Democratic Socialist is an unfortunate name for something that also involves Capitalism

[Quixote1818]

Let's be real, branding is EXTREMELY important and words matter. After Reagan demonized the word liberal Democrats started using progressive out of necessity. I think most here on DU would agree that we need a mix of capitalism and socialism which we already do in many areas but we want to expand the socialist policies into a few more areas like health care, better wages, etc. to balance things out.

Thoughts on a new name candidates could start using that would keep Capitalism in most areas of our wants but expand Socialism into most areas of our needs and allow for more collective bargaining and hopefully use public financing for elections.

How about Social Capitalism? I think Capitalism should be in the name.

[sharedvalues]

1. Americans love to rename political things

Liberals in America = Social Democrats in Europe.

"Representative Democracy" in America = "Liberal Democracy" in Europe (i.e. strong rule of law, fact-based discourse, democratically elected leaders that change every few years -- 'ruled by laws, not by men')



So Democratic Socialist does have a meaning already; it basically means the governing systems of Norway, Sweden, etc.

But sure we could rename it for PR reasons.

I wish they had named themselves "Social Democrats of America"

[WhiteTara]

2. Mr WT and I were discussing this and

it might be helpful to talk about the social contract rather than socialism. The word Socialism is very charged.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Social Democrat, just flip the terms

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2018, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

And it’s easily defended. Social democracy is what made America great. The late Tony Judt wrote succinctly about this in 2008-9, and we should shamelessly crib from him:

The welfare state had remarkable achievements to its credit. In some countries it was social democratic, grounded in an ambitious program of socialist legislation; in others—Great Britain, for example—it amounted to a series of pragmatic policies aimed at alleviating disadvantage and reducing extremes of wealth and indigence. The common theme and universal accomplishment of the neo-Keynesian governments of the postwar era was their remarkable success in curbing inequality. If you compare the gap separating rich and poor, whether by income or assets, in all continental European countries along with Great Britain and the US, you will see that it shrinks dramatically in the generation following 1945.

With greater equality there came other benefits. Over time, the fear of a return to extremist politics—the politics of desperation, the politics of envy, the politics of insecurity—abated. The Western industrialized world entered a halcyon era of prosperous security: a bubble, perhaps, but a comforting bubble in which most people did far better than they could ever have hoped in the past and had good reason to anticipate the future with confidence.

The paradox of the welfare state, and indeed of all the social democratic (and Christian Democratic) states of Europe, was quite simply that their success would over time undermine their appeal. The generation that remembered the 1930s was understandably the most committed to preserving institutions and systems of taxation, social service, and public provision that they saw as bulwarks against a return to the horrors of the past. But their successors—even in Sweden—began to forget why they had sought such security in the first place.

It was social democracy that bound the middle classes to liberal institutions in the wake of World War II (I use “middle class” here in the European sense). They received in many cases the same welfare assistance and services as the poor: free education, cheap or free medical treatment, public pensions, and the like. In consequence, the European middle class found itself by the 1960s with far greater disposable incomes than ever before, with so many of life’s necessities prepaid in tax. And thus the very class that had been so exposed to fear and insecurity in the interwar years was now tightly woven into the postwar democratic consensus...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/12/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/

[beachbum bob]

4. It is what it is, I argued for democratic libertarianism....which incorporated the

Social contract as the basis but values individual freedoms...like pro choice, religion...and govt as a source to help those who need the help most.

[murielm99]

5. Out of necessity?

I don't care who demonized what: I am a liberal.

Democratic Socialist? Social Capitalism? Most voters don't give a flying fuck, and I am not going to toss those words around when I am out making my GOTV efforts. I am a Democrat, trying to get people to vote for Democrats.

Yes, let's be real.

[Demsrule86]

6. How about Democrats and liberals...after seeing a post where a Democratic socialist

government in Denmark snatches immigrant kids in ghettos from parents at age one...don't want any part of it. I am a Democrat and a liberal...I am not a socialist Democrat or a social capitalist...such names will merely confuse people and give the GOP a further ability to demonize us.

[Quixote1818]

7. You are probably correct. It's just a matter of being what we have always been. nt

[Demsrule86]

8. I am proud of who we are...and don't think we should allow the GOP to demonize us.

[JCanete]

9. and liberal is attached to all kinds of things too. and left wing and right wing, etc. Some people

appropriate labels, or have different concepts of them in different places. Currently in America Democratic Socialist is not identified as a mindset or party of snatching children. It signifies something entirely different. Nothing wrong with democrat or liberal, but its silly to think that either terms are immune from being defined by the right or even actions supposedly taken under the umbrella of those titles. it isn't the name or whether or not the GOP will attempt to demonize it, it is how we push back against that effort that matters.

[Demsrule86]

13. I agree with all your points...have you seen this OP.

JCanete, I find it shocking.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10844301

[DBoon]

10. Social Democracy is not Democratic Socialism

Social Democracy restrains capitalism, polishes its worst excesses and attempts to harness capitalism to the greater good. Social Democrats generally believe in regulation to accomplish these ends, progressive taxation, social welfare and perhaps government ownership of a few key industries such as electrical power generation.

Democratic socialists want to replace capitalism, not amend it. Democratic socialists call for collective ownership of at least most of the economy. This generally means government ownership, though some also support cooperatives and worker self-ownership. They argue that regulation and taxation advocated by Social Democrats is useless as long as the underlying power structure of capitalism is intact.

[LWolf]

11. I wasn't sure about your claims.

So I browsed around a bit, and I discovered that, like every politically charged label, this one, "Democratic Socialism" has a variety of both denotations and connotations, depending on who is using it. And because of the constant manipulation of politically charged labels, I don't think trying to force a single denotation on the term is productive. From my perspective:

Humans have not yet enacted any economic system that actually works well for all. All are flawed. Whatever label you want to apply, I believe that what people are really wanting is a hybrid system, much like you describe as "Social Democracy." I myself think that "Social Democracy" would be a large improvement on what we have in the United States at present.

In looking at "Democratic Socialism," I found a variety of descriptions. Not having time for a further in-depth study today, I settled on the "Democratic Socialists of America" organization and spent some time with the "where we stand" pages. I really, really liked most of what I read. And I did read some strong criticisms of capitalism. But then, I have some strong criticisms myself. It generally matched your description.

One of the things I really liked was the refusal to divorce social and economic justice, which has become the norm for centrist Democrats. As a matter of fact, this is the source of my dissatisfaction with the party as a whole, and I think there are a hell of a lot of voters out there who agree. Regardless of the label, the party and the nation would be in better shape by adopting some or all of both or either. In my view.

[Quixote1818]

14. Thanks, I saw the video on DU about this the other day

There seems to be a lot of confusion even among those candidates claiming to be Democratic Socialists. I kind of knew this even when I did the OP but since most people think it's a mix of Capitalism and Socialism I just decided to stick with the term and I probably should call a spade a spade.

[H2O Man]

12. Respectfully disagree.

A portion of the Democratic Party self-identifies as democratic socialists. They are fully capable of deciding what to call themselves. At this point, they are a minority within the party, though an important one. It's up to individual voters to decide if the platform they run on is worthy of a vote. Plus, with the 1950s a bit behind us, it is unlikely that anyone to the left of the alt-right is stricken with anxiety and fear by the word "socialism," or thinks it is opposed to free enterprise.