Talk:Social democracy/Archive 7

Lead section
I'm the IP from the previous discussion, but from now on I will use my account, now that I have got it back, to avoid any confusion with the 95.102.170.69 IP who first started reverting and to gain more attention to this issue. As I have stated, i thought there was some consensus with  to support the previous lead. Either way, I believe it should be reverted to this until we find a new and final consensus. See differences here. I have added <-- Broad social democracy. --> to the first part specifically to refer to social democracy in broad terms and its history/evolution; and <-- Discussing moden social democracy. --> to the second part which discusses modern social democracy.--Davide King (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All three of the sources for the lead see social democracy as a paradigm developed by socialists and implemented by parties across the political spectrum in Western Europe and the United States following the Second World War, replacing neo-classical liberalism, and lasting until the advent of neo-liberalism in the late 70s. I note that other writers variously describe this paradigm as social liberalism or the post-war consensus. If that is what this article is about, then we need to better reflect it in the initial introduction and remove irrelevant sections such as information about socialism in the 19th century. TFD (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My main gripe with the current introduction is that it seemingly completely neglects the theoretical and ideological parts of the social democratic movement, and instead conflate it, as also notes, with the policymaking of various social democratic parties, which, in practicality, means that the term loses parts of its meaning, especially when it compares to other ideologies and movements.
 * What I propose is that we reach consensus on a broad introduction; one that both notes the ideological and theoretical background and ideals of the movement and the varied aspects of that, while not neglecting the policymaking of the past. JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources not only define social democracy as the policies of socialist parties between 1945 and 1975 or 1980, but also with the policies pursued by conservative, liberal and Christian democratic parties in the same period. The use of the term probably stems from the fact that the Swedish Social Democratic Party established the most comprehensive welfare state. They believed that by improving the health, wealth and education of the public, people would have the freedom to develop a social democracy based on from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That of course never happened and was not the motivation for adopting welfare states anywhere else. TFD (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And, as said, that's my gripe with it, and why I proposed changing it into a more broad introduction; one that expands on the theoretical background of the movement and the varied aspects of that, while retaining the references to the political actions. Because as it stands right now, the article basically conflate social democracy with welfare state, albeit a certain type of it.
 * This was what I attempted to do, when I changed the part about the goals of the movement; to better explain what the major movements within the social democratic group had of motivation.
 * I would love to hear what other editors have to say about this though, before I put in the work. It has, here in the talk-page, occured to me, that this article is one that is often edited with ideologically charged motifs, and if my edit is going to be reversed, to be honest, it would deter me.
 * Therefore I would appreciate it, if we as editors, at least those of us that read the talk page, could reach a consensus on making reference to both the theoretical and political aspects of social democracy, in the introduction. JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your replies.
 * [...] be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state was actually added by JonatanMSSvendsen which I agree with; however, I have slightly changed it into this: [...] be the goal a social revolution moving away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state. Do you agree with my addition?
 * I also believe that it should be within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy rather than within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed-market economy because as stated in the sourced text itself in the Cold War era and Keynesianism (1945–1973) section, [t]he rise of Keynesianism in the Western world during the Cold War influenced the development of social democracy.[188] The attitude of social democrats towards capitalism changed as a result of the rise of Keynesianism.[189] Capitalism was acceptable to social democrats only if capitalism's typical crises could be prevented and if mass unemployment could be averted, therefore Keynesianism was believed to be able to provide this.[189] Social democrats came to accept the market for reasons of efficiency and endorsed Keynesianism as that was expected to reconcile democracy and capitalism.[189]
 * In other words, social democrats accepted capitalism, Keynesianism and the market only under certain conditions and as a pragmatic solution; it's mainly Third Way social democrats that accepted capitalism even under neoliberalism (one defence is that they adjusted to the political climate since the 1980s that favoured capitalism by recognising that outspoken opposition to capitalism in these circumstances was politically nonviable and that accepting capitalism as the current powers that be and seeking to administer it to challenge laissez-faire capitalists was a more pressing immediate concern; per Romano, Flavio (2006). Clinton and Blair: The Political Cconomy of the Third Way. Oxon, England, United Kingdom; New York City, New York, United States: Routledge. p. 113.), rather than the more egalitarian, Keynesian, post-war social-democratic model; and whose critics argue that as a result Third Wayers have actually endorsed capitalism.
