Thats not hard left. Thats dead center in Germany. Social democracy, where ever it has been implemented, is completely uncontroversial and supported by the left and the right.
Social democracy is NOT: •democratic socialism •national socialism •communism •dictatorship It's basically: •democracy •regulated capitalism •welfare and redistribution •culturally left
@@nunyabizness9045 Denmark,Sweden,norway,Iceland, and Finland these places don't exist let's go back to letting kids die in hospitals cause there parents aren't rich
@Samuel Chavez US Democrats too. I've met so many "Woke" Americans in Singapore who think they're like us because they're against gun violence. Then they openly outed themselves by stating education and healthcare aren't 'requirements for a stable society' because 'Who's gonna pay for it?'. There's a reason why our GDP Per Capita is higher than yours, we don't view education as a privilege, but a prerequisite to live. Adding more insult to injury, we've been ruled by the same right-wing party for decades.
Social democracy is *one* of the best however it is very fragile. Social democracy requires extensive citizen participation for it to work, and imo cannot survive in a heterogenous society (multi-racial and multi-ethnic) as one of its key components is its solidarity factor. It is also prone to developing radicalism on both the left and right. Finally, it struggles to survive in high population countries. Why this is, I am not sure, but perhaps it is because in smaller countries like the Scandinavians, the bureaucracy is better able to manage the homogenous, small population.
@@someguyfromarcticfreezer6854 France is a good example. Though it has issues of money being wasted due to poor bureaucracy and such, it spends half(!) of america's budget PER citizen yet provides superior healthcare to all classes but the upper class (because france's best high skilled doctors often go to the US)
In my personal view, having public control over essentials like Healthcare, Education, Energy,etc is a better alternative than what we have today. Things like Electronics, Cars, Mortgages,etc are best on the private market.
And that’s what it is. It’s basically socialism and capitalism mixed . Things like hospitals etc as you said the public owns it’s yours as much as it is mine . However your house is your house and I have 0 ownership of that as much as I want to .
Yes, but Social democracy can transition to Socialism in a peaceful manner, through economic reformism. Social democracy has many socialist like policies.
Correct. Too many people are saying that social democracy is a type of socialism. It is not. Social democracy is a combination of capitalism(free market) and socialism(minimum income). It's the best of both worlds.
ronettreker Social democracy varies from one nation to another. Social democracy is basically a mixed economy, supporting businesses and free healthcare, education and public services. Social democracy can be left-leaning as well.
It is a mixed economy in the sense that some institutions like hospitals, firefighters and police departments are government run whilst the rest are privately run. And off course these state run organizations are funded with tax money. Also some of these state owned organizations also have private versions that run besides them, for example private hospitals that exist besides the government run ones. Social democracy is closer to the center of the political spectrum than any other system while Socialism is far left.
Democratic socialism and social democracy are very different, i believe that Bernie Sanders is a social democrat, not a democratic socialist and social democracy is the most realistic and successful form of socialism as seen in scandanavia
@Jeff Whitman Well... To that, I'd say that no system... Socialism, Social Democracy, Capitalism... They're all only as good as the ppl who're within them. So perhaps a strong emphasis, particularly in the schools, on having a 'based' moral compass is a good place to start... ??
@@chrysigabriel543 imo because people are in general stupid and dont know what is good for them and how to manage money. Taxing them and putting the money into the most important facilities and institutions (like prisons, schools, hospitals etc.) improves them which generates positive feedback: people life and are better - people make more money. Its a capitalistic system with a burden of financial freedom to middle class in exchange for stable life, good education and healthcare, better work rights and so on. It does require experts instead of laymen appointed by politicians for it to work tho.
@@feint149 No, Hitler was economically a centrist and socially ultra authoritarian. Social Democracy on the other hand is inherently anti authoritarian as it emphasizes personal freedom.
Since 2012 it has been 40% flat tax because the conservatives held power. Now we have a social democratic majority so it will change in the near future.
Sort by most recent, you'll see the amount of "COMMUNISM 100 MILLION DEAD" When socdem is about absolutely avoiding communism at all costs while promoting liberty and human rights lmao.
Social Democracy is definitely something to strive for within every country. Like someone said earlier, the existence of societies hasn't been around long enough to have tried every idea out there, but I think it would be fair to say that this is the best thing we have so far. We should always keep an active search for improvement of these systems. But I think we can all honestly agree that Social Democracy is the right foundation upon which we can continue this quest for an even better system. The only issue that has happened with this is mostly the way many immigrants from non western minded countries have been given too little attention on how to integrate and play along within these systems. The biggest issue of that in my opinion is that their religions like Islam are complete ideological and political systems in itself, and this causes them to see the liberties that we enjoy as dubious. How they are able to convince themselves of this shows the power of indoctrination... It's sad to see, I would personally wish for every person to grow up in a world that provides equal opportunity to each and everyone, however... I'm afraid I won't be there for the day this happens.. that is, if it will ever happen and we don't blow this entire planet to pieces before it can happen.
''Social Democracy is definitely something to strive for within every country.'' Of course it is, if you are an idiot who has never touched an economics book, or a political history book at it.
Cruzwindu777, read your comment. You just insulted a stranger because he gave his opinion about something. Would you have done that face to face? I don't get how people are so shameless.
Three components of freedom: 1. Freedom- from condign power. (i.e force) 2. Freedom- from compensatory power. (i.e the right to be free from wage slavery necessitated by threats of starvation, lack of healthcare etc. ) 3. Freedom- from conditioned power. (i.e. from indoctrination) francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/the-narrow-nature-of-political-words-and-how-that-distorts-discourse/ If you are expecting to integrate indoctrinated people in your society without freeing them from conditioned power, you are asking for trouble.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”-Winston Churchill Only if the market is fair to everybody. Everyone has equal access to equal opportunity. No monopolistic rigging, no nepotism, no cronyism, no unfair advantage/leverage and no favoritism. Equal competition not subjugation, equal chances (including second chances) not suppression. Upward social mobility > downward social mobility. Wealth inequality is fine but only self made not inherited or ill gotten gain by treachery. Democracy not monopolistic plutocracy/kleptocracy/Aristocracy/oligarchy. Economics 101 shows us that the Economies of Scale, monopolies will always form. Especially without government regulation to manage it but sadly government sided with them instead of us.. Capitalism is a system only superior to only communism but still a quasi functioning system that failed us and it breeds nepotism, cronyism, corruption, favoritism, monopolistic suppression and subjugation. We need a new system, a third alternative: SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. Success cannot come purely off of hard work. Luck, environment, timing and other things play into it. if you are meant to succeed in life, it will happen, if you're not, no matter how hard you try or how intelligent you are, you can't get there. Timing is the key in life.
I think no one should talk about communism as bad system. What has bean done in this so called communism nation is that the state became thief instead of the rich men. If you read Karl Max you notice that it was not meant to be that way. The problem is that the rich do talk it down and there is always the danger of the greed of the few in power that makes problem. Soviet and China was not communism it should be called something else. It was a state that stole from it nation. Communism is about letting the capital not be the thief of the benefit from the worker. That is its main concept. A worker should have his benefit from his work. The system should not be allowed to pay a bad payment for hard work that few actually want to work. Then all in a sudden you can have a major pay for playing a soccer or basketball. That is not creating any real property. Or see the biggest criminals in the state the preachers. Have they ever done some real work in their live. I think not.
