Talk:Social democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following sentence may need to be split

This is all one sentence:

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

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

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

Recent removal of content about Gallup poll

I noticed that content on this topic was recently removed by an editor, so I reverted that revision. I'm mentioning this here for discussion. Does polling information belong in this article?  Eyer ^contact  11:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The polls don't mention social democracy. The problem with this article is that it takes various things that have been called social democracy, from revisionist Marxism to the Nordic model and presents them as a coherent ideology. TFD (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, focussing on the subject rather than the article. ——SN54129 14:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(I'm sorry for the wall text) The thing is, correct me if I'm wrong, that social democracy has indeed been different things at different times. It originated as a form of revolutionary socialism and a variant of orthodox Marxism. In the mid- to late 1910s, it became a form of reformist and evolutionary socialism; with Bolshevism becoming a form of revolutionary social democracy, but which they called communism to not be associated with social democracy since they deemed them as "traitors" to their cause for their support of World War I. In the 1930s, it became in practice a form of social liberalism and liberal socialism. Since the 1940s, it became synonymous with the welfare states. Until the 1970s, it was what is now called democratic socialism in that it was a reformist form of socialism which was still committed to socialism, unlike Third Way social democracy. Indeed, many social democrats and social democratic parties which builded the welfare states would today be called democratic socialists, if by now social democracy doesn't mean anymore a reformist commitment to socialism, but rather reform to "improve" capitalism. Since the 1980s, it became synonymous with the Third Way and in practice it was a form of social neoliberalism, i.e. social liberalism adapted to the neoliberal consensus, just like many centre-right parties accepted the Keynesian/post-war consensus until the 1970s. Generally, social democracy is a form of reformist or evolutionary socialism that has adopted different ideas at different times. Ideally, social democracy support a socialist mixed economy, with market socialism combined with some form of planning and public ownership. In practice, it supports a capitalist mixed economy. However, I have changed "within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy" to "within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy" because social democracy generally supported capitalism for pragmatic reasons, just like it supported Keynesianism as a compromise, unlike liberalism. A mixed economy, or market economy, is not synonymous with capitalism and does not make it either. Instead, I have retained "capitalist mixed economy" when it specifically talks about the post-war situation and in that case it makes sense to speak of a capitalist mixed economy since it speaks of one "based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership". Just like social democracy is usually confused with democractic socialism, I would argue that it is also as likely to be confused with the Third Way as it seems to be a given that social democracy now accepts capitalism. Indeed, certain self-professed social democrats, mainly Third Wayers, may accept capitalism, but that doesn't make social democracy to accept it as a whole. On the contrary, they have been criticized and the Third Way has been seen as form of social neoliberalism inspired by social democracy, but in practice rejecting it. Generally, I would describe modern social democracy as a reformist socialist philosophy that supports liberal democracy, a mixed economy and is committed to socialism by gradualist, peaceful, or/and evolutionary means.--79.19.155.206 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC) In other words, it has meant different things at different times and even at the same time. But we have articles for all those things. Usually it is used as a synonym for socialism. Democratic socialism was adopted as a term by socialists to differentiate themselves from communists, while social democrat was a term used by communists to distinguish themselves from socialists. Few people actually call themselves social democrats except with capital letters if they happen to belong to a party called the Social Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC) (It's always me. I'm so sorry again for the wall text and "essay"; I just wanted to say my thoughts and maybe start a discussion to improve the page.) Exactly. But fundamentally, social democracy remains a reformist socialist movement, or the right-wing of the socialist movement, if you will. Not that it's actually right-wing, just that's it's to the right of most other socialist movements. If there's something that could be called right-wing socialism, that is social democracy, not paternalistic conservatism; that is corporatism. The thing is that many right-wingers who speaks of socialism (see Prussian socialism, yellow socialism, etc.), they actually mean corporatism; or at least in practice that's what it would be, liberal corporatism. When fascists and Nazis spoke of socialism, they meant/referred to corporatism; and that's why they're labelled as far-right, anti-socialists, no matter what certain revisionist Americans may say or think about it. In practice, social democracy has also been a form corporatism in its welfare states (see neo- and social corporatism). I would argue that Western European welfare states, so-called socialists states and the "pink tide" in Latin American are all variants of social democracy. In Western Europe, it's easy to see that; in so-called socialist states like the Soviet Union, it's not. But the thing is that Communists, when they renamed themeselves as such, they fundamentally remained social democrats, just revolutionary or more radical vis-à-vis Western European Social Democrats that became reformist socialists, reformist social democrats. As can be seen from above discussions, it's a given that welfare social-democratic states are capitalist, but what are referred to as socialist or communist states isn't. To me, and I would be wrong and/or biased, it's just another way to label socialism a failure and that anything associated with socialism, even reformist socialism like social democracy, if successful, it cannot possibly be socialism. Yes, social-democratic welfare states were and remain fundamentally capitalist; but so were so-called socialist states. The issue and problem is that when left-wing critics call so-called socialist states capitalist, they don't mean capitalism as in liberal capitalism, but capitalism as the mode of production. These socialist states may not correspond to liberal capitalism or its capitalist ideal, but capitalism isn't just liberal capitalism; and modern examples of what are called authoritarian and illiberal capitalist states prove it. Just like the word socialist state confuse many people into thinking that the state must be socialist, that it must have a socialist economy, when in practice it's simply meant to refer to a state that is ideologically socialist. After all, not even one self-declared socialist state actually claimed to have reached socialism; I could be wrong, but I think only Stalin once argued that the Soviet Union achieved socialism with the 1936 Constitution and that was soon proved wrong and just before the Great Purge with the so-called "aggravation of the struggle under socialism" which was an ideological and pragmatic way to justify repression, but I digress. Just like many capitalist states are more liberal, Christian democratic or social democratic ideologically-driven. The issue is that socialism refers both to a philosophy and to an economic system, whereas capitalism is an economy system with liberalism as its core ideology, but also with other ideologies supportive of it. In Latin America, social democracy is a more populist-oriented ideology and only in Venezuela it's socialism's fault because it collapsed, despite the fact I remember reading how most economy and business remained in private hands and perhaps that