Is social democracy a socialist ideology?

[semipotentwalrus]

Inspired by a conversation I had today elsewhere, I thought I'd ask here: do you consider social democracy a socialist ideology? I'm not going to give my opinion (at first, at least) or define what either of the terms mean, I want your points of view.

[Haighus]

I say no.

It contains some socialist policies, but is really the most house-trained form of capitalism.

It also did not arise from a socialist tradition, but more as a reaction to prevent more radical alternatives taking root.

[Disciple of Fate]

I would sort of agree and disagree with Haighus. I agree that for the most part it is now part of mild capitalism, but then is what we have now true social democracy/democrats?

As for the start, the brief education I had on this in the wider context is that originally social democrats and communists were two sides working towards the same end goal, just with very different methods.

I think it depends on what you consider/term a 'pure' social democrat? I also think it very much depends on your own political views, as those more on the left would sooner disagree that it is on the side of socialism than those on the right.

[Haighus]

Aug 17, 2023 12:02:15 GMT -5 Disciple of Fate said:

I would sort of agree and disagree with Haighus. I agree that for the most part it is now part of mild capitalism, but then is what we have now true social democracy/democrats?

As for the start, the brief education I had on this in the wider context is that originally social democrats and communists were two sides working towards the same end goal, just with very different methods.

I think it depends on what you consider/term a 'pure' social democrat? I also think it very much depends on your own political views, as those more on the left would sooner disagree that it is on the side of socialism than those on the right.

I think you are talking about democratic socialists, rather than social democrats. The former wants a more socialist nation but is constrained by the system they are working for change within. The latter does not want to abolish capitalism but wants to reign in its worst excesses. The end result in policies can be very similar (a mix of capitalist and socialist policy) but the underpinning ideology and end goal are different.

[Disciple of Fate]

Aug 17, 2023 15:10:52 GMT -5 Haighus said:

Aug 17, 2023 12:02:15 GMT -5 Disciple of Fate said:

I would sort of agree and disagree with Haighus. I agree that for the most part it is now part of mild capitalism, but then is what we have now true social democracy/democrats?

As for the start, the brief education I had on this in the wider context is that originally social democrats and communists were two sides working towards the same end goal, just with very different methods.

I think it depends on what you consider/term a 'pure' social democrat? I also think it very much depends on your own political views, as those more on the left would sooner disagree that it is on the side of socialism than those on the right.

I think you are talking about democratic socialists, rather than social democrats. The former wants a more socialist nation but is constrained by the system they are working for change within. The latter does not want to abolish capitalism but wants to reign in its worst excesses. The end result in policies can be very similar (a mix of capitalist and socialist policy) but the underpinning ideology and end goal are different.

If I remember correctly, it depends on (the time period of) your definition. Early social democracy (late 19th/early 20th), as was taught to us in a more political science manner, advocated for a move towards socialism through democracy. Later towards the 2nd half of the 20th century, as social democracy moved towards operating within capitalism, you see a move away from its origins. But democratic socialism is more of a catch-all term that overlaps in part with early social democracy, before the mid century shift. Which is why I questioned if we have 'true' social democrats today, instead of heirs to a squandered goal.


But Walrus is the expert here.

[Haighus]

Aug 17, 2023 16:45:38 GMT -5 Disciple of Fate said:

Aug 17, 2023 15:10:52 GMT -5 Haighus said:

I think you are talking about democratic socialists, rather than social democrats. The former wants a more socialist nation but is constrained by the system they are working for change within. The latter does not want to abolish capitalism but wants to reign in its worst excesses. The end result in policies can be very similar (a mix of capitalist and socialist policy) but the underpinning ideology and end goal are different.

If I remember correctly, it depends on (the time period of) your definition. Early social democracy (late 19th/early 20th), as was taught to us in a more political science manner, advocated for a move towards socialism through democracy. Later towards the 2nd half of the 20th century, as social democracy moved towards operating within capitalism, you see a move away from its origins. But democratic socialism is more of a catch-all term that overlaps in part with early social democracy, before the mid century shift. Which is why I questioned if we have 'true' social democrats today, instead of heirs to a squandered goal.


But Walrus is the expert here.

Ah, thats fair. Terminology on this stuff can shift and be used differently over time and between groups.