Social Democracy is not Socialism

[Yavin4]

Social Democracy:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Socialism:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.

Most Americans, be they Republican or Democrat, are Social Democrats. For example, if you support government's enforcement of a minimum wage, then you are a Social Democrat. Socialism means the eradication of Capitalism. No Democratic elected official or candidate for president (including AOC and Bernie Sanders) is advocating for Socialism. What they are advocating is for stronger Social Democratic principles, a more robust and better funded public sector. Don't let the idiotic framing by the media fool you.

[manor321]

1. It is the fault of Dem politicians who insist on using the term "Democratic Socialism"

There is no reason to use that term.

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. Decades of Republicans poisoning the well had nothing to do with it, I guess.

Fascinating.

[brooklynite]

5. Tell me what's different in these two examples...

Republicans: Social Security is SOCIALIST!
FDR: No it's not

Republicans: Bernie Sanders is SOCIALIST!
Sanders: Yes I am

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. Pedantically, a lot.

Practically, very little.

[Yavin4]

17. Social Security is not Socialism

Just because something is funded through the government that does not make it Socialist.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Thanks for the refresher in comparative government.

Unfortunately, I'm talking about the difference between technical and colloquial understandings of the term and what that means practically for Democrats. So there's that.

[redstatebluegirl]

3. Selling any kind of socialism to the masses will be really hard.

I agree with everything you say, but you are preaching to the choir here. I live in a red red state that needs democratic socialism more than any state I have lived in, but they see it as communism (yes I know), but part of it is a lack of decent education. Part of it is the GOP and their pacs pushing and pushing how terrible socialism is. Fox news does the same, CNBC does it.

If winning in 2020 is what we must do and it is, we cannot do it touting any kind of socialism.

[brush]

4. Sanders' and AOC's mistake is calling themselves democratic socialists and expecting others to

understand that they are really advocating for social democracy not socialism. As we've all seen, many if not most move immediately past the adjective "democratic" and target the word "socialism" and connect all the negative connotations associated with it with Sanders and AOC who IMO naively and foolishly call themselves democratic socialists instead of what they really mean which is social democrats.

Now they are both broad-brushed with the label of "socialists". It's their mistake in not being precise and accurate in their self descriptions. Sanders talks about the Scandinavian/European model all the time, which means social democracy yet calls himself a socialist.

That's nuts because let's face it, America, the most prominent proponent of capitalism, is not about to elect a socialist as it's president. It's too easy for repugs to paint him red, and they will if he gets the nomination.

[Poiuyt]

9. Exactly

If someone labels themselves as a Democratic Socialist they are asking for trouble. It would be like Trump calling himself a proto-fascist. It may be accurate, but it just looks bad in the eyes of the American public. Democrats need to be more careful about their labeling. Like it or not, that's how the public judges candidates.

[WyattKansas]

6. But I am still going to write in the name 'ANY SOCIALIST' on the computerized ballot..

When I go to vote and there is not a choice for a Democratic candidate in Kansas.

I do that just to piss off republicans counting the votes and to object to their screeching about it.

[hunter]

7. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism... are nineteenth, early twentieth century theories...

... and as relevant to modern world economies as Freudian psychiatry is to positron emission tomography studies of the human mind.

This is the 21st century. When political leaders live in the past things go horribly wrong.

[brush]

14. Capitalism has always existed even if the term was just coined in the 19th or 20th century.

Craftsmen, trapper and traders have always made or procured goods and traded or sold them for more than they spent in effort. Socialism and its offshoot communism are the relative theoretical newcomers.

[hunter]

15. The modern world economy is computerized and can be examined in great detail.

It doesn't need any vague theories to describe it, all the data is there, cause and effect of government policy can be directly measured.

This is the 21st century. Archaic economic theories only serve to obscure things. Alas, that's what many of the world's most powerful people want, to obscure things.

A Star Trek style technocracy, an economy where nobody is hungry, homeless, or lacking appropriate medical care, an economy where everyone is relatively free to pursue their own happiness, is ours for the taking.

We just have to get rid of the oligarchs and kleptocrats who are feeding us bullshit.

[brush]

16. Huh? Who doesn't want to eliminate hunger, lack of health care etc...

I just stated that what's now called capitalism has existed for just about forever.

Unfettered capitalism is of course not a good thing.

[hunter]

18. The words come with a lot of baggage.

I wasn't responding to your post specifically so much as carrying on the conversation in this thread.

I believe that calling Democrats "Socialists" is clearly misdirection, but further distinguishing between that and "Social Democracy" isn't much improvement.

Raw "capitalism" will continue to exist in any economic system. It did in "Communist" China and the Soviet Union, just as it exists in Quark's little empire on Deep Space Nine.

I don't hesitate to call myself a Socialist in the traditional sense. I'm also a radical environmentalist. But my politics are entirely practical. I was an enthusiastic supporter of Barrack Obama, one of the most competent, practical, presidents of my lifetime. The first president I enthusiastically supported and voted for was Jimmy Carter, who is another excellent human being.

Both men are to the right of my own political perspectives.

Nevertheless, and practically speaking, arguments about Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and even "Social Democracy" are obsolete, like arguing about Freudian psychology.

[brush]

19. We're in agreement with many things you discuss but you're still leaving me in the dark as to what..

you're advocating. Socialism in the classic sense of the state/people owning the means of production has yet to be demonstrated successfully in a nationwide economy (Mondragon cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain has had some success but it's only regional).

Communism of course has failed. Chavez's premature death and perhaps lack of system-wide commitment to socialism instead of line-your-pocketism by some close to him derailed the most recent and visible attempt at a nationwide installation of socialism.

Laissez faire/unfettered capitalism is certainly not the way to go so where does that leave us? A mix of highly regulated and taxed capitalism and socialism which is in play in western Europe/Nordic countries and certainly takes care of its people better than what we have here in the US.

If all those systems are obsolete, where do you stand, what are you advocating?

[hunter]

21. I'm advocating a technocracy with fluidity between "public" and "private" ownership.

We already have that to great extent, as when a government "rescues" banks or automakers "to big to fail." We just don't use the dreaded "socialism" word, and the government is quick to reprivatize these institutions when they are "back on their feet" again.

I think very aggressive regulation or nationalization of the U.S. healthcare system would be quick and painless for most everyone working within the system but for those sucking huge amounts of money out of it; these would be the billionaires and those on their way to becoming billionaires. For primary care providers, for insurance clerks on both sides of the system, it would largely be business as usual, and we could cope with any downsizing by attrition. I think universal health care would create many more desirable jobs outside of processing insurance claims, even within the healthcare industry.

Within our modern technocratic economic systems nationalization or very aggressive regulation are essentially the same thing when no-and-low income users of the health care system are subsidized. The flows of money can be entirely mapped and deficits remedied using a variety of tools.

[pnwmom]

10. Very true. But Bernie is a Democratic Socialist -- which is not the same as a Social Democrat.

Democratic socialism is a sub-group of socialism.

Social Democracies are capitalist countries, as in Scandinavia, with strong regulation and social programs funded by taxes.

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA:

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

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.

[Yavin4]

11. Correct, but what Bernie believes is not how he's running.

He's also Jewish but that doesn't mean that he wants to ban Christianity.

[pnwmom]

12. It's too bad he's so insistent on calling himself a Democratic socialist, because using that term

just muddies the waters.

He could have called himself a Social Democrat all along, or an FDR Democrat. But he's stubbornly stuck to the designation Democratic Socialist. One thing I've noticed about him is he will never admit to making a mistake -- and P.R. wise, that was a mistake.

[TexasBlueDog]

13. The proiblem is 'explaning' your ideology...

We're heading into the most important election possibly ever. You're asking people to basically change their form of government (I know, I know) to something they have no idea how it works, they hear Venezuela every day and nobody wants that.

Is 'socialism' a winner this cycle? I don't know but I do know we'd better win this cycle,