[Wolfman]

The definition of First, Second, and Third World has changed since 1991. Keep up.

[Rei Murasame]

Rik, it's like you completely did not read my post.

But capitalist countries are the most advanced. More middle class citizens.

You notice that I specifically inserted the word 'international' in there though, right?

You really have it in for capitalism.

Yes, because I'm a corporatist. (And to answer your question on the internet, the groundwork for the internet was developed by the military.)

So if your theory were to make a modicum of sense, these cut-throat capitalists in Africa would be aspiring for the moon, by developing new goods and services, to be sold to a large consumer base. But that is not what we see. Rather, they demonstrate the opposite, i.e. lack of interest in advancing the system.

Yes, and that is because they are ruled by selfish pricks who don't care about their own ethnic group, and would rather spend it on Gucci and Dolce & Gabana instead. Which was my whole point.

__________________

What a third-world country actually needs instead is large public investment in infrastructure, developmental welfare, and a system of state-corporatism like what General Park Chung-hee did in South Korea.

I notice that in your response to me, you clipped the bolded part off the end of my post so that you could pretend that I was making a communist argument, which makes your whole response into a strawman. You've got to stop doing that.

I am not some Leftist that you can just brush away with some stock response, I am actually further to the political Right than you are.

[jaycola]

Yes, I believe that African nations can raise the living standard of thier citizens (forgoing the term 3rd world) by adopting social democratic and western economic principals.

Maybe a specific example could be useful here.

Democratic Repiblic of Congo

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (French: République démocratique du Congo) is a state located in Central Africa. It is the largest country in Africa by area and the eleventh largest in the world. With a population of nearly 71 million,[1] the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the eighteenth most populous nation in the world, and the fourth most populous nation in Africa, as well as the most populous officially Francophone country.

The country has access to the ocean through a 40-kilometre (25 mi) stretch of Atlantic coastline at Muanda and the roughly 9 km wide mouth of the Congo River which opens into the Gulf of Guinea.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo was formerly, in chronological order, the Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, Congo-Léopoldville, Congo-Kinshasa, and Zaire (Zaïre in French). Though it is located in the Central African UN subregion, the nation is also economically and regionally affiliated with Southern Africa as a member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

The Second Congo War, beginning in 1998, devastated the country, involved seven foreign armies and is sometimes referred to as the "African World War". Despite the signing of peace accords in 2003, fighting continues in the east of the country. In eastern Congo, the prevalence of rape and other sexual violence is described as the worst in the world. The war is the world's deadliest conflict since World War II, killing 5.4 million people.

Although citizens of the DRC are among the poorest in the world, having the second lowest nominal GDP per capita, the Democratic Republic of Congo is widely considered to be the richest country in the world regarding natural resources; its untapped deposits of raw minerals are estimated to be worth in excess of US$ 24 trillion.

Here is a country with potential to lift the population out of desperate poverty due in part to it's Gographical position within Africa, it's position as the largest and the 4th most populous nation in Africa and most importantly a wealth of natural resources.

The question becomes how do you turn these assets into gains for the average citizen?

The Government should nationalize resources first off. Resources are taxed if shipped out of the country. Initially, a large part of the income derived from these taxes should go to the benifit population in the form of individual economic support. By lifting the population out of crippling poverty, the population can begin modernizing their economy.

Encouraging small scale business development (micro loan programs) could follow, thus creating a cottage industry where the population provides products and services directly to thier neighbours and communities.

Turning these economies and societies around won't be an easy task. Congo is a nation fraught with corruption, tribalism and historical divisions, there are bound to be abuses and conflict but there does exist, in my opinion, an opportunity for a nation such as this.

Aside from it's mineral resources, this nation has a coast where shipping and tourism could flourish. It has a large land mass where improvements in agricultural techniques and crop selection could multiply the nutritional output of the nation. As a member of both French and African international organizations and it's ideal position in the heart of Africa, there are further avenues where economic cooperation could be of benifit to the average citizen.

Yes, I believe through careful management of natural resourses and strategic economic reform and development, a country such as this could become a modern economy.

