Democratic Socialism Isn’t What You Think It Is


David Pakman : «  Parlons du socialisme ! Il y a de plus en plus de discussions autour du socialisme depuis… eh bien, je suppose depuis la candidature à l’élection présidentielle de Bernie Sanders en 2016. Et vous pouvez nommer Bernie comme vous voulez, mais il soutient des politiques relevant de la social-démocratie, pas du vrai socialisme démocratique. Et actuellement, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (élue démocrate) a le vent en poupe dans le 14e district de l’Etat de New York – que nous avons évoqué la semaine dernière – en battant le démocrate sortant là-bas. Encore une fois, nous nous retrouvons avec cette grande incertitude entre ce qu’est le socialisme démocratique à l’opposé de ce qu’est la social-démocratie. Et ce que je veux vous dire aujourd’hui, ce n’est pas que le socialisme démocratique est une bonne ou une mauvaise chose ; ça, c’est à vous de décider. D’ailleurs, la semaine prochaine, je vous expliquerai lequel des deux je pense être le plus logique – même si je vais vous donner un petit aperçu dans quelques minutes. Ce dont je veux vous parler aujourd’hui, c’est que beaucoup de gens comprennent vraiment mal quelques d’éléments de ce problème. Je rentrerai dans le détail ultérieurement, mais l’erreur majeure, c’est que le socialisme démocratique reste en principe du socialisme, c’est-à-dire la propriétée partagée ou publique des moyens de production, point. Alors, nous aborderons la question de savoir si le sens a évolué, même selon les socialistes démocratiques américains. Mais si je veux que l’on retienne une seule chose, c’est que la social-démocratie est une économie capitaliste avec un secteur privé et la propriété privée des entreprises, et ça reste une forme de capitalisme qui est… on pourrait dire “progressiste”, faute de mieux, et qui “socialise”, je dirais, quelques composantes de l’économie. Peut-être la santé, par example ; elle promulgue un fort soutien économique aux communs, etc, etc… Donc la différence clé est que le socialisme démocratique en appelle généralement à l’abolition du capitalisme en tant que système économique, alors que la social-démocratie a pour volonté de corriger les problèmes posés par le capitalisme et créer un filet de protection sociale plus solide, plus du genre de ce que l’on observe dans les économies scandinaves Bon, vous vous demandez peut-être : “Attends un peu… Je n’ai pas entendu Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dire qu’elle voulait enlever toutes les entreprises au secteur privé et en faire propriété publique.” Et je dirais que c’est vrai, et que moi non plus je n’ai pas entendu ça, et le flou vient justement de là : beaucoup des candidats qui prétendent être des socialistes démocratiques – et parfois ils ne le disent même pas, mais sont étiquetés comme tels – sont en fait des sociaux-démocrates. Et je ne suis même pas certain qu’ils le sachent eux-mêmes. Mais la plupart de ce dont parlent ces candidats n’est pas du socialisme démocratique ; c’est de la social-démocratie. Et il y a deux ou trois autres aspects à comprendre, je dirais : la première, c’est que DSA (les Socialistes démocratiques d’Amérique) a commencé à trouver des définitions beaucoup plus larges du socialisme démocratique, qui ne sont pas vraiment socialistes ; elles ressemblent plus à la social-démocratie. Bon, on pourrait dire que c’est une bonne chose, parce que ça voudrait dire que le socialisme démocratique est en train d’être modéré. Mais on peut aussi dire que non, c’est mauvais : si ce n’est pas vraiment du socialisme démocratique, on ne doit pas le nommer “socialisme démocratique” ; on devrait dire “social-démocratie” ou “ce sont des sociaux-démocrates”, par exemple. L’autre aspect à prendre en compte, c’est qu’il est possible que les candidats à la primaire démocrate qui sont décrits ou qui se décrivent eux-mêmes comme socialistes démocratiques veulent VRAIMENT socialiser les moyens de production et éliminer la propriété privée des entreprises, mais qu’il n’en ont simplement pas encore parlé. Ça, pour le coup, ça poserait vraiment problème, parce que beaucoup de gens y seraient opposés. Donc ça serait bien, si ce sont des vrais socialistes démocratiques, c’est peut-être le bon moment pour nous expliquer votre programme pour prendre le contrôle des moyens de production et le laisser au public. Quand les gens parlent d’économies régulées au style scandinave, qui ont pour but de réduire les inégalités de revenu et d’accorder à tous un minimum de conditions de vie, ça, ce n’est pas du socialisme ; c’est la social-démocratie. Moi – et là, on va parler de mon opinion, sur