Davide King (talk | contribs) |
The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
:::: {{u|Davide King}} I completely understand. The historical origins of the ideology and the concepts it has brought to the table are no doubt grounded in socialism. I just ask in relation to modern day, if these parties that represent social democracy, can actually be classified as socialist since as we see in the Nordic Model for example, a free market economy within a welfare state, and collective bargaining agreements between employer(s) and employee(s) mediated, economically, can we consider this socialism. All socialist models have one thing in common, that is social ownership. But that does not exist in current social democracies. So historically and originally, social democracy was developed out of Marxism, but currently, in the modern era, can it be called "socialism" by the economic definition. [[User:B. M. L. Peters|B. M. L. Peters]] ([[User talk:B. M. L. Peters|talk]]) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::: {{u|Davide King}} I completely understand. The historical origins of the ideology and the concepts it has brought to the table are no doubt grounded in socialism. I just ask in relation to modern day, if these parties that represent social democracy, can actually be classified as socialist since as we see in the Nordic Model for example, a free market economy within a welfare state, and collective bargaining agreements between employer(s) and employee(s) mediated, economically, can we consider this socialism. All socialist models have one thing in common, that is social ownership. But that does not exist in current social democracies. So historically and originally, social democracy was developed out of Marxism, but currently, in the modern era, can it be called "socialism" by the economic definition. [[User:B. M. L. Peters|B. M. L. Peters]] ([[User talk:B. M. L. Peters|talk]]) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::: {{u|B. M. L. Peters}}, no one nor the article is saying that the Nordic model or current social-democracies are ''socialist'' or ''socialism'' in the economic sense and many socialists have argued against both of those. However, socialists, among others, did participate in its build up and in countries such as Sweden ''social democracy'' became synonym with it. By the way, the Nordic model may be considered 'free-market' capitalism since the 1980s with some neoliberal reforms, but it is actually based on the social corporatist model and closer to the post-war model. The lead is clear that we are not using the economic or Soviet definition of ''socialism''. Again, many people do not seem to understand social-democratic reformism and socialist pragmatism that led many socialist politician and parties to reform, rather than overthrow, the capitalist economic system. That they adopted a mixed economy, rather than a Soviet one, is because of their reformism and pragmatism, not because they abandoned socialism in the philosophical sense. There is this unnecessary stark difference between a Corbyn (who is called a ''socialist'' in the Soviet sense, so bad) and a Blair (who is called a ''social-democrat'' in the Third Way social-liberal sense, so good) when both are ''socialist'' and ''social-democrat''. One is simply more left-wing and the other more centrist and pragmatic, whose socialism is based more on ethical and liberal, rather than economic, socialist principles. That may be absurd, but it is not really absurd when one examines the history of socialism and see similarly huge gaps such as socialists advocating the outright abolition of the state and socialists advocating the use of the state to develop socialism, yet both are considered socialists and part of the socialist movement.<br><br>Bear in mind that social democrats such as Crosland thought that post-war capitalism was so different from previous capitalism that it could be argued capitalism was reformed out of existence ("[T]raditional capitalism has been reformed and modified almost out of existence, and it is with a quite different form of society that socialists must now concern themselves. Pre-war anti-capitalism will give us very little help.") I disagree with this view and history proved it wrong when the model, which he seemingly thought was irreversible, was replaced by the neoliberal order, but this just goes to show the difference between social democracy and social liberalism. What you are espousing is one view, but it is not the only one. Most of those complaints come from those who see social democracy only as its right wing (Blair and the Third Way) and ignore its more left wing such as with Corbyn and Sanders (all pre-neoliberal social democracy would be considered to the left of Blair and the Third Way today). In other words, those complaints are based mainly on the Third Way development of social democracy; and even in such case, they did not necessarily abandon socialism (again, socialism in the Soviet sense was already abandoned decades earlier), they were more concerned in fighting the New Right and neoliberalism, even though critics argue that in practice they simply represented a left-wing variant of neoliberalism or a "neoliberalism with a human face" rather than a new left-wing anti-neoliberal stance. I would also redirect to you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_democracy&diff=925962735&oldid=925954203 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_democracy&diff=925997365&oldid=925979143 this] relevant comments by {{u|The Four Deuces}}.