Senator Bernie Sanders "There is a War being waged on the Working families"

[Sosa]

lcLWDGb0RqA

Although he is a reformist socialist I do have some respect for him :)

[The Red Next Door]

Why not ousted the rich from power instead having to tax them?

[RadioRaheem84]

Sanders is about as socialist as it gets in the States.

He is a great guy though! I support him.

[Theory&Action]

As good a speech as you'll hear spoken in the senate these days. I always think about how frustrating it must be for Sanders as a very moderate socialist to hear Obama and just about every other politician in D.C. getting the socialist label thrown at them (as a pejorative of course). The man must be perpetually facepalming.

[chegitz guevara]

It probably feels to him like it feels to me every time someone calls Sanders a socialist.

[gorillafuck]

Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, he is a social democrat. He is a good presence in congress to counter republican and democrat anti-worker propaganda but have no illusions of him as a socialist.

[Sosa]

Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, he is a social democrat. He is a good presence in congress to counter republican and democrat anti-worker propaganda but have no illusions of him as a socialist.

Actually he's a democratic socialist...which is not the same thing as a social democrat

[ed miliband]

Actually he's a democratic socialist...which is not the same thing as a social democrat

Yeah, and Tony Blair's a "democratic socialist" too. Go figure.

[Sosa]

Yeah, and Tony Blair's a "democratic socialist" too. Go figure.

I'm not familiar with Blair's politics but Sanders is a self-described socialist, a reformer no doubt, but he espouses a socialist economy, not a mixed economy as social democrats want.

[ZeroNowhere]

I've always loved the notion of a 'mixed economy'. 'Hey, guys, let's half-abolish the capital-relation!'

Anyhow, Sanders supports capital, he's not a socialist.

[Sosa]

I've always loved the notion of a 'mixed economy'. 'Hey, guys, let's half-abolish the capital-relation!'

Anyhow, Sanders supports capital, he's not a socialist.


source?

[ed miliband]

I'm not familiar with Blair's politics but Sanders is a self-described socialist, a reformer no doubt, but he espouses a socialist economy, not a mixed economy as social democrats want.

Blair described himself as a "democratic socialist" and had his "democratic socialism" entrenched in the Labour Party constitution.

Let's see what this "democratic socialist" has to say about capitalism:


Bernie Sanders: Capitalism does a number of things very well: it helps create an entrepreneurial spirit, it gets people motivated to come up with new ideas and that’s a good thing. But on the other hand, especially since the Reagan era, what we have seen in this country is an unfettered type of cowboy capitalism, and the result of that has been, that the people on top have made out like bandits and many of them are bandits. Today in America we have a situation that is quickly moving out of control.So basically capitalism is good but you have to regulate it, tax people a bit, have a bigger safety net, bigger cages and longer chains, etc. What a great socialist!!

[chegitz guevara]

Actually he's a democratic socialist...which is not the same thing as a social democrat

There's that feeling again.

[ZeroNowhere]

source?I'm not sure that it's necessary to source the claim that Sanders does not oppose the existence of wage labour and generalized commodity production. That's pretty much given with everything he advocates and does. I think that it's a claim to the contrary that would warrant a source.

[Theory&Action]

It probably feels to him like it feels to me every time someone calls Sanders a socialist.

Touché

My point being that he is at least familiar with the basics of socialism and how the socialist label has been so adulterated as to mean absolutely nothing in popular debate.

[Sosa]

Blair described himself as a "democratic socialist" and had his "democratic socialism" entrenched in the Labour Party constitution.

Let's see what this "democratic socialist" has to say about capitalism:

So basically capitalism is good but you have to regulate it, tax people a bit, have a bigger safety net, bigger cages and longer chains, etc. What a great socialist!!

He doesn't say that capitalism is good. If a capitalist says that there are some things "good" about socialism, does that mean he isn't a capitalist anymore?

