Talk:Social democracy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The intro is once again POV and essentially denying social democracy's connection with socialism since WWII

Once again, a POV has been put into the article that conforms to the standard anti-revisionist Marxist perspective that contemporary social democracy is capitalist. The anti-revisionist Marxist perspective assumes that there is a clear-cut, universal definition for socialism based on scientific criteria - their POV - and they have denied that social democracy has been truly socialist for years. The only questionable social democratic figures who are widely considered to have pushed a capitalist agenda are Third Way social democracy proponents - but even Tony Blair has a long history as a Christian socialist and continues to state that he is a socialist. We have been struggling to find an encompassing definition for socialism that accounts for its various forms at the Socialism article for some time now, I distrust claims made quickly about whether social democracy is "truely" socialist - unless they can demonstrate what a "true" socialist is that can account for its known variations. Also, using one random source that says that social democracy has had "three historical stages" only represents that source and unless verified by others cannot be accepted as representing the general consensus.--R-41 (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, there isn't a single social democratic party in the world that doesn't endorse a basically capitalist economic system. Advocating redistribution of wealth does not equal socialism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You assume that a simple definition of socialism exists. You are not aware of the debate that has arisen amongst social democratic parties over the feasibility of a state-administered entirely public property-owned means of production. You are not aware of the central policy of social democracy - Bernstein's policy of gradualism that rejects radical usurption of capitalism but instead advocates gradual legal reforms through legislative democratic channels to achieve socialist objectives - that social democratic movements must cooperatively work within existing capitalist societies to promote and foster the creation of socialist societies. Of course, Bernstein assumed an inevitability of eventual creation of an accepted socialist society that can be criticized as naive - as legislative politics is unending with reversals of policies by succeeding governments - thus social democrats from Bernsteinian perspective are still in the pre-socialist stage of advocacy within capitalist societies. State socialism - the primary engine of both communist and social democratic politics for years entirely collapsed in legitimacy in the 1970s with the discovery of stagflation, since then social democrats have struggled to find an alternative socialist system that can deal with stagflation and the neoliberal criticism of the inadequacy of state-run public property. In fact the first socialists, Saint-Simon and Fourier never supported the replacement of private property with public property even within the means of production - only Robert Owen universally condemned private ownership of the means of production, of the three original socialist leading figures - Fourier was a staunch defender of the right to own private property.[1]. The following source on Saint-Simon states: "Saint-Simon had defended private property as the proper reward for achievement, but he by no means saw it as a sacred or natural right".[2] Saint-Simon and Fourier demanded that private property be regulated and used cooperatively rather than selfishly (as alleged to be under capitalism) within ideal socialist communities called "phalanxes". So claims that socialism "requires" complete public ownership of the property of the means of production is completely fallacious because two of the three original socialist founders were in favour of private property.--R-41 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What has changed over the years for social democracy is this: in the late 19th century, there was greater public confidence than today in the idea of a state-managed economy that was a major pillar of both proponents of communism and social democracy and even to a substantial degree by conservatives and left-leaning liberals. Aside from anarchists and other libertarian socialists, there was confidence amongst socialists in the concept of state socialism as being the most effective form of socialism. Early British social democrats in the nineteenth century claimed that British society was already mostly socialist and that the economy was significantly socialist through government-run enterprises created by conservative and liberal governments, that they claimed could be run for the interests of the people through their representatives' influence. Advents in economics and observation of the failure of state socialism in the Eastern Bloc countries and neoliberal rebuke of statist economics resulted in socialists re-evaluating and redesigning socialism. Many have sought to keep what they deem are socialism's core values while changing its position on state involvement in the economy while retaining significant social regulations. --R-41 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the opening:

Social democracy is an international political movement and ideology that has undergone three major forms throughout its history. In contemporary uses, social democracy generally means support for regulation of the economy and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of capitalism. Historically, social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.

Contemporary Social democracy, starting in the Post-War period, was defined by reformation of capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system. Contemporary Social democratic policies include support for a welfare state, Keynesian economic policies, and collective bargaining arrangements to balance the power of capital and labor.

Historical Social democracy of the 19th century encompassed a wide variety of non-revolutionary and revolutionary currents of socialism, but excluded anarchism. In the early 20th century, social democracy came to refer to support for a gradual process of developing socialism through existing political structures and an opposition to revolutionary means of achieving socialism in favor of reformism.

Social democratic political parties around the world, such as the British Labour Party, the Socialist Party of France, and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, are joined in an international federation called the Socialist International (SI).

• Highlight the words/sentences you disagree with and then provide the reference/s supporting your position. If the information you disagree with is sourced, explain why you have a problem with the reference, etc. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, without specific problems supported by references there is no basis for even discussing this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have highlighted them in the section above. First of all, only one source cites that there have been "three stages". Unless there is more than one source that states these "three stages" - it represents only one view of the history of social democracy. Secondly, it separates what it claims is "historical" social democracy and "contemporary" social democracy, identifying only the "historical" version as being socialist and the "contemporary" being capitalist. This assumes that there is a clear and universal historical evolution of social democracy from being reformist socialism to becoming capitalism, and assuming that all "contemporary" social democracy has inevitably become capitalist - this is a POV. It is based on the narrow, typically anti-revisionist Marxist interpretation that socialism can only exist where all private property in the means of production is completely eliminated and replaced by public property, and thus any society that fails to fulfill this is "capitalist". The same dogmatic puritanical arguments has been used in reverse by laissez-faire capitalists - that capitalism requires complete private ownership of the means of production and that should public ownership of areas of the means of production or even any public ownership over a strategic area indicates that the society is "socialist". Both are dogmatic arguments that assume a simple, clear-cut and spacetime-unchanging definition of ideologies that require puritanical adherence or else they are deviations. Thus such dogmatic interpretations of socialism and capitalism do not account for variations and changes over time and historical circumstances, or by geographical location; for instance democracy as it typically exists today as majoritarian universal suffrage representative democracy originally developed in Western Europe and the United States is not the same as the original democracy developed in ancient Greece that was direct democracy of a limited suffrage of aristocratic elites.--R-41 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The current issues of social democracy is the response to the collapse of legitimacy for state socialism and state-interventionist economics of Keynesianism with the discovery of the phenomenon of stagflation, stagflation was and remains a huge issue for the legitimacy of state socialism.[3][4] This has provoked massive re-thinking of how socialism should be achieved by social democrats, including changing views by social democrats on private property - British anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe has advocated a socialist form of private property as part of a "New Socialism" (though he technically objects to the term "private property" to collectively describe property that is not publicly owned as being vague) and rejecting state socialism as a failure.[5][6]. Third Way social democracy was formed as response to what they saw as a crisis in the legitimacy of socialism - especially state socialism - and the rising legitimacy for laissez-faire capitalism, and Third Way SD is criticized for being too simplistic in its view of the crisis.[7] The intro of this article repeats over and over again that contemporary social democracy is universally capitalist, it assumes this is a fact and presents no counter-evidence that does exist that rejects this - thus it is pushing a POV.--R-41 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to look at this piece by piece. It sounds like you want to add something like, "some modern social democrats continue to push for a socialist economy." Is that correct? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is more complex than that. If we are dealing with "modern" and "historical", unequivocal statements that "all historical social democrats were this" and "all modern social democrats are this" is not valid - there are always exceptions - and major exceptions that defy these statements. History of politics and governments involves understanding not only ideas but also: context, existing political and social tensions, the role of individual figures, and the role of public pressure, and recognizing that ideologies can change. In addition evaluation of ideology in practice requires understanding of pragmatic decisions that need to be made by politicians. For instance, in the case of communism - Neither Lenin nor Mao achieved the literal full "historical development" as defined by Marx to necessitate communist revolution, neither Russia nor China had reached the development level of an industrialized society at the time of their communist revolutions - both were peasant societies - but we still call Lenin and Mao communists, they developed a new branch of it. I need to use a metaphor here to help you understand what I mean: in social democracy as well as socialism in general and other ideologies in general, ideologies in history grow and mature like a tree - the core themes that hold them together stay, themes that are no longer politically viable break off like dead branches, and new themes that are viable grow as new branches. Most ideologies are not like the Ten Commandments - where you either agree with everything as being true or you are damned as a traitor. Most educated, but still misinformed people associate liberalism as always supporting universal suffrage, when in history it originally only supported property owners having the right to vote. Ideologies change and unity is rare beyond key core principles due to different circumstances across the world.--R-41 (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're spending way too much time with your theorizing which is acting more as an impediment than anything else. Of course generalizations need to be used, and since this is an article about social democracy, it needs to discuss a generalized view of this topic. Back to the article. If you don't provide a source stating that some modern social democrats continue to push for a socialist economy then it won't be a matter of discussion. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• You keep voluntarily forgetting about the sources I showed you repeatedly of British anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe clearly advocating socialism, involving "a socialized form of private property as an individual right" that is outside of orthodox Marxist definition of socialist economy (unfortunately I doubt that accept this source because you appear to rigidly adhere to an exclusively orthodox Marxist interpretation of socialism). Here is the source by Robert Corfe: The spirit of New Socialism and the end of class-based politics (2005): [8]

• The passage you linked to doesn't even mention Social Democracy. What are you doing? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert Corfe is a prominent British social democratic theorist, he was a member of the short-lived Social Democratic Party of the United Kingdom in the 1980s.--R-41 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Or social democratic theorist Robin Archer who wrote about the importance of social corporatism to social democracy in his work Economic Democracy: The Politics of a Feasible Socialism (1995) [9].

• I will add social corporatism to the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Or even Third Way social democrat and British Prime Minister Tony Blair who has described Third Way social democracy as an "ethical socialism" (Stephen D. Tansey, Nigel A. Jackson. Politics: the basics. Fourth Edition. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2008. Pp. 97.)

• This talk page isn't discussing Third Way social democracy. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Third Way social democracy is a form of social democracy.--R-41 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There, you said you wanted a source, now you've got it. These completely call into question your attempt to describe contemporary social democracy as clearly being a form of capitalism based on your apparent orthodox Marxist interpretation of the definition of socialism. I am describing to you in detail the problems with your assertions because I know what you are trying to do: since you can't prove that all modern social democracy is capitalist - as you want to prove, you are legitimize the article to say: "most modern social democracy is capitalist, oh but here is some minority of social democrats who still are socialists". But you present no evidence from actual social democrats theorists who admit that the ideology is capitalist. Don't lie and pretend I didn't provide you evidence before this post - you know that I have, you acknowledged earlier in the talk page the sources I provided about Corfe, and now you are now pretending that I haven't provided you any sources, stop this petty game of feigned ignorance.--R-41 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• And here's a referenced source and quotation on the view on mixed economy by Eduard Bernstein, the founder of social democracy. Bernstein predicted a long-term co-existence of political democracy with a mixed economy, and stated that socialists needed to accept this.(Source: Manfred B. Steger. The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. 146.)