 * Thus, the current lead conflates social-democratic parties with social democracy as a whole; just because people like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn call themselves democratic socialist (exactly to distinquish themselves from centrist, Third Wayers and from New Labour, respectively), it doesn't mean they don't fit within social democracy. That's why I propose that the mixed-market economy (linked to as Mixed economy#European social democracy) should be used here: In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed-market economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. Thoughts?--Davide King (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way, I agree with that this article should be about social democracy as a whole and not just post-war welfare states or welfare states in general.--Davide King (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One other change I made was this: Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, European socialism has become associated with social democracy and social democracy with the Nordic model within policy circles in the late 20th century. European socialism redirects here.--Davide King (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, social democracy mainly refers to evolutionary/gradualist/reformist socialism (in the past it was also a synonym for revolutionary socialism, although certain revolutionary, democratic socialist currents would also fit within social democracy as argued by JonatanMSSvendsen). There's this confusion between social democracy and social-democratic policies. Indeed, conservative, liberal and Christian democratic parties in the post-war period have all merely adopted social-democratic policies, not social democracy; otherwise the German conservative, aristocratic Otto von Bismarck would be a social democrat, too; the guy who banned the actual social democrats under the Anti-Socialist Laws and merely adopted their policies to dissuade the working-class from socialism. Social-democratic policies may have been adopted by the whole political spectrum but that doesn't make it social democracy; or does it?--Davide King (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One last thing. Doesn't that also make Marxist–Leninist regimes social-democratic? Weren't they all supporting of social welfare and in practice welfare states (in some cases even conservative ones as you needed to work to get benefits)? Weren't they all just as gradualist as social-democrats? They never abolished the law of value, wage labour, commodity exchanges, etc., did they? Indeed, Lenin himself never renounced his social democracy; he merely renamed his party Communist because he rejected the Social Democratic party developments in countries like Germany and didn't want his party to be associated with it, but his doctrine never changed; it was merely renamed. When you see fascists or Nazis babbling about socialism, they merely mean corporatist, social welfare; does that mean fascists and Nazis were social-democrats? Social democracy is a specific socialist ideology which arose from Marxism, not any social-democratic welfare policy.--Davide King (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to begin with a definition that can be reliably sourced, rather than what editors may think it means. As I said above there are four distinct definitions: 1. the paradigm adopted by left and right political parties in Western European states between 1945 and 1975, the revisionist Marxism developed by Bernstein in 19th century Germany, as a term equivalent to democratic socialism to distinguish socialists from Communists, and as a term to refer to the right-wing of socialist parties. In the 19th century it referred a state with social ownership and control of the means of production. The current articles rolls all of them together as one topic. Let's chose a topic and edit the article to reflect it
 * Whether or not Communists were Social Democrats depends on what definition we use. Marx and Lenin were both members of Social Democratic parties.
 * TFD (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever the history may be, and that should be described in the Development and History sections, the description of current Social Democracy and Social Democratic policies and politics should make it clear that it no longer has much resemblance to socialism, but is more related to democracy. It takes the positive aspects of socialism (social justice, education and health care for all, extremely representative democracy) and uses them within a typical democratic society, where nearly everything is privately owned, just like in any other modern western country.
 * There is no attempt or intent to create a centralized, state-run and owned, means of production. There is no intent to go further left toward socialism as socialism and communism are seen as bad things from the past. Social Democrats do not like socialism.
 * As long as a democratic and capitalist society works toward minimizing inequality and social injustice, gets rid of corruption in politics, and works toward getting everyone educated and no one burdened by health care worries and expenses, then you have the typical social democracies as they operate in most northern European countries. There are very few poor and everyone is educated. This works because these are collectivist and not individualist societies. It takes a "we're all in this together" mentality. I loved living in this type of society. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pick a source and choose a definition. If you cannot do that, then it's OR and synthesis. TFD (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good morning. Just a question: I believe the core of our disagreement lies with whether or not we should include the theoretical and ideological implications of the term, right? Currently the lead only really encompasses the political implications, thus conflating Social Democracy with welfare-stateism.JonatanMSSvendsen (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added whose goal at different times which I hope it clarifies.
