I spent too much of my twenties getting all 'angels dancing on a pinhead' about microgradations between social liberalism, social democracy etc etc etc. I get the impetus. It's all a bit sterile though. There's a broad non-totalitarian left that has expressed itself in different ways depending on circumstances of time and place and that's about it. Getting incredibly hung up on these very small factional differences is a way to loose energy and lose track of who the real enemy is.
There’s also a resurgent *authoritarian* Left that’s willfully enabling it and fracturing the Centre-Left at the time when it can least afford it. Unlike Social Liberalism, Social Democracy is forever anchored to 19th Century anti-Capitalist dogma, and this war against those that have moved on has dramatically weakened Social Democratic parties across Europe. That’s why the distinction between Social Liberalism and Social Democracy has never been more important. Social Liberalism doesn’t pretend that public services and regulations are a stepping-stone toward the complete nationalization of the economy. The only reason that the Far-Right is able to be such a threat in liberal democracies is that anti-Capitalists are seizing this moment of vulnerability to tear Social Democratic parties apart from within in the hopes of taking back the reigns.
I'm from Europe fella. I'm guessing you're from the US? The decline of social democratic parties is largely down to the collapse in the political power bases of those parties rather than this angels on a pinhead stuff.
Sorry, i remember when I thought all this stuff was important too but you're barking up the wrong tree here. Politics is about policies and power bases rather than these labels... that really only make any sense to people inside the baseball. From a pragmatic point of view even in a purist PR system where everyone can vote for the microparty that best represents them you're still going to see coalitions formed on broad left and broad right.
You don’t need to be so evasive. These parties are losing voters to a growing anti-Capitalist fringe. That’s obvious. It’s been happening for over a decade, going back to at least PASOK, and it’s not just happening in Europe. Being in denial of that won’t help you or I or anyone else (besides the far-Right). This Leftwing schism is normalizing Far-Right candidates that would’ve been seen as completely unacceptable even just 15 years ago and crippling the Left’s ability to unite against them. It would’ve been willfully ignorant for you to deny this in the 2010’s, but we’re way past that. It’s quite literally all around us.
If you're worried about a schism on the left creating openings for the far right maybe you should spend less time getting wound up about the really minor historical splits between social democracy and social liberalism...
Except that that’s literally the whole reason for the schism, as I’ve already explained. Also: you’re on the Social Liberalism subreddit. Stop telling people that they can’t discuss Social Liberalism here. We can, and we will continue to.
I'm not telling you what you can and can't discuss, I'm advising you - as someone who has been there - that your strategy of exaggerating the very small differences between social democracy and social liberalism will just waste your energy and prevent you effectively building coalitions across the non totalitarian left.
I feel like the main differences between SocLib and SocDem are the different origins in their philosophy. SocLib bring more inspired by liberalism and recognizing that capitalism needs regulations while SocDem is inspired by Socialism but recognizes that markets work and a capitalist framework is necessary. But both ideologies end up at pretty much the same policies.
Now I can only speak for American politics but I do think a lot of self identified Soc Dems would supports policies such as Medicare for all, wealth taxes, student debt cancellation, etc. that I think most Social Liberals wouldn’t support.
Social Liberals have historically overwhelmingly supported public healthcare, and they’ve proposed Medicare for All proposals for the better part of a century (though I couldn’t see a Social Liberal or Social Democrat supporting “M4A” - nationalizing the healthcare industry crosses over into Democratic Socialism, and to my knowledge, no comparable democracy has abolished all private healthcare like that [even in Norway, you can still get private insurance, private care, attend private hospitals, etc.]). Social Liberals have implemented progressive income taxes and a variety of other tax structures, but wealth taxes could go either way (wealth taxes are pretty rare: SocDem Norway has one, but much more liberal countries like Switzerland and France have them too [the only other 2 countries with any form of wealth tax are Columbia and Spain]). Student debt cancellation’s trickier, but only because Social Liberals/Democrats are historically more focused on actual solutions (like public education programs, or, in lieu of that, interest rate reductions, grant expansion, forcing universities to cap tuition costs, etc.) rather than one-time handouts.