Free market with minimal regulations (most of these being environmental), strong military, Federal sales tax instead of income tax (with a monthly prebate so the poor pay no taxes), welfare system and health care ONLY for the truly needy and elderly, low prices, high quality goods and services available to all, and ample GOOD jobs. A strong HUGE middle class, HUGE upper middle, and huge upper class. That is the best system. People forget that when you have fewer rich people, the rich are more powerful. If the government is small and there are lots of rich people competing with one another, corruption and corporatism is minimized. More rich people means no ONE rich person can amass too much power. That is the best system. Try hard and succeed. The government will never interfere with your life unless you hit rock bottom and need help getting back on your feet, if that is even necessary. People help one another more when government intrusion is minimal. When government social programs are the first choice, people tend to think "i don't need to help him, the government will do it". A charitable, kind, and proud citizenry that loves to be American, because we exhibit tolerance and success. That is the best system. A society where race and ethnicity is irrelevant, only actions, achievements, and merit. That is the best system.
@@oceanwaves83 So you propose that the more rich people there are the better? Alright... But that also means more people in poverty... Don't see how that fixes anything
Sir Riaer No. It would actually mean a large upper, large middle, and smaller lower class. Competition amongst both small and large businesses would mean plenty of jobs at competitive wages. There would be more millionaires who compete with each other instead of one billionaire with a monopoly.
We've tried to do that here in Kansas. It doesn't work buddy... Lower class will always be the largest class, no matter the circumstance, it's our duties to improve the lower class so that people do not experience such extreme poverty. To get more jobs isn't the problem, it is that a vast portion of our population cannot get higher income jobs due to the inaccessibility of high quality education. If you want the economy and living standards of the people to increase you have to fund things to help the common person, not just the upper class.
I was a communist for a long time. My friend told me about social democracy and i was very interested. I did a political compass test and i was almost in the same spot as of a social democrat but i was kinda between progressive and social democracy
@@howenator most commies are communists for the workers rights and workers power . Believe it or not most working class folks believes fit right inte the communist mind set and believes and that’s if we follow proper socialism and not the Stalin crap or whatever you call it .
I have the same excact story. Except that I wanted to learn about my country, and found out it's prosperity came out of Social-Democracy (Finland), and when I started learning about it, it's simply the perfect ideology for me.
Post-WWII boom was effectively a social democracy. We've been there before, we can do it again. If social democrats want to become popular to all ages, it needs to affirm that it is the ideal form of capitalism.
The richest western countries are socdem too. Except america. Everytime it tries to go socdem horribly incompetent implementation and "REEE COMMIES" set it back again.
If you mention the word social to Americans they get very funny. Yet welfare, education, defence, etc. all of these services are socialised to the core and paid through mainly by taxes ... Some contributing more than other. The Scandinavian countries, Germany, and Switzerland are places where social democracy exists to some degree and if society could be made a bit better by reducing the inequalities that can result from capitalism. The USA cannot deny that there are huge social problems such as crime, healthcare, and poverty are not going to get better by making the inequalities even more exacerbated.
You can't compare Venezula to European democracies. They are basically ruled over by a dictator who lets his people starve... It's so ignorant of people to even compare the two
We are trying to un-brainwash Americans. Right now they've been soaked in decades of propaganda against anything socialist. It takes time, patience and one-on-one honest discussions.
@@joeyj6808 I'm learning more about this myself, I've been reading a lot of comment threads and watching a lot of unbiased videos to formulate my own opinion on the subject. I guess the late stage capitalism memes are really putting in work
It helped me understand the ideology better to Even though I’m only a freshman in high school (14) as I’m typing this I’m starting to get into politics
"You receive those services regardless of the taxes you pay." Yes, that's what makes it affordable for everyone. That's the whole point of taxes. And that's the reason that so many people can't afford to pay for healthcare insurance in the US.
Scandinavia seems to be doing something right. It's too bad a great majority in America do not understand what social democracy is...or what democracy even is.
All the comments here are soyragers who come, dislike, "This is communism and communism failed" when 3/4 of the west other than america is social democracy by definition lol.
JOSEPH STALIN - The Social-Democratic View of the National Question - 1904 (aged 26) "Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.... These organisations ( ie Fascism and social democracy ) are not antipodes, they are twins".
Social democracy is the “final stop” before full-on fascism. It’s basically a tacit admission by the bourgeoisie that a socialist revolution is drawing near, and they need to appease the workers by whatever means necessary. Social democracy can also exist, feasibly, primarily via imperialism. The reason capitalism is able to provide such a robust welfare state is through the impoverishment and ruin of other countries. As I understand it, it is for these reasons that Stalin (correctly) calls social democracy “objectively the moderate wing of fascism.” A more knowledgeable comrade is welcome to elaborate upon this issue further, of course.
Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark don’t rely on imperialism? Norway has oil, Finland isn’t imperialist, Sweden isn’t particularly imperialist. And Denmark’s imperial territories are relatively barren
The "Kurzgesagt" channel is operated by a Munich, Germany based design company that produces design work for businesses and institutions, like in the case of this video the "Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung". Their own RUclips channel probably started out as a little side project to test and show of their work and proved successful as a way to gain more attention and attract more business, while at the same educating people.
"Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organization that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organization of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy" -Joseph Stalin
"Change the laws and you can change or eliminate the power of the corporation" Easier said than done in a democracy. Corporate power is out of control now due to their influence in politics. "all capital is is a claim to wealth backed by "legal" custom. We the people can change that when we want to, the key is to organize those who want to badly enough." That's always been the case but it hasn't happened yet. However, the conditions are manifesting now for making change more likely.
The conditions are manifesting which is a good thing, but I worry America will go to far. Europe was like America at one point in the 1800s and support for socialism grew, to prevent this European governments implemented Social Democracy to please the people and businesses. The US refuses to introduce any help for Americans and I fear they will turn towards pure Socialism rather than common sense Social Democracy.
Hard to do that when virtually EVERY left-wing movement you see either has people discussing workers rights and/or trade unions. Those things sponsor socialism and socialism is the parent of communism.
That depends entirely on the size of the company and the implementation of Social Democracy. In Germany for example, most if not all companies with 2,000 or more workers are worker owned. They no longer require investors. Many of the smaller companies(In terms of employees) are still privately owned and have investors just like here in The U.S. It will vary truthfully, on a case by case basis.
I just want to live in a society where people work hard to get more privilege, not to survive. In my dream society people with simple low paying jobs get to enjoy life too if they want more money to enjoy more, then they can get a second job. And people who run companies are rewarded with more money for creating the jobs for these people.
I like the idea of social democracy- but how would it work in an enormous and diverse country like the USA? It makes sense for countries the size of, say, Colorado.
Regulated and usually become worker-owned cooperatives. Scientific planning would be kept to a minimum(As opposed to Marxism-Leninism). So the market-based structure would remain in tact.
As one German billianaire recently put it when a reporter representing a Right-Wing American outlet pressed him about paying higher taxes: "I pay my taxes because I want to be a rich man in a rich country instead of a rich man in a poor country."
Here is a set of *books on Social Democracy* - published by FES for free (PDF): 1. *Foundations of Social Democracy* - library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/09071.pdf 2. *Economics and Social Democracy* - library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/08458.pdf 3. *Welfare State and Social Democracy* - library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/09581.pdf
The regulation, social secruity and welfare of a social democracy are requirements for a truly free and equal society. You can't have equality of opportunity, if going into debt because of healthcare or higher education is a legitimate threat to a vast portion of the population. Equality of opportunity requires for every member of society to have access to higher education and the basic necessities, regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds.
Higher taxes on the rich and welfare are conservative ideas. Thomas Hobbes argued that the rich should pay more because they have more to lose if the state breaks down and rebellions begin. Similarly welfare was brought in by bismarck around the time he outlawed socialism. The function was to stop class rebellion. and the UK has a culture of one nation conservatism which was brought in to undermine the idea that anarchists and trade unions could run the means of production without the elite.
Social Democracy benefits Capitalism and completely relies on it for funding. I'm not sure why people keep pretending that it's Socialism or "transitioning in that direction." I think that demonstrates a widespread fundamental misunderstanding of what Capitalism is. The public sector is not the "Socialism" sector. It's literally at the foundation of all Capitalist economies. The public sector facilitates the private sector and the private sector pays for the public sector.
