Democratic Socialism

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Democratic Socialism =/= The Nordic Model or Social Democracy

I keep seeing Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy being used interchangeably and they are not the same thing. The former includes government or social ownership of the means of production while in the latter the means of production are privately owned. Under the Nordic Model there is progressive taxation to use the wealth capitalism creates to fund a robust welfare state or safety net. Under Democratic Socialism capitalism is replaced.

General elections are about mobilization and not persuasion. I'm not convinced a debate about what kind of socialists we are or aren't and if we are even socialists at all inure to our benefit.

[dalton99a]

1. The average voter wouldn't know a socialist from a hole in the ground

or the difference between Karl Marx and the Marx Brothers, or what the Nordic countries are

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. I think even AOC gets this mixed up

It's easier to say "Democratic Socialist" rather than "Nordic model Social Democrat", but all people hear is "Socialist".

[Celerity]

29. Yes, it is the only big issue I have with her, I cannot understand why she incorrectly self-labels

Sanders has also (and for far longer) erroneously self-labelled as a democratic socialist. Neither AOC or Sanders or ANY elected Democratic Caucus member at federal is a socialist, democratic or otherwise. NONE want to have the state take over the means of production, and NONE support the elimination of capitalism, which are fundamental goals of democratic socialism.

In AOC's case, I can see how it somewhat came about, as the DSA worked really hard to get her elected, and perhaps she feels she either owes them one (she needs to distance herself from them, they are a hodge-podge group that has some true radicals, even Stalinists and Trotskyites, etc. who DO want to have the state take over the means of production and/or crush capitalism) OR she thinks she can re-define the label, which is NOT going to work.

It gives the damn Repugs an easy target to falsely label social democratic programmes and initiatives socialism, which always spills right over in the feral, rabid minds of RWers (and even many who are not RW but are just not educated enough to have effective discernment) to equal communism. It works because the US is still so damn reactionary after 100 plus years of red-baiting and 45 years or so of the cold war (1946 to 1991).

Hopefully she (and all others) can pull away from this self-inflicted mistake.

The fact that we (American Democrats) have chosen to self identify(many) as liberals has set a bad precedent, and perhaps give succor to others that democratic socialism CAN be re-labelled (in the US alone). Almost every where else on the planet, liberals are centre-right in philosophy and oft-times profoundly against what out party stands for. Laissez-faire free marketeers, classical liberal types, which is not what we mean, OR, what the RWers means when they have weaponized it. In most social democracies (and even those that are not), most any party that has 'liberal' in its name is centre-right or even full RW.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. Yes, I have discovered that is true of the Liberals in Canada

Even though Canada is to the left of the US on many issues- health care, marriage equality, immigration and other issues, the Canadian Liberal party is clearly right of Center when it comes to economic policy.

[Celerity]

35. even the party colours here are contrarian to most of the rest of the world

Red is usually left wing, blue is right wing, lolol. The UK (I am dual citizen) is a perfect example.

Labour Red
Tory Blue

I read how it happened here in the US, it was totally arbitrary, and they even started out 'correctly' in 1976 but switched to the reverse by 2000. No idea why they did it.


The Color Of Politics: How Did Red And Blue States Come To Be?

https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363762677/the-color-of-politics-how-did-red-and-blue-states-come-to-be

[grumpyduck]

3. That term "socialism" turns a lot of people off.

They equate it with communism. It's another label that's dividing the country.

[still_one]

4. If a campaign becomes a classroom to explain an ideology, you have a problem

[dalton99a]

5. +1

[Celerity]

31. great concise way of putting it

[LongtimeAZDem]

6. This is precisely why Elizabeth Warren disavowed it

Elizabeth Warren I am not a Democratic Socialist

[dalton99a]

7. Yep.

[TwilightZone]

8. Agreed. Also, Bernie isn't a democratic socialist. I'm not sure why he insists otherwise.

Democratic socialist orgs liks the DSA want to get rid of capitalism and replace it with socialism. They debated endorsing Bernie* before doing so, and one of the arguments was that he's not socialist enough for their purposes and agenda.

He's also not a member of the DSA, which I find interesting. Perhaps it's because they advocate "overthrowing" capitalism and replacing it with socialism.

*https://www.dsausa.org/weekly/a-dialogue-should-dsa-endorse-bernie-sanders-before-the-convention/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I read all of Michael Harrington's work and enjoyed it.

He would endorse the most liberal electable candidate in the general election which always happens to be the Democrat. A lot of Democratic Socialists prefer to work through the Democratic party and endorse Democrats. For instance they endorsed John Kerry after he won the nomination. I have no problem with that. My concern is having the whole party identified as something they aren't.

