Talk:Social democracy

social democracy = democratic socialism all of a sudden?

This article went from a fairly accurate description of contemporary social democracy to the fallacy of equating this economic system with "democratic socialism" as if they're the same thing, or that one is a gradual, democratic and peaceful transition into the other. And the argument for these changes, which have dramatically altered the article, is that "reliable sources so say, therefore we say so." Well actually, reliable sources don't all say that, but rather the sources that were cherry-picked to change the article say so. "Much as Europeans have frequently overestimated the open qualities of American society, so Americans have tended to confuse social democracy with socialism."[1] "Social democratic parties have failed to educate the people about the nature and desirability of democratic socialism, or have miseducated them either by identifying it with state ownership or welfare capitalism. A key element of democratic socialism, as distinct from social democracy, is meaningful participation and control of daily life at work and in the community (workers’ and community self-management), with managers (where needed) elected by and responsible to workers and community members. This is incompatible with big business’s ownership of most of the economy, and requires various forms of social ownership of at least the major means of production — in other words, the abolition of the capitalist system."[2]

And let's not even get started on equating the Scandinavian economies to "socialism", as the lead implies. The number of sources describing the Nordic economic model as a capitalist system with large public expenditures are well in excess of what's normally required on here to consign alternative views to the fringe. The Nordic model as it exists in Denmark and Sweden centers around trade liberalization, which is nothing but an expansion of capitalism across national borders.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I second this, social democracy is not democratic socialism, they are not the same. Scandinavian social democracies openly say they are not socialist. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

See the Constitution of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, Chapter 1: "Social Democracy wishes to build a society based on the ideals of democracy and equal rights. The goal of democratic socialism is free and equal people in a society characterised by solidarity." The terms social democracy and democratic socialism are used interchangeably, including by socialist parties. The two terms incidentally acquired their modern meanings as a way to distinguish socialists from communists. TFD (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Both definitions in the party constitution are vague, it sounds like its just a part of both social democrats and democratic socialists, and it just has that to show its approval for both and that both are good ideologies.

Social democrats and politicians in social democratic countries openly show they and the country are not democratic socialist.

“I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” - Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Former Prime Minister of Denmark

And yes while many social democratic parties have mentions of socialism, and mention support of it, social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same. Its like saying the entire US Democratic Party supports Joe Manchin. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Some people refer to Scandinavian countries and even European countries, the UK and most other developed nations that have substantial welfare systems as "social democracies." That is a reference to the Swedish Social Democratic Party that implemented the first substantial welfare state, although it was copied by conservatives, liberals, Christian Democrats and socialists in other countries and was preserved in Scandinavia by parties of all stripes. It's unlikely however that Rasmussen, who is a conservative, would have referred to himself or his country as social democratic. Nor did the Social Democratic parties of Scandinavia consider that capitalist economies they managed as social democracies.

FYI, the Social Democrats did not introduce the welfare state as a goal in itself, but because they believed that only if people were healthy, prosperous and educated could they build a social democracy. In fact, once they became healthy, prosperous and educated, they became uninterested in building a social democracy.

TFD (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know what your saying has to do with social democracy being socialism. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to define social democracy as the welfare state. Well no, welfare state capitalism is not democratic socialism or socialism. it isn't social democracy either. Otherwise, the terms democratic socialist, socialist and social democracy are used interchangeably to describe the ideologies of such parties and the Swedish and German Social Democratic Parties, the French Socialist Party and the British Labour Party. TFD (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If the terms were interchangeable you would not see articles like “Defining Labour: Socialist or social democratic?” WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

the defining characteristic of socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. social democracy is OBVIOUSLY not socialist S3m1f64 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. I'm too exhausted to go through everything wrong about this article, and there are others who would probably do it better than me anyway, but this article has really gone downhill since I read it just a couple years ago. Few distinctions are made between pre-war "social democracy" and the modern usage of the term, even. Or how left politicians and organizations consistently distinguish between social democracy and democratic socialism, particularly in terms of lack of or presence of workplace democracy, or lack of or presence of social ownership of the means of production. Bryce Springfield (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Note your source does not use the term democratic socialist. The writing is unclear, it would be better to use a source written by an expert. I noticed he wrote, "under the influence of Tony Crosland’s The Future of Socialism, the party shifted from a socialist focus on extending economic planning and public ownership to a technocratic social democratic emphasis on redistributing the proceeds of growth." But is that really a shift in ideology or a shift in policy? Planning and public ownership were important for rebuilding the UK after WW2 but not once that had been completed. As the Wikipedia article says, "Crosland demonstrates the variety of socialist thought over time, and argues that a definition of socialism founded on nationalisation and public ownership is mistaken, since these are simply one possible means to an end."

Are you saying that unless someone continues to advocate Labour policies from 1945, they are no longer socialists?

