Talk:Social democracy

Title should be in as singular to follow wiki naming rules. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:10 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

what?

"Most commentators agree that Social Democrats have been largely successful in implementing the program of the original Communist Manifesto of 1848 - with the notable exception of land reform and the abolishment of rents. However, Marx believed that the ideals of Communism/Socialism could only be achieved through the self-liberation of the working class, NOT through legislation enacted by a small government elite.

Most would also agree that late-20th-century Europe, culminating in the 1992 formation of the European Union, demonstrates that developed nations can cooperate under the general policies of Social Democrats to achieve a lasting peace."

What kind of cheap propaganda this is? In Communist Manifesto Marx was talking about workers seizing the means of the production from the capital owners and forming a state dictatorship of working class. This has absolutely _nothing_ to do with social democracy. Marx openly critisized social democrats and simiral 'soft' social groups from what I understood.

The next paragraph is as hilarious. Most would agree? For crying out aloud.

These would deserve utter annihilation, but I'm willing to just modify them to make some sence Finlander 23:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The perspective in the section 'Common criticism of social democracy' is actually the first time I ever encountered such point of view. Most of the time I only hear about arguments such as how interventionist policies are supposedly 'detrimental' to the market economy, and so on. I haven't seen anything that suggest social democracy can somehow potentially 'destroy' the so-called family units until now. Can someone point to sources which such argument can be found? Kfishy 04:37, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Noticed this question when replying to Finlander. Off the top of my head (so don't take this as authoritative :-) ), I recall people arguing that social institutions take up some of the tasks that were originally done by the family unit. Think of things like tending to the sick, or caring for the elderly. Since the state is going to look after you and your family anyway, people might start to feel that maintaing close family ties no longer has much added value.

Maybe you can find something substantial along those lines :-) Kim Bruning 12:33, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Some studies claim that globally, more people share the basic ideals of Social Democrats than of any other political movement."

While I'd personally accept this statement as probably being truthful and accurate, I'm fairly sure not everybody would. It would be very nice if some sources could be provided here. Fredrik 16:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If it was up to me, the UK Labour party would be straight off the list. in my opinion, New Labour has abandoned its own ideology to such an extent that it is no longer a social democrat party. I would also be tempted to replace the UK entry with the Liberal Democrat party. However, I wanted to hear some views on this, so please chip in below:

A.A.B. 23:33 3rd April 2004

I would certainly not remove the Labour party. If the UK Liberal Democrats are considered social democrats, then I see no problem with having both parties on the list. Fredrik 23:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Labour Party remains a member of the Socialist International AndyL 17:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New Labour still maintains a social democratic undercurrent in their policies, but the Liberal Democrats would probably be seen as more social democrat than Labour. Why not have both on the page, in a similar way that the Australia item lists both the ALP and the Australian Democrats? Aaron Hill 10:59, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

As the Liberal Democrats was formed by a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party it can be argued that they have some sort of social democratic history - although I am aware that the party itself may well object to this. On a personal note I share other contributors views of the Labour Party - but as long as it remains in the socialist international, and describes itself as a democratic socialist party then I think we need to keep them on the list, regardless of whether we think Tony Blair is an actual social democrat or not. Secretlondon 11:03, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't think Lib Dems should be classed as social democrats because they don't regard themselves as such, and are arguably better classed as liberals (which they do regard themselves as). Their history is only partly social democratic, and they belong to the Liberal International and eschew notions of left and right.

This article should be named Social Democracy instead. -- Dissident 16:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it manually. -- Dissident 23:48, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not sure that the Gibraltar Social-Democrats should be here. They only contain the term "Social-Democrat" in their title but do not in fact adhere to the values commonly ascribed to Social Democracy.

I know that people may argue that New Labour is listed here and they do not either (as some people have done) BUT the difference is that the British Labour Party did at one stage adhere to a social democratic platform, contains many members who would describe themselves as socialists/social democrats, and as has been pointed out, are part of the current Socialist International.

Not sure the same could be said for the Gibraltar Social-Democrats though.

However, they do have the term Social-Democrat in their name, so perhaps they should be referred to in the article. What do other folk think?

Big Jim FAe Scotland, Apr 14, 2004

I think the Gibraltar SD (like Portuguese SD) are a conservative party and shouldn't be in the list.

The last line is incorrect

Howard Dean did not advocate universal health care but to apply the health care reform policies of his state, Vermont, nationally. Dennis Kucinich advocates a universal health care system like Canada's.