[Rei Murasame]

Fantastic post, Jaycola, you hit the nail on the head. It can't really be said any better than that. I was preparing a more detailed post to follow up my previous one, but you essentially said what I was going to say, and even used DRC as your example too. So I'll just say that I fully agree with what you said.

[rik]

India is doomed in any sense.

How so?
I see sustained growth in their tech sector. And their food, and manufacturing industries are exploding too.

third world means its not Europe Or communist russia, the term is meaningless today

I didn't get the memo. What has it been replaced with?

Japan and Germany are Social Democracies

Are they capitalist nations?
The debate is between Socialist and Capitalist, not shades in between.
So your earlier statement:
The highest GDP per Capita countries and most stable economies are Social Democracies, not Capitalist states
is an unfair comparison, since we know that Japan and Germany are capitalist.

Also, the assertion that Social democracies is the way to go is a bit of a stretch. Greece is a social democracy. Everything worked great for a very long time. Eventually, the chicken came home to roost. Greece is bankrupt.

So while things may appear rosy at the moment for social democracies, sooner or later, the gig would be up.

as I already said. And the best products I've seen tend to be Japanese or Korean. And South Korea is a Social Democracy as well.

Depends on what products.
Pfizer is the biggest pharmaceutical research company. Its American.
Beoing is the largest airplane manufacturer. It's American.
The USA has more product patents than the rest of the world combined. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido ... st_all.htm
The US has hands down, the best military innovation.

So, I vehemently disagree with you that expectations is higher under social democracies. Expectations is the drive to become something, as opposed to relying on the state. Since the government takes care of you with other people's money, why would you strive harder?

Income tax is highest under social democracies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom ... ountry.svg

Look at the massive taxation for social democracies. I can't imagine a day when I would have to give up 60% of my income to the tax man.

On top of all that confiscatory tax, they have VAT. This is a tax on top of sales tax.
In the US when you make a purchase, you pay ~8% sales tax, and you're done. Under social democracies, after the 8% sales tax, you pay another 25% VAT. Outrageous!
Then there are other ridiculous taxes like TV license, etc.

This is slavery to the State. And you cannot change it when you live in these countries.

Some may say in the USA we're slaves to corporations. The only difference is that you don't have to work for corporations. So you have a choice at independence.

Also, truancy is highest in these social democracies. US has the highest hours worked per capita among developed nations, while Norway the lowest. Norwegians call in sick more often. Good thing, bad thing? It's your call.

I also think morality is lowest under these social democracies. Exceptionally high rates of divorce. Lax drug laws, legalized prostitution, etc. This is because the state takes care of you with other people's money, irrespective of how much you contribute into the system.

But all that apart, Japan, S. Korea, etc are capitalist, not socialist. We can quibble over what is capitalist or not. But when all is said and done, any system that confiscates 80% of your income, is not my kind of system.

You realize that the more Capitalist a state the higher their Gini index, which is a measure of income inequality? You're basically supporting a system which has a lower overall economic strength and basically creates a permanent underclass and strips the middle class. You say you want one thing, and then support what is going to prevent it from ever happening

But what you're saying is not realistic. There are counter forces that see to it. Liberalism is the counter force in the US, for example.

Income inequality is subjective. If you're lazy, you won't do well in a capitalist system. That is why people aspire to be professionals right from childhood, so they won't have to struggle later in life. If you frizzle away your childhood, and later believe the state should pick up the tab for you, you have another thing coming.

If you currently work at McDonalds, you have many choices to better your life. If you refuse to pursue those choices, who is to blame?

Only if you mean "advance" in a material sense. The theory is that the means of production would be collectively owned, and each person would have an opportunity for "self-actualization." That is, they could fulfill themselves, intellectually and physically. Honestly this is the kind of "advancement" I'm most concerned with, but the capitalist system convinces us that money is the most important marker of advancement and success.

Not really. There's no such thing as "collectively owned". That just means "more government control".
When government controls your life, you're a slave to the state. In other words, your government tells you how far you can go. The higher you go, the more aggressive the taxation. Hence, few really strive to be all they can be.

