What the hell is a Democratic Socialist?

[freetobegay]

I am in no way a political science major but I did graduate from High school and if you look at the Websters term for these two words, they cannot go together.

I am in no way trying to dis this site, I just want to understand how those two words can be used together.

ON EDIT: spelling

[ulysses]

1. here's one take.

In the United States, we must fight for a humane public policies that will provide quality health care, education, and job training and that redirect public investment from the military to much-neglected urban housing and infrastructure. Such policies require the support of a majoritarian coalition of trade unionists, people of color, feminists, gays and lesbians and all other peoples committed to democratic change. Our greatest contribution as American socialists to global social justice is to build that coalition, which is key to transforming the power relations of global capitalism.

http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

I'm not sure why you think the words can't go together.

democratic - 1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy

socialist - 1 : one who advocates or practices socialism

[freetobegay]

3. Webster definition of socialism

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=socialism&x=14&y=10

I fail to see how they can even be considered or remotely close to each other.

[ulysses]

4. how is the first definition, at any rate, incompatible with democracy?

[Kamikaze]

5. I have an idea.

Instead basing your ideas of economic and political philosophies from very brief definitions in a dictionary, why not actually take the time to research socialism more thoroughly?

[freetobegay]

10. Ok

Here is the very first web site from a google search.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/

This is the long version of my the definition I just gave. :shrug:

[Ameridansk]

20. I take it you get the picture now

There is more government control, in general, in a socialist state. However, if that government is democratically elected, you have a Social democracy. Pretty simple really.

If you have a proportionally representative government, as most modern democracies do (unlike the U.S. of A.), people vote more, feel more comfortable with the government, and are rightfully more willing to give that government more power.

Corporations find it much more difficult to own the government (as they do in the U.S.) because there are so many parties who get their messages across without millions/billions of dollars. If a person, for example, wants to vote Green, he/she simply does. Each party is as electable as they are popular, unless they can't reach the threshold percentage which is generally from 3-5%

If you can ever get out of the States, try going to a country with proportional representation around election time. The differences can be mind-blowing.

[0007]

7. They go hand in hand

Dem·o·crat·ic (dµm”…-kr²t“¹k) adj. 1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union. 2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms. 3. Believing in or practicing social equality: “a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords” (George du Maurier). 4. Democratic. Abbr. Dem., D, D. Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party. --dem”o·crat“i·cal·ly adv.

[Kamikaze]

2. I'll blow your mind even more.

Libertarian Socialist.

[radwriter0555]

30. Liberal Democratic Socialist. That's me...

In every fiber of my being.

[onebigbadwulf]

6. Wouldnt it be like a republican fascist?

I like to consider myself mildly socialist - even Thom Hartmann was talking about the things in America that are socialized...

fire department, police, military, road construction, etc.

The best way to trap a freeper in the Socialized medicine debate is to ask him what he thinks of fire fighters.

Then casually say, "did you know we have socialized fire protection?"

[Kamikaze]

8. I would sure like a completely libertarian road system.

Can you imagine roads being paved only where corporations deemed it profitable?

[ulysses]

9. heh - I used to have a hardcore libertarian friend

and backed him into a corner one day over roads. His only response was, "everyone should buy an SUV and then we won't need roads".

:eyes:

[TreasonousBastard]

13. We had such a system...

when many main roads were privately owned and charged tolls.

The busses, subways and passenger rails were also privately owned.

These were eventually found to be unacceptable for various reasons, and the government took had to take them over.

If privatization were such a good idea, the Vanderbilt family would still own the IRT.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Good question...

these labels keep popping up in sound bites, and I doubt anybody knows what they really mean.

If they mean anything at all.

At any rate, there really isn't anything in theories of democracy or socialism that makes them mutually exclusive. Democracy is esentially a political system, and socialism is essentially economic.

All major democracies today have various socialist components. It would be almost impossible to exist under any pure system.

[freetobegay]

12. Thank you!

Now that makes sense to me.

[liberalpragmatist]

49. Actually, MOST democracies would count as Socialist Democracies

Frankly, most democracies exc. for the United States are socialist democracies, or at least far closer to socialism than the United States. In Europe, it's the default system. Actually, the term Socialism has fallen out of use, and the softer "Social Democrat" term has become more popular since most Socialist countries have privatized major industries and focused more on welfare issues - health, education, transportation, communication, and welfare as govt.-sponsored programs.

[NewHampshireDem]

14. Exactly!

My first thoughts were, "One is political, one is economic."

Pet peeve: When people talk about communism (or socialism) as though it is a political system, as in "They have a communist government, and we have a democracy." Argh! People who should know better do that all the time.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

28. I have the same pet peeve

Economic systems: Capitalism <--X------> Socialism
Political systems: Democracy <--X------> Dictatorship

The X is where the US falls along the continuums in my opinion. Either extreme can be mixed with either extreme. However, the combo that makes the least sense is Socialism mixed with Dictatorship (everything is shared equally...except the dictator controls everything). USSR and North Korea had/have that mix and have demonstrated that it doesn't work to well. This is what really annoys me though, China mixes Democracy and Socialism. Why the hell does our media still refer to it as "Evil Dictatorship Communist China"?

[liberalpragmatist]

47. China IS a dictatorship

There is looser control than there was, say, 20 years ago, and you can now criticize the regime between two people (whereas 20 years ago, you would have been imprisoned for even cracking a joke about politicians).

However, there is still little freedom of press and the Chinese Communist Party remains exclusively in power. There are no elections, except for some (heavily rigged) local and village councils elected on a nonpartisan basis.