Gary Denton

1 on Google for liberal news

American Democrats

As I was updating the list of parties and adding a section for the United States, I was wondering: should we include the american Democratic Party? Certainly, one could say that many ideas of the "liberal" current (in the american sense) have had social-democrat leanings over the years (like under Franklin Roosevelt). Others might say Bill Clinton and Al Gore took more centrist approaches. Can we include them, maybe even with a mention of caution? This party is quite important in the US and the world, it cannot be overlooked.

NO, the Democrats and Republicans are both center-right parties. Even though alot of Social-democratic parites have been going in that direction in recent years, they have little in relation with those two parties and are generally center-left. --Che y Marijuana 11:30, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
- An wonderful insight from someone named "Che y Marijuana." I think that about sums it up. (comment by Thames though originally unsigned)
  - Yes, I agree. (I'm in the Swedish Social Democratic party.) Starman 1976 02:27, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
Philosophically, and historically, the Democrats can't really be called social democratic. Better would be "with some social democratic tendencies". Their best description is, broadly, liberal - another infuriatingly difficult term to pin down. I am of the view that including the Democrats muddies the issue somewhat and doesn't bring us closer to a good working definition. NB: Being centrist, in my view, does *not* necessarily exclude being social democrat: cf. Third Way politics. Lacrimosus 03:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me Thames? Could you perhaps address the issue at hand, instead of my choice of username?--Che y Marijuana 03:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize. Where is my wikitiquette? —thames 16:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- Actually, there's a sort of point to be made, as one might suppose from the username that the author is quite socialist, and thus can find something as obviously "left" leaning as the Liberal Democrats to be "center-right". The Democrats want to nationalize health care, raise taxes, ban guns, have abortion on demand...socialized abortion (even for an unborn baby nine months along), want massive regulation of any industries left in private hands, et cetera. Definitely not "center-right", except compared to some violent Marxist extremist like Che Guevara.-(comment by [[User: Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal)
  - first, please sign your comments. Second. Don't be rediculous, the democrats do not support nationalized healthcare, or what they call "late term abortions", gay marriage, etc... compared to social democracy anywhere else in the world, which supports public healthcare, the democrats are downright feudal. The Democrats are absolutely not social democrats. In any way. And I dislike social democrats, so, I'm not being biased here. On the other hand, you spin lies about what the democrats want to do that make it obvious you dislike the "left" in general. So to you, perhaps anything that is more left-wing than the grand dragon are godless commies? Please don't get into these arguments with me. If you want to discuss the article, do so, attack me, and I have no reason to listen to anything you say. Neither does anyone else.--Che y Marijuana 09:28, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

A few comments

(1) How was the anarchist Peter Kropotkin involved in the development of social democracy? I think this line needs some clarification or it should be removed.

(2) "However, most commentators agree that social democrats have been largely successful in implementing the program of the original Communist Manifesto - with the notable exception of land reform and the abolishment of rents."

What the...? That sentence makes no sense. The program of the Manifesto was clearly revolutionary, as opposed to the reformist goals of modern-day social democrats.

No, it makes perfect sense...examine the ten items Marx outlines for the implementation of the socialist society for Communism. Progressive income tax, confiscation of property from heirs and criminals, et cetera...it has all been implemented gradually, as tiny, incremental "reforms" over the course of generations...but it's been done. Even the abolishment of rents and land reform have come a very long way, with things like public housing. Kaz

(3) Finlander: I changed your "form a state dictatorship of working class" to "establish the dictatorship of the proletariat," as Marx was purposely vague as to the meaning of this term and I think your phraseology a bit too connotative of Soviet-style dictatorship; interestingly, even some anarchists believe in a "dictatorship of the proletariat" expressed through the working class' revolutionary struggle but not through the seizure of state power. Spleeman 04:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

- To be fair, Marx was being vague purely so he could rob momentum from the anarch-socialist movement, for his authoritarian socialist movement. He didn't REALLY intend for there to be any egalitarian society, but a government agency run by elites such as himself in the alleged NAME of the masses. Examine carefuly where he places his effort and emphasis...it's on establishing a Soviet-style state, nothing Bakunin or Proudhon could ever find tolerable.

Revisiting the article after long time

A troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRR_Trollkien) has again introduced the exact 1:1 versions of the texts I modified. Also the point (2), which Spleeman makes has been restored by someone.