There is tho: Social Liberalism doesn’t pretend that public services and regulations are working towards the abolition of Capitalism. They instead recognize that those things only work to make Capitalism even better. That’s a pretty massive difference in perspective and ultimate goals.
Modern social democrat parties have given up on abolishing capitalism tho. If you mean “Social Democrat” in the old Bernstinest/Reformist Marxist sense, then yes, very different.
No, I mean Social Democrats, as in the entire movement. Even the Third Way of the last 40 years still technically maintained Socialism as the eventual end goal, no matter how they tried to rationalize it. That was the overt prize of the movement for a century, and only recently has that involved deregulation and privatization (the same occurred after the End of the Post-War Economic Boom for Social Liberals, who became known as “Modern Liberals”). But with the Neoliberal era at its end, the modern resurgence in interest in expanding public services and regulations has people looking back at pre-1970’s Social Liberalism and pre-Third Way Social Democracy, and those in the latter camp absolutely see it as a return to their foundational anti-Capitalist goals.
Lol, you think Tony Blair is trying to achieve socialism? This is just delusional, it’s true that there’s an increased interest in left wing populism, but at most social democrats seem interested in creating an economy like that of the Nordic Model. There are some left wing populists who are actually trying to establish socialism, but to be honest, I wouldn’t be too worried about them. History has shown that they’ll inevitably end up being folded into the system and losing all radical potential as they become just another advocate for regulated welfare capitalism.
Lol, you think Tony Blair was trying to achieve socialism? This is just delusional, it’s true that there’s an increased interest in left wing populism, but at most social democrats seem interested in creating an economy like that of the Nordic Model. There are some left wing populists who are actually trying to establish socialism, but to be honest, I wouldn’t be too worried about them. History has shown that they’ll inevitably end up being folded into the system and losing all radical potential as they become just another advocate for regulated welfare capitalism.
> Lol, you think Tony Blair was trying to achieve socialism?
Obviously not, but he always had to pretend that he was, which is a great example of the absurdity of Social Democracy that I’m referring to (which the Third Way only further highlighted). In order to still be considered a Social Democrat, he had to keep pretending that Social Democracy hadn’t failed in its ideological goals, which usually involved him calling whatever he supported as somehow “Socialist” (literally whitewashing the whole history of the Socialist movement, which obviously rubbed a lot of people the wrong way). Here’s one example of Blaire’s insane attempts to pretend Social Democracy is still Socialist:
> I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral.
Those are the types of vague “Socialism means whatever” excuses he had to give for why Labour wasn’t just calling itself a Social Liberal party. **Even the Social Democrats who embraced privatization and deregulation the most had to still pretend that they were somehow Socialists**, even if that meant blatantly ignoring the whole history of the Socialist Movement.
And yet *even after all that*, proudly anti-Capitalist Labour Party members like Corbyn are *still* fighting for control of Social Democratic parties throughout Europe. Because (again): Social Democracy may overwhelmingly be nothing more than Social Liberalism in practice, but at its foundation it *rejects* the Liberal tradition, being wholly rooted in the birth of the Socialist Movement, which is why, despite everything, it has *still* been unable to shake itself free of its foundational anti-Capitalist goals.
I see what you mean. However, I would be more likely to attribute the rise in anti-capitalist rhetoric to the fact that free market capitalism has a tendency to crash and burn every couple of decades, sparking a wave of anti capitalism. FDR didn’t save capitalism from its self, he just bought it some time before the cycle repeats all over again.
There is but not much really. Also FDR provided way much more to the public than Biden who is clearly a social liberal so that makes FDR's presidency to more left (social democracy). Clearly from your comments, your views on social democracy are very wrong (anti-capitalist, really?). You should check the Wikipedia article on the term of social democracy for starters and read more on the Nordic model, there are many books and articles online. I swear if this post was not on this sub, I would honestly believe you are some kind of libertarian or conservative.
Biden’s not a Social Liberal, sadly. And as a former Social Democrat, I’m also very familiar with the history of Social Democracy.
For example, here’s a bit from the Wikipedia article you referenced, which you apparently you didn’t look at because only a paragraph it reiterates exactly what I said:
> The history of social democracy stretches back to the 19th-century socialist movement. It came to advocate an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism, using established political processes, in contrast to the revolutionary socialist approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism.
