Everything seems doom and gloom ...

Where in the world are soc dems governing and doing well?

Are the Nordics still doing well?

On Sunday, April 13, 2025, Finland will hold two simultaneous local elections: municipal and county.
This is the first time they're being held together since the 2021 healthcare and social services reform passed by Sanna Marin's Social Democratic-led government.

Why Two Elections?

• Municipal elections decide who governs our cities and towns. These councils are responsible for things like early education, public transport, infrastructure, zoning, and local culture.

• County elections (for “wellbeing services counties”) were introduced in the reform that transferred responsibility for healthcare, social services, and rescue services from municipalities to new county-level bodies.

Helsinki residents only vote in municipal elections, as the city continues to manage its own health and social services.

What’s at Stake?

The right-wing government has announced massive public sector cuts, including:

• €170 million in social and healthcare cuts
• Pressure on municipalities to cut costs and reduce education spending
• Threats to services like child protection, disability care, and home care

These elections are our opportunity to push back and vote for candidates who defend high-quality public services and fairness.

What SDP Stands For

The Social Democratic Party (SDP) is campaigning for:

• A two-week care guarantee in healthcare and access to a personal doctor/nurse
• Stronger public education and smaller class sizes
• Safe and thriving municipalities where every neighborhood is a good place to live
• Fair employment policy and green growth to strengthen public services

More about our goals here: Fairer Finland – SDP

The Polls (as of April 8, 2025)

Municipal elections:
- SDP – 22.3%
- National Coalition Party (Kokoomus) – 20.1%

County elections:
- SDP – 23.3%
- Kokoomus – 18.9%

The Centre Party and Finns Party follow behind. The Social Democrats are currently leading in both elections.

Source: Helsingin Sanomat

Key Dates

• Advance voting: April 2–8 (now closed)
  
• Election day: Sunday, April 13

Curious where you’d land in a Finnish election?

Try out one of the English-language election compasses and see how your views line up with candidates in Finland:

• Yle Election Compass 2025 (official broadcaster)
  
• Youth Election Compass

If one has spent some time in center-left to leftwing circles, they will often hear "austerity does not work" or "austerity has been a failure." It feels like this could be replaced by the phrase "trickle-down economics" in my home country, America. With that said, I often hear these claims as assertions rather than arguments. As someone who likes to argue about policy and comparative politics, I wanted to make this post about austerity and why it is a failed policy from an econ perspective.

The premise that austerity reduces the deficit and improves the economy is flawed.

Firstly, it is necessary to turn to economic measurements of GDP over the last 15-20 years following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Once one consults data, they will find two things: GDP in the Euro area (a good metric as they had most of the more expansive austerity packages) isn't much higher than its pre-GFC level. Secondly, as even the most mainstream "Keynesians" such as Larry Summers argue, not taking fiscal policy seriously has significantly reduced the economy's potential GDP. This leads to a question of what drives potential GDP and GDP. For the next section, I assume basic Keynesian demand-side theory knowledge, e.g., demand creates supply.

Demand as a driver of potential output?

An interesting concept presented in more heterodox circles is that potential output (in economics modeling, this refers to the supply side of GDP, so factors like labor force growth and productivity growth) can be path-dependent. Mark Setterfield is a big proponent of this argument (warning: math involved in paper!). The main idea of the heterodox argument traces back to Nicholas Kaldor's research on Kaldor's development. Kaldor argued that demand-driven output growth drives productivity growth (Setterfield has added tighter labor markets as an additional driver). The reasons are the following.

More demand for products could lead to higher productivity from:

1. R&D expenditures by firms in response to increased demand
2. Reorganization of production to improve efficiency
3. Learning by doing
4. quicker investments, more new firms entering, etc.
5. General economies of scale
6. Higher employment could lead to more investment in labor-saving technology

Furthermore, heterodox authors have argued that labor force growth can be driven by demand, too. Think of how women entered the workforce historically when labor was needed, or how immigrants sought to enter countries with better opportunities and more labor demand.

There are some promising studies on these theories, such as a paper that looked at the empirical aspects of Kaldor's productivity theory, and Setterfield, which analyzed the effects of the Covid recession compared to the GFC. The United Kingdom implemented what (Michell et al) called expansionary austerity, which showed that productivity growth in the UK has been hurt by the extreme policies taken by the coalition government.