They say the cream rises to the top; well unless everyone has equal access to equal opportunity with equal playing field and no unfair privilege/advantage which allow you a rigged the monopolistic system then you can truly claim your success or else you're just a cheater, a fraudster, a looter and a fluke of gigantic proportion. Make it from rag to riches then you are entitled to your claim of worthiness. If you benefited from the monopolistic system somehow, somewhat then you owe society a favor and pay what you owe via: Cap on CEO/execs pay with ratio to average employees for fairer wealth distribution, higer progressive taxation, and higer inheritence taxation. The Rich have rigged the monopolistic system known as monetary capitalism to skew everything in their favor & unfairly & unjustifiably exploited the flawly system to benefit themselves while subjugate & suppress every1 else. These opportunists captured their wealth via disgusting/unethical leverage, it’s to keep the plutocrat at the top & suppress everyone else at the bottom, wealth by birth or by treachery or both. Progressive taxation is essential to counter the injustice, the imbalance & the failure of society. Republican Party (GOP): right-wing nationalist movement of ultra-capitalists suppressing opposition through wealth of commerce. Influencing elections by unethical practices, cherry-rigging, using religion and misinformation through corporate media. Deceiving a populous into wars based on lies, and innuendos. Believing in supremacy and exploitation of, national, or international groups of low income easy prey. Having disdained contempt for democracy, and closely related to Fascism. Many of these heirs and heiress of the 1% are breeding corruption in America. They should forfeit all of their ill gotten gain gains, abandon their empire, give up all their possessions, and try to live off of two dollars a day. If it truly WERE hard work and intelligence that got them where they are, then they should have no problem whatsoever rebuilding their empire. If they can't actually rebuild their empire from rag to riches, then they are lying. Let us TEST their libertarian theory... on THEM. The middle class paid into SS/income/payroll taxes their whole lives just to bailout and subsidies the greedy corporate looters/raiders 1% (not all of them). Middle class put out of work by the same greedy looters/raiders 1% being labelled as welfare deadbeats by the same looters/raiders 1%. Their home/life-savings/401k/investment and on top of all that, their future, their retirement and their children future all wipe-out by the looters/raiders/ravagers 1%. They're now living in homeless shelters and are force to work for the same 1% at near slave wages so tax payers have to subsidize the victims just so they able to survive. SOCIAL DEMOCRACY!!!
I would want this for my homeland, The Philippines where political corruption and economic inequality is strife. Neoliberalism hadn't done much there except for Bad monetary policies and corporations trashing the environment. The recent Aquino administration's only memorable achievement is its macro economic policies I think in helping the economy. Other administrations are stupid, ignorant and corrupt when facing the country's problems. Death to the Oligarchy, death to Nepotism and Favoritism.
Sure, a worker-owned cooperative is where the business is literally owned by those that work for them. If you were to leave, you would give up that ownership. Social Democracy would have that along with continuing collective bargaining rights. For anything large than a small business, it would evolve into a cooperative. Scientific planning is kept at a minimum in Social Democracy(SD). SD relys on a market-based structure as it retains most aspects of Capitalism. Using the European example,
Its a very tricky concept, this balancing of positive and negative rights. One that is easier said than done, one that sounds nice and sweet in theory but is extremely hard to even define, let alone implement, in practice. I am instinctively skeptical of any system that claims both types of rights should count equally.Negative rights should always outweigh positive ones for 2 key reasons - one of which is based on principle, the other on pragmatism. The reason that is based on principle is that a negative right does not require anyone to do anything for you. Therefore everyone in a society can enjoy these rights by default. That is clearly not the case with positive rights. When one says that every citizen should have a "right" to advanced medical care for example, it automatically implies that it is the DUTY of somebody somewhere to provide that service. And if that duty is not fulfilled, said person must be penalized. Now as a thought experiment let's say everyone simply sits down and refuses to do anything but demand their rights, both positive and negative ones. The positive rights are rendered ridiculous and meaningless. Not unless you FORCE people to provide some of those rights to others. If doctors and teachers for example stop working (or in a milder form, leave the profession), where does that leave you with the positive right to free education and healthcare? Positive rights therefore work if and only if you are ready to force the citizenry to work. That is not the case with negative rights. Nobody needs to "do" anything to let me enjoy freedom of speech, life, religion or movement. They just need to not interfere with me or I with them. The second pragmatic reason for a clear prioritization of negative rights is that they are much more easily circumscribed and do not change much over time. Freedom of speech means very specific things and these will remain largely unchanged even 25 years from now. There may be a few challenges like say new technology, but by and large these rights are well defined and unambiguous. That is clearly not the case with positive rights. Where for example do you draw the line with a right to healthcare? At free vaccinations and cold medicine? How about free MRIs and coronary bypass surgeries? After all, what use is "free healthcare" to a patient when he can't get what he precisely needs for his ailment, no matter how expensive? Where do you draw the line for a right to a job? Just at lower skilled or worse still minimum wage jobs? Why should people not have the "right" to a high paying job? How about a "right" to free/affordable housing? At which locations would you limit them? If we can have affordable housing for example in Manhattan New York, why then can we not do the same on Park Avenue or the Trump Towers? How do you draw that line? And how do you decide who gets a very limited resource like cheap housing at a prime location? These are some of the deeper issues with positive rights that this video glosses over. I'm sure of course that there is more detail beyond these few minutes of video but I feel that any society, nation or system that accords positive rights a significance equal to that given to negative rights, has its priorities all messed up.
This is not my name Amazingly even with all that, it still seems like a simplification. True negative rights don't require that anybody does anything for you but because negative rights tend to benefit those with the ability to understand them. Then positive rights start to become important. Social Democrats don't see it as a duty but simply understand the very simple truth that not everybody is born with equal opportunity and if people are to have equal freedom then concessions need to be made. People might be equal before the law, but in a system where the government doesn't interact then somebody with a better understanding of the law is always going to have an advantage. Back in the days before public education the only people who could develop this understanding of the law were the wealthy and those who could afford lawyers while those on the other end of the scale couldn't imagine such a thing. Public Education was brought around for this very reason, because places like Britain were giving people rights but quickly came to understand that people living in absolute poverty who couldn't afford private education were always going to be at a disadvantage. Yes it was paid for by taxation of the wealthier members of society but Education has long been proved to kill poverty. Even groups like the United Nations agree on this principle. Freedom of Speech doesn't really mean much at all, people often disagree on what constitutes Freedom of Speech and quite often the people claiming to love free speech will want to see it shut down the moment something is said that goes in direct contrast with their own views. My point is that positive rights often have area's that need to be discussed. Social Democracy usually at it's least will try and give people what they need to survive. This whole "why don't we pay people millions" stuff which in reality is all you are saying is asinine. Most Social Democrats aren't saying that everybody should be billionaires but that society should allow people to at least start on a equal playing field to everybody else. Most Social Democracies will again prioritize education in this equation because Education helps make people equal. Social Democrats know that these issues have to be discussed and will probably disagree on the tiny things but in reality it's no different in any Democracy. Democracy as a system needs discussion. One thing we do usually agree on is that not everybody is born Socially Equal and Social Democrats wish to use the Government as a tool in order to help that without relying on the whims of the rich who only decide to help the poor if it's convenient for them.
Whenever i would give political tests online they would show me that i support social democracy and am a center libertarian. Social democracy seems like a common thing. Is it though ?
well it's mostly european ideology, social democracy have some of the biggest political parties in european countries and second biggest group in european parliament at the moment is social democratic
Andreas in Italy also the liberal Renzi led us to the worst result ever in 2018 (18.7%). Luckily last year we changed leader and got 23% in the last European elections, but the path to become the 1st party again is still long✊🏼
What do we want? Freedom! When do we want it? Now! What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now! What do we want? Solidarity! When do we want it? Now!
