I live in Finland and of course I would love to see the US adopting our social democratic system because it works great! Sure it's not perfect but would be a great improvement from what the US currently has
It wouldn’t work in the United States. Also your healthcare is free because of how shitty it is. We have best survival rate against cancer. In small countries like Finland it is much easier to redistribute wealth among small areas. The United States is much larger and land and is massively larger among population.
Well, we the US have been redistributing wealth from our massive territories more and more efficiently to the top 3%, many are elected officials or familiar, while maybe the only thing we aren't politically fighting over is cancer success ( keeping customers alive ) while we also have the highest cancer rates. Giving taxpayers their money back isn't socialist. We've already had 60 yrs of corporate and elite welfare. Political bribery is 100% legal here and the only reason ANY law gets written. Prison are for profit, which I guess is why we're so good at locking people up and letting them die and get killed by everything. But hey, our cancer meds are good.
I wish we would stop saying Democratic Socialism. What Bernie and Cortez advocate for is more like the Nordic model which is Social Democracy. There’s a distinct difference. This rampant incorrect use of terminology only will lead to more confusion.
America is a country where "liberal" means "vaguely left", "libertarian" means "(classical) liberal" and "conservative" means "believer in the destruction of the established state and ideally also in jesus" so I think that ship has sailed. This whole demsoc vs socdem thing is really small potatoes
+zoey Paige But we should be democratic socialist and I'm pretty sure that both Bernie and Cortez are both genuine socialists. Just because their current platforms don't include worker-coops doesn't mean it never will. I think you need stop placing so much importance on political labels and instead focus on advocating for good policy.
Ksch Koff That....is a load of crap. Its stunning how much opining people are doing without actually reading their platform lol. No one is calling for socializing sneakers and automobiles
'Equality of outcome' is just a right-wing talking point. Letting people democratically own and operate workplaces does nothing to guarantee outcome. And if you claim to be for opportunity you'd be better off in a socialist system where people have an even playing field with basic needs met.
Accelerationist Most people don't have the capital to start a business. And besides that, why do we let Bezos accrue billions while his workers are on food stamps? Does that seem like a rational and humane system?
Acelly, if businesses had no capital, they could not open their doors to do business. If you are talking about credit then not everyone has access to that kind of credit to kickstart a venture.
Accelerationist It's extremely rare business owners start up with no capital. It's not like Bezos makes a billion overnight because he just worked really really hard. This has nothing to do with entitlement but the philosophy that people should be compensated fairly for their hard labor--ie the opposite.
@Accelerationist: Funny that *you* project capitalists' narcissistic entitlement onto workers. Capitalists like Bezos are the narcisissts who entitled themselves to surplus-values created by their workers. Are you deluding themselves by you are a "temporarily embarrassed capitalist", you *con-serving-tard?* How long do you think you can join the rank of the cons?
As a traditional Social Democrat from Sweden I think the definition is still incredibly important. That said, there are compromises to be made between Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, especially in this day and age. The two still refuse to cooperate in Sweden, which in my view has been detrimental. Meanwhile the right-wing drums have been playing in the background. Remember: you have more in common than not, and don't let minor differences divide you. It's not a competition about who is the most dogmatic or pure. Don't repeat our mistakes. For reference, read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.
These political identities create division. That's your mistake. It's better to have coalition based on shared values rather than a shared set of preconceived policies.
Living in a social-democracy, i can assure it is, imo, the best model so far. It is a mean of equilibrium...and tbh, neither pure socialism, capitalism or capitalism works....it's like they're pure utopias and social-democracy is pure reality and logic. The social-democrats standards, imo, out of all known options, is the one that has the potential to create the most thriving and fair society of them all.
Why didnt they just give it a better more unique name ? As it is trumpers think socialism is communism...they could never comprehend different kinds of socialism.
I too am a social-democrat. We have real world proof that social-democracy works in Scandinavia. Not only does it work but it works very well. It's literally taking the best of both worlds-the best of socialism and capitalism and making the most out of a society. We know it works. It's an evidence proven way forward whereas we don't actually have evidence that democratic socialism works well on a massive scale. NOW that said, that doesn't mean I'm completely against democratic-socialism in the sense of just trying to avoid it at all costs. I am actually open to workers controlling the means of productions in some cases. I mean, we have co-ops in the U.S. and there are examples of them working well at least on a small scale. But even if one's goal would be to socialize the economy, it would be strategically smart to just start with social-democracy. We have a long ways to go before people even understand what these terms mean, much less the outcomes of them. But we need to start with better regulating the economy and making sure everyone has their basic, minimum needs met to have a healthy society. All while doing that, we can experiment with co-ops more. I'd be open to seeing more co-ops throughout our economy but that doesn't mean I think we should take that to the extreme and completely abolish all private ownership but there's nothing wrong with having socialism in the mix. Don't agree? Then I ask you, are you a fan of credit unions? Because they're an example of market socialsm. The members of a credit union own the credit union-that's socialism. My only real problem with it is that I'm not so sure how well it'd all work taken to the extreme where you abolish all private ownership. So yeah, I'm not against experimenting with socialism on smaller scales and then depending on how well they work, we can go from there. But as of right now, I'd prefer to work within a capitalist system, turning the economy into a well organized social-democracy and while we do that, experimenting with more co-ops.
While I partially agree, I do think social democracy is the best within the capitalist system. I’ve been to Scandinavia and talked to a lot of Scandinavians and they all are pretty damn happy haha But I also think the private ownership of the means of production is ultimately immoral
As a Norwegian I wish more people in the USA would understand that the Nordic (that includes Iceland and Finland) countries aren't socialist. I'm tired of the narrative that we're socialist, coming from both the US right and the US left. I watched a video on socialism by a channel called Newsbroke (they've stopped making videos), where the narrative was that ocialism was so amazing because just look at Scandinavian countries and Norway especially.
TheRickyp83 Pray for ideas of how we can get to a socially owned means of production I would look at Jeremy Corbin’s plan released a few months ago for doing so
Finally someone who actually gets it!! I have done so much research on this subject, and have found so few videos that accurately describe the difference. And yours is the first American made video that has described it accurately!
jared..listen you know very well that right-wingers think that ANYTHING to do with government or taxes is socialist...wanna pick on people for being purposefully misleading? start with them dude.
Accelerationist Yeah it is “free” but come on wouldn’t you rather pay say a couple hundred bucks extra each year in taxes rather than a 60 dollar co pay.
AJ Welsh nothing is free. You would still be paying taxes that would easily pay for your health care if it wasn't for the fact that the healthare system has become a business inflating prices by the minute
Accelerationist Oh okay shit, I’m just saying man health care should be a right not a privilege.That’s what I believe and if everybody just gave a little each year people would be better off. That’s just my opinion you don’t have to agree.
As an actual democratic socialist I believe that captial will inevitably erode every safety net in a social democracy. I don't believe that personal profit is the end-all of catalysts for innovation. People innovate to solve problems every day and the open source revolution kinda throws a wrench into your argument that only capital can drive progress.
You have a good point; a greed-based system tends to corrode. I still note that social democracy seems to work well. But I also like the idea of moving towards worker ownership of companies, and see no reason why we shouldn't move to democratize the workplace in many respects.
the idea that left=more government is a bizarre American abomination that takes an already shakey grouping of politics onto a "spectrum" and then just renders that spectrum completely meaningless. Thinking of politics as left=more government is about as meaningful and accurate as saying all politics can be condensed into right=more war left=less war. Or right=low wages left=high wages. 1)It reduces all of politics to 1 dimension and 2) it's not even really true about that 1 dimension. There are big government conservatives and small government socialists. And there are pacifist conservatives and militaristic socialists.
In Europe we've had lots of socialism and social democracy. Therefore, we take for granted things like public health systems. The term actually sounds old fashioned, and the socialist parties in many countries have become mired in corruption or are simply part of the "establishment". Unfortunately, Populism (right and left) has seduced many voters in Europe. Socialism isn't even considered extreme as such. The USA could revitalize democratic socialism in the world and rebalance it's economy, reduce inequality, protect the environment and provide public health and education. There's huge opportunity for improvement in the USA on policies that in the rest of the world are not considered very radical.
As someone who would probably say they are a centrist, I think the left should really clear this up becaouse when I hear socialist I immediately think about Stalin, when I think about Social Democracy I immediately think about Denmark.
It's not your fault, I think that same thinking pattern is purposely ingrained in us since elementary school.. lol.. hope it does get cleared up it's too late for this election now though
“These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger." -Bernie Sanders 2011
Even the Democratic Socialists by and large do not advocate for "public ownership of the means of production", which essentially means the government owning and controlling, getting back to the failed "central planning" model. What many of them are into is worker co-ops, where the workers themselves (the ones actually producing) own the means of production. Even still, they don't want to force that system on everyone and convert all extant businesses to worker co-ops, but want any and all roadblocks and disincentives to them removed and perhaps even encouraged via subsidy or tax relief for a time to allow them to flourish.
People need to grow up, especially boomers, and stop allowing the word 'socialism' to be a scary or negative word, we benefit from it every single day.
So any form of tax funded operation such as military, school, infrastructure, etc we can just call socialism now? You guys make these claims like capitalists simply dont understand how these things work. We've been funding programs with taxes long before you came along to hi jack terminology to fit your narrative. You're bending definitions to justify more wealth redistribution.
Alex Crivellone Social programs =/= socialism. This is exactly what David is saying in the video, which I agree with to a certain extent. Social programs have existed within capitalism for ages, only recently have people used the word socialism for capitalism with social programs. At what point does capitalism become socialism in regard to the amount/level of social programs? Its manipulation of terminology for political gain, and as you can see not everyone agrees on how that strategy should be approached.
No, Alex, socialism advances particular values such as global human solidarity and racial, gender, class equality. The military does not specifically serve that purpose. What you are describing is liberal democracy where we collect taxes and collectively decide how to spend it.
The meaning of social democracy has changed over the years. Previously, social democracy meant socialistic democracy. Now it is most used in the sense of social (conscience) democracy.
