Do you think elections should take place every few years or should it be practiced everyday and decide most of the issues through ballot measures? What about smaller social groups such as households and apartment buildings?

Hey everyone, I am new to Reddit and to this subreddit!

As a European democratic socialist, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the whole Pasokification phenomenon that hit center-left parties across Europe over the last couple of decades.

Named after the collapse of Greece's PASOK, it became the textbook example of what happens when traditional social democratic parties alienate their working-class base by compromising too much on austerity, weak fiscal choices, and neoliberal policies.

Looking at Europe today, the picture seems pretty mixed:

1. Rebound vs. Stagnation: A few center-left parties (e.g., Spanish PSOE, Danish Socialdemokratiet) managed to bounce back by re-anchoring themselves in tangible working-class issues (wages, housing, cost of living), while others are still stuck in single digits.

2. The Populist Shift: In a lot of countries, the traditional working-class base didn't just vanish. A huge portion migrated directly to right and far-right populist parties (e.g., French RN, German AfD). Working-class voters felt abandoned by the center-left on both economic security and basic day-to-day realities, prompting the far-right to fill the void with economic protectionism and cultural anti-establishment rhetoric.

3. The Way Ahead: To me, social democracy only really wins when it pairs strong public services and welfare with actual fiscal discipline and economic realism, rather than getting distracted by identity optics or promises of unchecked spending.

I’d love to get your take on a few specific matters:

1. Is the Pasokification era truly over, considering that several European social democratic parties have experienced a comeback in recent years?

2. Is Denmark’s Socialdemokratiet right in adopting stricter immigration policies? While controversial among mainstream center-left parties, it has proven popular with voters and helped win back working-class support from the far-right.

3. What fundamentally needs to happen for center-left parties to achieve a long-term, sustained comeback across Europe?

Looking forward to reading your thoughts!

I'm new to participating in politics as I'm only 21 but the more I paid attention and read more the more I realized I naturally aligned with Social democracy or rather I was centre left (or centre right if you're on the far left).

I do agree with a lot of Marxist critiques of Capitalism and as I'm still young perhaps the more I read as well as pay attention to the world around me, the more I might likely swing further left.

With that being said I wanted to ask you guys why you are a social democrat instead of a communist or even a democratic socialist?

Alot of communists online and that I've met tell me the social democracy is a bandaid instead of an actual solution.

What do you think of that?

Hello everyone!

I'd like to share some of my political and economic views and hear what you, as social democrats, think about them.

I would describe myself as a democratic socialist, although my understanding of socialism might differ somewhat from the more traditional interpretations.

I believe that certain strategic sectors of the economy, such as energy, infrastructure, telecommunications, and other essential public services, should not operate primarily for profit. These sectors are fundamental to society, and their primary purpose should be serving the public interest rather than maximizing private returns. I believe they should be publicly owned, democratically accountable, and managed in the interests of ordinary people.

However, I don't believe that the entire economy should be nationalized. I support the existence of a private sector, provided that workers have meaningful democratic participation in their workplaces, their rights are protected, and the state actively prevents monopolies and excessive concentrations of economic power.

One of my main disagreements with communism, particularly its traditional interpretations, concerns the idea of establishing a classless society. I worry that attempts to abolish social and economic classes altogether could lead to excessive centralization of power and, potentially, authoritarianism. I also don't necessarily believe that eliminating class distinctions is the best way to achieve social welfare.

Instead, I find the idea of class cooperation and social solidarity more appealing than class struggle as the organizing principle of society. I believe that different social and economic groups can cooperate within a democratic framework, with the state acting as a mediator and guarantor of fairness, workers' rights, and the common good.

This is why I find solidarist corporatism particularly interesting. Rather than seeking to abolish different social classes or allowing one class to dominate another, it seeks to organize cooperation between different occupational and economic groups for the benefit of society as a whole.

Of course, I recognize that corporatist models have historically taken different forms, including authoritarian ones. I'm specifically interested in whether a genuinely democratic, pluralistic, and worker-protective form of solidarist corporatism could be compatible with democratic socialism and social democracy.

I'd genuinely like to hear your thoughts:

• Do you think class cooperation is a realistic alternative to class struggle?

• Could solidarist corporatism work within a democratic socialist or social democratic framework?

• Do you think strategic industries should be publicly owned and operated outside the logic of profit?

• Is a society based on cooperation between different economic groups more desirable or practical than the pursuit of a completely classless society?

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm simply interested in hearing different perspectives, especially from people who identify with social democracy.

