Talk:Social democracy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Welfare State"

Using the term "welfare state" to describe the beliefs of a social democrat is ineffective due to a strong negative connotation which is associated to the term "welfare state" in American politics. The article should be made more clear, and detail what is involved in a welfare state, rather than linking to the page.

74.229.66.89 (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

LIBERAL DEMOCRACY = SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

What is known in the anglosaxon world as "liberal" is in fact to be understood as "social" on the European continent. Most anglosaxons therefore speak of "liberal democracy" where a continental European means "social democracy". This does not show in the articles on liberalism of Wiki. Therefore, he US does actually have a very large social democratic party: the democrats. This is a VERY important misunderstanding throughout Europe and in fact in the world.

Europeans say liberalism where an anglosaxon means conservative. Often also Europeans refer to "classical liberalism" or "liberalism" known als "libertarian" in anglosaxonia. WIKI has serious shortcomings illustrating these differences. Terminology is being translated litterally withouth realising the conceptual difference.

one source as a good start for a discussion on this very important semantic issue is the essay of Friedrich Hayek: Why I am not a conservative. http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.9.236 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No. The term liberal democracy refers to the idea of a democratic republic with constitutional protection of individual rights, and upholding human rights, civil liberties, etc, and private property. (It is 'liberal' in the broad sense of the word, the right name for the movement called liberalism in the United States is social liberalism, one faction of liberal democracy). Political ideologies advocating liberal democracy are American-style conservativism, Christian democracy, Gaullism, social liberalism (i.e. the Democratic Party), social democracy. Social liberalism and social democracy are two distinct movements, with different origins, social democracy being to the left of social liberalism, which is centrist, if not center-right. Social democracy has socialist, Marxist foundations but has slowly derived towards moderate positions that now make it part of the broader tradition of liberal democracy, while social liberalism has evolved out of classical liberalism. That said, the recent move towards the center of many social democratic parties is making to these two positions increasingly similar. American social democratic parties would be the Green Party, the Labor Party and Social Democrats USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Clarity in article, too intellectually meandering

The opening paragraph starts out fairly clearly but then goes all over the place historically without a clear thread. Openings to articles should be concise-- and complex historical background should come much later in the body of the work. Otherwise the first time reader (especially one new to the subject) will get confused.

161.98.13.100 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

161.98.13.100 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also-- Social Democracy is BOTH a political ideology (as the article states), AND a political system. This article favors the intellectual aspects a little too heavily in the opening, without describing it as an existing political system-- and waits far to long to highlight the actual countries that employ this as a policy approach. It also highlights too few social democratic countries as examples. A wider range should be presented and contrasted.

Sean7phil 22:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

161.98.13.100 22:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

From the wikipdeia guides:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." First sentence needs a reference???

We note that DEFINE is first and then context and then why the subject is distinct and important. I finally found a reference that actually distinguished "Social Democracy" from socialism and used it in the lead as it should be (with proper reference). Then a socialist found it more important to tell us all that "Social Democracy" emerged from the Socialist movement than to tell us what Social Democracy actually IS. I will be changing this arrangement AGAIN such that the definition of the term precedes the history of the term. We will see what happens.--The Trucker (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism of social democracy" section

The intro paragraph in the criticism section uses the term "liberal" in a manner that seems closer to the European definition of liberal then how it's used in the U.S. which could confuse U.S. readers. Most American Liberal, from what I've seen do no appose one's government providing providing state-run schools, health care, child care and other services, though maybe not to the exclusion of private options such as private schools and hospitals). Also, U.S. liberals would not be as concerned about restrictions on "economic rights" as U.S. conservatives would be though as a whole they would not advocate a completely socialist system. Is the term liberal in the first paragraph of the section referring to "classical liberals"? The section needs to be clear whenever the word liberal is used what type it refers to. Another issue with the paragraph is the line "More particularly, social democracy exceeds at mediocrity while capitalist republics encourage competition for the benefit of the successful.". Who is arguing this? If it's the aforementioned "liberals" then that should be made clear because as it stands it comes across as if Wikipedia itself is making this argument which is not NPOV. --Cab88 16:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re the above: I am not sure the article's use of the "liberal" is entirely in line with the European definition of the term, either; it seems more accurately to describe complaints 'libertarians' would make against social democrats, rather than "liberals," which, even in Europe, implies just the sort of social programs and limited capitalism that social democracy advocates. --User:hamiltondaniel