And I would probably say China is actually more capitalist than Socialist. Although it claims to be socialist and on the way to communism, that's certainly not the case. The poor receive few welfare benefits or government services, esp. in rural areas. There was an excellent recent NYTimes article about the rural poor in China and it quoted one economist as saying that China probably has the biggest social inequality of any nation on earth - the rural are still dirt poor and the city-folk on the coasts are thriving.

So I would list China as the following:
Capitalism <---X-------> Communism
Democracy <---------X-> Dictatorship

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. I agree with Alexander Cockburn when he describes China as

more fascist than anything else.

You still have most of the political repression in place, but there's no more social safety net, few regulations on business, and massive corruption as businesses pay bribes to government officials.

[liberalpragmatist]

58. I've read China categorized as Fascist, too

A few different places - Nicholas Kristof, for instance, describes China that way, as well.

Now, he's optimistic about China b/c of that - his view is that Fascist countries in the last half century have been able to make a good transition to democracy (i.e. Spain, Taiwan, South Korea, Portugal, Greece). I think that's an interesting trend. I'm not sure if it applies to China, b/c those were all smaller countries that were dependent on other countries which may have well impacted their transition to democracy. China on the other hand is getting very powerful and the Communist Party there is very entrenched.

I don't know - it'll be interesting to watch and see what happens.

[salvorhardin]

15. On a related note...

What is a cryptofascist? This term seems to be having something of a resurgence in use and I realized I don't really know what it means. I think the modifier crypto is confusing me. I know what a cryptoanarchist is, but here crypto is being used to refer specifically to cryptography. Also, where did the term cryptofascist originate?

[pnorman]

19. "crypto" in this context means

"secret" or not openly acknowledged. Practically ANY "ism" could be preceded with "crypto-".

pnorman

[salvorhardin]

62. So...

A cryptofascist would be a fascist that hasn't come out of the closet yet? :-)

[pnorman]

70. That's about the way I'd take it.

It could also refer to one who isn't truly aware the he/she is a "fascist". (Defining "fascism" is another thing altogether).

pnorman

[arcos]

16. Democratic Socialism = Socialdemocracy...

Socialdemocracy is what a lot of European countries have, especially in Scandinavia... it is also what most Socialist and Labour Parties around the world advocate.

Zapatero in Spain, is a democratic socialist... theoretically, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröeder are too (not much in practice, though)... Simon Peres, Lionel Jospin, etc, etc, etc.

[LeftishBrit]

18. I consider myself to be a democratic socialist

As Arcos says, it's what the mainstream left in Europe are - and probably some other countries such as New Zealand and Australia.

Socialism implies a belief in state ownership and administration of important public services, and in intervention in the economy to increase equality and prevent extremes of poverty. It does not generally mean total equality, or the abolition of private property. Most socialist governments favour a 'mixed economy', with room for both state and private ownership.

Democracy is, as others have stated, a political system, not an economic one. One can be a democratic socialist, just as one can be a democratic conservative, if one believes that the government and its leaders should be chosen by the people's vote, rather than imposed by dictators, or passed on by inheritance.

[Kellanved]

27. No

Democratic Socialism is not Social Democracy. Usually the term refers to post-communists (German PDS,...) .

[arcos]

85. Look what Wikipedia says...

Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the political ideals of socialism within the form of a parliamentary democracy and in opposition to Communism as practiced by the former Soviet Union. The term democratic socialist and social democrat have often been used interchangeably. However, increasingly, the former term denotes a more left wing position that still believes in the socialist transformation of society, usually in an evolutionary socialist manner while the latter idicates those who do not believe in the abolition of capitalism but simply in making capitalism more equitable and humane.

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

So, I think we're both right :P

[Anarcho-Socialist]

40. Difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy

Democratic Socialism is a gradual progression from capitalism to a state-owned and controlled economy in a democratic setting.

Social Democracy uses uses capitalism as a means to achieve Socialist ideals (i.e. equality) without replacing capitalism with state control of the economy.

[arcos]

86. see post #85, just above

:hi:

[anarchy1999]

17. Seek out TIA, IndianaGreen, Kentuck, there are many more ready to

answer your questions. Be careful and have loads of respect for the answers you may receive.

[Junkdrawer]

21. I was a Democratic Socialist back in 1978....

The group was founded by Michael Harrington (author of The Other America) back in the 70s with the goal of trying to move the Democratic party to the left. Motto: The left of the possible.

Issues such as support for labor unions and single payer health coverage were the group's goal.

Most of the world's other advanced democracies have embraced these goals, but, thanks to the propaganda which your post reflects, America has foregone helping it's citizens in favor of military spending.

Educate yourself:

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

[freetobegay]

22. Hold on buddy!

I asked a valid question I did not slam anyone! it's not proaganda. I did visit that website & I found it odd in the PDF listed there how much time they spent saying how they are different from socialist. I think they protest a little to much.

[Junkdrawer]

23. I didn't slam you - just said your post reflected the antisocialist...

propaganda we are all subject to.

[German-Lefty]

24. My definitions

Democracy - A participatory form of government where all people are given an equal say in government affairs and conflicts are resolved peacefully. We've never had a real democracy.

Socialism - A system of economics where resources are managed for the greater good of all people. We've never had real socialism.

Early socialists or communists like Marx believed that capitalism was so flawed that it had to be destroyed, that the state should take over and manage all industry. This central economic planning was about as efficient as a giant corporate monopoly. The system in the Soviet Union was also not very democratic.

Democratic Socialism - A system where resources are managed for the greater good of society, by a democracy.

Here's the real crux for the social democrat: You can't have the state run the entire economy directly and have that state be democratic. At least it has never been done yet. The big problem is that people would voting money into their pockets. Perhaps with improved democratic institutions this might be possible one day.