But like I said before, it's a matter of choice. Some do like cookie-cutter systems with little fluctuations. While some people prefer the idea of being all you can be with least government intrusion.

Social Democracies let you advance however much you want, but you are basically required to contribute to the preservation of the society which made it possible for you get as wealthy as you are in the first place.

You're right. But these aren't socialist countries. I'm more concerned about socialist, than just Liberal countries. I still maintain that you go farther in capitalist systems. Under social democracies, your government literally starts to seize your incomes in the name of 'preservation of the society'.

In the end though, capitalism rules.

[Wolfman]

Are they capitalist nations?

No. They're Social Democracies.

The debate is between Socialist and Capitalist, not shades in between.

But there are no Socialist or Capitalists States. There is only shades inbetween.

Also, the assertion that Social democracies is the way to go is a bit of a stretch. Greece is a social democracy. Everything worked great for a very long time. Eventually, the chicken came home to roost. Greece is bankrupt.

There are two things about this:
1. This is the Nirvana Fallacy, which is that because something isn't perfect, it is automatically wrong, even if it's objectively better than it's competition.
2. Greece is getting screwed because of bad internal management and unwillingness of it's people to think long term. The US is getting to that place too, are you going to say that Capitalism is bad for that reason too?

Depends on what products.

Pfizer can go fuck itself, and I don't care about boeing. Cars, computers, TVs, furniture, etc, are all crap in the US.

This is slavery to the State. And you cannot change it when you live in these countries.

It isn't slavery if you agree to it willingly.

Also, truancy is highest in these social democracies. US has the highest hours worked per capita among developed nations, while Norway the lowest. Norwegians call in sick more often. Good thing, bad thing? It's your call.

Evidence?

I also think morality is lowest under these social democracies. Exceptionally high rates of divorce. Lax drug laws, legalized prostitution, etc.

I don't see how this is a problem.

But all that apart, Japan, S. Korea, etc are capitalist, not socialist.

They're Social Democracies, not capitalist. The only people that will say they are is Marxists.

Income inequality is subjective.

You should tell that to the nice people who make the Gini Index. You should also tell that to the people living in countries where there are no regulations on industry and people normally work 14 hours a day for just enough to live and nothing else.

You're right. But these aren't socialist countries. I'm more concerned about socialist, than just Liberal countries. I still maintain that you go farther in capitalist systems. Under social democracies, your government literally starts to seize your incomes in the name of 'preservation of the society'.

They aren't Socialist, but they aren't Capitalist either.

[rik]

Yes, I believe that African nations can raise the living standard of thier citizens (forgoing the term 3rd world) by odopting social democratic and western economic principals.

The Government should nationalize resources first off

Whenever you nationalize anything, you concentrate power into the hands of a few. Power that cannot be challenged. This is the danger of central control.

Encouraging small scale business development (micro loan programs) could follow, thus creating a cottage industry where the population provides products and services directly to thier neighbours and communities.

I think the small business route is the way to go. Standard of living in America is high. 70% of the jobs are created by small business. This means resources are owned more by individuals, rather than by some big bloated bureaucracy.

The principle is simple. People take better care of their own business, than they do working for somebody else. This is a simple fact, but with profound, far-reaching implications.

As powerful as the constitution of the US is, the people in power are still corrupt beyond believe. They routinely ignore the wishes of the majority. Now imagine giving power to a few people in Africa, where corruption already runs amok...

So, no, nationalizing resources is a very bad idea indeed.

Turning these economies and societies around won't be an easy task

That is an understatement. The corruption is endemic. Beyond regular corruption, there are also negative spiritual powers working in the dark.

Yes, because I'm a corporatist.

Read my response above about corporatism vs private ownership. Privately owned resources get better care.

Yes, and that is because they are ruled by selfish pricks who don't care about their own ethnic group, and would rather spend it on Gucci and Dolce & Gabana instead. Which was my whole point.

No, your point is that Africans who return home are about capitalism. However, we don't see a shred of capitalism there, since otherwise, they would be developing their nation. Capitalists develop things people want to buy.

My query remains. Why is it that when some Africans return home, they go back to their old ways?
Don't give me capitalism as an answer, since I've debunked that.

