Why are "Democratic Socialists" attempting to establish a whole new definition of socialism?

Social Democrat sounds so much better and is in fact probably more acurate for what they are.

They advocate for Social Democracy (hasn't Sanders made numerous references to Denmark and Norway?) but instead of calling themselves Social Democrats, they call themselves Democratic Socialists. It's absolutely crazy.

Nature tends towards a diverse mix of social, cultural and economic forces. Perhaps the labels of the future will continue to be a hybrid along the lines of "democratic socialism" or "democratic capitalism" or my belabored favorite: "civic infrastructure for a civic, small business economy".

On average, dems like facts over messaging.

But surely that's not why the likes of Sanders are calling themselves Democratic Socialists, while advocating for Social Democracy.

Again, socialism is widely misunderstood. For instance, there are those who mistakenly think anything that is publicly funded (schools, roads, etc.) is an example of socialism...but that's only true if you completely re-define the term. And socialism is also extremely polarizing. So, self-identifying as a socialist when you aren't actually advocating for socialism is, to put it nicely, a real head-scratcher.

There's no reason why Democratic Socialists would support the same things Socialists do

And trying to convince people that *your* version of socialism isn't the same as the long-standing, well-established and polarizing form of socialism is just about the worst political strategy I can imagine.

Especially when - once again - your version already has a name (Social Democracy) that would gain much more acceptance.

website. And the Democratic Socialist party says that Democratic Socialists are socialists. So there is a great deal of overlap, according to their websites.

And the party of the Democratic Socialists, just like the Socialist party, supports the government controlling the means of production -- that's socialism.


https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/principles-points-of-agreement

From the Socialist Party, USA:


The Socialist Party is a democratic socialist organization. We see socialism as a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes and school and the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not the private profit of a few.

https://www.dsausa.org/constitution

Democratic Socialists of America:

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.

Bur Korean or Japanese would be a hoot.
Hell, I can't even follow it in Englush..

Socialism has a defined meaning. Most Americans understand that meaning. As do most Democrats. And neither want anything to do with it.

A whole bunch of people sincerely wanting to change the meaning doesn’t mean shit.

I get tired of people on DU trying to tell me that the definition of a word I have known my entire life is wrong.

Especially since I have never heard the leaders of that movement deny that they are in fact true socialist. Lots of people here on DU trying to tell us that socialism does not really mean socialism, but that does not cut it. I’ve always felt that if an educated person tells you what they are, I should believe them.

The most ironic thing is that these people point out countries that they call socialist. But the people in those countries do not call themselves a socialist and they are in no manner socialist.

I don’t know, I guess I am a stickler for facts.

According to their website, they seem to recognize that government ownership of businesses isn't feasible in the near term but that is the ultimate goal.

[link:https://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism|

I think a lot of people throwing around the term Democratic Socialist aren't really Socialists. Rather, they support a strong social welfare system. The problem is, the term is used so broadly, we can't know what people mean.

...advocating for actual socialism. Sanders, being the most prominent, often advocates for Social Democracy.

I have no doubt that some truly do desire actual socialism.

The name he calls himself?

Like you I have heard him exposing Nordic style social democracy, but have you ever heard him deny real socialism? I haven’t.

And the man is smart and 74 years old. He came up when there were real socialist in America.

I at least respect Bernie enough to believe that when he calls himself a socialist he is indeed a socialist.

He calls himself a socialist but advocates for something that isn't socialism. Like you, it's hard for me to imagine he doesn't know the actual meaning of the term, which is what is so puzzling. Why go to the trouble of trying to re-define a (polarizing) term and conflate it with what you're actually advocating for? How does that help his cause?

It's mystifying.

as a stepping stone to true socialism.

There's no way to know -- which is why it's so dumb for people who simply believe in a strong safety net to use that term.

Americans into adopting a new definition of socialism, is beyond me.

Well, okay, I suppose trying to re-define nazism or pedophilia would be worse. But you get my point.

i guess it makes them feel morally better than others.

...by breaking us all up into factions.

And because a certain silver-haired Senator insists that's what he is, and refuses to join our party because he's so ideologically pure and stuff -- well except that one time he joined so he could get a national platform for the first time in his life. Then he quit and went back to criticizing all things Democratic Party, calling an insurgent female governor an establishment candidate, among other things. But he retains the power to anoint.

This year, under this president and his enabling Congress, I am calling bullshit on all attempts to divide us.