 * I think the page is fine as it is, especially the well written and sourced History section; my issue is that the lead doesn't do a good enough job as summary of the article as it doesn't give enough attention to its 1860s–1910s years. So I'd say the topic should talk about the 1860s German revolutionary socialism and its evolution; evolving first into Bernstein's revisionism, althouth revolutionary socialism departed from social democracy only in the 1910s with the division between Social Democrats and Communists; evolving slowly into Keynesianism until the 1970s–1990s, with the Third Way, which I wouldn't consider within the social democratic tradition (modern democratic socialism is closer to 1910s–1970s social democracy and bascally took its place; that's why people Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn who self-describe as democratic socialists are well within the social democratic tradition; the pink tide has more claim to social democracy than the Third Way has, but I digress) but I wouldn't be opposed to talk about it as it's now in the History section, which perhaps should talk more about democratic socialism in the 1970s–2010s. I'd consider both Marx and Lenin as social democrats within revolutionary socialism; I'd consider both also communists (just like one can be both an anarchist and socialist, or a socialist and libertarian/revolutionary socialist). I'd say social democracy is the reformst-wing of democratic socialism (which also includes anti-Leninist/Stalinist revolutionary socialism) as well as the right-wing of the socialist movement; indeed, the only right-wing that one can be to fit within the socialist movement. This would be my proposal:
 * In response to You're confusing social democratic policies and the welfare state with social democracy as a whole. Then your bias also shows up when you say: "There is no attempt or intent to create a centralized, state-run and owned, means of production. There is no intent to go further left toward socialism as socialism and communism are seen as bad things from the past. Social Democrats do not like socialism." Socialism supports social ownership, not state ownership, even if some socialist may've supported or advocated the latter. Social Democrats dislike socialism so much that the social-democratic European party is literally called Socialists and Democrats; and as well explained by The Four Deuces, the division between democratic socialism and social democracy is arbitrary. Indeed, it was social democrats themselves who proclaimed themselves democratic socialists in opposition to Communism. Finally, the lead should be a summary of the article and it doesn't give enough attention to the 1860s–1940s years. As long as the body of the article remains this, I'm going to be bold and add my lead proposal for now but feel free to edit it or revert it; I won't be reverting or edit warring about it. I'm open to change it and continue this discussion to reach some consensus.--Davide King (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because a party has a variation of the word "socialist" in its name doesn't make it socialist. We look at their actual policy record and political stances to determine such status, not just by reading their name. It is like if you only took a look at a newspaper headline without even reading the body of the article. For example, the full name of the Nazi Party is the "National Socialist German Workers Party" (NSDAP), yet no credible historian or economist actually describes them as practicing socialism. Likewise, the S&D group in the European Parliament is virtually devoid of any stances or manifestos that could be reasonably classified as anti-capitalist, and a sizeable majority of their members has recently voted in favour of the controversial copyright reforms that favour restriction of information by big business. A fair portion of their member parties (Such as Direction - Social Democracy in Slovakia or the PSD in Romania) also express rightwing positions on social issues and have adopted the Third Way variety of centrism as their economic policy, and have essentially become an big tent of career politicians, who are not committed to any "socialist" ideology. The definition of the word "socialism" is clearly described here by the Oxford English Dictionary:
 * "A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
 * Virtually zero parties within the S&D group advocate anything close to such a scenario, let alone a peaceful proletarian revolution, and in fact, parties such as PASOK and the French Socialist Party have consistently voted in favour of austerity and dismantling of the welfare state in countries such as France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, et al. Not sure how any of that is supposed to resemble leftwing policy, let alone socialism. Kaltionis (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I actually agree with you and I already knew all that. I was just making an example because seemed to exclude any socialist influence and basically reduce to social democratic policies that have been adopted by both liberals and conservatives; and reduce social democracy to the Third Way. I don't understand the relavance of your S&D group rant which I was already aware, nor the issues with stating whose goal at different times has been a social revolution to move away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the simple establishment of a welfare state. I clearly stated at different times; not today. Isn't that true? Why shouldn't we discuss more at length also in the lead and explain or clarify the evolution of social democracy (the division between reformist and revolutionary socialists within social democracy into Social Democrats and Communists), especially when this is supported by the text in the History section? Maybe your issue is that the paragraphs which starts with "Today, social democracy is characterised [...]" should go first?