[Sosa]

I'm not sure that it's necessary to source the claim that Sanders does not oppose the existence of wage labour and generalized commodity production. That's pretty much given with everything he advocates and does. I think that it's a claim to the contrary that would warrant a source.

Again, source please. It would be beneficial to me.

[ed miliband]

He doesn't say that capitalism is good. If a capitalist says that there are some things "good" about socialism, does that mean he isn't a capitalist anymore?

The comment that I quoted is clear: Sanders thinks capitalism is fundamentally good. He likes it because it releases the "entrepreneurial spirit" and "gets people motivated to come up with new ideas". He thinks that's great. He then goes into some silly stuff about Reagan unleashing this totally different - bad - type of capitalism. He wants to get rid of 'Reagan's capitalism' in favour of something fairer that does not hinder the "entrepreneurial spirit" or stop people from being "motivated to come up with new ideas".


Again, source please. It would be beneficial to me.

How about you provide a source that suggests otherwise?

[anticap]

Sanders is a social democrat who mislabels himself a "democratic socialist":


AMY GOODMAN: Senator Sanders, you’re the independent senator from Vermont. For years, you called yourself a socialist. You hear the Republicans saying we’re not going to socialize this, for example, healthcare, etc. What is socialism? And where do you think it applies today?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think if people take a good look at what has gone on in Scandinavia, in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, some other European countries, what they will find is that the people in those countries have good quality healthcare which is virtually free. Workers have, in some cases, thirty, forty days paid vacation. A college education in many of these countries is either free or virtually free. At a time when our country has an 18 percent rate of childhood poverty, which leads to so many people ending up in jail, in many of these countries the poverty rate for kids, and poverty in general, is three, four, five percent. Workers are more likely to be members of unions and have more power on their jobs to protect their own interests. People’s interest in politics and the political process is greater. So I think what you have seen is governments which are more responsive to the needs of working people and the middle class than certainly is in this country, where, among other things, we have by far the highest rate of inequality, in terms of distribution of wealth and income, of any major country on earth.

So what democratic socialism means to me is having a government which represents the middle class and working people, which guarantees the basic necessities of life for all of our people. Healthcare, obviously, has got to be a right, not a privilege. We need to make sure that our kids get off to a good start in life, not seeing so many kids living in poverty, childcare being the disastrous disaster that it is right now with so many working families unable to find quality affordable childcare. In other words, a government which works to protect all of the people, rather than, as we have right now, governments for so many years which have protected the needs of the very wealthy and the powerful large corporations.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you consider yourself a socialist today?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Democratic socialist, yes.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/25/sen_sanders_blocking_vote_to_confirm

As you can see, his definition of "democratic socialism" is social democracy. He has gotten the two terms mixed up (a pretty common mistake).

Nonetheless, he's the sanest voice in the US Senate.

[Sosa]

The comment that I quoted is clear: Sanders thinks capitalism is fundamentally good. He likes it because it releases the "entrepreneurial spirit" and "gets people motivated to come up with new ideas". He thinks that's great. He then goes into some silly stuff about Reagan unleashing this totally different - bad - type of capitalism. He wants to get rid of 'Reagan's capitalism' in favour of something fairer that does not hinder the "entrepreneurial spirit" or stop people from being "motivated to come up with new ideas".



How about you provide a source that suggests otherwise?

The burden of proof is on you to refute his claim that he is a democratic socialist. If you have not proof/source to counter his claim then just say so.

[Jalapeno Enema]

disastrous disasterhehe


Nonetheless, he's the sanest voice in the US Senate.can't argue there, but we're not exactly setting the bar high

[Sosa]

Sanders is a social democrat who mislabels himself a "democratic socialist":



http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/25/sen_sanders_blocking_vote_to_confirm

As you can see, his definition of "democratic socialism" is social democracy. He has gotten the two terms mixed up (a pretty common mistake).

Nonetheless, he's the sanest voice in the US Senate.

ok, so what in that statement makes it social democrat and not democratic socialist? Maybe I'm wrong but everything he says in that statement is compatible with democratic socialism.

