The “Real” Definition of Democratic Socialism™
Before I get to my take on the “real” definition, the political scientist in me feels a need to define some commonly misunderstood terms of which socialism is a great example. Like many people here in the US, I have always been very uncomfortable with the word socialism, and in my case, I realize it is because that one word has many very different meanings. Here’s just one example: I believe that when most people here in the US think of socialism they are actually thinking of what should correctly be called totalitarian state capitalism which, I wholeheartedly agree, is to be avoided.
Examples of totalitarian state capitalism include the old Soviet Union and China even now, but especially under Mao. Under such a system the means of production and pretty much everything else are under the ruthless grip of the government, and personal freedoms are denied so the state can run everything much more “efficiently” (what a joke, huh?). Totalitarian state capitalism can be compared to a population being knocked out and upon awakening finding themselves in iron chains from which there is very little hope of escape.
So-called free market capitalism and capitalism in general are systems in which profit maximization is promoted as the best and only truly efficient way to run an economy. So-called free market capitalism is actually very rare in this age. Even our own system in the US is what is referred to as a mixed system with capitalist and socialist elements. However; in the US capitalist vision, also referred to as “The American Dream,” people are told that if they get a good education and work hard, they will be rewarded with a good job and economic security plus they will get to buy all these really cool material goods that will make their lives better. But, if things don’t work out that way for you, you are told, it is all your own fault. You just didn’t work hard enough or you didn’t make the right choices. Too bad! Sadly, for too many this has become “The American Nightmare.” I believe that most non-right wing economists will agree that based on the current design of our socio-economic system there will always be a significant portion of our population who will be “left behind.” This is the price we pay for allowing a few to accumulate vast wealth.
It appears to me US capitalism has long since morphed into global capitalism which is inexorably morphing into what I call global totalitarian capitalism. Which is an economic form of one world government that, I believe, most would say they do not want. Marianne Williamson uses a similar term, corporate totalitarianism, and defined it quite well on her FB page as “total control by corporate interests.”
Democratic Socialism, as it is practiced in several countries, is a system in which the interests of the people are balanced against the purely profit motives of corporate interests. Profitmaking is encouraged and valued, but the “fruits” are shared in ways that the economic system and the government serve the interests of the people rather than the people being slaves to or being abused by the controlling economic or governmental interests. In other more familiar words, Democratic Socialism can be defined as “…government of, by, and for the people…” – Thanks, Abe.
Send questions and comments to brunanfm@gmail.com 6-2 ©2016 BC (Bruce Collier)
Feel free to copy or distribute this article, but include the attribution line just above. - BC
Comments
Socialism can be defined as "doom"
Socialism can be defined as "doom" to any political movement in the US that wants to win a general election. Bernie overcame it with his unthreatening grandfatherliness, others would have more difficulty.
Purpose of submission
This was submitted for educational purposes. Not advocacy for any candidate or campaign. Bernie is a mainstream New Deal Democrat anyway. Did you even take the time to read it?
Just making a comment, that's all
People were deliberately led to believe...
...that capitalism = market economy. They are not the same thing. Capitalism is, simply put, making money with money for the sake of making more money for the Capitalist, regardless of any benefit to anybody but the Capitalist. A market economy is the exchange of goods and services for the mutual benefit of the parties on either side of the transaction. Capitalism can exists within a market economy, but a market economy is not dependent on Capitalism, as there are alternatives to the services that Capitalists claim as their fame. (If you don't believe me I suggest reading up on North Dakota's state-owned bank.) And so-called Free Market Capitalism is the biggest oxymoron since Compassionate Conservative! Markets can't exist without rules and a means to enforce them, which means government in any large society.
I want my two dollars!
Capitalism unified independent markets, by crushing the life out
of them. It grew by making previous economic ways impossible. It grew by destroying older ways of self-providing, small farmers, artisans, craftpersons and the like. It crushed the life out of the old ways and forced previously independent souls into the new factories.
Pre-capitalist markets were primarily cooperative ventures, independent of one another. Capitalism, for the first time in history (beginning in England), set compulsory competitive laws in motion, forcing those previous local, independent markets to join or die. Like some Mafia don.