I don't know what country you're from but in my country, construction workers make some damn fine money. His boss makes more than him because he's the boss.
Exactly! It never ceases to amze me the way libertarians love to out-right lie by claiming that their specific economic policies have never been tried. They have been tried, repeatedly in fact and every singel time ends in a whole slew of social and economic problems where plutocrats and Roman-style Patricians are the only ones who benefit.
I'm missing some of your posts because someone is flagging them - not me. If a bunch of rich people bought all the goods, great!, people were employed to make them and they also buy final goods. What if the govt spends 40% of GDP using extorted money (taxes), borrowed money (future taxes), or printed money (future taxes). Is that good? If so, who benefits
I have several questions: At around 2:55 the narrator states that for the man to be able to form an opinion he must first be educated. The video says that for him to be educated he must receive funding (through taxes from citizens). That implies school. Does that mean that real-world experience outside of the confines of school is unable to provide him with good opinions? Also, at that timestamp, the narrator states that the tax for the man's education is a "small interference in the right to own property". If that were so, then why are so many students drowning in college debt? Also, isn't this assuming that a Social Democratic society will only ask for taxes for education and not for other things like health, infrastructure, agriculture, etc? Are not taxes in these societies and the impact on private property notoriously high?
it's going to be simplified answer because i am lazy 1. "At around 2:55 the narrator states that for the man to be able to form an opinion he must first be educated. The video says that for him to be educated he must receive funding (through taxes from citizens). That implies school. Does that mean that real-world experience outside of the confines of school is unable to provide him with good opinions?" no life experience is good and important for learning, but school will give you a lot of information, it also teaches you to read and to think critically (in finland at least) if you can read you can get more information from internet or books from your public library then you can form your opinion. 2. "Also, at that timestamp, the narrator states that the tax for the man's education is a "small interference in the right to own property". If that were so, then why are so many students drowning in college debt?" it depends on a country in finland and most of europe colleges and universities are free (taxpayer funded) in USA you have to pay it yourself, if it's "free" then student are not hold back after graduation, because most bank are may not be willing to lend you money if you are already in debt. also when we teach everybody who can pass exams for school we are using our society's talent at it fullest 3. "Also, isn't this assuming that a Social Democratic society will only ask for taxes for education and not for other things like health, infrastructure, agriculture," it's a very simplified video to teach concept of social democracy there are other parts of the series, but yes social democrats support the welfare state, good example if you want to know more research Nordic model. 4. "Are not taxes in these societies and the impact on private property notoriously high?" well progressive income tax is a name of the game there are lot of other taxes, rich pay more and poor less, employer pay some payroll taxes, in my mind it about what you get out of your taxes, healthcare, schooling, good roads and safety net, so it can be high but context is important, and i have heard that in some usa states taxes are as high as our own if you combine federal, local and state taxes but we get more for our tax dollars/euros edit some economist say that high taxes don't affect the economy if you use them well. there is no study or studies that prove definitely that high taxes hurt the economy, it still in open debate but many european countries are very successful even with high taxes.
is this the kurzgesagt narrator?
+BeepDerpify all of Kurzgesagts social issues videos lean pretty hard on the left. love all the science education ones
+Pemphro sounds just like him
+Pemphro It sounds so much like him.
Pemphro I think it is him.
Thats not hard left. Thats dead center in Germany. Social democracy, where ever it has been implemented, is completely uncontroversial and supported by the left and the right.
Social democracy is NOT:
•democratic socialism
•national socialism
•communism
•dictatorship
It's basically:
•democracy
•regulated capitalism
•welfare and redistribution
•culturally left
Not to mention it is a democratic capitalism, one that the world already experienced after WWII and before the 1970s.
Regulated capitalism is an oxymoron
It's also Fantasyland
@@nunyabizness9045 Denmark,Sweden,norway,Iceland, and Finland these places don't exist let's go back to letting kids die in hospitals cause there parents aren't rich
It can also be culturally right.
USA : OMG, Is this communism?!
😂😂 that's right
@Samuel Chavez
US Democrats too. I've met so many "Woke" Americans in Singapore who think they're like us because they're against gun violence. Then they openly outed themselves by stating education and healthcare aren't 'requirements for a stable society' because 'Who's gonna pay for it?'. There's a reason why our GDP Per Capita is higher than yours, we don't view education as a privilege, but a prerequisite to live. Adding more insult to injury, we've been ruled by the same right-wing party for decades.
Especially Republicans who are brainwashed into thinking that the United States is the best country in the world.
@@WanderingVincent well we have states that per capita absoulutley fucking smoke you so to each theory own
I can kinda see why many Americans think that considering social democracy was created due to threat and potential of communism taking over
So, long story short:
Social Democracy = Capitalism + Strong welfare
Sounds great
Yep
Yup lool.
Well regulated capitalism with strong social welfare. Well regulated is key! :)
And collective bargaining and anti-monopoly enforcement
Social democracy is the best and more successful form of government.
Joshua Chamberlain where’s here?
Hahahahahhahahahahahahhahaha
@Joshua Chamberlain Where?
Social democracy is *one* of the best however it is very fragile. Social democracy requires extensive citizen participation for it to work, and imo cannot survive in a heterogenous society (multi-racial and multi-ethnic) as one of its key components is its solidarity factor. It is also prone to developing radicalism on both the left and right. Finally, it struggles to survive in high population countries. Why this is, I am not sure, but perhaps it is because in smaller countries like the Scandinavians, the bureaucracy is better able to manage the homogenous, small population.
I agree
This doesn't sound so bad. Increased taxes(for all people) seems like a valid price to pay for a higher quality society.
Even US citizens increase their taxes in 10 percent, that is cheaper than actual health care insurance.
@@someguyfromarcticfreezer6854 France is a good example. Though it has issues of money being wasted due to poor bureaucracy and such, it spends half(!) of america's budget PER citizen yet provides superior healthcare to all classes but the upper class (because france's best high skilled doctors often go to the US)
Problem is some people can't afford to pay taxes 😐😐
@@mariacillan9668 Yes. But, when more jobs are created, they will be able to do it.
@@mariacillan9668 that is exactly why you have a progressive tax system
In my personal view, having public control over essentials like Healthcare, Education, Energy,etc is a better alternative than what we have today. Things like Electronics, Cars, Mortgages,etc are best on the private market.
And that’s what it is. It’s basically socialism and capitalism mixed . Things like hospitals etc as you said the public owns it’s yours as much as it is mine . However your house is your house and I have 0 ownership of that as much as I want to .
socialism and social democracy is not the same thing.
ahem just saying the fact.
Yes, but Social democracy can transition to Socialism in a peaceful manner, through economic reformism. Social democracy has many socialist like policies.
Great Britannia They are from the same family tree after all
Correct. Too many people are saying that social democracy is a type of socialism. It is not. Social democracy is a combination of capitalism(free market) and socialism(minimum income). It's the best of both worlds.
ronettreker Social democracy varies from one nation to another. Social democracy is basically a mixed economy, supporting businesses and free healthcare, education and public services. Social democracy can be left-leaning as well.
It is a mixed economy in the sense that some institutions like hospitals, firefighters and police departments are government run whilst the rest are privately run. And off course these state run organizations are funded with tax money. Also some of these state owned organizations also have private versions that run besides them, for example private hospitals that exist besides the government run ones. Social democracy is closer to the center of the political spectrum than any other system while Socialism is far left.
Did a political test and got social democracy and this fits me pretty good.
thepicklecat do not trust “political tests” they don’t work
@@v12vanquish if the outcome is social democrat then it worked
Same here
Can you send me the link?
@@icelandisacoolcountry925 8 values political test is the best on I've seen
Democratic socialism and social democracy are very different, i believe that Bernie Sanders is a social democrat, not a democratic socialist and social democracy is the most realistic and successful form of socialism as seen in scandanavia
Nice meme he calls himself a democratic socialist but his policies are Social democrat policies
Social democracy is NOT socialism
@Darth Anarcho Go to school you dumb shit, you have no clue about what you are talking about.
@Darth Anarcho When you have no argument all you do is appeal to low insults. Make use of them. It fits yourself pretty well! :)
chat.whatsapp.com/KwMXuBkTXXY8jmSZyimhyP everyone is welcome to the group of socialdemocrats, so we can argue about politics!
Social democracy is the only way to achieve true personal freedom.
Preach :)
Amen to that
@Nitin Aditya India is not social democratic even they claim to be they are not
@Nitin Aditya india is far right lmao
Haha it hell, I'm over taxed in australia
Best form of government from my experience. Liberty can coexist with solidairty.
@Jeff Whitman Well... To that, I'd say that no system... Socialism, Social Democracy, Capitalism... They're all only as good as the ppl who're within them. So perhaps a strong emphasis, particularly in the schools, on having a 'based' moral compass is a good place to start... ??
Social democracy > hardline capitalism &a hardline communism
Casual capitalism and casual socialism
You have no clue what you’re talking about do you?
Ah yes, the best system of governance humanity ever created as of yet
Why do u think so
@@chrysigabriel543 imo because people are in general stupid and dont know what is good for them and how to manage money. Taxing them and putting the money into the most important facilities and institutions (like prisons, schools, hospitals etc.) improves them which generates positive feedback: people life and are better - people make more money. Its a capitalistic system with a burden of financial freedom to middle class in exchange for stable life, good education and healthcare, better work rights and so on. It does require experts instead of laymen appointed by politicians for it to work tho.
Isn't this Hitler's ideology? Except it had nationalism infront?
@@feint149 No, Hitler was economically a centrist and socially ultra authoritarian. Social Democracy on the other hand is inherently anti authoritarian as it emphasizes personal freedom.
I want it
Scandinavian social democrat here
Pitsa Puma Oh danish... tror jag
Since 2012 it has been 40% flat tax because the conservatives held power. Now we have a social democratic majority so it will change in the near future.
Steve 1571 I hope he wins, even though he won't.
+Pitsa Puma Hello! :)
Romaine Narcisse Hi!
"It's basically like capitalism with more welfare"
Americans: SHUT UP ITS COMMUNISM
Sort by most recent, you'll see the amount of "COMMUNISM 100 MILLION DEAD"
When socdem is about absolutely avoiding communism at all costs while promoting liberty and human rights lmao.
Republicans***
AND comunist: shut up its facism. LMAO.
Best form of government.
Based
That's National Liberalism.
@@genthyseni4025 can't be nationalist and a liberal at the same time
Social Democracy is definitely something to strive for within every country. Like someone said earlier, the existence of societies hasn't been around long enough to have tried every idea out there, but I think it would be fair to say that this is the best thing we have so far. We should always keep an active search for improvement of these systems. But I think we can all honestly agree that Social Democracy is the right foundation upon which we can continue this quest for an even better system.
The only issue that has happened with this is mostly the way many immigrants from non western minded countries have been given too little attention on how to integrate and play along within these systems. The biggest issue of that in my opinion is that their religions like Islam are complete ideological and political systems in itself, and this causes them to see the liberties that we enjoy as dubious. How they are able to convince themselves of this shows the power of indoctrination... It's sad to see, I would personally wish for every person to grow up in a world that provides equal opportunity to each and everyone, however... I'm afraid I won't be there for the day this happens.. that is, if it will ever happen and we don't blow this entire planet to pieces before it can happen.
''Social Democracy is definitely something to strive for within every country.''
Of course it is, if you are an idiot who has never touched an economics book, or a political history book at it.
If you know so much better, then why don't you contribute to the discussion with an actual argument instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks?
Cruzwindu777, read your comment. You just insulted a stranger because he gave his opinion about something. Would you have done that face to face? I don't get how people are so shameless.
Three components of freedom:
1. Freedom- from condign power. (i.e force)
2. Freedom- from compensatory power. (i.e the right to be free from wage slavery necessitated by threats of
starvation, lack of healthcare etc. )
3. Freedom- from conditioned power. (i.e. from indoctrination)
francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/the-narrow-nature-of-political-words-and-how-that-distorts-discourse/
If you are expecting to integrate indoctrinated people in your society without freeing them from conditioned power, you are asking for trouble.
Social democracy has been working great for about 60 or 70 years now. I wouldn't call it a new idea anymore.
All these years I have believed in these things, just never knew it had a name.
Thanks!
Damn shame the US doesn't have a party for social democracy. It's just far right vs center right.
Well the American Solidarity Party is social democratic but socially, culturally, and morally conservative.
Economically both are centre right. Socially one is in the centre and the other far left.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”-Winston Churchill
Only if the market is fair to everybody. Everyone has equal access to equal opportunity. No monopolistic rigging, no nepotism, no cronyism, no unfair advantage/leverage and no favoritism. Equal competition not subjugation, equal chances (including second chances) not suppression. Upward social mobility > downward social mobility. Wealth inequality is fine but only self made not inherited or ill gotten gain by treachery. Democracy not monopolistic plutocracy/kleptocracy/Aristocracy/oligarchy.
Economics 101 shows us that the Economies of Scale, monopolies will always form. Especially without government regulation to manage it but sadly government sided with them instead of us..
Capitalism is a system only superior to only communism but still a quasi functioning system that failed us and it breeds nepotism, cronyism, corruption, favoritism, monopolistic suppression and subjugation.
We need a new system, a third alternative: SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.
Success cannot come purely off of hard work. Luck, environment, timing and other things play into it. if you are meant to succeed in life, it will happen, if you're not, no matter how hard you try or how intelligent you are, you can't get there. Timing is the key in life.
I think no one should talk about communism as bad system. What has bean done in this so called communism nation is that the state became thief instead of the rich men. If you read Karl Max you notice that it was not meant to be that way. The problem is that the rich do talk it down and there is always the danger of the greed of the few in power that makes problem. Soviet and China was not communism it should be called something else. It was a state that stole from it nation. Communism is about letting the capital not be the thief of the benefit from the worker. That is its main concept. A worker should have his benefit from his work. The system should not be allowed to pay a bad payment for hard work that few actually want to work. Then all in a sudden you can have a major pay for playing a soccer or basketball. That is not creating any real property. Or see the biggest criminals in the state the preachers. Have they ever done some real work in their live. I think not.
Better then fascist and Communist party.
Free market with minimal regulations (most of these being environmental), strong military, Federal sales tax instead of income tax (with a monthly prebate so the poor pay no taxes), welfare system and health care ONLY for the truly needy and elderly, low prices, high quality goods and services available to all, and ample GOOD jobs. A strong HUGE middle class, HUGE upper middle, and huge upper class. That is the best system.
People forget that when you have fewer rich people, the rich are more powerful. If the government is small and there are lots of rich people competing with one another, corruption and corporatism is minimized. More rich people means no ONE rich person can amass too much power. That is the best system.
Try hard and succeed. The government will never interfere with your life unless you hit rock bottom and need help getting back on your feet, if that is even necessary. People help one another more when government intrusion is minimal. When government social programs are the first choice, people tend to think "i don't need to help him, the government will do it". A charitable, kind, and proud citizenry that loves to be American, because we exhibit tolerance and success. That is the best system.
A society where race and ethnicity is irrelevant, only actions, achievements, and merit. That is the best system.
@@oceanwaves83 So you propose that the more rich people there are the better? Alright... But that also means more people in poverty... Don't see how that fixes anything
Sir Riaer No. It would actually mean a large upper, large middle, and smaller lower class. Competition amongst both small and large businesses would mean plenty of jobs at competitive wages. There would be more millionaires who compete with each other instead of one billionaire with a monopoly.