You can always differentiate by saying either neo-liberal/classical liberal or social liberal. In parts of Europe, the word "liberal" has little connotative value and can be interpreted as either definition, depending on the speaker and context. By the way, "social liberals" are still staunchly capitalistic and do not believe in "limited capitalism"; socialism should definitely be differentiated from liberalism in this instance.--Drdak (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have edited that section, which I think is poor. Hope I've clarified Cab88's question. And hope I haven't gone too far! Is it worth saying somewhere that what is called liberalism in the US could be called social democratic? BobFromBrockley 13:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No and yes. No in that they are two different concepts, and modern American liberalism is much more prone to centrism. However, there are many liberals who would identify themselves as social democrats.--Drdak (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My edit, where I associated "classical liberalism" with Hayek, von Mises, and Rothbard has been axed entirely, deracinating the term from its context, so I do not fault the confusion. I would like to see the classical liberal / Austrian / Free-market critique of social democracy restored, since a criticism from the "right" that does not include it is essentially a corporatist / fascist / state-capitalist critique and is of little illuminative value, but since it is unlikely to remain I will leave it alone for now.Vdaliessio 18:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This section seems to contain quite a bit of support for social democracy, as opposed to criticism. About half of the section is "counterarguments" to the criticism listed. Indeed, there is quite a bit more criticism that doesn't seem to be included; particularly from the libertarian aspect, which is close to antithetical. Can some of the support be moved to a different area, or can the section be retitled as "Arguments For and Against Social Democracy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.73.1.1 (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, counter-arguments are quite standard throughout Wikipedia in these sections. For example the "Libertarianism" article contains both a support/critique section. This is generally a place to put prominent opinions in.--Drdak (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

France?

Shouldn't France play a fairly prominent role in this article? Mitterrand; Le Parti Socialiste etc.

Perhaps. French scholars: feel free to enlighten the rest of us. --(GordonBrownforPresident 05:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

Red?

I know that social democracy doesn't advocate the transition to socialism but is it "red"? Faustus Tacitus 05:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the national tradition (i.e., the association of party colors within a given country). --(GordonBrownforPresident 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

In some cases such as in the U.S.A. the color theme, but not official is pink due to the use of the word "Pinko" to reflect a socialist-light reform policy of capitalism.Comraderedoctober (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See the website for the Social Democratic Party of America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.243.117.153 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Feigned opposition"

According to this article, "Most social democrats support gay marriage, abortion rights and a liberal drug policy, while others are either non-committed or openly opposed strongly to these policies, although feigned opposition may be employed for political expediency."

What exactly is this last phrase supposed to mean? "Feigned opposition may be employed for political expediency" seems rather NPOV to me. If it's true of social democrats, it's equally true of politicians of every other persuasion (just look at Mitt Romney in the US). In addition, if someone is going to claim that a noteworthy minority of social democrats are "strongly opposed" to gay marriage and abortion rights, that that claim should most certainly be backed up with examples.

I'm going to remove the "feigned opposition" part outright, but I'll leave the preceding phrase up for consideration. ObeliskBJM^talk 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd like to hear some opinions on this paragraph before putting it in, probably right after the first paragraph, to clear up confusion over its relationship with Democratic Socialism:

A good way to delineate between Social democratic parties and movements and Democratic Socialist ones is to think of Social Democracy as moving left from capitalism and Democratic Socialism as moving right from Marxism: A moderate, mainstream leftist party in a state with a market economy and a mostly middle class voting base might be described as a Social Democratic party, whereas a party with a more radical agenda and an intellectual or working class voting base that has a history of involvement with harder left movements might be described as a Democratic Socialist party.

Thanks for reading, --- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 19:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead with this, then, and see if anybody objects. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 08:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it can be done, but a party being categorized as social democratic may be linked to whether or not it's a member of the Socialist International. There must be some discussion or article elsewhere on this, like why the Socialist International rejected the application for membership of certain "socialist" parties. Tony Kao 14:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, seeing that both the Nicaraguan FSLN and the Venezuelan Accion Democratica both belong to the Socialist International... Tony Kao 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A page called Democratic socialism vs. social democracy has recently been created. Maybe Thesocialistesq's para should be moved there, along with other possible ways of making the distinction, rather than doing it in this page? BobFromBrockley 10:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that article and my paragraph in this article have both been deleted. On this article, the paragraph was deleted because it was unsourced, something that can be rectified with this article, I think. I'm all ears for any problems with it or ideas on where it should go. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That article seems to have been recreated at Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy but still needs sources. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to reject the paragraph as it is typed since DSA and SPUSA are both claiming to be Democractic Socialism while DSA works within the Democratic Party and SPUSA does not. Social Democracy is further left of them but still not close enough to be Marxist or Centralist in nature. It is more a middle ground or "No man's land" that accepts and rejects based on the individual as part of an alliance or commonwealth which is a pure form of democracy away from most representational forms of government and party politico. Comraderedoctober 08:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

India/US

What's with the two orphaned lists near the bottom simply entitled "India" and "United States"? If we want a list of social democratic parties, there already is one. External links list looks kind of arbitrary to me as well. BobFromBrockley 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who were thinking of looking into this, the issue has been resolved. --(GordonBrownforPresident 05:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

false in European social democracy

non of this stands up in the European union. this applies to communism not social democracy's, it's clear it's based on a bias instead of fact. freedom wise the US scores lower then the social democracy in Europe, plus European growth is larger then the US also, and European deficit are much much lower too.

in short this does not apply to social democracy.

