Talk:Social democracy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social democracy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why is social democracy labelled socialist or within socialism? A: Because social democracy is not all welfare states, which have been supported across the political spectrum by some types of conservatives, liberals and socialists.[nb 1] Social democracy is one of the many traditions within the socialist movement. In addition, the most common name for the classification to which social-democratic parties belong to is 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 broadly made up of Marxist–Leninists, Trotskyists and more left-wing socialists, is now generally referred to as "left parties". Q: Still, why is social democracy considered socialist? A: While social democrats have not turned capitalist economies into socialist ones[nb 2] for pragmatic reasons, among others, socialism is not only an economic system but a political philosophy, too. First, socialism can mean either an ideology or an economic system, while capitalism is mainly simply defined as an economic system. Under classical Marxism, socialism is a stage of the economy that would replace capitalism and was the name that Communists used to describe the economic systems they implemented. As the definitive Historical Dictionary of Socialism points out, socialists disagree about the degree to which regulation of the economy is necessary; how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change are issues of disagreement. And they are anti-capitalist only so far as "there were general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of capital—poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security." In addition, party ideologies are generally static, although policies change over time. As an example, the Tories have changed their policies since the days of the English Civil War more than Labour has over its 120 year history, yet are still considered conservatives.[nb 3] Q: But social-democratic parties are not socialist and do not identify with socialism, do they? A: That is not true, most include mentions of socialism in their party constitutions, describe themselves as socialists and are routinely called as such, being categorised by academics as part of the socialist party family. The philosophy of social-democratic 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/social democracy as the Social Semocrats understood it did not happen and right-wing parties in countries such as Sweden, among others, also came to support the welfare state. The SPD describes democratic socialism as its ideal, with social democracy serving as the "principle of action". Some socialist parties use that to mean a post-capitalist order while others use it more in a utopian and idealised sense to describe an egalitarian society, where features such as discrimination and poverty are eradicated, which would still be starkly different from current capitalist society to be considered a post-capitalist one. Both of these are perfectly in line with the definition given by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism and it is more of a spectrum than a hard line. 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/social-democratic 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. Appendix Socialism and socialist are loaded terms in the United States and right-wing media while in the rest of the world they are usually just one of two major parties. When describing foreign leaders, American media only uses the S-word for socialists they oppose and never use it for those they support. So Maduro is routinely referred to as a socialist while Guaidó, a former member of the socialist/social-democratic party Popular Will (still affiliated to the Socialist International and described as social-democratic, "with socialist and progressive tendencies"; note that it is the Maduro government that says Popular Will is "fascist" or "right-wing") never is. Being opposed to Chavismo, or Madurismo, does not necessarely mean being opposed to socialism; there are at least as many types of socialism as there are months in a year. In addition, "[m]ost critics cite anti-democratic governance, corruption and mismanagement of the economy as causes of the crisis" rather than socialism[nb 4] and even those who blame policies for the crisis, only a few say "socialist policies" and they mostly say "populist" or "hyper-populist" policies, which are not the same thing. This should not stop us from following academic sources that use socialism, in a neutral manner as provided by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, to refer to social democracy. Footnotes Social democrats continue to fit within the definition of socialism provided by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1–3. The different groups will differ in policy based on ideology, even when the policies appear similar. As an example, liberals, conservatives and socialists created welfare programs in the United States, Germany and Sweden, respectively, but for different reasons and implemented them differently. If you use socialist economy to mean the Soviet model, of course they have not turned capitalist economies into socialist ones; yet, they moved them closer to socialist ideals (Jerry Mander describes the mixed economy as "an active collaboration of capitalist and socialist visions"), so much so that social-democrat Anthony Crosland argued that "traditional capitalism has been reformed and modified almost out of existence, and it is with a quite different form of society that socialists must now concern themselves. Pre-war anti-capitalism will give us very little help", for a new kind of capitalism required a new kind of socialism. Of course, "Crosland believed that these features of a reformed managerial capitalism were irreversible, but it has been argued within the Labour Party and by others that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought about its reversal in the 1970s and 1980s. While the post-war consensus represented a period where social democracy was 'most buoyant', it has been argued that 'post-war social democracy had been altogether too confident in its analysis' because 'gains which were thought to be permanent turned out to be conditional and as the reservoir of capitalist growth showed signs of drying up.'" Still, many legitimate academics, economists and scholars have disputed the Soviet model as socialist, calling it centralised-managed (rather than planned; and planning itself, which has been adopted by many capitalist and non-capitalist countries, or a planned economy is not necessarely socialist), command economy, state capitalism, or another non-socialist mode of production; so socialist economy cannot be reduced to that. 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. Liberals no longer insist that government spending be under 10% of GDP, while conservatives no longer insist that hereditary peers have equal or greater power than elected MPs. According to Asa Cusack, an expert on Latin America and frequent contributor to mainstream media, Venezuela's economy remained "market-based and private-sector dominated" throughout Chávez's time in office. Although "the social economy and the public sector were heavily promoted", for example through nationalisation, "the private sector was expected to remain dominant, and it did. A centrally planned socialist economy like Cuba's was neither the aim nor the reality." Even Fox News, before things went bad and socialism became the boogeyman, reported in 2009 that roughly 70% of Venezuela's gross domestic product was created by the private sector; so during the 2000s economic boom, Venezuela was still capitalist (good) but as soon as the 2010s economic crisis hit, it became socialist (bad).

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms 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  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Socialism Top‑importance Socialism portal 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology High‑importance Society portal 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance Philosophy portal 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy United States: History High‑importance United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance). Politics: American Top‑importance Politics portal 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Economics High‑importance Economics portal 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance History portal 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. European history High‑importance Europe portal 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 11, 2020 Peer review Reviewed

Is social democracy socialist or not?

The page begins with "Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism that supports economic democracy", before it later changing to "within the framework of a capitalist-orientated mixed economy", before later changing again back to "the most common form of Western or modern socialism, as well as the reformist wing of democratic socialism", before again changing to "a left-wing political ideology that advocates for a peaceful democratic evolution from laissez-faire or crony capitalism towards social capitalism", before switching back again to saying it was a "dominant political tendency within the international socialist movement".

Social democracy is based on a private market economy, but adopts public ownership for areas like education, healthcare, and transportation, to create a stronger welfare state. This distinction needs to be highlighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnuschr (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a new response thread because there seems to be some confusion about what the main focus of this article is.

This article should be a description of what social democracy - as an *ideology*, is.

Several of those who state that the current version of the article, stating that social democracy is a movement within socialism, is incorrect are using arguments based on how contemporary social democratic parties act. The focus of some of these critics, is specifically on the Third way - movement, which is just a variant or an offshoot from traditional social democracy.

Should we really be making blanket statements about a movement based on one group within the movement? Would it be factual to let another group within the social democratic movement define the entire ideology, such as the georgists, reformists, democratic socialists, marxists, syndicalists, labour unionists or pacifists?

As long as the linked sources support the claim that social democracy is a movement within the socialist tradition, the current form of the article is correct.

Perhaps this discussion about whether or not social democratic *parties* are socialist is better suited in the article about *social democratic parties*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party Allmänbildare (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is social democracy socialism or not? Geo (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's socialish. Andre🚐 23:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is "socialish", do workers directly or indirectly control the means of production, distribution, and exchange, or do they not?

Plus even if social democracy is a form of "semi-socialism", that isn't quite what is said in this article which seems to flip flop on whether its socialism or capitalism. Geo (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixed economy, but it depends. Andre🚐 00:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy is a system where the workers do not democratically own the means of production; the owning class (bourgeoisie) and government does; it is liberal capitalism with a strong social safety net and some key-industries nationalized, and therefore not socialist. The article should reflect this. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No - socialism is a range, and a mixed economy can have some socialized industries. Anyway, you need a reliable source, not just logic and opinions on definitions. Andre🚐 15:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy in modern practice advocates for mixed market-economy, and it doesn't make a system socialist just because the government owns certain strategic industries. This alone isn't enough to define socialism, and if it did, Gulf countries where the state owns oil production would be socialist.

In social democracy, capitalism is the dominant force and accounts for majority of GDP. Social democracy accepts capitalism as the primary economic system but seeks to regulate it through a social safety net.

