a Liberal poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'.

Option 2: It should should omit the 'is a movement within' part in favour of the lede sentence, instead describing it as 'a political ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'.

Option 3: It should describe it as a socialist political ideology, as it does now [status quo].

Option 4: It should should describe it as 'a democratic poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'

Option 5: It should should describe it as 'a capitalist poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'

Option 6: Other, it should [insert thing].

Option 7: Comment.

.A Socialist Trans Girl 08:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Reply to this message for the survey (this isnt like a rule or anything but please put : infront of your message if you're editing in the source editor and not just clicking reply, so that people who click [reply] to this message dont have their messages put above yours, so that the comments will be kept in chronological order.) A Socialist Trans Girl 08:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support option 2, Support option 4, and 5, oppose option 1, strong oppose option 3. Social democracy, and democratic socialism, are of course, separate ideologies. However if social democracy is a form of socialism which supports democratically transitioning to socialism, this begs the question: how exactly are they different?

The article for Democratic socialism says "Democratic socialism is also distinguished from Third Way social democracy because democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, while social democrats use capitalism to create a strong welfare state, leaving many businesses under private ownership.". Even the lede of this article says "In modern practice, social democracy has become mainly capitalist, with the state regulating the economy in the form of welfare capitalism, economic interventionism, partial public ownership, a robust welfare state, policies promoting social equality, and a more equitable distribution of income." This clearly points to socdem in the modern sense being not socialist. Here is a RS describing it as not being socialist [[3]]. I oppose option 1, as I believe its kinda simplistic to describe it as merely liberalism, as whilst there are many similarities, it's quite different to other Liberal movements/ideologies/parties/currents. Also, I dont think that many sources describe it as Liberal, but I might be wrong. I only support option 1 over option 3, as it holds far more ideological similarities to Liberalism than to Socialism. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 6. From the above discussion, it seems there is substantial disagreement among reliable sources whether or not social democracy is a form of socialism, "within socialism", was once socialist but is now really not, and so on. Therefore, that disagreement, what it's over, and why each side holds the position it does should be explained, without the article "picking a side". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 While I agree that there is disagreement that is always going to be the case with a subject like this when you try and put a label on it. You can take a snapshot in a particular time and place and assert one meaning but at another time or place, while still broadly appropriate, the term may be interpreted differently. That said we are an encyclopaedia so we need to try and pull it together as far as we can - while still allowing for all the vagaries. Option 2 just about does that.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3

The main argument presented is that the sources mentioned aren't available online. There are online copies, just not for free. To help sort that out I have provided some citations to support what seems to be the consensus among several political scientists, that social democracy is an ideology within the socialist tradition.

"At first glance it may seem odd, or at least unnecessary, that a book on

modern political ideologies should have separate chapters devoted to

different aspects of the socialist tradition."

"In much of Europe though, if not in Britain, the terms are interchangeable and 'social democracy' carries the whole weight of this complex history. It stands as the dominant twentieth-century form of socialism in the West, where (apart from America) it provided the chief opposition to political conservatism and to the political organization of capitalism. "

Wright A. (2018). Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism in Contemporary Political Ideologies (pp. 78-99).

"One reaction to essentialism is a flight into 'historicism': namely the reduction of the socialist tradition to mere historical narrative, where an account is given of all those over the centuries who have called themselves, or have been deemed by others to be, socialists. A procession of utopian socialists, Marxists, Christian Socialists, social democrats, and so forth passes by leaving little sense of what has brought them all together."

"A wide range of transitions have been advocated over the years: amongst these are general strikes, mass insurrections and parliamentary roads, effected either singly or in concert. Underlying beliefs inform the choice of method. Social democrats have believed that it is possible, through parliament, to turn the state into the cutting edge of socialism; revolutionary Marxists assumed that ruling classes would use any means to cling to power, necessitating the use of violent revolution; ethical socialists believed that fundamental transformations had to occur in the hearts of individuals; Fabians maintained that under the guidance of experts, socialism would gradually but inevitably evolve out of capitalism."

Geoghean V. (2014) Socialism in Political Ideologies An Introduction (pp. 72-98). Allmänbildare (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Social democrats rejected the Soviet model and effectively accepted the notion that there was some convergence between their own views and those of others, such as left-wing liberals, who believed in parliamentary democracy and social reform. Two kinds of political parties, allegedly serving the interests of the working classes, had become the main agencies for the establishment of socialism, and these two traditions now struggled for ascendancy inEurope and the rest of the world