[Rei Murasame]

You haven't debunked that at all.

ruled by selfish pricks who don't care about their own ethnic group

Which is the same thing as:

your point is that Africans who return home are about capitalism.

Exactly.

And:

However, we don't see a shred of capitalism there, since otherwise, they would be developing their nation.

No, what you see happening is indeed global capitalism. That's why the infrastructure is not being developed.

You need to follow the Japanese or South Korean developmental model, or the same nonsense will keep happening over and over again.

[Rei Murasame]

As a quick follow-up, to make this a one-two post, I'll also appeal to authority:

Ha-Joon Chang - Why the World isn't Flat & Twenty-three things they don't tell you about Capitalism.
[youtube]T5-ojv5-b3U[/youtube] [youtube]whVf5tuVbus[/youtube]

According to the conventional wisdom popularized by Thomas Friedman, countries can grow rich only by means of unfettered capitalism and pure free trade. In his controversial book, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang takes aim at this orthodoxy.

Combining irreverent wit with scholarly rigour, Chang shows that nations like the U.S. that achieved their present wealth by means of economic nationalism now preach an entirely different set of policies to the developing world, via the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization. Chang calls on us not only to re-evaluate the policies we promote to countries seeking to grow rich, but also to become reacquainted with our own forgotten economic history.

Ha-Joon Chang has been described by one economist as "the most exciting thinker our profession has turned out in the past fifteen years." He teaches at Cambridge University, where he received his Master's degree and doctorate. A consultant for the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the UN and other international organizations, he was awarded the Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought in 2005. His book Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective (2002), which received the Myrdal Prize, was acclaimed by the eminent MIT economist Charles Kindleberger as "a provocative critique of mainstream economists' sermons directed to developing countries."

[rik]

You should tell that to the nice people who make the Gini Index. You should also tell that to the people living in countries where there are no regulations on industry and people normally work 14 hours a day for just enough to live and nothing else.

This is where debates start to break down. I just went through a litany of reasons why low pay is a personal choice. But you completely ignored that, as if I never said it. If you're working 14 hours a day and you're barely able to live, that is on you. You could better your life easily through more training. Quite being dishonest and disingenuous in your responses. It's unbecoming.

There are two things about this:
1. This is the Nirvana Fallacy, which is that because something isn't perfect, it is automatically wrong, even if it's objectively better than it's competition.
2. Greece is getting screwed because of bad internal management and unwillingness of it's people to think long term. The US is getting to that place too, are you going to say that Capitalism is bad for that reason too?

I wish the US were a pure Conservative capitalism.
Is there a reason you keep twisting things around? You know the US is in a pickle because of Liberalism, not because of capitalism. The US was built into a global might with capitalism, not with Liberalism. America started to decline only when the liberal goons came into the mix.

The whole idea of Liberalism is massive public spending. This is why America is crumbling. That is why Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc crumbled.

Pfizer can go fuck itself, and I don't care about boeing. Cars, computers, TVs, furniture, etc, are all crap in the US.

Why would you care about them. Afterall, they only totally deconstructed your myth about socialist countries being ahead of everybody else.

It isn't slavery if you agree to it willingly.

True. But who willingly agrees to give up 80% of their income?

Evidence?

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/aid/to ... ?id=592754
Furthermore, I lived in the UK for many years. People abuse sick leave more often than in the US. Also, I have people in the Scandinavian countries. I'm aware of their work ethics.

I don't see how this is a problem.

It demonstrates a dysfunctional system. These are symptoms of the psyche of the people.

They aren't Socialist, but they aren't Capitalist either.

Actually, Japan, Germany, etc are capitalist nations. Call them collective capitalism, but they're capitalist. These nations are a sparkling success, and demonstrate the power of capitalism.
A capitalist country is one in which the firms are run by private individuals rather than the government.

[Rei Murasame]

Actually, Japan, Germany, etc are capitalist nations. Call them collective capitalism, but they're capitalist. These nations are a sparkling success, and demonstrate the power of capitalism.

Haha! Really? Then actually you quite close to agreeing with me, just you don't know it yet.

