Democrats should counter the "Socialism" scare by committing to Social-Democracy.

[DetlefK]

Socialism is the control of all property by society as a whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
In theory.
In practice, it always ends up with some corrupt, self-appointed upper class being effectively in charge.

Democratic Socialism is the control of all property by democratically elected institutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
In theory.
In practice, things can go economically really, really bad, because of the danger that incompetent people get put in charge by a corrupt government. Like in Venezuela.

Social Democracy is a capitalism that gets regulated by a democratically elected government to prevent it from verging off into economic and social injustice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
In theory.
In practice, it's the system Europe has and it works great.




Never forget the 2014 midterms. The democratic candidates tried to have it both ways with the voters: Running as red-blooded Democrats while simultaneously distancing themselves from the democratic President.
The result? Nobody knew what they stood for and the Democrats were slaughtered at the polls.



The worst mistake would be for Democrats to run away from "social". Because their political platform is effectively "social".
Running away from your own political platform would be the mountaintop of stupidity.



Republicans use the term "Socialism" wrong, because what the Democrats want is not Socialism. They want a system that is basically the same the US has right now but more economically and socially just.
Instead of running away from "Socialism" and ceding the propaganda battlefield to the Republicans (like Elizabeth Warren does), Democrats must counter-attack and clarify that their ideas are Social-Democracy, not Socialism.

Social-Democracy, not Socialism.





Plus, social-democracy is more of a european thing. The Republicans can tingle the racist nerve of their voters by scaring them with latin-american socialism, but it would be harder to scare them with european social-democracy.

[octoberlib]

1. People in this country are so misinformed about socialism.

They keep pointing to Norway and Sweden as examples of successful socialist countries, when in fact those countries aren't socialist at all. In fact, Sweden has never nationalized an industry and has always fully supported well-regulated capitalism. Wish I could rec this more than once.

[DownriverDem]

24. Why Millennials look to Norway. Sweden, Finland & Denmark with envy.

Weeks off for vacation, health care and education are why they like those countries. It has nothing to do with industry for Millennials. It has to do with what we the people don't have in this country.

[octoberlib]

43. Yes but it's not socialism. The Scandinavian countries are always at the top

of the happiest country surveys. Definitely something to emulate.

[greymattermom]

2. Social security.

If you hate socialism, you also hate social security. Do you want to pay FICA taxes for years and give that money to the rich? Republicans are trying to steal your FICA taxes.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

14. Social Security isn't "socialism."

Why echo a right-wing talking point?

[PatrickforO]

23. Ah but it is...socialism, that is.

Social Security is the nationalization of old age pensions. Medicare is the nationalization of healthcare. Both were put into effect for two reasons. The first, obvious moral reason - that we as a society do not wish to have our parents and grandparents starve to death, have to eat out of dumpsters and languish with treatable illnesses.

The second is the point always lost on the Republicans. Social Security provides an income in old age that keeps demand for goods and services up. Medicare provides the medical care needed to keep people healthy so they can use their Social Security money to purchase local goods and services rather than going broke and thus burdening society.

You can also make an argument that local government services, from police, fire and rescue to permitting and zoning are 'socialist,' and certainly our K-12 system is.

This is the argument we have to make - The Republicans say we'd be better off without this but having lower taxes. In fact, Grover Norquist, that scamp, has said we need to shrink government until it is small enough to 'drown in a bathtub.'

There is one other thing, though, that a 'socialist' government does that is desperately needed in a controlled free-market economy such as ours - regulating the excesses of capitalism so that CEOs don't get so carried away in the primacy of the shareholder doctrine that they hurt workers, consumers and the environment just for a few extra dollars in shareholder profits.

[wasupaloopa]

39. No. Social Security was a way to force people to save money.

It isn’t nationalized any thing. It is not tax money but it is payments in to a system by employees and employers.

Medicare is not nationalized medical care.