[anticap]

ok, so what in that statement makes it social democrat and not democratic socialist? Maybe I'm wrong but everything he says in that statement is compatible with democratic socialism.

I disagree, but I don't care enough to argue over it so I'll just point you to the Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

[Sosa]

I disagree, but I don't care enough to argue over it so I'll just point you to the Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

I've already read through these and only reinforces my position

[ed miliband]

The burden of proof is on you to refute his claim that he is a democratic socialist. If you have not proof/source to counter his claim then just say so.

It's perfectly clear, from his praise of the "entrepreneurial spirit" to his touting of Sweden / Norway / Finland as model states, that Sanders is not a socialist, and that is just going by the evidence posted in this thread. So far the only 'evidence' you have of Sanders' socialism is the fact that he proclaims to be a "democratic socialist" (and so, I presume NSDAP were socialist too? after all, they described themselves as socialists). With all evidence suggesting quite plainly that Sanders is not a socialists in any way, shape or form, the burden falls on you to prove that he is.

[anticap]

I've already read through these and only reinforces my position

Again, I disagree (I think the articles support what I've said), but I don't think it matters enough to argue about.

[redz]

Sanders is about as socialist as it gets in the States.

He is a great guy though! I support him.


Basically, moderately leftist bourgeois politicians like Bernie Sanders function as "Judas goats" - they wag their finger at some of the more egregious atrocities and rotten policies in the capitalist order, and this tends to keep segments of "progressives" and the working class loyal to the system (and usually one or the other bourgeois party).

Sanders is really a camouflage Democrat - he caucuses with the Dems, so his role has the function of keeping large segments of "progressives" and workers (in Vermont and even nationally) tied to the Democratic party of capital.

Redz

[Sosa]

Again, I disagree (I think the articles support what I've said), but I don't think it matters enough to argue about.

Where? If I am to believe something I'm hoping that someone could point out to me where. I'm not trying to argue about it, but If I am to be convinced about something at least point out specifically what makes Bernie Sanders NOT a democratic socialist (as it states in the links you provided).

anyone?

[Sosa]

It's perfectly clear, from his praise of the "entrepreneurial spirit" to his touting of Sweden / Norway / Finland as model states, that Sanders is not a socialist, and that is just going by the evidence posted in this thread. So far the only 'evidence' you have of Sanders' socialism is the fact that he proclaims to be a "democratic socialist" (and so, I presume NSDAP were socialist too? after all, they described themselves as socialists). With all evidence suggesting quite plainly that Sanders is not a socialists in any way, shape or form, the burden falls on you to prove that he is.

Ok, where is ALL the evidence? I'm waiting to be convinced, honestly.

All I need is somewhere where he states he wants to retain the Capitalist mode of production and I will believe it.

[ZeroNowhere]

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Sanders, you’re the independent senator from Vermont. For years, you called yourself a socialist. You hear the Republicans saying we’re not going to socialize this, for example, healthcare, etc. What is socialism? And where do you think it applies today?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think if people take a good look at what has gone on in Scandinavia, in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, some other European countries, what they will find is that the people in those countries have good quality healthcare which is virtually free. Workers have, in some cases, thirty, forty days paid vacation. A college education in many of these countries is either free or virtually free. At a time when our country has an 18 percent rate of childhood poverty, which leads to so many people ending up in jail, in many of these countries the poverty rate for kids, and poverty in general, is three, four, five percent. Workers are more likely to be members of unions and have more power on their jobs to protect their own interests. People’s interest in politics and the political process is greater. So I think what you have seen is governments which are more responsive to the needs of working people and the middle class than certainly is in this country, where, among other things, we have by far the highest rate of inequality, in terms of distribution of wealth and income, of any major country on earth.

