The Fantasy of Democratic Socialism

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Doctors speak about good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. Some people say there’s a good kind of socialism, democratic socialism, that is different from the bad kind, the Marxist-Leninist variety. There’s an obvious problem with this claim: There never has been a socialist country that has been democratic. The Democratic Socialists of America admit it: “No country has fully instituted democratic socialism,” the organization says on its website. 

Democratic socialism is not only an unrealized dream. It is a contradiction in terms. 

The DSA argues that democratic socialism is possible: “We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes.” DSA also mentions government programs in France, Canada and Nicaragua that smack of socialism. But Sweden, France and Canada are not socialist countries, and Nicaragua is not democratic. “Sweden allows property and profits,” notes economic historian Deirdre McCloskey. “It allocates most goods by unregulated prices.” The U.S. bailed out General Motors , but Sweden didn’t rescue Volvo or Saab. 

What would be the defining characteristics of a democratic socialist country? In “The Poverty of Socialist Thought,” a 1976 Commentary article, I argued that “socialism is nothing more than a vague moral commitment to social justice.” I was wrong. Contemporary democratic socialists have a concrete agenda: They want to eliminate capitalism. The DSA says: “In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.” Meagan Day, a DSA member who works for Jacobin magazine, writes for Vox: “In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism.” 

 

In “The New Socialists,” a New York Times article, political scientist Corey Robin argues that capitalism should be abolished because “it makes us unfree.” He complains that “under capitalism, we’re forced to enter the market just to live.” Well, yes. Would Mr. Robin want the state to be the sole employer? Would he prefer to buy goods at state-owned stores and eat at state-owned restaurants? 

Mr. Robin, like all socialists, is hazy on the details of a socialist economy. The first step he proposes is “state ownership of certain industries.” He doesn’t say which ones. Democratically elected workers, he imagines, would decide what to make and what prices to charge. “The trouble with socialism,” Oscar Wilde is reported to have said, “is that it would take too many evenings.”

If democratic socialists looked more closely at the world, they would see that a strong market economy is a necessary condition for freedom, though not a sufficient one. The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index lists 10 countries as having the most competitive economies: the U.S., Singapore, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark. Only two, Singapore and Hong Kong, are not fully democratic.

If democratic socialism is a fantasy, socialist economic proposals are recipes for economic stagnation. “Competitive economies,” the forum says, “are those that are most likely to be able to grow more sustainably and inclusively, meaning more likelihood that everyone in society will benefit from the fruits of economic growth.” If the state owns corporations, there is no competition, only rivalries among people with political power.

To argue in favor of competitive economies is not to endorse libertarianism or laissez-faire economics. Adam Smith understood that markets need to be regulated. The nature and extent of market regulation will always be a matter of debate, but the more the government interferes in the market, the less competitive an economy will be. 

Democratic socialists would do well to ponder Yeats’s lines: “We had fed the heart on fantasies, / The heart’s grown brutal from the fare.”

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

Well thought out. I like the fact that everything the people who stand for Democratic Socialism speak about is hypothetical as there has never been a Democratic Socialist country.  The other side of this argument is in recent years there has never been a true 100% Capitalist country by that I mean a country run solely based on Capitalism without any government interference. The closest we ever had to 100% Capitalism was in the past before Unions and before Government involvement. In that era we had no child labor laws, no work safety requirements and basically no middle class. The past proved that unfettered Capitalism is also not the means to a great society.

As mentioned in this article Capitalism with Government regulation has proven to be the most viable option that lifts the most people out of abject poverty. The key then is having the right amount of regulation as to allow business to be profitable while still protecting the working person and society as a whole. That is a pendulum that seems to swing back and forth depending on who is running the government.

[AUDub 11,184]

This thread is a good reference for my views on the matter. 

 

[homersapien 11,453]

"Socialism" has become the political equivalent of the "N word".

