Talk:Social democracy/Archive 4

Social Democracy vs Socialism: not only since the "Third Way" discourse of the 1990s (arbitrary break)
If social democracy=reformism, should not these two articles be merged? Reformism says, "Socialist reformism, or evolutionary socialism, was first put forward by Eduard Bernstein, a leading social democrat." You say "[social democracy] was founded by a revisionist Marxist [Bernstein]". Revisionism calls Bernstein the "originator of the original Revisionism". It is the same thing. We need to avoid forks of the same topic. TFD (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Reformism" article should probably be changed into an article on political reformism in general, not just reformist socialism. There is reformist conservatism, reformist environmentalism, etc. I point in reference to that article now because of what it currently says, but I think it should be completely rewritten to be about reformist politics involving any ideology. The Revisionism article is terrible, Bernstein wasn't the only revisionist Marxist, there were others who disagreed with him who were identified as revisionists, though he is commonly associated as a revisionist. The issue should be whether a topic titled Reformist socialism should be a redirect to Social democracy.--R-41 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To re-iterate, since the advent of socialism, there have been reformist and revolutionary strands, but to draw a sharp line between them and develop separate historical narratives requires us to make many judgments that venture into synthesis and original research. I think it is wrong to say that social democracy developed as a revision of Marxism c. 1870 and more accurate to say that Communism broke from social democracy c. 1917.  Marx and Lenin were both Social Democrats (capital letters).  The most recent development is the Left parties which combine elements of post-Communists, left-wing social democrats and various other groups and represent a new political family with no unifying ideology.  TFD (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not recognizing that social democracy is used by contemporary scholars to refer to an officially reformist socialist ideology, you are not adhering to WP:COMMONNAME, and you have not gained any support for your proposal. You either need to change your proposal to something that can be agreed upon, such as a redirect on a topic titled Reformist socialism to this article, or otherwise this is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK.--R-41 (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You finally have provided a definition, after lengthy discussion, "officially reformist socialist ideology". Unfortunately that means that Bernstein was not the founder.  There remains a forking problem because of the overlap with socialism.  Both articles for example have extensive text on the Labour Party.  Also, you agree two articles are redundant - reform socialism and democratic socialism.  TFD (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We went over the use of the term "democratic socialism" before. I said what should be done with that, but you have forgotten that not all forms of socialism claiming to be democratic have claimed to be reformist. You either need to change your proposal to something that can be agreed upon, such as a redirect on a topic titled Reformist socialism to this article, or WP:DROPTHESTICK, as you do not have support for your current proposal.--R-41 (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All forms of socialism claim to be democratic. And if they are not reformist they are communist.  You make this sweeping claims without any backup.  If you would actually reply to my points this conversation would be briefer.  TFD (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "And if they are not reformist they are communist" - wow that is a complete misrepresentation of what I intended to say. Your points demonstrate that you do not have a thorough understanding of the topic, and are jumping to rash conclusions to promote renaming this article against the principles of WP:COMMONNAME. Drop the rename proposal, you do not have support for it. Then present a fresh start with a new proposal for issues on the complete breaking with Bolshevism that began in 1917 and solidified with the Bolsheviks abandoning attempts to restore the Second International and founding the Comintern while the social democratic parties went to found Labour and Socialist International.--R-41 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example. TFD (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Leninists - who were revolutionary socialists - promoted democratic centralism, they associated themselves as being democratic and revolutionary.--R-41 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just said "All forms of socialism claim to be democratic And if they are not reformist they are communist."  How is this an exception?  TFD (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Leninists did not support reformism, they supported a violent revolutionary rise to power by a vanguard party. Such a statement is completely fallacious if it assumes that socialism includes only reformist socialists and communists.--R-41 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Lenin was not a communist? If not, what was he?  TFD (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, of course he identified as a communist. Lenin was associated with the Bolshevik movement - a variant of the communist movement - as opposed to the Menshevik movement - another variant within the communist movement that was in rivalry with the Bolshevik movement. Lenin asserted that the Bolsheviks were democratic, as in democratic centralism, but supported a violent revolutionary usurption of power to create a vanguard party-led state, that was not associated with the reformists. --R-41 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote, ""And if they are not reformist they are communist" - wow that is a complete misrepresentation of what I intended to say. Your points demonstrate that you do not have a thorough understanding of the topic, and are jumping to rash conclusions...." I asked, "Can you provide an example."  You replied "Leninists".  I asked, "Are you saying that Lenin was not a communist? "  You replied, "No."  I have no idea what you are talking about.  Perhaps you could re-read the discussion and reply tomorrow.  TFD (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all socialists identify as being either reformists or communists. A number of socialist groups reject communism as well as reformism and social democracy, including the Socialist Party of the USA, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the Impossibilists, and a whole host of syndicalist and anarchist movements. They reject reformism but do not necessarily define revolutionary change as a violent seizure of power, often they just call for structural changes through mass movements. AFAIK, The Mensheviks did not identify themselves as communists, but as Social democrats (before social democracy was associated with reformism). The Bolsheviks only began to identify themselves as "Communist" after the October revolution. I see no clear mention in the article of the contemporary common definition of social democracy as per WP:COMMONNAME, meaning a (European) capitalist mixed economy with a generous welfare state. - Battlecry 08:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The impossiblists have not been a major force in socialism for over a 100 years. Historically of course they must be mentioned in any history of democratic socialism (as Busky did in his book), since in the US, Debs, Hillquite, Gompers, Faina, Haywood, etc. were all members of the SLP. SPUSA btw is included in Busky's book as a democratic socialist party. Anarchists and syndicalists are of course not socialists. The European welfare state is probably best called just that. In Germany it was first established by Conservatives while in the UK it was liberals. TFD (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I reject Battlecry's assertion that the ideology of social democracy accepts capitalism as the be all and end all. Social democratic parties across the world, have promoted cooperative enterprise as an alternative to private enterprise. It has been a policy of the Socialist International since the Frankfurt Declaration, cooperatives are still promoted within the British Labour Party in spite of the party's controversial Third Way faction that has internally divided the party over its stances. And Labour Party still has affiliations with a variety of organizations that self-identify as socialist, like the Socialist Health Association, the Christian Socialist Movement and others, that can be seen on the party's affiliates list: http://www.labour.org.uk/affiliates.