How do you think "Collective Capitalism" was created, rik? How close to corporatism are you planning to tread? Perhaps you want to lean towards corporatism and you just don't know it yet.

Here's the most watered down and easy to digest explanation I can dig up for you:

In order to grasp what the Japanese have done, it is worth comparing it to Western attempts to achieve the same thing. For example, the Japanese have understood that the ambition of the advocates of the “mixed economy,” like Hugh Gaitskell in the UK, to socialize the “commanding heights” of the economy, has some rational basis, in that it embodies the desirability for some government direction of the economy without a total Gosplan-style takeover.

But this aspiration was misinterpreted in classic socialism, which understood the commanding heights to be basic industries like coal, steel, and railways. The problem with this, however, is that these industries do not command anything. Important though they are, they do not constitute a lever by which the economy as a whole can be controlled; they do not issue orders to the rest of the economy which determine how it behaves. The supply of capital to business, however, does, and this is under state control in Japan.

[...]

Most corporate capital in Japan is owned by banks, and the banks are principally owned not by shareholders, but by other companies in the same keiretsu or industrial group. And who owns these companies? Although there are some outside shareholders, majority control is in the hands of the keiretsu’s bank and the other companies in the group. So in essence, the whole thing is circular and private ownership of the means of production has basically been put into the back seat.

Actually nationalizing the means of production would produce all the problems that led to the wave of privatizations in many nations in the last 20 years, and is unnecessary anyway. The Japanese system makes a sly mockery of both capitalism and socialism.

[...]

The Japanese are well aware that a successful economy requires the motivating effects of pay differentials and opportunities to accumulate private wealth. They are not living in a hippie socialist fantasy. But they have understood, as neoliberal economists, with their purely economic view of the economy, have not, that economic rewards operate in a social context and that social rewards for economic achievement can be as effective as cash.

In fact, because of the diminishing marginal utility of money, it is irrational for an economic system to rely on purely economic incentives. If all you pay people in is money, it gets awfully expensive to maintain their motivation as you go up the income scale. How much money does society have to dangle in front of a billionaire to get him to allocate another five hours a week from leisure to the work needed to run the part of the economy he owns?

[...]

The Japanese have understood that what people are largely pursuing in the workplace is not so much money as the respect of the people around them, and therefore maintain a sophisticated – indeed, bizarrely over-elaborate to the Western eye – economy of respect in addition to the economy of money. They have understood that a large part of what money-seeking individuals really want is just to spend that money on purchasing social respect, though status display or whatever, so it is far more efficient to allocate respect directly.

Did you really think people as obviously intelligent as the Japanese were doing all those odd-looking bows for nothing? Sure, these behaviors are derived from tradition, but there's a reason they kept these traditions and the West hasn't. Interestingly, this understanding on their part of the need for unapologetic status differentials contradicts the emphasis in Western socialism on a culture of equality.

It also follows that if society is to maintain status differentials without suffering withdrawal of social cooperation due to the resulting resentment of low-status individuals, society must contain these status differentials within strong overarching sentiments of social unity.

[...]

If the use of non-economic incentives sounds familiar, it is because the last time this issue was seriously addressed in the West in the context of a modern economy was by Peter F. Drucker in his 1940 book The End of Economic Man, which discussed how the Nazi system was based on creating a non-economic power structure to resolve the social conflicts that had been irresolvable within capitalist European society. This, in his view, was the sick genius of Nazism and the reason it had been able to come within a hair's breadth of creating a world-conquering social system.

The political economy described above is the product of thinking that originated among Japan's colonial bureaucrats entrusted with the industrialization of Japan's colony of Manchuria in the 1930s. They published their Economic New Structure Manifesto in 1940 as a result of their experience of the inefficiency of traditional capitalism as a development strategy. In the short run, the elite Zaibatsu capitalists of Japan vetoed their ideas, but in the long run, partly as a result of the American occupation's assault on the big property owners, a product of their New Dealer's conviction that industrial concentration was an abettor of fascism, they were able to triumph.