was why it was having a certain success, before its collapse, which must be caused by socialism, because. Even Nicaragua is now a socialist state, instead of a social-democratic one; so much so that it launched a "social reform" that increased the retirement age from 60 to 65 and cut benefits by 5% while raising income and payroll taxes that sparked deadly unrest in reaction; such socialism, so much socialism! [sarcasm] I think this is due the socialist state issue I talked about earlier. Since many people understand that to be literally, that since the state is actually socialist, all policies must be socialist and not pragmatic policies in response to political events as they arose. Thus, we see cult of personalities and other authoritarian and forced policies being seen as socialist, rather than as authoritarian in itself. In sum, worldwide there have been three different social democracies: (1) Western social democracy (pro-liberal democracy; reformist/gradualist); (2) Soviet (and its allies) social democracy (anti-liberal democracy; radical/revolutionary; one-party state); (3) Latin American (ambivalent towards liberal democracy, but generally pro-direct democracy and opposed to one-party state; populist-oriented reformism/gradualism). What they have in common is that in practice all use the bourgeois state machinery to push reforms, rather than abolish it and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat which actually means the proletariat having real, direct power, rather than through a "proletarian and peasant" party, whether Social Democrat or Communist. Although in the Soviet and its allies case social democracy came through a revolution and as a result it was more radical, in practice the new ruling class was little different from the Western social democracy since it adopted reformism and gradualism, rather than abolish private property and wage labour, the law of value, etc. In the Latin American case, it's more of a case of old-style social democracy opposed to neoliberalism (a very real thing and not just a weasel word). Ultimately, they're all social-democratic welfare states. Indeed, I would argue that the Soviet Union was the first modern welfare state. While there have been welfare reforms in Germany, France and England, I would argue that the Soviet Union led the process for the modern welfare state. The difference is that whether the Soviet Union saw the welfare state as the first step towards socialism, Western states saw it as a way to dissuade workers from supporting socialism. I would even argue that the Soviet welfare state was conservative, in that it wasn't a universal social-democratic welfare state like the Nordic countries, but in practice a conservative, workfare one since one had to work (they pushed for full employment) and that benefits would be withdrawn and cut at any time, generally for political reasons. But that's just my opinion and what my reasearch led me to think too; I don't know if there're reliable sources that would support this. As you stated, "Few people actually call themselves social democrats except with capital letters if they happen to belong to a party called the Social Democratic Party", just because someone or something support social-democratic reforms of policies doesn't make it social-democratic. Using the logic of the user above who argued that the conservative party in Norway is social-democratic, then so was Bismark, who banned the actual Social Democrats and pursued what could be called social-democratic policies specifically to dissuade workers from voting the Social Democrats. The conservative parties in Norway and other Nordic countries are social-democratic only insofar they support the social-democratic welfare state (they wouldn't be elected if they wanted to disband it); and yet they have generally called for reduction of it and indeed Social Democratic parties themselves have had to reduce and cut benefits since the 1980s and 1990s; that isn't social democracy. Elizabeth Warren isn't a social democrat, she's a social liberal, even though she may support social-democratic policies. She wants to save capitalism, not trascend it or advocate a post-capitalist society. Self-professed social democrats may support capitalism, but social democracy doesn't; otherwhise it ceases being social democracy and become just another form of social liberalism, which is what the Third Way is. To the users who started the "Social Democracy is not socialism." discussion, he or she conflated successful social democracy (Western Europe) with unsucessful social democracy (Latin America, Africa and Asia) with capitalism (the first) and socialism (the latter). He or she also conflated advocating socialism with claiming that all these unsuccessfully social democracy were socialist economic systems despite all, more or less retaining the capitalist mode of production; and that is what I talked about in the first part. Many right-wingers indeed see social democracy as socialism. When it's good it's capitalism, when it's bad it's socialism. Social democrat Jacobo Árbenz was labelled a communist and overthrowed for his land reform despite supporting capitalism. The user who started the "Conflicts with Democratic Socialism" did the same. He or she also argued that "Social Democracy is not socialism, does not aim for a socialistic society at all"; that may be true for Third Way social democracy, but that ignores the whole history of social democracy. The thing is that democratic socialism, among other things, basically means the pre-1980s/neoliberal social democracy, as well as socialism opposed to Soviet-style socialism, etc. Most libertarian socialists are also democratic socialists, but not all democratic socialists are libertarian socialists. Before 1989, democratic socialism was used to refer to socialists opposed to Soviet socialism; since 1989, it now refers to former communists parties and politicians who are old-school, anti-Third Way social democrats. Users like these also seem to ignore something that is actually written in the text and sourced, namely that social democracts supported capitalism and Keynesianism only insofar "capitalism's typical crises could be prevented and if mass unemployment could be averted" and people like Anthony Crosland, who died just before the neoliberal revolution, seemed to think the welfare state and this new capitalism as irreversible. Who knows if they would still support it now since the neoliberal consensus. Certain social democrats did and they're called Third Wayers, but they're also called anti-social democrats by critics. It also depends on whether it was only a pragmatic choice and would change their mind now, or if they would insist on the Third Way. I want to make clear this is all just my opinions; I'm not a political scientist or an academic. I don't know if there're reliable sources that agree with this. Either way, social democracy is a form of evolutionary socialism; in the past, it was also radical and revolutionary, while nowadays is mainly reformist. Other socialist reformist movements include ethical socialism and liberal socialism. As you stated, social democracy is used as a synonym of socialism. So I would describe social democracy as advocating a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. As you stated, self-professed social democrats and social-democratic parties may not subscribe to that anymore, but that means they ceased following social democracy and still claiming to be social democrats or the party still being named Social Democrat doesn't change this fact. The problem is that nowadays democratic socialism is basically social democracy; and social democracy is the Third Way. Politicians such Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders and Left parties are more social-democratic than other self-professed social democrats and Social Democrat parties. Now that I think about it, social democracy could be described as the philosophy of socialism (the economic system) since it was used as a synonym for orthodox Marxism, but that has now changed. The difference is that social democrats believe that capitalism will achieve socialism. About the Gallup poll, it was basically a free-market capitalism or social-democratic capitalism question since that's what the terms mean in the United States, but this is just my opinion and is impossible to tell what polled people understood or meant by the terms.--82.56.207.84 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

On recent edits, plus what is Social Democracy today.