Highly recommend two books, especially on its formation:
The Origin of Capitalism, by Ellen Meiksins Wood
The Invention of Capitalism, by Michael Perelman.
The former is, IMO, the single best description and definition of what makes capitalism unique and why. The latter is perhaps the most comprehensive look at primitive accumulation in Britain, and the words of the early political economists themselves -- without the cheerleading.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Nailed it!
Wow. Thanks.
I have a simpler definition
when people ask me why I do not shrink away from being defined as a socialist I give this answer:
"Capitalism is an ism that puts the well being of capital first and foremost. Socialism is an ism that puts the well being of our society first and foremost. None of us are wise to live with only one ism in our lives. We as individuals and as a society should practice different isms at different times for different reasons. And when our society is coming apart at the seams, we need a dose of socialism".
It doesn't need to be an all or nothing thing. Look around our society today and you will see examples of socialism- public schools, libraries, parks, highways, etc. And you will also see examples of capitalism- toll roads, for profit education centers, amusement parks, book and dvd stores. As much as free market conditions can expand our freedom to make autonomous decisions as consumers, one of the choices we may want to exercise is the decision to interact with not for profit entities. Which tend to only arise from socialist visions.
IMHO, Democratic Socialism gives the decision making over to "we the people" to find that balance between what is good for society and for capital. Because sometimes what is good for society is good for capital. And what is good for capital can be good for society in some situations. And not in others.
I think our current mindset of shrinking away from (or worse being openly hostile to) an ism that puts the well being of our society first means simply that we will continue to have our society degrade til we get over it.
I've always said that the opposite of Socialism is...
...being antisocial...
I want my two dollars!
Simpler Definition?
What can be simpler than.."government of, by and for the people"? It has the added advantage of making it as American as apple pie, etc.
Seriously, thanks for your remarks.
I started with good intentions,
I meant to give a short concise answer, but the words just flew off the keyboard. "gov of, by and for the people" surely is concise, but sometimes doesn't help people understand. It is amazing to point out to friends how much of the preamble to our Constitution reads like a socialist manifesto!
Good conversation you started. Thanks.
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
* I did the bolding and underlining.
I've heard that Lincoln read the radical journals of his day.
I'm always puzzled by the "balanced" part.
That some believe we actually need that balance (as it's usually defined), when one part of it means corporate profits or any kind of concentration of wealth, access, income and privilege in a few hands. And, of course, "balance" in this case really doesn't fit as an accurate description, given the massive disparities in wealth, access, privilege, even in the Scandinavian countries, which currently do the best job on inequality by far.
For some reason, all too many Americans -- even "liberals and progressives" -- seem to believe we must strike this "balance," and that if we don't allow this hoarding, this mass concentration of wealth and power among the few, and these neck-breaking hierarchies to some degree, all hell will break lose.
Not so. To me, the obviously far better way to go is by seeking a completely different kind of "balance." One that creates actual equality via pulling down the pyramids, the neck-breaking hierarchies, equalizing the value of our time across the board, and allocate for need without profits in mind. After all, can anyone really make the case that some humans "deserve" to live in splendor, while others "deserve" to live in tent cities? Are we not all the same species, with one single life to live? Why should anyone have massive advantages over others, simply due to our incredibly arbitrary way of assigning "value" to different kinds of work? And the inheritance of this privilege?