Even in modern social democracies like Norway, the oil sector operates within a form of capitalism. AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem to support it being a part of socialism but inherently capitalist in nature. — Czello ^(music) 15:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy (which is admittedly still a big tent) historically did emerge from the socialist tradition, and it seems to me it was formerly much more common to use the terms more or less interchangeably; but I feel the introduction to this article has problems -- it is overly specific in its descriptive claims, and it fails to distinguish between the historical and theoretical features of social democracy on the one hand and the politics of contemporary parties in the tradition on the other. Quite plainly, "maintaining socialism as a long-term goal" does not generally apply to contemporary social democratic parties. Knot Lad (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that easy. Historically, in this case, means pre-1990s. The 90s is when every social democratic party of Europe moved towards a liberal consensus, from Tony Blair, to Lionel Jospin, to the successors of Olof Palme (in Sweden, yes. That's also why modern Swedish socdems might not like Bernie Sanders calling Sweden socialist), to Schröder, and the list goes on.... But even here the line isn't that clear. Tony Blair claimed the term democratic socialism for his reforms. In France socialism meant, and means, essentially reformist socialism, the rest being labeled communism. Lionel Jospin used 'modern socialism' as not a term but a descriptor for the evolution of socialism.. not really an easy way to define things. Also, democratic socialism was a term also used by Oskar Lafontaine in 1990, before Schröder, so that complicates things. But generally social-democracy is part of a wider socialism, which vaguely wants more social justice and a better welfare state. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that social democracacy is socialist is not generally accepted.

Social democracy is not devoted to the private ownership of the means of production but has found its peace with capitalism. Why? Because capitalism is more productive than socialism and, when well-regulated, satisfies the principles of justice outlined above. Conversely, if it turns out that the socialization of the means of production is more productive and consistent with the principles of justice outlined above, then social democracy would favor economic socialism. But social democracy carries no principled commitment to economic socialism. Since such a principled commitment is a defining feature of any socialist theory of justice, it follows that social democracy is not socialism, and, a forteriori, also not democratic socialism. Von Platz J. Social Democracy // The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. – Routledge, 2022

So to write that social democracy is an ideology within socialism violates NPOV (since even if many sources agree with this statement, there are serious sources that disagree). It arose within socialism - this is how it should be written, it will be more neutral. Reprarina (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It originally meant non-Marxist courants of socialism, revolutionary (what you often call communist) and reformist (socialism through gradual reform). After the 1920s it meant exclusively reformist socialism, and after the 1990s it had a move to the center and towards economic liberalism. Your interpretation of socialism is what is commonly called « far-left ». Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, your interpretation, while common (at least in the US), would make major figures like Jean-Luc Mélenchon, or Jeremy Corbyn, or Oskar Lafontaine, not socialist, but moderate social-democrats (most of them would claim both labels, as a side note). Social-democracy is social welfare while not violently usurping the capitalist system, however, it can, in theory, lead to socialism via gradual reform. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is there is such opinion between at least scholars who write articles for Routledge that social democracy is not socialist. And that is enough for removing "within socialism" from the preface. Reprarina (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, since other reliable sources disagree. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a dominant point of view rule, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view rule. Only completely fringe points of view can be ignored. Reprarina (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does go after academic consensus, so essentially, yes, Wikipedia has a dominant point of view rule. This POV can’t be ignored completely, although I think the article has made clear the development of social-democracy, and the debates surrounding it. Since the 1990s, there is a move to the center, and a de-radicalisation. However things don’t always stay the same, they change. The PS of France is moving to the left again under the influence of LFI, the SPD has a left-wing party leader, the PSOE isn't really economically liberal either. In Colombia, Gustavo Petro claims to be a social democrat, yet he openly expresses eco-socialist ideals (he believes that there cannot be a green capitalism), Lula is claiming to be a socialist of the 21 century while doing social-democratic policies, radical communists in Venezuela label Chavez a social-democrat, etc. Social-democracy doesn’t exclude the possibility of a socialist model through reform. Socialism through slow, gradual reform, respecting the democratic institutions, and not by revolution, is reformist socialism. Encyclopédisme (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking of cases where individual social democratic parties and politicians are seen to favor a transition to socialism in the long term (such as link 25 in the preamble) does not mean that all social democracy is within socialism. Faulty generalization. Reprarina (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These social democratic parties or individuals seem to not see a contradiction between socialism and social-democracy. The exemples I cited show that the only reason some sources claim social-democracy is not socialist, the development towards the Third Way, is developing and changing itself. It is a fact that since the late 2010s, social-democracy in general is having a move to the left again. Social-democracy is one ideology, and some experts and politicians believe that it’s third way version is not socialist. However, even there, things aren’t black and white, since other third wayers, such as a certain Tony Blair, do claim the term « democratic socialism ». Social-democracy on its own was and, to a lesser extent, is viewed as reformist socialist (reformist socialism, defined by people such as Jean Jaurès, not Marx). Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a plethora of sources cited that say it's part of socialism. — Czello ^(music) 16:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the only non-fringe point of view, then there would be enough of them. Reprarina (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not about fringe or not fringe. WW2 started in 1939, and social-democracy is a part of the socialist ideology and movement. The majority of reliable sources say so. End of debate. In this case the reasons why some variations of social-democracy since the 1990s might not be socialist are explained. Did you even read the article? Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific consensus that WW2 started in 1939 is much more clear than "scientific consensus" that social democracy is within socialism. Reprarina (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. Nonetheless, it is a scientific consensus. A majority of reliable sources. Maybe you could add this POV in the article, explaining the developments of the Third Way. But the lede is alright. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends a lot on the lens through which you’re viewing it: hardcore capitalists probably see social democracy [SD] as a variant of socialism (e.g. those in the USA who call universal healthcare "socialised medicine") whilst hardcore socialists probably view it as capitalism in sheep's clothing. As a self-described social democrat, I am uncomfortable being labelled either capitalist or a socialist, but instead see SD as occupying a midpoint between full-blown capitalism on the one hand and full-blown socialism on the other. However, it would seem that many people (at least in the West) conceive of capitalism and socialism as binaries, with those in the political 'centre' be capitalists, albeit moderate and/or socially liberal ones. Adding to the confusion is a combination of factors including:

- the fact that centre-left Labor / social democratic parties in many Western European countries bear the name "Socialist Party";

- the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by, and general rightward rightward drift of, pretty much every 'social-democratic' party in Europe and Australasia beginning in the 1980s;

- many progressive Democratic Party politicians in the USA describe themselves and/or their politics as "democratic socialist" when they really mean "social democratic", possibly because the term "Social Democrat" would confuse many people?

Aeronius aus (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if there is a significant number of academic sources that do not consider social democracy to be a variant of socialism, then the opposite view, even if it is shared by some majority of political scientists, should not be presented as fact. We should not confuse facts with majority opinion. Reprarina (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a substanial number of academic sources that explicitly say it's not socialist? Because presently we have an abudance that say it is (or at least, "within socialism"). — Czello ^(music) 07:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really clear that there is substantial disagreement about whether modern social democracy falls under the heading of socialism. [1][2][3] As such, we need to follow these Wikipedia guidelines: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

We don't need to resolve the question of the relationship between these traditions one way or the other: just acknowledge that many sources see social democracy as compatible with capitalism, and they distinguish its modern form from socialism, while situating it within socialism historically. --Oolong (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This to me is the best perspective out of this thread. Even if it was initially conceived of as a way to ease people into socialism (or some such thing), that does not make it its primal characteristic.

There is a nominal issue here. It seems that in earlier times, what we now call "Social Democracy" used to mean what we now call "Democratic Socialism". Once the two split, what Social Democracy now means to basically everyone is striving for some some kind of democratic welfare state whose economy is primarily within the capitalist tradition. The article should reflect this. غوّاص العلم (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical Dictionary of Socialism (2006), pp.1-3, says there is an agreed core to the many definitions of socialism offered: It "is an economic and political ideology or system that advocates the creation of a society based on cooperation, social justice, and social responsibility with an economy based upon social control over the means of production, distribution and exchange....The methods of social control over the means of production and the degree of control vary among socialist movements." There's no agreement about any term in social science, it doesn't mean we can't have articles about their topics.

