Democratic Socialist Discussion Thread

[Fallcoast]

[Didn't see one yet]

Hey, just a thread about the general philosophy of democratic socialism. I personally, am a gradualist Social Democrat, in the USA of all places. I am a member of the International Union of Socialist Youth, and that's all there is about me. Tell me what you think, where you land on the political spectrum, why you hate socialism, or freely discuss.

[The High Tatras]

I live in the USA and I am a self-identified democratic socialist. I take a lot of interest in historical socialist movements within the USA and that is how I learned about the Industrial Workers of the World/ "Wobblies", whom I happen to have a fondness for. I was entirely unaware that they still exist today until very recently, and I have not ever spoken with any of them so I am not sure if they are worth joining at all.

If I had a time machine, I might use it to cast votes for Eugene V. Debs for president in 1912 and Upton Sinclair for governor of California in 1934.

[Bezombia]

Not radical enough, although I support their efforts over many of the major political parties here in the US.

[The Serbian Empire]

I find the idea of the ideology as weak in the terms at least in the theory of it being little more than populism with some socialism wrapped in. The problem is in the US, the socialism is a third rail and thus will never be viable. Thus I can't support the ideology as even anarcho-capitalism is more viable at least in the US due to the Red Scares.

[The Time Alliance]

I Remember when I was a Democratic Socialist. Then I became a Social Democrat now I am a Liberal Socialist.

[Dejanic]

A question to Dem Soc's, what's the difference between the Socialist system a typical Democratic Socialist envisions, with the economic system a typical "Market Socialist" supports, because I struggle to see what non Market Democratic Socialists believe in, since they dismiss stateless communism, state controlled socialism and market economics.

[Fallcoast]

Not radical enough, although I support their efforts over many of the major political parties here in the US.

The reason that I'm a gradualist is because in America, radical communism would literally make everyone explode. Fact.

[Keventle]

Personally I find socialism that "awkward" stage between Communism and your basic liberal party.

[Fallcoast]

A question to Dem Soc's, what's the difference between the Socialist system a typical Democratic Socialist envisions, with the economic system a typical "Market Socialist" supports, because I struggle to see what non Market Democratic Socialists believe in, since they dismiss stateless communism, state controlled socialism and market economics.

Greater democratic control over the governments treatment of industry, priority of commerce, and industrial regulations.

[Atlanticatia]

I consider myself a social democrat. (Mixed capitalist economy with strong welfare state, large state sector and redistribution of wealth).

How does democratic socialism differ from this? Is it where the workers/state own all means of productions with a democracy? Or is it just a synonym for social democracy?

Edit: Just saw you answered someone else as I posted this. What would, say, Canada's NDP, NZ/UK/AU Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, etc be considered? Social democracy or democratic socialism?

[Vissegaard]

I don't like socialism in general, as it weakens the system by destroying motivatiom to personal effort. I mean, who'd start an enterprise with a potential of profit, if he knew, that all the money he gets will end up in the social welfare program?
But that is just a marginal issue. The real danger I don't see in socialist themselves, but in the people associated - marxists, radical antitheists, so-called progressive liberals, leftish anarchists... Those are the guys I really dislike.

[Fallcoast]

I consider myself a social democrat. (Mixed capitalist economy with strong welfare state, large state sector and redistribution of wealth).

How does democratic socialism differ from this? Is it where the workers/state own all means of productions with a democracy? Or is it just a synonym for social democracy?

Here's how I've come to understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong. In the middle of the political spectrum, we find centrism. A bit to the left, we find the american Democratic Party, way farther left we have single party communism. Between that, and the democratic party, we find socialism. Social democracy is possibly the closest to the democratic party, while more liberal socialism is in the direct middle between the democrats and the communists.n I guess the difference would be hw liberal and democratic you get over how you view industry and welfare. I hope that helped.

[Bezombia]

I consider myself a social democrat. (Mixed capitalist economy with strong welfare state, large state sector and redistribution of wealth).