laquelle je vais m’étendre la semaine prochaine (d’ailleurs, Pat, tu connais mon opinion, comme beaucoup de nos auditeurs). Il se trouve que je ne pense pas que le socialisme est le chemin de l’avenir. C’est un débat qu’on peut avoir. La propriété privée des entreprises, les possibilités de l’entrepreneuriat… ce sont certains des catalyseurs de la créativité, de l’innovation et du développement que je ne voudrais pas perdre, et que je crois que nous perdrions en effet dans un vrai système socialiste. Mais nous devons nous assurer que le fait que certains n’ont pas de réussite économique magistrale ne nous fasse pas dire : “Bah, vous vous restez sur le bas-côté”, n’est-ce pas ? Nous n’allons pas ignorer les autres ; nous devons nous assurer que tout le monde soit pris en charge. Le socialisme démocratique, la propriété publique des moyens de production, va dans le sens de réclamer l’égalité des résultats économiques, ce qui n’est pas selon moi un objectif réaliste. Si l’on prend en considération n’importe quelle expérience économique ou sociale – et c’est là que je suis presque d’accord avec Jordan Peterson – on s’aperçoit que l’égalité des situations économiques finales, c’est irréaliste, à moins d’imposer des mesures très autoritaires et radicales – et je m’y oppose ; je ne suis pas pro-autoritarisme. La social-démocratie prône plus l’égalité des chances, avec un filet de sécurité pour ceux qui n’en profitent pas, parce qu’ils ne veulent pas ou ne peuvent pas en profiter. Comprenez que dans la plupart des expériences socioéconomiques, il se développe une courbe de distribution, que ce soit la réussite entrepreneuriale, le talent pour le sport, comme le football… peu importe ; les résultats scolaires et éducatifs… Il faut prendre tout ça en compte pour élever tous les avenirs, mettre en place un système qui laissera l’innovation se développer autant que possible vers le sommet et qui en même temps élève les minima sociaux pour tous, ce qui est le principe de la social-démocratie. Je pense que sur le long terme, nous souffrons de la confusion entre les définitions du socialisme démocratique (en tant que forme de vrai socialisme), opposé à la social-démocratie. Si les candidats démocrates ne savent pas s’ils sont socialistes, si les électeurs ne peuvent pas faire la différence, ça pose de vrais problèmes. » Pat Ford : « Je suis d’accord, parce que l’étiquetage politique et le message politique sont très importants, et bon, peut-être que le mot “socialisme” devient moins tabou parmi les Millenials/la génération Y… »
David Pakman : «  Oui, c’est sûr. » Pat Ford : « … mais ça n’est pas le cas partout pour tout le monde, et voilà, si Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Summer Lee qui fait campagne en Pennsylvanie… si ce sont en fait des sociaux-démocrates, ça serait dans leur intérêt de faire campagne avec cette étiquette-là, et pas en tant que socialistes démocratiques. » David Pakman : «  Et, la vérité, c’est que vous pouvez dire : “David, ça c’est surtout une question de vocabulaire, c’est clairement de la social-démocratie, mais les socialistes démocratiques ne sont plus vraiment socialistes, ce sont des sociaux-démocrates…” Je pense que ce vocabulaire a vraiment toute son importance ; je pense que les mesures sociales-démocrates sont en réalité TRÈS populaires aux États-Unis quand les sondages sont justes, pas vrai ? La question ne doit pas être : “Est-ce que vous êtes d’accord pour que le gouvernement prenne le contrôle de votre assurance maladie ?” Mais plutôt : “Est-ce que vous pensez que le gouvernement a le devoir de garantir à tout le monde un minimum de soins, peu importe la capacité à payer ?” Il y a beaucoup de soutien pour ce genre de réformes. Il n’y en a pas beaucoup pour : “Est-ce que vous croyez que la propriété privée des moyens de production doit être abolie et être socialisée ?” Il y a peu de gens qui soutiennent ce genre de proposition. Donc je pense que le flou qui s’est développé est important. En ce qui concerne Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on doit d’abord déterminer si c’est vraiment une socialiste démocratique, et si c’est le cas, quel est son projet pour la socialisation des moyens de production. Sinon, expliquons qu’elle n’est pas vraiment une socialiste démocratique mais plutôt une sociale-démocrate. Envoyez-moi vos idées là-dessus ! Je veux écouter ce que vous avez à dire ; je pense que ce sujet est très important. Et on a une opportunité ; parce que l’ouverture d’esprit au terme “socialisme” qu’on a constatée depuis peu peut faire changer les mentalités, mais on doit pouvoir identifier ces courants différents.




