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.
Surely, you forgot to include basic healthcare.
I don’t want to nitpick here, but based off this quote
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.
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.
OK, but it looks like the US is “in the spectrum”, as I said.
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, and it’s a social program for those of us who have worked.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 for sending me down the wrong trail. 
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.
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.
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. 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.
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 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.
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.
It’s also possible that you didn’t know SS was more than just that. You’re Canadian, aren’t you?
Then let’s not quibble about it. If you’re a child or if you’re disabled, you can get SS without having worked.
A program that reduces poverty among seniors from 40% to under 10% 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.
[Randy Newman]
“If Marx were living today. He’d be rolling around in his grave.”
[/Randy Newman]
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.
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.
All of them? When did Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Dakota become Democrat-controlled states?
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.
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.
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.