Talk:Democratic socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

128.193.88.202 wrote: ((municipal tax = 25%-35%) + (state tax = 25%-30%) = 50%-70%)

Where did you get this from? The municipal tax (kommunskatt) is about 20% and the "county"-tax (landstingsskatt) is about 10%. Plus a small church-tax which is <1%. What do you mean by "state tax"? Maybe you are thinking about VAT? Source: [[1]]

I am sorry, but this page appears to be a joke. Or at best a POV to the max power charachterisation of the European political landscapae. Please edit it. Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 22:20 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Much better. Let's see how long it lasts. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 00:37 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Next time you edit it yourself! :)) -- Ruhrjung 00:43 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Now I am even more worried about the page. Is there anybody out there who can verify that those two outside links to American Socialist organizations have anything whatsoever to do with the historical concept of "Democratic socialism". Let me emphasize, that I would be very glad indeed to hear that yes, they do indeed epitomize that very ideological concept in a historically representative way, but would like some very convincing evidence. Please! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 18:23 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Instead of moaning why dont you edit it G-Man 09:19 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Because I don't feel qualified to do so. I don't know enough to feel more than disquiet about the article. I might be wrong, and the article spot on! I have no qualifications at all to expound on American socialist movements/parties, so if my concerns were perceived as "moaning" by true experts, I would take that on the chin. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 09:29 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merge with Social democracy

Google hits on wikipedia&mirrors first, and to pages that use the term interchangably with social democracy next. This page should be merged (as required) and otherwise redirected to social democracy, unless someone can convince me differently? Kim Bruning 21:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. I'm not satisfied with the state of either entry as it currently stands; but I do think there's some degree of difference we should try to enunciate. From my view, at least, there's a world of difference between, say, the Socialist Alliance of Australia and the Australian Labor Party, but both would be categorised under the same heading if the articles were to be merged. I really don't know if their respective ideologies have that much in common. Lacrimosus 04:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that the distinction is very subjective. I think what we are dealing with is two issues. (1) Many social democratic parties are less leftwing than they used to be. For some reason, people want to reserve the term "social democracy" for the rightwing of social democracy, rather than for the left of social democracy. (2) Many Leninist parties are becoming less revolutionary and more democratic, hence the Australian Socialist Alliance is being cited as an example of "democratic socialism", which in the past no one would have taken seriously because it comprises mainly Trotskyist organizations. It may prove very difficult to decide definitely which organizations are social democratic and which democratic socialist, if a distinction is drawn between the two terms. I personally doubt whether Trotskyists should be classified in either category, since there could be (and probably are) separate entries for Leninist and Trotskyist parties. The usage of the term "democratic socialism" varies so widely - for example, the British Labour Party describes itself as democratic socialist and yet others are claiming it doesn't qualify as social democratic - it makes no sense to have the distinction. The "social democracy" article could discuss both the right and the left of the movement, but would of course exclude Leninist parties (which have not been counted as social democrats since about 1917). User:rjpuk 20:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do think that the distinction here between democratic socialism and social democracy is important, but it could maybe be expanded on somewhat... There are at least two branches of democratic socialist praxis that I'd like to see mentioned here (I'll add them myself, if nobody objects): the participatory democracy wing of the New Left in Europe and North America (the names Tom Hayden and Dany Cohn-Bendit spring to mind), and in India the anti-totalitarian socialism of JP Narayan and his sometime associates such as Acharya Narendra Deva and other Congress Socialist Party luminaries. I'm sure other folks could come up with examples from elsewhere. In both instances, we have a definite revolutionary Left politics that's anti-Leninist but also not anarchist. But rjpunk's observations about the subjectiveness of the term might make a handy contribution to the article itself: in reality, most movements do seem to want to swing either towards reformism pure and simple, or to some degree of authoritarianism (quite a problem!). Oh, I thought of a third current: the Left-wing "radical democracy" movement coming out of a lot of post-structuralist and feminist theorizing these days (think of Chantal Mouffe). QuartierLatin1968 01:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A naive reader will not distinguish between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism". I think that we should either

  1. Merge the articles, and emphasize the difference within the articles
  2. Clearly state in the introduction that these are different concepts/movements, perhaps with a disambiguation notice.