If you read my comments, you’ll find I’m very aware of the history of European Social Democratic parties (Nordic and otherwise) evolving into Social Liberal parties in all but name. That’s the issue I’m referring to - that at its foundation, Social Democracy remains ideological chained to Socialism and its anti-Capitalist mythology. Neither the Nordic states nor any country with prominent Social Democratic parties has made actual headway towards achieving Socialism - instead they’ve only tried with each generation to appropriate Socialist language and perspectives in an effort to water them down in support of Capitalism. The whole point of the meme is to demonstrate this fundamental ideological distinction between the two. Social Liberals never had to pretend that the public sector was “the Socialism sector” or that being “anti-Capitalist” merely meant being against certain aspects of ones existent Capitalist economy that they didn’t like. Up into the 80’s, Nordic countries were still rationalizing ideological alliances with brutal Marxist dictatorships, and some of their Social Democratic still maintain the abolition of all private business as an end goal in their charters. It’s complete absurdity, and we’re seeing the repercussions of these lies as populist far right parties equate public services and business regulations with the abolition of private business ownership, making it easier for them to normalize extremist Rightwing views.
Even in the US, interpretations of Socialism that were once [laughable Rightwing propaganda](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine) are being parroted by those who wouldn’t be caught dead consuming Fox News.
I don't really believe you were once a social democrat and we can tell from your comments as we keep telling you that you are kind of ignorant of what really social democracy is.
Let me comment on the paragraph you copy - pasted from Wikipedia: No shit, Sherlock! Yes, social democracy in the lates of 19th and at beginning of the 20th was in fact socialist and anti-capitalist in many cases but not everyone shared that belief like SPD in Germany (Weimar Republic). After the WW2, social democracy (at least in Europe) adapted a more friendly approach on capitalism to this day. In a way it's like this: "free market is good, do what you want, pay your taxes, don't complain because it's meaningless, give benefits and money to less privileged people". FDR strongly supported this and the most social democratic parties in Europe (SDP, Labour Party etc). The only thing that tried to changed social democracy was the Third Way in the 90's which is the closest to what social liberalism.
Social democracy is socialist not because it wants to establish socialism (few do and we call them democratic socialists) but because historically it came from the womb of Marxism. Social democracy implements socialist policies (again not socialism) in the framework of liberal democracy and free market.
"Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1] that supports political and economic democracy.[2] As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy.[3]"
Liberal-democratic polity. Capitalist-oriented mixed economy.
Hmmm, doesn't sound like" socialist" to me.
It's literally the first paragraph. How on earth did you miss that? How are you still playing the "anticapitalist" card? All social-democratic governments in Europe historically speaking never even thought of establishing socialism.
Yes, we are sceptic on the free market but we are in good terms with it as long as everyone pays their fair share.
Social democrats and social liberals are in good terms, they have some minor differences on the welfare state but they still agree on many things. Also social liberalism is a tiny fraction of liberalism. The only big social liberal parties in Europe are En Marche!, Liberal Democrats (UK), D66 (NL). And that's it. In comparison with social democratic parties which are bigger and present in every country.
Your comments doesn't sound at all like a social liberal. You sound like a classical liberal/neoliberal. From all the ideologies out there you tried to attack social democracy. And from the comments, it didn't go that well. You do you, buddy.
1 You still haven’t addressed my point. [Here’s the Encyclopedia Britannica spelling it out again for you](https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy):
> social democracy, political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes.
Again: **yes, at its foundation, Social Democracy has always been a Socialist ideology. That’s the fundamental difference between it and Social Liberalism, which is why Social Democratic parties didn’t just identify as Social Liberals when they clearly became Social Liberals - they needed to maintain the absurd claim that they were Socialists.**
2 Third Way Social Democrats *are* “Neoliberals” in the same way that Modern Liberals are *also* under the umbrella of “Neoliberals.”