Again it was a way to force people to save for hospital expenses. Employees and employers pay into it. It is not nationalized anything.

[PatrickforO]

45. Interesting. Now, I like a mixed socialist and free market, a la northern

Europe.

I suppose philosophically (or ideologically) you could call me a Social Democrat. Or, a Democratic Socialist.

Ah, but the question you raise is whether Social Security can fairly be called a 'socialist' program. While my answer is clearly 'yes,' it seems best to bring in a third party.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/122916/are-social-security-benefits-form-socialism.asp. After defining a bunch of terms, they make the following conclusion:

Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system – deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out – it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism.

So there you have it. Funny the Republicans are vowing this country will 'never go socialist.'

But don't worry. This country is no longer a republic, and may only loosely be called a 'democracy.' No, what we have now is a fascist oligarchy, where a very few people own most of the wealth, and the politicians are owned by PAC money, lobbies and corporations. They have no political courage because they are on the gravy train. Most are so afraid of not being reelected they won't lift a finger to enact legislation that actually makes our lives better.

Instead, we get a giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations, as if they didn't already have enough, that has essentially gutted our treasury and will ultimately force massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, all safety net programs, basically all non-military discretionary spending.

And, we have a rather sinister administration in power that is very much like an old mafiosi caporegime. Donald is the Don, Eric and Don Jr. are Fredo and Santino, Ivanka is Connie, and Jared Kushner is Carlo Rossi. But they are small potatoes. They report to bigger bosses, Russian oligarchs.

Then we have Pence and the holy-rollers, who would impose a 'christian' Sharia law upon us, while still letting the oligarchs have our treasury - as long as abortion is illegal, they are fine with that.

Finally, there is a pretty large group, mostly in the Tea Party and Trumpers, who genuinely believe that there is nothing worth saving about the republic that is the United States in specific and western democracies in general. This group is purposely and purposefully tearing down our institutions - consider the gutting of the EPA, the criticisms of the press, Betsy DeVos sabotaging the student loan forgiveness program, Trump publicly disagreeing numerous times with national security leaders. This is a purposeful wrecking of our republic - an effort to tear the whole thing down.

So, about half of our party is quaking like jelly at the prospect of being labeled 'socialist,' and the other half is saying, "Whatever you might call it, we need a green new deal now, healthcare, expanded Social Security and debt-free college."

We are in for, I think, a time of upheaval. The only ones who can possibly save this republic from being torn apart, and its pieces handed to international oligarchs while we ourselves are made into wage slaves, and then real slaves, is the new kids in Congress. The ones like AOC, Omar and Tlaib, who are speaking truth to power because they don't care if they are one-term Representatives - they want to wake up the people to what's going on and give us back our power.

By way of prognosticating, IF, and it is a big IF, we discover how powerful we the people really are, stop being afraid of these greed-heads and band together to make some real reforms, we might well save those things that are worth saving, and make those things better that need improvement.

But, no, I won't split hairs with you on whether or not Social Security and Medicare are forms of socialism or not. I don't care. What I care about is having more say in policies that affect me. I'm sick of my tax money being routed to corporate profits or billionaires instead of being used for programs that help me, my children and my grandchildren. Medicare for all Americans, a Green New Deal. Expanded Social Security. Infrastructure programs so that we can rebuild/upgrade as part of the Green New Deal. Heavily subsidized childcare, early childhood education, a K-12 system that's the envy of the world, and debt-free college and graduate school.

And to make all this possible, let us pull out the root cause of the evil that besets us: the primacy of the shareholder doctrine. If corporations want to do business here, we need to force them to change their charters - put workers on their Boards of Directors, and consider the welfare of workers, consumers and the environment equally with shareholder profits.

My...wasn't that the verbal gush? It is how I feel though, after 60 years of working my ass off in this capitalist utopia and getting nickel and dimed so much day after day, year after year, that I have less purchasing power now than I did back in the 90s. That isn't good enough. We are better than that.