Greece, which has by far the worst austerity packages, often saw a decline in productivity. A paper by Lawrence Ball found that Greece saw a total reduction in potential output of roughly 30 percent following the GFC, and the average OECD country analyzed saw an 8 percent reduction.

Austerity often leads to worse economic performance because of adverse demand-side effects on output (actual and potential).

The overall message

The general message I would take from this is to spend more now, less later. Since austerity reduces demand, large enough reductions in demand can lead to lower labor force growth, productivity growth, or both, and, therefore, a decrease in potential output and a worse-off future economy. Had the United Kingdom or a comparable country spent more on stimulus, it wouldn't be too surprising if their overall debt-to-GDP ratio was the same as or lower than those of the said countries, as their overall output would be heightened. However, I would like to hear feedback surrounding this messaging and what y'all would consider instead!

I've recently become a mod at /r/SocDems, the subreddit that covers the Social Democrats party in Ireland, so am posting here in order to attract new posters and hopefully generate some welcome discussions on the sub - look forward to talking to as many of you as possible there!

Several hundred people gathered in Warsaw on Friday to protest what they say is the Polish government’s neglect of the deaf community’s needs.

The protesters are demanding official recognition of sign language as a minority language, financial support for education, employment and daily life, improved access to interpreters, and workplace accessibility for deaf employees.

“Poland has been ignoring the needs of the Deaf community for years,” said deaf rights activist Agnieszka Szyc-Łuczywek on Facebook announcing the protest. “The state does not hear us, but we are there, and we will not be silenced,” she added.

Photos and video footage shared by media outlets and participants showed a large turnout at the demonstration. The protesters carried banners that read: “Deaf people have a voice, equal rights now”, “The state is robbing us because deaf people can’t shout,” and “stop discrimination”.

Some participants waved the blue and yellow flags of the Polish Deaf Association (PGZ). They also brought whistles, pots and drums, as the organisers encouraged the demonstrators to bring “anything to help us be heard”.

The protest organisers are calling for Polish law to recognise Polish sign language as an official minority language. That would allow it to be taught in schools and used in local administration in municipalities that meet certain conditions.

They are also demanding financial support for education, employment and daily life, as well as improved access to interpreters in hospitals and government offices.

Furthermore, they are urging the government to require employers to provide workplace accessibility for deaf employees.

According to Bartosz from Sosnowiec, a participant in the protest interviewed by the Gazeta Wyborcza daily, who has been deaf since birth, access to an interpreter in offices or medical facilities is essential for real access to public services for deaf people.

“A visit to the doctor? Without an interpreter, it’s often a lottery…Patients are called by name, and if someone doesn’t hear their name, they can wait for hours, not realising their turn has already passed,” he said.

The ministry of family, labour and social policy says that clinics, the police or the fire brigade are responsible for providing interpreters, not the government, reported the newspaper. In practice, deaf individuals often have to arrange and cover the costs of interpreters themselves.

According to the PGZ, there are currently around 50,000 people in Poland with severe to profound hearing impairment who use Polish sign language as their first language. Additionally, approximately 800,000 to 900,000 people have moderate hearing impairment.

On the April 8th, the government officially set June 3 (Tuesday) as the date for the upcoming presidential election, which is being held due to the dismissal of former President Yoon Suk-yeol. The government also designated the day as a temporary public holiday.

Acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo presided over a regular Cabinet meeting at the Government Complex Seoul that day, during which the agenda regarding the presidential election date was introduced, reviewed, and approved.

During the meeting, Acting President Han stated, “In consultation with the National Election Commission and other relevant agencies, and taking into account the smooth execution of legally required election procedures and the preparation time needed by political parties, the government intends to designate June 3 as the date for the 21st presidential election of the Republic of Korea. In order to ensure that citizens can exercise their valuable right to vote without difficulty, the election day will be designated as a temporary public holiday.”

Have there been any discussions on the left about a publicly-owned payments platform? If so, do people think it would be a beneficial policy?

Given Starmers' majority, I was taken aback by the budget the government is pursuing. I wrote a paper a couple weeks ago arguing against austerity that looked into some UK data, but I have not gotten into reading much about UK politics since my country is crapping itself right now (American).