One way to describe the Japanese achievement is to say that they have achieved what the Nazis wanted to achieve but didn't, largely of course because [the Nazis] were mad serial killers obsessed with a lot of things other than economics.

And before you ask, yes, South Korea was also built up in the same way. And Taiwan. New problems have of course emerged since the time that article was written, but that is outside the scope of this topic.

[Wolfman]

This is where debates start to break down. I just went through a litany of reasons why low pay is a personal choice. But you completely ignored that, as if I never said it. If you're working 14 hours a day and you're barely able to live, that is on you. You could better your life easily through more training. Quite being dishonest and disingenuous in your responses. It's unbecoming.

A basic understanding of history in the West prior to the 1930s and the current economic situations in the Second and much of the Third World where it is basically impossible to advance economically is dishonest, disingenuous and unbecoming? Reality is dishonest?

Is there a reason you keep twisting things around? You know the US is in a pickle because of Liberalism, not because of capitalism. The US was built into a global might with capitalism, not with Liberalism. America started to decline only when the liberal goons came into the mix.

America is in a pickle because we aren't enough of a Social Democracy. I've already shown that Social Democracy are more productive and have lower income inequality. I could also show that they are more stable if you like. The simple fact of the matter is that Social Democracies are the way to go.

Why would you care about them. Afterall, they only totally deconstructed your myth about socialist countries being ahead of everybody else.

There are no Socialists states. And considering Pfizer is a known human rights abuser, why would anyone support them?

True. But who willingly agrees to give up 80% of their income?

People who realize that 100% of their income only exists because of their society.

Furthermore, I lived in the UK for many years. People abuse sick leave more often than in the US. Also, I have people in the Scandinavian countries. I'm aware of their work ethics.

The differences are small. Big deal.

It demonstrates a dysfunctional system. These are symptoms of the psyche of the people.

How does it demonstrate any of these?

Actually, Japan, Germany, etc are capitalist nations. Call them collective capitalism, but they're capitalist. These nations are a sparkling success, and demonstrate the power of capitalism.

Only if "collective capitalism" is another word for Social Democracy. They're shining examples of the success of Social Democracy, not Capitalism.

[Rei Murasame]

I think we have a weird terminology issue here, Wolfman, just how far do you stretch the term 'social democracy'? You seem to be using it to describe anything that isn't the USA or USSR. Are you using it as just a synonym for "mixed economy" in general?

[Wolfman]

The short version is basically a cross between Capitalism and Socialism. It's an overall ideology, but economically speaking, it'll have universal healthcare and education, heavy industrial and financial regulations, and one or more key industries will generally be run directly by the government. The UK under the Labor party was (for awhile) a great example. The term can be liberally applied to basically the whole of the West (except the US), as well as Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

[Rei Murasame]

We're using this term very differently then, since as far as I understand it 'social democracy' is actually the adaptation and commodification of welfare provision to American Neoliberal market conditions. In other words it privatises a bunch of stuff, conjoins the welfare state to the back of international finance through borrowing and then hopes really hard that nothing will go wrong because of it.

Basically this abomination here:


I don't know if it means something different in the USA somehow, but that's what it means everywhere else.


However, since you've given it a different definition from that in this thread, I guess it's fine so long as everyone is aware of what you actually meant by it now.

[Wolfman]

We're using this term very differently then, since as far as I understand it 'social democracy' is actually the adaptation and commodification of welfare provision to American Neoliberal market conditions. In other words it privatises a bunch of stuff, conjoins the welfare state to the back of finance through borrowing and then hopes really hard that nothing will go wrong because of it.

Nope. The Labor Party is still officially a Social Democratic party. It actually helped found the movement. The Nordic States, Germany and Japan are probably the best examples.

[Rei Murasame]

Then I think you have a totally different definition. The reason that the Labour Party is now officially social democracy, is the same reason that they have been openly selling out to Wall Street for over a decade now.

The Nordic States

Which ones though?

Germany and Japan

Well, Germany is usually doing 'welfare corporatism' (which they've been dressing up in a number of other creative terms such a 'Ordoliberalism' and 'Rhine Capitalism'). The social democracy issue came to the fore recently and already they are sick of it after just one generation, and Japan I can say for certain has never actually tried to have social democracy (Japan's present position is a very battered and stressed 'corporatism-without-labour').

