Talk:Social democracy/Archive 6

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

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

"The usual criticism of anarchism by present-day Social-Democrats has boiled down to the purest philistine banality: "We recognize the state, whereas the anarchists do not!" Naturally, such banality cannot but repel workers who are at all capable of thinking and revolutionary-minded. What Engels says is different. He stresses that all socialists recognize that the state will disappear as a result of the socialist revolution. He then deals specifically with the question of the revolution - the very question which, as a rule, the Social-Democrats evade out of opportunism, leaving it, so to speak, exclusively for the anarchists "to work out". And when dealing with this question, Engels takes the bull by the horns; he asks: should not the Commune have made more use of the revolutionary power of the state, that is, of the proletariat armed and organized as the ruling class?

''Prevailing official Social-Democracy usually dismissed the question of the concrete tasks of the proletariat in the revolution either with a philistine sneer, or, at best, with the sophistic evasion: "The future will show". And the anarchists were justified in saying about such Social-Democrats that they were failing in their task of giving the workers a revolutionary education. Engels draws upon the experience of the last proletarian revolution precisely for the purpose of making a most concrete study of what should be done by the proletariat, and in what manner, in relation to both the banks and the state."''

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

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

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

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

Dragão Carmesim (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The text you removed referred to a social revolution, which is actually correct, although editors should not add or change texts without sources. I would also mention that the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy is arbitrary. It was a term coined by socialists to distinguish themselves from communists, while social Democrat was (following Lenin) a term of disparagement by communists for socialists. TFD (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To expand on TFD's points; Social Democracy is a very broad term, and as Heywood also mentions, it did, and, depending on how you define Social Democracy, which is what this whole discussion is about, continues to do so, refer to Orthodox Marxists. What makes the distinction so incredibly hard is that not all Orthodox Marxists actively believe in a Bolshevik-style revolution, see Karl Kautsky & Rosa Luxemburg, and argue for different revolutionary theories, ways of organising, etc., impossibilists, who're also Orthodox Marxists, don't even believe that the transition is actually possible.
 * The point about how the SPD split during WW1(Burgfrieden, Spartakus, USPD, etc.), and how the MSPD then took part in the quashing of socialists uprising has a certain duality to it. It makes the ideologically charged assumption that the theories and actions of one side are to be considered more "truly Socialism" than the actions of the other, despite the glaringly obvious theoretical differences that laid behind the structures and actions of the parties. And while I on a personal may or may not agree with theorists like Luxemburg and Kautsky, who both sided with the USPD(It should be noted that Luxemburg was killed and Kautsky later rejoined the MSPD instead of the KPD), this does not mean that we shouldn't consider there works at least influential in the Social Democratic movement, and perhaps also important in forming certain directions of the Social Democratic movement. Not the Third Way/Goedesberg kind of Social Democracy, that is granted, but a more Archaic understanding of the Social Democratic movement within the context of their contemporary. We cannot remove Orthodox Marxism from our understanding of Social Democracy, however much we want to. JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * and explained it better and shorter than I ever could. You can't just delete the history of social democracy; you can't also narrow it to just the Third Way. Ironically, many self-described democratic socialists are actually more social democratic than most self-professed social democrats or Social Democrat parties; for one, they actually advocate a Keynesian-style mixed economy and not a social-neoliberal market economy. As stated by TFD,  democratic socialism was advocated by social democrats themselves to distinguish their socialism from the Stalinist model; however, democratic socialism basically include any socialist current opposed to their authoritarianism by now. Just because social democratic parties underwent a change culminated into the Third Way and the adoption of neoliberalism (this is uncontroversial), it doesn't mean that social democracy also did as a whole; if it loses its committment to socialism, whether by revolutionary, reformist or gradualist, evolutionary means, it ceases being social democracy and would be no different from social liberalism. It would become so meaningless that people like Bismarck, the guy who actually pushed the anti-socialist Social Democrats Law, can be labelled social democrat. Beside, the quote cited by you actually confirms that social democracy is a broad term and doesn't just include so-called Third Way Social Democrats and I believe the lead should reflect that.--80.104.241.122 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

