Jump to content
zkyllonen8

Liberalism vs. Democratic Socialism vs. Social Democracy

Recommended Posts

 Liberalism: The political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. 

 

Democratic Socialism-  is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralized planned socialist economy.

 

Social Democracy- Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy.

 

 

I know a lot us on this thread have differing views on how the Democrats should continue go forward. Should they stick to the middle, go to the left with or move farther to the right? 

 

I am curious on what ideology people agree with the most in this thread. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

 Liberalism: The political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. 

 

Democratic Socialism-  is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralized planned socialist economy.

 

Social Democracy- Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy.

 

 

I know a lot us on this thread have differing views on how the Democrats should continue go forward. Should they stick to the middle, go to the left with or move farther to the right? 

 

I am curious on what ideology people agree with the most in this thread. 

 

 

 

False definitions.

 

Not accurate in any measure.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SpyCar said:

 

False definitions.

 

Not accurate in any measure.

 

Bill

 

Found them on google. 

 

So I'm not in the wrong here. 

 

I guess google is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

 

Found them on google. 

 

So I'm not in the wrong here. 

 

I guess google is.

 

No. You are in the wrong for not vetting your sources.

 

Are you unaware that social democracy is NOT a form of socialism?

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SpyCar said:

 

No. You are in the wrong for not vetting your sources.

 

Are you unaware that social democracy is NOT a form of socialism?

 

Bill

Are you unaware that a lot of people consider democratic socialism and social democracy to be the same?  That is why placing labels on people is counterproductive and divisive. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RollingRock said:

Are you unaware that a lot of people consider democratic socialism and social democracy to be the same?  That is why placing labels on people is counterproductive and divisive. 

 

 

 

No. Anyone who believes they are the same is dead wrong. They are either very ignorant of political science or deliberately engaged in gaslighting.

 

Terms have meanings. What's divisive is undermining well-established terms---as without words having meanings---honest communication  is impossible.

 

Social Democracy is a liberal pro-capitalist-based political-economic philosophy, where so-called Democratic Socialism is socialist, anti-capitalist, and differs from "socialism" mainly in the means to power being via the ballot instead of the gun as Plan A.

 

The entire world accepts the terms in roughly the fashion outlined in those Wikipedia articles.

 

Calling things what they are not is a way to breed conflict and division. People can't talk if one refuses to accept the established meaning of terms. 

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of people have no idea there is any difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.  I would guess a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.  In fact, most people don't know what either of them are !    The fact that they are word reversals of each other, makes it even more confusing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bludog said:

The vast majority of people have no idea there is any difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.  I would guess a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.  In fact, most people don't know what either of them are !    The fact that they are word reversals of each other, makes it even more confusing.

I totally agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RollingRock said:

Are you unaware that a lot of people consider democratic socialism and social democracy to be the same?  That is why placing labels on people is counterproductive and divisive. 

 

 

 

All I wanted to do with this thread is to figure out what ideology people identify with the most. 

 

That is all not labels. 

 

Just want to what people agree with the most.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

All I wanted to do with this thread is to figure out what ideology people identify with the most. 

 

That is all not labels. 

 

Just want to what people agree with the most.  

 

It tends to get complicated.

 

What people actually believe often conflicts with tribal loyalty.  And when it comes to public expression, tribal loyalties usually win out while conflicting private beliefs are suppressed.  What's more, the Left and the Right tend not to understand each other;   Each ascribing more than realistic, extreme views, to the other camp.  We might call this negative partisanship.

 

 Members of each side tend to maintain a caricature of "the other".  However, a new study called the "The Perception Gap" found that, on average, people of either political party hold more beliefs in common than either believes about the other. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

 

All I wanted to do with this thread is to figure out what ideology people identify with the most. 

 

That is all not labels. 

 

Just want to what people agree with the most.  

Of course.  That's what most people want.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

The vast majority of people have no idea there is any difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.  I would guess a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.  In fact, most people don't know what either of them are !    The fact that they are word reversals of each other, makes it even more confusing.

 

This is why it is a bad idea to disparage the educated "elites" who are not ignorant of basic political science (or a vast range of other subjects).

 

Populist movements feed on the twin evils of ignorance and rage. They depend on people being uneducated and they feed into both the danger and the misinformation.

 

Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are two very different ideologies. One thinks a capitalist economy is the best path for advancing human freedom and generating the wealth that makes generous social programs possible, the other thinks capitalism is an inherently evil economic system that is beyond "reform" and that private enterprise and a market economy needs to be replaced with a socialist economic system, which translates to the state ownership of the means of production and distribution.

 

One is a liberal political philosophy, the other is not. 

