[NDP Will Win]

I don't get it...lol...They both kick ass though.

[smashthestate]

Ok, I'll try to explain this as simple as possible.

First, modern liberalism is a political ideology, that holds certain ideals as true (thus ideology...God, I'm redundant).

Social democracy is a method of using democracy to achieve a transition from capitalism to socialism. However, this can only happen (be it a true, direct democracy), if the majority of voters want socialism. Remember, democracy is not any specific type of ideology, it is simply the will of the majority.

Basically, if you try to use democracy in a nation that the majority of voters support capitalism, you will never be able to achieve socialism.

[Eddier1]

Said:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I'll try to explain this as simple as possible.

First, modern liberalism is a political ideology, that holds certain ideals as true (thus ideology...God, I'm redundant).

Social democracy is a method of using democracy to achieve a transition from capitalism to socialism. However, this can only happen (be it a true, direct democracy), if the majority of voters want socialism. Remember, democracy is not any specific type of ideology, it is simply the will of the majority.

Basically, if you try to use democracy in a nation that the majority of voters support capitalism, you will never be able to achieve socialism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social democracy and social democrats have a history. Recall that Lenin and his cohorts first identified themselves as 'social democrats', but Lenin went on to write that he used the aesopian tactic of social democracy as a cloak to ward off the Okrana political police of the Tsar.

Social democracy, therefore, is not an ideology in my point of view, but rather a strategy with the most important tactic of disguising the scientific socialist's objective of creating a Revolution that would overthrow the ruling class, and would seize the 'means of production' on behalf of the proletarians and peasants in order to free them up from the wage slavery conditions of the workers, and the bloody oppression of the peasants by such land barons as the Kuluks in Russia.

Liberals, on the other hand, never identify themselves as social democrats, at least the smart ones don't. The smart ones who want a mix of socialism and capitalism with the capitalists still retaining control of the means of production are presently identifying themselves as Social Liberals.

[NDP Will Win]

I'd fall under social liberal then. But aren't we mixing European, British, and American terms?

[Eddier1]

Said:
I'd fall under social liberal then. But aren't we mixing European, British, and American terms?"

There is a mighty internationalism in all political ideology, and it is clearly and unequivocably present in the alllied history of France, England, and America.

If one negates the internationalist factor, then it is usually a sign that nationalism holds sway in one's political ideology, and most probably fascism is embedded in that political ideology.

The terms you mentioned are mixed into an internationalism, therefore, that blend as ingredients of poliitical, economic, and social ideology that are necessary and sufficient to the production of a unified theory that avoids the pitfalls of unilateralism.

[Ben Ainsworth]

I would say that I was a Liberal Social Democrat, but I dont see Social Democracy as a path to communism but as an ideology in its own right.