[wasupaloopa]

52. My reply was that it wasn't nationalized anything.

[DownriverDem]

25. I like Booker, but

I think the Dems would do better with Biden and a strong progressive Dem woman. I have no idea who that would be, but I'm sure some folks here would have ideas.

[FBaggins]

3. I wouldn't say "it's the system that Europe has and it works great"

Better to cite specific countries where it has been effective... because there are plenty of European countries where it doesn’t look like it works well.

Otherwise... this is quite good. If only we didn’t have so many here claiming that Socialism works great and we should just own it.

[PatrickforO]

46. It is arguable that the bankers who came along from the IMF in '09

and imposed austerity on Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece are the authors of social democracy in these countries not working well.

In fact, OUR bankers have also created a system of scarcity where they scrape the uttermost farthing in profits from every dollar our government borrows.

If our government is truly to be a government 'of, by and for' the people, then the national debt is money we owe to ourselves.

So why are we paying it back to bankers with interest?

[Honeycombe8]

4. The Democratic Party should leave the word "social" out of their identity altogether

It has a negative connotation, except to refer to "social programs," which the Democratic Party already says it supports.

The Dem Party is not a socialist party or anything close to it. It needs to keep that differentiation clear, or it will lose its status as the second major party, since most Americans will never vote for "socialism. To refer to the Dem Party as a "social Dem" party, by leaving off the "ist" or "ism" ending won't fool anyone. And will take a step start trying to identify the Dem Party as a socialist party, which is not true.

People who want socialism will vote for third parties who profess that, like Bernie Sanders (at times) and others. People who want libertarianism will vote for third parties who profess that. If a third party can't win, they'll vote for Republicans, which is close but not the same. Same thing with the Dem. Party.

[DetlefK]

5. That would mean accepting the misleading phrasing of the GOP.

Why do they get to invent new definitions for words that already have definitions?

Don't retreat.

Counter-attack!!!

[Honeycombe8]

8. That's just politics.

If you're referring to what the GOP is calling the Democratic Party, that's politics.

Fact: The Democratic Party is not socialist. To imply otherwise is misleading and will cost votes.

[DetlefK]

18. You know what will cost votes?

The Democrats proposing social policies like expansion of health-insurance or workers-rights, while simultaneously denouncing the word "social".

[DownriverDem]

26. Or folks

who won't vote for the Dem candidate like it will send a message. I sure hope they learned from 2016.

[Firestorm49]

22. I agree. It's a negative connotation even though it may have some positive attributes.

[PatrickforO]

47. There are 86 million Millennials. They now outnumber Boomers in the workplace.

They are a generation that has been screwed every which way but loose by predatory capitalism. They are the first generation that won't do better than their parents. And we beat them over the head with that.

Socialism doesn't scare Millennials. They don't have that good ol' 'tailgunner Joe' knee-jerk reaction to it that was inculcated in us during the cold war. Most of them have had to delay home ownership because of high student debt. They earn less than Boomers did at their age, and have less wealth. They are waking up, I think.

The New Deal as it was passed in the 1930s was in fact social democracy. And, it precipitated several decades of prosperity the like of which the world had never seen. But some were left behind. Now, the younger people in the party seem to be wanting to try it again with fixes for the things the old New Deal Democrats couldn't fix.

I say good for them.

This, on the other hand, is a very interesting thread. I sense we are being tricked with the old 'divide and conquer' routine. Always works! Good old Koch brothers. Oh, this country will NEVER go socialist! Yay, cheers, exclamations of agreement!

Why, we should be downright SCARED, no PETRIFIED by some pompous GOP ass calling us socialists.

Hell with them. News flash - they are gonna call us that no matter if we run a social democrat or a centrist. They will STILL label our person a socialist, ridicule their policies, ridicule them, make baseless smears against them to see what sticks, work hard to make them defend themselves instead of talking about the issues. You all KNOW this, right?