--R-41 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that all social democrats reject socialism or that socialism is irrelevant to all individuals who identify as social democrats, only that the majority of social democratic political parties and their supporters have no interest in actually replacing capitalism with some form of socialism - such a concept would be foreign to the majorities within most modern social democratic political parties. It has become commonplace to reference "European social democracies" or social democracy as the actually-existing states in certain European countries, usually in reference to their model of welfare state and corporatist system of collective bargaining. Without referencing this common definition of social democracy somewhere in the first few paragraphs of the article, it gives the reader a misrepresentation that social democratic and labour parties are aiming to end the profits system and private ownership over the means of production or that such things have taken place in European social democracies such as Sweden. - Battlecry 09:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are selling the old dogmatic orthodox Marxist and Marxist-Leninist diatribe that social democrats are sell-outs to capitalism and the bourgeoisie and not "true socialists", and how revolutionary orthodox Marxists and Marxist-Leninists are the true socialists - and of course under THEIR definition of socialism; then give me a break. The original defined socialisme of Saint-Simon accepted private property provided it served a social utility. Even socialists who have opposed the institution of private property, including Marxist-Leninist governments, know that the institution has to be substituted with one that is similar but in theory non-exploitative - so they support the right of individuals to personal property to meet individual needs. Back to Saint-Simon, Emile Durkheim studied Saint-Simon and said that he supported private property rights, but he rhetorically questioned what should be considered "property" and answered that property should be the reward of the abilities of talent and capacity and not otherwise, "that talent and possession should not be separated". "from each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its works" - quote by Saint-Simon altered and adapted by Marx later. There you have it, acceptance of private property provided it is earned from capacity, from one of the first self-identified socialists, and one recognized by Marx. And so the old dogmatic line that goes: "well social democrats aren't challenging private property, so they must be capitalist because all true socialists oppose private property"; is a No True Scotsman fallacy, inconsistent with the variations of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I already told you and TFD that the thing you are talking about, is not the ideology of social democracy, you are referring to the less common usage by social welfare analysts who refer to a form of welfare state known as "social democracy". Merriam-Webster dictionary recognizes the separate uses in reference to the ideology, and in reference to the form of welfare state: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democracy. It focuses on the definition of the ideology. Yes, the terms are probably related. But conservative governments can run "social democracy" welfare states, it has nothing to do with the ideology of social democracy. I proposed a solution of creating an article to address this, titled: Social democracy (form of welfare state). But it went off into a tangent over whether this article should become a disambig. Again, it is not as common as you are indicating it is. Most of the sources on social democracy are about the ideology, and that is what this article should be about.--R-41 (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * R-41, you've been confused about what socialism is from day one and continue to be confused. You blur the meaning of capitalism and socialism which causes loads of misunderstanding, mainly with yourself. If industry is largely privately owned and operated for profit, yet there is public education, universal healthcare, among other public services, this is what's called a capitalist welfare state, not socialism. Your lengthy comments often camouflage your lack of understanding through what I'd term forced (not necessarily intentional) ambiguity. I know you'll disagree with this assessment, which will further drag out this confusion. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Somedifferentstuff, you have been dogmatic since day one on what you know what "true" socialism is, that repeatedly runs afoul of the No true Scotsman fallacy. I believe that the capitalist private ownership system creates and supports plutocracy, and I openly favour cooperative enterprise over private enterprise and I hope that cooperative enterprise or similar social enterprise will one day replace private enterprise alltogether. You have been here from day one to denounce contemporary social democracy as selling out to capitalism. Are you saying that Saint-Simon - one of the first recognized socialists - blurred the distinction between capitalism and socialism? I told you exactly what Saint-Simon said, Saint-Simon was a socialist despite your dogmatic and probably Marxist-Leninist denials, and if you had bothered to even read what I said, you would not be in confusion. So you say that you believe that I am a sell-out to capitalism. Well I believe you are a dogmatic Marxist-Leninist, who has consistently demonstrated in the past that you seek to associate contemporary reformist social democracy with capitalism--R-41 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is another good example. You've come up with the notion that Saint-Simon carries similar weight to Marx when that isn't true. And I think you're probably well intentioned, but that has clearly been proven not to be enough. And tone down your hostility, it's not only annoying but unbecoming as well. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Marx recognized Saint-Simon as a socialist, and Saint-Simon is recognized as influencing Marx. WP:WEIGHT can demonstrate that Marx is a major influence on socialism, but to use weight to essentially insinuate that "Marx is socialism" is fallacious. P.S. I am responding with comments based on your own about me, so if I am being hostile and "annoying" by invoking and reversing your type of comments about me, then you are being hostile and "annoying".--R-41 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Official stance adopted by the Socialist International in its Stockholm conference in 1989
