Sanders supporters: What is the difference between a liberal and a democratic socialist?

[Cheese Sandwich]

Clearly there is some difference. I have some ideas on it but what do you think?

Sanders says he is not a liberal, never has been one:
Sanders: I’m not a liberal. Never have been

What's up with that?

[jfern]

1. Whatever, his ideology is similar to liberal Democrats like Sherrod Brown

[99th_Monkey]

3. Not to mention FDR. nt

[99th_Monkey]

2. The word Liberal has been pretty much co-opted

to mean "neo-liberal" or 3rd Way, or some such.

Sanders understands this, and wants no part of that label, wisely IMHO.

Just my 2 cents.

[F4lconF16]

13. I think that by identifying himself as a DS, not a social democrat

He separates himself quite well. The risk is that he may actually have to take on some of those positions, too--right now he is running far to the DS's right as a social democrat opting for a welfare state and a mixed economy. It's tough to explain that vs. the neoliberal capitalism that Clinton is pushing in the space of 30 second media clips.

Imho, he made a good choice to differentiate himself. We'll see whether he can now distinguish himself from the genuine socialists of the DSA and other democratic socialists while still embracing their title.

Fwiw, the DSA has embraced Sanders despite his welfare state advocacy. I tend to agree with most of their reasoning.

[mmonk]

4. A Democratic Socialist would govern more like social democracies.

Not necessary govern like a liberal in a right wing oriented society. The best explanation I have seen between progressive vs liberal was in this article:

http://www.alternet.org/story/146207/the_key_differences_between_progressive_and_liberal,_and_how_%22liberal%22_thinking_can_be_part_of_the_problem


Other than those two explanations, I suppose it's subjective.

[F4lconF16]

10. Check out post 8. You might find it informative. Nt

[mmonk]

18. Thanks.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. An excellent definition and history of liberalism.

"Boundless: Liberalism is a broad political ideology or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality."

[Catherina]

6. Liberalism. Dictionary definition

Economic: Concept based on Adam Smith’s ideas about the forces of supply and demand in the marketplace that a government should not try to control prices, rents, and/or wages but instead let open competition and forces of demand and supply create an equilibrium between them that benefits the vast majority of citizens. Liberalism emphasizes the social and economic benefits when individuals pursue their own self-interest.


So no, Bernie is not a liberal. Liberalism is an economic theory.

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. I think maybe Bernie could do better at drawing the contrast between himself and Clinton

He thinks health care should be a right, she supports universal health care, sounds the same to most people.

He wants tuition free public college, she wants debt free college and free community college, sounds the same.

He wants to break up the banks, she wants to "topple the 1%". (LOL)

If Bernie is a democratic socialist then there must be something awesome he can say that Hillary wouldn't be able to copy, because she is still tied to the (failing) liberal ideas and he is supposed to have a somewhat different set of assumptions. I think maybe it would help if he brought on some extra speech writers or policy advisers.

[F4lconF16]

11. He needs to identify with nationalization of industry.

This is the problem with running as a social democrat, not a genuine Democratic Socialist. He can't actually say, "Let's start abolishing private corporations and nationalize the health care, finance, and energy industries" because literally everybody would flip.

Especially the liberals on here who just want to save capitalism from itself, because it totally actually works.

[Cheese Sandwich]

15. Well there is one big industry that he is trying to nationalize

Health insurance. He wants to put the private health insurance companies out of business.

I got to give him credit for that. He's very strong on that.

Another one is prisons. He's very strong on de-privatizing prisons.

Again he's strong on protecting the US Postal Service from privatization.

And like you say he can't just come out and say let's nationalize Exxon or something because it's not politically realistic.

But I really think it would help if he could find some way to draw a strong contrast with Hillary Clinton around this idea of the liberal world view is failed.

On social democrats vs. democratic socialists, he calls himself a "democratic socialist" and I'll take his word for it. I'll assume he knows what it means and grant him the most generous possible benefit of the doubt. He could be a democratic socialist who is offering progressive policies as transitional demands to help us organize a people's movement.

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between a social democrat vs. a democratic socialist because while they might have different philosophies, their behavior in politics is the same. The policies they offer would be the same I think, because there is no political space to move any further than that.

[F4lconF16]

16. I agree with all of this assesment.

This is where I and other socialists have parted ways:

On social democrats vs. democratic socialists, he calls himself a "democratic socialist" and I'll take his word for it. I'll assume he knows what it means and grant him the most generous possible benefit of the doubt. He could be a democratic socialist who is offering progressive policies as transitional demands to help us organize a people's movement.

They won't give him the benefit of the doubt, while I don't really think you can show that deep of an understanding of class politics (including more than just economic ones, and I know he could be better) without understanding the terms he uses.

I'm interested to see how his rhetoric will change if he is elected, if it does. I hope it will.

[Cheese Sandwich]

17. I do get why people are skeptical.

Whenever leftist governments get elected most of the time they sell out and just become pretty much liberals in the way they govern. I'm thinking this campaign is not a substitute for other organizing work. It's just that if we do organize in our communities, we could have an ally in the white house, which would help a lot.

But anyways hey check out this in case you missed it. You might be interested.