1945 was the year Labour narrowly adopted nationalization as a policy which you think transformed them from a socialist party into a democratic socialist one, yet you think abandoning nationalization changed their ideology. Meanwhile, you agree that continental socialists never practiced nationalization, yet somehow their ideology changed in 1945. When you start bisecting socialism into sub-ideologies, where to draw the line becomes a problem. The only real cleavage was between socialism and communism, and then within various sub-factions of communism, each of which led to the creation of separate political parties with new texts. TFD (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you're saying "you" here, are you talking to me? I didn't say any of the things you're attributing to me. At the end of the day, referring to social democracy as within socialism in the opening of this article is not good encyclopedia writing. The lead should clarify what the term primarily means today, and also give a sense of the changing nature of the term historically. And there needs to be some tidying with the disambiguation and the articles it leads to.

For instance, Nordic model opens with "This article is about the social and economic model in Northern Europe. For the political ideology often associated with the Nordic model, see Social democracy." That clearly doesn't point to a political ideology "within socialism". To call the ideology of the nordic model socialist is just nonsense, whether you're anti-socialism, pro-socialism, agnostic to it or apathetic to it. No? غوّاص العلم (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "nonsense", that's how it was described for much of the 20th century (As a third way between state communism and capitalism). The Nordic social-democratic parties just went through the same changes as the rest of the world, and today's majority within them is different from those parties' majority in, say, 1980. But it's definitely not "nonsense" to call the Nordic model as having been born of an ideology within socialism. ~2025-39538-49 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden was that socialism could only be achieved once the working class were relatively prosperous, healthy, secure and educated. In order to achieve this, they created a comprehensive welfare state, which previously most socialists had rejected. They had argued that the welfare state impeded revolution.

While I agree the welfare state is not socialism, I do not agree that advocating it makes one anti-socialist. TFD (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

isn't social democracy just market capitalism with more regulation and more social programs/public investment? what now seems to be under rhine capitalism/market socialism. i feel like this page looked really different a few years ago. to be honest this page feels incredibly confusing and meandering now — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-32889-65 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^[1][2] yes social democracy is a form of socialism Lakers96 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#social-democracy no it is not and I agree with you that this page incredibly confusing and meandering now Lakers96 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Socialism & Lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus here for any particular wording. Only a few sources were discussed, and there seemed to be some agreement that those sources indicate that there's some slippage between social democracy, democratic socialism, and socialism. To resolve this issue, I recommend that editors start a new discussion and systematically evaluate high-level overview sources (the sources section of Political philosophy might be helpful; Phlsph7, if you have time, I think your expertise would be useful here) and determine how most of them describe social democracy. Some of these sources may be available via WP:TWL. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

The Lede currently describes socdem as an ideology within socialism. 5 sources are cited for this sentence clause. Three book sources from 1999, 2005, and 2007 respectively, and two online sources from 2018 and 2019 respectively. Only 2 of them are accessible, the two online sources. Neither of the two online sources (this and this) make the claim that Social democracy is a movement within Socialism.

The question for the RFC is: should the lede describe the ideology as Socialist? There will be 6 options; please write the option you support along with your reasoning in the survey section, and then discuss in the discussion section. Also please write the extent to which you support the other proposals. Please don't reply to others in the survey section. Please don't just write an option without any reasoning for it.

Option 1: It should should describe it as 'a Liberal poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'.

Option 2: It should should omit the 'is a movement within' part in favour of the lede sentence, instead describing it as 'a political ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'.

Option 3: It should describe it as a socialist political ideology, as it does now [status quo].

Option 4: It should should describe it as 'a democratic poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'

Option 5: It should should describe it as 'a capitalist poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'

Option 6: Other, it should [insert thing].

Option 7: Comment.

.A Socialist Trans Girl 08:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Reply to this message for the survey (this isnt like a rule or anything but please put : infront of your message if you're editing in the source editor and not just clicking reply, so that people who click [reply] to this message dont have their messages put above yours, so that the comments will be kept in chronological order.) A Socialist Trans Girl 08:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support option 2, Support option 4, and 5, oppose option 1, strong oppose option 3. Social democracy, and democratic socialism, are of course, separate ideologies. However if social democracy is a form of socialism which supports democratically transitioning to socialism, this begs the question: how exactly are they different?

The article for Democratic socialism says "Democratic socialism is also distinguished from Third Way social democracy because democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, while social democrats use capitalism to create a strong welfare state, leaving many businesses under private ownership.". Even the lede of this article says "In modern practice, social democracy has become mainly capitalist, with the state regulating the economy in the form of welfare capitalism, economic interventionism, partial public ownership, a robust welfare state, policies promoting social equality, and a more equitable distribution of income." This clearly points to socdem in the modern sense being not socialist. Here is a RS describing it as not being socialist [[4]]. I oppose option 1, as I believe its kinda simplistic to describe it as merely liberalism, as whilst there are many similarities, it's quite different to other Liberal movements/ideologies/parties/currents. Also, I dont think that many sources describe it as Liberal, but I might be wrong. I only support option 1 over option 3, as it holds far more ideological similarities to Liberalism than to Socialism. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 6. From the above discussion, it seems there is substantial disagreement among reliable sources whether or not social democracy is a form of socialism, "within socialism", was once socialist but is now really not, and so on. Therefore, that disagreement, what it's over, and why each side holds the position it does should be explained, without the article "picking a side". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 While I agree that there is disagreement that is always going to be the case with a subject like this when you try and put a label on it. You can take a snapshot in a particular time and place and assert one meaning but at another time or place, while still broadly appropriate, the term may be interpreted differently. That said we are an encyclopaedia so we need to try and pull it together as far as we can - while still allowing for all the vagaries. Option 2 just about does that.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3

The main argument presented is that the sources mentioned aren't available online. There are online copies, just not for free. To help sort that out I have provided some citations to support what seems to be the consensus among several political scientists, that social democracy is an ideology within the socialist tradition.

"At first glance it may seem odd, or at least unnecessary, that a book on

modern political ideologies should have separate chapters devoted to

different aspects of the socialist tradition."

"In much of Europe though, if not in Britain, the terms are interchangeable and 'social democracy' carries the whole weight of this complex history. It stands as the dominant twentieth-century form of socialism in the West, where (apart from America) it provided the chief opposition to political conservatism and to the political organization of capitalism. "

Wright A. (2018). Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism in Contemporary Political Ideologies (pp. 78-99).

"One reaction to essentialism is a flight into 'historicism': namely the reduction of the socialist tradition to mere historical narrative, where an account is given of all those over the centuries who have called themselves, or have been deemed by others to be, socialists. A procession of utopian socialists, Marxists, Christian Socialists, social democrats, and so forth passes by leaving little sense of what has brought them all together."

"A wide range of transitions have been advocated over the years: amongst these are general strikes, mass insurrections and parliamentary roads, effected either singly or in concert. Underlying beliefs inform the choice of method. Social democrats have believed that it is possible, through parliament, to turn the state into the cutting edge of socialism; revolutionary Marxists assumed that ruling classes would use any means to cling to power, necessitating the use of violent revolution; ethical socialists believed that fundamental transformations had to occur in the hearts of individuals; Fabians maintained that under the guidance of experts, socialism would gradually but inevitably evolve out of capitalism."