Comments
  1. 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.

  2. you would have to tax the one percent 100 percent and that would not even pay for half of health care for all

  3. The way I see it, Healthcare and Healthcare Issurance cannot be fully privatised.
    Why? A private business is oknly interested in shareholder value, which means, dupe the clients into buying the most expensive insurrance, and have so much red tape and 'outs' as to never pay out anything.

    This is about people's lives, you can try that with cars or houses, but lives ? Thats unexceptable…
    Therefor, healthcare and health insurrance NEEDS to be highly regulated…
    Healthcare, and medicine (big pharma) should be regulated in order to prevent exactly what is actually already happening, price gauging.
    Sure, a company should be able to make its investments in the treatments/medication back and get a nice profit on top, which is already insured by the patent laws..
    But, getting billions of dollars profit, by keeping the prices high for far more time than 200% of investments, is a kin to criminal behaviour(mob tactics)..

    Just my european democratic socialist views….

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. The differences don't matter. "Social democrats", "Democratic Socialists", and Communists all trash and I couldn't be more happy that they will never come to power in the US.

  8. The differences don't matter. 'Social democrats', 'Democratic Socialists', and Communists all trash and I couldn't be more happy that they will never come to power in the US.

  9. demos + social = Democratic Socialism
    social + demos = Social Democracy
    4 + 5 = 9
    5 + 4 = 9

    Forgive Bernie (and others), because "+" is often commutative. People will tend to use language in a way that is intuitive to them, and this can cause the meaning of words to change over time due to repeated "errors", especially if the original meaning of the compound term is not intuitively derived from the sum of its component words in an obvious way.

  10. 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.

  11. The democratic socialists of America's website says very clearly that they are actual socialists. They have to start as something more voter friendly, to gain traction the more radical reforms come later.

  12. What David is calling "social democracy" is what has forever been called a "mixed economy". What David is calling "democratic socialism" involving public ownership of means of productions (the enterprises) has always been called communism, not democratic socialism.

  13. free social stuff? whos paying for that? raising taxes? what about free market? ….Say no to any socialism element

  14. No no no, what you want – what you are really talking about if only you knew it – is Georgism: democratic capitalism with a tax system based on the single tax on land values.
    Govt can be funded by socialising the value of the commons and releasing labour and capital of this burden.

  15. I phone banked for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from my Kansas home, to make history in New York's Congressional Race … YOU CAN PHONE BANK from your home no matter where you are in the USA to make history in KANSAS's 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

    You may not realize the power you have and what is at stake in KS's 3rd Congressional District on August the 7th.

    YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION. SHARE THIS WITH EVERYONE YOU CAN.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EtUDcLZduU&t=0s

    EVERY HOUR YOU SPEND WATCHING THE NEWS, THAT COULD BE SPENT WALKING/PHONE BANKING FOR BRENT WELDER'S KS CAMPAIGN … IS SOMETHING YOU WILL REGRET ON AUGUST THE 7TH, because you'll look back and know that you could have changed America.

    The corporate media and corporate Democrats are working feverishly to dismiss Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's victory in NY over corporate power-house Democrat Crowley … as "only a NY thing … which does not apply in America's heartland" … because they do not want to acknowledge that America is changing, that we want $15 Minimum Wage; Medicare for All; Debt Free University; Expanded Social Security; Prison and Police Reform, etc.