 * Also, as argued by social democracy isn't merely what social democratic parties do. Indeed, as you say, "parties such as PASOK and the French Socialist Party have consistently voted in favour of austerity and dismantling of the welfare state in countries such as France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, et al." How can they even be social democratic anymore when they want to dismantle the welfare state they themselves created and/or pushed for?
 * Anyway, are you denying that social democracy has advocated at different times the following:
 * (1860s–1910s/1930s) "[A] social revolution to move away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism", although I would expand that until the 1930s when the social fascist theory fully completed the division between Social Democrats and Communists established after the October Revolution).
 * (1890s–1940s/1970s) Already by the 1890s but more prominently since the 1910s, "a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism" (they were still revolutionary in that they still advocated for socialism to replace capitalism; they simply advocated, believed or thought it should be, or would happen, by gradualist and evolutionarist means, not though sudden and revolutionary changes).
 * (1940s–1970s/today?) That by the post-war period until the 1970s (some until the 1980s, but it was mainly over by the 1990s with the Third Way takeover) "the simple establishment and support of a welfare state".
 * Do you or any other deny this, which is all talked and sourced about in the text?--Davide King (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't deny the history of social democracy, in fact, I have specifically pointed out that its already sufficiently covered in the overview section, the history section, and the lede before you've rewritten it. The fact remains that your proposed edit places undue weight on social democracy's past affiliation with socialism within the lede and implicitly classifies it as a variation of socialist ideology even today, despite the fact that virtually no social democratic party today is openly anti-capitalist. We generally classify political ideologies and their policies in accordance with present-day sources and reports, not manifestos or political literature from centuries ago that are outdated, incomplete, or redundant. As I've stated earlier, the lede, as it stands right now, more than adequately summarizes social democracy's history:


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


 * As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labour)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10] With the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right by the 1980s,[11] many social democratic parties incorporated the Third Way ideology,[12] aiming to fuse liberal economics with social democratic welfare policies.[13][14] By the 2010s, the Third Way had generally fallen out of favour in a phenomenon known as PASOKification.[15]"
 * And my "rant" about the S&D group was because you operated under the assumption that since their name is "Socialists and Democrats", then that means they are socialists, despite the fact none of their members advocates for the replacement of capitalism and that several of their member parties have a openly rightwing stance on social issues and centrist economic leanings. Kaltionis (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Socialist, democratic socialist social democrat, are usually interchangeable terms, although some writers distinguish between the three. Originally there was no distinction in meaning. Social democrat became used by Communists to distinguish themselves from Socialists, while some Socialists adopted the term democratic socialist to distinguish themselves from Communists. So the Communists were saying that the Socialists were not true socialists while the Socialists were saying that the Communists were not democratic hence not true communists or socialists. Some left-wing socialists use the terms social democrat and democratic socialist to distinguish themselves from right-wing socialists, which I think is how Davide King uses the terms. But most texts on political science use the term socialist to describe them. The problem I see is that we have three separate articles for the same topic.
 * Davide King's three phases are correct, but why call them social democrats instead of socialists or democratic socialists? The American Left once called its party the Social Democratic Party of America before changing to the Socialist Party of America and now it's major organization is the Democratic Socialists of America. So we get all three names used by essentially the same people.
 * The Nazi analogy is not that pertinent. Reliable sources do refer to their ideology as national socialism or nazism for short. There are of course some misnamed parties such as the Social Democrats in Portugal, the Social Brazil and the Liberal Democrats in Russia. And Wikipedia policy is to use third party descriptions. But generally reliable sources use the parties own descriptions provided they are recognized by similar parties in other countries.