• Social democratic systems restrict individual rights, especially economic freedoms, to an excessive degree (this argument was put forward strongly by Friedrich von Hayek, who is believed to have influenced Margaret Thatcher).[citation needed]
• The regulations placed on the market by social democracy limit economic efficiency and growth, leading to a reduced GDP for that particular nation.[citation needed] Supporters contend that, despite this theoretically implying a lower standard of living for all, in practice only the wealthy and more privileged notice any negative effects, while the poor and working class gain greater protection, actually leading to a greater standard of living for them.[citation needed]
• Social democracy encourages large government budget deficits. (Social democrats reply that conservative administrations in the United States and Britain have also been responsible for large deficits.)[citation needed]
• State provision of education, health care, childcare and other services limits individual choice.[citation needed]
• It has been argued that social democracy tends to tax the working class more than the rich who can evade taxes through sophisticated accounting. Therefore impeding the efforts of the working class to build wealth.[citation needed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markthemac (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but these are the criticisms which are directed at social democratic governments. There is a paragraph which follows these points which states how social democrats refute these points; citations and examples will ultimately be necessary to solidify this paragraph, but there is no reason to remove the obligatory criticism section. --(GordonBrownforPresident 05:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula and Covas

It's said that FHC betrayed social democracy and Lula is making a social domecratic government. But FHC is listed and Lula is not at the Famous Social Democrats List.

And Covas was not a Social Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.205.235 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's said"??? Wow, what a powerful argument... and by the way, Lula is most likely to be defined as "democratic socialist", not Social-Dem. And FH didn't do anything that European Socialist-Party governments hadn't already done.189.6.163.234 (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This kind of anonymous comments are most certainly from naïve "PTista" radicals, and I believe the same colleagues wrote the sentence about a "centre-right coalition designed to keep the more left-wing Lula out of power". This sentence is quite shallow, and so is the BBC article referenced, which seem to be more a sensationalist article about the 2002 elections then a review of the 8 years of government before. It's certainly a gross exaggeration to talk about a "sharp shift to the left". PT always declares itself to be in the "opposition" whenever they are not leading things. If they got "out of the power" it was because they like to do those silly things such as declaring to be running a "parallel government" instead of doing constructive work...

Brazil doesn't have a "right-wing" party that matters right now. What it has is PT telling everyone that they are the good leftist guys, and anyone else (PSDB) is a bad rightist enemy. They use this shallow manichaeist rhetoric to hypnotize the people, and let PSDB quoting latin phrases alone, in its continuous hard work trying to increase the level of the national debate and people culture. I would like to rewrite the sentence regarding FHC's government... Suggestions? (no anonymous suggestions, please, there is no need for that in Brazil at least since, when, the right-wing president Figueiredo in 1979?...) -- NIC1138 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And about putting Lula in the list, I think it might be fair to put him, but truth is PT and himself always had a hard time to fit in any labels... AFAIR, the PT manifesto doesn't specify that the party follows any specific ideology. It does has a red flag with a star, but that's all. (Let's not forget the DS tendency inside PT.) Regarding only Lula, he has a couple of memorable quotes like: "I was never a socialist", and "I was never a leftist". Lula is "lulist", and so are his many followers, just like with other Brazilian personalities such as Vargas.--NIC1138 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the original anonymous and I'm not PTista. IN THE ARTICLE was said that FHC betrayed social-democracy. I was just asking for the end of a contradiction.--189.7.15.228 (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rawls

Rawls is listed on this page as a social democrat, yet I've always understood him to belong to the social-liberal school. Shouldn't he be removed? ObeliskBJM^talk 22:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Léon Blum

I question whether Léon Blum should be listed on this page as a social democrat. According to The Popular Front in France (Julian Jackson), "as a Marxist [Blum] also believed that capitalism was condemned by its contradictions, that revolution was inevitable and that it would be carried out by the proletariat...Blum would therefore always have refused the label of reformist, or rather, following Jaurès, he rejected the antithesis between reforms and revolution" (58). Blum was certainly a humanist and a man of the most democratic convictions, but he was, by a strict definition, a revolutionary socialist. He led a center-left government (the Popular Front) in office but would not have considered it a "socialist government", for him it was the occupation of power rather than the seizure or the exercise of power. Sorry if this point seems trifling. Can anyone confirm or deny my observations? ObeliskBJM^talk 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why isn´t Bruno Kreisky included in the list ?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.2.9 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Axel Honneth

I've taken out the reference to Axel Honneth as I think it more properly belongs in the Democratic Socialism article (which is where I've put it). Honneth's critiques of liberalism are quite extensive and might be not sit easily with Social Democracy, which is probably more sympathetic to liberalism than he is, especially if we're referring to people like Blair, Schroeder, Clinton etc who have been quite supportive of free market policies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikischolar1983 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Too many social democrats listed

Is this list getting a little too long? Do we really need that many people purported as social democrats? My preference would be to drastically cut it down and include just the famous, historical figures like Atlee, Bernstein, Blum, Brandt, Macdonald, Hawke, etc. Wikischolar1983 (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Another option would be to fork it off into something like List of socialists. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. So if there are no particular objections, I'll do just that. I'll leave a short list of the more famous social democrats on this page (with a link to List of social democrats). These will be the social democrats who I'm most familiar with, so if others think there are other social democrats just as worthy of retaining, feel free to add them. Just make sure we don't end up with a list as long as it is currently. Wikischolar1983 (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Shorten Intro?