So someone who wants my vote needs to have a (D) after their name and not equivocate about it. It's a big tent. Keep it that way.

...in our party's best interest. It would be best if they would simply identify as Democrats within the big tent. But if they insist on self-identifying in a way that distinguishes themselves, go with Social Democrat or Progressive Democrat. Conflating Social Democracy and socialism is shooting their own cause in the foot.

In the real world I am a Democrat.

What progressive Democrat doesn't support social programs? What Democrat doesn't?

Hillary and Bernie agreed on the same platform for the 2016 election. Anyone who supported them and their platform should be proud to call themselves a Democrat.

Can DUers think of any at all?

There were lots of Democrats left off. Lots and lots. They don't count, apparently. Only the "progressives" who oddly enough were nowhere identified as Democrats.

Divide us into smaller and smaller slices by various lavels. That's sure to be a winning ticket.

to socialism and the Nordic countries (Denmark in particular). You're right, the socialism makes no sense.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/index.html





More at the link.

everyone else is confused. Seems to be quite a trend to make up new meanings for words and phrases these days. A centrist in their jargon means a capitalist. Now I guess it's the turn of the word "socialist" to get a new meaning. Status quo means money in politics. Incrementalism means compromising, spinelessness. Grassroots means the real Democratic base (not PoC and women). Divisive means talking about race and gender. An FDR Democrat means a Democratic Socialist. A regular Democrat means an out-of-touch elitist who has no idea what economic inequality is and is not progressive. Establishment means you are bought off by corporations and are corrupt. There are more that I haven't figured out yet. It is very confusing!

It's important, for instance, that people come to recognize that 'gender' and 'race' are social constructs. But advocating for something that isn't socialism while trying to re-define socialism (or conflate it with what you're advocating for) is really odd. Actually, it's more than just odd. It's completely counterproductive.

Because the group makes up its own jargon.

I don't understand what "It's important, for instance, that people come to recognize that 'gender' and 'race' are social constructs" has anything to do with anything. My comment was not meant to be taken seriously. "There are terms that need to be reassessed." Whatever.

...but that I don't think that's true in the case of socialism. In another thread recently, someone pointed out that word meanings are not set in stone. So, I was just pre-emptively addressing that argument in case it was made in response to your post.

We're on the same page.

as does communism.

Socialism does not simply refer to spending tax money for the common good or for the "safety net."

between a Socialist and a Democratic Socialist, just Google it. The basic difference....Democratic Socialists do not want the government to own the means of production. Socialists do.

I've heard Bernie Sanders explain this difference several times. You can Google that as well.

Socialists and Democratic Socialists don't worry me in the least. Republicans like Devin Nunes do.

over and over. People have a different opinion of what it means. How do YOU define Capitalism? What nations are capitalist? I have yet to see somebody who rails against the term democratic socialism even attempt to address this glaring omission in the logic of contributing to the panic regarding the term socialism.

Also, look at the polls for younger Americans. It isn't incredibly polarizing any more, and nobody should run from a title that the other side has attempted to define. Do you remember us all running away from the term "liberal" like it was herpies? Lean into it. Don't cede the opportunity to define ourselves and leave it instead to the republicans. Don't give the other side the ammunition of your own apologetic milque-toast invertibrate cowering. That is guaranteed to lose. We still reap the pupblic perception of being wimps because of that kind of shit.

Sanders has long defined himself as a democratic Socialist. It would make no sense for him to back away from it, and his branding has been picked up and run with by other candidates, reinforcing that definition.

If he really is a Democratic Socialist, then he would believe, as the party does, that the government should control the means of production.

If he doesn't, then he shouldn't describe himself with the same name as the Democratic Socialist Party.

I bet Bernie DOES consider himself a Socialist, in the traditional sense. Many in the party view social programs as a stepping stone to full socialism, and maybe he does, too. We know he honeymooned in the Soviet Union when it still had a socialist government. So it's not much of a stretch to think he was an actual socialist then and he is now, too.



https://www.dsausa.org/constitution

Democratic Socialists of America:

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.