 * TFD (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Social Democratic Party of America was created in 1898 though, back when social democracy advocated Marxism and radical anti-capitalism (Though it stopped advocating for it in the middle of the 20th century, just to be precise). Likewise, the "Socialist Party of America" was a big-tent coalition and merger of every leftwing tendency ranging from revolutionary socialism to European-style welfare stateism. And finally, the DSA is a breakaway faction of the SPA who disagreed with the reformist attempts at moderation by the party's leadership (As manifested by their transformation into "Social Democrats, USA" and sought to uphold anti-capitalist doctrine. Regarding your claim that political scientists classify social democracy today as a "socialist" ideology, you have to cite reliable sources, especially because centrist and rightwing political commentators and pundits within the United States have the tendency to erroneously place social democracy on the far-left of the political spectrum and falsely accuse them of being "anti-capitalist", even in spite of the fact that its purpose is to humanize capitalism, not abolish it, and likewise, no social democratic party actually abolished capitalism during the Cold War and beyond.
 * And the reason why we have separate articles for each subject is because social democracy fundamentally differs from socialism and democratic socialism in its own way, because social democracy advocates for the amelioration of capitalism's worst excesses and the establishment of a comprehensive Keynesian welfare state, while refraining from actually collectivizing the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Democratic socialism is a fundamentally anti-capitalist ideology that seeks to abolish capitalism altogether and establish a socialist economy, usually through democratic means (Defined as upholding parliamentarism and participating in democratic elections). And socialism is a umbrella term used to describe any ideology that seeks to place the means of production, distribution and exchange under workers control and abolish capitalism, wage labour, the profit motive, and the market.
 * Lastly, regarding your point about the Nazis, the consensus of historians, analysts, reliable sources, peer-reviewed literature and political scientists is that Nazism is not a socialist ideology despite the name of its party, especially since it explicitly upholds race and class-based hierarchy (Thus contravening the egalitarian principle of socialism) as the "natural order of things" and has routinely advocated for social darwinism, even within its welfare programs. Not to mention Hitler's close ties to Germany's largest corporations during that era, his suppression of trade unions and labour rights, the extensive privatization undertaken during his regime and him encouraging them to support his campaign because democracy would allegedly lead to "communism".
 * Just in case there is any doubt about the fact that socialism is incompatible with capitalism:
 * "A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
 * Source: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/socialism
 * Kaltionis (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your statement is only valid if you define capitalism as a system where there is no regulation of industry whatsoever. That would be a world where businesses could not be prosecuted or sued. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism says, for socialists "there was a general view that the solution to [the problems of capitalism] lay in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution, and exchange." TFD (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have overwhelmingly described socialism as a anti-capitalist ideology,     and said collective control over the means of production involved expropriation, nationalization, and elimination of private enterprise, the profit motive, and wage labour, the hallmarks of capitalism, which is defined as "an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."


 * Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets, systems which socialists reject. Thus, socialism cannot be compatible with capitalism nor any ideology that incorporates capitalism for that matter, such as social democracy.Kaltionis (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, there are a few problems with your comments. First, socialism can mean either an ideology or an economic system, while capitalism is not an ideology, but an economic system. Under classical Marxism, socialism was a stage of the economy that would replace capitalism and was the name that Communists used to describe the economic systems they implemented. As the definitive Historical Dictionary of Socialism points out, socialists disagree about the degree to which regulation of the economy is necessary. And they are anti-capitalist only so far as "there were general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of capital—poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security." You are not describing socialist ideology, but the system that Communists implemented. IOW the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test.
 * Note the UK Labour Party constitution: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." That does not mean that Tony Blair, who wrote the clause, intended to destroy capitalism.
 * TFD (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with I actually consider all three socialists; I divide between socialists (as a general terms refer), social democrats (as reformist socialists) and democratic socialists (as socialists opposed to Marxism–Leninism, what The Four Deuces referts to as "Communists"; this include social democrats too, but democratic socialists are a more radical variant of it and some are revolutionary; I would include most libertarian socialists as democratic socialists too, but not all democratic socialists are libertarian and I would say most democratic socialists aren't also libertarian socialists).