, The text removed was regarding Social Democracy currently, and not the overall history of Social Democracy as you can see the context: "'Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy, be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state." Social Democratic parties today don't aim for social revolution, which according to Wikipedia's own article regarding the subject, is a series of "sudden changes in the structure and nature of society. These revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy, and technology much more than political systems." Again, according to Heywood's own explanations of current social democracy, they aim is simply to commit in a series of Reforms within capitalism in order to soften it, there's thousands of examples, mainly being the Wokers' Party government in Brazil. No one's denying Social Democratic former revolutionary past, which even Engels helped in its formation during the Second International, I'm simply removing the current ways such ideology reaches its ideological goals, if I wanted to do that, I'd have edited the rest of the article and remove any connections to the RS movement. Dragão Carmesim (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with that; the achievement of socialism would be the social revolution itself. Although revolution is often conflated and confused with it, a revolution isn't just a sudden coup d'ètat; peaceful revolution is also a thing. I also see that phrase merely explaining the three trends in the history of social democracy, namely revolutionary, evolutionary/gradualist/reformist and modern welfare social democracy.
 * P.S. Wrote this exactly at the same time of, who explained this better than I could again. So thank you.--82.54.10.243 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is,, and I am sure that both and the anonymous user will, if not agree with this point, be able to follow it, that social democratic theory is a little different when it comes to the pursuit of the social revolution when compared to the various Bolshevik traditions(granted this, again, only applies when we're talking about evolutionary/revisionist Marxism a la Bernstein or the Orthodox Marxism of people such as Kautsky, Luxemburg, etc.), the former believes that the social revolution can come through reformist or evolutionary means, while the latter often argues for spontaneous revolution which can only emerge in response to mounting contradictions between the productive forces and social relations of society and therefore rejects Leninism and Bolshevism for its insistence on a "guided" or "hands-on" approach to achievement of said revolution. So while Orthodox Marxists may not go around nowadays with revolutionary rhetoric, instead focusing more on the "bread and butter issues", this does by no means mean that they've necessarily completely abandoned the goal of the social revolution, they, as said, do not believe that it can be "forced", so to speak.
 * Further more, we cannot, as volunteer editors of Wikipedia, make so deeply ideological choices as the one to completely disenfranchise the historical movements of social democracy from the modern usage of the term, as we cannot accurately say that traditions such as Impossibilism or Menshevism or any of the -ism tied to non-Bolshevik yet still Marxist socialist movements are completely gone from the modern social democratic movement. Nor can we, as I believe you,, are implying, although correct me if I am wrong, that democratic socialism should exclusively refer to reformist or evolutionary socialism. It may be revolutionary, and it may be evolutionary. As TFD said, the term "democratic socialism" was coined by, among other groups, social democrats to distinguish themselves from the Leninist movement in the old Soviet block. This means that it also includes revolutionary yet not democratic centralist or vanguardist movements(although it may or may not include the latter whether you have an understanding of vanguard-tradition a la Kautsky or a la Lenin. JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Either way, the first paragraphs explain social democracy in broad terms. The second part explain the most common version of social democracy. I don't see why Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy, be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state. should be reverted. I see that phrasing merely explaining the three trends in the history of social democracy, namely revolutionary, evolutionary/gradualist/reformist and modern welfare social democracy. The second part of the lead talks about modern welfare social democracy.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're including content which describes Democratic Socialism, which is indeed currently closely tied to Socialistic and anti-capitalistic goals. Socialism is part of the history, not part of the current makeup, of Social Democracy. Drop the "revolution" part.
 * Try this instead: Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed-market capitalist economy, be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state.
 * No matter what, you must stop edit warring your preferred version, no matter what IP you use, and since you're IP hopping, you should create an account so all your edits are collected under one contribution history. Editing with multiple accounts (each IP is an account here) is not allowed in this type of situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault my IP changes, it just does it; I don't change it myself, if that's what you're implying. Yeah, keep ignoring everything  also said. Per TFD, "the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy is arbitrary. It was a term coined by socialists to distinguish themselves from communists, while social Democrat was (following Lenin) a term of disparagement by communists for socialists."--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the one ignoring the whole history of social democracy which also include Marxism and anti-capitalism.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That version was actually added by JonatanMSSvendsen; and I thought both TFD and I agree with it, so it wasn't just me.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you even actually read the discussion we were having?--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not blaming you for the fact you have a dynamic IP. If you had a stable one, it wouldn't be a problem. Since you do, you should create an account and enjoy all the many benefits that come with an account, including being taken more seriously.
 * Yes, both Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism have a socialistic history, but they have deviated, so don't muddy the waters. They are two separate articles for a reason. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * seem to disagree with that and agree with me (or I agree with them), as you can see in the discussion we were having. If I misunderstood them, then I invite them again to state their opinion and which lead should be used. I will respect the final decision.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

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


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


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