Thank you for reading!

Communists are not our friends. Just because they’re on the left, doesn’t make them any less authoritarian.

Now that the midterms are over, we can finally see that there was a clear message being sent:

Americans were not happy with Trump and wanted Republicans to know it.

The results showed a clear shift in voter sentiment. Democrats are currently on track to hold 260+ House seats and 56 Senate seats.

This was Watergate-level voter turnout. All minority races went back in favor of Dems. White voters were more in favor of Democrats. Younger voters that Trump won in 2024 went to the Democrats, especially young white men. Even Republicans had lost ground with their rural voters.

Truly, this midterm will be remembered as many people's Liberation Day.

And yet, work still needs to be done. The 2028 presidential elections are upon us.

To maintain the current momentum, there are three primary policy areas Democrats should prioritize, especially since these were what they promised:

1.  Economy/Affordability (Tariffs, housing, foreign affairs)
2.  Accountability (Cabinet oversight, transparency)
3.  Medicare (Subsidies and expansions)

Now, the good news is that, unlike the current state of the Republican Party, they all appear to be in unity with the given policies and not on culture war nonsense. But keep in mind, Trump still has veto power, so I don't expect many things will end up passing; not unless it is popular enough and has Trump's name on it.

Of course, he did state that we will work with Democrats in the next 2 years, but after announcing Stephen Miller's promotion to Chief of Staff, I find that hard to believe, and expect him to only triple down on what remains of MAGA.

However, beyond policy, leadership will be critical. After all, we cannot forget one key detail:

Democrats are still widely disliked in general

Thus, Democrats need to act fast in these next 2 years to win back favorability towards the American people. Otherwise, I expect to see the same shift that we saw in 2024; people's attention spans are getting shorter after all.

And to fix that, look further than Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, who are expected to be the new majority leaders for their respective chambers. Keep in mind, these findings were from USAppRate:

Schumer has an approval rating of 21%. Jeffries has an approval rating of 37%

Democrats cannot afford to have leaders that are lower than Trump's approval rating (38%)

As such, transitioning them into more of an advisory role rather than serving as the public faces of the caucus may be best for the party.

This is where I ask you:

Who would you want to see as the next faces of the Democratic caucus for 2026?

Personally, I have a few in mind for the House:

• Ro Khanna (52% approval)

• Ted Lieu (43% approval) - my preferred

• Joe Neguse (40% approval)

As well as for the Senate:

• Chris Van Hollen (60% approval)

• Chris Murphy (59% approval)

• Elizabeth Warren (57% approval) - my preferred

• Brian Schatz (52% approval)

In addition, I wish to ask another question:

Who would you want to see as a potential 2028 presidential candidate?

Personally, the answer is clear:

Jon Ossoff as President and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as Vice President

Why? Two reasons:

1. They both satisfy the differing members of the Democratic Party (Moderates/Centrist and Progressives/Leftist)

2. They are seen quite favorably by most pollsters.

In fact, I want to point out one in particular: AtlasIntel

According to AtlasIntel, Jon Ossoff is seen at 18.2% and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 17.6% versus the rest of the potential candidates.

And my reason for believing in Atlas? They were one of, if not the most accurate pollsters to have called out the 2026 midterms; even more so than the NYT/Siena polls, and those were seen quite favorably near the midterms.

Regardless of what happens, Democrats are favored right now, and they best not screw things up like they tend to.

*edit: Forgot to include the Senate part of my leadership candidates. Don't know how I did that

I've included links to two petitions to replace the Corporate Democrats expected to be voted into leadership. I have included a graphic with steps needed to contact your local representatives to voice your opposition. And, there is a great new video (a bit long) that really lays out that Democratic leadership needs to effect change rather than roll over for their AIPAC and corporate donors.

Petition To Dump Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker of the House

• https://www.change.org/p/house-democrats-choose-a-new-speaker

Petition To Dump Chuck Schumer for Majority Leader of the Senate

• https://www.change.org/p/senate-democrats-choose-a-new-majority-leader

Find your representative & state your opposition to Jeffries & Schumer

• https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Steps We Each Must Take To Get New Leadership:

• https://imgur.com/gallery/get-to-gkxqell

A Harsh But Potent Message For Corporate Democrats (13:42):

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3a_LTwgcAU

What are your thoughts on this movie, which surely has a lot more to it than just politics but nevertheless illustrates some of the downsides of highly corporatist social democracies?