How does democratic socialism differ from this? Is it where the workers/state own all means of productions with a democracy? Or is it just a synonym for social democracy?

Here's how I've come to understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong. In the middle of the political spectrum, we find centrism. A bit to the left, we find the american Democratic Party, way farther left we have single party communism. Between that, and the democratic party, we find socialism. Social democracy is possibly the closest to the democratic party, while more liberal socialism is in the direct middle between the democrats and the communists.n I guess the difference would be hw liberal and democratic you get over how you view industry and welfare. I hope that helped.

Wrong.

Let me walk you through how it really goes:

In the middle of the political spectrum, we find absolute centrism. I'd like to remind you that the political spectrum has two axes, not just one bipolar axis.
A bit to the right of the of the center...is nothing, really. If we go a bit further right we have the Green party.
Now let's go up. We're firmly in Right here, but now we move closer and closer to the Authoritarian side. Now we have the Democractic party.
A bit more up and right is the Republican party.
Now, remaining at the top right, we move left. More left. Even more left. ALL THE WAY LEFT. Good. Now just a bit up. That's Soviet Socialism post-Stalin. For Stalinism just go a bit more up and a bit more right.
Now, remaining firmly in the left, we go down. Just below authoritarian/libertarian center and a bit to the right is the Justice party. Go back to the amount left we were before, that's the Democratic Socialists.
From there, we go left left left until there just ain't any more chart left. Then we go down down down until we're firmly at the bottom left of the chart. That's communism.

Here's a chart:

[Fallcoast]

Here's how I've come to understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong. In the middle of the political spectrum, we find centrism. A bit to the left, we find the american Democratic Party, way farther left we have single party communism. Between that, and the democratic party, we find socialism. Social democracy is possibly the closest to the democratic party, while more liberal socialism is in the direct middle between the democrats and the communists.n I guess the difference would be hw liberal and democratic you get over how you view industry and welfare. I hope that helped.

Wrong.

Let me walk you through how it really goes:

In the middle of the political spectrum, we find absolute centrism. I'd like to remind you that the political spectrum has two axes, not just one bipolar axis.
A bit to the right of the of the center...is nothing, really. If we go a bit further right we have the Green party.
Now let's go up. We're firmly in Right here, but now we move closer and closer to the Authoritarian side. Now we have the Democractic party.
A bit more up and right is the Republican party.
Now, remaining at the top right, we move left. More left. Even more left. ALL THE WAY LEFT. Good. Now just a bit up. That's Soviet Socialism post-Stalin. For Stalinism just go a bit more up and a bit more right.
Now, remaining firmly in the left, we go down. Just below authoritarian/libertarian center and a bit to the right is the Justice party. Go back to the amount left we were before, that's the Democratic Socialists.
From there, we go left left left until there just ain't any more chart left. Then we go down down down until we're firmly at the bottom left of the chart. That's communism.

Here's a chart:

Well. I feel it's been made abundantly clear that I am a dumbass.

[Bezombia]

Wrong.

Let me walk you through how it really goes:

In the middle of the political spectrum, we find absolute centrism. I'd like to remind you that the political spectrum has two axes, not just one bipolar axis.
A bit to the right of the of the center...is nothing, really. If we go a bit further right we have the Green party.
Now let's go up. We're firmly in Right here, but now we move closer and closer to the Authoritarian side. Now we have the Democractic party.
A bit more up and right is the Republican party.
Now, remaining at the top right, we move left. More left. Even more left. ALL THE WAY LEFT. Good. Now just a bit up. That's Soviet Socialism post-Stalin. For Stalinism just go a bit more up and a bit more right.
Now, remaining firmly in the left, we go down. Just below authoritarian/libertarian center and a bit to the right is the Justice party. Go back to the amount left we were before, that's the Democratic Socialists.
From there, we go left left left until there just ain't any more chart left. Then we go down down down until we're firmly at the bottom left of the chart. That's communism.