"Neither private nor State ownership by themselves guarantee either economic efficiency or social justice." Quote of the official policy adopted by the Socialist International (SI) in the 1989 Stockholm Conference. The SI is the main organization of social democratic parties. The source I put the quote from is Social democracy in practice: Socialist International, 1951-2001 by Pradip Bose.--R-41 (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I just reversed over 100 edits made consecutively by an editor. Could this editor please explain why he found it necessary to make so many edits? While from my observation, although the edits appear to be properly sourced, the arrangement presents a POV. For example, the edit that the Socialist International "claims that neither private nor state ownership can guarantee economic efficiency or social justice" implies that mainstream socialist parties oppose private property. It recasts mainstream social democratic parties as extreme radicals by cherry-picking statements in primary sources. TFD (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an official policy of the Socialist International. If you actually looked at the edits I made, most of the "100 edits" you speak of, were in the main body of the article, on different topics than this. You said it was a "POV" by me. That's not true, stop changing your official reasoning for rejecting it, your rejection was based on a false premise, and don't refer to me in third person indirectly - it sounds very snotty and condescending to me - so don't do it and don't play games here by changing your reasoning for removing the material - you claimed it was a "POV", when it is a statement of a policy. How is it "cherry-picking" to include an official policy of the Socialist International's major 1989 conference that made substantial policy adjustments? That's ridiculous that it's cherry-picking! It is entirely your opinion that such makes them "extreme radicals". Cooperative enterprise is a major economic engine in countries with strong social democratic parties, it is neither state enterprise, nor private enterprise. "Arrangement" is a POV...let me say that again in long form to demonstrate its absurdity: that the arrangement is a point of view...that is the most ridiculous accusation I have heard, how does the "arrangement" make it a POV? It is either a POV or it is not.--R-41 (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You should not use primary sources to present your personal views. The Socialist International is not planning the revolution.  BTW why must you carry out over 100 edits for a slight change in text?  It makes it difficult for others to follow your edits.  TFD (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "You should not use primary sources to present your personal views. The Socialist International is not planning the revolution." What the hell are you talking about? You don't know what my personal views are unless you live inside my head. I have the fault of being a perfectionist in writing - there's my answer to that snotty question.--R-41 (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote, "In the 1989 conference in Stockholm, the Socialist International declared that it opposed both private and state ownership of the economy, viewing both as inadequate." That is tendentious cherry-picking.  Do you think that the SI will take away your parents' house and their pension?  TFD (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't understand socialism, do you? They are referring to private ownership of the means of production, socialists will not confiscate your personal property; even the most revolutionary socialist programme of the Communist Manifesto did not permit confiscation of personal property - so your point is moot and demonstrates you don't understand what you are talking about. In case you didn't notice, social ownership of the means of production is an important topic on the socialism article. It's not cherry-picking - you have zero understanding of the importance of that conference in 1989. P.S. those were not "minor" reverts you made of mere adjustments to phrases, you deleted large sections of reliably sourced material that I added to the main body of the article, you could have just deleted the material you didn't like in the intro rather than carelessly deleting all of the clearly reliably sourced material I added in the main body of the article.--R-41 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * [Remove posting made to wrong talk page. TFD (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)]
 * ?...What the hell are you talking about? "The War of Words: Defining The Extreme Right Party" ??? "The emergence of a Euro-American radical right" ??? "white supremacists" ??? This has nothing to do with social democracy and I have never used such sources. Get some sleep or something TFD, because you are posting material on the wrong page about a completely different topic and in conversation between you and a completely different user.--R-41 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. Yes, I posted to the wrong talk page, which should have been obvious to you.  TFD (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant to post was, "I know enough that choosing a primary source in order to argue what socialists believe is POV-pushing. BTW when you make over 100 edits in rapid succession with no edit summaries, it is difficult to determine what changes you have made."  TFD (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish you would AGF of me. POV-pushing is a serious accusation, do you know what specific POV I am pushing? POV-pushing is grounds for administrative action, are you willing to be brought to a dispute resolution board or the administrator's noticeboard over it? I do not accept that I am POV-pushing here, I will defend myself from such an accusation and I believe you have carelessly used the term without even knowing what POV I am supposedly pushing. Earlier you said that the material was "properly sourced", now you have changed your mind, and are saying that a secondary source on social democracy that included the material from the 1989 SI conference is a "primary source". May I at least gain your permission to restore the material I put in the main body of the article, while the 1989 SI material can continue to be discussed here?--R-41 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The POV is that Social Democratic parties oppose private ownership of the economy. TFD (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon examing material, you are correct. I have just found a statement by the principal Third Way faction's founder Tony Blair attended a conference titled "New world, new capitalism" in 2009, that is available at his website:, in which he declares support for a "new capitalism". That pretty much ends any debate on where the Third Way genuinely stands on socialism, abandonment of it. Not that I doubted it amongst Third Way-ist social democrats, just that I thought Blair would not publicly declare to be a capitalist, I was mistaken. I think it would be worth saying that Third Way is a capitalist faction of social democracy that uses the term socialism to refer to social justice and social welfare while accepting the capitalist economic system. Well Blair's public admission of this means that Somedifferentstuff's assertion was correct that the social democratic movement is officially splintered between its reformist socialist faction and a capitalist faction as represented by Third Way. However there have been people who say that Blair was not really social democratic at all, in fact far from it - he has been identified by critics as endorsing neoliberalism.--R-41 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the "capitalism to socialism" issue given Third Way revisionist description of socialism and social democratic goals
While I for one should admit my personal deep criticism of the Third Way before addressing this, it is a major faction in the social democratic movement, and its revisionism of the meaning of "socialism" makes description difficult. I had thought that Blair informally accepted capitalism with Third Way but did not know whether he officially accepted it, but I was wrong - upon looking at statements by Blair it is clear that he has publicly endorsed capitalism while he and Third Wayists support a different "socialism" than the conventional one. Blair's famous statement of supporting a hyphenated "social-ism" and Third Wayists support of an "ethical socialism" that accepts a humanized capitalism, does indeed cause a "blur" as Somedifferentstuff has said elsewhere. But it is more than a "blur" because the advent of Third Way has caused major schism in the social democratic movement, with significant numbers of social democrats denouncing the Third Way as accepting neoliberalism, amongst other things. The fact of the matter is that there are two "socialisms" promoted in the social democratic movement, (1) the conventional description of socialism involving social ownership of means of production, and (2) the Third Way definition of socialism as an ethical doctrine based on official support of social welfare, social justice, etc, while having no commitment to social ownership of the means of production unlike the conventional description of socialism. Regardless of personal views on this and even aggravation over such blurring of the word "socialism" by Third Wayists, this is a reality in the social democratic movement.