Recently this article is being constantly edited by people who want to transform reality itself by making Social Democracy into Democratic Socialism or Revolutionary Socialism in an attempt to make them the same, simply because they believe so. Unfortunately, evidence is yet to be provided. If, in the actual days, Social Democratic parties had Revolutionary goals, we would see examples of Social Democratic revolutionary struggle today or in the past 100 years, which we won't.

It is true that Social Democracy originated also as a revolutionary ideology from the Second International, Lenin being a Revolutionary Social Democrat himself in the years prior to the October Revolution, he realized, by the time he wrote State and Revolution the inherent anti-revolutionary revisionism within the Social Democratic movement:

"The usual criticism of anarchism by present-day Social-Democrats has boiled down to the purest philistine banality: "We recognize the state, whereas the anarchists do not!" Naturally, such banality cannot but repel workers who are at all capable of thinking and revolutionary-minded. What Engels says is different. He stresses that all socialists recognize that the state will disappear as a result of the socialist revolution. He then deals specifically with the question of the revolution - the very question which, as a rule, the Social-Democrats evade out of opportunism, leaving it, so to speak, exclusively for the anarchists "to work out". And when dealing with this question, Engels takes the bull by the horns; he asks: should not the Commune have made more use of the revolutionary power of the state, that is, of the proletariat armed and organized as the ruling class? Prevailing official Social-Democracy usually dismissed the question of the concrete tasks of the proletariat in the revolution either with a philistine sneer, or, at best, with the sophistic evasion: "The future will show". And the anarchists were justified in saying about such Social-Democrats that they were failing in their task of giving the workers a revolutionary education. Engels draws upon the experience of the last proletarian revolution precisely for the purpose of making a most concrete study of what should be done by the proletariat, and in what manner, in relation to both the banks and the state."

You can obviously notice how Lenin points out the Social Democrats trying to keep away from Revolutionary speech, "leaving it to the anarchists", Lenin was not alive to watch the complete "bourgeoisiation" of worldwide Social Democracy in the 1920's, the largest example being the SPD. Gustav Noske, from the SPD and Minister of Defence to the Weimar Republic, in 1919, used the Paramilitary prot-Fascists from the Freikorps to crush the Bavarian Soviet Republic uprising and the Spartacist League Revolution, which included the brutal murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. Which type of ideology that aims a socialist revolution, accepts parliamentary power, tries to fix German Capitalism instead of ending it, crushes a socialist revolution and gives orders that would end up in the death of workers and other comrades by the hands of nationalist paramilitary groups that would become the NSDAP armed wing?

Concluding, the article itself quotes Heywood's Political Ideologies: an Introduction that states:

The term ‘social democracy’ has been accorded a number of very different definitions. Its original meaning was associated with orthodox Marxism and was designed to highlight the distinction between the narrow goal of political democracy and the more radical task of collectivizing, or democratizing, productive wealth. Marxist parties formed in the late nineteenth century thus often styled themselves as social democratic parties, the best known example being the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), founded in 1875. By the early twentieth century, however, many such parties had come to adopt parliamentary tactics and were committed to a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism. As a result, social democracy was increasingly taken to refer to democratic socialism, in contrast to revolutionary socialism. After the 1917 Russian Revolution, revolutionary socialists, following the example of the Russian Bolsheviks, tended to use the title ‘communist’ to distance themselves from reformist social democratic parties. The final shift in the meaning of social democracy occurred by the mid-twentieth century, and resulted from the tendency among social democratic parties not only to adopt parliamentary strategies, but also to revise their socialist goals. In particular, western social democrats no longer sought to abolish capitalism but rather to reform or ‘humanise’ it. Social democracy therefore came to stand for a broad balance between the market economy, on the one hand, and state intervention, on the other. Although this stance has been most clearly associated with reformist socialism, it has also been embraced, to a greater or lesser extent, by others, notably modern liberals and paternalist conservatives.

Until evidence of Social Democrats willing to end Capitalism through violent revolution and perform an economical transition to Socialism then Communism, according to the most basic Socialist principles, one can't claim the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism.

Dragão Carmesim (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The text you removed referred to a social revolution, which is actually correct, although editors should not add or change texts without sources. I would also mention that the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy is arbitrary. It was a term coined by socialists to distinguish themselves from communists, while social Democrat was (following Lenin) a term of disparagement by communists for socialists. TFD (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

To expand on TFD's points; Social Democracy is a very broad term, and as Heywood also mentions, it did, and, depending on how you define Social Democracy, which is what this whole discussion is about, continues to do so, refer to Orthodox Marxists. What makes the distinction so incredibly hard is that not all Orthodox Marxists actively believe in a Bolshevik-style revolution, see Karl Kautsky & Rosa Luxemburg, and argue for different revolutionary theories, ways of organising, etc., impossibilists, who're also Orthodox Marxists, don't even believe that the transition is actually possible.