Geoghean V. (2014) Socialism in Political Ideologies An Introduction (pp. 72-98). Allmänbildare (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Social democrats rejected the Soviet model and effectively accepted the notion that there was some convergence between their own views and those of others, such as left-wing liberals, who believed in parliamentary democracy and social reform. Two kinds of political parties, allegedly serving the interests of the working classes, had become the main agencies for the establishment of socialism, and these two traditions now struggled for ascendancy inEurope and the rest of the world

Newman M. (2005). Socialist Traditions in Socialism : A Very Short Introduction Allmänbildare (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 6 I think it can be reworded in the opening sentence to say "originating in socialism" and that would be both accurate and sidestep the current status. Social democracy's evolution from its socialist roots to its embrace of capitalist reform is the main thread of the article. Void if removed (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 or Option 6 per Void if removed. It appears there is no Reliable Sources supporting any of the other options. The lead also has to take in account the history of social democracy, not just it's current forms. Socialism is an important influence on social democracy and should be mentioned in the lead. Encyclopedia Britannica supports Void's suggestion. [5]https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 7 If I'm not too late to comment, in my experience, sometimes its easier to describe the ideologies policies or characteristics, which in turn should allow the reader to form a conclusion, without the need of restricting it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: De Jure and sometimes de facto it's still within socialism. Things changed since 1991 and the fall of the Soviet Union in Europe, but the line between democratic socialist (or reformist) and social democrat is still very blurry. Some democratic socialists reject the label and consider social democracy to be failed, others identify with it. Historically (not the 19th century, "historically" means up to the 1980s for Europe, and up until today for Latin America), social democracy is a part of socialist ideology (maybe not orthodox-Marxist though). I don't know how the situation is in Asia or Africa, but at least in large parts of (especially western/southern and Scandinavian) Europe, Latin America, and Australia, it's still a part of socialism (seen in a positive light from leftists). In Canada and the USA, “socialism” is a little negative, so they might differentiate between “socialism”, “democratic socialism” and “social democracy” where other parts of the world only see “revolutionary” or “reformist” socialists. 80.187.115.112 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The line between social democracy and democratic socialism has been rather vague and arbitrary for decades. Most of the self-described adherents use the terms as partial synonyms for anti-authoritarianism, as they are opposed to the Soviet-style form of the one-party state. Dimadick (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 The distinction between socialiam, social democracy and democratic socialism is vague and used differently by different writers. The main distinction is the degree to which they support collective ownership and/or regulation of the means of production. However, conservative and liberal parties can support the same policies. TFD (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 6 It should be reverted to the more neutral article as of 2 years ago and adjusted from there. This topic has been getting argued about the entire time; this entire talk page and most of an entire other archived talk page are dedicated to this.

This status quo is clearly inadequate 173.180.164.208 (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page from two years ago (2023) wasn't that different, and when it comes to the "within socialism" (a fact, really), this was already the status quo since at least 2022 (and perhaps even prior to that). 80.187.86.29 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2: There seems to be endless (somewhat arbitrary?) acedemic debate over whether to call it socialism or not. Why not simply describe their positions ("a political ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc")?

I think the following paragraph from the article is excellent, for readers who are interested in social democracy's relationship to democratic socialism (most readers will probably learn a lot more from a brief overview of positions than whether or not they're technically socialists):

"Amongst social democrats, attitudes towards socialism vary: some retain socialism as a long-term goal, with social democracy being a political and economic democracy supporting a gradualist, reformist, and democratic approach towards achieving socialism. Others view it as an ethical ideal to guide reforms within capitalism. One way modern social democracy can be distinguished from democratic socialism is that social democracy aims to strike a balance by advocating for a mixed market economy where capitalism is regulated to address inequalities through social welfare programs and supports private ownership with a strong emphasis on a well-regulated market. In contrast, democratic socialism places greater emphasis on abolishing private property ownership in favor of full economic democracy by means of cooperative, decentralized, or centralized planning systems. Nevertheless, the distinction remains blurred in colloquial settings, and the two terms are commonly used synonymously."

It's also in direct conflict with the confident assertion in the first paragraph that "in modern practice, social democracy has taken the form of democratic socialism." Be-Plants (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: It is still a part of the wider movement and ideology, just that some politicians within it might have been fairly opportunistic and apolitical recently, leading to empty promises. But going off of promises and theory alone, social democracy is socialist. I don't like calling socialism and social democracy "systems", they're more like ideologies, right next to liberalism, conservatism, revolutionary communism, and fascism. 130.185.13.210 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Here is where you can discuss with other editors, responding to other editors points and such. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the book sources are technically available on the Internet Archive: Source one, Source two, and Source three. That said, none of them are available to borrow, and log-in is still not allowed yet, but Wikipedia allows offline sources to be used as well as online ones. Presumably, whoever put those in as sources had access to them, and they do, in fact, consider Socdem as a sub-ideology within Socialism. Ships & Space_(Edits) 14:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't have to have everything available online. If it would be particularly interesting what exactly those three sources say, it looks like they're available (at least to me) via interlibrary loan; regular old public libraries are great for getting hold of offline sources. That said, before going to that extent, would those three sources be somehow definitive even if other sources say otherwise, or could we presume those sources say what's asserted that they do and that the issue here is instead that other sources don't agree with them? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided some parts of the three offline sources. The consensus there is that social democracy is part of the socialist tradition.

Whether or not contemporary social democracy still has socialist tendencies is a matter of constant debate within social democratic parties. Definitive statements such as claiming contemporary social democracy to be either socialism or capitalism/liberalism, should therefore be avoided.

Neither of the two online sources make the claim that social democracy isn't socialism either. Therefore I see no disagreement based on the sources currently provided. Allmänbildare (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that saying that social democracy is part of the socialist movement is like saying the Eifel Tower is in Paris. At least from the European perspective, socialism is a spectrum, going from social democracy to Marxism-Leninism. Granted, a member of the British Labour Party or the SPD are probably more similar in policy preferences to the Democratic Party in the USA, than the Marxists. However, Labour and the SPD use socialists symbols such as the colour red. The SPD even sings the Internationale at events. Sure, the hard left says that the SPD aren't real socialists, and may have a point. Still, I don't think any European social democrat would consider themselves liberal or capitalist. Are there any sources that support the idea that social democrats aren't socialist? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Before addressing this issue, we need to define the topic, since the term social democracy can refer to several topics.

The original meaning was a synomym for socialism, so Marx, Lenin and Eugene Debs were all members of "Social Democratic" parties. This meaning has become obsolete.

Following the split within socialism over the First World War and the Russian Revolution, Communists who broke away from Socialist parties came to call them "Social Democrats" as a term of disparagement. The implication was that they were not pro-socialist, but pro-captialist, or even "social fascists." In reply they called themselves democratic socialists (a term that also has several meanings.)

The launch of the welfare state by the Social Democratic Party of Sweden gave rise to use of the term to describe any welfare state.

The terms social democrat and democratic socialist are used in the Labour Party UK to distinguish between more moderate and radical wings of the party.

Some sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, use the term as a synonym for revisionist Marxism, the official ideology of the Social Democratic Party of Germany until c. 1960.

TFD (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good point, I think that the article should cover it all, because the history is still important to the social democrats of today. The lead should give the reader an idea that it is a changing concept. However, it should avoid reading like criticism from the left. Which, calling it liberal and capitalist would do. Those words are also various meanings. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Nordic model is not the same as social democracy

The Nordic right wing parties don't self identify as social democrats, but they still support the Nordic model. So according to Nordic politicians the Nordic model is not the same as social democracy.

Secondly the article uses a misleading article to male the claim. Bolton, Matt (March 2020) discusses democratic socialism which is not the same as social democracy.

Bolton, Matt (March 2020). "Democratic Socialism and the Concept of (Post)Capitalism". The Political Quarterly. 91 (2). Wiley: 334–342. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12830. S2CID 216159023.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.239.207 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New lead added without consensus

Though the current lead was added without consensus, it makes use of reliable sources to create a very accurate picture of social democracy. This section on the talk page might manage to establish some consensus in its favour. PS: I am not the author, a different user created the current version and they might as well be interested in participating here. ~2025-31778-77 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the term social democracy is used to refer to different concepts, which the lead confuses.

Anthony Wright says, "'social democracy'...has come to mean organized reformism," [while] 'democratic socialism' [has come to mean] a commitment to system transformation rather than meliorist social democracy. In much of Europe, if not in Britain, the terms have been interchangeable."(Eatwell & Wright, Contemporary Political Ideologies: Second Edition 1999, pages 81-82)[6]

For example, in Socialism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP 2005, p. 5), Michael Newman writes, "The two forms [of socialism] that emerged as dominant by the early 1920s were social democracy and communism."[7] That of course was when following the Russian Revolution, some members of Socialist Parties left to form Communist Parties.