<br><br>My personal view is that since the 1970s most social-democratic parties essentially became (neoliberal) social-liberal ones. However, most of those parties are still and routinely called ''socialist'' as correctly pointed out by The Four Deuces ("IOW the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test.") While it is true social-democrats adopted social-liberal proposals and policies (indeed, so much so that the paradigm popularised by social-democrats, who put in practice policies advocated by social-liberals, is called the social liberal paradigm, the say way the post-1970s development is described as the neoliberal paradigm), they did so based on socialism and socialist principles. Again, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism&diff=927307410&oldid=927305244 this comment] by The Four Deuces ("The philosophy of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden was that if people were healthy, well-educated and had a decent standard of living, that they would seek to develop a socialist society. They did not consider the welfare state to be socialism '''but a necessary condition for its development'''.") and while most social-democratic parties moved to the right since at least the 1970s, they did so because ''all'' socialism was linked to the Soviet experience, among other, surprise surprise, pragmatic reasons. Most social-democratic parties remains socialist parties. There a few parties that use the ''social-democratic'' label but are not social-democratic (the Portuguese Social Democratic Party, which is actually a Christian-democratic and liberal-conservative party, bears in mind) and there are some who use ''social democracy'' to mean the [[social market economy]] and [[Third Way]] [[social liberalism]], but those are considered liberal or social-liberal parties.<br>—[[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
::::: {{u|B. M. L. Peters}}, no one nor the article is saying that the Nordic model or current social-democracies are ''socialist'' or ''socialism'' in the economic sense and many socialists have argued against both of those. However, socialists, among others, did participate in its build up and in countries such as Sweden ''social democracy'' became synonym with it. By the way, the Nordic model may be considered 'free-market' capitalism since the 1980s with some neoliberal reforms, but it is actually based on the social corporatist model and closer to the post-war model. The lead is clear that we are not using the economic or Soviet definition of ''socialism''. Again, many people do not seem to understand social-democratic reformism and socialist pragmatism that led many socialist politician and parties to reform, rather than overthrow, the capitalist economic system. That they adopted a mixed economy, rather than a Soviet one, is because of their reformism and pragmatism, not because they abandoned socialism in the philosophical sense. There is this unnecessary stark difference between a Corbyn (who is called a ''socialist'' in the Soviet sense, so bad) and a Blair (who is called a ''social-democrat'' in the Third Way social-liberal sense, so good) when both are ''socialist'' and ''social-democrat''. One is simply more left-wing and the other more centrist and pragmatic, whose socialism is based more on ethical and liberal, rather than economic, socialist principles. That may be absurd, but it is not really absurd when one examines the history of socialism and see similarly huge gaps such as socialists advocating the outright abolition of the state and socialists advocating the use of the state to develop socialism, yet both are considered socialists and part of the socialist movement.<br><br>Bear in mind that social democrats such as Crosland thought that post-war capitalism was so different from previous capitalism that it could be argued capitalism was reformed out of existence ("[T]raditional capitalism has been reformed and modified almost out of existence, and it is with a quite different form of society that socialists must now concern themselves. Pre-war anti-capitalism will give us very little help.") I disagree with this view and history proved it wrong when the model, which he seemingly thought was irreversible, was replaced by the neoliberal order, but this just goes to show the difference between social democracy and social liberalism. What you are espousing is one view, but it is not the only one. Most of those complaints come from those who see social democracy only as its right wing (Blair and the Third Way) and ignore its more left wing such as with Corbyn and Sanders (all pre-neoliberal social democracy would be considered to the left of Blair and the Third Way today). In other words, those complaints are based mainly on the Third Way development of social democracy; and even in such case, they did not necessarily abandon socialism (again, socialism in the Soviet sense was already abandoned decades earlier), they were more concerned in fighting the New Right and neoliberalism, even though critics argue that in practice they simply represented a left-wing variant of neoliberalism or a "neoliberalism with a human face" rather than a new left-wing anti-neoliberal stance. I would also redirect to you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_democracy&diff=925962735&oldid=925954203 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_democracy&diff=925997365&oldid=925979143 this] relevant comments by {{u|The Four Deuces}}.