Democratic Socialism

[LyfeTimeDem]

"I think we just need to realize that the end goal is, ultimately, like social control of the means of production," said Joe Cernelli, a founding member of that West Virginia DSA chapter. "You know we don't just want to improve capitalism, we will ultimately want to get rid of it."

That's not just his idea; the DSA **views capitalism as an oppressive system** — "We see it as fundamentally undemocratic," as DSA National Director Maria Svart put it. Here's how she sums up what the group wants:
"When it comes right down to it, we believe people need to be able to live a dignified life. I mean, there are certain things that should not be left up to the market," she said.

Removing some parts of the economy from the forces of the free market, for example. In other words, socialism.

But beyond that, the group advocates for some pretty revolutionary changes to democracy, like abolishing the Senate. The DSA calls it "extremely unrepresentative" for the way it gives both tiny and huge states alike two senators each — the group would like to replace it with a more representative body.

The country — and the attitudes of most American voters — are pretty far from this vision, though, so the DSA is willing to pursue policies that fall short of its ultimate goals. Health care is one example — the group backs "Medicare for All" — where the government provides health insurance, but the private sector supplies the doctors and hospitals. But many DSA members would prefer a system where the government employs the doctors themselves. (aka gaslighting them)

"I think we could do better than Bernie, but I think it was definitely a good start," he said. "There are some policies that I think he's been a little too soft on, a little too Democrat for me."


And likewise, Svart says, the group sees Sanders as an "ally" while also wanting to go further than he does on many areas. (aka too far left for even Bernie Sanders. .WOW)


https://www.npr.org/2018/07/26/630960719/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-democratic-socialists-of-america

And another very good article from the Nation that I think should be examined not dismissed:

Why I Just Quit DSA
After over four decades as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, one of the group’s founding members is leaving in sorrow and anger.

All well and good—except for the return of the entryists. Suddenly, in the eyes of revolutionary purists in a host of small competing sects, DSA was no longer to be sneered at as just a reformist swamp. “Why rob banks?” career criminal Willie Sutton was once allegedly asked by a reporter. “Because that’s where the money is,” he replied. The exchange is apocryphal, but substitute warm bodies for cold cash, and it offers a concise explanation for DSA’s sudden attractiveness to sectarian strategists. Unknown numbers—hundreds, perhaps more—started joining in 2016, some of them former members of defunct Marxist-Leninist groups, others (in violation of DSA bylaws) still belonging to and carrying out the agendas of such groups. They proceeded to quarrel and compete among themselves, splitting and recombining under various banners like “Red Star,” “Marxist Unity Group,” and even the “Communist Caucus.” But they remained united in one overarching shared aim—to take a well-meaning, not particularly well-organized, and essentially social democratic organization still committed in practice to the original DSA vision of creating “the left wing of the possible,” and reinvent it as the mass vanguard party of the proletariat that somehow they had never been able to pull off while operating under their own banners of deepest red.

DSA, meanwhile, thrived between 2016 and 2020—because it proved it could win victories in the here-and-now, give-and-take world of electoral politics. And that, ironically, was intolerable to the entryists (who preferred to refer to themselves as “partyists”), because they didn’t want socialists to remain as a wing of, or even a loyal opposition within the Democratic Party. They wanted a break, in the not terribly distant future, from the intolerable compromises required to appeal to mainstream voters and to compromise with mainstream politicians. And they also believed that DSA members elected to public office were, first and foremost, obliged to follow the positions adopted by the organization, rather than their constituents or their own conscience, as if they were already subordinate to the dictates of an old-fashioned Marxist-Leninist central committee.

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/quit-dsa-gaza-israel/

And this too



OPEN LETTER
Out of Loyalty to Democratic Socialism: Why We Are Leaving DSA

Twenty-four longtime members of the Democratic Socialists of America explain why they’re leaving the organization.

https://newrepublic.com/article/176781/open-letter-why-leaving-democratic-socialists-america


I'm quite happy to stay a Social Democrat myself....My political hero is FDR, so I support Regulated Capitalism ...I don't want it eliminated.

[msongs]

1. if ya can't succeed with your own beliefs, sink your claws into an available other..... nt

[OldBaldy1701E]

2. So is mine.

Although I would say he was a social hero more so than a political one. The man from the richest background who told the rich to shove it so the federal government could help those dealing with the Depression. That is my hero.

I have no problem with regulated capitalism. I have a major problem with capitalism being used as a societal model. It should be a personal philosophy, not a regime outline.

