Talk:Democratic socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic socialism article.
Article policies
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Democratic socialism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[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))

[edit] Wouldn't it be better to return this article to its previous version?

See http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-socialism

The current version of this article implies that socialism = nationalisation, or at least requires it. This ignores the impossibility of non-statist forms of common ownership, such as those suggested by libertarian socialists, anbarchists, council communists etc. In the interests of consistency, I think that this article should have a more inclusive definition of socialism / common ownership, that is compatible with ALL forms of socialism, not just statist socialism. Therefore I propose that the article be changed back to its previous form, at least in the relevant areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel sanchez (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I also felt that the article implies that socialism = nationalisation, and re-wrote the concept section slightly to lighten this. But I think the "Definitions" section of the old version is better than the "Concept" section is now. One caution, though, is that council communists and social anarchists rarely refer to themselves as democratic socialists, precisely because the term democratic socialism tends to be associated with state-based forms of socialism. BobFromBrockley 10:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Article currently says: "Socialism necessitates the abolition of markets and the nationalization of the means of production in the hands of the state (exceptions being market socialism with regard to markets, and libertarian socialism with regard to the state)." Surely, if there are such glaring exceptions, it is wrong to talk of socialism necessitating these things? Isn't the direct/indirect formula (taken from the socialism article) better? BobFromBrockley 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Socialism as defined by Marx requires the abolishion of markets and the nationalization of the means of production. Since Marxist socialism (or as he refered to it "the lower stage of communism) is by far the most popular brand of socialism and to some, the only true form of socialism. It makes sence to define socialism along Marxist lines, though there are other forms which deviate from Marxist thought and still call themselves socialism. (Demigod Ron 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
I don't quite follow your reasoning. Marxism is not the most popular brand of socialism at all - non-Marxist socialist parties continue to have mass memberships and bigger electoral support in many, many parts of the world, while Marxist socialist parties are far, far smaller almost everywhere. And only by a Marxist definition is Marxism the only "true" form of socialism. Socialism is not the abolition of markets and nationalization of the means of production. It is the socialization of the means of production, which most obviously includes nationalization, but also includes several other things.
As an aside, I don't believe that Marx called for nationalization either or defined socialism as nationalization. His summary of the many different forms of socialism in the Communist Manifesto makes it clear that he thought that there were several different forms of socialism, including those that did not call for the abolition of the market or the nationalization of the m.o.p. BobFromBrockley 11:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree that democratic socialism would necessitate the control and ownership of the means of production in the hands of the state. Various names are given for this "state socialism", "state capitalism" but never socialism itself. Socialism is WORKERS' control of the means of production. --Revolución hablar ver 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously in a democratic "workers' state" one in which the bourgeoisie has no political power and the state owns the means of production, the workers, through their political power control the means of production. Hence the term "democratic socialism". Though I do think the Concept section is a too detailed and should be as vague as possible in order to be inclusive not exclusive to statist socialism. (Demigod Ron 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can try

I've made the concept section as inclusive as possible so the anarchists wont feel excluded. Sorry my stateless brethren, I forgot that red is red. Furthermore, I added a "Common ideas" section to put all the principals that many systems that call themselves democratic socialist share. Those are the only ones I could think of right now. I added a "definition" section to explain why it's called "democratic socialism" and what it means in it's narrowest sence (nationalization of means of production, state planning, democratic elections) and it's broadest (any group of socialists what want to distance themselves from state capitalism, and as Trotsky called them "deformed workers' states." I hope everyone is happy now. (Demigod Ron 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

Well, I prefer this, but I'm still not sure. Will think about it! BobFromBrockley 12:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Socialism as a distinct idiology

It seems that we've reduced DS to an umbrella term for any kind of socialism that is democratic. But is DS not it's own distinct idiology? Or is it just Trotskyism or something like that? This should be clarified. (Demigod Ron 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

