Senatus Populusque Lundensis wrote:Duvniask wrote:No, it doesn't exactly advocate social ownership.
This is what social democracy has evolved to.Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods. Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century.
Notice the underlined bit. It comes first, implicating that it is the more correct or relevant definition.
Social Democracy = Democratic Socialism through reforms = [Socialism through democracy] though reforms.
Still socialism.
You can't just deduce that from the article, because "it's first". The rest of the text is also relevant.
It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century.
Social democracy is merely a welfare state in the capitalist system, and has been widely acknowledged as such.
Social democratic parties have long given up on promoting social ownership, and have instead embraced third way. We should therefore distinguish this from socialism, which supports social ownership over private.