Thus this inclusion by Somedifferentstuff presents problems:

"It advocates for a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism."

While certainly being consistent with social democracy as developed by reformist Eduard Bernstein, and others after him, it has been challenged by the advent of official stances of acceptance of capitalism by Third Wayists and their major revisionism on what the definition of "socialism" is in their view. Thus as I have said before here, there are two definitions of "socialism" operating in the social democratic movement today, and regardless of people's frustration over that here, this is a reality.--R-41 (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The "transition from capitalism to socialism" is part of the basic, traditional social democratic ideology, which is why it states this in the source. Regarding modern times, I do think the lead should state, if sources are found to back it up, that some (or most) modern social democratic parties have no interest in transitioning away from capitalism but instead support a mixed economy. But we should also present the minority view (i.e. A few modern social democratic parties are committed to leaving capitalism.) I think it would be very helpful to take some snippets (very short quotes) from primary sources (party literature) and use their words to directly describe their aspirations. If a piece of current party literature states that they are anti-capitalist then that may be worthy of inclusion. In the end, I think the lead should be comprehensive, describing both the traditional understanding of social democracy as well as what it looks like today. P.S. R-41, I think our interaction is improving which is a good thing. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The opening paragraphs really need to state the difference between the historical meaning of social democracy (meaning a broadly socialist movement embracing reformism) and the contemporary use of social democracy meaning a set of policies promoting a welfare state, support for collective bargaining and macroeconomic interventionism. This later definition of social democracy was how it was presented to me in university courses and is used this way by many academics and scholars in economics and political science. For example, Jeffrey Sachs, a neoclassical economist renown for being opposed to socialism and an advocate of "shock therapy" and privatization for the former USSR, uses the term "social democracy" to refer to a form of regulated and redistributionist welfare-state capitalism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TGXVdepOGk&feature=player_embedded). This definition is also supported by various other sources I have posted on here in the past, including the Encyclopedia of Political Economy by Phillip O'Hara and the article on Social democracy featured on the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics website. Today advocates of socialism or alternatives of capitalism regularly define or identify social democracy with a welfare state and regulated capitalism. It is thus very disingenuous to neglect mentioning the multiple meanings of Social democracy somewhere in the opening paragraph of the lede. - Battlecry 05:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Palgrave dictionary does not say that. Libertarians call everyone socialists.  Can you link to an article that explains your position?  TFD (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The second definition given by Merriam-Webster Online defines social democracy as a democratic welfare state that incorporates both socialist and capitalist practices.
 * On page 54 to 56 in the following paper, social democracy after the 1930s is based on a rejection of collectivization, nationalization and changing patterns of ownership in favor of: The new debate focused on the right to decide over production and production results, not the ownership right itself. Strong trade unions changed the power relations of industrial life. Taxes and social legislation redistributed the production results, and civil laws and regulations set the framework for companies to act but did not control what production should look like – because that must be controlled by consumer demand.
 * The Future of European Social Democracy: Building the Good Society by Henning Meyer and Jonathan Rutherford associate "European social democracy" with the social and economic order that existed in Europe from the post-war period up until the early 1990s. The following quotations are from page 538 and 539 of the Encyclopedia of Political Economy, respectively, and are available in the preview for this book on Google:


