Talk:Social democracy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:15, 15 September 2021

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

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: 90 days

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Socialism B‑class 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology B‑class Mid‑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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Social and political B‑class Mid‑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 articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics B‑class High‑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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics B‑class Mid‑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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History B‑class Mid‑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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European history B‑class Mid‑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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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).

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [2]

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" [3]

The 3rd source states "It needs to rejoin its critique of the capitalist economy" [4]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Too long?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Splitting proposal

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)[reply]

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

Definition from Encyclopaedia Brittanica?

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

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)[reply]

Preamble

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[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]

Revision as of 06:51, 15 September 2021 edit Czello (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers 40,154 edits →Preamble: re ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:15, 15 September 2021 edit undo Twozerooz (talk \| contribs) 231 edits →Preamble Next edit →
Line 163:		Line 163:

	: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. — '''[[User:Czello\|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <small>(Please tag me in replies)</small> 06:51, 15 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. — '''[[User:Czello\|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <small>(Please tag me in replies)</small> 06:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
			:: {{ping\|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]]. --[[User:Twozerooz\|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz\|talk]]) 14:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)