What is the topic of this article? Is it the ideology of parties such as Labour UK or is it about the right-wing of those parties? TFD (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about social democracy, in its core, being socialist and qualified as such by sources. I am not necessarily in favour of the new version, which I have removed in hopes of getting potentially a talk page consensus (and it very clearly states at the very beginning not to modify the introduction without prior consensus…). But the third way or new "social democracy" represents an important evolution, and the new version seemed to represent both the left-wing and right-wing of the social democratic parties, and imply their conflict. ~2025-32166-27 (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, and because of the many changes operated without talk page intervention, I was referring to this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_democracy&oldid=1320991748 by User:RealLibertyEnjoyer. ~2025-32429-99 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to accept Wikipedia's definition of socialism as being "characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership" we would have to say it's clear that many social democrats in the modern world don't fit that description. It looks to me like many would not describe themselves that way, either, although that's a somewhat different question.

Obviously we're dealing with a lot of fuzzy and contested definitions here, as well as questions about the actions of self-identified social democrats (and socialists) in practice. I would suggest we focus on ensuring that this entry takes that into account, and - as Wikipedia:YESPOV puts it - avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Oolong (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request protection of the page so that progress can be made on the talk page. Otherwise this won't advance. There are clearly various lines of thought and different classifications by different sources. It doesn't help that American social media believes "socialism" to be the worst of all evils… ~2025-32904-12 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not dealing with fuzzy definitions, but rather different definitions of different concepts. Saying that Mars can mean a god or a planet does not mean the definition is fuzzy, but that it can mean different things.

The source for the Wikipedia definition of socialism (Busky 2000), which says, "Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy." However, it should mention that socialists disagree over the extent to which it should be socially owned and/or controlled. Busky descrbed Labour UK, Germany's SDP and the French Socialist Party as "democratic socialist," which was the topic of his book. An anti-immigration law carried out by a socialist party qualifies as some degree of control of the economy, but falls far short of the comprehensive ownership and control in a Stalinist state.

Socialism and Democratic socialism share some of the same problems as this article. TFD (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are dealing with multiple definitions of at least two terms, many of which are indeed fuzzy. Oolong (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Social democrat refers to the remnant of nominally socialist parties that did not leave to join Communist parties set up after the Russia revolution.

B Social democrats are the right wing of nominally socialist parties; the left-wing are called democratic socialists.

C Social democracy is the ideology of the Social Democratic Party of Germany developed by Bernstein and others.

D Social democracy refers to the modern welfare state, pioneered by the Social Democratic Party of Sweden and copied by Western governments across the political spectrum.

E Social democracy refers to nominally socialist parties that rejected nationalization beginning in the 1980s.

Which of these mutually contradictory definitions are fuzzy? TFD (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy vs socialism

It is completely inaccurate and misleading to flat out categorize modern social democracy as a form of socialism while dismissing the fact that it operates under a framework of capitalism. While the two were closely related in the 19th and early 20th centuries, this changed after WW2 as social democracy evolved, abandoning the objective of abolishing capitalism and instead embracing it while aiming to regulate and reform it. Today, social democracy, as practiced in the Nordic countries, operates within a capitalist framework Therefore, the current categorization on Wikipedia conflicts with the modern definition and understanding of social democracy and this adds to the already agreed on consensus on the Talk page which justifies changing the Wikipedia definition to the match the correct one practiced in modern day.

The use of the term “Socialist” by some European social democratic political parties reflects their historical origins rather than their current ideology. It stems from classical social democracy pre-transition to Capitalism, but it does not mean that modern social democracy is a form of socialism.

This reference dismisses the false claim declaring social democracy within socialism. AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your source begins, "Political and economic democracy is supported by socialism's social, political, and economic theory known as social democracy. Academics define it as a policy regime that supports economic and social interventions to advance social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy that is capitalist oriented."

Note that it perceives social democracy as "a policy regime" rather than an ideology. But the regime is supported by socialist theory even if it operates within a mixed economy.

The problem with this article is that the term social democracy can refer to different concepts, but the article conflates rather than distinguishes them.

To add to the confusion, the source later says, "democratic socialism and social democracy are usually considered synonyms in political science." So they are saying that their analysis differs from mainstream academic views.

Before improving the article, we should determine what the topic is. TFD (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of opening a new section, it would be less confusing to post your message on the existing discussion. ~2025-33009-97 (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, social democracy still had the goal of socialism up until the 1970s and 1980s in Europe, including in Scandinavia. It is the fall of the Soviet Union which provoked a move rightward globally with the loss of far-left idealism (left of reformist socialists) and the beginnings of neo-liberalism (right of traditional reformism), but the issue is still being debated, and we're not dealing with a clearly defined ideology, as has been noted. ~2025-33009-97 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the neoconservative analysis. But how does the Labour today differ from Attlee or Ramsay Macdonald or how does the SDP today differ from the SDP of the Weimar Republic? Or how do any of them differ from Lassalle or Bernstein or even Lenin before the Bolsheviks took power? It's odd that socialists are the only ideology where people expect that whatever the problems, they must always propose the same solutions. Centralizing municipal utilities made sense in the UK in 1945. If Labour changed their policies on that, it doesn't mean a rejection of their ideology, it means that it no longer meets the same goals. TFD (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear ideological shift in the Scandinavian countries and Western Europe, and the solutions proposed by the ideological successors of the old left-leaning figures of the SPD, for example, are often distinct from those proposed by the new party majorities (though the SPD was generally more right-leaning than its French or Italian counterparts). Similarly, the French Socialists of 1981, advocating for immense nationalisations (including the abolition of private schools) and opposed to NATO and the Warsaw Pact, cannot be compared to the Socialists of today, neither does Jean Jaurès have much to do with François Hollande. To my knowledge, this isn't contested by anyone. The left-leaning factions often defected to build the populist left in Europe today. ~2025-33848-08 (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 1900, Rosa Luxemburg wrote, "It is in Eduard Bernstein’s theory...that we find, for the first time, the opposition of the two factors of the labour movement. His theory tends to counsel us to renounce the social transformation, the final goal of Social-Democracy and, inversely, to make of social reforms, the means of the class struggle, its aim. Bernstein himself has very clearly and characteristically formulated this viewpoint when he wrote: “The Final goal, no matter what it is, is nothing; the movement is everything.”"[8]

What you think is new actually happened over 100 years ago. BTW Labour, the SDP and most socialist parties always supported NATO and most socialists supported their countries' governments in WWI. Outside the UK, socialists nationalized very little. TFD (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was the opposition between reformists and revolutionaries (which was different according to the country. While the German and British reformists were always rather right-leaning compared to the reformist and revolutionary-reformists in France, Italy and Spain. Similarly, in terms of foreign politics the French were, initially, opposed to US-domination. The best example comes in the year 1968: While François Mitterrand was a strong supporter of May 68, Willy Brandt started the first ever "Big coalition" with the CDU. Later, in the 1970s, Helmut Schmidt, on the right-side of the SPD, was arguably closer ideologically to president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing than to the left opposition in France). Generally, the first open separation was between supporters of the Third Interntional and the rest: however, the Socialist parties continuously had revolutionary factions opposed to the Communist alternatives, mostly Trotskyists, up until the 1970s (in the UK and France, the most important group being the Lambertists, still influential to this day by providing such politicians as Lionel Jospin or Jean-Luc Mélenchon).The Third Way was the second major change, as a more or less open break with previous ideology was operated/wished for by especially the Scandinavian social-democrats, as well as France's Socialists (who started embracing the label social democracy). This doesn't imply the third way is now dominant, but it's incontestable that ideological shifts happened and debates are vivid within social democracy/reformism. ~2025-33872-64 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IOW the left-right division within nominally socialist parties is unclearly defined, always shifting, differs by country and is viewed differently by different people. The same is also true for conservatism and liberalism.

Also similar is the shift in policies depending on time and place. No liberals today for example openly endorse slavery, restricting the vote to the top 3%, ending all welfare or public floggings. TFD (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#social-democracy Social democracy is a form of socialism period here is the evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by. Lakers96 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modern social democracy is not the same as social democracy back then AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on this very same wikipedia page, it clearly states that:

"However, by the 1990s social democrats had embraced mixed economies with a predominance of private property and promoted the regulation of capitalism over its replacement with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.^[3] Since that time, social democracy has been associated with Keynesian economics, the Nordic model, and welfare states.^[4]"

please read AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of multiple sources is usually a red flag that souces have been mined to back up a claim, even though none of them indivdually do not.

• Weissopf doesn't mention social democracy and instead looks for methods by which workers can own the means of production without using Communist methods.
• Miller says that beginning in 1940, social democrats changed their focus from building a socialist society to reforming capitalism.