[Honeycombe8]

48. The Democratic Party is not socialist. That's the point.

So you're saying you want to change the Democratic Party to a socialist party? Or to socialist-lite? Something like that?

I'm not sure young people understand what a capitalist or a socialist is. They believe in the SS and Medicare programs, think there should be healthcare for all....something like Canada. Canada is not a socialist country, economics-wise. Canada is like America: Capitalist economy with social programs.

Not sure millennials understand that their retirement accounts have or will have mutual funds and stocks in them...owning those make them capitalists. They own parts of all those businesses.

I don't know why people insist on using the word "socialist," when we're not socialists but support some social programs. Same thing as Canada, Finland, Sweden, Great Britain....all capitalist economies with social programs. That's like, every First World country.

[Roy Rolling]

6. That's one strategy

Another is to tell them they Americans are already partial S ocialists because world capitalists are making them poor.

Connect their love of capitalism with their fear of foreigners.

[lancelyons]

7. We could counter with Fascism and Nazism but who would cover that

The media doesnt cover the right is this way but they do cover the left in this way.

The media will cover the left as Socialism caving to the description from the right but they will not say anything about too far right.

[SergeStorms]

31. My thoughts exactly.

As far as "who'd cover that", it doesn't matter. Democrats have to be on point as much as the rethuglicans. We have to become as disciplined as the rethuglicans. Every time a Democratic Congressperson gets interviewed on TV or Radio push the 'fascism' meme about the rethuglicans. During the presidential debates we have to hit it hard! The GOP is going to push their stupid "socialism" claim, Democrats have to push the "fascist" claim. I think the American people understand fascism much better than they understand socialism. They know fascism is bad. Socialism? I don't think they're as informed about.

The rethuglicans are fascists, and explain why they're fascists just to get the not-so-informed up to speed. Play the same game the GOP plays, but bury them with it!

[ancianita]

9. Democrats are about Unity, NOT Uniformity. Different Americans must learn to live with difference.

Liberal Democrats
AND Progressive Democrats
AND Social Democrats
AND Just Plain Old Democrats

ALL have much more in common than not.

Don't be bothered by Americans Democrats of European background.

Democrats also have the background of every genetic haplo group on the planet.

Democrats are more representative of America and the world's people than any other political group. There's no reason to throw out any labeled baby with any bath water.

Media try to make us scary -- weak, divided, untrustworthy, control freaks, boogeymen -- they make us into a "problem" -- every thing THEY fear; every sliver of divisive label they apply to everyone else.

Don't fall for it. We're not.

Don't buy divide/conquer labels Dems don't HAVE to be about uniformity. Dems are about unity.

We LIVE WITH difference. We show Americans how to do that.

Everybody in, nobody out.

[SergeStorms]

34. 'Democrats are about unity".

Surely you jest! While I agree with most of your other points, the "unity" thing just struck me funny. Getting Democrats to agree about issues is like herding cats. No insult intended, that just tickled my funny bone this morning.

[ancianita]

42. I hear you. We fuss, sure, but we don't take opponents'

sides against each other.

I like your sense of humor.

[nycbos]

10. Americans are smart enough to understand the difference.

[Lucky Luciano]

12. Surely you jest!

[ProfessorPlum]

11. This is very good. We could also call it "Civilization" or "Cooperation" or "Society"

But i appreciate the clarity on terms - Branding is so important to political messaging.

Social-anything or Socialism has a bad ring (fair or not). But I'd love to see the GOP arguing against "civilization".

[George II]

13. Why must we re-define or even define our system and/or our Party. MOST of us (even on the right)...

....are perfectly happy with what we have.

[DemocracyMouse]

36. We must redefine simply because some of us have done the research...

and found the old conception wanting. Don't just wave a new vision away without trying to comprehend what it means. (If we resisted the emergence of those pesky new ideas in the middle ages we would have stifled science).