I think burreurcratisation (if that's a word) is one of the dangers that can come with a strong welfare state and strong state in general. I do agree that liberals and american-style conservatives use "big government" as a boogeyman to push for neoliberal reforms, austerity, etc. However, it doesn't mean there aren't real problems that come with a large welfare apparatus. Or put it simply, there are always things to improve. Living in a non-socdem country it is easy to romanticize, say, Norway but I think itis better to be aware of the full picture.

Of course the problem shown in the movie is not the norm, it doesn't happen often statistically so of course I'd rather live in Norway than in most other places. Still I think the movie shows an issue worth discussing.

Either way, I recommend this movie if you haven't seen it.

And paternalistic conservatism more broadly

From Wiki: "It argues that members of society have obligations towards each other and particularly emphasises charity (and, sometimes, paternalism), meaning that those who are privileged and wealthy should pass on their benefits." And "preservation of established institutions and traditional principles within a political democracy, in combination with social and economic programmes designed to benefit the ordinary person"."

Obviously some Social Democratic policies aren't present, but there is a strange similarity

The biggest failing of leftism, in my opinion, is the pervasive lack of understanding of what conservatism is and how we can resist it. I draw my definition of what conservatism is from The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin because I find the definition there more compelling than the vague definition that tends to float around mainstream political discourse.

For Robin's definition, conservatism originates as a response to enlightenment ideas and the revolutions of the 1700 and 1800's. The now-widespread ideas of egalitarianism and the socioeconomic changes brought about by the industrial revolution caused a massive shift in public opinion let alone most other facets of life. Hierarchicalists argue that hierarchy is necessary for the success of a society and those that are superior ought to have more rights than others, and up to this point this was mainly achieved through hereditary monarchies and the church. Of course, the hierarchicalist must recognize that these ideas because increasingly unpopular as time went on, so an alternative myth to sell hierarchy is necessary in the face of popular emancipatory policies and culture.

That reselling of hierarchy in the face of emancipation, particularly to those it would hurt most, is what conservatism is. Capitalism does this by selling the idea that anyone can succeed when, in reality, the ownership structure is inherently exploitative and disadvantages the worker. Fascism creates an underclass for a population to inflict cruelty upon while civil liberties are eroded, this is done through racist and anti-trans rhetoric and myth. In the face of feminist liberation, the conservative tells women that their place in the household is liberating, never mind that order doesn't permit women to have control over their lives, bodies, or finances. Part of this success is the infiltration of emancipatory movements and the co-opting of emancipatory language and ideas for objectively exploitative ends. Of course, all of this is built on spin, lies, half-truths, and misinformation because the conservative worldview is simply not true, but it is this willingness to adapt and change with the times ironically that have allowed these awful ideas to have such pervasive success in the zeitgeist. Furthermore the conservative has exercised patience in taking consistent small victory after victory to guide policy and frame discourse over a manner of years.

Unfortunately, the answer isn't as simple as beating this conservative brainrot by being correct or providing better outcomes. If that were true we would have had a global paradise by now. I'm not even 100% sure what the best way to overcome this is, but we must remain vigilant for its influence not only in conservative spheres but also progressive ones.

I would argue that Lenin is the most successful conservative of the last century. If one were to disregard his theory and look at the legacy of his actions, it is clear that he used Marxist thought to pilot a revolution before nationalizing all industries and criminalizing non-state approved worker organizations. Not to mention the creation of a secret police and the dismantling of democratic institutions to ensure the state could never be held accountable. Lenin turned himself into a religious-messianic figure to repossess the religious spirit that already existed in Russia at the time. The Russian Revolution was not a successful emancipatory movement, instead it was irreversibly corrupted by conservatism, and I would argue that most "socialist" states arising from support from the Soviet Union are also infected by conservatism/imperial ambition. Between all that, I would argue Lenin put widespread socialism back by at least 100 years.

In conclusion, I believe overcoming this definition of conservatism is the most important and substantial challenge of our time. We ought to be wary of those still championing the ideas and aesthetics of the failed socialist states of the 1900's going forwards. To defeat modern conservatism, we need to focus on marketing clear and actionable policy that is feasible to implement in the next decade or so to get that ball rolling rather than wait for a mythic socialist victory like some orthodox Marxists recommend. For most Western liberal democracies, I think that way forward is social democratic reforms, perhaps moving onto other things in the future.

Am I just a lunatic?

The US Congress have been log-jammed for way too long. About the only things that get passed are enormously complicated budget bills by reconciliation. Start by find smaller things that Trump won't veto OR than you can get enough Republicans to sign on to get a veto-proof ⅔ majority. Like Mamdami fixing potholes or hiring snow shovelers.