The point about how the SPD split during WW1(Burgfrieden, Spartakus, USPD, etc.), and how the MSPD then took part in the quashing of socialists uprising has a certain duality to it. It makes the ideologically charged assumption that the theories and actions of one side are to be considered more "truly Socialism" than the actions of the other, despite the glaringly obvious theoretical differences that laid behind the structures and actions of the parties. And while I on a personal may or may not agree with theorists like Luxemburg and Kautsky, who both sided with the USPD(It should be noted that Luxemburg was killed and Kautsky later rejoined the MSPD instead of the KPD), this does not mean that we shouldn't consider there works at least influential in the Social Democratic movement, and perhaps also important in forming certain directions of the Social Democratic movement. Not the Third Way/Goedesberg kind of Social Democracy, that is granted, but a more Archaic understanding of the Social Democratic movement within the context of their contemporary. We cannot remove Orthodox Marxism from our understanding of Social Democracy, however much we want to. JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: and @JonatanMSSvendsen: explained it better and shorter than I ever could. You can't just delete the history of social democracy; you can't also narrow it to just the Third Way. Ironically, many self-described democratic socialists are actually more social democratic than most self-professed social democrats or Social Democrat parties; for one, they actually advocate a Keynesian-style mixed economy and not a social-neoliberal market economy. As stated by TFD, democratic socialism was advocated by social democrats themselves to distinguish their socialism from the Stalinist model; however, democratic socialism basically include any socialist current opposed to their authoritarianism by now. Just because social democratic parties underwent a change culminated into the Third Way and the adoption of neoliberalism (this is uncontroversial), it doesn't mean that social democracy also did as a whole; if it loses its committment to socialism, whether by revolutionary, reformist or gradualist, evolutionary means, it ceases being social democracy and would be no different from social liberalism. It would become so meaningless that people like Bismarck, the guy who actually pushed the anti-socialist Social Democrats Law, can be labelled social democrat. Beside, the quote cited by you actually confirms that social democracy is a broad term and doesn't just include so-called Third Way Social Democrats and I believe the lead should reflect that.--80.104.241.122 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, @JonatanMSSvendsen: The text removed was regarding Social Democracy currently, and not the overall history of Social Democracy as you can see the context:

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy, be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state".

Social Democratic parties today don't aim for social revolution, which according to Wikipedia's own article regarding the subject, is a series of "sudden changes in the structure and nature of society. These revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy, and technology much more than political systems." Again, according to Heywood's own explanations of current social democracy, they aim is simply to commit in a series of Reforms within capitalism in order to soften it, there's thousands of examples, mainly being the Wokers' Party government in Brazil. No one's denying Social Democratic former revolutionary past, which even Engels helped in its formation during the Second International, I'm simply removing the current ways such ideology reaches its ideological goals, if I wanted to do that, I'd have edited the rest of the article and remove any connections to the RS movement. Dragão Carmesim (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that; the achievement of socialism would be the social revolution itself. Although revolution is often conflated and confused with it, a revolution isn't just a sudden coup d'ètat; peaceful revolution is also a thing. I also see that phrase merely explaining the three trends in the history of social democracy, namely revolutionary, evolutionary/gradualist/reformist and modern welfare social democracy.

P.S. Wrote this exactly at the same time of @JonatanMSSvendsen:, who explained this better than I could again. So thank you.--82.54.10.243 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, @Dragão Carmesim:, and I am sure that both @The Four Deuces: and the anonymous user will, if not agree with this point, be able to follow it, that social democratic theory is a little different when it comes to the pursuit of the social revolution when compared to the various Bolshevik traditions(granted this, again, only applies when we're talking about evolutionary/revisionist Marxism a la Bernstein or the Orthodox Marxism of people such as Kautsky, Luxemburg, etc.), the former believes that the social revolution can come through reformist or evolutionary means, while the latter often argues for spontaneous revolution which can only emerge in response to mounting contradictions between the productive forces and social relations of society and therefore rejects Leninism and Bolshevism for its insistence on a "guided" or "hands-on" approach to achievement of said revolution. So while Orthodox Marxists may not go around nowadays with revolutionary rhetoric, instead focusing more on the "bread and butter issues", this does by no means mean that they've necessarily completely abandoned the goal of the social revolution, they, as said, do not believe that it can be "forced", so to speak.

Further more, we cannot, as volunteer editors of Wikipedia, make so deeply ideological choices as the one to completely disenfranchise the historical movements of social democracy from the modern usage of the term, as we cannot accurately say that traditions such as Impossibilism or Menshevism or any of the -ism tied to non-Bolshevik yet still Marxist socialist movements are completely gone from the modern social democratic movement. Nor can we, as I believe you,@Dragão Carmesim:, are implying, although correct me if I am wrong, that democratic socialism should exclusively refer to reformist or evolutionary socialism. It may be revolutionary, and it may be evolutionary. As TFD said, the term "democratic socialism" was coined by, among other groups, social democrats to distinguish themselves from the Leninist movement in the old Soviet block. This means that it also includes revolutionary yet not democratic centralist or vanguardist movements(although it may or may not include the latter whether you have an understanding of vanguard-tradition a la Kautsky or a la Lenin. JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: @JonatanMSSvendsen: 95.102.170.69 and User:BullRangifer reverted the previous lead version which I thought there was some consensus to keep for the reasons explained above by JonatanMSSvendsen. It should remain as this until a new consensus is reached.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Either way, the first paragraphs explain social democracy in broad terms. The second part explain the most common version of social democracy. I don't see why Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy, be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state. should be reverted. I see that phrasing merely explaining the three trends in the history of social democracy, namely revolutionary, evolutionary/gradualist/reformist and modern welfare social democracy. The second part of the lead talks about modern welfare social democracy.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You're including content which describes Democratic Socialism, which is indeed currently closely tied to Socialistic and anti-capitalistic goals. Socialism is part of the history, not part of the current makeup, of Social Democracy. Drop the "revolution" part.

Try this instead: Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed-market capitalist economy, be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state.