    NOW, WHAT IF a progressive like BRENT WELDER (WHO DOES NOT TAKE CORPORATE MONEY) WINS IN KS'S 3rd District?

    It would destroy the corporate media / corporate Democrats argument, and give power to Ocasio-Cortez and other Justice Democrats and Our Revolution Democrats in the new Congress in 2018.

    YOU HAVE SUCH POWER … SUCH A WONDROUS OPPORTUNITY to change the nation. Get involved today, and spend ALL your spare time on Brent Welder's campaign. www.BrentWelder.com … AND EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW IN KS/MO near Kansas City why they should do so too. Please spread this message as wide as you can, and often as you can, people need to read these appeals again and again to rise above the noise of social media … do not be afraid to be repetitive … time is running out … and August 7th is coming FAST. [Brent has been endorsed by both Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]. Please share this message widely.

  16. 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.

  17. Who says you can’t have entrepreneurship under democratic socialism.
    You can.
    You just can’t do it with necessities.

    Commerce and capitalism aren’t the same.

    Regardless, it’s a silly thing to divide over. They espouse all the progressive goals and aren’t expecting the overthrow of capitalism any time soon.

    If we manage to win on all these current fights in some ideal far future, then we can have a big argument over whether we should go even further left.
    I.e. how’s about you work together at least until you’ve gotten to the social democratic phase in America instead of denigrating/dismissing groups who are allies well thru the foreseeable future??

  18. ah! thank you david. as european i get really confused by the 'american definitions' of socialism and democratic socialism

  19. 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.

  20. Not all democratic socialists want to abolish the private sector. Some like i believe in the necessity of the private sector in the production of consumer goods within the context of a dirigiste economy.

  21. 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.
    https://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.

  22. If the candidates do not know themselves if they are Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, then they must be the in between flavor of Socialism. This form is best know as National Socialism.

  23. Socialism is working together and living together, sharing, work, responsibilities, knowledge, skills and profits.

  24. The 'democratic' addition to socialism is superfluous, since a socialist society would be democratic by definition. Although it might help unknowable people differentiate between it and the authoritarian bastardizations we saw implemented throughout the 20th century.

  25. So you think Bernie doesn't know the meaning of Democratic Socialism? I say he does and he's not telling the American people what his REAL goals are.

  26. Thanks Rex for sharing this with me. Been following David Pakman for years in the past, but hard to keep up with his content from time to time.

  27. socialism is big government,big government that will control you and tell you what you can eat,drive,say and on and on,fuck a socialist .

  28. There is a certain political strength in not running scared from the label "socialist." Especially since people to the right of you are going to get called socialists and Marxists anyway. Beyond that, it is possible to have socialist ideals but settle for a social democratic agenda.

    That said, yes, it would be better if people knew the difference between social democracy and socialism. If you don't recognize that, you're just speaking a different language from someone pursuing the elimination of capitalistic business ownership. Accuracy matters.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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." (https://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.

  32. 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.

  33. He's right. They should just come out and say what they're really planning.
    Markets are not good economically. They are anti economies based on outdated dogma. In today's age our technology can easily give everyone a high standard of living but almost a billion starve simply because of money. We need the Resource Based Economy.

  34. Honestly… It's the word "social" that is so digestible for people. People that are absolutely ignorant to history that is.

    Socialism/Communism (and all the many various forms of such, like Leninism, Maoism, etc… The sheer # of terms allows people to deny anything was communism or socialism when it clearly was… but I digress) have killed SIGNIFICANTLY more people than Nazism. Now picture this.

    "It's not Nazism, it's democratic Nazism!"

    "Quit overreacting, It's not Nazism at all, it's a Nazi Democracy!"

    Despite socialism being responsible for MUCH MORE MASS MURDER, we view the word "social" as good, and "Nazi" as bad. Of course the Nazis were bad. But I hope you see my point. While leftists (as well as most people) would view "Nazi Democracy" just as badly as Nazism, we should view "social democracy" just as bad as "socialism". It is literally a domino effect that leads to destroying the middle class, the economy, our healthcare system, our INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and so much more, even if it doesn't lead to any particular person's perfect definition of Communism.

  35. 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.

