Social democracy

[pecksniff]

This is what it is.

Social democracy is basically a kind of compromise between capitalism and democratic socialism. While socialism proposes that all industries come under state or cooperative ownership and control, social democracy instead proposes the nationalizing of only certain essential services while still allowing private enterprise for the rest. The rationale is that certain services do not operate in the interests of the public good in a for-profit environment and inevitably result in inequality, but free enterprise is still necessary for innovation and competition (and indeed, social-democratic systems can and do involve private enterprises acting in direct competition with the nationalized services). Essentially, it's democratic socialism within a capitalistic framework. As a result, some of the more radical socialist ideologies tend to be highly critical of social democracy, feeling that it at best only offers a temporary delay, not a solution to the corrosive effects capital has on society.

Associated Economic Theories (if any):
Keynesian, Behavioural

Democracy and Meritocracy (Important and Yes/No, or Unimportant):
Democracy: Important-Yes
Meritocracy: Important-Yes

"Essential services" can refer to education, public transport, health insurance, welfare, water, electricity, and so on. In fact, the truth is that most government systems that self-identify as capitalist are also social-democratic in some way or another, with most services above nationalized: even the USA, which is infamously wary of socialism as a nation, has such programs as Medicare (nationalized health insurance for citizens over 65) and so on.

Most developed countries are social democracies to some extent and have an official social democratic party. Spain currently has the longest record of its form of the party, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party/ Partido Socialista Obrero Español, being in power. It's been in power for 21 of the 40 years Spain has been a democracy. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, Social Democracies were limited to Western/Northern Europe and anglophile countries, but the practice has spread to the Asian Tiger economies of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. It's even gaining hold in the world's most populous democracy, India, as its middle class and economy continue to grow and develop. Its boldest push towards a social democracy is a universal healthcare program for the country's poorest half that was implemented in 2018 with a goal of true universal healthcare by 2030.

In terms of influence outside general Marxism, Social Democracy tends to draw heavily from the Enlightenment. Social Democratic parties tend to push the platform of secularism, progress and a technocratic/democratic approach to governing more so than other political parties in nations they are found in (thus making it Enlightenment liberalism turned Up to Eleven).

Nothing wrong with that, is there?

 

[pecksniff]

See also.

Social democracy is a political ideology which advocates for state intervention to fulfill social, financial and political security, justice and equality of opportunity for people and actively reorder society in a way that is conducive to such developments. Such changes should be achieved by a legitimated and free democracy. It is common but not unique to Europe, where social democrats regularly feature as one of the major parties and have governed (or at least participated in governments) in many states, most notably in Northern Europe (up to being nicknamed the "Nordic model", which is effectively a blend of social liberalism and social democracy). Social democrats traditionally regard government intervention as a force for good, regulating markets and engaging in redistributive efforts for the benefit of disadvantaged groups and consumers to establish a more equitable society. The ideologies' economic model is that of John Maynard Keynes, the father of modern macroeconomics.

Somewhat confusingly, social democracy is not the same thing as democratic socialism, nearly identical names notwithstanding. Modern social democrats believe in maintaining a market economy with varying (but as discussed below, often dwindling) degrees of regulation and with a welfare state — democratic socialists do not (liberal socialists are the only nominally "socialists" who do), as they seek to abolish those goodies.

In American discourse the leftiness of contemporary social democrats in Europe is often greatly overestimated. In practice European social democratic parties are primarily moderate establishment parties, only and mostly symbolically slightly to the left, and they have been marked by over a century of reformism since they split from socialism, including a neoliberal turn since the 1980s.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think many of the posters understand that, we just don't have time to give a full course on economics. There really isn't an argument you can make that children deserve a basic education that BoBo won't counter with, what if I want to home school not teach history, science, or economics? I know, you want to force me because you hate America.

 

[WillJ8787]

See also.

Excellent post

 

[WillJ8787]

I think many of the posters understand that, we just don't have time to give a full course on economics. There really isn't an argument you can make that children deserve a basic education that BoBo won't counter with, what if I want to home school not teach history, science, or economics? I know, you want to force me because you hate America.

Correct about Bobo CornCobb....throw banana's at him.

 

[pecksniff]

I think many of the posters understand that, we just don't have time to give a full course on economics. There really isn't an argument you can make that children deserve a basic education that BoBo won't counter with, what if I want to home school not teach history, science, or economics? I know, you want to force me because you hate America.

I keep telling him, no Bolshevik hated Russia. And social democrats ain't Bolsheviks.

 

[CornusKousa]

This is what it is.



Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Then do it in your state.

I think many of the posters understand that, we just don't have time to give a full course on economics. There really isn't an argument you can make that children deserve a basic education that BoBo won't counter with, what if I want to home school not teach history, science, or economics? I know, you want to force me because you hate America.