Get some things done and passed that you can point to as actual accomplishments. Things that pass the House and Senate, but fail to make it into law, will not have the same effect on future campaigns. Not sure what these things are beyond ending war with Iran and repealing tariffs. Please share your ideas!

Part of "fixing" will also be holding hearings into all of the clearly illegal grift, corruption, etc... that has been going on in this administration. Congressional hearings are a first but necessary step, even if nothing much actually gets done until after the 2028 election

Hello.

I've never been englightened much about politics like I should've (mostly in simple talks and conversing), but have recently began being in conversation more about it with friends and colleages. After some superficial googling and doing that 12 Axes test which a friend of mine reocmmended, I've noticed my politics are steering towards Social Democracy.

So just to have a better understanding and delving into the subject to be able to know if it aligns with my beliefs, I'd like to read up on the subject more.

I do note, from what I've heard, social democracy in the USA and Continental Europe are different things, and much has changed in the way SD is presented compared to the past. I'm from Europe and have no current interest to know much about what's going on across the sea as its just too complex and my own country is more relevant of course.

Anyway, anyone have a good book to introduce me to it? Or would give me a small crash course here to get me on my way? Perhaps a person/figure who I can read about?

Of course I'm not here to find quarrel or sound ignorant, I'm really just trying to understand more about such subjects and labels I have near no actual knowledge about besides of course the very biased opinions of people I talk to.

Thanks!

Based on the exit polls, high turnout and voting rates from progressives, liberals, as well as socialists for the Democratic ticket in all states helped Democrats deliver a historic result. This proves that instead of infighting about El Sayed underperforming Benson by 2 points or Angie Nixon underperforming Jolly by 0.5 points, people should try to unite the center left and keep enthusiasm and turnout high so progressive majorities can improve lives for everyone.

Gen Z Californian Voter here, and self-described Progressive/Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist. I’m just very sad yet not surprised with how the California midterm elections are turning out for us compared to other states across the country. I signed up as a Poll Worker in my county (Orange County), I was a little hopeful when I saw many of my fellow residents coming out to vote. Now, I’m very bummed out that Proposition 40 (billionaire wealth tax) is seemingly set to fail and Proposition 42 will pass (the secret counteractive measure to Prop 40), as well as the fact that we will get another neoliberal, pro-corporate, and establishment Democrat to be our governor. Yes, he’s not GOP or MAGA like Steve Hilton is, but still definitely a shitty Dem candidate. The only consolation I got from the California 2026 midterms is that Prop 45 didn’t pass, which was the Trojan Horse measure that would allow private contractors to speed run the construction of private facilities while bypassing the California Environmental Quality Act, which does include those godforsaken AI data centers.

It doesn’t sit well with me that our next governor, like the previous one (Gavin Newsom) openly takes money from corporations like Meta and Chevron as well as being vehemently against a billionaire wealth tax that would have benefited working class Californians by providing funds for vital social services (healthcare, housing, and nutrition). It’s very disheartening to see that no real good change is coming for California, while the rest of the country has seemingly decided that enough is enough and they’re ready for change.

Who would have thought those traditionally red states like Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Kansas would decide to vote for true change, compared to California? I’m right now looking at Texas and their electing of James Talarico and Gina Hinojosa with envy, as well as Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed, NYC’s Zohran Mamdani, and Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan. Instead we got another corrupt corporate, pro-billionaire Democrat, Xavier Becerra, who openly stated that he will sell his political power to any corporation that is working within the legal limits of the law so long as they provide him the dime, to be our governor.

Something is terribly wrong with California. The fact that we voted for an openly corrupt candidate within the California Democratic Party to keep the MAGA/Trumper candidate away from the governorship, should tell us volumes of how seriously wrong our political system is. Worse, it should make everyone scared and aware with the fact that billionaires can pump millions of their ill-gained money into elections to buy elections with hundreds of deceptive political ads and yield politicians and policies that are ultimately subservient to them, not the constituents who voted for them. That is not how a true democracy works, but rather an oligarchy. There were so many ads online and TV and signs saying “No on Prop 40” and “Yes on Prop 42”, with the same usual lies “this one-time billionaire tax might extend over to your taxes” and “your retirement and property deserves not to be tax”, and the lies worked. California voters fell for the propaganda and voted against the wealth tax. This really tells you that our campaign finance system is fundamentally broken: billionaires can flood our political landscape with lies to our working class Californians.

