Social democracy should be rather refered to socialism or to liberalism?

[IamDiscord]

Or to none of them..?

[sean]

Social democracy should be rather refered to socialism or to liberalism? Or to none of them..?

None.

Social democracy is basically what already exists in NW European countries, i.e. liberal democracy with a mixed market economy and some social safety nets. 80 years ago even national socialism had plenty of elements in common with social democracy, but social democrats now are universally anti-racist cucks. This kind of thing only works in white populations with good work ethic and high trust. As soon as any third world element is introduced, it will be abused.

The potential problems in social democracy come with striking a balance with how much you're putting into welfare, too much tax could lead to businesses not wanting to set up or dodging tax rates via off shore accounts.

Ironically, social democrats should be hyper capitalist seeing as all the excess wealth from which they pay for their programs comes from economic prosperity and ultimately resource exploitation. But they aren't. They always seem to shill against it, as if their entire ideology is just to undermine prosperous western nations. Put them in debt and destroy their economies. Reason why anti-white mongrels like Tooting Gayramen subscribe to it lel.

[Zeno]

Well, from what I've learned, none, as it is the medium between the two.

You can't say it's socialist or laissez-faire capitalist.

But what is certain is, that can only work if the population is fully employed and paying high taxation for the welfare and security nets. Otherwise, if too many people depend on welfare and too few fund the latter, then it will collapse.

As a result, it can only work in European and East Asian countries, where there's an adamant work ethic and consequence in taxation. Once anyone from the third world joins in, it's game over. You practically import people who in their vast majority won't pay taxes and contribute. But only leech from the welfare that is funded by the native taxpayers who bear the whole burden.

[Demis]

The social democrat is not a socialist. The social democrat is a capitalist who believes that unlimited capitalism has terrible social consequences: inequality of wealth, exploitation of workers by employers, etc. They propose to regulate capitalism and redistribute wealth through taxation and generous spending.

I think you are confusing social democrat with a democratic socialist. A democratic socialist is a socialist who wants to reach power through democratic means. They support public ownership but do not want to gain control through Leninist means. When they look at communism, they don't see a failed, useless ideology; They see a good idea overturned by the dictatorship.

[IamDiscord]

The social democrat is not a socialist. The social democrat is a capitalist who believes that unlimited capitalism has terrible social consequences: inequality of wealth, exploitation of workers by employers, etc. They propose to regulate capitalism and redistribute wealth through taxation and generous spending.

I think you are confusing social democrat with a democratic socialist. A democratic socialist is a socialist who wants to reach power through democratic means. They support public ownership but do not want to gain control through Leninist means. When they look at communism, they don't see a failed, useless ideology; They see a good idea overturned by the dictatorship.

So can social democtrats be described as the liberals who are left in economics?

[IamDiscord]

The social democrat is not a socialist. The social democrat is a capitalist who believes that unlimited capitalism has terrible social consequences: inequality of wealth, exploitation of workers by employers, etc. They propose to regulate capitalism and redistribute wealth through taxation and generous spending.

I think you are confusing social democrat with a democratic socialist. A democratic socialist is a socialist who wants to reach power through democratic means. They support public ownership but do not want to gain control through Leninist means. When they look at communism, they don't see a failed, useless ideology; They see a good idea overturned by the dictatorship.

So can social democtrats be described as the liberals who are left in economics?

[Smaug]

Contrary to the common belief, social-democracy is not the middle ground between socialism and liberalism, it is merely a different path to communism. You will find that social-democracy differs from socialism in the sense that they do not aim to achieve communism by a revolution or a interim proletariat government like it was tried in the USSR for example, instead they believe that communism should be inserted into society little by little with controlled results and they to use don't care about using liberal and other right-wing philosophies to achieve it if they believe that in the longe range it will be beneficial to their cause. It is from this pragmatism that the idea they are "in between" comes from.

[TheGoldenSon]

The social democrat is not a socialist. The social democrat is a capitalist who believes that unlimited capitalism has terrible social consequences: inequality of wealth, exploitation of workers by employers, etc. They propose to regulate capitalism and redistribute wealth through taxation and generous spending.

I think you are confusing social democrat with a democratic socialist. A democratic socialist is a socialist who wants to reach power through democratic means. They support public ownership but do not want to gain control through Leninist means. When they look at communism, they don't see a failed, useless ideology; They see a good idea overturned by the dictatorship.

Pretty much this.