Therefore I will delete all false claims from them as obvious propaganda:

"... However, most commentators agree that social democrats have been largely successful in implementing the program of the original Communist Manifesto - with the notable exception of land reform and the abolishment of rents."

"Most would also agree that late-20th-century Europe, culminating in the 1992 formation of the European Union, demonstrates that developed nations can cooperate under the general policies of social democrats to achieve a lasting peace. Whether similar policies can work elsewhere is a matter of much debate, especially in the anti-globalization movement, where advocates on both sides argue about the degree to which regulation has fostered growth and tolerance. ..."

"However, these parties too are often perceived as going too far for comfort, particularly in foreign policy, trade, and warfare, so social democrats may never disappear, even if the entire original program of socialism has been accomplished. ... The services may vary in quality but never seem to be withdrawn completely - the gains made by social democrats politically are seemingly seen by the public as public goods."

Finlander 11:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Hmm, well even trolls sometimes say things that happen to be true I guess. The paragraphs you removed do actually appear to be the actual consensus in the area where I live. I've been on the internet a little longer than today, so I'm getting used to meeting people who disagree with things that I hold to be universal truth. But when I do meet those people, I'm always curious!

Could you explain why you disagree with the above statements?

Granted, sometimes a troll will put texts that are otherwise true somewhere, but worded in such a way as to start a discussion anyway. Hmph, I guess he succeeded a little. On the other hand, if we can reach NPOV on this, then the trolls will have lost in the long run. ;-)

Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 12:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

The troll did not write the additions, just restored them. The fact that you don't see anything wrong with the paragraphs above is disturbing.

1. The first statement has absolutely no coherence with reality. It is absolutely and utterly false statement. Read the Marx and Engels's communist manifesto (the book).

2. Social democrat politicians will have easy time agreeing to such an statement. Other parties, historians, political critics, anyone with a half a brain and not being sd, will most surely not. That is, this is obviously a POV statement on a grand scale.

3. "even if the entire original program of socialism has been accomplished" "the gains made by social democrats politically are seemingly seen by the public as public goods." There is no 'original program of socialism' (unless referring to communist manifesto), and even if there was, saying such things has been accomplished, in today's world, is lunatic. Furthermore (to the secound quote), has it ever occurred to you that many do not see tax payed public health care, tax payed public (propaganda) schools, income tax, generally high taxes, cradle to grave services, as a good thing? For example liberals would want to life their lives and spend their money the way the choose to, not how the state forces you to by taxation. A capitalist owner would definately not appreciate progressive income tax. An anarchist would of course disagree with all of these. This all makes the statement highly POV.

Just because the social democrats are in power in today's Europe, it doesn't make all their views facts just as people today don't view the nazi Germany's views as the absolute truth.

Finlander 09:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

1. Apparently you have read those books at some point, while I'm going to have to look them up sometime. I'll concede point 1 to hurry things up for now.

2. Most political parties in the EU tend to talk about degrees of social democracy. I think it'd be very hard to think of any european party that does not support at least some amount of social democracy. I'm not sure about the statement "lasting peace", but certainly we've had half a century of peace all told, and the social democrats have been in power. So that's at least a correlation, if not a causation. :-)

I have over half a brain I think (we could do MRI to check ;-) ) and I'm not a social democrat, so I guess you'll have to adjust your statement to " almost everyone with half a brain ... "

Since in general most .eu constitutions have elections in the Proportional_representation style, you can usually roughly figure out agreement or disagreement with policy directly from election results. The social democrats are still in power, so QED there.

3. Well, in my personal experience a lot of people do see social democracy as a public good (and they vote for it too, so there's objective numbers that can be checked if we like). I think it would have been better to explain that many people see social democracy as a form of support (see: Social safety net).

The local liberal party (who I occaisionally vote for) does indeed argue that there should be less taxes, and less govt spending, but I don't think they'd seriously advocate removing all social programs entirely. They simply wouldn't get many votes if they tried that.

Kim Bruning 18:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I re-read the communist manifesto (from gutenberg free ebooks) and I can now make more accurate claims. Also I should edit The Communist Manifesto for it has some inaccuracies. First of all the absurdity of point 1. results from the fact that in CM it is made clear that all the non-political or less levolutionary reforms alone (such as the "1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." and "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.") are deceiving to the proletariat without the revolutionary acts of abolition of bourgeois property (capitalist who own the means of production) and the proletariat overtake of the government during the communist revolution to form a Dictatorship of the proletariat. (CM was vaque about this point, though).

