Democratic Socialism debate.

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
32,021
Okay I see I may have been confusing this with social democracy. And now see that democratic socialism tends toward communism but doubt that would ever happen on the US. Anyone that radical would simply not win an election given the history of that boogeyman
 

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
9,522

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,992
Sanders is actually a social democrat which is different to democratic socialism


If you give that a listen, just until about 3 mins in, you'll notice he is actually a DemSoc, not a SocDem.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,176
The former, in social democracy
That is a social democracy, not democratic socialism.

Socialism at the very least is the reduction of individual rights for the benefit of a group, which flatly contradicts a liberal democracy.
 

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
9,522

If you give that a listen, just until about 3 mins in, you'll notice he is actually a DemSoc, not a SocDem.
He calls himself a Democratic Socialist and it appears the terms are used interchangeably by some in the USA but he is in fact a Social Democrat, based on his actual views and his policies and aims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders

This lays it out quite well:
https://qz.com/1805692/bernie-sanders-isnt-a-democratic-socialist-he-is-a-social-democrat/
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,940
it doesn't matter, he is going to commit suicide before he gets to the inauguration
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
39,369
The anarchists have a fair point indeed. However they have made the mistake of ignoring human behaviour. Specifically, how do you enforce individual rights equally? All that will happen is that people will form tribes where some form of individual rights will exist, but those rights immediately get squashed when said tribes disagree.

Locke argued this point in that people have to give up a bit of their freedom in order to protect the vast majority of their rights.
Think you're gonna have to define what you mean by rights and freedom. You might think freedom means freedom from oppressive taxation, and freedom to not subsidise another person's livelihood with your own livelihood. Another person might think freedom means autonomy over their own bodies and to express their individual choices and speech without fearing government retaliation. In many cases you trade one perceived freedom for another. As Margaret Atwood put it:

There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don’t underrate it.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,176
Think you're gonna have to define what you mean by rights and freedom. You might think freedom means freedom from oppressive taxation, and freedom to not subsidise another person's livelihood with your own livelihood. Another person might think freedom means autonomy over their own bodies and to express their individual choices and speech without fearing government retaliation. In many cases you trade one perceived freedom for another. As Margaret Atwood put it:
I define freedom as the lack of coercion.

As for rights, I am mostly talking about negative rights. In which case it is of the form "the government shall not X". In other words, they are limitations of the state.
As for positive rights, which are obligations on the state, the only one that is actually a right is a right to a fair trial.

This is the absolute minimum. Countries like the US haven't even been able to get this very limited set of things correct. Which is one of the underlying problems with the US that no-one seems to address. They are much more interested in walls and $30 trillion healthcare spending.

Everything other than this should rather be classified as a goal, and as such you have to be much more careful when they are actually implemented, as they will violate someone's freedom. Which is why theoretically the federal model is so vital, as people are still given some choice whether they want to be subjected to a policy or not. For example, you cannot complain about high state income tax in Commiefornia when you can just hop the state border to Texas.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
39,369
I define freedom as the lack of coercion.

As for rights, I am mostly talking about negative rights. In which case it is of the form "the government shall not X". In other words, they are limitations of the state.
And that extends to personal autonomy over your own body?
 

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
20,740
I'm beginning to think that violence really is the answer.

He who carries the biggest stick makes the rules.

In order to remain autonomous, we actually need guns and lots of it.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,992
He calls himself a Democratic Socialist and it appears the terms are used interchangeably by some in the USA but he is in fact a Social Democrat, based on his actual views and his policies and aims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders

This lays it out quite well:
https://qz.com/1805692/bernie-sanders-isnt-a-democratic-socialist-he-is-a-social-democrat/
Thanks for this info!

Samuel Goldman, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, states that Sanders' platform is not socialist and is better described as "welfarism" reminiscent of the 1950s that aims to regulate rather than to replace capitalism. Goldman notes that Sanders does not advocate public ownership of the means of production nor does he seek to abolish the profit system, both of which Goldman considers to be defining characteristics of socialism.[10]

Lane Kenworthy, professor of sociology at the University of California at San Diego, has stated that Sanders is a social democrat and not a democratic socialist, and that the two ideologies are fundamentally different from each other. Kenworthy points out that social democracy does not aim to abolish capitalism, and argues that Sanders' use of the term "socialism" when he actually advocates "social democracy" is causing more confusion than it is adding value, and might unnecessarily have a negative impact on his presidential campaign. Mike Konczal, an economic policy expert at the Roosevelt Institute, also characterizes Sanders' positions as "social democracy" rather than "socialist", noting that social democracy means support for a mixed economy combining private enterprise with government spending, social insurance programs, Keynesian macroeconomic policies, and democratic participation in government and the workplace—all of which are a part of Sanders' platform.[11]