Unfortunately, it has been that for some time. And, society as a whole has suffered greatly for it and from it.

So, regulation is fine. Assuming that we can get the federal government (which is composed of 59% millionaires and above, I might add) to vote against their own interests and regulate it as it should be.

Otherwise, once we get out of this fiasco, it will just be a matter of time before this kind of extreme crap happens again.

[LyfeTimeDem]

3. well I see no evidence that

chucking it altogether or letting those that want to do that to gain more power is such a good idea...since Regulated Capitalism seems to have the most success so far, holding all the poll positions....I prefer to re-emulate that....seems to be the much better direction to go......

The guy in the 2nd article fascinated me with the description of the phenomenon so well with his discussion of the "Entryists" and historically how that goes down..

And being "even further left than Bernie Sanders".....will more likely than not be held over our heads in any election going forth...no matter where it is and poses real potential risks....every single candidate will have to include defense of it in their game plan.

[OldBaldy1701E]

5. Question... when was capitalism successfully regulated? (n/t)

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Capitalism is currently pretty well regulated in the Scandinavian countries

And parts of Western Europe.

The US got close in the 1930’s-mid 60’s with high union membership and high tax rates for both corporations and individuals.

[OldBaldy1701E]

45. Since I do not know the workings of European commerce, I will take your word on their successes.

But, I have to ask... do they see and practice capitalism as a societal model? When their governments decide things about their population, is the 'economy' the first thing (and, in too many cases, the only thing) that they want to address, and is it the first thing they want to fix and is it the first thing they have to keep going, even if it lets people die in the streets because they cannot work, nor can they create money out of thin air to support themselves?

In short, is it the only thing those governments care about?

Because here...

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. In Scandinavian countries, people come before profits.

But profits are not forbidden.

The government of Norway has a $1 trillion+ reserve fund from its share of the profits from oil drilling off its coasts (and the country has one of the highest EV usage in the world).

[LyfeTimeDem]

11. for 50 yrs in the U.S.

and still is among all the Social Democracies that have a higher Quality of Life than the U.S.

Where has Democratic Socialism ever given the poor a path out???

[OldBaldy1701E]

46. I don't know that one.

Thanks to humans being humans, I am not aware that it has been tried without the usual corruption and greed taking it over. We just cannot stop ourselves sometimes.

So, I doubt that it would ever be successful because it cannot be done successfully. We are just too... human...

But, give us a societal model that relies on self delusion, selfishness, and greed... we can sure do that one to the max!

[LyfeTimeDem]

48. EXACTLY my point!

[iemanja]

8. Capitalism is successful in generating wealth for the few

and reducing the rest to low paid laborers. That is its intent.

[LyfeTimeDem]

12. Sounds like what happens in the Socialist

countries to me.....and why OUR Free Market Capitalists took 55,000 Manufacturing plants there for Slave Labor..after we DEREGULATED aka removed the Guardrails after Ronald Reagan..

Wealth always seeks Slave Labor...and always gets it ..unless a Government protects its MIDDLE CLASS...

I knew this would expose a lot of underground in the Underground

[iemanja]

13. I suggest you read Marx

a student reader for an introduction.

[LyfeTimeDem]

14. what makes you think I don't know

Marx and Marxism? Have I not laid out what it is already in this thread?

I know I am NOT one, because I am a Democrat. And Regulated Capitalism has been the most successful economic system for the less than wealthy. Thank you FDR....the 3rd highest rated President in American history according to Presidential Scholars and Historians

Here is FDR on Socialism

[iemanja]

15. Your post gave me that impression

It's not what you believe. One can be conservative, neoliberal, or liberal and still understand Marx and socialism. It's the content of your assessment of capitalism vs. socialism that gave me that impression. You attribute the basic aspects of capitalism to socialist countries.

[LyfeTimeDem]

16. then you are not reading my posts

Everything to the Right of Karl Max is not a Free Market Capitalist

Had you read my original post, you would have recognized that I did not put MY opinion on Socialism and Capitalism.....I quoted actual Socialists and menbers of DSA's opinion of Capitalism

I also do know the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. DO you?

My assessment of your description is that you also only think in Black and White....I am not a Socialist, so I must be Rightwing. Isn't that how it goes in your world?

[LyfeTimeDem]

18. Dont need to

Obviously, I know what Marxism is, and I what I posted was words of actual Socialists and DSA members opinions on the Subject.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Most folks don't know the difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism

Including AOC and Bernie, as well meaning and intelligent as they are.

