Do You Consider Social Democrats Socialists

[H. Ross Peron]

Option 2 for me.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Option 4.

Useful maxim: All socialists are leftists, but not all leftists are socialists.

[Ebowed]

Useful maxim: All socialists are leftists, but not all leftists are socialists.

Sort of useful but don't you think the maxim: All libertarians are fiscal conservatives, but not all fiscal conservatives are libertarians. is catchier?

[Zioneer]

Option 2. They're basically just more lefty progressives, rather than a radical break with capitalism. I don't consider myself a socialist, but I do love me some modern welfare state.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've come to the conclusion that Social Democracy is the synthesis of Socialism and Liberalism.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Depends on whether they consider social democracy a means or an end.

[TNF]

Social Democrats are not socialists.

[SWE]

Depends on whether they consider social democracy a means or an end.

^^^^^

Ofc everyone I ever met who identifies as a SocDem considered it an end, so I went with option 4.

[Murica!]

Depends on whether they consider social democracy a means or an end.

^^^^^

Ofc everyone I ever met who identifies as a SocDem considered it an end, so I went with option 4.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is an odd question, but gives a good excuse for a little historical ramble.

Historically 'social democrat' denoted a socialist who believed in participating in parliamentary politics while also advocating for universal suffrage. It was particularly associated with the various Marxist parties who modeled themselves on the SPD, which is why we have the little historical irony of the future CPSU being founded as the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In countries where the dominant socialist movement had a more indigenous character and was therefore not Marxist in orientation, the term was generally interchangeable with Marxist.¹

The dominant tendency in Marxism at this stage, incidentally, was the rather dogmatic Orthodox Marxism of Karl Kautsky, an ideological current that has no heirs. Orthodox Marxist's believed in History as a force; that events would inevitably conspire to produce the final victory of the workers movement, and that the role of socialist parties was to work towards the day that the Messiah came back prepare the ground for the imminent transformation of society. If you want to know why the often numerically superior and at times notably more popular Mensheviks never exploited their advantages over the Bolshevik cult, this is why. History turned out quite differently, and the two dominant strands in socialism ended up being the two principle opposition currents to Orthodox Marxism: the Revisionism of Eduard Bernstein (which was founded on the fairly logical principle that as History is plainly not unfolding as it ought to, why don't we focus our attention instead on practical reforms to improve the lives of our supporters?) and the tendency that eventually became known as Communism (founded on the logical but somewhat psychotic principle that as History is plainly not unfolding as it ought to, why don't we force the little fycker to do what it ought to fycking do?). Almost all Marxist parties split between the two tendencies,² and the term Social Democrat became associated entirely with the former as it was abandoned by the latter in favour of the new/old term Communist.

Which is where things get a little confusing, because as now there was little difference in practice between the Revisionist parties and non-Marxist socialist parties such as the Labour Party or the ALP, it became common (but only in Left Intelligentsia circles and only rarely in those countries without a strong Marxist tradition) to describe all non-revolutionary socialist parties (whatever their origins) as Social Democratic.

And things get even more confusing in the Post War decades, because in those countries without a Marxist tradition (which often happened to be English speaking countries), some people on the right-wing of their respective socialist parties started to refer to themselves as 'Social Democrats' as a way of distinguishing themselves ideologically from their more left-leaning comrades. Though something of an end was brought to this when part of the right-wing of the Labour Party broke away to form the (short lived) Social Democratic Party in the early 1980s.

And things get even more confusion, because (alas) academia discovered the word and threw it around like confetti from the 1970s onwards to refer to all kinds of different things (c.f. the supposed 'social democratic consensus' in Post War Britain). Worse still: the term was discovered by American academics, and as we all know most Americans are deeply weird on the subject of socialism and act as those the terms associated with it are magic words with all sorts of deep and significant mystical meanings. Americans badly need to be converted en masse to nominalism in my never knowingly humble opinion.

All of which leaves us in a state of considerable confusion, but I would argue that if the term has any utility, it is to denote traditional parties of the non-Communist Left and the members and supporters of such parties. Although, given all of the above, it's hardly a perfect term: there are certain members of the Labour Party who would likely respond to being described as 'social democrats' with physical violence. As to who is or is not a socialist, the difficulty you'll find there is that 'socialism' has no clear definition (or at least there is not now and never has been a clear definition of 'socialism' that all self-described socialists would agree with), and given the history of the word (in terms of widespread use it suddenly appeared in the early 19th century as a label applied to a wide range of political radicalisms, some of which were not particularly new) can never have one, except in very general terms. I wouldn't quite go so far as to argue that everyone who believes that they are a socialist is one, but such a claim would not be all that wide of the mark. Although if you'd rather be very American about this and just go with whatever nonsense Merriam-Webster claims, then I doubt I can do anything to stop you.