For now most social democrats (in most countries) see capitalism as a necessary evil. So the question becomes which industries to nationalize and which to leave to private industry and what kinds of regulations are needed to insure that private corporations will work in the public interest.

This definition covers a very wide spectrum. Many republicans believe some things must be handled by the government.

Here's philosophical test between a socialist and capitalist conservative:
Why should wealthy people and corporations have control over capital?

Socialist: Because we the people have granted them a charter and property rights so that they can responsibly manage it, in their and the public interest.

Capitalist Conservative: Because they have a god given right to the property they have, to do with it as they see fit.

A Royalist Conservative would say that a monarch has a god given right to rule a country as he sees fit.

[freetobegay]

25. Thank you for a well thought out post.

I know why the American revolution was fought & alot of it had to to with cooperations It also had to do with a free society. They did a balancing act to give us what we have (IMO I think they did a great job!)

I just don't see how our Government could become Democratic socialist without changing the basis of our Constitution. I will fight to my dying breath to see this not happen, just like I would fight to my dying breath not to see it go the other way (Bush's way).

I am all for Government regulation to help better it's citizens, but we are a capitalist society for a reason.

[German-Lefty]

29. Thanks

I know why the American revolution was fought & alot of it had to to with cooperations
Huh? The English companies were on the loosing side of war for independence. Though, I guess somebody else got rich in their stead. I think the free society was definitely more of the reason.


I just don't see how our Government could become Democratic socialist without changing the basis of our Constitution.
Well my point is that most modern socialists aren't extremists that want to nationalize everything (like some libertarians that want to privatize everything).

The constitution does have the concept of immanent domain. Congress has the power to revoke any company's charter and break up a company as they see fit (like with AT&T). In an information economy there is also the question of what counts as property.

Does Disney get to hold on Mickey Mouse forever?
Shall we allow software patents?
Can you patent a genetic code, even if it belongs to a person?
Shall Tivo be banned to protect Hollywood profits?

These are all decisions where the government has to decide one way or the other. On one side their are moneyed interests on the other side their is often the public interest. Either way people are voting money into their pockets.

It is my belief that we need more advanced forms of democracy to handle some of these decisions. Sure, that might involve changing the constitution, but the "basis of our Constitution" shall not be changed much. It will still be a government of/for/by the people. We can hang on to the concept of a man's home being his castle, while debating what constitutes intellectual property.


but we are a capitalist society for a reason.
Which reason? Is capitalism fundamentally just? Or is it that capitalism just does the best job of taking care of people right now?

[Aries]

33. The founders were not exactly rabid democrats

http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/htdisconst.html

"...On September 17th 1787, the U.S. Constitution was ratified by two-thirds of the colonies, and thus adopted. The constitution is the supreme law in the U.S., and it is an instrument of class power, intended by its framers to preserve the influence of property owners over the American political economy.

Despite popular claims of U.S. democracy, the constitution was intended to blunt the possibility of "the people" from acquiring power or making effective changes in the structure of government, in particular property relations between the elite and the marginalized.

The framers of the constitution were, in fact, often contemptuous of democracy. John Adams attacked Thomas Paine's book Common Sense because it was "so democratical, without any restraint or even an Attempt at any Equilibrium or Counterpoise, that it must produce confusion and every Evil Work." Thomas Jefferson believed that working people were "the panders of vice and the instruments by which the liberties of a country are generally overturned," and he had limited faith in ability of the "swinish multitude" to govern themselves; they were ruled by passion, not reason..."

"...John Adams contended that the U.S. ought to be governed by "the rich, the well-born and the able," and he believed that democracy was "the most ignoble, unjust and detestable form of government." Alexander Hamilton agreed and went further. He believed that society was divided between the "rich and well born" and "the people." The masses, however, were "turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right." Hamilton's solution was to give "to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government." Hamilton, thinking of Shays' Rebellion, also wrote of the need for the new government to be able to "repress domestic faction and insurrection."....

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. Um...not really...

I know why the American revolution was fought & alot of it had to to with cooperations It also had to do with a free society. They did a balancing act to give us what we have (IMO I think they did a great job!)

One corporation, really...the British East India Company, which had certain monopolies granted by royal charter. The colonial merchants wanted access to the markets in trade that the EIC's monopolies essentially locked them out of.

And the American Revolution didn't really have much to do with a "free society". The only people with any real freedom, for some time after the Revolution, were white male landowners...had George III allowed the colonies representation in Parliament and given them their rights as Englishmen, instead of taxing them without representation and quartering troops in their houses, the Revolution might not have happened...and the people who were in the vanguard of fomenting said Revolution were among the well-off classes of New England brewers and merchant seamen, and Virginia planters (the latter unhappy with the restrictions placed upon the slave trade by the British)....not to mention that the British policy of not expanding territorially and attempting to coexist as far as possible with the native tribes was another point of contention.

And the basis of the US Constitution is rather flawed. It is in its structure a republic, pattered upon the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic failed, and turned into the Roman Empire, as the American Republic is failing and becoming imperial, because the republican system tends to lead to an imbalance in the powers of government, with the executive asserting more and more authority and the Senate or, in our case, Congress, becoming less and less important.

In my personal opinion we need a new constitutional convention...the old system should be scrapped in favour of a European-style parliamentary system, with proportional representation...which seems, of the extant political systems, to come closest to democracy.

And the US is democratic/socialist, in practice, at least. Not just socially but economically....subsidies, corporate welfare, et cetera...not to mention various social programmes. Not quite as capitalist as you make out, anyway.

[German-Lefty]

44. Improving democracy

I was really looking forward to proportional representation when I moved to Germany. I think it helps some, but we have voter apathy here two. In America you can choose between 2 crappy parties; here we have 4-5 crappy parties. The biggest problem is that the people on the party lists which get their chair by being ranked high on the list, not by winning in any votes, turn into complete party yes-men since they have no direct constituency.