 * Nowadays, social democrats mainly refers to those more concerned in reforming capitalism rather than overthrow it (I wouldn't say it necessarely mean they endorse capitalism like the Third Way), or as moderate democratic socialists; whereas democratic socialism refers to those socialists fully committed to the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a democratic socialist system. While I'm an inclusive user, I still wouldn't include the Third Way as social democracy, let alone socialist (that said, I think it's part of social democratic history and thus should be mentioned and talked about, including its critcism). While democratic socialism and social democracy both goes back to socialism's origins and the French Revolution (I have read Robsepierre being referred to as a proto-social democrat or even the father of modern social democracy) as well as the 1848 revlutions, I would say social democracy's true beginning are within 1860s Germany as it's currently stated in the text, whether democratic socialism originally referred to the evolutionary socialism of Eduard Bernstein; however, it then became a catch-all term used by social democrats to reflect their opposition to Marxism–Leninism, what The Four Deuces refers to as "Communists", while remaning committed to an evolutionary socialist path.
 * I also don't understand why social democracies are correctly seen as still capitalism but the "Communist system" as what socialism/communism actually is or what it plans to be, despite many reliable sources arguing that the Soviet Union and its allies were a state capitalist economy (there was wage labour, capital accumulation, property, commodities exchanges, etc.). It seems to be that socialism can't be praised for anything (indeed, many people who define capitalism as laissez-faire capitalism would argue that the Western world is socialist (they all criticise government interventions and all and link it to socialism, yet still state the economy is capitalism, believebly because it didn't collapse like the "Communist system"s, which is what socialism/communism really is or want plans to be, according to them). As argued by The Four Deuces, this is also done arbitrarely, so Venezuela is democratic socialist and thus their economic system is socialist (hence the failure and all the rest), whereas the Nordic countries are merely social democratic and thus their economic system was and still is capitalism, although both are capitalist economies.
 * You have correctly referred to "when social democracy advocated Marxism and radical anti-capitalism", so why that shouldn't be included in the lead when
 * 2.1	First International era (1863–1889)
 * 2.2	Second International era: reform or revolution dispute (1889–1914)
 * 2.3	World Wars, revolutions, counter-revolutions and Great Depression (1914–1945)
 * are all related to it? I would agree it would be undue only if there wasn't so much sourced information (which I believe shouldn't be removed) about it in the body that is worth summarising in a more clear, detailed way in the lead. I also think it's important to state in the lead their reactionn to the Russian and October revolutions and the separation between Social Democrats and Communists, since as you said "social democracy advocated Marxism and radical anti-capitalism"; why did they stop advocating that? What caused that and what did they proposed instead?
 * I would define social democracy in its original meaning as the support of both political and economic democracy (socialism). I would define democratic socialism as the revolutionary-wing of social democracy, although it actually originated from Bernstein's evolutionary socialism (still, it was revolutionary in that it supported to move from capitalism to socialism. I would also say that social democracy was the ideology whereas socialism was mainly used in relation to the economic system; just like liberalism is the ideology and capitalism its economic system (although I would dare saying many classical liberals, not these 21st-century liberals who merely identify as such when they're neo-classical liberals, would be opposed to capitalism, especially modern industrial and financial capitalism, if their premises are taken to their logical conclusions).
 * I apologise for the length, but I think would probably do a better job in riassuming my thoughts.--Davide King (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think the topics of the various articles should be? At present, socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy are basically about the same topic. I would have socialism as the main article and the other two would be about definitions. Incidentally, the economic system of Venezuela is capitalism. The generally accepted reason for the current economic crisis is that oil revenue was spent on social welfare rather than invested in diversifying the economy or saved for bad times. That's not the failure of socialist planning but lack of planning.
 * Hugo Chavez' pro-U.S. opponents called themselves democratic socialists, but Chavez said they were merely social democrats and appropriated the name for his supporters. There's no reason why we should accept this distinction.
 * TFD (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that, although I would say that social democracy and democratic socialism are terms that mean something, a concept, that has evolved to the changed times and thus I don't think they should merely be treated like a term in a disambiguation page, if that's what you meant. I think socialism should be the main article; social democracy about the philosophy originating in 1860s Germany and democratic socialism about the socialism opposed to Marxism–Leninism but that has its origins in utopian socialism and the Chartists, whereas social democracy has been more Marxist influenced and tied to it.
 * I agree with everything you said about Venezuela (maybe this should be cleared in related articles?). That's why I would support keeping the Nordic model section in Socialism. Olaf Palme identified as democratic socialist and has been described as a "revolutionary reformist". In Sweden, there were plans to move it in a more socialist direction in the 1970s, but capitalists opposed it and called off the 1938 Saltsjöbaden Agreement. If there're Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and Third World sections about the "Communist" system, described as state capitalist, why shouldn't the social-democratic and Nordic models be included as well?