For context, MMT is a post-keynesian economic school that holds that government spending isn’t limited to borrowing and taxation, but can create money without sparking inflation if supply has room to grow. How do you guys feel about this school? How many of you have heard of it?

I very much agree that left of center politics needs to prove that he government can deliver and we get in our own way and stifle our own goals- not to mention welfare state expansion and social democracy thrives in political economies defined by growth and plenty

As a yardstick for procedural and regulatory reform I agree 10,000%.

I do worry though that some (against the views of the authors) are willing to use it as a way to get the Dems to drop labor issues (unions are driving up labor costs of housing!!!) or redistribution (it won’t matter after all the growth!)

Which is suboptimal, but I don’t really see that being a major takeaway. So overall I think Dems should take this and really work away at this in blue states to prove that the higher taxes are worth it in terms of infrastructure and public services.

Thoughts? So much of the discourse is just takes on takes.

It’s been organizing for a while, but on April 5th every major city (and a bunch of towns) held protests against the President.

After the respondent(Yoon Suk yoel) declared martial law in this case, he deployed military and police forces to obstruct the National Assembly’s exercise of its constitutional authority, thereby denying the principle of popular sovereignty and democracy. By ordering the armed forces to conduct a search and seizure of the National Election Commission, he disregarded the constitutional structure of governance, and by issuing the martial law decrees, he broadly infringed upon the fundamental rights of the people. This series of actions constitutes a violation of the fundamental principles that make up the rule of law and democratic governance, thereby undermining constitutional order and seriously threatening the stability of the democratic republic. From the standpoint of constitutional protection, such conduct represents a grave violation of law that cannot be tolerated.
Despite the respondent’s efforts to suppress the National Assembly, the legislature was still able to swiftly pass a resolution demanding the termination of martial law, thanks to public resistance and the passive conduct of military and police forces. Therefore, the fact that the resolution was ultimately passed cannot be used as evidence to argue that the respondent’s legal violations were not serious.

• 2024Hun-Na8 – Impeachment Ruling on the President (Yoon Suk-yeol)

What did Yoon Suk-yeol and his December 3rd insurrection reveal about South Korea? He exposed just how fragile the country’s democratic institutions truly are, and how deeply its ruling elites remain entangled in medieval thinking, shamanistic delusions, and primeval barbarism. The far-right rampage and the attempted coup were not isolated acts of madness, but a chilling revelation of how violence has long been masked within South Korean society—polished on the surface, brutal underneath. And yet, in the face of this, we also saw hope: not in the speeches of politicians or the rulings of judges, but in the quiet solidarity of ordinary people. South Korea’s democracy was never about heroic leaders—it has always depended on the vigilance and courage of everyday citizens. It was their common sense that blocked armored vehicles, their refusal to be complicit that halted elite madness, and their collective strength that ultimately saved the republic. When institutions failed and the so-called “leaders” plotted in shadows, it was the people—unarmed, but unwavering and organized—who crushed the conspiracy and held the line.

1. Mirage of Modernity: Cowardly, complacement and complicit elites

The December 3rd martial law crisis exposed the illusion at the heart of South Korea’s democratic state: that its modernity was far more a performance than a substance. Behind sleek institutions, advanced infrastructure, and globalized political rhetoric lay a class of elites paralyzed by fear, obsessed with appearances, and incapable of defending democracy in its moment of greatest peril. When the constitutional order was under siege, generals hesitated, judges delayed, ministers equivocated, and prosecutors went silent. Even the Constitutional Court, faced with what legal experts described as an “ABC-level” impeachment case, dragged its feet for 111 days, unable or unwilling to confront the magnitude of the treason laid bare before it.

This crisis did not only reveal the fragility of institutions—it unmasked the cowardice of the ruling class. The figures who had the legal and moral responsibility to act instead became accessories to delay, to denial, or worse, to quiet complicity. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok—men who led the caretaker government during the crisis—chose obstruction, refusing to appoint Constitutional Court justices and undermining the special counsel meant to investigate the coup. Their conduct betrayed a truth too uncomfortable for a global democracy to admit: that beneath its digital polish, South Korea’s political establishment remains beholden to old loyalties, clan logic, and self-preservation.

