Probably A Dumb Question-But What's The Distinction Between A Democrat And A Democratic Socialist?..
I know that Bernie calls himself a Democratic Socialist. I know that the Repugs attach a negative connotation to the word 'socialist'.
When I hear what Bernie stands for I tend to agree with him on everything.
I'm still perplexed, however, as to what the differences are between a typical person that calls them self a Democrat (which is the label I've used for myself all these years) and a Democratic Socialist - like Bernie calls himself.
Any help would be appreciated.
= new reply since forum marked as read
second, he's called himself that for decades now. Changing it would just give his opponents ammunition. 
would be any kind of improvement?
"Look, no courage of his convictions."
"Running away from his past."
Etc...etc...etc...
Far better to embrace the good things he has work for in the past and have this discussion about what we as a nation want to be.
I'm ALL IN! Please let THE PEOPLE WAKE UP!
shorthand for me is that I believe there are problems we can't solve individually, therefore we have to act collectively to address them.
having an effect on only those who believe that means fascism. Why not use MLK quotes or George Orwell on Democratic Socialism. I've seen the polls young people & the poor poll favorable impressions to the poor. You favor that win the election by inspiring turnout but the turnout gaps widen the poorer you go for a reason more than simply apathy, laziness or whatever. In addition the GOP's War on Voting but c'mon the GOP uses MLK in campaign ads. When are going to stop being afraid of the truth?
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20121030-billboard-invokes-martin-luther-king-jr.-to-encourage-republican-votes.ece
They obviously see an advantage with that.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic... [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive... but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness. (Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952)
One day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" ... When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy.
(Final speech to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 1967)
[W]e are saying that something is wrong ... with capitalism.... There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. Call it what you may, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God's children.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/obery-m-hendricks-jr-phd/the-uncompromising-anti-capitalism-of-martin-luther-king-jr_b_4629609.html
Bernie Sanders on the issues take the same stances on the issues most Americans support. You can win on policies which won big during the midterms.
It needed to be done and the thread is just fascinating to read.
Excellent Job!
At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people. For example, we support reforms that:
decrease the influence of money in politics
empower ordinary people in workplaces and the economy
restructure gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable.
We are activists committed to democracy as not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism — a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society.
In this web site you can find out about DSA, its politics, structure and program. DSA's political perspective is called Where We Stand. It says, in part,
We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.
We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.
My note:
Although "Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" have been allies, I think they differ in the extent to which they have come to view capitalism.
Democrats and Democratic Socialist have, from FDR until the '80s, largely wanted to reform and regulate capitalism while creating a social safety net. Since the '80s, the Democrats have, by and large, drifted farther and farther away from these efforts. As it says above, although the DSUSA acknowledges capitalism isn't going away anytime soon, they still remain committed to the traditional aim of socialist reforms that "weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people."
Socialism has become a dirty word (as has "liberalism"
in America, but it wasn't like that at one time. From the late 1800s to before WWI, socialism was making electoral gains in American politics. During the war and after (especially with the Russian Revolution, which scared the hell out of the ruling elites), there was a crackdown on socialism/labor movement in America that culminated in the first Red Scare. During this time, socialists and anarchists were imprisoned and deported, and their publications were shut down (see Palmer Raids).
However, a lot of the things they advocated helped to influence the New Deal during the Depression and socialism/Communism/unions rose again.
After WWII, there was another reaction against the Left that culminated in the second Red Scare and Cold War/HUAC/McCarthyism of the '50s.
The Left was re-emergent in the '60s and early '70s, which led to more crackdowns via COINTELPRO, etc., and the Reaction of the mid-'70s. The Reaction was outlined in the Powell Memo, which stated, in part:
No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.
There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.
But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.
Sources of the Attack
The sources are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.
The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.
Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these “attackers,” or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.
One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.
The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.
Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the enterprise system to survive.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
This and other efforts by the elites (e.g., see the Trilateral Commission's "Crisis of Democracy"
helped to bring Reagan and the New Right to power in 1980, which did an amazing job of rolling back the socialist/liberal progress made in the 20th century and in making the words "socialist" and even "liberal" bad words.
The Left in America has yet to fully recover.
What the Corporate Right started in the '70s is still rolling along more successfully than ever.