That said, I don't believe the term "social democracy" goes far enough! We need to think about how a democratically determined social infrastructure can do more than just ensure a fair economy for all. It can be designed to be REGENERATIVE. That is, environmentally sustainable.

A regenerative infrastructure (or what I like to call zoastructure) can also GENERATE a creative, robust and MEANINGFUL economy for all. Democracy, debate, and free discourse (informed by tenured professors who can do research without fear of reprisal from less educated administrators), is at the heart of such a creative, regenerative operating system.

Let's move past this "capitalism vs socialism" nonsense and begin to embrace a new model:

CIVIC ZOASTRUCTURE as the operating system for CIVIC FREE ENTERPRISE

(zoastructure = regenerative infrastructure)

Sorry if all of this seems new and kind of chewy. That's the nature of new ideas... but give it a chance to sink in.... We have 10 years to turn our civilization around before we have runaway global warming.

[lapucelle]

55. Got that, George?

We must redefine ourselves as civic zoastructuralists.because some have done the research and find the conception "Democrat" lacking.

[iamthebandfanman]

15. I think its best that

you let democratic socialists tell you what democratic socialists in the US believe and stand for. Seeing as Venezuela nationalized certain aspects of their economy, im not sure how democratic socialism (which doesnt advocate that) is 'like Venezuela'. we get it , you hate the word socialism.. but dont spread disinformation.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

[CrossingTheRubicon]

40. Ironic since the DSA backs the Democratic Socialist dictatorship in Venezuela to the hilt, shouting:

Long Live the Bolivarian Revolution!

Socialism and fascism are two forms of anti-liberal authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

Of two evils, choose neither.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

16. We should embrace Liberalism, which includes progressive well-regulated capitalism.

And distance ourselves completely from Socialism.

This season's bogus meme that roads, schools, police & fire, and social programs are "socialist" is a gift to the right-wing.

Stop the nonsense.

Embrace the liberal achievements of our party.

[comradebillyboy]

33. Yes indeed.

[DallasNE]

17. Republicans Have Muddled The Distinction

For decades. That is not about to change. Follow the money directly to criminal activity.

[turbinetree]

19. AS a Democratic Socialist here are two people that explain my "socialism" reported by O'Donnell

[JHB]

20. Don't quibble over precise definitions, just hit them in the face with what they are doing

Republicans call everything they don't like "socialism".

They called Social Security "socialism"
They called Medicare "socialism"
They've called any restraint on businesses screwing you over "socialism"


Everything that works for people who are not up in the economic stratosphere is screamed at as "socialism".

Hell, in one breath they'll crow about us being the leader of the Free World, and in the next scorn "European Socialism", as if they were talking about Warsaw Pact police states rather than the very same developed countries that are the Free World they were talking about a second ago.

You want a unified message?
Republicans call everything they don't like "socialism". Republicans call everything that works for ordinary people "socialism".

[Joe Nation]

21. Or, just pointing out the Fascism on the other side

n/t

[SergeStorms]

35. Bingo.

Americans understand that fascism is evil. Socialism....I don't think they're so sure about.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Liberalism isn't good enough?

[lapucelle]

56. We had a president whose administration was informed by the principles of social democracy.

His name was Bill Clinton, and he is still much maligned for advancing those principles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

[Celerity]

61. Third way neoliberalism is not at all comparable to social democracy.

It is in favour of DE-REGULATION of capitalism and the financial sector and in favour of privatisation schemes, which are both abhorrent to most all social democratic parties such as the ones in Northern Europe. The third way fetishises the market and its interventions and determinative qualities in terms of society in general, often to bad results with tragic consequences.

3 of Clinton's biggest disasters he signed off on (and his administration pushed) were indeed third way neoliberal deregulation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, and far worse, the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), plus the horrid Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which re-legalised previously outlawed forms of financial derivatives.

The last 2 were fundamental drivers for the 2007-2009 global financial crisis.