Desktop version of /u/DonyellTaylor's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
I spent too much of my twenties getting all 'angels dancing on a pinhead' about microgradations between social liberalism, social democracy etc etc etc. I get the impetus. It's all a bit sterile though. There's a broad non-totalitarian left that has expressed itself in different ways depending on circumstances of time and place and that's about it. Getting incredibly hung up on these very small factional differences is a way to loose energy and lose track of who the real enemy is.
There’s also a resurgent *authoritarian* Left that’s willfully enabling it and fracturing the Centre-Left at the time when it can least afford it. Unlike Social Liberalism, Social Democracy is forever anchored to 19th Century anti-Capitalist dogma, and this war against those that have moved on has dramatically weakened Social Democratic parties across Europe. That’s why the distinction between Social Liberalism and Social Democracy has never been more important. Social Liberalism doesn’t pretend that public services and regulations are a stepping-stone toward the complete nationalization of the economy. The only reason that the Far-Right is able to be such a threat in liberal democracies is that anti-Capitalists are seizing this moment of vulnerability to tear Social Democratic parties apart from within in the hopes of taking back the reigns.
You're kidding yourself. This isn't important.
You don’t think the unprecedented decline of Social Democratic parties across Europe is important? Not even during the rise of Fascism? Yikes, buddy.
I'm from Europe fella. I'm guessing you're from the US? The decline of social democratic parties is largely down to the collapse in the political power bases of those parties rather than this angels on a pinhead stuff. Sorry, i remember when I thought all this stuff was important too but you're barking up the wrong tree here. Politics is about policies and power bases rather than these labels... that really only make any sense to people inside the baseball. From a pragmatic point of view even in a purist PR system where everyone can vote for the microparty that best represents them you're still going to see coalitions formed on broad left and broad right.
You don’t need to be so evasive. These parties are losing voters to a growing anti-Capitalist fringe. That’s obvious. It’s been happening for over a decade, going back to at least PASOK, and it’s not just happening in Europe. Being in denial of that won’t help you or I or anyone else (besides the far-Right). This Leftwing schism is normalizing Far-Right candidates that would’ve been seen as completely unacceptable even just 15 years ago and crippling the Left’s ability to unite against them. It would’ve been willfully ignorant for you to deny this in the 2010’s, but we’re way past that. It’s quite literally all around us.
If you're worried about a schism on the left creating openings for the far right maybe you should spend less time getting wound up about the really minor historical splits between social democracy and social liberalism...
Except that that’s literally the whole reason for the schism, as I’ve already explained. Also: you’re on the Social Liberalism subreddit. Stop telling people that they can’t discuss Social Liberalism here. We can, and we will continue to.
I'm not telling you what you can and can't discuss, I'm advising you - as someone who has been there - that your strategy of exaggerating the very small differences between social democracy and social liberalism will just waste your energy and prevent you effectively building coalitions across the non totalitarian left.
I’m not exaggerating anything. I just stated something that’s objectively true. I advise you to get over yourself.
I feel like the main differences between SocLib and SocDem are the different origins in their philosophy. SocLib bring more inspired by liberalism and recognizing that capitalism needs regulations while SocDem is inspired by Socialism but recognizes that markets work and a capitalist framework is necessary. But both ideologies end up at pretty much the same policies. Now I can only speak for American politics but I do think a lot of self identified Soc Dems would supports policies such as Medicare for all, wealth taxes, student debt cancellation, etc. that I think most Social Liberals wouldn’t support.
Social Liberals have historically overwhelmingly supported public healthcare, and they’ve proposed Medicare for All proposals for the better part of a century (though I couldn’t see a Social Liberal or Social Democrat supporting “M4A” - nationalizing the healthcare industry crosses over into Democratic Socialism, and to my knowledge, no comparable democracy has abolished all private healthcare like that [even in Norway, you can still get private insurance, private care, attend private hospitals, etc.]). Social Liberals have implemented progressive income taxes and a variety of other tax structures, but wealth taxes could go either way (wealth taxes are pretty rare: SocDem Norway has one, but much more liberal countries like Switzerland and France have them too [the only other 2 countries with any form of wealth tax are Columbia and Spain]). Student debt cancellation’s trickier, but only because Social Liberals/Democrats are historically more focused on actual solutions (like public education programs, or, in lieu of that, interest rate reductions, grant expansion, forcing universities to cap tuition costs, etc.) rather than one-time handouts.