[TwilightZone]

13. That's a lot more reasonable than the DSA's approach.

Their argument against endorsing Bernie was that he wasn't going to assist them in killing the two-party system or remaking the Dem party as a purely socialist organization. Neither of those options is reasonable or prudent.

From the debate I linked in the other response:

"The Bernie 2020 campaign will have a profound influence on DSA, emphasizing political work over building the social movements. We will find that we have created an organizational culture dominated by illusions of influencing or capturing the Democratic Party, rather than developing strategies for the destruction of the two-party system and the overthrow of capitalism."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I was reading a critique of the Nordic Model in Jacobin

Social democracies like Norway show that more humane, equitable, democratic societies are possible. But democratic socialists want to go beyond them.


https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/democratic-socialism-social-democracy-nordic-countries

Why? My good society doesn't have poor people. But that doesn't mean it can't have rich people.

[TwilightZone]

18. Perfect is the enemy of good.

Pardon the cliche', but the argument the author is making is a perfect example of it. He'd rather shoot for some fantasyland that has exactly zero chance of being accepted by American society - and would require massive upheaval (as he admits) to even implement - than work toward a model that already works.

To some, as we learned in 2016, "burn it down" is the only viable alternative. But here in the real world, progress, particularly when involving a group of 300+ million people, is inherently incremental.

[Celerity]

34. really interesting article, thank you so much for posting it, and I also like your other comments on

thsisthread as well.

I absolutely (and I have lived in Scandinavia during some of my uni) do NOT want to go beyond social democracy, not there and especially not here in the United States. That level of state control terrifies me here because of two words.

Republican majority.

They could just truly fuck us all even faster than they are now already doing.

I love Buttigeig's term..Democratic Capitalism.

[rampartc]

27. no one wants to "get rid of capitalism"

or instutute a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

somewhere on maslow's hierarcy of needs there are requirements which are not profitably met by the private sector. we can argue where that line should be drawn, but we live in a democracy, and can draw that line every 2 or 4 years without being "socialists."

the ayn rand wing of the repubs has decided, arbitrarily, that such a mix economy is unamerican, and that government has no place in the market. that position is ridiculously oversimplified, ignoring externalities and assuming that citizens can be as informed as the businesses with whom they deal.

[TwilightZone]

28. False.

"Yes, if we throw ourselves into the Bernie 2020 campaign, we may be able to recruit more members, perhaps thousands. We have to ask ourselves, however, what sort of an organization will we be recruiting them to? The Bernie 2020 campaign will have a profound influence on DSA, emphasizing political work over building the social movements. We will find that we have created an organizational culture dominated by illusions of influencing or capturing the Democratic Party, rather than developing strategies for the destruction of the two-party system and the overthrow of capitalism. "

I find that a lot of people who claim to know democratic socialism are completely unaware of what actual democratic socialists want. Overthrowing capitalism is a primary goal of the DSA and other organizations. They debated whether or not to endorse Bernie because he's not socialist *enough* for them, their goals, or their agenda.

https://www.dsausa.org/weekly/a-dialogue-should-dsa-endorse-bernie-sanders-before-the-convention/

[comradebillyboy]

41. Thank you.

[exboyfil]

9. Socially conscious capitalist?

As opposed to a laissez faire or crony capitalist.

[samplegirl]

11. They need a civics lesson!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I believe even the most uniformed among us know the government performs certain functions.

But I doubt they could tell you the difference between anarchism, libertarianism, social democracy, liberal democracy, socialism, and communism. I suspect a lot of folks couldn't define the last two. Even Marx was elliptical when discussing communism. He called it the "withering away of the state."

[Luvapottamus]

14. Toxic Labels

New Deal Democrat would glean more support.

[ismnotwasm]

15. It's not

As has been pointed out,The right wing has grabbed the word “socialist” and is attempting to turn it into a word of derision.

I think this needs to be countered, but not with dictionary arguments, rather workable policies.

[radical noodle]

17. Just saw Mayor Pete

say that instead of Democratic Socialism, we should be talking about Democratic Capitalism. I tend to agree. The term socialism/socialist is so misunderstood (and sometimes intentionally so) that it is not helpful to use that term to describe what we believe.

[PETRUS]

19. Social democracy is a compromise that involves socialism.

An anecdote: Around 10 or 15 years ago, I was overseas on business. Several of us - a couple of other Americans, three Brits, two Germans, and a Norwegian - went out to dinner one evening. At one point the conversations turned to politics. One of the Brits said she was a socialist, but "the Americans here won't know what that means." All the Europeans laughed. One of the other Brits, one of the Germans, and the Norwegian said they also identified as socialists. They explained that given the realities of their national politics, and the realities of the global system (with its market imperatives), being a socialist meant advocating for more and better public goods and services, a more progressive tax code, and certain kinds of regulations (among other things). They insisted that the sorts of legislative reforms we associate with "social democracy" were the work of socialists. Subsequent reading I've done supports this.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that describing this kind of legislation as "socialism" could hurt candidates electoral prospects. But, as my European colleagues pointed out, it is currently the most viable way to exert some democratic control over issues related to production and distribution, which is at least part of what socialism is about.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. IMO what your friends were describing is social democracy or welfare statism.