So what democratic socialism means to me is having a government which represents the middle class and working people, which guarantees the basic necessities of life for all of our people. Healthcare, obviously, has got to be a right, not a privilege. We need to make sure that our kids get off to a good start in life, not seeing so many kids living in poverty, childcare being the disastrous disaster that it is right now with so many working families unable to find quality affordable childcare. In other words, a government which works to protect all of the people, rather than, as we have right now, governments for so many years which have protected the needs of the very wealthy and the powerful large corporations.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you consider yourself a socialist today?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Democratic socialist, yes.
It's really quite evident in general that he simply supports reforming capitalism rather than abolishing it, and I'm not sure how somebody would get the opposite impression. Indeed, I'm not sure that he would know what abolishing capitalism entailed.

[ed miliband]

Ok, where is ALL the evidence? I'm waiting to be convinced, honestly.

I5rcnAWaC64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rcnAWaC64)

He makes a moral case against neo-liberalism and says that the USA should aim for a system with "a strong social safety net" whilst retaining the "entrepreneurial spirit" a la Scandinavia, and he specifically frames his vision for a future society on a national level. Is that what socialism is to you? He says various things throughout that video that should jump out at you, particularly at the beginning where he talks about "capitalism creating wealth" or something I can't quite remember.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/socialist-successes_b_189963.html

Once again, northern European countries are held up as model figures of what the USA should be like - large safety net, higher taxes, more government intervention in the economy.

Is that socialism (or "democratic socialism") to you?

[Sosa]

I5rcnAWaC64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rcnAWaC64)

He makes a moral case against neo-liberalism and says that the USA should aim for a system with "a strong social safety net" whilst retaining the "entrepreneurial spirit" a la Scandinavia, and he specifically frames his vision for a future society on a national level. Is that what socialism is to you? He says various things throughout that video that should jump out at you, particularly at the beginning where he talks about "capitalism creating wealth" or something I can't quite remember.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/socialist-successes_b_189963.html

Once again, northern European countries are held up as model figures of what the USA should be like - large safety net, higher taxes, more government intervention in the economy.

Is that socialism (or "democratic socialism") to you?

thanks I'll give the video a look

[Sosa]

Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some definitions simply refer to all forms of socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) that follow an electoral, reformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformism) or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution) one.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-1) Often, this definition is invoked to distinguish democratic socialism from communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism), as in Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-2), Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley)'s Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism.
But for those who use the term in this way, the scope of the term "socialism" itself can be very vague, and include forms of socialism compatible with capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism). For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Birmingham), writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee) government (a strong welfare state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state), fiscal redistribution, some nationalisation) and "revisionist democratic socialism", as developed by Anthony Crosland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Crosland) and Harold Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson):

The most influential revisionist Labour thinker, Anthony Crosland..., contended that a more 'benevolent' form of capitalism had emerged since the [Second World War]... According to Crosland, it was now possible to achieve greater equality in society without the need for 'fundamental' economic transformation. For Crosland, a more meaningful form of equality could be achieved if the growth dividend derived from effective management of the economy was invested in 'pro-poor' public services rather than through fiscal redistribution.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-3)
Indeed, some proponents of market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism) see the latter as a form of democratic socialism.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-4)
A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter)’s argument, set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941), that liberal democracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracies) were evolving from "liberal capitalism" into democratic socialism, with the growth of workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management), industrial democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_democracy) and regulatory institutions.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-5)
In contrast, other definitions of democratic socialism sharply distinguish it from social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-sdvrds-0) For example, Peter Hain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hain) classifies democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), as a form of anti-authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-authoritarian) "socialism from below (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Souls_of_Socialism)" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Draper)), in contrast to Stalinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism) and social democracy, variants of authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian) state socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism). For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_socialism)/reformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformist) divide.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-6) In this definition, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation) and economic planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning) (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicos_Poulantzas).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-7)
Other definitions fall between the first and second set, seeing democratic socialism as a specific political tradition closely related to and overlapping with social democracy. For example, Bogdan Denitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdan_Denitch), in Democratic Socialism, defines it as proposing a radical reorganization of the socio-economic order through public ownership, workers' control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_control) of the labor process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_process) and redistributive tax policies.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-8) Robert G. Picard similarly describes a democratic socialist tradition of thought including Eduard Bernstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein), Karl Kautsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kautsky), Evan Durbin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Durbin) and Michael Harrington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Harrington).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-9)
The term democratic socialism can be used in a third way, to refer to a version of the Soviet model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy) that was reformed in a democratic way. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev) described perestroika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika) as building a "new, humane and democratic socialism".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#cite_note-10) Consequently, some former Communist parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_parties) have rebranded themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_Party.PDS) in Germany.


