Another  nice system in theory, very hard if not impossible to implement.

Social Democracy only works with an increasing population. As is most such social schemes, SD is similar to a Ponzi Scheme that requires ever increasing contributions to pay out ever increasing benefits. The government that is dishing out the bennies needs, the votes, don't you see? Without increasing contributors, the current contributors must pay much more. Of course, the economies should increase somewhat to help with the load, but quite frankly, is the economy increasing at the same rate as health care costs, elder care costs, and child care costs? You know the answer to that one.

The populations of Europe, the big stronghold of SD, are going to crash. No country in Europe is reproducing itself to the point where population is being replaced. Also the population is becoming unbalanced with large numbers of old people, needing pensions, health care, and other demanded services, and many fewer young folks to cough up all the necessary dough. Italy for instance, has a population growth to the point that its population will be halved in fifty years! It will have a large number of old fogies, however, who don't work any more. That is why all the Mohammedans are coming into Europe to replace the people not being born. Even if the population stabilizes, this bodes ill for social democracy. That would mean an ever increasing tax burden on the new workers. Even the immigrants might go somewhere else. Why go to a place where they tax you to death to support a bunch of grasping senior citizens? After a few decades when the population comes more into equilibrium, maybe the government can start handing out the goodies again.

The USA is growing so we will "dodge the bullet" for a while. Most of the rest of the world is Third World and, well, I don't have to explain that, do I?

In France the average person pays 40% income taxes not including sales & other taxes. They also have laws like garage sales are illegal and you can't build a store of a any kind if there is a similar store selling the same type of goods within 25 miles. In France the average person can't afford the Internet since the price of services are too high, only government agencies and people well off usually have Internet service. Many goods can cost a lot more, there is scarcity & shortages,some things are unavailable too because of their foreign trade policies. It is also a lot harder to borrow money to go into business and there's a lot clumsy regulations & rules so it is more difficult to start a business and it grows a lot slower than the USA. In England in the '90's many people where complaining about the health care, like waiting many hours in emergency to get attention etc...England still has plenty of private hospitals since those who can afford them pass up the free health system to get something they like instead. In Canada College is paid for by the government to study & become a doctor. Some of them after going into practice in Canada come to the USA to set up their practice here so they can make real money instead of the state enforced set pay for doctors. Price for gasoline is $6 a gallon in most European countries but that's OK many probably can't afford an auto any ways. In England also telephone & Internet is very expensive for the average person. I ask someone why they moved from England to the USA, answer "the standard & cost of living is much better in the USA". Why do so many wealthy Europeans come to the USA to live? It's to get away from being taxed so heavily. That's why the Beatles came over here to live. Now France has a new crises, at least one millionaire leaves France every day to take up residence in more wealth-friendly nations. Crises one millionaire leaves France every day see article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501010.html

For all its advantages, I am skeptical that social democracy (basically capitalism with a considerable amount of redistributive taxation and government services) is a viable system for most of the world.

Social democracy works in places like Central Europe because these are highly cohesive societies, with highly productive economies, where people trust each other and trust their government to convert their private wealth into public goods. In larger and more diverse countries, like the US, you're likely to find a more free-wheeling, 'get-rich-or-die-trying' kind of capitalism, with a minimal safety net, more private affluence and fewer public amenities. In societies where nationalism is non-existent, tribalism rules, and ethnic 'middle-man minorities' run the economy, neither US-style capitalism nor social democracy is a viable alternative. In poor, backward, deeply divided countries, some level of re-distribution is necessary to avoid pogroms and rebellions, but such redistribuion inevitably takes the form of corruption rather than social democracy; to my knowledge, there is not a single social democracy in existence in such societies. In short, social democracy works rather well, but requires pre-conditions (high levels of social trust, a highly developed economy, a relatively homogenous culture) that are very rare in the world-and becoming more so.

its social its democratic no poles no capitalists no emperialists the system that made europe "europe" if you are ambitious, stubborn and arrogant this system is NO GOOD for you!

Beats the screw-thy-neighbor form of capitalism here. Assuming you LIKE capitalism at all.

What a horrible system. For those of you who think the European welfare state is something for America to emulate let me tell you something about Europe. France's real GDP growth rate the past year was .1%. Germany's was -.1%. Now for those of you who know nothing about economics let me explain this to you. That SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And can you believe that people were panicking in this country (especially liberals) that our economy was going down the tubes because growth was around 3%. Sheesh! Another problem of social democracy is plummeting birth rates. People love to say plummeting birth rates is just a sign of changing gender roles, greater freedom for women. But they are wrong!!! The problem exists because young people get taxed the hell out of(their money goes to the old people) and can't afford to start families. When these social democracies start to fail in a few decades hopefully people will learn. Also check out the Cayman Islands. As conservative taxation wise as you can get and one of the highest standards of living in the world.