"It [socialism] would be completely mad to burden itself with the additional tasks of so complex a nature as the setting up and controlling of comprehensive state production centers on a mass scale – quite apart from the fact that only certain specific branches of production can be run on a national basis…Competition would have to be reckoned with, at least in the transitional period." Eduard Bernstein (Manfred B. Steger. The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. 146.)

• The article already mentions welfare state which is a form of mixed economy. I will change market economy to mixed. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• So as you can see social democrats have accepted a mixed economy as a necessary part of their political agenda since the very beginning of social democracy with Bernstein.--R-41 (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• The article already mentions welfare state which is a form of mixed economy. I will change market economy to mixed. I am removing the tags. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 May 2012

According to Bernstein, unlike orthodox Marxism, social democracy did not seek to create a socialism separate from bourgeois society but instead sought to create a common development based on Western humanism. There should be a comma after Marxism. Ericismyname (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of the problem with the intro. This is what the intro should at least RESEMBLE (for many reasons, NPOV being just one):

The following seems to be a better form to base the intro on. It is less NPOV-problematic sounding, and would not cause a problem with the 2 sides, the first of whom say that social-democracy is a form of socialism, and the other side who disagree and say it is an ideology that works within the confines of capitalism. Especially because both of those sides have scholarly sources supporting them, and going with one at the expense of the other's would not be very NPOV and wouldn't make sense. Here is what it SHOULD be: (Oh, and I obviously don't mean word for word, but I mean someone should write the intro to reflect the following):

"'Social democracy is a ...blah ..blah.... ideology that sits somewhere between the centre-left and the left (no further left than where "socialism" would start, though) on the political spectrum."

Or, one can also add : "Social-democracy was developed/came into existence... as a result of the break-away of the most right-wing factions of former socialists who believed that socialism (or the main establishments in socialist circles) were too doctrinaire, or were unwilling to attempt to work within capitalist confines to at least make life easier/better (in the views of the would-be social-democrats) DURING the journey to attempt to reform society to a more socialist economy...blah blah.

Basically saying that the social-democrats believed that they shouldn't stop at simply trying to overturn capitalism, because they thought/think that realistically, capitalism won't be gone overnight, and during the process, it was possible to at least work with what couldn't be changed immediately to make life easier for everyone under whatever levels of capitalism they would still be living under... Do you see where I am going with this? 99.246.182.5 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you are attempting to help, what you have written above is complete nonsense, and assumes simplistically that all individuals and political parties fall somewhere on some imaginary one dimensional line known as the "political spectrum" - i.e. communism on the far left, and fascism or capitalism (which, by the way, is not even a political ideology but rather an economic one), on the far right. Since, in reality, with unfettered capitalism without some political system to guide it, our society would essentially become what I call corporate feudalism, one must use at very least a two dimensional model, such as a circle, or an x/y grid, to more accurately compare different political ideologies for any meaningful dialogue to occur. I refer you to http://www.politicalcompass.org for one such example that even most Americans will understand. :-) Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A user removed the word "officially" from the intro's first sentence. I have restored it. It now says that "Social democracy is officially a form of reformist democratic socialism". This is based on the Socialist International's Frankfurt Declaration that most social democratic parties in the world officially support. With the term "officially" included, readers can choose from their review whether to accept the official stance that it is socialist or reject that stance from looking at the criticisms of that claim listed in the article.--R-41 (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012

Gomezfox (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish to change the following sentence: "Those who believe that social democracy abandoned socialism contend that it it so in the 1930s by endorsing Keynesian welfare capitalism."

My request is: Change "it it so in the 1930s by endorsing" to "it occurred in the 1930s through the endorsement of"

I believe this is what the author intended. While this does not affect the ideas espoused by its content, this is my first (then revised--will investigate sandbox in the future) attempted change to a page with any protected status. I thank you for your time and attention.

Gomezfox (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing out the error. Rivertorch (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: you modified your request after I'd made the change you originally requested. I think the wording as it stands now is satisfactory. If you disagree, follow the directions in the box at the top of this thread to reactivate your request. Rivertorch (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Harrington on the "social democratic compromise"

On page 93 of Socialism: Past and Future by socialist political theorist Michael Harrington, he says that social democracy's endorsement of Keynesian welfare capitalism was part of a "social democratic compromise", he says was done to entrench a welfare state, saying "This new perspective allowed them not to create socialism but to build welfare states that recognized noncapitalist and even anticapitalist, principles of human need over and above the imperatives of profit." On the "social democratic compromise" involving Keynesianism, "a Keynesian capitalism under socialist governments would now generate such growth that, without being forced to redistribute wealth, the surplus would make possible an endless improvement of the quality of social life. It seemed that the socialists had become the normal party of government on the Continent, and their conservative opponents were forced to accept measures they had once denounced on principle." "This new socialist pragmatism led, in theory and practice, to utopias hostile to one another yet sharing basic assumptions.". Harrington says on several pages, that social democracy believes that capitalism be reformed from within and that gradually a socialist economy will be created, on page 103, he says that in the 1930s "There was a ferment in the movement, a break with the old either/or Kautskyan tradition, a new willingness to develop socialist programs that could work with and modify capitalism, but that fell far short of a "revolutionary" transformation." This is what the "social democratic compromise" was.--R-41 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting quote - can you explain why you hAve presented it. TFD (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The user Somedifferentstuff has complained that the word "compromise" is vague and wanted details for what the page in Harrington's book said. I have provided material that shows that the phrase "social democratic compromise" was literally used by Harrington, so it is an accurate representation of the author's claims.--R-41 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The criticisms section is unbalanced and POV-pushing only focusing on criticisms by certain socialists and not showing rebukes of such criticisms, nor other criticisms by non-socialists

It is valid to have a criticism section, but the way it is laid out is to present a clear POV, that social democracy betrayed socialism and is capitalist. The criticism section focuses only on showing anti-social-democratic socialists denouncing it as a form of capitalism. It does not show any rebukes of those criticisms and it does not show any criticisms from non-socialists. The criticisms section now appears to be a soapbox for anti-social-democratic socialists' perspectives, and nothing else. Just look at the following reference that is used in this article, it is by a third-party anarchist website that shows no author and no sources in what is written, [10], that falls under Wikipedia:Original Research and should be removed. It keeps referring to "Marxists" criticizing social democracy, but which Marxists? Orthodox Marxists and Marxist-Leninists have criticized social democracy, but social democracy itself was founded by a Revisionist Marxist, Eduard Bernstein. I am not removing that material yet, because I want users to see the inappropriate anti-social-democratic POV-pushing and use of poor quality third party websites, that has been taking place on this article. It either needs to be improved, show other non-socialist criticisms of social democracy, and show the rebukes of such criticisms, or else the section should be removed for violating NPOV.--R-41 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, it has been three months since I addressed these serious POV issues, zero action has been taken to rectify them, so I have removed the section.--R-41 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree (apparently the criticisms section is back)--it's more than a little odd that the only listed criticisms of an essentially socialist set of economic principles come from groups that are even more socialist. It's a very good idea to have a criticisms section, but some more mainstream criticisms should be listed. 24.252.81.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To user or users concerned: discuss reasons for why social democracy as a whole should be recognized as being capitalist today

Somedifferentstuff has regularly sought to include in the intro that social democracy has completely abandoned socialism and has become capitalist. I have rejected that assertion as have other users, including User:OrangeMike who have rejected Somedifferentstuff's claims before. We have discussed this before for a long time, but it looks like it needs to be brought up again.--R-41 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

He actually wrote, "a number of prominent modern social democratic parties have abandoned the goal of the gradual evolution of capitalism to socialism and instead support welfare state capitalism."[11] I do not see anything wrong with this comment. TFD (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Where have they declared that they have abandoned socialism? The answer is they haven't, so the next best response by Somedifferentstuff will be that in practice they have abandoned socialism. And have all social democrats in these parties abandoned socialism? I doubt it. It is the Third Way proponents who are denounced for supporting capitalism, and there have been many anti-Third Way social democrats. The people who have said that social democracy has been capitalist from the get-go are communists and orthodox Marxists. The sentence is in dispute precisely because it is saying that the parties themselves have abandoned socialism as a doctrine. It is the Third Way proponents who are attacked as being effective sell-outs to capitalism by left-wing critics - and as I've noted such left-wing critics have included social democrats. The source I added on Third Way being condemned as capitalist was an appropriate statement, plus the issue of welfare capitalism is already addressed in the intro, Somedifferentstuff (who holds either an orthodox Marxist or perhaps Marxist-Leninist view of socialism) is merely aggravated that Harrington's rebuke of such criticism didn't allow the punch out blow to say "social democracy has entirely abandoned socialism, it is capitalism" - which is the POV that Somedifferentstuff wants to have in the article. P.S. I've gone to enough NDP meetings in my country of Canada to know that there are many outspoken socialists, ranging from moderate to more radical, in the social democratic movement. If you want a quote from NDP strategist, former NDP president and second-place NDP leadership candidate Brian Topp whom I personally met with, I asked him about how all the negative media about the term socialism in the US 2008 election would affect how the Conservatives would attack our party, and how he stood on the matter of socialism given the bad American press on it. I can't remember what he said word-for-word, but he approximately said to me "of course our party is socialist, the matter is the way the media portrays socialism...I attended a Socialist International conference that discusses the means to achieve democratic socialism." Topp was referring to the SI meeting in Athens he attended in 2011. I have spoken with the party's major Quebec lieutenant Pierre Ducasse, who self-describes as a socialist and is disgusted with Blairite Third Way.--R-41 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Labour Party abandoned Clause Four in 1995. The SPD had abandoned Marxism in 1959. The NDP is probably the most left-wing social democratic party around, but then they have only recently become a contender federally. Even then, they have watered down their stated principles. Notice that Brian Topp lost the leadership contest. The most successful social democratic parties concentrate on what they can achieve in the near future to help their constituents rather than some long-term plan to achieve socialism. That does not mean that they have abandoned socialism. TFD (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Clause Four advocated nationalization of industry, and the clause was subject to attack by Labour's right-wing critics because it placed Labour as being a state socialist party. And you don't have to be a capitalist to oppose state socialism, there are many socialists - some far more radical than social democrats - who reject nationalization and state socialism. The Meidner Plan in Sweden came very close to achieving a socially-controlled economy but it was torn up and scrapped when a conservative government came in. Topp was Jack Layton's key strategist and has been a major figure in the party for years, yes he lost the leadership contest - but he did have a lot of support. Plus to Topp's credit, he notes that the media has misrepresented socialism. In the United States, the term "socialism" is almost an obscenity with images of the Bolshevik hammer and sickle and Stalin in uniform being brought to mind, that's why no American progressive wanting to be elected wants the "socialist" label stuck on them. However I do agree with your last point, that they have not abandoned socialism, and even Third Way figures like Blair adamantly insist that they are socialist - Blair says that he believes in the same values that his anti-Third Way critics do, but that Clause IV's open advocacy of state socialism was alienating potential Labour supporters, and because nationalization policies had been so thoroughly attacked by neoliberal economists and politicians. Nationalization policies were politically unviable by the 1990s. Of course pragmatism of winning elections affects any party, but that doesn't mean they have no long-term agendas nor aims, if they didn't, no one would be talking about neoliberalism today.--R-41 (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be influenced by previous interactions with this editor and ask that you re-read the edit. The goal of the Labour Party is not "the gradual evolution of capitalism to socialism". If it were, then there would be a plan outlining the steps they intend to achieve that goal. Labour has frequently been in office, but never turned the UK into a socialist state. That does not mean they oppose that goal or that many or most members have that goal. Perhaps they once had that goal and planned to achieve it through nationalization, etc. TFD (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Labour is part of the Socialist International, it attends their conventions. When Labour did have Clause IV, it repeatedly sought major nationalizations of important economic sectors when it was in government. However as I said, the Thatcherite Conservatives were adept at condemning state-owned enterprise as economically inefficient, along with rhetorical comparisons by the right of state-owned industry in the West to that in the Soviet Union, and hence nationalization and state socialism became unpopular. Do you have evidence of Labour Party documents show that Labour has declared itself to support capitalism?--R-41 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We have the evidence of a reliable source, which is all we need. We do not need to conduct our own original research by combing through party documents, determining the significance of SI membership (Mubarek's party was a member too), and can rely on secondary sources from academic publishers. TFD (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Many parties have applied, been accepted, or been rejected by the SI. In the late 1980s, with the end of the Cold War, all kinds of parties applied to the SI, many post-communist, some reputable, some most disreputable like Mubarak's party. I won't defend the SI's decision to include Mubarak's party in 1989, but I will point out that the SI expelled it in 2011, plus it rejected Slobodan Milosevic's post-communist Socialist Party of Serbia from applying to the SI in the 1990s, due to Milosevic's known warmongering. So now we are going to say then, without any comment, that "social democracy is now capitalist"?--R-41 (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