I would venture that, aside from the self described Marxists in the article, most folks who call themselves Democratic Socialists are actually Social Democrats.

The excerpts you posted read like a prelude to a hit piece on Mamdani, or on the entire progressive movement (certainly the NPR piece would meet approval from the current administration, and perhaps even the DNC); care to expand further on the conclusions from the articles?

[LyfeTimeDem]

6. nope I do not

And I have mentioned no names and don't intend to...just opening a discussion on the topic because I agree with you ..some I think are confused on the subject. .in fact I think many are

I do know the difference between the two and I might add two more to your list which might just be gaslighting I am not sure, Robert Reich and Thom Hartmann. (That latter will hang up on you if you try to point it out...so he I suspect gaslighting)

I like to point out that the Word Social as an adjective has no association really with the term Socialism. For example Social Media is not Socialism. And that's why Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are not synonymous.

[Emile]

44. Thom Hartmann is a member of Democratic Underground.

[LyfeTimeDem]

49. and?

And I have had this discussion with him. He refused to answer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. I'm not sure you know the meaning of "gaslighting"

because your use of it in the OP makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does it make any sense here. Though you do understand it to be Something Bad. That doesn't mean it can be used for Anything Bad.

"I like to point out that the Word Social as an adjective has no association really with the term Socialism. "

Well, yes, it does. "Society" is also associated with them - as is, ironically, "association". They all come from the Latin 'socius', meaning 'ally'. In socialism, ownership is shared between allied people. The word comes from the early 19th century, so predates "social media" by about 2 centuries.

[mr715]

35. If the philosophy can't be digested to a sentence

it can't work.

Marxism is a historical tool, not a government structure.

Socialism does not exist in this country. Socialism might require a sort of tribalism that doesn't exist in nations as vast as the USA.

Democracy is a mess of philosophy.

Let the market decide. 99.9% of the time it'll let liberty exist and speech be free. When the market starts shitting in the rivers, pass some laws. Thats I guess political liberalism.

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. Sounds like you're a libertarian. Nt

[mr715]

37. Ew

No, I think I'm a left neoliberal. I think I'd ID as a Hillary Clinton Democrat. But I am a capitalist, because capitalism works. It is just evolution writ for economics.

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. Neoliberalism is a failed economic ideology

The neoliberalism of the past 45 years (Reaganomics was the epitome of neoliberalism) dramatically exacerbated income inequality in the US.

Capitalism only works when it is kept on a tight leash; the well-being of the people, not the corporations or the shareholders, must always be the priority, for without a healthy consumer middle class, late stage capitalism will evolve into Facism in order to preserve the wealth of of the very few oligarchs at the top.

[mr715]

52. Maybe I'm mislabeling myself

I am pretty radically pro-globalization and free trade, but again with safeguards.

[betsuni]

43. Democrats aren't neoliberals, it's a Both Sides insult, "an attempt to win an argument with an epithet."

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/how-neoliberalism-became-the-lefts-favorite-insult.html

[LyfeTimeDem]

50. is it a "mess"?

Social Democracy is the most successful system for humans and has created the highest Quality of Life on the planet. Every single one with a higher Quality of Life than the US are Social Democracies and this is Democratic Underground

[mr715]

51. And yet democracies can fall prey to demagogues

I'm not arguing against democracy other than to say it, too, requires safeguards.

[multigraincracker]

7. Adam Smith the father of market capitalism in his book

Wealth of Nation stated that business must be regulated to prevent monopolies. He was correct.

[LyfeTimeDem]

19. regulated.. but not eliminated...

[multigraincracker]

25. According to Multigrain Economics.

The most efficient production is by employ owned businesses.

[LyfeTimeDem]

26. where???

Where is an example of that working as expected.

See the point that is missed ...that becomes the Government.

The literal most effective economic system for the last nearly 100 yrs IS Regulated Capitalism, "Multigrain" is just overlooking the obvious

[multigraincracker]

27. Quiet a few.

There were a couple in the last town I worked in. DuckDuckGo. Worker owned businesses.

[LyfeTimeDem]

32. so A* business is the proof?

Sounds like "trust me bro" proof to me. I didn't trust you...so I looked it up:

It's false:

No, DuckDuckGo is not a public or employee-owned company; it is a privately held company, majority-owned by its founder, Gabriel Weinberg, and other team members, not by the general public or solely by its employees.

DuckDuckGo is an independent, privately owned company.

Ownership Structure: The company is primarily owned by its founder, Gabriel Weinberg, and the company's team members.