I don't mind children getting a basic education.

And you don't understand or are dishonestly misrepresenting everything I've said on the matter.

Typical.

Correct about Bobo CornCobb....throw banana's at him.

No shocker WillJ jumped in after bullshit.

I keep telling him, no Bolshevik hated Russia. And social democrats ain't Bolsheviks.

Then why did they destroy it and why are Democrats wanting to do the same here??

 

[pecksniff]

Then why did they destroy it and why are Democrats wanting to do the same here??

They didn't destroy it. Russia is still there. And not necessarily better off than it was before 1989.

Russian joke: "Everything the Communists told us about Communism was a lie. Unfortunately, everything they told us about capitalism was true."

 

[LittleDixie]

The strength of a purely capitalistic system is that every individual in a capitalistic "system" is looking out for their own best interests, and competing to make the most money. This competition leads the participants to out do their competition by serving the public better than the other, and the money they make is a direct reward for doing that.

The fact that nationalized industries owned by the government lack this competition is why they fail. They have no competition, and therefore have no impulse to improve. There is no feedback for them doing a poor job, because there is no alternative for consumers. Since they are paid through taxes, there is no way they could ever not be paid, no matter how terrible their work.

My father will sit and talk for an hour straight about his problems with the DMV. He'll tell you about how the people who work there are soulless robots and how you'll wait for an hour to get to the head of one line only to be told that you need some critical piece of paperwork, or that you're in the wrong line and have to wait in another one. It's a funny story to hear him tell it, but it's exactly why government agencies fail and private industries succeed.

Can you imagine what would happen if Starbucks and WalMart could issue driver's licenses? Do you think you might get better service by people that treated you like a valued customer? Do you think they would make your wait shorter and compete with each other for your business? They absolutely would - and they would not make you hate having to deal with them. The DMV exists ONLY because no one else can compete with them by law - because if anyone could compete with them, no one would go to the DMV again.

I think that private industry and capitalist businesses will outperform any government agency. Customers will be happier and receive far better service.

 

[pecksniff]

The strength of a purely capitalistic system is that every individual in a capitalistic "system" is looking out for their own best interests, and competing to make the most money. This competition leads the participants to out do their competition by serving the public better than the other, and the money they make is a direct reward for doing that.

All that still happens in the social democracies.

I think that private industry and capitalist businesses will outperform any government agency. Customers will be happier and receive far better service.

Doesn't work out that way with health insurance, and a great many other things.

 

[CornusKousa]

They didn't destroy it. Russia is still there. And not necessarily better off than it was before 1989.

They did, their nation and culture were forever altered into a horrible grotesque example of humanity at it's worst.

All that still happens in the social democracies.

Not to the same extent or intensity though.

Not even close.

Doesn't work out that way with health insurance.

So then why do all the people with money in social democracies come here more than any other place when they need the very best there is???

You're conflating quality with equitable access..... not the same thing comrade.

The best shit is in the USA. Not everyone gets access though. Equity = shitty for everyone.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

All that still happens in the social democracies.



Doesn't work out that way with health insurance.

It doesn't work that way in many many many many...., cases, lets use roadways, if all roads were privately owned, would a road to somewhere, where a few vehicles a day travel, be profitable? If the answer is no, guess what, no road.

How about drinking water, again if too few people drinking from the supply, no water, no private company is going to subsidise a water treatment plant.

Urban renewal of brown spaces ( think Love Canal ) would not happen through simple capitalism.

Capitalism is all about profit, which is why you need a Government to fund/support enterprise that supports society, where those enterprise services are needed.

People who think capitalism is the be all end all, really have no idea of what America would be like, if it was only a capitalistic society.

I think that private industry and capitalist businesses will outperform any government agency. Customers will be happier and receive far better service.

 

[LittleDixie]

All that still happens in the social democracies.

The government is free to find investors and start up a new company that duplicates an existing service. If they want to make a power plant, then they can take out a loan or get a benefactor to give them money to build it themselves. Without any taxpayer money. Without any taxpayer being on the hook to pay anyone if things don't work out. Without anyone getting paid from taxes. Without eminent domain. Without taking an existing business from someone else.

Found this awesome company and run it just like a business without any help from taxpayers, and without forcing anyone to help, or restricting anyone from competing.

No nationalization. If they can do it better and faster then so be it. If they can't, or they can't function without taxpayers help, then they have failed and shouldn't exist.

Doesn't work out that way with health insurance.

Totally different can of worms and I'm not going to be distracted by that.

 

[pecksniff]

Totally different can of worms and I'm not going to be distracted by that.

It's not different, it's part of the social-democratic agenda. The very existence of a private health-insurance industry in this country is a problem.

 

[LittleDixie]

It's not different, it's part of the social-democratic agenda. The very existence of a private health-insurance industry in this country is a problem.

