What is the difference between 'Socialism' and a 'Social Democracy'?

[Wise Guy]

Answer as best as you can, if you give very short answers, basically I'l just assume you don't know

[theholybeast]

Truthfully, socialism aims to end capitalism altogether. Think of Russia back in the day, broken down gray building, rations, etc.

Social democracy, though, aims to RE-FORM capitalism "democratically" through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.

Either one sees the government as the "answer" which anyone with half a brain would scoff at. The same government who couldn't keep a whore house in business is now the government our new administration is trusting will lead us out of the financial mess we are in?

One response to those who believe that:

HA HA HA HA HA HA

YOU DUMB.

[Joe Finkle]

It's essentially a matter of degree:

Note that what I refer to as moderate is moderate in world history, it's considered extreme in modern US political theory.

Extreme left:
In communism, the government completely controls the private sector and proportions work according to ability and benefits according to need (not very well, though, and it's inevitably a dictatorship to even try).

Moderate left:
Socialism is a mix of public and private sector. Vast industries are controlled by the government, but there is still room for free enterprise and people are not as directly controlled by the government.

Slight left:
In social democracy, the government represents the people, but also provides for them in terms of social benefits and management of certain industries, such as energy and health care, that function better under governmental control (in the opinion of that society). Sometimes there is room for private competition for the public programs, sometimes there is not.

Slight right:
In welfare capitalism, there are fewer areas deemed appropriate for the government to control and it is more likely that private companies would be allowed to compete with the government. The hallmark of welfare capitalism is the combination of the free market and social benefits and insurance.

Moderate right:
Lassez faire capitalism is the pure free market. It allows wild untempered swings and vast discrepancies in the distribution of wealth, essentially killing the middle class in favor of the upper and lower classes.

Extreme right:
Fascism is a type of dictatorship in which power is so concentrated that a single individual has all the power and can determine how everything should be run.

On both the extreme right and extreme left you have dictatorships. The differences at those ends aren't really that significant.

[Susie]

While some claim that social democracy had always been reformist, aiming to improve capitalism slowly but surely, that is not the case. When it started, social democracy was far from that. It was a self-proclaimed international revolutionary socialist party, aiming to abolish capitalism by any means necessary -- including the ballot box.

Ignoring the warnings of anarchism, Social Democratic Parties argued that electioneering was a key way of spreading socialist ideas and winning people to anti-capitalism. This proved to be their undoing. Slowly but surely, the parties involved became increasingly reformist, betraying their principles to get into and remain in office. The predictions of the anarchists came true. Socialist rhetoric was used to hide moderate practice.

Not that the contradiction between the party's rhetorical adherence to socialism and its growing opportunistic pragmatism went unnoticed. It provoked an intense theoretical debate, which raged furiously from about 1898 to 1904. However, the distinction between the contenders remained largely a subjective one, a difference of ideas in the evaluation of reality rather than a difference in the realm of action. In the end, rather than change the world, Social Democracy simply changed itself to accommodate its tactics.


The descent into reformism

Working in a capitalist institution will have its effect on those who do so. The corruption does not happen overnight. At the start, the party argues that it takes part in elections to advocate radical ideas. But ends are not independent of means. Even with the best of intentions, the radicals who get elected find themselves powerless to accomplish anything of a radical nature. The demoralisation this brings about takes place little by little, so gradually that few notice it, including the radical politician. They quickly perceive that they are regarded as a laughing stock by the other politicians and find more and more difficulty in securing the floor. When they do, they know that neither their speech nor their vote can influence the proceedings. Their speeches do not even reach the public, just the occasional sound bite. The only solution is to elect more comrades. Years pass and a number are elected. Each of them goes through the same experience and quickly comes to the conclusion that to make an impact they must show that they are practical, that they are doing something for their constituency. The situation compels them to take a 'practical' part in the proceedings, to 'talk business,' to fall in line with the matters actually dealt with in the legislative body (i.e. making capitalism work and run better).