R-41, the material doesn't state that it "has completely abandoned socialism and has become capitalist." It states "a number of prominent modern social democratic parties..." TFD, I don't want to re-add the material without some sort of consensus. If you're okay with it, let me know and I'll put it back in. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I could not find the source you used. There is no page 539 in O'Hara, Phillip Anthony (ed.). Encyclopedia of political economy, Volume 2. Could you please provide the source so that we can discuss it. I agree with the comment however. I notice btw that R-41 has made 140 edits to the article in the last two days, none of which are labelled "minor", the overwhelming number of which have no edit summary explaining the changes made. That makes it next to impossible for other editors to follow what changes have been made. TFD (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the book[12] - Google books doesn't have a preview of that page. Regarding R-41's edit summaries, I agree that they are generally problematic. He needs to state more than just the section he's editing. It doesn't have to be long but it should make clear what it is he's doing to that section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at the table of contents for Volume Two, which is on p. 631 which says that the content begins on p. 633.[13] There is no page 539, it would be in Volume One Could you please look at source again and tell me what page it is on. (Your link to Kindle does not appear to have any page numbers at all.) TFD (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I looked at it on google books and it's not accurate. I don't know who originally added this material but it was done incorrectly, unfortunately. When I have time I may look for a different source but I'm not going to do that right now. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The following quotations are from page 538 and 539 of the Encyclopedia of Political Economy, respectively, and are available in the preview for this book on Google:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ncgV5-fvEkoC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=Encyclopedia+of+political+economic+o%27hara&source=bl&ots=wNfZ7clVJo&sig=6x-b7XkbFkVC-DYUvsGDloGvBZg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lNh_UN3sNezqiQKh7oDgAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Social%20democracy&f=false.

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

"During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the welfare state, Keynesian economic policies and industrial agreements to balance the power of capital and labor were the defining features of social democracy." -Battlecry 10:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The second and third sentences in the intro appear to be describing what that the source calls "humanization of capitalism". Social democracy since the days of the self-described humanist Eduard Bernstein has stated that it has never been about overthrowing the capitalist economic system as radical leftists desire, but about changing it from inside out through reforming it, the quotes in the text by Bernstein himself attest to this. What one may call "humanization of capitalism" another could call a step towards socialism (by either a proponent or a critic). So the issue then arises, are economies governed by social democrats today "socialist"? No, they are still capitalist, and if one looks at the ideology of social democracy as developed by Bernstein, it did not expect for socialist economies to just emerge out of the blue upon social democrats rising to power. If we look at only rebukes by the radical left of social democracy, of course it will be presented as conservative and capitalist, if you look at the rebukes by the right or classical liberals, social democracy to them it looks like a step towards communism. The major faction in social democracy that is widely regarded as having effectively accepted capitalism is the Third Way. Again this is already addressed in the article, this review of Third Way is already stated in the intro.--R-41 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Only partisan sources say that reform of capitalism is "a step towards socialism". Find a serious source that supports your opinion. TFD (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Harrington's source is a serious source. Michael Harrington is a political scientist and scholar along with being a socialist. His book is sold at university book stores for academic consumption. It is well known that Eduard Bernstein promoted gradualist reforms of the capitalist system to achieve socialism, he didn't call for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, you can call it "partisan" if you wish - but that is what a major social democratic figure promoted. As for Harrington's source, if you have a problem with it, bring it to a noticeboard on sources for administrators and people familiar with source review to examine. I stand by the material I added to this article from Harrington's book.--R-41 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Humanization of capitalism" usually refers to governmental provision of social welfare programs and interventionism to make capitalism more amicable to the population. The source states that social democracy may be used to refer to "humanization of capitalism" or a an evolutionary strategy for building socialism. The lead should reflect this double meaning for the phrase "social democracy". The current revision is a convoluted mess that will confuse readers not familiar with the subject. Given that, I think my revision from February 2012 is a better basis for the lead because it recognizes the two different definitions, is clear and concise. -Battlecry 23:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

His career as a socialist. He never studied political science and AFAIK never published any articles or books in the academic press. Both Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton were politcal science professors as well as leading political parties, that does not mean that their non-academic political writing is any more reliable than that of their political competitors. TFD (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

According to his obituary, Harrington was a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Queens College in Flushing.--R-41 (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In Europe there are many Marxists who identify as social democrats. --MeUser42 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Never heard that - any examples? TFD (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dov_Khenin, Ilan Gilon. --MeUser42 (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to ask my marxit social-democratic sister who lives in Italy for names from there. --MeUser42 (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

TFD this is not the place to address your complaints over the source. Present your complaints to a noticeboard on sources where users and administrators familiar with policy on sources to review your complaints.--R-41 (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, what is allowed is very wide, but best practice is to use the best sources, and this is the place to discuss it. Best practice is to identify relevant, recent and scholarly sources. TFD (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at their articles, there is no evidence that either is a Marxist and calls themselves a social democrat, although Khenin is a member of a marxist party and Gilon is a member of a social democratic party. TFD (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Both are both. :) in this article appears the following qoute: "...אבל אני מרקסיסט, אני לא מאמין בהפרטה, אם כבר - התוכנית הזאת צריכה להיות תוכנית לאומית". " Which translates to: "But I'm a Marxist, I don't believe in privatization, if anything - this program should be nationalized". In the Hebrew wikipedia we also had his parliamentary assistant personally verify this in the talk page. Here Khenin is saying his a social democrat (unlike his opponent therefor the prefix). I know this is common in countries where the term "social-democrat" is very popular in the public (France, Spain, Portugal ext.), but this is almost always not in English, so it's hard to google, as the Anglosphere is very different politically from the Mediterranean. --MeUser42 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Why are we using Michael Harrington's books as sources?[14] He was not an historian and basically his books are primary sources for this article. TFD (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Related to that, I think my edit was an improvement. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we use Harrington's book? Harrington was a political theorist, a scholar, and yes he was a democratic socialist. Harrington's book is sold at university libraries for academic consumption. This book was acclaimed in reviews by The New York Times and the magazine Foreign Affairs. His work is a study of socialism and is a study of history of socialism, including social democracy. Harrington's book is an excellent, scholarly quality in-depth study of socialism. Primary sources are not forbidden on Wikipedia, Wikipedia's policy on primary sources is the following: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." It has been reliably published by Arcade Publishing which is a subsidiary of Skyhorse Publishing. If you believe I am misusing Harrington's source in my paraphrasing of it, I could amend what I have written. But if you are still not satisfied then I suggest you bring it up to a noticeboard on sources for other non-involved users including administrators who are familiar with Wikipedia policies, to examine this. And if you have a problem with the source, this is not a place for it to be resolved effectively, raise the issue at a noticeboard about sources to have administrators and those familiar with Wikipedia policies on sources such as this, to review it.--R-41 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources...." The argument that a source should be used because it may be used is avoiding the question of why it should be used. No reasonable scholar would rely on a political book written in 1989 for nineteenth century history, just as they would not rely on Palin's memoirs for the history of the American revolution. Of course Harrington was a much much better informed, but you are just opening the floodgates to POV pushing. And yes this is the page to discuss article content.

MeUser is correct that his edit improves the prose, while R-41 is correct that the term "Third Way" was not used in Harrington's lifetime. That is one more reason why we should be using more recent sources.