In reality, both the revolutionary and reformist strands of socialism go back to Marx and Lassalle, rather than 1940 or the 1990s. The Social Democratic governments of Germany and Sweden in the inter-war years made no attempt to nationalize the means of production. Only the Bolshevik faction of the Social Democratic Party of Russia did this. TFD (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without arguing with AnAnonymousUser222, but the ideological change in the 1990s is really undeniable, and, again, the social-democratic party in Germany was always to the right of reformist parties in France and Italy, which did argue for large-scale nationalisations in the 1970s. ~2025-35899-70 (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't imply that social democracy isn't "within socialism", but the change in the 1990s is not, to my knowledge, contested. ~2025-35899-70 (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to his translator, Allan Cameron, Norberto Bobbio concluded that "If [the Left] feels that its traditional policies have attracted so much public opprobrium, it may decide to recycle itself as something totally new, something which goes beyond the traditional distinction (neither left nor right, or combining the positive values of both sides to produce a modern, innovative movement)." [Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction (1994), p .viii] Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction

"In Britain, the strategy of 'New Labour' seems almost modelled on Bobbio's definition of a third way based on submerging the left/right distinction and somehow transcending it - an often repeated tactic which, according to Bobbio, can never actually be put into practice, whatever its efficacy as a means of survival when the other side appears to be particularly in the ascendant."(Ibid., p. xx)

It's odd to assume that Labour would have the same policies in 1994 which it had in 1945. It doesn't mean that the ideology had changed, particularly when considering the party rather than the government. And there were no defections from the Old Guard. TFD (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting consensus on lede

I am opening a new thread, since the previous threads have failed to reach a consensus.

I believe there are some core issues that need to be addressed before we can reach any consensus.

1. What is the article about? Some of the disputes seem to come from the perspectives that editors view social democracy. Some view it as an ideology or political philosophy, and try to describe it as such. Others describe it as a system of governance. Some describe social democracy from the perspectives of parties or individuals that claim to be social democratic.

Before consensus can be established, we need to establish from what perspective we are attempting to describe social democracy.

Personally, I believe the article at it's current form successfully describes social democracy from all of these different perspectives, but how can we achieve that same spirit in the lede?

2. We should rely on sources that are appropriate for the type of claim being made. For example: News outlets can offer helpful context, but political philosophies are typically defined in academic literature. When journalistic interpretations differ from peer-reviewed scholarship, it makes sense to follow the academic sources in order to maintain accuracy and Wikipedia policy compliance. Allmänbildare (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was reached long ago for the current formulation. It would be wiser not to open even more sections on this topic, and leave it at the ones currently open. This is just going to create more drama. ~2025-38330-46 (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the discussion? TFD (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The various (!) discussions establishing and maintaining the current wording for multiple years visible in the talk page archive. Because I did really give them a read, and it does seem that there is a (slim) consensus of sources and Wikipedia editors for the current version, which was established as a standard and hasn't been definitively questioned yet. There are always concerns by some (like you) in regards to what the article really is about. But most of these talks about strictly (ambiguity is mentioned already) opposing social democracy and socialism largely repeat the same arguments. The problem really is even larger, it's the various understandings of socialism (a political movementborn in the early 19th century whose precursors were notably the enragés, an ideology behind said movement, an economic system characterised by the absence of private property and collective ownership of the means of production, a policy system for social justice). Seems like current version is just fine, the article body explains things correctly as does the lede. ~2025-38783-62 (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That there is a lengthy discussion of what belongs in the article shows that the issue of the scope of the article has remained unresolved. At the same time, there is a lot of overlap with Socialism and Democratic socialism.

While social democracy can mean a society where the means of production are owned collectively and there is no government welfare, or it can mean a society where the means of production are privately owned and government provides welfare, we should be clear that these are two different things.

BTW, the enragés were not proto-socialists. TFD (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They inspired many socialists, like Marx or Jean Jaurès, so they definitely inspired the 19th century left. But they are usually considered proto-socialist, as they are more radical than, for example, Robespierre and his allies were. Marx himself wrote about them as the a revolutionary movement which succumbed with the conspiration of Babeuf, but gave birth to the communist idea, which Babeuf's friend, Buonarotti, re-introduced after the 1830 revolution. ~2025-39085-99 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every new political movement looks to the past for archetypes. Marx also presented Spartacus and the US Working Men's parties as proto-socialists. One of the sources for the Wikipedia article provides a good analysis of why the Enragés were not socialists. [R. B. Rose (1965). Enragés: Socialists of the French Revolution?]

I don't know what relevance this has to the topic, except that political movements arise in response to specific historic circumstances and their policies evolve in response to them or they sink into oblivion. TFD (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I think we can just go by the current version because it's… a vaguely true statement supported by sources since reformist socialism's birth (in the first half of the 20th century, prior to that time "social-democracy" was something completely different). I don't really see the issue anymore honestly. This isn't going to get us anywhere. It is true that social-democracy is "within socialism", and nuances are mentioned in the article body. Hear me out, before taking us back where we started (and you started a lot earlier than me to even realise this talk page's existence): If academics can't even agree on a definition of socialism, how are we supposed to resolve this issue with social-democracy. The current article just about describes what social-democracy is, we can't do much more (what would you want, personally? We're talking but not proposing any solutions or while ignoring proposed solutions, for example the one made by another user I put forward in the sections upwards). ~2025-38965-65 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the clearest way to understand socialism is to rely on its core definition: socialism is a system based on collective ownership and control of the means of production. By contrast, modern social democracy does not meet this standard. It operates within a capitalist framework, aiming to reform or regulate capitalism rather than replace it with collective ownership.

Definition of socialism

Social democracy in modern day operates under capitalist apparatus AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But if it is social democracy's goal, then it is "within socialism". The fraction of social-democratic parties which isn't socialist has been fairly powerful recently, especially in the 1990s and 2000s, but that doesn't condemn an entire historical tradition and ideology. In addition to this, again, "socialism" is often used in many contradictory ways in different languages, and social-democracy is as well. Trying to establish such a lasting "change" when there is still disagreement among sources is not in the hands of Wikipedia. The Larousse gives three definitions, among which "all of the socialist or social-democratic political currents" and "theory wanting to transform the social organisation with a goal of justice between men in work, remuneration, education, housing, etc.". It also designates a form of government in states claiming Marxist-Leninism as an official ideology (the last one is what you're referring to). With these matters (and English-speaking sources aren't really in agreement when it comes to usage of the term either), it is important to have an international perspective (this isn't the Wikipedia of English-speaking countries, but the Wikipedia in English. English-language sources are preferred for page names, but not for definitions of essential terms which aren't specifically linked to the English language). With social-democracy, the "easy solution" is to stay with the facts currently established, that it is indeed "within socialism", and not take any "out-of-the-ordinary" position (even if often repeated today) which might become more or less popular in the future. Patience is the word. In addition to these problems of definition, some sources classify certain left-populist movements—built in opposition to the traditional social democratic parties (precisely because the latter often changed their platform) and described as "democratic socialist" for that reason—as "social-democratic". Yet, many of these parties, without being orthodox-Marxist, are "within socialism" and accuse the mainstream social-democratic parties of being "social-liberal". This is far from a resolved issue. ~2025-40451-19 (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy now is not the same as before AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the FAQ, The Historical Dictionary of Socialism (2006), pp. 1-3, says there is an agreed core to the many definitions of socialism: It "is an economic and political ideology or system that advocates the creation of a society based on cooperation, social justice, and social responsibility with an economy based upon social control over the means of production, distribution and exchange....The methods of social control over the means of production and the degree of control vary among socialist movements."

Compare socialism to a doctor. The doctor's purpose is always the same: to ensure the health of patients. That doesn't mean that every patient receives the same prescription.

Liberals and conservatives have also changed their policies over time. They no longer believe for example in the right to own slaves, or argue whether the right to vote should be restricted to 1% or 3% of the population. When Gladstone restricted child labor, Herbert Spencer accused them of abandoning liberal principles. Mises said that by supporting the welfare state, liberals had turned into socialists. But most experts support the view that they merely adapted to changing circumstances.

