Is Democratic Socialism viable in America?

Great Debates
21

Past time travel is not allowed on this board. Those countries already tried to jettison capitalism and it failed miserably to put it in the kindest possible terms. Back in 2017, you have idiot nation-states like Venezuela that are trying it again with the same results.

Denying capitalism is like denying gravity. You can wish it away all you want but it won’t work. Capitalism isn’t an invented system like communism or socialism. It is a fundamental economic system that can only be mitigated by extreme force.

22

You have that backwards. Humans are the only species on the planet who engage in capitalism. All of the other species engage in some form or another of communism or socialism, and it’s likely, as well, that our ancestors did!

mc

23

No.

In the animal kingdom its the norm that while there might be group hunting the alpha eats first. Or, like sharks, its every fish for themself.

24

and that is a form of socialism! more to my point; no capitalism involved.

mc

25

To be perfectly honest, my first impression was along these lines. But I want to listen to the arguments and not automatically dismiss them.

Yeah, there are a lot of socialist things in our society that a lot of people wouldn’t want to or wouldn’t know to call socialist. And I would enthusiastically support expanding the number of things on that list.

I am also reading Debt: The First 5000 Years and it discusses “everyday communism” arguing that “communism is the foundation of all human sociability.” It’s an interesting book though I’m not sure that I’m completely understanding everything.

From what I’ve read, the Democratic Socialists of America call for state ownership of “key industries”, not everything. I’m not sure what all would fall into the designation of key industries, or how workable that is, but it doesn’t seem quite as far out.

I’m not super familiar with Jeremy Corbyn, but apparently he does describe himself as a socialist or democratic socialist.

26

I don’t feel this is true. I feel capitalism was an invention. But it’s like democracy or the scientific method or positional numbers; once it was invented, it seemed so obvious that people had a hard time believing it hadn’t always been around.

27

Dod eat dog, right? :slight_smile:

Social insects could be considered socialist, I guess. But if you look at our closest relatives, chimps, it is common for them to trade precious resources (meat, for instance) for favors as well as sex. This might be considered the beginnings of “free market” economics. Mothers share, altruistically, with their infants, but that’s about it. They will care for each other in some ways, but food is rarely shared except as noted, above.

I’m hard pressed to think of a mammalian species that could be said to be “socialist”. Maybe the mole rat (which is oddly like a social insect). Can you elaborate?

I forget who said this, but something like “Communism is a perfect system for the family unit. Once you get above that, it starts to break down”. If we look at primitive h/g societies, they might be considered “socialist” within their immediate clan or tribe, but “capitalist” when interacting with other clans or tribes.

28

My point was that capitalism is not the inherent system shagnasty claimed it was. It seems more likely that socialism or communism are the inate ways of cooperating. There are more sides to socialism and communism than food; there’s shelter, defense, mating, child rearing, etc.

I am not mammal expert, but, like you hinted at, pack animals such as wolves, hyenas, and lions, may be hierarchical but certainly socialist! Cetaceans such as orcas and dolphins live in multifamily units that share in the work and allocation of resources. Elephants raise their young as a group. Prairie dogs have societies similar to ants and bees. . . except for the chimps you mention (and I was unaware of this behavior) none of these groups barter for services and goods.

mc

29

I think it’s fair to say that actual capitalism and actual socialism are human invented economic systems. But I think people use those terms when they mean something like “the market” or “shared resources”. Those latter two, I think, are pretty much natural, organically evolved systems of human behavior. But when you get to corporations and raising capital and the state owning the means of production, those are invented systems that require a high level of civilization in order to be able to even think of organizing things along those lines.

30

If by “we” you mean the US, no, not even close. Not unless you stretch and twist the term to the point that it no longer has any meaning. There are, moreover, vast political factions within the US dedicated to making sure that it never becomes a social democracy.

Specifically:

So “progressive” is the taxation system that the US has the largest income disparity between rich and poor of all industrialized countries. And roughly half of the political forces in the country are trying to make the taxation system even more regressive and the wealth gap even wider.

Social security is premised on contributory participation. That’s not a social program, it’s a defined benefit pension program.

You can’t use the word “universal” to describe a program and then specify limited subgroups to which it partially applies in often inadequate ways! 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. And Medicare’s coverage limits and out-of-pocket costs are sufficiently high that the elderly are estimated to need hundreds of thousands in savings to meet their health care needs.

The poor don’t get “food stamps” in social democracies, they get a guaranteed minimum income.

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.

31

Actually, I have seen 3 or 4 definitions of democratic socialism bandied about in this very thread. When I googled the term one of the first articles that came up was this, which stands in stark contrast to the tenets of the OP’s article and which more aligns to the typical understanding of democratic socialism as practiced in many European countries.

Perhaps it would be best if you presented the wolfpup definition so we could at least debate on the same axiom.

32

Does any European country have a guaranteed minimum income? And does having a defined benefit program automatically kick you out of the club? I’m seeing “Democratic Socialism” as a spectrum, and the US may be at one end of the spectrum, but we’re still on the spectrum.

But it might be useful if you would define the way you use the term and then lets us know which countries qualify.

33

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.

34

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.

35

As it frequently happens with these discussions, there’s a soundtrack for that.

36

The problem with the Communosocialst model is that free individuals will not long labor for an abstract collective good. They need to be compelled and individuals working under compulsion do not produce to the degree that they are theoretically able. The largest societal unit in which that model can function is probably the kibbutz where the individual can directly observe the good obtained.

The problem with the Capitalist model is that the wealthy use their wealth to obtain power and then use that power to obtain more wealth. Lather, rinse, repeat. And under “Democratic Capitalism” you get a majority manipulated by an oligarchy controlled by a cabal.

The only system with long term viability would be one that combines proper elements of both.

37

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, …

38

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.

So, I guess you have Marxism-Leninism, which is Soviet style Socialism without democracy. You have Social Democracy, which is what I’d call the systems we see in Europe and the US. And then we have Democratic Socialism which doesn’t exist anywhere on earth, but we’re all supposed to believe that it will somehow, magically not end up being Marxism-Leninism because… Someone explain to me again how that is supposed to work?

BTW, I think the same thing happens with Libertarianism. It’s theoretically compatible with democracy, but not in practice. And it’s only theoretically so because the theory doesn’t take into account human nature. Humans just aren’t willing to give up all security for pure freedom. We’ll vote in social programs as soon as the first economic downturn happens in Libertaria.

39

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.

A guaranteed basic income is something more rare; it’s means-tested but is otherwise an unconditional income for all who qualify. Finland is currently running a trial of such a program, but you don’t have to look that far from home: many would be surprised to learn that the province of Ontario is also running a trial of a true basic income program.

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.

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.

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.

Bernie Sanders is a true social democrat. Who got nominated to lead the progressive side? A corporatist, not Bernie. Bernie had no serious chance. And let’s not even get into who actually got elected!

40

It seems to me that the crucial component for the survival of the Social Democracy described by John Mace is a moneyed class that largely recognizes that they are, despite their wealth, still part of society and that if the bomb goes off in tourist it doesn’t much matter that they’re flying first class. That’s one mode of thought. The other is the “I’ve got mine, Jack.” mentality that characterizes much of the American moneyed class.