We've tried to do that here in Kansas. It doesn't work buddy... Lower class will always be the largest class, no matter the circumstance, it's our duties to improve the lower class so that people do not experience such extreme poverty. To get more jobs isn't the problem, it is that a vast portion of our population cannot get higher income jobs due to the inaccessibility of high quality education. If you want the economy and living standards of the people to increase you have to fund things to help the common person, not just the upper class.
Both were socialist. Nazis=National Socialists. And communism and socialism are basically the same. Ignorance has no shame
I was a communist for a long time. My friend told me about social democracy and i was very interested. I did a political compass test and i was almost in the same spot as of a social democrat but i was kinda between progressive and social democracy
You were never a communist then.
@@howenator most commies are communists for the workers rights and workers power . Believe it or not most working class folks believes fit right inte the communist mind set and believes and that’s if we follow proper socialism and not the Stalin crap or whatever you call it .
@@howenator He was communist. Then changed his views based on new information. Just like every other human. It is called keeping an open mind.
I have the same excact story. Except that I wanted to learn about my country, and found out it's prosperity came out of Social-Democracy (Finland), and when I started learning about it, it's simply the perfect ideology for me.
Communism is despicable
Post-WWII boom was effectively a social democracy. We've been there before, we can do it again. If social democrats want to become popular to all ages, it needs to affirm that it is the ideal form of capitalism.
The richest western countries are socdem too. Except america. Everytime it tries to go socdem horribly incompetent implementation and "REEE COMMIES" set it back again.
God, I love this Kurzgesagt narrator!
I'm personally a liberal socialist, but I like social democracy as well.
Liberal socialist?? What does it even mean??
@LanesHasGains sus
You can’t be liberal and socialist at the same time since liberalism supports private ownership
If you mention the word social to Americans they get very funny. Yet welfare, education, defence, etc. all of these services are socialised to the core and paid through mainly by taxes ... Some contributing more than other. The Scandinavian countries, Germany, and Switzerland are places where social democracy exists to some degree and if society could be made a bit better by reducing the inequalities that can result from capitalism. The USA cannot deny that there are huge social problems such as crime, healthcare, and poverty are not going to get better by making the inequalities even more exacerbated.
You can't compare Venezula to European democracies. They are basically ruled over by a dictator who lets his people starve... It's so ignorant of people to even compare the two
We are trying to un-brainwash Americans. Right now they've been soaked in decades of propaganda against anything socialist. It takes time, patience and one-on-one honest discussions.
@@joeyj6808 I'm learning more about this myself, I've been reading a lot of comment threads and watching a lot of unbiased videos to formulate my own opinion on the subject. I guess the late stage capitalism memes are really putting in work
@@joeyj6808 I appreciate your patience, you're one of the good ones
@@joeyj6808 Except that unlike Social Democracy, Socialism is a disaster.
Even though this was posted nearly 9 years ago, it was so helpful for my homework, so LITERALLY THANK YOU SO MUCH
It helped me understand the ideology better to Even though I’m only a freshman in high school (14) as I’m typing this I’m starting to get into politics
"You receive those services regardless of the taxes you pay."
Yes, that's what makes it affordable for everyone. That's the whole point of taxes. And that's the reason that so many people can't afford to pay for healthcare insurance in the US.
Scandinavia seems to be doing something right. It's too bad a great majority in America do not understand what social democracy is...or what democracy even is.
All the comments here are soyragers who come, dislike, "This is communism and communism failed" when 3/4 of the west other than america is social democracy by definition lol.
Bernie Sanders entered the chat
Bearnie is a democratic socialist not a social democrat.
Dark Wolf443 I was gonna day that! Lol
@@darkwolf4434 No, he may say he's a SocDem but he's definitely a DemSoc
That's democratic socialism, not social democracy.
@@crisp9929 literally the opposite is true, he calls himself a demsoc but is a socdem
I'm not a social democrat but this is such a great, well presented explanation.
JOSEPH STALIN - The Social-Democratic View of the National Question - 1904 (aged 26) "Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.... These organisations ( ie Fascism and social democracy ) are not antipodes, they are twins".
As if anyone would take the opinion of JOSEPH STALIN seriously
@@brandonk.4864 he was also a very paranoid freak
@@brandonk.4864 Iosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili was a mostly based comrade
IS THAT THE SAME DUDE FROM UHH KURZEGAST (IDK HOW TO SPELL IT)??
Even as a classical liberal I wouldn't mind a social democracy. I think it's pretty based.
Social Democracy, Public Welfare and Social Justice may live long 🌹
This is the kurzgesagt narator right?
Flippen legend out here educating more people than 50 thousand teachers will ever do
Social democracy is a good economic ideal
Social democracy is the “final stop” before full-on fascism. It’s basically a tacit admission by the bourgeoisie that a socialist revolution is drawing near, and they need to appease the workers by whatever means necessary. Social democracy can also exist, feasibly, primarily via imperialism. The reason capitalism is able to provide such a robust welfare state is through the impoverishment and ruin of other countries.
As I understand it, it is for these reasons that Stalin (correctly) calls social democracy “objectively the moderate wing of fascism.” A more knowledgeable comrade is welcome to elaborate upon this issue further, of course.
Don't trust Stalin, please. He was a communist, so he considered everything to be right-wing or far-right.
That's obvious Propaganda from the Soviets
Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark don’t rely on imperialism? Norway has oil, Finland isn’t imperialist, Sweden isn’t particularly imperialist. And Denmark’s imperial territories are relatively barren
kurzgesagt is that you?!?
Bennick Karune It him
The "Kurzgesagt" channel is operated by a Munich, Germany based design company that produces design work for businesses and institutions, like in the case of this video the "Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung".
Their own RUclips channel probably started out as a little side project to test and show of their work and proved successful as a way to gain more attention and attract more business, while at the same educating people.
Social Democracy= Moralistic capitalism. It is an economic system driven by morals and stresses on social equality and personal freedom.
"Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organization that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organization of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy" -Joseph Stalin
If Stalin hates it, then it's porbably good
Yeah... Its gonna be a long and difficult road to even get American politicians to talk about the Left...
"Change the laws and you can change or eliminate the power of the corporation"
Easier said than done in a democracy. Corporate power is out of control now due to their influence in politics.
"all capital is is a claim to wealth backed by "legal" custom. We the people can change that when we want to, the key is to organize those who want to badly enough."
That's always been the case but it hasn't happened yet. However, the conditions are manifesting now for making change more likely.
The conditions are manifesting which is a good thing, but I worry America will go to far. Europe was like America at one point in the 1800s and support for socialism grew, to prevent this European governments implemented Social Democracy to please the people and businesses. The US refuses to introduce any help for Americans and I fear they will turn towards pure Socialism rather than common sense Social Democracy.
Higher the taxes more corrupt politican are... in Australia some close to billionaire
@@BoldOne8760 socal democracy screw over business and consumers
Chilean social democrat here
Jealous American here
Nordic model here
Nordic better than America
Diego V (insert helicopter joke here)
Nordic not better, just richer
The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung academy of Social Democracy explains Social Democracy.
*Every 60 seconds in Africa, a minute passes.*
They should show this on US tele, so that people will ACTUALLY know that anything left-wing isn't necessarily communism...
Hard to do that when virtually EVERY left-wing movement you see either has people discussing workers rights and/or trade unions. Those things sponsor socialism and socialism is the parent of communism.
That depends entirely on the size of the company and the implementation of Social Democracy. In Germany for example, most if not all companies with 2,000 or more workers are worker owned. They no longer require investors. Many of the smaller companies(In terms of employees) are still privately owned and have investors just like here in The U.S. It will vary truthfully, on a case by case basis.
Ehh were did you get that your example of Germany from? That isn't even remotely true.
I just want to live in a society where people work hard to get more privilege, not to survive. In my dream society people with simple low paying jobs get to enjoy life too if they want more money to enjoy more, then they can get a second job.