Hi David, I need to clear up a confusion In socialism "private property" typically refers to the right to own the labor of others, and accumulate wealth they themselves do not create or impact in a meaningful way. The issue you cite with owning your own business is a bigger issue in capitalism, where most workers do not own the business, rather stockholders or shareholders do. As such those who drive innovation are not the owners of their labor or business. It is true that versions of State Socialism the state own and control the entirety of the means of production, but this is not the case in essentially all versions of Libertarian Socialism, and even many/most versions of Democratic Socialism (which usually, at least in part, built on versions of Market Socialism). In other words, even in many socialist systems you, as an entrepreneur, can start your own business, and own the labor it produces. You would however (usually) not be allowed to exploit others for your own betterment. Also: Tieing back to your original contention, all workers owning their own labor will have increased incentive to produce and innovate. P.S. As for equality of outcome this is something very few socialists are arguing. Even Marx and Engels were strongly against it. As were the Guild Socialists, Mutualists, etc. I would recommend reading Bertrand Russell's Proposed Roads to Freedom where he goes over the key areas of agreements and disagreements in the leftist movements historically and at the time (1918) - obviously with heavy preference for Guild Socialism.
THANK YOU. I got so excited to see socialism get a revitalization in interest, only to find that everyone meant social democracy. Socialism CAN work, but I fear discussion on the merits of socialism has been tainted with this mass misunderstanding :(
Socialism can only work in a society where everyone agrees that it can work. If people want to have more power, or own more stuff (which in my view is human nature) then you can only have socialism through dictatorship. I think a socialist society would be great for a group of people who have similar goals and beliefs. That is why it works so well in small groups. If we ever get a scoiety that has this level of consensus then I would welcome a socialist society.
potatoid - 01. We don't want socialism. We just want what David is speaking of. That is one of the weapons the right is trying to use against us, saying that we want socialism. This isn't true.
Problem is David this is way too much for the regular person to understand. Instead of understanding policy this will become a Republican talking point. I can't even get threw to Bernie supporters capitalism will not be completely destroyed. It seems to be one extreme or another.
+Michael Garry David Pakman does a very bad job at explaining what democratic socialism is. He makes it sound like authortarian communism. Democratic socialism is a far better economic system than social democracy. You should look up Richard Wolf.
I disagree that its a far better economic system. A mixed system allowing some private ownership with a bedrock or safety net of social programs for education, healthcare, policing, justice, public transport, etc with a capitalist market driven society on top of that is a far better economic system in my view. Its basically what drives Western Europe, Canada, USA (through the new deal era), Singapore, Australia, NZ, etc, and to be fair they've done quite well.
+Michael Garry Democratic socialism is basically worker-coops as an awesome alternative to the corporate model. Besides AI and automation are going to force the collapse social-democracy system anyway. We really don't have a choice.
Bernie and Cortez need to come out and clarify their position as either Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist (or some combination of the two) because this linguistic ambiguity will be used against them. They must get out in front of this before any further damage is done.
Cortez I personally believe she is a hardline social democrat; Bernie on the other hand has consistently criticized capitalism and although what he advocates is essentially standards such as universal healthcare for us in europe, the USA is more on the right than any western European country, I do believe here in western Europe, he would advocate further socialist policies
I usually like David Pakman’s analysis but this is a gross misrepresentation of what Democratic Socialism is. Worker Cooperatives would be a form of Democratic Socialism. They do NOT guarantee an equality of outcome. Worker Cooperatives are private enterprises but they are owned and operated collectively and democratically by the workers of the enterprise. Has nothing to do with abolishing private enterprise and making them public. That is a macro level change that does almost nothing to resolve the basic problems with capitalism. The biggest one being we have a system where the wealth generated by workers becomes the private profit of a small percentage of the population. If you really look at how capitalist enterprises work, they are top down authoritarian structures. If you want an economy to serve the people, then you have to put the people in charge. We have a system that serves the wealthy and powerful precisely because they are in a position to control the profits generated by the labor of others.
Good explanation, but I fear a lot of those who commented still don't understand the difference, or if they do, they are misguided about everyone being able to "make it" in the US.
also, you seem to be muddying the water by using the term "public means of production" somehow implying that they would be owned by the government instead of by the workers themselves, which is what socialism calls for
Thank you for this video! I can't wait for a deeper analysis comparing democratic socialism with social democracy. There is an important difference there when you use the true meanings of the words. David, you have more economic knowledge than me and i respect your opinions.
I have watched many many video's on this topic and I believe this by far is the best video explaining democratic socialism. In regard to David's thoughts on AOC, if one watches the 60 Minutes episode of Anderson Cooper interviewing AOC regarding her platform, she is absolutely clueless on how to pay for her idea of democratic socialism. She simply believes taxing the "tippy tippy top" of the wealthiest billionaires will pay for everything.
It is so essential that people have clear definitions to be able to discuss anything. I live in Scandinavia and I like to say that in my country capitalism and socialism is joined in a mutually beneficial rational marriage. It is very similar to what Bernie is talking about. Not similar outcomes, but a minimum lower bar of how bad an outcome can become, and some limits to prevent total domination by corporations. It is not perfectly airtight welfare, and a very few fall through the cracks, but the socialized sectors, like healthcare, is very focused on preventing illness and problems since that is cheaper and makes sense in general. Statistics show that Scandinavian countries are some of the easiest in the world to get rich in....believe it or not. Highly educated and reasonably healthy workforce, economic security to take the risk to try a venture, and so on.....if you fail miserably, and don't have too hard drug problems, the system will dust you off, re-educate you and put you back in the workforce. The idea of classes is not very strong in Scandinavia, and allthough we are very aware of it economically and politically, it is bad taste to point it out socially. Our current government is very right-wing by our standards, and people are starting to move more to the left again....all my life the balance point have been swinging slowly between the left and the right like a pendulum.
I involved myself with DSA in my state during my 20's. My takeaway at 36, is that DSA presented themselves more in a social democrat light to "rehabilitate" the term socialist. The group leaders made it explicit that they wanted to, "rehabilitate the term," and they talked about starting co-ops. They did start one, though I am unsure it still exists.
I think it's a straw man to say that socialists want all private enterprise to be nationalised. Some specific industries, like health, transport, energy, maybe even steel, but I've never heard a socialist argue that every private company should be publicly owned.
Thank you Pakman for explaining the difference between these political ideas. I realized this in a previous video you did when you interviewed a Bernie-crat and helped her to realize the difference. I've been trying to push this point in any forum/comments section I've come across, like The Majority Report/TYT. Gonna bookmark this video so it'll be easier to link and spread the knowledge. Don't give the Republicons easy ammo people, Socialist DEMOCRACY is we want :)
Thanks for the clearing. For me as a german watcher it was always confusing to hear americans talk about democratic socialsm because it sounded to me always like the social democraty we have here in germany. So the lable of these politicians like Berny Sanders is just wrong. Das hilft mir viel weiter. Danke nochmals und tolle Show. Weiter so!
_"Friedrich Engels described in his draft program for the League of Communists of November 1847 some representatives of early socialism as "democratic socialists". Like the Communists, they sought to overcome the misery and abolition of class society, but were content with a democratic constitution and some subsequent social reforms. Joseph Schumpeter described democratic socialism in his work: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) as _*_a democratic transition without revolution and violence from capitalism to socialism._*_ According to the political scientist Thomas Meyer, all theories of a democratic socialism represent an egalitarian concept of justice, affirm the democratic constitutional state, strive for welfare state security for all citizens, want to limit private property in a socially acceptable way and socially integrate and politically regulate the economic sector. _*_Rosa Luxemburg, the founder and spokesman of the Spartacist group, demarcated her understanding of democratic socialism during the First World War in her essays written in prison: 'It is the historic task of the proletariat, if it comes to power, to create socialist democracy in place of bourgeois democracy, not to abolish any democracy._*_ But socialist democracy does not begin in the promised land, when the foundation of the socialist economy is created, as a ready Christmas present for the common people. (...) Socialist democracy begins at the same time with the dismantling of class rule and the building of socialism. It begins with the moment of the conquest of power by the socialist party. It is nothing but the dictatorship of the proletariat.' _*_Broadest democratic participation and awareness of the working population was for Rosa Luxemburg the only guarantee for a successful construction of socialism.“_* " Just using the label of 'democratic socialism' doesn't make someone a democratic socialist. *Ocasio-Cortez is a great candidate and I have nothing against her, but she is most certainly not a democratic socialist (Yes: I have read her whole program!).* She is a moderate liberal like the folks at TYT and I don't mean that as an insult. Terms matter - it is not "just semantics' !
As always ... David making things clear. This was much needed. As a Dane I find it absurd for my country with are heavily influenced by Social Democrats to be branded as a abolish-capitalism-socialist state leading to Venezuela conditions.
I´m from Sweden and I am amazed that this seems so new to americans. There are loads of rich people in Sweden.I think it´s easier to open up a company here than in the US. America must be lightyears after us!Wow
sam larsson... it amazed me also. But I'm over it now... you can see the difference very well in our society, everybody is well educated. It doesn't matter who you talk too the person has a good basic level of understanding...America is light years behind, only look at there prison system, based on profit. It will take many generations to understand... but maybe that's also related to USA has no real history being in existence for only 200 years. Compare to 8000-10000 years ago Europe had there first large societies.
Social Democrat isn't used in America because it's associated with neoconservative ex-leftists from the Reagan years and has less appeal to populist/independent as well as leftist voters.
Ocasio-Cortez gave her definition of democratic socialism as 'nobody should be too poor to live'. So she's a social democrat. I think the reason why people like Bernie and Cortez are using the democratic socialist label is to differentiate themselves from corporate democrats. Corporate dems are much more comfortable co-opting the social democrat label, allowing them to make the point 'We're both social democrats, there's really not much difference between us and Bernie style candidates'.
+Stanbobbler I think Bernie and Alexandra call themselves "democratic socialist" to differentiate themselves from the Soviet Union and China because they are socialists that also believe in liberal democracy. In democratic government we have to satisfy ourselves with incrementalism. I do not believe they are fixed to any set of policies. I believe they will advocate whatever policies best serve the material needs of their people in the moment which could down the line mean work-coops, etc.
That definition is not even Social Democrat. If it is only concerned with giving everyone a dignified life and basic opportunities we are in the territory of Social Liberalism (often called Modern Liberalism as a contrast to Classic Liberalism in the US), i.e. FDR. Social Democrats believe in collective ownership of the entire welfare sector, with no room for profit - they also usually push for government run companies and more involvement in the economy.
You are making it far too complicated. The whole discussion comes down to a mix of taking care and free market values. There is a continuem where choices can be made. But the baseline should be a safe environment, universal healthcare and social security for the poor. On top of that countries can choose for 'things' as free education, cheap public transport, pensionplans, etc. That is where discussions in social democracies are all about.