Shouldn't the introduction to this post be shortened a lot? Thzatheist (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Socialist International symbol?

Would it be a copyright violation to put a copyrighted picture like the symbol of the Socialist International on your wikipedia user page?

Thank you.

Ожиданиесчастья (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Permission to use information from here.

If i wanted to take information off of here and use it somewhere else, where would i have to ask permission from?

Ожиданиесчастья (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to ask for permission wikipedia was made for getting information off of RebaFan1996 (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Social democratic political parties - Mis-statement

In this section the following line appears:

The United States is the only first world nation that does not possess a competitive social democratic or democratic socialist party as of the late 20th–early 21st century.

This is not an accurate statement when you compare the primary aspects of social democracy from the section above it to our current Democratic Party beliefs, especially those espouses by Obama (the parties nominee for President). Every last bullet can be lined up with a policy he has advocated from day one and plans to implement if he gets into office. So it is safe to say that the Modern Day Democratic Party has made a shift to the Social Democrat side of the fence. Again, if anyone disagrees I would encourage you to look at all of Obama and the Party Official's statement and compare them to the believes of the Social Democrat platform. You will see startling matches.

Samuraipooh (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The US Democratic Party is certainly not social democratic, though it does have some members one could describe as social democrats, such as Dennis Kucinich and DSA. Ideologically, as discussed in Democratic Party (United States), it is predominantly centrist (in the American context) and "modern American liberal", and in the global context appropriate for this article is solidly right of center. This has already been discussed here. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

British political scientist Tim Bale presents the following argument for including the Democratic party as part of the social democratic political "family":

"Most social democrats...continue to believe in the power of public initiative and the public purse to (at the very least) protect the less fortunate and, in the long term, reduce their numbers via strategies promoting equality of opportunity. All, however, realize that this power is constrained by what is deemed prudent by international financial markets and reasonable, taxwise, by their electorates. To them the state still has an economic as well as a welfare role, but it is as a regulator or framework-settler as opposed to an owner or driver...all are basically in favor of an EU that aims to liberalize and increase trade - though not at the expense of social provision or labour standards...On issues of morality, conscience and sexuality, social democratic parties are firmly in the secular liberal tradition.

For all these reasons, and because in northern if not in southern Europe (see Astudillo, 2002) they continue to be closely linked to trade unions, Europe's social democrats might perhaps be more comparable than ever with US Democrats."-source: Tim Bale, European Politcs: A Comparative Introduction, Second Edition, Palgrave MacMillan Hampshire, UK, 2008, page 139-140.

US Democrats are not right-wing in their views on the function of government or their goals, they are simply more constrained by the electorate they have to deal with. Under Dr. Bale's view, that is entirely consistent with social democracy and thus Democrats fall into that family of parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multitanna (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

US Democrats being closer to social democrats than the US Republicans dos not make them social democrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.193.127.77 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

India, Portugal, Pakistan, etc.

Why do you repeatedly erase information about social democracy in Portugal and other countries? You haven't given any edit summaries for your deletions so I have to keep restoring parts you delete.06:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valois bourbon (talk • contribs) 06:37, 27 September 2008

I have repeatedly given edit summaries pointing out that Scandinavian countries are by a very long shot the most notable examples of social democracy (for example, here, here, here, and here). The edit summaries accompanying your subsequent reversions (such as "india, "restored erased parts", "restored deleted content", and "rv, previous user tried to erase information about india, portugal and uk") were so baldly disingenuous that after I while I had difficulty retaining an assumption of good faith. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide references. Scandinavian countries are governed by right-wing parties and their social democratic parties are tiny compared to Portugal or UK. Please don't remove it.Valois bourbon (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on recent edits;

• The Indian National Congress is not, and has not been, a Social Democratic party. Its a political movement that adapted socialist elements of policy, but it does not identify itself as a Social Democratic force and was never the Indian referent of the international Social Democracy. The historic referent of Social Democracy was the Socialist Party.
• PPP is a member of SI, but hardly a typical case of a Social Democratic party.
• In Portugal PS is Social Democratic, PSD isn't. Names are not the essential issue here.