TFD (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it wasn't used at that time, but the lead should give an up to date view of the subject, and not mirror a source from 1989. --MeUser42 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No MeUser's edit misrepresented what Harrington wrote. Harrington's source is an indepth study of socialism, including social democracy, it is available at university book stores for academic consumption. And as I said it is a excellent indepth study of socialism, and as Wikipedia policy states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". Contrary to your inaccurate claim that he was not involved in academic political science, according to his obituary, Harrington was a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Queens College in Flushing. TFD, if you have a problem with the source, you should bring it up to an appropriate noticeboard to have other users, and particularly administrators review whether the source is acceptable to be used in the article.--R-41 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is not whether a source is allowed but whether a reasonable editor would choose it over many other sources. Why do you think that a non-academic book written by the American socialist leader, who had an MA in English literature, in 1989 is the best available source for 19th century socialism? TFD (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Harrington's source is well-written, his work was republished in 2011 and is sold in university book stores, Harrington was a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Queens College in Flushing - so he didn't just get an MA in English literature, he was regarded as capable in political science by Queens College in Flushing. Furthermore: Harrington is considered important enough to be listed in The Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Political Thinkers (1998). So by neglecting that TFD, and only mentioning that he got an MA in English literature, that appears to be resorting to character assassination of a respected scholar. People don't just reject Foucault's analyses just because the man died in 1984, and people still talk about Marx's analyses long after he died. And yes, there are socialist and Marxist scholars like Eric Hobsbawm who are respected scholars regardless of their political affiliations. Material on Third Way after Harrington's death is recognized in the intro and the main body of the articl by other sources. As I have said, and will say again for the last time, if you have a problem with the source, bring it up to an appropriate noticeboard to have other users, and particularly administrators review whether the source is acceptable to be used in the article.--R-41 (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comparison with Marx is apt. Both were original thinkers whose works are studied by scholars today. Neither of them wrote academic papers. No scholar today would rely on Marx's history of the revolution of 1848 for factual information, but would only use it for Marx's analysis, i.e., as a primary source. Our role is to identify the best sources and report what they say. You have original views on ideology, but they do not belong here until you start publishing papers which can then be used as sources. Incidentally I never take any account of the qualifications or viewpoint of individual writers, merely where they were published. An unsigned article in the Globe and Mail is a reliable source, while a campaign speech by the former Liberal leader, who is celebrated Harvard professor, is not. 20:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources and Criticisms

I have added in a criticism section on contemporary social democracy by socialists. It is by no means complete, but it is a start, and includes reputable sources that define -contemporary- social democracy as a welfare state.

Socialist critics of contemporary social democracy include Democratic socialists, Marxian socialists, market socialists, Syndicalists and anarchists. Socialist criticisms of social democratic policies range from critiques of the welfare state and social corporatism to critiques of the political strategy of reformism.

Marxian socialists of the classical, orthodox and analytical variations argue that because social democratic programs retain the capitalist mode of production, they also retain the fundamental issues of capitalism, including cyclical fluctuations, exploitation and alienation. Social democratic programs intended to ameliorate capitalism, such as unemployment benefits, taxation on profits and on the wealthy, create contradictions of their own by limiting the efficiency of the capitalist system by reducing incentives for capitalists to invest in the economy.

Democratic socialists, such as David Schweickart, contrast social democracy with democratic socialism by defining the former as an attempt to strengthen the welfare state, and the latter as an alternative socialist economic system to capitalism. According to Schweickart, the democratic socialist critique of social democracy states that capitalism could never be sufficiently "humanized", and any attempt to suppress the economic contradictions of capitalism would only cause them to emerge elsewhere. For example, attempts to reduce unemployment too much would result in inflation, and too much job security would erode labor discipline. In contrast to social democracy, democratic socialists advocate a post-capitalist economic system based either on market socialism combined with workers self-management, or on some form of participatory-economic planning.

Market socialists contrast social democracy with market socialism. While a common goal of both systems is to achieve greater social and economic equality, market socialism does so by changes in enterprise ownership and management, whereas social democracy attempts to do so by government-imposed taxes and subsidies on privately-owned enterprises. Frank Roosevelt and David Belkin criticize social democracy for maintaining a property-owning capitalist class, which has an active interest in reversing social democratic policies and a disproportionate amount of power over society to influence governmental policy as a class.

And I thought I would include this because it is representative of the "mainstream" definition of social democracy in the post-War era: a presentation by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftungs's Academy for Social Democracy that basically defines social democracy as a balance between positive and negative rights within the framework of a market economy, which is achieved through taxation on private enterprise and the wealthy in order to finance universal public services, a.k.a, a re-distributionist welfare state: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftungs's Academy for Social Democracy Presentation.

Here is another example where social democracy is defined as a welfare state: Rival Models to Capitalism: Can the Nordic Model Survive the New Global Economic System? defines social democracy as follows: "Scandinavian economies are characterised as 'small and export dependent' and heavily emphasize social spending. In short, they are a social-democratic welfare state."

Criticism section aside, I still think the lead section needs to be more clear about the multiple definitions of social democracy, giving equal weight to the traditional definition of social democracy as a form of reformist socialism, and the contemporary definition and practice meaning support for a welfare state and some form of mixed economy. - Battlecry 04:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Battlecry, you have said, "I have added in a criticism section on contemporary social democracy by socialists". And by that statement, the criticism section takes on POV, because it is focusing on a specific section of criticism. The criticism section needs to have criticisms of social democracy by non-socialists as well. And since it is a section showing criticisms of social democracy, responses countering such criticisms need to be shown, in order for the criticisms to not merely appear as "the truth" but a perspective, in order for the section to be present from a NPOV.--R-41 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It is usually poor form to have a criticism section and often becomes a POV nightmare. Better to incorporate the criticism into the article. After all, criticism can come from different angles and at different time periods and can be reasonable or irrational. TFD (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting all references in the paragraphs, except for the last sentence, is this acceptable?

I understand that in things like essays, people can put the reference on the last sentence of a paragraph. But given that Wikipedia passages are bound to be scrutinized, the editor who is removing these references may be opening a Pandora's Box if material is challenged and claimed to be "unreferenced", because a source is not directly behind it. Furthermore, this will cause more complications should real unreferenced material be inserted inside the paragraph, in which the final source on the paragraph will not support it. What do others think?--R-41 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Is social democracy emphatically opposed to revolution and demanding only "peaceful" reformist means, even in cases of abject authoritarian tyranny in a society?

The intro sentence that says that social democracy seeks "peaceful" means to achieve socialism in my view seems to be necessitating peaceful means as unequivocal. This does not match the history of the social democratic movement in Europe. In Europe, social democrats joined in congradulating Alexander Kerensky and his revolutionary and democratic socialist Socialist Revolutionary party's success in achieving the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II in the February Revolution of 1917, and both recognized and supported his Russian Provisional Government. In World War II there were social democratic parties both in exile and in parliaments, that supported the forceful overthrow of the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy.--R-41 (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

They never supported revolution to achieve socialism, merely revolution to achieve liberal democracy. TFD (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly they did not believe that a revolution should impose socialism. But shouldn't the context of reformism be more clear in the intro. That they are reformist for pursuing socialism through multiparty representative democracy, but that they have historically supported revolution against undemocratic tyrannies in order to achieve multiparty democratic systems. I mean the way it is stated, it sounds like social democrats in 1930s Germany would be supporting "reforming" the Nazi regime.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think so. And of course they work with other groups to overthrow repression, including in the past in colonial countries. TFD (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So what should the intro be saying then about reformism? I presume it should be saying that it supports reformist measures via representative democracy. But also that it insists on the presence of representative democracy in society and that historically it has supported democratic revolutions in conjunction with other democratic-minded movements, against undemocratic authoritarian regimes. That clarifies that it is not merely going to advocate political reforms within a totalitarian state and society like Nazi Germany.--R-41 (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Most political groups will revolt if deemed necessary. This should not be confused with general ideological beliefs. One of the main foundations of social democracy is using democracy to achieve its goals as opposed to revolution. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

How is the intro biased because it mentions Marxist influence? The ideology was founded by a revisionist Marxist

Somedifferentstuff's allegation that the intro is biased because it describes the influence of revisionist Marxist Eduard Bernstein, is misguided. The ideology was founded by a revisionist Marxist, the ideology has evolved away from association with Marxism for various reasons, and the issue of association with Marxism has been a cause of controversy throughout the history of social democracy - whether it be through social democrats defending themselves during red scares or the stand-off in the Labour Party over Clause IV initiated by the anti-Marxist Third Way that sought to strip the Labour Party of all remaining Marxist ideology and especially as a means of purging the party of the image of having far-left sympathies within it due to the far-left Trotskyist Militant tendency having significance in the party from the 1960s to the 1980s. So Marxism in one way or another is very significant to social democracy and social democratic movements, ignoring that significance is missing the point of understanding the very founding of the ideology.--R-41 (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

((interjected)) The way R-41 titled this section is misleading. See my comment below regarding Marx and Engels. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem relates to the topic itself. Social democracy is not clearly defined and therefore if we have an article we need to be clear about its scope. We have three articles - socialism, social democracy and democratic socialism which are interchangeable terms, although different writers may make various distinctions. The division between reform and revolutionary socialism pre-dates Bernstein, Lasalle was reformist. The division however only became distinct during the First World War and has diminished following the end of the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And hence, as usual TFD when you have difficulty finding "clear" agreement, you are resorting to relativism that will conclude by leaving the intro only able to say "social democracy may be something, that something does not have total agreement amongst people, thus social democracy may or may not exist" - I am tired of your common tendency to resort to relativism - it is a cheap excuse of avoiding simply saying "I don't know" by saying instead "there is no clear definition". I doubt there could even be a "clear definition" of what a "bird" is. Mainstream sources state that Bernstein is the major figure who developed it.--R-41 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarship does not say that Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932) developed social democracy, but that it had been developed by Ferdinand Lasalle (1825-1864) and his followers who founded the SDP's predecessor in 1863, when Bernstein was 13. Bernstein of course was a prominent "revisionist", but the first revisionist is considered to be Karl Kautsky. Again, we are going down the road of original research. If you do not think Lasalle was a social democrat, then what was he? And what is the difference between him and social democrats? (Incidentally, a quick search of Google books for "Lasalle"+"social democracy" shows lots of sources that call him and his followers as the founder.) TFD (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Present those sources here and present the WP:WEIGHT of those sources in comparison with ones that speak of Bernstein as the founder.--R-41 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

None of your sources say that Bernstein was the founder. TFD (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave you the Google search.[15] The first previewable hit says, "By then, Lasalle's group had already named their party organ “the Social-democrat.” The concept of “social democracy” that deliberately distinguishes itself from “liberal democracy” was likely born around this time."[16] TFD (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The information that Marx and Engels influenced social democracy is a fact and is sourced.[17] R-41's anti-Marxist bias is bleeding into the lead, disrupting the layout as can be seen here.[18] Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say that. It says it is "[b]ased on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.... [It] was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine...." Also it appears to be about German social democracy. Marxism was never the only strand of socialism. TFD (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

To TFD: There is division on whether Lassalle or Bernstein can be considered the founder of social democracy. Upon review, it is true that there are a number of sources that credit him as the founder. Other sources say that Bernstein founded social democracy. However it is clear that sources state that Bernstein was instrumental in developing social democracy as a gradualist, evolutionary, and reformist socialist movement. We could sum it up by saying that social democracy as a reformist socialist movement began to develop under the influences of Lassalle and Bernstein, as that would account for both. I support your advice TFD, that we need to include Lassalle, upon reviewing books that describe him as the founder.--R-41 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

To Somedifferentstuff: No, I have included material on Marx and Engels in the intro, and now I have added more material on Marx's and Engels' influence on social democracy. You, Somedifferentstuff deleted material that I added on Marx and Engels - and you know it, so are you anti-Marxist then for removing material on Marx and Engels that I added? Somedifferentstuff, it is you who has the POV agenda here. You clearly have an orthodox Marxist or Marxist-Leninist POV and your goal is to present social democracy as capitalist, not long ago you wanted to devote the entire intro into saying that social democracy is now capitalist. No other major article on an ideology devotes material to criticizing the ideology in the intro. You have no right to accuse me of anti-Marxist POV when it is you who is deciding what form of Marxism is Marxism, such your deletion of material that stated that Marx and Engels in their latter life endorsed the promotion of socialism through parliamentary democratic means wherever possible, that did not fit your anti-reformist and anti-revisionist, anti-Bernsteinian Orthodox Marxist or Marxist-Leninist POV of what Marx and Engels represent. See your own deletion of material on Bernstein, Marx, and Engels that you deleted by claiming it was unnecessary for the lead, [19].--R-41 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we are confusing different things. As Theodore Draper explains in The roots of American communism, there were two competing versions of socialism in 19th century Germany.[20] There were also two parties, Lasalles' General German Workers' Association (1863) and the Marxist Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany (1869), which merged in 1875 to form the SDP. The SDP's founders, Bebel and Liebknecht, are also sometimes referred to as the founders of social democracy. In 1891, under the leadership of Bernstein, Bebel and Kautsky, the SDP adopted the revisionist Marxist Erfurt Program, and remained officially Marxist until 1959. Hence Bernstein is also considered to be the founder of social democracy. It all depends on how we define the term.