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

 

All I wanted to do with this thread is to figure out what ideology people identify with the most. 

 

That is all not labels. 

 

Just want to what people agree with the most.  

 

If the terms are invalid, what's to agree (or disagree) with?

 

It becomes an exercise in gaslighting.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

If the terms are invalid, what's to agree (or disagree) with?

 

It becomes an exercise in gaslighting.

 

Bill

No one is "gaslighting" (except perhaps you)?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. 

so then what be the solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RollingRock said:

No one is "gaslighting" (except perhaps you)?

 

Nah. I'm reflecting reality and a proper understanding of political science terms.

 

Bill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpyCar said:

Nah. I'm reflecting reality and a proper understanding of political science terms.

 

Bill

Good for you.  :)  Were you aware that most people aren't political science majors?  Those folks still know what they believe (if people take the time to listen).  Really.

 

I don't require anyone to know medical coding when I talk to them about their medical insurance.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpyCar said:

This is why it is a bad idea to disparage the educated "elites" who are not ignorant of basic political science (or a vast range of other subjects).

 

Where has anyone here tried to "disparage the educated 'elites' "?   I agree;  it's a bad idea which is mostly indulged in by the cult of ignorance, on the right.

 

2 hours ago, SpyCar said:

Populist movements feed on the twin evils of ignorance and rage. They depend on people being uneducated and they feed into both the danger and the misinformation.

 

Historically, this has been the case, in some, more often than not, notorious instances.  Otherwise the norm in populist movements has been democratic majority rule, which has most often resulted in enlightened policies.  Every nation with legitimate, representative government responds to populist decisions every time there's an election.

 

2 hours ago, SpyCar said:

Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are two very different ideologies. One thinks a capitalist economy is the best path for advancing human freedom and generating the wealth that makes generous social programs possible, the other thinks capitalism is an inherently evil economic system that is beyond "reform" and that private enterprise and a market economy needs to be replaced with a socialist economic system, which translates to the state ownership of the means of production and distribution.

 

One is a liberal political philosophy, the other is not.

 

Generally, the countries, labeled by others as "Democratic Socialism" or "Social Democracy" do not label themselves as such.  For instance, Sweden calls itself simply a "Representative or Constitution Democracy" with a "Parliamentary System".  Normally, Swedes do not subscribe to the terms Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism, to describe themselves.

 

For those countries practicing outstanding, enlightened policies toward their ordinary citizens, the terms "Social Democracy" and "Democratic Socialism" are largely meaningless.  These terms are usually used by foreigners and are often used interchangeably.
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

Where has anyone here tried to "disparage the educated 'elites' "?   I agree;  it's a bad idea which is mostly indulged in by the cult of ignorance, on the right.

 

Attacking "elites" is the central operating principle of populist movements on both the far-right and the far-left.

 

Historically, this has been the case, in some, more often than not, notorious instances.  Otherwise the norm in populist movements has been democratic majority rule, which has most often resulted in enlightened policies.  Every nation with legitimate, representative government responds to populist decisions every time there's an election.

 

Every populist movement that's ever gained power has gone authoritarian/totalitarian. Populist movements have no respect for minority rights nor--fundamentally--human rights. They are always tyrannical in nature. 

 

Generally, the countries, labeled by others as "Democratic Socialism" or "Social Democracy" do not label themselves as such.  For instance, Sweden calls itself simply a "Representative or Constitution Democracy" with a "Parliamentary System".  Normally, Swedes do not subscribe to the terms Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism, to describe them.

 

This isn't true. All the first world advanced capitalist social democracies embrace the social democratic ideology in the main. None are Democratic Socialist states, as they keep telling Senator Sanders.

 

In contrast, guys like Chavez, Maduro, Morales and Ortega have all embraced Democratic Socialism.

 

Big difference.

 

For those countries practicing outstanding, enlightened policies toward their ordinary citizens, the terms "Social Democracy" and "Democratic Socialism" are largely meaningless.  These terms are usually used by foreigners and are often interchangeable.

 

On the contrary, the difference could not be more meaningful. One system offers the freedom and wealth of liberal capitalism, the other offers up illiberal socialist tyranny.

 

The terms have never been remotely "interchangeable." Trying to confuse this is the central mendacity of Bernie Sanders' populist movement. It is not even remotely true.

 

Bill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

Attacking "elites" is the central operating principle of populist movements on both the far-right and the far-left.

So, in your opinion, those who are "populist" should instead be "corporatist?"

 

3 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

Every populist movement that's ever gained power has gone authoritarian/totalitarian. Populist movements have no respect for minority rights nor--fundamentally--human rights. They are always tyrannical in nature. 