And people who run companies are rewarded with more money for creating the jobs for these people.
I like the idea of social democracy- but how would it work in an enormous and diverse country like the USA? It makes sense for countries the size of, say, Colorado.
It can work here
It can work but it'd be called communism. Sort by new and watch comments here. All the downvotes are 2 word "It's communism" type of comments.
Regulated and usually become worker-owned cooperatives. Scientific planning would be kept to a minimum(As opposed to Marxism-Leninism). So the market-based structure would remain in tact.
one of the best form of government
Thank you for your clip. Can I translate this video in Persian?
Please do
Freedom Justice Solidarity
Is this just the moderate version of French Revolution? (Liberty Equality Fraternity)
What do you think the French Revolution was about? It was about creating a social democracy.
social democracy = based democracy
As good as this form of government is, it would never work in the US. They just can’t seem to care about anything but themselves :(
I'm obsessed with this editing
Can I bring in the term centrism?
As one German billianaire recently put it when a reporter representing a Right-Wing American outlet pressed him about paying higher taxes:
"I pay my taxes because I want to be a rich man in a rich country instead of a rich man in a poor country."
Oh yeah. I Had Something similar in school a few years ago. Many very very rich Germans are in Favor of Higher taxes For rich people
Ive done a few political tests and they all said im a social democrat so yeah
Which tests?
Here is a set of *books on Social Democracy* - published by FES for free (PDF):
1. *Foundations of Social Democracy* - library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/09071.pdf
2. *Economics and Social Democracy* - library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/08458.pdf
3. *Welfare State and Social Democracy* - library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/09581.pdf
I never really understood this until i watched this vid
:)
The regulation, social secruity and welfare of a social democracy are requirements for a truly free and equal society. You can't have equality of opportunity, if going into debt because of healthcare or higher education is a legitimate threat to a vast portion of the population. Equality of opportunity requires for every member of society to have access to higher education and the basic necessities, regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds.
You can look at France, Germany, Scandinavia and see that their public education and healthcare are doing great.
How are they doing now?
Is this the Kurzgesagt guy??
No matter how fair you try to make it someone is getting the short end of the stick and that is reality and people need to learn to live with it.
Higher taxes on the rich and welfare are conservative ideas. Thomas Hobbes argued that the rich should pay more because they have more to lose if the state breaks down and rebellions begin. Similarly welfare was brought in by bismarck around the time he outlawed socialism. The function was to stop class rebellion. and the UK has a culture of one nation conservatism which was brought in to undermine the idea that anarchists and trade unions could run the means of production without the elite.
this video is visually pleasing
Social Democracy benefits Capitalism and completely relies on it for funding. I'm not sure why people keep pretending that it's Socialism or "transitioning in that direction." I think that demonstrates a widespread fundamental misunderstanding of what Capitalism is. The public sector is not the "Socialism" sector. It's literally at the foundation of all Capitalist economies. The public sector facilitates the private sector and the private sector pays for the public sector.
Is the same as Democratic socialism?
no, not with accurate definition
but the two are used as interchangeable by many in america
No.
Democratic socialism = Socialism
Social Democracy = Harding Capitalism & Harding Socialism
Capitalism with welfare system
Omg , kurzgezagt voice actor!!!! He is here?
They say the cream rises to the top; well unless everyone has equal access to equal opportunity with equal playing field and no unfair privilege/advantage which allow you a rigged the monopolistic system then you can truly claim your success or else you're just a cheater, a fraudster, a looter and a fluke of gigantic proportion. Make it from rag to riches then you are entitled to your claim of worthiness. If you benefited from the monopolistic system somehow, somewhat then you owe society a favor and pay what you owe via: Cap on CEO/execs pay with ratio to average employees for fairer wealth distribution, higer progressive taxation, and higer inheritence taxation. The Rich have rigged the monopolistic system known as monetary capitalism to skew everything in their favor & unfairly & unjustifiably exploited the flawly system to benefit themselves while subjugate & suppress every1 else. These opportunists captured their wealth via disgusting/unethical leverage, it’s to keep the plutocrat at the top & suppress everyone else at the bottom, wealth by birth or by treachery or both. Progressive taxation is essential to counter the injustice, the imbalance & the failure of society.
Republican Party (GOP): right-wing nationalist movement of ultra-capitalists suppressing opposition through wealth of commerce. Influencing elections by unethical practices, cherry-rigging, using religion and misinformation through corporate media. Deceiving a populous into wars based on lies, and innuendos. Believing in supremacy and exploitation of, national, or international groups of low income easy prey. Having disdained contempt for democracy, and closely related to Fascism.
Many of these heirs and heiress of the 1% are breeding corruption in America. They should forfeit all of their ill gotten gain gains, abandon their empire, give up all their possessions, and try to live off of two dollars a day. If it truly WERE hard work and intelligence that got them where they are, then they should have no problem whatsoever rebuilding their empire. If they can't actually rebuild their empire from rag to riches, then they are lying. Let us TEST their libertarian theory... on THEM.
The middle class paid into SS/income/payroll taxes their whole lives just to bailout and subsidies the greedy corporate looters/raiders 1% (not all of them). Middle class put out of work by the same greedy looters/raiders 1% being labelled as welfare deadbeats by the same looters/raiders 1%. Their home/life-savings/401k/investment and on top of all that, their future, their retirement and their children future all wipe-out by the looters/raiders/ravagers 1%. They're now living in homeless shelters and are force to work for the same 1% at near slave wages so tax payers have to subsidize the victims just so they able to survive. SOCIAL DEMOCRACY!!!
*drops monocle*
Lobos222 Which part did I say America is SOCIAL DEMOCRACY?
This is fucking crazy....
the man literally predicted Trump wow
I would be willing to pay taxes if the government really spend it to improve everyone's education.
I would want this for my homeland, The Philippines where political corruption and economic inequality is strife. Neoliberalism hadn't done much there except for Bad monetary policies and corporations trashing the environment. The recent Aquino administration's only memorable achievement is its macro economic policies I think in helping the economy. Other administrations are stupid, ignorant and corrupt when facing the country's problems.
Death to the Oligarchy, death to Nepotism and Favoritism.
I see. But what about stockholders in a worker-owned cooperative?
There is no such thing.
Balance,Order true freedom.
Sure, a worker-owned cooperative is where the business is literally owned by those that work for them. If you were to leave, you would give up that ownership. Social Democracy would have that along with continuing collective bargaining rights. For anything large than a small business, it would evolve into a cooperative. Scientific planning is kept at a minimum in Social Democracy(SD). SD relys on a market-based structure as it retains most aspects of Capitalism. Using the European example,
SocDem is the best economy.
Socialism is better.
Shouldn't "freedom of..." be a positive right and "freedom from..." be a negative right? And not the other way around
Its a very tricky concept, this balancing of positive and negative rights. One that is easier said than done, one that sounds nice and sweet in theory but is extremely hard to even define, let alone implement, in practice.
I am instinctively skeptical of any system that claims both types of rights should count equally.Negative rights should always outweigh positive ones for 2 key reasons - one of which is based on principle, the other on pragmatism.
The reason that is based on principle is that a negative right does not require anyone to do anything for you. Therefore everyone in a society can enjoy these rights by default. That is clearly not the case with positive rights. When one says that every citizen should have a "right" to advanced medical care for example, it automatically implies that it is the DUTY of somebody somewhere to provide that service. And if that duty is not fulfilled, said person must be penalized.
Now as a thought experiment let's say everyone simply sits down and refuses to do anything but demand their rights, both positive and negative ones. The positive rights are rendered ridiculous and meaningless. Not unless you FORCE people to provide some of those rights to others. If doctors and teachers for example stop working (or in a milder form, leave the profession), where does that leave you with the positive right to free education and healthcare? Positive rights therefore work if and only if you are ready to force the citizenry to work.