Like it or not, there are elements of "socialism" in our country, such as our transportation infrastructure, education system, the military, basic scientific research, even our very political system. 

Without a measure of socialism we are left with anarchy.  Civilization - which by definition is "socialistic" - ceases to exist.

Hell, we are 'social" animals.  We evolved that way.

Threads like this are nothing but an excuse to talk past each other.

 

[homersapien 11,453]

And Nola, you failed to attribute that piece.

Hows that for irony?! 

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

"Socialism" has become the political equivalent of the "N word".

Like it or not, there are elements of "socialism" in our country, such as our transportation infrastructure, education system, the military, basic scientific research, even our very political system. 

Without a measure of socialism we are left with anarchy.  Civilization - which by definition is "socialistic" - ceases to exist.

Hell, we are 'social" animals.  We evolved that way.

Threads like this are nothing but an excuse to talk past each other.

 

I guess the argument is really over how much 'socialism' is the appropriate amount.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

This thread is a good reference for my views on the matter. 

 

Thank you for posting Dub

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And Nola, you failed to attribute that piece.

Hows that for irony?! 

Perhaps you are the only one who may have thought I portrayed these as my own words.

Nonetheless, the article is from the WSJ. Thanks.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Threads like this are nothing but an excuse to talk past each other.

Expound please.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Well thought out. I like the fact that everything the people who stand for Democratic Socialism speak about is hypothetical as there has never been a Democratic Socialist country.  The other side of this argument is in recent years there has never been a true 100% Capitalist country by that I mean a country run solely based on Capitalism without any government interference. The closest we ever had to 100% Capitalism was in the past before Unions and before Government involvement. In that era we had no child labor laws, no work safety requirements and basically no middle class. The past proved that unfettered Capitalism is also not the means to a great society.

As mentioned in this article Capitalism with Government regulation has proven to be the most viable option that lifts the most people out of abject poverty. The key then is having the right amount of regulation as to allow business to be profitable while still protecting the working person and society as a whole. That is a pendulum that seems to swing back and forth depending on who is running the government.

Very good points. Thank you for the contribution.

What do you think is the “weakest” part of the article?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

This thread is a good reference for my views on the matter. 

 

(I apologize if you answered this in the link you posted. If so, just tell me.)

I am interested in your perspective: what are the strongest supports for democratic socialism? Conversely, what are the most fatal flaws?

[AUDub 11,184]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

(I apologize if you answered this in the link you posted. If so, just tell me.)

I am interested in your perspective: what are the strongest supports for democratic socialism? Conversely, what are the most fatal flaws?

In an ideal situation, the pros are that there is less social stratification and the social safety net can be very broad. That's really about all I got.

Cons: see Venezuela

Truth be told, Democratic Socialism is a terrible system.

Economically, it's lousy, even if you avoid ******* it up royal like Chavez did. Since it's based on command rather than reaction to market forces, it’s absolutely horrible at getting products on the shelves. It stifles innovation tremendously as there's less incentive to get s*** done.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

54 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Very good points. Thank you for the contribution.

What do you think is the “weakest” part of the article?

I actually think the weakest part is where it does mention that this has never been tried.  Well, neither was a capitalistic democratic-republic like the U.S. prior to the founding of the country.  Felt the article was using that as a way to demean the idea as a whole.

Note:  This type of government would quickly fail in my view.  Just answering your question.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

32 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I actually think the weakest part is where it does mention that this has never been tried.  Well, neither was a capitalistic democratic-republic like the U.S. prior to the founding of the country.  Felt the article was using that as a way to demean the idea as a whole.

Note:  This type of government would quickly fail in my view.  Just answering your question.

Thanks. Don’t worry, I’m not going to bite you.

[AUDub 11,184]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

I actually think the weakest part is where it does mention that this has never been tried.  Well, neither was a capitalistic democratic-republic like the U.S. prior to the founding of the country.  Felt the article was using that as a way to demean the idea as a whole.