  36. Politicians will say ANYTHING to make you feel comfortable so that you'll vote for them. Karl Marx ALWAYS saw that Socialism had to be presented in a very deceptive way so that the people would receive it and then vote for it.
    Once you vote for that, their goal was to keep pushing until communism us realised. Democratic Socialism is the segway drug to communism and all manner of darkness!

  37. Actually, the elites (1%) and their corporations take full advantage of social programs and welfare.  They make sure they are getting all the money from the government in the form of your taxes and you get virtually nothing.  And all they had to do was lie to everyone that socialism is evil by pumping lies and propaganda into our society for generations.  Right now it's welfare, massive profits and socialism for the elites and their corporate institutions but its capitalism, poverty, decline and free market discipline for everyone else.   So yeah it's not what most people think it is.

  38. 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.

  39. 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)

  40. It seems that most of you think very highly of your intellectual capacity. Clever? …Maybe.

    America has a constitution. While keeping in accordance with that constitution, she has done well. There is no place in America for socialism. Even the limited amount of socialism that we now have has done nothing but adversely impact the lives of the middle class. I'm really not interested in catering to able bodied people who choose not to work. – You play a fool's game, arguing semantics about a system that rewards weakness and lack of self-determination, while punishing individualism.

  41. The trick to promoting the product is not to use the word socialism. But that of course is impossible just like socialism. Its a non starter. sorry comrades

  42. Don’t put democratic in front…..socialism is socialism and it’s cancer wherever implemented….it collectively impoverishes the masses and has nothing on capitalism

  43. 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.

  44. So basically
    Democratic Socialism = Socialism implemented through the use of democracy, and government that can be held accountable
    Social Democracy = A Capitalist Economy with Social Safety Net programs in place to prevent inequality.

  45. Cars taxed 18% – 51%, goods and food 10% -25% . 20% tax on a home Government is the reason you struggle to live in Australia

  46. $6000 tax on a basic Mazda 2 in Australia , with that $6000 you buy private health and put it in your future retirement , or money towards owning your first home , that's better than going to Government , plus high taxes goes to Polliticans pay checks they steal it . Never trust a Government workers to use money to help society , they always benefit themselves in Australia 30 yrs ( corruption)

  47. You know how much my wrx sti was taxed in Australia brand new ?? 40% . brand new Wrx sti is now $9000 cheaper in 5 yrs because now its not slugged with 5% tariffs and luxury car tax 33% pays for free healthcare in Australia for bludgers .In 2012 it was $65000 brand new . Democradic socialism = expensive cars for consumers reality . To have free health and cheaper university Americans will pay more for a cars above $50000usd . Bmw M240 will cost $60,000 usd drive away under Bernie Sanders tax plain .Bmw m2 pure will cost $72,000 usd drive away . Would people vote for this higher car taxes like Australia , Norway , Germany ??

  48. Lmao at all the commies thinking social democracy is a stepping stone socialism. I live in Denmark and nobody but the far left are anti free market but most their voters just vote for them cuz they’re broke, lazy and uneducated. Besides that our social democrats have a proud history of anti-communism they even sends some commies to kz camps under ww2

  49. Return to Eisenhower era 95% income and estate taxes on the wealthy b/c they are the true welfare class attaining & maintaining their wealth at expense of WE THE PEOPLE who pay taxes to fund governmental entities protecting the wealthy, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, DOJ, US Courts, US Marshals Service, etc., who ensure wealthy persons' stocks and bonds are legitimate and not Ponzi schemes.

  50. Democratic socialism kills size of Middle class , watch Mikkel Clair Nissen a Denmark resident that now lives in Usa on YouTube loser . Stop lying

  51. 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!

  52. I think the like between social democracy and democratic socialism is the amount of public ownership and wage/labour relations. For example, a policy the Labour Party of Great Britain is proposing is that if a company has over 200 employees, each employee must be given a share in the company of up to £500. They are also advocating for half of board members to be workers, and that companies that go bust would be allowed to be bought back by the workers from a loan by the government. These few policies clearly push from social democracy to democratic socialism, which push for more worker cooperatives and more state ownership, an example being the Labour Party in Great Britain would nationalise the mail, water, and railways. Ideally all the natural resources of the company would be publicly owned and democratically controlled.

  53. 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.