TFD (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to re-phrase my point. Your source says that some people, i.e., those that distinguish socialism from social democracy see the first as relatively more committed, but otherwise the same. Your source however sees them as fundamentally different. I accept that some people hold that opinion. But there's no consistency among people who say that. At what point does one cease to be a socialist and become a social democrat? And people who accuse the Blairites of abandoning socialism call them neoliberals, not social democrats. They see Tony Blair's booklet Socialism as inaccurately reflecting his views. TFD (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

“At what point does one cease to be a socialist and become a social democrat?”

Well yes the line is a bit unclear, but lines are unclear in all political ideologies, doesn’t mean they are all the same. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the lines between ideologies are distinct, because they begin with different sets of assumptions. For example, liberals believe that private property is essential for human freedom, while communists don't. Fascists believe that individuals are inherently unequal, socialists don't. Christian democrats thinks that Christian values should take priority over economics, liberals don't. Ever notice that communists quote Marx and Lenin, instead of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand? What do you find unclear about that? TFD (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have mostly picked antagonical ideologies as examples... But if you pick 'adjacent' ones, the lines tend to become fuzzier: for instance, what would be the difference between conservatives and Christian democrats, or between centrists and agrarians, or between fascists and nazis? (I'm not saying those differences do not exist, but that they are less clear...) As for the specific case being discussed here, my personal perception tells me that socialists (dictatorial or democratic) reject a market economy and instead prescribe a planned economy as a midpoint in the transition from capitalism towards communism, whilst social democrats seek a balance between capitalism and communism which allows for the implementation of heavy wealth redistribution to finance a strong welfare state but within a market economy where private enterprise exists alongside state-owned companies. Therefore, it seems to me that we really cannot equate the two. LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This whole discussion is getting ridiculous. Hate to pull ethos but I'm a Swede and social democrat who have studied it since childhood. The only thing socialist about social democracy is its plight to extend rights and democracy to the working class, something it shares with neoliberalism or social liberalism.

Socialism means socialized resources including means of production. A planned economy. You cannot call a mixed market economy socialist because it's by definition NOT socialism. Furthermore, it was never the intention of the social democratic party to create a planned economy which is made clear by its strong opposition towards it and the socialist states present in Europe at the time of creation. Our social democrats literally hunted socialists as terrorists.

Social democracy is clearly both closer to social liberalism than socialism in reality and has always had the goal of working within a liberal market economy. The sentence should therefore be changed. Social democracy is NOT democratic socialism which I as a social democrat hate. 78.72.18.35 (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Christian democracy originated in Germany as a reaction and compromise to conservatism and liberalism. Its central theme was that government should be based on Christian values rather than the aristocratic values of conservatism or liberal materialism. The specific cleavage was the Conservatives' Kulturkampf, which challenged Rome's control over religion and education. Ideologies are formed out of clear and important differences in world view. Centrism incidentally not an ideology, but a position in the political spectrum, while Nazism is seen as a German form of fascism.

Also, usually different ideologies form their own political parties. Over time of course, they may attract members from other parties that have gone into decline. So for exmaple because the Conservative Party remained outlawed in post-war Germany, its supported joined the Christian Democratic Union.

According to the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, p. 2, defintions of socialism agree that there is a general view among socialists that the solution to the problems of capitalist society lies 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." Your view is that unless they advocate a specific level of control or owneership they are not really socialists, ignoring the fact that the degree of control depends on circumstances, not ideology.

The reason Labour nationalized industry (much of which was already municipally owned), built council houses and established the NHS was that they saw this as the best solution to the problems of the time. They didn't say lets move half way to the Soviet model because that's what socialist ideology tells us to do. And now that home ownership is so extensive, they have no ideological reason to return it to government ownership.

If you check history, many socialists opposed any kind of government ownership or welfare, which they saw as under the control of the bourgeoisie rather than the proletariat.

TFD (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: In practice, however, there seems to be always a distinction between socialism and social democracy. For instance, the database Parties and Elections in Europe calls socialist parties those which "oppose the present capitalist system and intend to establish a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy", whereas social democratic ones are "centre-left" and "advocate a democratic welfare state and a mixed economy that contains privately-owned and state-owned enterprises" (they are so much more moderate than the socialists that, "since the 1990s, most of them incorporated economically liberal topics").

We can take the example of my country, Portugal: here (where some party names are somewhat misleading), we can clearly see that the real socialist party is actually the far-left Left Bloc (BE), whereas the centre-left so-called Socialist Party (PS) is actually social democratic (and, by the way, the so-called Social Democratic Party (PSD) is actually centre-right and liberal conservative). Not all those who call themselves 'socialists' are really socialists; if they defend moderate centre-left policies, they are probably social democrats.

The British Labour Party you cite as an example is actually considered social democratic by the same source.