<br><br>My personal view is that since the 1970s most social-democratic parties essentially became (neoliberal) social-liberal ones. However, most of those parties are still and routinely called ''socialist'' as correctly pointed out by The Four Deuces ("IOW the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test.") While it is true social-democrats adopted social-liberal proposals and policies (indeed, so much so that the paradigm popularised by social-democrats, who put in practice policies advocated by social-liberals, is called the social liberal paradigm, the say way the post-1970s development is described as the neoliberal paradigm), they did so based on socialism and socialist principles. Again, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism&diff=927307410&oldid=927305244 this comment] by The Four Deuces ("The philosophy of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden was that if people were healthy, well-educated and had a decent standard of living, that they would seek to develop a socialist society. They did not consider the welfare state to be socialism '''but a necessary condition for its development'''.") and while most social-democratic parties moved to the right since at least the 1970s, they did so because ''all'' socialism was linked to the Soviet experience, among other, surprise surprise, pragmatic reasons. Most social-democratic parties remains socialist parties. There a few parties that use the ''social-democratic'' label but are not social-democratic (the Portuguese Social Democratic Party, which is actually a Christian-democratic and liberal-conservative party, bears in mind) and there are some who use ''social democracy'' to mean the [[social market economy]] and [[Third Way]] [[social liberalism]], but those are considered liberal or social-liberal parties.<br>—[[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::You could say the same thing about liberals and conservatives. Liberals no longer insist that government spending be under 10% of GDP, while conservatives no longer insist that hereditary peers have equal or greater power than elected MPs. Social democrats continue to fit within the definition of socialism provided by the [https://books.google.com/books?id=JRYjU-L4F7wC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false ''Historical Dictionary of Socialism''], pp. 1-3. The different groups will differ in policy based on ideology, even when the policies appear similar. For example, liberals, conservatives and socialists respectively created welfare programs in the United States, Germany and Sweden, but for different reasons and implemented them differently. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:07, 5 October 2020
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huge deletion without consensus
@HoboKenobi47: I don't see any consensus for such a large deletion, or where you have discussed this with other editors. Without a consensus, you can't just do that. Please explain what and why you are doing it. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Valjean, yeah. I am also afraid the user in question may be a sockpuppeter because of the few edits; this page was protected in the first place due sockpuppetry; and the user in question reverted back to a sockpuppeter's version. I write this as it would be like the third time already (between IPs and other accounts). However, even if it is not the same user (I would hope so), your point still stands and the user in question did not even incorporate all the new edits since then but mainly reverted back to that version.--Davide King (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I did the change to revert to a different version which was more accurate in many ways. HoboKenobi47 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- You'll have to convince others before making such changes. That's a huge amount of content you deleted. If you want to improve the article you'll have to make small edits and save them. Then deal with any fallout and convince others that your edits are really improvements. Needless to say, our faith in your intentions is rather shaken by your actions, so take it easy or you make get blocked. If you are evading a block, then stop editing anything at Wikipedia immediately. -- Valjean (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, that was exactly the sockpuppetter's version. Either way, without repeating what Valjean wrote, that version was already discussed months ago above here. That version you reverted back to contained many of the errors the third opinion listed to, so no, it was absolutely not
more accurate in many ways
(if it was, I am pretty sure it would have stayed); and that is not even considering the unexplained removal of all sourced content added since then. Considering I have talked to the same blocked user under different names enough times now, forgive me if I am sceptical and suspicious. If it is you, the six months may have come to a close, or be very close, to ask for an unblock request, so please, if that is indeed you, I suggest you to not ruin your chance to legally return by sockpuppeting and edit warring yet again at this article, for which we had many discussion already. If it is not you, please listen to what Valjean and other users wrote you.--Davide King (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I did the change to revert to a different version which was more accurate in many ways. HoboKenobi47 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Edits to the lead