Socialist organizations
American socialists and representatives belonging to the Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party USA have criticized Sanders, arguing that he is not a socialist because he aims to reform capitalism rather than to replace it with an entirely different socialist system.[13] Despite these criticisms, the Democratic Socialists of America "strongly support(ed)" his campaign for President.[14] Former Sanders colleague, Peter Diamondstone, claimed that Sanders was a socialist during his time in the Liberty Union Party but is no longer a true socialist.[15]

Bhaskar Sunkara, the founder, editor, and publisher of the socialist journal Jacobin, considered Sanders to be a social democrat and not a socialist.
TIL: Actual Socialists dislike Bernie because his not a real socialist
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
And that extends to personal autonomy over your own body?
I find this to be an interesting but extremely difficult topic.

As far as I'm aware, without axioms, one cannot easily or even possibly prove anything beyond their own existence (I think therefore I am, a self fulfilling statement). If you could, that'd surely be the holy grail of objective ethics. So, to you, you are the only sovereign entity in existence - subjectively speaking.

That can be dangerously narcissistic. This is when "fake libertarians" become subservient to the self. If you watch enough libertarian YouTube vids, you'd probably know the sort I'm alluding to.

Your morals can also extend to others who you assume to also be sovereign. If you're collectivist in any form or fashion you then might play identity politics with this notion. Subservience is exercised unto the ideology, likely starting with your narcissism at the helm. It means you're immoral to anyone else outside of your collective, which serves you.

It's only when you relinquish all forms of collective subservience when it comes to humanity that you might achieve universal morality (Perhaps impossible in practice?). You must treat everybody as sovereign if you wish to seek universal morality, and that includes their autonomy.

From there we move on to how to stake a claim in ownership and how we agree to disseminate ownership... another topic for another day :p And what about animals you might ask? hahaha. Please don't, I have enough headaches :D

Anyway this is all highly theoretical on my part, I'm no political or social expert. I despise both politics and social situations :p

Edit: Realized I just said collectivism is organized narcissism. hmmm... :unsure: never thought about it that way. I think that about sums it up TBH.
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,176
And that extends to personal autonomy over your own body?
Yup, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of someone else. It is pretty implicit in the liberty part of life, liberty and property, although life and property also protect personal autonomy.

So yes, you have the right to cut your d!ck in half and run around naked on the street. However you don't have a right to do that on someone else's lawn.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
39,369
Yup, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of someone else. It is pretty implicit in the liberty part of life, liberty and property, although life and property also protect personal autonomy.

So yes, you have the right to cut your d!ck in half and run around naked on the street. However you don't have a right to do that on someone else's lawn.
Well then, democratic socialism is strong on personal bodily freedom, not so great on freedom from taxation.

Look i think the point you're getting at with the thread is something like this and correct me if I'm wrong:
"Democratic socialism isn't truly democratic because it doesn't protect individual freedoms in the form of social welfare programs that the public have no choice but to pay in for". But by that standard no government is truly democratic.

I think what most people mean by democracy is a representative government by public voting. And from that side at least, you have to admit that Bernie Sanders is a voting rights absolutist. Nobody should be afraid that he will turn America into Bolivia because he's always consistently opposed autocratic rulers, and championed expanded voting rights.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,940
And from that side at least, you have to admit that Bernie Sanders is a voting rights absolutist. Nobody should be afraid that he will turn America into Bolivia because he's always consistently opposed autocratic rulers, and championed expanded voting rights.
yeah but it will be funny if they hang Chris Matthews in central park
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
4,527
I define freedom as the lack of coercion.

As for rights, I am mostly talking about negative rights. In which case it is of the form "the government shall not X". In other words, they are limitations of the state.
As for positive rights, which are obligations on the state, the only one that is actually a right is a right to a fair trial.

This is the absolute minimum. Countries like the US haven't even been able to get this very limited set of things correct. Which is one of the underlying problems with the US that no-one seems to address. They are much more interested in walls and $30 trillion healthcare spending.

Everything other than this should rather be classified as a goal, and as such you have to be much more careful when they are actually implemented, as they will violate someone's freedom. Which is why theoretically the federal model is so vital, as people are still given some choice whether they want to be subjected to a policy or not. For example, you cannot complain about high state income tax in Commiefornia when you can just hop the state border to Texas.
Interesting I've never heard a viewpoint exactly like this before.

How would you handle coercion between citizens and companies? Classic example is pollution. Factory owner has the freedom to do business. The community has the freedom to live where they want.

But if the factory pollutes the environment which impacts the freedoms of the community it is a form of coercion in that it forces them to not be able to live where they want. On the other hand if we coerce the factory owner to not pollute to the benefit of the community then we limit their freedoms. (sorry for the poor wording but you surely understand what I'm getting at)

How could coercion be avoided in that case? How should this dilemma be resolved?
 
Top