Before 1945, Labour opposed nationalization because it would transfer private ownership to government which itself was controlled by the bourgeoisie. In 1945, with industry in shambles, it decided to use public funds to rebuild. After Thatcher privatized government assets, it saw no reason to re-nationalize them. IOW it changed its policies to reflect different circumstances. TFD (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are persistently defending your version, that social democracy is not within socialism, but I haven't seen you present anything other than anecdotal evidence for your claim. Do you have a strong enough source to contradict the academic consensus that social democracy is within socialism? Allmänbildare (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism = collectivism

Modern social democracy = regulated interventionist welfare capitalism

most european social democratic parties are centre left welfare capitalist AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy is collectivist. See Clause IV: "[Labour] believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone." It's the opposite of liberalism, which emphasises individualism. TFD (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is talking about social democracy of before, not of the present day

social democracy used to be socialist but its views shifted over time AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to deny social democracy views shifted would be extremely wrong and misleading according to multiple academic sources AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But socialism can be a term referring to more than that… I definitely get your point, but, again, we can't change a classification valid for way longer than Wikipedia existed because in the last 20 years many (not even all) nominally socialist/social-democratic parties changed their effective policies (which some might associate with changing times rather than to ideology, though there undeniably was an ideological shift which led many leftist politicans to leave these parties in the early to late 2000s). Most party programs are still fairly "democratic socialist"-like, and, arguably, "modern social democracy" isn't even "true" social democracy (as, again, democratic socialism is often seen as traditional social democracy). Let's wait the next 10 to 15 years before making a definitive judgement. Socialism can have many different appearances, as it is an ideology wanting to help the ones who receive a salary against those who provide jobs and concentrate the capital in their hands. This can create mixed forms, like socialism "the French way" or Labour UK's form of socialism. Socialist social democracy can't be declared dead if it still has vocal supporters. There is a general evolution which is already described in the article body. There's nothing misleading or dramatic about the current phrasing, as it's not anyone's fault if readers don't look at more than the introductory phrase (and I highly doubt most readers will stop at that. If they do, it's on them for not going literally a few lines down. It's not a hidden secret that social democracy today often resembles centrist ideologies). ~2025-40640-51 (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

social democracy is distinct from socialism because today it functions as a reformist and regulatory approach within the framework of capitalist mixed-market economy, rather than seeking to abolish it source:

additionally, welfare policies aren’t necessarily equivalent to socialism because socialism is defined by collective ownership or control of the means of production and a commitment to the economic principles

capitalism is a spectrum, there are many forms of it such as regulated capitalism, welfare capitalism

the reason why social democratic parties may categorize themselves as “European Democrats and Socialists” stems from historical tradition from when social democracy was socialism and it’s not ideological

currently, social democracy with core dominant capitalist aspects cannot be classified as a form of socialism, but rather operant within the interventionist capitalist tradition under a mixed market economy with roots originally in socialism

socialism is critical of and antithetical to capitalism therefore social democracy cannot be considered a form of socialism

definition of socialism

can we agree to this or at least to something? AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't agree to this and I think it's been made pretty clear. You re-use the same arguments, cite the same evidence, and insistingly want to impose your view. This isn't going to get us anywhere near a solution. What you believe is often argued (especially outside academic circles), including in reliable sources, but is also contradicted by other reliable sources. You say capitalism is a spectrum, but ignore socialism is a spectrum as well, which has various contradictory definitions depending on geographic and historical context. Reformist ideologies are an important part of said spectrum, especially in the western world (outside of the former eastern block). Social democracy is not limited to today's nominally socialist or social-democratic parties, which are far from uniform anyway, either. It is undeniable that today's social democracy is, in practice, often more a form of social liberalism, but it has been used in so many different ways over the last two centuries that this recent development can't be objectively viewed yet. Welfare policies are, precisely, at least in the eyes of reformist theorists and politicians, a way towards socialism. Reformism can also take many different forms (Bernstein's reformism is rather moderate compared to other, more radical versions). It's a debated issue. At the basis, we are talking about a reformist socialist ideology common in Germany and Scandinavia, which has vaguely experienced a social liberal evolution (vaguely is the important word). The state social-democrats want/wanted is precisely interventionist in order to achieve socialism through reform (source). In fact, many social democrats continue to view democratic socialism as a necessity in the 21st century. To make comparisons with other pages revolving around unresolved issues, this is like insisting on older forms of psycho-therapy (Lacanian and Freudian, for example) being called pseudo-scientific or describing certain left-politicians accused of being unclear in regards to Hamas as anti-Semitic. Social democracy is "within the spectrum of socialist ideologies". I'm in no way denying most of what you wrote, but it's not sufficient to argue for any change here. Wether its' recent evolutions constitute a lasting change in regards to its' wider political family (or if social democracy is even represented by nominally social democratic parties) or not: It's a debated issue, and you won't be able to resolve this alone on a Wikipedia talk page. Let's drop the issue and have patience, we'll find out one way or the other. ~2025-40625-01 (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t agree with you either

none of my points were refuted

my point still stands, modern social democracy isn’t socialism but has socialist roots from the 20th century AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is 100% an aside on my part because there's no sources I can provide or anything, but I've been involved in socialist organising since I was young and I've *always* been taught that social democracy isn't socialism. HamNCheeseSandwich (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HamNCheeseSandwich it's really extremely clear that this is a widely held view taken seriously by many reliable sources, this shouldn't need to be an extended conversation! Oolong (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Allmänbildare (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What modern social democracy supports

Definining socialism

Proving social democracy is regulatory capitalism

I’ve given you numerous sources in hopes we may reach an agreement, please read AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harsaniy (2002) states that as social democratic parties have grown more moderate, less anti-capitalist and more liberal the label has evolved in similar fashion to represent some combination of liberal free-market based economy with a well developed welfare state.

Merriam Webster describes that both social democracy and democratic socialism used to refer to movements seeking to achieve socialism, but today's social democracies retain a capitalist system while democratic socialists seek to abolish it.

Miller describes that social democracy and socialism used to mean the same thing, but today social democracy is used to describe a society that is predominantly capitalist but with state regulation in the economy in the general interest, providing welfare services and income distribution.

These sources all bring necessary nuance to the article.

The concluded statement from these three sources is that social democracy used to be synonymous with socialism but it has moderated with time, and today it is less anti-capitalist and presents itself in governance as a predominantly capitalist system with welfare services and state intervention in the public's interest, to redistribute wealth and bring forth social justice.

This nuance is already thoroughly presented in the body of the article as well as in the lede.

Neither does any of these sources outright deny that social democracy is a political philosophy within socialism.

Although, Miller states that social democracy lacks the systematic characteristics to be defined as a political philosophy. I suggest that the first sentence in the lead should be changed to describe social democracy as an ideology rather than a political philosophy.

Another edit that I wish to present is that social democracy would be described as a political ideology within the broader socialist movement/tradition. This phrasing would better reflect the other sources used in the article, describing socialism as a broad term with several interpretations.