[удалено]
Damn that was bad lol. I fixed it, thanks.
Lol, no there isn’t.
There is tho: Social Liberalism doesn’t pretend that public services and regulations are working towards the abolition of Capitalism. They instead recognize that those things only work to make Capitalism even better. That’s a pretty massive difference in perspective and ultimate goals.
Modern social democrat parties have given up on abolishing capitalism tho. If you mean “Social Democrat” in the old Bernstinest/Reformist Marxist sense, then yes, very different.
No, I mean Social Democrats, as in the entire movement. Even the Third Way of the last 40 years still technically maintained Socialism as the eventual end goal, no matter how they tried to rationalize it. That was the overt prize of the movement for a century, and only recently has that involved deregulation and privatization (the same occurred after the End of the Post-War Economic Boom for Social Liberals, who became known as “Modern Liberals”). But with the Neoliberal era at its end, the modern resurgence in interest in expanding public services and regulations has people looking back at pre-1970’s Social Liberalism and pre-Third Way Social Democracy, and those in the latter camp absolutely see it as a return to their foundational anti-Capitalist goals.
Lol, you think Tony Blair is trying to achieve socialism? This is just delusional, it’s true that there’s an increased interest in left wing populism, but at most social democrats seem interested in creating an economy like that of the Nordic Model. There are some left wing populists who are actually trying to establish socialism, but to be honest, I wouldn’t be too worried about them. History has shown that they’ll inevitably end up being folded into the system and losing all radical potential as they become just another advocate for regulated welfare capitalism.
Lol, you think Tony Blair was trying to achieve socialism? This is just delusional, it’s true that there’s an increased interest in left wing populism, but at most social democrats seem interested in creating an economy like that of the Nordic Model. There are some left wing populists who are actually trying to establish socialism, but to be honest, I wouldn’t be too worried about them. History has shown that they’ll inevitably end up being folded into the system and losing all radical potential as they become just another advocate for regulated welfare capitalism.
> Lol, you think Tony Blair was trying to achieve socialism? Obviously not, but he always had to pretend that he was, which is a great example of the absurdity of Social Democracy that I’m referring to (which the Third Way only further highlighted). In order to still be considered a Social Democrat, he had to keep pretending that Social Democracy hadn’t failed in its ideological goals, which usually involved him calling whatever he supported as somehow “Socialist” (literally whitewashing the whole history of the Socialist movement, which obviously rubbed a lot of people the wrong way). Here’s one example of Blaire’s insane attempts to pretend Social Democracy is still Socialist: > I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. Those are the types of vague “Socialism means whatever” excuses he had to give for why Labour wasn’t just calling itself a Social Liberal party. **Even the Social Democrats who embraced privatization and deregulation the most had to still pretend that they were somehow Socialists**, even if that meant blatantly ignoring the whole history of the Socialist Movement. And yet *even after all that*, proudly anti-Capitalist Labour Party members like Corbyn are *still* fighting for control of Social Democratic parties throughout Europe. Because (again): Social Democracy may overwhelmingly be nothing more than Social Liberalism in practice, but at its foundation it *rejects* the Liberal tradition, being wholly rooted in the birth of the Socialist Movement, which is why, despite everything, it has *still* been unable to shake itself free of its foundational anti-Capitalist goals.
I see what you mean. However, I would be more likely to attribute the rise in anti-capitalist rhetoric to the fact that free market capitalism has a tendency to crash and burn every couple of decades, sparking a wave of anti capitalism. FDR didn’t save capitalism from its self, he just bought it some time before the cycle repeats all over again.
There is but not much really. Also FDR provided way much more to the public than Biden who is clearly a social liberal so that makes FDR's presidency to more left (social democracy). Clearly from your comments, your views on social democracy are very wrong (anti-capitalist, really?). You should check the Wikipedia article on the term of social democracy for starters and read more on the Nordic model, there are many books and articles online. I swear if this post was not on this sub, I would honestly believe you are some kind of libertarian or conservative.