This is what is on wikipedia on Democratic Socialism. Nothing on there refutes what Bernie Sanders says.

Whether thats real socialism or not is another argument (I don't think it is). But Sanders calling himself a dem soc. is compatible with the definitions on wikipedia.

[RadioRaheem84]

WTF?

Sosa, Sanders is a Social Democrat who thinks he is a Democratic Socialist.

The guy triumphs Scandinavia as an exemplary model and thinks capitalism just needs some minor reforms to make it work.

He is an excellent guy, but I doubt he is even a Marxist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

WTF?

Sosa, Sanders is a Social Democrat who thinks he is a Democratic Socialist.

The guy triumphs Scandinavia as an exemplary model and thinks capitalism just needs some minor reforms to make it work.

He is an excellent guy, but I doubt he is even a Marxist.

Not to try & side with anybody's position here, but does one have to be a Marxist, per se, to be labeled as a "Democratic Socialist"?

[RadioRaheem84]

Not at all, but I still see Sanders as a left social democrat.

He reminds me more of Tony Benn than George Galloway.

[Sosa]

But for those who use the term in this way, the scope of the term "socialism" itself can be very vague, and include forms of socialism compatible with capitalism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism). For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Birmingham), writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee) government (a strong welfare state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state), fiscal redistribution, some nationalisation) and "revisionist democratic socialism", as developed by Anthony Crosland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Crosland) and Harold Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson):

This is what I mean. This is Bernie Sanders position, which is compatible with what is considered Democratic Socialism

[RadioRaheem84]

I could see what you're saying, Sosa, but I always referred to the Attlee crowd as a Social Democratic not really Democratic Socialist.

[gorillafuck]

Actually he's a democratic socialist...which is not the same thing as a social democrat
You're right, democratic socialists and social democrats are not the same thing. But Sanders is not a democratic socialist. Sanders is a social democrat.

Democratic socialism is anti-capitalist (regardless of some word twisting that a social democrat who calls themself a democratic socialist made up), whereas social democrats are capitalists. Bernie Sanders is not opposed to the capitalist economic system, therefore he is a social democrat.

The title "democratic socialist" applied to social democrats is frequent but false.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes. They're different. I could both working together but ultimately having their differences.

Most progressive liberals are aspiring soc dems.

[Crux]

He uses sweden, and the other nordic countries, as an example without understanding how we got where we were and how we got where we are now. Admittedly this is true of many domestic sort of soft-leftwingers, but even more so abroad where the illusion, or at least the misguided view is easier to uphold.

I read a good article, from Vermont and from a fairly radical left point of view, which shattered some illusions one might have in Sanders. I mean he's probably better than the rest of the Senate but that's not saying much.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not at all, but I still see Sanders as a left social democrat.

He reminds me more of Tony Benn than George Galloway.

If that were the case, comrade, then he should have advocated bank nationalizations or at least the creation of state banks, instead of advocating existing banks too big to fail to be broken up into smaller private banks.

[Pretty Flaco]

If he was anything left of a social democrat he wouldn't be holding office in the senate right now.

[Robocommie]

He uses sweden, and the other nordic countries, as an example without understanding how we got where we were and how we got where we are now. Admittedly this is true of many domestic sort of soft-leftwingers, but even more so abroad where the illusion, or at least the misguided view is easier to uphold.

