• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2016 American Presidential Campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.[1]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism


Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.[4][5][6]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
 
GenericMind said:
If you want an example of a past president that was a Democratic Socialist to get an idea of what Bernie's presidency might look like, take a look at Franklin Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

I am a very big FDR fan. Bismarck was sort of the FDR of Germany. Both did some amazing things.
 
I don't any of the countries currently considered Democratic Socialist nations have socialized means of production. I'd have to double check.

Either way, Bernie had never expressed a desire to do anything like that.
 
I'm sure they had a low opinion of you also.

But you don't seem the sort to leave north america. What "socialist" country are you babbling about?
 
He's babbling about Canada. I'm sure he was able to get a very accurate impression of the entire population in his sample group before publishing his most certainly objective findings.

Social ownership of the means of production is the ultimate goal of and therefore very final step of "pure" socialism. It Is by no means any feature of what is termed "Democratic Socialism", or "social democracy" as practiced in some European countries and as espoused by Mr. Sanders.

This is all an obvious artifact of the amount of meddling/propagandizing corporatism makes in the political minds of American citizens. Woogie-boogie, you're going to get the healthcare you've been more than paying for in your taxes but have been going to tax breaks for GM and Boeing instead. Quick, move to Canada...wait, oops! I meant Uganda (ya know, for those of you who prefer their government keep a "hands off" policy).

Don't worry guys, WHEN Sanders gets elected, every single American business will NOT be nationalized. You can re-holster your guns, "patriots" (or "parrots"?).
 
Last edited:
Phil.McKeer said:
He's babbling about Canada. I'm sure he was able to get a very accurate impression of the entire population in his sample group before publishing his most certainly objective findings.
Click to expand...
lol. funny because true.
Phil.McKeer said:
Social ownership of the means of production is the ultimate goal of and therefore very final step of "pure" socialism. It Is by no means any feature of what is termed "Democratic Socialism", or "social democracy" as practiced in some European countries and as espoused by Mr. Sanders.
Click to expand...
when you are lying to people to make them afraid of something because your own arguments don't stand on their merits, it's simple to just deliberately conflate things to confuse and scare people e.g.

all muslims = islamic fundamental terrorists
social democrat = socialism
etc.

alasdair
 
Last edited:
Alright, there seems to be a bit of dis-consensus (is that the right word?) here.

Sanders is not a democratic socialist. He claims he is, but democratic socialists are interested in slowly turning away from capitalism all together and moving towards a fully socialist economy over time. This isn't Sanders' goal. Sanders is a social (little d) democrat. The terms regarding socialism have been so adulterated over the last century that social democracy doesn't even mean the same thing it used to.

Social democrats want to preserve capitalism, while applying the necessary safety nets for when capitalism breaks down (as it does from time to time), also they want to install measures to keep this breakdown from being so severe (iceland for example).

Political linguistics have come a long way. Personally, when I'm talking to like minded people, I use "socialism" in the Marxian sense. Where the workers of an enterprise own and operate that enterprise themselves, democratically deciding for themselves how profits are going to be used. Thus, with the economy at the helm of the workers (the vast majority), the political system is also under the control of it's population. "We the people". What a concept, eh?
 
Edit: My OG post was too long. Basically, I think the definition has changed so much over time that we should just consider any ordering of "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" to refer to adherents of systems that resemble the "mixed economy"/"welfare state" models of the other modern democracies and as espoused by Mr. Sanders/hundreds of thousands of other sane lawmakers and politicians.

For the many Marxian branches of economic and political philosophies that were at their peak 150-75 years ago, "Socialism" is better suited. The main distinguishing feature here is usually worker/public ownership of all means of production/capital.
 
Last edited:
Phil.McKeer said:
Edit: My OG post was too long. Basically, I think the definition has changed so much over time that we should just consider any ordering of "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" to refer to adherents of systems that resemble the "mixed economy"/"welfare state" models of the other modern democracies and as espoused by Mr. Sanders/hundreds of thousands of other sane lawmakers and politicians.
Click to expand...

This is flawed, though. Social democrats aren't socialists and have no desire to usher in a socialist economy, where as democratic socialists are more about reforming capitalism to the point that it's essentially a Marxian type socialist economy in the future. It's a very important difference in terminology. Democratic Socialism has a clear agenda, where social democracy is lacking.

If you want a modern example of a real socialist see (the twice elected) Kshama Sawant of the Seattle city council. It doesn't seem like a big deal, but I can't recall another period in recent history where an open Marxist was elected to any office in America, let alone winning a second term.
 
Droppersneck said:
I am not going to lie after spending time in a country that is more socialistic I fear a Bernie sanders all the more. Those people were mediocre by design and it shakes me to my core!
Click to expand...

If the people you speak of are mediocre by design what does that make someone like you? ;)

Droppers, in all honesty I view you as a pretty scummy POS. I don't mean that as an ad-hom, but more my literal opinion of you based on your past posts.
 