The key issue is what movements and ideologies have referred to themselves as democratic socialists, and/or are widely referred to by others (especially in the scholarly literature) as democratic socialists. (The history section talks about the movements and parties most commonly referred to in this way. Most but not all of these believe in some form of state control of the economy (but, as Demigod Ron says, a thoroughly democratic state). Many of them, however, do not believe in the complete abolition of the market, nor in workers control or workers councils.) As to whether DS is a distinct ideology, well, most ideologies have subsets and are part of wider sets. BobFromBrockley 11:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean. DS is an umbrella term for any form of socialism that is democratic used by people who are not socialists. But socialists see DS as a distinct idiology. (Demigod Ron 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I agree. But, still not sure that that distinct ideology has historically believed in workers councils etc. BobFromBrockley 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one see DS as statist socialism (as opposed to anarchism which is stateless). All democratic socialists advocate state ownership, even if they advocate workers' councils, they seek to put the nationalized means of production in the hands of the councils. A territory run by workers' councils is still a "state", nowhere in the definition of a state does it say that legislative power has to be given to a parliament or congress. (Demigod Ron 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC))


I've been thinking about this for a while, and this is what I think. Most people, movements or organisations that have historically or do today call themselves democratic socialist have a vague and often minimal definition of socialism, perhaps best summed up in Clause IV of the old Labour Party constition: ""To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." Why they have used the term "democratic" socialism is not so much about having a different view of what socialism will be like than those who don't use that term (indeed, the most authoritarian of state socialists probably think that when real socialism finally comes it will be democratic) but about the means to achieve socialism - i.e. through democracy, through elections, through legal reforms, through trade union struggle, through the support of the mass of the population. Thus, what defines democratic socialism is not about common ideas of a socialist society, but a common focus on the role of democracy in the transition to socialism. BobFromBrockley 10:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that DS refers to a revolution or evolution that is supported by the masses? Instead of a revolution inacted by a small group in the name of the public, or an automatic evolution over which the public has no control. DS is achieved in a revolutionary manner when the proletariat gains class conciousness and overthrows the bourgeois state, since this action would be as democratic as possible as it has the support of the overwhelming majority. And it's achieved in an evolutionary manner through reforms and/or popular support for unions and so forth? I agree with that, and socialism is basically all the same deal just "place the means of production in social control" hence it's called socialism. There's a bloody reason for the name, nobody picked it because we thought it sounded cool, at least I hope not. (Demigod Ron 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

No, what I am saying is that the movements or parties historically which have been called democratic socialist have tended not to be revolutionary movements or parties. So, we might come up with some normative definition of what we believe democratic socialism would mean if it ever became "actually existing", but the term descriptively is rarely used like this. An encyclopedia definition should reflect the way the term is used emprically. My understanding is that the term is used overwhelmingly to describe those socialists who believe in a democratic transition to socialism (democratic in the limited sense of through elections and ensuing reforms) to differentiate themselves from socialists who believe in a revolutionary transition to socialism. For examples of parties/movements which have called themselves DS, see Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic Socialist Party (Japan), Democratic Socialist Party (Prabodh Chandra), Italian Democratic Socialist Party, etc etc (for more see Democratic Socialist Party. Looking for exceptions, I've found: Democratic Socialist Perspective and that's about it. BobFromBrockley 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could this be re-written?

"Some argue that socialism implies democracy, and that democratic socialism is a redundant term."

Now, myself and a few other people that have read this would agree that socialism implies a more state controlled environment and therefore takes away from democracy. Conservatism or liberalism imply democracy, so I think that sentence should be re-written.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.220.82 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is perfectly accurate, so that's no reason to re-write it (see, for example, Socialism as Radical Democracy). Perhaps we need to add more information for readers unfamiliar with democratic socialism so that confusion like the above arises less often in the future. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Socialism at one point was one and the same with democracy, and in fact seen as the highest democratic form. However after the formation of the Soviet Union, which called itself socialist, socialism lost some of it's democratic face, especialy during the Cold War when the capitalist world worked hard to deface socialism and communism. Most laymen, who are not well versed in the nature and goals of socialism, equate socialism with the totalitarian system of the Soviet Union and the other communist states. Socialism thus began to exist as solely an economic system that could be applied to any political system (democracy, despotism, ect.). Thus the term democratic socialism is necessary to assure people that this "brand of socialism" is indeed democratic. At least, that's my hypothesis. (Demigod Ron 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Recallable delegates