Spending years in that atmosphere, enjoying good jobs and pay, the elected radicals have themselves become part and parcel of the political machine. With growing success in elections and securing political power, they become more and more conservative and content with existing conditions. Removal from the life of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the bourgeoisie, they have become what they call 'practical'. Power and position have gradually stifled their conscience and they do not have the strength and honesty to swim against the current. They become the strongest bulwark of capitalism. They even end up opposing direct action and any spontaneous struggle which hinders the respectable image of the party and its potential votes. This is in spite of the revolutionary ideas that originally inspired them. Indeed, they were sucked into "practical" matters almost from the start. In the words of Wilhelm Liebknecht, one of the original leaders of German Social Democracy: "In the early stages, when we had few adherents, we used to go to the Reichstag [the German Parliament] and used it exclusively or almost exclusively for the propagation of our ideas. But very soon we found ourselves involved in practical matters."

However, many radicals refuse to learn this lesson of history and keep trying to create a new party that will not repeat the saga of compromise and betrayal which all other radical parties have suffered. And they say that anarchists are utopian!


The root of the problem

Ultimately, supporters of using political action can only appeal to the good intentions and character of their candidates. This time, we are told, our leaders will be better. Anarchists, however, present an analysis of the structures and other influences that will determine how the character of the successful candidates and their political parties will change. In other words, in contrast to state socialists, anarchists present a materialist, scientific analysis of the dynamics of electioneering and its effects on radicals.

The state is not some neutral body that can be used by all classes in society. It is an instrument of class rule, a machine that exists to protect the wealth and power of the capitalist class and to enforce their property rights and authority. As well as economic pressures

[techline210]

Obama and Social Obamacracy, how'd I just knew that you have no clue! I hope you are only in a junior college.

[Helen_BVI]

Hi there,

I read somewhere that Social Democracy was created by former socialists that where unhappy with the ways of traditional Historical Socialism. In other words, Social Democracy is a left-centered political ideology that was originated form more 'radical' Social ideas.

Since SD was 'created' it has changed and evolved into more 'modern' concepts of left wing thinking. Whereas traditional Socialism is based on the concept that a' truly' socialist society can only be achieved through class struggle and revolution. The so called new socialists believed in more moderate ways of achieving a socialist society. They supported the notion of a democratic welfare-state and a combination of elements of Capitalism and Socialism.

Some good examples of S.D countries are Sweden, Denmark and basically all Scandinavian Countries. Sweden has a highly educated population and is a very democratic State. Most of its populations belongs to the middle class and have access to the same education, universities and standard of living. Salaries in Sweden tend to fit within a certain range, so no one earns too much or too little. Although, since the 90's this has been changing rather fast, I think it is safe to say that Sweden is still one of the most equal countries in the world. There is a very good notion of gender equality - Matenity leave is granted to both parents which combined exceed 18 months. Also, holidays are very long in Sweden ( min. of 4 weeks! - I used to have 4 weeks as a newly graduate architect when I lived there. It was great!).

In South America, Brazil a example of o\ Nation that is its early stages of implementing SD. In the last 10 years, through SD Brazil's gov. has managed to improve wealth distribution through a series of Social welfare programs. They range from CCT - Conditional Cash Transfer, which is really get some of the tax money paid to the government transferred to the poorest through programs of social welfare to improvement of access to and quality of public Education. Programs for Higher Education for low income persons are also giving very good results, as more and more poor young students get to go to college and University.

The biggest program in Brazil,however, is known as BF - Bolsa Familia - or Family Grant/allowance - roughly translated. The BF program is aimed at poor families who fulfil the requirements set by the government. These families receive a cash allowance for each child in the family in school age. The family is, on the other hand, required to keep their kids in school and are responsible for ensuring their children take part in every mandatory health and vaccination programs run by the government. The aim of the BF is to ensure all children receive education and are healthy. It also helps poor families to provide for their kids, so they don't have drop school to seek work.

Since SD started in Brazil, 11 million families have been benefited. That's about 46 million people. As a result, poverty is being eliminated and Brazil's middle class is 64% of the country. 15% of Brazilians belong to the upper class, but over 20 % is still poor.

I hope this has helped you in anyways.