To further advance my point concerning the claim 1. , I present a quate from the CM that refers to non-communist socialist such as the social democrats (who are specially mentioned also in the CM):

"The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern

social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily

resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society

minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish

for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie

naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the

best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable

conception into various more or less complete systems. In

requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby

to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but

requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within

the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its

hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this

Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in

the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political

reform, but only a change in the material conditions of

existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to

them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this

form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of

the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be

effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based

on the continued existence of these relations; reforms,

therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen

the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois

government.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only

when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective

duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for

the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the

only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism."

I believe that in light of this, you can agree that point 1. is an absurd claim and if made with the knowledge of Marx's ideas, a terrible lie. It is interesting that many points which Marx makes (over 150 years ago) in the above direct quote, do show in our modern society. Free trade for the benefit of all!

2. The whole secound point is just a claim, and so if it is central to the article then this would make it NPOV enough:

"Some people who share the ideas of social democracy believe that the late-20th-century Europe, culminating in the 1992 formation of the European Union, demonstrates that developed nations can cooperate under the general policies of social democrats to achieve a lasting peace. Whether similar policies can work elsewhere, is a matter of much debate between different parties."

As to your mention of general population appectance of SD policy, remember that in most EU countries the general population would vote against the new European union constitution (had they the choise), which brings about the shared views of overnational social democracy and capitalists (or conservatives) over the population. But this point is irrelevant to me, since the general population has really no clue about what the new constitution actually consists of. But it does elaborate the fact, that one can't claim that acceptance of social democracy nationally doesn't mean that 'most people' would agree to the above claim in its original form.

3. I believe I've already dismissed all but the last phrase of the point three, which is also the only one you mention: "the gains made by social democrats politically are seemingly seen by the public as public goods."

To add necessary NPOV to this claim, it would need to be made clear that not all see these 'benefits' as benefits. Thus I could propose something along the lines of:

"the gains made by social democrats politically are seen by some/many as public goods."

I won't be reintroducing these to the article, so I suggest whoever does, or if its you, Kim Bruning, spends good time to polishing them.

Finlander 14:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Canadian Green Party

If no one objects, I will remove the Green Party of Canada from the list of social democratic parties, since it is self-described as "eco-capitalist". Tony Kao 17:41, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Does this warrant removal? We would first have to know what the heck "eco-capitalist" means. ;) It sounds like a purposely vague political statement like... it has sometimes been seen before. :P I will bring your attention to a quote from this very article: "As of 2004, social democrats generally do not see a conflict between a capitalist market economy and their definition of a socialist society, and support reforming capitalism in an attempt to make it more equitable through the creation and maintenance of a welfare state." Capitalism can scrape the ears of social democrats, of course, but in theory, as the quote states, a controlled capitalism can be part of social democracy. --Liberlogos 22:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see the Eco-capitalism article on Wikipedia, which specifically names the Green Party of Canada. Though I wouldn't personally agree with it, it's quite interesting nonetheless. In particular it sets itself apart from social democracy in that it "uses" capitalism to achieve its goals, rather than seeking to destroy it (though I suppose you can say similar things about third-way social democracy). For example, one of the Green Party's policy is to do away with progressive taxation and tax consumption instead, to discourage ecologically burdensome behaviours; on the other hand the NDP, the social democratic party of Canada, proposes further implementation of progressive taxation such as elmination of income tax for people earning less than 15,000. Obviously it raises a few interesting questions, such as whether it will impact negatively on the working class, but that's for another time :) I think the previous discussion regarding Liberal Democrats in Britain can be applied here, in that since a) the Green Party does not belong to the Socialist International, and b) it would most likely object to a social democratic label, it should thus not be categorized as a social democratic party (as an aside, this seems eerily like some sort of legal eligibility test :-\). Besides, if anything the German Greens should be listed here, as they're more social democratic than the local Social Democratic Party. Tony Kao 16:53, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. I would agree to see it removed, then. Maybe it could be added to a list on the Eco-capitalism page. --Liberlogos 17:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Socialistische Partij

Well, they're socialists, and they operate in a democratic context (in fact they actively support democracy). Is there a specific reason that we shouldn't classify them as being social democratic (next to perhaps several other things)?