 * Social democracy is a political ideology focusing on an evolutionary road to socialism -OR- the humanization of capitalism. It includes parliamentary process of reform, the provision of state benefits to the population, agreements between labor and the state, and the revisionist movement away from revolutionary socialism.


 * During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the welfare state, Keynesian economic policies and industrial agreements to balance the power of capital and labor were the defining features of social democracy.


 * The Economist has an article reviewing the book III Fairs the Land, where social democracy is defined as being synonymous with modern American liberalism.


 * The criticism section of the article includes several sources written by socialist scholars who define social democracy as a welfare state and various social reforms to capitalism. We have a plethora of sources associating social democracy with a welfare state and interventionist/regulated form of capitalism. The Wikipedia article needs to recognize that social democracy is a political movement which broadly supports egalitarianism and social justice. At various points in its history, social democracy embraced socialism (an economic system), but later rejected socialism because it saw it as unnecessary to achieve its objectives. As per WP:COMMONNAME, we need to include the popular definition of social democracy as a Western European welfare state in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph of the article states that social democracy "officially considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism". This claim is specious at best, we need secondary sources and cannot rely on a primary source for such a claim. If not, we might as well add that "national socialism officially considered itself to be a form of socialism" in the article on national socialism. - Battlecry 02:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sources show that modern liberalism in the U.S. and especially Western Europe is sometimes referred to as social democracy, presumably because these policies are associated most closely with the Swedish social democrats. But that is really a dictionary-type issue.  They also show that it is a term used to describe the right wing of socialism.  TFD (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that it is widely used to mean a mixed capitalist economy or a welfare state, I think the opening paragraph should be amended in the following way:


 * Social democracy is a political ideology that advocates for a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism. Under this definition, social democracy considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism. Alternatively, social democracy refers to a political ideology espousing a welfare state, economic interventionism, and support for collective bargaining to balance the power between labor and capital. - Battlecry 06:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But "social democracy" as a welfare state has been used even to define welfare policy of conservative governments in Europe. Those conservative governments were not connected to social democracy as an ideology. That is why I suggested an article titled: Social democracy (welfare state), for the definition of the form of a welfare state which is not automatically connected to proponents of the ideology of social democracy. It would be best to clarify that there is schism in the social democratic movement. There are social democrats today who support the classical definition of socialism as involving social ownership, but since the SPD's Godesberg Program in 1959, an alternative definition of socialism was developed within the SPD that abandoned the classical conception of socialism as involving the replacement of capitalist economic system of private ownership of the means of production, and declared "Private ownership of the means of production can claim protection by society as long as it does not hinder the establishment of social justice.". This is discussed in the following book: Ian Adams. Political Ideology Today. Manchester, England, UK: Manchester University Press, 2002. P. 108.--R-41 (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the name of the party is that implements or supports the system. Both capitalism and socialism can exist regardless of whether or not it is implemented by an avowed "capitalist" or "socialist" party or political group. Likewise, support for social democratic welfare states and regulated capitalism can come from any party. I would support the creation of a separate article called "Social democracy (welfare state)", but it would be just as effective to add that information in the existing article while differentiating the traditional ideology with its more contemporary denotation.
 * Since the post-War period, Social democrats have embraced capitalism in all but name. While some may symbolically claim to uphold socialism in their constitutions, their constitutional roots have been irrelevant to what these parties actually advocate and orient themselves toward. The basic institutions of capitalism are not only accepted but taken as a given, the debate was shifted to how much capitalism should be regulated or how much of the surplus value should be redirected via taxes to finance corporatist and social policies. While you might call this "socialism", the fact is it is something very different from the definition of socialism used by non-social democratic parties and by economists and political economists, where socialism is understood to be a different system from capitalism. Hence why the term "social democracy" came to refer to welfare-state capitalism and mixed-market economies. The article does not do an adequate job addressing the fundamental difference between socialism (and "classic" social democratic aims, regardless of their methods) and what is usually meant by social democracy by its proponents today - a return to the mixed-market economy from the Golden age of capitalism.- Battlecry 04:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:TOPIC. If social democracy refers to conservative, liberal and christian democratic governments persuing social liberal policies then that is a different topic.  But there is a name for that topic, the "welfare state".  So we can mention in both articles the semantic confusion but that is one sentence at most.  TFD (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD's statement above. I am not personally endorsing the ethical socialism developed in Godesberg Program of 1959 and the Clause IV revision of 1995; as a self-described socialist and social democrat I personally believe that social democracy can and should return to its roots of reformists like Bernstein advocating cooperative enterprise to own the means of production, and there have been a substantial number of market socialists within the social democratic movement who have espoused this. However I will say that it is hardly a minor view of socialism today to view it as involving a strong social welfare state and strong regulation of the economy while not necessarily having social ownership of the means of production, right-wing critics (both scholarly and otherwise) of the welfare state and strong regulation of the economy have identified the system as socialist or at least substantially socialist. Plus as I have mentioned earlier, early socialists like Henri de Saint Simon accepted private ownership on the condition that private property be the reward of talent and capacity but not otherwise. And Saint Simon was a major socialist figure in his time who substantially influenced Marx.--R-41 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Grammar question/concern
Shouldn't "social" really be "socialist" since this is discussing a political state or idea?