<sub>1. I.e. this was the case in both Britain (dominated by an already venerable tradition of trade unionism and heavily influenced by Nonconformist Protestantism and - in some areas - Catholicism) and Russia (dominated by the frankly nihilistic Socialist Revolutionaries). Not that the respective non-Marxist socialist traditions in either country had much (or frankly anything) in common with each other.
2. The remaining Orthodox Marxists were typically subsumed into the ranks of the Revisionists, though not always without drama. In some parties they - rather than the Revisionists - remained the dominant faction, which was usually terrible news for the party in question. But what is notable is that they very rarely fell in with the Communists.</sub>

[Indy Texas]

Social Democrats aren't socialists...anymore.

Social Democracy :: Socialism
Unitarianism :: Christianity

[Redalgo]

In the its American usage, "social democracy" denotes an order under which political interests are primate over their economic counterparts, giving rise to a mixed-market economy, strong state, highish tax rates, and reallocation of resources via a welfare regime that takes money from and then delivers public services to all citizens - typically to uphold social rights without use of means-testing. If a social democrat favours a gradualist, peaceable, reform-oriented approach to achieving democratic socialism then yes, that person is a socialist. If not, and social democracy is meant to be a permanent order, the adherent could be more reasonably considered a corporatist or perhaps some sort of welfare capitalist.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yep. Sanders and others like him are socialists through and through.

[ElectionsGuy]

No

[TNF]

Yep. Sanders and others like him are socialists through and through.

Bernie Sanders is a left-liberal at best.

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes, but most modern "social democratic" parties are neither social democratic nor socialist.

[© tweed]

not since 1914.

[Cranberry]

Yep. Sanders and others like him are socialists through and through.

You really have no clue of what socialism is if you truly think so.

[Figueira]

Depends on whether they consider social democracy a means or an end.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Some combination of 3 and 4. Some Atlas Social Democrats are socialists while some Atlas socialists are merely social democrats.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yep. Sanders and others like him are socialists through and through.

You really have no clue of what socialism is if you truly think so.

Sanders admits, to an extent, that he is one. He supports single payer health care, is a huge opponent of most trade deals, and supports an even higher corporate tax rate than we already have (which will just take more jobs away from the us). Not saying he'd outlaw private enterprise, but to say he endorses capitalism is incorrect.

[SWE]

Yep. Sanders and others like him are socialists through and through.

You really have no clue of what socialism is if you truly think so.

Sanders admits, to an extent, that he is one.

What does being socialist 'to an extent' mean? That's like saying a woman is pregnant, but only 'to an extent'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not socialism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also not socialism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still not socialism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, good, you acknowledge that he's a capitalist. Before this line I was worried you might be saying something stupid

You must be logged in to read this quote.

....
"I know Sanders is a capitalist, I know how he supports capitalism, but I'm going to argue that he isn't anyway"

Pls never change Wulfric

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Here is one of the greatest socialists in human history. He passed healthcare, supported a welfare state, raised taxes and opposed free trade to protect workers:



What a hero.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yep. Sanders and others like him are socialists through and through.

You really have no clue of what socialism is if you truly think so.

Sanders admits, to an extent, that he is one.

What does being socialist 'to an extent' mean? That's like saying a woman is pregnant, but only 'to an extent'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not socialism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also not socialism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still not socialism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, good, you acknowledge that he's a capitalist. Before this line I was worried you might be saying something stupid

You must be logged in to read this quote.

....
"I know Sanders is a capitalist, I know how he supports capitalism, but I'm going to argue that he isn't anyway"

Pls never change Wulfric

Sanders admits to being a 'democratic socialist'. That's what I was alluding to above.

Also, socialism /=/ no non-government owned businesses:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.just-say-why.com/blog/2012/04/21/whats-the-difference-between-fascism-socialism-and-communism/

And for you to act as if single payer, which involves the govt. Taking complete control of the health care industry, is a capitalist policy, is just silly.

[SWE]

I mean I'd argue this, but you linked me to a random blog somewhere so now I'm convinced.