A: Because social democracy is not all welfare states, but a tradition within (democratic) socialism and it is one of the many ("democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as means to establish socialism"); in other words, all social democrats are democratic socialists but not all democratic socialists are social democrats. The most common name for the classification to which social-democratic parties belong to is (democratic) socialist. These parties were mostly associated with the Socialist International. Many of them self-describe as democratic socialist or social-democratic. When we use these terms to describe parties, etymologically they mean the same thing. We do not want to imply that they have two ideologies under the same roof as, for example, the Democratic Party does with Bernie Sanders, AOC and Ilhan Omar as "democratic socialists" (which is what they call themselves) or social democrats and all other major leaders as liberals. Of course, socialist parties have left–right divisions and they are sometimes called democratic socialist and social-democratic. The new party family that has emerged, which is made up of Marxist–Leninists, Trotskyists and more left-wing socialists, is now generally referred to as "left parties". In addition, when academics make a sharper distinction between the two, they are mainly referring to the Third Way development of social democracy, which saw a turn to the right that critics label neoliberalism and in practice an abandonment of even moderate social democracy.
Q: Why is the Nordic model discussed?
A: Because there exists at least three models of welfare states (conservative, liberal and social-democratic/socialist) and it is relevant as democratic socialists were pivotal in building it in at least one country. The philosophy of socialist parties such as the Swedish Social Democrats was that if people were healthy, well-educated and had a decent standard of living, that they would seek to develop a socialist society. They did not consider the welfare state to be socialism but a necessary condition for its development. However, as the Swedish Social Democrats built the most comprehensive welfare state, the welfare state is sometimes referred to as social democracy. Of course, socialism as social democrats understood it did not happen and right-wing parties in countries such as Sweden, among others, also came to support the welfare state. Nowhere is it stated that the Nordic model is socialist (the social-democratic/socialist model is not economically socialist, if by that you mean the Soviet model of economy; but socialism is not just an economic system but a political philosophy, too) and the social-democratic/socialist model is used to refer to a universal welfare state and described as favouring "a high level of decommodification and a low degree of stratification". The article does not discuss all welfare states, only those where democratic socialists have played a role.
It is not original research to discuss whether social democracy as used to describe the Nordic model developed by the Swedish Social Democrats and social democracy as used to describe the ideology of the party are the same thing. The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only anti-communists and Marxist–Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's State Socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist.
Q: What is the difference between, say, Corbynism and Blairism? Surely the difference is that the first is socialist and the second is liberal?
A: Not so easy. The difference between Corbynites and Blairites, or the difference between the left and right wings within socialist parties, is not that the former are socialists and the latter are not, but that they have different conceptions of socialism. Admittedly, many people question whether any of them are actually socialists. Yes, those to their left accuse those to their right within the party to not be socialists; yet, those to the left of both accuse them of not being socialists but reformists.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 June 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Uh.. Simple question: Why is the article about Democratic Socialism not protected? Obviously this would be the target of vandalism. Like seriously. So, how come an article about ROBLOX is extra-protected, but not the one about Democratic Socialism? Not even edit moderation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.245.66 (talk • contribs) 19:33, March 17, 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Europe section seems to conflate democratic socialism with social democracy, for the most part, only talking about social democratic parties and countries that follow the Nordic model. Should this paragraph be moved to the social democracy article or perhaps removed in its entirety assuming that the aforementioned article already states this information? digiulio8 (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is largely nonsense. It's an attempt to cobble together a grandiose history for a new-ish political grouping that is, in terms of what its (mostly American) adherents believe, indistinguishable from social democracy. The reality is that the term 'Democratic socialism' really emerged in the early 90s as a way to differentiate existing Western social-democratic parties from the old Eastern bloc communist parties. It then evolved to describe the "really social-democratic" groups in opposition to the old parties that had slid to the political center. This page really should be dedicated to illustrating that semantic shift and nothing else. 82.12.128.242 (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a couple people decided to dramatically change the articles on social democracy and democratic socialism with cherry picked sources to portray them as the same (despite adherents to each regularly distinguishing the two). They used to be pretty accurate articles a couple years ago, so perhaps it would be beneficial to look at previous versions and revive that essence, with additional sources. There could remain parts pointing out the conflation in recent years. Bryce Springfield (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought trotskyism would fall into this category, especially as trotsky was anti-Menshevik Sporadicmonk03 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, as someone who lived long enough to experience the pre-90s social democratic parties of (continental) Europe, can tell you that there is none. To me there were always two courants, reformist socialism, i.e social democracy, or whatever else you want to call that, it exists, and it worked, in Sweden, in Danemark, in Norway, for a time in Venezuela, in Bolivia, in France etc. as opposed to revolutionary socialism i.e communism, supported by the communist and Trotskyist parties of Europe. I don't get the point of over-emphasizing a difference between reformist socialist courants. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition you may look at the FAQ on the top of this page, cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the term has been used by different people at different times - for example, I believe George Orwell, from one point onwards, considered himself as such - however this does not mean that we cannot make distinctions, especially when Social Democracy is concerned. First, Social Democracy as a movement has changed over its existence. To put it clearly, despite, you wouldn't call any modern Social Democratic parties 'Marxist.' Yet, in the beginning they certainly were. The change was gradual, and although the 1959 Godesberg Program of the German SDP is commonly used as a turning point, post-war Social Democratic parties clearly moved away from their Marxist roots.