There isn't one holy grail of democracy, there are lots of neat ideas though. There's this really great article from Salon:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/08/06/importing_democracy/index.html
:-) "...America's Myth of Creation, which goes something like this: One day, the Founding Fathers miraculously invented the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution out of thin air. There was nothing like it before and there has been nothing like it since."
He mentions some nice ideas we could borrow from other countries.

I've got some fun ones too. I've got one which I should probably Post sometime when I have a lot of time to chat.

PS: Nice quote in your signature.

[manona]

45. yea lets do it like Europe

that seems to be working out great. (those two world wars that started there were kind of messy, killing people into the millions)But still Europe is the model that all countries strive for (ah maybe not, the USA seems to be a good model)And by the way the USA never, not once, ever, even a little bit, claimed to be a democracy. We are a representative republic. Thats it. Not a democracy. The Constitution is a document created by people. Flaws? Goes without question. The one fact that seems to elude everyone is that the USA is the most free and prosperous place on earth. It became that way by our 'flawed Constitution' which includes things like private property rights.

The USA is becoming Imperial? Went to public school so maybe missed some important stuff, but what lands has the USA taken over? Seems to me each and every time there was an expansion of area, the people voted for that. I see not even an inkling of the USA taking over some peace of turf by force, and still controlling it.

Oh and if there is a freer society maybe you could let the rest of us in on it

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. Those two world wars...

were the result of a) ultimately disastrous treaty alliances and b) the unduly harsh treaty conditions imposed on the Germans at Versailles. Seems like you missed more than just "some" important stuff in school.

And any American imperialism is more conducted by proxy, using puppet governments, such as what we've set up in Iraq, and through exertion of international military and economic influence rather than actual occupation. Maybe not an empire like Rome or 19th century Britain, but the ends are similar. Just acheived with different means.

Oh, and I don't think that the Sioux and Paiute voted for the expansion of the US. Seems like you missed that, too.

And...as to freer society, I could name several, but it depends on what you mean by "freedom". Your definition might differ from mine.

[manona]

68. lets think thru this

WWI bad treaty alliances. Who makes treaties? OK I'll answer. The government. The Parliamentary government you advocate. Result= trench warfare, mustard,gas, and 100's of thousand of dead. Parliamentary system ,Zero.

WW II 'Unduly strict conditions imposed of Germany at the treaty of Versailles', My teachers weren't so bad, they taught me that signatories of a treaty agreed to the conditions of that treaty. Maybe you can explain why Germany signed a treaty they had no notion of adhering to. Or, why the European style of Parliamentary Government that is so Superior allowed the German Government to Violate the treaty that Germany agreed to, multiple times, and, again caused the death of 100's of thousands soldiers from multiple Nations, not to mention the attempted extermination of an entire race of people. The Parliamentary Govt that is superior allowed Germany to march thru Checholsovakia and Poland thinking that 'If we give them a little ground the won't go after us'. Parliamentary system, Zero.

Yes, lets redefine Imperialism to suit a debate. Iraq? In less than 18 months the USA has stopped a murderous dictator and he will stand trial. The country of Iraq, last I checked was under the control of a provisional government of the People of Iraq. This provisional government has the power to boot out the USA troops, the provisional government has not made that request. Much the same as Germany or Japan, or South Korea, has not asked American troops to be removed. Saudi Arabia did make a request for the removal of troops and that has been taking place. The fact is that a USA military installation means millions of $'s per year, so most countries are loathe to ask the USA to decamp.


OK, Native Americans, I knew that would come up. The Native Americans could have been assimilated into America culture if they wanted that.
They choose to fight. I assume you feel that since there were people on this Continent first,no other people are allowed. That would pretty much eliminate the growth of human advancement as we know it. Yes, The USA did 'conquer' the middle of the North American Content, but that is no different that what Canada or Mexico did by displacing the native populations.

A more free society. Like, maybe France that has banned religious head ware in schools, or has banned some words from being seen in public, that have not been approved by their word police? Or maybe England that has fined, with the additional threat of jail time for a merchant, if he continues to weigh produce using the metric system?
Or maybe Switzerland that requires 2 years service in the military?
These Parliaments create great free societies

[Xipe Totec]

77. I have to disagree with you regarding Mexico

Specifically your statement: "The USA did 'conquer' the middle of the North American Content, but that is no different that what Canada or Mexico did by displacing the native populations."

Mexico did not displace the native population. Mexico is predominantly populated by the native peoples of the country. Even at the peak of Spanish colonialism in Mexico, the percent of Europeans in the country never exceeded 10% and those that did come to the new world from Europe intermarried with the native population. That is a source of pride in Mexico. Columbus day is celebrated as 'El Dia de la Raza", meaning the day a new race emerged from the mingling of native and Old-World blood.

What happened in Mexico as a result of the Spanish conquest was the destruction of a civilization. What happened in the United States was genocide.

However tragic both outcomes may be, there is a difference.

[manona]

80. It has been a while

but the last time I was in Mexico everyone spoke Spanish. I'm certain that was not the native laguage of that land mass.

The natives of what we now call the United States of America could have done just what you related. They instead chose to fight, wish they hadn't, wish we did'nt have to deal with the fact that 100'000's of lives were lost needlessly, but I can't replay history, and I think both sides share equal responsibilities

[Xipe Totec]

84. Disagree with you again regarding Spanish

Not everyone in Mexico speaks Spanish. There are still quite sizable populations that only speak their native tongues which include:

Nahuatl, Maya, Otomi, Yaqui, Mixtec, Zapotec, Olmec, Chichimec, Tarahumaran, Apache, Navajo, Naco, Tarasco, and on and on.