DongxingJiang, please follow WP:BRD as you were reverted by me. My reason was the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body and you cannot just change it like that (it is better to discuss it in the talk page); some changes were also unclear or were original research/synthesis of given sources; others were problematic such as adding refs when they should be put in the #Sources and use sfn
. Please, use talkquote
to give us a clear difference to show us each change you want to apply and why. Valjean, I ping you here as you were recently involved and because I wanted to ask you whether there is the risk DongxingJiang may be the same user of the other day (considering the few edits) or Symes2017 due to this page being protected because of sockpuppetry and now that it has been unprotected I believe we should still be careful.--Davide King (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This is still a pretty big change and is better to be discussed at the talk page first. You also seem to be confusing socialism as an ideology (which social democracy is) and socialism as an economic system (actually exiting social democracy still follows the capitalist mode of production). This is because social democracy is mainly a reformist and gradualist ideology which follow evolutionism rather than revolutionism regarding socialism. Whether a gradual evolution and reforms would actually result in socialism does not change its history within socialism. As for your claim that social democracy is a "political ideology within the socialist movement" is mostly based on one source only
, it is only one source because, again, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body and that is the source that goes in details about all that, hence why I chose it for the lead. As for your changes from without abolishing factor markets, private property and wage labour
to with a qualitatively different socialist economic
, the first is a more accurate representation of the sources and your wording is literally a quote from one source without being in quoting marks (the long-standing wording is already a good summary of sources, so I do not understand your issue with that). You may be pushing the Third Way view that see social democracy departing from socialism, but that is contradicted by the part of the lead which saw them committed either to an alternative path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism
.--Davide King (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I will probably not be able to edit much until Monday, so please let's keep the article to the current version (rather than edit warring) until we can properly discuss any proposed change. I did make it a three-paragraph lead as was done here (although that is more a suggestion than a rule to be followed at all times), but all the other edits are so big and unclear that I could not incorporate much else for now.--Davide King (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
DongxingJiang, if you don't engage discussion, here, on the article talk page, you are effectively forfeiting your right to edit the main article. El_C 10:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- @DongxingJiang: User:Davide King has provided a pretty comprehensive rebuttal of your proposed (radical) changes to the lead section. Please understand, per policy, it is now your responsibility to justify the material's inclusion, rather than ours for its removal. Please also observe the WP:BRD cycle: you have made a Bold edit (fourtimes now!); it was Reverted; now we Disscus it. We don't Keep reverting to get our own way, and we don't refuse to discuss it, except as you have been doing, solely by way of edit-summaries. Cheers, ——Serial # 10:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
As for the alleged claim of incorrect information inserted without consensus
, (1) I was not challenged on the talk page nor reverted; and if I were, I would have take it to the talk page and not edit warred; (2) I actually went through the Archives here (and of Democratic socialism, too, as social democracy was mentioned and discussed there as well), read them all and simply took some of the many suggestions in the article. One common complaint was that too much weight was given to the Third Way view and that it made a drastic either/or approach between capitalism and socialism that is inaccurate and generally conflating social democracy with welfare states; another was that it gave too much weight to the right-wing of social democracy and very little to none to its left-wing. I believe to have addressed those and other issues, no one challenged me or reverted me, so unilaterally reverting all that like you did was uncalled for; and (3) as I suspected, DongxingJiang is now a proven sockpuppet of SmalforaGiant.--Davide King (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the old lead was better as this one conflates social democracy with socialism which is certainly not the academic consensus. I will find a source and edit that to be more accurate. cheers :) 198.48.136.149 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Looks like the page was locked down. This is my proposed edit: "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy which developed historically from socialism, though in modern practice is a unique political ideology [1]. Social Democracy supports political and economic democracy [2], and generally governs within a system of democratic capitalism."