 * I could be wrong, but I think by that he was actually referring to the Third Way? Just like Communists rejected Social Democracy for its support for World War I, so too Chávez was rejecting it as since the 1970s it has adopted neoliberal market policies and supported privatisation, deregulation and financialisation? Still, I would describe it in practice as a more populist form of social democracy that was committed to socialism and the eventual transition from capitalism to socialism. The only reason why it's described as democratic socialism rather than social democratic is that it didn't adopt neoliberalism as many social democratic partis did, which as you said earlier in this discussion didn't necessarely represent social democracy.--Davide King (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the philosophy originating in 1860s Germany covered under Revisionist Marxism? Social Democratic Party of Sweden as well as most socialist parties had their origins in Marxism, although they absorbed utopians. Chartism disppeared decades before the Labour Party was founded. TFD (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I wouldn't reduce revisionism just to social democracy. I think democratic socialism is a strand of social democracy, which is itself a branch of socialism tha included both revolutionionists, evolutionarists and reformists/gradualists. Nowadays, social democracy is seen more as reformist and very gradualist socialism and democratic socialism more as evolutionary socialism, but their economic policies aren't much different, if you exclude the Third Way. In other words, social democracy is the economic policy many democratic socialists followed. For instance, the lead also describes social democracy as an "economic philosophy".
 * I think another misconception is Marx and Engels seeing socialism as centralised. When they advocated state centralisation, didn't they do that to remove the last vestiges of feudalism and within their materialistic coneception of history? I would consider these also progressive/social democratic policies rather than socialists in itself because for them in socialism, the socialist mode of production, "the law of value no longer directs economic activity" and "monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labour would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism". One issue with socialism is that whatever a socialist advocates, especially according to critics, must also be in itself a socialist policy, whereas socialists advocate manny policies that aren't in itself socialistic or socialisationist but which they believe lead in that socialisation direction.
 * P.S. "From his election in 1998 until his death in March 2013, Chávez's administration proposed and enacted democratic socialist economic policies. Domestic policies included redistribution of wealth, land reform, and democratization of economic activity via workplace self-management and creation of worker-owned cooperatives". Does the source itself actually states these economic policies were democratic socialist? Or were they democratic socialist just because Chávez was a democratic socialist? Because these are all policies well within social democracy. Source: --Davide King (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what the source says. It says these programs were inspired by "twenty-first century socialism," which is the term Chavez used to describe his agenda. In themselves, none of the policies are socialist, and have been carried out by parties across the political spectrum. In all ideologies, except U.S. libertarianism, policies are determined both by ideology and actual circumstances. So if protectionism helps workers, socialists will support it and if it hurts workers, socialists will oppose it. In that case the ideology commands them to support workers' interests and the circumstances tell them what policies will meet those goals. It's the same with nationalization, welfare, central planning and everything else. TFD (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly like I thought. That's why I did this edit (also at Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration). Anyway, I absolutely agree with you, that's why I made the example of Marx and Engels. Unfortunately, we get policies done by socialists called socialist just because they were done by a socialist; or worse yet, authoritarian policies called socialist policies; see "socialist" Nicuaragua, where "the International Monetary Fund pushed for Nicaragua to raise the retirement age, from 60 to 65,[2][5] to address the program's anticipated losses in future years.[6] [...] and the Ortega administration announced reforms to the program, imposed by decree,[7] that cut benefits by 5% while raising income and payroll taxes". So much socialismǃ On the other hand, also the reverse is true, where social democracy isn't seen part of socialism, even when the terms are used interchangeably, just because their economy is still capitalist (but the same could be argued for Communists states, so why the double standard?). Also with the recovery of capitalism from the long depression in the late 19th century, many social democrats who became reformists or evolutionists believed that capitalism itself would lead to socialism (see the Mensheviks that opposed the Bolshevik Revolution for this reason; the Bolsheviks couldn't force socialism in Russia) and wasn't inconsistent with orthodox Marxism.--Davide King (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)