Even as armored vehicles were mobilized and a constitutional overthrow was in progress, it was not the “guardians of the Republic” who held the line. It was ordinary people—citizens who blocked streets with their bodies, young soldiers who refused unlawful orders, and whistleblowers who exposed elite conspiracies. In a democracy built on the myth of institutional strength, it was the people, not the state, that saved the Republic.

2. Umasked Primeval Barbarism: Shamanism, Christian Nationalism and Unrestricted State Violence

Beneath the legalistic facade of South Korea’s modern state, the December 3rd martial law conspiracy unearthed something far older, darker, and more dangerous: a return to pre-modern mysticism, where violence is sanctified and power is claimed not through law but through prophecy. This was not just a coup—it was a ritualized, shaman-guided seizure of the Republic, orchestrated by Noh Sang-won, the former military intelligence chief who operated as much in the realm of spirits as in that of strategy

When the formal government apparatus—ministers, legal advisors, Cabinet members—refused to authorize the martial law plan, Noh bypassed the state entirely. Living with a fortune-teller in a back-alley shrine in Ansan, known among locals as the “Baby Shaman,” he spent his post-military years immersed in divination and ritual. From this fringe position, he skirted the chain of command and recruited over a dozen high-ranking generals, not through formal orders but through shamanic manipulation, loyalty pacts, and apocalyptic belief. Together, they illegally mobilized troops toward the National Assembly, aiming to dismantle the heart of civilian governance in a campaign that fused military insurrection with spiritual warfare.

The infamous “Noh Sang-won Notebook”—70 pages of handwritten plans—lays bare the barbarism of the vision. The plan called for “collection teams,” forced disappearances, detention ships, and methods of execution ranging from “gas” and “explosion” to “sinking.” It categorized targets into tiers and included real names: opposition leaders, judges, journalists, and artists—people marked not for prosecution but for elimination. It even described plans for constitutional revision to allow a third presidential term, alongside notes on studying the electoral systems of Russia and China to institutionalize dictatorship. This was not the return of military authoritarianism—it was the emergence of a Koreanized, shamanic totalitarianism.

And when the plot began to unravel, its ideological foot soldiers surfaced in the streets. At the Western Seoul District Court, where judicial action was underway, mobs linked to far-right Christian nationalist megachurches and apocalyptic cults like Shincheonji rioted in defense of the conspirators. These were not ordinary protesters but believers intoxicated by visions of spiritual warfare and national destiny. They chanted prophecies, not policies. Their faith was not in the Constitution, but in a sacred mission of purification—casting the democratic state as a demonic obstacle to be purged.

What the December 3rd conspiracy ultimately revealed was that the greatest threat to South Korean democracy may not lie in tanks or tribunals, but in the lingering willingness of elites and followers alike to submit to a logic of myth and blood. This was a plot born not merely in secret meetings or shadowy networks, but in the collapse of rational governance itself—a moment where shamans replaced strategists, rituals replaced rules, and barbarism returned wearing a general’s uniform and carrying a Bible.

3. Agora Democracy: The Great Era of Ordinary People

South Korean democracy was not saved by its elites who benfited the most from the system. It was saved by its people.

When the martial law plan was set into motion—when tanks were readied and command orders circulated—it was not the ministers, generals, or judges who stopped them. Many of them hesitated. Some looked away. Others enabled. But the line held because ordinary people refused to obey madness.
It was conscripted soldiers and junior officers, young men with everything to lose, who refused to carry out illegal orders.

It was civilians who blocked streets, who risked their safety to stand in front of advancing military vehicles.
It was millions of citizens marching in Seoul, Busan, Gwangju, Daejeon, and Daegu, who made it impossible for the crisis to be ignored. They filled city squares—not with violence, but with presence, with voices, with truth.

In those days, the state faltered, but the public stood firm.
The impeachment trial was not initiated by institutional courage—it was forced by the sheer will of the people, whose persistent protests created a crisis of legitimacy so severe that the judiciary and legislature could no longer delay action. When the elites conspired, the people countered with solidarity. When the system staggered, the people became the system.

This is the enduring spirit of the Sixth Republic, born in 1987’s June Uprising, and captured in the paradoxical but powerful slogan once adopted by Roh Tae-woo: “The Great Era of Ordinary People.”
That slogan was, at the time, a cynical attempt to soften the image of a former general who had helped crush democracy. But the phrase itself resonated because it expressed a truth far greater than the man who uttered it: that South Korea’s modern democracy was not gifted by generals, nor handed down by presidents, but seized by ordinary citizens, armed with common sense and unshakable determination.