The other problem is that the article claims that the Labour Party and other socialist parties in the Commonwealth and other countries outside Germany are social democratic, yet they developed independently. In any case, many sources draw a distinction between socialist and labor parties.

TFD (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It has to be remembered that even though there were divisions in the socialist movement in the 19th century, that there were efforts by divurgent movements to promote an overall socialist agenda in unison - such as Bakunin's anarchists attempting to press their vision of socialism in the First International while being rejected by Marx. Back then staunch rivals in the socialist movement commonly had dialogues - like Bernstein's dialogues with his rival Kautsky. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a dialogue and exchange of ideas between Marx and Lasalle, regardless of differences they had. I am not familiar with it, but I would assume it exists.--R-41 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also found, even from Friedrich Engels' writings that I have posted in a section in this article, that Chartism could be considered the founding reformist movement that began the path towards the modern reformist social democracy. If we included Chartism, that would would bring social democracy's influences and origins prior to Marxism itself, to the 1830s. Bear in mind that in the 1880s, was a period where both Marx and Engels were considering the prospects of an elected working-class-led government in the aftermath of electoral reforms in Britain that had given Britain almost universal suffrage, abandoning previous property requirements for voting.--R-41 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Chartism was a form of radicalism, not socialism. The problem with this article is it is about socialism excluding the revolutionary variety. It is really more appropriate to a dictionary than an encyclopedia, and can really only be written as original research. TFD (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Back to the point: was Lassalle a revisionist Marxist reformist socialist like Bernstein, or a non-Marxist reformist socialist?--R-41 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No, he was not a Marxist but a rival and also an influence on Bernstein and Bismarck too, which some writers have called "right-wing socialism". TFD (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Then Somedifferentstuff's adamant demand that Marxism alone be cited as the origin of the movement is not validated since Lassalle was a major non-Marxist reformist socialist. Nonetheless, contrary to Somedifferentstuff's claims, that my posts here have been "anti-Marxist", I have added material on Marx's and Engels' influence. The issue is the weight of influence. Was Lassalle's influence on the development of reformist social democracy substantial? What specific actions or decisions of Lassalle influenced social democracy?--R-41 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You haven't responded yet, but upon looking at sources, I believe you are accurate. I have chosen a source that describes both the influence of Marxism and Lassalle on social democracy.--R-41 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

R-41, any editor can look at the revision history of the article and see that previously you had violated WP:WEIGHT by placing too much weight on Bernstein as demonstrated here[21](scroll down to the 2nd paragraph of the lead in the article space). --- Later I provided this info[22] which states, "Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your diff doesn't demonstrate anything other than showing that non-Marxist influences have grown in social democracy, and that currently most European social democrats have formally abandoned association with Marxism, those are facts, facts that you may not like, but facts nonetheless. I have included information on Marx and Engels, Lassalle, Kautsky, Podmore, as well as Bernstein. You accuse me of promoting "anti-Marxism", and yet your source from Britannica implicitly states that communism has "totalitarianism" - something that Marxists reject, because communism implies the creation of a stateless society, so are you saying that communism is inherently totalitarian? If so, you come across as promoting anti-Marxism because communism in theory does not support a totalitarian state as its goal. And yes, social democracy became a reformist form of socialism and most people today when referring to contemporary social democracy are not referring to revolutionary socialism, so Bernstein's influence is very valid and minimizing it will confuse any understanding of why today social democracy has come to be associated with evolutionary reformism. But as per your request, we are devoting three paragraphs in the intro to describing in detail all of its origins. Marx and Marxism is mentioned repeatedly in these three paragraphs, so the attention to Marx is fully acknowledged here. So what is now wrong with the intro?--R-41 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL, your denial is hilarious (and somewhat frightening). The diff I provided shows a clear POV violation on your behalf regarding Bernstein. Let's wait to hear from some uninvolved editors to see what they think. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What denial? You accuse me of being "anti-Marxist" when in that very paragraph I am describing that a revisionist Marxist is responsible for developing social democracy in its contemporary reformist form. Your resorting to "LOL"s is merely an arrogant means of diversion of my answer. Now then, what are you denying? The answer: (1) That you have had a long-term interest in editing this article for the explicit purpose of declaring that contemporary social democracy is capitalist. (2) That your rendition of Marxism that you regard as "true" Marxism and that mentioning that contemporary SD was founded by a revisionist Marxist as being "anti-Marxist", is a very clear example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. And that you have an editing history that clearly confirms that you rejected a statement by a scholar on the article Marxism that stated that Marx in his later life supported the achievement of socialism through reformist means where-ever possible, you responded by simply stating that the author is "wrong" - with no explanation whatsoever - that was your gut instinct because accepting that would go against your anti-reformist ideal of what "true" Marxism is. That Marx in his later life supported reformist measures to advance socialism is now completely confirmed by quotes by Marx himself in this article. (3) That you are likely anti-Bernsteinian and associate Bernstein with the defiling of Marxism as asserted by classical Marxists, Luxembourgists, and Marxist-Leninists, as this is characterized by your regular dismissal of Bernstein's views on Marx and his contributions to Marxist theory as insignificant. Therefore your motives here are highly suspect of POV, that you do not admit. I admit that I am a social democrat on my talk page. But I do temper my social democratic viewpoints by seriously attempting to address controversial topics to me and other SDs, like Stalinism from a balanced perspective. So the question is Somedifferentstuff what is the ideology behind your mask? And what are you doing to acknowledge your biases.--R-41 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think when sources discuss Bernstein as the founder of social democracy they are referring to the SPD. However this article combines the SDP with other parties and refers to them all as social democrats, which goes beyond what the sources claim and is therefore original research. TFD (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Bernstein, along with other Marxists, such as Karl Kautsky and the entire Social Democratic Party of Germany (which was Marxist until well into the 1950s) are seen as the fathers of social democracy... What we see in this article is the lack of emphasize on social democracy's clear Marxist roots, not the opposite.. All socialist ideologies have developed out of Marxism that is not controversial to say at all, and social democracy developed because of the establishment of the Soviet Union - those who supported revolution supported the USSR became revolutionary socialists (literally communists), those who supported establishing a socialist society by liberal democratic means became social democrats.. I support R-41 in this. --TIAYN (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The SDP was founded by Bernstein and others and had a Marxist program, and if that is the definition of social democracy then all is hunky dory. But socialist parties existed elsewhere in the world before the founding of the SDP. You need to provide evidence that Britain's Labour Party and France's Socialist Party were founded on the principles of Bernstein. Unlikely since their origins can be traced to groups that existed before the founding of the SPD. We might want to merge this article into the article about the SPD. TFD (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The French socialist movement was inspired, and heavily influenced by Marx (I think, I don't quite remember, even his son-in-law was a founding member of a large french socialist party).... The Labour Party was also heavily influenced by Marxism... If Bernstein inspired, or established social democracy is out of the question, he didn't, but he was one of the most influential figures within the socialist movement at the time... But yes, the UK labour party was heavily influenced by marxism; a quick search on google books even proves that. The same goes to the French socialist movement, and the Western European socialist movement.. Social democracy as a clear, distinct movement came first after the Soviet Union was established... Before that, groups with clear ideological distinctions all called themselves social democratic (for instance, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (bolsheviks), the German Social Democratic Party, Labour Party (UK))... The common denominator of these parties were heavy influences from Marxism... Without Marxism no social democracy, no socialism, no communism.. Its that simple. --TIAYN (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is how one history of the SPD explains it, "At the high point of its international influence--that is, during the decade or two prior to the First World War--the SPD was the model for the world socialist movement, not in the sense that the parties of other nations copied it, but because it seemed to demonstrate the enormous potential of organizing the industrial working class for political ends.... In some ways the SPD is an even more fascinating subject for the second of two reasons previously defined--its relationship to Marxism.... Like Russian communism, the theory of the SPD during the Bismarckian and Wilhelmian periods (1871-1918), as the present study argues, cannot simply be labelled as Marxist and left at that. A good many conflicting and sometimes incompatible forces gave rise to and sustained German social democracy, not all of which had much to do with Marxism. Nonetheless for much of the first fifty years of the SPD and its predecessors, Marxism was the strongest ideological element, with the most fecund minds of the movement probing the works of Marx and Engels for guidance. Marxism was so important in these years as to generate a full-scale effort by Eduard Bernstein to replace it with his own revisionism." (pp. xi-xiii)[23] Despite the prominence of Marx within socialism, there were other influences as well and typically socialist parties developed out of liberalism, particularly radicalism, in their respective countries. TFD (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's true, and socialism also has its roots back to the French Revolution and, as you say, radicalism.... But the quote is in agreement with my views (or what I've learnt on the matter), Marxism was the biggest influence.. Other influences were fabianism, Robert Owenism and so on - there were many influences, but as said, Marxism was the biggest influence.. --TIAYN (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The heading of the discussion thread says, "The ideology was founded by a revisionist Marxist". As the sources show, that is an oversimplification. TFD (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay... I agree with you.--TIAYN (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect, yes my title was an oversimplification, but Bernstein was a major figure in developing social democracy involving evolutionary reformism.--R-41 (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Social Democracy vs Socialism: not only since the "Third Way" discourse of the 1990s