This conversation wouldn't be so damn difficult if the Republican's disinformation campaign since the '50s wasn't so ingrained in the minds of Middle America. I blame the John Birch Society for smearing anything with even a hint of socialistic tendencies as full-blown Marxism, which started in the McCarthy era and has lasted until today. Not only do I find my relatives and friends to be completely and utterly lacking in even the slightest knowledge of what true socialism entails, but I find popular online figures like Joe Rogan spouting off on a regular basis against the evils of socialism and social democracies without the faintest of knowledge on the subject.
we haven't given any misinformation if socialism is seizing the means of production then people should be weary when a politician call for it. Also isn't the leftist stance that the parties "switched in the 1960's"
Why don't we call this "socially responsible capitalism." FFS it's all a bunch of worry over the label, rather than the specifics of policy and strategy. Frustrating!
So from the DSA web page: "The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few. We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters, DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people." "As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people." (www.dsausa.org/) So... DSA isn't "true" socialism? Isn't this exactly the USSR's model? I understand that social programs do not socialism make, but the DSA does not seem to be looking to create merely more social programs like government healthcare, but rather has the goal of phasing out capitalism. I know many of these terms are used vaguely, so we can all do some word play to make this sound more or less mainstream, but I do not think any organization that outright touts on its web page that it is socialist, couldn't be at least considered... socialist.
You forgot one very important fact: If society has a social safety net, as in a social democratic society, more innovators are willing to risk outliving their creative dreams, as failure does not mean you fall to the bottom. The chance of getting very rich is far grater for the average person in the scandinavian countries, than in the US. Which is why a country like Denmark, with only 6 million people, is home to the biggest shipping company (Mearsk), the biggest toy brand (Lego), huge farma companies (Novo Nordic), and loads of smaller high tech companies. I pay about 50% of my total income in different taxes. In retrun all my kids have had free university educations (actually they are paid app $800 a month), I don’t have to worry about economic implications of getting sick, ever, and I still have a house, car, telvison, iphones, computers and what not. And I am not very special!
It is socialism that is democratically elected. Like how we have capitalist societies that are democratically elected. Like that, but replace the capitalism with socialism. It's really not that hard.
I'm a democratic socialist from Switzerland and I say that the US should adapt to a Swiss style direct Democratic system so that citizens can vote for and against bills which were introduced by the government
The semantics are important as long as there are in fact actual social democrats, actual democratic socialists, actual socialists and actual communists in the world and also the US. When these ideologies exist and they are in fact different, we need the appropriate, distinguishing terminology to talk about them as such. If we allow the terminology to be blurry, some people can hide under its vagueness and use it to cover what they really want. I'm a social liberal who believes Bernie is in fact a democratic socialist advocating social democracy. I'm fine with that because at least he's shifting the country closer to where it needs to be. However, things become dangerous when voters think they are supporting one thing out of brand recognition end up supporting something they thought they were in the clear from. As the word socialists loses its stigma and becomes a bigger part of the US political landscape, the importance of distinguishing the various brand of socialism and its capitalistic "hybrids" rises along with it.
Perhaps some misguided political advisers are convinced "Social Democrat" may not be catchy enough.... it might even sound vague. I think it sounds more appealing than "Democratic Socialist" .... which obviously isn't the same thing.... but at least it doesn't sound remotely vague. They may be willing to accept the confusion over having a vague sounding name. They really need to be more accurate regardless of how it sounds.
Marx was against equality of outcome, but there have been socialists from other tendencies who have disagreed. It is also worth noting that Democratic Socialism is a very broad term and often based more on Fabianism and Classic Socialism than Marx - but this certainly gives no indication of equality of outcome either, rather quite the opposite.
Ig you take people property an give it to other people who have less property how is that no enforcing "equality of outcome". IF you consider that the outcome is how much property somebody owns
Kyle Hankins this depends on whether you're talking about private or personal property. if you're talking about the former, then your talking about taking away something that is inherently stealing from the people. private property is the factory or machines(or anything that makes a capitalist money) that help workers to produce labor, the factory owner then *takes* what the workers produced and gives the worker less than what they made in value. that's called wage theft. no matter what, a capitalist must pay their employees less than they produce in value because they need a profit. so i'll ask you, how is giving the workers a fair and democratic distribution of the means of production worse than a factory owner stealing value from workers? now if you're talking about stealing personal property, which includes your toothbrush and teddy bear, then you're mistaken because no leftist wants to steal your toothbrush (or fancy car or house)
My Dad made 10 million nzd turnover Civil engineer owner , after taxes , paying wages , expesnses we took home $300,000 nzd . Since he worked bloody hard for it working weekends / long hours for it . You socialist can burn in hell with Bernie
Americans have their own pet definitions of many political ideologies, such as classical liberal or libertarian, we'll just have to add another to the pile.
David I enjoy your show but think this talk about terminology is sheer bunk. Socialist can mean many things. If someone like my self says 'I am a socialist', which I am, you first have to find out what I mean by this. The word does not have a fixed meaning - I don't have to add the word 'democratic' to it and that word has been thoroughly abused like nearly all political language. People like Mrs. Clinton and others give the word democrat an ugly sound because they are not practising it but imposing the will of the corporate powers on it. We are generally in a mess. My socialism is an attempt to get out of this trap. It is practised in several European and other countries. I lived in Harold Wilson's Britain. It was not a matter of workers taking over the means of production but of nationalising several public services like medicine, the railways, the post office, and the last two worked infiiitely better than when Thatcher privatised them again when they became a chaotic mess.I am definitely not a Marxist - who would have turned in his grave with horror if he could have seen what pseudo-communists got up to. Rosa Luxemburg, who was a comrade of Lenin and Trotsky told them as soon as they got into power that they were destroying socialism. And that ideiot, Jordan Ptersen, keeps screaming that people who deny that communism was ever practised are liers He is the lier for thinking that it has.Marx was nevertheless a great philosopher, like Kant, Nietzsche and others. The middle class revolution did happen with some active fighting but mainly to changing economic circustances. He was unfortunately right when he said the dictatorship of the proletariat was inevitable as we are living under it now. He should never have used the word 'dictatorship' which is incompatible with a free society. Ruskin - who was of course a great critic of the arts - decided at about the same as Marx that he wanted to know the economic factors underlying the arts and his analyses are quite similar to those of Marx. But Ruskin was a Conservative and didn't oppose capitalism: he said the only function of capitalism should be to create human riches and that if it was allowed to mutiply blindly for its own sake, we were in the shit - which is where we are.(Not to mention the fact that wars mutiply capital for some)
Social democracy is inherently unstable, you can see this in the rollback of many of those hard won reforms in the nordic countries in the last 30 years. Democratic socialism, of the kind that gets advocated for these days, involves bringing democracy into the workplace but retaining a market for worker operated firms to compete in. There is no centralized state ownership of production or elimination of markets altogether as they did in the USSR. Democratic socialism, having worker ownership of businesses that compete in a market, with funding allocated from a capital tax and elimination of private share ownership would be a radical change, but a vast improvement over even the (now crumbling) nordic model.
Labels don't matter. Americans don't know the definition of most of the political labels. It's the policy that matters, and it's something easy for voters to understand.
This is absolutely spot on. The Nordic countries (not just Scandinavia) use what's known as the Nordic model, which is a form of social democracy. It is not a socialist economic system. They use a combination of being pro market capitalism/free trade/private ownership alongside strong welfare state and social benefits- like collective bargaining (though this varies in each country). There's a lot of confusion in the US about - and misuse of - the term 'socialism' by both the left and right.
Social Democracy leads to Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialism leads to Socialism. Most of the Scandinavian countries, despite having their defense budget PAID FOR THEM, have encountered economic and health care crises and had to re-privatize key industries in order to stay afloat. They found out the hard way. And in a much more diverse country like America, it will be much more difficult to backtrack and stop the domino effect.
JOSEPH STALIN - The Social-Democratic View of the National Question - 1904 (aged 26) "Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.... These organisations ( ie Fascism and social democracy ) are not antipodes, they are twins"
Putting Democratic in front of something doesn't change what it is. Let put Democratic in front of dictator or tyrant. Does that change those two things? No, same applies to socialism.
Socialism isn't 'public ownership'; it's 'worker ownership'. Instead of capitalists and oligarchs, the workers own and manage the economy in their own businesses which borrow money like any capitalist business. Then the state serves the workers and not capital.
I want well regulated capitalism. No monopolies, no government-corporation alliance, no corporate media manipulating the narrative and no making health care a way for insurance executives to get wealthy by fleecing the public.
I know this is a year old thread, but I felt like responding. I agreed with what David was saying up until he seemed to misunderstand socialism, making pretty weak arguments. But, thankfully, David is very open-minded, and I could see him coming around to leaning Left, rather than center-Left. Despite being a socdem, David has helped immensely in informing people on the truth of socialism, which is why I find it odd when he makes disparaging comments on socialism. But, I enjoyed his discussion/debate with Peter Coffin, and other discussions he's had over the past year. All socialism is democratic, the term democratic socialism is used just to distance themselves from authoritarian "socialists", mostly these socialists are actually state capitalist, but some socialist governments really do use/have used violence to stop capitalists and their sympathizers from using violence on them. This part makes for a good discussion, as there will always be greedy people that prey on others, and what's to be done of it. Also, Countries like the US (mostly the US), UK, and France will use violence to suppress any socialist government. If the US became socialist, would this cause socialism around the world to be successful? Violence is also something all capitalists use, but people don't use the word democratic capitalism. Well, it's not really a phrase you can use as capitalism isn't democratic. Perhaps, there can be strong enough social democratic policies to make capitalism democratic, and social democracy itself makes capitalism far more democratic. Just a note: walfare is not socialist, it's an attempt to fix the problems of capitalism, and for some people, such as Elizabeth Warren, liberal policies like these are an attempt to strengthen capitalism. Also, social democrats used to gradually reform the economy, moving from capitalism to socialism. Modern social democracy is closer to pre-80's liberalism ideologically. It falls more along the lines of New Deal Democrats.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that public ownership of the means of production and profit would necessarily stall ingenuity. We, no matter what system we live under, are prone to exploring new ideas and improving upon existing technology. With this comes automation which is hard on the workers in a capitalist system; whereas with socialism automation would improve their lives.
Kyle Hankins It's true that competition may drive innovation but it's not the sole factor. Not only that, there are many economic models utilized by socialist countries that don't drive out competition. The social ownership of businesses is just that, public ownership. This doesn't equate to a lack of competition among businesses.