There are even larger populations that are bilingual with Spanish as a second language. The number of Nahuatl speakers alone are over a million.

Yes, many, if not most Mexicans speak Spanish. It is the official language of the country, just as English is the official language of India.

One further point. Although the Spanish conquest destroyed the native civilization, it did attempt to preserve the languages. The Spanish missionaries with assistance from the native populations transcribed the languages into the Latin alphabet and thereby helped preserve some of these languages to this day.


So, please, stop using Mexico as a casual example and justification for atrocities committed elsewhere.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. You're seriously misinformed

In MY public school, we learned about the difference between "direct democracy" (a town meeting where every resident gets to vote on every issue) and "representative democracy" (citizens elect reps to vote for them).

"The USA is the most free and prosperous place on earth?" Tell me, have you ever lived in any other Western, industrialized country?

"What lands has the U.S. taken over?" In MY public school, we learned about the Mexican War (in which we took over most of the Southwest), the annexation of Hawaii (American landowners overthrew the monarchy and petitioned for status as a U.S. territory), the Spanish-American War (ever wonder why the U.S. owns Puerto Rico and Guam?), countless interventions in Latin America (in which the U.S. tried to tell sovereign countries what kind of government they could have), and oh, yes, as we speak, the U.S. is trying to hang on to Iraq.

Too bad your local community chose to elect an incompetent school board so that your public school neglected American history and global studies so badly.

But never fear, you can make up for it by turning off the TV and radio, reading some factual books about American and world history, and talking to people from other countries.

[manona]

69. Your school was worse than mine

The United States does not own Puerto Rico or Guam. Thats just a fact. Both have independent elected governments. The USA plays a large part in the lives of those two independent countries, with the consent of their citizens. You may not like it but the citizens do.

The US is not trying to hold on to Iraq. A provisional Govt of the Iraqi people are calling the shots and elections will be held late this year.

My point is not what happened 200years ago. Yes those wars happened. But today, the USA does not have imperialistic actions. If the USA did, we would control the oil fields of Kuwait.

Have I lived elsewhere? Yes. Why do you limit your selection down to the very narrow Western Industrialized country?

I will risk the appearance of being redundant. This great experiment we call the USA is a Representative Republic. Not a Representative Democracy. (guess your school board was worse that mine)

[Junkdrawer]

51. "not even an inkling of the USA taking over some peace of turf by force"..

There's this place called Iraq that comes to mind....

[manona]

71. Today the country of Iraq

is being governed by the provisional Govt of Iraq, which is made up of Iraqi citizens. Elections will be held later this year or early next

[Junkdrawer]

74. That's right. And Negroponte is just the US Ambassador to Iraq...

And those 140,000 troops are just there to aid in the reconstruction. And if our troops just happen to ride along side the convoys of oil tankers trucking the oil out if Iraq, well, it's a small world.

[manona]

78. Ah, yea, Negroponte

is 'just' the ambassador to Irag. What do you think he is?

The provissional government of Iraq can ask that the US troops leave. But the provissional government seems to think that asking US troops to leave, and a couple 100 thousand Iraqi citizens being slaughtered is not the best course to take. kinda like the + 1 million souls that lost their lives when we bugged out of Viet Nam. But Hey they don't count they're not like us. I just happen to think all humans are equal.

[Junkdrawer]

79. Director of the counterinsurgency...

comes to mind. :shrug:

Look, we're not there to protect the people. We're not there to defend the US against "Weapons of Mass Destruction". And we're not there to liberate the people from a brutal dictator (that we helped put in power in the first place.)

Where there for oil. You know, the stuff that powers the economies of the world? That stuff.

[0rganism]

93. You don't know what John Negroponte did for Honduras, then?

Since "all humans are equal", maybe you should read up on it.

[goodhue]

53. According to Heritage Foundation

According to Heritage Foundation's 2004 Index of Economic Freedom, these countries rank higher than the United States . . .

Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Ireland
Estonia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Switzerland

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.html

[German-Lefty]

60. Europe

Hmm, so European democracy can be discounted because they had the two world wars. So does that mean the American republic can be discounted because of the civil war. We did our share of killing too.

It became that way by our 'flawed Constitution'
It became that way because people didn't say "ok good we have the constitution, now we can stop fighting for freedom and democracy." We still had to end slavery, give women the vote, protect the natives, end racial segregation, fight the Jim Crow laws, and the day we sit down and stop trying to improve will be the begining of the end.

Oh and if there is a freer society maybe you could let the rest of us in on it
If you don't want to take the conservative Heritage Foundation's look at economic freedom try personal freedom. They don't have laws outlawing dildos in France. Pot is tolerated, especially in Holland. You don't need to be 21 to drink here. Prostitution -- hey legalize it if it makes it safe. Hell as far as personal freedom is concerned we're living in a libertarian Utopia, ok maybe without the guns.

[manona]

76. We Agree!

I do not mean to deride the European style of Palimentary Govt
It is not an unworkable system. I was only trying to point out that our Representative Rebublic has built a very fine country.

No, we should never stop and say,Ahh thats it we have it perfected!
Never, We are people, and by our nature, imperfect. We keep marching forward.

I said the freest Nation on this Globe. You skew this by inserting economic freedom.

And the United States does not ban dildos. Although France does have a problem with what you wear on your head in school or the words you might use on signs in your store.
Pot, unless your trying to sell 100lbs, or doing a fatty on main street during the Homecoming parade. is a none issue.
The drinking age is determind by the People. The People seem OK with 21.
Prostitution is ip to the People. Some locals have said 'fine'

[arcos]

87. A NON ISSUE?!

Do you know how many people are in jail for drug offenses?

do you think all of them were trying to sell big quantities of drugs???