Social vs. Socialist?

SandraardnaS (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC) SandraardnaS
 * "Social democracy" is the established name for this topic in reliable sources, that's the name used by political scientists etc. And the rule at Wikipedia is to follow the name convention in reliable sources. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

please insert [Bruno Kreisky]
In "Notable social democrats" please insert [Bruno Kreisky]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.234.175 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2013
The follwing section: Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state, collective bargaining schemes, and a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century.

Following the split between reformists and revolutionary socialists in the Second International, Social democrats have advocated for a peaceful and evolutionary transition of the economy to socialism through progressive social reform of capitalism.[4][5] Before the split between reformists and revolutionary socialists, "social democracy" was widely used to refer to a wide range of socialists, including revolutionary tendencies.

Should be removed from the Social Democracy definition page. That is offensive to a social democrat, it's a smear. It would be like saying about Republicans in the United States - "Opponents of the Republicans say they're are open liars and are not real politicians." It's not relevant to the definition of it, since it's a smear (the above section). Revolutionary Socialists don't believe we're real Socialists. Notice it keeps mentioning "Revolutionary Socialists" on the above. Do we get to say how we really feel about them on their page? If they do not agree with us, they're free to say it elsewhere but that belongs nowhere on this page whatsoever. Please remove it. That's offensive and a smear. Thank you.

Bryanf222 (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: How is it a smear? Seems like a rather straightforward definition to me. -- TOW  07:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no response to above. Mdann52 (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014
The page on Social Democracy claims that Social Democracy OFFICIALLY (as if it is all one group) has the goal of the establishment of Democratic Socialism. This is simply not true. Social Democracy has the goal of establishing a mixed-economic welfare-like state. It is capitalism with social benefits.

sources: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/28/939592/-Social-Democracy-or-Social-Security-isn-8217-t-Socialism-unless-you-drink-tea http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/10/socialism-and-social-democracy.html http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/obama-is-a-social-democrat-not-a-socialist/?_r=0 http://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social-democracy-whats-the-difference/

Please fix this error right away, as it is misleading.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.137.117 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 January 2014 TFD (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree Your first source is a blog that uses Wikipedia as a source. One of your sources provides an opinion that Obama is a social democrat, which is not a standard view.  In order to make changes you need to spell out the recommended change and provide reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The listed sources are not usable, the assessment seems however correct (at least for many social democratic parties). Other sources might be used and in fact description is already contained in the article somewhat. So I'm bit confused about the argument here about something the article already states more or less.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While it is correct that social democratic parties indeed established welfare states, so did conservative, liberal and Christian democratic parties. That does not mean it was their goal, rather a policy to achieve a goal.  In fact since "capitalism with benefits" has been established, it makes no sense to say that their goal is establishing it, and many socialist parties have acted to scale it back.  But this is not a political blog.  Changes require sources.  TFD (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. When you find reliable sources, be more specific about what needs to be changed.  CarnivorousBunny talk • contribs  01:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop asking reflexively and read what I wrote. I said above that information is already contained (and sourced) in the current article . At the moment for instance it states even in the lead: "Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy.".--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term "social democracy" may also refer to modern welfare states. Similarly the term "Mars" may refer to a god of a planet.  What relevance does that have?  Do you want to replace this article with one about modern welfare states?  TFD (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that the info of the requested "change" is already conained in the article's lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to TFD : How come you can say that social Democracy has the goal of establishing Democratic Socialism, but when it is said that "capitalism with benefits" is their goal (Which is not what is said, but it is a simile) it makes no sense? This is hypocrisy. I find it illogical and nonsensical that this article claims that Social Democracy has the goal of establishing Democratic Socialism when there is a contrast between the two and not all social democrats agree with this claim. It is not a group so how come this article says "OFFICIALLY" as if it is a group that has announced an official goal. That is nonsensical. TFD, please keep your opinions out of this article and look up what a simile is. Also, calling Obama a Social Democrat is quite nonsensical. He supports a mixed economy, and opposes inequality and poverty, while rejecting a fully planned economy. "Common social democratic policies include advocacy of universal social rights to attain universally accessible public services such as education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services, including child care and care for the elderly" This is from the article, and Obama has advocated for most (if not all) of these policies. I am not here to debate with you the alignment of Obama's views, nor am I here to debate with you the parties involved in establishing welfare-states. It is evident that Social Democracy, mainly, has relaxed does not OFFICIALLY SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. The "common social democratic policies" support the definition of welfare capitalism, and you can compare the definitions yourself. Just the fact the word "officially" is used is misleading.(UTC)