... If you agree with this change could someone please include it. Thanks 198.48.136.149 (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is perhaps because you conflate socialism as only an economy system, something common alongside conflating the conservative Bismark for a social democrat and social democracy for welfare states. There is already a hatnote stating For the type of capitalism adopted by social democrats [among others] in the post-war period, see Democratic capitalism. Davide King (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The source distinguishes two types of socialism: social democratic and revolutionary. But these two tendencies have always existed, one did not develop from the other. And in many sources the first type are referred to simply as socialists, while the second are referred to as communists. The term democratic socialist has also become popular recently for the first type. TFD (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- If this article is referring to non economic "socialism" when saying social democracy is socialism, that should be clear in the opening thesis statement of the article. The way it is currently worded leaves ambiguity, and requires the reader to either read the rest of the article or the source material to get clarity to meaning. Not all readers will invest that time so this opening statement may lead some to believe something that is not true. I think the opening statement needs far more clarity when using a term that has multiple definitions as a definition. 198.48.136.149 (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is not saying it is socialism, it is saying within socialism, i.e. the political ideology, not the economic system. It also states that "[social demoracy's] 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 the case of evolutionary socialism, or the establishment and support of a welfare state." Where exactly does it says what you are referring to? In "Definition", the definition you are actually referring to states that "[this] definition [...] is focused on ethical terms, with the type of socialism advocated being ethical and liberal." In "Political party", it states that "Some such as the Labour Party in the United Kingdom make reference to socialism, either as a post-capitalist order or in ethical terms as a just society, described as representing democratic socialism, without any explicit reference to the economic system." Davide King (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Right in the next sentence, it states that social democracy "advocat[es] economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy." Davide King (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- The lead begins, "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism." It's clear it is not referring to the economic system. TFD (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- If this article is referring to non economic "socialism" when saying social democracy is socialism, that should be clear in the opening thesis statement of the article. The way it is currently worded leaves ambiguity, and requires the reader to either read the rest of the article or the source material to get clarity to meaning. Not all readers will invest that time so this opening statement may lead some to believe something that is not true. I think the opening statement needs far more clarity when using a term that has multiple definitions as a definition. 198.48.136.149 (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hatnote
@Davide King: Can you please explain this edit? Interstellarity (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's up to you to explain why the hatnote is needed. It's unlikely that someone would type in "democratic socialism," when they were looking for "social democracy," which is what use of the template requires, per Template:Distinguish. TFD (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Interstellarity, The Four Deuces already wrote exactly what I was going to say. By the way, there is already an hatnote at Democratic socialism about Social democracy and I believe that is enough; here it is better to have just the current one as social democracy is often confused for those and social liberalism because social democrats were the ones to implement the social-liberal paradigm lasting until neoliberalism.--Davide King (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2020
A Social Democracy has NOT NECESSARILY issued only from socialist thought/theory or preference.
For instance, the definition of socialism espouses the fact that all labor is a governmental service. That is, there are no private companies that create jobs since they do not exist.
This definition as employed is therefore fundamentally faulted if explaining the rudiments of a Social Democracy that has ALWAYS permitted the ownership of the means of production! Tony PERLA (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Linking 'Junker' links to the wrong page
Hello there, just something that I realized. The term 'Junkers' (in the following paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#First_International_era_and_origins_in_the_socialist_movement_(1863–1889) ) links to the wrong article. Namely the Company 'Junker'. Instead it should link to the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker_(Prussia) - Beenbag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenbag (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
"...a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism..."