[lapucelle]

64. Yes it is.

The problem with buzzword phrases is that many people who use them have no idea wht they’re actually talking about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

[Celerity]

65. 3rd way politics is a synthesis of centre left and centre right

economics and social engineering. To call it boilerplate social democratic policy (especially if one is referring to something akin to the Nordic Model of social democratic governance that has been practiced in Northern Europe for close to 100 years in one form or another) is completely wrong from both an academic perspective as well as real life actual programmes and policies.

3rd way neoliberal polices have a structural core based on deregulation and market-driven solutions. Social democracy seeks to maintain a whip hand over unfettered capitalism via a robust regulatory framework, coupled with an expansive welfare state.

You simply cannot claim the 2 are one and the same. They are often at complete loggerheads. One can find this dialectical tension today in the Scandinavian countries, where you have Social Democratic parties constantly vying with centre right neoliberal ones.
The same tensions can be found within the British Labour party, as manifested by the power struggles of the remnants of the New Labour Blairites versus the old school social democratic and in some (not all by any means)cases, outright socialist projections of the Corbyn and other leftish wings.

It is bad enough that we have Sanders utterly incorrectly self-labelling as a democratic socialist (he absolutely is not one, as he is not for state control of the means of production and certianly not for the attempted abolition of capitalism, both of which actual democratic socialism demands), but now to try and relabel the 3rd way neoliberal form of governance as one and the same as bog standard European (or wherever it is practised) social democracy is simply factual incorrect and destructive of proper debate at both academic and actual real life, concrete levels.

[lapucelle]

66. The problem with using buzzword phrases

is that people often have no actual idea what they're really talking about.

[Celerity]

67. I am not using 'buzzwords' at all. I am correctly (from widely accepted academic definitions)

defining very specific terms, policies, programmes, and actions.

Wilful attempts by Sanders and others to re-define democratic socialism as something that it is not, and certainly not accepted as such in the rest of the world, is bad enough.

It confuses and opens up our party to ludicrous screams of 'Socialism!', and more than likely, (given the reactionary and comprehensively uneducated nature of tens of millions of RWers), an even more burdensome conflation that leads to various and sundry howls of 'Communism!'

That all is bad enough (and self-inflicted), BUT, if people are now going to try and say deregulatory, market-driven centre-right/centre-left-fused, synthetic 3rd way neoliberal policies are the essence of 'social democracy', the waters will be muddled to the point of such confusion that all objective discussion becomes irrelevant at some point.

There is not a legitimate university in the world where one can walk into a basic political science class and posit that the Clintonian-pushed Telecommunications Act of 1996, the repeal of Glass-Steagall via the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 where in any way 'social democratic' initiatives. By their very nature (ie. deregulation) they are a priori against the modern social democratic bedrock that dictates for highly regulated control over the capitalist (especially financial) sector.

[lapucelle]

68. You're not "correcting" anything. You're disseminating an idiosyncratic interpretation of a term.

[kennetha]

28. Just don't nominate an avowed Socialist

And the “problem” goes away.

The Democratic Party decisively rejects the Socialism of the Socialists Bernie Sanders!

Problem solved!

[TheSocialDem]

29. Agree

I’ve been thinking this for awhile.. see the name!

[Hortensis]

30. Read the title, looked to see who posted.

You don't disappoint, DetlefK.

Claiming we're running away from our own platform if we don't change our identity isn't bad. Sure, that itself is a "mountaintop of stupidity," or pile of something, but as rhetoric it's at least irritating enough to be noticeable.