Privately Held: DuckDuckGo is not a public company and does not trade on stock exchanges.

No Employee Ownership: While team members have ownership stakes, it is not structured as an employee-owned company; the majority ownership rests with the founder and key individuals.

[multigraincracker]

28. Even a list of the top 100 worker owned businesses.

[LyfeTimeDem]

33. which is where?

[Cha]

10. Yeah, I don't like DSA is

putting it mildly.

TY for your OP.

[LyfeTimeDem]

17. Very welcome

Sometimes you have to shake the bushes to see whats really in there

[Hekate]

20. As Cha said, thanks for your OP, LyfeTimeDem

I thought it was interesting, tho some don’t seem to be taking it well — not sure why that is, actually.

[LyfeTimeDem]

22. and its straight up

Straight from the horses mouth... don't understand why that is such a problem...why of course its because "I just don't know enough to have an opinion"

[Hekate]

30. Well, tread lightly. Feelings are high these days.

[LyfeTimeDem]

34. obviously, my own feelings are high.

[thought crime]

21. Well, capitalism IS an oppressive system

We are probably stuck with it, but there is nothing wrong with thinking an ideal economic system could eliminate capitalism. But if Democratic Socialism is democratic, then some form of capitalism will continue as long as a significant part of the electorate prefer it. In any case, it is a good thing to have an idealistic and forceful Left because it widens the Overton Window and helps shift the center a little to the left.

[LyfeTimeDem]

23. it IS to most Democrats

Which is the point . .Democrats are realists who focus on the here and now and what can be done not in some far away future....not something idealistic and quixotic...a fairytale that has never been acheived. Because it ignores one huge issue. The same issue that the Free Marketers ignore. That humans will never stop being greedy.

Meanwhile ALL of the highest Quality of Life on the Planet are all Capitalist..

Funny that huh? Seems to fly in the face of your overall contention...there is literally no example that your position would be more successful.


Democrats are happily satisfied with the concept of the means of production, distribution and exchange being privately owned not owned by the Government ... it just needs safeguards to protect it from said greed. At least we recognize greed exists

[thought crime]

56. If you are a Social Democrat then you, too, want to temper Capitalism's oppression

Capitalism creates wealth and services for the few (the rich) while oppressing the many (workers). It's also worth mentioning that free market Capitalism has no solution for Climate Change. Given a Market System, the alternatives are to let workers "enjoy" a trickle of wealth from the top, or to redistribute some wealth and services. Social Democrats favor redistribution or some form of Socialism Light that coexists with the Market system, to reduce or temper the "oppression" of the Market System.

This may become moot if we go ahead and replace workers with robots. OTOH AI Super Intelligence, or perhaps even sub-Super Intelligent AI, might eventually help improve government planning to the point that full or "real" Socialism becomes a viable alternative. Because I see the possibility of such things happening in the future, I must be a Democratic Socialist.

[leftstreet]

29. Is DSA taking over the Democratic Party?

wut?

[LyfeTimeDem]

31. according to one of its

spokesman I posted it would like to.

[betsuni]

39. I see people describing it as economic equality, no understanding of regulated or unregulated capitalism.

Republican voters know Democrats are the regulators but people who call Democrats "neoliberals" have been told that both sides are bribed by billionaires to have the same unregulated capitalist policies and that's that.

The confusion began in 2015/16 when democratic socialism was given a new incorrect definition, FDR liberalism.

"Roosevelt knew his New Deal would be attacked as socialistic, so to protect it he called it liberalism ... captured the term for the Democrats and redefined it to mean a philosophy of government responsibility for social welfare. The result was that liberalism came to mean things like unemployment insurance, universal healthcare, Social Security and the like. ... However, it is a path that leaves capitalism as its economic engine.

"Only one presidential candidate I know of has ever adopted his own political label and given a speech defining it. That label, of course, is 'democratic socialist,' an old label but one which ... gave his own personal meaning to ... . [He] has spent his entire political life in the socialist lane, which has no track record of success. For credibility, he needs to move out of it but cannot abandon his lifelong 'socialist' label. So he tweaked his label to a less familiar one, 'democratic socialist,' and redefined this to be the same as FDR liberalism. So now he pretends that FDR was a socialist and he ... is the new FDR. ... [His followers] believe: Today's liberals reject FDR's political agenda because FDR was a democratic socialist. And so they see liberals as either conservative (neoliberals) or corrupt. Their reasoning is this: Liberals reject democratic socialism. and FDR was a democratic socialist, so liberals reject FDR. ... This deception continues to do a huge amount of damage to the Democratic Party."