Some people consider populism as those who work for the people, the common man.    

 

3 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

In contrast, guys like Chavez, Maduro, Morales and Ortega have all embraced Democratic Socialism.

They embrace straight up socialism, not the democratic socialism that Bernie supports.  Bernie's ideas are supported by a majority of Americans.

 

3 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

The terms have never been remotely "interchangeable." Trying to confuse this is the central mendacity of Bernie Sanders' populist movement. It is not even remotely true.

 

Bill

Bernie supports healthcare for all, free/low-cost college, an answer to wage inequality, and a green new deal.  These issues are embraced by a majority of our population.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

So, in your opinion, those who are "populist" should instead be "corporatist?"

 

I would hope they would embrace liberalism--an ideology that puts reason and freedom in the forefront--and that they would reject populism, an ideology based on rage, ignorance, and which always suppresses freedom.

 

Some people consider populism as those who work for the people, the common man.

   

 

That's what populist demagogues would like people to believe. They always claim to be the only ones who embrace the will of the people. The reality is that every populist movement that's gained power has gone tyrannical.

 

They embrace straight up socialism, not the democratic socialism that Bernie supports.  Bernie's ideas are supported by a majority of Americans.

 

 

Chavez, Maduro, Morales and Ortega all embraced Democratic Socialism, Each has been embraced in turn by the DSA and other Democratic Socialist Organizations worldwide. Democratic socialism is socialism. Democratic socialist dictators like Chavez, Maduro, Morales and Ortega all came to power via "democratic" means. But they never willingly give up power by Democratic means.

 

And for the record, the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders has embraced all these Democratic Socialist dictators. And more.

 

Bernie supports healthcare for all, free/low-cost college, an answer to wage inequality, and a green new deal.  These issues are embraced by a majority of our population.

 

 

Sanders wants to turn this nation into the USSA. An illiberal populist-socialist state. No thanks. No way. No how.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

Attacking "elites" is the central operating principle of populist movements on both the far-right and the far-left.

 

Every election is a popular decision.  Essentially the victorious majority is a populist movement.  And they've rarely attacked 'elites'.

 

1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

Every populist movement that's ever gained power has gone authoritarian/totalitarian. Populist movements have no respect for minority rights nor--fundamentally--human rights. They are always tyrannical in nature.

 

So the populist supporters of say, Eugene McCarthy had "no respect for minority rights" and were "tyrannical in nature"?

Eugene McCarthy 1968.jpg

I think not. 

Instances of benevolent, populist movements are legion.

 

1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

This isn't true. All the first world advanced capitalist social democracies embrace the social democratic ideology in the main. None are Democratic Socialist states, as they keep telling Senator Sanders.

 

In contrast, guys like Chavez, Maduro, Morales and Ortega have all embraced Democratic Socialism.

 

Big difference.

 

Wrong.  Not one of the politicos you mention described his movement or philosophy as 'Democratic Socialism".  For instance, Maduro called his ideology "Chavista".  And Chavez called his party "The United Socialist Party of Venezuela".   He does not use the terms "Democratic Socialism" or "Social Democracy".  None of them did.  In the US, today, those terms are for all practical terms, interchangeable.

 

1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

On the contrary, the difference could not be more meaningful. One system offers the freedom and wealth of liberal capitalism, the other offers up illiberal socialist tyranny.

 

Only meaningful, possibly to a few western academics.  The terms have not filtered down to common usage, except as having the same meaning.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

I would hope they would embrace liberalism--an ideology that puts reason and freedom in the forefront--and that they would reject populism, an ideology based on rage, ignorance, and which always suppresses freedom.

I put the working poor first.  They are the folks who need assistance.    My beliefs aren't based on "rage" or "ignorance."   My beliefs are based on compassion and empathy for people who BOTH parties have repeatedly kicked to the curb for decades. 

 

2 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

Chavez, Maduro, Morales and Ortega all embraced Democratic Socialism

No, they embrace regular socialism.   They do not embrace what most Americans view as democratic socialism.  

 

2 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

Sanders wants to turn this nation into the USSA.

That is a blatant falsehood for which you have ZERO proof.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bludog said:

Only meaningful, possibly to a few western academics.  The terms have not filtered down to common usage, except as having the same meaning.

Bingo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m center-left. To me, it means that I am open to new ideas but skeptical. The onus is on those who want change to justify it. The onus is on the rest of us to listen with an open mind. 

 

IMO, it is essential to keep the Democratic tent huge. Litmus tests are for fools and conservatives. Better to discuss policies than labels. 
 

I think it is a mistake for a national party to use a variant of the word socialist to describe itself. The word holds a negative connotation for most voters.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...