Socialists would deride their efforts as attempts to stave off socialism which is social control of the economy. The capitalists accepted some mild distribution to avoid demands for harsher distribution, i.e. crumbs for the masses.

[PETRUS]

21. As nearly as I can tell, socialists are divided on the question.

Some seem to think that this is a path that could lead to "real" socialism, others think it's essentially a dead end as far as that's concerned, but worth doing anyway because it makes people's lives better, others think the efforts are misguided and only help to preserve capitalism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. The nuances of the debate make it a poor subject for a general election.

[PETRUS]

25. We're in firm agreement there.

Currently, I think it has its place in "movement" politics, but not electoral politics. Ideological terms come with baggage and stir prejudices. People will respond better to specific policy proposals. It's interesting to me that one of the more "socialist" proposals (in my way of thinking, anyway) in recent memory came from Elizabeth "capitalist to her bones" Warren - her Accountable Capitalism act would require employee representation on the boards of larger corporations.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I want to use the profits capitalism creates to make people's lives better.

The "filthy rich" don't bother me so much. Having people living in want bothers me a lot.

[PETRUS]

40. People living in want (amidst abundance) bothers me a lot, too.

If you and I were in charge of policy, we'd probably be able to reach agreement (or a reasonable compromise) on any number of things. But I have at least two problems with the "filthy rich." One, large personal fortunes are pretty much always accumulated through coercive social institutions that allow a few people to capture value created by the labor of many others, which I find morally objectionable. Two, I think it's dangerous to allow any individual to amass significant power (relative to others), and a large personal fortune represents significant power. As judge Louis Brandeis put it, "we can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

[Mr Tibbs]

22. Sanders is calling for a capitalism based mixed economy

Not replacing capitalism

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Then why does he call himself a Democratic Socialist?

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

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

Democratic Socialism Isn’t Social Democracy


Democratic socialism, on the other hand, should involve public ownership over the vast majority of the productive assets of society, the elimination of the fact that workers are forced into the labor market to work for those who privately own those productive assets, and stronger democratic institutions not just within the state but within workplaces and communities as well. Our characterization of democratic socialism represents a profound deepening of democracy in the economy.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/democratic-socialism-social-democracy-nordic-countries

I would add I'm not even suggesting Democratic Socialism would be a bad way of ordering a society. What I am suggesting is a general election debate might not be the best venue to make that determination.

[Drunken Irishman]

30. It makes us easy to attack, especially with everything going on in Valenzuela.

You're losing the argument if you have to define what you mean when you say " ____ Socialist..."

To be fair, the GOP will attack any Democrat as a Socialist but to openly advocate as a Democratic Socialist puts you well to the left of those Nordic countries we apparently want to emulate.

[MineralMan]

32. I think using the word Socialism at all in campaigns

is a losing proposition. I don't care what adjective modifies it. Most people are not interested in the subtleties of political theories. They are interested in what the candidate plans to do about issues that are important to the individual voter. Using broad terms to describe viewpoints does not work to attract votes.

Just get to the point and leave political theory to the academics.

If asked about socialism, say, "Everyone has a different definition of that word" and talk specifically about issues.

Political theories and labels have killed more candidates' chances than anything else.

Just get to the point, dammit!

[David__77]

36. I favor using tools of both socialism and capitalism.

...

[Celerity]

39. that is exactly what social democracy is (the aforementioned Nordic Model being a solid archetype)

A robust, comprehensive welfare state and collective labour bargaining overseen by the state, combined with a vibrant, yet highly regulated and socially responsible capitalist private sector.

[Power 2 the People]

37. I agree. They should just say they are traditional New Deal Democrats.

America has always been a mixed economy and pointing that out rather than introducing buzz words like socialism might tamp down the GOP fear machine.

[Devil Child]

38. Democratic Socialist, progressive, liberal, Democrat...

It doesn't matter what label is chosen to identify oneself when the republican mob translate the label into one simple term: Enemy.

All of those under the greater umbrella of the Democratic Party's big tent need to stand tall and proud and respond "yes I am" when asked "are yoo one of them thar _______."

If general elections are all about mobilization then lets focus on mobilizing our voters to the polls rather that persuading those who wish to see us destroyed under their bootheels.