That is not the case with negative rights. Nobody needs to "do" anything to let me enjoy freedom of speech, life, religion or movement. They just need to not interfere with me or I with them.
The second pragmatic reason for a clear prioritization of negative rights is that they are much more easily circumscribed and do not change much over time. Freedom of speech means very specific things and these will remain largely unchanged even 25 years from now. There may be a few challenges like say new technology, but by and large these rights are well defined and unambiguous.
That is clearly not the case with positive rights. Where for example do you draw the line with a right to healthcare? At free vaccinations and cold medicine? How about free MRIs and coronary bypass surgeries? After all, what use is "free healthcare" to a patient when he can't get what he precisely needs for his ailment, no matter how expensive? Where do you draw the line for a right to a job? Just at lower skilled or worse still minimum wage jobs? Why should people not have the "right" to a high paying job? How about a "right" to free/affordable housing? At which locations would you limit them? If we can have affordable housing for example in Manhattan New York, why then can we not do the same on Park Avenue or the Trump Towers? How do you draw that line? And how do you decide who gets a very limited resource like cheap housing at a prime location?
These are some of the deeper issues with positive rights that this video glosses over. I'm sure of course that there is more detail beyond these few minutes of video but I feel that any society, nation or system that accords positive rights a significance equal to that given to negative rights, has its priorities all messed up.
nerd
This is not my name Amazingly even with all that, it still seems like a simplification.
True negative rights don't require that anybody does anything for you but because negative rights tend to benefit those with the ability to understand them. Then positive rights start to become important. Social Democrats don't see it as a duty but simply understand the very simple truth that not everybody is born with equal opportunity and if people are to have equal freedom then concessions need to be made.
People might be equal before the law, but in a system where the government doesn't interact then somebody with a better understanding of the law is always going to have an advantage. Back in the days before public education the only people who could develop this understanding of the law were the wealthy and those who could afford lawyers while those on the other end of the scale couldn't imagine such a thing. Public Education was brought around for this very reason, because places like Britain were giving people rights but quickly came to understand that people living in absolute poverty who couldn't afford private education were always going to be at a disadvantage. Yes it was paid for by taxation of the wealthier members of society but Education has long been proved to kill poverty. Even groups like the United Nations agree on this principle.
Freedom of Speech doesn't really mean much at all, people often disagree on what constitutes Freedom of Speech and quite often the people claiming to love free speech will want to see it shut down the moment something is said that goes in direct contrast with their own views. My point is that positive rights often have area's that need to be discussed.
Social Democracy usually at it's least will try and give people what they need to survive. This whole "why don't we pay people millions" stuff which in reality is all you are saying is asinine. Most Social Democrats aren't saying that everybody should be billionaires but that society should allow people to at least start on a equal playing field to everybody else. Most Social Democracies will again prioritize education in this equation because Education helps make people equal.
Social Democrats know that these issues have to be discussed and will probably disagree on the tiny things but in reality it's no different in any Democracy. Democracy as a system needs discussion. One thing we do usually agree on is that not everybody is born Socially Equal and Social Democrats wish to use the Government as a tool in order to help that without relying on the whims of the rich who only decide to help the poor if it's convenient for them.
I don't agree. Europe has shown that this system works. America has shown that yours doesn't.
Whenever i would give political tests online they would show me that i support social democracy and am a center libertarian. Social democracy seems like a common thing. Is it though ?
well it's mostly european ideology, social democracy have some of the biggest political parties in european countries and second biggest group in european parliament at the moment is social democratic
British Social Democrat over here
Lib Dem
you really nailed it last election guys. in germany, we still have conservative fools destroying our party. 20,5% in 2017, no wonder :(
Andreas in Italy also the liberal Renzi led us to the worst result ever in 2018 (18.7%).
Luckily last year we changed leader and got 23% in the last European elections, but the path to become the 1st party again is still long✊🏼
What do we want? Freedom! When do we want it? Now! What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now! What do we want? Solidarity! When do we want it? Now!
I learned literally nothing. At all.
+Vinny P Did you listen?
Is democracy based on social prosperity?
I don't know what country you're from but in my country, construction workers make some damn fine money. His boss makes more than him because he's the boss.
Germany.
This explains it very well, much better than most textbooks.
Kurzesagt? Is that you
Is complete solidarity truly possible in our society today?
Honestly idk, but I would like to think that Social Corporatism can work in let's say U.S. society.....
Best system, and we have some version of this in the UK too.
Wait? Kurzgesagt voice?
Sounds like Kurzgesagt voiceover.
Exactly! It never ceases to amze me the way libertarians love to out-right lie by claiming that their specific economic policies have never been tried. They have been tried, repeatedly in fact and every singel time ends in a whole slew of social and economic problems where plutocrats and Roman-style Patricians are the only ones who benefit.
I'm missing some of your posts because someone is flagging them - not me. If a bunch of rich people bought all the goods, great!, people were employed to make them and they also buy final goods. What if the govt spends 40% of GDP using extorted money (taxes), borrowed money (future taxes), or printed money (future taxes). Is that good? If so, who benefits
Social Democracy >>>>>>>>>>> Socialism
Ehhhh I disagree but I still think social democracy is pretty good.
What is Freedom? What is Justice? What is solidarity?
Very interesting introduction to SocDem.
I have several questions:
At around 2:55 the narrator states that for the man to be able to form an opinion he must first be educated. The video says that for him to be educated he must receive funding (through taxes from citizens). That implies school. Does that mean that real-world experience outside of the confines of school is unable to provide him with good opinions?
Also, at that timestamp, the narrator states that the tax for the man's education is a "small interference in the right to own property". If that were so, then why are so many students drowning in college debt?
Also, isn't this assuming that a Social Democratic society will only ask for taxes for education and not for other things like health, infrastructure, agriculture, etc?
Are not taxes in these societies and the impact on private property notoriously high?
it's going to be simplified answer because i am lazy
1. "At around 2:55 the narrator states that for the man to be able to form an opinion he must first be educated. The video says that for him to be educated he must receive funding (through taxes from citizens). That implies school. Does that mean that real-world experience outside of the confines of school is unable to provide him with good opinions?" no life experience is good and important for learning, but school will give you a lot of information, it also teaches you to read and to think critically (in finland at least) if you can read you can get more information from internet or books from your public library then you can form your opinion.
2. "Also, at that timestamp, the narrator states that the tax for the man's education is a "small interference in the right to own property". If that were so, then why are so many students drowning in college debt?" it depends on a country in finland and most of europe colleges and universities are free (taxpayer funded) in USA you have to pay it yourself, if it's "free" then student are not hold back after graduation, because most bank are may not be willing to lend you money if you are already in debt. also when we teach everybody who can pass exams for school we are using our society's talent at it fullest
3. "Also, isn't this assuming that a Social Democratic society will only ask for taxes for education and not for other things like health, infrastructure, agriculture," it's a very simplified video to teach concept of social democracy there are other parts of the series, but yes social democrats support the welfare state, good example if you want to know more research Nordic model.
4. "Are not taxes in these societies and the impact on private property notoriously high?" well progressive income tax is a name of the game there are lot of other taxes, rich pay more and poor less, employer pay some payroll taxes, in my mind it about what you get out of your taxes, healthcare, schooling, good roads and safety net, so it can be high but context is important, and i have heard that in some usa states taxes are as high as our own if you combine federal, local and state taxes but we get more for our tax dollars/euros
edit some economist say that high taxes don't affect the economy if you use them well. there is no study or studies that prove definitely that high taxes hurt the economy, it still in open debate but many european countries are very successful even with high taxes.
@@smithfinland214 This pretty much. In france you get paid to study.
Thanks, needed some explanation for my homework!
there is not a bias against profits in a SD system. In fact, in well maintained SD systems, the private sector booms quite well.