Economically social democracy relies on capitalism and the tax revenue generated from it to establish it's welfare policies, sources exist stating it is an economic model within capitalism as well, however It actually combines economic principles of capitalism, and welfare principles of socialism, therefore it cannot be classified a "socialist" system or "capitalist" system. We should probably delete the labeling of it as being within "socialism" to a more general term for example; "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports political and economic democracy" removing the "socialism" labeling. Especially since only one source is cited for a strong claim like that. It is it's own socioeconomic model combining elements of capitalism and socialism, it is not a current of socialism nor capitalism. A change should be made to reflect that. Only in the intro paragraph. The history of it is where claims can be made and sourced about its founding ideologies, or historical definitions should remain the same. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note we are talking about a philosophy not an economic system. Social democracy derives from revisionist Marxism. TFD (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes agreed, it is a derivation of revisionist Marxism. Was just concerned about its labeling as being a socialist model in the intro paragraph since in the modern era social democracy as a system does not advocate worker ownership of the means of production and likewise government ownership of the means of production. It is it's own socioeconomic model in it's own right. But your justification historically accurate. Agreed! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think the article confuses different concepts. There is social democratic ideology that developed in Germany and then there is the modern welfare state pioneered by the Swedish Social Democrats. TFD (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The confusion is intentional. The left desires to call Scandinavian countries "socialist" so that they can use them as a successful form of Socialism. They have woven together a history of the left in Sweden in order to make it appear to have roots in socialism. In actuality, the government had to abandoned Socialism for capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.109.22 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 14:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)John Dee
- The reverse is also true. Only the Soviet Union et al. are the "be end it all" of socialism. Many conservatives and right-wing conservatives called, and still do, post-war social democracy as "socialist". They are wrong, but you are going in the opposite direction by associating socialism only with the Soviet Union et al. There are also many definitions of capitalism and socialism. If you were to define capitalism as 19th-century capitalism before the welfare state, one could as easily define the welfare state as socialism, or at least as a moderate version of it. Venezuela is also routinely called socialist because it is considered a failure, not because a factually analysis says it is socialist, despite as correctly noted by The Four Deuces, who was simply repeating what reliable sources say, being a capitalist economy and in a sense being closer to the post-war consensus than a "centrally-planned economy", the Soviet Union or even Cuba.
In other words, you want socialism to have no praise for its role in establishing liberal democracy (socialist parties were being banned by liberal-conservative governments such as in Italy and Germany) or the post-war consensus. Of course, there are those to its left who criticise it as a betrayal, for being too timid, for leading us into neoliberalism, etc. As noted by Pierson, the "socialist parties within the constitutional arena in the West have almost always been involved in a politics of compromise with existing capitalist institutions." This. their pragmatism and reformism cause confusion as a socialist can be a socialist without wanting to turn the economy into a centrally-planned one. You say "[i]n actuality, the government had to abandoned Socialism for capitalism", when what you really say, or should say, is that "the government had to abandoned [the goal of a socialist economy] for capitalism." I still do not understand why social democrats would be opposed to workers' self-management or having a mixed-owned economy, i.e. a mix of private, public and cooperative ownership, which would be closer to socialism (neither anarcho-communists such as Kropotkin nor Marx and Engels opposed small-property holdings or personal property), but I digress. The point is that they are still socialists in an ethical or liberal sense and is what distinguish them from social liberals; you may argue, as those to their left have argued, that they have abandoned socialism and everything, but academic and reliable sources show a more nuanced situation.According to Christopher Pierson, "[i]f the contrast which 1989 highlights is not that between socialism in the East and liberal democracy in the West, the latter must be recognized to have been shaped, reformed and compromised by a century of social democratic pressure". Pierson further claims that "social democratic and socialist parties within the constitutional arena in the West have almost always been involved in a politics of compromise with existing capitalist institutions (to whatever far distant prize its eyes might from time to time have been lifted)". For Pierson, "if advocates of the death of socialism accept that social democrats belong within the socialist camp, as I think they must, then the contrast between socialism (in all its variants) and liberal democracy must collapse. For actually existing liberal democracy is, in substantial part, a product of socialist (social democratic) forces."
—Davide King (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- The reverse is also true. Only the Soviet Union et al. are the "be end it all" of socialism. Many conservatives and right-wing conservatives called, and still do, post-war social democracy as "socialist". They are wrong, but you are going in the opposite direction by associating socialism only with the Soviet Union et al. There are also many definitions of capitalism and socialism. If you were to define capitalism as 19th-century capitalism before the welfare state, one could as easily define the welfare state as socialism, or at least as a moderate version of it. Venezuela is also routinely called socialist because it is considered a failure, not because a factually analysis says it is socialist, despite as correctly noted by The Four Deuces, who was simply repeating what reliable sources say, being a capitalist economy and in a sense being closer to the post-war consensus than a "centrally-planned economy", the Soviet Union or even Cuba.