--Soman (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right, Portugal Social Democratic party seems to have moved to the right.Valois bourbon (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't just moved to the right, it was a right-wing party all along. PSD is, in spite of the name, not a Social Democratic party. As per examples, Scandinavia is generally seen as the region in the world were Social Democrats were most advanced, particularily Norway and Sweden. Stating that the Scandinavian Social Democratic parties are 'tiny' is detached from reality. --Soman (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be discussion on the American Social Democrats. There is an overwhelming number of Americans who are becoming aware of this political party. Many of whom identify with Barack Obama--who I believe is the U.S.'s first Social Democrat. This is just hidden by the the US's dual party system, but if you look at Pres. Obama's longstanding political ideology, it is exactly similar to those of European Social Democracys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.220.11 (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Red Rose (Socialism).svg

The image Image:Red Rose (Socialism).svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism

The article states that there is a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. Is there any reference for this? The Four Deuces (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 2009, does cite the similarities and differences between the two which are also dates for historical facts.

Not that i'm personally involved in this, but to give an example, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats are social democrats (social democracy). They are NOT democratic socialists (socialism achieved via democratic means). Here is a reference I just found when I did a google search. It also explains the difference in detail in this article. Do you have a specific point to make or are you just raising it for the point of raising it? Timeshift (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she's not a social democrat. She's certainly democratic, an US Democrat, socially minded and has social welfare in mind, but from that concluding that she's social democrat is to confuse terms with descriptions. Social democracy is a certain ideological tradition with central guys defining it (Eduard B. and others), a certain history and a certain terminology and a way to reflect on things. In order to describe and categorize correctly, this must be kept in mind, since it defines the behaviors of the adherents, and I should say that Hillary Clinton is working in another tradition, however similar. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article you refer to is written from a Trotskyist perspective. To them, they are the true socialists, while the historical socialist parties are social democrats. Hilary Clinton and the American Democrats would be "liberals". However, the article provides no definition for "democratic socialists" and they draw no distinction between social democrats and democratic socialists. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Democratic socialism relates to socialism achieved via democratic rather than revolutionary means, ie left wing. Social democracy relates to democrats with a social perspective, ie centre-left, as opposed to liberal democrats, ie centre-right. HC/AD can be classified as liberals, and social democrats. But I have no further interest in debating this issue with you, both articles are well established. Timeshift (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am merely saying that the article should be properly referenced, and the subject matter clearly defined. Anyway, I found an article by Robert Eccleshall explaining the difference, and the article could reference this.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=fERiGWnng9EC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=%22democratic+socialism%22+%22social+democracy%22&source=web&ots=phIG_JIuzY&sig=A0OdMMM3alX4vEGjLpiDDI1eWQk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

More on ideology!

Should be more on ideology, especially on the history of the ideology. Originally social democracy was indistinguishable from communism and pretty militant. The first ideologist of social democracy was Eduard Bernstein, but he was condemned for "rightist deviations" by the German social democratic party, and only adopted much later. I think the items listed in the section Ideology embraces some tenets on the ideology, with the exception of that environmentalist stuff, which is not a specific social democratic concept, but just a common sense decision shared by politicians of many ideologies. Fair trade over free trade, might be ill-formulated, it sounds greenish, the original formulation must have been different, but the underlying meaning could well be correct. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Political philosophy?

The leading statement classifies social democracy as a political philosophy. However, we should replace political philosophy with political ideology to more accurately represent this article. As evidence, this article has a specific section named ==Ideology== and we find no ==Philosophy== section. Thus we should better use "political ideology" to reflect the article more accurately. Wikipedia editors already categorized this article under [[Category:Political ideologies]], and choose to not also categorize this also under [[Category:Political philosophies]]. This represents additional evidence that we should view social democracy as a political ideology instead of as a political philosophy. Thank you. 71.175.33.108 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please unprotect...

...so that I can request a proper citation for this ridiculous nonsense:

"The United States is the only industrial nation that does not currently possess a major social democratic party, though social democratic ideology is one strand of thinking within the more broadly based Democratic Party."

As citation for the above, we're given a link to the Democratic Socialists of America, as though it were part of this "broadly based Democratic Party" (whatever that means).

There's the Democratic Party proper, which the DSA is certainly not a part of, and there are various nominally left-ish groups officially associated with the party proper (e.g., the Progressive Democrats of America), but the DSA is not one of them, nor are any of them as left as the DSA (such as it is).

The above quoted sentence needs to have its so-called citation replaced with a fact tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The DSA is certainly a (small) part of the Democratic Party proper. There are lots of DSA members (past and present) at any large Democratic Party gathering, especially in major urban areas. Heck, in some places such as Milwaukee there are more than a few members (past and present) of the Socialist Party U.S.A. at large Democratic Party gatherings. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

LIBERAL DEMOCRACY = SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

What is known in the anglosaxon world as "liberal" is in fact to be understood as "social" on the European continent. Most anglosaxons therefore speak of "liberal democracy" where a continental European means "social democracy". This does not show in the articles on liberalism of Wiki. Of course, as mentioned in above section, the US does actually have a very large social democratic party: the democrats. This is a VERY important misunderstanding throughout Europe and in fact in the world.