Not industrial capitalism - the combinations of financial resources to produce. Financial capitalism is combinations of financial resources to attain rents. A very different animal. Late stage is vague and indicative of nothing. Late stage of a disease has real meaning because of the wealth of medical experience and observation. If you believe capitalism, in all of its manifestations, is a disease that runs a predictable course, then that term might be justifiable in your terms. My response to that is, what is the experience and observation of instances of capitalism running its course? Just a few examples will satisfy the question. In my view, today's version of capitalism might be described as perverted, corrupted, amoral, usurious, even demented. But late stage? Really?
Full on Socialism will be come necessary in the near future. As of right now as a socialist I actually do want most businesses to be ran through socialist means, businesses that I don't think our business is like movie theaters and things like that that you have to be more artistic. The reason I think this is absolutely going to be necessary in the near future is automations going to start taking over and if most jobs can be performed by machines, people still have to live, most people won't even be able to get a basic job let alone a job that can pay for all the bills.
Socialists have mostly moved past pure socialism as a goal. Democratic Socialism in Europe supports a mixed economy leaning towards socialism more than capitalism. For instance corporations should be required to be unionized and to have union representation on their boards but still favor allowing small businesses to be privately owned along with instituting a very robust social safety net. The problem is in the US most people have no idea what these terms mean and a certain independent Senator from Vermont, who is neither a Socialist nor a Democratic Socialist, has claimed to be both. He is at best a very lukewarm social democrat. Personally, having seen capitalism and the Western European Democratic Socialisms I'll take DS.
Sure it’s a mixed economy, but it is over that half away point on the political compass. Is is NOT capitalism. It is more socialistic with elements of capitalism. And the DSA support union-owned corporations, which is post-Capitalistic. I’m starting to get frustrated with these explanations
I thought she said in an interview that she would *_not immediately press_* for the socialization of the means of production but that was the ultimate end game...and that's a problem.
Social Democracy is Capitalism via Keneysian economics! I don't know why Americans don't get this. But as usual, Americans insist that the American way of using a term is the way is that everybody in the world uses it, even though the way everyone else, the majority of the 7-8 billion people on the planet, use it differs. I don't know where you get the idea that democratic socialism is about "equality of outcome" in all areas besides meeting basic needs. Please provide reliable sources that define this as a policy of democratic socialism.
The wikipedia entries for democratic socialism and social democracy backup this video, but I think we are moving to a day when wikipedia has a new definition for democratic socialist limited to the United States. It will be the same as social democracy. It's kind of like what happened with the word liberal. In the U.S. liberal means left, but in the rest of the word, it means libertarian. Here's my guess at how we ended up with many believing democratic socialism is social democracy. Today on Bernie Sanders website, he has a long entry about democratic socialism called - Democratic Socialism in the United States. berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united-states/ In it, he says: "I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal. "I believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas." Interestingly, the Bernie Sanders' wikipedia page has this sentance. "A self-described democratic socialist and a New Deal-era American progressive, Sanders is pro-labor and emphasizes reversing economic inequality. Some political observers consider his views more in line with social democracy; Sanders has often called for a Scandinavian-style welfare state in the United States." So, Bernie Sanders thinks democratic socialism is the same as social democracy, but has this always been the case? Perhaps he was a democratic socialist a long time ago and has since changed. He was a member of the Socialist Party of America when he was at the University of Chicago, and when he was the the mayor of Burlington he called himself a Socialist. If Bernie has since changed over the years. My guess is that he didn't want to announce that to the world - I don't know why - he is a politician after all. Moving on, more people are joining the Democratic Socialists of America every day. My guess is that around 95% of them are not actual democratic socialist, but are probably social democrats.
Good you clarified the two. Even though I am a conservative I can support some ideas of Social Democrats. Equality of opportunity >> outcomes. Raising the base line and expanding opportunity is crucial for country. But free market is excellent at innovation and creativity.
is anybody familiar with ludwig Lichtenstein. He was a philosopher that saw a major flaw in how we think language works. We think words have an inherent meaning, but really wods only mean how they are used. so these discussions about what the differences between. I get that different groups needs their terms to be precise and consistent, but wods change, that why you can say classic liberal, and liberal are not the same thing. also this is comment 666
Creativity and innovation would not just disappear under socialism. Creativity and innovation has existed long before capitalism's inception, and did not just die off in socialist countries. The USSR for instance made great innovative advancements in the field of rocketry, and Italian city states during the Renaissance often sponsored great thinkers, or artists, to create their work. Moreover, in a Democratic Socialist society people would still be able to innovative, create products, and depending if the society is utilizing a market orientated style of an economy, even sell it. It would just mean that instead of the power, decision making, and profits being funneled up to the corporate executives, it would be a cooperative where the workers democratically choose their leaders and the successes of the co-op going towards the workers.
Personally I am a liberal socialist which is very much very much related to social democracy. The only difference with liberal socialism and social democracy is that liberal socialism believe that there is certain aspects of the economy that should remain in a state of socialism like the electricity, water supply, health care, mining industry. Liberal socialism also sees to fix the issues monopolies that comes from the fault unregulated capitalism.
Capitalism is too regulated , why your wages have been stagnant 30 yrs , High taxes on small and medium business is the problem . Corporation earn money from shareholders life savings , shareholder pays the Ceos wages
There are as many ideologies within socialism as there are within capitalism, would you, presuming you are a capitalist, say being a capitalist is stupid as Keynes, Hayek and Friedman have different views? Capitalist ideologies range from Liberalism to Conservatism, to Fascism, etc. These ideas does not affect whether or not basic ideas within capitalism are moral, functional, have economic benefits, etc. As for Socialists you can split them into two broad base ideas: 1. The means of production should belong to the specific workers operating them 2. The means of production should belong to society as a whole And there are of course plenty of ideologies merging these two views, in fact most do in one way or another. There is also the question of the specific people utilizing the services, i.e. ideas concerning "consumer socialism". Note, none of this is commenting on how each ideology wishes to organize society, the type of rule (workplace democracy/syndicalism, direct democracy, traditional democracy, or a mix), their commitment to personal/individual freedom, or how they wish to transition to socialism (slow reforms and social democracy, radical electorate jumps to worker/direct societal control, strikes and worker pressures or more extremely; revolutions). Socialists do not agree as it is not one idea, but multiple. If willing to compromise and work together however, the way democratic socialists typically do, this is not an issue as there are pragmatic compromises which follow the will of the people.
Ana kasparian describes herself as a democratic socialist, but when she explains it, sounds more like social democracy the way you define it. What do you think also How would Canada fall into these definitions as well?
Alot of people think social democracy and democratic socialism are the same things because of the way bernie, cortez etc. use the word however there are a large chunk of people who root for things like the dsa some who even run it who are real democratic socialists not social democrats which just makes everything confusing. There needs to be some differentiation between the two terms because they are radically different and shouldn't be conflated with each other.
I find these terms very confusing Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism sounds like the same thing. Every country in Europe, not just the Scandinavian countries have a democracy with basic rights for their citizens, like healthcare for all, like help for the needy and help for the unemployed. The infrastructure was not so long ago part of the government companies. They try to privatize this, but that has not have been successful. Although in every country people think differently about what should be provided by the Government and what should be privatized, a social system (Democratic Socialism) like you describe is called communism. Communism is not popular anymore on a large scale, it just works within some regions (in Spain there are regions, that function as a communist community). But within Europe, everybody is convinced that capitalism with no adjustments for health care and people in needy positions and scholarships for students really does not work at all. The question is not, do you want adjustments, but how much and how many adjustments do you need. Political parties can have a different view on these issues.
Let's just agree that Star Trek is a somewhat more desirable model of a future society than The Matrix and we should work our way forward in an incremental, empirically-minded manner. Capitalism 2.0, Zero Marginal Cost Society, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Communism - just use whatever term seems appropriate for the context and the people you talk to. In the US 'Democratic Socialism' probably packs the most punch right now...
I agree that the terms should be clarified , but, understand that clarifying the terms won’t stop the right wing and corporate dems from fear mongering any term that contain ‘social(ist)’ in it. As a political strategy, proper term usage makes little difference imo, candidates have to be defined by their policy positions, not their titles.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is definitely not a democratic socialist or socialist; she’s said it time and time again. Fox and Friends keep trying to confuse the masses or perhaps they themselves are confused or ignorant about what’s what.
I live in Finland and of course I would love to see the US adopting our social democratic system because it works great! Sure it's not perfect but would be a great improvement from what the US currently has
Seems pretty great
Luuleks et noi tyhmät tulee ikin ymmärtää mitään mistään
It wouldn’t work in the United States. Also your healthcare is free because of how shitty it is. We have best survival rate against cancer. In small countries like Finland it is much easier to redistribute wealth among small areas. The United States is much larger and land and is massively larger among population.
Well, we the US have been redistributing wealth from our massive territories more and more efficiently to the top 3%, many are elected officials or familiar, while maybe the only thing we aren't politically fighting over is cancer success ( keeping customers alive ) while we also have the highest cancer rates. Giving taxpayers their money back isn't socialist. We've already had 60 yrs of corporate and elite welfare. Political bribery is 100% legal here and the only reason ANY law gets written. Prison are for profit, which I guess is why we're so good at locking people up and letting them die and get killed by everything. But hey, our cancer meds are good.
@@WillZingzong bs
Long live social democracy.
I wish we would stop saying Democratic Socialism. What Bernie and Cortez advocate for is more like the Nordic model which is Social Democracy. There’s a distinct difference. This rampant incorrect use of terminology only will lead to more confusion.
America is a country where "liberal" means "vaguely left", "libertarian" means "(classical) liberal" and "conservative" means "believer in the destruction of the established state and ideally also in jesus" so I think that ship has sailed.
This whole demsoc vs socdem thing is really small potatoes
More confusion and fewer votes. If only MSM would run explainers.
+zoey Paige But we should be democratic socialist and I'm pretty sure that both Bernie and Cortez are both genuine socialists. Just because their current platforms don't include worker-coops doesn't mean it never will. I think you need stop placing so much importance on political labels and instead focus on advocating for good policy.
And more importantly is scares away the moerates
Ksch Koff That....is a load of crap. Its stunning how much opining people are doing without actually reading their platform lol. No one is calling for socializing sneakers and automobiles
'Equality of outcome' is just a right-wing talking point. Letting people democratically own and operate workplaces does nothing to guarantee outcome. And if you claim to be for opportunity you'd be better off in a socialist system where people have an even playing field with basic needs met.
Accelerationist Most people don't have the capital to start a business. And besides that, why do we let Bezos accrue billions while his workers are on food stamps? Does that seem like a rational and humane system?