To quote another source, here are the interesting thoughts of The Political Compass on Bernie Sanders (in the context of the 2016 US election): "It remains a mystery to us why Sanders chose to describe himself — incorrectly — as a socialist, and in America of all countries. His position is that of a mainstream social democrat — a Keynesian in the mould of the New Deal, and the mainstream left in all other democracies. You wouldn’t need a degree in marketing to see that ‘social democrat’ would be a much more appealing self-description, so why did he insist on such an unhelpful misnomer? It was helpful, though, to his right wing primaries opponent, who was able to present herself as a centrist, between an off the wall socialist and a quasi-fascist."

This is why it continues to be my perception that the general opinion is that there is a difference between socialists (democratic or dictatorial) and social democrats. Surely, the level of state control may vary among socialists, as your source states; but that does not preclude that, if such a level is too small and if the public policy is generally one that weighs also the need for reconciliation with a moderately free market economy, then it is not socialism but rather social democracy. LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It comes down to semantics. Edelstein argues that modern parties which had their origins in 19th century socialism and continue to call themselves socialists, should be renamed social democrats because their policies are less radical. But liberals, conservatives and Christian democrats are also less radical. You think that the term should be reassigned to parties such as the Left Bloc that are closer to 19th century socialism. But we already have a term for them: Left Parties. And as the example of Syriza shows, they aren't very different from the Socialists once in power.

In the 19th century there was a split between reformist and revolutionary socialism, which continues to today. These groups split following the Russian revolution into socialists and communists. Whether you call the first group socialists, democratic socialists or social democrats and the other socialists or communists is semantics.

While it is correct that Sanders' policies were merely social liberal policies that had been followed in other capitalist states, the core message was qualitatively different from New Deal liberals such as Elizabeth Warren.

Incidentally, Parties and Elections in Europe and the Politic Compass are amateur sites.

To use the example of Portugal, isn't it likely that what has changed about the Socialists since 1975 is the conditions they are facing? To them, radical change was necessary after the dictatorship, while today it isn't.

TFD (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: We agree that it does come down to semantics. We would just need to determine which set of definitions is more commonly used.

I'm not sure about the 'left parties' term... Would you call 'left' to an ideology? I would instead give that name to a position in the political spectrum. I'm not sure that confusing the two would be a good idea...

Your take on the Portuguese aftermath of the dictatorship is an interesting one... But, from what I know, I view it a little differently: what actually happened was that, shortly after the 1974 revolution, there was a notable split between the 'communists' (mainly in the PCP and in other minor far-left parties), who wanted a revolutionary economic path to a communist dictatorship, and the 'moderates' (the PS, the PSD and the CDS-PP), who wanted a democratic market economy. So, it seems to me that, although they chose for themselves the name 'socialist', the PS has always defended a moderate centre-left course of action (which I would realistically call 'social democratic', in line with the policies of similar parties across Europe which use said label in their names, such as Germany's SPD). Interestingly, as recently as 2015, for the first time in history, they signed an government agreement with the far-left parties — which suggests that, in recent years, the PS has actually drifted further to the left and not to the centre... LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not consider left to be an ideology. As I mentioned and you observed, left parties are made up of various left-wing factions, i.e., multiple ideologies. They are called left parties because they are perceived to be to the left of historic socialist parties. So there is the Left Bloc (Portugal), the Coalition of the Radical Left – Progressive Alliance (Syriza) and The Left (Germany), which are all part of the Party of the European Left. You call them far left, Parties and Elections in Europe calls them socialists, some of their opponents call them (left-wing) populists.

You can say that unless a nominally socialist part is sufficiently left-wing, you will call them social democrats. But you do not have a clear line of demarcation.

Socialists played a role in the Carnation Revolution, and Mario Soares became foreign minister. Portuguese transition to democracy#Constitution of 1976 explains the role of the Socialists in drafting the constitution, along with their allies in the Communist Party and other left-wing groups. However, with the promise of prosperity as a nation in Western Europe, Socialists abandoned this approach for what they saw as providing a better outcome for the people. It's not that their world-view had changed, but that their options had.

Anyway, the discussion is about democratic socialist vs. social democratic. Democratic socialist is the term favored by people you call social democrats. It's not a term used by Left parties to describe themselves. It's a term developed by social democrats, such as Anthoney Crosland and Tony Blair, to describe themselves. Hence we now often see writers use the term "social democratic/democratic socialist."

TFD (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I see... I understand your explanation about the 'left' parties you had mentioned. (Personally, I believe that they are so radical that I would call them anything along the lines of 'far-left', 'left-wing populists', '(dictatorial) socialists' or even 'communists', depending on each case. But that is beside the point.) I also understand your point about the origin of the term 'democratic socialists' used as a self-descriptor by those I would personally call 'social democrats' to distinguish them from the radicals whom I would call 'socialists'.