Europeans say liberalism where an anglosaxon means conservative. Often also Europeans refer to "classical liberalism" known als "libertarian" in anglosaxonia. WIKI has serious shortcomings illustrating these differences. Terminology is being translated litterally withouth realising the conceptual difference.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.9.236 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so of course the articles use English terminology.

2. In fact, the authors of most of the articles in political science are careful to make the distinction between "liberal" in the very broad modern American sense; social liberalism; and "liberal" in the narrower British and European sense (what some Americans call "classical liberalism" or "18th-century liberalism" to maintain the historical continuity). Take a look at the actual page liberal sometime.

3. The dominant factions of the Democratic Party of the United States are by no means social democrats, although there are lots of individual social democrats in the Democratic Party, as well as some folks well to the left of social democracy. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democracy in the English language refers specifically to the general system of government used by "Western" democracies, where free and fair elections are held, individual (and often property) rights are protected, and the rule of law prevails. Social democracy, on the other hand, is what the page describes. See Liberal democracy vs Social democracy. Tony Kao (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

criticism points

"The regulations placed on the market by social democracy tend to limit economic efficiency and growth, and impede the creation of wealth that may be needed to alleviate global poverty."

Under the current economic global downturn fruit of an unlimited free market, it is really crazy to state this in the article. I hope this section is removed as it is hilarious.--Merliomar (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be overhauled, as it sorely lacks citations and may be better integrated into the rest of the article. Tony Kao (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the criticism section should be remove if there are no source to verify these criticism - otherwise these criticism are biased Green Liberal (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert Introduction

Hi, I propose a reversion of the article introduction from the Aug 16 2009 edits to the July 29 2009 version. I think the new version adds a lot of unnecessary fluff and may be violating NPOV. Please let me know what you think. Tony Kao (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Democratic Socialists of America be included in this article?

The article does state that there is no major US party that supports social democracy, but there is a party in the US aligned to it (but not a major party). The U.S. Democratic Socialists of America is a member of socialist international and is a supporter of social democracy. Should it be mentioned in the article? Aurora30 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, DSA is legally a political action committee as anyone can clearly look up on fec.gov which makes it illegal to run candidates under U.S. federal law.

DSA is not a political party (and not a really large political group). The Socialist Party USA is the best-known social democratic party in the United States, but is no longer a major party. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

DSA is the biggest socialist organization in the United Staets, and the Socialist Party USA are not socialists, they are not even close. They are for 100% nationalization, meaning socialists. What kind of socialism i'm unsure of, but they are not social-democrats. --TIAYN (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The SPUSA is multi-tendency, with a lot of social democrats and lots of other kinds of socialists (don't try the No true Scotsman argument here, please). DSA is not a political party. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Canada DOES have a major social democratic party!!!!

Okay BIG problem with the introduction of this article, I'm assuming it was not written by a Canadian :). We DO have an officially social democratic party in Canada, the New Democratic Party a party which in the last federal election won 18% of the popular vote and has formed provincial governments in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and the Yukon Territory. The NDP wasn't organized until 1962, however in 1951 Canada had the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation a democratic socialist party which also held seats in the House of Commons AND at that time formed a government in the province of Saskatchewan. I'm assuming, no offence intended that the author knows very little about Canadian politics I will have to edit the intro. of course. (Christophergilmore (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

OKAY, I just found out that I cannot edit this. Well the introduction is still incorrect, Canada did and does have an officially social democratic party... So somebody who has the authority I guess please get on that, as a Canadian social democrat I am sorely disappointed. (Christophergilmore (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

Technically we also have the Bloc Quebecois which despite their past opposition to progressive federal opposition consider themselves social democratic, the Parti Quebecois the Bloc's unofficial provincial counterpart also sees itself as being social democratic, in addition to being nationalist and separatist. (Christophergilmore (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

New Left and Progressivism are not forms of Social Democracy

The New Left was a post 1968 revision in left-wing thinking, not social democracy. Left wing philosophy long pre-dates social democracy, socialism and marxism. Social democracy is a relatively recent development within the broad left, like modern liberalism.

Progressivism is an American school of thought that evolved in isolation from European social democratic thinking.

Please remove New Left and Progressivism from the development section of the Social Democracy info box. --Alpha-ZX (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• 1. In the U.S., the New Left developed in social democratic organizations like the Student League for Industrial Democracy.
• 2. Social democracy is a 19th-century movement; your assertion is bizarrely counter-historical.
• 3. Progressivisim is the only thing in which you are correct.
• 4. None of these things are in the "development section". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is about social democracy not about accusations of Americans against other Americans of being secret socialists. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Social Democracy long pre-dates the New Left. The New Left was an 'academic' response to the calamities of communism, imperialism and the cold war, in 1968. Social democracy goes back to the 1800's. Progressivism is an American school of thought unrelated to social democracy. --Alpha-ZX (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rose

While I do know that the rose is the symbol for socialism and social democracy - but exactly how does the rose became a symbol and it meaning? I think we should include something short in few sentences why the rose was chosen as the symbol and the meaning for it (colour, shape, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.43.250 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like created for socialist party of Paris. «Cet emblème a été conçu, à la fin de l’année 1969, par Marc Borret, un illustrateur contacté par Yann Berriet, graphiste et militant socialiste. Paul Calandra, alors responsable de la propagande de la fédération de Paris» [1] ( ! French sentence mught be copyrighted ! ) and probably no relation with the Paul Calandra of the Conservative Party of Canada!

