Social democracy, noun a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices
So, uh, capitalist, according to Webster. It is very funny to say "I totally know the difference between SocDem and DemSoc", and then go on to not know.
However, I'll write something up here. I'm from Denmark, a SocDem country. The current prime minister is Mette Frederiksen of the Social Democrat party. We are almost at SocDem as you can get.
This Social Democracy of Denmark formed around the time of the Soviet Union starting to get more influential, as the capitalists of Denmark found themselves needing to provide concessions to the working population, since an example of better worker rights was right next door. This was the birth of Social Democracy in Denmark. It expanded to have free healthcare, education, and a pretty strong social safety net. Now these things are of course nice for the people living in Denmark, however the second that the USSR fell, austerity started happening. I cannot remember a time in the last 20 years where the government wasn't trying to "save money". Now our healthcare system is crippled, education is getting defunded, and social safety is the same.
The only reason that the capitalist class of Denmark gave the concessions they did, was because the Soviet Union was next door. This is the reality. The capitalists will never give you anything, unless their security is threatened. To be a Social Democrat, and rejecting revolution as a concept, is to just play into what capitalists want. Social Democracy is just another way to preserve capitalism. It's not a solution, it's a band-aid for a bullet wound - might stop the bleeding for a bit, but it sure as hell will get infected if it's not treated properly. At best it's harm reduction, at worst it's a detriment to the rights of the working class.
I'm not even getting into the exploitation necessary to uphold Social Democracy, and some of the other more icky elements of the ideology. I'm just giving you an example of what has happened to every single Social Democracy currently. I understand that it's nice to think about, but I promise you that it's not the solution to the problem.
The DemSocs at least have a problem with capitalism, however while their insistence on pacifism, and reform sounds very nice, it has literally not worked once in history. Not a single time. One of the only time it got close was with Allende in Chile, and the US fucking killed him, because you cannot fight empire with just words. I'm sorry, but that is the truth. You need to be able to fight counter-revolution, sabotage, sanctions, threats, war, espionage, etc. You cannot do this within the system that is funding all those things. You have to move away from capitalism entirely, suddenly, and forcefully, otherwise you will be crushed.
Call me a tankie if you want, I don't care. But if you are going to call me this, at least tell me why. Tell me what part of what I just wrote is wrong.
Sorry, cited the wrong dictionary I guess. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social%20democrats . I'm surprised at Webster disagreeing with everyone else. I figured every dictionary would agree. The dictionaries using my definition are:
So I've got mud on my face, citing the only source that disagrees with me.
But fine. If it really matters that much to a couple people, then there's not a term for what I am. I'm not a DemSoc because I don't realistically think we will achieve complete socialism in my lifetime and I think that's OK in the short term as long as we improve things, and actually preferable until people actually want socialism. That doesn't make me a capitalist.
Also you're going off mainstream liberal dictionaries and not how the left as a cluster of organized movements has come to definitions for its working purposes. So you're coming at it from an outside (liberal) perspective which reads as an indicator you're a liberal.
The problem with dictionaries is that they describe the popular use of a word, not necessarily the academically correct one. I only used the dictionary because it was honestly too easy to do a gotcha there.
A great example of dictionaries being "wrong" is the word "factoid". A factoid originally is a popular piece of information that is actually incorrect or false - a popular lie. Now the word factoid is in many dictionaries described as being "an insignificant or trivial fact", which is like, the exact opposite of the original meaning of the word. I'm 100% sure that in certain universities, I would be marked down for using "factoid" as "fun fact", even though dictionaries seem to think this is fine.
The original meaning of the word Social Democrat was a heavily discussed topic even in the beginning of the Soviet Union. After WW2, it was even popular within Socialist/Communist circles to call SocDems, "Social Fascists", as the enabling of the SocDems in Germany (SPD) helped the Nazis attain power, since they positioned themselves against the rest of the "left". SocDems will always rather align themselves with capital, rather than the "actual left", because the entire ideology reinforces capitalism. The reason people are mad at you here, is that SocDems have historically, every single time, helped the fascists rather than the socialists when push comes to shove. It's the reason for the quote "Social Democracy is the moderate wing of fascism". Now you can disagree with that last part, but this is history. Schumacher did betray the socialists. And he always would have, because Social Democracy is a capitalist ideology, which is why Marxists refuse to let them call themselves socialists. You cannot believe in capitalism, and socialism at the same time. They are opposites.
DemSocs on the other hand, are Reformist Socialists. They are who the dictionaries should actually refer to. They are the people who believe that a peaceful reformist transition from capitalism to socialism is the way to go, even though it has never worked. They believe that if you just vote hard enough, the capitalists will just let the poor take away their power. I don't actively dislike them, but I think it is very very naive.
Marxists are usually Revolutionary Socialists, who believe in revolution as a way to make change. This has worked several times in history, and there are several countries in the world right now that still exist after a socialist revolution, and are doing as well as you can considering that the entire western world is sanctioning them.
Marx hated Social Democrats btw. When one of the founding figures of the ideology does not think that a Social Democrat is a socialist, then I dunno what to tell you.
In short, the dictionaries are wrong. In an academic setting those definitions would be rejected instantly. People just do not understand what these ideologies are, so they use the words the wrong way. These words get used the wrong way enough, and the dictionaries will change to fit, as that is what dictionaries do. But the original meaning, that is part of the books that many of us read about these subjects, do not match with the dictionaries. If you referred to dictionary definition in a Political Science class, you would not pass, I assure you.
I appreciate the kind words, thank you. Might as well use my experience with Social Democracy for something, because it always bothers me when people think it's the solution.