Acelly, if businesses had no capital, they could not open their doors to do business. If you are talking about credit then not everyone has access to that kind of credit to kickstart a venture.
Accelerationist It's extremely rare business owners start up with no capital. It's not like Bezos makes a billion overnight because he just worked really really hard. This has nothing to do with entitlement but the philosophy that people should be compensated fairly for their hard labor--ie the opposite.
@Accelerationist: Funny that *you* project capitalists' narcissistic entitlement onto workers. Capitalists like Bezos are the narcisissts who entitled themselves to surplus-values created by their workers. Are you deluding themselves by you are a "temporarily embarrassed capitalist", you *con-serving-tard?* How long do you think you can join the rank of the cons?
Accelerationist Lol
As a traditional Social Democrat from Sweden I think the definition is still incredibly important. That said, there are compromises to be made between Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, especially in this day and age. The two still refuse to cooperate in Sweden, which in my view has been detrimental. Meanwhile the right-wing drums have been playing in the background. Remember: you have more in common than not, and don't let minor differences divide you. It's not a competition about who is the most dogmatic or pure. Don't repeat our mistakes. For reference, read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.
These political identities create division. That's your mistake. It's better to have coalition based on shared values rather than a shared set of preconceived policies.
Hey..... Is there any huge problem with Muslim immigrants in Sweden?
Like what happened recently
@@normalhuman6581 Islam is a right wing ideology so of course it's gonna create huge probloems.
That awkward moment when you realise you've been labelling your own politics incorrectly. I guess Social Democracy is more where I'm at.
Living in a social-democracy, i can assure it is, imo, the best model so far. It is a mean of equilibrium...and tbh, neither pure socialism, capitalism or capitalism works....it's like they're pure utopias and social-democracy is pure reality and logic. The social-democrats standards, imo, out of all known options, is the one that has the potential to create the most thriving and fair society of them all.
Why didnt they just give it a better more unique name ? As it is trumpers think socialism is communism...they could never comprehend different kinds of socialism.
I too am a social-democrat. We have real world proof that social-democracy works in Scandinavia. Not only does it work but it works very well. It's literally taking the best of both worlds-the best of socialism and capitalism and making the most out of a society. We know it works. It's an evidence proven way forward whereas we don't actually have evidence that democratic socialism works well on a massive scale. NOW that said, that doesn't mean I'm completely against democratic-socialism in the sense of just trying to avoid it at all costs. I am actually open to workers controlling the means of productions in some cases. I mean, we have co-ops in the U.S. and there are examples of them working well at least on a small scale. But even if one's goal would be to socialize the economy, it would be strategically smart to just start with social-democracy. We have a long ways to go before people even understand what these terms mean, much less the outcomes of them. But we need to start with better regulating the economy and making sure everyone has their basic, minimum needs met to have a healthy society. All while doing that, we can experiment with co-ops more. I'd be open to seeing more co-ops throughout our economy but that doesn't mean I think we should take that to the extreme and completely abolish all private ownership but there's nothing wrong with having socialism in the mix. Don't agree? Then I ask you, are you a fan of credit unions? Because they're an example of market socialsm. The members of a credit union own the credit union-that's socialism. My only real problem with it is that I'm not so sure how well it'd all work taken to the extreme where you abolish all private ownership. So yeah, I'm not against experimenting with socialism on smaller scales and then depending on how well they work, we can go from there. But as of right now, I'd prefer to work within a capitalist system, turning the economy into a well organized social-democracy and while we do that, experimenting with more co-ops.
I bet Scandinavia is great. In America, we have sort of a "government=evil" doctrine.
It's ok, not perfect but like they say "it's a lottery win to be born in Finland", there is some truth in that.
While I partially agree, I do think social democracy is the best within the capitalist system. I’ve been to Scandinavia and talked to a lot of Scandinavians and they all are pretty damn happy haha
But I also think the private ownership of the means of production is ultimately immoral
As a Norwegian I wish more people in the USA would understand that the Nordic (that includes Iceland and Finland) countries aren't socialist. I'm tired of the narrative that we're socialist, coming from both the US right and the US left. I watched a video on socialism by a channel called Newsbroke (they've stopped making videos), where the narrative was that ocialism was so amazing because just look at Scandinavian countries and Norway especially.
TheRickyp83 Pray for ideas of how we can get to a socially owned means of production I would look at Jeremy Corbin’s plan released a few months ago for doing so
ah! thank you david. as european i get really confused by the 'american definitions' of socialism and democratic socialism
Finally someone who actually gets it!! I have done so much research on this subject, and have found so few videos that accurately describe the difference. And yours is the first American made video that has described it accurately!
Social Democracy > Democratic Socialism
Democratic socialism is utopian fantasy. Social democracy is the fantasy that becomes reality.
-It's only called socialism, when it helps the poor
Frank...wrong, socialism as you think of it stabilizes economies and ends up saving money compared to letting grinding poverty exist.
Acceleration...like in Denmark!!!
The Everyday Liberal Show please give me an example of a country showing advancement with that
jared..listen you know very well that right-wingers think that ANYTHING to do with government or taxes is socialist...wanna pick on people for being purposefully misleading? start with them dude.
Acceleration, but they have programs that YOU right-wingers would call socialist if the USA did it...numbnuts
I just want free health care
Accelerationist Yeah it is “free” but come on wouldn’t you rather pay say a couple hundred bucks extra each year in taxes rather than a 60 dollar co pay.
AJ Welsh nothing is free. You would still be paying taxes that would easily pay for your health care if it wasn't for the fact that the healthare system has become a business inflating prices by the minute
Ismael Aguilar See my second comment.
Accelerationist Oh okay shit, I’m just saying man health care should be a right not a privilege.That’s what I believe and if everybody just gave a little each year people would be better off. That’s just my opinion you don’t have to agree.
AJ Welsh sarcasm doesn't translate well lol sorry
As an actual democratic socialist I believe that captial will inevitably erode every safety net in a social democracy. I don't believe that personal profit is the end-all of catalysts for innovation. People innovate to solve problems every day and the open source revolution kinda throws a wrench into your argument that only capital can drive progress.
You have a good point; a greed-based system tends to corrode.
I still note that social democracy seems to work well.
But I also like the idea of moving towards worker ownership of companies, and see no reason why we shouldn't move to democratize the workplace in many respects.
its time to face it, democratic socialism is now social democracy. Bernie changed the definition
I'm still confused.
You're all commies to me.
You just keep giving yourselves friendly names.
one day you will realize there are more than 2 ways of thinking, your right left identity politics are garbage
Leftism is a scam dude. More government > bad for economy > more poor people > more people vote left > even more government etc etc
then why as we move more right the past 40 years have we been getting more poor and a worse economy
the idea that left=more government is a bizarre American abomination that takes an already shakey grouping of politics onto a "spectrum" and then just renders that spectrum completely meaningless.
Thinking of politics as left=more government is about as meaningful and accurate as saying all politics can be condensed into right=more war left=less war. Or right=low wages left=high wages.
1)It reduces all of politics to 1 dimension and 2) it's not even really true about that 1 dimension. There are big government conservatives and small government socialists. And there are pacifist conservatives and militaristic socialists.
In Europe we've had lots of socialism and social democracy. Therefore, we take for granted things like public health systems. The term actually sounds old fashioned, and the socialist parties in many countries have become mired in corruption or are simply part of the "establishment". Unfortunately, Populism (right and left) has seduced many voters in Europe. Socialism isn't even considered extreme as such. The USA could revitalize democratic socialism in the world and rebalance it's economy, reduce inequality, protect the environment and provide public health and education. There's huge opportunity for improvement in the USA on policies that in the rest of the world are not considered very radical.
As someone who would probably say they are a centrist, I think the left should really clear this up becaouse when I hear socialist I immediately think about Stalin, when I think about Social Democracy I immediately think about Denmark.
It's not your fault, I think that same thinking pattern is purposely ingrained in us since elementary school.. lol.. hope it does get cleared up it's too late for this election now though
Just to point out Stalin was a Communist Real democratic socialism you could probably see better in the British Labour party
“These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger."
-Bernie Sanders 2011
From his own congressional website.
www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america
"Who's the banana republic now?"
Indeed!
Aren't they starving in Venezuela?
I don't think the American dream includes endemic poverty and bread lines.
Awesome video and perfect explanation, Thanks again for your brilliance David!
Even the Democratic Socialists by and large do not advocate for "public ownership of the means of production", which essentially means the government owning and controlling, getting back to the failed "central planning" model. What many of them are into is worker co-ops, where the workers themselves (the ones actually producing) own the means of production. Even still, they don't want to force that system on everyone and convert all extant businesses to worker co-ops, but want any and all roadblocks and disincentives to them removed and perhaps even encouraged via subsidy or tax relief for a time to allow them to flourish.
People need to grow up, especially boomers, and stop allowing the word 'socialism' to be a scary or negative word, we benefit from it every single day.
Socialism? You're soaking in it.
So any form of tax funded operation such as military, school, infrastructure, etc we can just call socialism now? You guys make these claims like capitalists simply dont understand how these things work. We've been funding programs with taxes long before you came along to hi jack terminology to fit your narrative.
You're bending definitions to justify more wealth redistribution.
Alex Crivellone
Social programs =/= socialism. This is exactly what David is saying in the video, which I agree with to a certain extent. Social programs have existed within capitalism for ages, only recently have people used the word socialism for capitalism with social programs. At what point does capitalism become socialism in regard to the amount/level of social programs? Its manipulation of terminology for political gain, and as you can see not everyone agrees on how that strategy should be approached.
No, Alex, socialism advances particular values such as global human solidarity and racial, gender, class equality. The military does not specifically serve that purpose. What you are describing is liberal democracy where we collect taxes and collectively decide how to spend it.
M. Fink can you name one social policy that is not complete failure?
We need to get this video to Ocasio Cortez, I feel like this is an important Issue to bring up.
Until Faux and right wing media cover socialism honestly, the majority of Americans hear socialism and confuse it with Communism. Or worse.
The meaning of social democracy has changed over the years. Previously, social democracy meant socialistic democracy. Now it is most used in the sense of social (conscience) democracy.
Second problem is that the right makes sure that everyone thinks it also means communism
Hi David, I need to clear up a confusion In socialism "private property" typically refers to the right to own the labor of others, and accumulate wealth they themselves do not create or impact in a meaningful way.
The issue you cite with owning your own business is a bigger issue in capitalism, where most workers do not own the business, rather stockholders or shareholders do. As such those who drive innovation are not the owners of their labor or business.