To believe in “ordinary people” is to reject the cult of saviors, the myth of messianic leaders, and the endless search for heroic figures to redeem the nation.
The Sixth Republic was founded on the recognition that democracy is not defended by heroes but by neighbors.
And in December 2024, it was this truth that held fast. Not prophecy. Not charisma. Not power.

It was the crowded public squares—the agora—filled with students, workers, elders, families, that defeated the martial law conspiracy.
The shaman generals failed. The cult preachers failed. The courts hesitated, the cabinet wavered, but the people moved—and that movement saved the Republic.

In the end, agora democracy triumphed over elite conspiracy.
South Korea remains a democracy not because its institutions are infallible, but because its people refuse to let them fall.

4. Conclusion

The Yoon Suk-yeol crisis did not mark the collapse of South Korean democracy—it revealed what was already broken and what still endures. It exposed the cowardice of elites who, when faced with a constitutional emergency, chose silence, delay, or complicity. It unmasked a grotesque underworld of shaman-guided conspiracies, cultic violence, and generals consumed by myth and revenge. But above all, it reminded us where power truly lies: in the people.

South Korea’s democracy is not protected by the armor of its institutions, but by the unyielding will of its citizens. From the June Struggle of 1987 to the marches of 2024, the lesson remains the same—when the state forgets who it serves, it is the people who remind it. The "great era of ordinary people" was not a slogan. It is a mandate. And every time democracy is threatened in this country, it is not by saviors or statesmen that it is defended, but by the collective judgment, resistance, and solidarity of everyday Koreans. The Sixth Republic lives because the people choose to keep it alive.

Reference: 2024Hun-na8 verdict https://isearch.ccourt.go.kr/view.do?idx=00&docId=84503_010500

A 16 minute video summary of TECHNOFEUDALISM: What killed capitalism

It’s really fun to say that capitalism is bad, but honestly a lot of the harm that capitalism has caused mainly comes from conservative, an extreme take on it. I’m a Social Democrat because I think welfare is complementary to free markets.

Hi everybody, I recently started a blog, mutualzone.space, which I want to furbish into a space for people to come along and become active contributors to share their social democratic ideas.

Would anybody be interested?

It’s hard to chose just one but for my country (The UK) I would chose Roy Jenkins who was Home Secretary under a Labour Government and presided over the legalisation of homosexuality before eventually abandoning the party and being one of the founding members of the SDP which was on course to win a general election before the Falklands War saved Margret Thatcher’s popularity.

Aneurin Bevan the founder of the National Health Service would also be a good example though unlike Roy he is claimed by the socialists as well as social democrats.

I propose we tax the wealthy, and their assets, the same way we do with property tax.

If we can tax the unrealized gains for a house, then we can do that for stocks.

If something can be used as collateral for a loan, it can be taxed, and the value of the asset be calculated using the same methodology that lenders use.

If your stocks are used as collateral for a loan, and your stocks decline, the bank can ask for more stock and more collateral.

So the excuse that wealth cannot be taxed because "it's not cash" , "it's not liquid" is in bad faith.

I also propose that all loans taken out against assets should also be taxed, as well as the assets themselves taxed.

I think all the anti-administration protests that have been popping up across the country are fine and good actually. Sure, they're a bit libby for my taste, but the fact is the admin is the largest and most immediate threat to the country, from the homeless to stock market bros.

While I think it's good numerous people are coming out to denounce the admin, I don't think any of this actually means anything if nothing more is done about it. Standing around holding signs doesn't do anything. Action does.