Merriam-Webster:
So, uh, capitalist, according to Webster. It is very funny to say "I totally know the difference between SocDem and DemSoc", and then go on to not know.
However, I'll write something up here. I'm from Denmark, a SocDem country. The current prime minister is Mette Frederiksen of the Social Democrat party. We are almost at SocDem as you can get.
This Social Democracy of Denmark formed around the time of the Soviet Union starting to get more influential, as the capitalists of Denmark found themselves needing to provide concessions to the working population, since an example of better worker rights was right next door. This was the birth of Social Democracy in Denmark. It expanded to have free healthcare, education, and a pretty strong social safety net. Now these things are of course nice for the people living in Denmark, however the second that the USSR fell, austerity started happening. I cannot remember a time in the last 20 years where the government wasn't trying to "save money". Now our healthcare system is crippled, education is getting defunded, and social safety is the same.
The only reason that the capitalist class of Denmark gave the concessions they did, was because the Soviet Union was next door. This is the reality. The capitalists will never give you anything, unless their security is threatened. To be a Social Democrat, and rejecting revolution as a concept, is to just play into what capitalists want. Social Democracy is just another way to preserve capitalism. It's not a solution, it's a band-aid for a bullet wound - might stop the bleeding for a bit, but it sure as hell will get infected if it's not treated properly. At best it's harm reduction, at worst it's a detriment to the rights of the working class.
I'm not even getting into the exploitation necessary to uphold Social Democracy, and some of the other more icky elements of the ideology. I'm just giving you an example of what has happened to every single Social Democracy currently. I understand that it's nice to think about, but I promise you that it's not the solution to the problem.
The DemSocs at least have a problem with capitalism, however while their insistence on pacifism, and reform sounds very nice, it has literally not worked once in history. Not a single time. One of the only time it got close was with Allende in Chile, and the US fucking killed him, because you cannot fight empire with just words. I'm sorry, but that is the truth. You need to be able to fight counter-revolution, sabotage, sanctions, threats, war, espionage, etc. You cannot do this within the system that is funding all those things. You have to move away from capitalism entirely, suddenly, and forcefully, otherwise you will be crushed.
Call me a tankie if you want, I don't care. But if you are going to call me this, at least tell me why. Tell me what part of what I just wrote is wrong.
Sorry, cited the wrong dictionary I guess. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social%20democrats . I'm surprised at Webster disagreeing with everyone else. I figured every dictionary would agree. The dictionaries using my definition are:
Collins, Dictionary.com, Oxford English Dictionary, Brittanica, Cambridge, Wictionary
So I've got mud on my face, citing the only source that disagrees with me.
But fine. If it really matters that much to a couple people, then there's not a term for what I am. I'm not a DemSoc because I don't realistically think we will achieve complete socialism in my lifetime and I think that's OK in the short term as long as we improve things, and actually preferable until people actually want socialism. That doesn't make me a capitalist.
Also you're going off mainstream liberal dictionaries and not how the left as a cluster of organized movements has come to definitions for its working purposes. So you're coming at it from an outside (liberal) perspective which reads as an indicator you're a liberal.
The problem with dictionaries is that they describe the popular use of a word, not necessarily the academically correct one. I only used the dictionary because it was honestly too easy to do a gotcha there.
A great example of dictionaries being "wrong" is the word "factoid". A factoid originally is a popular piece of information that is actually incorrect or false - a popular lie. Now the word factoid is in many dictionaries described as being "an insignificant or trivial fact", which is like, the exact opposite of the original meaning of the word. I'm 100% sure that in certain universities, I would be marked down for using "factoid" as "fun fact", even though dictionaries seem to think this is fine.
The original meaning of the word Social Democrat was a heavily discussed topic even in the beginning of the Soviet Union. After WW2, it was even popular within Socialist/Communist circles to call SocDems, "Social Fascists", as the enabling of the SocDems in Germany (SPD) helped the Nazis attain power, since they positioned themselves against the rest of the "left". SocDems will always rather align themselves with capital, rather than the "actual left", because the entire ideology reinforces capitalism. The reason people are mad at you here, is that SocDems have historically, every single time, helped the fascists rather than the socialists when push comes to shove. It's the reason for the quote "Social Democracy is the moderate wing of fascism". Now you can disagree with that last part, but this is history. Schumacher did betray the socialists. And he always would have, because Social Democracy is a capitalist ideology, which is why Marxists refuse to let them call themselves socialists. You cannot believe in capitalism, and socialism at the same time. They are opposites.
DemSocs on the other hand, are Reformist Socialists. They are who the dictionaries should actually refer to. They are the people who believe that a peaceful reformist transition from capitalism to socialism is the way to go, even though it has never worked. They believe that if you just vote hard enough, the capitalists will just let the poor take away their power. I don't actively dislike them, but I think it is very very naive.
Marxists are usually Revolutionary Socialists, who believe in revolution as a way to make change. This has worked several times in history, and there are several countries in the world right now that still exist after a socialist revolution, and are doing as well as you can considering that the entire western world is sanctioning them.
Marx hated Social Democrats btw. When one of the founding figures of the ideology does not think that a Social Democrat is a socialist, then I dunno what to tell you.
In short, the dictionaries are wrong. In an academic setting those definitions would be rejected instantly. People just do not understand what these ideologies are, so they use the words the wrong way. These words get used the wrong way enough, and the dictionaries will change to fit, as that is what dictionaries do. But the original meaning, that is part of the books that many of us read about these subjects, do not match with the dictionaries. If you referred to dictionary definition in a Political Science class, you would not pass, I assure you.
Thank you for your comments they are packed with good info btw
I appreciate the kind words, thank you. Might as well use my experience with Social Democracy for something, because it always bothers me when people think it's the solution.