For a brief history of logo of european socialist refer to [[2]]. 87.89.44.229 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Citation needed" for the claim in the article that main-stream Democrats are center-right on the international scale: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Political compass confirms this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.48.129 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Largely personal opinion...

...with one token reference tacked on at the end? "In Britain, where such an electorate rejected the Labour Party four times consecutively between 1979 and 1997, Third Way politician Tony Blair and his colleagues in the New Labour movement took the strategic decision to disassociate themselves publicly from the previous, explicitly democratic socialist incarnations of their party. The Labour Government that came to power in 1997 continued the tradition that Margaret Thatcher started in the 1980s of selling out nationalized industries, and the income gap between the rich and the poor grew. This challenge to traditional social democractic ideals alienated many backbenchers, including some who advocated a less militant ideology of social democracy.[8]" 89.240.202.189 (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.182.77.98, 10 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Adding the source for the claim about Obama beeing centre

Political parties

Social democratic political parties, which sometimes also include a democratic socialist element, operate in many developed and developing countries, including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Israel and Brazil. Most European social democratic parties are members of the Party of European Socialists,[23] which is one of the main political parties at the European level,[24] and its parliamentary group the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Globally, most social democratic parties worldwide are members of the Socialist International.[25] In many cases, social democratic parties are the dominant (India, United Kingdom, Portugal) or second-placed (Italy, Sweden, Germany) players within their respective political systems, though in some cases they are minor parties (Canada, Ireland, Russia). The United States is the only industrial nation that does not currently possess an official major social democratic party, although many consider large portions of the Green Party to be social democratic. Some conservatives in the U.S. have accused President Barack Obama of being either a "Democratic Socialist" or "Social Democrat", but Obama and the mainstream of the Democratic Party are considered to be centre-right or conservative by international standards.[citation needed]

Here is the citation: http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

Political Compass:http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 Its a quiet well known website thats covering the USA Elections of 2008 and the positions of the leaders on an easy to go grafic.

Please add it to add additional sources into the article.

85.182.77.98 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm not sure that counts as a reliable source. Try some news agency like CNN, BBC etc. or some book by some notable author. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Greens are not social democrats. They specifically reject old style politics because of the perceived urgency of resolving environmental issues. The American tendency to see opponents in extreme terms is nothing new and does not belong here. The U.S. Democratic Party has much closer similarity to liberal parties than to social democratic parties. We may as well edit the communism and fascism articles to say that Obama has been accused of being both. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

'Ideology' section needs a serious overhaul.

There are several issues with this section, not the least of which is the fact that it seems skewed towards issues that are predominantly Western in nature and origin, including several issues that have little or nothing to do with social democratic theory.
What isn't considered is whether or not the policies of contemporary social democratic parties draw from social democracy as a coherent and consistent ideology; instead, the section seems to focus on the actual practices of the political parties. Whether or not one supports such practices, it should be relatively clear that something like Blair's 'New Labour' or Rudd's 'Social Capitalism' are significant departures from the relatively consistent policies previously advocated by their parties. Despite the fact that the list is preceded by the mention of 'contemporary' social democrats, I find it a bit misleading to represent policies that only became prevalent within the last 25 years as though they were representative of a movement that's been around for a century and a half. While I'm aware of the relative abandonment by many social democrats of a socialist society as the end goal, it shouldn't be implied that there aren't still significant segments of the overall global movement who maintain the classical position. At the very least, a section generally labelled 'ideology' shouldn't focus exclusively on a modern form.
Several other issues come to mind, all of which seem to stem in one way or another from what appears to be little more than either situations in developed Western nations or some personal cause that has been conflated into an element of the ideology by a well-intentioned editor. Intentions aside, there are several instances where important aspects of the ideology are absent, while issues that have little or no direct connection with the general history and current positions of the social democratic movement are listed. The most glaring example of this is probably the fact that things like 'youth rights' are listed, yet the very idea that gave rise to social democracy as a distinct school of thought (parliamentary methods as an evolutionary route to economic democracy, or to a state of social justice) is not.
In addition to the listing of issue stances that are more characteristic of interest-group liberalism than of anything else, there are a number of issues such as 'fair trade over free trade' that are found almost exclusively in affluent countries; this example in particular points to a preferred option regarding consumer choice, a matter of far less consequence in nations where food is produced primarily through domestic channels on a chiefly subsistence-level basis. While as an individual choice this stance may be indicative of the wider value set of a social democrat, it is exclusively an action, and therefore communicates nothing as to why that action is preferable. As I understand it, an ideology consists of both means and ends.
I won't bring up the lack of historical policies and goals of social democratic parties, as this issue has been raised before. However, it remains a valid assertion that the ideology's origins in the original revolutionary socialist movement are deserving of some mention in this section.
I would be happy to participate in the necessary rewrites if others feel they are necessary, and would of course submit them for review before placing them in the article. If anybody agrees, let me know. If not, the list of policies is still deserving of attention, at least to bring it in line with the general theory. --Apjohns54 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You should post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism. There are a number of articles: socialism. democratic socialism, etc. that perhaps should be combined. TFD (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A good suggestion; this subject is now on the WikiProject Socialism discussion board. Do you think that this should be left on here for a bit to serve as a redirect for anyone who wants to weigh in on the subject, but who doesn't frequent the WikiProject's discussion board?--Apjohns54 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Immediate reversions of edits in bad form and poor conduct