Most parties and groups that today refer to themselves as Democratic Socialist, have followed a different root, and of course have a different ideology than Social Democratic parties. Unlike Social Democratic parties, most of these groups came from within Marxist-Leninism Communism. The Neo-Communist tradition, also popularly known as Euro-communism, rejected the authoritarianism and one-party state of Soviet Communism. However, this does not mean that they became Social Democrats. They continue to consider the Free Market, capitalism, whatever you want to call it, incompatible with a democratic society, and effectively have chosen to 'work within' the constraints of liberal-democratic states in order to pave the way for their own 'socialism.' Social Democratic parties, although during their Marxist era made similar rationalizations, today don't operate, or think, like this.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellites across eastern Europe names that included terms like communism became less popular, and along with the rise of other movements and parties (Green parties for example) Eurocommunist parties and groups have adopted the tern Democratic Socialist to express their political/ideological orientation. Although the term can be interpreted quite loosely to incorporate any number of groups, including former Eurocommunist ones, it's important to note that today the main strain comes from this tradition, especially in Europe. And there is little, if any, commonality with Social Democratic parties or their historical evolution. Alector87 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is only true for some social democratic parties. It’s a mess. The 2000s are over, the left-wing of those parties is having a slight resurgence, the far-right is getting stronger and stronger as we speak. You forgot, in all of this, the new parties, you know, the "true left-wing" the "true social-démocrats" the "true reformists", those who were opposed to both the communists (with whole they still occasionally made alliances) and the "social-democrats" converted to the neo-liberal doxa. PG, now organizing member of La France Insoumise (movement, pretty successful for now, built on the ideas of Chantal Mouffe), Die Linke, Podemos (another one based on Chantal Mouffe), SYRIZA (Chantal Mouffe, again, at the origins of it all), and of course the parallel movements around Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in UK and US. There is Kevin Kühnert, general secretary of the SPD, too, and Olivier Faure leading the Socialist Party. Don’t forget the new one, Sumar. Reformist socialism isn’t about any revolution aside from the "citizen revolution", and the reason the distinction isn’t accoepted by most of the real social-democrats, moderate communists, democratic socialists, and whatever you call them based on their angle of attack, is because it is being repeated exclusively by capitalists, and by far-leftists… As well as by some north-Americans feeling a need to "rectify" something which has never been in the need of rectification. Don’t forget those Latin Americans either. All in all, social-democracy will never become fully not-socialist (especially since Fabianists, Jaurressian socialists, post-Marxists, heterodox marxists and co. are not going to cease to exist suddenly). Encyclopédisme (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is quite silly. Social democracy and democratic socialism are two different philosophies and forms of governance. They are historically related, and have been closer in the past, but they are different things. You may define all reformist socialism as social-democracy, including the left-wings of social-democratic parties, and I would agree. but social democracy is not socialism, and makes no claim to overcome capitalism.