- The confusion is intentional. The left desires to call Scandinavian countries "socialist" so that they can use them as a successful form of Socialism. They have woven together a history of the left in Sweden in order to make it appear to have roots in socialism. In actuality, the government had to abandoned Socialism for capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.109.22 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 14:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)John Dee
- B. M. L. Peters, that is probably because you see socialism and socialist model as the Soviet Union et al. Socialism is not just an economic system, a "centrally-planned economy", or even "government ownership." Social democracy is simply one of the many schools and tradition within the socialist movement. This is what distinguishes it from social liberalism, which today is often conflated with it as the Third Way, i.e. since Third Way social-democrats "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 liberals was a more pressing immediate concern", hence they distanced themselves from socialism, equated with the Soviet Union et al. (in spite many academics refer to it as state-capitalist or even rejected they were planned economies, calling them command economies), then that somehow means social democracy itself stopped being socialism or envisioning a socialist society, its whole point (socialism defined as social democracy, i.e. political and economic democracy). The lead is clearly referring to the socialist philosophy and movement, not to the Soviet Union et al. which was opposed by social democrats, who made classical/orthodox Marxist criticism of it already in the 1910s and the 1920s. Davide King (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Davide King I completely understand. The historical origins of the ideology and the concepts it has brought to the table are no doubt grounded in socialism. I just ask in relation to modern day, if these parties that represent social democracy, can actually be classified as socialist since as we see in the Nordic Model for example, a free market economy within a welfare state, and collective bargaining agreements between employer(s) and employee(s) mediated, economically, can we consider this socialism. All socialist models have one thing in common, that is social ownership. But that does not exist in current social democracies. So historically and originally, social democracy was developed out of Marxism, but currently, in the modern era, can it be called "socialism" by the economic definition. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- B. M. L. Peters, no one nor the article is saying that the Nordic model or current social-democracies are socialist or socialism in the economic sense and many socialists have argued against both of those. However, socialists, among others, did participate in its build up and in countries such as Sweden social democracy became synonym with it. By the way, the Nordic model may be considered 'free-market' capitalism since the 1980s with some neoliberal reforms, but it is actually based on the social corporatist model and closer to the post-war model. The lead is clear that we are not using the economic or Soviet definition of socialism. Again, many people do not seem to understand social-democratic reformism and socialist pragmatism that led many socialist politician and parties to reform, rather than overthrow, the capitalist economic system. That they adopted a mixed economy, rather than a Soviet one, is because of their reformism and pragmatism, not because they abandoned socialism in the philosophical sense. There is this unnecessary stark difference between a Corbyn (who is called a socialist in the Soviet sense, so bad) and a Blair (who is called a social-democrat in the Third Way social-liberal sense, so good) when both are socialist and social-democrat. One is simply more left-wing and the other more centrist and pragmatic, whose socialism is based more on ethical and liberal, rather than economic, socialist principles. That may be absurd, but it is not really absurd when one examines the history of socialism and see similarly huge gaps such as socialists advocating the outright abolition of the state and socialists advocating the use of the state to develop socialism, yet both are considered socialists and part of the socialist movement.
Bear in mind that social democrats such as Crosland thought that post-war capitalism was so different from previous capitalism that it could be argued capitalism was reformed out of existence ("[T]raditional capitalism has been reformed and modified almost out of existence, and it is with a quite different form of society that socialists must now concern themselves. Pre-war anti-capitalism will give us very little help.") I disagree with this view and history proved it wrong when the model, which he seemingly thought was irreversible, was replaced by the neoliberal order, but this just goes to show the difference between social democracy and social liberalism. What you are espousing is one view, but it is not the only one. Most of those complaints come from those who see social democracy only as its right wing (Blair and the Third Way) and ignore its more left wing such as with Corbyn and Sanders (all pre-neoliberal social democracy would be considered to the left of Blair and the Third Way today). In other words, those complaints are based mainly on the Third Way development of social democracy; and even in such case, they did not necessarily abandon socialism (again, socialism in the Soviet sense was already abandoned decades earlier), they were more concerned in fighting the New Right and neoliberalism, even though critics argue that in practice they simply represented a left-wing variant of neoliberalism or a "neoliberalism with a human face" rather than a new left-wing anti-neoliberal stance. I would also redirect to you this and this relevant comments by The Four Deuces.