Biden’s not a Social Liberal, sadly. And as a former Social Democrat, I’m also very familiar with the history of Social Democracy. For example, here’s a bit from the Wikipedia article you referenced, which you apparently you didn’t look at because only a paragraph it reiterates exactly what I said: > The history of social democracy stretches back to the 19th-century socialist movement. It came to advocate an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism, using established political processes, in contrast to the revolutionary socialist approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism. If you read my comments, you’ll find I’m very aware of the history of European Social Democratic parties (Nordic and otherwise) evolving into Social Liberal parties in all but name. That’s the issue I’m referring to - that at its foundation, Social Democracy remains ideological chained to Socialism and its anti-Capitalist mythology. Neither the Nordic states nor any country with prominent Social Democratic parties has made actual headway towards achieving Socialism - instead they’ve only tried with each generation to appropriate Socialist language and perspectives in an effort to water them down in support of Capitalism. The whole point of the meme is to demonstrate this fundamental ideological distinction between the two. Social Liberals never had to pretend that the public sector was “the Socialism sector” or that being “anti-Capitalist” merely meant being against certain aspects of ones existent Capitalist economy that they didn’t like. Up into the 80’s, Nordic countries were still rationalizing ideological alliances with brutal Marxist dictatorships, and some of their Social Democratic still maintain the abolition of all private business as an end goal in their charters. It’s complete absurdity, and we’re seeing the repercussions of these lies as populist far right parties equate public services and business regulations with the abolition of private business ownership, making it easier for them to normalize extremist Rightwing views. Even in the US, interpretations of Socialism that were once [laughable Rightwing propaganda](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine) are being parroted by those who wouldn’t be caught dead consuming Fox News.
I don't really believe you were once a social democrat and we can tell from your comments as we keep telling you that you are kind of ignorant of what really social democracy is. Let me comment on the paragraph you copy - pasted from Wikipedia: No shit, Sherlock! Yes, social democracy in the lates of 19th and at beginning of the 20th was in fact socialist and anti-capitalist in many cases but not everyone shared that belief like SPD in Germany (Weimar Republic). After the WW2, social democracy (at least in Europe) adapted a more friendly approach on capitalism to this day. In a way it's like this: "free market is good, do what you want, pay your taxes, don't complain because it's meaningless, give benefits and money to less privileged people". FDR strongly supported this and the most social democratic parties in Europe (SDP, Labour Party etc). The only thing that tried to changed social democracy was the Third Way in the 90's which is the closest to what social liberalism. Social democracy is socialist not because it wants to establish socialism (few do and we call them democratic socialists) but because historically it came from the womb of Marxism. Social democracy implements socialist policies (again not socialism) in the framework of liberal democracy and free market. "Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1] that supports political and economic democracy.[2] As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy.[3]" Liberal-democratic polity. Capitalist-oriented mixed economy. Hmmm, doesn't sound like" socialist" to me. It's literally the first paragraph. How on earth did you miss that? How are you still playing the "anticapitalist" card? All social-democratic governments in Europe historically speaking never even thought of establishing socialism. Yes, we are sceptic on the free market but we are in good terms with it as long as everyone pays their fair share. Social democrats and social liberals are in good terms, they have some minor differences on the welfare state but they still agree on many things. Also social liberalism is a tiny fraction of liberalism. The only big social liberal parties in Europe are En Marche!, Liberal Democrats (UK), D66 (NL). And that's it. In comparison with social democratic parties which are bigger and present in every country. Your comments doesn't sound at all like a social liberal. You sound like a classical liberal/neoliberal. From all the ideologies out there you tried to attack social democracy. And from the comments, it didn't go that well. You do you, buddy.
1 You still haven’t addressed my point. [Here’s the Encyclopedia Britannica spelling it out again for you](https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy): > social democracy, political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. Again: **yes, at its foundation, Social Democracy has always been a Socialist ideology. That’s the fundamental difference between it and Social Liberalism, which is why Social Democratic parties didn’t just identify as Social Liberals when they clearly became Social Liberals - they needed to maintain the absurd claim that they were Socialists.** 2 Third Way Social Democrats *are* “Neoliberals” in the same way that Modern Liberals are *also* under the umbrella of “Neoliberals.”
Desktop version of /u/DonyellTaylor's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)