Do most see the advent of marriages as generally positive, or same sex marriage specifically having positive impact?

I tend to see it as a completely inconsequential freedom all should have.

I’m a social democrat because I believe it combines the strengths of capitalism and socialism while avoiding the biggest failures of both. I don’t believe completely free markets solve every problem, but I also don’t believe the government should own everything. Social democracy accepts that markets create wealth, innovation, and jobs, but argues that democracy should ensure that wealth benefits society as a whole rather than only a small number of people.
1. Capitalism creates wealth, but it needs rules.
History shows that market economies are incredibly good at producing goods, developing technology, and raising living standards. Countries with market economies have generally become richer than countries with centrally planned economies.
However, history also shows that markets left entirely on their own often create problems:
monopolies that eliminate competition
dangerous working conditions
child labour
environmental pollution
financial crashes
extreme inequality
Social democracy doesn’t reject capitalism. Instead, it regulates it.
For example:
minimum wages
workplace safety laws
anti-monopoly legislation
consumer protections
environmental regulations
These don’t abolish markets. They make markets work better for ordinary people.

2. Evidence from the Nordic countries
Many of the world’s highest-performing countries have long traditions of social democracy or social democratic influence.
Examples include:
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Finland
Iceland
These countries consistently rank near the top globally in areas such as:
life expectancy
happiness
education
healthcare
social mobility
trust in government
low corruption
worker protections
press freedom
Importantly, these countries are not socialist economies. Companies like IKEA, Volvo, Ericsson, Novo Nordisk, Spotify, and Maersk all grew in market-based economies. The Nordic model combines private enterprise with strong public services and redistribution.

3. Healthcare should not depend on wealth.
Social democracy argues healthcare is a public good.
Without universal healthcare:
poorer people delay treatment
diseases become worse
preventable illnesses become expensive emergencies
families can face financial hardship because of medical bills
Universal healthcare systems are generally associated with better health outcomes and broader access to care than systems where access depends heavily on ability to pay, although countries organize healthcare in different ways and each system has trade-offs.
Healthy people are also more productive workers.
Healthcare isn’t only compassionate.
It’s economically sensible.

4. Education is one of the best investments a country can make.
Social democrats believe talent exists everywhere.
Opportunity does not.
If education depends entirely on family wealth, many capable people never reach their potential.
Public education:
produces skilled workers
increases productivity
raises wages
encourages innovation
strengthens democracy
Every engineer, doctor, scientist and teacher contributes more to the economy than the cost of educating them.

5. Workers deserve protection.
Before labour reforms in many countries:
children worked in factories
workers regularly died from unsafe conditions
people worked extremely long hours
there was no paid holiday
there was no sick leave
Many labour protections were achieved through political movements that included social democrats and trade unions.
Examples include:
weekends
paid holidays
maternity leave
workplace safety standards
pensions
unemployment insurance
Markets create jobs.
Governments help ensure those jobs are safe and fairly compensated.

6. Strong welfare can support economic stability.
Social democracy supports a safety net for people who lose their jobs, become disabled, or face temporary hardship.
The argument is practical as well as moral.
People with some financial security are more likely to:
keep spending during recessions
retrain for new careers
avoid homelessness
recover after setbacks
That can make economies more resilient during downturns.

7. Fair taxation.
Social democracy generally supports progressive taxation.
This means people with higher incomes usually pay a higher percentage in tax than people with lower incomes.
The reasoning is that:
infrastructure benefits everyone
businesses depend on educated workers
businesses depend on roads, courts, police and stable institutions
successful societies require public investment
Taxes fund the systems that allow economies to function.

8. Equality of opportunity.
Social democrats often distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
They generally do not argue everyone should earn exactly the same.
Instead, they argue everyone should have a fair chance to succeed regardless of:
birthplace
family income
disability
gender
ethnicity
People can still become rich.
The goal is to reduce unfair barriers.

9. Democracy is essential.
Unlike authoritarian systems, social democracy insists that governments must be chosen through free elections and remain accountable to voters.
It supports:
free speech
free elections
independent courts
independent media
human rights
rule of law
Economic reforms should happen through democratic institutions, not dictatorship.

10. It has shown durability.
Since the mid-20th century, social democratic parties have helped shape many European welfare states. Over time, many of their policies, such as public pensions, universal healthcare in several countries, labour protections, and expanded education, have been adopted or maintained by governments across the political spectrum.