No matter what, you must stop edit warring your preferred version, no matter what IP you use, and since you're IP hopping, you should create an account so all your edits are collected under one contribution history. Editing with multiple accounts (each IP is an account here) is not allowed in this type of situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: It's not my fault my IP changes, it just does it; I don't change it myself, if that's what you're implying. Yeah, keep ignoring everything @The Four Deuces: @JonatanMSSvendsen: also said. Per TFD, "the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy is arbitrary. It was a term coined by socialists to distinguish themselves from communists, while social Democrat was (following Lenin) a term of disparagement by communists for socialists."--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You're the one ignoring the whole history of social democracy which also include Marxism and anti-capitalism.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That version was actually added by JonatanMSSvendsen; and I thought both TFD and I agree with it, so it wasn't just me.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you even actually read the discussion we were having?--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not blaming you for the fact you have a dynamic IP. If you had a stable one, it wouldn't be a problem. Since you do, you should create an account and enjoy all the many benefits that come with an account, including being taken more seriously.

Yes, both Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism have a socialistic history, but they have deviated, so don't muddy the waters. They are two separate articles for a reason. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: @JonatanMSSvendsen: seem to disagree with that and agree with me (or I agree with them), as you can see in the discussion we were having. If I misunderstood them, then I invite them again to state their opinion and which lead should be used. I will respect the final decision.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

I'm the IP from the previous discussion, but from now on I will use my account, now that I have got it back, to avoid any confusion with the 95.102.170.69 IP who first started reverting and to gain more attention to this issue. As I have stated, i thought there was some consensus with @The Four Deuces: @JonatanMSSvendsen: to support the previous lead. Either way, I believe it should be reverted to this until we find a new and final consensus. See differences here. I have added <-- Broad social democracy. --> to the first part specifically to refer to social democracy in broad terms and its history/evolution; and <-- Discussing moden social democracy. --> to the second part which discusses modern social democracy.--Davide King (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

All three of the sources for the lead see social democracy as a paradigm developed by socialists and implemented by parties across the political spectrum in Western Europe and the United States following the Second World War, replacing neo-classical liberalism, and lasting until the advent of neo-liberalism in the late 70s. I note that other writers variously describe this paradigm as social liberalism or the post-war consensus. If that is what this article is about, then we need to better reflect it in the initial introduction and remove irrelevant sections such as information about socialism in the 19th century. TFD (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My main gripe with the current introduction is that it seemingly completely neglects the theoretical and ideological parts of the social democratic movement, and instead conflate it, as @The Four Deuces: also notes, with the policymaking of various social democratic parties, which, in practicality, means that the term loses parts of its meaning, especially when it compares to other ideologies and movements.

What I propose is that we reach consensus on a broad introduction; one that both notes the ideological and theoretical background and ideals of the movement and the varied aspects of that, while not neglecting the policymaking of the past. JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources not only define social democracy as the policies of socialist parties between 1945 and 1975 or 1980, but also with the policies pursued by conservative, liberal and Christian democratic parties in the same period. The use of the term probably stems from the fact that the Swedish Social Democratic Party established the most comprehensive welfare state. They believed that by improving the health, wealth and education of the public, people would have the freedom to develop a social democracy based on from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That of course never happened and was not the motivation for adopting welfare states anywhere else. TFD (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

And, as said, that's my gripe with it, and why I proposed changing it into a more broad introduction; one that expands on the theoretical background of the movement and the varied aspects of that, while retaining the references to the political actions. Because as it stands right now, the article basically conflate social democracy with welfare state, albeit a certain type of it.

This was what I attempted to do, when I changed the part about the goals of the movement; to better explain what the major movements within the social democratic group had of motivation.

I would love to hear what other editors have to say about this though, before I put in the work. It has, here in the talk-page, occured to me, that this article is one that is often edited with ideologically charged motifs, and if my edit is going to be reversed, to be honest, it would deter me.

Therefore I would appreciate it, if we as editors, at least those of us that read the talk page, could reach a consensus on making reference to both the theoretical and political aspects of social democracy, in the introduction. JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: @JonatanMSSvendsen: Thank you for your replies.

[...] be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state was actually added by JonatanMSSvendsen which I agree with; however, I have slightly changed it into this: [...] be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state. Do you agree with my addition?

I also believe that it should be within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy rather than within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed-market economy because as stated in the sourced text itself in the Cold War era and Keynesianism (1945–1973) section, [t]he rise of Keynesianism in the Western world during the Cold War influenced the development of social democracy.[188] The attitude of social democrats towards capitalism changed as a result of the rise of Keynesianism.[189] Capitalism was acceptable to social democrats only if capitalism's typical crises could be prevented and if mass unemployment could be averted, therefore Keynesianism was believed to be able to provide this.[189] Social democrats came to accept the market for reasons of efficiency and endorsed Keynesianism as that was expected to reconcile democracy and capitalism.[189]

In other words, social democrats accepted capitalism, Keynesianism and the market only under certain conditions and as a pragmatic solution; it's mainly Third Way social democrats that accepted capitalism even under neoliberalism (one defence is that they adjusted to the political climate since the 1980s that favoured capitalism by recognising that outspoken opposition to capitalism in these circumstances was politically nonviable and that accepting capitalism as the current powers that be and seeking to administer it to challenge laissez-faire capitalists was a more pressing immediate concern; per Romano, Flavio (2006). Clinton and Blair: The Political Cconomy of the Third Way. Oxon, England, United Kingdom; New York City, New York, United States: Routledge. p. 113.), rather than the more egalitarian, Keynesian, post-war social-democratic model; and whose critics argue that as a result Third Wayers have actually endorsed capitalism.

