Define "democratic socialism"

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Agathon ran away after Asher came back

Nooooo! First Ned, now Agathon.. if Winglaf leaves I won't be able to spam any ideologically deluded threads.
:bettercrying:

[snoopy369]

Democratic Socialism = a continuum of socialist economies between near-communist heavy handed control of all major industries, and near-capitalist control of only 'public' goods. Ultimately the philosophy, as I see it, is that the government should control those industries that are needed to be controlled to ensure reasonable public access to public goods, and to limit the profit motive to controlling only those industries where the profit motive is either satisfactory for improving the industry (an immature market for example, like cell phones in the 1990s or something), or in industries that have no bearing on the public good (pure luxury industries, etc.). The difference is where you define these two lines; some would define them very lightly and thus have limited governmental control, and some would define them more strongly and have substantial governmental industry.

I think most people would put themselves somewhere in this continuum - honestly you could put pure capitalists in here also (simply defining public good industries as the null set), though communists probably couldn't be put here (as they have a rather different philosophy). I do think this view of democratic socialism is a very market-centric view, and may not be particularly consistent with that of an actual democratic socialist, however; it's how I see it working in reality.

[chequita guevara]

maybe later

[Kidlicious]

Re: Define "democratic socialism"

Originally posted by BeBro
While we are at defining things....

We have now two parties in the parliament that say they champion "democratic socialism", the social-democratic SPD (currently part of the guvmint), and the bit further left though not orthodox communist "Die Linke" (meaning surprisingly "The Left" )

Both are quite hostile to eachother, so I doubt they mean the same when they babble about "democratic socialism". So it's a great mystery what exactly that would be. Both btw said they favor a market economy but I guess with different level of state intrusion.

Maybe the poly wisdom can help me finding out what to expect from a "democratic socialism" (if those guys are ever able to put it into practice is another question).

From what I understand about French politics and business there isn't as much as a dualism between government control and free market as in other places. I doubt if there's as much real difference between the two parties as they let on. Of course I may not know what the hell I'm talking about since I'm just a stupid American.

[Vesayen]

In response to the OP:



"THIS IS SWEDEN!"

[onodera]

For me democratic socialism is when all major parties are socialist, just like there's democratic capitalism in the US&A, so no matter who you work for, you live in a socialist country.
And my definition of socialism is state ownership of most enterprises and free insurance, healthcare, education, public transportation, etc that are funded by these enterprises. But you still have a monetary system in place, so it's not communism.

[Harovan]

Re: Define "democratic socialism"

Originally posted by BeBro
We have now two parties in the parliament that say they champion "democratic socialism", the social-democratic SPD (currently part of the guvmint), and the bit further left though not orthodox communist "Die Linke" (meaning surprisingly "The Left" )

Both are quite hostile to eachother, so I doubt they mean the same when they babble about "democratic socialism". So it's a great mystery what exactly that would be. Both btw said they favor a market economy but I guess with different level of state intrusion.

The splitting of the left has a long tradition in Germany. It's actually clever of the right (or center, like our utterly incompetent chancellor said) to divide the left into a good part and a bad part - thus corrupting one part by suggesting they are something better, and upsetting the other part against their potential allies. Fortunately for the right, both parts of the left are stupid enough to fall for it. "Divide et impera" - a principle as old as the world!

As for democratic socialism - I'd define it as a form of society that cares for everyone - just like communism claims - but not through an ideology imposed by a single party, but heeding the principles of democracy. Overall a society I could identify myself with - but I doubt I'll see it in the remaining ~30 years of my life.

The parties you named certainly don't stand for it. The Left may be a bit more than the SPD, but overall both are very pragmatic and forget their principles, once in power. So don't judge them by their programs. "An ihren Taten sollt ihr sie erkennen" (judge them by their deeds), and through these glasses both don't look too pretty.

"Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!" - almost hundred years old and still alive and kicking.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by onodera
For me democratic socialism is when all major parties are socialist, just like there's democratic capitalism in the US&A, so no matter who you work for, you live in a socialist country.
And my definition of socialism is state ownership of most enterprises and free insurance, healthcare, education, public transportation, etc that are funded by these enterprises. But you still have a monetary system in place, so it's not communism.

So in this view democtatic means a society that uses money?

[onodera]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So in this view democtatic means a society that uses money?

Nope. Venezuela is not really democratic, but it uses money. I have a feeling you were trolling when you asked this question. The use of money is one of the differences between communism and socialism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by onodera

Nope. Venezuela is not really democratic, but it uses money. I have a feeling you were trolling when you asked this question. The use of money is one of the differences between communism and socialism.

There is no difference between communism and socialism. And there is no conceivable way that a society can function without money.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by onodera
Nope. Venezuela is not really democratic,

What kind of "not-really democratic" state loses elections and is routinely found to have free and fair elections by international monitors? If you aren't a democracy, you always win your elections, and generally international monitors will say something about it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There is no difference between communism and socialism. And there is no conceivable way that a society can function without money.

Your failure to imagine such a society does not mean that it is inconceivable. It only means you lack imagination.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kidicious


There is no difference between communism and socialism. And there is no conceivable way that a society can function without money.

Go read a few books by Iain M. Banks ("Consider Phlebas", "The Use of Weapons" to start with) and come back...

Money is only necessary in an economy of scarcity. In a non-scarcity economy it is relatively useless... sadly we're nowhere near that

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What kind of "not-really democratic" state loses elections and is routinely found to have free and fair elections by international monitors? If you aren't a democracy, you always win your elections, and generally international monitors will say something about it.

I think Chavez just isn't very good at being a dictator (Or he's smart enough to see that he needs to have the appearance of democracy when it's not important... We'll see if he really leaves after his term is over or if this vote comes back up again and passes...)

[chequita guevara]

Re: Define "democratic socialism"

Democratic socialism is an ill-defined that allows Social Democrats to pretend they aren't social democrats, so they can avoid all the baggage associated with social democracy's 93 years of constant betrayal. This is similar to how some communists call themselves revolutionary socialists instead of communist, so they can just avoid the questions of the USSR and Communist states.

So in Europe, any group which calls itself democratic socialist is noting more than social democrats. The Party for Democratic Socialism doesn't call for revolution, afaik, and is also the former East German ruling party and the Geman Social Democatic Party are the murderers of Luxemburg and Leibnicht and the German revolution.

Militant social democrats (yes, they exist, Virginia) prefer the term for the same reason why many American liberals are calling themselves progressives instead. They don't want to be associated with the history of surrender and weenie-ness that the old term has. They vaguely acknowledge the need for a revolution, but the tasks for today are more "practical," community organizing, union work, international solidarity, etc. They are less focused on electoral work than traditional social democrats.

The term is also a way for communists to have an organization that includes social democrats without one group or the other wanting to split. So the Socialist Party of the United States of America (of which I am a member) calls itself a democratic socialist party in order to allow each wing of the party to define it how it prefers, and thus preserve some kind of artificial unity.