If not, well, wouldn't we be making our catagories too specific (like it'd almost be like every party gets its own catagory otherwise :-/) Kim Bruning 11:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But if we have the Dutch SP on the list, why don't we add than all the other left wing socialist parties from Europe, like the Danish Socialist People's Party etc. I am not convinced about the social democratic nature of the SP. Originally it was a spin off of the Communist Unity Movement marxist leninist KENml and its policies might be left-wing, but social democratic? The article itself makes a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. Gangulf 12:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point. Currently there are no democratic socialists listed at the democratic socialism page, though hmph, I think the difference is miniscule. If you move socialistische partij to that page, I can't really object at the moment though. Would that be an ok compromise? (Either that, or merge the 2 pages). Kim Bruning 12:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Green parties

Green parties, while they may share some things in common with social democrats, are not social democratic parties. == Spleeman 19:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've removed Green parties from the list; they have their own article. I'm also concerned about some other parties, such as the Mongolian one - if they're revolutionary socialists, they are not social democrats (and btw, democratic socialist is not the same thing as "social democrat", but we can leave that for now). Lacrimosus 02:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some claim Democratic Socialists are the same thing as Social Democrats, and some do not. I'm a Social Democrat, and claims it's the same thing, but there are people calling themselves Democratic Socialist that claim it is not the same thing. Quite frankly it makes me confused. I've also read both articles here in the Wikipedia, but haven't really found a clear difference. I think the articles about DS and SD should be merged together, or get a Social Democracy Vs. Democratic Socialism article, so that it's possible to see the differences. And please do not confuse the Third Way with Social Democracy. It's not the same thing.

Rewrite

Just a heads-up: I'm planning a rewrite to more clearly enunciate the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy. Otherwise, there's no point in having seperate articles. Lacrimosus 20:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Text of my proposed revision (still a work in progress) is available at User:Lacrimosus/Drafts/Social democracy. Feedback would be most helpful. Lacrimosus 20:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Odd! I thought we'd done a merge and redirect. Hmm, must have been mistaken. The current democratic socialism article is kind of strange though. Is "democratic socialism" an Americanism? Kim Bruning 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Googled for it, wikipedia&mirrors along first few pages of hits. Proceeding accordingly. I'm going to have to oppose a rewrite for now. Kim Bruning 21:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not purely an American term. It's used in Britain too. Some people consider "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" to be the same thing, and there is certainly no clear distinction. Some people adopt the term "democratic socialism" to indicate their opposition to the rightwing shift in social democracy in the last 20, 50, or 100 years. On the other hand, the British Social Democratic Party adopted the term "social democracy" in a deliberate attempt to distance itself from Labour's avowed "socialism", but the same can't be said of the German Social Democrats, which adopted their party name more than 100 years ago and were convinced socialists. Interestingly, the Constitution of the British Labour Party - as revised by Blair - still describes the party as "a democratic socialist party", a formulation introduced by Blair himself.

As I've understood it, (and I'm a member of the Swedish Social Democratic Labour Party), Democratic socialism and Socialdemocracy is the same thing. Only two different synonyms used to describe the same thing. Socialism however is another thing than Social Democracy (= Reformistic Evolutionary Socialism). Some Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist parties has adopted the Third Way, and can thus not really be called to be socialists anymore, but being social liberal. All this is complicated by that the Third Way parties still likes to call themselves Social Democratic, and that some Revolutionistic Socialists (could also be called Communists?) are calling themselves Democratic Socialists, although when reading their agendas and their party programs, clearly are not. - Starman 1976 05:00, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Is it clear though? The fact in particular that social democratic parties throughout the world have had similar policy shifts in the past few decades make me wonder. Have they essentially redefined what it means to be Social Democratic? If eg. Blair, Schröder, and Latham aren't social democrats, what are they? It's so complicated. . . some are proud to be called "socialists", some are offended; some claim they are but others deny it. Lacrimosus 05:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

This seems slightly biased-- even though I agree with it 100%, perhaps a more NPOV phrasing should take its place: "Obviously, most criticism against social democracy comes from their main political opponents, the right wing. Right-wingers typically argue that social democratic systems are too restrictive on their version of individual rights, particularly the rights of wealthy businessmen, and that individual choice is not as great in systems that provide state-run schools, health care, child care and other services." D.E. Cottrell 05:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Criticisms of Social Democracy

A brief reading of the Criticism section reveals that it is not even close to NPOV. "Right-wingers" is hardly an encyclopædic word. Further it doesn't include any of the key points of criticism from notable thinkers such as Milton Friedman or F.A. Hayek. In fact, it pretty much pigeon-holes all critiques as simply the whining of "wealthy businessmen," hardly a fair statement. It would be like calling advocates of Social Democracy a bunch of pot-smoking hippies—manifestly untrue, no matter how appealing the stereotype might be to critics of social democracy. I may try to spruce up the criticisms a bit, but I wonder if anyone else can contribute with an critical, balanced and informed eye? —thames 19:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also: see D.E. Cottrell's similar sentiment above.