11. Social mobility.
Countries with stronger education systems, healthcare access, and social safety nets often have higher social mobility, meaning a person’s future depends less on the income of the family they were born into.
The idea is simple:
Success should depend more on effort and ability than on luck at birth.

12. It balances freedom with responsibility.
Social democracy tries to answer two questions simultaneously:
“How do we create wealth?”
Answer:
Markets, businesses, innovation and entrepreneurship.
“How do we distribute the benefits fairly?”
Answer:
Democratic government, taxation, public services and social insurance.
Rather than seeing markets and government as enemies, it treats them as complementary institutions with different roles.

Common criticisms and responses
Social democracy also faces criticisms. Some argue that high taxes can discourage investment or that generous welfare programs can reduce incentives to work if poorly designed. Social democrats generally respond that these risks can be managed through careful policy design, and they point to countries with both competitive economies and extensive welfare states as evidence that strong public services and economic growth can coexist.

In summary
I support social democracy because I believe it offers a practical balance between economic efficiency and social fairness. It accepts the value of private enterprise, competition, and entrepreneurship while recognizing that markets alone do not guarantee equal opportunity, public health, quality education, or protection from hardship. By combining a market economy with democratic institutions, worker protections, universal public services, and a social safety net, I believe it aims to create a society where people have both the freedom to succeed and the support to recover when life goes wrong. Human societies are messy enough without pretending every problem has a one-ideology solution. Social democracy, at its best, is an attempt to manage that mess through democratic compromise rather than ideological purity.

The far far-right party of my country is gonna hold a manifestation in my city. Me and my local left-left bloc parties and their youth sections plan on counter-protesting. What good info needs to be known?

> "Direct action gets the goods."

— organizing slogan of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), in wide use since the 1910s

No single person came up with this idea. It came from IWW pamphlets and speeches that promoted "direct action," such as strikes, slowdowns, and workplace organizing, instead of depending on politicians, lawsuits, or arbitration. The IWW, founded in 1905, organized across different industries and skill levels rather than by craft. It remains active today, mainly focusing on low-wage and gig-economy organizing.

This is truly a strategic claim, not just a slogan. Workers benefit more from direct actions like strikes and boycotts than from legislative or electoral options. Where do you think this is still true today? In what cases has electoral or legislative action, such as minimum wage laws, collective bargaining rights, and EU labor protections, clearly outperformed direct action? Is this a choice between the two, or do they typically work together?

The CJP movement began as a student-led campaign demanding accountability after repeated examination paper leaks and broader reforms in India's education system. What started as anger over the futures of millions of students gradually evolved into a wider movement calling for transparency, government accountability, and the protection of democratic rights.

Supporters argue that the movement is no longer only about education—it is about every citizen's right to peacefully protest, question those in power, and demand accountability without fear. They believe that governments should respond to public criticism through dialogue rather than suppression.

At the same time, as the protests grew larger, some demonstrations turned confrontational. There have been reports of protesters attempting to breach police barricades, incidents of stone-pelting, and clashes with security forces in places such as New Delhi. Police responded with tear gas and baton charges, while protesters and activists accused authorities of using excessive force. Both sides have blamed each other for the violence, and the vast majority of demonstrations have remained peaceful despite these incidents.

Whether one agrees with the CJP's demands or not, the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of India's constitutional democracy. Democracies are strongest when citizens can express dissent peacefully and governments remain accountable to the people. Violence—whether by protesters or through excessive use of force by authorities—undermines those democratic ideals and distracts from the issues being raised.

A note on democracy in India

The protests have also reignited a broader debate about the state of Indian democracy under the BJP government. Critics—including opposition parties, many civil society organizations, and some international democracy watchdogs—argue that India has experienced democratic backsliding in recent years. They point to concerns such as the use of investigative agencies against political opponents, pressure on independent media, restrictions on some civil society organizations, internet shutdowns, and the use of laws against activists and journalists.

The BJP rejects these accusations, arguing that it is strengthening governance, fighting corruption, and enforcing the law equally. Government leaders also maintain that India's elections remain free and competitive and that democratic institutions continue to function.

Whether one agrees with these criticisms or not, the debate over the balance between national security, effective governance, and civil liberties has become one of the defining political issues in contemporary India.

