Define "democratic socialism"

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


It's subject to endless debate, but you're definitely going too far if you claim that Chavez doesn't honestly believe in socialism.

This is certainly material for "Award for the most entertaining statement on Poly" this year.

Well, I agree that my claim may be false if you are a near and trusted friend of Chavez, but somehow I doubt such.

[BeBMan]

Didn't Chavez just create an own timezone for Venezuela? As a next step I suggest to fabricate weather reports for better weather, like they did in Romania under Ceauşescu.

I want my own timezone too

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He belief system and his motivations do not necessarily have to be the same.

I'm positive that Mussolini believed in Fascism as an ideology, but that doesn't mean that most of what he did in the name of Fascism wasn't to get power.

Fascism is inherently authoritarian. Mussolini's believe system and motivations were to be expected to be the same.

IMO, Chavez's motivation first is to protect the people from the capitalists. He's a populist, not a socialist, even if he calls himself one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Fascism is inherently authoritarian. Mussolini's believe system and motivations were to be expected to be the same.

Castro style socialism is also inherently authoritarian

IMO, Chavez's motivation first is to protect the people from the capitalists. He's a populist, not a socialist, even if he calls himself one.

Awww... apologists are sooo cute. His first motivation is seizing power, as has been shown throughout his career, from his attempted coup onwards. He may believe that he is to protect the people, but it's part of his groping for power.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Castro style socialism is also inherently authoritarian

While we are at it why don't we call american capitalism authoritarian.

Awww... apologists are sooo cute. His first motivation is seizing power, as has been shown throughout his career, from his attempted coup onwards. He may believe that he is to protect the people, but it's part of his groping for power.

That's just your opinion. I think you are wrong, but then I could be wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

While we are at it why don't we call american capitalism authoritarian.

Maybe because it isn't.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

While we are at it why don't we call american capitalism authoritarian.

Maybe because it isn't.

If it walks like a duck it's probably a duck.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Castro style socialism is also inherently authoritarian

Yes and no. If you're opposed to the revolution, it's not a good place to be. Everyone else, even if they are critical of the government or even Castro, is pretty much okay. It's a lot like the U.S. in the 50s, except their one party isn't split into two like ours is.

His first motivation is seizing power, as has been shown throughout his career, from his attempted coup onwards. He may believe that he is to protect the people, but it's part of his groping for power.

While I thought that at first myself, I was ignorant of the situation in Venezuela. Chavez was leading a coup against a government that murdered 3,000 of its own people during demonstrations three years earlier. It was, in fact, this coup attempt that led to his election, as the people remembered why he had done it, and voted him in. It was the first time many people in Venezuela felt they had someone to vote for. Rather than symbolic of his seeking power for powers sake, it is symptomatic of his seeing himself as a savior rather than as a leader.

None of which is to say he isn't seeking power, but it isn't merely for power's sake, as the Western media likes to portray. Nor does this mean he isn't dangerous. But he's opened the genie's bottle, and the workers are moving for socialism. Whether they do it with or without Chavez is up to Chavez.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
My impression is that there is historically a continuum from democratic socialism to social democracy, and of course both words have been used differently at differnt times and places.

We might start what all these have in common. They are democratic - that is they advocate chanign society (at least in countries that have viable democratic systems) by legal, electoral action, based on mass support. They thus are in constrast to parties that advocated vanguard movements, that decry bourgeois legality as an illusion, etc, etc.

They also self-consciously advocate the interests of and consider themselves the representatives of the "working class" howsoever defined, and for economic policies based on "social justice" howsover defined, and and they in general do not accept that absolute laissez faire is social justice, or optimal economic social policy.

Given that, their economic policies can concievably cover everything from complete abolition of private property and markets, to acceptance of almost laissez faire economics, tempered by some social welfare system.

In the USA after the split of the old Norm Thomas Socialist Party, the term Democratics Socialists was adopted by folks who wanted larger scale intervention and Social Democrats by those who wanted something closer to third wayism (though in the 1960s even those guys were "left" economically of where Blairism went) Im not sure the origin of that terminological distinction - IIUC the SPD in Germany in the 1920s was fairly fully "socialist" in its views of where the economy should eventually end up. I suspect it has a lot to do with the policies of the German and Scandinavian SPDs in power in the post-war era, and perhaps with the terminology of Italian politics. IIUC UK and France never used parallel terminologies, at least not formally.

Excellent summary. Though I don't think I would include the complete abolition of private property as that is one of the main defining features of communism and Social Democrats are presumably not communists since they came up with a spiffy new name.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

While we are at it why don't we call american capitalism authoritarian.

Maybe because it isn't.

[Arrian]

Lotsa apologetics for the Savior of The People, Hugo the Heroic! He must have and keep power to battle the Enemies of the Revolution!

Yeah, we'll see how that turns out.

As for American Capitalism being "authoritarian" - I'm not really sure that's the word you want. Critique it if you will - and there are valid critiques - but "characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom" doesn't fit. Try another slipper.

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian
Lotsa apologetics for the Savior of The People, Hugo the Heroic! He must have and keep power to battle the Enemies of the Revolution!

Yeah, we'll see how that turns out.

As for American Capitalism being "authoritarian" - I'm not really sure that's the word you want. Critique it if you will - and there are valid critiques - but "characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom" doesn't fit. Try another slipper.

-Arrian

You take a ROFL seriously don't you? Well American capitalism isn't authoritarian (towards Americans anyway) but it isn't democratic either. And don’t forget that there are other forms of capitalism that are quite so, and even some that work just fine with down-right totalitarian governments (China).

[Arrian]

I wasn't reacting to you.

It was the misuse of the term (IMO, obviously), in attempt at laughing off the claim that Chavez is authoritarian, that triggered my response.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Lotsa apologetics for the Savior of The People, Hugo the Heroic! He must have and keep power to battle the Enemies of the Revolution!

Yeah, we'll see how that turns out.

You do realize that these enemies do actually exist don't you?

As for American Capitalism being "authoritarian" - I'm not really sure that's the word you want. Critique it if you will - and there are valid critiques - but "characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom" doesn't fit. Try another slipper.

-Arrian

Don't call it "absolute" obedience and the claim works just fine. Americans are not well psychologically, and in a hierarchial society this translates into an authoritarian society.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't call it "absolute" obedience and the claim works just fine.

Yes... fine for every single system of governance on the Earth. Which is why the defintion includes the word "absolute" .