He's talking about his mediocre homeland, Shimmer ;)

Build a wall at the canadian border, and I'll get them to pay for it. It'll be a beautiful wall. Stunning. I mean most canadians are murders and rapists. I'm sure a few of them are nice people though.

/ satire
 
Bardeaux said:
Alright, there seems to be a bit of dis-consensus (is that the right word?) here.

Sanders is not a democratic socialist. He claims he is, but democratic socialists are interested in slowly turning away from capitalism all together and moving towards a fully socialist economy over time. This isn't Sanders' goal. Sanders is a social (little d) democrat. The terms regarding socialism have been so adulterated over the last century that social democracy doesn't even mean the same thing it used to.

Social democrats want to preserve capitalism, while applying the necessary safety nets for when capitalism breaks down (as it does from time to time), also they want to install measures to keep this breakdown from being so severe (iceland for example).

Political linguistics have come a long way. Personally, when I'm talking to like minded people, I use "socialism" in the Marxian sense. Where the workers of an enterprise own and operate that enterprise themselves, democratically deciding for themselves how profits are going to be used. Thus, with the economy at the helm of the workers (the vast majority), the political system is also under the control of it's population. "We the people". What a concept, eh?
Click to expand...

I find it a great concept as well when put into the context of a more ideal human, but we are so far away from that, that a transition period is very, very important to keep phenomena similar to nazi germany/stalinist russia from happening again. I view all humans as having equal natural rights and opportunity. I do not view all humans as equal, and I feel there are a lot of inferior people out there due to their own choices or circumstance. I think it is the responsibility of every human to care for those who wish to participate, and call out those who don't. I think the direction toward a guaranteed living wage in countries where it is feasible would probably be a next step. Maslov's Hierarchy people. Just because it is simple doesn't mean it isn't real (certainly imperfect due to said simplicity).

I kind of worry about Bernie calling himself that because of the implications it has. Does he know better, and is just going with what people have called him? I hope so, but he should also go out of his way to explain what he is, similar to what you just did, IMO.
 
Phil.McKeer said:
Edit: My OG post was too long. Basically, I think the definition has changed so much over time that we should just consider any ordering of "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" to refer to adherents of systems that resemble the "mixed economy"/"welfare state" models of the other modern democracies and as espoused by Mr. Sanders/hundreds of thousands of other sane lawmakers and politicians.

For the many Marxian branches of economic and political philosophies that were at their peak 150-75 years ago, "Socialism" is better suited. The main distinguishing feature here is usually worker/public ownership of all means of production/capital.
Click to expand...

Now we gettin' somewhere. But, just for the sake of discussion. What if we need to differentiate because someone truly does want to democratically socialize the means of production before the system is ready for it? How do we tell when the system is ready for it at all? I think only by using a more complex language can we truly sort out these most complex issues.

Edit: And nobody said we can't take it slow, and figure out what all these fucking words mean.

even if someone can read the fine print it doesn't mean they can understand it!
 
Last edited:
Bardeaux said:
This is flawed, though. Social democrats aren't socialists and have no desire to usher in a socialist economy, where as democratic socialists are more about reforming capitalism to the point that it's essentially a Marxian type socialist economy in the future. It's a very important difference in terminology. Democratic Socialism has a clear agenda, where social democracy is lacking.

If you want a modern example of a real socialist see (the twice elected) Kshama Sawant of the Seattle city council. It doesn't seem like a big deal, but I can't recall another period in recent history where an open Marxist was elected to any office in America, let alone winning a second term.
Click to expand...

I find the weakness of social democracy is its innate sort of a overly bureaucratic manner. I view it is a strict set of checks and balances set as a place holder until a pubescent culture can figure its shit out. I am of the opinion it can never be nearly as efficient or provide for the well being of as many as a more pure form of teamwork represented by an educated majority.

I also heard about Sawant, and it is a very big deal. Seattle is also pretty unique though. Some of its bigger outlying towns are super nice places I have considered to transition towards if the US manages to get its medical system together :D.
 
actually, now that I think about it, it's already a step in the right direction if americans can discuss the meaning of socialism and social democracy instead of labelling everything left of the political mainstream "communist" ;)
 
Bagseed said:
actually, now that I think about it, it's already a step in the right direction if americans can discuss the meaning of socialism and social democracy instead of labelling everything left of the political mainstream "communist" ;)
Click to expand...

I have been so ecstatic that the younger people are seemingly thinking. I keep reading stats like how they read more books than those 30+, use the internet more for research, but understand there is knowledge they can't find there, and are being critical of the mass abuses that our culture is facing. I don't like separating the generations so much, but due to the circumstances (false promises for the most part) Xers were sort of lame ducks. I think redemption can be had if they don't join their oppressive overseers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top