The websites definition is a bit outdated. While it is true that social democracy was once the theory of a democratic transition from capitalism to socialism it has changed in its modern day sense. Today it means reforming capitalism (not replacing it) through a variety of socialistic programs (bussiness regulation, evironmental and labor laws, progressive taxation, universal healthcare, free public education, etc.). Considered to be center-left and a moderate form of socialism, social democracy is estimated to be the most commonly held ideology in the world. It advocates a mixed economy with a large social safety net (welfare state). Good examples of social democracy include most of Europe and exspecially Scandanavia. It is an ideology advocated by more liberal Democrats in the US (Kennedy, Pelosi, myself). Lastly it opposed to communism and Marxism.

with me being a true socialist i believe this system is the best hope for the masses of people in america. I frankly believe that social democracy offers what i call the beloved community dr. king talked about, it works in many other countries with the health, political, and racial issues capitialism will eventually trigger a race and class war in america.the EU will overtake the free market system because it cares about it's citzens not disgards them like trash capitialism works because it feeds off the hate of people according class, race etc....

I'm afraid this system cannot be rated any higher than a three since the downsides are just too costly, it cannot work for many societies, and the other alternatives are simply better. First, the primary downside is the loss of individual choice of action (ie freedom if you will). Once the state becomes responsible for private action in the guise of a safety net, that private action is no longer private as the state and the rest of society now have an interest in that action. This process results in more regulation and less choice of action as the state is obligated to control and minimize its expenditures. Second, people (including others who have commented) like to cite the Scandinavian countries, etc as success stories, but they fail to note (intentionally or not) that these are all rather homogeneous societies. In such societies, all people have the same general lifestyle, risks and desires such that those people are more willing to share a common risk. In more heterogeneous societies (such as the United States), such forced risk sharing causes social unrest, conflict, and wasted resources. Third, the social costs of capitalism can be mitigated well enough within that system without having to incur the tangible and social costs of a Social Democracy (as described herein). Finally, without an extremely fiscally responsible government and predictable demographic pattern, the good life of today is paid for on the backs of future generations resulting in extreme generational tax inequities. The bottom line is that the costs and risks of Social Democracy are just too high when compared to the alternatives.

Social democracy makes for comfortable living as far as the citizens of a nation which uses social democracy are concerned. Some right wing nuts will claim it is as bad as communism. These people are fools who don't know what they are talking about. Social democracy is different to communism in one key way (the morons who claim otherwise fail to make a simple observation here) - it's DEMOCRATIC. Scandinavian countries which use social democracy according to the United Nations have the best standard of living in the world (the top three are all Scandinavian). Social democracy however does very little to make a nation prominent and can be at times somewhat backwards. This can be seen in the continuing rejection of EU in Scandinavia (Sweden is in the EU but refuses to take up the Euro as its currency). Social democracy is good for anyone who takes a if it ain't broke don't fix it approach to life. Otherwise hedge your bets with a more ambitious system.

This is probably the best system that exists. Whenever they conduct those surveys to find out which countries in the world have the happiest populations, the top ten (at least) seem to be countries with social democratic systems. Places like Scandinavia, Iceland, Canada, Italy, all have ludicrously satisfied citizens. That has got to count for something when trying to evaluate the worth of a political ideology. Contrary to right-wing logic, social democracy is not even close to communism. Life is just a lot less terrifying with a social safety net. If you get sick, you don't have to pay a cent for health care. If the main breadwinner of the family is tragically killed or incapacitated, there are programs in place that ensure that the children won't starve or go without warm clothing and education. It's not as if everybody decides to be lazy and go on welfare, and the only freedom that you don't have in a social democracy is the freedom to become grow fantastically wealthy on the backs of your fellow man; I'm sure we can all agree that we could live with fewer Bill Gates' walking around. And for all you gung-ho conservatives who believe that social programs are just giving free money to those who don't deserve it, you ought to be out of your mind with rage that every year American veterans get less and less (even the wounded ones) from the government that sent them overseas to protect our freedoms. They certainly don't get enough to live on, and many are unable to work because of wounds and the kind of psychiatric problems involved with seeing horror and brutality every day. I suppose you think those people should be thrown out on the street, because far too many of them are homeless right now. Just another example of the uneducated, pig-ignorant hypocrisy of the right wing.