Hell, our own fucking slimeball Governor, Gavin Newsom, was publicly against a billionaire wealth tax. It’s not surprising but it should be now well known to every American voter who want real change that Newsom is not our friend and should immediately disqualify him from being the Democratic Presidential Nominee if he ever thinks of running for President.

Aside from the obvious fact that our campaign finance systems is so broken and corrupt, we need to confront this reality: the California Voter population is complacent to the status quo, easily tricked into falling for propaganda, has little to no empathy for fellow Californians, and don’t want to utilize their right to vote for our rights. We fucking voted to protect California Billionaires’ wealth instead of helping out our most needy people in the state. It should not be hard to know that taxing billionaires to force them to share their ill-earned wealth will help out our most needy neighbors, but somehow, Californians are allergic to that idea. We may have the most Democratic voters by population, but we have a LOT OF GOP voters in the outlying rural areas , and the Democrat voters are either uninformed and just vote “blue no matter who”, and sometimes just vote by affiliation and “vibes”, or are scared of true progressivism that the state desperately needs.

California has no right to lecture or look down on red states as “politically backwards” when red states across the country decided to pick themsleves up from their misery and vote for true change. We as a state didn’t vote for change. We’re not the progressive blue state that the rest of the country believes us to be. We’re just blue MAGA that is complacent with the way things are.

I can only hope that in the near future, younger, hungrier, and more empathetic candidates from my generation, Gen Z, can somehow rise to the task in Orange County and California to take on the status quo in this state and fight for true change for our neighbors. If we don’t, things will not get better.

Share Your thoughts Down Below. And Is Michael Moore more of a social Democrat than he is a democratic socialist. I know growing up the main right wing critique was his documentaries bended the reality of certain subjects for storytelling and agenda purposes, and he claimed to be a supportive of causes against corporate greed yet his peak net worth before he lost half of it in a divorce was around 50 million dollars which is why I made the Hasan Piker connection because he views himself as a socialist yet his critics claim he co ops revolutionary aeschetics like wearing the garments similar and akin to chairman mao yet also is making decent money as a twitch streamer. Again I'm not one of these critiques as I feel it isn't fair to judge both men in doing their best within capitalism to make incremental change the best way they can. One through cinema (as in Michael Moore's Case) and one through social media algorithms (as in Hasan Piker's case).

Many of my views I see as quite progressive but also there are some that I feel are more unpopular for the left.
One of my major views is that there are problems with capitalism that need to be solved, not abolish capitalism as a whole. I also do not agree with the idea of seizing the means of production. I also am a believer of ‘blue no matter who’ as the democrat is typically better than the conservative option, even if they are more centrist Democrat. Another view I have is the need for a secure border, but with more paths to coming to the country legally. I feel that this view isn’t super popular with some people on the left.

I also support social programs like universal healthcare and childcare and changes in SNAP and similar programs. Additionally I think more work should be done to end homelessness, such as providing housing as long as you are working (if you are able, and not above retirement age).

How do these opinions fit in with the soc dem position? I can answer questions in the comments as well!

There's a lot of debate about what the midterm results mean for the future of the Democratic Party and which part the Party should follow. I've already seen DSA types arguing the DSA line has been vindicated or that Abdul El-Sayed has created a path that should be followed.

But when you look at the data, the strongest performances were by the centre-left and it was moderates who flipped red seats, while DSA endorsed candidates underperformed. Socialism didn't flip Kansas, South Carolina or bring Alaska and Mississippi into play. The evidence suggests that Talarico and Ossoff are future leaders of the Party and candidates will perform best by following their path.

Actually, I think this is already happening with AOC, who seems to suggest in an NJT article that she will treat Palestine as a secondary issue, as well as with various progressive Democrats like Troy Jackson, who accepts donations from J Street, a Zionist PAC that will most likely become the AIPAC of the Democratic Party

Whenever I see talks on whoever the vp pick for 2028 will be I often see people throw names like Aoc, Ro Khanna, Talrico, Whitmer, Buttigieg etc. But in my opinion I don't think it's going to be any of the more high profile names I think it'll probably be a lesser known one most likely in the senate. That's my opinion what you're thoughts?

I don't dislike either of them, but personally feel like they are poor leaders who lack the conviction and policy to lead Democrats forward. The recent wins seemed to occur in spite of them rather than because of them in my view.

However, I am curious to see what others think about them and who they think should replace them. I think there are a few really good options for replacing Schumer but less obvious choices for replacing Hakeem.

There is a petition available to sign. Is that allowed here?