My personal view is that since the 1970s most social-democratic parties essentially became (neoliberal) social-liberal ones. However, most of those parties are still and routinely called socialist as correctly pointed out by The Four Deuces ("IOW the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test.") While it is true social-democrats adopted social-liberal proposals and policies (indeed, so much so that the paradigm popularised by social-democrats, who put in practice policies advocated by social-liberals, is called the social liberal paradigm, the say way the post-1970s development is described as the neoliberal paradigm), they did so based on socialism and socialist principles. Again, see this comment by The Four Deuces ("The philosophy of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden was that if people were healthy, well-educated and had a decent standard of living, that they would seek to develop a socialist society. They did not consider the welfare state to be socialism but a necessary condition for its development.") and while most social-democratic parties moved to the right since at least the 1970s, they did so because all socialism was linked to the Soviet experience, among other, surprise surprise, pragmatic reasons. Most social-democratic parties remains socialist parties. There a few parties that use the social-democratic label but are not social-democratic (the Portuguese Social Democratic Party, which is actually a Christian-democratic and liberal-conservative party, bears in mind) and there are some who use social democracy to mean the social market economy and Third Way social liberalism, but those are considered liberal or social-liberal parties.
—Davide King (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- B. M. L. Peters, no one nor the article is saying that the Nordic model or current social-democracies are socialist or socialism in the economic sense and many socialists have argued against both of those. However, socialists, among others, did participate in its build up and in countries such as Sweden social democracy became synonym with it. By the way, the Nordic model may be considered 'free-market' capitalism since the 1980s with some neoliberal reforms, but it is actually based on the social corporatist model and closer to the post-war model. The lead is clear that we are not using the economic or Soviet definition of socialism. Again, many people do not seem to understand social-democratic reformism and socialist pragmatism that led many socialist politician and parties to reform, rather than overthrow, the capitalist economic system. That they adopted a mixed economy, rather than a Soviet one, is because of their reformism and pragmatism, not because they abandoned socialism in the philosophical sense. There is this unnecessary stark difference between a Corbyn (who is called a socialist in the Soviet sense, so bad) and a Blair (who is called a social-democrat in the Third Way social-liberal sense, so good) when both are socialist and social-democrat. One is simply more left-wing and the other more centrist and pragmatic, whose socialism is based more on ethical and liberal, rather than economic, socialist principles. That may be absurd, but it is not really absurd when one examines the history of socialism and see similarly huge gaps such as socialists advocating the outright abolition of the state and socialists advocating the use of the state to develop socialism, yet both are considered socialists and part of the socialist movement.
- Davide King I completely understand. The historical origins of the ideology and the concepts it has brought to the table are no doubt grounded in socialism. I just ask in relation to modern day, if these parties that represent social democracy, can actually be classified as socialist since as we see in the Nordic Model for example, a free market economy within a welfare state, and collective bargaining agreements between employer(s) and employee(s) mediated, economically, can we consider this socialism. All socialist models have one thing in common, that is social ownership. But that does not exist in current social democracies. So historically and originally, social democracy was developed out of Marxism, but currently, in the modern era, can it be called "socialism" by the economic definition. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think the article confuses different concepts. There is social democratic ideology that developed in Germany and then there is the modern welfare state pioneered by the Swedish Social Democrats. TFD (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes agreed, it is a derivation of revisionist Marxism. Was just concerned about its labeling as being a socialist model in the intro paragraph since in the modern era social democracy as a system does not advocate worker ownership of the means of production and likewise government ownership of the means of production. It is it's own socioeconomic model in it's own right. But your justification historically accurate. Agreed! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- You could say the same thing about liberals and conservatives. Liberals no longer insist that government spending be under 10% of GDP, while conservatives no longer insist that hereditary peers have equal or greater power than elected MPs. Social democrats continue to fit within the definition of socialism provided by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1-3. The different groups will differ in policy based on ideology, even when the policies appear similar. For example, liberals, conservatives and socialists respectively created welfare programs in the United States, Germany and Sweden, but for different reasons and implemented them differently. TFD (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)