[German-Lefty]

90. Cool thread

European style of Parliamentary Govt vs. Representative Republic
I don't think either system is perfect. America's strong separation between the executive and legislature can provide a type of accountability lacking in Coalition style parliamentary governments. We'll see if those senate enquirers get anywhere though. I was hoping they'd set up something really cool for the European government, but it's terrible. All over the world special interests aren't intrested in allowing too much democracy.

You skew this by inserting economic freedom.
No I don't. That post from the Heritage Foundation skews toward economic freedom. If you want economic freedom, don't look for it in Germany. We have tons of Bureaucracy.

the United States does not ban dildos
Texas does. Their anti-sodomy laws were only recently overturned by the Supreme Court. If you got rid of all those religious zealots and imported a few level headed Europeans, they wouldn't pass such stupid laws. So I guess this is more of cultural issue. Still if you're going to say America is the free-est country on earth, you're going to have deal with America's obsession with consensual crime.

[0rganism]

92. Imperial USA

FYI -- Aside from the abhorrent treatment of the Native Americans, at various times in our colorful history the United States has purchased, invaded, occupied, supported insurgencies/juntas/coups, or otherwise established client states in

* "Louisiana Territory"
* Mexico
* Alaska
* Hawaii
* Puerto Rico
* the Phillipines
* Formosa
* Marshall Islands
* Cuba
* Haiti
* Guatemala
* Colombia
* Nicaragua
* El Salvador
* Honduras
* Panama
* Iran
* Vietnam
* Chile
* Grenada
* Afghanistan
* Iraq

to name a few.

Never, for any of these takeovers, were the people already living in the area permitted a vote regarding American annexation or control. The story of Hawaii is particularly interesting, although, as you point out, you may have missed it in your public school.

> if there is a freer society maybe you could let the rest of us in on it

Indeed. America is VERY free if one is a Christian male of Caucasian descent with adequate property holdings. On the other hand, we have one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet, comparable to China's! Many of the people in this country are imprisoned for the non-violent property crime of marijuana trafficking. I would regard a society with liberalized drug and medical policies, such as Canada's, to be considerably free-er than the USA in those respects.

The best I can say for America is that we are empowered to struggle for progress and overturn the inequities of preceding generations. Not to say that such progress comes easily -- it has been a long and difficult struggle to establish equal rights for racial minorities and women, but these things can be done.

[JohnnyFianna1]

26. Here's the problem, many people would lose their

money that has been invested into the stock market and bonds and start up money for businesses would become infeasible. The to begin the transition would be the annilihation of the stock market followed by a repayment of all money invested. For this to be possible, the government would have to be bigger than all of the public company's in the U.S. and this would be followed by a worldwide depression.

[Xipe Totec]

31. X-cracy = rule by X, Y -ism = value system based on Y

So one term describes the means, the other describes the end. Therefore the terms are not mutually exclusive. A Democratic Socialist is someone who wants to achieve Socialism by Democratic means.

Democracy: rule by the people.

Some other types of rule:

Aristocracy: Rule by the elite.

Bureaucracy: Rule by civil servants.

Plutocracy: Rule by the rich (Republicans)

Theocracy: Rule by priests (Moral Majority)

Kleptocracy: Rule by thieves (Bush Administration)

http://phrontistery.50megs.com/govern.html


Socialism: value system where society is the highest value.

Some other value systems:

Capitalism: value system where money is the highest value.

Individualism: value system where the individual is the highest value.

Alturism: value system where the welfare of others is the highest value.


Social Democracy: is a political ideology emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism who believed that the transition to a socialist society could be achieved through democratic evolutionary rather than revolutionary means.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Social_Democracy


http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Socialism


http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Democracy

[H2O Man]

35. bureaucracy

is simply any system that deals with a large number of people, and makes assumptions based upon the needs of the majority of those it serves. This is why when someone has slightly different than "normal" needs, the system has difficulty in dealing with it. It has little to do with a political system run by civil servants, although any and EVERY political system with a large number of people will -- by definition -- include bureaucracy.

[Xipe Totec]

36. Bureaucracy, No argument there

The different forms of rule are not mutually exclusive by necessity.

The American bureaucracy is an indispensable part of the democratic process. It is what allows the smooth transition of power from administration to administration. We live in a democracy that is supported and enshrined in a bureaucracy.

The -isms are also not necessarily mutually exclusive. We live in what we call a capitalist society, but it is not pure capitalists, nor should it be. Public utilities, for example, are government regulated monopolies that regulate a limited resource for the good of the whole.

Pragmatism: A value system where facts of life, practicality, and literal truth are the highest value.

[H2O Man]

37. the two problems with bureaucracy:

(1) When there is someone with a need different than the assembly-line process is geared for. This includes things such as a person with a mental illness applying for public assistance at the local Dept of Social Services. Those people may need an advocate to help them navigate the bureaucratic system.

(2) Entrenchment. A bureaucracy is hard to change. This occures at the federal, state, county, and municiple level. Say, for example, a new mayor is elected, and puts his cousin in charge of the highway department. The cousin tries to make changes to provide better service for less money. The reaction of bureaucracy is always "but we've never done it that way."

I agree with your including bureaucracy, and your basic definition of it.

[Xipe Totec]

38. The Power of the Bureaucracy is Real

and very effective at defending itself when threatened. That is why whistle blowers end up getting screwed. It takes a charismatic leader to reignite the sense of purpose and mission that inspired people to become public servants in the first place.

"there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new."

- Niccolo Machiavelli

[H2O Man]

41. I like that!

Thanks for posting it.

There are three types of authority: (1) family (clan, tribe); (2) systematic (bureaucracy, "the state"); and (3) charismatic.