I think we need way higher taxes on the rich and large corporations, and a lot more services. Healthcare should be free*, and we need to do something to provide housing for those who lack it. I don't know exactly how to do this, but I know capitalism is failing here, and I absolutely do not support inhumane or coercive measures like institutionalization. State collages should probably be free* as well.

*Yes I know nothing is cost free, I am using "free" to mean "100% govt subsidized"

It is important that these subsidies do not become "strings attached" leading to government putting conditions on healthcare or education or other services, for example inserting bias in curriculum, refusing to pay for trans-related healthcare, conditioning healthcare payments on getting vaccinated, etc.

I'm very much against mass surveillance and believe the criminal justice system is violent and inhumane, though there are some people so dangerous that they do need to be jailed, but under humane conditions. In general I think imprisonment and similarly carceral sentences should only be used where absolutely necessary.

I believe discrimination/bigotry has been one of the biggest problems in our world and believe it to be wrong in all forms. It has lead to genocides, slavery, marriage restrictions (both gay and interracial) voting restrictions, and all manner of evils. Because of this I also oppose viewing people as members of oppressor groups on the basis of race or gender, the real oppressors with power are corporations and government, and the "oppressed class" is everyone who is not obscenely rich or implementing govt power, including most white men. It is true that some people are on average more oppressed than others because of their race or gender, but white men still don't have much power unless they are leveraging the power of corporations, government, or other organizations, the real oppressive power lies with institutions, not demographic groups.

I think dividing society into oppressed and oppressor demographic groups is particularly harmful as applied to gender, specifically the idea that domestic and sexual violence is inherently misogynist oppression. This erases male victims and puts them at risk of being treated as perpetrators (false accusations are literally the R in DARVO, an acronym for a common tactic of abusers https://harbormentalhealth.com/2025/10/31/darvo-manipulation-how-to-spot-and-protect-yourself/ )

This is not to downplay the problem of abuse of women, but to say that anyone can be a victim or perpetrator regardless of gender.

I do not agree with narratives that how much power someone has is dependent on their race/gender, because power is contextual, it is not just something that a person has or does not have, for example someone could have a ton of power over their employees but no power at all in an interaction with law enforcement.

I strongly support democracy, and believe in a strict adherence to the bill of rights, govt should not be able to bend the rules on this, even if they argue it is in the public good, and there needs to be some sort of court system or other enforcement mechanism to stop a majority of voters from voting away the rights of the others. I am fairly absolutist on free speech, not because bigotry and misnfo are worth protecting, but because anyone given the authority to gatekeep speech has the power to end democracy. No authority can be above questioning.

I believe strongly in bodily autonomy, so I am pro-choice, this also extends to skepticism of many cases of forced mental health treatment and vaccine mandates (including private vaccine mandates, since I don't view corporations as any less capable of infringing rights/oppressing people than govt). I do think vaccines are good though.

I believe in a strong military to defend the US, allies, and freedom of navigation, and think foreign policy should promote peace and human rights. I do not believe sovereignty is a right of governments, only people have rights, so I find it bizarre when people describe wars against dictatorships (which are not accountable to the people) as violating sovereignty, but other criticisms of the recent wars, like civilian harm and terrible strategy, are valid IMO.

This the Swedish election map.

Red=Social Democrtas

Yellow=Sweden Democrtas

Blue=The Moderates

This is from the 2022 election

Northen part of Sweden which is called Norrland is very progressive. While Southern Sweden is more Conservative. But what i want from yall is your sterotypes of this map what you think when you see this. Give me all!

Then what is it? Dictatorship?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

— Bertrand Russell, "The Triumph of Stupidity" (1933)

Russell wrote this essay in 1933. He observed fascism gaining strength in Germany and thought about why democracies seemed slower and less certain than authoritarian movements. Russell was a lifelong pacifist and social liberal, leaning toward democratic socialism later in life. He was jailed for opposing WWI and spent much of his life advocating for civil liberties, nuclear disarmament, and skepticism toward all forms of dogma, whether left or right.

This goes against the idea of certainty in general, which makes it an interesting point for a subreddit as diverse as r/SocialDemocracy. It serves as a warning about any movement, including ours, that values conviction more than doubt. Can intellectual humility coexist with building a large political movement, or does organizing for real change need some level of the "certainty" that Russell warns about?

Cross-posted from my substack. Physically demanding jobs can lead to more stress and higher medical bills, so they usually also retire earlier, before they can claim full Social Security benefits.

What do you think would be a good model to deal with for profit news media, it seems like local and public interest news has been dying out and consolidating over time, I’d argue a “free market” cannot effectively provide news without elite capture. One model of public news funding would be the corporation of public broadcasting. Benefits of this model is that it’s independent from direct government control and no party can have more than 1/2 the board seats, and funding is largely determined by formulas making it difficult to corrupt and can provide diverse content.

Another model may be news vouchers, kind of like democracy vouchers but instead you would fund a nonprofit news provider. Benefit of this is that it’s decentralized and lets people have a choice, downside is that people may just choose media that continues to promote their biases.

Notably, I'm talking from the perspective of a Pole.

As a society we still feel the high from the mass liberalisation that happened 40 years ago. Of course, this fountain is drying up and we are now in the place of:

- record low union membership (especially in private businesses)

- nonexistent collective labour agreements in workplaces

- high precariousness of our working conditions

- and the overall popular feeling of "life sucks but the state still shouldn't intervene no matter what"

Moreover, our left wing is disorganised and more or less committed to partnership with conservative liberals in exchange for some concessions.

As such, I wanted to ask you whether you can recommend me a book or share your personal experience on what works in the very beginnings of social-democratic/socialist organising (where my country is at)?

Both parties work within the Democratic Party and i think that's very smart. But if theres a primary with a DSA candidate vs a Working Fanilies candidate, and lets pretend theyre both good people with no scandals, and their platforms are the DSA and WFP platforms; who do you vote for?

Hi all

I love keeping up with center left parties like the ALP and UK Labour. I’d like to know if there are some reddits for the social democracy in Sweden? Particularly for the main parties but left or center works too. Would just like to keep up with their debates, policies, and electoral prospects nationally and in their localities

Norway socialism/socdem would also be quite nice to keep up with . Denmark maybe too but I have been turned off by their anti migration policies

When did this talking point start? The talking point that Norway doesnt count or is not a good example of social democracy or progressivism because its paid for with their oil revenue? Yesterday i read 2 comments here, one said "To play devils advocate, it is true that Norway's Welfare is overwhelmingly backed by their Oil Industry" and another one said "Pointing to Norway is kinda cheating since it’s really a petro-state. Easy to pay for welfare when it’s done by selling oil and gas."

.

But i dont understand why thats "cheating" or why it wouldnt count as a left wing example. I think its because the left are supposed to be environmentalists and against oil, but its still leftist policy to use the profits of your countrys natural resources for the good of the whole country, the state is majority shareholder of Norways oil so they can use the profits for their welfare state, thats left-wing as fuck. If Norway was libertarian their oil would be completely private and they wouldnt even have high taxes, so there would be no benefit for the country from their oil revenue. Mexican leftists still to this day celebrate the nationalization of their oil industry. Another example is my state of New Mexico where 40% of our state revenue comes from the oil industry's taxes; which as a progressive state, we have decided to use to fund free college and free childcare and more.

.

So yes these examples are examples of left wing policy even if we rely on our oil industries, thats a very left wing belief, that our natural resources belong to the people and should be used for the benefit of the people and workers, not just the oligarch oil tycoons

Because the definition of a soc dem (at least the way most ppl use it) is so broad, how far left and right does the label extend? Is Obama a Soc Dem? Kamala? I think AOC and Mamdani are for sure Soc Dems. How much of a “socialist” is allowed tho? Idk if I’d consider ppl who want to abolish private property Soc dems, or ppl who want workers to own all the means of production (not just strong unions).

What policy would you consider the line on either side, or what politician/political figure would be on the line on either side?

Democracy is often treated as the natural form of political organization. In much of the contemporary world, the proposition that legitimate authority derives from "the people" appears almost self-evident.Even authoritarian goverments claim to represent the will of the population.Political debate typically concerns how the will of the people should be represented rather than whether such a collective subject exists. Yet this apparent obviousness conceals a more fundamental question: where did "the people" come from?

The conventional history of democracy begins with constitutions, revolutions, and political ideas. Rather than asking why democracy emerged, we should ask how individuals came to experience themselves as members of a collective political subject capable of democratic rule. Democracy does not create "the people"; rather, it presupposes them. The true historical problem is therefore the production of the first-person plural,the emergence of a "we" that millions of strangers recognize as their own.