This actually raises a good question for me, as I don't know the political history of post-medieval Scandinavia all that well. What DID bring about the Nordic model of social democracy?

[Agnapostate]

"Democratic socialism" in the literal sense is redundant, because the participatory nature of socialism requires that it be democratic. In the colloquial sense of referring to a reformist electoral socialism or means of enacting socialism, social democracy remains excluded because the means of production remain privately owned. I've been giving some thought as to where the line between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" is, since even privately owned firms in social democratic capitalist economies are characterized by more egalitarian structure than the orthodox firms of more rightist capitalist economies. My conclusion is that if workers' ownership and management is the norm in an economic paradigm, and the rule rather than the exception to it, it is socialist. If the converse is true, it is not. It's difficult to imagine an even split between workers' democratic management and orthodox capitalist relations, since the former organizational structure represents a more efficient and productive model that would out-compete the latter.

[redz]

"Democratic socialism" in the literal sense is redundant, because the participatory nature of socialism requires that it be democratic. In the colloquial sense of referring to a reformist electoral socialism or means of enacting socialism, social democracy remains excluded because the means of production remain privately owned. I've been giving some thought as to where the line between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" is, since even privately owned firms in social democratic capitalist economies are characterized by more egalitarian structure than the orthodox firms of more rightist capitalist economies. My conclusion is that if workers' ownership and management is the norm in an economic paradigm, and the rule rather than the exception to it, it is socialist. If the converse is true, it is not. It's difficult to imagine an even split between workers' democratic management and orthodox capitalist relations, since the former organizational structure represents a more efficient and productive model that would out-compete the latter.



"Democratic socialism" I think was concocted in the post-WW2 era as a kind of weasel phrase to identify the American Cold War Socialists who flirted with support to imperialism from the more militant small-C communists/revolutionary socialists.

To have socialism means not some kind of social-democratic involvement in the capitalist political structure, but rather the product of socialist revolution - i.e., seizure of state power by the working class and socialization of the economic system, including democratic control of economic planning via workers councils (soviets).

Redz

[redz]

Most progressive liberals are aspiring soc dems.


Maybe so ... but at least the social-dems have some kind of parties with a workingclass base (Leninists call this kind of party a "bourgeois workers party"). The liberal-"progressives" in the USA keep chasing after the Democratic Party, one of the two major parties with a capitalist base. The workinglass and "social-democratic" left basically has no party in the USA.

Redz

[Crux]

This actually raises a good question for me, as I don't know the political history of post-medieval Scandinavia all that well. What DID bring about the Nordic model of social democracy?
During the first 10-20 years or so sweden was the country in europe that lost most workdays due to strikes. Both in 1909 and around 1917, it would not be overoptimistic to say revolution could have been just around the corner. This was also coupled with the movement for universal suffrage, where the worker's movement, the unions, the socialdemocrats and their assorted organizations, was in the forefront, and indeed the force that made it possible. The leadership of social democrats were however vacillating, as in other countries there was a split in the socdems over the russian revolution, which led to the founding of the Left-Socialdemocratic party in 1917, which affiliated to the comintern and thus renamed themselfes the Communist Part of sweden. They played a role in the unions but were driven out in the 30's and 40's by the social democrats, and the social democratic party pretty much maintained their hegemonic role. On the basis of a very strong party organization, associated coop and tenants organizations and the unions they also tended to be in power, although mostly in a minority government, sometimes in coalition with the liberals, in the early days at least. This sort of held them back in some respects, but they managed to pull through some limited social wellfare, for example the 8 hour workday. It wasn't really until after ww2 that the socialdemocrats realized they could use the state, and state intervention, to prop up the economy, as a lesson from the war economy. And so they did. The economy was basically corporatist, and the famous Saltsjöbaden treaty between the unions, the employer side and the state serves as a testament to this. At the time it was regarded as a sell-out by the unions as it included a "no strike after contracts have been negotiated" agreement, but it gave collective bargaining rights. However in the economic upturn, and given the powerfull position of socdems, the capitalists could afford to make concessions.
There was relative industrial peace up until the 1960's when there was several wildcat strikes, mostly regarding working conditions rather than pay, the most famous one being the mines up in the north. This new radicalization also forced some concessions and a slight leftward shift from the socdems, but the leadership were closely wedded to the idea of capitalism. There was an idea to increase employee influence over the companies, which was partly sucessfull, but also fundamentally corporatist. When the economy began to turn with the crisis in the late 1970's the socdems began looking to the right, a process finished sometime in the early 90's.