The bureaucracy/state has serious problems in dealing with the family system's authority. Not with the vast majority of families, obviously, because they have given their allegiance to the symbols of the state. But, for example, when a social service agency deals with some family from outside that allegiance, a family from the margins.

The only person from those agencies/bureaucracies that can deal efectively with the family authority system is the charismatic person. Yet the bureaucracy stifles charisma, for a combination of good and bad reasons.

This is an interesting conversation. I'm on my way to the dentist, but will be back in a couple of hours. I'd enjoy continuing this, if possible. Thank you for provoking thought!

[Xipe Totec]

88. My Pleasure.

Hope the visit to the dentist went well.

Contact me any time.

Catch you on the next interesting thread.

[manona]

46. Socialism

is the best. it just hasn't been done 'right yet' Hee Heee. I had a history teacher try that line on me and when I asked him to prove, thru History when it ever worked for even a short time, I was banished to a self study room due to my disruptive behavior (Aced the class because I never missed a test Question)

[Junkdrawer]

54. Wow. I guess you told off that damn liberal teacher. Good work!

:thumbsup:

/sarcasm off

[manona]

59. yea I guess a teacher of history not

being able to 'prove' his statement makes ne a geniuos

[resident bunnypants]

81. Yet, somehow you're spelling is all fucked up.

Go figure.

[H2O Man]

32. Interesting thread.

Sincere question; good answers.

Democracy is a political system; socialism is an economic system. Hence, a democracy can choose any economic system. The three we tend to think in terms of are capitalism, socialism, and communism. Each has the potential to enhance -- or destry-- democratic principles.

Further, those three economic "theories" all date to the early rise of industrial society, about the late 1800s, and are not accurate terms for describing our high-tech society.

We have "socialism" in many areas of our society. Some are good, some not. Think of food stamps, medicare & medicaid, your highway department, public schools ... all pretty good,at least in theory.

Then think about the corporate welfare system, including things such as the bush policy to force communities to foot the bill for the clean-up of a toxic waste dump site created by an industry in your community. That is socialism, and it's not good for the community .... although it certainly benefits big business.

Free enterprise with some government regulation appears to be the single best economic system for a democratic state. Keep in mind that there should not be too much control of business by government, or you have a dictatorship such as "communist" USSR or China. But our problem is that business controls government, which is the definition of fascism.

[goodhue]

34. Democratic Socialism

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861149.html

Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism took firm root in European politics after World War I. Socialist democratic parties actively participated in government in Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and other nations. Socialism also became a powerful force in parts of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. To the Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders of independence movements, it was attractive as an alternative to the systems of private enterprise and exploitation established by their foreign rulers.

After World War II, socialist parties came to power in many nations throughout the world, and much private industry was nationalized. In Africa and Asia where the workers are peasants, not industrial laborers, socialist programs stressed land reform and other agrarian measures. These nations, until recently, have also emphasized government planning for rapid economic development. African socialism has also included the revival of precolonial values and institutions, while modernizing through the centralized apparatus of the one-party state. Recently, the collapse of Eastern European and Soviet Communist states has led socialists throughout the world to discard much of their doctrines regarding centralized planning and nationalization of enterprises.


http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/democratic_socialism.html

Democratic socialism

Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the political ideals of socialism in a democratic state.

Most democratic socialists typically advocate a mixed economy with generous welfare provision, and re-distribution of wealth. People or groups who describe themselves as democratic socialists, are generally further to the left and more radical than the more moderate social democrats.

Many people see Scandinavian countries such as Sweden as a model of democratic socialism.


http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Democratic_socialism

Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the political ideals of socialism within the form of a parliamentary democracy and in opposition to Communism as practiced by the former Soviet Union. The term democratic socialist and social democrat have often been used interchangeably. However, increasingly, the former term denotes a more left wing position that still believes in the socialist transformation of society, usually in an evolutionary socialist manner while the latter idicates those who do not believe in the abolition of capitalism but simply in making capitalism more equitable and humane. Revolutionary democratic socialists often tend to agree with the ideas of revolutionary syndicalism or Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek.

Democratic socialists and social democrats both typically advocate a welfare state though social democrats, influenced by the Third Way are now less committed to this. Democratic socialists maintain a commitment to the re-distribution of wealth and the nationalisation of major industry and some believe in a planned economy, concepts which social democrats have largely abandoned. As well, many democratic socialists retain a Marxist analysis (though a reformist one) while social democrats reject Marxism.

People or groups who describe themselves as democratic socialists, are generally further to the left and more generally a more radical wing within social democratic parties and movements. In some cases, democratic socialists have broken off from "right wing social democrats" to form their own parties. However, in other parties such as the Canadian New Democratic Party they remain in the same party.

See also: Democratic Socialists of America, British Labour Party, New Democratic Party, Socialist Party USA

[Selwynn]

61. Oooh, thank you. Nice links

[Minstrel Boy]

42. I could ask, What the hell is a Democratic Capitalist?

That's more of an oxymoron to my ears.

And I echo the above remarks, which distinguish political from economic ideologies.

Here's an excerpt from my favourite document of Canadian democratic socialism: the 1933 Regina Manifesto, founding text of the CCF which became, in 1961, the NDP:

"We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated, in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic self-government, based upon economic equality will be possible. The present order is marked by glaring inequalities of wealth and opportunity, by chaotic waste and instability; and in an age of plenty it condemns the great mass of the people to poverty and insecurity. Power has become more and more concentrated into the hands of a small irresponsible minority of financiers and industrialists and to their predatory interests the majority are habitually sacrificed. When private profit is the main stimulus to economic effort, our society oscillates between periods of feverish prosperity in which the main benefits go to speculators and profiteers, and of catastrophic depression, in which the common man's normal state of insecurity and hardship is accentuated. We believe that these evils can be removed only in a planned and socialized economy in which our natural resources and principal means of production and distribution are owned, controlled and operated by the people.