AdamRetchless 14:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parties such as the Dutch SP and the German Left Party never, AFAIK, use the term social democracy to refer to their own ideology. One could argue that they are social democratic in a historical sense of the word, but currently, social democracy (at least in the Netherlands) is invariably used to denote the centrist ideology of parties such as the PvdA (which, confusingly, sometimes still calls itself democratic socialist). Qwertyus 10:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Qwertyus. I'm copying your comment over to talk:Social democracy where the rest of the merger discussion is taking place... QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This is a copy of my NPOV comments in Social Democracy's talk page.

The article does not give due justice to the recent Socialist International's councils and the groups statutues and principles. The article just discusses the old school meaning during the turn of the 20th century which was even pre-cold war, not the 21st which is the priority. SI redefined social democracy and Democratic Socialism. Today, DS forms the ideology and theory, meanwhile SD forms the application and integration with the real world. Issues like welfare, etc, were already reconciled between the 2 former ideologies. These were completely ignored by the article, it was not even considered in the start. SD now is the ideal representative democracy and objective, and not a political ideology. DS is the ideology. See SI Principles in the web

[edit] On DS

DS and SD should not be merged. DS should be updated for the new definition which is the reconciled definition of the old 20th century definitions of DS and SD. SD becomes the ideal application of the said. SD is no longer an ideology, and DS is now more accomodating for the centrist view, not just the leftist view. Stranger

Okie-doke. However, there are still tons of people holding to the "old 20th century definition", as you call it, of democratic socialism – I'm one democratic socialist who doesn't give a rat's ass for what the SI says democratic socialism should be. (They should practise it first if they want people to take their preaching seriously.) But by all means, integrate what they have to say into the article – it's very important that all relevant definitions and understandings of democratic socialism be included. Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 14:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revolutionary Democratic Socialism

I have restored a previous version of this article. The most recent edits were based on the assertion that democratic socialism is inherently different from revolutionary socialism. This is fundamentally untrue. There are many currents within the general category of democratic socialism, of which revolutionary democratic socialism is one example. To cite one example, the Socialist Party USA, which is an explicitly democratic socialist party, has both revolutionary and evolutionary elements within the party. It is completely inappropriate to exclude those who seek to achieve democratic socialism via revolutionary means from this article.

"Revolutionary socialism", and I don't think there can be any disagreement on this point, is generally speaking the aim of achieving socialism through violent overthrow of the existing state. "Democratic socialism", and again, I think this is an extremely reasonable definition, is the aim of achieving socialism peacefully, through pre-existing political processes. I cannot see how it is possible (according to the generally-used division of currents of socialism) for one group to be both revolutionary and democratic, let alone one individual. The confusion must stem from some definition of "democratic socialism" which does not accord with the norm. Slac speak up! 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
What you are giving is simply one possible definition of democratic socialism. I am restoring the broader and more correct definition. Whether you think something is "possible" isn't really the point. Both the evolutionary and revolutionary strands of democratic socialism are in strong disagreement with one another, but both have a claim to the term. I have already given an example of a current within the SP USA, an explicitly democratic socialist party that is the heir of Eugene Debs, that falls within the category of revolutionary democratic socialism. Revolutionary Democratic Socialists are those who choose to achieve a democratic socialist society through revolutionary means. In this article, I have tried to be fair to all sides, both the evolutionary and the revolutionary versions of democratic socialism, when I have edited this article. To deliberately exclude those democratic socialists who favor revolution as a means of achieving democratic socialism is to exclude those who use the term in that way, and it is narrow and restrictive.
REVOLUTION IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH ACTS VIOLENCE BY THE REVOLUTIONARY. Examples: the Indian revolution to gain independence from Britain; the industrial revolution. It can be defined as "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving" or "A sudden or momentous change in a situation" as it might also be defined as "the overthrow of a government by those who are governed" or "The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another".