Newman M. (2005). Socialist Traditions in Socialism : A Very Short Introduction Allmänbildare (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 6 I think it can be reworded in the opening sentence to say "originating in socialism" and that would be both accurate and sidestep the current status. Social democracy's evolution from its socialist roots to its embrace of capitalist reform is the main thread of the article. Void if removed (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 or Option 6 per Void if removed. It appears there is no Reliable Sources supporting any of the other options. The lead also has to take in account the history of social democracy, not just it's current forms. Socialism is an important influence on social democracy and should be mentioned in the lead. Encyclopedia Britannica supports Void's suggestion. [4]https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 7 If I'm not too late to comment, in my experience, sometimes its easier to describe the ideologies policies or characteristics, which in turn should allow the reader to form a conclusion, without the need of restricting it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Here is where you can discuss with other editors, responding to other editors points and such. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the book sources are technically available on the Internet Archive: Source one, Source two, and Source three. That said, none of them are available to borrow, and log-in is still not allowed yet, but Wikipedia allows offline sources to be used as well as online ones. Presumably, whoever put those in as sources had access to them, and they do, in fact, consider Socdem as a sub-ideology within Socialism. Ships & Space_(Edits) 14:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't have to have everything available online. If it would be particularly interesting what exactly those three sources say, it looks like they're available (at least to me) via interlibrary loan; regular old public libraries are great for getting hold of offline sources. That said, before going to that extent, would those three sources be somehow definitive even if other sources say otherwise, or could we presume those sources say what's asserted that they do and that the issue here is instead that other sources don't agree with them? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided some parts of the three offline sources. The consensus there is that social democracy is part of the socialist tradition.

Whether or not contemporary social democracy still has socialist tendencies is a matter of constant debate within social democratic parties. Definitive statements such as claiming contemporary social democracy to be either socialism or capitalism/liberalism, should therefore be avoided.

Neither of the two online sources make the claim that social democracy isn't socialism either. Therefore I see no disagreement based on the sources currently provided. Allmänbildare (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that saying that social democracy is part of the socialist movement is like saying the Eifel Tower is in Paris. At least from the European perspective, socialism is a spectrum, going from social democracy to Marxism-Leninism. Granted, a member of the British Labour Party or the SPD are probably more similar in policy preferences to the Democratic Party in the USA, than the Marxists. However, Labour and the SPD use socialists symbols such as the colour red. The SPD even sings the Internationale at events. Sure, the hard left says that the SPD aren't real socialists, and may have a point. Still, I don't think any European social democrat would consider themselves liberal or capitalist. Are there any sources that support the idea that social democrats aren't socialist? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before addressing this issue, we need to define the topic, since the term social democracy can refer to several topics.

The original meaning was a synomym for socialism, so Marx, Lenin and Eugene Debs were all members of "Social Democratic" parties. This meaning has become obsolete.

Following the split within socialism over the First World War and the Russian Revolution, Communists who broke away from Socialist parties came to call them "Social Democrats" as a term of disparagement. The implication was that they were not pro-socialist, but pro-captialist, or even "social fascists." In reply they called themselves democratic socialists (a term that also has several meanings.)

The launch of the welfare state by the Social Democratic Party of Sweden gave rise to use of the term to describe any welfare state.

The terms social democrat and democratic socialist are used in the Labour Party UK to distinguish between more moderate and radical wings of the party.

Some sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, use the term as a synonym for revisionist Marxism, the official ideology of the Social Democratic Party of Germany until c. 1960.

TFD (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good point, I think that the article should cover it all, because the history is still important to the social democrats of today. The lead should give the reader an idea that it is a changing concept. However, it should avoid reading like criticism from the left. Which, calling it liberal and capitalist would do. Those words are also various meanings. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 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. As an example, liberals, conservatives and socialists created welfare programs in the United States, Germany and Sweden, respectively, but for different reasons and implemented them differently.

[2] If you use socialist economy to mean the Soviet model, of course they have not turned capitalist economies into socialist ones; yet, they moved them closer to socialist ideals (Jerry Mander describes the mixed economy as "an active collaboration of capitalist and socialist visions"), so much so that social-democrat Anthony Crosland argued that "traditional 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", for a new kind of capitalism required a new kind of socialism. Of course, "Crosland believed that these features of a reformed managerial capitalism were irreversible, but it has been argued within the Labour Party and by others that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought about its reversal in the 1970s and 1980s. While the post-war consensus represented a period where social democracy was 'most buoyant', it has been argued that 'post-war social democracy had been altogether too confident in its analysis' because 'gains which were thought to be permanent turned out to be conditional and as the reservoir of capitalist growth showed signs of drying up.'" Still, many legitimate academics, economists and scholars have disputed the Soviet model as socialist, calling it centralised-managed (rather than planned; and planning itself, which has been adopted by many capitalist and non-capitalist countries, or a planned economy is not necessarely socialist), command economy, state capitalism, or another non-socialist mode of production; so socialist economy cannot be reduced to that.

It is not original research to discuss whether social democracy as used to describe the Nordic model developed by the Swedish Social Democrats and social democracy as used to describe the ideology of the party are the same thing. The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only anti-communists and Marxist–Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's State Socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist.

[3] 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.

[4] According to Asa Cusack, an expert on Latin America and frequent contributor to mainstream media, Venezuela's economy remained "market-based and private-sector dominated" throughout Chávez's time in office. Although "the social economy and the public sector were heavily promoted", for example through nationalisation, "the private sector was expected to remain dominant, and it did. A centrally planned socialist economy like Cuba's was neither the aim nor the reality." Even Fox News, before things went bad and socialism became the boogeyman, reported in 2009 that roughly 70% of Venezuela's gross domestic product was created by the private sector; so during the 2000s economic boom, Venezuela was still capitalist (good) but as soon as the 2010s economic crisis hit, it became socialist (bad).

[nb 1]

[nb 2]

[nb 3]

[nb 4]