[Wolfman]

Then I think you have a totally different definition. The reason that the Labour Party is now officially social democracy, is the same reason that they have been openly selling out to Wall Street for over a decade now.

As a British citizen I'm sure you're aware of when the gov ran alot of the British economy (I recall the gov ran a few key industries like steel until Thatcher started selling it off). That was Social Democracy. The Labor Party has been moving towards the Right for a generation or so, and moving away from Social Democracy. At the moment, they could be generally thought of Social Democrats, but in a generation or so, they wont be.

Which ones though?

Yes.

Well, Germany is usually doing 'welfare corporatism' (which they've been dressing up in a number of other creative terms such a 'Ordoliberalism' and 'Rhine Capitalism').

Social Democracy is a somewhat general term and in Germany is represented by the SPD, but Welfare Corporatism could be called a type of Social Democracy

The social democracy issue came to the fore recently and already they are sick of it after just one generation

As a movement towards or away from Capitalism?

Japan I can say for certain has never actually tried to have social democracy (Japan's present position is a very battered and stressed 'corporatism-without-labour').

I'm not familiar with the term "corporatism-without-labour", but I have feeling it could be vaguely considered a form of Social Democracy, as I laid out earlier.

[Rei Murasame]

As a British citizen I'm sure you're aware of when the gov ran alot of the British economy (I recall the gov ran a few key industries like steel until Thatcher started selling it off). That was Social Democracy.

It was something, in that era the Labour Party was still calling itself a party of "Democratic Socialism".

As a movement towards or away from Capitalism?

One of the chief criticisms of social democracy is that it doesn't move anything, it simply adapts itself to whatever the prevailing economic wind happens to be at the time, so it seems to move while actually standing firmly in place in its ideological role.

And in the process it managed to put a really nice face on the brutal gristle-grinding mill that the the capitalism behind it is going to eventually put the bodies of workers through, which is the stage it is now at post-2008.

That some social democratic parties once upon a time actually implemented and/or maintained tripartite corporatist models and social services (eg, Finland), doesn't mean that this is actually its ideological role, nor does it mean that everywhere where corporatism is visible is result of social democracy or evidence of its existence.

For example, the UK presently has nothing resembling corporatism whatsoever, and is a social democracy. If I recall Italy even went so far as to fake having a corporatist model in order to meet EMU entry requirements for the European Union, only to of course hollow those institutions out and scrap them as soon as it had successfully entered the EMU (unsurprisingly, Italy is the second-most unequal country in the European Union just behind the UK). That sort of absurdity is social democracy at work.

Basically I think that your above country-comparison posts are actually measuring for whether a mixed economy and/or corporatism exists, and not necesssarily for whether social democracy is in power.

[Wolfman]

It was something, in that era the Labour Party was still calling itself a party of "Democratic Socialism".

The difference between the two is mostly a matter of opinion.

One of the chief criticisms of social democracy is that it doesn't move anything, it simply adapts itself to whatever the prevailing economic wind happens to be at the time, so it seems to move while actually standing firmly in place in its ideological role.

That's more of a criticism of Social Democrats, as opposed to Social Democracy itself.

That some social democratic parties once upon a time actually implemented and/or maintained tripartite corporatist models and social services (eg, Finland), doesn't mean that this is actually its ideological role, nor does it mean that everywhere where corporatism is visible is result of social democracy or evidence of its existence.

I'm going to guess that by "ideological role" you mean what the idealization of society under that specific ideology. In the case of Social Democracy, Finland is the ideological role. The issue you may be having is that Social Democracies adapt to whatever the whim of it's society is instead of sticking to it's guns. Which is a legit criticism of Social Democrats, but not the ideology itself.

Again, in economic terms as Social Democracy is a mixed economy with a welfare state, universal healthcare and education, industrial and financial regulations, and generally one or more key industries are controlled by the government. You can call this corporatism if you like, but this is the ultimate goal of Social Democrats. What so-called Social Democrats might be doing in real life is another matter altogether.