The Godesberg Program of the German SPD in 1959 explicitely accepted the principles of a free market and private competition. From then on social democracy in Germany was about to concentrate on the fact that a "free market" in fact would have to be a regulated market, to not to degenerate into oligarchy. Further, it concentrated on providing an internally sovereign state which remains able to define and realize the core social rights of its citizens, and therefore remains an interventionist welfare state. Therefore, social democracy in Germany from then on essentially ceased to be part of socialism, which still seeks to abandon the market (if reformist, without revolution). I know, the question if social democracy is socialism has already been discussed on these pages, it's different from country to country and from national terminology to national terminology. However, by now this article still presents social democracy exclusively as a part of socialism (until the 1990s). This ought to be changed. I'll start to do so when I'll have the time, but maybe before that we discuss this here. --JakobvS (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make it less socialist, just less statist... Just like the Chinese communists are still communists after abandoning the planned economy, social democrats are still socialists.. Secondly, the 1959 abandoned Marxism, not socialism. --TIAYN (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Socialism is whatever socialists believe. TFD (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, that is the truth... We have a saying here in Norway, "Socialism is what the Labour Party says it is"... --TIAYN (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting. The English version, attributed to Morrison, is "Socialism is what a Labour government does."[24] TFD (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

hm, the Norwegian statement has its origins back to the 1970s, 1980s.... who said it??? I'll come back to you on that tomorrow since can't remember who it was exactly, OK? --TIAYN (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, we don't seem to agree on what these terms mean. Of course there are "official definitions" of the terms socialism, communism, and social democracy in the dictionaries of politics and of history that I own, but they, too, differ from each other, and furthermore they are all in bloody German, so not citeable here ;). A somewhat broader consensus of them could be described like this 1. Communism wants to abolish capitalism, and seeks to replace it by the dictatorship of the proletariat, achieved by a revolution. 2. Socialism wants to abolish capitalism, and seeks to replace it by a system where everything is allowed except of doing business, and it wants to achieve it either by revolution or evolution. 3. Social democracy was part of socialism until the cold war, but strictly insisted on a democratic way. Since 1945, social democracy globally (e.g. in Scandinavia, Brazil, Germany ...) has become part of the capitalist spectrum, where it just seeks to civilize capitalism via the welfare state. Note, however, that capitalism here is used in a broad sense to define our whole system, i.e. a parliamentary or presidential democracy, that has to respect and protect certain individual civil rights (dignity, life, freedom, property, .... and maybe certain defined social basics, - greetings to Scandinavia), where generally the citizens are free to do business. I guess you won't all agree on that, but I think it still should somehow be mentioned in the article. Your comments?--JakobvS (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no definition of social democracy, which the central problem of this article. And Socialists have supported capitalism and imperialism since the time of Lassalle. TFD (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult, if next to near impossible to define any broad term used to describe something. The Wikipedia article "Bird" demonstrates this, it is extremely complex, because the topic is so broad, birds have many varieties, different characteristics. That is the problem here, the term "socialism" can be traced to certain origins and ideas, but it has branched off in many directions. The first declared "socialism" promoted by Henri de Saint-Simon would produce disgruntlement and probably denouncement by revolutionary socialists today like communists and anarchists, because Saint-Simon upheld private property provided that it serve a social utility and he was a religious person. Saint-Simon's rhetoric at times almost sounds like that of the most conservative Third Way supporter if not an all-out neoliberal today, he spoke of two classes - a producer "industrialist" class including employer and employee alike, and the "idler" class that did not produce and lived off the producers' work. But Saint-Simon's famous line "from each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its works" has lasted through history as a very important socialist idea that was adjusted and famously used by Marx as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"--R-41 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Birds form a distinct category of animals. Biologists do not vary in what they are referring when they use the word. Political scientists have attempted to apply biology-like taxonomy to political parties and grouped them by families spirituelles. But that does not apply here. Different writers use the term to describe different things. You cannot synthesize different sources to create a good article. TFD (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What is distinct about birds from other animals then? Describe this. How do you know that any definition of a "bird" is a clearly definable category not subject to debate over the boundaries of that category? What if it is relative? Now as for socialism, so, according to you TFD, we should regard the entire point of describing socialism as hopeless in your perspective, and accept total relativism. Okay then, should we start the straw poll for turning the Socialism article into a disambiguation page to all the variants of socialism? That would be the consequence of accepting that no general definition or description of socialism as a whole, exists.--R-41 (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. Socialism is distinct movement and set of ideas that came together in the First International and expelled anarchists and later Communism emerged from socialism. The real argument is about which of those ideas form the core of socialist thought and how far one may move from them before not being called socialist anymore. You keep accusing me of "relativism" whenever I mention that some (or most) sources disagree with your views. The fact is that social sciences do not have the same sharp definitions as natural sciences.

While I am not a biologist, and therefore cannot define them, there is no difference in what people are referring to when they speak of birds. TFD (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What I have said, is that there are studies that investigate the core principles of socialism, and nowhere have I said that those principles need to be sharp and precise, but that general principles can be identifiable and able to be described, and are described in scholarly studies of socialism. I have said that it is highly difficult to describe a broad and complex topic, that is bound to be confronted with sectarian divisions, but that does not mean that there is an absence of a topic because of sectarian division. You have routinely resorted to an effectively nihilistic relativist response on multiple articles that can be summarized as "there is no complete agreement, there are disagreements, therefore there is no agreement on the subject, therefore there is no description of the subject". Therefore my response made sense, that you appear to be saying that the word has no unified meaning, and if so, the article should be turned into a disambiguation page to direct people to articles on the specific usages of the word "socialism". Your defense against my view that you are resorting to relativism, is that you do have a short and simple description, that is: "Socialism is distinct movement and set of ideas that came together in the First International and expelled anarchists and later Communism emerged from socialism". But what is the "set of ideas"? Why was it a "distinct movement"? What evidence is there that it "came together" in the First International? Anarchists who considered themselves socialists were expelled from the First International, so are those anarchists who identified as socialists, not really socialists then? Why do you imply an implicit need for it to "come together? And what do you mean by saying that the ideology "came together"? - that it genuinely unified? So your very small statement attempting neutrality, has in fact raised a plethora of assumptions and questions that require answering.--R-41 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Other than the fact that communism is considered to be a distinct form of socialism, what is the difference between socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy? Obviously in your obsessive compulsive taxonomy they are different, but in sources the distinction is unclear. So we have three forks of the same turkey. (BTW anarchist are not socialists. If they are, do you intend to categorizdre them as democratic socialists or social democrats? TFD (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion above. May I say, though, lesser when it comes to your personal differences, but more when it represents different historical views on how to understand, distinguish, compare, and discuss social democracy regarding socialism and capitalism. Maybe we could integrate this in the article, just to improve it a bit? I'm thinking of mentioning/describing one tradition/string of understanding social democracy as being merely a necessary completion of capitalism, that starts with several interpretations of Saint-Simon, continues in certain theses of Lasalle, in the Godesberg Program and had another revival/highlight/whatever among the third way discussions. Something like that, d'accord? --JakobvS (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you guys ever though of the possibility of, instead of adding as much information to the lead as possible, there should be written a section called, lets say, "Definition" (or some sort), were this is discussed... There are probably many schools of thought on this matter, so instead of arguing, present all views in a section... R-41 and TFD when you guys discuss topics, is not about improving the article (or articles) most of the time, but who's right... There is no right answer to the questions you are looking for! --TIAYN (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The first line, sourced to Busky's Democratic Socialism, p. 8, reads, "Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form of reformist socialism which seeks to achieve its goals by liberal democratic means." But the source actually says, it is what Communists call democratic socialists. "Social democracy is a somewhat controversial term among democratic socialists. Many democratic socialists use social democracy as a synonym for democratic socialism, while others, particularly revolutionary democratic socialists do not, the latter seeing social democracy as something less than socialism."[25] Socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy refer to the same thing, just have different connotations. The SDP and the Labour Party for example. TFD (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well write that, write a section which it titled "Definition"... however, there are many authors who view (me included) socialism, democratic socialism, socialist democracy as distinct from social democracy.. TDF, that's only one view... And you're view is not more correct that R-41 in the matter, because there is not one answer to this question.. Listen, not one answer, there are, however, multiple answers (and you may subscribe to one of these, but you're answer is not more correct than the others). --TIAYN (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not my view, but the view expressed in the source used to introduce the topic to the article.

Can you provide any sources that explain it differently? TFD (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous sources which says social democracy is not the same as democratic socialism... seriously, just search google books, or read a book about socialism.. Seriously, it buggs me that normal held views are being called untrue, even when thousand of sources mentioned it (nearly everywhere). Just search google books, or anything, and you'ill find different interpretations on social democracy... I mean, here in Norway, socialism and social democracy are considered by most people as two distinct ideologies. This discussion will go on for ages, but im giving up now. --TIAYN (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

When I googled it I came up with the source I provided, which happens to be the source used for this article. Can you provide any sources that provide a different view? We need sources for the article in any case. TFD (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Norway has both a Labor and a Socialist Left party. Is that the distinction you make? The Labor Party is a socialist party while the Left is part of a new category for which there is no agreed name. There are references to the literature in far left - I prefer the term "left parties". But the source for this article classifies all these parties as "democratic socialist". TFD (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

OK

• Search the Oxford dictionary
• [26]
• [27]
• The book Social Democracy in Power: The Capacity to Reform
• The book Social Democracy and Aristocracy: Why Socialist Labor Movements Developed in Some Industrial Countries and Not in Others

Do I need to get more refs??? --TIAYN (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the references. Unfortunately they all same the same thing as Busky. If we accept theses sources, then the article should be just describe the term. If this article is about a specific topic, then we need to identify the topic, otherwise we have three articles about the same thing.

