Define Democratic Socialism....you’re doing everything but...So we shouldn't have universal healthcare like every wealthy modern country already has had for a long time because the 1930's were racist.
Centrists."Nothing can be done! Nothing can be accomplished!"
Bernie Sanders Speech on Democratic Socialism & Economic Rights (6/12/19)
- Thread starter Constanza
- Start date
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates parliamentary democracy alongside a socially owned economy, with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions, within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.
bernie is technically more of a social democrat, however 
Indeed, which was the gist of my original post.Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates parliamentary democracy alongside a socially owned economy, with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions, within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.
bernie is technically more of a social democrat, however
It’s a big difference.
storyteller
Veteran
Do you think him saying "I'm a social democrat" will prevent everyone from the media to his opposition in elections from labeling the policies that he has laid out as Socialist?
No, but I do think everyone left of center being so loose with the term Socialism is detrimental to social progress, and Sanders is perpetuating this for political expediency.
wasting time on definitions 
Ya' Cousin Cleon
OG COUCH CORNER HUSTLA
Democratic Socialism isn't even socialism again, ya'll fence sitters are in for a rude awakening for people further on the left of Bernie and AOC.
Democratic Socialism is a theory of Socialist thought wherein the workers own the means of production and the fruits of their labor with a fully democratized process and workplace. Retaining the central "State" element as a cohesive base structure within which the central needs of all people that for whatever reason cannot or choose not to work are met. This is in contrast to philosophies such as Marxist-Leninism, Leftcommunalism, Communism, Anarcho-communism and several others. Some of which believe the necessity of the state either as a fixture of the perpetuation of their beliefs, or as a transitional stop-measure for the dissolution of the cohesive entity.
I believe that Sanders ideologically wants to pursue this, but of course the wholesale stripping of the trappings of capital within the base structure and the complete reorganization of the national and state level "economy" is not something you accomplish in 4 years. so like any politician he is expressing his position while also expressing attainable goals and milestones, such as his push for worker owned businesses and co-ops and subsidies for worker stock buybacks on publicly owned companies.
He's also likely using the vagueness of the term, perpetuated again by a full century of the opposition to the interest of labor basically making the tautology meaningless, to pass a reasonable agenda.
I'm positive he's discussed his DemSoc beliefs in a video or essay before but I really don't feel like trawling through the gutter to find it so I'll just assume this is what he invariably means.
Definitions are important.wasting time on definitions
The distinct aspects of beliefs and value sets are how we judge things.The right have been playing loose with the term socialist for the better part of a century, this is a measure for the left to get it back into their wheelhouse.
I disagree with it being the optimal and seemingly singular option, but it's the one they elect to use. If they're smart, the younger generation will begin using it as a wholesale element of class consciousness.
I've got a history thread series in the works that touches on this (the first one is on the Labor wars of the late 1800's and how it relates to modern America (and black America in very specific ways).
people usually love socialist policies once theyre implemented. its like in alaska, sarah palin got everyone a check from the oil there and they all love it. but if you told them beforehand it was evil socialism theyd hate it
storyteller
Veteran
1) Okay, so no matter what Bernie titles himself, he will be called a Socialist.
2) But if he leans into the label while defining his positions and beliefs (complete with a list of bills and policy proposals), he's not being Socialist enough to claim that he's a Socialist without causing "detriment to social progress"
What exactly is the strategy to resolve these two problems simultaneously?
I don’t really care much about how Republicans label him. They’d call the Easter Bunny evil in the name of partisanship. More importantly, the left doesn’t care much about what they say either.
I think the left itself needs some coherent leadership on this issue so you don’t have Democrats writing each other off for being capitalist or socialist...when the reality is they’re all capitalists. I’d be willing to bet that a very small percentage of American “socialists” are actually socialist... Political leaders who should know better need to provide clarity, I think, not perpetuate the divide.
Bernie is rich....he’s not a socialist. He just isn’t. He’s pandering to confused people, who are turning around and shaming Democrat’s who say they’re in favor of capitalism.
When he was asked to define Democrat Socialism he didn’t...he just rattled off a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises...not an explanation of a political philosophy. I don’t think that was a mistake.
storyteller
Veteran
He gave an answer, you just didn't like his answer. He defined his Democratic Socialism, through a lens of economic freedom and he's up to his second platform (2016 being the first of course) with proposals that reflect what he means more than any speech could tell you.
Now you're free to say "well that's not Socialism" but as you've mentioned above, nobody in this country gives a shyt about that. The Republicans are gonna call anything Socialist they don't like, centrist Dems will too, so will the media. So what strategic utility does Bernie disavowing Socialism have exactly? How does it help the country, political discourse or his own chances of winning?
I don't understand being this pedantic while acknowledging that most Americans don't know or care to learn what the term means. Especially considering that his political enemies will use that phrase as an attack regardless of how far left he is or not. There's nothing useful about clinging to a definition that has been reduced out of existence in the current political discourse of this nation.
If I were looking for coherent messaging and leadership on Democratic Socialism, I'd point to the DSA. But even they endorsed Bernie, AOC and their ilk who likely fall short of "socialist." But I believe that's strategic on the parts of all parties involved. We are living in a nation where Socialism was treated like Blasphemy for the better part of a century; where people don't have a great grasp of the term because anything with that label attached to it is automatically seen as a threat to society. Yes people are confused and prone to shutting down proposals that skew too far left because they've been red baited for more than a generation.
Bernie might not be giving us a perfect dictionary definition, but the fact that he's portraying the concept in any kind of positive light and attached to a positive package of policies is beneficial to anyone who wants the discourse and politics in this nation to move left (and I'm not saying all the way to a Socialist outcome but just left in general since everything remotely left leaning is automatically tallied under the Communist Manifesto). This is how the left can combat the stigmas, a digestable version of Socialism after scare tactics for more than most lifetimes. And here we are, still stuck on semantics instead of the actual impact of the man's proposals for our country.
You don't need an exact definition of Democratic Socialism from Bernie to know what it is he plans for the country. His speech ABSOLUTELY explained his principles, whether you agree with the label attached to those or not. And if you're wondering how that translates into action, this is a great resource. You don't have to agree with his solutions, but they're available and clear as day. That's what we should be discussing when we talk about a presidential candidate, how he'll look to shape and move this country...not whether we like his definition of phrase that was thrown out the window, stomped on and reduced to meaninglessness before we were even born.
I can see the argument that using the term pushes the discussion to the left, which could result in more progressive policies in the long term. I just have a hard time ignoring what happened in 2016, and what has happened several times since the invent of mass politics...which is the left divides itself on the idea of socialism and the right stays in power. Theres a reason the NSDAP was able to take over Germany with only a third of the vote...
Ultimately, if you’re not socialist and your policies aren’t socialist then I don’t think you should brand yourself a socialist to win the votes of confused or ignorant people. It’s not semantics or some high brow argument over definitions.