Talk:Social democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social democracy article.
Article policies
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Social democracy, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives



Contents

[edit] Lack of Clarity in article, too intellectually meandering

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

161.98.13.100 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

161.98.13.100 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Sean7phil 22:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

161.98.13.100 22:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism of social democracy" section

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

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

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

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


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

[edit] France?

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

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

[edit] Red?

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

It depends on the national tradition (i.e., the association of party colors within a given country). --(GordonBrownforPresident 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
In some cases such as in the U.S.A. the color theme, but not official is pink due to the use of the word "Pinko" to reflect a socialist-light reform policy of capitalism.Comraderedoctober (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
See the website for the Social Democratic Party of America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.243.117.153 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Feigned opposition"

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

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

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

[edit] Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, that article and my paragraph in this article have both been deleted. On this article, the paragraph was deleted because it was unsourced, something that can be rectified with this article, I think. I'm all ears for any problems with it or ideas on where it should go. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That article seems to have been recreated at Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy but still needs sources. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] India/US

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

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

[edit] false in European social democracy

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

in short this does not apply to social democracy.

  • Social democratic systems restrict individual rights, especially economic freedoms, to an excessive degree (this argument was put forward strongly by Friedrich von Hayek, who is believed to have influenced Margaret Thatcher).[citation needed]
  • The regulations placed on the market by social democracy limit economic efficiency and growth, leading to a reduced GDP for that particular nation.[citation needed] Supporters contend that, despite this theoretically implying a lower standard of living for all, in practice only the wealthy and more privileged notice any negative effects, while the poor and working class gain greater protection, actually leading to a greater standard of living for them.[citation needed]
  • Social democracy encourages large government budget deficits. (Social democrats reply that conservative administrations in the United States and Britain have also been responsible for large deficits.)[citation needed]
  • State provision of education, health care, childcare and other services limits individual choice.[citation needed]
  • It has been argued that social democracy tends to tax the working class more than the rich who can evade taxes through sophisticated accounting. Therefore impeding the efforts of the working class to build wealth.[citation needed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markthemac (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, but these are the criticisms which are directed at social democratic governments. There is a paragraph which follows these points which states how social democrats refute these points; citations and examples will ultimately be necessary to solidify this paragraph, but there is no reason to remove the obligatory criticism section. --(GordonBrownforPresident 05:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula and Covas

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

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

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

This kind of anonymous comments are most certainly from naïve "PTista" radicals, and I believe the same colleagues wrote the sentence about a "centre-right coalition designed to keep the more left-wing Lula out of power". This sentence is quite shallow, and so is the BBC article referenced, which seem to be more a sensationalist article about the 2002 elections then a review of the 8 years of government before. It's certainly a gross exaggeration to talk about a "sharp shift to the left". PT always declares itself to be in the "opposition" whenever they are not leading things. If they got "out of the power" it was because they like to do those silly things such as declaring to be running a "parallel government" instead of doing constructive work...
Brazil doesn't have a "right-wing" party that matters right now. What it has is PT telling everyone that they are the good leftist guys, and anyone else (PSDB) is a bad rightist enemy. They use this shallow manichaeist rhetoric to hypnotize the people, and let PSDB quoting latin phrases alone, in its continuous hard work trying to increase the level of the national debate and people culture. I would like to rewrite the sentence regarding FHC's government... Suggestions? (no anonymous suggestions, please, there is no need for that in Brazil at least since, when, the right-wing president Figueiredo in 1979?...) -- NIC1138 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And about putting Lula in the list, I think it might be fair to put him, but truth is PT and himself always had a hard time to fit in any labels... AFAIR, the PT manifesto doesn't specify that the party follows any specific ideology. It does has a red flag with a star, but that's all. (Let's not forget the DS tendency inside PT.) Regarding only Lula, he has a couple of memorable quotes like: "I was never a socialist", and "I was never a leftist". Lula is "lulist", and so are his many followers, just like with other Brazilian personalities such as Vargas.--NIC1138 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Rawls

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

[edit] Léon Blum

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

[edit] Axel Honneth

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