Here's a chart:

Well. I feel it's been made abundantly clear that I am a dumbass.

It isn't really your fault. The whole "democratic party is left, republican party is right" is actually commonly held, mainly because the democratic party is the most left mainstream party in the US. However, by global standards it's firmly right-wing.

[Fallcoast]

Well. I feel it's been made abundantly clear that I am a dumbass.

It isn't really your fault. The whole "democratic party is left, republican party is right" is actually commonly held, mainly because the democratic party is the most left mainstream party in the US. However, by global standards it's firmly right-wing.

Thank you for helping clear that up!

[Atlanticatia]

The New Zealand Labour party is a social democrat party. (Their goal is not the nationalization of all means of production, more of a mixed economy I'd say, with a strong state sector with state-owned enterprises. For example, they have set up a state-owned bank, and want to set up a state-owned insurance company as well as building huge amounts of state houses)

however, on their about page, they list that they adhere to democratic socialist principles.

The Labour Party accepts the following democratic socialist principles:

All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot.
The natural resources of New Zealand belong to all the people and these resources, and in particular non-renewable resources, should be managed for the benefit of all, including future generations.
All people should have equal access to all social, economic, cultural, political and legal spheres, regardless of wealth or social position, and continuing participation in the democratic process.
Co-operation, rather than competition, should be the main governing factor in economic relations, in order that a greater amount and a just distribution of wealth can be ensured.
All people are entitled to dignity, self-respect and the opportunity to work.
All people, either individually or in groups, may own wealth or property for their own use, but in any conflict of interest people are always more important than property and the state must ensure a just distribution of wealth.
Peace and social justice should be promoted throughout the world by international co-operation and mutual respect.
The same basic human rights, protected by the State, apply to all people, regardless of race, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious faith, political belief or disability.

I'm just using the NZ Labour Party because I imagine most other center-left parties are quite similar. (However, I don't really consider the Democratic party to be leftist, I consider it to be more centrist(some factions are more on the right, and some on the left), because only the Progressive faction could really be considered a bit 'center-left'. Even then, Progressive Democrats might be considered centrist in some countries. Bill Clinton was quite far from being on the left.)

So, is democratic socialism always worker/state ownership of all industries, or is it mixed capitalism, or does it mean something entirely different? Or is it ambiguous? So confusing, lol.

[Skeckoa]

From a world communist view: A western Democratic Socialist nation would still have to depend on the exploitation of third world workers in order retain the level of wealth that they probably are accustomed to enjoying. The exploitation of workers just moves from one country to another under such a system unless that country can magically be radically more self-sufficient and provide most of its raw materials and processed goods on its own. This system does nothing to fix that fact and corporations will simple move their labor force to some other country and increase the rate of exploitation there. This shouldn't even be considered any sort of justice as opposed to just being 'welfare capitalism'

From a more reactionary view: Democracy and socialism only puts people at odds with each other. Instead of the rich working with workers and direct negotiation, you get these two classes and pit them against one another through the power of the state. Democracies are not infallible and have constantly proven themselves to be one strongman away from utter annihilation. These things can easily go awry because people can really be assholes when they have the power of the state on their side. Instead of people from a nation working together, you turn the state into the enemy of the ruling class (Which still exists), and with that type of power in the government, the richer class can exploit it dearly and f it royally.

From a 'libertarian' perspective: What does this do to the market, who knows. I am not that delusional and I know that some state programs have brought forth successful results. Some have not. Some have been controversial. When they are controversial, what can you do? Through taxes, you are forced to support this system whether you like it or not, let it be pensions, certain types of healthcare, or educating people in heretical methods. Not only is the earned moneys of a nation being put into a set of programs that may or not work, there is just an inordinate amount of waste that can occur and dependence. This may sound slippery slopey, but government spending fosters dependence and that dependence has been used to justify even more spending. It depends on how you treat the market though, you can have your beloved Nordic countries and their very free markets and union-decided minimum wages, or you could have your Venezuela where toilet paper is an absolutely sought commodity in shortage. Really, having a good economy beforehand is a better determinant of whether the system will be successful or not than the actual system.