Why is it a problem?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The government is free to find investors and start up a new company that duplicates an existing service. If they want to make a power plant, then they can take out a loan or get a benefactor to give them money to build it themselves. Without any taxpayer money. Without any taxpayer being on the hook to pay anyone if things don't work out. Without anyone getting paid from taxes. Without eminent domain. Without taking an existing business from someone else.

Found this awesome company and run it just like a business without any help from taxpayers, and without forcing anyone to help, or restricting anyone from competing.

No nationalization. If they can do it better and faster then so be it. If they can't, or they can't function without taxpayers help, then they have failed and shouldn't exist.

Totally different can of worms and I'm not going to be distracted by that.

lmfao....Brilliant post now try to let a little reality shine through....there is nothing a private business does that is not about the profit....

Lets see, which is the cheaper option for the consumer, fund Government, to create a private corporation, to build a widget?

Or let business decide which widgets are profitable, leaving Government to supply the non profitable, but still needed and demanded widgets for society....

 

[LittleDixie]

there is nothing a private business does that is not about the profit....

Yes. And companies earn profit when a customer voluntarily gives them money in exchange for a service. Customers have choices and they will purchase goods and services that they want if the price is right.

Profit means that a company is providing what a customer wants at a price the customer is willing to pay. The customer is motivated to make the exchange and is happy.

Profit means that the company made the world a better place and it is being rewarded for it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes. And companies earn profit when a customer voluntarily gives them money in exchange for a service. Customers have choices and they will purchase goods and services that they want if the price is right.

Profit means that a company is providing what a customer wants at a price the customer is willing to pay. The customer is motivated to make the exchange and is happy.

Profit means that the company made the world a better place and it is being rewarded for it.

So you are perfectly willing to put your "freedom" into the hands of private corporations, who's only goal is to bring profit to it's shareholders....do you have any idea how dangerous that would be?????

Water.....$100.00 bucks a glass....or go drink out of that untreated mud puddle.....

Your thinking is reminiscent of dodging the delivery of health care in the US via private corporations....the most expensive health system in the world ( per capita) and not even in the top ten in results.....

 

[Cubantripod]

Doesn't work out that way with health insurance, and a great many other things.

Yes it does. Your argument for government health insurance is premised on the notion that there aren't bean counters in government. That's exactly why the private sector can run it better. The average person hears the narrative that they won't give grandma, or the ten year old girl with terminal cancer any more medication. The problem is your argument is emotionally based. Medicine like anything else is a finite source and there's no point in pumping drugs into someone whose body won't respond.

 

[CornusKousa]

It's not different, it's part of the social-democratic agenda. The very existence of a private health-insurance industry in this country is a problem.

Why is freedom a problem peck???

What's wrong with liberalism???

Why is it a problem?

Yea...why is it a problem peck??

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes it does. Your argument for government health insurance is premised on the notion that there aren't bean counters in government. That's exactly why the private sector can run it better. The average person hears the narrative that they won't give grandma, or the ten year old girl with terminal cancer any more medication. The problem is your argument is emotionally based. Medicine like anything else is a finite source and there's no point in pumping drugs into someone whose body won't respond.

The most expensive health system in the world ( per capita) and not even in the top ten in results.....

And you are right about the bolded section, until that person is you.....

 

[pecksniff]

They did, their nation and culture were forever altered into a horrible grotesque example of humanity at it's worst.

That didn't happen. I know a lot about the pre-revolutionary culture of Russia, and the Communists did nothing to it that was not an improvement.

The most important cultural change in Russia since 1989 has been the resurgence of Christianity, and that is not an improvement.

 

[CornusKousa]

That didn't happen.

Yes it did, it was called the USSR and it was the 2nd greatest experiment in human suffering in all of recorded history, eclipsed only by the "progressives" in China.

 

[Cubantripod]

So you are perfectly willing to put your "freedom" into the hands of private corporations, who's only goal is to bring profit to it's shareholders....do you have any idea how dangerous that would be?????

Water.....$100.00 bucks a glass....or go drink out of that untreated mud puddle.....

Your thinking is reminiscent of dodging the delivery of health care in the US via private corporations....the most expensive health system in the world ( per capita) and not even in the top ten in results.....

Private businesses can be sued. They aren't in business to be sued. You think a public insurance company would be any better? They're going to be run like a private business, but are going to have immunities that private companies don't have.

 

[LittleDixie]

So you are perfectly willing to put your "freedom" into the hands of private corporations, who's only goal is to bring profit to it's shareholders....do you have any idea how dangerous that would be?????

Umm... no. Look, how is this not making sense to you?

Companies want you to give them money. If they are competing with one another, they want to offer the best product for the cheapest price.

If a company decides to sell candy bars for a million dollars apiece, guess what happens. They don't sell any candy bars and they get no profit.