Oxford defines "democratic socialism" as "In general, a label for any person or group who advocates the pursuit of socialism by democratic means. Used especially by parliamentary socialists who put parliamentarism ahead of socialism, and therefore oppose revolutionary action against democratically elected governments. Less ambiguous than social democracy, which has had, historically, the opposite meanings of (1) factions of Marxism, and (2) groupings on the right of socialist parties."[28]

"We perhaps should draw attention to the different meanings given to social democracy and democratic socialism. Originally the term social democracy denoted a concern to make the values of democracy apply to social and economic life, and not simply to the political or legal framework of society. Although in the second half of the twentieth century the terms social democracy and democratic socialism have often been used interchangeably, the latter has been employed for two quite different ends. Some have called themselves democratic socialists in order to distinguish themselves from the undemocratic varieties of socialism. Others, however, have invoked the term to reaffirm their commitment to traditional socialist principles in contrast to the eclectic and fluid connotations of contemporary social democracy. For example, in the Australian and British Labour Parties, the 'moderate' factions tend to identify themselves as social democrats (for example, Crosland, Callaghan, Whitlam, Dunstan) whereas the 'radical' or 'left' factions prefer to call themselves democratic socialists (for example, Holland, Benn, Uren, Duncan). The democratic socialists often use the label social democrat prejoratively to indicate a desertion of or a distancing from a socialist position. Moreover, the moderate fractions, for electoral and ideological reasons, often embrace the opportunity to emphasise their distance from socialism. However, since much of the labelling is ambiguous and has as much to do with internal Party machinations as with political theory, we think that its historical complexity cannot be adequately analysed in an introductory overview of democratic socialist theory. Thus, having identified the debate,for the purposes of this chapter, we shall avoid the term democratic socialism and, instead, use what was initially the more popular term social democracy; wqe shall use it in its original meaning to designate those socialists and their movements which have been commmitted to achieving social change through the representative institutions of liberal democracy." (Liberal Democratic Theory and Its Critics, p. 306)

Social democracy is consistent with the "Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism". (Europeanizing Social Democracy?, p. 17)

"Social Democracy in Power" does not define social democracy and does not mention democratic socialism. It uses the terms "social democratic" and "socialist" interchangeably. It compares six socialist governments.[29]

As is clear from the title, Social Democracy and Aristocracy: Why Socialist Labor Movements Developed in Some Industrial Countries and Not in Others uses the terms social democracy and socialism interchangeably. It does not mention "democratic socialism".

TFD (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

TFD, rather than being insulting me by saying that I am obsessive compulsive (which if I am I do not care because many people have OCD) that appears like an ad hominem personal attack, why then are you not not answering the questions I have raised over your proposed description of socialism?--R-41 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought I did. In any case this discussion page is about social democracy. You have failed to define the topic, and the source that explains the topic is misrepresented. I have just summarized the sources provided to me by TIAYN - can you provide any sources that support your opinions? TFD (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned nowhere that the source by Busky specifically says: "The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International, which almost all social democratic parties are members of, declares the goal of the development of democratic socialism", that is used for the first sentence of the article. I am not responsible for people altering and misrepresenting the article material that does not align with what the source says, but I even took the time to include that quote in the reference itself.--R-41 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If "social democratic" parties support the development of "democratic socialism", then they are the same thing. Busky also says he prefers to refer to these parties as "democratic socialist", hence the title of his book. So what in your opinion is social democracy. Please provide a source. Can you provide an example of anything that is either social democratic or democratic socialist but not both? TFD (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the article's history page best shows what it has been with sources.--R-41 (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are the example of someone being a social democrat but not a democratic socialist. How do you reconcile that with supporting the NDP, which is described by Busky as a democratic socialist party and that supports the "development of democratic socialism"? Do you have any sources that make the same distinction as you, or is this just original research? TFD (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are getting so agitated about. I am a social democrat and democratic socialist. There are people who join parties for various reasons, I have known ex-Liberal Party members who have simply joined the party because they see the LPC as a sinking ship and they don't want a Conservative government, just as Belinda Stronach was a Conservative turned Liberal because then she could have more political clout as part of the then Liberal government; or right-leaning Liberals moving to the Conservatives to keep the NDP out; there are people who join a party only for self-interest - be it legitimate or corrupt. There are liberals in the NDP that can be called "New Democrats" as members of a party affiliation, but if they don't adhere to social democracy, then they aren't social democrats. But this is about ideology. I would like to know what sources are suggesting are saying that the NDP is not social democratic. On the article New Democratic Party (Canada), the second reference tag includes multiple references that say that the party is social democratic. In the NDP, democratic socialism and social democracy are used interchangeably by the movement.--R-41 (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That is what I have been saying, the terms social democracy and democratic socialism are used interchangeably, albeit with some differences that vary among users. So is socialism. That makes these articles content forks. TFD (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all democratic socialists identify as social democrats. "Democratic socialism" is very broad, I think few if any socialists have said that they are not democratic. The article "democratic socialism" is a very weak article - it is just an article on an illustration by socialists of their democratic credentials, because nothing more can be said other than the most obvious and pointless statement that it is "socialism that insists on development through democratic means", beyond that it is factional division over almost every socialist movement declaring itself to be democratic. The anti-reformist Marxism-Leninism declared itself to support a democratic form of socialism as has the revolutionary Bolivarian socialists in Venezuela led by Hugo Chavez, I do not know if Chavez identifies as a social democrat or not since he has come to power. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if the article "Democratic socialism" was turned into a disambiguation page with several major subsections. The first subsection titled "Reformist movements associating with democratic socialism" that would include social democracy, the Fabians, Lassallians, etc. The second subsection: Revolutionary movements associating with democratic socialism". There will of course be groups that may fit into both, but this is overall a good distinction.--R-41 (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, here, me: I consider myself being a social democrat, but never any kind of socialist. But R-41 is right, this discussion should not getting too much about individual definitions, for this almost inevitably leads to ideological wanking. And what any guy defines in his political dictionary may also just be an expression of his ideological views, even if it has been published. Anyway, I thank you all very much for what you wrote, it's all very smart and inspiring to me. And I am drawing this conclusion from your discussion: an article about social democracy as a term for political movement should respect what the people did who actually "moved" while calling themselves social democrats. So a one and only, exclusive definition at the beginning of the article maybe wouldn't be the best solution. I'd rather suggest a representative description of the discourses and fights over this question within the movements that called themselves social democrats. This description could run through the entire article, and at some points it would have to point out that a lot of social democratic declarations, programs, policies and executive outcomes weren't socialist at all, and weren't even considered to be. From Lasalle to Godesberg, from Olaf Palme to Helmut Schmidt and finally to Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder, and even to some of the policies of Angela Merkel: there have been plenty of situations where provding a strong welfare state as an integral part of a capitalist system has been called social democratic. Where US-politicians recognize a tradition of social democracy in Continental Europe that doesn't exist in the US. And so on. Of course, TFD is right when he demands sources for that. We'll have to look out for them, just as TIAYN began to.--JakobvS (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tony Blair is a self-described Christian socialist and ethical socialist, and Third Way social democrats despite criticism of them, have continued to claim to be socialist. JakobvS, you may be in a social democratic party but from what you are saying, you appear to be a social liberal rather than a social democrat. Both are similar in supporting progressive social welfare, and indeed social democrats and social liberals have cooperated in history, except the difference is that social liberalism as an ideology publicly endorses the capitalist economic system, while social democracy as an ideology does not publicly endorse the capitalist economic system. Whether it does in practice is an issue that social democracy's critics commonly state. There is currently an immense timidity growing in the Western world to be affiliated with socialism either without conditions attached or not at all, because the word "socialism" has been used by critics in a pejorative manner to refer to state ownership and a desire to confiscate private property, and statism in general, associating socialism with Stalinism or economic failure that happened in the Soviet Union, and certainly not all socialists have been such. A welfare state is not necessarily social democratic, the reactionary conservative and authoritarian German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck endorsed a welfare state for clearly Machiavellian purposes of taking clout away from the socialist movements that were campaigning on delivering social welfare - thus Germany's welfare state was not originally founded by social democrats, it was a pragmatic concession by a reactionary conservative-led authoritarian government. Also, Catholic reactionary conservatives have long supported the Papal decision to support welfare state since the Church's adoption of Rerum Novarum.--R-41 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2012

Oh, of course you could also call me a social liberal. It's quite obvious, though, that there are a lot of "social liberals" out there who call themselves social democrats. It's also quite obvious that there is an important discourse among people, scholars, politicians, journalists etc. about the social democratic traditions of Western European governments and policies, while there never was a socialist system in Western Europe. It's quite obvious as well, that, for example, in Germany there is only a small minority among SPD-party members who would even think of calling themselves socialists, while the "new left" tend to call themselves democratic socialists and often strictly dismiss any "social democratic compromises." This leaves your view and your definitions as important ones that may even dominate certain academic and politically oriented discourses and publications, but which aren't quite representative for everything that could be said in a globally oriented encyclopedic article about social democracy. There's still something left for completion, don't you think? To your Bismarck example: Of course we both agree on the fact that any king, dictator, clan chief or protection racketeer can establish a welfare system which wouldn't make him a social democrat. Anyway, this is clearly beyond the context of our discussion. If you're referring to my comments on Angela Merkel: she was heavily critized for doing "social democratic" policies, for making her party a "social democratic" one, it was discussed if now only "social democratic" programs (that seek to realize certain social rights just as other civil rights, that seek for social participation just as for democratic participation etc.) can win elections in Germany etc. This was an important discourse in Germany about the future of social democracy, conservatism and so on, maybe more important for contemporary politics than a single definition in any dictionary. Of course this special German discourse would only be worth to be mentioned here if this was a trend within some conservative or liberal parties, elsewhere in the world. So, let's get back to my main argument: Social democracy is everything what a representative number of people around the world call it to be. Just like any abstract, envolveable term. You don't agree on that?--JakobvS (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In the UK Labour Party, left-leaning members usually identify themselves as democratic socialists, while centre to right-leatning labour members identify themselves as social democrats... you can't be a social democrat without being socialist; that's the minimum of being a social democratic, that you have to be socialist.. But socialism is a vague term and can mean anything really.. Marxist-Leninists constantly refered to "Socialist democracy" and not "Democratic socialism"... There is no difference between democratic socialism and social democracy (at least if we are looking for a definition): In contrast to social democracy, democratic socialism is a term without any form of popular, or well-known definition.. The article democratic socialism itself should be turned into a disambig page of some sorts. --TIAYN (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Obviously many can. No one wants this to be reflected in the article?--JakobvS (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Describing social democracy is heavily dependent on both what the parties are officially committed to and acknowledging the schisms in social democratic movements. In the Labour Party in Britain in the 1980s there were the very near-centrist prototype-Third Wayers and the very far-left Militant tendency. Germany's SPD is a complex case, the social democratic movement in Germany has effectively split in two, Oskar Lafontaine and other anti-Third Way social democrats split from the party to found Die Linke, and Lafontaine publicly asserts that he is a social democrat alike Willy Brandt, but regards Third Way as a betrayal of social democracy and socialism for neoliberalism. The SPD is dominated by Third Way precisely because many anti-Third Way members have abandoned the party to join Die Linke - a mixture of anti-Third Way social democrats, post-communists, and various other socialist, and other groups, that is growing in support. Third Way is extremely controversial within the social democratic movement, Germany's social democratic movement has split in two because of it, and it has created deep factional divide in the British Labour Party, and in my country Canada's New Democratic Party. I have encountered NDPers ranging the very centrist and cautious Third Wayers to a significant number of members whom I would call "Canadian Bolivarians", radical and staunchly socialist but insisting on democratic means and admirers of Venezuela's Bolivarianism.--R-41 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Again: no one wants this all to be reflected in the article?--JakobvS (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The article does reflect this in the history section.--R-41 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The word you're looking for JakobvS is pragmatism... For those who are not very interested in politics, ideology, I think, doesn't really matter (or at least, doesn't matter as much as it did before).. --TIAYN (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@ TIAYN: I think we're talking of different things here. I am not looking for a word, I am looking to describe a political movement. @ R-41: What's in the historical section by now ("and then in the 1990s came neoliberalism and got it all wrong again") certainly doesn't meet my demands, but I'm beginning to understand that my problem begins with the whole purpose of the article: from it's very beginning the article describes an ideology that seeks to overcome capitalism, which in my understanding is just a hobby of small groups of intellectuals, rather than the big pack of movements and policies we have witnessed in Continental Europe since 1945, and which I would call social democracy. There's still some confusion left, since for example Swedish scholar Gösta Esping Andersen in "The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism" calls socialism what I'd call social democracy, but clearly describes it as something that does not want to overcome capitalism. You yoursevles mentioned this confusion, and so does the article, but at the end it still insists on describing the pure doctrine: we shall overcome. The article starts with the definition of ideologies and it just wouldn't work to contradict this whole approach later in the article. Sad for me, since in my view this leaves the whole article stuck in ideology and irrelevance. Nonetheless, your arguments are just more stringent and in accordance with the article as it is now. So I'm drawing back my proposal. Maybe I'll find both time and nerves to fight for a whole re-write of the whole thing, but I guess that'll take time. Thank you for your time and thoughts.--JakobvS (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You said "from it's very beginning the article describes an ideology that seeks to overcome capitalism". But that is in fact what the ideology was originally formed as. You have to also understand the context of what capitalism was like back then in the mid-19th century: voting only for people with sufficient amount of property, no prohibitions on child labour, no right of workers to organize, no minimum wage. Back then, class division was not a theoretical idea only apparent to intellectuals, it was right there in the open in elections: if you didn't have enough property, you had no right to vote. However since the introduction of universal suffrage first for men in the then-leading capitalist state, Britain, in 1867, and later for both genders in the 20th century, plus the growing of middle-class from the 19th to 20th century, the assumptions by Marx for a need for violent revolution to achieve working-class emancipation, were seriously challenged. Marx began to say in the 1870s that peaceful means to achieve socialism could work in countries like the United States, Britain, and other liberal democratic societies. Capitalism in the affluent global North has conceded to many historic socialist demands, however in the global South and East there is still child labour, still no right of workers to organize, wages that are so low that workers are effectively slaves, and open violence used against workers who resist these conditions.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The parties that emerged in the 19th century - conservative, liberal, christian democratic and socialist - came about because of sharp divisions in class and ideology. Since then they have either adapted to change or disappeared. We still identify parties under these categories because of similarities in history, organization, name, symbols, colors and trans-national affiliations. But to say that social democracy "advocates for a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism" is misleading. The source (Encyclopedia Britannica) is clearly writing about the original program of the SDP, which has been long abandoned.