So to answer your question, it was a combination of militant struggle, powerful worker's organizations and a general upturn in the economy.

[R_P_A_S]

why debate what he guy calls him self? who cares. as long as what he's saying is relevant and progressive! We need more people like him in this shit congress.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Anybody who calls for the break-up of the big banks is a reactionary.

[Robocommie]

Anybody who calls for the break-up of the big banks is a reactionary.

As opposed to nationalization, you mean?

Btw, apologies for not replying to you on the farming issue yet, I've been a bit swamped and too occupied to make a post of any substance.

[ed miliband]

The main thing social democrats and democratic socialists have in common is shit politics.


Sanders is about as socialist as it gets in the States.

He is a great guy though! I support him.

Not to call you out in particular, but if Sanders was just a guy you met at a bar you'd probably denounce him as a silly liberal who is confusing socialism with social democracy. Him being in a position of power doesn't make that any different.

[ellipsis]

I am from vermont, in case you didn't know and I can tell you, based on real talks vermont socialists aren't sure if hes a wolf in sheeps clothes or a sheep and wolf clothes. But he is the best we got, not ideal but on the US spectrum, with the tea party at the other end, he does alright.

[RadioRaheem84]

Not to call you out in particular, but if Sanders was just a guy you met at a bar you'd probably denounce him as a silly liberal who is confusing socialism with social democracy. Him being in a position of power doesn't make that any different.


Anyone who says that there is a war on the poor in the Senate is alright with me. Especially, when the mood is so the right in DC right now.

[Robocommie]

To be perfectly frank, if I met a guy in a bar who wasn't afraid to say there's a war being waged by the rich against the working class in this country, I just might buy him a beer.

[ellipsis]

Not to call you out in particular, but if Sanders was just a guy you met at a bar you'd probably denounce him as a silly liberal who is confusing socialism with social democracy. Him being in a position of power doesn't make that any different.

I have actually met him, I will denounce him as not radical enough but, again he sure beats, I dunno EVERYBODY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But yah hes a silly liberal...

[Amphictyonis]

In the time allotted to the question of Sanders socialist credentials I could have whittled a socialist revoloution out of wood :)

[Robocommie]

In the time allotted to the question of Sanders socialist credentials I could have whittled a socialist revoloution out of wood :)

You can whittle socialist revolutions out of wood? DUDE. What are you doing posting? Get cracking!

[Lucretia]

Only in a country with a population as ideologically confused as Americans are could statements of such obvious truth appear so iconoclastic and noteworthy.

[ellipsis]

In the time allotted to the question of Sanders socialist credentials I could have whittled a socialist revoloution out of wood :)
oh thats why i kept sharpening sticks as a child!

[RebelDog]

To be perfectly frank, if I met a guy in a bar who wasn't afraid to say there's a war being waged by the rich against the working class in this country, I just might buy him a beer.

Come to the UK, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain et al, and you'll meet thousands of people who will say exactly that.

As for the United States, do they really believe it is sustainable to have a state of affairs whereupon the top 0.1% of the population takes 12% of the wealth and the the top 1% gets more than the bottom 50%? Its hard to imagine anything so unequal having any real possibility of long term survival. Only tyranny can produce such inequality.