Thus, the current lead conflates social-democratic parties with social democracy as a whole; just because people like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn call themselves democratic socialist (exactly to distinquish themselves from centrist, Third Wayers and from New Labour, respectively), it doesn't mean they don't fit within social democracy. That's why I propose that the mixed-market economy (linked to as Mixed economy#European social democracy) should be used here: In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed-market economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. Thoughts?--Davide King (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Either way, I agree with @JonatanMSSvendsen: that this article should be about social democracy as a whole and not just post-war welfare states or welfare states in general.--Davide King (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

One other change I made was this: Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, European socialism has become associated with social democracy and social democracy with the Nordic model within policy circles in the late 20th century. European socialism redirects here.--Davide King (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, social democracy mainly refers to evolutionary/gradualist/reformist socialism (in the past it was also a synonym for revolutionary socialism, although certain revolutionary, democratic socialist currents would also fit within social democracy as argued by JonatanMSSvendsen). There's this confusion between social democracy and social-democratic policies. Indeed, conservative, liberal and Christian democratic parties in the post-war period have all merely adopted social-democratic policies, not social democracy; otherwise the German conservative, aristocratic Otto von Bismarck would be a social democrat, too; the guy who banned the actual social democrats under the Anti-Socialist Laws and merely adopted their policies to dissuade the working-class from socialism. Social-democratic policies may have been adopted by the whole political spectrum but that doesn't make it social democracy; or does it?--Davide King (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

One last thing. Doesn't that also make Marxist–Leninist regimes social-democratic? Weren't they all supporting of social welfare and in practice welfare states (in some cases even conservative ones as you needed to work to get benefits)? Weren't they all just as gradualist as social-democrats? They never abolished the law of value, wage labour, commodity exchanges, etc., did they? Indeed, Lenin himself never renounced his social democracy; he merely renamed his party Communist because he rejected the Social Democratic party developments in countries like Germany and didn't want his party to be associated with it, but his doctrine never changed; it was merely renamed. When you see fascists or Nazis babbling about socialism, they merely mean corporatist, social welfare; does that mean fascists and Nazis were social-democrats? Social democracy is a specific socialist ideology which arose from Marxism, not any social-democratic welfare policy.--Davide King (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We need to begin with a definition that can be reliably sourced, rather than what editors may think it means. As I said above there are four distinct definitions: 1. the paradigm adopted by left and right political parties in Western European states between 1945 and 1975, the revisionist Marxism developed by Bernstein in 19th century Germany, as a term equivalent to democratic socialism to distinguish socialists from Communists, and as a term to refer to the right-wing of socialist parties. In the 19th century it referred a state with social ownership and control of the means of production. The current articles rolls all of them together as one topic. Let's chose a topic and edit the article to reflect it

Whether or not Communists were Social Democrats depends on what definition we use. Marx and Lenin were both members of Social Democratic parties.

TFD (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the history may be, and that should be described in the Development and History sections, the description of current Social Democracy and Social Democratic policies and politics should make it clear that it no longer has much resemblance to socialism, but is more related to democracy. It takes the positive aspects of socialism (social justice, education and health care for all, extremely representative democracy) and uses them within a typical democratic society, where nearly everything is privately owned, just like in any other modern western country.

There is no attempt or intent to create a centralized, state-run and owned, means of production. There is no intent to go further left toward socialism as socialism and communism are seen as bad things from the past. Social Democrats do not like socialism.

As long as a democratic and capitalist society works toward minimizing inequality and social injustice, gets rid of corruption in politics, and works toward getting everyone educated and no one burdened by health care worries and expenses, then you have the typical social democracies as they operate in most northern European countries. There are very few poor and everyone is educated. This works because these are collectivist and not individualist societies. It takes a "we're all in this together" mentality. I loved living in this type of society. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Pick a source and choose a definition. If you cannot do that, then it's OR and synthesis. TFD (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Good morning. Just a question: I believe the core of our disagreement lies with whether or not we should include the theoretical and ideological implications of the term, right? Currently the lead only really encompasses the political implications, thus conflating Social Democracy with welfare-stateism.JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: @JonatanMSSvendsen: I think the page is fine as it is, especially the well written and sourced History section; my issue is that the lead doesn't do a good enough job as summary of the article as it doesn't give enough attention to its 1860s–1910s years. So I'd say the topic should talk about the 1860s German revolutionary socialism and its evolution; evolving first into Bernstein's revisionism, althouth revolutionary socialism departed from social democracy only in the 1910s with the division between Social Democrats and Communists; evolving slowly into Keynesianism until the 1970s–1990s, with the Third Way, which I wouldn't consider within the social democratic tradition (modern democratic socialism is closer to 1910s–1970s social democracy and bascally took its place; that's why people Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn who self-describe as democratic socialists are well within the social democratic tradition; the pink tide has more claim to social democracy than the Third Way has, but I digress) but I wouldn't be opposed to talk about it as it's now in the History section, which perhaps should talk more about democratic socialism in the 1970s–2010s. I'd consider both Marx and Lenin as social democrats within revolutionary socialism; I'd consider both also communists (just like one can be both an anarchist and socialist, or a socialist and libertarian/revolutionary socialist). I'd say social democracy is the reformst-wing of democratic socialism (which also includes anti-Leninist/Stalinist revolutionary socialism) as well as the right-wing of the socialist movement; indeed, the only right-wing that one can be to fit within the socialist movement. This would be my proposal:

Extended content

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosopy within the socialist and labour movement, whose goal at different times has been a social revolution to move away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state. Social democracy originated in 1860s Germany as a form of revolutionary socialism associated with orthodox Marxism, but by the 1910s it had spread worldwide and evolved into advocating an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the late 1910s, socialist parties committed to revolutionary social democracy renamed themselves communist parties, causing a split in the socialist movement between these supporting the October Revolution and these opposing it. Social democrats opposed to the Bolsheviks later named themselves democratic socialists to highlight their differences from communists, although sharing common ideological roots. In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism. In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed-market economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labour) with a qualitatively different socialist economic system. With the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right by the 1980s, many social democratic parties incorporated the Third Way, aiming to fuse liberal economics with social democratic welfare policies. By the 2010s, the Third Way had generally fallen out of favour. Today, social democracy is characterised as a political philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions. In this way, social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes. Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, European socialism has become associated with social democracy. It has also been associated with the Nordic model within policy circles in the late 20th century. Modern social democracy remains committed to policies aimed at curbing inequality, eliminating oppression of underprivileged groups and eradicating poverty, including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation. It often has strong connections with the labour movement, especially trade unions, being supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders.