[Fallcoast]

The New Zealand Labour party is a social democrat party. (Their goal is not the nationalization of all means of production, more of a mixed economy I'd say, with a strong state sector with state-owned enterprises)

however, on their about page, they list that they adhere to democratic socialist principles.

The Labour Party accepts the following democratic socialist principles:

All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot.
The natural resources of New Zealand belong to all the people and these resources, and in particular non-renewable resources, should be managed for the benefit of all, including future generations.
All people should have equal access to all social, economic, cultural, political and legal spheres, regardless of wealth or social position, and continuing participation in the democratic process.
Co-operation, rather than competition, should be the main governing factor in economic relations, in order that a greater amount and a just distribution of wealth can be ensured.
All people are entitled to dignity, self-respect and the opportunity to work.
All people, either individually or in groups, may own wealth or property for their own use, but in any conflict of interest people are always more important than property and the state must ensure a just distribution of wealth.
Peace and social justice should be promoted throughout the world by international co-operation and mutual respect.
The same basic human rights, protected by the State, apply to all people, regardless of race, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious faith, political belief or disability.

I'm just using the NZ Labour Party because I imagine most other center-left parties are quite similar. (However, I don't really consider the Democratic party to be leftist, I consider it to be more centrist(some factions are more on the right, and some on the left), because only the Progressive faction could really be considered a bit 'center-left'. Even then, Progressive Democrats might be considered centrist in some countries. Bill Clinton was quite far from being on the left.)

So, is democratic socialism always worker/state ownership of all industries, or is it mixed capitalism, or does it mean something entirely different? Or is it ambiguous? So confusing, lol.

I've always believed that the nationalization of all means of production is flat-out Marxism.

[Chiene]

Socialism is a good government practice, as long as there is no corruption. But where there is, it does not work in my opinion, because the government slowly exceeds its bounds and gets richer. I think the government should regulate the economy, but, say in America, its being regulated in all the wrong places.I favor capitalism because it is proven to work, but if possible, Socialism should be mixed in for the good of all. But Obamacare and the like are not socialism - they are pathetic attempts.

[Skeckoa]

I've always believed that the nationalization of all means of production is flat-out Marxism.

Marxism would require that, but just because they happen does not necessarily mean that it is because marxists are pushing for it. Reactionary Nationalists have also nationalized entire nations before (Well, tried at least)....

But Obamacare and the like are not socialism - they are pathetic attempts.

Attempts to try to regulate into prosperity indeed. Quite frankly, a public option and the shooting down of most regulations would have done beyond wonders..... ehhh.....

[Kelinfort]

I'm a social democrat, but I'm significantly further right than I was last year.

[Fallcoast]

The only reason I'm a socialist [ex-commie], is because the Nationalization of industry, I've believed, would literally DESTROY EVERYTHING. [Decimate the economy]

[Skeckoa]

I'm a social democrat, but I'm significantly further right than I was last year.

That's the thing about any government... it is just a tweak and patch method of fixing problems. Nothing extremely dramatic can happen within the bounds of the law. One year, people want this, next year, no longer want that, all while the people (opinions on the subject do not matter) are forced to support its existence. So you just keep on going liek the "are you nervous game:

*Public courts* Are you nervous? No
*Public Firefighters* Are you nervous? No
*Public Water* Are you nervous? Uh, no.
*NATIONALIZE THE FARMS!* Nooo!!!! I'm nervous. Ahhh!!!!!!!

[Bezombia]

The only reason I'm a socialist [ex-commie], is because the Nationalization of industry, I've believed, would literally DESTROY EVERYTHING. [Decimate the economy]

I agree. However, nationalization of industry is state capitalism, not communism.