Not all social democrats identify as socialists anymore, this needs to be addressed in the intro
I am not doubting that social democracy descends from the socialist movement, but today social democracy's association with socialism is mixed. As is mentioned in the article, for the most part social democrats made peace with capitalism with the rise of Keynesian capitalism. Later on there was Third Way that moved away from Keynesianism towards much more neoliberal-accomodating economics. And since 2008, there are social democrats like British Labour Party leader Ed Miliband saying that Third Way was inadequate and calls for a "responsible capitalism". Much of the social democratic political rhetoric on economics today, is like that of progressive liberal rhetoric in the USA, in that it stems from the popularized findings of neo-Keynesian economist Joseph Stiglitz's now famous premise on the problem of economic inequality of the "1%" wealthiest controlling a large portion of the economy while "99%" control a smaller portion.

The content in the article demonstrates a general shift of social democracy towards acceptance of capitalism beginning with moving towards Keynesianism. But, as the article shows there are social democrats who still identify as socialists. Therefore I propose a new first sentence for the intro:

"Social democracy is a reformist progressive ideology whose roots originated in the socialist and labour movements in the 19th century."

Also, the second paragraph's first sentence is another sentence that does not apply to all contemporary social democratic parties, because as said before, many social democratic parties have come to accept capitalism. So that sentence should be removed from the intro because it is not accurately representing the ideology as it stands today.

Then there is other material already in the intro that shows the development of the ideology and its contemporary mixed relationship with socialism and capitalism.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to provide a source. Tony Blair claimed to be a socialist, but said Labour should abandon nationalization.  And left-wing opponents of Labour had claimed that nationalization was merely state capitalism anyway.  To them, socialists parties had ceased to be socialist c. 1917.  TFD (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've regularly seen this admission in books about social democracy no longer being socialist in the classical sense of the term that involves promotion of a non-capitalist economy. I don't know if Blair claiming to be a socialist would count as a reliable source, as politicians are all to often known to say one thing and do the opposite, and also he may have talked that way in front of the unions but not the businesses. Blair's position should be reviewed from an outside reliable source. I will provide a source from a relevant book on the subject soon.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You still need a source. Indeed they do not promote the same policies they did in the 19th century, but then neither do liberal or conservative parties.  The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario for example no longer supports the policies of the Family Compact and have come to accept democracy, secularism, etc.  Liberals no longer demand minimal government and republicanism.  TFD (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, and propose the opening paragraph be changed to the following:


 * Social democracy is a political ideology that traces its roots to the 19th century socialist movement. Contemporary social democracy is a center-left ideology that champions a welfare state and varying degrees of economic regulation; however social democratic parties belonging to the Socialist International still have the nominal goal of establishing a democratic socialist economy. Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the latter half of the 20th century. - Battlecry 03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your source, Busky, p. 8, does not support that. TFD (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Busky might not support his suggested lead, it does however prove/source his general point that started the discussion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But what I suggested does not contradict what Busky said either, which is that social democratic parties belonging to the Frankfurt Deceleration of the SI have the goal of establishing democratic socialism.