Thanks for the definitions, however, the meanings of the terms could be altered depending on the context. redvegetarianRedvegetarian 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Parties

Democratic Socialists of America should not be listed under "political parties", because they thenselevs are not one. Members of DSA are registered members of the Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Socialist Party USA, etc. DSA is a democratic socialist membership organization, it is NOT a democratic socilaist party that runs candidates on its own ticket/ballot line or even tries to, as other parties listed do. As a matter of fact, DSA was started by Michael Harrington when he left the Socialist Party USA because he felt that a third party in America would never work, and he took a cadre of people from the Socialist Party USA into the Democratic Party - originally forming DSA within the Democratic Party.

Also, listing things such as caususes and tendencies within parties is not appropriate, either, for the same reason: they themselves are not political parties. Instead they are trends *within* a political party.

You know, funnily enough, I wouldn't have pegged the United States as a big centre of democratic socialist politics. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welfare State

I don't think that term is appropriate here. "Welfare State" - according to the Wikipedia link, is a mixture of democracy, welfare and capitalism. So if the welfare state is capitalist, then how can it also be socialist. To be socialist, wouldn't an economy have to be run by the workers, and not "capital" interests?

The welfare state is an intermediate solution, as is explained sufficiently (IMHO) in the article. Qwertyus 16:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you raise a valid point. While social democrats do generally consider welfare state capitalism to be some sort of intermediate state between capitalism and socialism, many socialists by contrast do not consider welfare-state capitalism to be socialist at all. This is a point of debate among many in the socialist and social democratic left.
It was only T.H. Marshall who defined the term 'welfare state' as a merging of democracy, welfare, and capitalism. That's not the general definition adhered to by socialists (I being one myself) when we speak of creating a welfare state. Even Wikipedia's main definition is more inclusive. I would contend that the term should stand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comrade Dave (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Welfare State is CRUCIAL to modern "real" socialism, it derives from the economic theory of Welfare Economics and justifies the need of public intervention in the market. The interpretation of Socialism that is widespread in these articles is of a Communist ideology and you are wrong to ignore the vast majority of socialists world wide who believe in democracy and the market economy. Call us Social Liberals if you want, but we will continue to define ourselves as socialists without giving any credit to communist or revolutionary ideas.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Socialism

Being brought up in Spain, a country where "The Socialist Party" have won 4 of the last 6 elections, I find preposterous that it is included alongside revolutionary idea.

In practice the socialist party is a left wing convesrvative party in its broadest term and have lead to a democratic system characterized by an alternation in power with Partido Popular, the conservative right wing party. The Welfare state was initially introduced by Franco, the right wing military dictator, and it has become the essential role of government. Neither PSOE or PP contest the validity of providing for a National Health System, Unemployment benefits or the role of government in developing an appropriate infrastructure.

The main differences between these two parties respond to their style of government, the relation with the church and their position on social issues, specially their stance on regionalism, PP being a rather more "patriotic" party defending a strong idea of Spain, and PSOE being more accomodating. As an example, the last general elections where unexpectedly won by the socialist party and new laws have been passed recognizing the rights of gays and limiting certain aspects of the church's involment with government. Similarly a peace proccess has begun with ETA after they have called an indefinite cease fire.

The spanish system is characterized by a considerable degree of compromise between PSOE and PP, and it is relatively uncommon for open opposition to arise due to main social issues as discussed in this and other articles about socialism.

Spain is an example of socialism in Europe. If these and other articles about socialism fail to give this real democratic and market oriented understanding of socialism, void of extremist or revolutionary ideas, then we will continue to have a crap set or articles, possibly anchored in the perceptions of the early 20th century and contributing to the divide between America and Europe.