I've added whose goal at different times which I hope it clarifies.

• In response to @BullRangifer: You're confusing social democratic policies and the welfare state with social democracy as a whole. Then your bias also shows up when you say: "There is no attempt or intent to create a centralized, state-run and owned, means of production. There is no intent to go further left toward socialism as socialism and communism are seen as bad things from the past. Social Democrats do not like socialism." Socialism supports social ownership, not state ownership, even if some socialist may've supported or advocated the latter. Social Democrats dislike socialism so much that the social-democratic European party is literally called Socialists and Democrats; and as well explained by The Four Deuces, the division between democratic socialism and social democracy is arbitrary. Indeed, it was social democrats themselves who proclaimed themselves democratic socialists in opposition to Communism. Finally, the lead should be a summary of the article and it doesn't give enough attention to the 1860s–1940s years. As long as the body of the article remains this, I'm going to be bold and add my lead proposal for now but feel free to edit it or revert it; I won't be reverting or edit warring about it. I'm open to change it and continue this discussion to reach some consensus.--Davide King (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Just because a party has a variation of the word "socialist" in its name doesn't make it socialist. We look at their actual policy record and political stances to determine such status, not just by reading their name. It is like if you only took a look at a newspaper headline without even reading the body of the article. For example, the full name of the Nazi Party is the "National Socialist German Workers Party" (NSDAP), yet no credible historian or economist actually describes them as practicing socialism. Likewise, the S&D group in the European Parliament is virtually devoid of any stances or manifestos that could be reasonably classified as anti-capitalist, and a sizeable majority of their members has recently voted in favour of the controversial copyright reforms that favour restriction of information by big business. A fair portion of their member parties (Such as Direction - Social Democracy in Slovakia or the PSD in Romania) also express rightwing positions on social issues and have adopted the Third Way variety of centrism as their economic policy, and have essentially become an big tent of career politicians, who are not committed to any "socialist" ideology. The definition of the word "socialism" is clearly described here by the Oxford English Dictionary:

"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Virtually zero parties within the S&D group advocate anything close to such a scenario, let alone a peaceful proletarian revolution, and in fact, parties such as PASOK and the French Socialist Party have consistently voted in favour of austerity and dismantling of the welfare state in countries such as France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, et al. Not sure how any of that is supposed to resemble leftwing policy, let alone socialism. Kaltionis (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kaltionis: Thanks for your response. I actually agree with you and I already knew all that. I was just making an example because BullRangifer seemed to exclude any socialist influence and basically reduce to social democratic policies that have been adopted by both liberals and conservatives; and reduce social democracy to the Third Way. I don't understand the relavance of your S&D group rant which I was already aware, nor the issues with stating whose goal at different times has been a social revolution to move away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state. I clearly stated at different times; not today. Isn't that true? Why shouldn't we discuss more at length also in the lead and explain or clarify the evolution of social democracy (the division between reformist and revolutionary socialists within social democracy into Social Democrats and Communists), especially when this is supported by the text in the History section? Maybe your issue is that the paragraphs which starts with "Today, social democracy is characterised [...]" should go first?

Extended content

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosopy within the socialist and labour movement, whose goal at different times has been a social revolution to move away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state. Today, social democracy is characterised as a political philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions. In this way, social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes. Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, European socialism has become associated with social democracy. It has also been associated with the Nordic model within policy circles in the late 20th century. Social democracy originated in 1860s Germany as a form of revolutionary socialism associated with orthodox Marxism, but by the 1910s it had spread worldwide and evolved into advocating an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the late 1910s, socialist parties committed to revolutionary social democracy renamed themselves communist parties, causing a split in the socialist movement between these supporting the October Revolution and these opposing it. Social democrats opposed to the Bolsheviks later named themselves democratic socialists to highlight their differences from communists, although sharing common ideological roots. In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism. In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed-market economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labour) with a qualitatively different socialist economic system. With the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right by the 1980s, many social democratic parties incorporated the Third Way, aiming to fuse liberal economics with social democratic welfare policies. By the 2010s, the Third Way had generally fallen out of favour. Modern social democracy remains committed to policies aimed at curbing inequality, eliminating oppression of underprivileged groups and eradicating poverty, including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation. It often has strong connections with the labour movement, especially trade unions, being supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders.

Also, as argued by @The Four Deuces: social democracy isn't merely what social democratic parties do. Indeed, as you say, "parties such as PASOK and the French Socialist Party have consistently voted in favour of austerity and dismantling of the welfare state in countries such as France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, et al." How can they even be social democratic anymore when they want to dismantle the welfare state they themselves created and/or pushed for?

Anyway, are you denying that social democracy has advocated at different times the following:

1. (1860s–1910s/1930s) "[A] social revolution to move away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism", although I would expand that until the 1930s when the social fascist theory fully completed the division between Social Democrats and Communists established after the October Revolution).
2. (1890s–1940s/1970s) Already by the 1890s but more prominently since the 1910s, "a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism" (they were still revolutionary in that they still advocated for socialism to replace capitalism; they simply advocated, believed or thought it should be, or would happen, by gradualist and evolutionarist means, not though sudden and revolutionary changes).
3. (1940s–1970s/today?) That by the post-war period until the 1970s (some until the 1980s, but it was mainly over by the 1990s with the Third Way takeover) "the simple establishment and support of a welfare state".