Balance. There's another kind of balance we need to really be concerned with: Our lives within the context of nature, and her limitations. This is something that can't be accomplished as long as we have capitalism, even if it's side by side with some form of "socialism" or "democratic socialism." The only way for a species like ours, with our 7 plus billion and counting, to achieve sustainable "balance" with nature is to end the necessity of economic growth, which capitalism imposes and no "balance" with it is possible.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
D 77, my use of the term "balanced" isn't about corporate
profits, it is about what I call "slow pitch capitalism". Which I have to say I am fine with. Example, a former boss of mine (24 years) who became a good and lasting friend was what I call an expert at "slow pitch capitalism". He ran a small biz for around 40 years. Employed between 4 and 24 employees most of whom he treated pretty darn well. He chose to put his savings that he got from labor he performed into his business. He chose to take the profits of his labor and business and buy the building that he ran his business out of. The building was large enough to have other tenants that paid him rent. Yes, he was a rent seeker. The combined profits of his labor (he still performs his skill of haircutting daily at age 74) and his business ownership and real-estate holding allowed him to buy additional vacation property. He spent his weekends toiling on his vacation properties- improving and remodeling. Now he has sold his business property and his vacation property is up for sale. If he would only quit cutting hair and allow a younger person to take over his book of clients!
But anyhow, I call this slow pitch capitalism and I find it moral and acceptable. And that is a balance I can live with.
Yes, in relative terms, that's much better than the usual.
But the internal logic of capitalism itself makes it very difficult for people like your friend to compete -- and he's a rarity because of that. Prior to capitalism, he would have been the sole proprietor, and wouldn't have had "employees" outside his family, except, perhaps, for an apprentice or two. He wouldn't have been a "capitalist" of any kind in that case. The self-employed aren't. America, in fact, wasn't a majority capitalist nation until after the Civil War, primarily because roughly 80% of the nation was self-employed. But the rise of capitalism elsewhere crushed the life out of that kind of work, its independence, its small craft ethos, its lack of total dependency on "the markets."
I see capitalism as immoral for a host of reasons, but among the biggest is the ownership of other human beings, the ownership of their bodies and their work, even if it's "only" for eight hours a day. And I don't see it's being necessary in the slightest for a healthy, efficient economy. There really is no need for bosses who get to take the work of others as if they did that work themselves, profit from it, control it, dictate wages and conditions. To me, this should always be a democratic decision, not by the few for the many.
Your friend sounds like a good guy. But the capitalist system is set up in such a way to work directly against him, and his workplace philosophy. He did what he did in spite of it, not because of it, and there are alternative economic forms that wouldn't create that struggle -- that would have social justice built in from the start.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
From an older BNR
Simple, and effective with the people I've shared it with:
He's wrong about socialism.
In reality, for two centuries it meant a fully democratized workplace, and actual democracy in effect. It meant the absence of capitalism -- which is a necessity if we're going to survive as a species -- and the presence of local, cooperative, full democratic, autonomous economies, federated with one another. It did not mean what occurred in the Soviet Union, which the OP correctly says was state capitalism. Lenin actually called it that, and Stalin and company never implemented socialism after Lenin. They never got close. Plus, traditional socialism never meant "the government owns the means of production." It always meant the people did, directly, not through proxies, not through political parties or dictators. Directly.
IMO, this is far superior to what is being called "democratic socialism," because DS leaves capitalism intact, which means a few people get to own other humans, own their bodies, own their work, and concentrate and hoard wealth, access, income and privilege. It also means that the people are not in direct control of their political lives either. They have "representatives" for that. As in, bosses. So they have bosses at work, and bosses politically.
Real socialism, whose main branch was libertarian socialism, means no bosses -- either politically or economically. Humans self-govern, self-actualize, self-direct.
The video is also incorrect about "communism." Communism is just socialism without the state apparatus in place. It's the final step, basically, a society without classes, no ruling class, no hierarchies. True emancipation and true, living democracy.
What we saw in Russia, China, NK, Cuba and so on is nothing remotely connected to either socialism or communism. Not within light years.
That said, democratic socialism is certainly preferable to what we have in America today.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Bookmarked. Thanks! n/t
"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change." Stephen Hawking
NEW: http://www.twitter.com/trueblueinwdc
I am a pragmatist
Some things are better in private hands others are for the government
I guess that makes me a democratic socialist.
And then there is a form of private ownership that is not quite capitalist. They are called "cooperatives". There are different kinds of cooperatives; transportation, agriculture, health, etc. The ColoradoCare Single Payer proposition is such a proposal.
The political revolution continues
True. Cooperatives aren't capitalist.