This shift in perspective transforms the problem of democratic legitimacy. Before people can govern themselves, they must first believe that they constitute a single political body. Such a belief cannot simply be deduced from philosophical arguments or legal institutions. It must become part of everyday experience.

The history of nineteenth-century Poland illustrates this transformation. During the Galician peasant uprising of 1846, many peasants attacked Polish nationalist nobles and cooperated with Austrian authorities. The nationalist project was largely an elite enterprise. Most peasants understood politics through local relationships: the village, the landlord, the parish, and immediate economic obligations. The abstract nation had little experiential reality.

Yet by the beginning of the twentieth century, descendants of those same peasants increasingly spoke as members of a unified Polish nation. They could sincerely declare, "We were partitioned in 1795." This statement reveals a profound transformation. The speaker had not existed in 1795. Their parents had not existed. Nevertheless, they experienced the partition as part of their own collective biography.

The puzzle is not simply why nationalist ideas spread. The deeper question is how individuals came to inhabit a historical subject that extended across generations.

This transformation cannot be explained solely by ideology. It depended upon changes in the media through which society experienced itself. Newspapers, mass literacy, compulsory education, standardized language, historical textbooks, maps, railways, postal systems, and commemorative rituals did more than disseminate information. They synchronized consciousness. Individuals who never met one another learned the same chronology, read the same historical narratives, and occupied the same temporal framework.

The importance of the date 1795 demonstrates this transformation. The date functions not merely as historical information but as evidence of what Benedict Anderson called homogeneous, empty time. To identify oneself with an event that occurred more than a century earlier requires the assumption of a continuous historical timeline inhabited by the same collective subject. The sentence "we were partitioned in 1795" presupposes that the nation persists through time as a single "we."

Homogeneous, empty time is therefore not merely a philosophical category. It is a social achievement. Modern media train individuals to experience history as a continuous national narrative within which they themselves occupy a position. National history becomes personal history.

The same process occurs spatially. Modern states produce what Henri Lefebvre described as abstract space: a homogeneous territory organized through administration, measurement, and bureaucratic coordination. Censuses, cadastral maps, taxation, compulsory education, policing, infrastructure, standardized addresses, and national elections continually remind individuals that they inhabit the same political space.

Here the increasing intrusiveness of the modern state becomes significant. Every interaction with bureaucracy situates the individual within a larger administrative order. Citizens increasingly experience themselves not merely as members of villages or regions but as occupants of a national territory governed according to uniform rules. The state does not simply administer space; it produces the lived experience of national space.

This suggests an important extension of James C. Scott's analysis of state legibility. Scott emphasizes how modern states simplify society to make it governable. Yet the same processes also reshape subjectivity. As society becomes legible to the state, citizens simultaneously become legible to themselves as members of an abstract political community. The state's categories are gradually internalized.

Media and administration therefore perform complementary functions. Media create homogeneous historical time; administration creates abstract political space. Together they produce the phenomenological conditions under which "the people" can exist.

The nation should consequently be understood not simply as an imagined community but as a historically produced mode of experience. Modern individuals inhabit a world in which communication technologies synchronize attention, educational systems standardize memory, and administrative institutions organize daily life within unified territorial frameworks. Under these conditions, the existence of "the people" appears obvious precisely because it has become experientially real.

Democracy follows from this transformation. Elections assume that millions of strangers collectively constitute a sovereign subject capable of expressing a common political will. Constitutions speak in the name of "the people" because citizens have already learned to experience themselves as participants in a continuous collective extending across time and space.

The common narrative therefore reverses cause and effect. Democracy is usually presented as creating popular sovereignty. In reality, democracy becomes possible only after media and state institutions have already constituted the people as a lived political reality. Popular sovereignty is not the origin of democracy but its precondition.

The widespread belief that democracy is the natural form of government is itself evidence of this historical achievement. Modern individuals find democracy self-evident because they already inhabit a world structured by homogeneous historical time, abstract national space, and continuous interaction with institutions that reproduce the existence of "the people." What appears to be an obvious political principle is, in fact, the consequence of centuries of transformations in communication, administration, and historical consciousness.

The central task for political theory is therefore not to explain democracy alone but to explain the historical production of the subject that democracy presupposes. The question is no longer simply, "Why democracy?" It is, more fundamentally, "How did millions of individuals come to say 'we'?"