Talk:Social democracy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Critical political distinction between social democracy and economic socialism/wealth redistribution) |
imported>Tom Morris No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The distinction between social democracy and economic socialism is rarely made in popular U.S. politics, but I believe it to be a critical one. --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | The distinction between social democracy and economic socialism is rarely made in popular U.S. politics, but I believe it to be a critical one. --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Simple rule of thumb: if you could take an American and move them to country C and they would find it intolerably distributive of wealth, it is socialism. Otherwise it is social democracy. I kid, of course! –[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 20:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:06, 24 April 2010
I tend to disagree with this definition, which is quite applicable for economic socialism. Social democracy, however, can exist in a significantly capitalist economy and have no deliberate intent of wealth redistribution. Otto von Bismarck used the term more to suggest that a workforce that received adequate social services was more productive, even if the means of production was in capitalist hands.
The distinction between social democracy and economic socialism is rarely made in popular U.S. politics, but I believe it to be a critical one. --Howard C. Berkowitz 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Simple rule of thumb: if you could take an American and move them to country C and they would find it intolerably distributive of wealth, it is socialism. Otherwise it is social democracy. I kid, of course! –Tom Morris 20:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)