THIS IS WHAT A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE!

Well that's the actual definition of them they are different and Socialist International is not Socialist just Centre-Left.

What exactly is socialist about social democracy?

I like Bukharin alot, even if he was a statist.

EDIT: Thats nice that some random org. considers them socialist, still doesnt make it true.

Did you completely ignore the part where it says modern social democracy has essentially rejected its socialist roots and moved to a more humanitarian/populist mindset?

1. The tax burden is really not that high. It's about 45% in personal and 27% for corporations.
2. Too much social spending... well that's obviously biased.
3. The job security for public employees isn't what it used to be. The state can fire anyone they want to without any major "penalties."
4.Retirement is both public and private. You can live off of the public one, but most people don't. It's very complex, and the public retirement package also depends on how much you earned when you worked.
5.Well then the system in the US is perhaps flawed. If they got so many unemployed it must be because they are doing something wrong. Any system can be gradually phased out.
Ultimately it's about how much the individual will sacrifice for the greater good.

I never said anything about Stalin being peaceful. In fact I've called him murderous and manipulative.

What are you talking about?

Ya, and what you said was completely unrelated. You just bashed Stalin after I said his origins were different than what was previously stated.

Mmm... I can't speak for any country in particular, but I think that it is in reference to their social programs, particularly their healthcare systems.

Public healthcare isn't socialist. Neither is social welfare or social security.

That is their argument, not mine. I was just saying that I think that is their reasoning about their title. I could be wrong.
Though I have heard arguments that they are socialist programs. Just saying.

I get that, but my response was to that argument all the same.

Socialism is an economic system that directly attacks capitalism. Social democracies still operate under the capitalist economic model, so they can't be socialist. As well, there's no clear divide between a social democracy and a run-of-the-mill democracy.

Like I said, they apparently disagree with your assessment.
And clearly not, as they make it abundently clear, the line between Social Democracy and Democracy. More rather, they make it clear that there is some difference in their mind, whatever THAT is. Like I said, I cannot speak for their definitions.

So social democracy can't be a form of socialism because it doesn't share a certain element with socialism? So all the other similarities count for nothing? Doesn't that just make it clear that it's a derivative of socialism? There's always going to be some difference otherwise it'd be called socialism.

Not certain elements, key structure. Free shit isn't socialism.

All the major parts of socialism are missing from social democracy. Time to concede bro.

Social Democracy is characterized by lots of social spending and strict controls on large private business. It may also include strict policies on environmental and human rights issues. Social democracy is also very multicultural when it comes to immigration. I consider myself a social democrat, but I would also like a push for more co-operatives instead of corporations.

How the fuck is the US anywhere near fascist? Anyway bills like this get into Congress all the time. Notice how none of them ever come close to passing.

Like what, exactly?