"The new social order at which we aim is not one in which individuality will be crushed out by a system of regimentation. Nor shall we interfere with cultural rights of racial or religious minorities. What we seek is a proper collective organization of our economic resources such as will make possible a much greater degree of leisure and a much richer individual life for every citizen."
http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/ECON/needhdata/Regina_Manifesto.html

[Selwynn]

56. Amen. What the hell is a corporate owned democracy?

That's what we have.

[TabulaRasa]

75. Socialism and Democracy

I agree with Minstrel Boy. It's capitalism and democracy that are incompatible. In my opinion, not only are socialism(small s) and democracy compatible, but socialism is the application of democratic principles to economic governance. Capitalism is the application of totalitarian principles to economic governance. More to the point, you can't even have a political democracy when capitalism is the economic system.

Capitalism is the economic system where a portion of the population owns the means of production, and the rest of the people rent themselves to those owners for sustenance. Now, say the people in a political "democracy" decide they want certain policies enacted (an end to corporate welfare, or a living wage law, for example), if the owners are not happy, they can choose to halt production, and then their workers don't eat. So, the workers, who also happen to be the voters, don't really have the power to make those democratic decisions, that is if they want to eat, and stay alive. This problem doesn't occur when each worker is a part owner of the means of production (i.e. when they are owned collectively) and this is what socialism really is. I can clarify what I mean better, if anyone wants me to.

[Minstrel Boy]

82. very well said

Thanks for the thoughtful post, and welcome to DU. :hi:

[Junkdrawer]

83. Welcome to DU. Yeah, you sure don't hear much about "Workplace

Democracy" anymore. I guess we're having a hard enough time maintaining Governmental Democracy here in the good old US of A.

[PATRICK]

43. Other nations have Social Democrats

some Christian Democrats, etc and none the stronger or more committed for adding another word to the label. But those other countries almost all have a a fuller social program infrastructure and health care system even when the Conservatives hold power.

Because it is what normal voters want in a democracy, but would not have had had socialism not brought these ideas and programs forward after centuries of war, blundering, depression, etc. by the opposing view.

Our Democrats represent the people. Naturally there should be movement to socialist planks the people want no matter how grudging the individual pols and their high donors might want to be.

[Selwynn]

55. There is an absolute, concrete answer:

Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the political ideals of socialism within the form of a parliamentary democracy and in opposition to Communism as practiced by the former Soviet Union. The term democratic socialist and social democrat have often been used interchangeably. However, increasingly, the former term denotes a more left wing position that still believes in the socialist transformation of society, usually in an evolutionary socialist manner while the latter idicates those who do not believe in the abolition of capitalism but simply in making capitalism more equitable and humane. Revolutionary democratic socialists often tend to agree with the ideas of revolutionary syndicalism or Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek.

Democratic socialists and social democrats both typically advocate a welfare state though social democrats, influenced by the Third Way are now less committed to this. Democratic socialists maintain a commitment to the re-distribution of wealth and the nationalisation of major industry and some believe in a planned economy, concepts which social democrats have largely abandoned. As well, many democratic socialists retain a Marxist analysis (though a reformist one) while social democrats reject Marxism.

People or groups who describe themselves as democratic socialists, are generally further to the left and more generally a more radical wing within social democratic parties and movements. In some cases, democratic socialists have broken off from "right wing social democrats" to form their own parties. However, in other parties such as the Canadian New Democratic Party they remain in the same party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialist

[goodhue]

57. Indeed

See post #34.

[JanMichael]

63. Well I'm glad Webster's settled it for a HS gradute.

Nuff said, case closed, no further inquiry needed.

[freetobegay]

64. I may be a stupid Hillbilly

But your sarcasm was not missed, thanks for your thoughtless thought.

On edit: at least this high school graduate can spell.

[JanMichael]

65. Your original subject line alone did not deserve the energy spent...

...typing out a reply.

Ciao.

[Xipe Totec]

72. Quick Joke - To lighten the Mood up a bit.

People who are secure in their wisdom do not seek comfort in the ignorance of others. So here's a joke, just to show that being smart isn't all it's cracked up to be:


A beachcomber discovered a lamp in a tide pool. When we rubbed it a Djin appeared and offered to grant him a single wish:

- I can turn you into the smartest man in the world, the most handsome man in the world, or the richest man in the world. Now Choose! -

The beachcomber thought about it at some length and decided to become the smartest man in the world.

- Your wish is granted - said the Djin, and promptly disappeared.

Using his new powers of deductive reasoning the beachcomber reflected on his encounter with the Djin. After a moment's reflection he said:

- Damn! I should have gone for the money!

[genius]

66. What's so hard.? Democracy is the form of government .Socialism

is the form of ownership of property and services.

FDR was working to make America a Democratic Socialist country. So was JFK.

[K-W]

67. Pure democracies and pure socialism dont exist.

You are being a bit strict with terms, the area of government theory isnt so tight.

[David Zephyr]

73. Answer What is A Democratic Capitalist.

What's democratic about property?

[Joe Chi Minh]

89. Economical!

You sure don't waste words or go around the houses, Davy lad!

[Cascadian]

91. I am a Democratic Socialist with a Libertarian bent.

I believe in social responsibility (health care, worker's rights, mass transportation, education, etc...) rests on the state. However, I also believe in freedom of self-expression, speech, and common rigfhts for everybody regardless of sex, creed, religion, sexual preference, and race. I also believe the government does not belong in a person's private life. I do not believe in censorship and even believe that pot should be legalized so to speak.


John