Social-Democracy is a fine way to go. Scandinavia has a tradition of this sort, and has shown it to probably be the best system for the foreseeable future. European Social Democracy has provided better 'quality of life' than the more pro-American UK, whose benefits were listed in a poll of businesses operating accross the EU as being that the UK has a cheap and docile labour force. What did they say about the more leftist (on the whole) French? Best for quality of life. And Germany? Best trained workers. It's the best way to go.

Social Democracy is o.k,our current government is moving towards it quite slowly,but still surely.But there is a better,similiar system.Socialist Direct Democracy,was practiced for a short,prosperous time in ancient greece.All wealth is divided equally,but the leaders do not make the decisions, the working class does, the leaders simply follow the peoples will.The issues are set before the people and they vote,majority wins.It's the only secure and true democratic system I can think of,people are quick to put down socialist systems,but it's very rare when I hear someone suggest a reasonable alternative.Jobs for all.If you share discontentment because of race,religion,or gender based prejudice,then you are already my comrade, whether you are a pronounced socialist or not.

I have Known many Social-democrats and have noticed that if you ask them which is more important Eqaulity or Demomcracy? or Freedom or Democracy? None can answer! They belive in More Union poweers, a more equal distribution of wealth and more equal pay, more nationalization of industry, An Altered form of Kenesian ecconomics of which 30% is centralilsed. Oppossed to most Nationalist ideals. Most of these systems are gerrymandered or restricted democracies (and many African Dictatorshhips regard themselvs to this leaning). PS. Liberal Socialism / Centre-Left (Like Tony Blair and Prodi) are ussually agaist unions, for privitization, for more democracy and freedom and use an altered form of Kenesian ecconomics which c 15% is Centralised thus half way between it and Liberal-democracy. These are ussually regarded as Social-demomcracys by some systems. Social-democracies are usualy Ecconomically inefficient and I have seen thhis system fail.

The Bible, the Pope, the Catholic Catachism and most Papal Encylicals since 'Reverum Novarum' forbids Catholics to suport all forms of Socialism. Prodastant Bibles like the KJV also forbid this. I hate socialism, I hate social-democrats, I hate the Immoral Labor party. God Bless all Christians who vote in acordance with the Bible.

A controdiction in terms! Real Social-Democrats are Pinkos. I'm not talking about the center-left. They use Social action (a nice word for oppinion pushing used for brain washing).I hate Social-democrats. Nelson Mandela wreched South-Africas ecconomy. Gough Whiltlam (Australia) wreched the economy for about thirty years. Chaves (Venezuala) is lucky he has Oil. Labour in the UK has done much damage. If you want to keep the United States the best, freest and richest in the world don't vote for this system.

Democratic Socialism does not infringe upon anyone's freedom. It puts everyone on even footing. No man will be able to live by investing his father's fortune and reaping the benefits. The USSR was not a socialist nation. It wasn't even a communist nation by Marx's standards. The Soviet Union opperated under a totalitarian rule poorly disguised as government of the people. I don't understand what people have a problem with giving your neighbor your second coat when he has none. By the way, the Pope condemned socialism that illeagalized religion. That's not my socialism.

Wether or not people like it this is the direction the civilized world is moving in. We are moving towards greater equalities and greater freedoms and this type of system is exactly what allows that to happen. Pure Capitalism does not work, its what we had in the early twentieth century, where 10% of the population controled 90% of the wealth. It's the time when people had destinies: if you were born rich you would live rich, if you were born poor you would die poor, most likely in a factory. This economic and public policy is what led to the great depression. By developing working standards, environmental standards, and other policies that insure that everyone as a fair chance at life we are moving in the direction of social democracy. We have been moving in this direction for the last 70 years and it won't stop now, people now understand that democracy doesn't mean that they have to be poor so that some one else can be rich.

Socialism is bad...look at the USSR.

This fuzzy "third way" stuff is all a bunch of crap. All of history can be viewed as a struggle between ideas of statism and freedom. In the face of statism's demonstrated failures, those with a vested interest in a powerful state try to pretend that there's a happy middle ground between two unhappy "extremes". So they don't advocate out and out socialism, but they do try to regulate everything and "distribute" the benefits of a free market better -- all the while eroding the very definitions of freedom. They miss the larger point -- that increased freedom correlates almost perfectly with increased economic growth. Superior economic growth, of course, creates wealth. And wealthy countries are those with the cleanest environments, healthiest people, most educational opportunites, etc. Why plow a middle road, when there's a better one available? (That was a rhetorical question, but here's the answer anyway: leaders that aspire to cults-of-personality -- i.e., Tony Blair and Bill Clinton -- aren't that important on a road that requires humble governance.)