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

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a multi-tendency organization of democratic socialist, left-social democratic and labor-oriented members in the United States. It is often affiliated with other political parties and/or organizations. A member of the Socialist International (SI) from its founding in 1982, the DSA voted to leave SI in August 2017 over the SI's acceptance of what the DSA perceived as neoliberal economic policies.[18]

The DSA has its roots in the Socialist Party of America (SPA), whose most prominent leaders included Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas and Michael Harrington.[19] In 1973, Harrington, the leader of a minority faction that had opposed the SPA's rightward shift and transformation into the Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) during the party's 1972 national convention, formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). The other faction that split following that convention was the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA), which remains an independent democratic socialist political party. The DSOC, in Harrington's words "the remnant of a remnant", soon became the largest democratic socialist group in the United States. In 1982, it merged with the New American Movement (NAM), a coalition of intellectuals with roots in the New Left movements of the 1960s and former members of Socialist and Communist parties of the Old Left, to form the DSA.[20]

SNIP

The DSA is not only by far the largest socialist organization in the United States in the 21st century, it is also the largest socialist organization in the United States in over a century.[22][23]

Some even here on DU think socialism is synonymous with public funding. Sanders advocates for something that isn't socialism, so referring to himself as a socialist conflates Social Democracy and socialism.

I'm not contributing to the panic. I'm pointing out that misleading self-identification hurts one's cause.

being a member of DSA myself.


Contemporary “Social democracy” is defined as a set of social policies and a political ideology that advocates said policies. Unlike Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats don’t advocate for a fundamentally different economic system from capitalism: their focus is on regulating the excesses of capitalism to protect workers, consumers and disadvantaged groups. This often goes alongside support for tax-funded and universally-accessible welfare provisions. It isn't to say that Democratic Socialists don't advocate for such things (we do) but we want it done in a way that isn't based on capitalism.

Social Democrats don’t view capitalism as fundamentally flawed and irrational, let alone question its fundamental elements (production for profit, the wage labor system, private property). In contrast, Democratic Socialists view capitalism as irrational, inefficient or unjust and hold the view that a superior form of economic organization based on social ownership and democratic management is possible. Therefore they aim to replace capitalism with a socialist economic system which benefits all members of society equally.

Definitions of Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism is not a system per se, rather it is a range of political ideologies that share a commitment to the realization of socialism alongside political and/or economic democracy. As such there is no singular model of democratic socialism that can be analyzed in detail. “Democratic socialism” typically means one of four things:

*A political ideology that aims to realize socialism through existing liberal democratic political institutions;
*A political ideology that aims to realize socialism through spontaneous grassroots-level participatory activism;
*An economic system where socially-owned enterprises are managed directly by their workforce in a democratic rather than hierarchical manner


All Democratic Socialists favor a socialist economy which involves some form of social ownership of the means of production with self-management or democratic decision-making processes at the workplace level. There is however no common Democratic Socialist stance on the question of resource allocation - some Democratic Socialists favor market socialism while others favor planned economies.

Let me share with you something which was posted on my local DSA chapters page awhile back.


"Social Democrats want regulated capitalism, redistribution of wealth, fair taxation of the rich, democracy, and strong social safety net programs. The Scandinavian countries would be considered Social Democracies and to some degree so would democracies in Europe such as France, Germany and England. Social democracies recognize that not everyone wins the capitalist game, and it tends to produce undesired outcomes such as income inequality = massive wealth and poverty side by side. It seeks to provide government programs that support the poor and working class under a capitalistic democracy. It’s a kinder gentler form of capitalism.

Democratic socialists want to keep democracy, but have the citizens vote to move away from capitalism toward more citizen ownership of the means of productions. They see capitalism as a flawed system that tends to create massive wealth for a few and a struggling middle class and poor. Instead of looking to redistribution of wealth and a strong social safety net as a solution, they prefer to change the system to a more socialist system. This does NOT mean they support the state owning the means of production. The concept is that the citizens workers/labor would own a piece of the company or farm they work in. They ask, why should a few wealthy people own most of everything? Shouldn’t everyone have a share in the wealth of a country/economy? "

Hopefully this helps some.

It's not just been happening in the US, but elsewhere too, like Europe. Create more PR friendly names that fool a modern society that is not clued in to history or politics.

Remember though, they haven't changed their core ideas, and that is often the 'tell'. They have NOT re-defined socialism (or rather their strain of Socialism - eg Trotskyism), they have just re-branded and created an outer skin. At some point the Democratic Party are going to have to face this threat head on, or they'll end up with their version of the Tea Party destroying them.

The Democratic Party will NEVER be pure enough for them, which is why they have no problem attacking them. They attempt to use the Nordic model, because what else is there ?