People like BigK HeX are the reason these articles stagnate. They immediately revert good faith changes which attempt to improve the article and make it more accurate and remove bias, and yet for their own reasons they ignore the legitimacy of the changes and instead of discussing them, immediately revert. This is poor form and rude behavior. Immediate reversions encourage edit wars. Edit wars should be avoided. Laval (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you just soapboxing, or did you care to actually discuss something specific? BigK HeX (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Christophergilmore, 15 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the introduction it is stated that neither Canada or the United States had social democratic parties in 1951 or today. While this is true of the United States it is not true of Canada today or in 1951. As of 2010 Canada has the New Democratic Party, a party which received 18% of the popular vote in the last federal election, currently forms provincial governments in Nova Scotia and Manitoba and officially considers itself to be a "social democratic" party. It has used this term to describe itself since its formation in 1962. Before that there was the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, a democratic socialist party which transformed into the NDP and in 1951 not only had seats in the House of Commons but also formed a provincial government in Saskatchewan.

The introduction is misleading and 100% incorrect, making me wonder if the author had any prior knowledge of Canadian politics and history or was just making an assumption based on complete ignorance. An edit would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Christophergilmore (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made the correction. TFD (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Also removed the ref to the U. S. as incorrect also. TFD (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Delisted Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"The working class classes"

Look at your damn foreword or whatever it's called! ROFL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.189.21.85 (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's called a typo; you could have fixed it instead of mocking. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Ecclesiastes 7:6

Ideology of contemporary social democrats

When I agree in Ideology of contemporary social democrats from a european french point of view. There might be some inaccuracies.

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

• Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.

  It is pretty recent, and I am not so sure. Isn't it a green lobby influence?

• A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.

  I am not so sure. Might be A redistributive / progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures?

• Immigration and multiculturalism.

  I disagree because for me this sounds like if those social democrat people go abroad to ask people to come. I prefer to describe them with the notions of

  • freedom of movement of people and goods inside the european union border,
  • soft controls for immigrants crossing the borders,
  • and laissez-faire of foreign people living in the national territory.

  What should be understood by multiculturalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.44.229 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Social democrats in Sweden not second placed

Under section 3, Political parties it's stated that the social democratic party of Sweden is a second placed player within the swedish political system. This is wrong. In the last election of 2010 they got wors result since 1914, but they still got more votes that any other swedish party. Since the second largest party, the moderates, almost got as many votes as the social democrats, it has been speculated if the age of social democracy is at an end in Sweden, but so far, they're still the largest party in terms of voters as well as members (about twice as many members as the second largest party).

Sources:

The election of 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_general_election,_2010 Number of members of swedish political parties (in swedish): http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_%C3%B6ver_politiska_partier_i_Sverige_efter_antal_medlemmar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.233.219 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that social democracy has renounced socialism?

The intro claims that social democracy has renounced socialism in favour of capitalism. There is no adequate references given for this. This may be true for the Third Way social democrats, like the British Labour Party, but may not apply to others. Most social democratic parties are associated with the Socialist International (SI) and thereby committed to the Frankfurt Declaration that founded the SI, which declares the intention to democratically develop and create socialism.--R-41 (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I see now that after a month of posting the previous question, there being no response to it, the material claiming that social democracy in it's entirety has renounced socialism in favour of capitalism is not backed up with credible sources, only scant arguments. I am removing that material now.--R-41 (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 October 2011

"several social democratic parties (in particular, the British Labour Party) have embraced more centrist" the labour party of the UK is a democratic socialist part not a social democratic party there different, this may be miss leading. thank you.

85.210.164.142 (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The terms are somewhat interchangeable; in any case, the British Labour Party has been called social democratic, here, for example, or here. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink Diário do Nordeste please.

Wikilink Diário do Nordeste. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5