  54. I'm a republican but I would be open to anything. Considering I get scraps from the top 1% table just like everyone else. My only problem with this is, socialism has never been proven to work in any society. look at France it's socialist and it's in shambles. Greece is socialist it's in shambles.

  55. Perhaps "social capitalism" would be clearer
    I always say "im for a socially responsible capitalism"

    I dont get the confusion though.
    In english, the descriptor comes before the finite object

    The BIG dog is a dog 1st and foremost, who is big
    The STUPID man is a man who is stupid
    A social democrat is a democratic (believes in individual freedom to speak, vote, choose career, own private property) who is socially conscious
    A democratic socialist is a socialist who wants to abolish capitalism by the ballot box rather than violent revolt?

  56. Why don’t people in the comments section stop pussyfooting around the subject and just say you want more welfare🤷🏽‍♂️ like Nordic countries.

  57. Social democracy= welfare capitalism.. Democratic socialism= seize the means of production and put the bourgeoisie in the guillotine

  58. That awkward moment when you realise you've been labelling your own politics incorrectly. I guess Social Democracy is more where I'm at.

  59. Social Democracy – a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.
    Democratic- relating to or supporting democracy or its principles.
    Democracy – Government by the people especially : rule of the majority. b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
    Socialism – a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

    Firstly we are a republic not a democracy as a democracy would lead to majority rule which is what we are not. Second Democratic Socialism would be the confirmation on majority rule socialism where what the majority socialists wants will ignore the minority all the time.

  60. I am from Norway which is not a democratic socialist country. It's a social democracy. I've made a video explaining the difference: https://youtu.be/Ir9KB-dBuww

  61. Dude this is inaccurate do your research social democracy works cuz social demotractic countries are among the happiest and the best countries to live in in the world

  62. 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.

  63. AOC is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America. read their goals on their website. they want to destroy capitalism. stop talking nonsense, please. also, what do you do with 180 million Americans who want to keep their private healthcare and are happy with that, you "democratic" socialists?

  64. what these socialist always forget to mention is the dictionairy definition of social democracy " to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy. " TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE…… we all see how well thats going.

  65. Thanks for explaining this David I’m a fan of your channel. But after hearing this I must disagree with the intentions behind social democracy. The idea of creating this safety net for people would be good if there was a force impeding their path to success, but there is not. In America everyone is free to increase their quality of life through innovation, sacrifice and patience if they choose to. But this safety net you’re proposing is aimed at people who are unwilling to take action to better their lives and there is no evidence that any amount of intervention from more productive members of society is going to change the actions of less productive members of society. That’s my two cents.

  66. The Socialist International is the worldwide federation of democratic socialist, social democratic, labor, and/or any center left political parties. If you read the Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International describes their opposition to both communism & capitalism as "democratic socialism." Democratic socialism & social democracy are both the same thing. For example, the pre-1973 Socialist Party of America was a social democratic party….

  67. 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.

  68. The reason this argument always bothers me is that when advocating for any socialist policy that doesn't outright involve an entire political revolution, it will always manifest as social democracy before actual socialism can arise. Now, some socialists do argue that revolution is the only viable option, but many other socialists believe that working within the framework of the government to change it incrementally is the only ethical way to enact change, which inevitably requires social democracy. With this view, many socialists see social democracy as a transition period between capitalism and socialism.
    And then there's a third view: that revolution will be necessary, but that the social democratic policy should still be enacted anyway. This stance makes the argument that you need everyone to have easy access to things like education and healthcare, because the best revolutionaries are the well educated and healthy ones. It's a lot easier for a government to put down a revolution when its members are unhealthy and uneducated. Additionally, they argue that by passing social democratic policies, it allows the wider public to see for themselves the benefits that a socialized government would provide.

    By branding themselves socialists, people like Sandars and Cortez are making clear the fact that public ownership over the means of production is their ultimate end-goal. You say they should just be public about that, but I don't know how they could be more public than by saying proudly and confidently that they are socialists. Democratic socialists and a social democrats agree on step 1. The difference between them is merely that a democratic socialist believes there is a second step after social democracy is achieved.
    Thus, I find it really strange that so many people dislike others calling themselves democratic socialists who advocate for social democracy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *