# Is Democratic Socialism viable in America? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 5, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874 "2017-08-05T22:12:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/41 "2017-08-06T20:10:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just poking around on Wikipedia, it would appear that there is a distinction between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. The former is, in fact, plain ol’ socialism (of the Marxist type) but supposedly it exists within a democratic political framework. I don’t buy that pure socialism can survive in a democracy. We’ve never seen it done, and whenever it was attempted, democracy went out the window. Obviously I was talking about social democracy (as found in Scandinavia and to some degree throughout Europe). If the OP meant something different then many of the arguments here are irrelevant. I think the distinction is confusing and “plain old socialism” should be called that, or Marxism, instead of confusingly trying to dress it up as something it’s not with the “democratic” moniker, which reminds me of various African shit-holes or the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” where the presence of “democratic” in the name is a sure-fire guarantee that the place is a dictatorial shit-hole. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/42 "2017-08-06T20:13:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > It does seem as thought ere are a number of industries that are pretty much mature, and there is little that capitalism can do to improve them. > > The benefit of capitalism is that it encouraged innovation and entrepreneurship to fill in niches of consumer needs and wants without any need for direction from a higher power or authority. Someone sees a need, and profits off of filling that need. > > The problem with this, is that when an industry has become mature, and there really is nothing more that can be done with it, capitalism starts o fail. Investors want to see not only a profit, but an increasing profit, competition prevents unilateral price increases, and the maturity of the industry means that there is little or no room to innovate in ways to decrease costs or increase value of the product. > > If the government invested into these industries, and ran them in such a way as to simply break even, not requiring a profit motive, they would quickly outcompete the private industry in the same market. This would provide more plentiful higher quality goods at a lower price than a mature industry can under capitalism. Remember, in free market economics, profit is defined as an inefficiency in the system, not needing to return increasing profits to investors would allow publicly run industries to operate much more efficiently. > > There is no need to abolish or outlaw private industry in the sectors the government represents. Private industry will not be able to compete in those sectors. If an innovator comes up with a better method, they could set up their own and compete then. If an innovator comes up with niche variations that the govt does not produce, they can make a profit off of serving that niche. Overall, though, most of the products and services from mature industries can be provided by public enterprise more efficiently than by private. > > If the govt is able to provide the goods and services that come from mature industries, then the govt is capable of providing for its citizen’s needs. The public sector can cover all of the basic necessities of life and survival with ease, leaving the private sector to cover the more nebulous and extensive wants of humans. > > In my mind, the govt should provide the following necessities. > > Food: This one is actually really easy. People need about 2000 calories of nutritious food a day. We know pretty precisely what the base needs for food consumption are for any population. We may not know how many will want a lobster dinner or caviar, and that is what the private sector can pick up. > > Clothing: Well, clothing is cheap, really. I cannot see how it would be difficult at all to ensure that everyone has appropriate clothing to avoid exposure to the elements. Private sectors can play with name brands and fashion. > > Shelter: This one is a bit of a tougher one to get the govt in on, as where people live is a personal thing, and it is always unpredictable exactly how things will play out if you gather people together into one area. Ultimately though, people need one roof over their head, and that should not be all that hard to provide, there is plenty of land in this country, and there are plenty of building materials. > > Transportation: The govt should get more involved in the transportation sector. Building or bulking up mass transit, but it should also get into the business of making cars. Cheap, reliable but no-frills cars that can be nearly given away to those who need them because the mass transit s not sufficient. > > Education: Not only should the govt be providing k-12 as a public education, but it should also be providing the secondary education that nearly all good paying jobs require. Along with this should be massive reforms in the methods of teaching and assessing student’s aptitude, as well as making all the educational materials that are used in public school part of the public domain, so that everyone has access to them. > > If the govt took up about a third market share in most of the larger industries that are pretty much mature, then that would create a better situation for stability of that industry, its employees, and its products. Surely, you forgot to include basic healthcare. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/43 "2017-08-06T20:22:10Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Obviously I was talking about social democracy (as found in Scandinavia and to some degree throughout Europe). If the OP meant something different then many of the arguments here are irrelevant. I think the distinction is confusing and “plain old socialism” should be called that, or Marxism, instead of confusingly trying to dress it up as something it’s not with the “democratic” moniker, which reminds me of various African shit-holes or the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” where the presence of “democratic” in the name is a sure-fire guarantee that the place is a dictatorial shit-hole. Here is the wikipedia article: [Democratic Socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) Note what is written at the top of the page: > [@](#): > > _Not to be confused with social democracy._ 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/44 "2017-08-06T20:35:01Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Obviously I was talking about social democracy (as found in Scandinavia and to some degree throughout Europe). If the OP meant something different then many of the arguments here are irrelevant. I think the distinction is confusing and “plain old socialism” should be called that, or Marxism, instead of confusingly trying to dress it up as something it’s not with the “democratic” moniker, which reminds me of various African shit-holes or the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” where the presence of “democratic” in the name is a sure-fire guarantee that the place is a dictatorial shit-hole. I don’t want to nitpick here, but based off this quote > [@wolfpup](#): > > No, we are not broadening “democratic socialism”, we are defining what it actually means as opposed to whatever you thought it meant. And in no sense does it imply “anti-capitalism” or “anarchy” since social democracies are none of those things. it is not, in any way, obvious that you were distinguishing between the Marxism of democratic socialism and the public-private mixed economies of social democracy. In fact, you explicitly state that democratic socialism is not “anti-capitalist” which contradicts your later clarification to which I am responding. These debates always stumble at the gates because of poor definition of terms. This is exactly why I sought clarification from the outset. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/45 "2017-08-06T20:48:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Here is the wikipedia article: [Democratic Socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) > > Note what is written at the top of the page: > > 🙂 Yes, this has become very confusing. The OP was apparently referring to the Marxist style of socialism that includes “abolishing capitalism”. What is even more confusing is that the article claims that Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” which I think is wrong in that context. Bernie has often said he is “socialist”, and of course he advocates democracy, but putting the two words together to make “democratic socialists” invokes a specific meaning that seems to be totally wrong and misleading. All the things Bernie advocates for are the things that fall under “social democracy” as in Scandinavia and much of Europe. When did he ever advocate for “abolishing capitalism” which is the lifeblood of the entire industrialized world? In any case, **Stringbean** made a comment that tried to claim that the US was what we would call a social democracy of the Scandinavian kind, and my comment – as well as my subsequent responses – was in response to that. “Democratic socialism” as defined in your Wiki article does sound a lot like Marxism and the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) are a bunch of loons. My point is simply that the US has a long way to go toward the progressive side of the spectrum before it can reasonably be considered a social democracy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/46 "2017-08-06T20:59:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Yes. First of all you need to appreciate that “guaranteed minimum income” is not the same thing as “guaranteed basic income”. The former tends to be equivalent to conditional welfare benefits which in social democracies are extensive and multi-faceted and cover everything from child care, youth benefits, and housing to traditional income supplements. The Scandinavian countries are the traditional exemplars of social democracies, and Sweden for example has many such income benefits including “Försörjningsstöd” which refers to benefits for anyone who otherwise can’t get a reasonable standard of living, and for their children. OK, but it looks like the US is “[in the spectrum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income#Minimum_income_examples_around_the_world)”, as I said. > [@](#): > > It’s not the “defined benefit” part that is the kicker, it’s the “contributory pension” part. I’m not saying the SS program isn’t a great thing, I’m saying it’s not a social program if you puts yer money in and then later you takes yer money out. You may end up taking out a lot more than you put in, or a lot less, but it’s still a DB pension, as opposed to one that is unconditional based on reaching a certain age. Can I ask where you are getting this from? It’s a social program in that you get benefits from it [if you never worked a day in your life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Disability), and it’s a social program for those of us who have worked. > [@](#): > > Yes, and the world’s largest supercomputer is merely at one end of the same spectrum as a $5 calculator, but there is such a large quantitative difference that it creates fundamental underlying _ **qualitative** _ differences. Sure you can claim that the US is a social democracy, but you have to define the standards such that then every industrialized country on earth also qualifies, and so does virtually every every country advanced enough to have cleared a bit of jungle and mastered indoor plumbing. If you have to define “social democracy” so broadly that you can lay claim to it without even having universal health care, what does it mean any more as a meaningful distinction? > > Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. > [Social democracy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) > > Notice how the definition includes economic and social interventions by government, an entity that so many Americans hate with such passion and distrust with such dismissive contempt, and terms like “social justice” and “income redistribution” that are anathema to so many Americans and are frequently and effectively used to prove that politicians like Bernie Sanders (and even conservative ones like Obama) are the spawn of the devil. You are conflating rhetoric with reality. However many people might use the rhetoric you mention in that last paragraph, that’s not the way things actually work in the US. We have income distribution and we have programs to address social [in]justice. They might not be as comprehensive as you would like, but citing anti-government program rhetoric as evidence of actual lack of government programs is not a convincing argument. It sounds like you are defining a “social democracy” such that, to qualify, you must do more than what the US does. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/47 "2017-08-06T20:59:30Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > it is not, in any way, obvious that you were distinguishing between the Marxism of democratic socialism and the public-private mixed economies of social democracy. In fact, you explicitly state that democratic socialism is not “anti-capitalist” which contradicts your later clarification to which I am responding. > > These debates always stumble at the gates because of poor definition of terms. This is exactly why I sought clarification from the outset. I thought it was pretty clear, because I used the term “social democracy” in the first sentence and then again later in my response to you. I’ve also been using it throughout my other responses. I slipped up in the very last sentence because I was quoting your terminology directly, and you’re the one who got it wrong! Remember that you initially stated "We are already ‘democratic socialist’ " and then cited progressive taxation, social security, etc. as evidence. So you were the one initially conflating the two terms, making it kind of ironic that you’ve suddenly become a stickler for accuracy when I’ve been pretty much consistent in using the term “social democracy” and that usage, along with my references to Scandinavia and Europe, make it pretty clear what I’m talking about. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/48 "2017-08-06T21:00:20Z")
Be careful who you dismiss as “loons.” Those loons can wield a surprising amount of power. 18 mos ago many were dismissing the alt.right as loons and they helped change the course of a Presidential election! mc ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/49 "2017-08-06T21:07:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How’d that food and clothing thingy work out in the USSR? Seems to me we’ve already tried that many times, and it never worked. Or think of it this way: You really want Trump managing the food supply? And if you don’t think there has been innovation in the agriculture industry, you are sorely mistaken. > > I’d 1,000 times rather see us go down the guaranteed income road than to turn over food production to the government. If that is a reply to my post, I don’t see how it fits at all. Did I say that private enterprise would be outlawed or anything like that? Did I say anything that would insinuate that it would be under the types of control like the soviet union? Did I imply that Trump would have any sort of direct control over the food supply (He already has more control over the food supply than you should be comfortable with, in our current “capitalist system”)? Did I say that there had been no innovation in any of these industries? (And who is the innovator in agriculture? Is it the small farmer on the land, discovering a new way to plow, or is Monsanto, which is already has a strong relationship with the govt, given the subsidies it gets, the testing its products go through, the lobbyist it pays to lobby on their behalf, and so on. It was not the free market that innovated, but a collaboration of public and private resources.) No, I did not. I said that the govt could pick up a third share or so in those industries, removing the profit motive from the equation, and then private enterprise can profit from its innovations or filling in niche needs, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what you insinuated with your comparisons to the soviet union. Private enterprises that do not innovate, but still demand a profit, yes, those would be going out of business, as they would not be able to compete with the govt that does not need to return an increasing profit to its investors. But those are industries that do not need to be capitalistic. > [@sevenwood](#): > > I just realized that we already have an institution that provides pretty much exactly what you’re describing - prisons! Free food that provides those 2000 nutritious calories per day, free clothing that avoids exposure to the elements, free housing, free education (of a sort), no need for transportation, … Unless we wish to become a nation of prisoners, I don’t know that that is all that much a useful point. You also do not get the freedoms in prison that you get on the outside. You also do not have the ability to work a job to achieve luxuries or other things to fulfill your desires that are above your most basic necessities. > [@voltaire](#): > > Surely, you forgot to include basic healthcare. Didn’t forget, so much as didn’t get to it, and it is something that is pretty complicated, but yes, basic healthcare should be provided by the govt, with private enterprises picking up cosmetic or aesthetic procedures, as well as possibly shorter wait times and higher skilled doctors and better equipment. There is plenty to be innovated in healthcare, and we have wealthy people to act as guinea pigs on all the new medical technology, so that it can be improved and worked out until it is effective and economical for mass public use. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/50 "2017-08-06T21:17:59Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I thought it was pretty clear, because I used the term “social democracy” in the first sentence and then again later in my response to you. I’ve also been using it throughout my other responses. I slipped up in the very last sentence because I was quoting your terminology directly, and you’re the one who got it wrong! Remember that you initially stated "We are already ‘democratic socialist’ " and then cited progressive taxation, social security, etc. as evidence. So you were the one initially conflating the two terms, making it kind of ironic that you’ve suddenly become a stickler for accuracy when I’ve been pretty much consistent in using the term “social democracy” and that usage, along with my references to Scandinavia and Europe, make it pretty clear what I’m talking about. Fair enough. I just want the clarity of terminology established lest we all argue past one another. On a side note, I will be writing an angrily-worded letter to the [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/5-ways-democratic-sociali_b_8876476.html) for sending me down the wrong trail. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/51 "2017-08-06T21:56:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can I ask where you are getting this from? It’s a social program in that you get benefits from it [if you never worked a day in your life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Disability), and it’s a social program for those of us who have worked. I’m getting it from the way the Social Security Retirement Insurance Benefits program actually works: People attain fully insured status based upon their payments into the Social Security system through payroll taxes and the amount of time they have been working in jobs covered through the Social Security system. > **[Retirement Insurance Benefits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_Insurance_Benefits)** > > Retirement Insurance Benefits (abbreviated RIB) or old-age insurance benefits are a form of social insurance payments made by the U.S. Social Security Administration paid based upon the attainment of old age (62 or older). Benefit payments are made on the 3rd of the month, or the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Wednesday of the month, based upon the date of birth and entitlement to other benefits. > RIB is authorized under Title II of the Social Security Act. > Certain requirements must be met before a person b... The term “Social Security” is of course an umbrella term for a wide variety of different and entirely unrelated programs that have absolutely nothing in common except that they are all managed by the Social Security Administration. Clearly I’m talking about the retirement benefits program, and clearly it works as a contributory defined benefits pension plan. Why is that wrong? Turns out, even the disability entitlement that you linked to is contingent on contributions. Only unrelated programs like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are not contingent on contributions, and those are indeed true social programs. But the mainstream retirement program is not. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/52 "2017-08-06T22:56:39Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m getting it from the way the Social Security Retirement Insurance Benefits program actually works: > People attain fully insured status based upon their payments into the Social Security system through payroll taxes and the amount of time they have been working in jobs covered through the Social Security system. > [Retirement Insurance Benefits - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_Insurance_Benefits) > The term “Social Security” is of course an umbrella term for a wide variety of different and entirely unrelated programs that have absolutely nothing in common except that they are all managed by the Social Security Administration. Clearly I’m talking about the retirement benefits program, and clearly it works as a contributory defined benefits pension plan. Why is that wrong? Turns out, even the disability entitlement that you linked to is contingent on contributions. Only unrelated programs like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are not contingent on contributions, and those are indeed true social programs. But the mainstream retirement program is not. Well, it wasn’t “clear” that you were only talking about the retirement part of SS. But no, if you’re disabled you get benefits whether you contributed or not. And since the funds come from the General fund, that’s even more of a reason why it’s a social program, according to your definition. But that’s not what I was asking, and maybe I wasn’t clear. Why is a “contributory pension” program not a social program? Especially since you’re not getting “your” money back. “Your” money was used to pay for other folks’ pension. Your pension is being paid for by the current workers. Sure, you have to work to get benefits, but this covers over 90% of Americans, at least. Probably closer to 95% (if we exclude government workers who get their own government pension not through SS). SS (the pension part) is a huge social program in the US. I’m asking on what basis you are excluding it from “social programs”. The mere fact that you have to pay into it to get benefits doesn’t change its nature. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/53 "2017-08-06T23:43:13Z")
Democracy in the workplace is a fanciful idea, especially since after Bush and Trump liberals are skeptical of democracy on a national level. America is a declining imperial state with a powerful capitalist tradition whose interior might resemble Russia in a couple decades, so I wouldn’t count on a worker’s revolution anytime soon. A European/FDR-esque demsoc revival would take a tremendous amount of political organization and probably some violence, and that might solve some problems in the short term, but as always the issue is the business elite can reverse it later since the reforms don’t change the underlying structure. As for some of the other responses, [market socialism is a thing.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism) Socialism isn’t whatever the government does. State capitalism, like government controlled power companies, isn’t socialism. Personal property isn’t the same as the means of production, so your toothpaste is safe. In Rojava, from what I understand, more expensive consumer goods and tools are shared communally. I’m not a fan of podcasts in general, but Chapo Trap House is more tolerable than mainstream liberal entertainment like Colbert, Maher, and the corpse they call The Daily Show, especially since they both make fun of and cogently analyze Democrats, liberal corporate media, and establishment figures usually given undue deference in other venues, plus shit posting lefty memes on top of it all. I liked their interview with Adam Curtis, the episode right after the election, some of their episodes digging into the alt-right, and the episodes where they make fun of “reasonable conservative” Ross Douhat. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/54 "2017-08-07T00:41:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, it wasn’t “clear” that you were only talking about the retirement part of SS. I would have thought that when I characterized what I was talking about as equivalent to “a defined benefit pension program” it would have been clear I was talking about the SS retirement program. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > But no, if you’re disabled you get benefits whether you contributed or not. It doesn’t seem that way from your own link, but as this is a sidetrack I don’t want to quibble about it. But it says: The eligibility formula requires a certain number of credits (based on earnings) to have been earned overall, and a certain number within the ten years immediately preceding the disability, but with more-lenient provisions for younger workers who become disabled before having had a chance to compile a long earnings history. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > But that’s not what I was asking, and maybe I wasn’t clear. Why is a “contributory pension” program not a social program? … SS (the pension part) is a huge social program in the US. I’m asking on what basis you are excluding it from “social programs”. The mere fact that you have to pay into it to get benefits doesn’t change its nature. It absolutely _ **does** _ change its nature, in my view. Let me be clear that when I say that SS (i.e.- the SS retirement program) is not a social program, I’m not trying to disparage what I regard as a great and important program with vital societal benefits. But in the specific context of this discussion it doesn’t support the narrative of the US being a “social democracy” where programs exist purely in support of an acknowledged social contract for the unconditional support of a general social good; instead, it’s a _quid pro quo_ – basically a business arrangement: you pays your money and you gets your benefits. Would you consider a non-profit insurance company to be a “social program”? Conversely, if you consider such things to be true “social programs”, then what would you consider an automatic unconditional retirement entitlement for everyone over a certain age? Sure, in a broad context SS is a social program and a valuable one, but it’s very much a market-focused rather than a needs-focused approach. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/55 "2017-08-07T01:01:52Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I would have thought that when I characterized what I was talking about as equivalent to “a defined benefit pension program” it would have been clear I was talking about the SS retirement program. It’s also possible that you didn’t know SS was more than just that. You’re Canadian, aren’t you? > [@](#): > > It doesn’t seem that way from your own link, but as this is a sidetrack I don’t want to quibble about it. But it says: > The eligibility formula requires a certain number of credits (based on earnings) to have been earned overall, and a certain number within the ten years immediately preceding the disability, but with more-lenient provisions for younger workers who become disabled before having had a chance to compile a long earnings history. Then let’s not quibble about it. If you’re a child or if you’re disabled, you can get SS without having worked. > [@](#): > > It absolutely _ **does** _ change its nature, in my view. > > Let me be clear that when I say that SS (i.e.- the SS retirement program) is not a social program, I’m not trying to disparage what I regard as a great and important program with vital societal benefits. But in the specific context of this discussion it doesn’t support the narrative of the US being a “social democracy” where programs exist purely in support of an acknowledged social contract for the unconditional support of a general social good; instead, it’s a _quid pro quo_ – basically a business arrangement: you pays your money and you gets your benefits. Would you consider a non-profit insurance company to be a “social program”? Conversely, if you consider such things to be true “social programs”, then what would you consider an automatic unconditional retirement entitlement for everyone over a certain age? > > Sure, in a broad context SS is a social program and a valuable one, but it’s very much a market-focused rather than a needs-focused approach. A program that [reduces poverty among seniors from 40% to under 10%](https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-keeps-22-million-americans-out-of-poverty-a-state-by-state) seems like it supports a general social good. I’m not seeing why “purity” is the _sine qua non_ of a social program. But I guess we just disagree about that. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/56 "2017-08-07T05:29:51Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > If Karl Marx was alive today, I bet he’d tell them it was just some bad acid trip and that he wishes he’d kept his mouth shut about the whole thing. [Randy Newman] _“If Marx were living today. He’d be rolling around in his grave.”_ [/Randy Newman] ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/57 "2017-08-07T18:51:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s also possible that you didn’t know SS was more than just that. You’re Canadian, aren’t you? That’s just a surprisingly silly comment, **John**. I’ve known about the different SS programs for years, and I do have close relatives who live and work in the US and are US citizens with whom I enjoy discussing these things. It’s odd how I seem to know that the SS pension program is contributory (many such programs are not) yet I allegedly knew nothing else about SS! 😉 In fact out of curiosity I once ran the numbers to see what I’d be getting out of the SS retirement program given the same income and work history and the same age of retirement. Answer: more out of SS than out of the Canadian contributory pension program, but in Canada the universal non-contributory program kicks in after age 65 more than making up the difference, plus you have to factor in that health care is fully covered with no out-of-pocket costs or limits. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > A program that [reduces poverty among seniors from 40% to under 10%](https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-keeps-22-million-americans-out-of-poverty-a-state-by-state) seems like it supports a general social good. I’m not seeing why “purity” is the _sine qua non_ of a social program. But I guess we just disagree about that. I don’t appear to have gotten my point across. We’re talking here about _ **fundamental principles** _ driving social policy, which is not at all the same as what the outcome turns out to be for many or most people. “You’re entitled to a pension because you have made the required monetary contribution” = fundamentally capitalist. “You’re entitled to a pension because you are a citizen who has reached the age of retirement” = fundamentally socialist. Not the same. At all. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/58 "2017-08-07T19:15:55Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Medicaid for the poor is extremely restricted and there are vast numbers of poor who get nothing, a gap that the ACA partially tried to fill and which **all** Republican-controlled states rejected, part of the reason that millions of Americans are still uninsured and an estimated 45,000 die every year from lack of health care. All of them? When did Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Dakota become Democrat-controlled states? [http://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}](http://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/59 "2017-08-07T19:35:58Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That’s just a surprisingly silly comment, **John**. I’ve known about the different SS programs for years, and I do have close relatives who live and work in the US and are US citizens with whom I enjoy discussing these things. It’s odd how I seem to know that the SS pension program is contributory (many such programs are not) yet I allegedly knew nothing else about SS! 😉 No, it wasn’t silly. Few people understand the complexity of the SS system, and all I said was that it was possible you didn’t. I didn’t say I was certain you didn’t know. It was not intended as an insult, but simply as an answer to a question you asked me. > [@](#): > > I don’t appear to have gotten my point across. We’re talking here about _ **fundamental principles** _ driving social policy, which is not at all the same as what the outcome turns out to be for many or most people. > > “You’re entitled to a pension because you have made the required monetary contribution” = fundamentally capitalist. > > “You’re entitled to a pension because you are a citizen who has reached the age of retirement” = fundamentally socialist. > > Not the same. At all. You seem to be assuming that your point is correct, and all you have to do is explain it properly, and I’ll agree. I understand your point, and I don’t think it’s necessarily true. Where is it written that a social program has to be “fundamentally socialist” in order to qualify as a social program? I understand that you might think it must be, but I don’t believe that is some universally accepted definition of the term. If I’m wrong, please show me where that has been determined. Just telling me again that you think it’s true doesn’t make it true. I think it’s not true. Honestly, I’m open to being corrected if I’m wrong, but I don’t think a social program cannot contain elements of capitalism in it. And I’d argue that the US social security pension program is not “fundamentally capitalist”, even though it does have elements of capitalism in it. Keep in mind that, in the US, you are entitled to a pension if you have contributed to SS. If you are poor, elderly and have not made the necessary contribution, there are other programs (besides the common pension program that is part of SS) that are set up to help you. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874/60 "2017-08-07T19:43:49Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > All of them? When did Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Dakota become Democrat-controlled states? > > [Status of State Action on the Medicaid Expansion Decision | KFF](http://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D) At the risk of nitpicking, Kentucky had a Democratic governor, Steve Beshear, at the time of the Medicaid expansion. Beshear enacted the expansion via executive order. The new governor, Republican Matt Bevin, is [working on rolling back the expansion.](http://www.kff.org/medicaid/fact-sheet/proposed-changes-to-medicaid-expansion-in-kentucky/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-democratic-socialism-viable-in-america/792874.md?page=4)