It is true that versions of State Socialism the state own and control the entirety of the means of production, but this is not the case in essentially all versions of Libertarian Socialism, and even many/most versions of Democratic Socialism (which usually, at least in part, built on versions of Market Socialism).
In other words, even in many socialist systems you, as an entrepreneur, can start your own business, and own the labor it produces. You would however (usually) not be allowed to exploit others for your own betterment. Also: Tieing back to your original contention, all workers owning their own labor will have increased incentive to produce and innovate.
P.S. As for equality of outcome this is something very few socialists are arguing. Even Marx and Engels were strongly against it. As were the Guild Socialists, Mutualists, etc. I would recommend reading Bertrand Russell's Proposed Roads to Freedom where he goes over the key areas of agreements and disagreements in the leftist movements historically and at the time (1918) - obviously with heavy preference for Guild Socialism.
THANK YOU. I got so excited to see socialism get a revitalization in interest, only to find that everyone meant social democracy. Socialism CAN work, but I fear discussion on the merits of socialism has been tainted with this mass misunderstanding :(
If we do socialism without ending the private right to own the means of production, I'd support that
Socialism can only work in a society where everyone agrees that it can work. If people want to have more power, or own more stuff (which in my view is human nature) then you can only have socialism through dictatorship.
I think a socialist society would be great for a group of people who have similar goals and beliefs. That is why it works so well in small groups. If we ever get a scoiety that has this level of consensus then I would welcome a socialist society.
potatoid - 01. We don't want socialism. We just want what David is speaking of. That is one of the weapons the right is trying to use against us, saying that we want socialism. This isn't true.
The Everyday Liberal Show if you don’t abolish private property then it’s not socialism.
Tim Symons See there will come a day where the situation will demand we agree on transitioning into a socialist economy
Problem is David this is way too much for the regular person to understand. Instead of understanding policy this will become a Republican talking point. I can't even get threw to Bernie supporters capitalism will not be completely destroyed. It seems to be one extreme or another.
As a firm believer in Social Democracy, I thank you for this clarification!
Michael Garry socialism will win.
+Michael Garry David Pakman does a very bad job at explaining what democratic socialism is. He makes it sound like authortarian communism. Democratic socialism is a far better economic system than social democracy. You should look up Richard Wolf.
I disagree that its a far better economic system. A mixed system allowing some private ownership with a bedrock or safety net of social programs for education, healthcare, policing, justice, public transport, etc with a capitalist market driven society on top of that is a far better economic system in my view. Its basically what drives Western Europe, Canada, USA (through the new deal era), Singapore, Australia, NZ, etc, and to be fair they've done quite well.
+Michael Garry Democratic socialism is basically worker-coops as an awesome alternative to the corporate model. Besides AI and automation are going to force the collapse social-democracy system anyway. We really don't have a choice.
We do have a choice, and Co-ops already exist. No-one needs to force them on anyone.
Bernie and Cortez need to come out and clarify their position as either Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist (or some combination of the two) because this linguistic ambiguity will be used against them. They must get out in front of this before any further damage is done.
Cortez I personally believe she is a hardline social democrat; Bernie on the other hand has consistently criticized capitalism and although what he advocates is essentially standards such as universal healthcare for us in europe, the USA is more on the right than any western European country, I do believe here in western Europe, he would advocate further socialist policies
I usually like David Pakman’s analysis but this is a gross misrepresentation of what Democratic Socialism is. Worker Cooperatives would be a form of Democratic Socialism. They do NOT guarantee an equality of outcome. Worker Cooperatives are private enterprises but they are owned and operated collectively and democratically by the workers of the enterprise. Has nothing to do with abolishing private enterprise and making them public. That is a macro level change that does almost nothing to resolve the basic problems with capitalism. The biggest one being we have a system where the wealth generated by workers becomes the private profit of a small percentage of the population. If you really look at how capitalist enterprises work, they are top down authoritarian structures. If you want an economy to serve the people, then you have to put the people in charge. We have a system that serves the wealthy and powerful precisely because they are in a position to control the profits generated by the labor of others.
Good explanation, but I fear a lot of those who commented still don't understand the difference, or if they do, they are misguided about everyone being able to "make it" in the US.
also, you seem to be muddying the water by using the term "public means of production" somehow implying that they would be owned by the government instead of by the workers themselves, which is what socialism calls for
Thank you for this video! I can't wait for a deeper analysis comparing democratic socialism with social democracy. There is an important difference there when you use the true meanings of the words. David, you have more economic knowledge than me and i respect your opinions.
I have watched many many video's on this topic and I believe this by far is the best video explaining democratic socialism. In regard to David's thoughts on AOC, if one watches the 60 Minutes episode of Anderson Cooper interviewing AOC regarding her platform, she is absolutely clueless on how to pay for her idea of democratic socialism. She simply believes taxing the "tippy tippy top" of the wealthiest billionaires will pay for everything.
It is so essential that people have clear definitions to be able to discuss anything. I live in Scandinavia and I like to say that in my country capitalism and socialism is joined in a mutually beneficial rational marriage. It is very similar to what Bernie is talking about. Not similar outcomes, but a minimum lower bar of how bad an outcome can become, and some limits to prevent total domination by corporations. It is not perfectly airtight welfare, and a very few fall through the cracks, but the socialized sectors, like healthcare, is very focused on preventing illness and problems since that is cheaper and makes sense in general. Statistics show that Scandinavian countries are some of the easiest in the world to get rich in....believe it or not. Highly educated and reasonably healthy workforce, economic security to take the risk to try a venture, and so on.....if you fail miserably, and don't have too hard drug problems, the system will dust you off, re-educate you and put you back in the workforce. The idea of classes is not very strong in Scandinavia, and allthough we are very aware of it economically and politically, it is bad taste to point it out socially. Our current government is very right-wing by our standards, and people are starting to move more to the left again....all my life the balance point have been swinging slowly between the left and the right like a pendulum.
I involved myself with DSA in my state during my 20's. My takeaway at 36, is that DSA presented themselves more in a social democrat light to "rehabilitate" the term socialist. The group leaders made it explicit that they wanted to, "rehabilitate the term," and they talked about starting co-ops. They did start one, though I am unsure it still exists.
Social democracy is based on the basic values of freedom, equality and solidarity.
I think it's a straw man to say that socialists want all private enterprise to be nationalised. Some specific industries, like health, transport, energy, maybe even steel, but I've never heard a socialist argue that every private company should be publicly owned.
Thank you Pakman for explaining the difference between these political ideas. I realized this in a previous video you did when you interviewed a Bernie-crat and helped her to realize the difference. I've been trying to push this point in any forum/comments section I've come across, like The Majority Report/TYT. Gonna bookmark this video so it'll be easier to link and spread the knowledge. Don't give the Republicons easy ammo people, Socialist DEMOCRACY is we want :)
Thanks for the clearing. For me as a german watcher it was always confusing to hear americans talk about democratic socialsm because it sounded to me always like the social democraty we have here in germany. So the lable of these politicians like Berny Sanders is just wrong. Das hilft mir viel weiter. Danke nochmals und tolle Show. Weiter so!
_"Friedrich Engels described in his draft program for the League of Communists of November 1847 some representatives of early socialism as "democratic socialists". Like the Communists, they sought to overcome the misery and abolition of class society, but were content with a democratic constitution and some subsequent social reforms. Joseph Schumpeter described democratic socialism in his work: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) as _*_a democratic transition without revolution and violence from capitalism to socialism._*_ According to the political scientist Thomas Meyer, all theories of a democratic socialism represent an egalitarian concept of justice, affirm the democratic constitutional state, strive for welfare state security for all citizens, want to limit private property in a socially acceptable way and socially integrate and politically regulate the economic sector. _*_Rosa Luxemburg, the founder and spokesman of the Spartacist group, demarcated her understanding of democratic socialism during the First World War in her essays written in prison: 'It is the historic task of the proletariat, if it comes to power, to create socialist democracy in place of bourgeois democracy, not to abolish any democracy._*_ But socialist democracy does not begin in the promised land, when the foundation of the socialist economy is created, as a ready Christmas present for the common people. (...) Socialist democracy begins at the same time with the dismantling of class rule and the building of socialism. It begins with the moment of the conquest of power by the socialist party. It is nothing but the dictatorship of the proletariat.' _*_Broadest democratic participation and awareness of the working population was for Rosa Luxemburg the only guarantee for a successful construction of socialism.“_* "
Just using the label of 'democratic socialism' doesn't make someone a democratic socialist. *Ocasio-Cortez is a great candidate and I have nothing against her, but she is most certainly not a democratic socialist (Yes: I have read her whole program!).* She is a moderate liberal like the folks at TYT and I don't mean that as an insult.
Terms matter - it is not "just semantics' !
As always ... David making things clear.
This was much needed. As a Dane I find it absurd for my country with are heavily influenced by Social Democrats to be branded as a abolish-capitalism-socialist state leading to Venezuela conditions.
I´m from Sweden and I am amazed that this seems so new to americans.
There are loads of rich people in Sweden.I think it´s easier to open up a company here than in the US.
America must be lightyears after us!Wow
sam larsson... it amazed me also. But I'm over it now... you can see the difference very well in our society, everybody is well educated. It doesn't matter who you talk too the person has a good basic level of understanding...America is light years behind, only look at there prison system, based on profit. It will take many generations to understand... but maybe that's also related to USA has no real history being in existence for only 200 years. Compare to 8000-10000 years ago Europe had there first large societies.
Social Democrat isn't used in America because it's associated with neoconservative ex-leftists from the Reagan years and has less appeal to populist/independent as well as leftist voters.
Ocasio-Cortez gave her definition of democratic socialism as 'nobody should be too poor to live'. So she's a social democrat. I think the reason why people like Bernie and Cortez are using the democratic socialist label is to differentiate themselves from corporate democrats. Corporate dems are much more comfortable co-opting the social democrat label, allowing them to make the point 'We're both social democrats, there's really not much difference between us and Bernie style candidates'.
+Stanbobbler I think Bernie and Alexandra call themselves "democratic socialist" to differentiate themselves from the Soviet Union and China because they are socialists that also believe in liberal democracy. In democratic government we have to satisfy ourselves with incrementalism. I do not believe they are fixed to any set of policies. I believe they will advocate whatever policies best serve the material needs of their people in the moment which could down the line mean work-coops, etc.