Do you or any other deny this, which is all talked and sourced about in the text?--Davide King (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't deny the history of social democracy, in fact, I have specifically pointed out that its already sufficiently covered in the overview section, the history section, and the lede before you've rewritten it. The fact remains that your proposed edit places undue weight on social democracy's past affiliation with socialism within the lede and implicitly classifies it as a variation of socialist ideology even today, despite the fact that virtually no social democratic party today is openly anti-capitalist. We generally classify political ideologies and their policies in accordance with present-day sources and reports, not manifestos or political literature from centuries ago that are outdated, incomplete, or redundant. As I've stated earlier, the lede, as it stands right now, more than adequately summarizes social democracy's history:

"Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism.[6] In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism.[7] In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership.

As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labour)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10] With the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right by the 1980s,[11] many social democratic parties incorporated the Third Way ideology,[12] aiming to fuse liberal economics with social democratic welfare policies.[13][14] By the 2010s, the Third Way had generally fallen out of favour in a phenomenon known as PASOKification.[15]"

And my "rant" about the S&D group was because you operated under the assumption that since their name is "Socialists and Democrats", then that means they are socialists, despite the fact none of their members advocates for the replacement of capitalism and that several of their member parties have a openly rightwing stance on social issues and centrist economic leanings. Kaltionis (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Socialist, democratic socialist social democrat, are usually interchangeable terms, although some writers distinguish between the three. Originally there was no distinction in meaning. Social democrat became used by Communists to distinguish themselves from Socialists, while some Socialists adopted the term democratic socialist to distinguish themselves from Communists. So the Communists were saying that the Socialists were not true socialists while the Socialists were saying that the Communists were not democratic hence not true communists or socialists. Some left-wing socialists use the terms social democrat and democratic socialist to distinguish themselves from right-wing socialists, which I think is how Davide King uses the terms. But most texts on political science use the term socialist to describe them. The problem I see is that we have three separate articles for the same topic.

Davide King's three phases are correct, but why call them social democrats instead of socialists or democratic socialists? The American Left once called its party the Social Democratic Party of America before changing to the Socialist Party of America and now it's major organization is the Democratic Socialists of America. So we get all three names used by essentially the same people.

The Nazi analogy is not that pertinent. Reliable sources do refer to their ideology as national socialism or nazism for short. There are of course some misnamed parties such as the Social Democrats in Portugal, the Social Brazil and the Liberal Democrats in Russia. And Wikipedia policy is to use third party descriptions. But generally reliable sources use the parties own descriptions provided they are recognized by similar parties in other countries.

TFD (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Social Democratic Party of America was created in 1898 though, back when social democracy advocated Marxism and radical anti-capitalism (Though it stopped advocating for it in the middle of the 20th century, just to be precise). Likewise, the "Socialist Party of America" was a big-tent coalition and merger of every leftwing tendency ranging from revolutionary socialism to European-style welfare stateism. And finally, the DSA is a breakaway faction of the SPA who disagreed with the reformist attempts at moderation by the party's leadership (As manifested by their transformation into "Social Democrats, USA" and sought to uphold anti-capitalist doctrine. Regarding your claim that political scientists classify social democracy today as a "socialist" ideology, you have to cite reliable sources, especially because centrist and rightwing political commentators and pundits within the United States have the tendency to erroneously place social democracy on the far-left of the political spectrum and falsely accuse them of being "anti-capitalist", even in spite of the fact that its purpose is to humanize capitalism, not abolish it, and likewise, no social democratic party actually abolished capitalism during the Cold War and beyond.

And the reason why we have separate articles for each subject is because social democracy fundamentally differs from socialism and democratic socialism in its own way, because social democracy advocates for the amelioration of capitalism's worst excesses and the establishment of a comprehensive Keynesian welfare state, while refraining from actually collectivizing the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Democratic socialism is a fundamentally anti-capitalist ideology that seeks to abolish capitalism altogether and establish a socialist economy, usually through democratic means (Defined as upholding parliamentarism and participating in democratic elections). And socialism is a umbrella term used to describe any ideology that seeks to place the means of production, distribution and exchange under workers control and abolish capitalism, wage labour, the profit motive, and the market.

Lastly, regarding your point about the Nazis, the consensus of historians, analysts, reliable sources, peer-reviewed literature and political scientists is that Nazism is not a socialist ideology despite the name of its party, especially since it explicitly upholds race and class-based hierarchy (Thus contravening the egalitarian principle of socialism) as the "natural order of things" and has routinely advocated for social darwinism, even within its welfare programs. Not to mention Hitler's close ties to Germany's largest corporations during that era, his suppression of trade unions and labour rights, the extensive privatization undertaken during his regime and him encouraging them to support his campaign because democracy would allegedly lead to "communism".

Just in case there is any doubt about the fact that socialism is incompatible with capitalism:

"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Source: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/socialism

Kaltionis (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your statement is only valid if you define capitalism as a system where there is no regulation of industry whatsoever. That would be a world where businesses could not be prosecuted or sued. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism says, for socialists "there was a general view that the solution to [the problems of capitalism] lay in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution, and exchange." TFD (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources have overwhelmingly described socialism as a anti-capitalist ideology, and said collective control over the means of production involved expropriation, nationalization, and elimination of private enterprise, the profit motive, and wage labour, the hallmarks of capitalism, which is defined as "an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets, systems which socialists reject. Thus, socialism cannot be compatible with capitalism nor any ideology that incorporates capitalism for that matter, such as social democracy.Kaltionis (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, there are a few problems with your comments. First, socialism is both an ideology and an economic system, while capitalism is not an ideoiogy, but an economic system. Under classical Marxism, socialism was a stage of the economy that would replace capitalism and was the name that Communists used to describe the economic systems they implimented. As the definitive Historical Dictionary of Socialism points out, socialists dsiagree about the degree to which regulation of the economy is necessary. 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." You are not describing socialist ideology, but communist ideology as practiced in Communist states. IOW the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test.

Note the UK Labour Party constitution: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." That does not mean that Tony Blair, who wrote the clause, intended to destroy capitalism.

TFD (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)