Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

AlexSFCA

(6,137 posts)
1. bernie started it because he would refuse to join dem party
Fri Jul 6, 2018, 09:53 AM
Jul 2018

instead of properly labeling himself as social democrat, he labeled himself democratic socialist because he is not a democrat. Labels matter because socialism is antithesis to capitalism. We don’t want that. We want private enterprise with vital services managed by our elected representatives via our taxes which includes healthcare and education at the minimum. Now everyone who labels themselves socialists are immidiately on the defensive and have to explain how they are different from soviet union ideology where everything was public including housing. In fact I don’t even know if Bernie’s long term goal is nationalized economy.

maddiemom

(5,106 posts)
2. Then what about the Scandinavian countries, The Netherlands, etc.?
Fri Jul 6, 2018, 10:15 AM
Jul 2018

Last edited Fri Jul 6, 2018, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Democratic Socialism was NOT "started by Bernie," although, granted, he obviously thought the term would play better, with those who knee-jerk, "Oh noes! Not SOCIALISM! We don't want that!" Actually the younger generations are increasingly approving it. Do you really want our vital services managed by our "elected representatives,": i.e. Politicians?

AlexSFCA

(6,137 posts)
4. precisely, social democratic parties are common in EUrope
Fri Jul 6, 2018, 03:47 PM
Jul 2018

Like I said, Bernie likely didnt want to use that term because he would have to label himself as a democrat. Instead, he labels himself socialist. Even if ‘democratic’ because the key word, noun, is socialist/socialism and it’s no good. We want capitalism. Canada has social democracy, the system is capitalism not socialism - those two opposite of each other.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
5. Yes it's odd how he got scandinavia completely wrong....
Fri Jul 6, 2018, 05:35 PM
Jul 2018

I think he looks at them as though it's still the 1970's.

They experimented with socialism but gained their wealth through very liberal policies like "free" trade which they have returned to in a very big way. Since the 1990's, they've cut back on some social welfare programs, but their social safety net remains by and large the same.

I think people have difficulty grasping that social welfare programs can exist in states which are not socialist. Taxation - which is sometimes pointed to as an example of a socialist regulatory framework of redistributing wealth- has existed in every civilization. This understanding of socialism actually waters it down from what it really is i.e. redistribution of ownership . The concept of social welfare in Europe really began in the Prussian welfare state, with the Sozialpolitiker. Otto Von Bismark adopted the concept, but not to support socialism - he was vehemently against it and supported the existing economic system. His motive was to appease the working class, so they would not be enticed by the opposition which wanted a socialist economy. The idea that only socialist states would have a universal healthcare system or social welfare programs is laughable, if that's the understanding people are running with they might as well call Hitler a socialist.

And it is possible to be a liberal who supports regulating capitalism, but not be a neoliberal. If I were a neo-liberal I would support low taxes and scoff at government regulating anything. And here is where I think you may have a point. Sanders calling himself a Democratic Socialist allows him to not be defined as "liberal" and since liberals/moderates/centrists/centre leftists or anyone who has ever said something nice about Hillary gets brushed with the neoliberal taint, it was a political move to distinguish himself from the Democratic party.

George II

(67,782 posts)
6. Scandinavian countries consider themselves Social Democrats, not....
Fri Jul 6, 2018, 07:27 PM
Jul 2018

...."Democratic Socialists". Subtle, but different.

"Democratic Socialism" didn't exist in the United States until the very early 1970s.

 

onit2day

(1,201 posts)
8. Wrong on all counts. He did label himself a 'Social Democrat'
Sat Jul 7, 2018, 12:22 AM
Jul 2018

Some programs should be socialized which meant it was available to all by our tax dollar rather than individuals bearing the entire burden like education, healthcare (like Medicare for all) These are all social democratic programs and listed in our party platform. Bernie has no long term goal of a "Nationalized economy", only income equality. Democratic socialism is not antithetic to capitalism and never was. Republicans tried to equate the mention of socialism with communisms but only those uninformed would try to equate democratic socialism as government controlled rather than regulated per the people's vote through elected representatives. We already have democratic socialism which we the people regulate by our democratic freedom to choose.

 

onit2day

(1,201 posts)
7. Nonsense. You confuse the issue. Democratic Socialism is
Sat Jul 7, 2018, 12:02 AM
Jul 2018

the only form of government which both ensures our freedom and our sarvival. Democratic in that we the people decide what we all share and need for our survival and socialism in that we the people make, with our votes certain protective programs available for all to use. We have decided by our votes to protect air and water and food which we all have a right to, as well as libraries, fire departments,and soon healthcare. We pay for these needed programs through our taxes which we democratically came together to make sure of availability while preventing greedy monopolies keeping it away from us.
We democratically decide which programs or needs to socialize.
Just remember this...Democratic Socialism is the only form of government which both ensures our "Freedom" (to choose) and our "Survival" (what belongs to us to survive, stays available and protected from control by the few)
Democratic Socialism decides our social programs but right now our elected leaders are ignoring the will of the people according to all the polls. Only the will of the wealthy is being met. This republican cult must go to ensure our way of life...our Democracy

mahigan

(85 posts)
9. Interesting that this story surfaced now
Sat Jul 7, 2018, 01:25 AM
Jul 2018

since I have been working on a piece with some of this material.

I have the good fortune of having grown up in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan where the first democratically elected socialist government in North America - the CCF - was elected in 1944. I use the term "socialist" because that is what they called themselves. It was my further good fortune to have served as an assistant deputy minister in a version of an NDP government led by the last surviving early members of the CCF.

To the consternation of a number of people, I have referred to "socialism" as being a lot like ice cream in that it comes in a lot of different flavours. (In my opinion none of those flavours include Russian, Chinese or N. Korean). There is a problem here in that Pacman's piece makes the dividing line between social democrary and democratic socialism a lot clearer than I have found it in real life. From the CCF's founding through its reinvention as the NDP to today, a number of changes to the party's constitution significantly changed the focus. One of the earlier changes was backing away from large scale public ownership.

I have also caused a little consternation by referring to what I grew up with as sort of "libertarian socialism". There were certain areas where the government was very heavily involved and others where it was completely hands off. For example, providing many basic services - like electricity - to everyone at a reasonable price was an area of heavy involvement. The government knew that privately owned utilities would service the cities where they could be profitable and ignore everyone else. Remember that in 1944, Sask had a population of around 750,000 in an area slightly smaller than Texas. The province set up what in Canada are called "crown corporations" that are owned by the government but operated at arm's length. SPC as it was called used the profits from the sale of urban power to finance the expansion of the grid to cover almost the entire population years before the neighbouring provinces.

On the hands off side, there were very few curves on provincial highways until the 1960s - they were all square corners. When the province was originally surveyed, it was laid out in 1 mi. by 2 mi. blocks that had road allowances allowing farmers to access their fields. The CCF built the highways on the road allowances because the evil socialists refused to expropriate farm land for building highways.

Multi national corporations were discouraged from operating in the province but locally owned businesses were actively encouraged.

The government had an obligation to provide essentials at the lowest possible cost and otherwise stay out of the rest.

Any way you get the idea - many flavours.

If I ever get my article written, I will get into more.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Democratic Socialism Isn'...