I'm a Social Democrat, so I will take a look at the Social Democracy article once in awhile, to see if it looks good. As I am a Social Democrat, I agree that I might not be able to be completely NPOV, but who is really? But I'm well informed about what Social Democracy is, so I can compare this article with the knowledge and experience I do have from over ten years of activity in politics. - Starman 1976 04:13, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

List of Social Democrats

I'm going to remove this list. Unless we can establish that the list is of people who are actually leaders/promininent members of social democratic parties, ie. parties with "Social Democratic" in their title, I think it's pretty arbitrary and not very helpful to compile it. Lacrimosus 03:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it again: although some of the most striking misallocations have been removed, I still think it's a bit uneven and subjective, and it doesn't necessarily do any good (if they're important enough, they'll rate a mention in the body of the text, or in Social Democratic parties. Lacrimosus 06:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. Having watched this page for a few months, it seems like no substantive work gets done on the actual article content itself. Instead people simply add their favorite lefty politician to the list, get it removed arbitrarily, and then get in a fight over it. It contributes nothing to the article itself. If Social Democrats were a small distict identifiable group it might be acceptable to put a list of them on the page (the U.S. neoconservatives are small and identifiable enough, for example). But there are many many social democrat parties with many many leaders. It's just not a worthwhile feature for the article. Meanwhile, the rest of it needs work—let's stop obsessing over the useless list and get the article content into a less embarrasing shape. —thames 14:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

possible NPOV quibble: under "Extensive social laws" in "Views of the social democrats today," none of the laws delineated are social laws. They all relate to business and commerce rather than the social arena.

Start cleared

I defined Social democracy as a kind of representaive democracy rather that a political ideology, based on Socialist International

NPOV

The article does not give due justice to the recent Socialist International's councils and the groups statutues and principles. The article just discusses the old school meaning during the turn of the 20th century which was even pre-cold war, not the 21st, which is the priority and up to date. SI redefined social democracy and Democratic Socialism. Today, DS forms the ideology and theory, meanwhile SD forms the application and integration with the real world. Issues like welfare, etc, were already reconciled between the 2 former ideologies. These were completely ignored by the article, it was not even considered in the start. SD now is the ideal representative democracy and objective, and not a political ideology. DS is the ideology. See SI Principles in the web

I think that's an entirely valid view, and does deserve a place in the article. But SI isn't the be-all and end-all on the definition: they're a helpful guide rather than being the sole authority. Slac speak up! 05:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, but just for the record, it is one of the most credible authorities on socialism. Socialist parties all world discuss and reconcile their opinions to build a monolithic socialism over the years with their councils (Socialism has splintered in to several many branches)

What is Social Democracy

I know a book that might help to define what Social Democracy is. It's available for download on the official web site of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. This site has a section, "Other Languages", with a number of .pdf publications. "What is Social Democracy" does a good job at explaining what Social Democracy is. The book is written by Ingvar Carlsson and Anne-Marie Lindgren. - Starman 1976 06:08, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Social democracy under "Socialism"???

Social democracy doesn't advocate the transition to socialism anymore. Rather, it accepts the market economy, with social safeguards that can make a capitalist society more just and equitable.

Describing it as a branch of socialism is misleading and clearly POV.Caleiva 00:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read the article carefully, and note that it says (or should say) pretty much that. If you can find a better wording, please suggest it - it's something that needs to be finely tuned. But I don't think it's true to say the article simply suggests that social democracy is a "branch of socialism" and leaves it at that. I think that it should be described as originating in and having its theoretical basis in socialism, since that is true. Slac speak up! 20:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of countries

Why there is no list of those countries considered social democratic? Social democracy is not a theory, it is a widespread practice. Germany and Sweden are prime examples of social democracy, while Austria (as in Central Europe, for the sake of sheep-addict ignorants) is a christian-democratic system.