Similarly, the successful conservative parties of the UK and Scandinavia have long dropped their opposition to capitalism, liberals in Canada and Australia have accepted the welfare state and christian democrats in Germany have accepted secularism.

As I wrote before, we should just merge socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism, and explain how it has changed over time.

TFD (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We should merge Social democracy and democratic socialism... Would make as much sense to merge socialism to communism article.... Socialism is a vague term with several definitions. Saying that socialism means social democracy, and social democracy alone is wrong, its false. --TIAYN (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Social democracy also has various meanings, as explained in the source you provided, Liberal Democratic Theory and Its Critics. Which of those meanings should be the topic of this article? TFD (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not one of them, all of them.. This article has to explain and tell readers that social democracy doesn't mean one thing, but several things... OK?? Liberal Democratic Theory and Its Critics spells out several meaning, and all of views should be included in the article, under a definition section (or something else)...

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property.

The first section (which summaries the ideology) of the lead of the liberalism article is the perfect lead! Nothing more complicated (or less complicated) information should be included in the lead, OK? That's why we should write a definition section which explains to readers that the term "social democracy" has many different meanings. --TIAYN (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter remains that almost all social democratic parties are part of the Socialist International that is publicly committed to democratic socialism. If democratic socialism is identified by a political movement, it should be put in the infobox as "democratic socialism", with two internal links to democracy and socialism. But beyond that "democratic socialism" means little else Marxist-Leninists have claimed to be democratic socialists, as have collectivist anarchists, therefore it is a POV to only identify social democracy as being democratic socialism.--R-41 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Although different writers define liberalism differently, there is no question that they are all writing about the same topic, at least as far as the lead to the article is concerned. A hatnote mentions that American liberalism may mean something different, and it has its own article. The term social democracy may refer to different topics. Where there is more than one topic, then there should be more than one topic. For example, Mars can mean either a planet or a God. We do not synthesize the two together into one article. What topic do you suggest this article is about?

Incidentally, if we decide that this article is about definitions, that would require removal of most of the content, because each definitiion should link to a specific article.

TFD (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There are people who use the term "social democracy" to refer to a welfare state in a liberal democracy, as I think JakobvS is referring to. The ideology and this other term of reference are two related though different things. Social democracy as an ideology is the most common. Social democracy as reference to a liberal democratic welfare state is not connected to the ideology of social democracy, it has even been used to describe pro-welfare conservative governments, historically such as the Christian Democratic Union governments in Germany. As a reference to a liberal democratic welfare state, it is typically used by analysts of social welfare. I suggest another article titled: Social democracy (form of welfare state)--R-41 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find substantial literature discussing the subject of your proposed article, I suggest you not begin it. It would in time become another POV battleground. But you still have not answered my question. What is the topic of this article? You say it is the ideology of social democracy, but which one? Lassalle? Bernstein? Tony Blair? TFD (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your response is entirely rhetorical. These people identified with the social democratic movement that has existed since the 19th century. Your idea that an ideology must have no factions and no divisions is fallacious, liberalism has innumerable numbers of factions, as does conservatism, and any ideology. Neither does your criticism even acknowledge any interlinking influences between them. Anthony Giddens, the founder of Third Way in its social democratic form, declared it to be the heir of the revisionism of Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, you can see the quote of his for yourself in the history section of the article.--R-41 (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This article should be about both social democracy's definition and its history... THis is about social democracy we can't for fucksake have only one definition for social democracy, cause there is not one single one. Why are we even discussing this?? Why Welfare State (social democracy)? Kidding me?? If there should be an article, it should be Socialism and the welfare state because all socialist regimes have aimed at establishing some sort of welfare state. Social democracy's relationship to socialism is the same as communism's relations to socialism, so why is this under discussion??? Social democracy is not a special ideology, its an ideology which tries to implement socialist (or welfare) policies in a liberalist democratic society --TIAYN (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between a term that can be defined in different ways and terms with different meanings. In the second case all we can talk about is the different meanings. For example, we Mars (dismbiguation) lists all the meanings of the word, but we have separate articles about the planet and the god.

In this case, social democracy means: (1) reform socialism, (2) revisionist Marxism, (3) a moderate form of reform socialism or revisionist Marxism, (4) a revision of reform socialism or revisionist Marxism, and other things (Third Way). So we can say Tony Blair who was a social democrat (3), although never a social democrat (2) and abandoned social democracy (1) to embrace social democracy (4). It is easier to understand when we distinguish the different concepts: Tony Blair was a moderate reform socialist, although never a revisionist Marxist, who abandoned reform socialism to embrace the Third Way.

TFD (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

TFD, Tony Blair never officially abandoned socialism, he identified as a Christian socialist and an ethical socialist, critics condemn him for allegedly abandoning socialism, but there is no acknowledgement of that by Blair. Third Way was declared by the man who coined it, as consistent with social democracy and furthermore a heir of the revisionism of Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky - a quote by Giddens on this is included in the article. TIAYN, swearing is not going to help. Articles are based on common use. Social democracy as an ideology has historically included Marxisms of various stripes, Fabianism, liberal socialism, etc. The fact is that reliable sources say that social democracy is an ideology, and note it has factions in it. The ideology gradually became dominated by reformists. We have a history section that says this. The other "social democracy", that is less common, is as a reference used by social welfare analysts to describe liberal democratic welfare states, regardless of what ideological form of government is in power. I agree however with TIAYN that it is unacceptable to merge the article Social democracy and Socialism together.--R-41 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference in the scope of the two articles? If they are the same, then it is a content fork. TFD (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's completely insane to suggest merging Social democracy into the Socialism article! Not all socialists identify as social democrats today, there are significant numbers of radical socialists who hate social democracy. After social democracy became associated with reformism, Marxist Leninists historically condemned social democracy as "social fascism" in their view. And your proposal opens up the precedent of merging every single variant of socialism into the Socialism article, that would result in an extremely oversized article.--R-41 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

All you are presenting is that different writers have used the term to mean different things. The "radical socialists who hate social democracy" were "historically condemned" by Marxist-Leninists as "social democrats". Socialists who do not "identify as social democrats today" are nonetheless counted as social democrats in the article. An of course it makes sense that the socialism article should include variants of socialism. Each variant if significant should have its own article. What is the topic of this article? TFD (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough of this lawyer courtroom-like drama, there are plenty of sources that talk about social democracy as it is today, a reformist movement that is associated with the Socialist International. Don't pretend to be naive, TFD, if you even know what you are talking about you should know that today social democracy refers to this. If you actually do not know about social democracy, then you should leave discussions here and read about it before returning. We are at where we are because Somedifferentstuff refused to have the intro focused on what social democracy is today, and instead demanded to show its full development in the intro.--R-41 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that this article should be about members of the Socialist International? Why not have an appropriate title and we could avoid ambiguity? "Socialism" appears to accurately reflect the name of the International. We could then avoid the confusion that divides these social democrats between social democrats and democratic socialists within member parties. TFD (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, that is a complete negation of WP:COMMONNAME, completely ignoring that scholars use "social democracy", complete lack of understanding of the divisions between the Socialist International and other internationals associated with socialism in history. You do not have my support for the re-name.--R-41 (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not following you. Are you saying that members of the SI are "social democrats" but members of the 1st and 2nd were not? Or do you mean that the socialism article should be merged into this one, because it is the most common name? And what do you plan to do with democratic socialist members of SI-affiliated parties who do not call themselves social democrats? Again all articles need discreet topics. TFD (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME = Social democracy. Social democracy currently is commonly used to refer to the ideology affiliated with the reformist movement developed particularly by Bernstein and others. That is what the movement titled "social democracy", developed into. The article should be focused on it in its contemporary reformist nature while mentioning the various influences that contributed to it. This is what contemporary sources on social democracy focus on. What are the "1st" and "2nd" whats?--R-41 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)