Steven Stoft, How Democrats Win, Resisting Dark-Side Radicalism

[LyfeTimeDem]

40. What is he talking about about?

Last edited Wed Oct 8, 2025, 03:40 AM - Edit history (2)

Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are NOT the same thing. They are not synonymous

FDR said this about the New Deal and Socialism:

FDR never called himself a Socialist AT ALL a Democratic one or otherwisen.....he was a staunch CAPITALIST

Democratic (adjective describes a noun) Socialism (the noun)

Social (adjective) Democracy(noun)

Social as an adjective has no relation to the economic platform called Socialism which is the opposition Capitalism


I just took a look at that author....what he is doing ....is making money by capitalizing on the FACT that has already been mentioned in this conversation.....that many who claim to be "Socialist, or Democratic Socialist" are confused about WHAT those terms even mean....including Bernie Sanders (though I suspect he is gaslighting) and AOC, who once tried to claim "Denmark, Norway and Finland as Socialist States"

They somehow believe that shitting on the Democrats is the path to take. Blaming Democrats for where we are but never examing their own contributions....they some how believe Democrats are NO LONGER Fans of FDR....and falsely believe Democrats have moved Right....they just haven't....as this Pew Study proves

[betsuni]

41. That's what I said.

Bernie Sanders created a new definition for democratic socialism and that's why so many people are confused. I don't use his name unless absolutely necessary because I get in trouble.

[LyfeTimeDem]

42. Bernie Sanders doesn't get to make a

New definition.....there are ACTUAL Democratic Socialist countries ..

Its very strange to me that the strategy here is.....We are going to adopt and absorb the very scare words thrown at Democrats for decades.....But we are going to convince all the Liberal Democrats that "we are not THAT kind of Socialist like they call us, ..we are a different kind" "we don't really oppose Capitalism....as the definition implies...."we are just joking about that"

"Ignore all those Quotes from the leaders at the DSA" (that I just posted)...."they are just joking"..".they don't really mean what they say"

..."and do not pay attention to those several actual Democratic Socialist countries over there"...."we don't mean like that either"...meanwhile we are going to convince all the Liberal Democrats that "they arent really Center Left Democrats at all" thats the real problem "you all are just wrong about that, just trust is bro" while continuing to shit on the Democrats those Liberal Democratic Voters elected.....blaming THEM for everything thats wrong...not the Republicans.......and then pretending...."if only you elect US those meany Republicans will just get out of our way and just stop obstructing us"! "Just trust us bro"

And everything will be beautiful just like magic!

Isn't this what this is proposing??

This is how a minority of voters are going to convince the vast majority?? That THEY are the problem not the Republicans? ....and all they need to do is just adopt this new term, we arent going to ask them to change anything noooo..everything stays the same...thats going to fix everything

Bernie Sanders is not FDR....

[betsuni]

53. Yes, that's the plan! The base of the party knows it's ridiculous, why the base is redefined

as democratic socialists. Why it's repeated millions of times that Democrats ignore the working class. Why the true history and base and the big tent which is the party is erased.

The story goes that voters are disgusted because the mean old corrupt Democratic Establishment status quo wealthy elites distract voters with identity politics while doing evil neoliberal unregulated capitalist policies for oligarchs, billionaires, corporations, donors. Diehards believe Democrats are the true roadblock to progress, more dangerous than Trump, wouldn't know inequality if it sneaked up and bit them in the hinder.

And that the majority of Americans, including Republican voters suffering from the economic anxiety caused by Democrats, are secretly socialists yearning for populist economic revolution against the 1% (they just don't know they're socialists yet, but all you have to do is go around the country giving rallies explaining they're voting against their own economic interests and they'll stop it and vote for progressive populists who will take over the Democratic Party -- why Democrats are constantly bashed for bad messaging -- it's easy, just tell them (there are simple solutions for complex problems but Democrats are too dumb or corrupt to do them)).

Lots of recycled stuff from the '60s that sounds new and exciting to some, lots of diabolical fictional Democratic enemies to hate and make one feel superior and righteous in the populist tradition, your own language of redefined words and slogans that group insiders understand.

With elections often decided by few votes, the damage to the party is terrible and easily used to attack from all directions and isn't gong away. And it started for nothing except ego. I don't know why this isn't studied more. I find it fascinating. Why did anyone fall for it? Stunningly ignorant of the United States -- a Both Sides that is actually true.

[Emile]

55. Mamdani is going to be a great NY City Mayor!