But the theory of democratic socialism, often proposed by Marxists on non-reformist grounds, is different to that. Even if we take Eurocommunism (what Poulantzas would call the "democratic road"), we are not talking about a reformist project. I wouldnt say trotskyists are necessarily democratic, but trots are surely a part of this democratic socialist tradition too (hence why trot parties often describe themselves as such). essentially, revolutionary socialists who oppose Marxism-Leninism but are not anarchists surely come under this umbrella. The New Left most obviously, but also autonomists, humanist marxists, the Praxis school, Hegelian marxists, and syndicalists. E.P Thompson, for example, (and potentially those around him like Hobsbawm who called for a "realistic" Marxism, or Hall who called for a post-colonial and post-socialist Marxism) specifically defends a "democratic communism", being a member of the CP who left after 1956 but maintained a communist perspective. A third-way, if you will, between social-democracy and soviet socialism. Sporadicmonk03 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "democratic socialism" is indeed vague. And it is also used by gradualists, by reformist socialists. I define social-democracy as part of reformist socialism. The problem with this is that the line between a non-socialist social-democrat and a socialist social-democrat is blurry, very blurry. Most reformist socialists don’t have expropriations and co. in the party program… Reformist socialism, social-democracy, which never excludes an eventual turn towards socialism, hence is not fundamentally capitalist while being strongly linked to socialism, often represented a "third way" between soviet communism (and associated communist groups) and US capitalism. On euro-communism, in practice many "euro-communists" of the post-Soviet years were only European, not communist nor socialist. Social-democracy, or part of it, as you write yourself, the historically important reformist socialist wing (Jauressians, Fabianists, etc. most left-wing governments of Europe in the past were reformist. Don’t forget that most of the Third Wayers simply didn’t follow up on their program, while campaigning for radical policies. And also, the emerging Populist left has, as I mentioned above, a habit of excluding new courants, "social traitors", from the left-wing, socialism, or social-democracy. La France Insoumise, and the Socialist Party now too, have this habit, with the first dubbing François Hollande a "social-traitor", social-liberal and right-winger, and the latter now explicitly stating it’s eco-socialist, anti-liberal and social-democratic goals. Die Linke often claims the true social-democracy of Willy Brandt, etc.) being social-democratic, is a part of socialism (as a wide movement and ideology).
An important problem with this is that often reformist socialists use the term democratic socialism to mean reformist socialism, with no connection to the Trotskyist meaning of the term. Trotskyist "democratic socialism" and reformist "democratic socialism", often used synonymously to "social-democracy", aren't the same ideology. Encyclopédisme (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is the heart of the matter. I'm not sure socialist social-democracy / reformist socialism really exists. social-democracy is ultimately not committed, and hasn't historically, created socialist societies. if democratic socialism refers to a form of socialism between social-democracy and marxism-leninism, then perhaps this is the room for "socialist" social democracy, reformist non-reformism, etc. as for left populism, I see it as a strategy for radical social democracy, but not truly democratic socialism. Sporadicmonk03 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem with this is that once a politician is committed to making "true" social-democratic (often populist) policies, the way is open for developing a socialist society. This is why the São Paulo Forum gets along, mostly. You can of course make it quick, like Allende, or Chavez, or you could make it slow, like most European reformist governments of the past. This is more about the efficiency of reformism (which exists. The idea is a gradual move towards a mixed economy, first, as a compromise, and eventually a functioning non-capitalist [or non-neoliberal at the very minimum] economy) in all its forms, than about the actual question at hand: Is social-democracy socialist, or (if not) capitalist?
There are multiple problems with this question.
First, there are two or three ways to do "social-democracy": there is the historical right-wing of socdem ("second left" in France), economically vaguely liberal; the traditional (refsoc) wing, glorifying historical leaders, often populist, and currently disappointed with the traditional parties, splitting off into multiple new "populist left" parties, critical of American foreign policy, more or less aligned with the historical heritage of the traditional parties, and supportive of the Latin-American left, in all its forms; and there are the Third Wayers, often believing the Keynesian policies of social-democracy aren’t workable, or just incapable of following up on promises made in the party program.
Second, as mentioned before, socdems are never really capitalist or socialist, as the idea of a gradual development towards socialism was not historically tested, the question of wether this is possible remains open. Because of this, reformists are free to idealistically believe in this. And the legitimately recognized reformist socialists who are also simultaneously socdems are the radical ones, not the Third Way types, those are definitely not-socialist. You could surely argue that, following Popper’s falsification principle, that reformist socialism is pseudo-scientific (on the same grounds Popper thought Marxism was pseudo-scientific), but that doesn’t change the ideological link to "real" (whatever that might be) Marxism. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