Not all democratic socialists agree that democracy would be representative, rather than direct. Perhaps there needs to be something saying that this is more of what SOME believe, I don't think that is explained enough. --Revolución hablar ver 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I've deleted parts of the introduction, which was, frankly, rubbish. I see someone complained about it above. "Some imply" etc etc. We need references from real books or links to real life self identified democratic socialists/social democrats etc, because otherwise the article sounds a bit waffly, I'm afraid. Wikidea 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the new wording, except am not sure that the reference to the details of parties and party names is appropraite for intro - might be better to move it later. BobFromBrockley 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved the stuff down, as you suggested. It's always a problem with these political topic pages, especially the socialist set I expect, how there are seemingly endless endless endless divisions and subdivisions. Arguments over the difference between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" being a salient one. Of course, these words mean very little without some history of what real parties have really done (in reality). Otherwise we're all left to waddle through the swirling realm of conflicting conceptions, debating what some word entails or doesn't. What I'm trying to say is, more references about real political parties and movements would be good. Wikidea 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)



[edit] The small changes/Democratic socialism and social democracy

Since the changes I have made were reverted, apparently "perverting" the article, I am writing here. If you add something to the article you must have some kind of source to back up what you say. It is no good asserting that, for instance "Although some proponents of social democracy may describe themselves as democratic socialists, most democratic socialists are not social democrats and reject it as a form of capitalism." This is what is known as weaseling - the weasel words being "some proponents" and "most democratic socialists". Which ones? Where? I can't see them, can you? If we are to see them, we need references. The author of this seems to want to draw an enormous distinction between the two for some reason, when in reality, there is little difference. That is why I referred to, for instance, the British Labour Party, and the German SPD, who are both in the Party of European Socialists (see further down the page). If you can jump that hurdle with some reference to something that tells us why SD is so different to DS, then maybe you can put back in what you have written. Otherwise, I see your chances as dim, and assertions as unfounded. Maybe this time, the author will also bother to reply on this talk page! Wikidea 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry, "perversing" the article, is what I was told! Wikidea 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Little difference? Social democracy is nothing more than a bourgeois veil thrown over the eyes of the proletariat! There is not a drop of socialism in SD, it's nothing more than capitalism with a bit of it's natural cruelty drawn out. While democratic socialism in all it's forms is a genuine effort to replace the bourgeois state with the proletarian state. You are either confused by the programs of the bourgeois parties that dare to call themselves socialist to come to this conclusion, or you are a bourgeois idiologist trying to taint socialism. I believe the second.(Demigod Ron 03:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for sharing your views! Wikidea 11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed some compromise wording, and put in citation needed tags, so that people can add references, rather than simply asserting that DS is the same as SD or the opposite of it. I referred to the page Democratic socialism vs. social democracy, but note that this was actually deleted yesterday - I can't work out how to see the deletion log/talk thing properly, and didn't notice a proposal for deletion, but never mind. BobFromBrockley 11:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (I also think that the Concept/Common Ideas section(s) could do with some references.) BobFromBrockley 11:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikidea reverted my edits as well as Ron's, and I don't want to get into an edit war, but I strongly suggest that both equating DS with SD and saying they have nothing in common are "baseless assertions" unless they are backed up with references. BobFromBrockley 13:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
But I put in the stuff about the political parties, which you asked me to move down the page, remember? I won't bother to argue over this any more. It's a bit pointless! Wikidea 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, someone here is trying to deface another current of socialism. These bourgeois opportunists never cease to attack us and warp the truth to their liking and benefit. And I agree with Bob where he says that equating and saying DS and SD have nothing in common is equally unfounded. But Wikidea is determined to equate them, to place a reactionary idea on the same podium as a quasi-revolutionary idea. I guess that every epoch has its opportunists. Oh and while the common ideas and concept section don't have direct references, if you check the currents mentioned you will see that they're true (such as market socialism not abolishing markets, or anarchists not aproving of states and so on) I found no way to add refences in that section without making it unwiedly and cumbersome. (Demigod Ron 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