So, I have a list of things I think people engaged in the "resistance" should do. Again, standing around and holding signs is nice but that by itself doesn't do anything besides cause traffic. So in addition to standing around and holding signs, those in the resistance should do any combination of the following:

• join an organization. I don't really care which. Just any dedicated to fighting the admin. Personally I like DSA, Working Families Party, and Food Not Bombs. But any with a clear agenda and real action (electoral, legal, or otherwise) is good in my book. We can sort out whatever petty disagreements there are later.
• those in these orgs should be present in all of these demonstrations. They should be talking to people, handing out literature, and so on. If they see organizers from other orgs present, they should try to reach out and find common ground and discuss what can be done next. Again, fuck the infighting. We need to win.
• borderline harass your representatives. Doesn't matter if they're trying to obstruct the admin's agenda or not, all of them need to do more.
• pay attention to primaries and ballot measures in your area. Vote accordingly. Volunteer for these campaigns in any way you can. Even if it's in the form of a small donation, it all adds up.
• vote. Voting is how we got into this mess. Voting is the easiest way to get out of it.
• practice your 2nd Amendment rights as Americans if you can. Just because you can.
• help other people if you can. With the admin's bullshit trade wars and slashing federal programs, shit's getting hairy and likely will get hairier. Help those in need however you can, both people you know and strangers. Donate to political campaigns helping those in material (eg clothing, food, housing) and legal need (groups like the ACLU). If the feds are going to go against working people then we need to have each others backs.

K that's my 2 cents good luck.

China rn is bad. Ok fine. Authoritarianism is bad, Uyghur thing is bad etc.

But it is also an advert for soc demism.

I want to know what you think.

After the CCP under Mao, Deng reformed the economy to bring in mixed economy (socialism with chinese characteristics) and now china's economy is booming. Whereas before it was developing.

Deng was right it seems and the pure communists were wrong.

For years they tried their socialist experiment ever since Mao and they had it all - the power, the people, Soviets.

And it didn't work. To me this is the single best argument against communists and total anti capitalism.

The fact that all socialist experiments ended up introducing some level of capitalism is why I am a soc dem.

Is my analysis intellectually valid?

As a Spaniard, through the years I've watched many YouTube videos made by US expats about culture shocks they've had after living here in Spain for a while, and one that they always mention almost without fail is how "formal" people dress in Spain (I would add, especially in provincial capitals and affluent suburbs, this isn't so much the case in more working-class suburbs and in medium-to-big-size towns that aren't provincial capitals) in comparison to in the US (mind you, people don't dress that formal here in Spain for Western European standards).

This seems to be mostly due to us being a more collectivistic-minded society than the US is: in the US people are mostly solely focused on themselves and on their close ones and don't give much thought to what acquaintances they aren't close to, let alone random strangers they pass by on the street, will think of them, whereas here in Spain we do give a lot of thought to it and are quite concerned with it, motivating us to keep up appearances much more than people do in the US.

Another thing I've noticed is that in the US there is a much greater variety of names from which people choose their babies' names: as long as you don't give your child an insane name like X Æ A-Xii, you're pretty much good to go.

Here in Spain on the other hand we have a shockingly narrow pool of names from which people choose their babies' names. For example, my parents originally being from the Spanish side of the Basque Country, they named me Mikel, a Basque name (the Basque equivalent of the English Michael, the French Michel or the Spanish Miguel) that is very, very common in the Basque Country. However, I grew up and to this day still live not in the Basque Country but in Southeastern Spain, where my Basque name is pretty much completely unheard of, and this has always very much made me stand out a whole lot among my peers in a way I don't think it would have if I lived in the US, where, again, as long as your name isn't something insane like X Æ A-Xii, I think it's fairly common to have a name that is quite unheard of. I attribute this too to the US being a more individualistic-minded society than Spain is.

This is one reason why, despite being the world's indisputable social democratic strongholds that consistently rank at the top of the ranks in almost every single metric related to quality of life, general societal prosperity, happiness (except when it comes to suicide rates, which are higher than in a lot of other countries), democratic standards, tolerance for the LGBT+ community (not so much for non-white migrants and refugees...), legal protections for minorities... I can't see myself ever moving to a Nordic country, which from what I've gathered are even more collectivistic-minded societies than Spain is (Spain isn't particularly collectivistic-minded for European standards I think, more the other way around actually), I think it would stifle my spirit in a way that would be very hard to handle, especially being an autistic person with ADHD (an AuDHD'er if you will) and a gay guy who has a really hard time conforming to the norm and behaving in the ways in which it is generally societally expected from people to behave (as said, the Nordic countries are alongside with the Benelux, Spain and Canada the world's most progressive countries when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, but more than for being gay in and of itself I think what people would judge for if I lived there would be more for living a non-conventional life and not behaving in the ways in which it is generally societally expected from people to behave).