[DetlefK]

37. Well... what is the political platform of the Democrats?

https://democrats.org/about/what-we-believe/

Raising wages, closing the wealth gap, strengthening Social Security
Lowering health care costs; ensuring all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care; stabilizing Medicare and Medicaid
Sensible immigration reform that keeps America’s promise
Defending our borders, our ideals, and our institutions
Supporting our veterans and military families
Fixing our criminal justice system to eliminate systemic racism
Guaranteeing rights for minorities, people with disabilities, the LGBTQ community, and all Americans
Acting to advance women’s rights, protect access to reproductive care, fight for equal pay, stop violence against women, and elect more women to public office
Protecting and promoting every American’s fundamental right to vote
Advancing clean energy and climate change action
Common-sense gun reforms
Smarter infrastructure investments
Advancing access to liberty and equality for all
Investing in modern education and jobs programs that prepare our kids for tomorrow’s challenges

My gosh. It almost sounds as if the Democrats want to regulate capitalism to promote economic and social justice...



And I wasn't alking about changing the identity. I was talking about a counter-attack. The Republicans are trying to paint the Democrats as something they are not: Socialists.
My proposal is not to retreat but to aggressively correct the record.

[kennetha]

38. Exactly

Bernie is the problem. Period. He needs us to imbibe the "socialist" label so he can hijack our party and make it a real socialist party.

Don't fall for it. He's a flimflam con-artist.

[Hortensis]

41. Okay. But let's call ourselves Democratic-Republicans

instead. That's the original name our founders chose for our republic. When conservatives bad-mouthed and tried to redefine them as democrats, thinking it was a bad thing, they added it proudly to our name.

And these days Republicans are dishonoring that name and it should be taken away.

[comradebillyboy]

32. Sorry I'm a Democrat, not a Social Democrat.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. I like your strawman of socialism that is contradicted by the first paragraph of the wiki articled.

Very honest of you. Question, do co-ops always lead to dictatorships? Are you aware that most of Venezuela's economy is Capitalist?

[DetlefK]

54. What strawman?

Wikipedia says what Socialism is in theory.

But how many countries where Socialism was implemented did not eventually end up with a dictatorship?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

China? - one-party government, economically corrupt from bottom to top and a neverending source of human-rights abuses.

North Korea? - hereditary dictatorship

Vietnam? - one-party government

Cuba? - political parties are banned from advertising their ideas or supporting candidates (and the Communist Party gets around this because El Presidente is a party-member)

Basically all of Eastern Europe during the Cold War?

Libya? - similar to Cuba, political opposition was prevented from reaching power through a gerrymandering-system

Syria? - the President was able to rule at will with decrees until the country erupted into civil war



Where are those democratic socialist countries?

[Humanist_Activist]

57. You were literally wrong from Line 1, and your own link proved it...

Socialism is not the control of all property by society as a whole, as demonstrated in the Wikipedia link.

Hell, even in your follow up to my post, anyone who follows the link you used would see that you cherry picked the worst examples of command economies, yet neglect to mention the many more Democratic countries that either have Socialism mentioned as a goal in their Constitution or are currently ruled by Socialist parties of various ideologies.

What are the requirements needed for a country to be considered a Democratic Socialist country to you?

[DetlefK]

58. It's the first line.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management

Do YOU have any examples of countries where the means of production are communally owned and where people still have the freedom and opportunity to criticize and change their system?

Where is this socialist paradise?



Also, what exactly are we talking about? Are we talking about currently applied Socialism?
Are we talking about countries that aim to apply Socialism sometime in the future?
Are we talking about political parties whose political platforms are cherrypicked from socialist ideas to varying degrees?

[Humanist_Activist]

59. No, you said: "Socialism is the control of all property by society as a whole." Which is...

completely different from:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management

Learn the difference between property and controlling the means of production.

As far as examples, sure, there are plenty of examples in the United States, Worker's Cooperatives are communally owned and operated, there also exist in industrial and retail settings and are operated by their employees, though co-ops and the practice of maintaining them is far more common in Europe and elsewhere.

If you want a better idea of what I'm talking about, I lean towards Anarcho-Syndicalism, look up the the Zapatista movement, their autonomous collectives that still exist and operate relatively free from government interference.