Another thing I wish to take from these sources is that I want to replace the source used to highlight the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy in the lede with this Merriam Webster article, as it is a much better source than the current news article used as a source. The text needs to be rephrased to reflect the statement in the new source. Allmänbildare (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I (the temporary account from the above discussions) support all of the proposed changes (but the social, economic and political should be conserved, only with "ideology" at the end). "within the socialist movement and tradition" seems perfect as well. However, there's one thing to keep in mind: Even if this compromise passes, I see it as highly probable that some users (either self-described social democrats, people from the far-left scene, or simply users confused by a phrasing contradicting their previous knowledge, as well as people in personal disagreement with the statement) driven here by certain social media where political discussions are frequent will continue to contest the wording. In case we can agree on this, maybe it's time to put a notice at the top of this talk page telling users to first read all previous discussions (with links to said discussions) before re-opening a talk page section… @The Four Deuces:, @Oolong:, @Lakers96:, @AnAnonymousUser222:, @RealLibertyEnjoyer:, @Tinynanorobots:, @Seraphimblade:, @A Socialist Trans Girl:, @Be-Plants:, @Dimadick:, @NoonIcarus:, @Void if removed:, @Lukewarmbeer:, @Ships&Space: (Sigh…, that's everyone from the RFC onwards), would you agree to the compromise option proposed by @Allmänbildare:? It would definitely bring this discussion forward, even if some might personally (and on the basis of their sources) consider social democracy to be "socialist" or to be "capitalist", this version might bring some semblance of consensus as it clearly makes all nuance clear (even clearer than it already is). ~2025-40923-54 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with @Allmänbildare AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion assumes that socialism means social ownership and control of the means of production, when it means some degree of social ownership and/or control. No socialist government has ever attempted to move ownership of the means of production to social ownership. Only communist governments have done that and even then it was because of the circumstances they faced rather than ideological commitment. TFD (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but the proposed solution doesn't exclude any of what you said. It just makes the general tendency towards social liberalism clearer, a tendency described by most reliable sources (which has nothing to do with what socialism is, as social liberalism is distinct from traditional social democracy and more centrist than left). Would you agree to the compromise proposed, which doesn't contain any false information, but just adds a little tone of nuance? ~2025-41022-98 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see much of a difference between modern social democratic parties and their neoliberal counterparts. One of the main reasons for the Pasokification in the 2010s was that the voters did not see much of a difference either. In the 1980s, the eponymous social-democratic PASOK in Greece championed actual reforms: (per the main article) introducing a welfare state, expanding health care coverage, making medical procedures available in rural areas for the first time, promoting state-subsidized tourism (social tourism) for lower-income families, and index-linking pensions. Under its new "modernizing" leadership from the mid-1990s onwards, PASOK had "abandoned the inclusive and progressive principles of economic parity on which it was founded" and did not have much support in the lower classes. Its grand coalition with New Democracy (liberal conservatism) and the Popular Orthodox Rally (religious conservatism) destroyed its credibility as a leftist party. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great hope everyone can move forward with the proposal by @Allmänbildare AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At any time in history, there is often a similarity between policies of parties across the political spectrum. Before Thatcher, the British conservative party built houses and supported the welfare state. Democrats in the US asked Eisenhower to be their candidate and he sent the National Guard in to desegregate a school in Little Rock in 1958. The John Birch Society claimed he was a Communist agent.

With the exception of Libertarians, all political parties change their policies according to the times and places they live in. PASOK "modernized" its policies in order to gain acceptance into the EU., which they believed would provide better results for the people than Papandreou's policies, which had improved conditions for working people after the dictatorship.

It's easy for the left-wing of social democratic parties to accuse the leadership of being liberals. But the left-wing has never led any social democratic party while they were in power and have always accused the leadership of selling out the party to capitalists, from Lassalle to Bernstein to the Weimar Republic to Ramsay Macdonald to Attlee. TFD (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, (but this really shouldn't be the matter right now), ideologically what today represents the "left-side" of Socialist Parties was previously (often) the majority (this is especially visible in the context of the French Parti Socialiste, and to a lesser degree in Scandinavian social democracy). But, you've made your position (and that of the sources you cite) clear, it might also have historical context-related reasons. But all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the compromise proposed above by Allmänbildare. This is intentionally drowning the discussion and getting us farther away from reaching a semblance of consensus. Again, if even reliable sources disagree, we won't be able to solve this question of social liberalism on a Wikipedia talk page (and it's not our job). This is about this new compromise proposition. ~2025-41025-43 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"ideologically what today represents the "left-side" of Socialist Parties was previously (often) the majority" is absolutely untrue. Jeremy Corbyn for example was a Bennite. TFD (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The positions of the left-side today were previously the majority within the mainstream parties. For example, in France, LFI, founded by PS-dissident Mélenchon, has a less radical programme than Mitterrand in 1981. To take another example, the co-founder of Die Linke, also a dissident form the SPD, Oskar Lafontaine (who has now left the party, but that's off-topic), was a chancellor candidate in the 1990s. You can claim these are just linked to changing times, but to deny any ideological change isn't really logical here, considering that it's been described by many analysts. But this is all irrelevant, there is a compromise wording on the table which isn't being discussed because of digressions like these. ~2025-41474-51 (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go along with Allmänbildare although I suspect there may be challenges to MW as an RS in this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest defining social democracy as "a set of social, economic and political ideologies within the broader socialist movement" (emphasis on "set of"), and the (sourced, from a previous version of the article: "It has been described as the most common form of Western or modern socialism,^[5] as well as the reformist wing of democratic socialism.^[6]". This information, which was removed, probably through vandalism, could be re-introduced later on as a point of nuance when describing social-democracy in the lead) reference to democratic socialism might be included but further down in the lead. In the absence of responses of many users (and digressions by some), I'm not sure if we can move on yet, but it would really be helpful to get more people's insight, in order to, potentially, agree to put up a warning sign on the top of this talk page avoiding repeats of the same arguments over and over again (by recommending readers first read the previous discussions before commenting). ~2025-41024-00 (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-41024-00 I really don't think we can state that social democracy is within socialism. It's very clear that this is a seriously contested claim, including by social democrats (in journals dedicated to social democracy!) as well as those outwith that tradition.

We can say it has historically been within socialism, or it is broadly aligned with socialism. If we assert that it is within socialism, we are straightforwardly failing to respect what Wikipedia:Neutral point of view has to say about "seriously contested assertions". Sorry!

It shouldn't be that hard to find a slightly softer phrasing that reflects modern usage. Oolong (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is about the compromise proposed above by Allmanbidare (sorry if I got the name wrong) which takes this into account. The introductory paragraph has already been changed accordingly. The question is if you would agree to this change (or at least prefer it to the previous version). The goal is to establish consensus (and maybe then put a template on the top of this talk page discouraging repeats of the same arguments, by linking to all previous discussions). ~2025-41474-51 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have (while respecting the new consensus proposition) gone ahead and changed the phrasing from "a political, social and economic ideology" to "a term used for a set of… ideologies", and added a couple of (well sourced) seemingly non-controversial details (political positioning on the left-right spectrum). Do you see any issues, @Allmänbildare:? ~2025-41942-09 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy is commonly referred to as just one ideology or political movement. I wouldn't describe it in plural form. Describing it as centre-left, left-wing as well as within the socialist movement seems a bit excessive but it's not incorrect. Allmänbildare (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your input. It seems we've reached a way of solving this issue (: (at least we're closer than before). I think it's important to mention the wide range of thoughts which can be described by the term from the beginning. The political positioning might make that a little more clear, but not by much. Would you support something like "a broad social, economic and political ideology within the wider socialist movement" (replacing "broader" by "wider", in order to describe the ideology as "broad"), @Allmänbildare:? ~2025-41942-09 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support that. I think "movement" rather than "ideology" would be better when describing social democracy as a broad concept. I also think it makes grammatically and structurally sense to describe social democracy as "broad" and socialism as "broader". Can you implement the suggested changes? Allmänbildare (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2025

^[7][8] Social democracy is a form of socialism

1. Contemporary political ideologies (2nd ed.). London: Pinter. 1999. pp. 80–103. ISBN 1-85567-605-2. OCLC 39706797.
2. Newman, Michael (2005). Socialism : a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 5. ISBN 978-0-19-151684-9. OCLC 94270255.
3. Weisskopf 1992, p. 10 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFWeisskopf1992 (help); Miller 1998, p. 827 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFMiller1998 (help); Jones 2001, p. 1410 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFJones2001 (help); Heywood 2012, pp. 125–128 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFHeywood2012 (help).
4. Gombert 2009, p. 8 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFGombert2009 (help); Sejersted 2011 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFSejersted2011 (help).
5. Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 81, 100 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFEatwellWright1999 (help); Pruitt 2019 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFPruitt2019 (help); Berman 2020 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFBerman2020 (help).
6. Williams 1985, p. 289 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFWilliams1985 (help); Foley 1994, p. 23 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFFoley1994 (help); Eatwell & Wright 1999, p. 80 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFEatwellWright1999 (help); Busky 2000, p. 8 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFBusky2000 (help); Sargent 2008, p. 117 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFSargent2008 (help); Heywood 2012, p. 97 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFHeywood2012 (help); Hain 2015, p. 3 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFHain2015 (help).
7. Contemporary political ideologies (2nd ed.). London: Pinter. 1999. pp. 80–103. ISBN 1-85567-605-2. OCLC 39706797.
8. Newman, Michael (2005). Socialism : a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 5. ISBN 978-0-19-151684-9. OCLC 94270255.