That definition is not even Social Democrat. If it is only concerned with giving everyone a dignified life and basic opportunities we are in the territory of Social Liberalism (often called Modern Liberalism as a contrast to Classic Liberalism in the US), i.e. FDR. Social Democrats believe in collective ownership of the entire welfare sector, with no room for profit - they also usually push for government run companies and more involvement in the economy.
You are making it far too complicated. The whole discussion comes down to a mix of taking care and free market values. There is a continuem where choices can be made. But the baseline should be a safe environment, universal healthcare and social security for the poor. On top of that countries can choose for 'things' as free education, cheap public transport, pensionplans, etc. That is where discussions in social democracies are all about.
Appreciate the clarification.
This conversation wouldn't be so damn difficult if the Republican's disinformation campaign since the '50s wasn't so ingrained in the minds of Middle America. I blame the John Birch Society for smearing anything with even a hint of socialistic tendencies as full-blown Marxism, which started in the McCarthy era and has lasted until today.
Not only do I find my relatives and friends to be completely and utterly lacking in even the slightest knowledge of what true socialism entails, but I find popular online figures like Joe Rogan spouting off on a regular basis against the evils of socialism and social democracies without the faintest of knowledge on the subject.
we haven't given any misinformation if socialism is seizing the means of production then people should be weary when a politician call for it. Also isn't the leftist stance that the parties "switched in the 1960's"
Why don't we call this "socially responsible capitalism."
FFS it's all a bunch of worry over the label, rather than the specifics of policy and strategy. Frustrating!
I would vote for a democratic socialist.
So from the DSA web page: "The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few. We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters, DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people."
"As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people." (www.dsausa.org/)
So... DSA isn't "true" socialism? Isn't this exactly the USSR's model?
I understand that social programs do not socialism make, but the DSA does not seem to be looking to create merely more social programs like government healthcare, but rather has the goal of phasing out capitalism. I know many of these terms are used vaguely, so we can all do some word play to make this sound more or less mainstream, but I do not think any organization that outright touts on its web page that it is socialist, couldn't be at least considered... socialist.
Equality of outcomes isn’t realistic but equality of opportunity with safety nets is.
You forgot one very important fact: If society has a social safety net, as in a social democratic society, more innovators are willing to risk outliving their creative dreams, as failure does not mean you fall to the bottom. The chance of getting very rich is far grater for the average person in the scandinavian countries, than in the US. Which is why a country like Denmark, with only 6 million people, is home to the biggest shipping company (Mearsk), the biggest toy brand (Lego), huge farma companies (Novo Nordic), and loads of smaller high tech companies. I pay about 50% of my total income in different taxes. In retrun all my kids have had free university educations (actually they are paid app $800 a month), I don’t have to worry about economic implications of getting sick, ever, and I still have a house, car, telvison, iphones, computers and what not. And I am not very special!
It is socialism that is democratically elected. Like how we have capitalist societies that are democratically elected. Like that, but replace the capitalism with socialism. It's really not that hard.
I'm a democratic socialist from Switzerland and I say that the US should adapt to a Swiss style direct Democratic system so that citizens can vote for and against bills which were introduced by the government
The semantics are important as long as there are in fact actual social democrats, actual democratic socialists, actual socialists and actual communists in the world and also the US. When these ideologies exist and they are in fact different, we need the appropriate, distinguishing terminology to talk about them as such. If we allow the terminology to be blurry, some people can hide under its vagueness and use it to cover what they really want. I'm a social liberal who believes Bernie is in fact a democratic socialist advocating social democracy. I'm fine with that because at least he's shifting the country closer to where it needs to be. However, things become dangerous when voters think they are supporting one thing out of brand recognition end up supporting something they thought they were in the clear from. As the word socialists loses its stigma and becomes a bigger part of the US political landscape, the importance of distinguishing the various brand of socialism and its capitalistic "hybrids" rises along with it.
Perhaps some misguided political advisers are convinced "Social Democrat" may not be catchy enough.... it might even sound vague. I think it sounds more appealing than "Democratic Socialist" .... which obviously isn't the same thing.... but at least it doesn't sound remotely vague. They may be willing to accept the confusion over having a vague sounding name. They really need to be more accurate regardless of how it sounds.
Marx says nothing about "equality of outcome", so I'm confused to see David so quickly attribute it to dsa
Marx was against equality of outcome, but there have been socialists from other tendencies who have disagreed. It is also worth noting that Democratic Socialism is a very broad term and often based more on Fabianism and Classic Socialism than Marx - but this certainly gives no indication of equality of outcome either, rather quite the opposite.
Ig you take people property an give it to other people who have less property how is that no enforcing "equality of outcome". IF you consider that the outcome is how much property somebody owns
Kyle Hankins this depends on whether you're talking about private or personal property. if you're talking about the former, then your talking about taking away something that is inherently stealing from the people. private property is the factory or machines(or anything that makes a capitalist money) that help workers to produce labor, the factory owner then *takes* what the workers produced and gives the worker less than what they made in value. that's called wage theft. no matter what, a capitalist must pay their employees less than they produce in value because they need a profit.
so i'll ask you, how is giving the workers a fair and democratic distribution of the means of production worse than a factory owner stealing value from workers?
now if you're talking about stealing personal property, which includes your toothbrush and teddy bear, then you're mistaken because no leftist wants to steal your toothbrush (or fancy car or house)
My Dad made 10 million nzd turnover Civil engineer owner , after taxes , paying wages , expesnses we took home $300,000 nzd . Since he worked bloody hard for it working weekends / long hours for it . You socialist can burn in hell with Bernie
Thank you for clearing that up...
Kyle recently did a video similar to this. Both of you did a great job, thanks!
Americans have their own pet definitions of many political ideologies, such as classical liberal or libertarian, we'll just have to add another to the pile.
David I enjoy your show but think this talk about terminology is sheer bunk. Socialist can mean many things. If someone like my self says 'I am a socialist', which I am, you first have to find out what I mean by this. The word does not have a fixed meaning - I don't have to add the word 'democratic' to it and that word has been thoroughly abused like nearly all political language. People like Mrs. Clinton and others give the word democrat an ugly sound because they are not practising it but imposing the will of the corporate powers on it. We are generally in a mess. My socialism is an attempt to get out of this trap. It is practised in several European and other countries. I lived in Harold Wilson's Britain. It was not a matter of workers taking over the means of production but of nationalising several public services like medicine, the railways, the post office, and the last two worked infiiitely better than when Thatcher privatised them again when they became a chaotic mess.I am definitely not a Marxist - who would have turned in his grave with horror if he could have seen what pseudo-communists got up to. Rosa Luxemburg, who was a comrade of Lenin and Trotsky told them as soon as they got into power that they were destroying socialism. And that ideiot, Jordan Ptersen, keeps screaming that people who deny that communism was ever practised are liers He is the lier for thinking that it has.Marx was nevertheless a great philosopher, like Kant, Nietzsche and others. The middle class revolution did happen with some active fighting but mainly to changing economic circustances. He was unfortunately right when he said the dictatorship of the proletariat was inevitable as we are living under it now. He should never have used the word 'dictatorship' which is incompatible with a free society. Ruskin - who was of course a great critic of the arts - decided at about the same as Marx that he wanted to know the economic factors underlying the arts and his analyses are quite similar to those of Marx. But Ruskin was a Conservative and didn't oppose capitalism: he said the only function of capitalism should be to create human riches and that if it was allowed to mutiply blindly for its own sake, we were in the shit - which is where we are.(Not to mention the fact that wars mutiply capital for some)
Social democracy is inherently unstable, you can see this in the rollback of many of those hard won reforms in the nordic countries in the last 30 years.
Democratic socialism, of the kind that gets advocated for these days, involves bringing democracy into the workplace but retaining a market for worker operated firms to compete in. There is no centralized state ownership of production or elimination of markets altogether as they did in the USSR.
Democratic socialism, having worker ownership of businesses that compete in a market, with funding allocated from a capital tax and elimination of private share ownership would be a radical change, but a vast improvement over even the (now crumbling) nordic model.
The People's Front of Judea spring to mind.
Labels don't matter. Americans don't know the definition of most of the political labels. It's the policy that matters, and it's something easy for voters to understand.
This is absolutely spot on. The Nordic countries (not just Scandinavia) use what's known as the Nordic model, which is a form of social democracy. It is not a socialist economic system. They use a combination of being pro market capitalism/free trade/private ownership alongside strong welfare state and social benefits- like collective bargaining (though this varies in each country).
There's a lot of confusion in the US about - and misuse of - the term 'socialism' by both the left and right.
Social Democracy leads to Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialism leads to Socialism. Most of the Scandinavian countries, despite having their defense budget PAID FOR THEM, have encountered economic and health care crises and had to re-privatize key industries in order to stay afloat. They found out the hard way. And in a much more diverse country like America, it will be much more difficult to backtrack and stop the domino effect.
JOSEPH STALIN - The Social-Democratic View of the National Question - 1904 (aged 26) "Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.... These organisations ( ie Fascism and social democracy ) are not antipodes, they are twins"
God I wish more folks would be having this conversation.
Putting Democratic in front of something doesn't change what it is.
Let put Democratic in front of dictator or tyrant. Does that change those two things? No, same applies to socialism.
Socialism isn't 'public ownership'; it's 'worker ownership'. Instead of capitalists and oligarchs, the workers own and manage the economy in their own businesses which borrow money like any capitalist business. Then the state serves the workers and not capital.
I want well regulated capitalism. No monopolies, no government-corporation alliance, no corporate media manipulating the narrative and no making health care a way for insurance executives to get wealthy by fleecing the public.
The healthcare insurance monopolies have to go bye bye.
I know this is a year old thread, but I felt like responding. I agreed with what David was saying up until he seemed to misunderstand socialism, making pretty weak arguments. But, thankfully, David is very open-minded, and I could see him coming around to leaning Left, rather than center-Left. Despite being a socdem, David has helped immensely in informing people on the truth of socialism, which is why I find it odd when he makes disparaging comments on socialism. But, I enjoyed his discussion/debate with Peter Coffin, and other discussions he's had over the past year.
All socialism is democratic, the term democratic socialism is used just to distance themselves from authoritarian "socialists", mostly these socialists are actually state capitalist, but some socialist governments really do use/have used violence to stop capitalists and their sympathizers from using violence on them. This part makes for a good discussion, as there will always be greedy people that prey on others, and what's to be done of it. Also, Countries like the US (mostly the US), UK, and France will use violence to suppress any socialist government. If the US became socialist, would this cause socialism around the world to be successful?