Generally a type of horizontally organized Market socialism seems ideal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

[DetlefK]

60. On small scales it works. No doubt. But not on big scales.

Make the economic system bigger and bigger and you get more and more people communicating more and more data back and forth with each other. It gets more and more complicated. There inevitably comes a point where a person no longer has the time and/or intelligence and/or knowledge/expertise to deal with a problem.

And when that point is reached, it becomes inevitable that the decision-making gets outsourced to designated specialists.

For example, consider a company that is owned by its 1000 workers. Who researches where the company should go next? Who has the expertise to conduct a thorough market-analysis? Who has the expertise to read the report and understand it and make an informed, logical decision based on the data presented to him? Sure as hell not every single worker.



There is a reason why capitalism exists in the first place: Because it works. Just like the Caesar-system in Ancient Rome where a temporary dictator was chosen to take care of a problem, a hierarchic company designates specialists who have the expertise to handle special problems. And such a company has an evolutionary advantage over a company where problems are discussed to death by people who don't have a full grasp of what they are talking about.
As much as we want people to be equal, they are not. Each individual is good at one thing and bad at another.



Try to imagine a whole country, millions of people, run by an anarchic system. How the hell are they supposed to organize a nationwide initiative to tackle one specific problem?

Let's say, the appartments are insulated with asbestos and it turns out that asbestos is a health-hazard. How would an anarchic society organize a nationwide effort to get rid of asbestos?

Or let's say that North Korea may or may not have ICBMs. How would an anarchic society decide what to do? You can't have millions of people discuss geopolitical topics until a compromise is reached, when a good chunk of those people don't even know what they are talking about.

Or fake news. How is an anarchic society supposed to find a compromise when it costs more and more time and effort to verify that the data the discussion is based on is indeed accurate and not fake?
Do you know the favorite tactic of conspiracy-theorists? Lie by omission. Pretend that certain facts do not exist, so the remaining facts fit your agenda.
How is an anarchic society supposed to find a compromise when certain people steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the existence of inconventient facts?

The result of this inability to find a GLOBAL compromise is a fractioning of society into smaller and smaller units until it is possible to find a LOCAL compromise.

[Humanist_Activist]

62. That argument also applies to political systems, does it not?

You seem to be arguing against democracy in general.

[DetlefK]

63. I am for parliamentary democracy.

The question is always: Where is the limit? How flexible is a system of government?

* There is a reason why soldiers don't debate orders on a battle-field: Because there's no time for debate.

* In a small society, some kind of direct democracy or anarchy works best, because that ensures that everybody is happy.

* In a medium-sized society, like a country, it becomes inevitable that the problems are so complicated that only specialists can solve them, so systems like parliamentary democracy or technocracy or meritocracy work best and the minority simply has to accept that they must remain unhappy.

* In a big society, like the UN or the EU , the various members are too different from each other to reach a meaningful compromise at all. That's why the UN and the EU have such difficulties making impactful decisions. Because at some point the minority refuses to accept that there is no way to make them happy as well.

[ooky]

49. Democrats should stop discussing label and get it on the table

in time for 2020.

[jcmaine72]

50. I'm sold. I'm fully on board with Social-Democracy.

The ideas and ideals of Social-Democracy are precisely what we should be striving for. Countering Republican lies and propaganda, however, is always a challenge. They're master liars. Look at what they did to the word "liberal" back in the 1980s/90s.

The idea of Social Democracy shouldn't be a tough sell. I guess it'll ultimately depend on who the salesperson is.

[dawg day]

51. We have to stop letting the GOPers frame the debate and choose the terms.

"Socialism" has always been their swear word.

Progressivism was the word we were using recently, and that's better because, frankly, it's more vague-- we'll be progressing towards greater opportunity and equality.

[pansypoo53219]

53. start calling pro putin GOP commies.

[Joe941]

69. I say we just embrace socialism - its the future!