The Divide:

When I talk politics with americans, Socialism is equated with a mild form of extreme revolutionary communism, when infact it is rather the european equivalent of the Democratic party. This is like equating the Republican party with fascist capitalism.

Searching through wikipedia I have come with terms like "liberal socialism" "Demorcratic Socialism" "Social Democracy" "social progressivism", etc.

I suppose spanish socialism falls more under the definition of social liberalism in that it seeks to defend social and civil rights, with a progressive attitude and limited public involment in a market economy.

HOW WISE IS IT TO INCLUDE THE SPANISH SOCIALIST PARTY IN THE CURRENT ARTICLE?? WITHOUT DISCUSSING SOME OF THE ISSUES I MENTION??

CANT WE AGREE ON A CURRENT MODERN POLITICAL VOCABULARY TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER?? I am tired of being thought as a revolutionary when I express my "socialist" views.

I suppose that at the core of the problem lies a lack of effort by individuals to understand other ideologies from their own. I have tried to understand the differences between the american Republican and Demorcratic party, not according to their names but their practices and attitudes. I would like all americans do the same with the spanish Socialist party, instead of turning to century old texts. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Requesting article "Tribunite"

Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)?
The only sources I have are

http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html

(and other pages with identical text)

and this from Guardian

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html

"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism."

-- 201.50.123.251 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move list section?

Would there be any objection to moving the list of democratic socialist parties and organizations to a page of that name (or similar)? The list really needs cleanup and organization, but I think its presence on this page just distracts from the rest of the article. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody can now go argue about it over there. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with Democratic Socialism?

Its a perfect mixture! It hasn't worked yet, but under the right leader, it would. People can't be trusted, but we can't have a totalitarian government, so this comes in between. -71.224.19.29 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism democratic?!

The idea that socialism can be democratic is ludicrous at its best. The term "democratic socialism" is a contradiction in terms. This article should be removed altogether, it is quite a piece of nonsense! Lenineleal 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. Whether you agree that it exists or not is not relevant. What is relevant is that this is a notable topic discussed in every encyclopedia you would care to look at (see Britannica and Encarta). Gdo01 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Socialism is a form of economic system. Democracy is a form of government. So of course the two terms can be used together.Pharmakon7 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inadequate distinctions

I can't tell from the "definition" whether Venezuela under Hugo Chavez is heading for democratic socialism, or a Cuba-style dictatorship.

In fact, I wonder if the definition was created to obscure distinctions between "freely chosen" and "accountable" systems, and dictatorial systems established by coup or revolution. The inclusion of the term "revolutionary" in the intro and the definition hints at this.

Is closing down opposition newspapers and using a rubber-stamp parliament to change the constitution considered "democratic"? If so, in what sense? (I hate to bring up Hitler because of Godwin's law, but it seems to apply to Venezuela now, as well as the Chile of the 1970s). --Uncle Ed 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polished and Sensible

I've edited the article to make it as clear as possible. I felt the old article was poorly executed and nobody was doing anything to help it.

Also I've created a new article to end the argument over DS and SD. It's here. Right now it's barely above a stub, contribute to it so this confusion over the two systems will be cleared (Demigod Ron 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] I changed some things

I'm sorry but that evolutionary vs. revolutionary democratic socialism stuff was too confusing, unsourced, and just seem to want to divide people into two camps. --Revolución hablar ver 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Following the good work of Demigod Ron and Revolución, I have (I believe) strengthened the history section. However, this is somewhat unbalanced by my lack of knowledge about the non-English-speaking world, and needs to reflect more of a global view. I also think the Concept section, while important, needs to be grounded in some references, as it runs the danger of being slightly essayistic and even original research. BobFromBrockley 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work comrades. This article is begining to take shape now. (Demigod Ron 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocratic_socialism_f0f0.html"