AFAIK social democracy and democratic socialism are same, only there is a different journalits use. It's an other problem if all parties that called himself democratic socialist or social democratic are this, sorry for my english --Francomemoria 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is confused by the actions and names of these parties. But no, SD and DS are not the same at all. At one point they had little differences, but now the two have taken to different sides of the spectrum. Social democracy is a centralist ideology with no revolutionary undertones, it doesn't want to overthrow capitalism, but rather tame the beast a bit. Democratic socialism, as Bob said further in this talkpage, is a doctrine that tries to achieve socialism through democratic reform and the mass support of the proletariat. (Demigod Ron 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC))
achieve socialism through democracy is the definition of socialdemocracy for britannica, the differtnt that you tell is a journalists use not in politology use--Francomemoria 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think now what we need is references from good sources defining democratic socialism, including references that make clear the links/contrasts between democratic socialism and social democracy. here or here might be a good place to start. BobFromBrockley 11:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK< I've researched usage of the term and written in quite a lot into the Concepts section. Please knock it in to shape everyone.BobFromBrockley 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levellers and Diggers

Are we presenting levellers and diggers as actual forerunners of democratic socialism, rather than as examples which more recent socialists have looked back on? It seems unsupportable to do the former, whatever Christopher Hill might say - the context is just so different, and the lineage from the 17th century to the 19th so absent, that this seems extremely questionable. john k 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think it was me that added that. Certainly it is unsupportable to say they are "actual" forerunners; they were influences or inspirations, perhaps inaugerators of a tradition, and articulated key democratic socialist concerns - but of course in a very different language and a very different context. Is there a way of re-writing that captures this, or should it be cut?BobFromBrockley 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More broadly

This article is, more broadly, very uncertain of what Democratic socialism is, or its place in a broader history of socialism. I find it entirely unclear whether "democratic socialism" is a real movement with a real history, or just a term which has been used by various distinct and unrelated socialist movements over the years. john k 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. My view is that there is not a real coherent democratic socialist movement as such, but that there is something more than distinct and unrelated uses of the words. I think we can talk about a democratic socialist stream or tradition within the socialist movement, with various parties/thinkers/etc consciously placing themselves in such a tradition. I think, however, that the article needs to be much more rigorous in its use of sources in order to be clear about this. BobFromBrockley 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I've come across this Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. does anyone think this should be merged into this article? Or perhaps, seem as it has no references, deleted. G-Man ? 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy was originally a fork from this article (first titled Democratic socialism vs. social democracy) -- compare with this version from earlier this year. So I guess it could be merged back in easily enough, but should be trimmed down quite a bit in that case. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

They are the same article Democratic socialism vs. social democracy was deleted and in it's place we now have Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. The reason why that article should not be remerged with democratic socialism is because democratic socialism is now more detailed than when the fork existed. Which is why the seperate article exists in the first place. (Demigod Ron 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] AFD

I'm considering an AFD on this article. Although well written, it cannot produce a coherent defition of the concept at hand. I seriously question the existance of any 'democratic socialist' movement or tendency, that would exist of its own outside of the wikiverse. To say that 'democratic socialism' is Social Democracy + a handfull of socialist tendencies that doesn't really fit into any international tendency is an OR construction.

The existance of this article does create problems, for example the usage of 'Social Democracy/Democratic socialism' in various infoboxes on political parties.

Material from this article can the shifted to a large extent to Socialism and Social Democracy articles respectively. --Soman (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm agree --Francomemoria (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin America

Labeling a fascist coupmonger like Hugo Chávez "democratic socialist" is absurd. The term is even less applicable to an outright nazi like Ollanta Humala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.155.169 (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Can someone explain to me why there is not a 'criticism' section on this page? Admittedly, I'm biased, I think the phrase 'democratic socialism' is an oxymoron, but there is objective evidence for criticism. I think work should be taken to create a criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.239.119 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add a section if you want.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)