Violence is also something all capitalists use, but people don't use the word democratic capitalism. Well, it's not really a phrase you can use as capitalism isn't democratic. Perhaps, there can be strong enough social democratic policies to make capitalism democratic, and social democracy itself makes capitalism far more democratic. Just a note: walfare is not socialist, it's an attempt to fix the problems of capitalism, and for some people, such as Elizabeth Warren, liberal policies like these are an attempt to strengthen capitalism. Also, social democrats used to gradually reform the economy, moving from capitalism to socialism. Modern social democracy is closer to pre-80's liberalism ideologically. It falls more along the lines of New Deal Democrats.
My whole country are democratic socialists. We love it.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that public ownership of the means of production and profit would necessarily stall ingenuity.
We, no matter what system we live under, are prone to exploring new ideas and improving upon existing technology. With this comes automation which is hard on the workers in a capitalist system; whereas with socialism automation would improve their lives.
Competition is what drives innovation if you remove competition you remove innovation.
Kyle Hankins It's true that competition may drive innovation but it's not the sole factor. Not only that, there are many economic models utilized by socialist countries that don't drive out competition. The social ownership of businesses is just that, public ownership. This doesn't equate to a lack of competition among businesses.
So are we currently living under corporate socialism or is it social corporatism? Labels are important to the non-discriminating mind.
Not late stage capitalism, not industrial capitalism, it's actually financial capitalism or, more accurately, money-manager capitalism.
Not industrial capitalism - the combinations of financial resources to produce. Financial capitalism is combinations of financial resources to attain rents. A very different animal. Late stage is vague and indicative of nothing. Late stage of a disease has real meaning because of the wealth of medical experience and observation. If you believe capitalism, in all of its manifestations, is a disease that runs a predictable course, then that term might be justifiable in your terms. My response to that is, what is the experience and observation of instances of capitalism running its course? Just a few examples will satisfy the question. In my view, today's version of capitalism might be described as perverted, corrupted, amoral, usurious, even demented. But late stage? Really?
Democratic is better than Republicanism, Socialism is better than Republicanism, Democratic Socialism is better than Republicanism.
Social democracy is often called Nordic Socialism
Giving taxpayers their money back isnt socialist, just social and societal. Its very unfortunate the two get so widely blown up together..
why are the subtitles only available in french? this may not be read because of the ... delay but, je suis vraiment flatté
Full on Socialism will be come necessary in the near future. As of right now as a socialist I actually do want most businesses to be ran through socialist means, businesses that I don't think our business is like movie theaters and things like that that you have to be more artistic. The reason I think this is absolutely going to be necessary in the near future is automations going to start taking over and if most jobs can be performed by machines, people still have to live, most people won't even be able to get a basic job let alone a job that can pay for all the bills.
Socialists have mostly moved past pure socialism as a goal. Democratic Socialism in Europe supports a mixed economy leaning towards socialism more than capitalism. For instance corporations should be required to be unionized and to have union representation on their boards but still favor allowing small businesses to be privately owned along with instituting a very robust social safety net.
The problem is in the US most people have no idea what these terms mean and a certain independent Senator from Vermont, who is neither a Socialist nor a Democratic Socialist, has claimed to be both. He is at best a very lukewarm social democrat.
Personally, having seen capitalism and the Western European Democratic Socialisms I'll take DS.
Sure it’s a mixed economy, but it is over that half away point on the political compass. Is is NOT capitalism. It is more socialistic with elements of capitalism. And the DSA support union-owned corporations, which is post-Capitalistic. I’m starting to get frustrated with these explanations
I thought she said in an interview that she would *_not immediately press_* for the socialization of the means of production but that was the ultimate end game...and that's a problem.
I've allways had this feeling that Bernie wasn't a Democratic Socialist, i guess i was right.
Social Democracy is Capitalism via Keneysian economics! I don't know why Americans don't get this. But as usual, Americans insist that the American way of using a term is the way is that everybody in the world uses it, even though the way everyone else, the majority of the 7-8 billion people on the planet, use it differs.
I don't know where you get the idea that democratic socialism is about "equality of outcome" in all areas besides meeting basic needs. Please provide reliable sources that define this as a policy of democratic socialism.
The wikipedia entries for democratic socialism and social democracy backup this video, but I think we are moving to a day when wikipedia has a new definition for democratic socialist limited to the United States. It will be the same as social democracy. It's kind of like what happened with the word liberal. In the U.S. liberal means left, but in the rest of the word, it means libertarian.
Here's my guess at how we ended up with many believing democratic socialism is social democracy.
Today on Bernie Sanders website, he has a long entry about democratic socialism called - Democratic Socialism in the United States.
berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united-states/
In it, he says:
"I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.
"I believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas."
Interestingly, the Bernie Sanders' wikipedia page has this sentance.
"A self-described democratic socialist and a New Deal-era American progressive, Sanders is pro-labor and emphasizes reversing economic inequality. Some political observers consider his views more in line with social democracy; Sanders has often called for a Scandinavian-style welfare state in the United States."
So, Bernie Sanders thinks democratic socialism is the same as social democracy, but has this always been the case? Perhaps he was a democratic socialist a long time ago and has since changed. He was a member of the Socialist Party of America when he was at the University of Chicago, and when he was the the mayor of Burlington he called himself a Socialist.
If Bernie has since changed over the years. My guess is that he didn't want to announce that to the world - I don't know why - he is a politician after all.
Moving on, more people are joining the Democratic Socialists of America every day. My guess is that around 95% of them are not actual democratic socialist, but are probably social democrats.
Good you clarified the two.
Even though I am a conservative I can support some ideas of Social Democrats. Equality of opportunity >> outcomes.
Raising the base line and expanding opportunity is crucial for country.
But free market is excellent at innovation and creativity.
is anybody familiar with ludwig Lichtenstein. He was a philosopher that saw a major flaw in how we think language works. We think words have an inherent meaning, but really wods only mean how they are used. so these discussions about what the differences between. I get that different groups needs their terms to be precise and consistent, but wods change, that why you can say classic liberal, and liberal are not the same thing. also this is comment 666
word*
Also, I think you mean Wittgenstein (Lichtenstein is a tiny European country). Apt comment, though.
yeah your right I got his name wrong
Creativity and innovation would not just disappear under socialism. Creativity and innovation has existed long before capitalism's inception, and did not just die off in socialist countries. The USSR for instance made great innovative advancements in the field of rocketry, and Italian city states during the Renaissance often sponsored great thinkers, or artists, to create their work. Moreover, in a Democratic Socialist society people would still be able to innovative, create products, and depending if the society is utilizing a market orientated style of an economy, even sell it. It would just mean that instead of the power, decision making, and profits being funneled up to the corporate executives, it would be a cooperative where the workers democratically choose their leaders and the successes of the co-op going towards the workers.
Personally I am a liberal socialist which is very much very much related to social democracy. The only difference with liberal socialism and social democracy is that liberal socialism believe that there is certain aspects of the economy that should remain in a state of socialism like the electricity, water supply, health care, mining industry. Liberal socialism also sees to fix the issues monopolies that comes from the fault unregulated capitalism.
Capitalism is too regulated , why your wages have been stagnant 30 yrs , High taxes on small and medium business is the problem . Corporation earn money from shareholders life savings , shareholder pays the Ceos wages
When socialists can’t even agree on the definition of what a socialist is, you know that even practicing or being a socialist is stupid.
There are as many ideologies within socialism as there are within capitalism, would you, presuming you are a capitalist, say being a capitalist is stupid as Keynes, Hayek and Friedman have different views? Capitalist ideologies range from Liberalism to Conservatism, to Fascism, etc. These ideas does not affect whether or not basic ideas within capitalism are moral, functional, have economic benefits, etc.
As for Socialists you can split them into two broad base ideas:
1. The means of production should belong to the specific workers operating them
2. The means of production should belong to society as a whole
And there are of course plenty of ideologies merging these two views, in fact most do in one way or another. There is also the question of the specific people utilizing the services, i.e. ideas concerning "consumer socialism".
Note, none of this is commenting on how each ideology wishes to organize society, the type of rule (workplace democracy/syndicalism, direct democracy, traditional democracy, or a mix), their commitment to personal/individual freedom, or how they wish to transition to socialism (slow reforms and social democracy, radical electorate jumps to worker/direct societal control, strikes and worker pressures or more extremely; revolutions). Socialists do not agree as it is not one idea, but multiple. If willing to compromise and work together however, the way democratic socialists typically do, this is not an issue as there are pragmatic compromises which follow the will of the people.
Ana kasparian describes herself as a democratic socialist, but when she explains it, sounds more like social democracy the way you define it. What do you think also How would Canada fall into these definitions as well?
Alot of people think social democracy and democratic socialism are the same things because of the way bernie, cortez etc. use the word however there are a large chunk of people who root for things like the dsa some who even run it who are real democratic socialists not social democrats which just makes everything confusing. There needs to be some differentiation between the two terms because they are radically different and shouldn't be conflated with each other.
I find these terms very confusing Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism sounds like the same thing. Every country in Europe, not just the Scandinavian countries have a democracy with basic rights for their citizens, like healthcare for all, like help for the needy and help for the unemployed. The infrastructure was not so long ago part of the government companies. They try to privatize this, but that has not have been successful. Although in every country people think differently about what should be provided by the Government and what should be privatized, a social system (Democratic Socialism) like you describe is called communism. Communism is not popular anymore on a large scale, it just works within some regions (in Spain there are regions, that function as a communist community). But within Europe, everybody is convinced that capitalism with no adjustments for health care and people in needy positions and scholarships for students really does not work at all. The question is not, do you want adjustments, but how much and how many adjustments do you need. Political parties can have a different view on these issues.
Let's just agree that Star Trek is a somewhat more desirable model of a future society than The Matrix and we should work our way forward in an incremental, empirically-minded manner.
Capitalism 2.0, Zero Marginal Cost Society, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Communism - just use whatever term seems appropriate for the context and the people you talk to. In the US 'Democratic Socialism' probably packs the most punch right now...
All a lot of people are going to hear is The Judean People's Front vs The People's Front Of Judea.
I agree that the terms should be clarified , but, understand that clarifying the terms won’t stop the right wing and corporate dems from fear mongering any term that contain ‘social(ist)’ in it. As a political strategy, proper term usage makes little difference imo, candidates have to be defined by their policy positions, not their titles.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is definitely not a democratic socialist or socialist; she’s said it time and time again. Fox and Friends keep trying to confuse the masses or perhaps they themselves are confused or ignorant about what’s what.