The bottom line in our discussion, anyway, seems to be that there are different naming systems that can be used to describe these centre-left parties. And, whereas you have provided your sources to defend that 'social democracy = democratic socialism', I and other editors here have provided sources that seem to make a distinction... Do you think we can perhaps reconcile the two sets of definitions and elaborate in the article about how different sources diverge in those definitions? Perhaps it would be more clarifying... LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The important thing is disambiguation of articles: each article should be about a specific topic and should mention naming disputes. Before 1989, there was a clear distinction between nominally socialist and nominally communist parties. Furthermore, although the socialist parties were also called social democratic or democratic socialist, many observers used the terms to distinguish between the right and the left of those parties.

After 1989, some left-wing socialists joined with some former members of communist parties to form a new party grouping that has no formal ideology. These parties are usually called left parties but also far-left, left-wing populist, socialist or democratic socialist parties.

There's also the view that socialist parties transitioned into social democratic parties, but there is no agreement on when this happened and could have been as early as 1880 or as late as 1990.

When using sources, we should be sure that the authors are writing about the same topic. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases this is not done, so we basically have three overlapping articles.

TFD (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

When a political party gains undisputed power in a country, by revolution or election, and don't overthrow capitalism, they are not a socialist party. This holds true in Portugal as it does in e.g. Sweden, where the Social Democrats won the 1940 election with 53.8% of the votes, yet only instituted Keynesian policies to moderate capitalism. By then, they had already redefined[3] their vision of socialized economics to mean democratic influence rather than control over the means of production. The question is whether or not social democracy is to be understood as part of socialism, as is democratic socialism, and in Sweden, it is decidedly not. I can't find any examples where it is. 109.228.176.49 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The reality is that successful political take circumstances into account, and guide their policies accordingly. Lenin, Ho Chi Minh and Castro for example only adopted a Soviet style economy (which may or may not have been socialist), once their preferred option of a liberal capitalist democracy proved impossible.

I suppose there are no conservatives because in power they don't return to absolute monarchy and no liberals, because they don't abolish the welfare state.

TFD (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Conservatism is a broad term, being defined as “the holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas” according to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, how traditional is “traditional” is up to the person, conservatives don’t have to return to the absolute monarchies. Liberalism is broad as well. Socialism can be broad but it is defined as “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”, but social democracy does not advocate for the “community” to own the means of production, distribution, and exchange. For example that Constitution of the Swedish Social Democratic Party you used never mentions advocating for the community owning those means of production, distribution, and exchange. There may be democratic socialists in the party causing that line you quoted, but there is a reason they emphasize social democracy (mentioned ten times more than democratic socialism), a lot more, and do not treat them as the same. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

All that shows is that there are multiple definitions of political terms. You should by the way use political rather than language dictionaries. The idea that traditions can be subjectively interpreted traces to Russell Kirk, who made an argument that conservatism could be meaningful in the U.S. But in every other country it meant specific, pre-liberal traditions, which did not include capitalism. I think it was Quinton Hogg who explained that for conservatives, politics (i.e., public welfare) came before economics, while for liberals the opposite was true.

See Eugene Debs' definition of social democracy: "the abolition of capitalism, the restoration of the land, and of all the means of production, transportation, and distribution, to the people as a collective body."[4] So would you say he was wrong?

The fact that socialism can also refer to an economic system is a red herring. Who are you to tell socialists what policies they should follow? And why should you make an exception for conservatives?

TFD (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Well if there are multiple definitions for the ideology, than explain that there are multiple definitions instead of just going with one and sticking with it. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Back in the 1980s, people referred to the hard line Communists in the USSR, the neoliberals in the U.S. and the Islamists in Iran as conservatives, although not of them following historic conservative ideology and in fact did not share the same ideology. It merely meant they adhered to the status quo or status quo ante. Similarly, the more moderate political groups in these countries were called liberal, whether or not they had any connection with liberal ideology. TFD (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

A message to the person who puts on "Social liberalism"

Hello. If you are that editor, please don't put "Social Liberalism" ever again. 188.236.162.184 (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Is social democracy socialist or not?

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

Is social democracy socialism or not? GeometryCrown (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using opinion pieces as a source?

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

"As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy." Allmänbildare (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Socialism and economic democracy (and citation bloat)

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus and Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In South Africa and social market economy

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

Also regarding this line: "It is a left-wing political ideology that advocates for a peaceful democratic evolution from laissez-faire or crony capitalism towards social capitalism, sometimes also referred to as a social market economy." This line is unsourced and also untrue. The social market economy is a liberal concept/model, not social democratic (i.e. tied to the socialist tradition) even if it may have similarities with the latter in practice.[5][6] I think this to be removed also. Oakley Kim (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)