I've heard this argument being used multiple times, especially in reference to Europe.

A country must either:

(a) Have a strong welfare system.

Or:

(b) Have an inviting immigration system.

The logic used is that a country cannot sufficiently provide for its own citizens while also accepting many migrants. Is there any truth to this? If so, what do Social Democrats choose?

I appreciate political labels for convenience in discourse, but let’s see who falls under the umbrella. I think we can learn something from it. We can do this respectfully, though, right? All on the same side.

Where are you watching the election on the election day/night?

In the past I have really enjoyed bbc news/bbc world for the outside perspective.

and the young turks because I as a socdem liked their obvious social democrat/progressive/socialist/liberal bernie bro bias (and at that time, because Jimmy Dore was hilarious). I'm really in doubt where to watch this time.

“Free healthcare bad”, “Welfare queen”, these simple phrases represent, to me, the most dangerous and pertinent rhetoric that has and is currently being used routinely by politicians in the U.S. The United States has become a country where most of its citizens have been exposed to hyperindividualism and the paradigm of the Reagan administration + its effects. People don’t want to pay more taxes to fund UBI, healthcare, free shelter, which to me, grants every citizen of the country enough positive liberty to live a better life, at least better than now. This country is heading down a dark path and besides from all the nonsense around the election and politics in America, this issue will be the most consequential for the average American. Why can’t people imagine a family member with a disability, or a veteran with health complications having to deal with the VA, or literally any healthcare program in the United States. Paying a little more in taxes would grant every American health care, not to mention the studies that have shown Medicare for All would be cheaper to the individual than to pay premiums to a private health insurer. I understand people are struggling with prices and cost of living and the last thing they want to think about is higher taxes or more effort that they have to put into society, but the economy is stabilizing and it would help them too. It would give them basic income, it would help them not to worry about a health event, it would have them not worry about eviction or needing roommates or being homeless. I’m not advocating for Soviet-style breadlines and assigned housing, but i’m deeply concerned for this country…

In 2016 we rejected Trump, In 2018 we rejected Trump, In 2020 we rejected Trump, In 2022 we rejected Trump.
And now in 2024 we are most likely going to reject him again. But in January we could be living in a dictatorship because of the electoral college.

Would you consider Christian Democracy to be just a more traditionalist form of Social democracy? What would you say makes someone either. And would you say Social Democracy and Christian democracy are both leftwing ideologies?

Why or why not? On one hand he's a god-like figure among Conservatives and I have no idea how the powers that be could possibly replace that. Especially if he wants to run again.

On the other hand, the more centrist/traditional conservatives (Regan / Bush era, before the complete politication of social issues) are probably dying to take their party back and try to scape back the centrist vote from the Dems.

Follow up question, do we think Trump would even want to run again? He's obviously an egotistical and emotional man so I could see him trying again to be the centre of attention again just as much as I could see him finally having his ego bruised enough to finally quit.

Curious to hear some speculation ahead of next week's election, in part to help distract me from all the stress.

Hey everyone. I am an American and I have been reading about the history of social democracy and it is pretty fascinating. I know that social democracy is closely tied within the labor movement, and more specifically with the blue-collar working class.

But I have been wondering about what social democrats themselves think about this, where do white-collar workers fit within social democracy and the labor movement as a whole?

As someone who is more socialist in their views, I tend to think that if you work for someone else and do not live off of ownership of assets that you are working class. However, professionals tend to be a better paid, have more benefits in their workplaces, and their work tends to be not so physically intensive. Because of this, do social democrats focus less on white collar/professional workers and more so on blue collar workers?

As the title suggest. I have been wrestling with my political identity for a while now. I know before and after World War 1 there were Marxist social democrats like Marxist Revisionism, Centrist Marxism, and Austro-Marxism which could be considered branches of social democracy. I tend to agree with Marx on a lot of things but I do see now and then outdated ideas that don't really fit within class struggle. That's another thing. While I do believe in the tenants of social democracy I do not see it as traditionally radical enough to change the current system. Can a radical ideology go partly in hand with a reformist one like our own?

At the same time I have been delving into Post-Marxism and found Classical Republicanism to be more interesting as it can advance the cause of social democracy in the United States

How would it compare to an wealth-based system?

The Senate was created as a moderating institution, but one could argue it now serves as almost the corporate wing of Congress. It also lacks proportionality. Are there viable alternatives to the Senate?

It feels like whenever there's a trifecta (such as with Biden and Obama), the House will pass progressive legislation that the President has pushed for and is willing to sign, but then the Senate is where things will get whittled down. It also seems to be the hardest chamber to get a majority in lately with the distribution of population in states.

I want Kamala to win as much as the next person, but is this really helping the campaign?? (Also, I've already donated, but somehow I don't think they'd stop texting me even if I contributed as much as the legal limit)

Hey everyone, those of you that have been here for some time may remember that we used to have weekly discussion threads. I felt like bringing them back and seeing if they get some traction. Discuss whatever you like - policy, political events of the week, history, or something entirely unrelated to politics if you like.

Hello! Since the r/SocialDemocracy community was so supportive of our first round of participants, we're continuing outreach for our second round of data collection. The Survey takes 15 minutes! If you'd like to be involved with our research, here's a bit about it:

We are part of a research team at The New School for Social Research. We are conducting a survey of registered Democrats (aged 18 and over) in the month leading up to the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. The survey takes about 10-15 minutes to complete, and asks about your voting preferences and experiences so far this election year. In the second part of the survey, we also ask questions about you and your background, without asking you to share any identifying information. Thanks for considering participating!

https://newschool.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_51MMNGuGMXR1U2O 

The survey is completely confidential. If you have any questions, you are welcome to email us. All this information and more can be found on the first page of our survey.

Thank you for supporting inclusive political research, especially from your amazing moderators!

Trump's candidacy is directly threatening democracy not only in the US but also across the world. The current global political atmosphere mostly focuses on whether countries are aligned with the US or the Western world. Such a stance was formed due to the interventionism or influence of the US. And forces who shared traits of imperialism, subjugation, and colonialism of weaker states. Call it the conditions of imperialism, globalism, or the natural fight for hegemony, nevertheless, many countries chose to align with the US in return for support and safety. As of now, such a political contract might come to an end.

Here, it doesn't matter if it's morally correct, natural, wrong, or whatever other stance anyone might have on the hegemony of the US. The fact is that many countries rely on the support of the US for their existence. To put it simply, without US leadership to defend democracy against tyrants, many countries are at risk of losing their sovereignty. If Trump wins the election it's completely possible, that the current balance of global politics could shift towards authoritarian rule, because Trump won't care for its allies. We can already see his rhetoric on Ukraine, Musk's contact with Putin, etc. Worth noting, that it's possible that the US can choose the path of isolationism for foreign policy. Even if it's for four years or even shorter, catastrophes could happen with no quick or easy solution to solve them.

For those who choose Harris, I feel grateful, because your vote directly strengthens safety for mine and for many other countries. If you're from the US, you're not only voting for the US but for the democratic world overall.

Does a more left wing platform like his, structured to help the working class, genuinely improve popularity with the working class in this age of misinformation and bias?

Realism, a school of thought in international relations theory, is a theoretical framework that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation.

This international relations theory has been gaining popularity among South Korean center-left circle as Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) led by Lee Jae-Myung has shown great interest in. They quote famous realist diplomats like Henry Kissinger to justify their position of opposing military aid to Ukraine and criticize South Korea’s traditional foreign policy.

How is this theory viewed among social democrats? Is it popular among global left or unpopular theory among global left?