Note:  This type of government would quickly fail in my view.  Just answering your question.

Yeah he was riffing on the DSA’s claim about it never having been instituted. He’s claiming the DSA is playing the “No True Scotsman” card, and I think he has a point. It has been tried, but never realized. States that do attempt it are generally unsustainable and have a tendency to morph into horrific authoritarian states. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

57 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Thanks. Don’t worry, I’m not going to bite you.

Can't resist posting this

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Very good points. Thank you for the contribution.

What do you think is the “weakest” part of the article?

I think it is the part where it says there never has been a Democratic Socialist Country which while true it left out the fact that every country is partially Socialist which is kind of what Homer is saying. Restrained Socialism with Restrained Capitalism has done the best job.  Also while the Scandinavian countries are Capitalistic they are also much more Socialistic then the US.   They get away with this for multiple reasons they are small well educated countries and a not very diverse population. I don't believe the same model would work in the US we have a much larger population, a very multi-cultural population which enriches us but also can create issues at times, the pioneer self sufficient individual is a mainstay of our country where even though government control has been creeping in for years it is anathema to most Americans.

[AUDub 11,184]

20 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I think it is the part where it says there never has been a Democratic Socialist Country which while true it leaved out the fact that every country is partially Socialist which is kind of what Homer is saying. Restrained Socialism with Restrained Capitalism has done the best job.  Also while the Scandinavian countries are Capitalistic they are also much more Socialistic then the US.   They get away with this for multiple reasons they are small well educated countries and a not very diverse population. I don't believe the same model would work in the US we have a much larger population, a very multi-cultural population which enriches us but also can create issues at times, the pioneer self sufficient individual is a mainstay of our country where even though government control has been creeping in for years it is anathema to most Americans.

I think a few here are talking past one another.

For example, the DSA holds up Sweden as an example of their socialist ideals, but this is very different from the ideals the DSA has down on paper. Sweden is an example of Social Democracy in action, via the Nordic model, not Democratic Socialism. I consider myself a Social Democrat. 

Democratic Socialism has a very specific meaning, and that's what the piece is focused on. Democratic Socialism's endgame is the eventual end of capitalism. A position I can not support because of how stagnant and unsustainable socialist economies are.

Social Democracy's is to reform it, retaining free market capitalism as the bedrock, but with a strong social safety net. Countries that utilize the Nordic model get the best of both worlds and are generally very stable. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Social Democracy's is to reform it, retaining free market capitalism as the bedrock, but with a strong social safety net.

Can you elucidate in a pragmatic sense? I ask with pure curiosity. 

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Social Democracy's is to reform it, retaining free market capitalism as the bedrock, but with a strong social safety net. Countries that utilize the Nordic model get the best of both worlds and are generally very stable. 

Good description but as noted above, the few that I can think of that might meet the definition are small countries, populations smaller than many of our states, mostly homogeneous populations (Caucasian) and pretty closed to outside immigrants.  More importantly, they have the luxury of being militarily defended by the United States and are not burdened by the cost of a capable military...hence their strong safety net.   And that pretty much describes the Nordic countries. 

So is Canada on the verge of being a Social Democracy?  ..though many Canadians who are looking for the benefits that a more robust capitalist philosophy offers seem pretty quick to take advantage of the easy access they have to our country.  On the other hand, the country has much stiffer immigration policies than the US......seems to be the best of both worlds. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"------Winston Churchill

[homersapien 11,453]

22 hours ago, triangletiger said:

I guess the argument is really over how much 'socialism' is the appropriate amount.  

Well you don't do that by portraying "socialism" as inherently bad by definition.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You haven't apologized for it, have you?  After demanding an apology from me, no less.

If it embarrasses you to apologize in public, a PM will suffice.

Can we not do this here?

[triangletiger 1,599]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well you don't do that by portraying "socialism" as inherently bad by definition.

I could have just as easily phrased it as the argument is over how much ‘capitalism’ is the appropriate amount.