Which is why there is no need for capitalism. And it's easily the most destructive, immoral and most cancerous of economic systems. It's also the first imperialistic economic system in world history.
To me, there is absolutely no moral, ethical or even practical grounds for supporting capitalism. It's failed (to a colossal degree) since Day One to allocate resources or compensation in any effective manner, except for a tiny portion of humanity. And it, by nature, impoverishes multitudes to enrich the few, while denuding nature.
It can't be sustained.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Thank you, LibRad & Diomedes77
There is a lot here for me to study & think about.
I feel that I, like many people in this country, have awakened to some of the current problems in the way this country is run, as a result of Bernie's campaign. I mean, wow, a politician who listens to the people to see what they need.
Just as an example of the depth of ignorance in this country, I offer my own experience. I'm 65, ivy League BA in English. In my mid-thirties, I suddenly had a powerful realization ( I can still remember where I was standing in my Kitchen.) that democracy is not the same as capitalism. (I'm not proud of this.)
My simplistic take on Bernie's form of democratic socialism is that is is simply democracy, not however what we have now, but what we need.
My take on Bernie's true political label
To me as much as anything Bernie is a mainstream FDR New Deal Democrat.
I've heard that Marx said that without economic democracy you can't have political democracy...for long.
"Government of, by and for the people" describes what we are all talking about to me.
Please check the Princeton Study on democracy in the US. Prepare to be depressed!
Which kind of democracy are we talking about? Or both?
Thanks for you comments.
China: Nothing Like The Bolshevik Model
If I understood your wording here correctly, I have to disagree re: the characterization re: modern day China. The Chinese economy is now and has been for quite some time 'communist' in name only. There are free markets and the profit motive drives a great deal of the economic activity that takes place there.
In America and much of western Europe, "rights of use" of real property are obtained when one buys and becomes the owner of the land that will be used to further an enterprise. In China, one obtains the rights of use by essentially leasing the property from 'the people.' In the end, the result is the same.
With the right to use a piece of land in a certain way, people are able to start up and own businesses, though not the land that it sits on.
The key to economic growth and progress is combining the resources found on land with the human resources that one hires, to produce things of value, that ultimate consumers perceive to be valuable enough to buy.
When this happens, the 'supply side' of the economy makes available an increasing amount of available goods/services that make up much of what we call a 'standard of living.'
China's astounding economic progress over the past 40 years or so has been a tremendous achievement for the Chinese people. Its 'communist' leaders deserve a lot of credit for making the right kinds of decisions re: managing---or not managing---the economy. They've demonstrated a competence that has withstood the test of time.
Is it a perfect record? Of course not. But the average folks who have to work for a living there have not suffered from any recessions or 'financial crises' that have cost jobs in almost four decades. It's been a remarkable achievement.
James Kroeger
China still qualifies as totalitarian state capitalism
The USSR made tremendous strides in building an industrial base as well. As far as China goes, on the economic side they are taking advantage of western assistance to prosper their economy, but their economy is still state controlled and driven. On the political side I would point to the Tiananmen Square massacre and posit that totalitarian state capitalism still describes their system quite well overall.
The remarkable achievements of the USSR and China have both come at great cost. To be fair Global Totalitarian Capitalism is equally destructive of people's lives and cultures as well as the environment.
Hmm...
This simply isn't true. I provided a link to support the points that I was making, but you apparently did not read the content. Please consider the option of expanding your horizons a bit...
James Kroeger
Soviets did that, too.
It doesn't change the nature of the Chinese system.
Please consider taking more than minor factors in consideration when judging the level of economic and political freedom in a country. In the 1930s there were many well meaning people here in the US who were either ignorant of what was happening in the USSR under Stalin or they chose to believe Stalin's propaganda.
I believe you started your comments by praising the Bolshevik method as you phrased it. How many millions more have to die if we are to follow that method?
We have our problems here as well. We are currently an oligarchy that prefers the type of state capitalism we practice. I'm not going to defend that either. I recognize the both systems extract unacceptable human costs regardless of their potential to create economic growth.
Please expand your horizons instead of putting lipstick on a very ugly pig.