 * Here is a recent article on Foreign Affairs about a new policy book where Social Democracy is defined as a welfare state (as opposed to an alternative to capitalism): http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140345/lane-kenworthy/americas-social-democratic-future - Battlecry 07:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply write something that is not contradicted by Busky (or another source), but you need to write something that is directly supported by him (or other sources). Btw the taking a look at Google books there seems to be plenty of literature supporting the view that social democracy (or large parts) of it do not pursue socialist goals anymore, that is a non capitalistic economic system. Instead it pursues a welfare state within a market based (regulated) capitalistic system. Some literature explaining that view is already included in the article, you probably can recycle that in the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One can also argue that socialists do not pursue "a welfare state within a market based (regulated) capitalistic system", but pursue neoliberal policies, i.e., reductins in welfare and government services, lower taxes, deregulation, and privatization. The most obvious examples are Rogernomics and New Labour.  Or Socialism with Chinese characteristics.  The current Chinese government argues that free markets are essential to improve the overall living standards of citizens. TFD (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you will hard pressed to find that as declared or official policy of (most) social democratic parties or movements. You can probably argue that (some of) their government policies do result (de facto) in neoliberal policies and that some cacademics assess their (de facto) policies as neoliberal, but I really doubt you will find that in official programs or self descriptions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can mention that the term social democracy is sometimes used to refer to the welfare state etc. The author says, "Social democracy originated in the early twentieth century as a strategy to improve capitalism rather than replace it."  He is actually referring to social liberalism, which was developed by liberals and implemented by social democrats.  He is referring to is a paradigm that was generally accepted by liberals, socialists and conservatives until the 1970s.
 * The important consideration is disambiguation. This article is supposed to be about a topic, not the various meanings that "social democracy" may have.  Unfortunately we have never agreed on the topic.  Why not do that?
 * TFD (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Socialism with Chinese characteristics does not argue in favor of free markets, it just says that forcing a new superstructure on old relations of production (on the mode of production) doesn't work when capitalism is still a dynamic system (see capitalist mode of production). While China is still in the "primary stage of socialism", that stage is very similar to capitalism (according to party theorists)...
 * But to the point, social democracy developed from socialist theory, and has since the 1980 developed into its own, separate ideology (the social democrats who refuse to label themselves as socialists believe this). --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, rather than argue about it, please provide a source. German and Scandinavian socialist parties btw have always been called Social Democrats, in most of the rest of Europe they are called Socialist and in the UK they are called Labour.  TFD (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually afaik since WWII the German Social Democrats usually avoid the term socialism or socialist as a self description (partially due to association with East Germany and the Eastern Bloc and partially due to not pursuing (real) socialist goals/socialism anymore). The term gets nevertheless still applied to them occasionally, but usually in the form of (propagandistic) labeling by their political opponents (somewhat like Republicans calling Obama a socialist).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian Labour Party defines themselves as sosialdemocratic and different from socialist parties: Here is sociologist Cathrine Holst: "In many countries the socialist term is widely used. One tend to use "social democrat" and "socialist" interchangeably and social democratic parties call themselves socialist. In Norway, the words are used differently. Labour does not not call itself socialist." The Norwegian Labour Party very intentionally distance themselves from socialism. They don't fit the first sentence in the lede "goal of establishing democratic socialism". But they fit the alternative definition "a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy" very well. (they do now and then sing the Socialist International and so, but that's like cultural history). Iselilja (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So in Norway, the term "social democrat" means "socialist" in English, while 'socialist" means "communist". I suppose we could mention that in the article, but it does not seem very important.  And it does not support the view that socialists have been transformed into social democrats in the last few years.  TFD (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What a non-sensical and condescending comment. The Norwegian Labour Party used to define themselves as socialist (of the reformit type; allthough they were revolutionary for a period in their early history). They now define themselvelves as social democratic and distance themselves from the word and concept of socialism. Iselilja (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When did that happen? Was it when the right-wing broke to form the Social Democratic Labour Party in 1921?  That would account for the difference in terminology, because in the rest of the world, communist parties were formed when they broke from socialist parties, while in this case the socialist party joined Comintern.  TFD (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Labour Party (Norway)... What their official name is isn't really what we are discussing here. --TIAYN (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We still need sources before making assertions in the article. TFD (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Lassalle and Bernstein gave up revolution in the 19th century, most socialists sided with national governments in WWI, and after WWII, they supported NATO over Soviet Communism. At that time they also supported the welfare state and nationalization, but have backed away from them.  Certainly there was a break between socialists and communists, but where is the hard break between socialists and social democrats?  TFD (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note not all parties within "communist" Soviet system (with which the split occurred) called themselves communist, the governing party of Eastern Germany Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) called itself socialist. So the split after WWII is more along autoritarian/totalitarian versus democratic, whereas the split before WWII (with communists) was between revolutionists and reformists. What changed for social democrats between the 19th century and the time after WWII, that their longterm goal is in doubt only a just society (as in social justice) rather than necessarily a socialist one (in a classic sense). The German SPD for instance doesn't necessarily pursue the abolishment of private property anymore since its Godesberger program.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The split between communists and socialists pre-dates the establishment of communist parties. Read about Lassalle and Bernstein.  I do not see why the name of the SED in the GDR is relevant.  Supposedly it was a merger between the KPD and the SPD, hence the name.  TFD (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how your first line relates to my posting. As far the SED is concerned, the point here is, that after WWII it is not a split between social democracy and Soviet communism but a split between social democracy and Soviet style socialism (but not with socialism as a whole).--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The split between socialism and communism goes back to the 19th century with Lassalle v. Marx, Bernstein' revisionism vs. the revolutionaries, division over WWI and the Russian revolution, resulting in the establishment of separate communists parties. While socialism and communism are the most common terms today, and other terms are possible, the split goes back to the beginning and did not start with the Second World War.  TFD (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no argument about the split between socialism and communism in the 19th century. I was talking about a split within socialism after WWII (partially being a split between social democracy and socialism).--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Even after the split with communism, there was a left-right split within socialism. For example in the U.S., socialists divided between supporters of Hillquit's "Old Guard" and Norman Thomas' "Militants." The post WWII split could be seen as a right that supported Crosland's The Future of Socialism (1956) and the German SDP's rejection of Marx in 1959. If you think this article should be about post-war right-wing socialism and should be called "Social Democracy", I have no objection, provided it is not OR. But if we define Social Democracy as Lassalle, Bernstein and Crosland, then we have a problem. Because Bernstein was a (revisionist) Marxist, not a Lassallean, and the SDP rejected Bernstein's revisionist Marxism in favor of what you call Social Democracy. TFD (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that the article should be only about post WII, the article seems fine as it is for the most part and it should cover all the developments rather than focusing only on a particular part. Btw I find the term "rightwing socialism" here a bit iffy as there are things like German National Socialism and the French Neosocialism as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)