CSPAN: @DemSocialists's national director talks socialism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128064126

And we also have this:
Sanders Plans Major Speech To Explain Democratic Socialism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=699377

[F4lconF16]

9. Not always. It is a political philosophy as well.

Actually, it's a lot of things, and it gets confusing when you start mixing in various forms, like neoliberalism.

This was an awesome article on race, and though it doesn't address lineralism in and of itself, you should be able to gain some insights about liberalism apart from an economic theory:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2015/02/27/how-liberalism-and-racism-are-wed/?_r=1&referer=http://www.democraticunderground.com/118729036

[F4lconF16]

8. Pretty easy.

Sanders is a social democrat by widely accepted definitions (no, not the wikipedia ones...come on). He advocates for a welfare state and a mixed economy. This is somewhat similar to what we see in Scandinavia, but with greater nationalization and democratization of capital.

Democratic socialists are full socialists, just not revolutionary like Trotskyists or anarcho-communists. They believe in the abolition of private corporations entirely, though a form of market may still be used in some forms. All forms of socialism derive from or use large parts of Marxist theory, though there are huge differences between each branch.

Social democrats like Sanders do not agree with the complete abolition of private corporations. However, he uses the term anyways. It will be interesting to hear his speech on it.

If you're curious, go to the Democratic Socialists of America's website, dsausa.org, in order to find out more. You'll quickly see the differences between them and Sanders.

This is a great article on Democratic Socialist theory:
http://www.dsausa.org/toward_freedom

DSA is, unlike many leftist groups, actually endorsing Sanders. You might find their position on him enlightening as well:
http://www.dsausa.org/weneedbernie

[Fearless]

12. Just to clarify...

The "They" in the second sentence of the second paragraph I assume you mean belongs to Troskyists and anarcho-communists... not Democratic socialists?

Grammatically it is tethered to the latter, and I was just curious.

[F4lconF16]

14. Whoops, no, I meant both.

Socialists of any sort believe in the democratization of capital. Things like the purpose and design of the state, the means of getting their, and the definitions of class and subsequent levels of class abolition differentiate between them.

For instance, democratic socialists are generally embracing Sanders, as they support a non-revolutionary method of change to a society where all major industry is nationalized and capital is democratized. Trotskyists support a revolutionaty method, but much of the same ends. Anarcho-communists believe in a different end state but much of the same means of getting their...kind of. Most all socialists incorporate marxism to some extent.

Of course, throughout the ages, the definitions have blurred as different forms of socialism have tried to differentiate themselves. Anarcho-communists, for instance, are sometimes the same as anarcho-socialists, and that's different from other forms of anarchy, none of which have to do with the rightwing libertarian "smash stuff" anarchists. And none of this even touches on alternative theories like parecon, which is kinda weird I think.

My apologies if I don't word this right, I've had more than a few beers while watching a movie tonight. Thankfully my spelling is decent enough.

I recommend going to sites like dsausa.org and http://www.internationalsocialist.org to start getting a feel for some of the differences, they will be much clearer.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. I'd say that there should be none. n/t

[pinebox]

20. Here you go

This article in Bloomberg will explain everything.

No Really—What’s the Difference Between a Democrat and a Socialist?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-31/no-really-what-s-the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-a-socialist-

The thing is, there is a difference. Specifically, there’s a difference between a democratic socialist (how Sanders identifies), a socialist (what Matthews and others in the media call him) and a Democrat, explains John Ahlquist, an associate professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California at San Diego who has focused on the politics of economic inequality. “The modern American Democratic Party has very little to do with anything resembling what we would consider to be socialism or social democracy,” Ahlquist said during a phone interview.
Democrats, he said, are a centrist coalition that includes some groups that are left of center. Traditional socialism, other hand, is a political-economic system that organizes the economy purely around the needs of the people.
“The basic idea is that production decisions and everything else are not organized around the desire to make a profit, they’re organized by a cooperative group to produce stuff that people think they need,” Ahlquist said. “There’s no public figure in the Democratic Party who is advocating for social ownership of the means of production, Bernie Sanders included.”
When people talk about Sanders and his ideology, they’re discussing social democracy, the idea that “the elected government has a responsibility to ensure that the functioning of a market economy adequately provides for basic needs for everybody,” Ahlquist said.
Social democracies have been popular in Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries which Sanders often cites as examples of ideal policy. For example, here’s how Sanders described what it means to be a democratic socialists to Vox in an interview published this week:
What it means is that one takes a hard look at countries around the world who have successful records in fighting and implementing programs for the middle class and working families. When you do that, you automatically go to countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and other countries that have had labor governments or social democratic governments, and what you find is that in virtually all of those countries, health care is a right of all people and their systems are far more cost-effective than ours, college education is virtually free in all of those countries, people retire with better benefits, wages that people receive are often higher, distribution of wealth and income is much fairer, their public education systems are generally stronger than ours.
European social democracies don’t eradicate capitalism, but put in place a strong regulatory system alongside it to ensures a minimum standard of living for all citizens, Ahlquist said. The “democracy” part of social democracy means that the regulations need to be put in place gradually, by legitimately elected officials.

[JaneyVee]

21. Liberals love capitalism but want it regulated.